• World's Biggest Study on COVID 'Vaccine' Side Effects Has Been Published.
    'Anti-Vaxxers' and 'Conspiracy Theorists' vs People Who Believe Anything. Guess Who Wins (Again)?

    Anthony Colpo

    The world's biggest study on COVID ‘vaccine’ side effects has recently been published online. Before I discuss the eye-opening findings, I thought it would be instructive to take a quick trip down memory lane and revisit the peak years of COVID insanity. The days when pro-vaxxxers, with all the fervor of religious extremists who think 'AIDS' is a divine punishment, spewed hatred at those of us who just wanted to be left the heck alone. These were the self-righteous, all-knowing idiots who mindlessly recited slogans like Follow The Science!™ while blindly following the crowd.

    It makes for an interesting exercise to see where the science has actually traveled, and compare its findings to what the mainstream lunatic fringe was incessantly yelling just a couple of short years ago.

    Yet Another Clueless 'Journalist' Who Made Seriously Misinformed Statements About Vaccines

    A week or so ago, while searching for something else online, I happened upon an article titled "Just 15 Celebrities Who Have Made Seriously Misinformed Statements About Vaccines." The article appeared on a website called BuzzFeed, and was authored by a Morgan Sloss, whose other epic contributions to literary history include "Margot Robbie Broke Her Silence On Her 'Barbie' Oscar Snub For Best Actress" and "Drew Barrymore Joked That She's Giving Up On Dating Apps After A Guy Lied To Her About Being An NFL Quarterback."

    Something tells me Morgan doesn't spend a whole lot of time analyzing research papers.

    BuzzFeed, an eager outlet for brain-dead celebrity gossip, doesn't exactly qualify as an impartial stalwart of science, either. Especially when it receives money from Pfizer in return for placing paid posts on its website.


    "As of today," laments Sloss in her article, which was last updated on November 3, 2021, "only 61% of Americans have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, despite concerns about the Delta and Omicron variants."

    She continues:

    "With so many people refusing the COVID vaccine — even though it is CDC-recommended and proven to be safe — I thought it would be interesting to look back and see which celebrities have taken anti-vax stances in the past." (Bold emphasis added)

    She then goes on to list a bunch of celebrities who allegedly made "Seriously Misinformed Statements About Vaccines."

    As an example of what Sloss considers "Seriously Misinformed," she cites a chap called Offset. In December 2020, Mr Offset was asked by TMZ if he would be getting the COVID pseudo-vaccine, and he replied in the negative. "I don't trust it," he said.

    Perfectly reasonable and cautious stance, methinks.

    Six months prior to Sloss penning her seriously misinformed article, Offset said he still hadn't been gene therapied while on the radio show The Breakfast Club. "I'm not tryna be a lab rat, man," he said.

    Well, that's just not cricket according to Sloss, who says it's a "fact that the vaccines were tested in large-scale clinical trials, endorsed by the FDA, and have been given to more than 200 million Americans."

    It's true that the pseudo-vaccines were 'tested' in large-scale clinical trials - and shown to be utterly useless (for those who are shocked or outraged by this statement, you can begin your much-needed deprogramming here, here, here, here, here, and here).

    It's also true that the pseudo-vaccines were endorsed by the terminally corrupt FDA, an agency with a notorious revolving door with the industries it is supposed to regulate, one that derives 75% of its drug review funding from the very companies whose drugs it reviews. Gee, no possible conflict of interest there!

    And, according to the official stats, it's true that over 200 million Americans have received the poison pricks. Those same Americans are now suffering an alarming jump in excess mortality.

    None of those things mean the 'vaccines' are "proven to be safe." To the contrary, they all point to one conclusion: The 'vaccines' are a dangerous fraud promoted by a pack of corrupt grubs.

    With all due respect, Sloss clearly has no idea what she is talking about, and neither do the angry ferals that pollute the comments section following her article. That comments section is a shining monument to the proud, militant gullibility and stupidity that hallmarked the peak years of COVID insanity.

    An anonymous hate-ball using the moniker ‘seaword’ typifies the seething disdain held by the stupid towards those who were wary of taking a drug based on a technology with a 30-year track record of failure.

    "What's even more dangerous than these morons," says seaword of people who refuse to take dangerous gene therapies, "is the people that believe their bullshit. Not one of them has a medical degree or any type of education in virology, epidemiology or infectious diseases. 'BuT i DiD mY rEsEarCh'. Piss off wankers."


    Says the histrionic wanker who thinks celebrity gossip columnists are legitimate sources of health information.

    The remainder of the comments section is an orgy of hate hurled at people who don't go along with the crowd, by people whose brains would crack under the strain of attempting an original thought. Here’s a sampling of the kind of towering intellect that characterizes the Church of Vaxxx:

    When you're dumb enough to believe an obvious liar like Anthony Fauci, there is no limit to the crazed vile you'll launch at those with the temerity to not be as gullible as you.


    So, 2-and-a-half years on, how is the cocksure hatred and arrogance of the pro-vaxxxine mob travelling?

    Is it ageing like a fine wine, or decomposing like a dead fish?

    With so many people 'mysteriously' dropping dead or sustaining debilitating illnesses, I thought it would be interesting to look at some of the more recent data confirming what a truly horrendous act the COVID gene therapies were.

    Follow the Science: Largest Study to Date Confirms Vaxxxine Dangers

    On February 12, Vaccine journal published a study by The Global COVID Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) Project evaluating the risk of "adverse events of special interest" following COVID-19 'vaccination.'

    Encompassing ten sites across 8 countries, this is the largest published study to date on the topic of COVID 'vaccine' side effects. The study sample included over 99 million 'vaccinated' individuals from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, New Zealand and Scotland.

    Rest assured, this was no collaboration by so-called 'anti-vaxxers.' The GCoVS project is financed by the industry-funded and intensely pro-vaccine Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health Ontario and Canadian health research institute ICES. A number of the researchers have financial ties to drug companies including GSK, Gilead Sciences, Lundbeck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Pfizer.

    Hardly a group that stands to gain from dumping on the wares of Big Pharma. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    The study focused on a small portion of the hundreds of different side effects linked to the COVID gene therapies. The researchers examined thirteen adverse events of special interest (AESIs), falling under 3 main categories: Neurological, hematologic (blood), and cardiovascular.

    The researchers calculated AESI risk on the basis of “Observed versus Expected” (OE) incidents, occurring up to 42 days after injection. That means they calculated the expected number of cases using pre-vaxxx background rates of the studied AESIs from 2015 to 2019 (2019–2020 for Denmark). These rates were then compared with the rates observed in the study's vaxxxinated sample up to six weeks post-injection.

    The study periods ranged between December 2020 and August 2023. Three gene therapies were included in the analysis: Pfizer's BNT162b2, Moderna's mRNA-1273, and AstraZeneca's ChAdOx1 vaccines.

    Most 'vaccine' recipients were in the 20–59-year age range. The states with the highest numbers of doses in the study were Ontario, Canada (32,159,817) - ruled by Castro-loving tyrant Justin Trudeau - and Victoria, Australia (15,617,627), whose once-vibrant capital Melbourne became the world's most locked-down city under the dictatorship of lanky psychopath Dan Andrews.

    When the data were analysed, several disturbing findings emerged.

    Myocarditis and Pericarditis

    Administration of all three vaccines significantly increased the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. After the first and second Pfizercarditis shots, the OE ratios for myocarditis were 2.78 and 2.86, respectively. The risk remained doubled after the third and fourth shots.

    The first and second Moderna shots, meanwhile, delivered alarming OE ratios for myocarditis of 3.48 and 6.10, respectively.

    The mainstream has done its best to reframe myocarditis as a usually "mild and transient" condition. The mainstream, of course, thrives on misleading people. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the myocardium, the middle muscular layer of the heart wall. The condition may be acute and resolve quickly, or it may be chronic. Interestingly, the American Heart Association defines "chronic" as lasting longer than two weeks, which means most of the case reports of vaxxx-related myocarditis are chronic as all get out.

    Just to be clear, we're not talking about a sprained ankle here. In severe cases, myocarditis can lead to stroke, heart attack, heart failure or death.

    Which would really ruin your day. Especially when the cause was a drug that was never a vaccine (it's an out-and-out gene therapy) that you took in order to fight a virus that has never been isolated.

    The third AstraZeneca shot delivered a heart-scorching OE ratio for pericarditis of 6.91, while doses 1 and 4 of the Moderna drug produced OE ratios of 1.74 and 2.64, respectively.

    Pericarditis is inflammation of the pericardium, a sac-like structure that surrounds the heart. As with myocarditis, the condition can be acute or chronic. A common symptom of pericarditis is chest pain, the kind that feels like you're having a heart attack. Again, not a fun way to celebrate being Fauci-Ouchied against a virus that has never been shown to exist.

    Blood Clots in the Brain

    Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis is a condition where blood clots form in the brain, greatly increasing the risk of a life-threatening hemorrhage. No-one wants that. Not even seaword, who already acts brain-dead.

    Higher than expected rates of CVST were observed after the first dose of all three drugs, with an OE of 3.23 for the AstraZeneca shot. A statistically significant increase in CVST risk was also observed after the second Pfizer dose.

    Nuking the Nervous System

    The risk of suffering nasty neurological conditions was also greatly increased after receiving the 'vaccines.'

    An OE ratio for Guillain-Barré syndrome of 2.49 was observed for the AstraZeneca clot shot, while the OE for transverse myelitis was almost doubled by the AZ shot.

    Guillain-Barré syndrome is a normally rare disorder in which the body's immune system attacks the nerves. As the condition develops, it can eventually paralyze the entire body. Severe cases can be fatal. For those who survive, recovery may take up to several years, and some may suffer lasting effects, such as weakness, numbness or fatigue.

    Transverse myelitis is no laughing matter either. It involves inflammation of the spinal cord, and can cause pain, muscle weakness, paralysis, sensory problems, or bladder and bowel dysfunction.

    Uncontrollably shitting one’s pants to avoid getting the sniffles? I’ll pass.

    If treated early, some people can experience a complete or near complete recovery. Other patients may never show signs of recovery. Those who do experience partial or complete recovery can expect the process to take up to two years.

    In the case of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, OE ratios of 3.78 and 2.23 were observed for the Moderna and AstraZeneca vaxxxines, respectively.

    Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis is an autoimmune disease marked by sudden, widespread inflammation in the brain and spinal cord. It results in damage to the myelin sheath surrounding and protecting nerve cells. It affects mostly children and a clue as to why has somehow made it past the censors at Wikipedia, which admits (as of this writing) the cause of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis "is often a trigger such as from viral infection or vaccinations."


    Most children make a complete or nearly complete recovery from ADEM, although it can take up to a year for symptoms to resolve. Some patients have ongoing symptoms such as blurred vision, weakness, numbness and/or incoordination.

    Not something any innocent child should have to suffer through. Yet another reason why, when the government and drug companies ask you to serve up your kids in order to save grandma from a non-existent virus, you should immediately and emphatically tell them to self-fornicate.

    The Current Excess Mortality Situation

    Numerous commentators, including yours truly, have written previously about the striking increase in excess mortality seen around the world since the vaxxx rollout.

    Australia, a highly-vaxxxed country where people love to do as they are told while bizarrely viewing themselves as a bunch of knockabout renegades, is a classic example.

    During 2022, there was a 15.3% increase in mortality compared to the Australian baseline average - a jump in death rates not seen since World War II.

    As of this writing, Australian mortality statistics for 2023 have been compiled for the period up to November 30. They show that excess mortality is still 10% above the baseline average. That's 15,114 excess deaths - the equivalent of a Boeing 747 full of passengers crashing every week for 33 weeks straight.

    Meanwhile, the terminally corrupt, industry-funded TGA (Australian for FDA, mate!) is still sticking to its absurd story that it has only "identified 14 reports where the cause of death was linked to vaccination."

    The TGA clearly isn't looking very hard. More like looking the other way.

    Oh, did I mention that the TGA is an intensely pro-pharma arm of the Corporation, oops, Commonwealth of Australia, that receives 96% of its funding from industry?

    The ABS mortality stats show that while diagnoses of the renamed flu called COVID are down, deaths due to respiratory diseases in November 2023 were 13% above baseline average and 6% higher than in 2022.

    Take a drug that supposedly protects you against a deadly respiratory infection, only to suffer a higher risk of deadly respiratory infection?

    If that doesn't show what an egregious farce the COVID vaxxx campaign is, I don't know what does.

    Cancer deaths also appear to be on the rise. Deaths from cancer up to November 2023 were 6.9% above baseline; during 2022, they were 6% above baseline.

    The death toll from several other causes receded from 2022 levels, but still remained above baseline.

    Deaths due to dementia up to the end of November 2023 remained 11.7% above baseline.

    Deaths due to other cardiac causes (not including ischaemic heart disease) were 11% above baseline, while deaths due to diabetes were 15.4% above the baseline average.

    In a finding that will no doubt delight the feminazis, the male death rate for all age groups was higher than the female death rate, with the largest rate ratio seen in the youngest age group and smallest in the oldest age group.

    Male Privilege™, baby!

    We Are The World, We Are The Prey

    Australia is hardly alone in its post-vaxxx plight.

    The Economist constructed a machine-learning model to estimate the number of excess deaths during the 'pandemic' for 223 countries and regions, from which they calculate a global figure.

    Globally, the model estimates that the total number of excess deaths is a multiple of the reported number of 'confirmed' deaths due to COVID-19.

    The supposed number of 'confirmed' COVID deaths from January 1, 2020 through February 18, 2024 is 7.03 million.

    The Economist model's central estimate for excess global mortality is 28.54 million deaths, with lower and upper bounds of 18.48 and 35.22 million deaths, respectively.


    This means that even if you believe in the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Sars-Cov-2, in The Economist's central estimate COVID deaths only account for a quarter of excess global mortality.

    For those of us who don't recognize statistics based on things that don't exist, it is important to reiterate there is no such thing as a “confirmed” COVID case.* Confirmation of something that doesn't exist is an inherent absurdity.

    I have explained here and here that Sars-Cov-2 is a mythical entity that has never been isolated by anything resembling valid science.

    The PCR test that supposedly detects Sars-Cov-2 is a non-specific fraud.

    I have also explained here why the alleged death toll from 'COVID' is a bald-faced fraud, where everything from heart attacks to kidney failure to murder-suicides were reclassified as 'COVID' deaths in order to generate the appearance of a pandemic.

    Which means whatever the exact excess global mortality since January 2020 is, it is caused almost entirely by the vaxxxines, with a helping hand from inappropriate intubation, patient-culling use of midazolam and remdesivir, and the physical and mental consequences of ‘emergency’ tyranny.

    Let's Stop Pretending We Don't Know the Cause

    None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. The recent GCoVS paper and continuing excess mortality are confirmation of what should already be common knowledge. The COVID gene therapies, fraudulently promoted as vaccines, established a reputation early on for causing heart damage and clot-bombing people's blood vessels. The stories about 'turbo cancers' look to be more than just anecdotal tales going by the post-vaxxx elevations in cancer deaths. It was also known early on that adverse event databases in the UK, US, Australia and Europe quickly evinced alarming, skyward jumps in 'vaccine'-related incidents.

    Governments and corporate media outlets, working in preorchestrated lockstep, portrayed the sudden rise in sudden death as a remarkable coincidence. No way could it be the toxic injections they had brainwashed and bullied the world into receiving; instead, they blamed everything from climate change to referee's whistles.


    Trusting people who are known to lie for a living, and taking drugs with a penchant for causing heart damage and life-threatening blood clots, in the hope of avoiding a re-badged flu whose 'victims' outlived the average national life expectancy, is the epitome of reckless irrationality.

    Whether Planet Numbnut has learned anything from the last four years remains to be seen. All indications are that we are going to be subjected to a similar stunt again. The Globalist cabal are already warning (threatening) us of "Disease X", the mysterious pathogen that doesn't yet exist but will, we are assured, strike soon and cause mayhem.

    Stop, for a moment, and think about the inherent absurdity in that claim.

    They really do think we are stupid. It’s a pity so much of humanity seems hellbent on proving them correct.

    Just like COVID-19, Disease X will be a pre-orchestrated scamdemic years in the making, motivated by the globalists' psychopathic fetish for population reduction (genocide), unfettered control and ever-increasing wealth.

    Don’t be a seaword: Recognize when you are being screwed and do not comply with evil.

    Share


    *The WHO criteria for a 'confirmed' Sars-Cov-2 case are:

    A person with a positive PCR test "regardless of clinical criteria." So you could show absolutely no signs of respiratory illness, but if the deliberately flawed and fraudulent Sars-Cov-2 PCR test says you have Sars-Cov-2, then congratulations - you're a 'case.'

    A person meeting "clinical criteria," which are:

    "acute onset of fever AND cough";

    OR

    "acute onset of ANY THREE OR MORE of the following signs or symptoms: fever, cough, general weakness/fatigue, headache, myalgia, sore throat, coryza, dyspnoea, nausea/diarrhoea/anorexia."

    All the above symptoms characterize any number of respiratory and non-respiratory conditions that have nothing to do with fantasy viruses allegedly emanating from a Chinese biolab/wet market/bat/pangolin (four-and-a-half years in, and the geniuses promoting this farce still haven't made up their minds).

    A person meeting "Epidemiological criteria," which is "contact of a probable or confirmed case, or linked to a COVID-19 cluster" plus a "a positive professional-use or self-test" SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test. The RAT test is “less sensitive” at detecting the non-existent Sars-Cov-2 than the fraudulent Sars-Cov-2 PCR test, but not to worry, you can always confirm the results of an unreliable RAT test by performing a fraudulent Sars-Cov-2 PCR test!

    I need a drink.

    https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/worlds-biggest-study-on-covid-vaccine?triedRedirect=true
    World's Biggest Study on COVID 'Vaccine' Side Effects Has Been Published. 'Anti-Vaxxers' and 'Conspiracy Theorists' vs People Who Believe Anything. Guess Who Wins (Again)? Anthony Colpo The world's biggest study on COVID ‘vaccine’ side effects has recently been published online. Before I discuss the eye-opening findings, I thought it would be instructive to take a quick trip down memory lane and revisit the peak years of COVID insanity. The days when pro-vaxxxers, with all the fervor of religious extremists who think 'AIDS' is a divine punishment, spewed hatred at those of us who just wanted to be left the heck alone. These were the self-righteous, all-knowing idiots who mindlessly recited slogans like Follow The Science!™ while blindly following the crowd. It makes for an interesting exercise to see where the science has actually traveled, and compare its findings to what the mainstream lunatic fringe was incessantly yelling just a couple of short years ago. Yet Another Clueless 'Journalist' Who Made Seriously Misinformed Statements About Vaccines A week or so ago, while searching for something else online, I happened upon an article titled "Just 15 Celebrities Who Have Made Seriously Misinformed Statements About Vaccines." The article appeared on a website called BuzzFeed, and was authored by a Morgan Sloss, whose other epic contributions to literary history include "Margot Robbie Broke Her Silence On Her 'Barbie' Oscar Snub For Best Actress" and "Drew Barrymore Joked That She's Giving Up On Dating Apps After A Guy Lied To Her About Being An NFL Quarterback." Something tells me Morgan doesn't spend a whole lot of time analyzing research papers. BuzzFeed, an eager outlet for brain-dead celebrity gossip, doesn't exactly qualify as an impartial stalwart of science, either. Especially when it receives money from Pfizer in return for placing paid posts on its website. "As of today," laments Sloss in her article, which was last updated on November 3, 2021, "only 61% of Americans have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, despite concerns about the Delta and Omicron variants." She continues: "With so many people refusing the COVID vaccine — even though it is CDC-recommended and proven to be safe — I thought it would be interesting to look back and see which celebrities have taken anti-vax stances in the past." (Bold emphasis added) She then goes on to list a bunch of celebrities who allegedly made "Seriously Misinformed Statements About Vaccines." As an example of what Sloss considers "Seriously Misinformed," she cites a chap called Offset. In December 2020, Mr Offset was asked by TMZ if he would be getting the COVID pseudo-vaccine, and he replied in the negative. "I don't trust it," he said. Perfectly reasonable and cautious stance, methinks. Six months prior to Sloss penning her seriously misinformed article, Offset said he still hadn't been gene therapied while on the radio show The Breakfast Club. "I'm not tryna be a lab rat, man," he said. Well, that's just not cricket according to Sloss, who says it's a "fact that the vaccines were tested in large-scale clinical trials, endorsed by the FDA, and have been given to more than 200 million Americans." It's true that the pseudo-vaccines were 'tested' in large-scale clinical trials - and shown to be utterly useless (for those who are shocked or outraged by this statement, you can begin your much-needed deprogramming here, here, here, here, here, and here). It's also true that the pseudo-vaccines were endorsed by the terminally corrupt FDA, an agency with a notorious revolving door with the industries it is supposed to regulate, one that derives 75% of its drug review funding from the very companies whose drugs it reviews. Gee, no possible conflict of interest there! And, according to the official stats, it's true that over 200 million Americans have received the poison pricks. Those same Americans are now suffering an alarming jump in excess mortality. None of those things mean the 'vaccines' are "proven to be safe." To the contrary, they all point to one conclusion: The 'vaccines' are a dangerous fraud promoted by a pack of corrupt grubs. With all due respect, Sloss clearly has no idea what she is talking about, and neither do the angry ferals that pollute the comments section following her article. That comments section is a shining monument to the proud, militant gullibility and stupidity that hallmarked the peak years of COVID insanity. An anonymous hate-ball using the moniker ‘seaword’ typifies the seething disdain held by the stupid towards those who were wary of taking a drug based on a technology with a 30-year track record of failure. "What's even more dangerous than these morons," says seaword of people who refuse to take dangerous gene therapies, "is the people that believe their bullshit. Not one of them has a medical degree or any type of education in virology, epidemiology or infectious diseases. 'BuT i DiD mY rEsEarCh'. Piss off wankers." Says the histrionic wanker who thinks celebrity gossip columnists are legitimate sources of health information. The remainder of the comments section is an orgy of hate hurled at people who don't go along with the crowd, by people whose brains would crack under the strain of attempting an original thought. Here’s a sampling of the kind of towering intellect that characterizes the Church of Vaxxx: When you're dumb enough to believe an obvious liar like Anthony Fauci, there is no limit to the crazed vile you'll launch at those with the temerity to not be as gullible as you. So, 2-and-a-half years on, how is the cocksure hatred and arrogance of the pro-vaxxxine mob travelling? Is it ageing like a fine wine, or decomposing like a dead fish? With so many people 'mysteriously' dropping dead or sustaining debilitating illnesses, I thought it would be interesting to look at some of the more recent data confirming what a truly horrendous act the COVID gene therapies were. Follow the Science: Largest Study to Date Confirms Vaxxxine Dangers On February 12, Vaccine journal published a study by The Global COVID Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) Project evaluating the risk of "adverse events of special interest" following COVID-19 'vaccination.' Encompassing ten sites across 8 countries, this is the largest published study to date on the topic of COVID 'vaccine' side effects. The study sample included over 99 million 'vaccinated' individuals from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, New Zealand and Scotland. Rest assured, this was no collaboration by so-called 'anti-vaxxers.' The GCoVS project is financed by the industry-funded and intensely pro-vaccine Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health Ontario and Canadian health research institute ICES. A number of the researchers have financial ties to drug companies including GSK, Gilead Sciences, Lundbeck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Pfizer. Hardly a group that stands to gain from dumping on the wares of Big Pharma. Quite the opposite, in fact. The study focused on a small portion of the hundreds of different side effects linked to the COVID gene therapies. The researchers examined thirteen adverse events of special interest (AESIs), falling under 3 main categories: Neurological, hematologic (blood), and cardiovascular. The researchers calculated AESI risk on the basis of “Observed versus Expected” (OE) incidents, occurring up to 42 days after injection. That means they calculated the expected number of cases using pre-vaxxx background rates of the studied AESIs from 2015 to 2019 (2019–2020 for Denmark). These rates were then compared with the rates observed in the study's vaxxxinated sample up to six weeks post-injection. The study periods ranged between December 2020 and August 2023. Three gene therapies were included in the analysis: Pfizer's BNT162b2, Moderna's mRNA-1273, and AstraZeneca's ChAdOx1 vaccines. Most 'vaccine' recipients were in the 20–59-year age range. The states with the highest numbers of doses in the study were Ontario, Canada (32,159,817) - ruled by Castro-loving tyrant Justin Trudeau - and Victoria, Australia (15,617,627), whose once-vibrant capital Melbourne became the world's most locked-down city under the dictatorship of lanky psychopath Dan Andrews. When the data were analysed, several disturbing findings emerged. Myocarditis and Pericarditis Administration of all three vaccines significantly increased the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. After the first and second Pfizercarditis shots, the OE ratios for myocarditis were 2.78 and 2.86, respectively. The risk remained doubled after the third and fourth shots. The first and second Moderna shots, meanwhile, delivered alarming OE ratios for myocarditis of 3.48 and 6.10, respectively. The mainstream has done its best to reframe myocarditis as a usually "mild and transient" condition. The mainstream, of course, thrives on misleading people. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the myocardium, the middle muscular layer of the heart wall. The condition may be acute and resolve quickly, or it may be chronic. Interestingly, the American Heart Association defines "chronic" as lasting longer than two weeks, which means most of the case reports of vaxxx-related myocarditis are chronic as all get out. Just to be clear, we're not talking about a sprained ankle here. In severe cases, myocarditis can lead to stroke, heart attack, heart failure or death. Which would really ruin your day. Especially when the cause was a drug that was never a vaccine (it's an out-and-out gene therapy) that you took in order to fight a virus that has never been isolated. The third AstraZeneca shot delivered a heart-scorching OE ratio for pericarditis of 6.91, while doses 1 and 4 of the Moderna drug produced OE ratios of 1.74 and 2.64, respectively. Pericarditis is inflammation of the pericardium, a sac-like structure that surrounds the heart. As with myocarditis, the condition can be acute or chronic. A common symptom of pericarditis is chest pain, the kind that feels like you're having a heart attack. Again, not a fun way to celebrate being Fauci-Ouchied against a virus that has never been shown to exist. Blood Clots in the Brain Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis is a condition where blood clots form in the brain, greatly increasing the risk of a life-threatening hemorrhage. No-one wants that. Not even seaword, who already acts brain-dead. Higher than expected rates of CVST were observed after the first dose of all three drugs, with an OE of 3.23 for the AstraZeneca shot. A statistically significant increase in CVST risk was also observed after the second Pfizer dose. Nuking the Nervous System The risk of suffering nasty neurological conditions was also greatly increased after receiving the 'vaccines.' An OE ratio for Guillain-Barré syndrome of 2.49 was observed for the AstraZeneca clot shot, while the OE for transverse myelitis was almost doubled by the AZ shot. Guillain-Barré syndrome is a normally rare disorder in which the body's immune system attacks the nerves. As the condition develops, it can eventually paralyze the entire body. Severe cases can be fatal. For those who survive, recovery may take up to several years, and some may suffer lasting effects, such as weakness, numbness or fatigue. Transverse myelitis is no laughing matter either. It involves inflammation of the spinal cord, and can cause pain, muscle weakness, paralysis, sensory problems, or bladder and bowel dysfunction. Uncontrollably shitting one’s pants to avoid getting the sniffles? I’ll pass. If treated early, some people can experience a complete or near complete recovery. Other patients may never show signs of recovery. Those who do experience partial or complete recovery can expect the process to take up to two years. In the case of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, OE ratios of 3.78 and 2.23 were observed for the Moderna and AstraZeneca vaxxxines, respectively. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis is an autoimmune disease marked by sudden, widespread inflammation in the brain and spinal cord. It results in damage to the myelin sheath surrounding and protecting nerve cells. It affects mostly children and a clue as to why has somehow made it past the censors at Wikipedia, which admits (as of this writing) the cause of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis "is often a trigger such as from viral infection or vaccinations." Most children make a complete or nearly complete recovery from ADEM, although it can take up to a year for symptoms to resolve. Some patients have ongoing symptoms such as blurred vision, weakness, numbness and/or incoordination. Not something any innocent child should have to suffer through. Yet another reason why, when the government and drug companies ask you to serve up your kids in order to save grandma from a non-existent virus, you should immediately and emphatically tell them to self-fornicate. The Current Excess Mortality Situation Numerous commentators, including yours truly, have written previously about the striking increase in excess mortality seen around the world since the vaxxx rollout. Australia, a highly-vaxxxed country where people love to do as they are told while bizarrely viewing themselves as a bunch of knockabout renegades, is a classic example. During 2022, there was a 15.3% increase in mortality compared to the Australian baseline average - a jump in death rates not seen since World War II. As of this writing, Australian mortality statistics for 2023 have been compiled for the period up to November 30. They show that excess mortality is still 10% above the baseline average. That's 15,114 excess deaths - the equivalent of a Boeing 747 full of passengers crashing every week for 33 weeks straight. Meanwhile, the terminally corrupt, industry-funded TGA (Australian for FDA, mate!) is still sticking to its absurd story that it has only "identified 14 reports where the cause of death was linked to vaccination." The TGA clearly isn't looking very hard. More like looking the other way. Oh, did I mention that the TGA is an intensely pro-pharma arm of the Corporation, oops, Commonwealth of Australia, that receives 96% of its funding from industry? The ABS mortality stats show that while diagnoses of the renamed flu called COVID are down, deaths due to respiratory diseases in November 2023 were 13% above baseline average and 6% higher than in 2022. Take a drug that supposedly protects you against a deadly respiratory infection, only to suffer a higher risk of deadly respiratory infection? If that doesn't show what an egregious farce the COVID vaxxx campaign is, I don't know what does. Cancer deaths also appear to be on the rise. Deaths from cancer up to November 2023 were 6.9% above baseline; during 2022, they were 6% above baseline. The death toll from several other causes receded from 2022 levels, but still remained above baseline. Deaths due to dementia up to the end of November 2023 remained 11.7% above baseline. Deaths due to other cardiac causes (not including ischaemic heart disease) were 11% above baseline, while deaths due to diabetes were 15.4% above the baseline average. In a finding that will no doubt delight the feminazis, the male death rate for all age groups was higher than the female death rate, with the largest rate ratio seen in the youngest age group and smallest in the oldest age group. Male Privilege™, baby! We Are The World, We Are The Prey Australia is hardly alone in its post-vaxxx plight. The Economist constructed a machine-learning model to estimate the number of excess deaths during the 'pandemic' for 223 countries and regions, from which they calculate a global figure. Globally, the model estimates that the total number of excess deaths is a multiple of the reported number of 'confirmed' deaths due to COVID-19. The supposed number of 'confirmed' COVID deaths from January 1, 2020 through February 18, 2024 is 7.03 million. The Economist model's central estimate for excess global mortality is 28.54 million deaths, with lower and upper bounds of 18.48 and 35.22 million deaths, respectively. This means that even if you believe in the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Sars-Cov-2, in The Economist's central estimate COVID deaths only account for a quarter of excess global mortality. For those of us who don't recognize statistics based on things that don't exist, it is important to reiterate there is no such thing as a “confirmed” COVID case.* Confirmation of something that doesn't exist is an inherent absurdity. I have explained here and here that Sars-Cov-2 is a mythical entity that has never been isolated by anything resembling valid science. The PCR test that supposedly detects Sars-Cov-2 is a non-specific fraud. I have also explained here why the alleged death toll from 'COVID' is a bald-faced fraud, where everything from heart attacks to kidney failure to murder-suicides were reclassified as 'COVID' deaths in order to generate the appearance of a pandemic. Which means whatever the exact excess global mortality since January 2020 is, it is caused almost entirely by the vaxxxines, with a helping hand from inappropriate intubation, patient-culling use of midazolam and remdesivir, and the physical and mental consequences of ‘emergency’ tyranny. Let's Stop Pretending We Don't Know the Cause None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. The recent GCoVS paper and continuing excess mortality are confirmation of what should already be common knowledge. The COVID gene therapies, fraudulently promoted as vaccines, established a reputation early on for causing heart damage and clot-bombing people's blood vessels. The stories about 'turbo cancers' look to be more than just anecdotal tales going by the post-vaxxx elevations in cancer deaths. It was also known early on that adverse event databases in the UK, US, Australia and Europe quickly evinced alarming, skyward jumps in 'vaccine'-related incidents. Governments and corporate media outlets, working in preorchestrated lockstep, portrayed the sudden rise in sudden death as a remarkable coincidence. No way could it be the toxic injections they had brainwashed and bullied the world into receiving; instead, they blamed everything from climate change to referee's whistles. Trusting people who are known to lie for a living, and taking drugs with a penchant for causing heart damage and life-threatening blood clots, in the hope of avoiding a re-badged flu whose 'victims' outlived the average national life expectancy, is the epitome of reckless irrationality. Whether Planet Numbnut has learned anything from the last four years remains to be seen. All indications are that we are going to be subjected to a similar stunt again. The Globalist cabal are already warning (threatening) us of "Disease X", the mysterious pathogen that doesn't yet exist but will, we are assured, strike soon and cause mayhem. Stop, for a moment, and think about the inherent absurdity in that claim. They really do think we are stupid. It’s a pity so much of humanity seems hellbent on proving them correct. Just like COVID-19, Disease X will be a pre-orchestrated scamdemic years in the making, motivated by the globalists' psychopathic fetish for population reduction (genocide), unfettered control and ever-increasing wealth. Don’t be a seaword: Recognize when you are being screwed and do not comply with evil. Share *The WHO criteria for a 'confirmed' Sars-Cov-2 case are: A person with a positive PCR test "regardless of clinical criteria." So you could show absolutely no signs of respiratory illness, but if the deliberately flawed and fraudulent Sars-Cov-2 PCR test says you have Sars-Cov-2, then congratulations - you're a 'case.' A person meeting "clinical criteria," which are: "acute onset of fever AND cough"; OR "acute onset of ANY THREE OR MORE of the following signs or symptoms: fever, cough, general weakness/fatigue, headache, myalgia, sore throat, coryza, dyspnoea, nausea/diarrhoea/anorexia." All the above symptoms characterize any number of respiratory and non-respiratory conditions that have nothing to do with fantasy viruses allegedly emanating from a Chinese biolab/wet market/bat/pangolin (four-and-a-half years in, and the geniuses promoting this farce still haven't made up their minds). A person meeting "Epidemiological criteria," which is "contact of a probable or confirmed case, or linked to a COVID-19 cluster" plus a "a positive professional-use or self-test" SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test. The RAT test is “less sensitive” at detecting the non-existent Sars-Cov-2 than the fraudulent Sars-Cov-2 PCR test, but not to worry, you can always confirm the results of an unreliable RAT test by performing a fraudulent Sars-Cov-2 PCR test! I need a drink. https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/worlds-biggest-study-on-covid-vaccine?triedRedirect=true
    ANTHONYCOLPO.SUBSTACK.COM
    World's Biggest Study on COVID 'Vaccine' Side Effects Has Been Published.
    'Anti-Vaxxers' and 'Conspiracy Theorists' vs People Who Believe Anything. Guess Who Wins (Again)?
    0 Comments 0 Shares 8580 Views
  • World's Biggest Study on COVID 'Vaccine' Side Effects Has Been Published.
    'Anti-Vaxxers' and 'Conspiracy Theorists' vs People Who Believe Anything. Guess Who Wins (Again)?

    Anthony Colpo

    The world's biggest study on COVID ‘vaccine’ side effects has recently been published online. Before I discuss the eye-opening findings, I thought it would be instructive to take a quick trip down memory lane and revisit the peak years of COVID insanity. The days when pro-vaxxxers, with all the fervor of religious extremists who think 'AIDS' is a divine punishment, spewed hatred at those of us who just wanted to be left the heck alone. These were the self-righteous, all-knowing idiots who mindlessly recited slogans like Follow The Science!™ while blindly following the crowd.

    It makes for an interesting exercise to see where the science has actually traveled, and compare its findings to what the mainstream lunatic fringe was incessantly yelling just a couple of short years ago.

    Yet Another Clueless 'Journalist' Who Made Seriously Misinformed Statements About Vaccines

    A week or so ago, while searching for something else online, I happened upon an article titled "Just 15 Celebrities Who Have Made Seriously Misinformed Statements About Vaccines." The article appeared on a website called BuzzFeed, and was authored by a Morgan Sloss, whose other epic contributions to literary history include "Margot Robbie Broke Her Silence On Her 'Barbie' Oscar Snub For Best Actress" and "Drew Barrymore Joked That She's Giving Up On Dating Apps After A Guy Lied To Her About Being An NFL Quarterback."

    Something tells me Morgan doesn't spend a whole lot of time analyzing research papers.

    BuzzFeed, an eager outlet for brain-dead celebrity gossip, doesn't exactly qualify as an impartial stalwart of science, either. Especially when it receives money from Pfizer in return for placing paid posts on its website.


    "As of today," laments Sloss in her article, which was last updated on November 3, 2021, "only 61% of Americans have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, despite concerns about the Delta and Omicron variants."

    She continues:

    "With so many people refusing the COVID vaccine — even though it is CDC-recommended and proven to be safe — I thought it would be interesting to look back and see which celebrities have taken anti-vax stances in the past." (Bold emphasis added)

    She then goes on to list a bunch of celebrities who allegedly made "Seriously Misinformed Statements About Vaccines."

    As an example of what Sloss considers "Seriously Misinformed," she cites a chap called Offset. In December 2020, Mr Offset was asked by TMZ if he would be getting the COVID pseudo-vaccine, and he replied in the negative. "I don't trust it," he said.

    Perfectly reasonable and cautious stance, methinks.

    Six months prior to Sloss penning her seriously misinformed article, Offset said he still hadn't been gene therapied while on the radio show The Breakfast Club. "I'm not tryna be a lab rat, man," he said.

    Well, that's just not cricket according to Sloss, who says it's a "fact that the vaccines were tested in large-scale clinical trials, endorsed by the FDA, and have been given to more than 200 million Americans."

    It's true that the pseudo-vaccines were 'tested' in large-scale clinical trials - and shown to be utterly useless (for those who are shocked or outraged by this statement, you can begin your much-needed deprogramming here, here, here, here, here, and here).

    It's also true that the pseudo-vaccines were endorsed by the terminally corrupt FDA, an agency with a notorious revolving door with the industries it is supposed to regulate, one that derives 75% of its drug review funding from the very companies whose drugs it reviews. Gee, no possible conflict of interest there!

    And, according to the official stats, it's true that over 200 million Americans have received the poison pricks. Those same Americans are now suffering an alarming jump in excess mortality.

    None of those things mean the 'vaccines' are "proven to be safe." To the contrary, they all point to one conclusion: The 'vaccines' are a dangerous fraud promoted by a pack of corrupt grubs.

    With all due respect, Sloss clearly has no idea what she is talking about, and neither do the angry ferals that pollute the comments section following her article. That comments section is a shining monument to the proud, militant gullibility and stupidity that hallmarked the peak years of COVID insanity.

    An anonymous hate-ball using the moniker ‘seaword’ typifies the seething disdain held by the stupid towards those who were wary of taking a drug based on a technology with a 30-year track record of failure.

    "What's even more dangerous than these morons," says seaword of people who refuse to take dangerous gene therapies, "is the people that believe their bullshit. Not one of them has a medical degree or any type of education in virology, epidemiology or infectious diseases. 'BuT i DiD mY rEsEarCh'. Piss off wankers."


    Says the histrionic wanker who thinks celebrity gossip columnists are legitimate sources of health information.

    The remainder of the comments section is an orgy of hate hurled at people who don't go along with the crowd, by people whose brains would crack under the strain of attempting an original thought. Here’s a sampling of the kind of towering intellect that characterizes the Church of Vaxxx:

    When you're dumb enough to believe an obvious liar like Anthony Fauci, there is no limit to the crazed vile you'll launch at those with the temerity to not be as gullible as you.


    So, 2-and-a-half years on, how is the cocksure hatred and arrogance of the pro-vaxxxine mob travelling?

    Is it ageing like a fine wine, or decomposing like a dead fish?

    With so many people 'mysteriously' dropping dead or sustaining debilitating illnesses, I thought it would be interesting to look at some of the more recent data confirming what a truly horrendous act the COVID gene therapies were.

    Follow the Science: Largest Study to Date Confirms Vaxxxine Dangers

    On February 12, Vaccine journal published a study by The Global COVID Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) Project evaluating the risk of "adverse events of special interest" following COVID-19 'vaccination.'

    Encompassing ten sites across 8 countries, this is the largest published study to date on the topic of COVID 'vaccine' side effects. The study sample included over 99 million 'vaccinated' individuals from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, New Zealand and Scotland.

    Rest assured, this was no collaboration by so-called 'anti-vaxxers.' The GCoVS project is financed by the industry-funded and intensely pro-vaccine Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health Ontario and Canadian health research institute ICES. A number of the researchers have financial ties to drug companies including GSK, Gilead Sciences, Lundbeck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Pfizer.

    Hardly a group that stands to gain from dumping on the wares of Big Pharma. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    The study focused on a small portion of the hundreds of different side effects linked to the COVID gene therapies. The researchers examined thirteen adverse events of special interest (AESIs), falling under 3 main categories: Neurological, hematologic (blood), and cardiovascular.

    The researchers calculated AESI risk on the basis of “Observed versus Expected” (OE) incidents, occurring up to 42 days after injection. That means they calculated the expected number of cases using pre-vaxxx background rates of the studied AESIs from 2015 to 2019 (2019–2020 for Denmark). These rates were then compared with the rates observed in the study's vaxxxinated sample up to six weeks post-injection.

    The study periods ranged between December 2020 and August 2023. Three gene therapies were included in the analysis: Pfizer's BNT162b2, Moderna's mRNA-1273, and AstraZeneca's ChAdOx1 vaccines.

    Most 'vaccine' recipients were in the 20–59-year age range. The states with the highest numbers of doses in the study were Ontario, Canada (32,159,817) - ruled by Castro-loving tyrant Justin Trudeau - and Victoria, Australia (15,617,627), whose once-vibrant capital Melbourne became the world's most locked-down city under the dictatorship of lanky psychopath Dan Andrews.

    When the data were analysed, several disturbing findings emerged.

    Myocarditis and Pericarditis

    Administration of all three vaccines significantly increased the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. After the first and second Pfizercarditis shots, the OE ratios for myocarditis were 2.78 and 2.86, respectively. The risk remained doubled after the third and fourth shots.

    The first and second Moderna shots, meanwhile, delivered alarming OE ratios for myocarditis of 3.48 and 6.10, respectively.

    The mainstream has done its best to reframe myocarditis as a usually "mild and transient" condition. The mainstream, of course, thrives on misleading people. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the myocardium, the middle muscular layer of the heart wall. The condition may be acute and resolve quickly, or it may be chronic. Interestingly, the American Heart Association defines "chronic" as lasting longer than two weeks, which means most of the case reports of vaxxx-related myocarditis are chronic as all get out.

    Just to be clear, we're not talking about a sprained ankle here. In severe cases, myocarditis can lead to stroke, heart attack, heart failure or death.

    Which would really ruin your day. Especially when the cause was a drug that was never a vaccine (it's an out-and-out gene therapy) that you took in order to fight a virus that has never been isolated.

    The third AstraZeneca shot delivered a heart-scorching OE ratio for pericarditis of 6.91, while doses 1 and 4 of the Moderna drug produced OE ratios of 1.74 and 2.64, respectively.

    Pericarditis is inflammation of the pericardium, a sac-like structure that surrounds the heart. As with myocarditis, the condition can be acute or chronic. A common symptom of pericarditis is chest pain, the kind that feels like you're having a heart attack. Again, not a fun way to celebrate being Fauci-Ouchied against a virus that has never been shown to exist.

    Blood Clots in the Brain

    Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis is a condition where blood clots form in the brain, greatly increasing the risk of a life-threatening hemorrhage. No-one wants that. Not even seaword, who already acts brain-dead.

    Higher than expected rates of CVST were observed after the first dose of all three drugs, with an OE of 3.23 for the AstraZeneca shot. A statistically significant increase in CVST risk was also observed after the second Pfizer dose.

    Nuking the Nervous System

    The risk of suffering nasty neurological conditions was also greatly increased after receiving the 'vaccines.'

    An OE ratio for Guillain-Barré syndrome of 2.49 was observed for the AstraZeneca clot shot, while the OE for transverse myelitis was almost doubled by the AZ shot.

    Guillain-Barré syndrome is a normally rare disorder in which the body's immune system attacks the nerves. As the condition develops, it can eventually paralyze the entire body. Severe cases can be fatal. For those who survive, recovery may take up to several years, and some may suffer lasting effects, such as weakness, numbness or fatigue.

    Transverse myelitis is no laughing matter either. It involves inflammation of the spinal cord, and can cause pain, muscle weakness, paralysis, sensory problems, or bladder and bowel dysfunction.

    Uncontrollably shitting one’s pants to avoid getting the sniffles? I’ll pass.

    If treated early, some people can experience a complete or near complete recovery. Other patients may never show signs of recovery. Those who do experience partial or complete recovery can expect the process to take up to two years.

    In the case of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, OE ratios of 3.78 and 2.23 were observed for the Moderna and AstraZeneca vaxxxines, respectively.

    Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis is an autoimmune disease marked by sudden, widespread inflammation in the brain and spinal cord. It results in damage to the myelin sheath surrounding and protecting nerve cells. It affects mostly children and a clue as to why has somehow made it past the censors at Wikipedia, which admits (as of this writing) the cause of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis "is often a trigger such as from viral infection or vaccinations."


    Most children make a complete or nearly complete recovery from ADEM, although it can take up to a year for symptoms to resolve. Some patients have ongoing symptoms such as blurred vision, weakness, numbness and/or incoordination.

    Not something any innocent child should have to suffer through. Yet another reason why, when the government and drug companies ask you to serve up your kids in order to save grandma from a non-existent virus, you should immediately and emphatically tell them to self-fornicate.

    The Current Excess Mortality Situation

    Numerous commentators, including yours truly, have written previously about the striking increase in excess mortality seen around the world since the vaxxx rollout.

    Australia, a highly-vaxxxed country where people love to do as they are told while bizarrely viewing themselves as a bunch of knockabout renegades, is a classic example.

    During 2022, there was a 15.3% increase in mortality compared to the Australian baseline average - a jump in death rates not seen since World War II.

    As of this writing, Australian mortality statistics for 2023 have been compiled for the period up to November 30. They show that excess mortality is still 10% above the baseline average. That's 15,114 excess deaths - the equivalent of a Boeing 747 full of passengers crashing every week for 33 weeks straight.

    Meanwhile, the terminally corrupt, industry-funded TGA (Australian for FDA, mate!) is still sticking to its absurd story that it has only "identified 14 reports where the cause of death was linked to vaccination."

    The TGA clearly isn't looking very hard. More like looking the other way.

    Oh, did I mention that the TGA is an intensely pro-pharma arm of the Corporation, oops, Commonwealth of Australia, that receives 96% of its funding from industry?

    The ABS mortality stats show that while diagnoses of the renamed flu called COVID are down, deaths due to respiratory diseases in November 2023 were 13% above baseline average and 6% higher than in 2022.

    Take a drug that supposedly protects you against a deadly respiratory infection, only to suffer a higher risk of deadly respiratory infection?

    If that doesn't show what an egregious farce the COVID vaxxx campaign is, I don't know what does.

    Cancer deaths also appear to be on the rise. Deaths from cancer up to November 2023 were 6.9% above baseline; during 2022, they were 6% above baseline.

    The death toll from several other causes receded from 2022 levels, but still remained above baseline.

    Deaths due to dementia up to the end of November 2023 remained 11.7% above baseline.

    Deaths due to other cardiac causes (not including ischaemic heart disease) were 11% above baseline, while deaths due to diabetes were 15.4% above the baseline average.

    In a finding that will no doubt delight the feminazis, the male death rate for all age groups was higher than the female death rate, with the largest rate ratio seen in the youngest age group and smallest in the oldest age group.

    Male Privilege™, baby!

    We Are The World, We Are The Prey

    Australia is hardly alone in its post-vaxxx plight.

    The Economist constructed a machine-learning model to estimate the number of excess deaths during the 'pandemic' for 223 countries and regions, from which they calculate a global figure.

    Globally, the model estimates that the total number of excess deaths is a multiple of the reported number of 'confirmed' deaths due to COVID-19.

    The supposed number of 'confirmed' COVID deaths from January 1, 2020 through February 18, 2024 is 7.03 million.

    The Economist model's central estimate for excess global mortality is 28.54 million deaths, with lower and upper bounds of 18.48 and 35.22 million deaths, respectively.


    This means that even if you believe in the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Sars-Cov-2, in The Economist's central estimate COVID deaths only account for a quarter of excess global mortality.

    For those of us who don't recognize statistics based on things that don't exist, it is important to reiterate there is no such thing as a “confirmed” COVID case.* Confirmation of something that doesn't exist is an inherent absurdity.

    I have explained here and here that Sars-Cov-2 is a mythical entity that has never been isolated by anything resembling valid science.

    The PCR test that supposedly detects Sars-Cov-2 is a non-specific fraud.

    I have also explained here why the alleged death toll from 'COVID' is a bald-faced fraud, where everything from heart attacks to kidney failure to murder-suicides were reclassified as 'COVID' deaths in order to generate the appearance of a pandemic.

    Which means whatever the exact excess global mortality since January 2020 is, it is caused almost entirely by the vaxxxines, with a helping hand from inappropriate intubation, patient-culling use of midazolam and remdesivir, and the physical and mental consequences of ‘emergency’ tyranny.

    Let's Stop Pretending We Don't Know the Cause

    None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. The recent GCoVS paper and continuing excess mortality are confirmation of what should already be common knowledge. The COVID gene therapies, fraudulently promoted as vaccines, established a reputation early on for causing heart damage and clot-bombing people's blood vessels. The stories about 'turbo cancers' look to be more than just anecdotal tales going by the post-vaxxx elevations in cancer deaths. It was also known early on that adverse event databases in the UK, US, Australia and Europe quickly evinced alarming, skyward jumps in 'vaccine'-related incidents.

    Governments and corporate media outlets, working in preorchestrated lockstep, portrayed the sudden rise in sudden death as a remarkable coincidence. No way could it be the toxic injections they had brainwashed and bullied the world into receiving; instead, they blamed everything from climate change to referee's whistles.


    Trusting people who are known to lie for a living, and taking drugs with a penchant for causing heart damage and life-threatening blood clots, in the hope of avoiding a re-badged flu whose 'victims' outlived the average national life expectancy, is the epitome of reckless irrationality.

    Whether Planet Numbnut has learned anything from the last four years remains to be seen. All indications are that we are going to be subjected to a similar stunt again. The Globalist cabal are already warning (threatening) us of "Disease X", the mysterious pathogen that doesn't yet exist but will, we are assured, strike soon and cause mayhem.

    Stop, for a moment, and think about the inherent absurdity in that claim.

    They really do think we are stupid. It’s a pity so much of humanity seems hellbent on proving them correct.

    Just like COVID-19, Disease X will be a pre-orchestrated scamdemic years in the making, motivated by the globalists' psychopathic fetish for population reduction (genocide), unfettered control and ever-increasing wealth.

    Don’t be a seaword: Recognize when you are being screwed and do not comply with evil.

    Share


    *The WHO criteria for a 'confirmed' Sars-Cov-2 case are:

    A person with a positive PCR test "regardless of clinical criteria." So you could show absolutely no signs of respiratory illness, but if the deliberately flawed and fraudulent Sars-Cov-2 PCR test says you have Sars-Cov-2, then congratulations - you're a 'case.'

    A person meeting "clinical criteria," which are:

    "acute onset of fever AND cough";

    OR

    "acute onset of ANY THREE OR MORE of the following signs or symptoms: fever, cough, general weakness/fatigue, headache, myalgia, sore throat, coryza, dyspnoea, nausea/diarrhoea/anorexia."

    All the above symptoms characterize any number of respiratory and non-respiratory conditions that have nothing to do with fantasy viruses allegedly emanating from a Chinese biolab/wet market/bat/pangolin (four-and-a-half years in, and the geniuses promoting this farce still haven't made up their minds).

    A person meeting "Epidemiological criteria," which is "contact of a probable or confirmed case, or linked to a COVID-19 cluster" plus a "a positive professional-use or self-test" SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test. The RAT test is “less sensitive” at detecting the non-existent Sars-Cov-2 than the fraudulent Sars-Cov-2 PCR test, but not to worry, you can always confirm the results of an unreliable RAT test by performing a fraudulent Sars-Cov-2 PCR test!

    I need a drink.

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-142231776
    World's Biggest Study on COVID 'Vaccine' Side Effects Has Been Published. 'Anti-Vaxxers' and 'Conspiracy Theorists' vs People Who Believe Anything. Guess Who Wins (Again)? Anthony Colpo The world's biggest study on COVID ‘vaccine’ side effects has recently been published online. Before I discuss the eye-opening findings, I thought it would be instructive to take a quick trip down memory lane and revisit the peak years of COVID insanity. The days when pro-vaxxxers, with all the fervor of religious extremists who think 'AIDS' is a divine punishment, spewed hatred at those of us who just wanted to be left the heck alone. These were the self-righteous, all-knowing idiots who mindlessly recited slogans like Follow The Science!™ while blindly following the crowd. It makes for an interesting exercise to see where the science has actually traveled, and compare its findings to what the mainstream lunatic fringe was incessantly yelling just a couple of short years ago. Yet Another Clueless 'Journalist' Who Made Seriously Misinformed Statements About Vaccines A week or so ago, while searching for something else online, I happened upon an article titled "Just 15 Celebrities Who Have Made Seriously Misinformed Statements About Vaccines." The article appeared on a website called BuzzFeed, and was authored by a Morgan Sloss, whose other epic contributions to literary history include "Margot Robbie Broke Her Silence On Her 'Barbie' Oscar Snub For Best Actress" and "Drew Barrymore Joked That She's Giving Up On Dating Apps After A Guy Lied To Her About Being An NFL Quarterback." Something tells me Morgan doesn't spend a whole lot of time analyzing research papers. BuzzFeed, an eager outlet for brain-dead celebrity gossip, doesn't exactly qualify as an impartial stalwart of science, either. Especially when it receives money from Pfizer in return for placing paid posts on its website. "As of today," laments Sloss in her article, which was last updated on November 3, 2021, "only 61% of Americans have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, despite concerns about the Delta and Omicron variants." She continues: "With so many people refusing the COVID vaccine — even though it is CDC-recommended and proven to be safe — I thought it would be interesting to look back and see which celebrities have taken anti-vax stances in the past." (Bold emphasis added) She then goes on to list a bunch of celebrities who allegedly made "Seriously Misinformed Statements About Vaccines." As an example of what Sloss considers "Seriously Misinformed," she cites a chap called Offset. In December 2020, Mr Offset was asked by TMZ if he would be getting the COVID pseudo-vaccine, and he replied in the negative. "I don't trust it," he said. Perfectly reasonable and cautious stance, methinks. Six months prior to Sloss penning her seriously misinformed article, Offset said he still hadn't been gene therapied while on the radio show The Breakfast Club. "I'm not tryna be a lab rat, man," he said. Well, that's just not cricket according to Sloss, who says it's a "fact that the vaccines were tested in large-scale clinical trials, endorsed by the FDA, and have been given to more than 200 million Americans." It's true that the pseudo-vaccines were 'tested' in large-scale clinical trials - and shown to be utterly useless (for those who are shocked or outraged by this statement, you can begin your much-needed deprogramming here, here, here, here, here, and here). It's also true that the pseudo-vaccines were endorsed by the terminally corrupt FDA, an agency with a notorious revolving door with the industries it is supposed to regulate, one that derives 75% of its drug review funding from the very companies whose drugs it reviews. Gee, no possible conflict of interest there! And, according to the official stats, it's true that over 200 million Americans have received the poison pricks. Those same Americans are now suffering an alarming jump in excess mortality. None of those things mean the 'vaccines' are "proven to be safe." To the contrary, they all point to one conclusion: The 'vaccines' are a dangerous fraud promoted by a pack of corrupt grubs. With all due respect, Sloss clearly has no idea what she is talking about, and neither do the angry ferals that pollute the comments section following her article. That comments section is a shining monument to the proud, militant gullibility and stupidity that hallmarked the peak years of COVID insanity. An anonymous hate-ball using the moniker ‘seaword’ typifies the seething disdain held by the stupid towards those who were wary of taking a drug based on a technology with a 30-year track record of failure. "What's even more dangerous than these morons," says seaword of people who refuse to take dangerous gene therapies, "is the people that believe their bullshit. Not one of them has a medical degree or any type of education in virology, epidemiology or infectious diseases. 'BuT i DiD mY rEsEarCh'. Piss off wankers." Says the histrionic wanker who thinks celebrity gossip columnists are legitimate sources of health information. The remainder of the comments section is an orgy of hate hurled at people who don't go along with the crowd, by people whose brains would crack under the strain of attempting an original thought. Here’s a sampling of the kind of towering intellect that characterizes the Church of Vaxxx: When you're dumb enough to believe an obvious liar like Anthony Fauci, there is no limit to the crazed vile you'll launch at those with the temerity to not be as gullible as you. So, 2-and-a-half years on, how is the cocksure hatred and arrogance of the pro-vaxxxine mob travelling? Is it ageing like a fine wine, or decomposing like a dead fish? With so many people 'mysteriously' dropping dead or sustaining debilitating illnesses, I thought it would be interesting to look at some of the more recent data confirming what a truly horrendous act the COVID gene therapies were. Follow the Science: Largest Study to Date Confirms Vaxxxine Dangers On February 12, Vaccine journal published a study by The Global COVID Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) Project evaluating the risk of "adverse events of special interest" following COVID-19 'vaccination.' Encompassing ten sites across 8 countries, this is the largest published study to date on the topic of COVID 'vaccine' side effects. The study sample included over 99 million 'vaccinated' individuals from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, New Zealand and Scotland. Rest assured, this was no collaboration by so-called 'anti-vaxxers.' The GCoVS project is financed by the industry-funded and intensely pro-vaccine Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health Ontario and Canadian health research institute ICES. A number of the researchers have financial ties to drug companies including GSK, Gilead Sciences, Lundbeck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Pfizer. Hardly a group that stands to gain from dumping on the wares of Big Pharma. Quite the opposite, in fact. The study focused on a small portion of the hundreds of different side effects linked to the COVID gene therapies. The researchers examined thirteen adverse events of special interest (AESIs), falling under 3 main categories: Neurological, hematologic (blood), and cardiovascular. The researchers calculated AESI risk on the basis of “Observed versus Expected” (OE) incidents, occurring up to 42 days after injection. That means they calculated the expected number of cases using pre-vaxxx background rates of the studied AESIs from 2015 to 2019 (2019–2020 for Denmark). These rates were then compared with the rates observed in the study's vaxxxinated sample up to six weeks post-injection. The study periods ranged between December 2020 and August 2023. Three gene therapies were included in the analysis: Pfizer's BNT162b2, Moderna's mRNA-1273, and AstraZeneca's ChAdOx1 vaccines. Most 'vaccine' recipients were in the 20–59-year age range. The states with the highest numbers of doses in the study were Ontario, Canada (32,159,817) - ruled by Castro-loving tyrant Justin Trudeau - and Victoria, Australia (15,617,627), whose once-vibrant capital Melbourne became the world's most locked-down city under the dictatorship of lanky psychopath Dan Andrews. When the data were analysed, several disturbing findings emerged. Myocarditis and Pericarditis Administration of all three vaccines significantly increased the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. After the first and second Pfizercarditis shots, the OE ratios for myocarditis were 2.78 and 2.86, respectively. The risk remained doubled after the third and fourth shots. The first and second Moderna shots, meanwhile, delivered alarming OE ratios for myocarditis of 3.48 and 6.10, respectively. The mainstream has done its best to reframe myocarditis as a usually "mild and transient" condition. The mainstream, of course, thrives on misleading people. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the myocardium, the middle muscular layer of the heart wall. The condition may be acute and resolve quickly, or it may be chronic. Interestingly, the American Heart Association defines "chronic" as lasting longer than two weeks, which means most of the case reports of vaxxx-related myocarditis are chronic as all get out. Just to be clear, we're not talking about a sprained ankle here. In severe cases, myocarditis can lead to stroke, heart attack, heart failure or death. Which would really ruin your day. Especially when the cause was a drug that was never a vaccine (it's an out-and-out gene therapy) that you took in order to fight a virus that has never been isolated. The third AstraZeneca shot delivered a heart-scorching OE ratio for pericarditis of 6.91, while doses 1 and 4 of the Moderna drug produced OE ratios of 1.74 and 2.64, respectively. Pericarditis is inflammation of the pericardium, a sac-like structure that surrounds the heart. As with myocarditis, the condition can be acute or chronic. A common symptom of pericarditis is chest pain, the kind that feels like you're having a heart attack. Again, not a fun way to celebrate being Fauci-Ouchied against a virus that has never been shown to exist. Blood Clots in the Brain Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis is a condition where blood clots form in the brain, greatly increasing the risk of a life-threatening hemorrhage. No-one wants that. Not even seaword, who already acts brain-dead. Higher than expected rates of CVST were observed after the first dose of all three drugs, with an OE of 3.23 for the AstraZeneca shot. A statistically significant increase in CVST risk was also observed after the second Pfizer dose. Nuking the Nervous System The risk of suffering nasty neurological conditions was also greatly increased after receiving the 'vaccines.' An OE ratio for Guillain-Barré syndrome of 2.49 was observed for the AstraZeneca clot shot, while the OE for transverse myelitis was almost doubled by the AZ shot. Guillain-Barré syndrome is a normally rare disorder in which the body's immune system attacks the nerves. As the condition develops, it can eventually paralyze the entire body. Severe cases can be fatal. For those who survive, recovery may take up to several years, and some may suffer lasting effects, such as weakness, numbness or fatigue. Transverse myelitis is no laughing matter either. It involves inflammation of the spinal cord, and can cause pain, muscle weakness, paralysis, sensory problems, or bladder and bowel dysfunction. Uncontrollably shitting one’s pants to avoid getting the sniffles? I’ll pass. If treated early, some people can experience a complete or near complete recovery. Other patients may never show signs of recovery. Those who do experience partial or complete recovery can expect the process to take up to two years. In the case of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, OE ratios of 3.78 and 2.23 were observed for the Moderna and AstraZeneca vaxxxines, respectively. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis is an autoimmune disease marked by sudden, widespread inflammation in the brain and spinal cord. It results in damage to the myelin sheath surrounding and protecting nerve cells. It affects mostly children and a clue as to why has somehow made it past the censors at Wikipedia, which admits (as of this writing) the cause of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis "is often a trigger such as from viral infection or vaccinations." Most children make a complete or nearly complete recovery from ADEM, although it can take up to a year for symptoms to resolve. Some patients have ongoing symptoms such as blurred vision, weakness, numbness and/or incoordination. Not something any innocent child should have to suffer through. Yet another reason why, when the government and drug companies ask you to serve up your kids in order to save grandma from a non-existent virus, you should immediately and emphatically tell them to self-fornicate. The Current Excess Mortality Situation Numerous commentators, including yours truly, have written previously about the striking increase in excess mortality seen around the world since the vaxxx rollout. Australia, a highly-vaxxxed country where people love to do as they are told while bizarrely viewing themselves as a bunch of knockabout renegades, is a classic example. During 2022, there was a 15.3% increase in mortality compared to the Australian baseline average - a jump in death rates not seen since World War II. As of this writing, Australian mortality statistics for 2023 have been compiled for the period up to November 30. They show that excess mortality is still 10% above the baseline average. That's 15,114 excess deaths - the equivalent of a Boeing 747 full of passengers crashing every week for 33 weeks straight. Meanwhile, the terminally corrupt, industry-funded TGA (Australian for FDA, mate!) is still sticking to its absurd story that it has only "identified 14 reports where the cause of death was linked to vaccination." The TGA clearly isn't looking very hard. More like looking the other way. Oh, did I mention that the TGA is an intensely pro-pharma arm of the Corporation, oops, Commonwealth of Australia, that receives 96% of its funding from industry? The ABS mortality stats show that while diagnoses of the renamed flu called COVID are down, deaths due to respiratory diseases in November 2023 were 13% above baseline average and 6% higher than in 2022. Take a drug that supposedly protects you against a deadly respiratory infection, only to suffer a higher risk of deadly respiratory infection? If that doesn't show what an egregious farce the COVID vaxxx campaign is, I don't know what does. Cancer deaths also appear to be on the rise. Deaths from cancer up to November 2023 were 6.9% above baseline; during 2022, they were 6% above baseline. The death toll from several other causes receded from 2022 levels, but still remained above baseline. Deaths due to dementia up to the end of November 2023 remained 11.7% above baseline. Deaths due to other cardiac causes (not including ischaemic heart disease) were 11% above baseline, while deaths due to diabetes were 15.4% above the baseline average. In a finding that will no doubt delight the feminazis, the male death rate for all age groups was higher than the female death rate, with the largest rate ratio seen in the youngest age group and smallest in the oldest age group. Male Privilege™, baby! We Are The World, We Are The Prey Australia is hardly alone in its post-vaxxx plight. The Economist constructed a machine-learning model to estimate the number of excess deaths during the 'pandemic' for 223 countries and regions, from which they calculate a global figure. Globally, the model estimates that the total number of excess deaths is a multiple of the reported number of 'confirmed' deaths due to COVID-19. The supposed number of 'confirmed' COVID deaths from January 1, 2020 through February 18, 2024 is 7.03 million. The Economist model's central estimate for excess global mortality is 28.54 million deaths, with lower and upper bounds of 18.48 and 35.22 million deaths, respectively. This means that even if you believe in the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Sars-Cov-2, in The Economist's central estimate COVID deaths only account for a quarter of excess global mortality. For those of us who don't recognize statistics based on things that don't exist, it is important to reiterate there is no such thing as a “confirmed” COVID case.* Confirmation of something that doesn't exist is an inherent absurdity. I have explained here and here that Sars-Cov-2 is a mythical entity that has never been isolated by anything resembling valid science. The PCR test that supposedly detects Sars-Cov-2 is a non-specific fraud. I have also explained here why the alleged death toll from 'COVID' is a bald-faced fraud, where everything from heart attacks to kidney failure to murder-suicides were reclassified as 'COVID' deaths in order to generate the appearance of a pandemic. Which means whatever the exact excess global mortality since January 2020 is, it is caused almost entirely by the vaxxxines, with a helping hand from inappropriate intubation, patient-culling use of midazolam and remdesivir, and the physical and mental consequences of ‘emergency’ tyranny. Let's Stop Pretending We Don't Know the Cause None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. The recent GCoVS paper and continuing excess mortality are confirmation of what should already be common knowledge. The COVID gene therapies, fraudulently promoted as vaccines, established a reputation early on for causing heart damage and clot-bombing people's blood vessels. The stories about 'turbo cancers' look to be more than just anecdotal tales going by the post-vaxxx elevations in cancer deaths. It was also known early on that adverse event databases in the UK, US, Australia and Europe quickly evinced alarming, skyward jumps in 'vaccine'-related incidents. Governments and corporate media outlets, working in preorchestrated lockstep, portrayed the sudden rise in sudden death as a remarkable coincidence. No way could it be the toxic injections they had brainwashed and bullied the world into receiving; instead, they blamed everything from climate change to referee's whistles. Trusting people who are known to lie for a living, and taking drugs with a penchant for causing heart damage and life-threatening blood clots, in the hope of avoiding a re-badged flu whose 'victims' outlived the average national life expectancy, is the epitome of reckless irrationality. Whether Planet Numbnut has learned anything from the last four years remains to be seen. All indications are that we are going to be subjected to a similar stunt again. The Globalist cabal are already warning (threatening) us of "Disease X", the mysterious pathogen that doesn't yet exist but will, we are assured, strike soon and cause mayhem. Stop, for a moment, and think about the inherent absurdity in that claim. They really do think we are stupid. It’s a pity so much of humanity seems hellbent on proving them correct. Just like COVID-19, Disease X will be a pre-orchestrated scamdemic years in the making, motivated by the globalists' psychopathic fetish for population reduction (genocide), unfettered control and ever-increasing wealth. Don’t be a seaword: Recognize when you are being screwed and do not comply with evil. Share *The WHO criteria for a 'confirmed' Sars-Cov-2 case are: A person with a positive PCR test "regardless of clinical criteria." So you could show absolutely no signs of respiratory illness, but if the deliberately flawed and fraudulent Sars-Cov-2 PCR test says you have Sars-Cov-2, then congratulations - you're a 'case.' A person meeting "clinical criteria," which are: "acute onset of fever AND cough"; OR "acute onset of ANY THREE OR MORE of the following signs or symptoms: fever, cough, general weakness/fatigue, headache, myalgia, sore throat, coryza, dyspnoea, nausea/diarrhoea/anorexia." All the above symptoms characterize any number of respiratory and non-respiratory conditions that have nothing to do with fantasy viruses allegedly emanating from a Chinese biolab/wet market/bat/pangolin (four-and-a-half years in, and the geniuses promoting this farce still haven't made up their minds). A person meeting "Epidemiological criteria," which is "contact of a probable or confirmed case, or linked to a COVID-19 cluster" plus a "a positive professional-use or self-test" SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test. The RAT test is “less sensitive” at detecting the non-existent Sars-Cov-2 than the fraudulent Sars-Cov-2 PCR test, but not to worry, you can always confirm the results of an unreliable RAT test by performing a fraudulent Sars-Cov-2 PCR test! I need a drink. https://substack.com/home/post/p-142231776
    SUBSTACK.COM
    World's Biggest Study on COVID 'Vaccine' Side Effects Has Been Published.
    'Anti-Vaxxers' and 'Conspiracy Theorists' vs People Who Believe Anything. Guess Who Wins (Again)?
    0 Comments 0 Shares 7723 Views
  • Vegetarianism/Veganism is a Globalist Trojan Horse With No Scientific Backing
    Here's what happens when you remove studies conducted by biased religious zealots from vegetarian research.

    Anthony Colpo

    The globalists are using a number of Trojan horses to advance their agendas of population control and "global governance" (the sanitized UN term for worldwide tyranny).

    Among these Trojan Horses are fake pandemics, climate change and "plant-based" eating, which is the PR-friendly term for vegetarianism and its histrionic offshoot, veganism.

    The monumental irony with the climate change and plant-based diet phenomena is that believers typically consider themselves not only to be enlightened, but sticking it to the man/corporatism/fascism/etc.

    The reality is they are being played like puppets by the very forces they think they're rebelling against. Individuals militantly pushing these paradigms, along with all those who became zealous Covidiots during the fake pandemic, are a modern-day embodiment of the "useful idiot."

    That derogatory term came into widespread use during the Cold War era to describe non-communists that fell for communist propaganda and psychological manipulation.

    Mariam-Webster defines "useful idiot" as "a naive or credulous person who can be manipulated or exploited to advance a cause or political agenda."

    The Cambridge Dictionary defines a useful idiot as "a person who is easy to persuade to do, say, or believe things that help a particular group or another person politically."

    Follow the Science - Not the Manipulative Propaganda

    In yet another shining testament to human gullibility, millions of people have been convinced that nature's most nutrient-dense and evolutionary-correct food - meat - is in fact bad for humans. They have been further conned that avoiding this incredibly healthful food will prevent disease and extend longevity. They have even been convinced that avoiding a food hominids have been eating with great success for over 2.5 million years will somehow make us more peaceful and spiritually elevated beings.

    The latter argument can easily be dismissed with a few choice names: Adolf Hitler (vegetarian and infamous megalomaniac), Harley "Durianrider" Johnstone (raw vegan and psychopath/narcissist/fraudster/stalker/cyberbully/alleged sex predator/utter scumbag), and Dan Hoyt (vegan restauranteur to the stars and serial public masturbator).

    The alleged health benefits of meatless malnutrition, in contrast, are given credence by a facade of 'science'. Most of this pseudoscience takes the form of epidemiological prospective and cross-sectional studies in which the vegetarian participants allegedly experienced superior health outcomes over time when compared to non-vegetarian subjects.

    Most of this epidemiological pseudoscience emanates from two sources:

    1) Loma Linda University, which is run by the Seventh-day Adventist religion, whose 'prophetess' Ellen G White espoused a vegetarian diet, and;

    2) Oxford University, home to the Oxford Vegetarians, whose members' names feature on many pro-vegetarian 'studies' (Timothy Key and Paul Appleby are two prominent examples). By the way, another infamous Oxford alumni is Peter Singer, the 'bioethicist' (a term used to describe people with incredibly twisted, anti-human ethics) who has waxed much lyrical about animal welfare yet sees nothing wrong with bestiality or pedophilia.

    The studies pumped out by these entities are heavily-biased, confounder-prone and easily-debunked garbage that I've dismantled numerous times over the years.

    However, it's always nice to see published confirmation of what I've been saying all along.

    In 2014, the International Journal of Cardiology published a systematic review and meta-analysis you almost certainly haven't heard about because it doesn't support the globalist anti-meat agenda.

    Authored by UK researchers not from Oxford, it featured a pooled analysis of eight studies encompassing 183,321 participants. Six were prospective cohort studies and 2 were observational cohort studies "where it was not clear if their design was prospective or retrospective," which should give you some idea of the quality of research used to prop up "plant-based" eating. One of those studies involved Japanese monks, the other SDAs in the Netherlands. Neither featured a non-vegetarian 'control' sample within the same population; instead, these studies simply used standardized mortality rates for the surrounding population.

    Adjustment for confounders was poor. Six studies adjusted for potential confounders, while the use of adjustment was not clear in the two aforementioned studies. Only two studies adjusted for BMI, and five adjusted for smoking status.

    True adherence to vegetarian or non-vegetarian diets in these studies is unknown, as some involved a single questionnaire administered at the start of the study.

    The results?

    All-cause mortality: Three of 8 studies involved Seventh-day Adventist cohorts. All three Adventist cohorts demonstrated significant associations between vegetarian diet and reduced all-cause mortality, whereas the 4 non-Adventist studies examining all-cause death did not show any mortality reduction in vegetarians.

    Ischaemic heart disease or cardiac adverse events: Two of the 3 Adventist cohorts demonstrated significant associations between vegetarian diet and reduced cardiac adverse events, whereas the non-Adventist studies each failed to show any benefit in vegetarians.

    Cerebrovascular disease (stroke): One Adventist cohort showed significant reduction in cerebrovascular events while the other did not; when pooled there was no significant difference. There was no significant difference in cerebrovascular disease in any of the four non-Adventist studies.

    The authors concluded: "Data from observational studies indicates that there is modest cardiovascular benefit, but no clear reduction in overall mortality associated with a vegetarian diet. This evidence of benefit is driven mainly by studies in SDA, whereas the effect of vegetarian diet in other cohorts remains unproven."

    A 2016 meta-analysis of 108 cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies by Italian researchers returned a similar finding.

    Among Adventist vegetarian cohorts, the pooled risk of all-cause mortality was 0.84; among Non-Adventist vegetarians it was 1.04 (less than 1.0 represents reduced risk, greater than 1.0 represents increased risk).

    For Adventist vegetarians, the pooled risk of breast cancer mortality was 0.79; among Non-Adventist vegetarians it was 1.40.

    Among studies rated as medium quality, the all-cause mortality risk for vegetarians was 0.93; in studies rated as high quality, the risk was 1.05.

    So vegetarian diets only show a mortality benefit in lower quality studies involving Seventh-day Adventists.

    Why is that?

    Confounders, my little grasshoppers, confounders.

    SDA members are encouraged to not only avoid meat, but to abstain from smoking, non-medicinal drugs and alcohol, and to have regular exercise, sufficient rest and maintain stable psychosocial relationships.

    As with most religions, adherence to these recommendations varies widely. Researchers have found intensity of religious involvement (e.g. higher church attendance) correlates with lower rates of substance abuse, higher likelihood of marriage and lower rate of divorce, and lower all-cause mortality.

    As the UK researchers noted, "the non-dietary factors (confounders) in SDA lifestyle may be responsible for the risk reduction among the vegetarian studies."

    In other words, the SDA studies are not showing a health benefit of vegetarianism; they are showing a health benefit of religiosity. More devout followers are not just more likely to abstain from meat - they are more likely to abstain from smoking, drugs, overeating and other intemperate lifestyle practices.

    While they are by no means guilt-free entities with exemplary ethics, the fact remains most major religions do feature at least some beneficial lifestyle prescriptions, including temperance, moderation, monogamy/avoidance of promiscuity and charity/community above wealth accumulation/self-aggrandizement.

    Few people want to admit it in this self-entitled, instant gratification-oriented age, but there's a lot to be said for not drinking and eating to excess, not smoking and doing drugs, and not staying out late indiscriminately fighting and fornicating.

    There's also much to be admired about striving to forge stronger family and community bonds instead of trying to outrank other attention-seeking wankers on social media.

    It's sad that humans need theologies to get them to embrace what should be plain commonsense but, hey, we are talking the same species that made crack cocaine and "brown showers" a thing.

    Discussion

    Compassion - which motivates people to relieve the physical and psychological pains of others - is one of the most beautiful and admirable of all feelings.

    It is also one of the most dangerous, because it is so easily manipulated by conniving psychopaths. Witness the ease with which they used the "we're all in this together" lie to con people into readily embracing COVID tyranny. GloboPedo cynically exploits concern for the environment to impose freedom- and economy-destroying regulations on society. The globalists exploit concern for animal welfare to impose harmful dietary recommendations that will ultimately render us sicker and weaker.

    Globalists know full well vegetarianism and veganism are scams. Heck, they are the driving force behind those scams. Their farcical climate change get-togethers feature lavish meat- and dairy-rich dishes.

    The Conference of the Parties (COP) is the unelected "decision-making body responsible for monitoring and reviewing the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change." Every year, traitors from countries all around the world fly in on gas-guzzling private jets to the host city and pretend to be concerned about the environment, while they get down to the real business of enjoying lavish gala meals and prostitutes at taxpayer expense.

    The menu at the 2021 COP26 in Glasgow was almost 60 per cent meat or dairy dishes. The same crowd that wants you and I to abstain from meat and increase our plant and bug intake dined on such luxuriant items as burgers, venison, beef ramen, haggis, farmed salmon, and Scottish buffalo mozzarella pizza.


    Brought to you by the same evil cretins who insist by 2030 you will own nothing and be happy.
    Globalists don't give two turds about the environment nor animals. Their idea of environmental conservation is getting rid of the rest of us to 'offset' their lavish and environmentally-harmful lifestyles.

    Stop being a useless idiot. Stop succumbing to the patently fraudulent propaganda of megalomaniac psychopaths. Stop unwittingly helping them to enact their agendas. If you want to show compassion for animals, adopt one from a shelter and treat it like the precious gift it is; chances are it will prove to be the best friend you ever had.

    Share

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-144829378
    Vegetarianism/Veganism is a Globalist Trojan Horse With No Scientific Backing Here's what happens when you remove studies conducted by biased religious zealots from vegetarian research. Anthony Colpo The globalists are using a number of Trojan horses to advance their agendas of population control and "global governance" (the sanitized UN term for worldwide tyranny). Among these Trojan Horses are fake pandemics, climate change and "plant-based" eating, which is the PR-friendly term for vegetarianism and its histrionic offshoot, veganism. The monumental irony with the climate change and plant-based diet phenomena is that believers typically consider themselves not only to be enlightened, but sticking it to the man/corporatism/fascism/etc. The reality is they are being played like puppets by the very forces they think they're rebelling against. Individuals militantly pushing these paradigms, along with all those who became zealous Covidiots during the fake pandemic, are a modern-day embodiment of the "useful idiot." That derogatory term came into widespread use during the Cold War era to describe non-communists that fell for communist propaganda and psychological manipulation. Mariam-Webster defines "useful idiot" as "a naive or credulous person who can be manipulated or exploited to advance a cause or political agenda." The Cambridge Dictionary defines a useful idiot as "a person who is easy to persuade to do, say, or believe things that help a particular group or another person politically." Follow the Science - Not the Manipulative Propaganda In yet another shining testament to human gullibility, millions of people have been convinced that nature's most nutrient-dense and evolutionary-correct food - meat - is in fact bad for humans. They have been further conned that avoiding this incredibly healthful food will prevent disease and extend longevity. They have even been convinced that avoiding a food hominids have been eating with great success for over 2.5 million years will somehow make us more peaceful and spiritually elevated beings. The latter argument can easily be dismissed with a few choice names: Adolf Hitler (vegetarian and infamous megalomaniac), Harley "Durianrider" Johnstone (raw vegan and psychopath/narcissist/fraudster/stalker/cyberbully/alleged sex predator/utter scumbag), and Dan Hoyt (vegan restauranteur to the stars and serial public masturbator). The alleged health benefits of meatless malnutrition, in contrast, are given credence by a facade of 'science'. Most of this pseudoscience takes the form of epidemiological prospective and cross-sectional studies in which the vegetarian participants allegedly experienced superior health outcomes over time when compared to non-vegetarian subjects. Most of this epidemiological pseudoscience emanates from two sources: 1) Loma Linda University, which is run by the Seventh-day Adventist religion, whose 'prophetess' Ellen G White espoused a vegetarian diet, and; 2) Oxford University, home to the Oxford Vegetarians, whose members' names feature on many pro-vegetarian 'studies' (Timothy Key and Paul Appleby are two prominent examples). By the way, another infamous Oxford alumni is Peter Singer, the 'bioethicist' (a term used to describe people with incredibly twisted, anti-human ethics) who has waxed much lyrical about animal welfare yet sees nothing wrong with bestiality or pedophilia. The studies pumped out by these entities are heavily-biased, confounder-prone and easily-debunked garbage that I've dismantled numerous times over the years. However, it's always nice to see published confirmation of what I've been saying all along. In 2014, the International Journal of Cardiology published a systematic review and meta-analysis you almost certainly haven't heard about because it doesn't support the globalist anti-meat agenda. Authored by UK researchers not from Oxford, it featured a pooled analysis of eight studies encompassing 183,321 participants. Six were prospective cohort studies and 2 were observational cohort studies "where it was not clear if their design was prospective or retrospective," which should give you some idea of the quality of research used to prop up "plant-based" eating. One of those studies involved Japanese monks, the other SDAs in the Netherlands. Neither featured a non-vegetarian 'control' sample within the same population; instead, these studies simply used standardized mortality rates for the surrounding population. Adjustment for confounders was poor. Six studies adjusted for potential confounders, while the use of adjustment was not clear in the two aforementioned studies. Only two studies adjusted for BMI, and five adjusted for smoking status. True adherence to vegetarian or non-vegetarian diets in these studies is unknown, as some involved a single questionnaire administered at the start of the study. The results? All-cause mortality: Three of 8 studies involved Seventh-day Adventist cohorts. All three Adventist cohorts demonstrated significant associations between vegetarian diet and reduced all-cause mortality, whereas the 4 non-Adventist studies examining all-cause death did not show any mortality reduction in vegetarians. Ischaemic heart disease or cardiac adverse events: Two of the 3 Adventist cohorts demonstrated significant associations between vegetarian diet and reduced cardiac adverse events, whereas the non-Adventist studies each failed to show any benefit in vegetarians. Cerebrovascular disease (stroke): One Adventist cohort showed significant reduction in cerebrovascular events while the other did not; when pooled there was no significant difference. There was no significant difference in cerebrovascular disease in any of the four non-Adventist studies. The authors concluded: "Data from observational studies indicates that there is modest cardiovascular benefit, but no clear reduction in overall mortality associated with a vegetarian diet. This evidence of benefit is driven mainly by studies in SDA, whereas the effect of vegetarian diet in other cohorts remains unproven." A 2016 meta-analysis of 108 cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies by Italian researchers returned a similar finding. Among Adventist vegetarian cohorts, the pooled risk of all-cause mortality was 0.84; among Non-Adventist vegetarians it was 1.04 (less than 1.0 represents reduced risk, greater than 1.0 represents increased risk). For Adventist vegetarians, the pooled risk of breast cancer mortality was 0.79; among Non-Adventist vegetarians it was 1.40. Among studies rated as medium quality, the all-cause mortality risk for vegetarians was 0.93; in studies rated as high quality, the risk was 1.05. So vegetarian diets only show a mortality benefit in lower quality studies involving Seventh-day Adventists. Why is that? Confounders, my little grasshoppers, confounders. SDA members are encouraged to not only avoid meat, but to abstain from smoking, non-medicinal drugs and alcohol, and to have regular exercise, sufficient rest and maintain stable psychosocial relationships. As with most religions, adherence to these recommendations varies widely. Researchers have found intensity of religious involvement (e.g. higher church attendance) correlates with lower rates of substance abuse, higher likelihood of marriage and lower rate of divorce, and lower all-cause mortality. As the UK researchers noted, "the non-dietary factors (confounders) in SDA lifestyle may be responsible for the risk reduction among the vegetarian studies." In other words, the SDA studies are not showing a health benefit of vegetarianism; they are showing a health benefit of religiosity. More devout followers are not just more likely to abstain from meat - they are more likely to abstain from smoking, drugs, overeating and other intemperate lifestyle practices. While they are by no means guilt-free entities with exemplary ethics, the fact remains most major religions do feature at least some beneficial lifestyle prescriptions, including temperance, moderation, monogamy/avoidance of promiscuity and charity/community above wealth accumulation/self-aggrandizement. Few people want to admit it in this self-entitled, instant gratification-oriented age, but there's a lot to be said for not drinking and eating to excess, not smoking and doing drugs, and not staying out late indiscriminately fighting and fornicating. There's also much to be admired about striving to forge stronger family and community bonds instead of trying to outrank other attention-seeking wankers on social media. It's sad that humans need theologies to get them to embrace what should be plain commonsense but, hey, we are talking the same species that made crack cocaine and "brown showers" a thing. Discussion Compassion - which motivates people to relieve the physical and psychological pains of others - is one of the most beautiful and admirable of all feelings. It is also one of the most dangerous, because it is so easily manipulated by conniving psychopaths. Witness the ease with which they used the "we're all in this together" lie to con people into readily embracing COVID tyranny. GloboPedo cynically exploits concern for the environment to impose freedom- and economy-destroying regulations on society. The globalists exploit concern for animal welfare to impose harmful dietary recommendations that will ultimately render us sicker and weaker. Globalists know full well vegetarianism and veganism are scams. Heck, they are the driving force behind those scams. Their farcical climate change get-togethers feature lavish meat- and dairy-rich dishes. The Conference of the Parties (COP) is the unelected "decision-making body responsible for monitoring and reviewing the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change." Every year, traitors from countries all around the world fly in on gas-guzzling private jets to the host city and pretend to be concerned about the environment, while they get down to the real business of enjoying lavish gala meals and prostitutes at taxpayer expense. The menu at the 2021 COP26 in Glasgow was almost 60 per cent meat or dairy dishes. The same crowd that wants you and I to abstain from meat and increase our plant and bug intake dined on such luxuriant items as burgers, venison, beef ramen, haggis, farmed salmon, and Scottish buffalo mozzarella pizza. Brought to you by the same evil cretins who insist by 2030 you will own nothing and be happy. Globalists don't give two turds about the environment nor animals. Their idea of environmental conservation is getting rid of the rest of us to 'offset' their lavish and environmentally-harmful lifestyles. Stop being a useless idiot. Stop succumbing to the patently fraudulent propaganda of megalomaniac psychopaths. Stop unwittingly helping them to enact their agendas. If you want to show compassion for animals, adopt one from a shelter and treat it like the precious gift it is; chances are it will prove to be the best friend you ever had. Share https://substack.com/home/post/p-144829378
    SUBSTACK.COM
    Vegetarianism/Veganism is a Globalist Trojan Horse With No Scientific Backing
    Here's what happens when you remove studies conducted by biased religious zealots from vegetarian research.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6375 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 10830 Views
  • Why the Official AIDS Story is a Complete Crock
    The Great Rebranding, 1980s-Style: HIV Was a Sham, Just Like Sars-Cov-2

    Anthony Colpo

    All you youngsters born after the Glomesh era have surely heard of AIDS, but probably have no idea of just how big a deal it was when it burst onto the scene in the early 1980s.

    It was the biggest show in town. Sure, it wasn't as big a deal as what COVID would later be. It wasn't accompanied by 'vaccine' mandates, lockdowns or heavily-armed goons bashing people for sitting peacefully in the park. Instead of masks, there were condoms and paper toilet seat covers. There was no social distancing, only admonitions to avoid unprotected sex and not share needles when shooting up.

    Fauci was there, front and center, but he wasn't telling us to wear two condoms at once. Instead, he was pimping a toxic concoction known as AZT.

    Right off the bat, nothing made sense about the AIDs charade. It does make sense in hindsight if you view it as a giant test run, an exercise in spreading 'virus' hysteria. The HIV/AIDS charade confirmed most people don't ask questions, and those who do can be quickly shouted over and marginalized as "deniers," "conspiracists" and menaces to society. It also confirmed that not only could people be convinced to take toxic drugs in response to an overblown 'pandemic' scare, but they could be manipulated into rabidly demanding their expedited release.

    It was an exercise whose lessons would prove valuable come December 2019.

    AIDS stands for "acquired immunodeficiency syndrome." In other words, you somehow "acquired" an immune system that, like a tired car engine with 300,000 km on the clock, was about to blow its last gasket.

    It was first identified in 1981 in Los Angeles when the CDC reported on five young homosexual men suffering pneumonia caused by a protozoon known as Pneumocystis carinii.

    This microbe is ordinarily innocuous and, in fact, found in nearly all healthy persons. For reasons unknown it had suddenly become lethal - an outcome previously seen only in persons whose immune systems were being undermined by immunosuppressant therapy, cancer, or severe malnourishment.

    This same pneumonia promptly appeared in New York, together with several dozen cases of an unusual skin cancer called Kaposi's Sarcoma which had previously been almost unknown in the US.

    Eventually Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's Sarcoma were interpreted as secondary manifestations of an underlying immune-system deficiency of unknown origin which was eventually dubbed "acquired immunodeficiency disease syndrome" or AIDS.

    The bodies of AIDS patients seemed to have just given up. Patients suffered severe weight loss and lethargy and were so immune deficient that even a minor infection threatened to kill them.

    The first few thousand cases were found mostly in homosexual males, and the media bombarded us with images of emaciated gay blokes on the verge of death and barely able to sit upright. Initially, the condition was referred to as GRID (gay-related immune deficiency). Outside of scientific circles, it came to be known as the "gay plague" and religious fundamentalists trumpeted the phenomenon as God's revenge on evil sodomites.

    That began to change in 1983, when AIDS was found to affect heterosexual women, which caused the fear porn to increase by an order of magnitude. As with COVID, health authorities treated us to an orgy of fearmongering and doomsday predictions - and the sheeple lapped it up.

    In 1986, Dr. Donald Ian Macdonald, then Acting Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, described "the escalating AIDS epidemic" as "staggering," "devastating" and a "huge problem."

    Dr. Halfdan Mahler, Danish physician and head of the World Health Organization, called AIDS "a health disaster of pandemic proportions" and said he could "not imagine a worse health problem in this century."

    "We stand nakedly in front of a very serious pandemic as mortal as any pandemic there ever has been," Mahler bizarrely quipped. Why he would don his birthday suit instead of a Hazmat one in the face of such a mortal pandemic was never explained, but that's globalist bureaucrats for you.

    "I don't know of any greater killer than AIDS, not to speak of its psychological, social and economic maiming," continued Mahler, who after leaving WHO became director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

    Not to be outdone, in 1987 Harvard biology professor Stephen Jay Gould, said AIDS was "potentially, the greatest natural tragedy in human history." He warned "AIDS may run through the entire population, and may carry off a quarter or more of us" (in 1987, the world population was just over 5 billion; it now stands at over 8 billion).

    That same year, Gallup asked an open-ended question about what Americans saw as the most urgent health problem facing the US. Despite the fact AIDS has never even come close to being the leading cause of death in the US, more than two-thirds of Americans said AIDS. The disease continued as the top pick until 2000.

    According to Gallop polls conducted in 1987, most Americans (60%) agreed people with AIDS should be made to carry a card noting they had the disease, and one in three (33%) agreed employers should be allowed to fire employees who had AIDS. Twenty-one percent of Americans said people with AIDS should be isolated from the rest of society.

    An earlier LA Times poll from 1985 found more than half of US adults supported quarantining AIDS patients, nearly half would approve of ID cards for those testing positive for "AIDS antibodies," and one in seven favored tattooing those with the disease.

    People never learn.

    A Disease Looking For a Cause

    Authorities had presented us with a new public health scare, but no causal agent. No-one knew what caused the immune systems of AIDS patients to become so deficient.

    Was it a new microbe? A new drug scourge? God's revenge for Abba and Disco Duck?

    No-one knew.

    At least officially.

    In reality, authorities knew damn well what was going on.

    But they didn’t tell us. Instead, they eventually claimed AIDS was the result of a 'novel virus' that, in 1986, was named "human immunodeficiency virus,” or HIV.

    The 'novel virus' paradigm holds that a 'zoonotic' virus wakes up one day, and decides to "jump" from apes/bats/pangolins/garden gnomes to humans. This novel virus then acts like a seventeen year old that has been given the keys to an alcohol-filled mansion while mom and dad head off for a weekend vacation. However, the virus has no friends to party with. So he first has to convert to a 'human' form of the virus, then he has to begin self-replicating in order to build a social circle. Once this is done, the virions party so hard that the host becomes sick. The virions conclude their current host is no fun, so they go looking for a new host to party inside. The process repeats itself, and before you know it, there's a 'pandemic' going on with squillions of little virions pogo-dancing in global synchrony and chanting "the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire!!" while trashing everything in sight.

    Viruses these days, sheesh.

    Setting aside the glaring fallacies of the virus 'isolation' charade, the 'novel virus = pandemic’ theory is an inherent load of cobblers.

    Outbreaks of what look to be infectious illnesses don't just happen for no reason. There has to be some facilitating factor.

    AIDS became a big thing in the early 1980s, and we know that initially, the majority of patients were gay males. African-Americans were also known to be at increased risk.

    Even if butt sex is an especially efficient method of transmitting STDs, it doesn't explain why AIDS became a phenomenon in the 1980s. After all, both sodomy and homosexuality have been around as long as humans have. Heck, even apes have been observed taking rides on the Hershey Highway.

    Which begs the question: What other events with the potential for dire impact on health occurred around the same time as the AIDS outbreak?

    The Other Crack Rears Its Ugly Head

    Thanks in no small part to Uncle Sam and his ability to conveniently look the other way when it suits his financial and geopolitical interests*, the early 1980s saw a massive flood of cocaine into the US, with urban black neighborhoods the worst afflicted.

    So plentiful was the supply of cocaine, drug dealers came up with a way to make it even cheaper and more addictive in order to expand their customer base.

    Freebase is the name given to the original form of smokable coke, which resulted in a more intense high than snorting. While this constituted an obvious selling point, the process for making freebase required ether, making it notoriously volatile and dangerous to produce. In a famed 1980 incident, comedian Richard Pryor suffered severe and life-threatening burns after mixing cocaine with ether at his home; the mixture promptly exploded in his face.

    Freebase cocaine seems to have first surfaced in the US in the mid-1970s. Around 1980, a less volatile but similar process was developed by dealers in which cocaine was dissolved in a solution of water and baking soda and then dried out into "crack rocks." As the rocks are heated, it makes a crackling sound, hence the name.

    As early as 1981, reports of crack appeared in Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, and in the Caribbean. Its use quickly spread to other major US cities, and by 1987, crack was reportedly available in DC and all but four states in the Union.

    "In some major cities, such as New York, Detroit, and Philadelphia, one dosage unit of crack could be obtained for as little as $2.50," writes the US DEA. "Never before had any form of cocaine been available at such low prices and at such high purity."

    The crack epidemic dramatically increased the number of Americans addicted to cocaine, as well as the number of cocaine-related hospital emergencies. In 1985, cocaine-related hospital emergencies rose by 12 percent, from 23,500 to 26,300. In 1986, these incidents increased 110 percent, from 26,300 to 55,200.

    The crack cocaine explosion, you'll notice, overlaps neatly with the AIDS "explosion."

    The House of Representatives Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control held cocaine hearings in July, October, and November 1980. Dr. Robert Byck, who along with his colleagues conducted the first scientific studies of cocaine plasma levels after coca paste smoking, testified at the hearings. He warned that the heavy use of smokable freebase cocaine, employed by an estimated 10 percent of cocaine users, was about to change. He warned Congress that the US was about to experience the worst epidemic of drug abuse the country had ever seen. Byck predicted the use of smoked cocaine in the 1980s would match the widespread use of "speed" (methamphetamine) in the 1960s. He urged Congress and the National Institute on Drug Abuse to mount an education and prevention campaign to avert this impending epidemic.

    No such campaign was undertaken.

    "The emergence of crack cocaine use in the United States during the mid-1980s was one of the most significant public health problems of that era," note Watkins et al in a 1998 paper. "Crack use contributed to a series of sexually transmitted disease epidemics, to epidemic increases in violent injuries and homicides, and to significant increases in the incidence and prevalence of cocaine addiction. Despite these threats to health and safety, a national public health campaign to counter crack-related morbidity and mortality was never mounted."

    Is that because authorities were already committed to carrying out a manufactured 'HIV' crisis?

    Crack, Risky Sex, and 'HIV'

    A 1994 NEJM article reported an analysis of 1,967 people recruited from inner-city neighborhoods in New York, Miami, and San Francisco. All respondents reported never having injected drugs, however 1,137 were regular smokers of crack. The remaining 830 people reported never having smoked crack.

    The results for crack users weren't pretty.

    Female crack users were 4.1 times more likely to have been raped, and 1.6 times more likely to have had their first vaginal or anal sex encounter before 13 years of age.

    Both male and female crack users reported a higher number of sexual partners than non-users; in the case of women, crack users were 11 times more likely to have had 50 or more sexual partners.

    Crack-smoking women were 13.5 times more likely than nonsmoking women to have engaged in sexual work at any time, and 28.8 times more likely to have engaged in recent, unprotected sex work.

    Male crack smokers, meanwhile, were 3.4 times more likely to report ever having homosexual anal sex, and 23 times more likely to have had 50 or more male anal sex partners.

    Clearly, crack users were significantly more likely to engage in prostitution and risky sexual practices.

    Not surprising then, that female and male crack users had higher historical rates of syphilis (3.5 and 2.2, respectively) and gonorrhea (1.8 and 1.6, respectively).

    When the researchers ran blood tests for current infection, female and male crack users were significantly more likely to test positive for syphilis (2.8 and 1.6, respectively).

    Among the participants in New York and Miami, HIV 'infection' was 2.3 times more prevalent among crack smokers than among nonsmokers (prevalence of HIV antibodies among participants recruited in San Francisco was low).

    Testing positive for ‘HIV antibodies’ was strongly associated with previous or current infection with other STDs.

    A positive reactive syphilis test (adjusted odds ratio, 2.3) and a history of herpes (adjusted odds ratio, 3.6) remained significantly associated with HIV infection after adjustment for high-risk sexual practices and African-American race.

    Other studies found similar results.

    Chiasson and colleagues at the New York City Department of Health examined the link between HIV infection and crack use. Examining patients at an STD clinic in the South Bronx, they found that, among women with no other identified risk (i.e., no injectible drug use), crack use, prostitution, crack-using prostitution and history of syphilis were all found to be risk factors for HIV infection. Among men with no other risk behavior, a history of syphilis was in fact the strongest predictor of HIV infection - greater than crack use and contact with prostitutes.

    In a 1990 paper, Greenspan and Castro note "between 1981 and 1983, the incidence of primary and secondary syphilis in the United States increased 34%, reaching a rate in 1989 (18.4 cases per 100,000 persons) that was higher than at any time since 1949. Between 1985 and 1989, incidence among blacks more than doubled, from 52.5 to 121.8 cases per 100,000; the increase was greater for black women than for black men (176% versus 106%). These trends are markers for the same high-risk sexual practices that promote transmission of HIV."

    So crack, syphilis and ‘HIV’ are closely related. Now let's look at another class of drugs showing a close correlation with pre-existing STDs and ‘HIV.’

    The Popper Phenomenon

    “Poppers” is a slang term for nitrite inhalant drugs (when they were first manufactured, they came in small ampoules that were 'popped' to release fumes). Amyl nitrite was originally developed to treat angina pectoris by dilating blood vessels, allowing the heart to get more oxygen and thereby relieving the pain.

    Arteries are not the only thing poppers help to dilate. Inhaling nitrites relaxes smooth muscles throughout the body - including the sphincter muscles, making it particularly helpful to gay posteriors. Along with facilitating anal sex, the blood vessel-dilating effects of poppers can produce a brief but intense sensation of heat and euphoria lasting 1 or 2 minutes.

    The story of poppers is an interesting one, involving US Vietnam vets, a profiteering Big Pharma and an enabling FDA, a gay medical student and organized criminals.

    The latter two entities sidestepped an eventual prescription requirement for amyl nitrite by creating butyl and isobutyl nitrite - less pure, more toxic, and even faster-acting versions than the original. Further restrictions were averted thanks to an unwritten agreement between producers and the FDA that poppers were only to be advertised in gay-oriented publications, as 'room deodorizers.'

    During the 1970s and early 80s, poppers were advertised heavily in the gay press, and the drugs became an integral part of gay culture. Not only was it routine for patrons at gay nightclubs to freely pass the vials around, some "disco clubs would even add to the general euphoria by occasionally spraying the dance floor with poppers fumes."

    "The miasma of nitrite fumes was taken for granted at gay gathering places: bars, baths, leather clubs," writes John Lauritsen in a 1994 New York Native article. "Some gay men were never without their little bottle, from which they snorted fumes around the clock."

    Throwing caution to the wind when it comes to drugs never ends well. Amyl nitrite was developed for occasional use by angina patients, not as a party drug to be snorted every time one hit the dance floor or engaged in a bout of Jolly Rogering.

    Apart from causing localized damage to nasal membranes, poppers have been linked to anemia, strokes, heart, lung, and brain damage, cardiovascular collapse, and, tellingly, the blood de-oxygenation, thymus atrophy, chronic depletion of T-cell ratio's associated with severe immune dysfunction. The drugs have also been linked to the development of Kaposi's Sarcoma.

    Sounds a lot like AIDS, doesn't it?

    While researchers and the more level-headed of gay advocates warned of the dangers, the FDA continued to look the other way. The gay press, whose advertising revenue relied heavily on popper ads, also willfully turned a blind eye to the dangers.

    In the 1980s, in a lukewarm attempt to be seen to be doing something about the problem, US health officials banned the use of poppers in public places and required merchants to post warnings about their dangers. "The warnings about their use disappeared sometime in the late '80s to early '90s," reports SFGATE, "and no one seems to know why."

    "During the first few years of the AIDS epidemic," writes Ian Young at VirusMyth.org, "poppers came under suspicion as a possible contributing factor. But after 1984, when the Reagan administration pronounced a single retrovirus to be the only cause of the growing list of AIDS illnesses, the health hazards of poppers were dismissed. All attention and funding was directed to HIV."

    Fun fact: Burroughs Wellcome, the original manufacturers of poppers, went on to profit handsomely from the subsequent AIDS hysteria with its highly-toxic 'anti-AIDS' drug AZT.

    History is Made (Up)

    There were major drug scourges afflicting the high-risk gay and African-American communities, drugs whose chronologies overlapped neatly with the AIDS outbreak. Use and abuse of these drugs was well established to cause severe illness, immune dysfunction and was also strongly correlated with pre-existing STDs like syphilis.

    The powers-that-be, however, had already decided the sole cause of AIDs was a 'novel virus.' They just needed to come up with one.

    And so along came the virologists to save the day. Not just any old bunch of virologists, but virologists with friends in high places. In France, this meant Luc Montagnier and his team at the Pasteur Institute, which advises the French government and the World Health Organization (WHO), and maintains a close collaboration with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    In the US, it meant sci-bureaucrats from the government's behemoth National Institutes of Health (NIH). One of the key figures was the caustic Robert S Gallo, a researcher at the NIH's National Cancer Institute, where he worked for 30 years mainly as head of the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology. Gallo’s career would be dogged by controversy and misconduct allegations, but that’s a whole other article (stay tuned).

    The other career bureaucrat that would play a key role on the US side was none other than Anthony S Fauci, who recently completed a ridiculous 38-year reign as unelected head of the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

    If you've surmised that, with names like the above, the HIV story must be a real shite show, you are absolutely correct.

    HIV is Invented 'Discovered'

    In 1983, the Pasteur Institute researchers declared they had 'isolated' a 'retrovirus' belonging to the family of T-cell leukemia viruses (HTLV), and concluded it "may be involved in several pathological syndromes, including AIDS." (Bold emphasis added)

    Their isolate came from a promiscuous 33-year-old Caucasian homosexual male referred to as "BRU", who indicated he'd had more than 50 sexual partners per year. Nasty. According to the authors, he displayed "signs and symptoms that often precede the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." However, the only symptoms reported for the patient were multiple lymphadenopathies (swollen lymph glands) and asthenia (weakness), which are evident in many conditions aside from AIDS. Neither fever nor recent loss of weight were noted.

    In other words, the patient from whom the alleged AIDS-causing virus was first 'isolated' from did not have an AIDS diagnosis.

    Tellingly, the patient did have a history of several episodes of gonorrhea and had been treated for syphilis in September 1982. Lymphadenopathy is one of the symptoms of both the aforementioned infections.

    The study's lead author was Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, although the finding is routinely credited to the paper's last listed author, the late Montagnier.

    The French study was marred by two key problems. It did not isolate any virus, and it did not show AIDS was caused by any HTLV offshoot.

    Forty years later, little has changed. The terminology and rationalizations have indeed become increasingly complex (as is the case with most elaborate lies), but there is no physical isolate of 'HIV.'

    Virologists and their sycophants, of course, insist this doesn't matter and that their non-purified mixtures are indeed isolates.

    While they condescendingly sneer and dismiss anyone who disputes this as a silly little dumb-dumb that doesn't 'understand' virology, they tend to remain rather quiet on another highly inconvenient observation.

    Namely, there is no proof that whatever is in their ‘isolates’ actually causes AIDS.

    HIV and Sars-Cov-2: The 'Deadly' Viruses That Aren't Deadly

    In the early days of 'COVID', testing positive for the mythical Sars-Cov-2 was considered a death sentence. So much so, that some folks didn't even bother getting their affairs in order; they instead killed themselves.

    Such is the power of all this heinous "deadly virus" bullshit.

    It was the same in the 'HIV' Dark Ages - testing positive was considered a death sentence. When a famous basketballer by the name of Erving “Magic” Johnson announced he was HIV positive in 1991, everyone was shocked. "Now we all know someone with HIV," said someone I can't recall in what was supposed to be a profound, insight-triggering moment.

    Johnson, everyone assumed, was now living on borrowed time.

    Thirty-three years later, Johnson is still alive and wealthy. He attributes his survival to antiretroviral cocktails that have never been shown in clinical studies to benefit survival: GlaxoSmithKline's Trizivir and Abbott's Kaletra. These cocktails are comprised of drugs like AZT which increase the risk of side effects but have never been shown to exert a mortality benefit.

    Johnson, it should be noted, has featured in ads for both products. In 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to Abbott Laboratories regarding a promotional DVD in which Johnson discussed his experiences with Kaletra. The letter stated the violations were of public health concern "because they suggest that Kaletra is safer and more effective than has been demonstrated by substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience, and encourage use in circumstances other than those for which the drug has been shown to be safe and effective."

    "FDA is not aware of substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience to support effectiveness for five or more years of treatment with Kaletra in treatment-experienced adults. The personal experience of Kaletra patients, such as Magic Johnson, does not constitute such evidence."

    So if overpriced drug cocktails aren't keeping Johnson alive, what explains his survival?

    It's explained by the fact that HIV is a load of bollocks. A shady test that claims you are ‘HIV positive’ does not mean you are in fact harboring a deadly 'virus.'

    If ‘HIV’ was so deadly, then lab animals infected with it would get sick and die.

    But guess what? Administering a so-called isolate of uber-deadly HIV to animals results in ... nothing.

    Stugatz.

    That's right - directly administering the Virus That Causes AIDS™ to animals does not cause AIDS.

    "The only animals susceptible to experimental HIV-1** infection are the chimpanzee, gibbon ape, and rabbit but AIDS-like disease has not yet been reported in these species," lamented the authors of a 1989 FASEB paper.

    Oops.

    I'm guessing those chimps, gibbons and wascawwy wabbits didn't have a history of syphilis, smoking crack or inhaling poppers.

    Experiments in which human volunteers are deliberately 'infected' with the 'HIV isolate' would never get past the ethics committees of most research institutions.

    We do, however, have numerous instances of involuntary infection to give us a guide as to what happens when otherwise low-risk individuals are exposed to 'HIV.'

    In a 1984 NEJM letter, before 'HIV' testing became available, Sloan Kettering researchers reported there had been 27 parenteral exposures by 25 staff to the blood of AIDS patients since August 1982 (24 exposures were via needlestick).

    "All the involved staff are in their usual (generally excellent) state of health," including those who were exposed more than 12 months ago. Blood work was available for 12 staff with exposure more than 6 months prior, and no abnormalities were evident, reported the researchers.

    During 1985–2013, 58 confirmed and 150 possible cases of occupationally acquired HIV infection among healthcare workers were reported to the CDC. Since 1999, only one confirmed case (a laboratory technician sustaining a needle puncture while working with a live HIV culture in 2008) has been reported. There is no mention of subsequent AIDS, something the fear-porn agents at the CDC would surely have mentioned had it occurred.

    Some of you have probably heard of Dr Robert Willner, who twice deliberately pricked himself on TV with blood from 'HIV-positive' men (in Spain 1993, and USA 1994). Willner was an outspoken critic of the HIV hypothesis, having authored a book titled Deadly Deception: The Proof that Sex and HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause AIDS. Depending on who you listen to, Willner died 3 months after his 1994 TV appearance in a car crash, or the following year from a heart attack. Neither outcome is consistent with the oft-cited sequelae of AIDS.

    Jump, Jump, Jump Around

    Despite the fact that it is scientifically untenable, the HIV theory of AIDS still reigns supreme. Which brings us back to the key question: Why did 'HIV' wait until Wham! and Devine hit the charts before it started striking down gay blokes en mass?

    Enter the apes.

    According to Wikipedia, "HIV made the jump from other primates to humans in west-central Africa in the early-to-mid-20th century." (Bold emphasis added)

    Just like Sars-Cov-2 was purported to have kicked off when the allegedly zoonotic virus "jumped" to humans from a bat or pangolin at a Wuhan wet market that did not sell any bats or pangolins.

    Says Wikipedia, "Scientists generally accept that the known strains (or groups) of HIV-1 are most closely related to the simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) endemic in wild ape populations of West Central African forests." (Bold emphasis added).

    "Generally accept" is code for "Scientists have no proof of this, but pretend it's true anyway."

    This brings us to an oft-cited 2011 paper titled "Origins of HIV and the AIDS Pandemic" which repeats the claim that "simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) ... crossed from monkeys to apes and from apes to humans." The paper was authored by Paul Sharp and Beatrice Hahn, the latter a member of Gallo's NCI lab team which she joined in 1982.


    A chimpanzee minding his own business while a Gallo associate who blames apes for spreading HIV to humans (Beatrice Hahn) stares at him from a distance.
    In their paper, the researchers provide a graphic claiming SIV resulting in HIV-1 has been transmitted to humans via chimpanzees and gorillas.

    Hold that thought.

    According to the official narrative, the primary routes of 'HIV' transmission in humans are sexual intercourse with an infected individual, sharing needles with an infected person while taking drugs, transfusions of infected blood, or transmission from an infected pregnant mother to fetus.

    Sharp and Hahn speculate that SIVs first developed in chimpanzees, and were spread among the chimpanzee community primarily through sexual activity, from infected mothers to infants, and "in rare cases, possibly by aggression."

    But how did the disease "jump" from apes to humans? Researchers can't claim humans and apes were shooting up drugs together and sharing needles while doing so, or that apes were administering blood transfusions to humans, because that would be patently absurd.

    Ditto for suggesting apes were passing SIV to humans via birth, because apes don't give birth to humans.

    Claiming that apes transmitted SIV to humans because they were having cross-species sexual encounters would also be a hard sell. Humans are capable of some pretty weird and degenerate behaviour, but good luck pinning down a chimp or gorilla while you attempt to get jiggy with it.


    Meet Bruce. Can bench press you and your extended family with one arm. Incursions into his personal space not advised.
    "How humans acquired the ape precursors of HIV-1 groups M, N, O, and P is not known," write Sharp and Hahn, "however, based on the biology of these viruses, transmission must have occurred through cutaneous or mucous membrane exposure to infected ape blood and/or body fluids. Such exposures occur most commonly in the context of bushmeat hunting." (Bold emphasis added).

    Researchers can't explain exactly how immunodeficiency viruses pole-vaulted from apes to human, so they simply assume it must have happened during hunting expeditions.

    Virologists do a lot of assuming.

    Sharp and Hahn write that the first clue to HIV-1's "sudden emergence, epidemic spread, and unique pathogenicity" came in 1986 when a “morphologically similar but anti-genically distinct” virus was allegedly found to cause AIDS in patients in western Africa.

    Well riddle me this, Batman: Humans have been around for 2.5 million years, and the earliest Homo sapiens were getting around some 300,000 years ago.

    We've been hunting that whole time.

    Furthermore, the advance of agriculture and the steadily declining numbers of hunter-gatherers in modern times would have meant a greatly reduced opportunity for SIV to jump aboard the H-train via scratchy-bitey-fluid-exchangey hunting confrontations.

    Yet immunodeficiency viruses waited until the latter half of the Twentieth Century to successfully make the big cross-species jump?

    What an utter crock.

    Wikipedia admits "How the SIV virus would have transformed into HIV after infection of the hunter or bushmeat handler from the ape/monkey is still a matter of debate."

    Translated: There is no actual scientific evidence to support the claim that, after allegedly entering the human body, ‘SIV’ magically transformed into ‘HIV.’

    The Sodomy Paradox

    There's another problem with the official AIDS narrative which holds that, after catching SIV from apes during hunting mishaps in Africa, it "transformed" into HIV, which hunter-gatherers then spread by doing the backdoor boogie with gay abandon.

    That story further holds that, somewhere along the way, one of these HIV-carrying ape-hunters nailed a gay airline steward from America. Patient Zero then flew back to the US, and began having lots of AIDS-causing unprotected sex in the saunas of San Francisco. Or the gay bars of New York. Or the wet markets of Wisconsin, I'm not sure, all this virus BS gets a bit hard to keep track of after a while.

    It doesn't really matter, because like the rest of the AIDS tale, the gay airline steward story was nonsense. Gaetan Dugas, the French-Canadian flight attendant posthumously labelled 'Patient Zero' and accused of single-handedly igniting the spread of HIV/AIDS across North America, was later exonerated.

    Thanks to the determined sleuthing of Pullitzer Prize-winning reporter John Crewdson, it was known by 1988 that what we now call AIDS was in fact present in America in the 1960s. While the rest of the media was tripping over itself to blame Dugas (“THE MAN WHO GAVE US AIDS” blared the New York Post’s October 6, 1987 headline; “Canadian Said to Have Had Key Role in Spread of AIDS,” wrote the New York Times, while the National Review nicknamed Dugas “the Columbus of AIDS"), Crewdson had discovered a 1973 case report that showed the official Patient Zero story was bollocks.

    That 1973 case report described Robert Rayford, a 15-year-old black lad from St. Louis who had died of AIDS in 1969 - more than a decade before anyone knew what AIDS was. The impoverished teen had presented to hospital in the spring of 1968 with swollen loins covered with open, infected sores. He struggled while breathing, was razor thin and pale as a ghost. Doctors initially suspected cancer, but subsequent tests revealed herpes, genital warts, and a severe case of chlamydia. The infection spread, in the form of purple colored lesions, to his legs, causing a misdiagnosis of lymphedema. He eventually succumbed to his condition in May 1969, leaving doctors baffled.

    The teen, who doctors described as mildly intellectually impaired, said he'd suffered the symptoms for around two years prior to seeking medical help. He denied injury or animal bites, had not travelled outside the midwestern United States, but admitted to "frequent" heterosexual intercourse. His family consented to an autopsy, which revealed "widespread Kaposi's sarcoma of the aggressive, disseminated type." The autopsy also found evidence of anal scarring and a particular kind of lesion no one had identified when Rayford was alive. Some doctors thought the scarring indicated Rayford was gay; others pointed out he may have been sexually abused.

    Struck by how closely Rayford's symptoms resembled those of AIDS, Crewdson flew to St. Louis and found a pathologist willing to dig through laboratory freezers in search of the youth's tissue samples. By using the test 'co-developed' by Gallo and the French, researchers were able to determine that the boy, incredibly, had been infected with 'HIV.'

    The finding was published in JAMA in 1988. However, it was not until 2016 that the fake Dugas tale was officially revoked.

    Had the Rayford story been more widely known, it wouldn’t have been good for HIV business.

    Not to worry, the out-of-Africa hypothesis was salvaged in 1998 when researchers claimed they had detected HIV - by a PCR process involving two rounds of amplification for a combined total of 69 cycles - in a plasma sample obtained in early 1959 from an adult Bantu male, with a sickle-cell trait and a glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase deficiency, living in the Belgian Congo. Two of the researchers announcing this narrative-saving discovery hailed from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, at Rockefeller University in New York.

    So just like the COVID charade, we have a shamdemic for which the original Patient Zero story was shown to be a bunch of cobblers. Just like the COVID sham, few people noticed or cared and the rest of the AIDS tale continued its relentless march and took on a life of its own.

    Despite more holes than a ... wait, that's dangerous pun territory ... I mean, despite a plethora of discrepancies, the official Fauci-endorsed tale still has HIV migrating from Africa to the US and spread in the early 1980s by blokes bumping uglies in big city gay bars and saunas.

    And Fauci should know, because he went to gay saunas and gay bars himself in the “early stages” of the AIDS “explosion” to get a “feel” for the situation.

    Purely for ‘research’ purposes, of course (wink, wink).

    It's okay Tony, it's 2024, you don't have to cover for your sexuality anymore.


    A young Anthony Fauci displaying his "I've just been to the saunas!" smile. Your tax money at work.
    You could literally fill a book with all the discrepancies contained within the official AIDS story; several authors have already done just that. What I wanted to highlight here are the commonalities between the AIDS and COVID sagas.

    Both featured never-isolated 'viruses' with nonsensical 'Patient Zero' stories.

    ‘Isolates’ of both these ‘deadly’ and ‘novel’ viruses do a whole lot of nothing when administered to our primate cousins.

    Both sagas featured Anthony Fauci, showing up on cue touting the most toxic drug he could get away with recommending.

    Both featured doomsday, end-of-times hyperbole in which testing 'positive' was initially considered a death sentence.

    Both were remarkable demonstrations of how the media and masses could be easily manipulated into accepting a pandemic scare that, upon the most cursory examination, simply didn't add up.


    *During the presidency of former actor Ronald Reagan, senior administration officials secretly — and illegally — arranged for the sale of arms to Iran in return for Iran’s promise to help secure the release of a group of Americans being held hostage in Lebanon.

    Suspiciously, the hostages were formally released into US custody just minutes after Reagan was sworn into office.

    Proceeds from the arms sales were then secretly, and again illegally, funneled to the Contras, a group of rebels fighting the Marxist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

    Is if that wasn't bad enough, the CIA looked the other way while the Contras trafficked cocaine into the US to help finance their fight to oust the communist Sandinistas. The scandal was exposed in 1996 by the brilliant, Pullitzer Prize-winning journalist Gary Webb while writing for the San Jose Mercury News. His series described a San Francisco Bay Area drug ring that sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles, funelling millions in drug profits to the CIA-assisted Contras. This drug ring "opened the first pipeline between Colombia's cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles" and, as a result, "helped spark a crack explosion in urban America."

    His articles caused a proverbial shit-storm, prompting the government to conduct several investigations into itself and declaring itself innocent of all charges. We were supposed to believe it was all just an accidental oversight when even the Kerry report acknowledged "the Contra drug links included", among other connections, "... payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies." (Bold emphasis added).

    The Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Washington Post launched their own 'investigations' (read: hatchet jobs) and rejected Webb's allegations, instead siding with the government - a practice they uphold to this day.

    However, an internal CIA report released in 1998 admitted the CIA ‘overlooked’ or ‘ignored’ reports that the Nicaragua Contra rebels financed their fight to oust the communist Sandinistas through the sale of drugs in the United States.

    **‘HIV-1’ is the form of ‘HIV’ allegedly most common and threatening to humans. According to the official tale, ‘HIV-2’ is rare and of little threat.

    Share

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-146567752
    Why the Official AIDS Story is a Complete Crock The Great Rebranding, 1980s-Style: HIV Was a Sham, Just Like Sars-Cov-2 Anthony Colpo All you youngsters born after the Glomesh era have surely heard of AIDS, but probably have no idea of just how big a deal it was when it burst onto the scene in the early 1980s. It was the biggest show in town. Sure, it wasn't as big a deal as what COVID would later be. It wasn't accompanied by 'vaccine' mandates, lockdowns or heavily-armed goons bashing people for sitting peacefully in the park. Instead of masks, there were condoms and paper toilet seat covers. There was no social distancing, only admonitions to avoid unprotected sex and not share needles when shooting up. Fauci was there, front and center, but he wasn't telling us to wear two condoms at once. Instead, he was pimping a toxic concoction known as AZT. Right off the bat, nothing made sense about the AIDs charade. It does make sense in hindsight if you view it as a giant test run, an exercise in spreading 'virus' hysteria. The HIV/AIDS charade confirmed most people don't ask questions, and those who do can be quickly shouted over and marginalized as "deniers," "conspiracists" and menaces to society. It also confirmed that not only could people be convinced to take toxic drugs in response to an overblown 'pandemic' scare, but they could be manipulated into rabidly demanding their expedited release. It was an exercise whose lessons would prove valuable come December 2019. AIDS stands for "acquired immunodeficiency syndrome." In other words, you somehow "acquired" an immune system that, like a tired car engine with 300,000 km on the clock, was about to blow its last gasket. It was first identified in 1981 in Los Angeles when the CDC reported on five young homosexual men suffering pneumonia caused by a protozoon known as Pneumocystis carinii. This microbe is ordinarily innocuous and, in fact, found in nearly all healthy persons. For reasons unknown it had suddenly become lethal - an outcome previously seen only in persons whose immune systems were being undermined by immunosuppressant therapy, cancer, or severe malnourishment. This same pneumonia promptly appeared in New York, together with several dozen cases of an unusual skin cancer called Kaposi's Sarcoma which had previously been almost unknown in the US. Eventually Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's Sarcoma were interpreted as secondary manifestations of an underlying immune-system deficiency of unknown origin which was eventually dubbed "acquired immunodeficiency disease syndrome" or AIDS. The bodies of AIDS patients seemed to have just given up. Patients suffered severe weight loss and lethargy and were so immune deficient that even a minor infection threatened to kill them. The first few thousand cases were found mostly in homosexual males, and the media bombarded us with images of emaciated gay blokes on the verge of death and barely able to sit upright. Initially, the condition was referred to as GRID (gay-related immune deficiency). Outside of scientific circles, it came to be known as the "gay plague" and religious fundamentalists trumpeted the phenomenon as God's revenge on evil sodomites. That began to change in 1983, when AIDS was found to affect heterosexual women, which caused the fear porn to increase by an order of magnitude. As with COVID, health authorities treated us to an orgy of fearmongering and doomsday predictions - and the sheeple lapped it up. In 1986, Dr. Donald Ian Macdonald, then Acting Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, described "the escalating AIDS epidemic" as "staggering," "devastating" and a "huge problem." Dr. Halfdan Mahler, Danish physician and head of the World Health Organization, called AIDS "a health disaster of pandemic proportions" and said he could "not imagine a worse health problem in this century." "We stand nakedly in front of a very serious pandemic as mortal as any pandemic there ever has been," Mahler bizarrely quipped. Why he would don his birthday suit instead of a Hazmat one in the face of such a mortal pandemic was never explained, but that's globalist bureaucrats for you. "I don't know of any greater killer than AIDS, not to speak of its psychological, social and economic maiming," continued Mahler, who after leaving WHO became director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Not to be outdone, in 1987 Harvard biology professor Stephen Jay Gould, said AIDS was "potentially, the greatest natural tragedy in human history." He warned "AIDS may run through the entire population, and may carry off a quarter or more of us" (in 1987, the world population was just over 5 billion; it now stands at over 8 billion). That same year, Gallup asked an open-ended question about what Americans saw as the most urgent health problem facing the US. Despite the fact AIDS has never even come close to being the leading cause of death in the US, more than two-thirds of Americans said AIDS. The disease continued as the top pick until 2000. According to Gallop polls conducted in 1987, most Americans (60%) agreed people with AIDS should be made to carry a card noting they had the disease, and one in three (33%) agreed employers should be allowed to fire employees who had AIDS. Twenty-one percent of Americans said people with AIDS should be isolated from the rest of society. An earlier LA Times poll from 1985 found more than half of US adults supported quarantining AIDS patients, nearly half would approve of ID cards for those testing positive for "AIDS antibodies," and one in seven favored tattooing those with the disease. People never learn. A Disease Looking For a Cause Authorities had presented us with a new public health scare, but no causal agent. No-one knew what caused the immune systems of AIDS patients to become so deficient. Was it a new microbe? A new drug scourge? God's revenge for Abba and Disco Duck? No-one knew. At least officially. In reality, authorities knew damn well what was going on. But they didn’t tell us. Instead, they eventually claimed AIDS was the result of a 'novel virus' that, in 1986, was named "human immunodeficiency virus,” or HIV. The 'novel virus' paradigm holds that a 'zoonotic' virus wakes up one day, and decides to "jump" from apes/bats/pangolins/garden gnomes to humans. This novel virus then acts like a seventeen year old that has been given the keys to an alcohol-filled mansion while mom and dad head off for a weekend vacation. However, the virus has no friends to party with. So he first has to convert to a 'human' form of the virus, then he has to begin self-replicating in order to build a social circle. Once this is done, the virions party so hard that the host becomes sick. The virions conclude their current host is no fun, so they go looking for a new host to party inside. The process repeats itself, and before you know it, there's a 'pandemic' going on with squillions of little virions pogo-dancing in global synchrony and chanting "the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire!!" while trashing everything in sight. Viruses these days, sheesh. Setting aside the glaring fallacies of the virus 'isolation' charade, the 'novel virus = pandemic’ theory is an inherent load of cobblers. Outbreaks of what look to be infectious illnesses don't just happen for no reason. There has to be some facilitating factor. AIDS became a big thing in the early 1980s, and we know that initially, the majority of patients were gay males. African-Americans were also known to be at increased risk. Even if butt sex is an especially efficient method of transmitting STDs, it doesn't explain why AIDS became a phenomenon in the 1980s. After all, both sodomy and homosexuality have been around as long as humans have. Heck, even apes have been observed taking rides on the Hershey Highway. Which begs the question: What other events with the potential for dire impact on health occurred around the same time as the AIDS outbreak? The Other Crack Rears Its Ugly Head Thanks in no small part to Uncle Sam and his ability to conveniently look the other way when it suits his financial and geopolitical interests*, the early 1980s saw a massive flood of cocaine into the US, with urban black neighborhoods the worst afflicted. So plentiful was the supply of cocaine, drug dealers came up with a way to make it even cheaper and more addictive in order to expand their customer base. Freebase is the name given to the original form of smokable coke, which resulted in a more intense high than snorting. While this constituted an obvious selling point, the process for making freebase required ether, making it notoriously volatile and dangerous to produce. In a famed 1980 incident, comedian Richard Pryor suffered severe and life-threatening burns after mixing cocaine with ether at his home; the mixture promptly exploded in his face. Freebase cocaine seems to have first surfaced in the US in the mid-1970s. Around 1980, a less volatile but similar process was developed by dealers in which cocaine was dissolved in a solution of water and baking soda and then dried out into "crack rocks." As the rocks are heated, it makes a crackling sound, hence the name. As early as 1981, reports of crack appeared in Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, and in the Caribbean. Its use quickly spread to other major US cities, and by 1987, crack was reportedly available in DC and all but four states in the Union. "In some major cities, such as New York, Detroit, and Philadelphia, one dosage unit of crack could be obtained for as little as $2.50," writes the US DEA. "Never before had any form of cocaine been available at such low prices and at such high purity." The crack epidemic dramatically increased the number of Americans addicted to cocaine, as well as the number of cocaine-related hospital emergencies. In 1985, cocaine-related hospital emergencies rose by 12 percent, from 23,500 to 26,300. In 1986, these incidents increased 110 percent, from 26,300 to 55,200. The crack cocaine explosion, you'll notice, overlaps neatly with the AIDS "explosion." The House of Representatives Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control held cocaine hearings in July, October, and November 1980. Dr. Robert Byck, who along with his colleagues conducted the first scientific studies of cocaine plasma levels after coca paste smoking, testified at the hearings. He warned that the heavy use of smokable freebase cocaine, employed by an estimated 10 percent of cocaine users, was about to change. He warned Congress that the US was about to experience the worst epidemic of drug abuse the country had ever seen. Byck predicted the use of smoked cocaine in the 1980s would match the widespread use of "speed" (methamphetamine) in the 1960s. He urged Congress and the National Institute on Drug Abuse to mount an education and prevention campaign to avert this impending epidemic. No such campaign was undertaken. "The emergence of crack cocaine use in the United States during the mid-1980s was one of the most significant public health problems of that era," note Watkins et al in a 1998 paper. "Crack use contributed to a series of sexually transmitted disease epidemics, to epidemic increases in violent injuries and homicides, and to significant increases in the incidence and prevalence of cocaine addiction. Despite these threats to health and safety, a national public health campaign to counter crack-related morbidity and mortality was never mounted." Is that because authorities were already committed to carrying out a manufactured 'HIV' crisis? Crack, Risky Sex, and 'HIV' A 1994 NEJM article reported an analysis of 1,967 people recruited from inner-city neighborhoods in New York, Miami, and San Francisco. All respondents reported never having injected drugs, however 1,137 were regular smokers of crack. The remaining 830 people reported never having smoked crack. The results for crack users weren't pretty. Female crack users were 4.1 times more likely to have been raped, and 1.6 times more likely to have had their first vaginal or anal sex encounter before 13 years of age. Both male and female crack users reported a higher number of sexual partners than non-users; in the case of women, crack users were 11 times more likely to have had 50 or more sexual partners. Crack-smoking women were 13.5 times more likely than nonsmoking women to have engaged in sexual work at any time, and 28.8 times more likely to have engaged in recent, unprotected sex work. Male crack smokers, meanwhile, were 3.4 times more likely to report ever having homosexual anal sex, and 23 times more likely to have had 50 or more male anal sex partners. Clearly, crack users were significantly more likely to engage in prostitution and risky sexual practices. Not surprising then, that female and male crack users had higher historical rates of syphilis (3.5 and 2.2, respectively) and gonorrhea (1.8 and 1.6, respectively). When the researchers ran blood tests for current infection, female and male crack users were significantly more likely to test positive for syphilis (2.8 and 1.6, respectively). Among the participants in New York and Miami, HIV 'infection' was 2.3 times more prevalent among crack smokers than among nonsmokers (prevalence of HIV antibodies among participants recruited in San Francisco was low). Testing positive for ‘HIV antibodies’ was strongly associated with previous or current infection with other STDs. A positive reactive syphilis test (adjusted odds ratio, 2.3) and a history of herpes (adjusted odds ratio, 3.6) remained significantly associated with HIV infection after adjustment for high-risk sexual practices and African-American race. Other studies found similar results. Chiasson and colleagues at the New York City Department of Health examined the link between HIV infection and crack use. Examining patients at an STD clinic in the South Bronx, they found that, among women with no other identified risk (i.e., no injectible drug use), crack use, prostitution, crack-using prostitution and history of syphilis were all found to be risk factors for HIV infection. Among men with no other risk behavior, a history of syphilis was in fact the strongest predictor of HIV infection - greater than crack use and contact with prostitutes. In a 1990 paper, Greenspan and Castro note "between 1981 and 1983, the incidence of primary and secondary syphilis in the United States increased 34%, reaching a rate in 1989 (18.4 cases per 100,000 persons) that was higher than at any time since 1949. Between 1985 and 1989, incidence among blacks more than doubled, from 52.5 to 121.8 cases per 100,000; the increase was greater for black women than for black men (176% versus 106%). These trends are markers for the same high-risk sexual practices that promote transmission of HIV." So crack, syphilis and ‘HIV’ are closely related. Now let's look at another class of drugs showing a close correlation with pre-existing STDs and ‘HIV.’ The Popper Phenomenon “Poppers” is a slang term for nitrite inhalant drugs (when they were first manufactured, they came in small ampoules that were 'popped' to release fumes). Amyl nitrite was originally developed to treat angina pectoris by dilating blood vessels, allowing the heart to get more oxygen and thereby relieving the pain. Arteries are not the only thing poppers help to dilate. Inhaling nitrites relaxes smooth muscles throughout the body - including the sphincter muscles, making it particularly helpful to gay posteriors. Along with facilitating anal sex, the blood vessel-dilating effects of poppers can produce a brief but intense sensation of heat and euphoria lasting 1 or 2 minutes. The story of poppers is an interesting one, involving US Vietnam vets, a profiteering Big Pharma and an enabling FDA, a gay medical student and organized criminals. The latter two entities sidestepped an eventual prescription requirement for amyl nitrite by creating butyl and isobutyl nitrite - less pure, more toxic, and even faster-acting versions than the original. Further restrictions were averted thanks to an unwritten agreement between producers and the FDA that poppers were only to be advertised in gay-oriented publications, as 'room deodorizers.' During the 1970s and early 80s, poppers were advertised heavily in the gay press, and the drugs became an integral part of gay culture. Not only was it routine for patrons at gay nightclubs to freely pass the vials around, some "disco clubs would even add to the general euphoria by occasionally spraying the dance floor with poppers fumes." "The miasma of nitrite fumes was taken for granted at gay gathering places: bars, baths, leather clubs," writes John Lauritsen in a 1994 New York Native article. "Some gay men were never without their little bottle, from which they snorted fumes around the clock." Throwing caution to the wind when it comes to drugs never ends well. Amyl nitrite was developed for occasional use by angina patients, not as a party drug to be snorted every time one hit the dance floor or engaged in a bout of Jolly Rogering. Apart from causing localized damage to nasal membranes, poppers have been linked to anemia, strokes, heart, lung, and brain damage, cardiovascular collapse, and, tellingly, the blood de-oxygenation, thymus atrophy, chronic depletion of T-cell ratio's associated with severe immune dysfunction. The drugs have also been linked to the development of Kaposi's Sarcoma. Sounds a lot like AIDS, doesn't it? While researchers and the more level-headed of gay advocates warned of the dangers, the FDA continued to look the other way. The gay press, whose advertising revenue relied heavily on popper ads, also willfully turned a blind eye to the dangers. In the 1980s, in a lukewarm attempt to be seen to be doing something about the problem, US health officials banned the use of poppers in public places and required merchants to post warnings about their dangers. "The warnings about their use disappeared sometime in the late '80s to early '90s," reports SFGATE, "and no one seems to know why." "During the first few years of the AIDS epidemic," writes Ian Young at VirusMyth.org, "poppers came under suspicion as a possible contributing factor. But after 1984, when the Reagan administration pronounced a single retrovirus to be the only cause of the growing list of AIDS illnesses, the health hazards of poppers were dismissed. All attention and funding was directed to HIV." Fun fact: Burroughs Wellcome, the original manufacturers of poppers, went on to profit handsomely from the subsequent AIDS hysteria with its highly-toxic 'anti-AIDS' drug AZT. History is Made (Up) There were major drug scourges afflicting the high-risk gay and African-American communities, drugs whose chronologies overlapped neatly with the AIDS outbreak. Use and abuse of these drugs was well established to cause severe illness, immune dysfunction and was also strongly correlated with pre-existing STDs like syphilis. The powers-that-be, however, had already decided the sole cause of AIDs was a 'novel virus.' They just needed to come up with one. And so along came the virologists to save the day. Not just any old bunch of virologists, but virologists with friends in high places. In France, this meant Luc Montagnier and his team at the Pasteur Institute, which advises the French government and the World Health Organization (WHO), and maintains a close collaboration with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In the US, it meant sci-bureaucrats from the government's behemoth National Institutes of Health (NIH). One of the key figures was the caustic Robert S Gallo, a researcher at the NIH's National Cancer Institute, where he worked for 30 years mainly as head of the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology. Gallo’s career would be dogged by controversy and misconduct allegations, but that’s a whole other article (stay tuned). The other career bureaucrat that would play a key role on the US side was none other than Anthony S Fauci, who recently completed a ridiculous 38-year reign as unelected head of the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). If you've surmised that, with names like the above, the HIV story must be a real shite show, you are absolutely correct. HIV is Invented 'Discovered' In 1983, the Pasteur Institute researchers declared they had 'isolated' a 'retrovirus' belonging to the family of T-cell leukemia viruses (HTLV), and concluded it "may be involved in several pathological syndromes, including AIDS." (Bold emphasis added) Their isolate came from a promiscuous 33-year-old Caucasian homosexual male referred to as "BRU", who indicated he'd had more than 50 sexual partners per year. Nasty. According to the authors, he displayed "signs and symptoms that often precede the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." However, the only symptoms reported for the patient were multiple lymphadenopathies (swollen lymph glands) and asthenia (weakness), which are evident in many conditions aside from AIDS. Neither fever nor recent loss of weight were noted. In other words, the patient from whom the alleged AIDS-causing virus was first 'isolated' from did not have an AIDS diagnosis. Tellingly, the patient did have a history of several episodes of gonorrhea and had been treated for syphilis in September 1982. Lymphadenopathy is one of the symptoms of both the aforementioned infections. The study's lead author was Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, although the finding is routinely credited to the paper's last listed author, the late Montagnier. The French study was marred by two key problems. It did not isolate any virus, and it did not show AIDS was caused by any HTLV offshoot. Forty years later, little has changed. The terminology and rationalizations have indeed become increasingly complex (as is the case with most elaborate lies), but there is no physical isolate of 'HIV.' Virologists and their sycophants, of course, insist this doesn't matter and that their non-purified mixtures are indeed isolates. While they condescendingly sneer and dismiss anyone who disputes this as a silly little dumb-dumb that doesn't 'understand' virology, they tend to remain rather quiet on another highly inconvenient observation. Namely, there is no proof that whatever is in their ‘isolates’ actually causes AIDS. HIV and Sars-Cov-2: The 'Deadly' Viruses That Aren't Deadly In the early days of 'COVID', testing positive for the mythical Sars-Cov-2 was considered a death sentence. So much so, that some folks didn't even bother getting their affairs in order; they instead killed themselves. Such is the power of all this heinous "deadly virus" bullshit. It was the same in the 'HIV' Dark Ages - testing positive was considered a death sentence. When a famous basketballer by the name of Erving “Magic” Johnson announced he was HIV positive in 1991, everyone was shocked. "Now we all know someone with HIV," said someone I can't recall in what was supposed to be a profound, insight-triggering moment. Johnson, everyone assumed, was now living on borrowed time. Thirty-three years later, Johnson is still alive and wealthy. He attributes his survival to antiretroviral cocktails that have never been shown in clinical studies to benefit survival: GlaxoSmithKline's Trizivir and Abbott's Kaletra. These cocktails are comprised of drugs like AZT which increase the risk of side effects but have never been shown to exert a mortality benefit. Johnson, it should be noted, has featured in ads for both products. In 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to Abbott Laboratories regarding a promotional DVD in which Johnson discussed his experiences with Kaletra. The letter stated the violations were of public health concern "because they suggest that Kaletra is safer and more effective than has been demonstrated by substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience, and encourage use in circumstances other than those for which the drug has been shown to be safe and effective." "FDA is not aware of substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience to support effectiveness for five or more years of treatment with Kaletra in treatment-experienced adults. The personal experience of Kaletra patients, such as Magic Johnson, does not constitute such evidence." So if overpriced drug cocktails aren't keeping Johnson alive, what explains his survival? It's explained by the fact that HIV is a load of bollocks. A shady test that claims you are ‘HIV positive’ does not mean you are in fact harboring a deadly 'virus.' If ‘HIV’ was so deadly, then lab animals infected with it would get sick and die. But guess what? Administering a so-called isolate of uber-deadly HIV to animals results in ... nothing. Stugatz. That's right - directly administering the Virus That Causes AIDS™ to animals does not cause AIDS. "The only animals susceptible to experimental HIV-1** infection are the chimpanzee, gibbon ape, and rabbit but AIDS-like disease has not yet been reported in these species," lamented the authors of a 1989 FASEB paper. Oops. I'm guessing those chimps, gibbons and wascawwy wabbits didn't have a history of syphilis, smoking crack or inhaling poppers. Experiments in which human volunteers are deliberately 'infected' with the 'HIV isolate' would never get past the ethics committees of most research institutions. We do, however, have numerous instances of involuntary infection to give us a guide as to what happens when otherwise low-risk individuals are exposed to 'HIV.' In a 1984 NEJM letter, before 'HIV' testing became available, Sloan Kettering researchers reported there had been 27 parenteral exposures by 25 staff to the blood of AIDS patients since August 1982 (24 exposures were via needlestick). "All the involved staff are in their usual (generally excellent) state of health," including those who were exposed more than 12 months ago. Blood work was available for 12 staff with exposure more than 6 months prior, and no abnormalities were evident, reported the researchers. During 1985–2013, 58 confirmed and 150 possible cases of occupationally acquired HIV infection among healthcare workers were reported to the CDC. Since 1999, only one confirmed case (a laboratory technician sustaining a needle puncture while working with a live HIV culture in 2008) has been reported. There is no mention of subsequent AIDS, something the fear-porn agents at the CDC would surely have mentioned had it occurred. Some of you have probably heard of Dr Robert Willner, who twice deliberately pricked himself on TV with blood from 'HIV-positive' men (in Spain 1993, and USA 1994). Willner was an outspoken critic of the HIV hypothesis, having authored a book titled Deadly Deception: The Proof that Sex and HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause AIDS. Depending on who you listen to, Willner died 3 months after his 1994 TV appearance in a car crash, or the following year from a heart attack. Neither outcome is consistent with the oft-cited sequelae of AIDS. Jump, Jump, Jump Around Despite the fact that it is scientifically untenable, the HIV theory of AIDS still reigns supreme. Which brings us back to the key question: Why did 'HIV' wait until Wham! and Devine hit the charts before it started striking down gay blokes en mass? Enter the apes. According to Wikipedia, "HIV made the jump from other primates to humans in west-central Africa in the early-to-mid-20th century." (Bold emphasis added) Just like Sars-Cov-2 was purported to have kicked off when the allegedly zoonotic virus "jumped" to humans from a bat or pangolin at a Wuhan wet market that did not sell any bats or pangolins. Says Wikipedia, "Scientists generally accept that the known strains (or groups) of HIV-1 are most closely related to the simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) endemic in wild ape populations of West Central African forests." (Bold emphasis added). "Generally accept" is code for "Scientists have no proof of this, but pretend it's true anyway." This brings us to an oft-cited 2011 paper titled "Origins of HIV and the AIDS Pandemic" which repeats the claim that "simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) ... crossed from monkeys to apes and from apes to humans." The paper was authored by Paul Sharp and Beatrice Hahn, the latter a member of Gallo's NCI lab team which she joined in 1982. A chimpanzee minding his own business while a Gallo associate who blames apes for spreading HIV to humans (Beatrice Hahn) stares at him from a distance. In their paper, the researchers provide a graphic claiming SIV resulting in HIV-1 has been transmitted to humans via chimpanzees and gorillas. Hold that thought. According to the official narrative, the primary routes of 'HIV' transmission in humans are sexual intercourse with an infected individual, sharing needles with an infected person while taking drugs, transfusions of infected blood, or transmission from an infected pregnant mother to fetus. Sharp and Hahn speculate that SIVs first developed in chimpanzees, and were spread among the chimpanzee community primarily through sexual activity, from infected mothers to infants, and "in rare cases, possibly by aggression." But how did the disease "jump" from apes to humans? Researchers can't claim humans and apes were shooting up drugs together and sharing needles while doing so, or that apes were administering blood transfusions to humans, because that would be patently absurd. Ditto for suggesting apes were passing SIV to humans via birth, because apes don't give birth to humans. Claiming that apes transmitted SIV to humans because they were having cross-species sexual encounters would also be a hard sell. Humans are capable of some pretty weird and degenerate behaviour, but good luck pinning down a chimp or gorilla while you attempt to get jiggy with it. Meet Bruce. Can bench press you and your extended family with one arm. Incursions into his personal space not advised. "How humans acquired the ape precursors of HIV-1 groups M, N, O, and P is not known," write Sharp and Hahn, "however, based on the biology of these viruses, transmission must have occurred through cutaneous or mucous membrane exposure to infected ape blood and/or body fluids. Such exposures occur most commonly in the context of bushmeat hunting." (Bold emphasis added). Researchers can't explain exactly how immunodeficiency viruses pole-vaulted from apes to human, so they simply assume it must have happened during hunting expeditions. Virologists do a lot of assuming. Sharp and Hahn write that the first clue to HIV-1's "sudden emergence, epidemic spread, and unique pathogenicity" came in 1986 when a “morphologically similar but anti-genically distinct” virus was allegedly found to cause AIDS in patients in western Africa. Well riddle me this, Batman: Humans have been around for 2.5 million years, and the earliest Homo sapiens were getting around some 300,000 years ago. We've been hunting that whole time. Furthermore, the advance of agriculture and the steadily declining numbers of hunter-gatherers in modern times would have meant a greatly reduced opportunity for SIV to jump aboard the H-train via scratchy-bitey-fluid-exchangey hunting confrontations. Yet immunodeficiency viruses waited until the latter half of the Twentieth Century to successfully make the big cross-species jump? What an utter crock. Wikipedia admits "How the SIV virus would have transformed into HIV after infection of the hunter or bushmeat handler from the ape/monkey is still a matter of debate." Translated: There is no actual scientific evidence to support the claim that, after allegedly entering the human body, ‘SIV’ magically transformed into ‘HIV.’ The Sodomy Paradox There's another problem with the official AIDS narrative which holds that, after catching SIV from apes during hunting mishaps in Africa, it "transformed" into HIV, which hunter-gatherers then spread by doing the backdoor boogie with gay abandon. That story further holds that, somewhere along the way, one of these HIV-carrying ape-hunters nailed a gay airline steward from America. Patient Zero then flew back to the US, and began having lots of AIDS-causing unprotected sex in the saunas of San Francisco. Or the gay bars of New York. Or the wet markets of Wisconsin, I'm not sure, all this virus BS gets a bit hard to keep track of after a while. It doesn't really matter, because like the rest of the AIDS tale, the gay airline steward story was nonsense. Gaetan Dugas, the French-Canadian flight attendant posthumously labelled 'Patient Zero' and accused of single-handedly igniting the spread of HIV/AIDS across North America, was later exonerated. Thanks to the determined sleuthing of Pullitzer Prize-winning reporter John Crewdson, it was known by 1988 that what we now call AIDS was in fact present in America in the 1960s. While the rest of the media was tripping over itself to blame Dugas (“THE MAN WHO GAVE US AIDS” blared the New York Post’s October 6, 1987 headline; “Canadian Said to Have Had Key Role in Spread of AIDS,” wrote the New York Times, while the National Review nicknamed Dugas “the Columbus of AIDS"), Crewdson had discovered a 1973 case report that showed the official Patient Zero story was bollocks. That 1973 case report described Robert Rayford, a 15-year-old black lad from St. Louis who had died of AIDS in 1969 - more than a decade before anyone knew what AIDS was. The impoverished teen had presented to hospital in the spring of 1968 with swollen loins covered with open, infected sores. He struggled while breathing, was razor thin and pale as a ghost. Doctors initially suspected cancer, but subsequent tests revealed herpes, genital warts, and a severe case of chlamydia. The infection spread, in the form of purple colored lesions, to his legs, causing a misdiagnosis of lymphedema. He eventually succumbed to his condition in May 1969, leaving doctors baffled. The teen, who doctors described as mildly intellectually impaired, said he'd suffered the symptoms for around two years prior to seeking medical help. He denied injury or animal bites, had not travelled outside the midwestern United States, but admitted to "frequent" heterosexual intercourse. His family consented to an autopsy, which revealed "widespread Kaposi's sarcoma of the aggressive, disseminated type." The autopsy also found evidence of anal scarring and a particular kind of lesion no one had identified when Rayford was alive. Some doctors thought the scarring indicated Rayford was gay; others pointed out he may have been sexually abused. Struck by how closely Rayford's symptoms resembled those of AIDS, Crewdson flew to St. Louis and found a pathologist willing to dig through laboratory freezers in search of the youth's tissue samples. By using the test 'co-developed' by Gallo and the French, researchers were able to determine that the boy, incredibly, had been infected with 'HIV.' The finding was published in JAMA in 1988. However, it was not until 2016 that the fake Dugas tale was officially revoked. Had the Rayford story been more widely known, it wouldn’t have been good for HIV business. Not to worry, the out-of-Africa hypothesis was salvaged in 1998 when researchers claimed they had detected HIV - by a PCR process involving two rounds of amplification for a combined total of 69 cycles - in a plasma sample obtained in early 1959 from an adult Bantu male, with a sickle-cell trait and a glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase deficiency, living in the Belgian Congo. Two of the researchers announcing this narrative-saving discovery hailed from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, at Rockefeller University in New York. So just like the COVID charade, we have a shamdemic for which the original Patient Zero story was shown to be a bunch of cobblers. Just like the COVID sham, few people noticed or cared and the rest of the AIDS tale continued its relentless march and took on a life of its own. Despite more holes than a ... wait, that's dangerous pun territory ... I mean, despite a plethora of discrepancies, the official Fauci-endorsed tale still has HIV migrating from Africa to the US and spread in the early 1980s by blokes bumping uglies in big city gay bars and saunas. And Fauci should know, because he went to gay saunas and gay bars himself in the “early stages” of the AIDS “explosion” to get a “feel” for the situation. Purely for ‘research’ purposes, of course (wink, wink). It's okay Tony, it's 2024, you don't have to cover for your sexuality anymore. A young Anthony Fauci displaying his "I've just been to the saunas!" smile. Your tax money at work. You could literally fill a book with all the discrepancies contained within the official AIDS story; several authors have already done just that. What I wanted to highlight here are the commonalities between the AIDS and COVID sagas. Both featured never-isolated 'viruses' with nonsensical 'Patient Zero' stories. ‘Isolates’ of both these ‘deadly’ and ‘novel’ viruses do a whole lot of nothing when administered to our primate cousins. Both sagas featured Anthony Fauci, showing up on cue touting the most toxic drug he could get away with recommending. Both featured doomsday, end-of-times hyperbole in which testing 'positive' was initially considered a death sentence. Both were remarkable demonstrations of how the media and masses could be easily manipulated into accepting a pandemic scare that, upon the most cursory examination, simply didn't add up. *During the presidency of former actor Ronald Reagan, senior administration officials secretly — and illegally — arranged for the sale of arms to Iran in return for Iran’s promise to help secure the release of a group of Americans being held hostage in Lebanon. Suspiciously, the hostages were formally released into US custody just minutes after Reagan was sworn into office. Proceeds from the arms sales were then secretly, and again illegally, funneled to the Contras, a group of rebels fighting the Marxist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Is if that wasn't bad enough, the CIA looked the other way while the Contras trafficked cocaine into the US to help finance their fight to oust the communist Sandinistas. The scandal was exposed in 1996 by the brilliant, Pullitzer Prize-winning journalist Gary Webb while writing for the San Jose Mercury News. His series described a San Francisco Bay Area drug ring that sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles, funelling millions in drug profits to the CIA-assisted Contras. This drug ring "opened the first pipeline between Colombia's cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles" and, as a result, "helped spark a crack explosion in urban America." His articles caused a proverbial shit-storm, prompting the government to conduct several investigations into itself and declaring itself innocent of all charges. We were supposed to believe it was all just an accidental oversight when even the Kerry report acknowledged "the Contra drug links included", among other connections, "... payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies." (Bold emphasis added). The Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Washington Post launched their own 'investigations' (read: hatchet jobs) and rejected Webb's allegations, instead siding with the government - a practice they uphold to this day. However, an internal CIA report released in 1998 admitted the CIA ‘overlooked’ or ‘ignored’ reports that the Nicaragua Contra rebels financed their fight to oust the communist Sandinistas through the sale of drugs in the United States. **‘HIV-1’ is the form of ‘HIV’ allegedly most common and threatening to humans. According to the official tale, ‘HIV-2’ is rare and of little threat. Share https://substack.com/home/post/p-146567752
    SUBSTACK.COM
    Why the Official AIDS Story is a Complete Crock
    The Great Rebranding, 1980s-Style: HIV Was a Sham, Just Like Sars-Cov-2
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 11645 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 8420 Views
  • Dr. Peter McCullough's Snakeoil Sales Pitch on InfoWars
    Dr. Ariyana Love (ND)
    Alex Jones of InfoWars interviewed Dr. Peter McCullough on June 17 with some breaking news about an unapproved medical intervention that Dr. McCullough started prescribing for his patients. The pharmaceutical drugs contains mRNA gene editing nanotechnology.

    Dr. McCullough is suggesting that some novel pharmaceutical mRNA drugs can eradicate spike proteins from the human body.

    “Small interfering messenger RNA to bind to Pfizer and Moderna to basically deactivate it, so the body can clear it out… erm”.

    McCullough is suggesting that these “interfering RNA only last a few days in the body” and “bind to mRNA to inactivate it”.

    So is this like good mRNA inactivating bad mRNA? Does he think we’re stupid? Apparently so!

    Dr. Jane Ruby was quick to call McCullough out on her Telegram channel.

    TWC's Peter McCullough wants you to take MORE pharmaceutical mRNA - to "deactivate" the mRNA in the C19 bioweapons.

    What?? Another synthetic, lab created, inadequately tested gene therapy that has already killed 30 million Americans and permanently injured 100 million.

    What am I missing?

    Dr. Ruby further explains that McCullough’s pharmaceutical paper is a “review”, not a scientific medical study, and it’s not a miracle breakthrough of any kind.

    McCullough admits he’s already using these unapproved experimental drugs on his patients in his practice. One of the unapproved drugs McCullough mentioned is “Ribotech”. I’m actually not sure if he meant Ribotech or Ribotac, so I’m going to do a brief review of both.

    The Ribotech patent sounds like it's suppressing tumor cells by “inhibition of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay”. However, on closer inspection, the patent contains a GlaxoSmithKlein Chemical 1 invention referred to as code GSK2126458.


    The patent claims that Chemical Formula 1 exhibits an anticancer effect by binding to PIK3 in a signaling pathway to suppress PI3K. This is not talking about binding to a tumor cell. To “suppress” means genetic deletion of the PI3K in cells. The results are catestrophic, producing immunodeficiencies in humans that result from either loss- or gain-of-function mutations.

    “Moreover, aberrations in PI3K signaling contribute to an equally broad spectrum of human diseases, such as cancer, immunological disorders, neurological disorders, diabetes, localized tissue overgrowth and cardiovascular disease.”

    So while fighting cancer you’re inducing it. Interesting!

    GSK2126458 is a “small molecule inhibitor (gene deletion) targeting and destroying mitochondrial cells. The invention is "increasing mitochondrial membrane permeability and inducing apoptotic cell death".

    Can you think of anything more evil than destroying mitochondrial cells? This sounds to me like the next phase in pharma’s sinister plans to take out the human immune system. The monoclonal antibodies that McCullough was infusing into people’s veins were targeting and destroying the T-cells, another critical part of our immune system, and now they’re after your mitochondria.


    Please read: Monoclonal Antibodies Is mRNA Gene Knockdown Tech, Encoding HIV - Patent Review


    Now, on the off chance that McCullough was referring to another pharmaceutical called “Ribotac”, we’re going to examine that invention as well.

    Ribotech says they’re using “Ribonuclease Targeting Chimeras”. A chimera is a genetically modified new species containing the genetic material from two or more species, such as in cross-species genomics. The organism is a laboratory abomination containing at least two different DNA from at least two different species, such as a mouse and a human, combined into a new species that should never exist.

    Ribotac also uses fluorescent-labeled RNA and recombinant human RNase L protein for their in vitro abomination. According to the NIH, RNASEL is a human protein from Homo sapiens and primates. This means its DNA from a human/monkey chimera.

    In addition:

    “Mutations in this gene have been associated with predisposition to prostate cancer and this gene is a candidate for the hereditary prostate cancer 1 (HPC1) allele”.


    I don’t know about you, but this is pretty horrifying to me. I would not want this encoded into my DNA! The Ribotac patent reads like a weapon system to me.

    Ribotac further explains:

    “Fluorescence labeling of nucleic acids is the process of attaching a fluorescent molecule or fluorophore to a nucleic acid molecule to introduce a fluorescent signal (in your cells)”.

    This refers to the encoding of fluorescent DNA into your cells for external tracking and tracing. There’s no way this is only in the body for a few days.

    McCullough admits that spike protein “remains in the body 6 months” after Covid-19 inoculation. He says it might even remain in the body for years after inoculation! So the messenger RNA does not leave the body in a few days.

    Now let me get this straight. In August 2023, McCullough announced his “First Ever Spike Detox Protocol”, which he continues to promote in the June 17th InfoWars interview with Alex Jones. If McCullough’s protocol actually worked to detox the Covid-19 spike protein, then why is he saying that it stays in the body after 6 months and possibly years after inoculation? Isn’t this an admission that his spike detox protocol does not work?

    McCullough concluded his interview with Alex Jones by stating:

    “We have to find a way to get this out of the body (spike protein)”.

    That’s clear. He doesn’t know how to stop the replication of spike protein and detox it out of the body. How convenient though that McCullough can write his own medical journals to promote his ineffective protocol for a hefty monetary gain.

    I remember Dr. Judy Mikovitz called out Nattokinase as a synthetic “poison” in November 2023, one of the key ingredients in McCullough’s protocol. Pharmaceutical Nattokinase is recombinant proteins which are always rejected by our body and act as a poison in the body. Of course, Nattokinase can’t “detox” anything.

    McCullough mentioned he’s also using a drug named “Pitirosan” but there’s no drug that exists with this name. I did find a “Patisiran” patent which is also a gene-altering technology.

    For example, a patent cited within the Pitisiran patent expressly confirms the invention is using "DNA synthetic methods" and "recombinant proteins” plus "Fluorescent dyes" (Luciferase) for the "synthesis of genes". It contains "Lucifer Yellow" which was patented in 1978 and is a synthetic lithium salt for cell tracking and tracing.

    McCullough mentioned another drug named “Incleanseran” which I also could not find. What I did find is “Inclisiran”, which is an “interfering RNA therapy that inhibits the production of the PCSK9 protein”. Could this be what McCullough was referring to?

    The PCSK9 protein is a gene in humans on chromosome 1. The 9th member of the proprotein convertase family of proteins activates other proteins. Your liver produces the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9). PCSK9 regulates how many LDL receptors you have. Studies have shown that if you have naturally high PCSK9, you are more likely to have high cholesterol.

    Pharma decided to suppress your cells cholesterol production through a PCSK9 gene “knockout”, which means a complete deletion in your cells by snapping of your DNA. But is a PCSK9 knockout an effective “prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease”? In fact, PCSK9 gene knockout and deletion has been shown to increase the risk of carcinogenesis (cancer) and steatohepatitis (liver disease). Oh, no!

    The Inclisiran patent says the invention is performing a “gene silencing” to inhibit cellular protein expression.

    Conclusion

    Law Professor Dr. Francis Boyle, who drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act, claimed COVID-19 mRNA injections are Weapons of Mass Destruction, this month.

    Florida Supreme Court accepted Writ Of Mandamus to halt and to seize all mRNA nanotechnology “vaccine vials in April.

    What I see is a pharmaceutical snakeoil salesman getting rich from poisoning and deceiving people. I don’t care how many medical papers McCullough has published, I would never trust this man’s health advice.

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-145898768
    Dr. Peter McCullough's Snakeoil Sales Pitch on InfoWars Dr. Ariyana Love (ND) Alex Jones of InfoWars interviewed Dr. Peter McCullough on June 17 with some breaking news about an unapproved medical intervention that Dr. McCullough started prescribing for his patients. The pharmaceutical drugs contains mRNA gene editing nanotechnology. Dr. McCullough is suggesting that some novel pharmaceutical mRNA drugs can eradicate spike proteins from the human body. “Small interfering messenger RNA to bind to Pfizer and Moderna to basically deactivate it, so the body can clear it out… erm”. McCullough is suggesting that these “interfering RNA only last a few days in the body” and “bind to mRNA to inactivate it”. So is this like good mRNA inactivating bad mRNA? Does he think we’re stupid? Apparently so! Dr. Jane Ruby was quick to call McCullough out on her Telegram channel. TWC's Peter McCullough wants you to take MORE pharmaceutical mRNA - to "deactivate" the mRNA in the C19 bioweapons. What?? Another synthetic, lab created, inadequately tested gene therapy that has already killed 30 million Americans and permanently injured 100 million. What am I missing? Dr. Ruby further explains that McCullough’s pharmaceutical paper is a “review”, not a scientific medical study, and it’s not a miracle breakthrough of any kind. McCullough admits he’s already using these unapproved experimental drugs on his patients in his practice. One of the unapproved drugs McCullough mentioned is “Ribotech”. I’m actually not sure if he meant Ribotech or Ribotac, so I’m going to do a brief review of both. The Ribotech patent sounds like it's suppressing tumor cells by “inhibition of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay”. However, on closer inspection, the patent contains a GlaxoSmithKlein Chemical 1 invention referred to as code GSK2126458. The patent claims that Chemical Formula 1 exhibits an anticancer effect by binding to PIK3 in a signaling pathway to suppress PI3K. This is not talking about binding to a tumor cell. To “suppress” means genetic deletion of the PI3K in cells. The results are catestrophic, producing immunodeficiencies in humans that result from either loss- or gain-of-function mutations. “Moreover, aberrations in PI3K signaling contribute to an equally broad spectrum of human diseases, such as cancer, immunological disorders, neurological disorders, diabetes, localized tissue overgrowth and cardiovascular disease.” So while fighting cancer you’re inducing it. Interesting! GSK2126458 is a “small molecule inhibitor (gene deletion) targeting and destroying mitochondrial cells. The invention is "increasing mitochondrial membrane permeability and inducing apoptotic cell death". Can you think of anything more evil than destroying mitochondrial cells? This sounds to me like the next phase in pharma’s sinister plans to take out the human immune system. The monoclonal antibodies that McCullough was infusing into people’s veins were targeting and destroying the T-cells, another critical part of our immune system, and now they’re after your mitochondria. Please read: Monoclonal Antibodies Is mRNA Gene Knockdown Tech, Encoding HIV - Patent Review Now, on the off chance that McCullough was referring to another pharmaceutical called “Ribotac”, we’re going to examine that invention as well. Ribotech says they’re using “Ribonuclease Targeting Chimeras”. A chimera is a genetically modified new species containing the genetic material from two or more species, such as in cross-species genomics. The organism is a laboratory abomination containing at least two different DNA from at least two different species, such as a mouse and a human, combined into a new species that should never exist. Ribotac also uses fluorescent-labeled RNA and recombinant human RNase L protein for their in vitro abomination. According to the NIH, RNASEL is a human protein from Homo sapiens and primates. This means its DNA from a human/monkey chimera. In addition: “Mutations in this gene have been associated with predisposition to prostate cancer and this gene is a candidate for the hereditary prostate cancer 1 (HPC1) allele”. I don’t know about you, but this is pretty horrifying to me. I would not want this encoded into my DNA! The Ribotac patent reads like a weapon system to me. Ribotac further explains: “Fluorescence labeling of nucleic acids is the process of attaching a fluorescent molecule or fluorophore to a nucleic acid molecule to introduce a fluorescent signal (in your cells)”. This refers to the encoding of fluorescent DNA into your cells for external tracking and tracing. There’s no way this is only in the body for a few days. McCullough admits that spike protein “remains in the body 6 months” after Covid-19 inoculation. He says it might even remain in the body for years after inoculation! So the messenger RNA does not leave the body in a few days. Now let me get this straight. In August 2023, McCullough announced his “First Ever Spike Detox Protocol”, which he continues to promote in the June 17th InfoWars interview with Alex Jones. If McCullough’s protocol actually worked to detox the Covid-19 spike protein, then why is he saying that it stays in the body after 6 months and possibly years after inoculation? Isn’t this an admission that his spike detox protocol does not work? McCullough concluded his interview with Alex Jones by stating: “We have to find a way to get this out of the body (spike protein)”. That’s clear. He doesn’t know how to stop the replication of spike protein and detox it out of the body. How convenient though that McCullough can write his own medical journals to promote his ineffective protocol for a hefty monetary gain. I remember Dr. Judy Mikovitz called out Nattokinase as a synthetic “poison” in November 2023, one of the key ingredients in McCullough’s protocol. Pharmaceutical Nattokinase is recombinant proteins which are always rejected by our body and act as a poison in the body. Of course, Nattokinase can’t “detox” anything. McCullough mentioned he’s also using a drug named “Pitirosan” but there’s no drug that exists with this name. I did find a “Patisiran” patent which is also a gene-altering technology. For example, a patent cited within the Pitisiran patent expressly confirms the invention is using "DNA synthetic methods" and "recombinant proteins” plus "Fluorescent dyes" (Luciferase) for the "synthesis of genes". It contains "Lucifer Yellow" which was patented in 1978 and is a synthetic lithium salt for cell tracking and tracing. McCullough mentioned another drug named “Incleanseran” which I also could not find. What I did find is “Inclisiran”, which is an “interfering RNA therapy that inhibits the production of the PCSK9 protein”. Could this be what McCullough was referring to? The PCSK9 protein is a gene in humans on chromosome 1. The 9th member of the proprotein convertase family of proteins activates other proteins. Your liver produces the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9). PCSK9 regulates how many LDL receptors you have. Studies have shown that if you have naturally high PCSK9, you are more likely to have high cholesterol. Pharma decided to suppress your cells cholesterol production through a PCSK9 gene “knockout”, which means a complete deletion in your cells by snapping of your DNA. But is a PCSK9 knockout an effective “prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease”? In fact, PCSK9 gene knockout and deletion has been shown to increase the risk of carcinogenesis (cancer) and steatohepatitis (liver disease). Oh, no! The Inclisiran patent says the invention is performing a “gene silencing” to inhibit cellular protein expression. Conclusion Law Professor Dr. Francis Boyle, who drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act, claimed COVID-19 mRNA injections are Weapons of Mass Destruction, this month. Florida Supreme Court accepted Writ Of Mandamus to halt and to seize all mRNA nanotechnology “vaccine vials in April. What I see is a pharmaceutical snakeoil salesman getting rich from poisoning and deceiving people. I don’t care how many medical papers McCullough has published, I would never trust this man’s health advice. https://substack.com/home/post/p-145898768
    SUBSTACK.COM
    Dr. Peter McCullough's Snakeoil Sales Pitch on InfoWars
    Alex Jones of InfoWars interviewed Dr. Peter McCullough on June 17 with some breaking news about an unapproved medical intervention that Dr. McCullough started prescribing for his patients. The pharmaceutical drugs contains mRNA gene editing nanotechnology.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 2866 Views
  • Lithium Orotate Dietary Supplement Is Pharmaceutical Snakeoil
    Dr. Ariyana Love (ND)
    I was asked by a client to investigate lithium orotate, lithium chloride and sodium citrate as health supplementation, and determine if these substances are safe for human consumption and if they have any medicinal benefits.

    These substances are being promoted by medical doctors, Naturopathic doctors and other health care practitioners as health miracles, but are they?

    Michael Nehls, MD, PHD writes:

    “The key element against brain fog, long-COVID/post-vac syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, depression, Alzheimer's – and even indoctrination?”


    Is Dr. Nehls talking about the organic and naturally occurring trace mineral lithium or is he promoting the synthetic pharmaceutical perversion? It’s difficult to say because he doesn’t actually specify the difference in his Substack article.

    Lithium in its pure form exists as a trace mineral found in nature. Lithium (Li), discovered in 1817, is a naturally occurring metal in the earth’s crust (0.0017%). Naturally occurring lithium in drinking water is beneficial in appropriate quantities and may have the potential to reduce the risk of suicide and may possibly even stabilize your mood.

    Leave it to nature to provide natural remedies to every ailment, but leave it to pharmaceutical companies to pervert nature’s purity, which leads to untold self-harm.

    Pharma would have you believe that moderate amounts of their synthetic lithium poison is therapeutic but “chronic toxicity occurs when you slowly take a little too much of a lithium prescription every day for a while”. Lithium is cumulative poison, meaning the longer you use it, the more damage it causes to your body system.

    The most common pharmaceutical lithium drug is lithium carbonate, which is synthesized by reacting lithium salts with soda or potash, followed by purification of the synthetic salt. It’s used to treat manic and bipolar disorders and has many toxic side effects.

    Lithium toxicity is in fact a life-threatening condition that causes intestinal and neurological symptoms. It can also lead to kidney damage. 75 to 90 percent of patients treated with lithium have signs or symptoms of toxicity at some point during their treatment, according to studies. This is because synthetic lithium is a neurotoxin, which means essentially that no amount is safe.

    Studies like this one make Lithium sound so absolutely amazing and full of wondrous potential, but you can be sure they tested a synthetic “lithium serum”.

    According to the NIH, lithium toxicity leads to a range of gastrointestinal and neurologic signs and symptoms and can ultimately be fatal.

    “…lithium toxicity can lead to coma, brain damage, or even death.”

    Lithium orotate

    Lithium Orotate is available as a synthetic salt of synthetic lithium and synthetic orotic acid, as a monohydrate, LiC5H3N2O4·H2O (Lithium chloride monohydrate). The only source of Lithium Orotate (C5H3LiN2O4) is a synthetic salt of orotic acid and lithium.

    Fischer Science Safety Data Sheet reveals that the target organs of Lithium Orotate are the central nervous system and the cardiovascular system.

    “May be harmful if swallowed. May cause central nervous system effects. May cause respiratory and digestive tract irritation. Contact with skin causes irritation and possible burns, especially if the skin is wet or moist.”

    Orotic acid in its natural form, is known as vitamin B-13. Orotic acid is found naturally in high quantities in beets. By using organic beet powder supplementation, you can obtain the B-13 that your body needs.

    Naturally occuring orotic acid acts as a transporter that carries magnesium into cells and may reduce the severity of chronic myocardial dysfunction and structural damage in cardiomyopathy. It also helps resolve gut microbiome issues. This will be true in its natural form.

    First patented in the 1990s, synthetic Lithium Orotate has been patented and mainstreamed by pharmaceutical companies as a treatment for mental health conditions. It’s mutagenic in somatic cells, which means it alters the human genome. Lithium Orotate is also mutagenic for bacteria and yeast, which means that it increases the replication of bad bacteria, ultimately disrupting your healthy microbiome balance. This explains the GI issues associated with taking this drug.

    In 1976, Lonza, LTD patented a synthetic version of Orotic Acid made from trichloroacetyl chloride and ketene. Trichloroacetyl chloride is a colorless volatile liquid with a strong odor that’s denser than water. Contact severely irritates skin, eyes and mucous membranes and “may be very toxic by ingestion and inhalation”. Ketene will cause “severe damage to the lungs at the alveolar level and may manifest as long as 24 hours post exposure”.

    High levels of Orotic Acid can be dangerous and, as a synthetic pharmaceutical drug, it can be deadly or induce Orotic Aciduria, which is an autosomal recessive disorder characterized by megaloblastic anemia and orotic acid crystalluria that is frequently associated with some degree of physical and mental retardation. Other side effects are heart abnormalities, seizures, coma, and possibly even death.

    A Chinese patent from the Shenghai Institute of Organic Chemistry of CAS to synthesize Orotic Acid uses sodium bromide, chlorine and maleylurea; then, the 5-bromine-2, 6-dioxo-hexahydropyrimidime-4-carboxylic acid and sodium hydroxide. Sodium bromide is a pesticide with reproductive toxicity as demonstrated in rat studies.

    Chlorine is, of course, an extremely dangerous industrial poison. Maleylurea is another toxic substance. 5-bromine-2 induces methemoglobinemia and delayed encephalopathy. 6-dioxo-hexahydropyrimidime-4-carboxylic acid is toxic while sodium hydroxide is corrosive to all body tissues.

    Other processes for producing Orotic Acid use Corynebacterium. This is a lethal exotoxin that induces diphtheria.

    Orotic Acid, a promoter of liver carcinogenesis, induces DNA damage in rat livers. It also induces hypertension associated with impaired endothelial Nitric Oxide synthesis, ultimately disrupting your redox balance.

    There was toxic and vascular nephropathy associated with Orotic Acid administration in laboratory cats. It destroys the liver of rats. In other studies, it induced fatty liver, causing weight gain.

    Please see the toxicity data sheet for Orotic Acid. It’s suggested to “avoid using Lithium Orotate until more is known”.

    Lithium Orotate supplements

    Some synthetic Lithium Orotate supplements boast of being organic or natural. I’ve noticed that Medical Doctors’ definition of organic or natural may vary greatly from the facts.

    Dr. Edward Group, D.C. from Global Healing, advertises a Lithium Orotate supplement as “natural trace minerals” for mood stabilization.


    Dr. Ed was interviewed by Mike Adams of Natural news, where he convincingly boasted about their “all natural” products and heavy metal detox protocols. The company went so far as to register their Lithium Orotate product on Amazon as “organic” and then later removed their false advertising and fake medical claim.

    However, things remain forever on the Internet. Oops!


    I reached out to Global Healing to give them a chance and asked directly if Global Healing is using “all natural” lithium and “all natural” orotic acid in their Lithium Orotate supplement. They responded by telling me that they derive their Lithium Orotate ingredients from all natural sources. When I pressed them for more information, asking what their sources are, they vaguely answered me with “it varies”. Oops, again!

    On their Lithium Orotate label, Global Healing only states that their lithium source comes “from lithium orotate”. Lithium does not naturally contain orotic acid, so this doesn’t make sense if it were “natural”. If it were natural, they would have two sources not one, because lithium and orotic acid are not naturally found together.


    If Global healing’s lithium source is from “lithium orotate”, then this is the patented pharmaceutical Lithium Orotate synthetic salt and this is false advertising.

    Dr. Edward’s Group is also selling and promoting EDTA and C-60 as health supplements. They claim that Calcium Disodium EDTA promotes “cardiovascular and immune health” but there’s no scientific evidence to support this claim.



    Please read: Is C60 And EDTA Safe? Clinical Review


    Lithium chloride

    Lithium chloride metal chloride salt is a toxic, inorganic synthetic compound. Please see the safety data sheet.

    Lithium chloride is produced by treatment of lithium carbonate with hydrochloric acid. A single exposure to hydrochloric acid causes organ toxicity and there are cases of lithium toxicity from Internet dietary supplements. Please avoid this at all costs.

    Sodium Citrate

    Sodium citrate (citric acid) is another toxic preservative. It’s a synthetic chemical that induces symptoms such as paresthesia, hypotension and possible cardiac arrhythmia. It’s being touted as an “anti-coagulant” and prooted on Karl.C’s Substack. But honestly, the blood results are not good.

    Sodium citrate contains propylene glycol which is neurotoxic. Read more here.

    Superior, natural anti-coagulants can be found in my premium detox and repair protocol.


    Please see: Dr. Ariyana Love's Anti-Aging Premium Detox Protocol


    Lithium and Graphene weapon systems

    On a side note, during my research I came across some pertinent information.

    Synthetic graphite is used for lithium-ion batteries. Pharmaceutical lithium is being used with reduced graphene oxide-based electrodes to produce a higher capacity of electrical conductivity. Nanocomposites based on hydroxyapatite/lithium oxide and graphene oxide nanosheets are indeed being used for medical applications. Lithium batteries have served as the predominant power source for implantable medical devices such as nanowires, which are used in tissue scaffolding technology.

    Scientists are using scaffolds made from conductive silicon nanowires to reconstruct artificial heart tissue. Nanowired organoids are used to accelerate the development of stem cells into healthy, well-functioning heart tissue. They create an organoid from a mixture of stem-cell-derived heart cells, stromal connective tissue cells, and endothelial cells – which line the walls of blood vessels.

    Incidentally, Methylene Blue is used to kick-start the growth of the stem cells used in tissue scaffolding.


    Please see: Methylene Blue Is Pharmaceutical Poison


    Polymers-ceramic nonwoven compositions supercapacitors with electrical storage capacity are self-organized and have tinsel strength. They’re not implanted into the body per se, they are grown inside the body using graphene oxide and lithium-fueled nanowires. Highly porous membranes with self-organized Nanopores are used for rapid sequencing of genes.

    The long, white “fibrous clots” that embalmers are finding in the veins of dead vaccinated individuals, is part of this transhumanist agenda to turn people into a new species of super-conducting robots.

    Karen Kingston recently exposed that Moderna is using Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles in DARPA’s hydrogel lipid-payloads.


    Please read: The Covid-19 Vaccine “Antigen” is Anthrax


    Graphene oxide–silver Nanowire nanocomposites are being used for enhanced sensing of Hg2+ (mercuric cations). These are energy harvesting devices and hybrid materials using carbon nanotubes (graphene oxide hydrogels) and polyethylene glycol nanocomposites. They’re highly toxic, as a 2019 study demonstrates, but they’re being used none-the-less for internal biosensor and bioimaging. The patent holders can essentially read the internal biometric data of “vaccinated” individuals without their Informed Consent.


    Please read: EDTA Snakeoil! Ana Maria Mihalcea's Medical Malfeasance Exposed


    Conclusion

    There’s no reason under the sun to use any experimental pharmaceutical drugs. 100 years ago humanity got along just fine with natural cures. None of the pharmaceuticals mentioned in this article are effective at heavy metal chelation. I have many clients who were very sick after using EDTA especially, along with other experimental drugs that will not achieve detox. It’s simply not logical to treat poisoning with more poison! To achieve an affectiv detox, you must eliminate toxins.

    Superior heavy metal chelators exist, and I help people to learn how to use them. You can schedule a consultation with me here for truly all natural health protocols that contain the greatest breakthroughs in medical science and heavy metal chelation.

    Let’s be Pharma free.



    https://substack.com/home/post/p-145685685
    Lithium Orotate Dietary Supplement Is Pharmaceutical Snakeoil Dr. Ariyana Love (ND) I was asked by a client to investigate lithium orotate, lithium chloride and sodium citrate as health supplementation, and determine if these substances are safe for human consumption and if they have any medicinal benefits. These substances are being promoted by medical doctors, Naturopathic doctors and other health care practitioners as health miracles, but are they? Michael Nehls, MD, PHD writes: “The key element against brain fog, long-COVID/post-vac syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, depression, Alzheimer's – and even indoctrination?” Is Dr. Nehls talking about the organic and naturally occurring trace mineral lithium or is he promoting the synthetic pharmaceutical perversion? It’s difficult to say because he doesn’t actually specify the difference in his Substack article. Lithium in its pure form exists as a trace mineral found in nature. Lithium (Li), discovered in 1817, is a naturally occurring metal in the earth’s crust (0.0017%). Naturally occurring lithium in drinking water is beneficial in appropriate quantities and may have the potential to reduce the risk of suicide and may possibly even stabilize your mood. Leave it to nature to provide natural remedies to every ailment, but leave it to pharmaceutical companies to pervert nature’s purity, which leads to untold self-harm. Pharma would have you believe that moderate amounts of their synthetic lithium poison is therapeutic but “chronic toxicity occurs when you slowly take a little too much of a lithium prescription every day for a while”. Lithium is cumulative poison, meaning the longer you use it, the more damage it causes to your body system. The most common pharmaceutical lithium drug is lithium carbonate, which is synthesized by reacting lithium salts with soda or potash, followed by purification of the synthetic salt. It’s used to treat manic and bipolar disorders and has many toxic side effects. Lithium toxicity is in fact a life-threatening condition that causes intestinal and neurological symptoms. It can also lead to kidney damage. 75 to 90 percent of patients treated with lithium have signs or symptoms of toxicity at some point during their treatment, according to studies. This is because synthetic lithium is a neurotoxin, which means essentially that no amount is safe. Studies like this one make Lithium sound so absolutely amazing and full of wondrous potential, but you can be sure they tested a synthetic “lithium serum”. According to the NIH, lithium toxicity leads to a range of gastrointestinal and neurologic signs and symptoms and can ultimately be fatal. “…lithium toxicity can lead to coma, brain damage, or even death.” Lithium orotate Lithium Orotate is available as a synthetic salt of synthetic lithium and synthetic orotic acid, as a monohydrate, LiC5H3N2O4·H2O (Lithium chloride monohydrate). The only source of Lithium Orotate (C5H3LiN2O4) is a synthetic salt of orotic acid and lithium. Fischer Science Safety Data Sheet reveals that the target organs of Lithium Orotate are the central nervous system and the cardiovascular system. “May be harmful if swallowed. May cause central nervous system effects. May cause respiratory and digestive tract irritation. Contact with skin causes irritation and possible burns, especially if the skin is wet or moist.” Orotic acid in its natural form, is known as vitamin B-13. Orotic acid is found naturally in high quantities in beets. By using organic beet powder supplementation, you can obtain the B-13 that your body needs. Naturally occuring orotic acid acts as a transporter that carries magnesium into cells and may reduce the severity of chronic myocardial dysfunction and structural damage in cardiomyopathy. It also helps resolve gut microbiome issues. This will be true in its natural form. First patented in the 1990s, synthetic Lithium Orotate has been patented and mainstreamed by pharmaceutical companies as a treatment for mental health conditions. It’s mutagenic in somatic cells, which means it alters the human genome. Lithium Orotate is also mutagenic for bacteria and yeast, which means that it increases the replication of bad bacteria, ultimately disrupting your healthy microbiome balance. This explains the GI issues associated with taking this drug. In 1976, Lonza, LTD patented a synthetic version of Orotic Acid made from trichloroacetyl chloride and ketene. Trichloroacetyl chloride is a colorless volatile liquid with a strong odor that’s denser than water. Contact severely irritates skin, eyes and mucous membranes and “may be very toxic by ingestion and inhalation”. Ketene will cause “severe damage to the lungs at the alveolar level and may manifest as long as 24 hours post exposure”. High levels of Orotic Acid can be dangerous and, as a synthetic pharmaceutical drug, it can be deadly or induce Orotic Aciduria, which is an autosomal recessive disorder characterized by megaloblastic anemia and orotic acid crystalluria that is frequently associated with some degree of physical and mental retardation. Other side effects are heart abnormalities, seizures, coma, and possibly even death. A Chinese patent from the Shenghai Institute of Organic Chemistry of CAS to synthesize Orotic Acid uses sodium bromide, chlorine and maleylurea; then, the 5-bromine-2, 6-dioxo-hexahydropyrimidime-4-carboxylic acid and sodium hydroxide. Sodium bromide is a pesticide with reproductive toxicity as demonstrated in rat studies. Chlorine is, of course, an extremely dangerous industrial poison. Maleylurea is another toxic substance. 5-bromine-2 induces methemoglobinemia and delayed encephalopathy. 6-dioxo-hexahydropyrimidime-4-carboxylic acid is toxic while sodium hydroxide is corrosive to all body tissues. Other processes for producing Orotic Acid use Corynebacterium. This is a lethal exotoxin that induces diphtheria. Orotic Acid, a promoter of liver carcinogenesis, induces DNA damage in rat livers. It also induces hypertension associated with impaired endothelial Nitric Oxide synthesis, ultimately disrupting your redox balance. There was toxic and vascular nephropathy associated with Orotic Acid administration in laboratory cats. It destroys the liver of rats. In other studies, it induced fatty liver, causing weight gain. Please see the toxicity data sheet for Orotic Acid. It’s suggested to “avoid using Lithium Orotate until more is known”. Lithium Orotate supplements Some synthetic Lithium Orotate supplements boast of being organic or natural. I’ve noticed that Medical Doctors’ definition of organic or natural may vary greatly from the facts. Dr. Edward Group, D.C. from Global Healing, advertises a Lithium Orotate supplement as “natural trace minerals” for mood stabilization. Dr. Ed was interviewed by Mike Adams of Natural news, where he convincingly boasted about their “all natural” products and heavy metal detox protocols. The company went so far as to register their Lithium Orotate product on Amazon as “organic” and then later removed their false advertising and fake medical claim. However, things remain forever on the Internet. Oops! I reached out to Global Healing to give them a chance and asked directly if Global Healing is using “all natural” lithium and “all natural” orotic acid in their Lithium Orotate supplement. They responded by telling me that they derive their Lithium Orotate ingredients from all natural sources. When I pressed them for more information, asking what their sources are, they vaguely answered me with “it varies”. Oops, again! On their Lithium Orotate label, Global Healing only states that their lithium source comes “from lithium orotate”. Lithium does not naturally contain orotic acid, so this doesn’t make sense if it were “natural”. If it were natural, they would have two sources not one, because lithium and orotic acid are not naturally found together. If Global healing’s lithium source is from “lithium orotate”, then this is the patented pharmaceutical Lithium Orotate synthetic salt and this is false advertising. Dr. Edward’s Group is also selling and promoting EDTA and C-60 as health supplements. They claim that Calcium Disodium EDTA promotes “cardiovascular and immune health” but there’s no scientific evidence to support this claim. Please read: Is C60 And EDTA Safe? Clinical Review Lithium chloride Lithium chloride metal chloride salt is a toxic, inorganic synthetic compound. Please see the safety data sheet. Lithium chloride is produced by treatment of lithium carbonate with hydrochloric acid. A single exposure to hydrochloric acid causes organ toxicity and there are cases of lithium toxicity from Internet dietary supplements. Please avoid this at all costs. Sodium Citrate Sodium citrate (citric acid) is another toxic preservative. It’s a synthetic chemical that induces symptoms such as paresthesia, hypotension and possible cardiac arrhythmia. It’s being touted as an “anti-coagulant” and prooted on Karl.C’s Substack. But honestly, the blood results are not good. Sodium citrate contains propylene glycol which is neurotoxic. Read more here. Superior, natural anti-coagulants can be found in my premium detox and repair protocol. Please see: Dr. Ariyana Love's Anti-Aging Premium Detox Protocol Lithium and Graphene weapon systems On a side note, during my research I came across some pertinent information. Synthetic graphite is used for lithium-ion batteries. Pharmaceutical lithium is being used with reduced graphene oxide-based electrodes to produce a higher capacity of electrical conductivity. Nanocomposites based on hydroxyapatite/lithium oxide and graphene oxide nanosheets are indeed being used for medical applications. Lithium batteries have served as the predominant power source for implantable medical devices such as nanowires, which are used in tissue scaffolding technology. Scientists are using scaffolds made from conductive silicon nanowires to reconstruct artificial heart tissue. Nanowired organoids are used to accelerate the development of stem cells into healthy, well-functioning heart tissue. They create an organoid from a mixture of stem-cell-derived heart cells, stromal connective tissue cells, and endothelial cells – which line the walls of blood vessels. Incidentally, Methylene Blue is used to kick-start the growth of the stem cells used in tissue scaffolding. Please see: Methylene Blue Is Pharmaceutical Poison Polymers-ceramic nonwoven compositions supercapacitors with electrical storage capacity are self-organized and have tinsel strength. They’re not implanted into the body per se, they are grown inside the body using graphene oxide and lithium-fueled nanowires. Highly porous membranes with self-organized Nanopores are used for rapid sequencing of genes. The long, white “fibrous clots” that embalmers are finding in the veins of dead vaccinated individuals, is part of this transhumanist agenda to turn people into a new species of super-conducting robots. Karen Kingston recently exposed that Moderna is using Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles in DARPA’s hydrogel lipid-payloads. Please read: The Covid-19 Vaccine “Antigen” is Anthrax Graphene oxide–silver Nanowire nanocomposites are being used for enhanced sensing of Hg2+ (mercuric cations). These are energy harvesting devices and hybrid materials using carbon nanotubes (graphene oxide hydrogels) and polyethylene glycol nanocomposites. They’re highly toxic, as a 2019 study demonstrates, but they’re being used none-the-less for internal biosensor and bioimaging. The patent holders can essentially read the internal biometric data of “vaccinated” individuals without their Informed Consent. Please read: EDTA Snakeoil! Ana Maria Mihalcea's Medical Malfeasance Exposed Conclusion There’s no reason under the sun to use any experimental pharmaceutical drugs. 100 years ago humanity got along just fine with natural cures. None of the pharmaceuticals mentioned in this article are effective at heavy metal chelation. I have many clients who were very sick after using EDTA especially, along with other experimental drugs that will not achieve detox. It’s simply not logical to treat poisoning with more poison! To achieve an affectiv detox, you must eliminate toxins. Superior heavy metal chelators exist, and I help people to learn how to use them. You can schedule a consultation with me here for truly all natural health protocols that contain the greatest breakthroughs in medical science and heavy metal chelation. Let’s be Pharma free. https://substack.com/home/post/p-145685685
    SUBSTACK.COM
    Lithium Orotate Dietary Supplements Are Pharmaceutical Snakeoil
    I was asked by a client to investigate lithium orotate, lithium chloride and sodium citrate as health supplementation, and determine if these substances are safe for human consumption and if they have any medicinal benefits. These substances are being promoted by medical doctors, Naturopathic doctors and other health care practitioners as health miracles, but are they?
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4307 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 4807 Views
  • Dermatology's Horrendous War Against The Sun, and the True Origins of the American Medical Association
    Untangling Dermatology's Huge Skin Cancer Scam - and deep corruption that enables them to get away with it.

    Brucha Weisberger
    BS”D

    I’m republishing this extremely important article from A Midwestern Doctor, which not only explains how very important sun exposure is in preventing cancer, other illnesses, and death, but also exposes the criminality at the very foundation of the American Medical Association, starting more than 100 years ago and continuing since.

    I’d like to note that if we just take a few moments to think deeply about the “sun is dangerous” propaganda we’ve grown up with, we realize that it cannot possibly be true. The sun has been shining on the world since G-d created it, and people have traditionally spent their days outdoors tending to their fields and animals. Sunscreen was not invented, and cancer was not prevalent. Since we’ve started spending more time indoors and applying sunscreen, we’ve only seen an increase in cancer, heart disease, and other modern illnesses.

    Aside from the historical impossibility of the medical establishment’s claims, there’s also logic - observation of the universe shows that G-d always sets things up to work as a perfect, beneficial system, with everything that’s needed for survival provided. There’s no conceivable way that He made the sun to be harmful for us, requiring modern chemical sunscreens to combat it.

    By A MIDWESTERN DOCTOR

    Story At a Glance:

    •Sunlight is crucial for health, and avoiding it doubles mortality rates and cancer risk.

    •Skin cancers are the most common cancers in the U.S., leading to widespread “advice” to avoid the sun. However, the deadliest skin cancers are linked to a lack of sunlight.

    •The dermatology field, aided by a top marketing firm, rebranded themselves as skin cancer (and sunlight) fighters, becoming one of the highest-paid medical specialties.

    •Despite billions spent annually, skin cancer deaths haven't significantly changed. Likewise, the Dermatology profession has buried a variety of effective and affordable skin cancer treatments.

    Note: this is an abridged version of a longer article. (BW: Click for expanded version. I have included a few pieces of AMD’s longer article which I felt were extremely significant.)

    I always found it odd that everyone insisted I avoid sunlight and wear sunscreen during outdoor activities, as I noticed that sunlight felt great and caused my veins to dilate, indicating the body deeply craved sunlight. Later, I learned that blocking natural light with glass (e.g., with windows or eyeglasses) significantly affected health, and that many had benefitted from utilizing specialized glass that allowed the full light spectrum through. This ties into one of my favorite therapeutic modalities, ultraviolet blood irradiation, which produces a wide range of truly remarkable benefits by putting the sun’s ultraviolet light inside the body.

    Once in medical school, aware of sunlight's benefits, I was struck by dermatologists' extreme aversion to it. Patients were constantly warned to avoid sunlight, and in northern latitudes, where people suffer from seasonal affective disorder, dermatologists even required students to wear sunscreen and cover most of their bodies indoors. At this point my perspective changed to “This crusade against the sun is definitely coming from the dermatologists” and “What on earth is wrong with these people?” A few years ago I learned the final piece of the puzzle through Robert Yoho MD and his book Butchered by Healthcare.

    Note: This comment I received perfectly illustrates the dysfunctional status quo.

    The Monopolization of Medicine

    Throughout my life, I’ve noticed the medical industry will:

    •Promote healthy activities people are unlikely to do (e.g., exercising or quitting smoking).

    •Promote unhealthy activities industries make money from (e.g., eating processed foods or taking a myriad of harmful pharmaceuticals).

    •Attack beneficial activities that are easy to do (e.g., sunbathing or consuming egg yolks, butter and raw dairy).

    As best as I can gather, much of this is rooted in the scandalous history of the American Medical Association, when in 1899, George H. Simmons, MD took possession of the floundering organization (MDs were going out of business because their treatments were barbaric and didn’t work). He, in turn, started a program to give the AMA seal of approval in return for the manufacturers disclosing their ingredients and agreeing to advertise in a lot of AMA publications (they were not however required to prove their product was safe or effective). This maneuver was successful, and in just ten years, increased their advertising revenues 5-fold, and their physician membership 9-fold.

    At the same time this happened, the AMA moved to monopolize the medical industry by doing things such as establishing a general medical education council (which essentially said their method of practicing medicine was the only credible way to practice medicine), which allowed them to then become the national accrediting body for medical schools. This in turn allowed them to end the teaching of many of the competing models of medicine such as homeopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy, and to a lesser extent, osteopathy—as states would often not give licenses to graduates of schools with a poor AMA rating.

    BW: Here’s just one paragraph from the article AMD linked above, describing how the Rockefeller cartel took over the medical system. Remember, the Flexner report was funded by The Carnegie Foundation and John D. Rockefeller; Flexner’s brother was the first medical director of the Rockefeller Medical Foundation.

    In 1910, the same year that the Flexner report was published, the AMA published "Essentials of an Acceptable Medical College" (Report of the Council, 1910), which echoed similar criteria for medical education and a disdain for non-conventional medical study. In fact, the AMA's head of the Council on Medical Education traveled with Abraham Flexner as they evaluated medical schools. The medical sociologist Paul Starr wrote in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book: "The AMA Council became a national accrediting agency for medical schools, as an increasing number of states adopted its judgments of unacceptable institutions." Further, he noted: "Even though no legislative body ever set up ... the AMA Council on Medical Education, their decisions came to have the force of law" (Starr, 1982, 121).(3)

    BW: More fascinating detail on the Rockefeller takeover, from another site:

    … the Flexner Report … made the case that old, traditional medicine is bad, and new pharmacologic medicine is good. Rockefeller, as owner of 90% of the American petrol industry at the time, personally stood to gain as petrochemicals were emerging as a profitable sector. Today, they are used extensively in producing active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), solvents, excipients, and packaging materials. The petrochemical industry as it relates to pharmaceuticals alone is valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars today. The pharmaceutical industry, as we know it, stemmed from the initial investment by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations into medical universities following the Flexner Report’s recommendations.

    See: https://covid19criticalcare.com/the-flexner-report-and-the-rise-of-big-pharma/

    Likewise, Simmons (along with his successor, Fishbein, who reigned from 1924 to 1950) established a "Propaganda Department" in 1913 to attack all unconventional medical treatments and anyone (MD or not) who practiced them. Fishbein was very good at what he did and could often organize massive media campaigns against anything he elected to deem “quackery” that were heard by millions of Americans (at a time when the country was much smaller).

    After Simmons and Fishbein created this monopoly, they were quick to leverage it. This included blackmailing pharmaceutical companies to advertise with them, demanding the rights for a variety of healing treatments to be sold to the AMA, and sending the FDA or FTC after anyone who refused to sell out (which in at least in one case was proved in court since one of Fishbein’s “compatriots” thought what he was doing was wrong and testified against him). Because of this, many remarkable medical innovations were successfully erased from history (part of my life’s work and much of what I use in practice are essentially the therapies Simmons and Fishbein largely succeeded in wiping off the Earth).

    Note: to illustrate that this is not just ancient history, consider how viciously and ludicrously the AMA attacked the use of ivermectin to treat COVID (as it was the biggest competitor to the COVID cartel). Likewise, one of the paradigm changing moments for Pierre Kory (which he discusses with Russel Brand here) was that after he testified to the Senate about ivermectin, he was put into a state of shock by the onslaught of media and medical journal campaigns from every direction trying to tank ivermectin and destroy his and his colleagues’ reputations (e.g., they got fired and had their papers which had already passed peer-review retracted). Two weeks into it, he got an email from Professor William B Grant (a vitamin D expert) that said “Dear Dr. Kory, what they're doing to ivermectin they've been doing to vitamin D for decades” and included a 2017 paper detailing the exact playbook industry uses again and again to bury inconvenient science.

    Before long, Big Tobacco became the AMA’s biggest client, which led to countless ads like this one being published by the AMA which persisted until Fishbein was forced out (at which point he became a highly paid lobbyist for the tobacco industry):


    Note: because of how nasty they were, they often got people to dig into their past, at which point it was discovered how unscrupulous and sociopathic both Simmons and Fishbein were. Unfortunately, while I know from first-hand experience this was the case (e.g., a friend of mine knew Fishbein’s secretary and she stated that Fishbein was a truly horrible person she regularly saw carry out despicable actions and I likewise knew people who knew the revolutionary healers Fishbein targeted), I was never able to confirm many of the abhorrent allegations against Simmons because the book they all cite as a reference did not provide its sources, while the other books which provide different but congruent allegations are poorly sourced.

    The Benefits of Sunlight

    One of the oldest “proven” therapies in medicine was having people bathe in sunlight (e.g., it was one of the few things that actually had success in treating the 1918 influenza, prior to antibiotics it was one of the most effective treatments for treating tuberculosis and it was also widely used for a variety of other diseases). In turn, since it is safe, effective, and freely available, it stands to reason that unscrupulous individuals who wanted to monopolize the practice of medicine would want to cut off the public’s access to it.

    Note: the success of sunbathing was the original inspiration for ultraviolet blood irradiation.

    Because of how successful the war against sunlight has been many people are unaware of its benefits. For example:

    1. Sunlight is critical for mental health. This is most well appreciated with depression (e.g., seasonal affective disorder) but in reality the effects are far more broad reaching (e.g., unnatural light exposure destroys your circadian rhythm).

    Note: I really got this point during my medical internship, where after a long period of night shifts under fluorescent lights, noticed I was becoming clinically depressed (which has never otherwise happened to me and led to a co-resident I was close to offering to prescribe antidepressants). I decided to do an experiment (I do this a lot—e.g., I try to never recommend treatments to patients I haven’t already tried on myself) and stuck with it for a few more days, then went home and bathed under a full spectrum bulb, at which point I almost instantly felt better. I feel my story is particularly important for healthcare workers since many people in the system are forced to spend long periods of their under artificial light and their mental health (e.g., empathy) suffers greatly from it. For example, consider this study of Chinese operating room nurses which found their mental health was significantly worse than the general population and that this decline was correlated to their lack of sunlight exposure.

    2. A large epidemiological study found women with higher solar UVB exposure had only half the incidence of breast cancer as those with lower solar exposure and that men with higher residential solar exposure had only half the incidence of fatal prostate cancer.
    Note: a 50% reduction in either of these cancers greatly exceeds what any of the approaches we use to treat or prevent them have accomplished.

    3. A 20 year prospective study evaluated 29,518 women in Southern Sweden where average women from each age bracket with no significant health issues were randomly selected, essentially making it one of the best possible epidemiologic studies that could be done. It found that women who were sun avoidant compared to those who had regular exposure to sunlight were:

    •Overall 60% more likely to die, being roughly 50% more likely to die than the moderate exposure group and roughly 130% more likely to die than the group with high sun exposure.
    Note: to be clear, there are very few interventions in medicine that do anything close to this.

    •The largest gain was seen in the risk of dying from heart disease, while the second gain was seen in the risk of all causes of death besides heart disease and cancer (“other”), and the third largest gain was seen in deaths from cancer.
    Note: the investigators concluded the smaller benefit in reduced cancer deaths was in part an artifact of the subjects living longer and hence succumbing to a type of cancer that would have only affected them later in life.

    • The largest benefit was seen in smokers, to the point non-smokers who avoided the sun had the same risk of dying as smokers who got sunlight.
    Note: I believe this and the cardiovascular benefits are in large part due to sunlight catalyzing the synthesis of nitric oxide (which is essential for healthy blood vessels) and sulfates (which coat cells like the endothelium and in conjunction with infrared (or sunlight) creates the liquid crystalline water which is essential for the protection and function of the cardiovascular system).

    So given all of this, I would say that you need a really good justification to avoid sun exposure.

    Skin Cancer

    According to the American Academy of Dermatology, skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States, with current estimates suggesting that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime. Approximately 9,500 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with skin cancer every day.

    The Academy emphasizes that UV exposure is the most preventable risk factor for skin cancer, advising people to avoid indoor tanning beds and protect their skin outdoors by seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and applying broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher.

    The Skin Cancer Foundation states that more than two people die of skin cancer in the U.S. every hour, which sounds alarming. Let's break down what all this means.

    Basal Cell Carcinoma

    Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common skin cancer, making up 80% of cases, with about 2.64 million Americans diagnosed annually. Risk factors include excessive sun exposure, fair skin, and family history. BCC primarily occurs in sun-exposed areas like the face.


    BCC rarely metastasizes and has a near 0% fatality rate, but it frequently recurs (65%-95%) after removal. The standard excision approach often doesn't address underlying causes, leading to repeated surgeries and potential disfigurement.

    While BCCs can grow large if left untreated, they aren't immediately dangerous. Treatment is necessary but not urgent. Alternative therapies can effectively treat large BCCs without disfiguring surgery.
    Note: since the COVID-19 vaccines came out, I have heard of a few cases of BCC metastasizing in the vaccinated, but it is still extraordinarily rare.

    Squamous Cell Carcinoma

    Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the second most common skin cancer, with an estimated 1.8 million cases in the U.S. Its incidence varies widely due to sunlight exposure, ranging from 260 to 4,970 cases per million person-years. Previously thought to be four times less common than BCC, SCC is now only half as common.


    Unlike BCC, SCC can metastasize, making it potentially dangerous. If removed before metastasis, the survival rate is 99%; after metastasis, it drops to 56%. Typically caught early, SCC has an average survival rate of 95%. Around 2,000 people die from SCC each year in the U.S.

    Note: unlike more lethal skin cancers, it is not required to report BCC or SCC. Consequently, there is no centralized database tracking their occurrence, so the official figures are largely estimates.

    Melanoma

    Melanoma occurs at a rate of 218 cases per million persons annually in the United States, with survival rates ranging from 99% to 35% depending on its stage when diagnosed, averaging out to 94%. However, despite only comprising 1% of all skin cancer diagnoses, Melanoma is responsible for most skin cancer deaths. In total, this works out to a bit over 8000 deaths each year in the United States. Since survival is greatly improved by early detection, many guides online exist to help recognize the common signs of a potential melanoma.


    What’s critically important to understand about melanoma is that while it’s widely considered to be linked to sunlight exposure—it’s not. For example:

    Patients with solar elastosis, a sign of sun exposure, were 60% less likely to die from melanoma.

    Melanoma predominantly occurs in areas of the body with minimal sunlight exposure, unlike SCC and BCC, which are linked to sun-exposed regions.

    Outdoor workers, despite significantly higher UV exposure, have lower rates of melanoma compared to indoor workers.

    Many sunscreens contain toxic carcinogens (to the point Hawaii banned them to protect coral reefs). Conversely, existing research indicates widespread sunscreen use has not reduced skin cancer rates.

    •A mouse study designed to study malignant melanoma found mice kept under simulated daylight develop tumors at a slower and diminished rate compared to those under cool white fluorescent light.

    There has been a significant increase in many areas from melanoma, something which argues against sunlight being the primary issue as it has not significantly changed in the last few decades. For instance, consider this data from Norway’s cancer registry on malignant melanoma:


    Note: in addition to these three cancers, other (much rarer) skin cancers also exist, most of which have not been linked to sunlight exposure.

    The Great Dermatology Scam

    If you consider the previous section, the following should be fairly clear:

    •By far the most common “skin cancer” is not dangerous.

    •The “skin cancers” you actually need to worry about are a fairly small portion of the existing skin cancers.

    • Sunlight exposure does not cause the most dangerous cancers.

    In essence, there’s no way to justify “banning sunlight” to “prevent skin cancer,” as the “benefit” from this prescription is vastly outweighed by its harm. However, a very clever linguistic trick bypasses this contradiction—a single label, “skin cancer,” is used for everything, which then selectively adopts the lethality of melanoma, the frequency of BCC, and the sensitivity to sunlight that BCC and SCC have.

    This has always really infuriated me, so I’ve given a lot of thought to why they do this.

    Note: a variety of other deceptive linguistic tricks are also utilized by the pharmaceutical company. I am presently working on an article about that was also done with high blood pressure (hypertension).

    The Transformation of Dermatology

    In the 1980s, dermatology was one of the least desirable specialties in medicine (e.g., dermatologists were often referred to as pimple poppers). Now however, dermatology is one of the most coveted specialties in medicine as dermatologists make 2-4 times as much as a regular doctor, but have a much less stressful lifestyle.

    A relatively unknown blog by Dermatologist David J. Elpern, M.D. at last explained what happened:

    Over the past 40 years, I have witnessed these changes in my specialty and am dismayed by the reluctance of my colleagues to address them. This trend began in the early 1980s when the Academy of Dermatology (AAD) assessed its members over 2 million dollars to hire a prominent New York advertising agency to raise the public’s appreciation of our specialty. The mad men recommended “educating” the public to the fact that dermatologists are skin cancer experts, not just pimple poppers; and so the free National Skin Cancer Screening Day was established [through a 1985 Presidential proclamation].

    These screenings serve to inflate the public’s health anxiety about skin cancer and led to the performance of vast amounts of expensive low-value procedures for skin cancer and actinic keratosis (AKs). At the same time, pathologists were expanding their definitions of what a melanoma is, leading to “diagnostic drift” that misleadingly increased the incidence of melanoma while the mortality has remained at 1980 levels. Concomitantly, non-melanoma skin cancers are being over-treated by armies of micrographic surgeons who often treat innocuous skin cancers with unnecessarily aggressive, lucrative surgeries.

    This heightened awareness led to a dramatic increase in skin cancer screenings and diagnoses, fueled by fears instilled in the public about sun exposure. Alongside this massive sales funnel, there was a significant expansion in the incredibly lucrative Mohs micrographic surgery, promoted as a gold standard for treating skin cancers due to its precision and efficacy in sparing healthy tissue. However, critics argue that Mohs surgery is often overused, driven by financial incentives rather than clinical necessity, contributing to immense healthcare costs.

    Note: we frequently see patients who developed complications from these surgeries.

    The commercialization of dermatology was further amplified by the entry of private equity firms into the field. These firms acquired dermatology practices, sometimes staffing them with non-physician providers to maximize profitability. This trend raised concerns about quality of care, with reports of misdiagnoses and over-treatment, particularly in vulnerable populations like nursing home residents—to the point the New York Times authored a 2017 investigation on this exploitative industry.

    Moreover, the shift towards profit-driven models in dermatology has sparked ethical debates within the medical community. Some dermatologists have voiced concerns over the commodification of skin cancer treatments and the erosion of traditional doctor-patient relationships in favor of more transactional interactions. Despite these challenges, dermatology remains a lucrative field, attracting both medical professionals and investors seeking financial gain from skin care services.

    Many in turn are victimized by these exploitative practices. The popular comedian Jimmy Dore for example recently covered the Great Dermatology Scam after realizing he’d been subjected to it.

    After Jimmy Dore’s segment, this story went viral, and as best as I can tell, was seen by between 5 to 10 million people. A few weeks after Dore’s segment, two surveys were released highlighting an “epidemic” of insufficient sun protection which the New York Times then covered (and numerous readers then sent to me since they thought it was a response to my article). Since it was such a classic medical propaganda piece, I will to quote a few lines from it:

    Two new surveys suggest a troubling trend: Young adults seem to be slacking on sun safety.

    14 percent of adults under 35 believed the myth that wearing sunscreen every day is more harmful than direct sun exposure

    Young adults are often unaware of what sun damage looks like and how best to prevent it

    Ultraviolet rays — whether from tanning beds or direct sunlight — can damage skin and cause skin cancer, which can be deadly

    Experts said that Gen Z is uniquely susceptible to misinformation about sunscreen and skin cancer that has proliferated on social media platforms like TikTok.

    Generously apply — and reapply — sunscreen. UV rays can damage skin even when it’s cloudy or chilly, so experts recommend wearing sunscreen every day.

    Note: I must emphasize that some skin cancers (e.g., many melanomas) require immediate removal. My point here is not to avoid dermatologists entirely but to consider seeking a second opinion from another dermatologist as there are many excellent and ethical dermatologists out there.

    Changes in Skin Cancer

    Given how much is being spent to end skin cancer, one would expect some results. Unfortunately, like many other aspects of the cancer industry that’s not what’s happened. Instead, more and more (previously benign) cancers are diagnosed, but for the most part, no significant change has occurred in the death rate.


    The best proof for this came from a study which found that almost all of the increase in “skin cancer” was from stage 1 melanomas (which rarely create problems):


    Another study illustrates exactly what the result of our war on skin cancer has accomplished:

    Finally, since many suspected the COVID vaccines might lead to an increase in melanoma (or other skin cancers), I compiled all the available annual reports from the American Cancer Society into a few graphs:


    Conclusion

    Dermatology’s need to create a villain (the sun) to justify its racket is arguably one of the most damaging things the medical profession has done to the world. Fortunately, the insatiable greed of the medical industry went too far during COVID-19, and the public is now starting to question many of the other exploitative and unscientific practices we are subjected to. It is my sincere hope that our society will begin re-examining dermatology’s disastrous war against the sun.

    I in turn am incredibly grateful because this new political climate has made it possible to expose a variety of unscrupulous tactics in medicine which have remained largely unchallenged for decades.

    Author’s note: This is an abbreviated version of a full-length article about Dermatology’s Disastrous War Again the Sun that also discusses safer ways to treat or prevent skin cancer and the nutritional approaches (e.g., avoiding seed oils) which make it possible for the skin to tolerate and be nourished by longer sun exposures. For the entire read with much more specific details and sources, and those approaches please click here.


    (End of AMD’s quoted article. Link to original: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/dermatologys-horrendous-war-against.)

    Share

    To help me continue my work, you may make a one-time gift here: https://ko-fi.com/truth613

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-146483737
    Dermatology's Horrendous War Against The Sun, and the True Origins of the American Medical Association Untangling Dermatology's Huge Skin Cancer Scam - and deep corruption that enables them to get away with it. Brucha Weisberger BS”D I’m republishing this extremely important article from A Midwestern Doctor, which not only explains how very important sun exposure is in preventing cancer, other illnesses, and death, but also exposes the criminality at the very foundation of the American Medical Association, starting more than 100 years ago and continuing since. I’d like to note that if we just take a few moments to think deeply about the “sun is dangerous” propaganda we’ve grown up with, we realize that it cannot possibly be true. The sun has been shining on the world since G-d created it, and people have traditionally spent their days outdoors tending to their fields and animals. Sunscreen was not invented, and cancer was not prevalent. Since we’ve started spending more time indoors and applying sunscreen, we’ve only seen an increase in cancer, heart disease, and other modern illnesses. Aside from the historical impossibility of the medical establishment’s claims, there’s also logic - observation of the universe shows that G-d always sets things up to work as a perfect, beneficial system, with everything that’s needed for survival provided. There’s no conceivable way that He made the sun to be harmful for us, requiring modern chemical sunscreens to combat it. By A MIDWESTERN DOCTOR Story At a Glance: •Sunlight is crucial for health, and avoiding it doubles mortality rates and cancer risk. •Skin cancers are the most common cancers in the U.S., leading to widespread “advice” to avoid the sun. However, the deadliest skin cancers are linked to a lack of sunlight. •The dermatology field, aided by a top marketing firm, rebranded themselves as skin cancer (and sunlight) fighters, becoming one of the highest-paid medical specialties. •Despite billions spent annually, skin cancer deaths haven't significantly changed. Likewise, the Dermatology profession has buried a variety of effective and affordable skin cancer treatments. Note: this is an abridged version of a longer article. (BW: Click for expanded version. I have included a few pieces of AMD’s longer article which I felt were extremely significant.) I always found it odd that everyone insisted I avoid sunlight and wear sunscreen during outdoor activities, as I noticed that sunlight felt great and caused my veins to dilate, indicating the body deeply craved sunlight. Later, I learned that blocking natural light with glass (e.g., with windows or eyeglasses) significantly affected health, and that many had benefitted from utilizing specialized glass that allowed the full light spectrum through. This ties into one of my favorite therapeutic modalities, ultraviolet blood irradiation, which produces a wide range of truly remarkable benefits by putting the sun’s ultraviolet light inside the body. Once in medical school, aware of sunlight's benefits, I was struck by dermatologists' extreme aversion to it. Patients were constantly warned to avoid sunlight, and in northern latitudes, where people suffer from seasonal affective disorder, dermatologists even required students to wear sunscreen and cover most of their bodies indoors. At this point my perspective changed to “This crusade against the sun is definitely coming from the dermatologists” and “What on earth is wrong with these people?” A few years ago I learned the final piece of the puzzle through Robert Yoho MD and his book Butchered by Healthcare. Note: This comment I received perfectly illustrates the dysfunctional status quo. The Monopolization of Medicine Throughout my life, I’ve noticed the medical industry will: •Promote healthy activities people are unlikely to do (e.g., exercising or quitting smoking). •Promote unhealthy activities industries make money from (e.g., eating processed foods or taking a myriad of harmful pharmaceuticals). •Attack beneficial activities that are easy to do (e.g., sunbathing or consuming egg yolks, butter and raw dairy). As best as I can gather, much of this is rooted in the scandalous history of the American Medical Association, when in 1899, George H. Simmons, MD took possession of the floundering organization (MDs were going out of business because their treatments were barbaric and didn’t work). He, in turn, started a program to give the AMA seal of approval in return for the manufacturers disclosing their ingredients and agreeing to advertise in a lot of AMA publications (they were not however required to prove their product was safe or effective). This maneuver was successful, and in just ten years, increased their advertising revenues 5-fold, and their physician membership 9-fold. At the same time this happened, the AMA moved to monopolize the medical industry by doing things such as establishing a general medical education council (which essentially said their method of practicing medicine was the only credible way to practice medicine), which allowed them to then become the national accrediting body for medical schools. This in turn allowed them to end the teaching of many of the competing models of medicine such as homeopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy, and to a lesser extent, osteopathy—as states would often not give licenses to graduates of schools with a poor AMA rating. BW: Here’s just one paragraph from the article AMD linked above, describing how the Rockefeller cartel took over the medical system. Remember, the Flexner report was funded by The Carnegie Foundation and John D. Rockefeller; Flexner’s brother was the first medical director of the Rockefeller Medical Foundation. In 1910, the same year that the Flexner report was published, the AMA published "Essentials of an Acceptable Medical College" (Report of the Council, 1910), which echoed similar criteria for medical education and a disdain for non-conventional medical study. In fact, the AMA's head of the Council on Medical Education traveled with Abraham Flexner as they evaluated medical schools. The medical sociologist Paul Starr wrote in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book: "The AMA Council became a national accrediting agency for medical schools, as an increasing number of states adopted its judgments of unacceptable institutions." Further, he noted: "Even though no legislative body ever set up ... the AMA Council on Medical Education, their decisions came to have the force of law" (Starr, 1982, 121).(3) BW: More fascinating detail on the Rockefeller takeover, from another site: … the Flexner Report … made the case that old, traditional medicine is bad, and new pharmacologic medicine is good. Rockefeller, as owner of 90% of the American petrol industry at the time, personally stood to gain as petrochemicals were emerging as a profitable sector. Today, they are used extensively in producing active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), solvents, excipients, and packaging materials. The petrochemical industry as it relates to pharmaceuticals alone is valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars today. The pharmaceutical industry, as we know it, stemmed from the initial investment by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations into medical universities following the Flexner Report’s recommendations. See: https://covid19criticalcare.com/the-flexner-report-and-the-rise-of-big-pharma/ Likewise, Simmons (along with his successor, Fishbein, who reigned from 1924 to 1950) established a "Propaganda Department" in 1913 to attack all unconventional medical treatments and anyone (MD or not) who practiced them. Fishbein was very good at what he did and could often organize massive media campaigns against anything he elected to deem “quackery” that were heard by millions of Americans (at a time when the country was much smaller). After Simmons and Fishbein created this monopoly, they were quick to leverage it. This included blackmailing pharmaceutical companies to advertise with them, demanding the rights for a variety of healing treatments to be sold to the AMA, and sending the FDA or FTC after anyone who refused to sell out (which in at least in one case was proved in court since one of Fishbein’s “compatriots” thought what he was doing was wrong and testified against him). Because of this, many remarkable medical innovations were successfully erased from history (part of my life’s work and much of what I use in practice are essentially the therapies Simmons and Fishbein largely succeeded in wiping off the Earth). Note: to illustrate that this is not just ancient history, consider how viciously and ludicrously the AMA attacked the use of ivermectin to treat COVID (as it was the biggest competitor to the COVID cartel). Likewise, one of the paradigm changing moments for Pierre Kory (which he discusses with Russel Brand here) was that after he testified to the Senate about ivermectin, he was put into a state of shock by the onslaught of media and medical journal campaigns from every direction trying to tank ivermectin and destroy his and his colleagues’ reputations (e.g., they got fired and had their papers which had already passed peer-review retracted). Two weeks into it, he got an email from Professor William B Grant (a vitamin D expert) that said “Dear Dr. Kory, what they're doing to ivermectin they've been doing to vitamin D for decades” and included a 2017 paper detailing the exact playbook industry uses again and again to bury inconvenient science. Before long, Big Tobacco became the AMA’s biggest client, which led to countless ads like this one being published by the AMA which persisted until Fishbein was forced out (at which point he became a highly paid lobbyist for the tobacco industry): Note: because of how nasty they were, they often got people to dig into their past, at which point it was discovered how unscrupulous and sociopathic both Simmons and Fishbein were. Unfortunately, while I know from first-hand experience this was the case (e.g., a friend of mine knew Fishbein’s secretary and she stated that Fishbein was a truly horrible person she regularly saw carry out despicable actions and I likewise knew people who knew the revolutionary healers Fishbein targeted), I was never able to confirm many of the abhorrent allegations against Simmons because the book they all cite as a reference did not provide its sources, while the other books which provide different but congruent allegations are poorly sourced. The Benefits of Sunlight One of the oldest “proven” therapies in medicine was having people bathe in sunlight (e.g., it was one of the few things that actually had success in treating the 1918 influenza, prior to antibiotics it was one of the most effective treatments for treating tuberculosis and it was also widely used for a variety of other diseases). In turn, since it is safe, effective, and freely available, it stands to reason that unscrupulous individuals who wanted to monopolize the practice of medicine would want to cut off the public’s access to it. Note: the success of sunbathing was the original inspiration for ultraviolet blood irradiation. Because of how successful the war against sunlight has been many people are unaware of its benefits. For example: 1. Sunlight is critical for mental health. This is most well appreciated with depression (e.g., seasonal affective disorder) but in reality the effects are far more broad reaching (e.g., unnatural light exposure destroys your circadian rhythm). Note: I really got this point during my medical internship, where after a long period of night shifts under fluorescent lights, noticed I was becoming clinically depressed (which has never otherwise happened to me and led to a co-resident I was close to offering to prescribe antidepressants). I decided to do an experiment (I do this a lot—e.g., I try to never recommend treatments to patients I haven’t already tried on myself) and stuck with it for a few more days, then went home and bathed under a full spectrum bulb, at which point I almost instantly felt better. I feel my story is particularly important for healthcare workers since many people in the system are forced to spend long periods of their under artificial light and their mental health (e.g., empathy) suffers greatly from it. For example, consider this study of Chinese operating room nurses which found their mental health was significantly worse than the general population and that this decline was correlated to their lack of sunlight exposure. 2. A large epidemiological study found women with higher solar UVB exposure had only half the incidence of breast cancer as those with lower solar exposure and that men with higher residential solar exposure had only half the incidence of fatal prostate cancer. Note: a 50% reduction in either of these cancers greatly exceeds what any of the approaches we use to treat or prevent them have accomplished. 3. A 20 year prospective study evaluated 29,518 women in Southern Sweden where average women from each age bracket with no significant health issues were randomly selected, essentially making it one of the best possible epidemiologic studies that could be done. It found that women who were sun avoidant compared to those who had regular exposure to sunlight were: •Overall 60% more likely to die, being roughly 50% more likely to die than the moderate exposure group and roughly 130% more likely to die than the group with high sun exposure. Note: to be clear, there are very few interventions in medicine that do anything close to this. •The largest gain was seen in the risk of dying from heart disease, while the second gain was seen in the risk of all causes of death besides heart disease and cancer (“other”), and the third largest gain was seen in deaths from cancer. Note: the investigators concluded the smaller benefit in reduced cancer deaths was in part an artifact of the subjects living longer and hence succumbing to a type of cancer that would have only affected them later in life. • The largest benefit was seen in smokers, to the point non-smokers who avoided the sun had the same risk of dying as smokers who got sunlight. Note: I believe this and the cardiovascular benefits are in large part due to sunlight catalyzing the synthesis of nitric oxide (which is essential for healthy blood vessels) and sulfates (which coat cells like the endothelium and in conjunction with infrared (or sunlight) creates the liquid crystalline water which is essential for the protection and function of the cardiovascular system). So given all of this, I would say that you need a really good justification to avoid sun exposure. Skin Cancer According to the American Academy of Dermatology, skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States, with current estimates suggesting that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime. Approximately 9,500 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with skin cancer every day. The Academy emphasizes that UV exposure is the most preventable risk factor for skin cancer, advising people to avoid indoor tanning beds and protect their skin outdoors by seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and applying broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher. The Skin Cancer Foundation states that more than two people die of skin cancer in the U.S. every hour, which sounds alarming. Let's break down what all this means. Basal Cell Carcinoma Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common skin cancer, making up 80% of cases, with about 2.64 million Americans diagnosed annually. Risk factors include excessive sun exposure, fair skin, and family history. BCC primarily occurs in sun-exposed areas like the face. BCC rarely metastasizes and has a near 0% fatality rate, but it frequently recurs (65%-95%) after removal. The standard excision approach often doesn't address underlying causes, leading to repeated surgeries and potential disfigurement. While BCCs can grow large if left untreated, they aren't immediately dangerous. Treatment is necessary but not urgent. Alternative therapies can effectively treat large BCCs without disfiguring surgery. Note: since the COVID-19 vaccines came out, I have heard of a few cases of BCC metastasizing in the vaccinated, but it is still extraordinarily rare. Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the second most common skin cancer, with an estimated 1.8 million cases in the U.S. Its incidence varies widely due to sunlight exposure, ranging from 260 to 4,970 cases per million person-years. Previously thought to be four times less common than BCC, SCC is now only half as common. Unlike BCC, SCC can metastasize, making it potentially dangerous. If removed before metastasis, the survival rate is 99%; after metastasis, it drops to 56%. Typically caught early, SCC has an average survival rate of 95%. Around 2,000 people die from SCC each year in the U.S. Note: unlike more lethal skin cancers, it is not required to report BCC or SCC. Consequently, there is no centralized database tracking their occurrence, so the official figures are largely estimates. Melanoma Melanoma occurs at a rate of 218 cases per million persons annually in the United States, with survival rates ranging from 99% to 35% depending on its stage when diagnosed, averaging out to 94%. However, despite only comprising 1% of all skin cancer diagnoses, Melanoma is responsible for most skin cancer deaths. In total, this works out to a bit over 8000 deaths each year in the United States. Since survival is greatly improved by early detection, many guides online exist to help recognize the common signs of a potential melanoma. What’s critically important to understand about melanoma is that while it’s widely considered to be linked to sunlight exposure—it’s not. For example: Patients with solar elastosis, a sign of sun exposure, were 60% less likely to die from melanoma. Melanoma predominantly occurs in areas of the body with minimal sunlight exposure, unlike SCC and BCC, which are linked to sun-exposed regions. Outdoor workers, despite significantly higher UV exposure, have lower rates of melanoma compared to indoor workers. Many sunscreens contain toxic carcinogens (to the point Hawaii banned them to protect coral reefs). Conversely, existing research indicates widespread sunscreen use has not reduced skin cancer rates. •A mouse study designed to study malignant melanoma found mice kept under simulated daylight develop tumors at a slower and diminished rate compared to those under cool white fluorescent light. There has been a significant increase in many areas from melanoma, something which argues against sunlight being the primary issue as it has not significantly changed in the last few decades. For instance, consider this data from Norway’s cancer registry on malignant melanoma: Note: in addition to these three cancers, other (much rarer) skin cancers also exist, most of which have not been linked to sunlight exposure. The Great Dermatology Scam If you consider the previous section, the following should be fairly clear: •By far the most common “skin cancer” is not dangerous. •The “skin cancers” you actually need to worry about are a fairly small portion of the existing skin cancers. • Sunlight exposure does not cause the most dangerous cancers. In essence, there’s no way to justify “banning sunlight” to “prevent skin cancer,” as the “benefit” from this prescription is vastly outweighed by its harm. However, a very clever linguistic trick bypasses this contradiction—a single label, “skin cancer,” is used for everything, which then selectively adopts the lethality of melanoma, the frequency of BCC, and the sensitivity to sunlight that BCC and SCC have. This has always really infuriated me, so I’ve given a lot of thought to why they do this. Note: a variety of other deceptive linguistic tricks are also utilized by the pharmaceutical company. I am presently working on an article about that was also done with high blood pressure (hypertension). The Transformation of Dermatology In the 1980s, dermatology was one of the least desirable specialties in medicine (e.g., dermatologists were often referred to as pimple poppers). Now however, dermatology is one of the most coveted specialties in medicine as dermatologists make 2-4 times as much as a regular doctor, but have a much less stressful lifestyle. A relatively unknown blog by Dermatologist David J. Elpern, M.D. at last explained what happened: Over the past 40 years, I have witnessed these changes in my specialty and am dismayed by the reluctance of my colleagues to address them. This trend began in the early 1980s when the Academy of Dermatology (AAD) assessed its members over 2 million dollars to hire a prominent New York advertising agency to raise the public’s appreciation of our specialty. The mad men recommended “educating” the public to the fact that dermatologists are skin cancer experts, not just pimple poppers; and so the free National Skin Cancer Screening Day was established [through a 1985 Presidential proclamation]. These screenings serve to inflate the public’s health anxiety about skin cancer and led to the performance of vast amounts of expensive low-value procedures for skin cancer and actinic keratosis (AKs). At the same time, pathologists were expanding their definitions of what a melanoma is, leading to “diagnostic drift” that misleadingly increased the incidence of melanoma while the mortality has remained at 1980 levels. Concomitantly, non-melanoma skin cancers are being over-treated by armies of micrographic surgeons who often treat innocuous skin cancers with unnecessarily aggressive, lucrative surgeries. This heightened awareness led to a dramatic increase in skin cancer screenings and diagnoses, fueled by fears instilled in the public about sun exposure. Alongside this massive sales funnel, there was a significant expansion in the incredibly lucrative Mohs micrographic surgery, promoted as a gold standard for treating skin cancers due to its precision and efficacy in sparing healthy tissue. However, critics argue that Mohs surgery is often overused, driven by financial incentives rather than clinical necessity, contributing to immense healthcare costs. Note: we frequently see patients who developed complications from these surgeries. The commercialization of dermatology was further amplified by the entry of private equity firms into the field. These firms acquired dermatology practices, sometimes staffing them with non-physician providers to maximize profitability. This trend raised concerns about quality of care, with reports of misdiagnoses and over-treatment, particularly in vulnerable populations like nursing home residents—to the point the New York Times authored a 2017 investigation on this exploitative industry. Moreover, the shift towards profit-driven models in dermatology has sparked ethical debates within the medical community. Some dermatologists have voiced concerns over the commodification of skin cancer treatments and the erosion of traditional doctor-patient relationships in favor of more transactional interactions. Despite these challenges, dermatology remains a lucrative field, attracting both medical professionals and investors seeking financial gain from skin care services. Many in turn are victimized by these exploitative practices. The popular comedian Jimmy Dore for example recently covered the Great Dermatology Scam after realizing he’d been subjected to it. After Jimmy Dore’s segment, this story went viral, and as best as I can tell, was seen by between 5 to 10 million people. A few weeks after Dore’s segment, two surveys were released highlighting an “epidemic” of insufficient sun protection which the New York Times then covered (and numerous readers then sent to me since they thought it was a response to my article). Since it was such a classic medical propaganda piece, I will to quote a few lines from it: Two new surveys suggest a troubling trend: Young adults seem to be slacking on sun safety. 14 percent of adults under 35 believed the myth that wearing sunscreen every day is more harmful than direct sun exposure Young adults are often unaware of what sun damage looks like and how best to prevent it Ultraviolet rays — whether from tanning beds or direct sunlight — can damage skin and cause skin cancer, which can be deadly Experts said that Gen Z is uniquely susceptible to misinformation about sunscreen and skin cancer that has proliferated on social media platforms like TikTok. Generously apply — and reapply — sunscreen. UV rays can damage skin even when it’s cloudy or chilly, so experts recommend wearing sunscreen every day. Note: I must emphasize that some skin cancers (e.g., many melanomas) require immediate removal. My point here is not to avoid dermatologists entirely but to consider seeking a second opinion from another dermatologist as there are many excellent and ethical dermatologists out there. Changes in Skin Cancer Given how much is being spent to end skin cancer, one would expect some results. Unfortunately, like many other aspects of the cancer industry that’s not what’s happened. Instead, more and more (previously benign) cancers are diagnosed, but for the most part, no significant change has occurred in the death rate. The best proof for this came from a study which found that almost all of the increase in “skin cancer” was from stage 1 melanomas (which rarely create problems): Another study illustrates exactly what the result of our war on skin cancer has accomplished: Finally, since many suspected the COVID vaccines might lead to an increase in melanoma (or other skin cancers), I compiled all the available annual reports from the American Cancer Society into a few graphs: Conclusion Dermatology’s need to create a villain (the sun) to justify its racket is arguably one of the most damaging things the medical profession has done to the world. Fortunately, the insatiable greed of the medical industry went too far during COVID-19, and the public is now starting to question many of the other exploitative and unscientific practices we are subjected to. It is my sincere hope that our society will begin re-examining dermatology’s disastrous war against the sun. I in turn am incredibly grateful because this new political climate has made it possible to expose a variety of unscrupulous tactics in medicine which have remained largely unchallenged for decades. Author’s note: This is an abbreviated version of a full-length article about Dermatology’s Disastrous War Again the Sun that also discusses safer ways to treat or prevent skin cancer and the nutritional approaches (e.g., avoiding seed oils) which make it possible for the skin to tolerate and be nourished by longer sun exposures. For the entire read with much more specific details and sources, and those approaches please click here. (End of AMD’s quoted article. Link to original: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/dermatologys-horrendous-war-against.) Share To help me continue my work, you may make a one-time gift here: https://ko-fi.com/truth613 https://substack.com/home/post/p-146483737
    SUBSTACK.COM
    Dermatology's Horrendous War Against The Sun, and the True Origins of the American Medical Association
    Untangling Dermatology's Huge Skin Cancer Scam - and deep corruption that enables them to get away with it.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 11854 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
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 3785 Views
  • Two Case Reports of Severe Cardiovascular Disease Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines
    July 6, 2024
    Uncategorized

    This article by Robert Chandler, Ivana Pavić and Michael Palmer documents two autopsy cases that were examined by pathologists Arne Burkhardt and Walter Lang at Reutlingen, Germany. These case summaries were translated and edited from Dr. Burkhardt’s own files, and they are illustrated with Dr. Burkhardt’s own histopathological images. Both cases demonstrate catastrophic damage to the cardiovascular system from the COVID19 gene therapy drugs. Both had fatal outcomes, one by suicide.

    The report is available for download in PDF format.

    https://doctors4covidethics.org/two-case-reports-of-severe-cardiovascular-disease-caused-by-covid-19-vaccines/
    Two Case Reports of Severe Cardiovascular Disease Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines July 6, 2024 Uncategorized This article by Robert Chandler, Ivana Pavić and Michael Palmer documents two autopsy cases that were examined by pathologists Arne Burkhardt and Walter Lang at Reutlingen, Germany. These case summaries were translated and edited from Dr. Burkhardt’s own files, and they are illustrated with Dr. Burkhardt’s own histopathological images. Both cases demonstrate catastrophic damage to the cardiovascular system from the COVID19 gene therapy drugs. Both had fatal outcomes, one by suicide. The report is available for download in PDF format. https://doctors4covidethics.org/two-case-reports-of-severe-cardiovascular-disease-caused-by-covid-19-vaccines/
    DOCTORS4COVIDETHICS.ORG
    Two Case Reports of Severe Cardiovascular Disease Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines
    This article by Robert Chandler, Ivana Pavić and Michael Palmer documents two autopsy cases that were examined by pathologists Arne Burkhardt and Walter Lang at Reutlingen, Germany. These case summaries were translated and edited from Dr. Burkhardt’s own files, and they are illustrated with Dr. Burkhardt’s own histopathological images. Both cases demonstrate catastrophic damage to the cardiovascular system from the COVID19 gene therapy drugs. Both
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 872 Views
  • Please Support Homeless Cat https://bitly.cx/support
    #cat #catlove #images #cute

    Cats and dogs have long been cherished as beloved pets, but their roles in our lives extend far beyond companionship. Both species offer a wide range of therapeutic benefits that significantly enhance our mental, emotional, and physical well-being.

    One of the most recognized benefits of having a cat or dog is their ability to reduce stress and anxiety. Petting a cat or dog can lower cortisol levels, the hormone associated with stress. This simple act of touch releases oxytocin, a hormone that promotes feelings of happiness and bonding. For those suffering from anxiety disorders, the presence of a pet can provide a calming effect, helping to alleviate symptoms and promote a sense of security.

    Dogs, in particular, encourage physical activity, which is crucial for maintaining physical health and mental well-being. Regular walks, playtime, and outdoor activities with a dog can improve cardiovascular health, reduce blood pressure, and combat obesity. This increased physical activity also promotes the release of endorphins, which enhance mood and reduce feelings of depression.

    Cats, while generally less physically demanding than dogs, offer their own unique form of support. Their purring has been shown to have a calming effect on humans, lowering stress levels and promoting relaxation. The rhythmic sound of a cat's purr can even aid in lowering blood pressure and improving heart health. Additionally, the independent nature of cats can provide a sense of comfort without the need for constant attention, making them ideal companions for those who prefer a more low-maintenance pet.

    Both cats and dogs also offer social support, which is especially important for individuals who may feel isolated or lonely. Pets provide unconditional love and companionship, which can alleviate feelings of loneliness and boost self-esteem. For elderly individuals or those living alone, a pet can offer a sense of purpose and routine, encouraging daily activities and social interaction.



    Please Support Homeless Cat 😿👉 https://bitly.cx/support #cat #catlove #images #cute Cats and dogs have long been cherished as beloved pets, but their roles in our lives extend far beyond companionship. Both species offer a wide range of therapeutic benefits that significantly enhance our mental, emotional, and physical well-being. One of the most recognized benefits of having a cat or dog is their ability to reduce stress and anxiety. Petting a cat or dog can lower cortisol levels, the hormone associated with stress. This simple act of touch releases oxytocin, a hormone that promotes feelings of happiness and bonding. For those suffering from anxiety disorders, the presence of a pet can provide a calming effect, helping to alleviate symptoms and promote a sense of security. Dogs, in particular, encourage physical activity, which is crucial for maintaining physical health and mental well-being. Regular walks, playtime, and outdoor activities with a dog can improve cardiovascular health, reduce blood pressure, and combat obesity. This increased physical activity also promotes the release of endorphins, which enhance mood and reduce feelings of depression. Cats, while generally less physically demanding than dogs, offer their own unique form of support. Their purring has been shown to have a calming effect on humans, lowering stress levels and promoting relaxation. The rhythmic sound of a cat's purr can even aid in lowering blood pressure and improving heart health. Additionally, the independent nature of cats can provide a sense of comfort without the need for constant attention, making them ideal companions for those who prefer a more low-maintenance pet. Both cats and dogs also offer social support, which is especially important for individuals who may feel isolated or lonely. Pets provide unconditional love and companionship, which can alleviate feelings of loneliness and boost self-esteem. For elderly individuals or those living alone, a pet can offer a sense of purpose and routine, encouraging daily activities and social interaction.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 11160 Views
  • Vertigo is a sensation of motion or spinning that is often described as dizziness:

    Vertigo:

    Definition: Vertigo is a specific type of dizziness characterized by a sensation of spinning or movement, either of the person or their surroundings.
    Symptoms: Spinning sensation, balance problems, nausea, vomiting, nystagmus (involuntary eye movement), sweating, hearing loss, and ringing in the ears (tinnitus).
    Causes:
    Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV): Caused by small calcium particles (canaliths) clumping in the inner ear canals.
    Meniere's Disease: Involves excessive fluid in the inner ear.
    Vestibular Neuritis: Inflammation of the vestibular nerve, often due to viral infections.
    Labyrinthitis: Inner ear infection affecting both hearing and balance.
    Migraine: Vestibular migraines can cause vertigo without headache.
    Other Causes: Head injuries, strokes, brain tumors, certain medications, and alcohol.

    Dizziness:

    Definition: Dizziness is a broader term encompassing various sensations such as feeling faint, woozy, weak, or unsteady.

    Types of Dizziness:

    Lightheadedness: A feeling of near-fainting or fainting, often associated with hypotension.
    Disequilibrium: A sense of imbalance or unsteadiness without the spinning sensation.
    Presyncope: Sensation of imminent fainting, often related to cardiovascular issues.
    Non-specific Dizziness: General disorientation or a feeling of wooziness.

    Causes:

    Inner Ear Problems: Issues like BPPV, Meniere's disease, or vestibular neuritis.
    Circulatory Problems: Blood pressure issues, heart conditions, or dehydration.
    Neurological Conditions: Migraines, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease.
    Medications: Blood pressure medications, sedatives, antidepressants, and certain antibiotics.
    Anxiety Disorders: Panic attacks or generalized anxiety can cause dizziness.
    Other Causes: Hypoglycemia, anemia, infections, overheating, and dehydration.

    Prevention:

    Manage Underlying Conditions: Treat cardiovascular issues, diabetes, and anxiety.
    Avoid Triggers: Such as rapid head movements, certain visual stimuli, and known dietary triggers.
    Regular Check-ups: Particularly for individuals with chronic conditions affecting balance.
    Understanding vertigo and dizziness involves recognizing the wide array of potential causes and symptoms and seeking appropriate medical evaluation and treatment tailored to the underlying issue.

    Taking these steps can help manage vertigo and dizziness more effectively, improve your quality of life, and reduce the risk of complications. Don't wait—take action today to regain control of your balance and well-being. Visit Here: https://tinyurl.com/5dywcvpc

    #vertigo, #dizziness, #cardiovascular, #anxiety, #AnxietyDisorders
    Vertigo is a sensation of motion or spinning that is often described as dizziness: Vertigo: Definition: Vertigo is a specific type of dizziness characterized by a sensation of spinning or movement, either of the person or their surroundings. Symptoms: Spinning sensation, balance problems, nausea, vomiting, nystagmus (involuntary eye movement), sweating, hearing loss, and ringing in the ears (tinnitus). Causes: Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV): Caused by small calcium particles (canaliths) clumping in the inner ear canals. Meniere's Disease: Involves excessive fluid in the inner ear. Vestibular Neuritis: Inflammation of the vestibular nerve, often due to viral infections. Labyrinthitis: Inner ear infection affecting both hearing and balance. Migraine: Vestibular migraines can cause vertigo without headache. Other Causes: Head injuries, strokes, brain tumors, certain medications, and alcohol. Dizziness: Definition: Dizziness is a broader term encompassing various sensations such as feeling faint, woozy, weak, or unsteady. Types of Dizziness: Lightheadedness: A feeling of near-fainting or fainting, often associated with hypotension. Disequilibrium: A sense of imbalance or unsteadiness without the spinning sensation. Presyncope: Sensation of imminent fainting, often related to cardiovascular issues. Non-specific Dizziness: General disorientation or a feeling of wooziness. Causes: Inner Ear Problems: Issues like BPPV, Meniere's disease, or vestibular neuritis. Circulatory Problems: Blood pressure issues, heart conditions, or dehydration. Neurological Conditions: Migraines, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease. Medications: Blood pressure medications, sedatives, antidepressants, and certain antibiotics. Anxiety Disorders: Panic attacks or generalized anxiety can cause dizziness. Other Causes: Hypoglycemia, anemia, infections, overheating, and dehydration. Prevention: Manage Underlying Conditions: Treat cardiovascular issues, diabetes, and anxiety. Avoid Triggers: Such as rapid head movements, certain visual stimuli, and known dietary triggers. Regular Check-ups: Particularly for individuals with chronic conditions affecting balance. Understanding vertigo and dizziness involves recognizing the wide array of potential causes and symptoms and seeking appropriate medical evaluation and treatment tailored to the underlying issue. Taking these steps can help manage vertigo and dizziness more effectively, improve your quality of life, and reduce the risk of complications. Don't wait—take action today to regain control of your balance and well-being. Visit Here: https://tinyurl.com/5dywcvpc #vertigo, #dizziness, #cardiovascular, #anxiety, #AnxietyDisorders
    0 Comments 0 Shares 9072 Views
  • Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is a long-term condition characterized by a gradual loss of kidney function over time. While there's no cure for CKD, management and treatment strategies aim to slow its progression, manage symptoms, and reduce complications. Here are some comprehensive strategies and approaches for managing CKD:

    Medical Management
    Blood Pressure Control:

    Use of antihypertensive medications such as ACE inhibitors or ARBs, which can also protect kidney function.
    Regular monitoring and maintaining blood pressure within target ranges.
    Blood Sugar Control (for Diabetic Patients):

    Tight control of blood glucose levels to prevent further kidney damage.
    Use of medications like SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists that have renal benefits.
    Cholesterol Management:

    Use of statins or other lipid-lowering agents to reduce cardiovascular risk.
    Anemia Management:

    Use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron supplements to manage anemia commonly associated with CKD.
    Phosphate and Calcium Balance:

    Use of phosphate binders and vitamin D supplements to maintain bone health and prevent mineral and bone disorder in CKD.
    Lifestyle Modifications
    Dietary Adjustments:

    Low-sodium diet to help control blood pressure.
    Low-protein diet to reduce the kidneys' workload.
    Avoiding high-phosphorus foods to prevent mineral imbalance.
    Maintaining a healthy weight through balanced nutrition.
    Fluid Management:

    Proper hydration while avoiding overconsumption of fluids to prevent swelling and high blood pressure.
    Smoking Cessation:

    Quitting smoking to improve overall cardiovascular health and reduce further kidney damage.
    Regular Exercise:

    Engaging in moderate physical activity to improve cardiovascular health and maintain a healthy weight.

    Monitoring and Follow-Up
    Regular Check-Ups:

    Frequent monitoring of kidney function (e.g., serum creatinine, GFR) and other relevant parameters.
    Regular visits to a nephrologist for specialized care.
    Monitoring for Complications:

    Keeping an eye on signs of worsening kidney function or complications such as fluid overload, electrolyte imbalances, and heart disease.
    Advanced Treatments
    Dialysis:

    Hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis for advanced CKD when the kidneys can no longer function adequately on their own.
    Kidney Transplant:

    Considering kidney transplantation as a long-term solution for end-stage renal disease (ESRD).
    Education and Support
    Patient Education:

    Providing information on CKD and its management to empower patients to take an active role in their care.
    Educating about the importance of medication adherence and lifestyle changes.
    Support Groups:

    Encouraging participation in support groups for emotional and psychological support.

    Preventive Measures
    Screening for At-Risk Populations:

    Regular screening for individuals with risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and family history of kidney disease.
    Early Detection and Intervention:

    Early identification of CKD through routine health checks to initiate timely management and prevent progression.
    Combining these approaches can help manage CKD effectively, improve quality of life, and delay the progression to more advanced stages of the disease. It is essential for patients to work closely with their healthcare providers to tailor a management plan specific to their individual needs and conditions.
    Click Here for More Information: https://tinyurl.com/bd42n8a7

    #kidneydisease #solution #kidneyfunction #CholesterolManagement #bloodsugarcontrol
    Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is a long-term condition characterized by a gradual loss of kidney function over time. While there's no cure for CKD, management and treatment strategies aim to slow its progression, manage symptoms, and reduce complications. Here are some comprehensive strategies and approaches for managing CKD: Medical Management Blood Pressure Control: Use of antihypertensive medications such as ACE inhibitors or ARBs, which can also protect kidney function. Regular monitoring and maintaining blood pressure within target ranges. Blood Sugar Control (for Diabetic Patients): Tight control of blood glucose levels to prevent further kidney damage. Use of medications like SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists that have renal benefits. Cholesterol Management: Use of statins or other lipid-lowering agents to reduce cardiovascular risk. Anemia Management: Use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron supplements to manage anemia commonly associated with CKD. Phosphate and Calcium Balance: Use of phosphate binders and vitamin D supplements to maintain bone health and prevent mineral and bone disorder in CKD. Lifestyle Modifications Dietary Adjustments: Low-sodium diet to help control blood pressure. Low-protein diet to reduce the kidneys' workload. Avoiding high-phosphorus foods to prevent mineral imbalance. Maintaining a healthy weight through balanced nutrition. Fluid Management: Proper hydration while avoiding overconsumption of fluids to prevent swelling and high blood pressure. Smoking Cessation: Quitting smoking to improve overall cardiovascular health and reduce further kidney damage. Regular Exercise: Engaging in moderate physical activity to improve cardiovascular health and maintain a healthy weight. Monitoring and Follow-Up Regular Check-Ups: Frequent monitoring of kidney function (e.g., serum creatinine, GFR) and other relevant parameters. Regular visits to a nephrologist for specialized care. Monitoring for Complications: Keeping an eye on signs of worsening kidney function or complications such as fluid overload, electrolyte imbalances, and heart disease. Advanced Treatments Dialysis: Hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis for advanced CKD when the kidneys can no longer function adequately on their own. Kidney Transplant: Considering kidney transplantation as a long-term solution for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Education and Support Patient Education: Providing information on CKD and its management to empower patients to take an active role in their care. Educating about the importance of medication adherence and lifestyle changes. Support Groups: Encouraging participation in support groups for emotional and psychological support. Preventive Measures Screening for At-Risk Populations: Regular screening for individuals with risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and family history of kidney disease. Early Detection and Intervention: Early identification of CKD through routine health checks to initiate timely management and prevent progression. Combining these approaches can help manage CKD effectively, improve quality of life, and delay the progression to more advanced stages of the disease. It is essential for patients to work closely with their healthcare providers to tailor a management plan specific to their individual needs and conditions. Click Here for More Information: https://tinyurl.com/bd42n8a7 #kidneydisease #solution #kidneyfunction #CholesterolManagement #bloodsugarcontrol
    0 Comments 0 Shares 15013 Views
More Results