• Enjoy a beautiful rendition of Proconsul's "Cerul" on classical guitar. This short video brings new life to the beloved song with a mesmerizing instrumental performance. Don't miss it! #ClassicalGuitar #Proconsul #Cerul
    Enjoy a beautiful rendition of Proconsul's "Cerul" on classical guitar. This short video brings new life to the beloved song with a mesmerizing instrumental performance. Don't miss it! 🎶 #ClassicalGuitar #Proconsul #Cerul
    0 Comments 0 Shares 49 Views
  • Make Meat Great Again! Don’t Let The Globalists Pull This Off
    Corey Lynn

    It’s 2023, and most people are scurrying about their days making plans for the Holidays and figuring out whether to serve up a roast, a turkey or a ham. Meanwhile, over 70,000 clowns are toasting champagne at their 5 star hotels in Dubai while thinking they can tell people whether or not a roast, a turkey, or a ham is allowed. While flying around in their private jets, they giggle as they cook up their conspiracy theory on “climate change” to convince people to eat less meat. While they’re dancing with politicians and coercing nations to set new policies and regulations to harm the productivity of farmers and ranchers – our food source – people should be supporting them and stand together in defiance of this nonsense.

    The funny thing is, while these clowns conspire and celebrate their narrative to save the planet, in part by the absurdity of reducing meat consumption, many of these same clowns are supporters of Merck and were pushing for a vote at Codex to inject cattle, pigs, and poultry with Merck’s toxic steroid-like drug zilpaterol hydrochloride to produce more muscle and less fat. This of course brings a fortune to Merck, while benefiting the bottom line for ranchers who are ok with poisoning their livestock and humans. How’s that for an oxymoron? That’s right, on November 28th, while the clowns sipped champagne on their private jets headed to the COP28 in Dubai to “save the world from climate change” and instruct nations to reduce meat consumption, their counterparts were at FAO headquarters in Rome, Italy, voting to approve this poison.

    So the question is – do they want to reduce meat consumption or do they want to muscle up the meat and make it more desirable to eat so people devour toxins? Perhaps it’s both. Who can keep track anymore? The cocktails are endless, from GMOs to hormones, antibiotics, DNA and mRNA, or growing meat in a petri dish or 3D printing it. These globalists want to make it so inedible, no one will want to consume meat.

    According to Scott Tips, President of The National Health Federation, who attends these Codex meetings to fight for the safety of consumers, this is all about money, and by adopting the Codex standard zilpaterol can “flood the world markets unobstructed.” This would allow Merck to force all of the countries who voted against it to open their markets to zilpaterol-tainted meat as well. Most of the western hemisphere has already been using zilpaterol despite the fact that there has never been a risk assessment done, it’s banned from use in horses because it’s not safe, and Merck actually withdrew it from the market in 2015 before working its way back in. At that time, under Merck’s brand name “Zilmax,” even Cargill and Tyson suspended their purchases of Zilmax-fed cattle in North America.

    The many-years-long battle against the toxic vet drug came to an end when the Commission voted 88-49 with 11 abstentions to approve zilpaterol MRLs (maximum residue levels). Scott Tips reported that those “speaking against the standard were the European Union, Switzerland, Norway, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, China, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, Iraq, UAE, Algeria, Belarus, Syria, Tunisia, North Macedonia, and Cameroon. Those pushing the standard were the United States, Canada, New Zealand, many African states, and every single one of the Western-hemisphere countries. The UK remained strangely aloof, as if wishing to avoid offending anyone.”

    Back in the U.S., Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) has been trying to get the PRIME Act passed for nearly 6 years, but feels he is beginning to make headway now. If passed, the PRIME Act will make it much easier for local farms to compete with the handful of big meat companies, by allowing safe, local processing options rather than a farmer having to travel for hours to a USDA-inspected processing facility.

    According to Rep. Massie, “Current law exempts custom slaughter of animals from federal inspection regulations, but only if the meat is slaughtered for personal, household, guest, and employee use (21 U.S.C. § 623(a)). This means that in order to sell individual cuts of locally raised meats to consumers, farmers and ranchers must first send their animals to one of a limited number of USDA-inspected slaughterhouses. These USDA-inspected slaughterhouses are sometimes hundreds of miles away from farms and ranches, adding substantial transportation costs and increasing the chances of locally raised meat co-mingling with industrially-produced meat. The PRIME Act would expand the current custom exemption and allow small farms, ranches, and slaughterhouses to thrive.”

    While the battle on meat continues, it’s important for everyone to do their due diligence when it comes to shopping for and purchasing meat. According to the USDA, in March they released a proposed rule with new regulatory requirements on those voluntary “Product of USA” labels, whereby the claim can only be used on meat, poultry and egg products if they are derived from animals that are born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the USA. So pay attention to the labels – on all food for that matter. There are some small farms that offer co-ops whereby several people can go in on the ownership of cattle and split the beef. There are also a handful of companies who ship bundles of beef. In either case, it’s always important to confirm how the cattle are raised and processed, and if they are given zilpaterol, antibiotics, hormones, or mRNA. Always support your local farmers, whether it be for meat, vegetables, fruit, raw milk, or other items. They are quite literally our key to survival, unless of course you are able to grow enough food and raise livestock to support your entire family on an annual basis. They deserve our support and respect.

    Corey’s Digs has done extensive research on an incredible, fully vertically integrated large ranching operation in the U.S. who controls their entire supply chain. It’s quite impressive. The cattle are all pasture raised on over 290,000 combined acres by their own mothers. This is a premium lineage of all Prime and High Choice, with the processing facility being right on the ranch, and the beef is aged for 21 days before shipping. Never ever zilpaterol, antibiotics, hormones, mRNA, or vaccines. They ship a variety of bundles monthly or every other month, along with individual added cuts, straight from the ranch to a customer’s home. The biggest difference is the taste – it’s amazing how delicious Prime beef is without all those toxins. The beef is exclusive to members through Shopping Club Freedom, which boasts hundreds of non toxic products that everyone uses in their daily lives, all of which are patented and produced by this same company right here in the U.S. It’s one heck of a solution to ensure access to healthy products and beef while sticking it to the globalists who want to rule everyone’s life, which is why Corey’s Digs has partnered with them and has been shopping there for over two years now.

    No one should let these madmen make choices for them or their families. Everyone should support U.S. farmers and ranchers, get behind Rep. Massie’s PRIME Act, and don’t buy the poison these globalists are selling.

    MAKE MEAT GREAT AGAIN!



    Subscribe to Corey’s Digs so you don’t miss a Dig!

    https://www.coreysdigs.com/food-supply-chain/make-meat-great-again-dont-let-the-globalists-pull-this-off/
    Make Meat Great Again! Don’t Let The Globalists Pull This Off Corey Lynn It’s 2023, and most people are scurrying about their days making plans for the Holidays and figuring out whether to serve up a roast, a turkey or a ham. Meanwhile, over 70,000 clowns are toasting champagne at their 5 star hotels in Dubai while thinking they can tell people whether or not a roast, a turkey, or a ham is allowed. While flying around in their private jets, they giggle as they cook up their conspiracy theory on “climate change” to convince people to eat less meat. While they’re dancing with politicians and coercing nations to set new policies and regulations to harm the productivity of farmers and ranchers – our food source – people should be supporting them and stand together in defiance of this nonsense. The funny thing is, while these clowns conspire and celebrate their narrative to save the planet, in part by the absurdity of reducing meat consumption, many of these same clowns are supporters of Merck and were pushing for a vote at Codex to inject cattle, pigs, and poultry with Merck’s toxic steroid-like drug zilpaterol hydrochloride to produce more muscle and less fat. This of course brings a fortune to Merck, while benefiting the bottom line for ranchers who are ok with poisoning their livestock and humans. How’s that for an oxymoron? That’s right, on November 28th, while the clowns sipped champagne on their private jets headed to the COP28 in Dubai to “save the world from climate change” and instruct nations to reduce meat consumption, their counterparts were at FAO headquarters in Rome, Italy, voting to approve this poison. So the question is – do they want to reduce meat consumption or do they want to muscle up the meat and make it more desirable to eat so people devour toxins? Perhaps it’s both. Who can keep track anymore? The cocktails are endless, from GMOs to hormones, antibiotics, DNA and mRNA, or growing meat in a petri dish or 3D printing it. These globalists want to make it so inedible, no one will want to consume meat. According to Scott Tips, President of The National Health Federation, who attends these Codex meetings to fight for the safety of consumers, this is all about money, and by adopting the Codex standard zilpaterol can “flood the world markets unobstructed.” This would allow Merck to force all of the countries who voted against it to open their markets to zilpaterol-tainted meat as well. Most of the western hemisphere has already been using zilpaterol despite the fact that there has never been a risk assessment done, it’s banned from use in horses because it’s not safe, and Merck actually withdrew it from the market in 2015 before working its way back in. At that time, under Merck’s brand name “Zilmax,” even Cargill and Tyson suspended their purchases of Zilmax-fed cattle in North America. The many-years-long battle against the toxic vet drug came to an end when the Commission voted 88-49 with 11 abstentions to approve zilpaterol MRLs (maximum residue levels). Scott Tips reported that those “speaking against the standard were the European Union, Switzerland, Norway, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, China, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, Iraq, UAE, Algeria, Belarus, Syria, Tunisia, North Macedonia, and Cameroon. Those pushing the standard were the United States, Canada, New Zealand, many African states, and every single one of the Western-hemisphere countries. The UK remained strangely aloof, as if wishing to avoid offending anyone.” Back in the U.S., Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) has been trying to get the PRIME Act passed for nearly 6 years, but feels he is beginning to make headway now. If passed, the PRIME Act will make it much easier for local farms to compete with the handful of big meat companies, by allowing safe, local processing options rather than a farmer having to travel for hours to a USDA-inspected processing facility. According to Rep. Massie, “Current law exempts custom slaughter of animals from federal inspection regulations, but only if the meat is slaughtered for personal, household, guest, and employee use (21 U.S.C. § 623(a)). This means that in order to sell individual cuts of locally raised meats to consumers, farmers and ranchers must first send their animals to one of a limited number of USDA-inspected slaughterhouses. These USDA-inspected slaughterhouses are sometimes hundreds of miles away from farms and ranches, adding substantial transportation costs and increasing the chances of locally raised meat co-mingling with industrially-produced meat. The PRIME Act would expand the current custom exemption and allow small farms, ranches, and slaughterhouses to thrive.” While the battle on meat continues, it’s important for everyone to do their due diligence when it comes to shopping for and purchasing meat. According to the USDA, in March they released a proposed rule with new regulatory requirements on those voluntary “Product of USA” labels, whereby the claim can only be used on meat, poultry and egg products if they are derived from animals that are born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the USA. So pay attention to the labels – on all food for that matter. There are some small farms that offer co-ops whereby several people can go in on the ownership of cattle and split the beef. There are also a handful of companies who ship bundles of beef. In either case, it’s always important to confirm how the cattle are raised and processed, and if they are given zilpaterol, antibiotics, hormones, or mRNA. Always support your local farmers, whether it be for meat, vegetables, fruit, raw milk, or other items. They are quite literally our key to survival, unless of course you are able to grow enough food and raise livestock to support your entire family on an annual basis. They deserve our support and respect. Corey’s Digs has done extensive research on an incredible, fully vertically integrated large ranching operation in the U.S. who controls their entire supply chain. It’s quite impressive. The cattle are all pasture raised on over 290,000 combined acres by their own mothers. This is a premium lineage of all Prime and High Choice, with the processing facility being right on the ranch, and the beef is aged for 21 days before shipping. Never ever zilpaterol, antibiotics, hormones, mRNA, or vaccines. They ship a variety of bundles monthly or every other month, along with individual added cuts, straight from the ranch to a customer’s home. The biggest difference is the taste – it’s amazing how delicious Prime beef is without all those toxins. The beef is exclusive to members through Shopping Club Freedom, which boasts hundreds of non toxic products that everyone uses in their daily lives, all of which are patented and produced by this same company right here in the U.S. It’s one heck of a solution to ensure access to healthy products and beef while sticking it to the globalists who want to rule everyone’s life, which is why Corey’s Digs has partnered with them and has been shopping there for over two years now. No one should let these madmen make choices for them or their families. Everyone should support U.S. farmers and ranchers, get behind Rep. Massie’s PRIME Act, and don’t buy the poison these globalists are selling. MAKE MEAT GREAT AGAIN! Subscribe to Corey’s Digs so you don’t miss a Dig! https://www.coreysdigs.com/food-supply-chain/make-meat-great-again-dont-let-the-globalists-pull-this-off/
    WWW.COREYSDIGS.COM
    Make Meat Great Again! Don’t Let The Globalists Pull This Off –...
    SOLUTION: It's time to make meat great again and stick it to the globalists. Here's how!
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2579 Views
  • Media Blackout new link, as well as currently being uploaded to our Rumble:

    https://vigilantnews.com/post/this-was-not-faked-mike-adams-delivers-gripping-forensic-assessment-on-trump-assassination-attempt/

    Follow @ZeeeMedia
    Follow @VigilantFox
    Media Blackout new link, as well as currently being uploaded to our Rumble: https://vigilantnews.com/post/this-was-not-faked-mike-adams-delivers-gripping-forensic-assessment-on-trump-assassination-attempt/ Follow @ZeeeMedia Follow @VigilantFox 🦊
    0 Comments 0 Shares 246 Views
  • https://allnewsadvertisment-website.blogspot.com/2024/07/raheel-sharif-connected-nawazs-panama.html
    https://allnewsadvertisment-website.blogspot.com/2024/07/raheel-sharif-connected-nawazs-panama.html
    ALLNEWSADVERTISMENT-WEBSITE.BLOGSPOT.COM
    News advertisment
    News advertisment is allnewsadvertisment information, about current events, and all the news in the world's, news here you know, and we know,
    0 Comments 0 Shares 148 Views
  • https://allnewsadvertisment-website.blogspot.com/2024/07/assault-on-donald-trump-background.html
    https://allnewsadvertisment-website.blogspot.com/2024/07/assault-on-donald-trump-background.html
    ALLNEWSADVERTISMENT-WEBSITE.BLOGSPOT.COM
    News advertisment
    News advertisment is allnewsadvertisment information, about current events, and all the news in the world's, news here you know, and we know,
    0 Comments 0 Shares 146 Views
  • https://allnewsadvertisment-website.blogspot.com/2024/07/nico-williams-helps-rooney-to-remember.html
    https://allnewsadvertisment-website.blogspot.com/2024/07/nico-williams-helps-rooney-to-remember.html
    ALLNEWSADVERTISMENT-WEBSITE.BLOGSPOT.COM
    News advertisment
    News advertisment is allnewsadvertisment information, about current events, and all the news in the world's, news here you know, and we know,
    0 Comments 0 Shares 150 Views
  • https://allnewsadvertisment-website.blogspot.com/2024/07/rupee-ready-for-additional-union-in.html
    https://allnewsadvertisment-website.blogspot.com/2024/07/rupee-ready-for-additional-union-in.html
    ALLNEWSADVERTISMENT-WEBSITE.BLOGSPOT.COM
    News advertisment
    News advertisment is allnewsadvertisment information, about current events, and all the news in the world's, news here you know, and we know,
    0 Comments 0 Shares 166 Views
  • https://allnewsadvertisment-website.blogspot.com/2024/07/blake-energetic-gives-spouse-ryan.html
    https://allnewsadvertisment-website.blogspot.com/2024/07/blake-energetic-gives-spouse-ryan.html
    ALLNEWSADVERTISMENT-WEBSITE.BLOGSPOT.COM
    News advertisment
    News advertisment is allnewsadvertisment information, about current events, and all the news in the world's, news here you know, and we know,
    0 Comments 0 Shares 121 Views
  • Australian Hospital Lets 17 Year Old Girl Die Because She Wouldn't Take COVID Vaxxxine
    Involuntary euthanasia is still alive and well Down Under.

    Anthony Colpo

    The beautiful young lady you see above was Dazelle Peters, 17, of New South Wales, who refused to take the toxic and deadly COVID gene therapies masquerading as ‘vaccines.’

    Dazelle died in hospital on Monday, June 10, 2024 after a four-year battle with leukemia - and after she was refused a lung transplant by Australia’s callous health system.

    Whatever chance Dazelle had of surviving was scuttled by St Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, who stated their “policies and guidelines wouldn’t support transplantation” of anyone who was unvaxxxinated.

    “Vaccination status against various infections is a critical part of this assessment in order to ensure optimal prospects of survival post-transplant.”

    St Vincent’s claimed other considerations were at play in Dazelle’s case, but confirmed not being vaxxxinated was one of them.

    After her bone marrow transplant, Dazelle suffered from graft-versus-host disease, where her body's immune system attacked the donor's blood cells. Dazelle was also battling a rare type of pneumonia.

    The hospital says being immunocompromised could further complicate a transplant procedure.

    Dazelle’s heartbreaking story is not unique in Auschtralia.

    No Jab, No Heart Transplant

    Melbourne mum Vicki Derderian was refused a heart transplant because she hadn’t received the COVID gene therapies – even though she had an exemption.

    Vicki’s heart failed in 2020, forcing her to rely on a ventricular assist device to keep blood pumping around her body.

    The mum of two, who insisted she was not an anti-vaxxer, had to “think twice” about the vaccine because of her heart condition. After the vaxxxines notched up a solid track record of causing myocarditis and pericarditis, she deemed them too risky.

    She slammed Victoria's Department of Health and Human Services for denying her the lifesaving surgery, saying she’d effectively been told “no jab, no heart”.


    Vicki Derderian in hospital.
    On Channel 9’s Today Show, former Deputy Chief Heath Officer, Dr Nick “Captain Botox” Coatsworth, claimed he empathized with Vicki’s case, but he “stands by the rules.”

    Aussie bureaucrats love standing by the rules, no matter how stupid and unjust those rules may be - after all, they need something to help them stand upright given their complete lack of spine, and they desperately need guidelines to mindlessly follow in the face of zero courage and critical thinking skills.

    “From a transplant physicians point of view … the biggest risk to you when we hit your immune system like that if you get COVID-19 without having the vaccine, then there's a really significant risk that you'll die and that organ will die with you,” the clueless Coatsworth told the Today Show.

    “And we don't want that to happen to you and we certainly don't want it to happen to the family whose made that sacred donation. So it is such a complex area. I don't envy your decision, but I do stand by the rules of the transplant physicians have made here.”

    Today Show host Karl Stefanovic interjected.

    “So Nick, doctors are now deciding not to treat someone because of the chance of getting COVID-19 in a hospital, are we stopping treating people now?”

    “On the contrary Karl,” Coatsworth retorted. “This is an active treatment decision by the medical community. This hasn't changed during COVID-19.”

    Today Show host Karl Stefanovic crosses his arms as he questions Dr Nick Coatsworth
    Karl Stefanovic questioned Nick Coatsworth about the controversial decision. Source: Today Show
    “I know there's a lot of greys in Covid-19 Karl, a lot of greys … This is black and white. Unfortunately, we have to try and convince people like Vicki and John, we've got to do our best to convince them. If we fail ultimately that means the organ isn't transplanted.”

    He urged Vicki to reconsider getting the vaccine, falsely claiming the risk of complications from the cardiotoxic gene therapies was “very, very small compared to everything that you've been through so far.”

    “But from my heart, I hope that you will be able to work with them and perhaps receive that vaccine. If I was in your position I'd receive it because I think it's the safest thing to do. I think it's the safest thing to do. I know you don't agree with me. I respect that decision. But please, please reconsider.”

    Vicki stood her ground and said if she were to contract COVID, there are treatments available to deal with it.

    According to Vicki, prior to the COVID vaxxx rollout Melbourne’s Alfred Hospital “were positive and indicated that I would be a suitable candidate for a heart transplant.”

    That suddenly changed after the poison darts were unleashed.

    “Despite no Government mandates for transplant patients and the Alfred’s own hospital policy (that says it does not discriminate between the vaccinated and unvaccinated) the Alfred Heart Centre team made it clear to me by September 2021 that I would not receive a heart, unless I get the Covid-19 vaccination.”

    Follow the Science: Why Nick Coatsworth, St Vincent’s and the Alfred are Spewing Utter Hogwash

    Nick Coatsworth and the aforementioned hospitals are all spouting utter nonsense.

    Vicki was originally diagnosed in 2015 with myocarditis which progressed to cardiomyopathy. The causal connection between the COVID gene therapies and myocarditis is now well-established. Even the Australian government’s best efforts at weasel-wording (“Not all cases that occur after vaccination are caused by the vaccine”) acknowledges that most cases of myocarditis occurring after vaxxxination are caused by the vaxxx.

    So what Coatsworth was saying, with a shamelessly straight face, is that taking a drug known to increase the risk of myocarditis and sudden death is “the safest thing” Vicki can do and that it poses a “very, very small” risk to her.

    How do you sleep at night, Nick?

    The vaxxxines are undeniably toxic and potentially deadly. So if vaxxxination status is going to be a factor in determining who gets a transplant, Dazelle and Vicki should by all rights have received preferential treatment.

    In the clinical trial for the Pfizer vaxxxine, more people died in the vaxxx group than in the control group. And that was despite ample evidence of Pfizer’s renowned corruption and concerted efforts to hide adverse vaxxx events.

    Here is NSW Health’s December 31, 2022 update on 'COVID' hospitalizations and deaths in Australia’s most populous state. The figures for those who had zero clot shots are highlighted in yellow, near the bottom:


    Zero hospitalizations, zero ICU admissions, and only 6 fatalities (6.3%) among the unvaxxxinated that NSW Health could reclassify as ‘COVID’ deaths.

    Which is no doubt why NSW Health no longer provides a breakdown of deaths by vaxxx status. It’s a bit hard to keep claiming the vaxxx saves lives when the data shows otherwise.

    Surprise, Surprise: The Vaxxxines Cause Organ Rejection

    Among the 1,200+ side effects and 42,086 adverse events reported to Pfizer in the first two months of its vaxxxine rollout was “Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.”

    Probably not a good drug to be giving to someone suffering organ failure.

    I’m not sure if Coatsworth reads journals, or whether his idea of medical research is reading cosmetic clinic brochures, but numerous case studies have been published indicating the vaxxxines increase the risk of organ rejection.

    A case study published in April of 2022 revealed some lung transplant patients who had received mRNA COVID vaxxxines ended up developing “new and significant respiratory compromise after their second vaccine dose consistent with antibody mediated rejection.” All patients were female, 50-70 years old, between 6 months and 2 years post-transplant. None had suffered previous rejection episodes. However, two were hospitalized with hypoxic respiratory failure within 2 weeks of their second vaxxxine dose. The third was seen at clinic for milder similar symptoms, later deteriorating and requiring supplemental oxygen and hospitalization. One of these patients did not recover their lung function and was re-listed for transplant.

    Japanese researchers analysed eighteen lung transplant recipients who received 2 doses of either the Pfizer (17) or Moderna (1) gene therapies between June and October 2021. None of the recipients had a 'Sars-Cov-2' infection prior to vaxxxination. Antibodies for the mythical Sars-Cov-2 spike protein were measured, and were detected in 2 of 18 patients after the first dose, and 5 patients after the second dose. The two patients who suffered chronic lung allograft dysfunction or antibody-mediated injection were both seropositive. The researchers concluded, “We experienced cases that developed clinical CLAD or AMR that was likely related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.”

    In an August 21, 2021 NEJM letter, French researchers reported on transplant patients who had received three doses of the Pfizer gene therapy. Over three quarters of the patients had kidney transplants. They claimed there were no serious adverse events among the patients, but the study’s appendix reveals 10 patients who were seropositive before the third dose presented with fatigue and myalgia, while five patients presented transient fever.

    Once again, there is no evidence COVID vaxxxination helps transplant patients; the research so far indicates the exact opposite.

    The no vaxxx, no transplant rule has nothing to do with patient welfare. It is designed to punish and eliminate those who refuse to be injected with the globalist kill shots.

    The Hypocrite Oath: First, Do Harm to Dissidents

    Dazelle's father, Josh Peters, who has also shunned the toxic COVID shots, said a surgeon told his daughter if she did not get the jabs and then caught the virus she would be a “major threat to everyone (in the hospital) who has done the right thing.”

    Mindlessly obeying a bunch of globalist-controlled deviants when they tell you to take poisonous substances is never the “right thing.”

    “The way he made us feel was that they didn't want to give her the lung transplant,” Josh told Daily Mail Australia.

    Josh said during a May 9 consultation at St Vincent's the surgeon said the hospital would give the lungs to a better candidate because Dazelle was a “complex case.”

    Josh insisted his family did everything to make Dazelle a suitable candidate for a transplant, except get the four gene therapy shots which would have taken nine months to administer.

    'Vaccines are only a small part of the process to get a lung transplant," Josh said.

    "They are a Catholic hospital. They have all taken an oath to help people and take care of people and do the right thing by people."

    "Who deems that she doesn't deserve a chance over anybody else?"

    "This is no game. This child is f***ing sick man," said Josh while Dazelle was still fighting for her life.

    Josh said doctors told them Dazelle always “gets the worst of the worst of side effects,” and this strengthened her resolve not to get the shots.

    “That's another reason she personally, not us, doesn't want to get the shots. Her heart's not good, her kidney's not good, her liver's not good, she's a mess,” he said.

    Josh rejected the label he and his family were 'anti-vaxxers.'

    "Our children have had every single vaccination that they are meant to have," he said.

    "We even got the flu shots right up until Covid started hitting."

    Before her diagnosis, Josh said she was "a very, very healthy energetic child."

    "She was right into her sport, everybody loved her, lots of friends. Before she got sick she had barely taken a Panadol in her life."

    "Just a down-to-earth kid. We never had any problems, everyone loved her."

    Dazelle was lucky to pull through her May 2021 bone marrow transplant.

    "After the operation she became unresponsive and slipped into a coma," Josh said.

    "Why would you deny her a lung transplant when she has fought so hard to get where she is?"

    "Dazelle has been on her deathbed and been given the gift of a second chance. She's a special child."


    Dazelle's case was brought to the attention of the Federal Assistant Health Minister Ged Kearney in a letter addressed to her by outspoken Liberal MP Russell Broadbent.

    Kearney advised "the Australian Government is unable to intervene in clinical decisions."

    Translated: "The Australian government only acts in the interests of itself, its corporate benefactors, and its globalist masters. The general public can go f**k itself!"

    The Australian Government was more than able to declare a tyrannical health 'emergency' over a non-existent virus whose alleged victims in fact lived past the average life expectancy.

    It was able to slam the nation's borders shut and turn the entire country back into an open air prison for over 2 years. It was more than happy to stop people returning or leaving the country in order to see dying loved ones.

    The Australian government was quite capable of ordering 150 million doses of COVID vaxxxines - including 54 million doses of the ill-fated Oxford-AstraZeneca clot shot - for a country whose population was yet to crack 26 million. This indicates the Australian grubberment knew well ahead of time the vaxxxine regimen was not really a 2-shot deal, but an ongoing multi-injection ruse comprised of endless ‘boosters.’

    It had the power to mandate that anyone testing positive for the non-existent Sars-Cov-2 via the highly flawed PCR tests had to sit in isolation for five days, even if entirely asymptomatic.

    Yet we are now supposed to believe the Australian federal government is powerless to lean on a hospital when it imposes a cruel and utterly anti-scientific ban on transplants for sick and vulnerable constituents who refuse to get the poison prick?

    Bullshit.

    Funny how both the hopelessly corrupt federal and state governments only apply this strict, by-the-book interpretation of law when it suits them. They routinely award lucrative contracts to favored suppliers, who deliberately overcharge for their services on the behind-the-scenes agreement that much of the excess will be ‘donated’ back to the ruling party or issued in the form of hard-to-trace ‘gifts’ to individual politicians and their families.

    In this manner, Australian taxpayer funds are routinely converted to private wealth for politicians and high-ranking bureaucrats.

    Dazelle Passes Away

    Dazelle passed away just under a fortnight ago, on June 10, 2024, leaving family and friends heartbroken.

    Josh confirmed the terribly sad news in an video uploaded to several social media platforms.

    He thanked everyone who sent messages of support to Dazelle during her lengthy cancer fight, sparking an outpouring of tributes.

    “Just know that Dazelle knew how much you all loved her,” he said.

    “This kid was something special and she deserved better.”

    Hundreds of people took to social media to remember Dazelle and express their sympathy.

    Among those touched by Dazelle’s plight was Australian pro boxer George Kambosos Jr, who met Dazelle in hospital and shared an emotional post on X.

    “RIP, beautiful Dazelle. My deepest condolences to her family. Heaven gained a beautiful angel. Dazelle, you'll never be forgotten, an inspiration to everyone you ever met. God bless your parents, that were by your side when you finally spread your wings. Life can be cruel,” he wrote.


    Two brave fighters meet.
    The (Shit)Show Goes On

    While Dazelle's family and friends grieve her cruel passing, and while Vicki’s time is running out, the plastic-looking Coatsworth has left politics and is now enjoying TV celebrity status, reaping the financial and publicity rewards of appearing in a new Channel 9 reality series titled "Do You Want To Live Forever?"

    I get the feeling Coatsworth doesn't want any of us anti-vaxxxers to live another day, let alone forever.


    The clueless Nick Coatsworth, now laughably starring in an Australian reality TV show that promises to help participants live longer.
    A GoFundMe to help Dazelle’s family pay for her funeral costs can be found here:

    Help Support Dazelle’s Family With Funeral Costs

    If you wish to help Vicki Derderian out with her medical expenses, her DonorBox fundraiser can be found here:

    HEART4VICKI

    Share

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-145883037
    Australian Hospital Lets 17 Year Old Girl Die Because She Wouldn't Take COVID Vaxxxine Involuntary euthanasia is still alive and well Down Under. Anthony Colpo The beautiful young lady you see above was Dazelle Peters, 17, of New South Wales, who refused to take the toxic and deadly COVID gene therapies masquerading as ‘vaccines.’ Dazelle died in hospital on Monday, June 10, 2024 after a four-year battle with leukemia - and after she was refused a lung transplant by Australia’s callous health system. Whatever chance Dazelle had of surviving was scuttled by St Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, who stated their “policies and guidelines wouldn’t support transplantation” of anyone who was unvaxxxinated. “Vaccination status against various infections is a critical part of this assessment in order to ensure optimal prospects of survival post-transplant.” St Vincent’s claimed other considerations were at play in Dazelle’s case, but confirmed not being vaxxxinated was one of them. After her bone marrow transplant, Dazelle suffered from graft-versus-host disease, where her body's immune system attacked the donor's blood cells. Dazelle was also battling a rare type of pneumonia. The hospital says being immunocompromised could further complicate a transplant procedure. Dazelle’s heartbreaking story is not unique in Auschtralia. No Jab, No Heart Transplant Melbourne mum Vicki Derderian was refused a heart transplant because she hadn’t received the COVID gene therapies – even though she had an exemption. Vicki’s heart failed in 2020, forcing her to rely on a ventricular assist device to keep blood pumping around her body. The mum of two, who insisted she was not an anti-vaxxer, had to “think twice” about the vaccine because of her heart condition. After the vaxxxines notched up a solid track record of causing myocarditis and pericarditis, she deemed them too risky. She slammed Victoria's Department of Health and Human Services for denying her the lifesaving surgery, saying she’d effectively been told “no jab, no heart”. Vicki Derderian in hospital. On Channel 9’s Today Show, former Deputy Chief Heath Officer, Dr Nick “Captain Botox” Coatsworth, claimed he empathized with Vicki’s case, but he “stands by the rules.” Aussie bureaucrats love standing by the rules, no matter how stupid and unjust those rules may be - after all, they need something to help them stand upright given their complete lack of spine, and they desperately need guidelines to mindlessly follow in the face of zero courage and critical thinking skills. “From a transplant physicians point of view … the biggest risk to you when we hit your immune system like that if you get COVID-19 without having the vaccine, then there's a really significant risk that you'll die and that organ will die with you,” the clueless Coatsworth told the Today Show. “And we don't want that to happen to you and we certainly don't want it to happen to the family whose made that sacred donation. So it is such a complex area. I don't envy your decision, but I do stand by the rules of the transplant physicians have made here.” Today Show host Karl Stefanovic interjected. “So Nick, doctors are now deciding not to treat someone because of the chance of getting COVID-19 in a hospital, are we stopping treating people now?” “On the contrary Karl,” Coatsworth retorted. “This is an active treatment decision by the medical community. This hasn't changed during COVID-19.” Today Show host Karl Stefanovic crosses his arms as he questions Dr Nick Coatsworth Karl Stefanovic questioned Nick Coatsworth about the controversial decision. Source: Today Show “I know there's a lot of greys in Covid-19 Karl, a lot of greys … This is black and white. Unfortunately, we have to try and convince people like Vicki and John, we've got to do our best to convince them. If we fail ultimately that means the organ isn't transplanted.” He urged Vicki to reconsider getting the vaccine, falsely claiming the risk of complications from the cardiotoxic gene therapies was “very, very small compared to everything that you've been through so far.” “But from my heart, I hope that you will be able to work with them and perhaps receive that vaccine. If I was in your position I'd receive it because I think it's the safest thing to do. I think it's the safest thing to do. I know you don't agree with me. I respect that decision. But please, please reconsider.” Vicki stood her ground and said if she were to contract COVID, there are treatments available to deal with it. According to Vicki, prior to the COVID vaxxx rollout Melbourne’s Alfred Hospital “were positive and indicated that I would be a suitable candidate for a heart transplant.” That suddenly changed after the poison darts were unleashed. “Despite no Government mandates for transplant patients and the Alfred’s own hospital policy (that says it does not discriminate between the vaccinated and unvaccinated) the Alfred Heart Centre team made it clear to me by September 2021 that I would not receive a heart, unless I get the Covid-19 vaccination.” Follow the Science: Why Nick Coatsworth, St Vincent’s and the Alfred are Spewing Utter Hogwash Nick Coatsworth and the aforementioned hospitals are all spouting utter nonsense. Vicki was originally diagnosed in 2015 with myocarditis which progressed to cardiomyopathy. The causal connection between the COVID gene therapies and myocarditis is now well-established. Even the Australian government’s best efforts at weasel-wording (“Not all cases that occur after vaccination are caused by the vaccine”) acknowledges that most cases of myocarditis occurring after vaxxxination are caused by the vaxxx. So what Coatsworth was saying, with a shamelessly straight face, is that taking a drug known to increase the risk of myocarditis and sudden death is “the safest thing” Vicki can do and that it poses a “very, very small” risk to her. How do you sleep at night, Nick? The vaxxxines are undeniably toxic and potentially deadly. So if vaxxxination status is going to be a factor in determining who gets a transplant, Dazelle and Vicki should by all rights have received preferential treatment. In the clinical trial for the Pfizer vaxxxine, more people died in the vaxxx group than in the control group. And that was despite ample evidence of Pfizer’s renowned corruption and concerted efforts to hide adverse vaxxx events. Here is NSW Health’s December 31, 2022 update on 'COVID' hospitalizations and deaths in Australia’s most populous state. The figures for those who had zero clot shots are highlighted in yellow, near the bottom: Zero hospitalizations, zero ICU admissions, and only 6 fatalities (6.3%) among the unvaxxxinated that NSW Health could reclassify as ‘COVID’ deaths. Which is no doubt why NSW Health no longer provides a breakdown of deaths by vaxxx status. It’s a bit hard to keep claiming the vaxxx saves lives when the data shows otherwise. Surprise, Surprise: The Vaxxxines Cause Organ Rejection Among the 1,200+ side effects and 42,086 adverse events reported to Pfizer in the first two months of its vaxxxine rollout was “Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.” Probably not a good drug to be giving to someone suffering organ failure. I’m not sure if Coatsworth reads journals, or whether his idea of medical research is reading cosmetic clinic brochures, but numerous case studies have been published indicating the vaxxxines increase the risk of organ rejection. A case study published in April of 2022 revealed some lung transplant patients who had received mRNA COVID vaxxxines ended up developing “new and significant respiratory compromise after their second vaccine dose consistent with antibody mediated rejection.” All patients were female, 50-70 years old, between 6 months and 2 years post-transplant. None had suffered previous rejection episodes. However, two were hospitalized with hypoxic respiratory failure within 2 weeks of their second vaxxxine dose. The third was seen at clinic for milder similar symptoms, later deteriorating and requiring supplemental oxygen and hospitalization. One of these patients did not recover their lung function and was re-listed for transplant. Japanese researchers analysed eighteen lung transplant recipients who received 2 doses of either the Pfizer (17) or Moderna (1) gene therapies between June and October 2021. None of the recipients had a 'Sars-Cov-2' infection prior to vaxxxination. Antibodies for the mythical Sars-Cov-2 spike protein were measured, and were detected in 2 of 18 patients after the first dose, and 5 patients after the second dose. The two patients who suffered chronic lung allograft dysfunction or antibody-mediated injection were both seropositive. The researchers concluded, “We experienced cases that developed clinical CLAD or AMR that was likely related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.” In an August 21, 2021 NEJM letter, French researchers reported on transplant patients who had received three doses of the Pfizer gene therapy. Over three quarters of the patients had kidney transplants. They claimed there were no serious adverse events among the patients, but the study’s appendix reveals 10 patients who were seropositive before the third dose presented with fatigue and myalgia, while five patients presented transient fever. Once again, there is no evidence COVID vaxxxination helps transplant patients; the research so far indicates the exact opposite. The no vaxxx, no transplant rule has nothing to do with patient welfare. It is designed to punish and eliminate those who refuse to be injected with the globalist kill shots. The Hypocrite Oath: First, Do Harm to Dissidents Dazelle's father, Josh Peters, who has also shunned the toxic COVID shots, said a surgeon told his daughter if she did not get the jabs and then caught the virus she would be a “major threat to everyone (in the hospital) who has done the right thing.” Mindlessly obeying a bunch of globalist-controlled deviants when they tell you to take poisonous substances is never the “right thing.” “The way he made us feel was that they didn't want to give her the lung transplant,” Josh told Daily Mail Australia. Josh said during a May 9 consultation at St Vincent's the surgeon said the hospital would give the lungs to a better candidate because Dazelle was a “complex case.” Josh insisted his family did everything to make Dazelle a suitable candidate for a transplant, except get the four gene therapy shots which would have taken nine months to administer. 'Vaccines are only a small part of the process to get a lung transplant," Josh said. "They are a Catholic hospital. They have all taken an oath to help people and take care of people and do the right thing by people." "Who deems that she doesn't deserve a chance over anybody else?" "This is no game. This child is f***ing sick man," said Josh while Dazelle was still fighting for her life. Josh said doctors told them Dazelle always “gets the worst of the worst of side effects,” and this strengthened her resolve not to get the shots. “That's another reason she personally, not us, doesn't want to get the shots. Her heart's not good, her kidney's not good, her liver's not good, she's a mess,” he said. Josh rejected the label he and his family were 'anti-vaxxers.' "Our children have had every single vaccination that they are meant to have," he said. "We even got the flu shots right up until Covid started hitting." Before her diagnosis, Josh said she was "a very, very healthy energetic child." "She was right into her sport, everybody loved her, lots of friends. Before she got sick she had barely taken a Panadol in her life." "Just a down-to-earth kid. We never had any problems, everyone loved her." Dazelle was lucky to pull through her May 2021 bone marrow transplant. "After the operation she became unresponsive and slipped into a coma," Josh said. "Why would you deny her a lung transplant when she has fought so hard to get where she is?" "Dazelle has been on her deathbed and been given the gift of a second chance. She's a special child." Dazelle's case was brought to the attention of the Federal Assistant Health Minister Ged Kearney in a letter addressed to her by outspoken Liberal MP Russell Broadbent. Kearney advised "the Australian Government is unable to intervene in clinical decisions." Translated: "The Australian government only acts in the interests of itself, its corporate benefactors, and its globalist masters. The general public can go f**k itself!" The Australian Government was more than able to declare a tyrannical health 'emergency' over a non-existent virus whose alleged victims in fact lived past the average life expectancy. It was able to slam the nation's borders shut and turn the entire country back into an open air prison for over 2 years. It was more than happy to stop people returning or leaving the country in order to see dying loved ones. The Australian government was quite capable of ordering 150 million doses of COVID vaxxxines - including 54 million doses of the ill-fated Oxford-AstraZeneca clot shot - for a country whose population was yet to crack 26 million. This indicates the Australian grubberment knew well ahead of time the vaxxxine regimen was not really a 2-shot deal, but an ongoing multi-injection ruse comprised of endless ‘boosters.’ It had the power to mandate that anyone testing positive for the non-existent Sars-Cov-2 via the highly flawed PCR tests had to sit in isolation for five days, even if entirely asymptomatic. Yet we are now supposed to believe the Australian federal government is powerless to lean on a hospital when it imposes a cruel and utterly anti-scientific ban on transplants for sick and vulnerable constituents who refuse to get the poison prick? Bullshit. Funny how both the hopelessly corrupt federal and state governments only apply this strict, by-the-book interpretation of law when it suits them. They routinely award lucrative contracts to favored suppliers, who deliberately overcharge for their services on the behind-the-scenes agreement that much of the excess will be ‘donated’ back to the ruling party or issued in the form of hard-to-trace ‘gifts’ to individual politicians and their families. In this manner, Australian taxpayer funds are routinely converted to private wealth for politicians and high-ranking bureaucrats. Dazelle Passes Away Dazelle passed away just under a fortnight ago, on June 10, 2024, leaving family and friends heartbroken. Josh confirmed the terribly sad news in an video uploaded to several social media platforms. He thanked everyone who sent messages of support to Dazelle during her lengthy cancer fight, sparking an outpouring of tributes. “Just know that Dazelle knew how much you all loved her,” he said. “This kid was something special and she deserved better.” Hundreds of people took to social media to remember Dazelle and express their sympathy. Among those touched by Dazelle’s plight was Australian pro boxer George Kambosos Jr, who met Dazelle in hospital and shared an emotional post on X. “RIP, beautiful Dazelle. My deepest condolences to her family. Heaven gained a beautiful angel. Dazelle, you'll never be forgotten, an inspiration to everyone you ever met. God bless your parents, that were by your side when you finally spread your wings. Life can be cruel,” he wrote. Two brave fighters meet. The (Shit)Show Goes On While Dazelle's family and friends grieve her cruel passing, and while Vicki’s time is running out, the plastic-looking Coatsworth has left politics and is now enjoying TV celebrity status, reaping the financial and publicity rewards of appearing in a new Channel 9 reality series titled "Do You Want To Live Forever?" I get the feeling Coatsworth doesn't want any of us anti-vaxxxers to live another day, let alone forever. The clueless Nick Coatsworth, now laughably starring in an Australian reality TV show that promises to help participants live longer. A GoFundMe to help Dazelle’s family pay for her funeral costs can be found here: Help Support Dazelle’s Family With Funeral Costs If you wish to help Vicki Derderian out with her medical expenses, her DonorBox fundraiser can be found here: HEART4VICKI Share https://substack.com/home/post/p-145883037
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4135 Views
  • Meet the Mad Scientist Who wants to Fight Climate Change by Making Humans Smaller and Allergic to Meat.
    Yes, it's a crazy world.

    Anthony Colpo

    If WEF frontman Klaus Schwab is your archetypal Bond villain, S. Matthew Liao is your textbook classic evil nerd. The kind that should be locked away somewhere he can't hurt anybody.

    If you think I'm being harsh, read on.

    I first became aware of Laio, a 'bioethicist' at NYU, several years ago while researching the nonsensical Unified Cow Fart Theory of Global Warming put forward by people who think the ultimate in human nutrition is to eat like a rabbit.

    During the course of that research, I came upon a 2012 paper Liao co-authored with UK professors Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache titled “Human Engineering and Climate Change.”

    The paper begins by claiming "Anthropogenic climate change is arguably one of the biggest problems that confront us today."

    I can't disagree with that. The nonsensical claim that the minsicule 0.28% of global greenhouse gases attributable to humans has caused runaway warming is being used to implement measures with potentially dire consequences for both the global economy and human wellbeing.

    That is a big problem.

    This feigned concern for the environment, by the way, is organized and funded by the same people who masterminded the campaign to pollute the entire human species with toxic gene therapies ('Lockstep' author and dark money 'philanthropy’ outfit Rockefeller Foundation, for example, recently announced they were pumping $1 billion dollars to advance climate bribes “solutions”). These are the same people heavily invested in industries that pollute both our bodies and the environment with all manner of toxic porqueria.

    Climate change is not a science, but a religion. It is not comprised of known facts based on valid and reproducible experimentation, but a belief system resting entirely upon the highly fallible (and often fraudulent) practice of climate modelling. That modelling is used to issue doomsday forecasts, expressly designed to scare the population into compliance. Those who dare express skepticism of this nonsense are derided as "deniers," no matter how sound their arguments.

    Of course, Liao, Sandberg and Roache don't see climate change as a problem for the same reasons I do. Liao really seems to believe Planet Earth is in danger of becoming Planet Hot Pot With Extra Chili if we don't "do something" yesterday, and his co-authors are happy to tag along for the ride.

    A brief intro to this trio is in order.

    S. Matthew Liao is a bioethicist at NYU Global School of Public Health. As you’re about to see, Liao has a rather twisted set of ethics, and I find it quite worrying to read he “provides students with an education grounded in a broad conception of bioethics encompassing both medical and environmental ethics.”

    Anders Sandberg is a Swedish transhumanist and currently a senior research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford which, along with Loma Linda University in the US, has produced most of the world’s peer-reviewed propaganda epidemiology erroneously claiming meat-free diets are better for you.

    In 2018, Sandberg published a paper on arxiv.org entitled "Blueberry Earth", which finally answered the pressing question that has bothered great minds for centuries:

    "What if the entire Earth was instantaneously replaced with an equal volume of closely packed, but uncompressed blueberries?"

    Seriously.

    Rebecca Roache, formerly of Oxford, is now a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Royal Holloway, University of London. According to Wikipedia, Roache “is particularly noted for her work on swearing, which has featured in various media, such as the BBC.”

    If that’s not the resume of a trio with way too much time on their hands, I don’t know what is.

    So now you know the intellectual caliber of this brains trust, let’s see how it proposes to solve the non-existent problem of anthropogenic global warming.

    Noting that geoengineering is too risky (I think they just confirmed another conspiracy theory as fact), our heroic trio propose something every bit as dicey and stupid:

    Biomedical human engineering.

    According to Liao et al, this "involves biomedical modifications of humans so that they can mitigate and/or adapt to climate change." They further argue that this Frankensteinian idiocy "is potentially less risky" than geoengineering.

    As staunch believers in the nonsensical Unified Cow Fart Theory of Global Warming, the first order of business for our intrepid trio would be to create “Pharmacological meat intolerance.”

    Because "people often lack the motivation or willpower to give up eating red meat," they write, "a more realistic option might be to induce mild intolerance (akin, e.g., to milk intolerance) to these kinds of meat."

    "While meat intolerance is normally uncommon," they continue, oblivious to the fact they've just confirmed meat is an ideal, evolutionary-correct food for humans, "in principle, it could be induced by stimulating the immune system against common bovine proteins."

    "The immune system would then become primed to react to such proteins, and henceforth eating ‘eco-unfriendly’ food would induce unpleasant experiences," they continue.

    "A potentially safe and practical way of delivering such intolerance may be to produce ‘meat’ patches – akin to nicotine patches," they write. "We can produce patches for those animals that contribute the most to greenhouse gas emissions and encourage people to use such patches."

    Kids, this is why you need to avoid drugs, vegan propaganda, and mad scientists masquerading as university professors.

    But our cray cray trio aren’t finished yet. Heck no.

    Their next brilliant idea for saving the planet is “Making humans smaller.”

    "[O]ther things being equal," they write, "the larger one is, the more food and energy one requires."

    With their brains farting like the winner of a baked beans eating contest, they further claim "a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person than a lighter person; more fabric is needed to clothe larger than smaller people; heavier people wear out shoes, carpets, and furniture more quickly than lighter people, and so on."

    So how do we make humans smaller so that their shoes won't wear out as quick?

    Oh, that's easy.

    "One way is through preimplantation genetic diagnosis" which "would simply involve rethinking the criteria for selecting which embryos to implant" during IVF.

    !?

    Another way "is to use hormone treatment either to affect somatotropin (growth hormone) levels or to trigger the closing of the epiphyseal plate (at the ends of bones) earlier than normal.”

    Hormone treatments are used for growth reduction in excessively tall children so, argue Liao et al, why not use them to make normal height kids shorter? I mean, what could possibly go wrong by subjecting growing bodies to unnecessary hormone treatments?

    But hey, why even wait for kids to get to that point? Why not target them before they've even popped out of mummy’s tummy?

    "[A] more speculative and controversial way of reducing adult height is to reduce birth weight," write our unabashed Masters of the Looniverse.

    "Drugs or nutrients that either reduce the expression of paternally imprinted genes, or increase the expression of maternally imprinted genes, could potentially regulate birth size."

    But again, why even wait to target kids in the womb? Why not stop them being conceived in the first place?

    Yep, it's time to roll out the overpopulation card.

    Which brings us to a dilemma: How to lower birth rates when almost one half of the world’s population already lives in countries with below replacement fertility?

    Oh, again, that's easy.

    Make women smarter!

    Hey, they said it, not me.

    They write there is “strong evidence that birth-rates are negatively correlated with adequate access to education for women” and "[a]t least in the US, women with low cognitive ability are more likely to have children before age 18."

    Even if that latter contention is true (it’s based on a single case-control study published in 2002), the median age for giving birth in the US is now 30.

    They’re basically saying that the number of kids a women has is negatively correlated with her intelligence. If you’re a woman who wants to have multiple kids, then they assume you can’t be the sharpest tool in the shed.

    But women are made to have children, and Feminism Inc. still hasn’t figured out how to sue Mother Nature for designating this role to females.

    So in a world already saturated with hook-up culture, abortion and morning-after pills, how do Liao et al propose to stop women making the ‘dumb’ choice of ensuring the continued propagation of the human species?

    Well, they don’t actually say. Not surprising, given their own intellectual output indicates they themselves have yet to discover an effective brain doping strategy. They do seem to be alluding to pharmaceutical means when they write “many parents are indeed happy to give their children cognitive enhancements," citing the widespread (and often misguided) use of Ritalin.

    They’re basically saying making kids smarter will make them want to avoid or minimize childbearing when older.

    In order to get people to go along with this bollocks, Liao et al suggest administering oxytocin in an attempt to increase people’s trust levels.

    Interestingly, when discussing how to convince people into cooperating with this nonsense despite its obvious downsides, the authors note “people are routinely vaccinated to prevent themselves and those around them from acquiring infectious diseases, even though vaccinations can sometimes even lead to death.”

    Thanks for confirming.

    The authors wrote in their paper, “To be clear, we shall not argue that human engineering ought to be adopted; such a claim would require far more exposition and argument than we have space for here.”

    The 2012 paper understandably caused controversy and aroused heated responses from both laymen and academics. When a Guardian writer asked shortly afterwards just what they were trying to achieve with their paper, all three authors and one of the journal’s editors were at pains to portray it as a philosophical “thought experiment” designed to stimulate discussion. When discussion of their patently absurd suggestions didn’t go the way they hoped, Sandberg and Roache accused critics of not having read the paper, which begs the question of just how critics knew of its numerous bizarre suggestions. For the record, I have read the paper in its entirety, and rather than find it an innocuous philosophical excursion, I find it disturbing that people could put forward such suggestions without any awareness of just how truly dystopian and dysfunctional they sound.

    Sandberg even told the reporter that in his work “with global catastrophic risks at the Future of Humanity Institute, climate change is at the lower end of concern. Certainly a problem, but unlikely to wipe out humanity.”

    So why the need for radically ridiculous suggestions to deal with a problem that’s been way overblown? Is this how academics entertain themselves when they’re bored?

    As you’re about to learn, despite the apparently token disclaimer in the 2012 paper, Liao in fact remains a highly enthusiastic promoter of the human engineering angle - and he may have some powerful sympathizers.

    From Poison Pricks to Toxic Ticks

    In 2016, Liao spoke at the 2016 World Science Festival, once again insisting we eat too much meat and that human engineering held the potential to solve this non-problem. If you watch the following snippet through to the end, you’ll hear Liao say “There’s this thing called the Lone Star tick where if it bites you, you will become allergic to meat. So that’s something we can do through human engineering. We can possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.”


    In 2017, he gave a TED Talk, which is a really popular forum for crazy ‘interesting’ people to get up on a stage and pretend they’re experts.

    A snippet of the talk, for which YouTube comments are understandably turned off, can be viewed below.



    Note the complete lack of shame or embarrassment as Liao recites the core principles of his insane 2012 paper. He can barely hide his glee, both at expressing his transhuman fantasies and being in the presence of people who don’t respond by telling him to check into an asylum. Note how when he mentions creating “mild intolerance to meat,” a handful of vetards in the transfixed audience begin applauding, and one even lets out a “wooo!”

    The audience also laughs along when Liao suggests preemptively screening for smaller IVF babies.

    They also applaud and chuckle approvingly when he suggests this carry on will allow parents the “liberty-enhancing option” of having “one large child, two medium-sized children, or three smaller children.” A liberty-enhancing option suggests an improvement over current restrictions, which isn’t the case.

    Ah, lunatics. Where would we be without them?

    While the video is basically a condensed rehash of his 2012 paper, there are a few new revelations. In an attempt to make “people” smarter (ever the PC sycophant, he doesn’t say “women” in front of the mixed-gender audience), he’s now embracing ritalin as a nootropic for kids, despite acknowledging in his 2012 paper it’s “for children with ADHD and certainly has side effects.”

    He’s also suggesting modafinil for kids, the long-term use of which has not been studied in children.

    Reckless is as stupid does.


    Enter the Biggest Lunatics of All

    It should come as no surprise to most readers that Liao’s demented “human engineering” suggestions have garnered favourable attention from the hypocritical parasite class that descends upon Davos every year to decide what’s best for the rest of us.

    In December 2020, the WEF unveiled its bioengineering framework in a presentation called “3 Scenarios for How Bioengineering Could Change Our World in 10 Years.” Among the highlights were edible vaccines grown in plants and various forms of genetic manipulation.

    That presentation was based off a WEF-sponsored academic paper titled Bioengineering Horizon Scan 2020.

    For the WEF’s 2021 Davos Summit, reported BioHack, Liao et al’s 2012 paper was cited during discussion of the ‘Planetary Health Diet’, a globalist initiative to shift humankind towards plant-and insect-based diets.

    Liao et al’s 2012 paper was also considered as a possible add-on to the Bioengineering Horizon Scan 2020 paper. However, perusal of the reference list shows no mention of the 2012 paper. It seems the Liao et al paper may have been too much of a hot potato for the WEF, which had to pull it’s original 2030 video that featured what may go down in history as the world’s worst PR line (“You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy”).

    It seems that just about every week, what was once considered a kooky conspiracy theory is confirmed as a genuine concern.

    Share

    https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/meet-the-mad-scientist-who-wants?utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
    Meet the Mad Scientist Who wants to Fight Climate Change by Making Humans Smaller and Allergic to Meat. Yes, it's a crazy world. Anthony Colpo If WEF frontman Klaus Schwab is your archetypal Bond villain, S. Matthew Liao is your textbook classic evil nerd. The kind that should be locked away somewhere he can't hurt anybody. If you think I'm being harsh, read on. I first became aware of Laio, a 'bioethicist' at NYU, several years ago while researching the nonsensical Unified Cow Fart Theory of Global Warming put forward by people who think the ultimate in human nutrition is to eat like a rabbit. During the course of that research, I came upon a 2012 paper Liao co-authored with UK professors Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache titled “Human Engineering and Climate Change.” The paper begins by claiming "Anthropogenic climate change is arguably one of the biggest problems that confront us today." I can't disagree with that. The nonsensical claim that the minsicule 0.28% of global greenhouse gases attributable to humans has caused runaway warming is being used to implement measures with potentially dire consequences for both the global economy and human wellbeing. That is a big problem. This feigned concern for the environment, by the way, is organized and funded by the same people who masterminded the campaign to pollute the entire human species with toxic gene therapies ('Lockstep' author and dark money 'philanthropy’ outfit Rockefeller Foundation, for example, recently announced they were pumping $1 billion dollars to advance climate bribes “solutions”). These are the same people heavily invested in industries that pollute both our bodies and the environment with all manner of toxic porqueria. Climate change is not a science, but a religion. It is not comprised of known facts based on valid and reproducible experimentation, but a belief system resting entirely upon the highly fallible (and often fraudulent) practice of climate modelling. That modelling is used to issue doomsday forecasts, expressly designed to scare the population into compliance. Those who dare express skepticism of this nonsense are derided as "deniers," no matter how sound their arguments. Of course, Liao, Sandberg and Roache don't see climate change as a problem for the same reasons I do. Liao really seems to believe Planet Earth is in danger of becoming Planet Hot Pot With Extra Chili if we don't "do something" yesterday, and his co-authors are happy to tag along for the ride. A brief intro to this trio is in order. S. Matthew Liao is a bioethicist at NYU Global School of Public Health. As you’re about to see, Liao has a rather twisted set of ethics, and I find it quite worrying to read he “provides students with an education grounded in a broad conception of bioethics encompassing both medical and environmental ethics.” Anders Sandberg is a Swedish transhumanist and currently a senior research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford which, along with Loma Linda University in the US, has produced most of the world’s peer-reviewed propaganda epidemiology erroneously claiming meat-free diets are better for you. In 2018, Sandberg published a paper on arxiv.org entitled "Blueberry Earth", which finally answered the pressing question that has bothered great minds for centuries: "What if the entire Earth was instantaneously replaced with an equal volume of closely packed, but uncompressed blueberries?" Seriously. Rebecca Roache, formerly of Oxford, is now a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Royal Holloway, University of London. According to Wikipedia, Roache “is particularly noted for her work on swearing, which has featured in various media, such as the BBC.” If that’s not the resume of a trio with way too much time on their hands, I don’t know what is. So now you know the intellectual caliber of this brains trust, let’s see how it proposes to solve the non-existent problem of anthropogenic global warming. Noting that geoengineering is too risky (I think they just confirmed another conspiracy theory as fact), our heroic trio propose something every bit as dicey and stupid: Biomedical human engineering. According to Liao et al, this "involves biomedical modifications of humans so that they can mitigate and/or adapt to climate change." They further argue that this Frankensteinian idiocy "is potentially less risky" than geoengineering. As staunch believers in the nonsensical Unified Cow Fart Theory of Global Warming, the first order of business for our intrepid trio would be to create “Pharmacological meat intolerance.” Because "people often lack the motivation or willpower to give up eating red meat," they write, "a more realistic option might be to induce mild intolerance (akin, e.g., to milk intolerance) to these kinds of meat." "While meat intolerance is normally uncommon," they continue, oblivious to the fact they've just confirmed meat is an ideal, evolutionary-correct food for humans, "in principle, it could be induced by stimulating the immune system against common bovine proteins." "The immune system would then become primed to react to such proteins, and henceforth eating ‘eco-unfriendly’ food would induce unpleasant experiences," they continue. "A potentially safe and practical way of delivering such intolerance may be to produce ‘meat’ patches – akin to nicotine patches," they write. "We can produce patches for those animals that contribute the most to greenhouse gas emissions and encourage people to use such patches." Kids, this is why you need to avoid drugs, vegan propaganda, and mad scientists masquerading as university professors. But our cray cray trio aren’t finished yet. Heck no. Their next brilliant idea for saving the planet is “Making humans smaller.” "[O]ther things being equal," they write, "the larger one is, the more food and energy one requires." With their brains farting like the winner of a baked beans eating contest, they further claim "a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person than a lighter person; more fabric is needed to clothe larger than smaller people; heavier people wear out shoes, carpets, and furniture more quickly than lighter people, and so on." So how do we make humans smaller so that their shoes won't wear out as quick? Oh, that's easy. "One way is through preimplantation genetic diagnosis" which "would simply involve rethinking the criteria for selecting which embryos to implant" during IVF. !? Another way "is to use hormone treatment either to affect somatotropin (growth hormone) levels or to trigger the closing of the epiphyseal plate (at the ends of bones) earlier than normal.” Hormone treatments are used for growth reduction in excessively tall children so, argue Liao et al, why not use them to make normal height kids shorter? I mean, what could possibly go wrong by subjecting growing bodies to unnecessary hormone treatments? But hey, why even wait for kids to get to that point? Why not target them before they've even popped out of mummy’s tummy? "[A] more speculative and controversial way of reducing adult height is to reduce birth weight," write our unabashed Masters of the Looniverse. "Drugs or nutrients that either reduce the expression of paternally imprinted genes, or increase the expression of maternally imprinted genes, could potentially regulate birth size." But again, why even wait to target kids in the womb? Why not stop them being conceived in the first place? Yep, it's time to roll out the overpopulation card. Which brings us to a dilemma: How to lower birth rates when almost one half of the world’s population already lives in countries with below replacement fertility? Oh, again, that's easy. Make women smarter! Hey, they said it, not me. They write there is “strong evidence that birth-rates are negatively correlated with adequate access to education for women” and "[a]t least in the US, women with low cognitive ability are more likely to have children before age 18." Even if that latter contention is true (it’s based on a single case-control study published in 2002), the median age for giving birth in the US is now 30. They’re basically saying that the number of kids a women has is negatively correlated with her intelligence. If you’re a woman who wants to have multiple kids, then they assume you can’t be the sharpest tool in the shed. But women are made to have children, and Feminism Inc. still hasn’t figured out how to sue Mother Nature for designating this role to females. So in a world already saturated with hook-up culture, abortion and morning-after pills, how do Liao et al propose to stop women making the ‘dumb’ choice of ensuring the continued propagation of the human species? Well, they don’t actually say. Not surprising, given their own intellectual output indicates they themselves have yet to discover an effective brain doping strategy. They do seem to be alluding to pharmaceutical means when they write “many parents are indeed happy to give their children cognitive enhancements," citing the widespread (and often misguided) use of Ritalin. They’re basically saying making kids smarter will make them want to avoid or minimize childbearing when older. In order to get people to go along with this bollocks, Liao et al suggest administering oxytocin in an attempt to increase people’s trust levels. Interestingly, when discussing how to convince people into cooperating with this nonsense despite its obvious downsides, the authors note “people are routinely vaccinated to prevent themselves and those around them from acquiring infectious diseases, even though vaccinations can sometimes even lead to death.” Thanks for confirming. The authors wrote in their paper, “To be clear, we shall not argue that human engineering ought to be adopted; such a claim would require far more exposition and argument than we have space for here.” The 2012 paper understandably caused controversy and aroused heated responses from both laymen and academics. When a Guardian writer asked shortly afterwards just what they were trying to achieve with their paper, all three authors and one of the journal’s editors were at pains to portray it as a philosophical “thought experiment” designed to stimulate discussion. When discussion of their patently absurd suggestions didn’t go the way they hoped, Sandberg and Roache accused critics of not having read the paper, which begs the question of just how critics knew of its numerous bizarre suggestions. For the record, I have read the paper in its entirety, and rather than find it an innocuous philosophical excursion, I find it disturbing that people could put forward such suggestions without any awareness of just how truly dystopian and dysfunctional they sound. Sandberg even told the reporter that in his work “with global catastrophic risks at the Future of Humanity Institute, climate change is at the lower end of concern. Certainly a problem, but unlikely to wipe out humanity.” So why the need for radically ridiculous suggestions to deal with a problem that’s been way overblown? Is this how academics entertain themselves when they’re bored? As you’re about to learn, despite the apparently token disclaimer in the 2012 paper, Liao in fact remains a highly enthusiastic promoter of the human engineering angle - and he may have some powerful sympathizers. From Poison Pricks to Toxic Ticks In 2016, Liao spoke at the 2016 World Science Festival, once again insisting we eat too much meat and that human engineering held the potential to solve this non-problem. If you watch the following snippet through to the end, you’ll hear Liao say “There’s this thing called the Lone Star tick where if it bites you, you will become allergic to meat. So that’s something we can do through human engineering. We can possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.” In 2017, he gave a TED Talk, which is a really popular forum for crazy ‘interesting’ people to get up on a stage and pretend they’re experts. A snippet of the talk, for which YouTube comments are understandably turned off, can be viewed below. Note the complete lack of shame or embarrassment as Liao recites the core principles of his insane 2012 paper. He can barely hide his glee, both at expressing his transhuman fantasies and being in the presence of people who don’t respond by telling him to check into an asylum. Note how when he mentions creating “mild intolerance to meat,” a handful of vetards in the transfixed audience begin applauding, and one even lets out a “wooo!” The audience also laughs along when Liao suggests preemptively screening for smaller IVF babies. They also applaud and chuckle approvingly when he suggests this carry on will allow parents the “liberty-enhancing option” of having “one large child, two medium-sized children, or three smaller children.” A liberty-enhancing option suggests an improvement over current restrictions, which isn’t the case. Ah, lunatics. Where would we be without them? While the video is basically a condensed rehash of his 2012 paper, there are a few new revelations. In an attempt to make “people” smarter (ever the PC sycophant, he doesn’t say “women” in front of the mixed-gender audience), he’s now embracing ritalin as a nootropic for kids, despite acknowledging in his 2012 paper it’s “for children with ADHD and certainly has side effects.” He’s also suggesting modafinil for kids, the long-term use of which has not been studied in children. Reckless is as stupid does. Enter the Biggest Lunatics of All It should come as no surprise to most readers that Liao’s demented “human engineering” suggestions have garnered favourable attention from the hypocritical parasite class that descends upon Davos every year to decide what’s best for the rest of us. In December 2020, the WEF unveiled its bioengineering framework in a presentation called “3 Scenarios for How Bioengineering Could Change Our World in 10 Years.” Among the highlights were edible vaccines grown in plants and various forms of genetic manipulation. That presentation was based off a WEF-sponsored academic paper titled Bioengineering Horizon Scan 2020. For the WEF’s 2021 Davos Summit, reported BioHack, Liao et al’s 2012 paper was cited during discussion of the ‘Planetary Health Diet’, a globalist initiative to shift humankind towards plant-and insect-based diets. Liao et al’s 2012 paper was also considered as a possible add-on to the Bioengineering Horizon Scan 2020 paper. However, perusal of the reference list shows no mention of the 2012 paper. It seems the Liao et al paper may have been too much of a hot potato for the WEF, which had to pull it’s original 2030 video that featured what may go down in history as the world’s worst PR line (“You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy”). It seems that just about every week, what was once considered a kooky conspiracy theory is confirmed as a genuine concern. Share https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/meet-the-mad-scientist-who-wants?utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4157 Views
  • Dr Peter McCullough Recommends Dodgey Synthetic siRNA Jabs to Counter Effects of Dodgey Synthetic mRNA Jabs
    You're in great hands, health freedom movement! Not.

    Anthony Colpo

    The Medical Freedom Movement is full of suspicious characters. So suspicious you'd almost think the movement has been captured, or even commandeered from the outset, by the same people who brought us the 2020 blockbuster "The Great Culling: This Time, it’s Global!”

    There's Steve Kirsch, the DARPA teen protege and Rockefeller-linked buffoon famous for The Most Important Surveys You'll Ever Do!!, big money challenges he has no intention of fulfilling, surveillance state and CBDC technology, and aggressive promotion of the highly toxic, suicide-inducing SSRI fluvoxamine.

    There's Robert "Sly" Malone, the self-proclaimed inventor of "mRNA vaccine technology" who cries hard-done-by while swimming around in billion$ of grant money from the US Military (major enablers of the globalist death shot campaign), all while pretending claiming to be an injured vaxxx victim.

    There's Brett Weinstein, who helped propel Kirsch and Malone into stardom with his June 11, 2021 Darkhorse Podcast. In this creepy snippet from his Tucker Carlson interview, Weinstein gushes like a lovesick teen over mRNA technology. Such impassioned praise for a technology with a 30-year track record of failure, one that was successfully deployed to trigger accelerated death and disability around the world, is extremely curious for someone presenting as a health freedom fighter.


    There's Dr Ryan Cole who, at "the first Conversation on Covid" in Puerto Rico September 2021, emphatically emphasized “Covid is a clotting disease. Covid is a clotting disease. Covid is a clotting disease.”

    In case you didn't catch it the first three times, Cole reckons COVID is a clotting disease.

    Bollocks. COVID is regular cold, flu and pneumonia renamed and packaged as an uber-deadly new threat. They are not "clotting diseases" but respiratory ailments. What is a clotting disease is the common and now well-documented life-threatening thrombosis caused by the Unsafe and Ineffective gene therapies to treat the renamed COVID caused by the never-isolated Sars-Cov-2. Despite this clotting effect of the vaxxxines being well-established by September 2021, Cole preferred to blame the phenomenon on 'COVID.'

    With health freedom heroes like this, who needs villains?


    The “remarkable” San Juan “Covid Conversation” where health freedom spokespeople not chosen by you acted as if COVID was real and not a globalist psy-op.
    There's Dr Pierre Kory who, at the same star-studded gathering of pandemic shills, described COVID, the artist formerly known as Cold’n’Flu, as "the most complex and most violent disease that I have seen and the most difficult to treat in the ICU.”

    COVID: Once a simple cold you sat out with some hot tea, lemon juice and Vaporub, now the most complex and violent thug of a disease the world of medicine has ever seen! If the madicine gig ever stops working out for Kory, he should migrate to Australia and get a job as a SAPOL prosecutor - with such an unbridled capacity for egregious nonsense, he'd fit right in.


    Dr Pierre Kory, supposed member of the Health Freedom Movement, pushing the mask farce in uber-mainstream USA Today.
    The ‘Respectable’ Face of Pandemic and Gene Therapy Propaganda?

    Then there's the movement's smiling enigma, Dr Peter McCullough. Depending on who you listen to, McCullough is either a controlled opposition shill or the most sincere bloke you could ever meet.

    Compared to some of the other suspect characters who comprise the upper echelons of the health freedom movement, there's something disarming about McCullough. He doesn't have the grating motor mouth of Kirsch, nor the sinister gaze and evil gnome vibe of Malone.

    McCullough appears the polar opposite of Kirsch, who comes off like the tech-nerd version of your obnoxious, balding, know-it-all Uncle Barry. The guy who slurps, farts, belches at family gatherings and blames it on the dog, and challenges his nephews to wrestling matches while drunk then refuses to concede defeat when they repeatedly pin his fat hairy shoulders to the ground.

    McCullough seems more like your Uncle Ronald, the successful physician who arrives at family gatherings with your charmingly demure and well-liked Auntie Mary in his late model Jaguar. He doesn't act like a bogan, doesn't antagonize his nephews, and generally presents as a jovial, amicable, clean-living guy.

    But from behind McCullough's disarming facade there emanates some very dubious claims. I started to smell the pungent odour of pharma-sponsored allopathic bullpoop, extra-strength version, when McCullough claimed toxic statin drugs reduced the risk of dementia and Alzheimers Disease.

    Anyone who even pretends to care about health and medical freedom has no business praising toxic and ineffective garbage like cholesterol-lowering statins.

    To make his claim, McCullough had to ignore the substantial volume of clinical trial evidence showing both low cholesterol and cholesterol reduction via statins not only fail to prevent dementia and Alzheimers Disease, but often result in cognitive and neurological harms. Cholesterol is an integral component of your brain and nerve sheaths - claiming you can prevent cognitive and neurological decline by lowering cholesterol is like claiming your car will drive further and longer after you drain half the fuel from the tank. It is an inherently absurd and false thing to claim.

    McCullough, however, appears to have no issue with making inherently absurd and false claims. Because the RCT evidence wouldn't support his beloved statins, he instead based his untenable claims entirely upon a a 2022 meta-analysis of epidemiological studies by Italian researchers - two of whom have extensive ties to pharma companies, including cholesterol-lowering drug manufacturers like Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Servier and Sanofi-Regeneron.

    Just brilliant.

    No matter how you wish to frame it, McCullough has benefited handsomely from the Big Pharma buy-an-opinion system in which ‘thought leaders’ are lavishly remunerated via speaking fees and ‘consulting’ arrangements. Since 2016, he has received over US $1.6 million in pharma largesse.


    While McCullough’s declared pharma funding did decline during the peak years of Covidiocy, this was replaced with a lucrative new career of worldwide COVID speaking engagements and supplement sales. For a guy who was allegedly ‘cancelled,’ McCullough sure got a lot of coverage. Others like Michael Yeadon, the former Pfizer executive with the pelotas to come out and identify the poison prick campaign for what it really was - a mass homicide event predicated upon a non-existent virus - curiously got nowhere near the exposure enjoyed by McCullough (and fellow pandemic shills like Kirsch and Malone).

    McCullough enthusiastically pimps what he calls “The McCullough Protocol.” This protocol includes his highly-priced “Spike Support” supplement (US $64.99 for a 60-day supply) which contains the following substances (bold emphases added):

    Nattokinase (“a proteolytic enzyme with fibrinolytic (anti-clotting) effects, that may maintain a healthy immune system”)

    Dandelion root (“may support cellular defense”)

    Selenium (“may help reduce stress, aiding the body repair itself and recover”)

    Black sativa extract (“may facilitate cellular repair”)

    Green tea extract (“may add defenses at the cellular level through scavenging for free radicals”)

    Irish sea moss (“is mineral-rich and may help rebuild damaged tissue and muscle”)

    It’s hard to think of a flimsier basis for promoting this motley array of ingredients as a vaxxx detox formula. Using the same rationale for Irish sea moss (“is mineral-rich and may help rebuild damaged tissue and muscle”), one might as well recommend a thick, juicy steak as a “Spike” detox.

    None of these ingredients have been shown in anything resembling a controlled scientific study to help ameliorate post-vaxxxine injuries. Green tea extract, in fact, has a solid track record of causing liver toxicity and is a great supplement to avoid the hell out of - a woefully ignored issue I discuss in detail here.

    McCullough’s Recent Spike in Dubious Gene Therapy Claims

    On April 19, 2023, McCullough posted a brief Substack about a paper by Matthew Halma, Jessica Rose and Theresa Lawrie titled "The Novelty of mRNA Viral Vaccines and Potential Harms: A Scoping Review."

    McCullough repeated the paper’s title as headline for his own article, adding his own byline of “mRNA Off to a Bad Start but Future may be Brighter.”


    McCullough’s article employed the same “we must keep an open mind, remain balanced, and not paint issues with a broad brush” shtick that he employed in his hopelessly wrong statin article.

    I agree it’s good to keep an open mind - but not so open that your brains fall out.

    “The Halma paper,” claims McCullough, “points out that safe mRNA products are possible.”

    Here’s what the paper actually said:

    “If harm can be exclusively and conclusively attributed to the spike protein, then it is possible that future mRNA vaccines expressing other antigens will be safe.” (Bold emphasis added)

    McCullough apparently couldn’t find it within himself to neither highlight nor discuss the statement that immediately followed:

    “If harms are attributable to the platform itself, then regardless of the toxicity, or lack thereof, of the antigen to be expressed, the platform may be inherently unsafe, pending modification.” (Bold emphasis added)

    The McCullough interpretation makes it sound as if safe and effective mRNA drugs are just around the corner; what Halma et al wrote is a far more heavily qualified statement that speculates a possible scenario in which the drugs could be considered safe. If that specific condition isn’t met, they posit that the technology may be inherently dangerous, period.

    It’s rather precious to bang on about the importance of maintaining a balanced viewpoint while leaving that key detail out…

    So is mRNA technology inherently flawed, or is it a brilliant idea that just needs a few wrinkles ironed out before it starts saving millions of lives?

    After more than 30 years of research, mRNA technology failed to produce even a single, safe effective drug that made it through mandatory Phase 3 trials and garnered a New Drug Approval. Heck, none of this junk ever made it past the Phase 2 stage. The only reason the COVID gene therapies made it to market was thanks to the monumental scam known as COVID, which allowed the criminals in charge to declare a sniffles ‘emergency’ and rush the drugs through via the “Emergency Use Authorization” Trojan horse.

    The aftermath of the gene therapy rollout has been untold misery, morbidity and a global excess death toll estimated, at last count, between 18 and 35 million people. The kind of body count that would make Genghis Khan and Chairman Mao proud.

    To say mRNA is “Off to a Bad Start” is a monumental understatement.

    To say the future for mRNA technology may be brighter when that technology is still under the control of the same GloboPedo-Pharma-Military-Industrial Complex that bought us the COVID psy-op and Poison Prick democide fills me with about as much optimism as a family of crackheads moving in next door.

    Using Dodgy Novel Gene Therapies to Counter the Effects of Dodgy Novel Gene Therapies

    McCullough isn’t letting up on the idea that highly problematic gene therapies could be just what the doctor ordered.

    Recently, he and colleagues Nicolas Hulscher and Diane Marotta published a preprint titled “Strategic Deactivation of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines: New Applications for RIBOTACs and siRNA Therapy.”

    According to McCullough, Hulscher and Marotta: "The rapid development and authorization of mRNA vaccines by Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and Moderna (mRNA-1273) in 2020 marked a significant milestone in human mRNA product application, overcoming previous obstacles such as mRNA instability and immunogenicity."

    Let's be perfectly clear: The rapid development and authorization of mRNA vaccines was not a triumph over previous developmental obstacles, it was the triumph of untold evil and corruption over the traditional regulatory requirements and safeguards that are supposed to protect us against dangerous and ineffective drugs.

    It was a triumph over the last remnants of mainstream investigative reporting, whose practitioners have been almost entirely replaced by unthinking morons who’ll do and write whatever their Globalist-controlled employers tell them to.

    It was confirmation that the self-aggrandizing West is not a conglomerate of freedom-protecting democracies, but a centrally-controlled constellation of financially and/or sexually compromised politicians, bureaucrats and billionaire deviants who hold us in sheer contempt and not only wish to remove our freedoms but our very existence on this planet.


    A few sentences later, McCullough et al effectively acknowledge that obstacle-crushing mRNA technology isn’t so great after all, when they write:

    “The stability of mRNA vaccines, their pervasive distribution, and the longevity of the encapsulated mRNA along with unlimited production of the damaging and potentially lethal Spike (S) protein call for strategies to mitigate potential adverse effects.”

    In plain English: “The mRNA gene therapies are dangerous garbage that have caused untold illness and death. We need an effective strategy to treat the poor bastards who have been injected with this poison.”

    It seems McCullough’s Spike Support is about as effective as a fishnet condom, because nowhere in their paper do he and his co-authors discuss it as a potential remedy. Instead, the strategies they devote their paper to are gene therapies known as “small interfering RNA” (siRNA) and “ribonuclease targeting chimeras” (RIBOTACs).

    Yep, more synthetic RNA technology. Because we all know how well that worked out last time.

    These Brave New World genetic concoctions, posit the authors, may help counter the damage done by the small interfering psychopaths and “useless eater”-targeting Chimeras behind The Great Culling (in Greek mythology, the Chimera was a monstrous fire-breathing hybrid creature).

    Except McCullough et al don’t acknowledge The Great Culling, because they continue to regurgitate the insulting fairy tale that COVID was a genuine pandemic caused by the never-isolated and non-existent Sars-Cov-2.



    Some examples of highly toxic Australian and American fire-breathing Chimeras and small interfering psychopaths.
    Silencers: Not Just for Guns Anymore

    At this point you’re probably asking, “What the heck are siRNA and RIBOTACs?”

    Discovered in 1998, small interfering RNAs, sometimes known as short interfering RNAs or silencing RNAs, are noncoding RNAs with important roles in gene regulation.

    The initially double-stranded siRNA gets into cells, becomes part of what is dubbed the RNA-Induced Silencing Complex (RISC), and is unwound to form single stranded siRNA. It's now fit for duty to go out and find a complementary mRNA. Once the single stranded siRNA binds to its target mRNA, it induces mRNA cleavage.

    No, it doesn't give the mRNA a breast lift; "cleavage" in the world of science means to cut something up. Don't ask me why they don't just say that outright.

    Anyways, once the mRNA is cut, it is recognized as abnormal by the cell. The cell goes into garbage disposal mode and further degrades the mRNA, which prevents translation of the mRNA into amino acids and then proteins. This is what the gene "silencing" and “interfering” terminology refers to. Like a mafia informant who gets brutally shanked and can no longer talk to the feds, siRNA-sliced mRNA can no longer translate its encoded instructions into functioning proteins.

    Sorry, that was a somewhat gory analogy. You’ll have to excuse me, I'm back in Australia at the moment, a gray, soulless Masonic pit of substance abuse and mental illness that is run, policed and adjudicated by some of GloboPedo's most enthusiastically obedient deviants.

    But I digress.

    And RIBOTACs? What the hell are they?

    RIBOTACs are a new, man-made class of small molecules that have the potential to target diverse types of RNAs. In 2018, Scripps Institute researchers reported they were able to modify a small molecule to recruit a nuclease to a specific gene transcript, triggering its destruction.

    In plain English: Researchers continue to develop ‘novel’ ways to screw around with your genes.

    McCullough and co-authors speculate that it might be possible to develop siRNA and RIBOTAC gene therapies that will act as little vaxxx mRNA-munching Pacmen (or Pacpersons/PacTheys/PacThems/ma vaffanculo to all you anally-retentive, pronoun-confused PC-types).

    Sounds great, but there’s a wee problem.

    Warn the authors, "despite their numerous advantages, substantial obstacles must be surmounted to effectively harness the power of siRNAs. Barriers to the successful implementation of siRNAs as a therapeutic intervention include their susceptibility to degradation by endogenous nucleases in serum, rapid renal clearance, activation of the innate immune system, plasma protein sequestration and entrapment by the reticuloendothelial system (RES), membrane impermeability, endosomal entrapment and off-target effects."

    In inglés normal: This strategy is purely speculative and theoretical. There is no actual evidence siRNA and RIBOTACs can effectively treat vaxxx injuries. In fact, when you look at the research closely, there is no solid evidence these technologies can treat anything effectively. To top it all off, these technologies presently have numerous shortcomings that preclude their efficacy and may lead to "off-target effects", which is a polite way of saying nasty-ass side effects.

    As proof this fledgling technology could actually work, McCullough and co offer two examples of current siRNA drugs.

    Yup, this stuff is already appearing on the market thanks to the industry-funded shonks at the FDA.

    The first is Inclisiran (trade name Leqvio®) which has received FDA approval as a treatment for the utter non-disease of hypercholesterolemia. It’s very important to ‘treat’ this non-disease effectively, because studies repeatedly show that in over-60s (the demographic in which most heart attacks occur), people with high cholesterol levels (including the so-called “bad” LDL) outlive those with low levels.

    Did you forget there was a Great Culling going on?

    The authors write “seven clinical trials have shown this siRNA therapy to be safe and well-tolerated for long-term administration.” It allegedly did this in conflict of interest-riddled studies conducted by original developer Alnylam Pharmaceuticals and Novartis, which licensed the rights to inclisiran from the former.

    Mean duration of this "long-term administration" was 2.8 years. During that time, inclirisan completely failed to show any tangible clinical benefit.

    Even the hopelessly corrupt FDA, which approved this junk, quietly admits “The effect of Leqvio on cardiovascular morbidity (suffering from a disease) and mortality (death) has not been determined.”

    In other words, taking inclirisan means an increased risk of adverse drug effects and no established health benefit. The only people guaranteed to benefit from this product are those who sell it, at a cost of US $6,500 a year.

    Every single one of the 11 authors of the post hoc analysis McCullough and co cite as evidence of inclirisan being Safe & Effective™ have lengthy links to Big Pharma. Five, in fact, were employees of Novartis at the time the analysis was performed. All the authors enjoyed financial largesse from an array of drug companies that included … take a big deep breath … Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, The Medicines Company, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Pfizer, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, Kowa, Corvidia Therapeutics, Esperion, Genentech, OMEICOS, Novo Nordisk, LIB Therapeutics, Daiichi-Sankyo, New Amsterdam Pharma, TenSixteen Bio, Berlin-Chemie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Singulex, Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, Dr Beckmann Pharma, Bayer, HLS, Merck/Merck Sharp and Dohme, Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Cipla, Algorithm, Zuelling Pharma, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Cerenis Therapeutics, Akcea Therapeutics, Silence Therapeutics, Takeda, AbbVie and Resverlogix.

    In addition, one of the authors, Gregory G. Schwartz, is co-holder of a patent titled "Methods for Reducing Cardiovascular Risk." The patent revolves around the monoclonal antibody drug alirocumab which, like inclirisan, is a cholesterol-lowering drug whose mechanism of action is inhibition of a gene known as PCSK9.

    Like inclirisan, alirocumab does not save lives but comes with all the usual side effects attendant with cholesterol-lowering.

    Like inclirisan, alicrocumab is an out-and-out rort. When alirocumab and fellow useless PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab hit the market in 2015, the retail cost was an absurd $14,000 per year. After many health insurance providers refused to pay for them, their price tag magically dropped by 60%.

    The amount of trust I have in such a conflict of interest-plagued panel of pharma-owned researchers when they claim the ineffective inclirisan is “safe and well-tolerated”?

    Absolute zero.

    Indeed, when you pull up the Supplementary Material and scroll down to page 23, you quickly learn why the all-cause mortality figure wasn’t included in the analysis’ main paper.

    During a mean exposure period of 2.8 years, 24 (0.7%) of inclirisan subjects died, compared to 3 (0.2%) of placebo subjects during an average exposure period of 1.35 years. When calculated in terms of "exposure-adjusted incidence rates," the death rates in the inclirisan and placebo groups were 0.24% and 0.11%, respectively.

    In other words, the "safe and well-tolerated" inclirisan more than doubled the death rate when compared to placebo.

    Patisiran Poppycock

    The other drug that McCullough et al put forward as an example of "safe and well-tolerated" siRNA treatment is patisiran (Onpattro®), which received FDA approval in 2018 for the treatment of polyneuropathy in patients with hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis.

    Just like inclirisan, the clinical evidence supposedly showing this drug to be hunky dory is the same old suspicious rot produced by the hopelessly flawed and demonstrably corrupt system in which drug companies conduct their own trials, get approval from their FDA buddies, pay ghost-writing outfits to draft the application and journal papers, while the rest of us are supposed to stick our heads up our keesters and pretend the drug really was shown to be safe and efficacious.

    The first published Phase 3 trial claiming safety and efficacy for patisiran appeared in the New World Order England Journal of Medicine in July 2018.

    In that paper, Adams et al reported the initial results of the “APOLLO” trial which, of course, was funded by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. The study's lead author is David Adams, who has received "consulting honoraria from Isis, Alnylam, received fees from Pfizer for participating to symposium, is participating as principal investigator for trials with ISIS and Alnylam."

    We learn from the paper’s full text that “The first author and sponsor-employed authors prepared the first draft with editorial assistance provided by Adelphi Communications, under contract with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.”

    Adelphi Communications is one of the countless “communication” outfits contracted by drug companies that do everything from oversee the recruitment and day-to-day operation of clinical trials to ghost-writing journal papers. Like most businesses in the private sector, the success of these companies revolves around pleasing their customers. The way to please drug companies is not by telling the truth about their dangerous and toxic products - it is by chopping and changing the data and writing up journal papers in a manner that portrays these products as safe and effective.

    A close read of the paper raises eyebrows.

    Partirisan, claim the authors, fared better than placebo on every outcome.

    The researchers also claim the incidence of “any adverse event” was identical between groups (97% each). They also claimed a lower rate of adverse cardiovascular events in the partirisan group. Hold that thought - we’ll return to it later.

    The most important outcome of all is overall mortality. The researchers report that seven patisiran patients (5%) and six placebo patients (8%) died during the 18-month trial.

    In 2020, the APOLLO researchers published another paper reporting on the 225 subjects randomized to receive either patisiran or placebo. In this paper, we are told 6 (4%) patisiran subjects died at 18 months, compared to 4 (5%) of placebo subjects.

    In 2022, researchers published results from the HELIOS-A trial. The randomized, Phase 3, open-label (non-blinded) study enrolled 164 patients; 42 received patisiran, 77 served as a control subjects, and 122 received Alnylam's new wonder siRNA concoction called vutrisiran.

    By way of remarkable coincidence, patisiran now displayed a near-identical death rate to placebo (7.1% vs 7.8%), and a marginally higher rate of serious and severe adverse events. By way of further remarkable coincidence, the new viturisan with its fresher patent protection produced a mere 1.6% death rate and a far lower rate of adverse events.

    Amazing.

    Or complete bollocks, depending on how schooled you are in the conduct of Big Pharma and the researchers it owns.

    In 2023, the results of the Alnylam-funded "APOLLO-B" trial were published. The main paper states that in the 12-month double-blind period, 4 deaths (2.2%) occurred in the patisiran group and 10 (5.6%) occurred in the placebo group.

    It then goes on to say that in the "safety analysis," there were five deaths (3%) in the patisiran group, and eight deaths (4%) in the placebo group.

    Seeking an explanation for these disparate figures, I opened up the trial's supplementary data. It was there I learned that in the patisiran group, four patients died during participation in the study and one died after withdrawing from the study. In the placebo group, four patients died during participation in the study and four died after study withdrawal.

    In other words, an equal number of patisiran and placebo subjects died while participating in the APOLLO-B trial.

    We also learn in the supplementary material that "Hospitalizations for any cause" were virtually identical in the two groups. In contrast to the original APOLLO trial, marginally higher rates of cardiac and cerebrovascular events occurred in the patisiran group.

    In summary, the only data claiming patisiran (and vutrisiran) benefits transthyretin amyloidosis patients just happens to come from trials conducted by the drug’s developer, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, and the pharma-friendly researchers on its payroll. The suspect data from these trials fails to show any clear mortality benefit, which makes one wonder what the death data would’ve looked like had the trials been conducted by independent researchers with no vested interest in the results.

    Useless inclirisan and doubtful patisiran, it bears reiterating, are the two drugs put forward by McCullough et al as successful examples of siRNA technology.

    Lipid Nanopoison

    Now here’s the real cracker.

    Patisiran, which McCullough et al present as an example of a “safe and well-tolerated” siRNA product, contains lipid nanoparticles (LNPs).

    As do the most widely-deployed COVID gene therapies; namely, the Pfizer and Moderna kill shots.

    McCullough, you will recall, has made a lucrative name for himself as a staunch anti-mRNA vaxxx commentator. After reading the paper he co-authored with Hulscher and Marotta, I began to wonder if he suffered transient global amnesia (a known statin side effect) when drafting the paper.

    That paper lavishes praise upon LNPs and how they admirably transformed the useless and dangerous gene therapies that failed to garner approval into useless and dangerous gene therapies that garnered emergency use authorizations. Okay, that’s not exactly how they described it, but that’s exactly what happened.

    Their incessant praise of LNPs as an “adjuvant” that could help do the same for vaxxxMRNA-gobbling siRNA drugs is nothing short of mind-boggling.

    “Adjuvant,” by the way, is ScienceSpeak for a toxic substance disguised as an ingredient that allegedly improves the ‘immunogenicity’ of a vaccine. Anyone who believes injecting people with stuff like thimerosal, squalene or polyethylene glycol is truly going to benefit their immunity should probably start shopping around for a brain transplant.

    Way back in December 2020, within a week of the Pfizer kill shot being unleashed in the US, the LNP polyethylene glycol (PEG) was named as a likely cause of life-threatening anaphylaxis that occurred after injection with the democide drug.

    The issue, of course, has been swept under the carpet and PEG remains in the poison darts. As researchers recently pointed out, no studies have been undertaken to characterize the inflammatory reactions induced by the PEG-containing 'vaccine' platform. So the researchers tested a lipid nanoparticle formula made by Acuitas Therapeutics, who licenses its LNP technology to Pfizer.

    They gave mice the Acuitas poison formula, via intradermal and intramuscular injection, which "led to rapid and robust inflammatory responses, characterized by massive neutrophil infiltration, activation of diverse inflammatory pathways, and production of various inflammatory cytokines and chemokines."

    In Queen's English: This most questionable substance caused these most unfortunate mice an inordinate amount of physiological bother.

    In fact, when the mice were forced to ingest this junk via their snouts, they experienced an inordinate amount of death.

    "The same dose of LNP delivered intranasally," noted the researchers, "led to similar inflammatory responses in the lung and resulted in a high mortality rate."

    Coming soon: Intranasal vaccines with extra-strength LNP, brought to you by the friendly megalomaniacs at GloboPedo!

    In Summary

    For a guy who supposedly wants you to be healthy, Peter McCullough has a bizarre habit of recommending toxic pharma junk and awarding praise to dubious gene therapies that are light years away from proving themselves safe and effective.

    There are two possible reasons for this.

    One is that he is not very good at reading research and, like many doctors and cardiologists, is simply a brainwashed product of the pharma-owned and -operated medical system.

    The other possibility is that he is controlled opposition carefully packaged to look like your respectable Uncle Ronald. Instead of calling out the pandemic scam, he in fact helps pave the way for future shamdemics and shambolic gene therapy rollouts by proffering favourable and optimistic commentary on what has so far proven to be a truly nefarious and dangerous field of ‘science.’

    For McCullough devotees offended that I dare mention the second possibility, I have this piece of advice: If you don’t want McCullough to be perceived as a possible controlled opposition figure, maybe ask him to stop acting like one.

    In the meantime, Mike Yeadon for President! Oh, wait, he’s from the UK. Damnit America, looks like you’re stuck with either Captain Warp Speed or Joe the Kiddy Fondler. As citizen of a country currently led by a vewy angwee* pwime minista who has been known to frequent Thai “Happy Ending” massage parlours to rewieve the stwess of fedwal powitics, I feel your pain.

    *PM Elmer Fudd is still vewy angwee dat wascawwy Austwalians voted ovawelmingwee against his pawly expwained “Voice” wefewendum. PM Fudd had a wot widing on dat wefewendum, and his land-gwabbing gwobawist masters are vewy upset dat it fayled.

    Share

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-145590321
    Dr Peter McCullough Recommends Dodgey Synthetic siRNA Jabs to Counter Effects of Dodgey Synthetic mRNA Jabs You're in great hands, health freedom movement! Not. Anthony Colpo The Medical Freedom Movement is full of suspicious characters. So suspicious you'd almost think the movement has been captured, or even commandeered from the outset, by the same people who brought us the 2020 blockbuster "The Great Culling: This Time, it’s Global!” There's Steve Kirsch, the DARPA teen protege and Rockefeller-linked buffoon famous for The Most Important Surveys You'll Ever Do!!, big money challenges he has no intention of fulfilling, surveillance state and CBDC technology, and aggressive promotion of the highly toxic, suicide-inducing SSRI fluvoxamine. There's Robert "Sly" Malone, the self-proclaimed inventor of "mRNA vaccine technology" who cries hard-done-by while swimming around in billion$ of grant money from the US Military (major enablers of the globalist death shot campaign), all while pretending claiming to be an injured vaxxx victim. There's Brett Weinstein, who helped propel Kirsch and Malone into stardom with his June 11, 2021 Darkhorse Podcast. In this creepy snippet from his Tucker Carlson interview, Weinstein gushes like a lovesick teen over mRNA technology. Such impassioned praise for a technology with a 30-year track record of failure, one that was successfully deployed to trigger accelerated death and disability around the world, is extremely curious for someone presenting as a health freedom fighter. There's Dr Ryan Cole who, at "the first Conversation on Covid" in Puerto Rico September 2021, emphatically emphasized “Covid is a clotting disease. Covid is a clotting disease. Covid is a clotting disease.” In case you didn't catch it the first three times, Cole reckons COVID is a clotting disease. Bollocks. COVID is regular cold, flu and pneumonia renamed and packaged as an uber-deadly new threat. They are not "clotting diseases" but respiratory ailments. What is a clotting disease is the common and now well-documented life-threatening thrombosis caused by the Unsafe and Ineffective gene therapies to treat the renamed COVID caused by the never-isolated Sars-Cov-2. Despite this clotting effect of the vaxxxines being well-established by September 2021, Cole preferred to blame the phenomenon on 'COVID.' With health freedom heroes like this, who needs villains? The “remarkable” San Juan “Covid Conversation” where health freedom spokespeople not chosen by you acted as if COVID was real and not a globalist psy-op. There's Dr Pierre Kory who, at the same star-studded gathering of pandemic shills, described COVID, the artist formerly known as Cold’n’Flu, as "the most complex and most violent disease that I have seen and the most difficult to treat in the ICU.” COVID: Once a simple cold you sat out with some hot tea, lemon juice and Vaporub, now the most complex and violent thug of a disease the world of medicine has ever seen! If the madicine gig ever stops working out for Kory, he should migrate to Australia and get a job as a SAPOL prosecutor - with such an unbridled capacity for egregious nonsense, he'd fit right in. Dr Pierre Kory, supposed member of the Health Freedom Movement, pushing the mask farce in uber-mainstream USA Today. The ‘Respectable’ Face of Pandemic and Gene Therapy Propaganda? Then there's the movement's smiling enigma, Dr Peter McCullough. Depending on who you listen to, McCullough is either a controlled opposition shill or the most sincere bloke you could ever meet. Compared to some of the other suspect characters who comprise the upper echelons of the health freedom movement, there's something disarming about McCullough. He doesn't have the grating motor mouth of Kirsch, nor the sinister gaze and evil gnome vibe of Malone. McCullough appears the polar opposite of Kirsch, who comes off like the tech-nerd version of your obnoxious, balding, know-it-all Uncle Barry. The guy who slurps, farts, belches at family gatherings and blames it on the dog, and challenges his nephews to wrestling matches while drunk then refuses to concede defeat when they repeatedly pin his fat hairy shoulders to the ground. McCullough seems more like your Uncle Ronald, the successful physician who arrives at family gatherings with your charmingly demure and well-liked Auntie Mary in his late model Jaguar. He doesn't act like a bogan, doesn't antagonize his nephews, and generally presents as a jovial, amicable, clean-living guy. But from behind McCullough's disarming facade there emanates some very dubious claims. I started to smell the pungent odour of pharma-sponsored allopathic bullpoop, extra-strength version, when McCullough claimed toxic statin drugs reduced the risk of dementia and Alzheimers Disease. Anyone who even pretends to care about health and medical freedom has no business praising toxic and ineffective garbage like cholesterol-lowering statins. To make his claim, McCullough had to ignore the substantial volume of clinical trial evidence showing both low cholesterol and cholesterol reduction via statins not only fail to prevent dementia and Alzheimers Disease, but often result in cognitive and neurological harms. Cholesterol is an integral component of your brain and nerve sheaths - claiming you can prevent cognitive and neurological decline by lowering cholesterol is like claiming your car will drive further and longer after you drain half the fuel from the tank. It is an inherently absurd and false thing to claim. McCullough, however, appears to have no issue with making inherently absurd and false claims. Because the RCT evidence wouldn't support his beloved statins, he instead based his untenable claims entirely upon a a 2022 meta-analysis of epidemiological studies by Italian researchers - two of whom have extensive ties to pharma companies, including cholesterol-lowering drug manufacturers like Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Servier and Sanofi-Regeneron. Just brilliant. No matter how you wish to frame it, McCullough has benefited handsomely from the Big Pharma buy-an-opinion system in which ‘thought leaders’ are lavishly remunerated via speaking fees and ‘consulting’ arrangements. Since 2016, he has received over US $1.6 million in pharma largesse. While McCullough’s declared pharma funding did decline during the peak years of Covidiocy, this was replaced with a lucrative new career of worldwide COVID speaking engagements and supplement sales. For a guy who was allegedly ‘cancelled,’ McCullough sure got a lot of coverage. Others like Michael Yeadon, the former Pfizer executive with the pelotas to come out and identify the poison prick campaign for what it really was - a mass homicide event predicated upon a non-existent virus - curiously got nowhere near the exposure enjoyed by McCullough (and fellow pandemic shills like Kirsch and Malone). McCullough enthusiastically pimps what he calls “The McCullough Protocol.” This protocol includes his highly-priced “Spike Support” supplement (US $64.99 for a 60-day supply) which contains the following substances (bold emphases added): Nattokinase (“a proteolytic enzyme with fibrinolytic (anti-clotting) effects, that may maintain a healthy immune system”) Dandelion root (“may support cellular defense”) Selenium (“may help reduce stress, aiding the body repair itself and recover”) Black sativa extract (“may facilitate cellular repair”) Green tea extract (“may add defenses at the cellular level through scavenging for free radicals”) Irish sea moss (“is mineral-rich and may help rebuild damaged tissue and muscle”) It’s hard to think of a flimsier basis for promoting this motley array of ingredients as a vaxxx detox formula. Using the same rationale for Irish sea moss (“is mineral-rich and may help rebuild damaged tissue and muscle”), one might as well recommend a thick, juicy steak as a “Spike” detox. None of these ingredients have been shown in anything resembling a controlled scientific study to help ameliorate post-vaxxxine injuries. Green tea extract, in fact, has a solid track record of causing liver toxicity and is a great supplement to avoid the hell out of - a woefully ignored issue I discuss in detail here. McCullough’s Recent Spike in Dubious Gene Therapy Claims On April 19, 2023, McCullough posted a brief Substack about a paper by Matthew Halma, Jessica Rose and Theresa Lawrie titled "The Novelty of mRNA Viral Vaccines and Potential Harms: A Scoping Review." McCullough repeated the paper’s title as headline for his own article, adding his own byline of “mRNA Off to a Bad Start but Future may be Brighter.” McCullough’s article employed the same “we must keep an open mind, remain balanced, and not paint issues with a broad brush” shtick that he employed in his hopelessly wrong statin article. I agree it’s good to keep an open mind - but not so open that your brains fall out. “The Halma paper,” claims McCullough, “points out that safe mRNA products are possible.” Here’s what the paper actually said: “If harm can be exclusively and conclusively attributed to the spike protein, then it is possible that future mRNA vaccines expressing other antigens will be safe.” (Bold emphasis added) McCullough apparently couldn’t find it within himself to neither highlight nor discuss the statement that immediately followed: “If harms are attributable to the platform itself, then regardless of the toxicity, or lack thereof, of the antigen to be expressed, the platform may be inherently unsafe, pending modification.” (Bold emphasis added) The McCullough interpretation makes it sound as if safe and effective mRNA drugs are just around the corner; what Halma et al wrote is a far more heavily qualified statement that speculates a possible scenario in which the drugs could be considered safe. If that specific condition isn’t met, they posit that the technology may be inherently dangerous, period. It’s rather precious to bang on about the importance of maintaining a balanced viewpoint while leaving that key detail out… So is mRNA technology inherently flawed, or is it a brilliant idea that just needs a few wrinkles ironed out before it starts saving millions of lives? After more than 30 years of research, mRNA technology failed to produce even a single, safe effective drug that made it through mandatory Phase 3 trials and garnered a New Drug Approval. Heck, none of this junk ever made it past the Phase 2 stage. The only reason the COVID gene therapies made it to market was thanks to the monumental scam known as COVID, which allowed the criminals in charge to declare a sniffles ‘emergency’ and rush the drugs through via the “Emergency Use Authorization” Trojan horse. The aftermath of the gene therapy rollout has been untold misery, morbidity and a global excess death toll estimated, at last count, between 18 and 35 million people. The kind of body count that would make Genghis Khan and Chairman Mao proud. To say mRNA is “Off to a Bad Start” is a monumental understatement. To say the future for mRNA technology may be brighter when that technology is still under the control of the same GloboPedo-Pharma-Military-Industrial Complex that bought us the COVID psy-op and Poison Prick democide fills me with about as much optimism as a family of crackheads moving in next door. Using Dodgy Novel Gene Therapies to Counter the Effects of Dodgy Novel Gene Therapies McCullough isn’t letting up on the idea that highly problematic gene therapies could be just what the doctor ordered. Recently, he and colleagues Nicolas Hulscher and Diane Marotta published a preprint titled “Strategic Deactivation of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines: New Applications for RIBOTACs and siRNA Therapy.” According to McCullough, Hulscher and Marotta: "The rapid development and authorization of mRNA vaccines by Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and Moderna (mRNA-1273) in 2020 marked a significant milestone in human mRNA product application, overcoming previous obstacles such as mRNA instability and immunogenicity." Let's be perfectly clear: The rapid development and authorization of mRNA vaccines was not a triumph over previous developmental obstacles, it was the triumph of untold evil and corruption over the traditional regulatory requirements and safeguards that are supposed to protect us against dangerous and ineffective drugs. It was a triumph over the last remnants of mainstream investigative reporting, whose practitioners have been almost entirely replaced by unthinking morons who’ll do and write whatever their Globalist-controlled employers tell them to. It was confirmation that the self-aggrandizing West is not a conglomerate of freedom-protecting democracies, but a centrally-controlled constellation of financially and/or sexually compromised politicians, bureaucrats and billionaire deviants who hold us in sheer contempt and not only wish to remove our freedoms but our very existence on this planet. A few sentences later, McCullough et al effectively acknowledge that obstacle-crushing mRNA technology isn’t so great after all, when they write: “The stability of mRNA vaccines, their pervasive distribution, and the longevity of the encapsulated mRNA along with unlimited production of the damaging and potentially lethal Spike (S) protein call for strategies to mitigate potential adverse effects.” In plain English: “The mRNA gene therapies are dangerous garbage that have caused untold illness and death. We need an effective strategy to treat the poor bastards who have been injected with this poison.” It seems McCullough’s Spike Support is about as effective as a fishnet condom, because nowhere in their paper do he and his co-authors discuss it as a potential remedy. Instead, the strategies they devote their paper to are gene therapies known as “small interfering RNA” (siRNA) and “ribonuclease targeting chimeras” (RIBOTACs). Yep, more synthetic RNA technology. Because we all know how well that worked out last time. These Brave New World genetic concoctions, posit the authors, may help counter the damage done by the small interfering psychopaths and “useless eater”-targeting Chimeras behind The Great Culling (in Greek mythology, the Chimera was a monstrous fire-breathing hybrid creature). Except McCullough et al don’t acknowledge The Great Culling, because they continue to regurgitate the insulting fairy tale that COVID was a genuine pandemic caused by the never-isolated and non-existent Sars-Cov-2. Some examples of highly toxic Australian and American fire-breathing Chimeras and small interfering psychopaths. Silencers: Not Just for Guns Anymore At this point you’re probably asking, “What the heck are siRNA and RIBOTACs?” Discovered in 1998, small interfering RNAs, sometimes known as short interfering RNAs or silencing RNAs, are noncoding RNAs with important roles in gene regulation. The initially double-stranded siRNA gets into cells, becomes part of what is dubbed the RNA-Induced Silencing Complex (RISC), and is unwound to form single stranded siRNA. It's now fit for duty to go out and find a complementary mRNA. Once the single stranded siRNA binds to its target mRNA, it induces mRNA cleavage. No, it doesn't give the mRNA a breast lift; "cleavage" in the world of science means to cut something up. Don't ask me why they don't just say that outright. Anyways, once the mRNA is cut, it is recognized as abnormal by the cell. The cell goes into garbage disposal mode and further degrades the mRNA, which prevents translation of the mRNA into amino acids and then proteins. This is what the gene "silencing" and “interfering” terminology refers to. Like a mafia informant who gets brutally shanked and can no longer talk to the feds, siRNA-sliced mRNA can no longer translate its encoded instructions into functioning proteins. Sorry, that was a somewhat gory analogy. You’ll have to excuse me, I'm back in Australia at the moment, a gray, soulless Masonic pit of substance abuse and mental illness that is run, policed and adjudicated by some of GloboPedo's most enthusiastically obedient deviants. But I digress. And RIBOTACs? What the hell are they? RIBOTACs are a new, man-made class of small molecules that have the potential to target diverse types of RNAs. In 2018, Scripps Institute researchers reported they were able to modify a small molecule to recruit a nuclease to a specific gene transcript, triggering its destruction. In plain English: Researchers continue to develop ‘novel’ ways to screw around with your genes. McCullough and co-authors speculate that it might be possible to develop siRNA and RIBOTAC gene therapies that will act as little vaxxx mRNA-munching Pacmen (or Pacpersons/PacTheys/PacThems/ma vaffanculo to all you anally-retentive, pronoun-confused PC-types). Sounds great, but there’s a wee problem. Warn the authors, "despite their numerous advantages, substantial obstacles must be surmounted to effectively harness the power of siRNAs. Barriers to the successful implementation of siRNAs as a therapeutic intervention include their susceptibility to degradation by endogenous nucleases in serum, rapid renal clearance, activation of the innate immune system, plasma protein sequestration and entrapment by the reticuloendothelial system (RES), membrane impermeability, endosomal entrapment and off-target effects." In inglés normal: This strategy is purely speculative and theoretical. There is no actual evidence siRNA and RIBOTACs can effectively treat vaxxx injuries. In fact, when you look at the research closely, there is no solid evidence these technologies can treat anything effectively. To top it all off, these technologies presently have numerous shortcomings that preclude their efficacy and may lead to "off-target effects", which is a polite way of saying nasty-ass side effects. As proof this fledgling technology could actually work, McCullough and co offer two examples of current siRNA drugs. Yup, this stuff is already appearing on the market thanks to the industry-funded shonks at the FDA. The first is Inclisiran (trade name Leqvio®) which has received FDA approval as a treatment for the utter non-disease of hypercholesterolemia. It’s very important to ‘treat’ this non-disease effectively, because studies repeatedly show that in over-60s (the demographic in which most heart attacks occur), people with high cholesterol levels (including the so-called “bad” LDL) outlive those with low levels. Did you forget there was a Great Culling going on? The authors write “seven clinical trials have shown this siRNA therapy to be safe and well-tolerated for long-term administration.” It allegedly did this in conflict of interest-riddled studies conducted by original developer Alnylam Pharmaceuticals and Novartis, which licensed the rights to inclisiran from the former. Mean duration of this "long-term administration" was 2.8 years. During that time, inclirisan completely failed to show any tangible clinical benefit. Even the hopelessly corrupt FDA, which approved this junk, quietly admits “The effect of Leqvio on cardiovascular morbidity (suffering from a disease) and mortality (death) has not been determined.” In other words, taking inclirisan means an increased risk of adverse drug effects and no established health benefit. The only people guaranteed to benefit from this product are those who sell it, at a cost of US $6,500 a year. Every single one of the 11 authors of the post hoc analysis McCullough and co cite as evidence of inclirisan being Safe & Effective™ have lengthy links to Big Pharma. Five, in fact, were employees of Novartis at the time the analysis was performed. All the authors enjoyed financial largesse from an array of drug companies that included … take a big deep breath … Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, The Medicines Company, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Pfizer, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, Kowa, Corvidia Therapeutics, Esperion, Genentech, OMEICOS, Novo Nordisk, LIB Therapeutics, Daiichi-Sankyo, New Amsterdam Pharma, TenSixteen Bio, Berlin-Chemie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Singulex, Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, Dr Beckmann Pharma, Bayer, HLS, Merck/Merck Sharp and Dohme, Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Cipla, Algorithm, Zuelling Pharma, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Cerenis Therapeutics, Akcea Therapeutics, Silence Therapeutics, Takeda, AbbVie and Resverlogix. In addition, one of the authors, Gregory G. Schwartz, is co-holder of a patent titled "Methods for Reducing Cardiovascular Risk." The patent revolves around the monoclonal antibody drug alirocumab which, like inclirisan, is a cholesterol-lowering drug whose mechanism of action is inhibition of a gene known as PCSK9. Like inclirisan, alirocumab does not save lives but comes with all the usual side effects attendant with cholesterol-lowering. Like inclirisan, alicrocumab is an out-and-out rort. When alirocumab and fellow useless PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab hit the market in 2015, the retail cost was an absurd $14,000 per year. After many health insurance providers refused to pay for them, their price tag magically dropped by 60%. The amount of trust I have in such a conflict of interest-plagued panel of pharma-owned researchers when they claim the ineffective inclirisan is “safe and well-tolerated”? Absolute zero. Indeed, when you pull up the Supplementary Material and scroll down to page 23, you quickly learn why the all-cause mortality figure wasn’t included in the analysis’ main paper. During a mean exposure period of 2.8 years, 24 (0.7%) of inclirisan subjects died, compared to 3 (0.2%) of placebo subjects during an average exposure period of 1.35 years. When calculated in terms of "exposure-adjusted incidence rates," the death rates in the inclirisan and placebo groups were 0.24% and 0.11%, respectively. In other words, the "safe and well-tolerated" inclirisan more than doubled the death rate when compared to placebo. Patisiran Poppycock The other drug that McCullough et al put forward as an example of "safe and well-tolerated" siRNA treatment is patisiran (Onpattro®), which received FDA approval in 2018 for the treatment of polyneuropathy in patients with hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis. Just like inclirisan, the clinical evidence supposedly showing this drug to be hunky dory is the same old suspicious rot produced by the hopelessly flawed and demonstrably corrupt system in which drug companies conduct their own trials, get approval from their FDA buddies, pay ghost-writing outfits to draft the application and journal papers, while the rest of us are supposed to stick our heads up our keesters and pretend the drug really was shown to be safe and efficacious. The first published Phase 3 trial claiming safety and efficacy for patisiran appeared in the New World Order England Journal of Medicine in July 2018. In that paper, Adams et al reported the initial results of the “APOLLO” trial which, of course, was funded by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. The study's lead author is David Adams, who has received "consulting honoraria from Isis, Alnylam, received fees from Pfizer for participating to symposium, is participating as principal investigator for trials with ISIS and Alnylam." We learn from the paper’s full text that “The first author and sponsor-employed authors prepared the first draft with editorial assistance provided by Adelphi Communications, under contract with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.” Adelphi Communications is one of the countless “communication” outfits contracted by drug companies that do everything from oversee the recruitment and day-to-day operation of clinical trials to ghost-writing journal papers. Like most businesses in the private sector, the success of these companies revolves around pleasing their customers. The way to please drug companies is not by telling the truth about their dangerous and toxic products - it is by chopping and changing the data and writing up journal papers in a manner that portrays these products as safe and effective. A close read of the paper raises eyebrows. Partirisan, claim the authors, fared better than placebo on every outcome. The researchers also claim the incidence of “any adverse event” was identical between groups (97% each). They also claimed a lower rate of adverse cardiovascular events in the partirisan group. Hold that thought - we’ll return to it later. The most important outcome of all is overall mortality. The researchers report that seven patisiran patients (5%) and six placebo patients (8%) died during the 18-month trial. In 2020, the APOLLO researchers published another paper reporting on the 225 subjects randomized to receive either patisiran or placebo. In this paper, we are told 6 (4%) patisiran subjects died at 18 months, compared to 4 (5%) of placebo subjects. In 2022, researchers published results from the HELIOS-A trial. The randomized, Phase 3, open-label (non-blinded) study enrolled 164 patients; 42 received patisiran, 77 served as a control subjects, and 122 received Alnylam's new wonder siRNA concoction called vutrisiran. By way of remarkable coincidence, patisiran now displayed a near-identical death rate to placebo (7.1% vs 7.8%), and a marginally higher rate of serious and severe adverse events. By way of further remarkable coincidence, the new viturisan with its fresher patent protection produced a mere 1.6% death rate and a far lower rate of adverse events. Amazing. Or complete bollocks, depending on how schooled you are in the conduct of Big Pharma and the researchers it owns. In 2023, the results of the Alnylam-funded "APOLLO-B" trial were published. The main paper states that in the 12-month double-blind period, 4 deaths (2.2%) occurred in the patisiran group and 10 (5.6%) occurred in the placebo group. It then goes on to say that in the "safety analysis," there were five deaths (3%) in the patisiran group, and eight deaths (4%) in the placebo group. Seeking an explanation for these disparate figures, I opened up the trial's supplementary data. It was there I learned that in the patisiran group, four patients died during participation in the study and one died after withdrawing from the study. In the placebo group, four patients died during participation in the study and four died after study withdrawal. In other words, an equal number of patisiran and placebo subjects died while participating in the APOLLO-B trial. We also learn in the supplementary material that "Hospitalizations for any cause" were virtually identical in the two groups. In contrast to the original APOLLO trial, marginally higher rates of cardiac and cerebrovascular events occurred in the patisiran group. In summary, the only data claiming patisiran (and vutrisiran) benefits transthyretin amyloidosis patients just happens to come from trials conducted by the drug’s developer, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, and the pharma-friendly researchers on its payroll. The suspect data from these trials fails to show any clear mortality benefit, which makes one wonder what the death data would’ve looked like had the trials been conducted by independent researchers with no vested interest in the results. Useless inclirisan and doubtful patisiran, it bears reiterating, are the two drugs put forward by McCullough et al as successful examples of siRNA technology. Lipid Nanopoison Now here’s the real cracker. Patisiran, which McCullough et al present as an example of a “safe and well-tolerated” siRNA product, contains lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). As do the most widely-deployed COVID gene therapies; namely, the Pfizer and Moderna kill shots. McCullough, you will recall, has made a lucrative name for himself as a staunch anti-mRNA vaxxx commentator. After reading the paper he co-authored with Hulscher and Marotta, I began to wonder if he suffered transient global amnesia (a known statin side effect) when drafting the paper. That paper lavishes praise upon LNPs and how they admirably transformed the useless and dangerous gene therapies that failed to garner approval into useless and dangerous gene therapies that garnered emergency use authorizations. Okay, that’s not exactly how they described it, but that’s exactly what happened. Their incessant praise of LNPs as an “adjuvant” that could help do the same for vaxxxMRNA-gobbling siRNA drugs is nothing short of mind-boggling. “Adjuvant,” by the way, is ScienceSpeak for a toxic substance disguised as an ingredient that allegedly improves the ‘immunogenicity’ of a vaccine. Anyone who believes injecting people with stuff like thimerosal, squalene or polyethylene glycol is truly going to benefit their immunity should probably start shopping around for a brain transplant. Way back in December 2020, within a week of the Pfizer kill shot being unleashed in the US, the LNP polyethylene glycol (PEG) was named as a likely cause of life-threatening anaphylaxis that occurred after injection with the democide drug. The issue, of course, has been swept under the carpet and PEG remains in the poison darts. As researchers recently pointed out, no studies have been undertaken to characterize the inflammatory reactions induced by the PEG-containing 'vaccine' platform. So the researchers tested a lipid nanoparticle formula made by Acuitas Therapeutics, who licenses its LNP technology to Pfizer. They gave mice the Acuitas poison formula, via intradermal and intramuscular injection, which "led to rapid and robust inflammatory responses, characterized by massive neutrophil infiltration, activation of diverse inflammatory pathways, and production of various inflammatory cytokines and chemokines." In Queen's English: This most questionable substance caused these most unfortunate mice an inordinate amount of physiological bother. In fact, when the mice were forced to ingest this junk via their snouts, they experienced an inordinate amount of death. "The same dose of LNP delivered intranasally," noted the researchers, "led to similar inflammatory responses in the lung and resulted in a high mortality rate." Coming soon: Intranasal vaccines with extra-strength LNP, brought to you by the friendly megalomaniacs at GloboPedo! In Summary For a guy who supposedly wants you to be healthy, Peter McCullough has a bizarre habit of recommending toxic pharma junk and awarding praise to dubious gene therapies that are light years away from proving themselves safe and effective. There are two possible reasons for this. One is that he is not very good at reading research and, like many doctors and cardiologists, is simply a brainwashed product of the pharma-owned and -operated medical system. The other possibility is that he is controlled opposition carefully packaged to look like your respectable Uncle Ronald. Instead of calling out the pandemic scam, he in fact helps pave the way for future shamdemics and shambolic gene therapy rollouts by proffering favourable and optimistic commentary on what has so far proven to be a truly nefarious and dangerous field of ‘science.’ For McCullough devotees offended that I dare mention the second possibility, I have this piece of advice: If you don’t want McCullough to be perceived as a possible controlled opposition figure, maybe ask him to stop acting like one. In the meantime, Mike Yeadon for President! Oh, wait, he’s from the UK. Damnit America, looks like you’re stuck with either Captain Warp Speed or Joe the Kiddy Fondler. As citizen of a country currently led by a vewy angwee* pwime minista who has been known to frequent Thai “Happy Ending” massage parlours to rewieve the stwess of fedwal powitics, I feel your pain. *PM Elmer Fudd is still vewy angwee dat wascawwy Austwalians voted ovawelmingwee against his pawly expwained “Voice” wefewendum. PM Fudd had a wot widing on dat wefewendum, and his land-gwabbing gwobawist masters are vewy upset dat it fayled. Share https://substack.com/home/post/p-145590321
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5598 Views
  • Mandating COVID Shots ‘One of the Greatest Mistakes,’ Former CDC Chief Says
    In a Senate hearing Thursday, ex-CDC Director Robert Redfield said mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are “toxic” and should not have been mandated. He also called for a pause on gain-of-function research.

    robert redfield and covid vaccine bottle
    COVID

    by John-Michael Dumais
    July 12, 2024

    robert redfield and covid vaccine bottle
    5497 Pageviews

    Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield confirmed the dangers of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in a U.S. Senate hearing Thursday, calling them “toxic” and saying they should never have been mandated.

    Redfield’s admissions came during a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on government oversight of taxpayer-funded high-risk virus research.

    The late admission of vaccine injuries underscores the failure of public health agencies and the medical establishment to provide informed consent to the billions of vaccine recipients worldwide.

    “It’s important that he is telling the truth now,” vaccine researcher Jessica Rose, Ph.D., told The Defender. “Adverse events were hidden and still are being hidden to prevent injection hesitancy.”

    Redfield, who led the CDC from 2018 to 2021, didn’t stop there. He declared biosecurity “our nation’s greatest national security threat,” calling for a halt to gain-of-function research pending further debate.

    The hearing, which featured contentious exchanges between senators and witnesses, also touched on controversial topics such as the COVID-19 origins lab-leak theory and allegations that health agencies suppressed data.

    Hand in glove holding vaccine
    The Vaccine Safety Project

    Learn More

    mRNA vax ‘should have been open to personal choice’

    During the hearing Redfield, who oversaw the CDC during the crucial early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, elaborated on his recent statements about mRNA vaccine safety.

    “I do think one of the greatest mistakes that was made, of course, was mandating these vaccines,” Redfield said. “They should have never been mandated. It should have been open to personal choice.”

    Redfield went further, admitting that the spike protein produced by mRNA vaccines is “toxic to the body” and triggers “a very strong pro-inflammatory response.”

    He noted that in his own medical practice, he doesn’t administer mRNA vaccines, preferring “killed protein vaccines” instead.

    Redfield’s statements stand in stark contrast to the CDC’s official stance during his tenure, which strongly promoted mRNA vaccine uptake as safe and effective.

    Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) pressed Redfield on the issue, highlighting concerning data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Johnson presented figures showing over 37,000 deaths reported following COVID-19 vaccination, with 24% occurring within two days of injection.

    Redfield acknowledged there was “not appropriate transparency from the beginning about the potential side effects of these vaccines.” He criticized attempts to “underreport any side effects because they argued that would make the public less likely to get vaccinated.”

    ‘FDA should release all of the safety data’

    Redfield’s criticism of data withholding extended beyond vaccine side effects. He expressed disappointment in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration‘s (FDA) handling of vaccine safety information.

    “The FDA should release all of the safety data they have,” Redfield said. “I was very disappointed to hear that they were planning to hold on to that until 2026. That really creates a sense of total lack of trust in our public health agencies towards vaccination.”

    Johnson echoed these concerns, revealing his frustration with the lack of follow-through by health agencies and the committee itself.

    “I’m not getting cooperation out of the chairman of the permanent subcommittee investigation to issue subpoenas to get this,” Johnson said, referring to unreleased data and documents.

    The senator displayed a chart comparing adverse event reports for various drugs, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, to those for COVID-19 vaccines. The stark contrast in reported deaths from these therapeutics — with COVID-19 vaccines showing significantly higher numbers — fueled Johnson’s demand for more transparency.

    “As important as the cover-up of the origin story is, there’s a lot more that’s being covered up,” Johnson asserted. “The public has a right to know. We pay for these agencies. We pay their salaries. We fund these studies.”

    Redfield agreed with Johnson’s assessment, stating that withholding the information is “counterproductive.”

    Gavel and money vaccines
    Did DOJ Lawyers Commit Fraud in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding?

    Learn More

    Redfield doubtful of ‘any benefit from [gain-of-function] research’

    Redfield’s testimony took another controversial turn when he called for a pause on gain-of-function research, experiments that involve making pathogens more infectious or deadly.

    “I’m not aware of any advanced therapeutic or vaccine that has come to pass because of gain-of-function research,” Redfield said. “I do think there has to be a very aggressive debate of whether there’s any benefit from that research.”

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) seized on this point, introducing his Risky Research Review Act. The bill aims to establish an independent board within the executive branch to oversee federal funding for high-risk life sciences research.

    “If the Risky Research Review Act had been in place, it might have prevented the COVID-19 pandemic,” Paul said, citing Redfield’s endorsement.

    MIT’s Kevin Esvelt, Ph.D., inventor of a technique for rapidly evolving proteins and other biomolecules who was also instrumental in developing CRISPR gene-editing technology, reinforced these concerns.

    Highlighting gaps in current oversight, he described an experiment where his team — with FBI approval — successfully ordered DNA fragments of the 1918 influenza virus from 36 of 38 providers.

    “Everything that we did and the companies did was entirely legal,” Esvelt said, underscoring the potential for misuse. “There are no laws regulating DNA synthesis, even though the industry group, the International Gene Synthesis Consortium, has requested congressional regulation.”

    The hearing revealed a growing consensus among witnesses for stricter oversight of potentially dangerous research, with Redfield suggesting such studies should be “highly regulated” to protect national security.

    Redfield reaffirms COVID lab-leak theory

    The hearing reignited debate over the origins of COVID-19, with Redfield reaffirming his belief in the lab-leak theory.

    “Based on my initial analysis, I believe then, and I still believe today, that the COVID infections were the direct result of a biomedical research experiment and subsequent lab leak,” Redfield stated.

    This assertion led to a heated exchange between Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Carrie Wolinetz, Ph.D., former chief of staff to then-director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Francis Collins. Hawley accused NIH officials of deliberately suppressing the lab-leak theory.

    “Your office, Dr. [Anthony] Fauci and others tried to actively censor them,” Hawley said. “There was a propaganda effort that this paper was the center of, and now everybody says, ‘Oh, well, we just weren’t sure at the time.’”

    Hawley referred to the 2020 “Proximal Origin” paper that argued against the lab-leak hypothesis.

    Wolinetz defended the NIH’s actions. “I do not believe censorship took place, sir.” She maintained that discussions about the virus’s origins were part of normal scientific discourse.

    Redfield, however, criticized the lack of thorough investigation into both natural origin and lab-leak hypotheses. “Unfortunately, this didn’t happen,” he said, adding that four years later, he believes there’s no meaningful evidence supporting a natural origin.

    The former CDC director also revealed that he did not learn about concerning biodistribution studies of the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles until as late as the summer of 2021, suggesting a delay in critical information reaching top health officials.

    This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.

    The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.

    Please Donate Today

    ‘Biosecurity is our nation’s greatest national security threat’

    Redfield emphasized the critical importance of biosecurity in national defense.

    “In 2024, 2025, biosecurity is our nation’s greatest national security threat,” Redfield stated. “You need to think of it the same way we thought about the verge of nuclear atomic [sic] in the late 40s, 50s, and 60s.”

    He called for a proportional response to the threat, suggesting the creation of a dedicated agency within the U.S. Department of Energy to address biosecurity concerns.

    “We have a $900 billion Defense Department for the threat of China, North Korea and Russia,” Redfield noted. “We don’t have really any systematic agency or network of private sector contractors to help us with the biosecurity threat.”

    Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) echoed this sentiment. “In my humble mind, a viral biosecurity issue is a bigger issue than China’s military threat to us.”

    Gerald Parker, DVM, Ph.D., associate dean for Global One Health at Texas A&M University, supported the call for enhanced oversight, recommending “an independent authority to consolidate secure functions in a single entity with a dedicated mission.”

    The hearing also touched on the potential for future pandemics, with Redfield repeating his warnings about the potential spread of H5N1 bird flu.

    As the hearing concluded, senators from both parties expressed concern over the lack of transparency and oversight in high-risk research.

    Paul summarized the sentiment: “We cannot stand idly by. We must demand accountability, strive for transparency and ensure the safety of our citizens is never again compromised by negligence or deceit.”

    Watch the July 11 hearing: ‘Risky Research’:



    Mandating COVID Shots ‘One of the Greatest Mistakes,’ Former CDC Chief Says • Children's Health Defense
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/robert-redfield-mrna-covid-vaccine-risk/
    Mandating COVID Shots ‘One of the Greatest Mistakes,’ Former CDC Chief Says In a Senate hearing Thursday, ex-CDC Director Robert Redfield said mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are “toxic” and should not have been mandated. He also called for a pause on gain-of-function research. robert redfield and covid vaccine bottle COVID by John-Michael Dumais July 12, 2024 robert redfield and covid vaccine bottle 5497 Pageviews Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield confirmed the dangers of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in a U.S. Senate hearing Thursday, calling them “toxic” and saying they should never have been mandated. Redfield’s admissions came during a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on government oversight of taxpayer-funded high-risk virus research. The late admission of vaccine injuries underscores the failure of public health agencies and the medical establishment to provide informed consent to the billions of vaccine recipients worldwide. “It’s important that he is telling the truth now,” vaccine researcher Jessica Rose, Ph.D., told The Defender. “Adverse events were hidden and still are being hidden to prevent injection hesitancy.” Redfield, who led the CDC from 2018 to 2021, didn’t stop there. He declared biosecurity “our nation’s greatest national security threat,” calling for a halt to gain-of-function research pending further debate. The hearing, which featured contentious exchanges between senators and witnesses, also touched on controversial topics such as the COVID-19 origins lab-leak theory and allegations that health agencies suppressed data. Hand in glove holding vaccine The Vaccine Safety Project Learn More mRNA vax ‘should have been open to personal choice’ During the hearing Redfield, who oversaw the CDC during the crucial early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, elaborated on his recent statements about mRNA vaccine safety. “I do think one of the greatest mistakes that was made, of course, was mandating these vaccines,” Redfield said. “They should have never been mandated. It should have been open to personal choice.” Redfield went further, admitting that the spike protein produced by mRNA vaccines is “toxic to the body” and triggers “a very strong pro-inflammatory response.” He noted that in his own medical practice, he doesn’t administer mRNA vaccines, preferring “killed protein vaccines” instead. Redfield’s statements stand in stark contrast to the CDC’s official stance during his tenure, which strongly promoted mRNA vaccine uptake as safe and effective. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) pressed Redfield on the issue, highlighting concerning data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Johnson presented figures showing over 37,000 deaths reported following COVID-19 vaccination, with 24% occurring within two days of injection. Redfield acknowledged there was “not appropriate transparency from the beginning about the potential side effects of these vaccines.” He criticized attempts to “underreport any side effects because they argued that would make the public less likely to get vaccinated.” ‘FDA should release all of the safety data’ Redfield’s criticism of data withholding extended beyond vaccine side effects. He expressed disappointment in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration‘s (FDA) handling of vaccine safety information. “The FDA should release all of the safety data they have,” Redfield said. “I was very disappointed to hear that they were planning to hold on to that until 2026. That really creates a sense of total lack of trust in our public health agencies towards vaccination.” Johnson echoed these concerns, revealing his frustration with the lack of follow-through by health agencies and the committee itself. “I’m not getting cooperation out of the chairman of the permanent subcommittee investigation to issue subpoenas to get this,” Johnson said, referring to unreleased data and documents. The senator displayed a chart comparing adverse event reports for various drugs, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, to those for COVID-19 vaccines. The stark contrast in reported deaths from these therapeutics — with COVID-19 vaccines showing significantly higher numbers — fueled Johnson’s demand for more transparency. “As important as the cover-up of the origin story is, there’s a lot more that’s being covered up,” Johnson asserted. “The public has a right to know. We pay for these agencies. We pay their salaries. We fund these studies.” Redfield agreed with Johnson’s assessment, stating that withholding the information is “counterproductive.” Gavel and money vaccines Did DOJ Lawyers Commit Fraud in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding? Learn More Redfield doubtful of ‘any benefit from [gain-of-function] research’ Redfield’s testimony took another controversial turn when he called for a pause on gain-of-function research, experiments that involve making pathogens more infectious or deadly. “I’m not aware of any advanced therapeutic or vaccine that has come to pass because of gain-of-function research,” Redfield said. “I do think there has to be a very aggressive debate of whether there’s any benefit from that research.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) seized on this point, introducing his Risky Research Review Act. The bill aims to establish an independent board within the executive branch to oversee federal funding for high-risk life sciences research. “If the Risky Research Review Act had been in place, it might have prevented the COVID-19 pandemic,” Paul said, citing Redfield’s endorsement. MIT’s Kevin Esvelt, Ph.D., inventor of a technique for rapidly evolving proteins and other biomolecules who was also instrumental in developing CRISPR gene-editing technology, reinforced these concerns. Highlighting gaps in current oversight, he described an experiment where his team — with FBI approval — successfully ordered DNA fragments of the 1918 influenza virus from 36 of 38 providers. “Everything that we did and the companies did was entirely legal,” Esvelt said, underscoring the potential for misuse. “There are no laws regulating DNA synthesis, even though the industry group, the International Gene Synthesis Consortium, has requested congressional regulation.” The hearing revealed a growing consensus among witnesses for stricter oversight of potentially dangerous research, with Redfield suggesting such studies should be “highly regulated” to protect national security. Redfield reaffirms COVID lab-leak theory The hearing reignited debate over the origins of COVID-19, with Redfield reaffirming his belief in the lab-leak theory. “Based on my initial analysis, I believe then, and I still believe today, that the COVID infections were the direct result of a biomedical research experiment and subsequent lab leak,” Redfield stated. This assertion led to a heated exchange between Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Carrie Wolinetz, Ph.D., former chief of staff to then-director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Francis Collins. Hawley accused NIH officials of deliberately suppressing the lab-leak theory. “Your office, Dr. [Anthony] Fauci and others tried to actively censor them,” Hawley said. “There was a propaganda effort that this paper was the center of, and now everybody says, ‘Oh, well, we just weren’t sure at the time.’” Hawley referred to the 2020 “Proximal Origin” paper that argued against the lab-leak hypothesis. Wolinetz defended the NIH’s actions. “I do not believe censorship took place, sir.” She maintained that discussions about the virus’s origins were part of normal scientific discourse. Redfield, however, criticized the lack of thorough investigation into both natural origin and lab-leak hypotheses. “Unfortunately, this didn’t happen,” he said, adding that four years later, he believes there’s no meaningful evidence supporting a natural origin. The former CDC director also revealed that he did not learn about concerning biodistribution studies of the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles until as late as the summer of 2021, suggesting a delay in critical information reaching top health officials. This article was funded by critical thinkers like you. The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write. Please Donate Today ‘Biosecurity is our nation’s greatest national security threat’ Redfield emphasized the critical importance of biosecurity in national defense. “In 2024, 2025, biosecurity is our nation’s greatest national security threat,” Redfield stated. “You need to think of it the same way we thought about the verge of nuclear atomic [sic] in the late 40s, 50s, and 60s.” He called for a proportional response to the threat, suggesting the creation of a dedicated agency within the U.S. Department of Energy to address biosecurity concerns. “We have a $900 billion Defense Department for the threat of China, North Korea and Russia,” Redfield noted. “We don’t have really any systematic agency or network of private sector contractors to help us with the biosecurity threat.” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) echoed this sentiment. “In my humble mind, a viral biosecurity issue is a bigger issue than China’s military threat to us.” Gerald Parker, DVM, Ph.D., associate dean for Global One Health at Texas A&M University, supported the call for enhanced oversight, recommending “an independent authority to consolidate secure functions in a single entity with a dedicated mission.” The hearing also touched on the potential for future pandemics, with Redfield repeating his warnings about the potential spread of H5N1 bird flu. As the hearing concluded, senators from both parties expressed concern over the lack of transparency and oversight in high-risk research. Paul summarized the sentiment: “We cannot stand idly by. We must demand accountability, strive for transparency and ensure the safety of our citizens is never again compromised by negligence or deceit.” Watch the July 11 hearing: ‘Risky Research’: Mandating COVID Shots ‘One of the Greatest Mistakes,’ Former CDC Chief Says • Children's Health Defense https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/robert-redfield-mrna-covid-vaccine-risk/
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    Mandating COVID Shots ‘One of the Greatest Mistakes,’ Former CDC Chief Says
    In a Senate hearing Thursday, ex-CDC Director Robert Redfield said mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are “toxic” and should not have been mandated. He also called for a pause on gain-of-function research.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 2640 Views
  • EDTA Snakeoil! Ana Maria Mihalcea's Medical Malfeasance Exposed
    “I already have had.. uh.. patients die from shedding” - Ana Maria Mihalcea, M.D.

    Dr. Ariyana Love (ND)
    “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” ~ Hosea 4:6 KJV

    Rockefeller Medicine

    Around 1900, the science world was getting excited about new “petrochemicals” and the ability to create a variety of new compounds from oil. Some of the first products derived from petrochemicals were plastics.

    In 1908, modern medicine was established by the Rockefeller’s and dubbed “Allopathy”. The Rockefeller’s created the business of modern medicine which has always been about poisoning people, Eustice Mullen explains.

    This is the definition of Allopathic medicine according to the NIH:

    “A system in which medical doctors and other health care professionals (such as nurses, pharmacists, and therapists) treat symptoms and diseases using drugs, radiation, or surgery.”

    The Rockefeller Institute for Medicine, founded in 1908, marked the advent of the re-creation of synthetic versions of natural cures. Prior to 1908, every place of healing in America, Europe and the world, used only ancient traditional natural medicinal cures. Every hospital was a “Homeopathic Hospital”. Most of these magnificent buildings were converted into mental health asylums where a system of torture and electric shock was established to “cure” mental illness.


    John D. Rockefeller created the oil industry and used it to crush traditional medicine in order to enslave people. They also financed the Eugenics movement. One of the perks of modern medicine is depopulation.

    “Everyone knows that the infamous Roe v. Wade opinion legalized abortion, but almost no one knows that legal abortion was a strategy by eugenicists, as early as 1939, to “genetically improve” the population by “reducing” it.”

    In the book, “Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America”, authored by E. Richard Brown, he tells the hidden story of the financial, political, and institutional manipulations whereby a diverse and eclectic range of traditional healing modalities available to the North American public was summarily canceled and pared down to a singular style of medicine that would become the predominant medicine of the Western world and a major force in global medical culture during the 20th century. This was brought about largely by the collaboration of the American Medical Association, the philanthropies of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, and the development of a revolutionary curriculum by the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Brown documents the story of how a powerful professional elite gained virtual hegemony in the Western theatre of healing by effectively taking control of the ethos and practice of Western medicine. E. Richard Brown describes how, in 1905, the American Medical Association’s new Council on Medical Education funded by Carnegie and Rockefeller commenced serious activity. They employed the services of Abraham Flexner who proceeded to visit and “assess” every single medical school in the US and Canada. Within a short time of this development, medical schools all around the US began to collapse or consolidate. By 1910, 30 schools had merged, and 21 had closed their doors. Of the 166 medical schools operating in 1904, 133 had survived by 1910, and 104 by 1915. Fifteen years later, only 76 schools of medicine existed in the US and they all followed the same curriculum.

    The 1910 Flexner Report laid the foundations of the modern medical system, dubbed “Rockefeller medicine” (Allopathy). Since 1910, corporate interests have established near total control of the medical field, both though pharmacology and through their impact on medical education.

    In 1935, vitamin C became the first vitamin to be artificially synthesized in Switzerland. Rockefeller saw a big opportunity with the possibility that vitamins and medications could be developed from petroleum. He saw the chance to control and monopolize multiple industries at once: petroleum, chemical and medical. Petrochemicals were ideal from a business perspective because they could be patented, owned and sold for high profits.

    Today, the petrochemicals in plastics are causing a slew of illnesses including neurodevelopmental disorders, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, and cancer, which have increased between 28% and 150% between 1990 and 2019. Petrochemicals in microplastics are also rapidly reducing fertility in males in particular, and polluting our environment. Please also read more here, here, and here.

    The first pharmaceutical drug was an arsenic named Salvarsan. That’s right, an ARSENIC!

    DEATH is an all-to-common side effect of pharmaceutical drugs which is only logical when you administer poisons internally. The following pages demonstrate the many deaths of people around the world, most of them children, who were fatally poisoned during the first mass medication experiments with Rockefeller’s Allopathic health. The paper is entitled, Toward Responsibility in International Health: Death following Treatment in Rockefeller Hookworm Campaigns, 1914–1934.

    What is EDTA?

    EDTA is synthesized on an industrial scale using 1, 2-diaminoethane (ethylene diamine), formaldehyde, water and sodium cyanide.

    Ethylene diamine induced acute and subchronic toxicity in lab animals, also allergic hypersensitivity. The liver and kidneys are target organs of ethylenediamine, where they simply stop working.


    Read more: Is C60 And EDTA Safe? Clinical Review


    Absorption of large amounts of formaldehyde via any route can cause severe systemic toxicity, leading to metabolic acidosis, tissue and organ damage, and coma, according to the CDC.

    Exposure to sodium cyanide can be rapidly fatal. It has whole-body (systemic) effects, particularly affecting those organ systems most sensitive to low oxygen levels: the central nervous system (brain), the cardiovascular system (heart and blood vessels), and the pulmonary system (lungs), according to the CDC.

    EDTA is an industrial poison. The textile industry required a chelating agent to remove calcium during textile processing and this led to the synthesis of polyamino-carboxylic acids, one of which was EDTA. A patent was filed for EDTA in Germany in 1935, for industrial chemical use. EDTA is a synthetic acid effectively used to clean boiler rooms in nuclear power plants. In 1945, Franz Munz obtained a US EDTA patent in 1945. In 1947, EDTA was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a food additive in “low doses” because it’s a forever chemical and a preservative.

    There are two different types of EDTA approved by the U.S. FDA. In 1953, Edetate calcium disodium also known as Calcium EDTA (marketed under the trade name Calcium Disodium Versenate registered ) was approved for the treatment of lead poisoning. Three years later, in 1956, a related EDTA compound, Edetate disodium, was also approved for clinical use. This compound, also known as Disodium EDTA, has been marketed under the trade names Disotate (registered) and Endrate (registered). The essential difference between these two compounds is that Calcium EDTA's structure has an incorporated Ca super(2+) moiety while Disodium EDTA does not. The use of the latter compound, Disodium EDTA, has been associated with life-threatening and fatal hypocalcemia.

    EDTA trial DEATHS

    An EDTA trial (Sloth-Nielsen et al., 1981) on the possible antiatherogenic effect of EDTA with 6 patients, showed clinical signs of potentially lethal hypocalcemia from abnormally low calcium levels caused by EDTA.

    Another EDTA chelation human trial in 2003-2005 resulted in DEATHS due to hypocalcemia.

    A 2006 EDTA chelation trial also resulted in DEATHS due to hypocalcemia.

    There were several DEATHS reported from cardiac arrest due to lethal hypocalcemia in EDTA trials in 2006 and 2008 and (Brown, Willis, Omalu, & Leiker, 2006; Baxter & Krenzelok, 2008), from calcium deficiency inducing alterations in the brain, and osteoporosis, which causes the bones to become brittle.

    In 2008, a clinical trial with EDTA chelation on autistic children also proved fatal, resulting in DEATHS of children.

    A 2007 EDTA chelation study proved KIDNEY FAILURE in humans.

    Decades of clinical studies demonstrate that EDTA treatment is associated with severe, life-threatening adverse effects, as Science Direct explained in 2016.

    “It should be emphasized that EDTA treatment is associated with severe, life-threatening adverse effects.

    EDTA for cardiovascular disease DEBUNKED

    Many Allopathic specialists tried to popularize the use of EDTA for chelation, to no avail. In the 1980s, Richard Casdorph, a practicing cardiologist, claimed improvements in ejection fractions of the heart and in cerebral blood flow with EDTA chelation therapy in several articles. McDonagh, Rudolph, and Cheraskin published about 30 articles documenting various positive effects of EDTA chelation. This group wrote articles showing no problems with kidney function in patients treated with EDTA according to the published protocol. At the same time, conventional cardiologists wrote several editorials against EDTA chelation. So the American Medical Association called for studies to see if chelation worked. The American Board of Chelation Therapy in 1983 was formed to certify doctors who give the therapy. It was later called the American Board of Clinical Metal Toxicology. ACAM also certified doctors who took its workshop on chelation therapy and passed its written and oral examinations. The Great Lakes College of Clinical Medicine, later called the International College of Integrative Medicine (ICIM), was formed in 1983 to teach and do research on chelation and other integrative therapies. After complex negotiations, in the late 1980's Walter Reed Army Hospital agreed to do a randomized clinical trial on EDTA chelation therapy, but part way through the study it was suddenly discontinued for unknown reasons.

    However, in a paper by Seely, Wu, and Mills, (2005), a systematic review of published articles in this field was undertaken. The authors concluded that the best current available evidence did not support the therapeutic use of EDTA chelation therapy in the treatment of cardiovascular disease. Similar results have been reported in review papers by Shrihari, Roy, Prabhakaran, and Reddy (2006) and Crisponi et al. (2015).

    While a 2002 EDTA large randomized clinical trial “showed benefit”, smaller studies were inconsistent.

    In the 1990s, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against ACAM for making a claim in a brochure that chelation was effective for vascular disease. ACAM submitted almost 100 articles in support of the claim, but the FTC insisted that a large randomized trial was required to make that claim. ACAM finally gave up after spending a million dollars in legal fees and signed a consent order saying they would not make such a claim anymore, based on the evidence at that time.

    In conclusion, our study shows that in a population of stable, largely asymptomatic coronary artery disease patients with prior myocardial infarction, use of EDTA chelation therapy did not produce a measurable change in health-related quality of life over 2 years of follow-up.

    A slew of other adverse events such as lacrimation, nasal congestion, mucocutaneous lesions, glycosuria, hypotension, and ECG abnormalities (DISEASE OF THE HEART AND LUNGS) have also been reported as well as allergic reactions (Wax, 2013) to EDTA. Prolonged treatment with calcium EDTA gives rise to depletion of magnesium and trace-metal depletion, the most marked being due to the excretion of zinc. Zinc depletion destroys your cells’ ability to absorb nutrients and leads to diabetes.

    A 2015 study entitled, Quality of Life Outcomes with a Disodium EDTA Chelation Regimen for Coronary Disease: Results from the TACT Randomized Trial concluded with this statement:

    “In conclusion, our study shows that in a population of stable, largely asymptomatic coronary artery disease patients with prior myocardial infarction, use of EDTA chelation therapy did not produce a measurable change in health-related quality of life over 2 years of follow-up.”

    Severe kidney damage from EDTA chelation therapy was reported in a (Nissel 1986) trial. In a very short period of time, EDTA causes kidneys to shut down in complete failure.

    A study from 2015 suggests EDTA chelation for myocardial infarction with “modest” benefits to cardio health. However, I would suggest that the moderate benefits of this study were due to the high doses of vitamin C administered.

    A 2017 study on EDTA chelation for atherosclerosis and Miocardial Infraction concluded:

    “Unsubstantiated claims of chelation therapy as an effective treatment of atherosclerosis should be avoided and patients made aware of the inadequate evidence for efficacy and potential adverse effects, especially the harm that can occur if used as a substitute for proven therapies.”

    In a 2018 EDTA trial it was concluded:

    “These results… are not sufficient to support the routine use of chelation therapy for treatment of patients who have had an MI (Miocardial Infraction)”.

    A study from 2023 entitled, Chelation Therapy Associated with Antioxidant Supplementation Can Decrease Oxidative Stress and Inflammation in Multiple Sclerosis: Preliminary Results proved a flop with two participants discontinuing their trial participation.

    EDTA for lead poisoning DEBUNKED

    EDTA has also been touted as a treatment for lead poisoning. Because of its adverse effects, calcium EDTA was replaced by DMSA in the treatment of lead poisoning (Aposhian et al., 1995) in 1995. CaEDTA has also been used for the treatment of cases with manganese toxicity, but the result was neurotoxic symptoms resembling PARKINSONISM (Andersen, 1999).

    A 2004 trial showed that EDTA actually REDISTRIBUTES LEAD TO THE BRAIN after acute or chronic lead exposure (Andersen, 2004).

    Another trial proved adverse effects in 5 patients receiving EDTA at an outpatient chelation clinic in 2002, and all patients experienced gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal symptoms.

    Oral exposure to EDTA (2002) had produced adverse reproductive and developmental effects in animals. EDTA did not make it past the animal or human trials, so why are medical doctors using it in humans?

    A 2002 EDTA trial was performed on humans as a test for “chelation” therapy by a chelation clinic, demonstrating adverse events in 5 out of 5 patients.

    Additionally, EDTA is a persistent organic pollutant (POP). In that case, each intake would only be partially excreted, while the remaining chemicals build up in the body and produce cell death. And long-term exposure to calcium disodium EDTA creates toxicity and kidney damage.

    EDTA Snakeoil Salesmen

    In March 2023, Ana Maria Mihalcea interviewed Dr. Michael Roth who claims that EDTA is a “synthetic amino acid related to vinegar.” Together they make a slew of medical claims that are not scientifically proven, such as that EDTA “detoxifies covid vaccine, heavy metals, graphene oxide, parasites, hydrogels, and nanoparticles”.

    The only scientific tool Ana Maria uses to back her claims is dark field microscopy. You cannot see nanoparticles with a dark field microscope. It takes a spectroscopy microscope to identify nanoparticles. Her medical claims are simply fabricated and unscientific lies.

    Ana Maria and Dr. Ross made additional unproven medical statements that “EDTA removes the effects of a heart attack, can bring back the elderly from senility and Alzheimer’s, reduces blood pressure, detoxifies several snake and spider venoms, lowers insulin, smooths skin and wrinkles, ” and a host of other laughable health claims that aren’t backed by anything.

    Incidentally, Dr. Ross is now dead.

    “Dr. Roth sadly passed away on March 11/2023”


    My sources informed me that Dr. Rashid Buttar was using EDTA. Given that he was already severely poisoned as Stew Peter’s reported, using EDTA Acid would have been enough to tip him over the edge and kill him.

    EDTA is not an approved pharmaceutical drug. It was Covid Emergency approved by the FDA under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), just like the modified RNA (modRNA) Covid-19 vaccine nanotechnology.

    The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (.gov) makes it clear that the use of EDTA chelation for heart disease has not been approved by the FDA.

    Ana Maria has been touting EDTA as an “antioxidant” when it is not. She even published to her Substack that EDTA is an “Antioxidant” when in fact it’s an acid poison and an oxidant. Many people saw it on her Substack before she removed it.

    I’ve had over a dozen clients come to me extremely sick from EDTA pills and EDTA IV infusion. Some told me they thought it was a natural substance due to Ana Maria’s false advertising and medical malfeasance. A Medical Doctor is licensed to know wether EDTA Acid is an oxidant poison or an antioxidant. Not knowing this and inducing the death of a patient is not an acceptable excuse. Ana Maria is criminally liable.


    EDTA is an oxidant when used internally. The studies that refer to EDTA as an “antioxidant” are in vitro lab studies, not in vivo (inside the body).

    EDTA is used to preserve cell specimens for chemistry lab work because it prevents blood coagulation and oxidation of cells in a petri dish where it’s used for diagnostic purposes. This is the kind of “antioxidant” the studies are referring to. But when you infuse EDTA Acid into the human body, it acts as an oxidant poison.

    EDTA also will not decoagulate the blood in vivo (inside the body). But I can see how people who cannot read peer-reviewed literature could be deceived and manipulated by snake oil salesmen.

    For example, a study entitled, “Comparative study of the antioxidant capability of EDTA and Irganox”. EDTA is a preservative used in laboratories to preserve cells for scientific lab research. EDTA prevents the oxidation of cells in a petri dish. Oxygen causes cells to deteriorate, but labs need them to last longer for research purposes. When used inside the human body (in vivo), it’s a different story. Then EDTA acts as an oxidant poison, not an antioxidant. So this has a very different meaning.

    One of the well documented and widely known adverse events from EDTA “chelation” is DEATH, according to Mount Sinai.

    Other serious side effects that have been reported include low blood sugar, diminished calcium levels, headache, nausea, dangerously low blood pressure, kidney failure, organ damage, irregular heartbeat, seizures, or even death.

    I have to wonder if Ana Maria Mihalcea is informing her patients that death is a potential adverse event to EDTA chelation? In a March 24, 2024, broadcast that Ana Maria released, at the 53:24 minute mark, she makes a chilling confession:

    “I already have had… uh… patients die from the shedding”

    How many of Ana Maria Mihalcea’s patients have been killed by her EDTA infusion protocol? I was horrified when I heard Ana Maria’s confession because I haven’t had any clients die from shedding! I’ve treated many people who were extremely sick from shedding, and I helped them all to detox effectively. Some clients came to me after several hospitalizations from extreme shedding but none of them died in my care! Nobody needs to die from shedding if they use an effective detox protocol.

    Between 1-2 years, Ana Maria has been claiming that EDTA detoxes graphene, dissolves graphene and chelates heavy metals, but experts such as Dr. Robert Young and Dr. Judy Mikovitz told me this is impossible.

    Ana Maria has gone so far as to produce a medical study with unscientific claims right in the title, “EDTA Chelation Dissolves the Artificial Intelligence Magnetic Hydrogel Weapon”. The study was also promoted by Health Canada. In her study, Ana Maria claims that EDTA can “detoxify the body even from Graphene”.

    EDTA is not a detox agent! Again, it’s an oxidant that degrades cells whereas genuine antioxidants repair cells.

    Ana Maria does in fact know about oxidant poisons. In an interview from December 2022, she referred to graphene as an oxidant. At least she’s correct about something.

    Saul Green, Ph.D., and Wallace I. Sampson, M.D. wrote in great detail about the Implausibility of EDTA Chelation Therapy, stating:

    “EDTA chelation effectiveness is implausible; (2) the preponderance of evidence shows ineffectiveness; and (3) EDTA augments oxidative reactions involving iron instead of inhibiting them, resulting in increased likelihood of production of oxygen free radicals rather than neutralization of them, as claimed.”

    EDTA a precurser to cellular transfection

    The Rockefeller Institue of Medicine has done clinical research on EDTA. One particular study entitled, Studies of Cell Deformity from 1967, shows that cells will degrade from EDTA exposure, which also induces “deformation” on their surfaces. The trial demonstrated that EDTA stops cellular synthesis of calcium. They learned that calcium is bound to anionic sites at the cell periphery, some of which are located at the cellular electrokinetic surface.

    Due to Rockefeller’s research, EDTA is now used in electrophoresis which is a laboratory technique used to separate DNA, RNA or protein molecules based on their size and electrical charge. An electric current is used to move the molecules through a gel or other matrix, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute.

    In agarose gel electrophoresis, EDTA is added for chelating the magnesium ions which are cofactors for DNA nucleases. Hence, activity of DNA nucleases that may be present is inhibited, and “DNA is protected from degrading”. This is why EDTA is an effective transfection agent because it dissolves parts of your DNA, preserving cells for lab research in vitro.

    Gel electrophoresis using EDTA is routinely used for detection and size analysis of proteins and nucleic acid. DMSO is used with EDTA in this process. This destruction of cells makes transfection (gene editing) of cells easier using CRISPR-Cas9 which splices and dices the genome in vivo, as this study explains entitled, “Inhibition of CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complex assembly by anti-CRISPR AcrIIC2”.


    EDTA was found to be genotoxic in laboratory animals. A study from 1983 demonstrates that EDTA induces gene mutations and chromosomal breakage, meaning that genetic mutations will be passed on your offspring, affecting generations to come, according to this Genetic Toxicology of EDTA study from 1983.

    Calcium chelate of EDTA (CaEDTA) “chelation” has shown teratogenic effects (Catsch & Harmuth-Hoene, 1976), which are central nervous system depression and peripheral neuropathy. EDTA produced abnormalities in pups of rats removed by cesarian section on day 21 of the study. Increases in several abnormalities (cleft palate, adactyly or syndactyly, abnormal rib or abnormal vertebrae) were observed with increased doses of CaEDTA.

    EDTA improves transfection of embryonic stem cells lines (hESC) in cells, according to the NIH.

    According to a peer reviewed paper from the NIH, EDTA is a precursor to cellular transfection.

    “We found that chemically abrading the differentiated CACO-2 human intestinal epithelial cell layer by a trypsin and EDTA pretreatment (before the use of detergent-like transfection reagents) dramatically improved transfection efficiency in this polar, differentiated model. Although this treatment did improve the transfection efficiency, it also induced leakiness in the epithelial barrier by both opening tight junctional complexes and by creating holes in the cell layer because of low-level cell death and detachment. Thus, this approach to enhance the transfection efficiency of polar, differentiated cells will be useful for assessment of the effect of the transfected/expressed protein on (re)formation of an epithelial barrier..."

    Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. Fetal Bovine Serum for human transfection also uses EDTA.


    An NIH study entitled, “Kinetic Basis for DNA Target Specificity of CRISPR-Cas12a” reveals that EDTA enables rapid binding to DNA during gene editing (transfection).

    Another study entitled, “Improved genome editing by an engineered CRISPR-Cas12a” explains:

    “CAS12a is an RNA-guided, programmable genome editing enzyme found within bacterial adaptive immune pathways. Unlike CRISPR-Cas9, Cas12a uses only a single catalytic site to both cleave target double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) (cis-activity) and indiscriminately degrade single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) (trans-activity).”

    According to the study, “A DNA loading buffer of 45% formamide and 15 mM EDTA, with a trace amount of xylene cyanol and bromophenol blue…” is used to transfect the human genome.

    So, EDTA is a transfection agent used with CRISPR-Cas9 to edit the human genome. Does EDTA actually dissolve graphene, as Ana Maria claims? The answer is NO! EDTA oxidant is used to reduce graphene to Reduced Graphene Oxide (RGO) form. Graphene is reduced by oxidation. Rather than dissolving graphene, EDTA reduces it to Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles otherwise known as Quantum Dots.

    Graphene oxide is more toxic than graphene, as I documented in my article entitled, “Graphene Oxide The Vector For Covid-19 Democide”.

    I will emphasize again that Graphene Oxide Quantum Dots cannot be seen with a dark field microscope. So Ana Maria’s claims that EDTA is detoxing graphene from the human body is unscientific.

    EDTA chelation for graphene nanocomposites

    EDTA chelation is NOT effective in removing metals from the human body. It's actually a different kind of chelation that’s used to create electrochemical sensors (biosensors) when combined with GRAPHENE!

    EDTA serves as a connecting mediator between NiHCF (Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles and Nickle) and graphene nanosheets. EDTA is used with metal nanoparticles, metal oxides, graphene, carbon nanotubes, and quantum dots to stabilize the technology for a more uniform distribution throughout the body.

    A Science Direct paper entitled, “Highly sensitive ascorbid acid sensors from EDTA chelation derived nickel hexacyanoferrate/graphene nanocomposites” reveals that EDTA is used to create Graphene/Nickel, AA sensor nanocomposites.

    “EDTA chelation stragey” is used for the “homogeneously distrubuted" NiHCF” (Nickel hexacyanoferrate composite) on graphene sheets. EDTA residue-supported pyramidal and spherical nanoparticles of NiHCF deposited on graphene sheets is used to create biosensors for the formation of Graphene/Nickel hydrogels.


    The graphene hydrogel nanocomposite sensors (Gr/NiHCF) are used as externally controlled biosensing tools. They tell us it’s used to test for ascorbic acid, but the application of this technology is for “human life” as well as for industrial use. See link here.


    Graphene oxide/Lauric acid nanoparticles are modified using EDTA. Lauric acid nanoparticles is suggested as a “prospective drug carrier” for oral nanoparticle-mediated sustained drug delivery (timed release technology) used for the removal of Pb(II) ions (lead). However, studies show there are cytotoxic results.

    Another study entitled, “Improved genome editing by an engineered CRISPR-Cas12a” demonstrates how EDTA improves transfection and modification of the human genome.

    Once Graphene is reduced to Graphene Oxide, due to its small particulate size, you can no longer identify it using a Dark Field Microscope. Ana Maria is using a dark field scope, not a spectroscopy microscope, which is the only instrument that can measure GON and Quantum Dots.

    So what is Ana Maria doing with EDTA infusions? She’s creating a metal-EDTA complex that stabilizes and strengthens the graphene-based nanotech weapon system and enables it to spread more readily throughout the body, for human transfection. She uses “light and sound healing techniques” to activate the delayed release technology before administering EDTA infusion, as she reveals in an interview here.

    EDTA is a poison acid that dissolves DNA. It's used to prime the cells’ DNA for transfection. EDTA disrupts the surface of skin cells so that other chemicals can penetrate more easily and CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology can work more efficiently.

    The NIH describes EDTA’s enhanced cellular transfection:

    “Flow cytometric analysis using an enhanced green fluorescent protein vector showed a significantly increased transfection efficiency of EDTA method compared to standard enzyme method. In addition, the EDTA approach maintained stable cell viability and recovery rate of hESCs after transfection.”

    Another study published in Research Gate, confirms that EDTA increases cellular transfection, along with using chloroquine.

    Graphene Oxide Quantum Dots (GOQD-HA) nanocomposite use EDTA for tissue-specific delivery of Metformin, an anti-diabetic drug otherwise known as insulin.


    Conclusion

    Beware of snakeoil salesmen! Never trust pharmaceuticals! Superior heavy metal chelation supplements exist such as ASEA redox molecules and Master Peace, sign up and order here. Medicines made from nature are always superior to pharmaceutical drugs. Finally, be sure your Naturopathic Doctor is competent!

    Schedule a health consultation with me for a customized detox protocol and complete cellular health restoration.

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-144979143
    EDTA Snakeoil! Ana Maria Mihalcea's Medical Malfeasance Exposed “I already have had.. uh.. patients die from shedding” - Ana Maria Mihalcea, M.D. Dr. Ariyana Love (ND) “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” ~ Hosea 4:6 KJV Rockefeller Medicine Around 1900, the science world was getting excited about new “petrochemicals” and the ability to create a variety of new compounds from oil. Some of the first products derived from petrochemicals were plastics. In 1908, modern medicine was established by the Rockefeller’s and dubbed “Allopathy”. The Rockefeller’s created the business of modern medicine which has always been about poisoning people, Eustice Mullen explains. This is the definition of Allopathic medicine according to the NIH: “A system in which medical doctors and other health care professionals (such as nurses, pharmacists, and therapists) treat symptoms and diseases using drugs, radiation, or surgery.” The Rockefeller Institute for Medicine, founded in 1908, marked the advent of the re-creation of synthetic versions of natural cures. Prior to 1908, every place of healing in America, Europe and the world, used only ancient traditional natural medicinal cures. Every hospital was a “Homeopathic Hospital”. Most of these magnificent buildings were converted into mental health asylums where a system of torture and electric shock was established to “cure” mental illness. John D. Rockefeller created the oil industry and used it to crush traditional medicine in order to enslave people. They also financed the Eugenics movement. One of the perks of modern medicine is depopulation. “Everyone knows that the infamous Roe v. Wade opinion legalized abortion, but almost no one knows that legal abortion was a strategy by eugenicists, as early as 1939, to “genetically improve” the population by “reducing” it.” In the book, “Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America”, authored by E. Richard Brown, he tells the hidden story of the financial, political, and institutional manipulations whereby a diverse and eclectic range of traditional healing modalities available to the North American public was summarily canceled and pared down to a singular style of medicine that would become the predominant medicine of the Western world and a major force in global medical culture during the 20th century. This was brought about largely by the collaboration of the American Medical Association, the philanthropies of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, and the development of a revolutionary curriculum by the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Brown documents the story of how a powerful professional elite gained virtual hegemony in the Western theatre of healing by effectively taking control of the ethos and practice of Western medicine. E. Richard Brown describes how, in 1905, the American Medical Association’s new Council on Medical Education funded by Carnegie and Rockefeller commenced serious activity. They employed the services of Abraham Flexner who proceeded to visit and “assess” every single medical school in the US and Canada. Within a short time of this development, medical schools all around the US began to collapse or consolidate. By 1910, 30 schools had merged, and 21 had closed their doors. Of the 166 medical schools operating in 1904, 133 had survived by 1910, and 104 by 1915. Fifteen years later, only 76 schools of medicine existed in the US and they all followed the same curriculum. The 1910 Flexner Report laid the foundations of the modern medical system, dubbed “Rockefeller medicine” (Allopathy). Since 1910, corporate interests have established near total control of the medical field, both though pharmacology and through their impact on medical education. In 1935, vitamin C became the first vitamin to be artificially synthesized in Switzerland. Rockefeller saw a big opportunity with the possibility that vitamins and medications could be developed from petroleum. He saw the chance to control and monopolize multiple industries at once: petroleum, chemical and medical. Petrochemicals were ideal from a business perspective because they could be patented, owned and sold for high profits. Today, the petrochemicals in plastics are causing a slew of illnesses including neurodevelopmental disorders, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, and cancer, which have increased between 28% and 150% between 1990 and 2019. Petrochemicals in microplastics are also rapidly reducing fertility in males in particular, and polluting our environment. Please also read more here, here, and here. The first pharmaceutical drug was an arsenic named Salvarsan. That’s right, an ARSENIC! DEATH is an all-to-common side effect of pharmaceutical drugs which is only logical when you administer poisons internally. The following pages demonstrate the many deaths of people around the world, most of them children, who were fatally poisoned during the first mass medication experiments with Rockefeller’s Allopathic health. The paper is entitled, Toward Responsibility in International Health: Death following Treatment in Rockefeller Hookworm Campaigns, 1914–1934. What is EDTA? EDTA is synthesized on an industrial scale using 1, 2-diaminoethane (ethylene diamine), formaldehyde, water and sodium cyanide. Ethylene diamine induced acute and subchronic toxicity in lab animals, also allergic hypersensitivity. The liver and kidneys are target organs of ethylenediamine, where they simply stop working. Read more: Is C60 And EDTA Safe? Clinical Review Absorption of large amounts of formaldehyde via any route can cause severe systemic toxicity, leading to metabolic acidosis, tissue and organ damage, and coma, according to the CDC. Exposure to sodium cyanide can be rapidly fatal. It has whole-body (systemic) effects, particularly affecting those organ systems most sensitive to low oxygen levels: the central nervous system (brain), the cardiovascular system (heart and blood vessels), and the pulmonary system (lungs), according to the CDC. EDTA is an industrial poison. The textile industry required a chelating agent to remove calcium during textile processing and this led to the synthesis of polyamino-carboxylic acids, one of which was EDTA. A patent was filed for EDTA in Germany in 1935, for industrial chemical use. EDTA is a synthetic acid effectively used to clean boiler rooms in nuclear power plants. In 1945, Franz Munz obtained a US EDTA patent in 1945. In 1947, EDTA was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a food additive in “low doses” because it’s a forever chemical and a preservative. There are two different types of EDTA approved by the U.S. FDA. In 1953, Edetate calcium disodium also known as Calcium EDTA (marketed under the trade name Calcium Disodium Versenate registered ) was approved for the treatment of lead poisoning. Three years later, in 1956, a related EDTA compound, Edetate disodium, was also approved for clinical use. This compound, also known as Disodium EDTA, has been marketed under the trade names Disotate (registered) and Endrate (registered). The essential difference between these two compounds is that Calcium EDTA's structure has an incorporated Ca super(2+) moiety while Disodium EDTA does not. The use of the latter compound, Disodium EDTA, has been associated with life-threatening and fatal hypocalcemia. EDTA trial DEATHS An EDTA trial (Sloth-Nielsen et al., 1981) on the possible antiatherogenic effect of EDTA with 6 patients, showed clinical signs of potentially lethal hypocalcemia from abnormally low calcium levels caused by EDTA. Another EDTA chelation human trial in 2003-2005 resulted in DEATHS due to hypocalcemia. A 2006 EDTA chelation trial also resulted in DEATHS due to hypocalcemia. There were several DEATHS reported from cardiac arrest due to lethal hypocalcemia in EDTA trials in 2006 and 2008 and (Brown, Willis, Omalu, & Leiker, 2006; Baxter & Krenzelok, 2008), from calcium deficiency inducing alterations in the brain, and osteoporosis, which causes the bones to become brittle. In 2008, a clinical trial with EDTA chelation on autistic children also proved fatal, resulting in DEATHS of children. A 2007 EDTA chelation study proved KIDNEY FAILURE in humans. Decades of clinical studies demonstrate that EDTA treatment is associated with severe, life-threatening adverse effects, as Science Direct explained in 2016. “It should be emphasized that EDTA treatment is associated with severe, life-threatening adverse effects. EDTA for cardiovascular disease DEBUNKED Many Allopathic specialists tried to popularize the use of EDTA for chelation, to no avail. In the 1980s, Richard Casdorph, a practicing cardiologist, claimed improvements in ejection fractions of the heart and in cerebral blood flow with EDTA chelation therapy in several articles. McDonagh, Rudolph, and Cheraskin published about 30 articles documenting various positive effects of EDTA chelation. This group wrote articles showing no problems with kidney function in patients treated with EDTA according to the published protocol. At the same time, conventional cardiologists wrote several editorials against EDTA chelation. So the American Medical Association called for studies to see if chelation worked. The American Board of Chelation Therapy in 1983 was formed to certify doctors who give the therapy. It was later called the American Board of Clinical Metal Toxicology. ACAM also certified doctors who took its workshop on chelation therapy and passed its written and oral examinations. The Great Lakes College of Clinical Medicine, later called the International College of Integrative Medicine (ICIM), was formed in 1983 to teach and do research on chelation and other integrative therapies. After complex negotiations, in the late 1980's Walter Reed Army Hospital agreed to do a randomized clinical trial on EDTA chelation therapy, but part way through the study it was suddenly discontinued for unknown reasons. However, in a paper by Seely, Wu, and Mills, (2005), a systematic review of published articles in this field was undertaken. The authors concluded that the best current available evidence did not support the therapeutic use of EDTA chelation therapy in the treatment of cardiovascular disease. Similar results have been reported in review papers by Shrihari, Roy, Prabhakaran, and Reddy (2006) and Crisponi et al. (2015). While a 2002 EDTA large randomized clinical trial “showed benefit”, smaller studies were inconsistent. In the 1990s, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against ACAM for making a claim in a brochure that chelation was effective for vascular disease. ACAM submitted almost 100 articles in support of the claim, but the FTC insisted that a large randomized trial was required to make that claim. ACAM finally gave up after spending a million dollars in legal fees and signed a consent order saying they would not make such a claim anymore, based on the evidence at that time. In conclusion, our study shows that in a population of stable, largely asymptomatic coronary artery disease patients with prior myocardial infarction, use of EDTA chelation therapy did not produce a measurable change in health-related quality of life over 2 years of follow-up. A slew of other adverse events such as lacrimation, nasal congestion, mucocutaneous lesions, glycosuria, hypotension, and ECG abnormalities (DISEASE OF THE HEART AND LUNGS) have also been reported as well as allergic reactions (Wax, 2013) to EDTA. Prolonged treatment with calcium EDTA gives rise to depletion of magnesium and trace-metal depletion, the most marked being due to the excretion of zinc. Zinc depletion destroys your cells’ ability to absorb nutrients and leads to diabetes. A 2015 study entitled, Quality of Life Outcomes with a Disodium EDTA Chelation Regimen for Coronary Disease: Results from the TACT Randomized Trial concluded with this statement: “In conclusion, our study shows that in a population of stable, largely asymptomatic coronary artery disease patients with prior myocardial infarction, use of EDTA chelation therapy did not produce a measurable change in health-related quality of life over 2 years of follow-up.” Severe kidney damage from EDTA chelation therapy was reported in a (Nissel 1986) trial. In a very short period of time, EDTA causes kidneys to shut down in complete failure. A study from 2015 suggests EDTA chelation for myocardial infarction with “modest” benefits to cardio health. However, I would suggest that the moderate benefits of this study were due to the high doses of vitamin C administered. A 2017 study on EDTA chelation for atherosclerosis and Miocardial Infraction concluded: “Unsubstantiated claims of chelation therapy as an effective treatment of atherosclerosis should be avoided and patients made aware of the inadequate evidence for efficacy and potential adverse effects, especially the harm that can occur if used as a substitute for proven therapies.” In a 2018 EDTA trial it was concluded: “These results… are not sufficient to support the routine use of chelation therapy for treatment of patients who have had an MI (Miocardial Infraction)”. A study from 2023 entitled, Chelation Therapy Associated with Antioxidant Supplementation Can Decrease Oxidative Stress and Inflammation in Multiple Sclerosis: Preliminary Results proved a flop with two participants discontinuing their trial participation. EDTA for lead poisoning DEBUNKED EDTA has also been touted as a treatment for lead poisoning. Because of its adverse effects, calcium EDTA was replaced by DMSA in the treatment of lead poisoning (Aposhian et al., 1995) in 1995. CaEDTA has also been used for the treatment of cases with manganese toxicity, but the result was neurotoxic symptoms resembling PARKINSONISM (Andersen, 1999). A 2004 trial showed that EDTA actually REDISTRIBUTES LEAD TO THE BRAIN after acute or chronic lead exposure (Andersen, 2004). Another trial proved adverse effects in 5 patients receiving EDTA at an outpatient chelation clinic in 2002, and all patients experienced gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal symptoms. Oral exposure to EDTA (2002) had produced adverse reproductive and developmental effects in animals. EDTA did not make it past the animal or human trials, so why are medical doctors using it in humans? A 2002 EDTA trial was performed on humans as a test for “chelation” therapy by a chelation clinic, demonstrating adverse events in 5 out of 5 patients. Additionally, EDTA is a persistent organic pollutant (POP). In that case, each intake would only be partially excreted, while the remaining chemicals build up in the body and produce cell death. And long-term exposure to calcium disodium EDTA creates toxicity and kidney damage. EDTA Snakeoil Salesmen In March 2023, Ana Maria Mihalcea interviewed Dr. Michael Roth who claims that EDTA is a “synthetic amino acid related to vinegar.” Together they make a slew of medical claims that are not scientifically proven, such as that EDTA “detoxifies covid vaccine, heavy metals, graphene oxide, parasites, hydrogels, and nanoparticles”. The only scientific tool Ana Maria uses to back her claims is dark field microscopy. You cannot see nanoparticles with a dark field microscope. It takes a spectroscopy microscope to identify nanoparticles. Her medical claims are simply fabricated and unscientific lies. Ana Maria and Dr. Ross made additional unproven medical statements that “EDTA removes the effects of a heart attack, can bring back the elderly from senility and Alzheimer’s, reduces blood pressure, detoxifies several snake and spider venoms, lowers insulin, smooths skin and wrinkles, ” and a host of other laughable health claims that aren’t backed by anything. Incidentally, Dr. Ross is now dead. “Dr. Roth sadly passed away on March 11/2023” My sources informed me that Dr. Rashid Buttar was using EDTA. Given that he was already severely poisoned as Stew Peter’s reported, using EDTA Acid would have been enough to tip him over the edge and kill him. EDTA is not an approved pharmaceutical drug. It was Covid Emergency approved by the FDA under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), just like the modified RNA (modRNA) Covid-19 vaccine nanotechnology. The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (.gov) makes it clear that the use of EDTA chelation for heart disease has not been approved by the FDA. Ana Maria has been touting EDTA as an “antioxidant” when it is not. She even published to her Substack that EDTA is an “Antioxidant” when in fact it’s an acid poison and an oxidant. Many people saw it on her Substack before she removed it. I’ve had over a dozen clients come to me extremely sick from EDTA pills and EDTA IV infusion. Some told me they thought it was a natural substance due to Ana Maria’s false advertising and medical malfeasance. A Medical Doctor is licensed to know wether EDTA Acid is an oxidant poison or an antioxidant. Not knowing this and inducing the death of a patient is not an acceptable excuse. Ana Maria is criminally liable. EDTA is an oxidant when used internally. The studies that refer to EDTA as an “antioxidant” are in vitro lab studies, not in vivo (inside the body). EDTA is used to preserve cell specimens for chemistry lab work because it prevents blood coagulation and oxidation of cells in a petri dish where it’s used for diagnostic purposes. This is the kind of “antioxidant” the studies are referring to. But when you infuse EDTA Acid into the human body, it acts as an oxidant poison. EDTA also will not decoagulate the blood in vivo (inside the body). But I can see how people who cannot read peer-reviewed literature could be deceived and manipulated by snake oil salesmen. For example, a study entitled, “Comparative study of the antioxidant capability of EDTA and Irganox”. EDTA is a preservative used in laboratories to preserve cells for scientific lab research. EDTA prevents the oxidation of cells in a petri dish. Oxygen causes cells to deteriorate, but labs need them to last longer for research purposes. When used inside the human body (in vivo), it’s a different story. Then EDTA acts as an oxidant poison, not an antioxidant. So this has a very different meaning. One of the well documented and widely known adverse events from EDTA “chelation” is DEATH, according to Mount Sinai. Other serious side effects that have been reported include low blood sugar, diminished calcium levels, headache, nausea, dangerously low blood pressure, kidney failure, organ damage, irregular heartbeat, seizures, or even death. I have to wonder if Ana Maria Mihalcea is informing her patients that death is a potential adverse event to EDTA chelation? In a March 24, 2024, broadcast that Ana Maria released, at the 53:24 minute mark, she makes a chilling confession: “I already have had… uh… patients die from the shedding” How many of Ana Maria Mihalcea’s patients have been killed by her EDTA infusion protocol? I was horrified when I heard Ana Maria’s confession because I haven’t had any clients die from shedding! I’ve treated many people who were extremely sick from shedding, and I helped them all to detox effectively. Some clients came to me after several hospitalizations from extreme shedding but none of them died in my care! Nobody needs to die from shedding if they use an effective detox protocol. Between 1-2 years, Ana Maria has been claiming that EDTA detoxes graphene, dissolves graphene and chelates heavy metals, but experts such as Dr. Robert Young and Dr. Judy Mikovitz told me this is impossible. Ana Maria has gone so far as to produce a medical study with unscientific claims right in the title, “EDTA Chelation Dissolves the Artificial Intelligence Magnetic Hydrogel Weapon”. The study was also promoted by Health Canada. In her study, Ana Maria claims that EDTA can “detoxify the body even from Graphene”. EDTA is not a detox agent! Again, it’s an oxidant that degrades cells whereas genuine antioxidants repair cells. Ana Maria does in fact know about oxidant poisons. In an interview from December 2022, she referred to graphene as an oxidant. At least she’s correct about something. Saul Green, Ph.D., and Wallace I. Sampson, M.D. wrote in great detail about the Implausibility of EDTA Chelation Therapy, stating: “EDTA chelation effectiveness is implausible; (2) the preponderance of evidence shows ineffectiveness; and (3) EDTA augments oxidative reactions involving iron instead of inhibiting them, resulting in increased likelihood of production of oxygen free radicals rather than neutralization of them, as claimed.” EDTA a precurser to cellular transfection The Rockefeller Institue of Medicine has done clinical research on EDTA. One particular study entitled, Studies of Cell Deformity from 1967, shows that cells will degrade from EDTA exposure, which also induces “deformation” on their surfaces. The trial demonstrated that EDTA stops cellular synthesis of calcium. They learned that calcium is bound to anionic sites at the cell periphery, some of which are located at the cellular electrokinetic surface. Due to Rockefeller’s research, EDTA is now used in electrophoresis which is a laboratory technique used to separate DNA, RNA or protein molecules based on their size and electrical charge. An electric current is used to move the molecules through a gel or other matrix, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute. In agarose gel electrophoresis, EDTA is added for chelating the magnesium ions which are cofactors for DNA nucleases. Hence, activity of DNA nucleases that may be present is inhibited, and “DNA is protected from degrading”. This is why EDTA is an effective transfection agent because it dissolves parts of your DNA, preserving cells for lab research in vitro. Gel electrophoresis using EDTA is routinely used for detection and size analysis of proteins and nucleic acid. DMSO is used with EDTA in this process. This destruction of cells makes transfection (gene editing) of cells easier using CRISPR-Cas9 which splices and dices the genome in vivo, as this study explains entitled, “Inhibition of CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complex assembly by anti-CRISPR AcrIIC2”. EDTA was found to be genotoxic in laboratory animals. A study from 1983 demonstrates that EDTA induces gene mutations and chromosomal breakage, meaning that genetic mutations will be passed on your offspring, affecting generations to come, according to this Genetic Toxicology of EDTA study from 1983. Calcium chelate of EDTA (CaEDTA) “chelation” has shown teratogenic effects (Catsch & Harmuth-Hoene, 1976), which are central nervous system depression and peripheral neuropathy. EDTA produced abnormalities in pups of rats removed by cesarian section on day 21 of the study. Increases in several abnormalities (cleft palate, adactyly or syndactyly, abnormal rib or abnormal vertebrae) were observed with increased doses of CaEDTA. EDTA improves transfection of embryonic stem cells lines (hESC) in cells, according to the NIH. According to a peer reviewed paper from the NIH, EDTA is a precursor to cellular transfection. “We found that chemically abrading the differentiated CACO-2 human intestinal epithelial cell layer by a trypsin and EDTA pretreatment (before the use of detergent-like transfection reagents) dramatically improved transfection efficiency in this polar, differentiated model. Although this treatment did improve the transfection efficiency, it also induced leakiness in the epithelial barrier by both opening tight junctional complexes and by creating holes in the cell layer because of low-level cell death and detachment. Thus, this approach to enhance the transfection efficiency of polar, differentiated cells will be useful for assessment of the effect of the transfected/expressed protein on (re)formation of an epithelial barrier..." Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. Fetal Bovine Serum for human transfection also uses EDTA. An NIH study entitled, “Kinetic Basis for DNA Target Specificity of CRISPR-Cas12a” reveals that EDTA enables rapid binding to DNA during gene editing (transfection). Another study entitled, “Improved genome editing by an engineered CRISPR-Cas12a” explains: “CAS12a is an RNA-guided, programmable genome editing enzyme found within bacterial adaptive immune pathways. Unlike CRISPR-Cas9, Cas12a uses only a single catalytic site to both cleave target double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) (cis-activity) and indiscriminately degrade single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) (trans-activity).” According to the study, “A DNA loading buffer of 45% formamide and 15 mM EDTA, with a trace amount of xylene cyanol and bromophenol blue…” is used to transfect the human genome. So, EDTA is a transfection agent used with CRISPR-Cas9 to edit the human genome. Does EDTA actually dissolve graphene, as Ana Maria claims? The answer is NO! EDTA oxidant is used to reduce graphene to Reduced Graphene Oxide (RGO) form. Graphene is reduced by oxidation. Rather than dissolving graphene, EDTA reduces it to Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles otherwise known as Quantum Dots. Graphene oxide is more toxic than graphene, as I documented in my article entitled, “Graphene Oxide The Vector For Covid-19 Democide”. I will emphasize again that Graphene Oxide Quantum Dots cannot be seen with a dark field microscope. So Ana Maria’s claims that EDTA is detoxing graphene from the human body is unscientific. EDTA chelation for graphene nanocomposites EDTA chelation is NOT effective in removing metals from the human body. It's actually a different kind of chelation that’s used to create electrochemical sensors (biosensors) when combined with GRAPHENE! EDTA serves as a connecting mediator between NiHCF (Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles and Nickle) and graphene nanosheets. EDTA is used with metal nanoparticles, metal oxides, graphene, carbon nanotubes, and quantum dots to stabilize the technology for a more uniform distribution throughout the body. A Science Direct paper entitled, “Highly sensitive ascorbid acid sensors from EDTA chelation derived nickel hexacyanoferrate/graphene nanocomposites” reveals that EDTA is used to create Graphene/Nickel, AA sensor nanocomposites. “EDTA chelation stragey” is used for the “homogeneously distrubuted" NiHCF” (Nickel hexacyanoferrate composite) on graphene sheets. EDTA residue-supported pyramidal and spherical nanoparticles of NiHCF deposited on graphene sheets is used to create biosensors for the formation of Graphene/Nickel hydrogels. The graphene hydrogel nanocomposite sensors (Gr/NiHCF) are used as externally controlled biosensing tools. They tell us it’s used to test for ascorbic acid, but the application of this technology is for “human life” as well as for industrial use. See link here. Graphene oxide/Lauric acid nanoparticles are modified using EDTA. Lauric acid nanoparticles is suggested as a “prospective drug carrier” for oral nanoparticle-mediated sustained drug delivery (timed release technology) used for the removal of Pb(II) ions (lead). However, studies show there are cytotoxic results. Another study entitled, “Improved genome editing by an engineered CRISPR-Cas12a” demonstrates how EDTA improves transfection and modification of the human genome. Once Graphene is reduced to Graphene Oxide, due to its small particulate size, you can no longer identify it using a Dark Field Microscope. Ana Maria is using a dark field scope, not a spectroscopy microscope, which is the only instrument that can measure GON and Quantum Dots. So what is Ana Maria doing with EDTA infusions? She’s creating a metal-EDTA complex that stabilizes and strengthens the graphene-based nanotech weapon system and enables it to spread more readily throughout the body, for human transfection. She uses “light and sound healing techniques” to activate the delayed release technology before administering EDTA infusion, as she reveals in an interview here. EDTA is a poison acid that dissolves DNA. It's used to prime the cells’ DNA for transfection. EDTA disrupts the surface of skin cells so that other chemicals can penetrate more easily and CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology can work more efficiently. The NIH describes EDTA’s enhanced cellular transfection: “Flow cytometric analysis using an enhanced green fluorescent protein vector showed a significantly increased transfection efficiency of EDTA method compared to standard enzyme method. In addition, the EDTA approach maintained stable cell viability and recovery rate of hESCs after transfection.” Another study published in Research Gate, confirms that EDTA increases cellular transfection, along with using chloroquine. Graphene Oxide Quantum Dots (GOQD-HA) nanocomposite use EDTA for tissue-specific delivery of Metformin, an anti-diabetic drug otherwise known as insulin. Conclusion Beware of snakeoil salesmen! Never trust pharmaceuticals! Superior heavy metal chelation supplements exist such as ASEA redox molecules and Master Peace, sign up and order here. Medicines made from nature are always superior to pharmaceutical drugs. Finally, be sure your Naturopathic Doctor is competent! Schedule a health consultation with me for a customized detox protocol and complete cellular health restoration. https://substack.com/home/post/p-144979143
    SUBSTACK.COM
    EDTA Snakeoil! Ana Maria Mihalcea's Medical Malfeasance Exposed
    “I already have had.. uh.. patients die from shedding” - Ana Maria Mihalcea, M.D.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4611 Views
  • Project Total Control: Everything Is a Weapon When Totalitarianism Is Normalized
    By John & Nisha Whitehead July 10, 2024
    “The biggest mistake I see is people waiting for A Big Sign that’ll tell them that things have gone too far. One Big Thing that police or lawmakers or the president/leaders will do that will cross the line. It’ll never come because they won’t cross it. They’ll move the line. That line you think you stand behind is shifting everyday with little actions, bills, legislations… That line will stop moving one day, & it’ll be too late... Every day, your sensitivity is being eroded by these willful atrocities. The envelope for what you’ll accept is being pushed. One day, all of these things will be your new normal.”—Nigerian writer Suyi Davies Okungbowa

    The U.S. government is working to re-shape the country in the image of a totalitarian state.

    This has remained true over the past 50-plus years no matter which political party held office.

    This will remain true no matter who wins the 2024 presidential election.

    In the midst of the partisan furor over Project 2025, a 920-page roadmap for how to re-fashion the government to favor so-called conservative causes, both the Right and the Left have proven themselves woefully naive about the dangers posed by the power-hungry Deep State.

    Yet we must never lose sight of the fact that both the Right and the Left and their various operatives are extensions of the Deep State, which continues to wage psychological warfare on the American people.

    Psychological warfare, according to the Rand Corporation, “involves the planned use of propaganda and other psychological operations to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of opposition groups.”

    For years now, the government has been bombarding the citizenry with propaganda campaigns and psychological operations aimed at keeping us compliant, easily controlled and supportive of the government’s various efforts abroad and domestically.

    The government is so confident in its Orwellian powers of manipulation that it’s taken to bragging about them. For example, in 2022, the U.S. Army’s 4th Psychological Operations Group, the branch of the military responsible for psychological warfare, released a recruiting video that touts its efforts to pull the strings, turn everything they touch into a weapon, be everywhere, deceive, persuade, change, influence, and inspire.

    “Have you ever wondered who’s pulling the strings?” the psyops video posits. “Anything we touch is a weapon. We can deceive, persuade, change, influence, inspire. We come in many forms. We are everywhere.”

    This is the danger that lurks in plain sight.

    Of the many weapons in the government’s vast arsenal, psychological warfare may be the most devastating in terms of the long-term consequences.

    As the military journal Task and Purpose explains, “Psychological warfare is all about influencing governments, people of power, and everyday citizens.”

    Mind you, these psyops (psychological operations) campaigns aren’t only aimed at foreign enemies. The government has made clear in word and deed that “we the people” are domestic enemies to be targeted, tracked, manipulated, micromanaged, surveilled, viewed as suspects, and treated as if our fundamental rights are mere privileges that can be easily discarded.

    This is what is referred to as “apple-pie propaganda.”

    Aided and abetted by technological advances and scientific experimentation, the government has been subjecting the American people to “apple-pie propaganda” for the better part of the last century.

    Consider some of the ways in which the government continues to wage psychological warfare on a largely unsuspecting citizenry in order to acclimate us to the Deep State’s totalitarian agenda.

    Weaponizing violence in order to institute martial law. With alarming regularity, the nation continues to be subjected to spates of violence that terrorizes the public, destabilizes the country’s ecosystem, and gives the government greater justifications to crack down, lock down, and institute even more authoritarian policies for the so-called sake of national security without many objections from the citizenry.

    Weaponizing surveillance, pre-crime and pre-thought campaigns. Surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence. When the government sees all and knows all and has an abundance of laws to render even the most seemingly upstanding citizen a criminal and lawbreaker, then the old adage that you’ve got nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide no longer applies. Add pre-crime programs into the mix with government agencies and corporations working in tandem to determine who is a potential danger and spin a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies, and you having the makings for a perfect dystopian nightmare. The government’s war on crime has now veered into the realm of social media and technological entrapment, with government agents adopting fake social media identities and AI-created profile pictures in order to surveil, target and capture potential suspects.

    Weaponizing digital currencies, social media scores and censorship. Tech giants, working with the government, have been meting out their own version of social justice by way of digital tyranny and corporate censorship, muzzling whomever they want, whenever they want, on whatever pretext they want in the absence of any real due process, review or appeal. Unfortunately, digital censorship is just the beginning. Digital currencies (which can be used as “a tool for government surveillance of citizens and control over their financial transactions”), combined with social media scores and surveillance capitalism create a litmus test to determine who is worthy enough to be part of society and punish individuals for moral lapses and social transgressions (and reward them for adhering to government-sanctioned behavior). In China, millions of individuals and businesses, blacklisted as “unworthy” based on social media credit scores that grade them based on whether they are “good” citizens, have been banned from accessing financial markets, buying real estate or travelling by air or train.

    Weaponizing compliance. Even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on COVID-19, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.

    Weaponizing entertainment. For the past century, the Department of Defense’s Entertainment Media Office has provided Hollywood with equipment, personnel and technical expertise at taxpayer expense. In exchange, the military industrial complex has gotten a starring role in such blockbusters as Top Gun and its rebooted sequel Top Gun: Maverick, which translates to free advertising for the war hawks, recruitment of foot soldiers for the military empire, patriotic fervor by the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the nation’s endless wars, and Hollywood visionaries working to churn out dystopian thrillers that make the war machine appear relevant, heroic and necessary. As Elmer Davis, a CBS broadcaster who was appointed the head of the Office of War Information, observed, “The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people’s minds is to let it go through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize that they are being propagandized.”

    Weaponizing behavioral science and nudging. Apart from the overt dangers posed by a government that feels justified and empowered to spy on its people and use its ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and technology to monitor and control them, there’s also the covert dangers associated with a government empowered to use these same technologies to influence behaviors en masse and control the populace. In fact, it was President Obama who issued an executive order directing federal agencies to use “behavioral science” methods to minimize bureaucracy and influence the way people respond to government programs. It’s a short hop, skip and a jump from a behavioral program that tries to influence how people respond to paperwork to a government program that tries to shape the public’s views about other, more consequential matters. Thus, increasingly, governments around the world—including in the United States—are relying on “nudge units” to steer citizens in the direction the powers-that-be want them to go, while preserving the appearance of free will.

    Weaponizing desensitization campaigns aimed at lulling us into a false sense of security. The events of recent years—the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the lockdowns, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers—have conspired to acclimate the populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully.

    Weaponizing politics. The language of fear is spoken effectively by politicians on both sides of the aisle, shouted by media pundits from their cable TV pulpits, marketed by corporations, and codified into bureaucratic laws that do little to make our lives safer or more secure. Fear, as history shows, is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government and control a populace, dividing the people into factions, and persuading them to see each other as the enemy. This Machiavellian scheme has so ensnared the nation that few Americans even realize they are being manipulated into adopting an “us” against “them” mindset. Instead, fueled with fear and loathing for phantom opponents, they agree to pour millions of dollars and resources into political elections, militarized police, spy technology and endless wars, hoping for a guarantee of safety that never comes. All the while, those in power—bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporations—move their costly agendas forward, and “we the suckers” get saddled with the tax bills and subjected to pat downs, police raids and round-the-clock surveillance.

    Weaponizing genetics. Not only does fear grease the wheels of the transition to fascism by cultivating fearful, controlled, pacified, cowed citizens, but it also embeds itself in our very DNA so that we pass on our fear and compliance to our offspring. It’s called epigenetic inheritance, the transmission through DNA of traumatic experiences. For example, neuroscientists observed that fear can travel through generations of mice DNA. As The Washington Post reports, “Studies on humans suggest that children and grandchildren may have felt the epigenetic impact of such traumatic events such as famine, the Holocaust and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

    Weaponizing the dystopian future. With greater frequency, the government has been issuing warnings about the dire need to prepare for the dystopian future that awaits us. For instance, the Pentagon training video, “Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity,” predicts that by 2030 (coincidentally, the same year that society begins to achieve singularity with the metaverse) the military would be called on to use armed forces to solve future domestic political and social problems. What they’re really talking about is martial law, packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security. The chilling five-minute training video paints an ominous picture of the future bedeviled by “criminal networks,” “substandard infrastructure,” “religious and ethnic tensions,” “impoverishment, slums,” “open landfills, over-burdened sewers,” a “growing mass of unemployed,” and an urban landscape in which the prosperous economic elite must be protected from the impoverishment of the have nots. “We the people” are the have-nots.

    The end goal of these mind control campaigns—packaged in the guise of the greater good—is to see how far the American people will allow the government to go in undermining our freedoms.

    The facts speak for themselves.

    Whatever else it may be—a danger, a menace, a threat—the U.S. government is certainly not looking out for our best interests, nor is it in any way a friend to freedom.

    When the government views itself as superior to the citizenry, when it no longer operates for the benefit of the people, when the people are no longer able to peacefully reform their government, when government officials cease to act like public servants, when elected officials no longer represent the will of the people, when the government routinely violates the rights of the people and perpetrates more violence against the citizenry than the criminal class, when government spending is unaccountable and unaccounted for, when the judiciary act as courts of order rather than justice, and when the government is no longer bound by the laws of the Constitution, then you no longer have a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

    What we have, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, is a government of wolves.

    WC: 2136

    ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

    Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected]. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

    Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission

    John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact [email protected] to obtain reprint permission.

    https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/project_total_control_everything_is_a_weapon_when_totalitarianism_is_normalized
    Project Total Control: Everything Is a Weapon When Totalitarianism Is Normalized By John & Nisha Whitehead July 10, 2024 “The biggest mistake I see is people waiting for A Big Sign that’ll tell them that things have gone too far. One Big Thing that police or lawmakers or the president/leaders will do that will cross the line. It’ll never come because they won’t cross it. They’ll move the line. That line you think you stand behind is shifting everyday with little actions, bills, legislations… That line will stop moving one day, & it’ll be too late... Every day, your sensitivity is being eroded by these willful atrocities. The envelope for what you’ll accept is being pushed. One day, all of these things will be your new normal.”—Nigerian writer Suyi Davies Okungbowa The U.S. government is working to re-shape the country in the image of a totalitarian state. This has remained true over the past 50-plus years no matter which political party held office. This will remain true no matter who wins the 2024 presidential election. In the midst of the partisan furor over Project 2025, a 920-page roadmap for how to re-fashion the government to favor so-called conservative causes, both the Right and the Left have proven themselves woefully naive about the dangers posed by the power-hungry Deep State. Yet we must never lose sight of the fact that both the Right and the Left and their various operatives are extensions of the Deep State, which continues to wage psychological warfare on the American people. Psychological warfare, according to the Rand Corporation, “involves the planned use of propaganda and other psychological operations to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of opposition groups.” For years now, the government has been bombarding the citizenry with propaganda campaigns and psychological operations aimed at keeping us compliant, easily controlled and supportive of the government’s various efforts abroad and domestically. The government is so confident in its Orwellian powers of manipulation that it’s taken to bragging about them. For example, in 2022, the U.S. Army’s 4th Psychological Operations Group, the branch of the military responsible for psychological warfare, released a recruiting video that touts its efforts to pull the strings, turn everything they touch into a weapon, be everywhere, deceive, persuade, change, influence, and inspire. “Have you ever wondered who’s pulling the strings?” the psyops video posits. “Anything we touch is a weapon. We can deceive, persuade, change, influence, inspire. We come in many forms. We are everywhere.” This is the danger that lurks in plain sight. Of the many weapons in the government’s vast arsenal, psychological warfare may be the most devastating in terms of the long-term consequences. As the military journal Task and Purpose explains, “Psychological warfare is all about influencing governments, people of power, and everyday citizens.” Mind you, these psyops (psychological operations) campaigns aren’t only aimed at foreign enemies. The government has made clear in word and deed that “we the people” are domestic enemies to be targeted, tracked, manipulated, micromanaged, surveilled, viewed as suspects, and treated as if our fundamental rights are mere privileges that can be easily discarded. This is what is referred to as “apple-pie propaganda.” Aided and abetted by technological advances and scientific experimentation, the government has been subjecting the American people to “apple-pie propaganda” for the better part of the last century. Consider some of the ways in which the government continues to wage psychological warfare on a largely unsuspecting citizenry in order to acclimate us to the Deep State’s totalitarian agenda. Weaponizing violence in order to institute martial law. With alarming regularity, the nation continues to be subjected to spates of violence that terrorizes the public, destabilizes the country’s ecosystem, and gives the government greater justifications to crack down, lock down, and institute even more authoritarian policies for the so-called sake of national security without many objections from the citizenry. Weaponizing surveillance, pre-crime and pre-thought campaigns. Surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence. When the government sees all and knows all and has an abundance of laws to render even the most seemingly upstanding citizen a criminal and lawbreaker, then the old adage that you’ve got nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide no longer applies. Add pre-crime programs into the mix with government agencies and corporations working in tandem to determine who is a potential danger and spin a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies, and you having the makings for a perfect dystopian nightmare. The government’s war on crime has now veered into the realm of social media and technological entrapment, with government agents adopting fake social media identities and AI-created profile pictures in order to surveil, target and capture potential suspects. Weaponizing digital currencies, social media scores and censorship. Tech giants, working with the government, have been meting out their own version of social justice by way of digital tyranny and corporate censorship, muzzling whomever they want, whenever they want, on whatever pretext they want in the absence of any real due process, review or appeal. Unfortunately, digital censorship is just the beginning. Digital currencies (which can be used as “a tool for government surveillance of citizens and control over their financial transactions”), combined with social media scores and surveillance capitalism create a litmus test to determine who is worthy enough to be part of society and punish individuals for moral lapses and social transgressions (and reward them for adhering to government-sanctioned behavior). In China, millions of individuals and businesses, blacklisted as “unworthy” based on social media credit scores that grade them based on whether they are “good” citizens, have been banned from accessing financial markets, buying real estate or travelling by air or train. Weaponizing compliance. Even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on COVID-19, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands. Weaponizing entertainment. For the past century, the Department of Defense’s Entertainment Media Office has provided Hollywood with equipment, personnel and technical expertise at taxpayer expense. In exchange, the military industrial complex has gotten a starring role in such blockbusters as Top Gun and its rebooted sequel Top Gun: Maverick, which translates to free advertising for the war hawks, recruitment of foot soldiers for the military empire, patriotic fervor by the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the nation’s endless wars, and Hollywood visionaries working to churn out dystopian thrillers that make the war machine appear relevant, heroic and necessary. As Elmer Davis, a CBS broadcaster who was appointed the head of the Office of War Information, observed, “The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people’s minds is to let it go through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize that they are being propagandized.” Weaponizing behavioral science and nudging. Apart from the overt dangers posed by a government that feels justified and empowered to spy on its people and use its ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and technology to monitor and control them, there’s also the covert dangers associated with a government empowered to use these same technologies to influence behaviors en masse and control the populace. In fact, it was President Obama who issued an executive order directing federal agencies to use “behavioral science” methods to minimize bureaucracy and influence the way people respond to government programs. It’s a short hop, skip and a jump from a behavioral program that tries to influence how people respond to paperwork to a government program that tries to shape the public’s views about other, more consequential matters. Thus, increasingly, governments around the world—including in the United States—are relying on “nudge units” to steer citizens in the direction the powers-that-be want them to go, while preserving the appearance of free will. Weaponizing desensitization campaigns aimed at lulling us into a false sense of security. The events of recent years—the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the lockdowns, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers—have conspired to acclimate the populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully. Weaponizing politics. The language of fear is spoken effectively by politicians on both sides of the aisle, shouted by media pundits from their cable TV pulpits, marketed by corporations, and codified into bureaucratic laws that do little to make our lives safer or more secure. Fear, as history shows, is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government and control a populace, dividing the people into factions, and persuading them to see each other as the enemy. This Machiavellian scheme has so ensnared the nation that few Americans even realize they are being manipulated into adopting an “us” against “them” mindset. Instead, fueled with fear and loathing for phantom opponents, they agree to pour millions of dollars and resources into political elections, militarized police, spy technology and endless wars, hoping for a guarantee of safety that never comes. All the while, those in power—bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporations—move their costly agendas forward, and “we the suckers” get saddled with the tax bills and subjected to pat downs, police raids and round-the-clock surveillance. Weaponizing genetics. Not only does fear grease the wheels of the transition to fascism by cultivating fearful, controlled, pacified, cowed citizens, but it also embeds itself in our very DNA so that we pass on our fear and compliance to our offspring. It’s called epigenetic inheritance, the transmission through DNA of traumatic experiences. For example, neuroscientists observed that fear can travel through generations of mice DNA. As The Washington Post reports, “Studies on humans suggest that children and grandchildren may have felt the epigenetic impact of such traumatic events such as famine, the Holocaust and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.” Weaponizing the dystopian future. With greater frequency, the government has been issuing warnings about the dire need to prepare for the dystopian future that awaits us. For instance, the Pentagon training video, “Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity,” predicts that by 2030 (coincidentally, the same year that society begins to achieve singularity with the metaverse) the military would be called on to use armed forces to solve future domestic political and social problems. What they’re really talking about is martial law, packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security. The chilling five-minute training video paints an ominous picture of the future bedeviled by “criminal networks,” “substandard infrastructure,” “religious and ethnic tensions,” “impoverishment, slums,” “open landfills, over-burdened sewers,” a “growing mass of unemployed,” and an urban landscape in which the prosperous economic elite must be protected from the impoverishment of the have nots. “We the people” are the have-nots. The end goal of these mind control campaigns—packaged in the guise of the greater good—is to see how far the American people will allow the government to go in undermining our freedoms. The facts speak for themselves. Whatever else it may be—a danger, a menace, a threat—the U.S. government is certainly not looking out for our best interests, nor is it in any way a friend to freedom. When the government views itself as superior to the citizenry, when it no longer operates for the benefit of the people, when the people are no longer able to peacefully reform their government, when government officials cease to act like public servants, when elected officials no longer represent the will of the people, when the government routinely violates the rights of the people and perpetrates more violence against the citizenry than the criminal class, when government spending is unaccountable and unaccounted for, when the judiciary act as courts of order rather than justice, and when the government is no longer bound by the laws of the Constitution, then you no longer have a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.” What we have, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, is a government of wolves. WC: 2136 ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected]. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org. Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact [email protected] to obtain reprint permission. https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/project_total_control_everything_is_a_weapon_when_totalitarianism_is_normalized
    WWW.RUTHERFORD.ORG
    Project Total Control: Everything Is a Weapon When Totalitarianism Is Normalized | By John & Nisha Whitehead
    The U.S. government is working to re-shape the country in the image of a totalitarian state. This has remained true over the past 50-plus years no matter which political party held office. This will remain true no matter who wins the 2024 presidential election.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 4309 Views
  • A Critical Look at a COVID-19 Vaccination Study: Clarity is Key
    July 7, 2024
    Uncategorized
    By Sarena L. McLean MSc. (Epidemiology & Biostatistics), Health Sciences Researcher & Member of Doctors for Covid Ethics (2021)

    The study “A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province” by Alessandria et al. aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality while correcting for immortal time bias (ITB). Conducted in the Piedmont region of Italy, the study utilized a retrospective cohort design using a dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System, residents aged 10 and older, from January 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022 (Alessandria et al., p. 2). The authors aligned follow-up periods to ensure comparability between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, dividing the cohort into groups based on vaccination status: unvaccinated, one dose, two doses, and three or four doses.

    The study found an increased risk of death associated with receiving one or two doses of the vaccine, with less clear results for three or four doses. Covariates analyzed included gender, age, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular disease, kidney diseases, cancer, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status. The authors used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios for all-cause mortality and employed Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) and Restricted Mean Time Lost (RMTL) for additional measures of survival and life expectancy (Alessandria et al., p. 4).

    1. Strengths of the Study

    The study used an innovative ITB correction, designed for accurate vaccination impact assessment. Additionally, the use of a large dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System provided a comprehensive dataset for analysis. Importantly, the authors chose to complete an all-cause mortality analysis versus examining COVID-19 death statistics, which are rife with misclassification errors. The all-cause mortality is not only more robust but also captures the impact from other indirect effects of COVID-19 such as delayed medical treatments.

    2. Areas for Improvement

    2.1. Overall Presentation

    The article requires clarity, and a few items are missing. For example, when beginning to read the abstract, the authors lay out the analysis problem in general, which is an excellent consideration. However, the authors would best help the reader orient themselves first by providing an overview or context. We know nothing about the work, so help us follow along with you. There is no clear research question, and all reviewers want to see clear hypotheses, objectives, and purpose. I struggled at first to understand the unstratified sample size. Do not make work for the reader is always good advice.

    There are many indications the authors were innovative and thorough in their approach and diligent in their process. Unfortunately, there were details and explanations missing that created a lot of questions during the review. It is challenging to discern if there are methodological or statistical analysis issues or are simply missing pieces of information creating a conversation about items that are already addressed and valid. The comments below are intended to demonstrate what arose in this review.

    2.2. Descriptive Statistics

    More detailed descriptive statistics are needed to provide context for the study population and their baseline characteristics. These statistics are vital for both lay readers and academics to understand the foundation of the investigation and provide essential information to assess both the statistical approach and interpret the findings. As a health science researcher, I am always looking for the measures of central tendency because I am interested in the distribution of these variables. Additionally, this item relates to the above point about unclear or missing details. The scientific method is predicated on the ability to replicate a study. We are unable to do that in this instance because the information is unclear. For example, I am assuming the authors chose not to provide details about vaccine manufacturers or types of vaccines for a substantial reason. However, there is no discussion about this. We are all challenged by word counts in publishing our work; yet some background and explanatory information is crucial.

    2.3. Covariates/Confounders

    Multicollinearity

    The study includes several covariates that may have the potential to cause multicollinearity issues. Age and sex are unlikely to present problems. Cancer and infection are only moderately correlated with other conditions, while hypertension and COPD, though more correlated with other comorbidities, are still manageable within the model. However, cardiovascular disease is highly correlated with multiple conditions, notably hypertension and diabetes, which can complicate the analysis. The most significant concerns are diabetes and kidney disease, which are strongly correlated with each other and with other chronic conditions. This high correlation, known as multicollinearity, which can severely impact the stability of the regression coefficients, making it difficult to determine the individual effect of each variable. For example, the study’s regression model might show a misleadingly high effect of vaccination on mortality if the true effect is confounded by the combined impact of diabetes and kidney disease, leading to unreliable results. I would have preferred to read the authors’ comments on the associations among their covariates briefly in prose or shown in a table.

    Limited Covariates

    The covariates were limited in this study. This is generally problematic, because it limits the ability to control for factors that can significantly influence health outcomes. Specifically from a social epidemiological perspective, missing covariates highly correlated with poor health outcomes, such as socio-economic status (SES), access to healthcare, and mental health status, can lead to residual confounding where we may miss the opportunity to see what is truly driving the relationship(s) resulting in poor outcomes (Alessandria et al., p. 4). Importantly, these same factors were directly impacted by COVID-19 response measures. For instance, individuals with lower SES often face greater barriers to healthcare access and may have challenging living conditions, which can increase their vulnerability and result in an increase in both the burden of disease, and mortality. The study did include clinical covariates such as chronic diseases like hypertension, diabetes, COPD, cardiovascular disease, kidney diseases, cancer, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status, but broader social determinants of health were overlooked (Alessandria et al., p. 4).

    Statistical Methods

    An early question about the model was the exclusion of deaths in the first 2-week time period after vaccination. For example, we know that cardiac death occurs in that time frame; thus, the omission of this time period could impact the results.

    It was unclear from the paper whether the authors examined and could assure readers that the data met the assumption criteria for the Cox model statistical analysis. The assumption required for a Cox model to be robust and valid is that the hazard ratios for the covariates must be constant over time (Alessandria et al., p. 5-6). Confirming this would be helpful for readers, as it would address concerns about the robustness of the statistical analysis. There is some information in the notes for Table 3, which do demonstrate the authors were addressing this issue along with a reference to the Schoenfeld’s test (Alessandria et al., p. 4). However, in my view, it remains unclear if the assumption is sufficiently addressed, particularly with respect to the confounders. By providing more comprehensive evidence of how the proportional hazards assumption was tested and addressed for each covariate (and confounders) including detailed plots or test statistics and explaining the stratification rationale would strengthen the study’s validity and address concerns effectively.

    If the proportional hazards assumption is violated in a Cox regression model, it can cause several problems. The estimates of the hazard ratios may be biased, meaning they do not accurately show the true relationship between the covariates and the risk of the event occurring. This can lead to incorrect statistical tests and confidence intervals, causing wrong conclusions about the effects of the covariates. In the context of the study by Alessandria et al., if this assumption is violated, it could compromise the validity of their findings about the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality. The observed effects might be due to changes over time rather than a true relationship, leading to erroneous results.

    While Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a simplified Cox model do not directly address immortal time bias as comprehensively as the authors’ approach, these methods can be adjusted to partially mitigate ITB. Incorporating time-dependent covariates can help align risk periods correctly. As Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) explain, using time-dependent covariates within Cox regression can effectively handle violations of the proportional hazards assumption, providing more reliable results.

    The advanced and complex nature of the original analysis, combined with missing or unclear foundational information, such as the research question and descriptive statistics, makes it difficult to determine if the authors’ findings are robust. For example, when reviewing Table 3.0, the covariate ‘Infection’ with SARS-CoV-2 shows hazard ratios of less than 1 compared to the population without infection, which is curious. Amon subjects who had received a single dose, the HR was 0.58, which suggests that the SARS-CoV-2-infected group had 42% lower hazard or risk compared to the non-infected group. I did not find any outcomes listed in the paper that suggested a lower risk made sense given the outcomes referred to are death and COVID-19-related deaths (Alessandria et al., p. 3).

    Finally, an important suggestion is to clearly state what you are not going to do. It clears up any confusion and lays a boundary for why we do not venture into areas that are beyond the scope and resources we have in our work. Overall, it takes away a critique of the reviewers.

    3. Conclusion

    There could be valuable findings in this study, but the presentation is hindered by insufficient foundational information and very complex data analysis. Simplifying the methods and ensuring clarity in objectives and descriptive statistics would enhance the study’s reliability and accessibility. It would allow the reader to move beyond the initial information without so many questions. In this study, the investigators have been bold to embrace an untraditional statistical approach thus, to truly add to the body of literature, the detail is important. By embracing a more rigorous review process, we uphold the integrity of science and contribute to more reliable and impactful research.

    For the authors, consider revising the study to address these concerns and recirculate their work. It is innovative yet complex, so clarity is key. I give credit to the authors for stepping out boldly to address gaps in the research.

    4. References

    Alessandria, M. et al. (2024) A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during {COVID}-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province. Microorganisms 12:1343 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071343

    Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.



    A Critical Look at a COVID-19 Vaccination Study: Clarity is Key

    by Sarena L. McLean, MSc.

    The study “A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province” by Alessandria et al. aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality while correcting for immortal time bias (ITB). Conducted in the Piedmont region of Italy, the study utilized a retrospective cohort design using a dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System, residents aged 10 and older, from January 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022 (Alessandria et al., p. 2). The authors aligned follow-up periods to ensure comparability between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, dividing the cohort into groups based on vaccination status: unvaccinated, one dose, two doses, and three or four doses.

    Read the full report: https://doctors4covidethics.org/a-critical-look-at-a-covid-19-vaccination-study-clarity-is-key/
    A Critical Look at a COVID-19 Vaccination Study: Clarity is Key July 7, 2024 Uncategorized By Sarena L. McLean MSc. (Epidemiology & Biostatistics), Health Sciences Researcher & Member of Doctors for Covid Ethics (2021) The study “A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province” by Alessandria et al. aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality while correcting for immortal time bias (ITB). Conducted in the Piedmont region of Italy, the study utilized a retrospective cohort design using a dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System, residents aged 10 and older, from January 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022 (Alessandria et al., p. 2). The authors aligned follow-up periods to ensure comparability between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, dividing the cohort into groups based on vaccination status: unvaccinated, one dose, two doses, and three or four doses. The study found an increased risk of death associated with receiving one or two doses of the vaccine, with less clear results for three or four doses. Covariates analyzed included gender, age, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular disease, kidney diseases, cancer, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status. The authors used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios for all-cause mortality and employed Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) and Restricted Mean Time Lost (RMTL) for additional measures of survival and life expectancy (Alessandria et al., p. 4). 1. Strengths of the Study The study used an innovative ITB correction, designed for accurate vaccination impact assessment. Additionally, the use of a large dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System provided a comprehensive dataset for analysis. Importantly, the authors chose to complete an all-cause mortality analysis versus examining COVID-19 death statistics, which are rife with misclassification errors. The all-cause mortality is not only more robust but also captures the impact from other indirect effects of COVID-19 such as delayed medical treatments. 2. Areas for Improvement 2.1. Overall Presentation The article requires clarity, and a few items are missing. For example, when beginning to read the abstract, the authors lay out the analysis problem in general, which is an excellent consideration. However, the authors would best help the reader orient themselves first by providing an overview or context. We know nothing about the work, so help us follow along with you. There is no clear research question, and all reviewers want to see clear hypotheses, objectives, and purpose. I struggled at first to understand the unstratified sample size. Do not make work for the reader is always good advice. There are many indications the authors were innovative and thorough in their approach and diligent in their process. Unfortunately, there were details and explanations missing that created a lot of questions during the review. It is challenging to discern if there are methodological or statistical analysis issues or are simply missing pieces of information creating a conversation about items that are already addressed and valid. The comments below are intended to demonstrate what arose in this review. 2.2. Descriptive Statistics More detailed descriptive statistics are needed to provide context for the study population and their baseline characteristics. These statistics are vital for both lay readers and academics to understand the foundation of the investigation and provide essential information to assess both the statistical approach and interpret the findings. As a health science researcher, I am always looking for the measures of central tendency because I am interested in the distribution of these variables. Additionally, this item relates to the above point about unclear or missing details. The scientific method is predicated on the ability to replicate a study. We are unable to do that in this instance because the information is unclear. For example, I am assuming the authors chose not to provide details about vaccine manufacturers or types of vaccines for a substantial reason. However, there is no discussion about this. We are all challenged by word counts in publishing our work; yet some background and explanatory information is crucial. 2.3. Covariates/Confounders Multicollinearity The study includes several covariates that may have the potential to cause multicollinearity issues. Age and sex are unlikely to present problems. Cancer and infection are only moderately correlated with other conditions, while hypertension and COPD, though more correlated with other comorbidities, are still manageable within the model. However, cardiovascular disease is highly correlated with multiple conditions, notably hypertension and diabetes, which can complicate the analysis. The most significant concerns are diabetes and kidney disease, which are strongly correlated with each other and with other chronic conditions. This high correlation, known as multicollinearity, which can severely impact the stability of the regression coefficients, making it difficult to determine the individual effect of each variable. For example, the study’s regression model might show a misleadingly high effect of vaccination on mortality if the true effect is confounded by the combined impact of diabetes and kidney disease, leading to unreliable results. I would have preferred to read the authors’ comments on the associations among their covariates briefly in prose or shown in a table. Limited Covariates The covariates were limited in this study. This is generally problematic, because it limits the ability to control for factors that can significantly influence health outcomes. Specifically from a social epidemiological perspective, missing covariates highly correlated with poor health outcomes, such as socio-economic status (SES), access to healthcare, and mental health status, can lead to residual confounding where we may miss the opportunity to see what is truly driving the relationship(s) resulting in poor outcomes (Alessandria et al., p. 4). Importantly, these same factors were directly impacted by COVID-19 response measures. For instance, individuals with lower SES often face greater barriers to healthcare access and may have challenging living conditions, which can increase their vulnerability and result in an increase in both the burden of disease, and mortality. The study did include clinical covariates such as chronic diseases like hypertension, diabetes, COPD, cardiovascular disease, kidney diseases, cancer, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status, but broader social determinants of health were overlooked (Alessandria et al., p. 4). Statistical Methods An early question about the model was the exclusion of deaths in the first 2-week time period after vaccination. For example, we know that cardiac death occurs in that time frame; thus, the omission of this time period could impact the results. It was unclear from the paper whether the authors examined and could assure readers that the data met the assumption criteria for the Cox model statistical analysis. The assumption required for a Cox model to be robust and valid is that the hazard ratios for the covariates must be constant over time (Alessandria et al., p. 5-6). Confirming this would be helpful for readers, as it would address concerns about the robustness of the statistical analysis. There is some information in the notes for Table 3, which do demonstrate the authors were addressing this issue along with a reference to the Schoenfeld’s test (Alessandria et al., p. 4). However, in my view, it remains unclear if the assumption is sufficiently addressed, particularly with respect to the confounders. By providing more comprehensive evidence of how the proportional hazards assumption was tested and addressed for each covariate (and confounders) including detailed plots or test statistics and explaining the stratification rationale would strengthen the study’s validity and address concerns effectively. If the proportional hazards assumption is violated in a Cox regression model, it can cause several problems. The estimates of the hazard ratios may be biased, meaning they do not accurately show the true relationship between the covariates and the risk of the event occurring. This can lead to incorrect statistical tests and confidence intervals, causing wrong conclusions about the effects of the covariates. In the context of the study by Alessandria et al., if this assumption is violated, it could compromise the validity of their findings about the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality. The observed effects might be due to changes over time rather than a true relationship, leading to erroneous results. While Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a simplified Cox model do not directly address immortal time bias as comprehensively as the authors’ approach, these methods can be adjusted to partially mitigate ITB. Incorporating time-dependent covariates can help align risk periods correctly. As Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) explain, using time-dependent covariates within Cox regression can effectively handle violations of the proportional hazards assumption, providing more reliable results. The advanced and complex nature of the original analysis, combined with missing or unclear foundational information, such as the research question and descriptive statistics, makes it difficult to determine if the authors’ findings are robust. For example, when reviewing Table 3.0, the covariate ‘Infection’ with SARS-CoV-2 shows hazard ratios of less than 1 compared to the population without infection, which is curious. Amon subjects who had received a single dose, the HR was 0.58, which suggests that the SARS-CoV-2-infected group had 42% lower hazard or risk compared to the non-infected group. I did not find any outcomes listed in the paper that suggested a lower risk made sense given the outcomes referred to are death and COVID-19-related deaths (Alessandria et al., p. 3). Finally, an important suggestion is to clearly state what you are not going to do. It clears up any confusion and lays a boundary for why we do not venture into areas that are beyond the scope and resources we have in our work. Overall, it takes away a critique of the reviewers. 3. Conclusion There could be valuable findings in this study, but the presentation is hindered by insufficient foundational information and very complex data analysis. Simplifying the methods and ensuring clarity in objectives and descriptive statistics would enhance the study’s reliability and accessibility. It would allow the reader to move beyond the initial information without so many questions. In this study, the investigators have been bold to embrace an untraditional statistical approach thus, to truly add to the body of literature, the detail is important. By embracing a more rigorous review process, we uphold the integrity of science and contribute to more reliable and impactful research. For the authors, consider revising the study to address these concerns and recirculate their work. It is innovative yet complex, so clarity is key. I give credit to the authors for stepping out boldly to address gaps in the research. 4. References Alessandria, M. et al. (2024) A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during {COVID}-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province. Microorganisms 12:1343 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071343 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics (7th ed.). Pearson. A Critical Look at a COVID-19 Vaccination Study: Clarity is Key by Sarena L. McLean, MSc. The study “A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province” by Alessandria et al. aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality while correcting for immortal time bias (ITB). Conducted in the Piedmont region of Italy, the study utilized a retrospective cohort design using a dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System, residents aged 10 and older, from January 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022 (Alessandria et al., p. 2). The authors aligned follow-up periods to ensure comparability between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, dividing the cohort into groups based on vaccination status: unvaccinated, one dose, two doses, and three or four doses. Read the full report: https://doctors4covidethics.org/a-critical-look-at-a-covid-19-vaccination-study-clarity-is-key/
    DOCTORS4COVIDETHICS.ORG
    A Critical Look at a COVID-19 Vaccination Study: Clarity is Key
    By Sarena L. McLean MSc. (Epidemiology & Biostatistics), Health Sciences Researcher & Member of Doctors for Covid Ethics (2021) The study 'A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province' by Alessandria et al. aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality while correcting for immortal time bias (ITB). Conducted in the Piedmont region of Italy, the study
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3958 Views
More Results