• France: ANY Criticism Of The mRNA DEATHVAX™ Platform Punishable Up To 3 Years Imprisonment And 45,000 Euros
    2nd Smartest Guy in the World
    The WEF-captured government of France has pushed through a draconian new law entitled Article 4. This Orwellian and unconstitutional color of law power grab is a purposely poor attempt at obscuring the irrefutable slow kill bioweapon death and destruction data.

    What makes Article 4 particularly incendiary is that the majority of the French population has been outright refusing all “vaccinations.” Throttling their free speech as it pertains to gene modifying poisons will only increase the already heightened tensions between the criminal Macron administration and the awakening French populace, by design.


    Between WEF puppet Trudeau in Canada and WEF puppet Macron in France, there is now a race to create the most totalitarian technocommunist nation in the West, with France now taking a slight lead; to wit:


    These policies and “laws” are nothing more than an extension of the ongoing democide, and the associated iatrocide.

    Meanwhile, back in the USSA, the Center for Disease Crimes (CDC) is still at it with their “Trust the Science” mendacity and murder:


    Readers of this Substack fully appreciate the myocarditis and turbo cancer epidemics currently underway — not to mention soaring excess non-PSYOP-19 mortality — since the rollout of the “vaccines:”


    Removing all BigPharma legal liabilities and prosecuting the various “health” agencies like the FDA, CDC, NIH, et al. has never been more urgent.

    France’s Article 4 is just a hint at what is to come, especially if the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty scam ever passes in the various nations that they are attempting to further hijack.

    The ❤️ VALENTINES DAY "HEART HEALTH" FLASH SALE ❤️ ends today, so this is your last chance to get 20% off on Doxycycline, as well as Ivermectin, and Fenbendazole by using code VAL20

    They want you dead.

    Do NOT comply.




    Upgrade to paid

    Shop 2SG merch

    Use code 2SGPET for 10% off PetMectin

    Use code 2SGPET for 10% off PetDazole

    Use code 2SGPET for 10% off FishCycline

    https://open.substack.com/pub/2ndsmartestguyintheworld/p/france-any-criticism-of-the-mrna?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=nziiy


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/france-any-criticism-of-mrna-deathvax.html
    France: ANY Criticism Of The mRNA DEATHVAX™ Platform Punishable Up To 3 Years Imprisonment And 45,000 Euros 2nd Smartest Guy in the World The WEF-captured government of France has pushed through a draconian new law entitled Article 4. This Orwellian and unconstitutional color of law power grab is a purposely poor attempt at obscuring the irrefutable slow kill bioweapon death and destruction data. What makes Article 4 particularly incendiary is that the majority of the French population has been outright refusing all “vaccinations.” Throttling their free speech as it pertains to gene modifying poisons will only increase the already heightened tensions between the criminal Macron administration and the awakening French populace, by design. Between WEF puppet Trudeau in Canada and WEF puppet Macron in France, there is now a race to create the most totalitarian technocommunist nation in the West, with France now taking a slight lead; to wit: These policies and “laws” are nothing more than an extension of the ongoing democide, and the associated iatrocide. Meanwhile, back in the USSA, the Center for Disease Crimes (CDC) is still at it with their “Trust the Science” mendacity and murder: Readers of this Substack fully appreciate the myocarditis and turbo cancer epidemics currently underway — not to mention soaring excess non-PSYOP-19 mortality — since the rollout of the “vaccines:” Removing all BigPharma legal liabilities and prosecuting the various “health” agencies like the FDA, CDC, NIH, et al. has never been more urgent. France’s Article 4 is just a hint at what is to come, especially if the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty scam ever passes in the various nations that they are attempting to further hijack. The ❤️ VALENTINES DAY "HEART HEALTH" FLASH SALE ❤️ ends today, so this is your last chance to get 20% off on Doxycycline, as well as Ivermectin, and Fenbendazole by using code VAL20 They want you dead. Do NOT comply. Upgrade to paid Shop 2SG merch Use code 2SGPET for 10% off PetMectin Use code 2SGPET for 10% off PetDazole Use code 2SGPET for 10% off FishCycline https://open.substack.com/pub/2ndsmartestguyintheworld/p/france-any-criticism-of-the-mrna?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=nziiy https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/france-any-criticism-of-mrna-deathvax.html
    OPEN.SUBSTACK.COM
    France: ANY Criticism Of The mRNA DEATHVAX™ Platform Punishable Up To 3 Years Imprisonment And 45,000 Euros
    The WEF-captured government of France has pushed through a draconian new law entitled Article 4. This Orwellian and unconstitutional color of law power grab is a purposely poor attempt at obscuring the irrefutable slow kill bioweapon death and destruction data.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3780 Views
  • Are You an Anti-Paxxer?

    🇺🇸💊As doctors drop Paxlovid because of drug interactions and research shows it causes Covid rebounds and virus shedding, Pfizer and MSM crank the PR machine to hide the facts and shame "anti-paxxers."

    Don't fall for it!


    Are You an Anti-Paxxer?
    As doctors drop Paxlovid because of drug interactions and research shows it causes Covid rebounds and virus shedding, Pfizer and MSM crank the PR machine to hide the facts and shame "anti-paxxers."

    Linda Bonvie

    Pfizer has a big public relations push on for its controversial drug Paxlovid. There’s even a name being bandied about for those who question the drug: “Anti-Paxxers.”
    When an article by Los Angeles Times metro reporter Rong-Gong Lin II recommended last month that practically everyone who tests positive for Covid takes Pfizer’s Paxlovid, some media veterans may have wondered what had become of the traditional wall between news reporting and advertising.

    The story, which appeared on January 28, swept away almost all of the reservations that have been raised about the safety and effectiveness of this patent medicine, assuring us that “Paxlovid rebound” is a non-issue and fear of serious side effects is “erroneous.” It even went so far as to suggest that if your doctor won’t prescribe this “highly effective” medication, it’s time to go doctor shopping.

    So why is this LA Times writer so desperately trying to sell us this fast-tracked antiviral that comes with a black box warning?

    The article appeared at a particularly critical time for Pfizer just as it transitions from Emergency Use Authorization, or EUA Paxlovid, to FDA-approved Paxlovid. Originally free to patients, the medication was stockpiled by the U.S. government to the tune of 24 million treatment courses at a cost to taxpayers of $530 a box. Now, the FDA-approved version (same drug, different box) sells for a list price of up to $1,500. (According to an analysis by researchers at Harvard University, the actual cost to Pfizer for a five-day Paxlovid course is $13).

    But to Pfizer’s chagrin, it now doesn’t seem to be able to even give the stuff away, let alone sell it at a premium price. Last fall Pfizer accepted a return of nearly 8 million boxes sent back by the U.S. government.

    What’s a drugmaker to do when both patients and doctors shun a product that was anticipated to be the better half of Pfizer’s post-Covid “multibillion-dollar franchise?

    Flush with all that Covid cash and new Paxlovid FDA approval last May, Pfizer went shopping for partners to help promote its products.

    No stranger to top-tier PR firms such as Edelman and Ogilvy, the drugmaker tagged two of the biggest names in contemporary communications companies, Publicis Groupe, a Paris-based giant PR and ad agency, and the humongous Interpublic Group. These high-level agencies come at a big price tag, but what they can offer is priceless—a way to get your story told by respected media outlets.

    That’s right, if you have enough money to hire the folks with all the right contacts, you too can create your own “news!” And these special contacts are something that PR firms, such as Edelman, are very proud of. Many agency hires, in fact, are recruited directly from major media outlets, such as Edelman NYC Brand Director Nancy Jeffrey, who spent a decade at the Wall Street Journal.

    As quoted in an Edelman website blog, Jeffrey recalls how Richard Edelman (son of founder Dan) would call her during her time working at the paper “to meet a client with a story to tell.” As Jeffrey says, “No one at Edelman ever rises too high to pitch a reporter.”

    So was our LA Times reporter “pitched,” or does he just have an evangelical connection with Paxlovid?

    Let’s take a close look at his story and see what we find.

    Side effects be gone!

    First, there’s the article’s headline, which began: “If it’s COVID, Paxlovid”? Getting your oft-advertised product’s rhyming tagline in a headline—now that’s branding! And we don’t have to tell any of the side effects in this venue. The LA Times piece was off to a great start.

    Why aren’t more people being given Paxlovid, the reporter wanted to know. It’s “cheap or even free for many,” he said. And then he delivered his first rave review, calling it “highly effective.”

    By paragraph four, however, our intrepid reporter had uncovered the bad news that “a number of doctors are still declining to prescribe it.” But why? It must be those pesky “outdated arguments” about “Paxlovid rebound.” Anyone who gets Covid “has a similar rare chance of rebound,” he told us. For extra punch, he called on Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, professor of medicine at UCSF, to back up that statement. Rebound is “like, bogus” and “just dumb,” Chin-Hong said.

    What Lin didn’t report is that a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2023, by researchers from Mass General Brigham, found that in Covid patients taking Paxlovid, rebound was “much more common” and often without symptoms. Nearly 21 percent had virologic rebound versus under 2 percent not on the drug. Of perhaps even more significance, prolonged viral shedding for an average of fourteen days was noted in those who rebounded, indicating that they “were potentially still contagious for much longer.” The virologic rebound “phenomenon,” in Paxlovid patients, the authors noted, “has implications for post-N-R (Paxlovid) monitoring and isolation recommendations.” This study closely monitored patients with follow-ups three times a week “sometimes for months.”

    After quoting from several Paxlovid-positive FDA and CDC statements and referencing a California Public Health commercial where people dance to an upbeat tune singing “Test it, treat it, beat it, California you know you need it,” Lin got around to some serious stuff—side effects.

    Not mentioned by Lin, but good to know anyway, Paxlovid bears an FDA-required black-box warning about drug interactions, cautioning of “potentially severe, life-threatening, or fatal events.” But the article carefully danced around this inconvenient issue, simply mentioning that some Paxlovid takers may need to have their medications adjusted. The fear of “serious side effects . . . is largely erroneous,” it claimed.

    Really?

    “There are 125 drug interactions (for Paxlovid) across twenty-five different classes of medicines,” author and FLCCC President Dr. Pierre Kory said in a phone interview. “I’ve never used any medicine that had that number and degree of drug interactions, and I find it absurd,” added Kory, who is an expert in early Covid treatment.

    And this is no secret. The Paxlovid package insert lists thirty-nine specific drugs that interact with this anti-viral (which is not a complete list, we’re warned) including medications that treat conditions such as an enlarged prostate, gout, migraines, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, arrhythmias, and angina.

    With side effects out of the way, our reporter moved on to an interesting idea—doctor shopping.

    If your doctor turns you down for Paxlovid, “what other options are there?” How about “reaching out to another healthcare provider” we’re advised, one “who might be more knowledgeable about Paxlovid . . .”

    Don’t be an ‘Anti-Paxxer!’

    The LA Times isn’t alone in this timely pushing of Paxlovid. The New York Times also ran a glowing Paxlovid piece at the beginning of January. The black-box warning was glossed over by simply saying that some “doctors balk” over the “long list of medications not to be mixed with Paxlovid,” referring to the drug as being “stunningly effective.” The NYT reporter also added five mentions of a study—actually a preprint (not yet peer reviewed or published)—which through the use of statistical magic concluded that during the course of the research had only half of the eligible Covid patients in the U.S. taken Paxlovid, 48,000 lives would have been saved.

    The server where the research was posted warns journalists and others when discussing preprints to “emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and information presented may be erroneous.”

    Paxlovid is not the only drug that gets special treatment by the media. Last January, a 60 Minutes segment was called out by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine as “an unlawful weight loss drug ad” for the med Wegovy. The piece, it noted, “looked like a news story, but it was effectively a drug ad,” the group said in a press release. PCRM also stated that Novo Nordisk, which makes Wegovy, paid over $100,000 to the doctors CBS interviewed for the segment.

    With this new frenzy to sell Paxlovid, one can’t help but compare it to the campaign against ivermectin. Kicked off by the FDA in August 2021, it successfully branded this Nobel Prize-winning, FDA-approved drug as nothing more than a horse dewormer endorsed by fanatical outlier doctors and accepted by gullible patients. Despite being found to be an extremely safe treatment as well as an effective one for Covid, the FDA, CDC, and its media “partners” made ivermectin the subject of false accusations and warnings about the supposed risks of using it.

    But early on in the game it was decided, as Dr. Kory pointed out, “to keep the market open for their novel pricey Paxlovid pill.” And to that effect, nothing was going to stand in the way. In an interview last summer with the head of the UCSF Department of Medicine, FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf admitted that he helped promote Paxlovid—something he acknowledged is explicitly against the rules.

    “In normal times, the FDA should not be a cheerleader . . .” Califf said. But since back then EUA drugs could not be advertised (a policy that changed in the fall of 2022) he went ahead and pitched it himself.

    The Paxlovid campaign is far from over. In fact, it may now be revving up to full throttle. There’s even a name being bandied about for those who question the drug: “Anti-Paxxers.”

    And if we can take any insight from the new Pfizer tagline (just filed for protection with the US Patent and Trademark Office), “Outdo Yesterday,” there are even more spurious strategies in its pharmaceutical pipeline.

    Full story:👇
    https://rescue.substack.com/p/are-you-an-anti-paxxer

    Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/are-you-anti-paxxer-as-doctors-drop.html
    Are You an Anti-Paxxer? 🇺🇸💊As doctors drop Paxlovid because of drug interactions and research shows it causes Covid rebounds and virus shedding, Pfizer and MSM crank the PR machine to hide the facts and shame "anti-paxxers." Don't fall for it! Are You an Anti-Paxxer? As doctors drop Paxlovid because of drug interactions and research shows it causes Covid rebounds and virus shedding, Pfizer and MSM crank the PR machine to hide the facts and shame "anti-paxxers." Linda Bonvie Pfizer has a big public relations push on for its controversial drug Paxlovid. There’s even a name being bandied about for those who question the drug: “Anti-Paxxers.” When an article by Los Angeles Times metro reporter Rong-Gong Lin II recommended last month that practically everyone who tests positive for Covid takes Pfizer’s Paxlovid, some media veterans may have wondered what had become of the traditional wall between news reporting and advertising. The story, which appeared on January 28, swept away almost all of the reservations that have been raised about the safety and effectiveness of this patent medicine, assuring us that “Paxlovid rebound” is a non-issue and fear of serious side effects is “erroneous.” It even went so far as to suggest that if your doctor won’t prescribe this “highly effective” medication, it’s time to go doctor shopping. So why is this LA Times writer so desperately trying to sell us this fast-tracked antiviral that comes with a black box warning? The article appeared at a particularly critical time for Pfizer just as it transitions from Emergency Use Authorization, or EUA Paxlovid, to FDA-approved Paxlovid. Originally free to patients, the medication was stockpiled by the U.S. government to the tune of 24 million treatment courses at a cost to taxpayers of $530 a box. Now, the FDA-approved version (same drug, different box) sells for a list price of up to $1,500. (According to an analysis by researchers at Harvard University, the actual cost to Pfizer for a five-day Paxlovid course is $13). But to Pfizer’s chagrin, it now doesn’t seem to be able to even give the stuff away, let alone sell it at a premium price. Last fall Pfizer accepted a return of nearly 8 million boxes sent back by the U.S. government. What’s a drugmaker to do when both patients and doctors shun a product that was anticipated to be the better half of Pfizer’s post-Covid “multibillion-dollar franchise? Flush with all that Covid cash and new Paxlovid FDA approval last May, Pfizer went shopping for partners to help promote its products. No stranger to top-tier PR firms such as Edelman and Ogilvy, the drugmaker tagged two of the biggest names in contemporary communications companies, Publicis Groupe, a Paris-based giant PR and ad agency, and the humongous Interpublic Group. These high-level agencies come at a big price tag, but what they can offer is priceless—a way to get your story told by respected media outlets. That’s right, if you have enough money to hire the folks with all the right contacts, you too can create your own “news!” And these special contacts are something that PR firms, such as Edelman, are very proud of. Many agency hires, in fact, are recruited directly from major media outlets, such as Edelman NYC Brand Director Nancy Jeffrey, who spent a decade at the Wall Street Journal. As quoted in an Edelman website blog, Jeffrey recalls how Richard Edelman (son of founder Dan) would call her during her time working at the paper “to meet a client with a story to tell.” As Jeffrey says, “No one at Edelman ever rises too high to pitch a reporter.” So was our LA Times reporter “pitched,” or does he just have an evangelical connection with Paxlovid? Let’s take a close look at his story and see what we find. Side effects be gone! First, there’s the article’s headline, which began: “If it’s COVID, Paxlovid”? Getting your oft-advertised product’s rhyming tagline in a headline—now that’s branding! And we don’t have to tell any of the side effects in this venue. The LA Times piece was off to a great start. Why aren’t more people being given Paxlovid, the reporter wanted to know. It’s “cheap or even free for many,” he said. And then he delivered his first rave review, calling it “highly effective.” By paragraph four, however, our intrepid reporter had uncovered the bad news that “a number of doctors are still declining to prescribe it.” But why? It must be those pesky “outdated arguments” about “Paxlovid rebound.” Anyone who gets Covid “has a similar rare chance of rebound,” he told us. For extra punch, he called on Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, professor of medicine at UCSF, to back up that statement. Rebound is “like, bogus” and “just dumb,” Chin-Hong said. What Lin didn’t report is that a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2023, by researchers from Mass General Brigham, found that in Covid patients taking Paxlovid, rebound was “much more common” and often without symptoms. Nearly 21 percent had virologic rebound versus under 2 percent not on the drug. Of perhaps even more significance, prolonged viral shedding for an average of fourteen days was noted in those who rebounded, indicating that they “were potentially still contagious for much longer.” The virologic rebound “phenomenon,” in Paxlovid patients, the authors noted, “has implications for post-N-R (Paxlovid) monitoring and isolation recommendations.” This study closely monitored patients with follow-ups three times a week “sometimes for months.” After quoting from several Paxlovid-positive FDA and CDC statements and referencing a California Public Health commercial where people dance to an upbeat tune singing “Test it, treat it, beat it, California you know you need it,” Lin got around to some serious stuff—side effects. Not mentioned by Lin, but good to know anyway, Paxlovid bears an FDA-required black-box warning about drug interactions, cautioning of “potentially severe, life-threatening, or fatal events.” But the article carefully danced around this inconvenient issue, simply mentioning that some Paxlovid takers may need to have their medications adjusted. The fear of “serious side effects . . . is largely erroneous,” it claimed. Really? “There are 125 drug interactions (for Paxlovid) across twenty-five different classes of medicines,” author and FLCCC President Dr. Pierre Kory said in a phone interview. “I’ve never used any medicine that had that number and degree of drug interactions, and I find it absurd,” added Kory, who is an expert in early Covid treatment. And this is no secret. The Paxlovid package insert lists thirty-nine specific drugs that interact with this anti-viral (which is not a complete list, we’re warned) including medications that treat conditions such as an enlarged prostate, gout, migraines, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, arrhythmias, and angina. With side effects out of the way, our reporter moved on to an interesting idea—doctor shopping. If your doctor turns you down for Paxlovid, “what other options are there?” How about “reaching out to another healthcare provider” we’re advised, one “who might be more knowledgeable about Paxlovid . . .” Don’t be an ‘Anti-Paxxer!’ The LA Times isn’t alone in this timely pushing of Paxlovid. The New York Times also ran a glowing Paxlovid piece at the beginning of January. The black-box warning was glossed over by simply saying that some “doctors balk” over the “long list of medications not to be mixed with Paxlovid,” referring to the drug as being “stunningly effective.” The NYT reporter also added five mentions of a study—actually a preprint (not yet peer reviewed or published)—which through the use of statistical magic concluded that during the course of the research had only half of the eligible Covid patients in the U.S. taken Paxlovid, 48,000 lives would have been saved. The server where the research was posted warns journalists and others when discussing preprints to “emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and information presented may be erroneous.” Paxlovid is not the only drug that gets special treatment by the media. Last January, a 60 Minutes segment was called out by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine as “an unlawful weight loss drug ad” for the med Wegovy. The piece, it noted, “looked like a news story, but it was effectively a drug ad,” the group said in a press release. PCRM also stated that Novo Nordisk, which makes Wegovy, paid over $100,000 to the doctors CBS interviewed for the segment. With this new frenzy to sell Paxlovid, one can’t help but compare it to the campaign against ivermectin. Kicked off by the FDA in August 2021, it successfully branded this Nobel Prize-winning, FDA-approved drug as nothing more than a horse dewormer endorsed by fanatical outlier doctors and accepted by gullible patients. Despite being found to be an extremely safe treatment as well as an effective one for Covid, the FDA, CDC, and its media “partners” made ivermectin the subject of false accusations and warnings about the supposed risks of using it. But early on in the game it was decided, as Dr. Kory pointed out, “to keep the market open for their novel pricey Paxlovid pill.” And to that effect, nothing was going to stand in the way. In an interview last summer with the head of the UCSF Department of Medicine, FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf admitted that he helped promote Paxlovid—something he acknowledged is explicitly against the rules. “In normal times, the FDA should not be a cheerleader . . .” Califf said. But since back then EUA drugs could not be advertised (a policy that changed in the fall of 2022) he went ahead and pitched it himself. The Paxlovid campaign is far from over. In fact, it may now be revving up to full throttle. There’s even a name being bandied about for those who question the drug: “Anti-Paxxers.” And if we can take any insight from the new Pfizer tagline (just filed for protection with the US Patent and Trademark Office), “Outdo Yesterday,” there are even more spurious strategies in its pharmaceutical pipeline. Full story:👇 https://rescue.substack.com/p/are-you-an-anti-paxxer Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/are-you-anti-paxxer-as-doctors-drop.html
    RESCUE.SUBSTACK.COM
    Are You an Anti-Paxxer?
    As doctors drop Paxlovid because of drug interactions and research shows it causes Covid rebounds and virus shedding, Pfizer and MSM crank the PR machine to hide the facts and shame "anti-paxxers."
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 7915 Views
  • PINE NEEDLE OIL (science)

    Unlike Ivermectin, Pine needle oil can be used continuously. It's safe for the human body and is classified as an essential food.
    Pine needle oil surrounds all parasite varieties and suffocates them to death.
    Pine oil is a treatment against influenza A, a potent anti-bacterial, anti-fungal and a natural antibiotic. It’s an effective blood thinner, anticoagulant, antimalarial, antitumor, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and a powerful antioxidant with five times the amount of vitamin C than oranges.

    Pine needle oil is one of the top meta nutrients known to man. It turbo charges immunity and repairs cellular damage. Pine oil absorbs into every cell of your body in just 20 minutes. Pine oil treats pain of all kinds because it bypasses your nervous system and treats nerves directly, something truly rare in medicine!

    Pine oil remedies depression, chronic PTSD and reverses the memory of trauma in cells. There is no replacement for pine oil, which is essential in every protocol.

    Read more:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7278015/

    Read more:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6920849/
    PINE NEEDLE OIL (science) Unlike Ivermectin, Pine needle oil can be used continuously. It's safe for the human body and is classified as an essential food. Pine needle oil surrounds all parasite varieties and suffocates them to death. Pine oil is a treatment against influenza A, a potent anti-bacterial, anti-fungal and a natural antibiotic. It’s an effective blood thinner, anticoagulant, antimalarial, antitumor, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and a powerful antioxidant with five times the amount of vitamin C than oranges. Pine needle oil is one of the top meta nutrients known to man. It turbo charges immunity and repairs cellular damage. Pine oil absorbs into every cell of your body in just 20 minutes. Pine oil treats pain of all kinds because it bypasses your nervous system and treats nerves directly, something truly rare in medicine! Pine oil remedies depression, chronic PTSD and reverses the memory of trauma in cells. There is no replacement for pine oil, which is essential in every protocol. Read more: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7278015/ Read more: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6920849/
    WWW.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV
    Antiviral Activities of Compounds Isolated from Pinus densiflora (Pine Tree) against the Influenza A Virus
    Pinus densiflora was screened in an ongoing project to discover anti-influenza candidates from natural products. An extensive phytochemical investigation provided 26 compounds, including two new megastigmane glycosides (1 and 2), 21 diterpenoids (3–23), ...
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 1612 Views
  • The Ultimate mRNA/Spike Detox?
    Whole Blood/Plasma Donation or Chinese Bloodletting

    Dr. Syed Haider
    Hijama Cupping Therapy Kiya hai aur is k Faiyday? Roman Urdu main Parhain
    The mRNA shots deliver toxic lipid nano particles (LNPs), whole spike mRNA, fragments of mRNA and trigger the production of spike protein and antibodies to the same, and possibly fragments of spike protein (see this substack).

    Furthermore both LNPs and spike protein trigger the creation of microclots in blood vessels.

    There are methods for detoxing from spike protein - for example you can take enzymes like bromelain to digest the spike protein, it can be bound up and more easily removed by taking ivermectin, you can induce autophagy to destroy it by fasting, cold and heat therapies and with supplements like resveratrol and spermidine.

    For microclots you can break them down with blood thinners like aspirin and enzymes like nattokinase and serrapeptase.

    But what about the mRNA and LNPs? How can those be removed?

    Thank you for reading Dr. Syed Haider. This post is public so feel free to share it.

    Share

    The mRNA shot components are taken up by cells throughout our bodies, but also found free floating in our blood, where they join other toxins, including horrific forever chemicals like dioxins, but also many other normal blood components including antibodies, proteins like albumin, red blood cells, white cells, platelets, fats, vitamins and minerals.

    Most of these blood components, except for red blood cells, can passively or actively diffuse out of the blood into our organs and tissues.

    Active diffusion means energy is involved in the process as when infection fighting white cells actively migrate out of the blood into tissues where they have been attracted by inflammatory messaging molecules.

    With active diffusion particles can be moved from an area of lower concentration to an area of higher concentration - something that cannot happen without adding energy to the transport process.

    Passive diffusion means no energy is involved, and the substance in question simply diffuses down a concentration gradient from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration, until the concentrations equalize in all areas - think of smoke or cooking smells diffusing out of the kitchen to fill the whole house.


    So when substances like LNPs carrying mRNA enter the blood they will passively diffuse out into other tissues until the concentrations in the blood and those other tissues equalize.

    If a substance is removed from the blood, what is still in tissues will then diffuse back into the blood until the concentration in blood and tissues equalizes again - at a lower level than before, because there is less total left in the body.

    Repeatedly removing a substance from the blood would eventually deplete the whole body stores of that substance down to zero, unless it were being replaced from the outside (like the natural components of blood from diet and supplements).

    1000s of patients around the world have flocked to specialized centers that perform a procedure called H.E.L.P. apheresis in the hopes of filtering out microclots, free circulating spike protein and mRNA from their bloodstreams.

    I spoke with Dr Beate Jaeger for the free online Long COVID Reset Summit about her work with over 1500 long COVID and Vax injured patients, using both H.E.L.P. as well as prescription anticoagulants like plavix and heparin.

    She reported that with H.E.L.P. apheresis 95-99% of patients showed some degree of benefit and over 80% had very significant improvements or even complete reversal of symptoms.


    In one of the most remarkable and fast turnarounds she saw someone who had been confined to a wheelchair get up for the first time after a session.

    H.E.L.P. apheresis is a specialized version of the more general apheresis procedure which is a simple technology for separating blood components.

    Specifically H.E.L.P. stands for: “heparin-mediated extracorporeal low-density lipoprotein (LDL) fibrinogen precipitation”.

    Essentially a heparin infused filter aids in removal of LDL cholesterol, lipoprotein (a) (levels are far more predictive for heart disease than traditional cholesterol tests) and the clotting protein fibrinogen from the blood of patients.

    Historically this was used for patients with high cholesterol that couldn’t be adequately managed with statins and other traditional lipid lowering therapies.

    Now it has been repurposed to help remove microclots and spike protein, which binds to the heparin.

    Unfortunately there are only 1 or 2 centers that perform this in the US for long COVID and Vax injuries, and just a handful around the world.

    The procedure is also expensive - usually at least $1500 per treatment and often many treatments are required.

    Now, the heparin filter may be particularly helpful for binding spike protein, but there is a far more accessible technology called plasmapheresis (AKA plasma donation) which may work similarly.

    Plasmapheresis uses a centrifuge to separate our whole blood by weight from heaviest to lightest component into: red cells, white blood cells, platelets and a mix of everything else - termed plasma.

    Blood components, including plasma, white blood cells, platelets and red blood cells
    The plasma is removed while the blood cells and platelets are remixed with sterile salt water (at the same concentration as normal blood salt levels and added to the cells because the plasma component takes all the liquid and salt with it) and infused back into the person.

    Plasmapheresis (again the exact same procedure as plasma donation) is used therapeutically in a wide range of medical conditions wherein a toxic component (eg an autoimune antibody) is present in the blood.

    These conditions include Guillaine Barre Syndrome, Myesthenia Gravis, idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, hashimotos encephalopathy, multiple sclerosis, myeloma, severe systemic lupus erythematosis (SLE), ap[lastic anemia, acute liver failure, burn shock, complex regional pain syndrome, severe pemphigus vulgaris, stiff-person syndrome, thyroid storm, systemic amyloidosis and many more.

    Of most interest here is the usefulness of plasmapheresis for treating systemic amyloidosis, a disease caused by the buildup of amyloid protein throughout the body, because spike protein toxicity also includes the creation of amyloid inside microclots as well as outside the vasculature.

    There are few contraindications to plasmapheresis including allergies to the common blood thinner heparin (since the tubing is heparinized to avoid blood clotting), low blood calcium levels and ACE inhibitor use within 24 hours.

    Possible side effects are minimal and can include low electrolytes levels including low blood calcium and magnesium (which may require replacement), hypothermia since blood is hot and that heat is removed from the body, and an increased tendency to bleed due to removal of clotting proteins.

    But in general it is a very safe procedure that is conducted on both healthy and ill people daily throughout the world.

    So if everything but the blood cells and platelets are removed we would expect that any toxins would be removed from the blood whether they be circulating forever chemicals, LNPs, mRNA, unwanted antibodies (eg autoantibodies), heavy metals, etc.

    At the same time we would be removing some vitamins and minerals, so if this procedure was done frequently you would want to be sure you focused on a highly nutrient dense diet as well as appropriate supplementation.

    Plasma donation is either free or at some private centers reimbursed at $20-$50 per procedure, because it is sold and used to create medical products.

    Depending on the center donations can be given as often as twice weekly or as little as 6 times a year, and each donation can remove as much as 800ml of plasma.

    Alternatively whole blood donations are only possible every 56 days. In a whole blood donation, nothing is separated or reinfused, you just remove about 500ml of whole blood.

    You'll Decide: Reality-Based Fiscal Policy Or Bloodletting - Colorado Pols
    Bloodletting has actually been used as a therapeutic procedure for millennia throughout the world (perhaps most notoriously it’s been suspected by medical historians that physicians may have killed George Washington by overdoing it during his final deathbed illness).

    There are many different ways it has been done including by leeches and wet cupping (tiny nicks made in the skin covered by suction cups that draw blood out).

    Dean Mouscher is an advanced clinical acupuncturist in Illinois who performs and teaches traditional techniques of blood letting for ameliorating the toughest to treat medical conditions.

    His methods are described in his popular manual, The Complete Guide to Chinese Medicine Bloodletting.

    He explained in a comment on the last post about removing forever chemicals like dioxins that the location of bloodletting may actually be more important than the amount of blood removed:

    “…as an acupuncturist I use many modalities in my practice, but none comes close to the magical efficacy of bloodletting. Chinese Medicine Bloodletting is different from the old Western bloodletting as it is based on taking small amounts of blood from exactly the right point, rather than pints from the cubital fossa. As it happens, Chinese medicine has bloodletting points specifically for detox, right on the scapula.”

    Wet (HIJAMA) Cupping - Holistic Buddha
    This is very interesting, because you would expect that in a structure as complex as the human body, toxins would concentrate in certain areas, so removing blood from those areas might be far more effective (and less draining) than removing large amounts from elsewhere.

    Unsurprisingly there have been no studies that I could find of bloodletting, plasma donation, or even H.E.L.P. apheresis for either mRNA shot detoxification or Long COVID.

    The best we have to go on for now are Dr Beate Jaegers reports and although she is very interested in conducting formal research she doesn’t have the funding to do so.

    The one study I could find that supported the use of whole blood and plasma donation for toxin removal was described in the last Substack on the Ohio train wreck toxic explosion, in this quote taken from a May 2022 Guardian article:

    “A new study published in JAMA Network Open tracked PFAS levels in 285 Australian firefighters, who are regularly exposed to PFAS in firefighting foam and accrue high levels of the chemicals in their bodies. Over a year, one group of firefighters donated plasma every six weeks, another donated blood every 12 weeks, and a third group acted as a control.

    “This randomized clinical trial showed that regular blood or plasma donations result in a significant reduction in serum PFAS levels for participants,” the study’s authors wrote. Blood donors reduced their PFAS levels by 10%, and plasma donors reduced theirs by 30%. Both groups maintained their reduction for at least three months post-trial. The study did not explore whether a reduction in PFAS in the blood necessarily leads to better health.”

    Despite the lack of published evidence some long haulers and vax injured have tried plasmapheresis on themselves and reported impressive results, which are often immediate.

    If you have done this yourself, know someone who has or have more data please drop me a line here on Substack, at my clinic site mygotodoc.com, or on Twitter: @drsyedhaider.

    https://blog.mygotodoc.com/p/the-ultimate-mrnaspike-detox


    https://telegra.ph/The-Ultimate-mRNASpike-Detox-09-17

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-ultimate-mrnaspike-detox-whole.html
    The Ultimate mRNA/Spike Detox? Whole Blood/Plasma Donation or Chinese Bloodletting Dr. Syed Haider Hijama Cupping Therapy Kiya hai aur is k Faiyday? Roman Urdu main Parhain The mRNA shots deliver toxic lipid nano particles (LNPs), whole spike mRNA, fragments of mRNA and trigger the production of spike protein and antibodies to the same, and possibly fragments of spike protein (see this substack). Furthermore both LNPs and spike protein trigger the creation of microclots in blood vessels. There are methods for detoxing from spike protein - for example you can take enzymes like bromelain to digest the spike protein, it can be bound up and more easily removed by taking ivermectin, you can induce autophagy to destroy it by fasting, cold and heat therapies and with supplements like resveratrol and spermidine. For microclots you can break them down with blood thinners like aspirin and enzymes like nattokinase and serrapeptase. But what about the mRNA and LNPs? How can those be removed? Thank you for reading Dr. Syed Haider. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share The mRNA shot components are taken up by cells throughout our bodies, but also found free floating in our blood, where they join other toxins, including horrific forever chemicals like dioxins, but also many other normal blood components including antibodies, proteins like albumin, red blood cells, white cells, platelets, fats, vitamins and minerals. Most of these blood components, except for red blood cells, can passively or actively diffuse out of the blood into our organs and tissues. Active diffusion means energy is involved in the process as when infection fighting white cells actively migrate out of the blood into tissues where they have been attracted by inflammatory messaging molecules. With active diffusion particles can be moved from an area of lower concentration to an area of higher concentration - something that cannot happen without adding energy to the transport process. Passive diffusion means no energy is involved, and the substance in question simply diffuses down a concentration gradient from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration, until the concentrations equalize in all areas - think of smoke or cooking smells diffusing out of the kitchen to fill the whole house. So when substances like LNPs carrying mRNA enter the blood they will passively diffuse out into other tissues until the concentrations in the blood and those other tissues equalize. If a substance is removed from the blood, what is still in tissues will then diffuse back into the blood until the concentration in blood and tissues equalizes again - at a lower level than before, because there is less total left in the body. Repeatedly removing a substance from the blood would eventually deplete the whole body stores of that substance down to zero, unless it were being replaced from the outside (like the natural components of blood from diet and supplements). 1000s of patients around the world have flocked to specialized centers that perform a procedure called H.E.L.P. apheresis in the hopes of filtering out microclots, free circulating spike protein and mRNA from their bloodstreams. I spoke with Dr Beate Jaeger for the free online Long COVID Reset Summit about her work with over 1500 long COVID and Vax injured patients, using both H.E.L.P. as well as prescription anticoagulants like plavix and heparin. She reported that with H.E.L.P. apheresis 95-99% of patients showed some degree of benefit and over 80% had very significant improvements or even complete reversal of symptoms. In one of the most remarkable and fast turnarounds she saw someone who had been confined to a wheelchair get up for the first time after a session. H.E.L.P. apheresis is a specialized version of the more general apheresis procedure which is a simple technology for separating blood components. Specifically H.E.L.P. stands for: “heparin-mediated extracorporeal low-density lipoprotein (LDL) fibrinogen precipitation”. Essentially a heparin infused filter aids in removal of LDL cholesterol, lipoprotein (a) (levels are far more predictive for heart disease than traditional cholesterol tests) and the clotting protein fibrinogen from the blood of patients. Historically this was used for patients with high cholesterol that couldn’t be adequately managed with statins and other traditional lipid lowering therapies. Now it has been repurposed to help remove microclots and spike protein, which binds to the heparin. Unfortunately there are only 1 or 2 centers that perform this in the US for long COVID and Vax injuries, and just a handful around the world. The procedure is also expensive - usually at least $1500 per treatment and often many treatments are required. Now, the heparin filter may be particularly helpful for binding spike protein, but there is a far more accessible technology called plasmapheresis (AKA plasma donation) which may work similarly. Plasmapheresis uses a centrifuge to separate our whole blood by weight from heaviest to lightest component into: red cells, white blood cells, platelets and a mix of everything else - termed plasma. Blood components, including plasma, white blood cells, platelets and red blood cells The plasma is removed while the blood cells and platelets are remixed with sterile salt water (at the same concentration as normal blood salt levels and added to the cells because the plasma component takes all the liquid and salt with it) and infused back into the person. Plasmapheresis (again the exact same procedure as plasma donation) is used therapeutically in a wide range of medical conditions wherein a toxic component (eg an autoimune antibody) is present in the blood. These conditions include Guillaine Barre Syndrome, Myesthenia Gravis, idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, hashimotos encephalopathy, multiple sclerosis, myeloma, severe systemic lupus erythematosis (SLE), ap[lastic anemia, acute liver failure, burn shock, complex regional pain syndrome, severe pemphigus vulgaris, stiff-person syndrome, thyroid storm, systemic amyloidosis and many more. Of most interest here is the usefulness of plasmapheresis for treating systemic amyloidosis, a disease caused by the buildup of amyloid protein throughout the body, because spike protein toxicity also includes the creation of amyloid inside microclots as well as outside the vasculature. There are few contraindications to plasmapheresis including allergies to the common blood thinner heparin (since the tubing is heparinized to avoid blood clotting), low blood calcium levels and ACE inhibitor use within 24 hours. Possible side effects are minimal and can include low electrolytes levels including low blood calcium and magnesium (which may require replacement), hypothermia since blood is hot and that heat is removed from the body, and an increased tendency to bleed due to removal of clotting proteins. But in general it is a very safe procedure that is conducted on both healthy and ill people daily throughout the world. So if everything but the blood cells and platelets are removed we would expect that any toxins would be removed from the blood whether they be circulating forever chemicals, LNPs, mRNA, unwanted antibodies (eg autoantibodies), heavy metals, etc. At the same time we would be removing some vitamins and minerals, so if this procedure was done frequently you would want to be sure you focused on a highly nutrient dense diet as well as appropriate supplementation. Plasma donation is either free or at some private centers reimbursed at $20-$50 per procedure, because it is sold and used to create medical products. Depending on the center donations can be given as often as twice weekly or as little as 6 times a year, and each donation can remove as much as 800ml of plasma. Alternatively whole blood donations are only possible every 56 days. In a whole blood donation, nothing is separated or reinfused, you just remove about 500ml of whole blood. You'll Decide: Reality-Based Fiscal Policy Or Bloodletting - Colorado Pols Bloodletting has actually been used as a therapeutic procedure for millennia throughout the world (perhaps most notoriously it’s been suspected by medical historians that physicians may have killed George Washington by overdoing it during his final deathbed illness). There are many different ways it has been done including by leeches and wet cupping (tiny nicks made in the skin covered by suction cups that draw blood out). Dean Mouscher is an advanced clinical acupuncturist in Illinois who performs and teaches traditional techniques of blood letting for ameliorating the toughest to treat medical conditions. His methods are described in his popular manual, The Complete Guide to Chinese Medicine Bloodletting. He explained in a comment on the last post about removing forever chemicals like dioxins that the location of bloodletting may actually be more important than the amount of blood removed: “…as an acupuncturist I use many modalities in my practice, but none comes close to the magical efficacy of bloodletting. Chinese Medicine Bloodletting is different from the old Western bloodletting as it is based on taking small amounts of blood from exactly the right point, rather than pints from the cubital fossa. As it happens, Chinese medicine has bloodletting points specifically for detox, right on the scapula.” Wet (HIJAMA) Cupping - Holistic Buddha This is very interesting, because you would expect that in a structure as complex as the human body, toxins would concentrate in certain areas, so removing blood from those areas might be far more effective (and less draining) than removing large amounts from elsewhere. Unsurprisingly there have been no studies that I could find of bloodletting, plasma donation, or even H.E.L.P. apheresis for either mRNA shot detoxification or Long COVID. The best we have to go on for now are Dr Beate Jaegers reports and although she is very interested in conducting formal research she doesn’t have the funding to do so. The one study I could find that supported the use of whole blood and plasma donation for toxin removal was described in the last Substack on the Ohio train wreck toxic explosion, in this quote taken from a May 2022 Guardian article: “A new study published in JAMA Network Open tracked PFAS levels in 285 Australian firefighters, who are regularly exposed to PFAS in firefighting foam and accrue high levels of the chemicals in their bodies. Over a year, one group of firefighters donated plasma every six weeks, another donated blood every 12 weeks, and a third group acted as a control. “This randomized clinical trial showed that regular blood or plasma donations result in a significant reduction in serum PFAS levels for participants,” the study’s authors wrote. Blood donors reduced their PFAS levels by 10%, and plasma donors reduced theirs by 30%. Both groups maintained their reduction for at least three months post-trial. The study did not explore whether a reduction in PFAS in the blood necessarily leads to better health.” Despite the lack of published evidence some long haulers and vax injured have tried plasmapheresis on themselves and reported impressive results, which are often immediate. If you have done this yourself, know someone who has or have more data please drop me a line here on Substack, at my clinic site mygotodoc.com, or on Twitter: @drsyedhaider. https://blog.mygotodoc.com/p/the-ultimate-mrnaspike-detox https://telegra.ph/The-Ultimate-mRNASpike-Detox-09-17 https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-ultimate-mrnaspike-detox-whole.html
    BLOG.MYGOTODOC.COM
    The Ultimate mRNA/Spike Detox?
    Whole Blood/Plasma Donation or Chinese Bloodletting
    Like
    Love
    2
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6821 Views
  • 🚨Dr Lee Merritt : “Doctors around the world are showing that cancer is intracellular parasites”😳
    “If you look at cancer under a light microscope, its essentially indistinguishable from parasite egg sacs”

    Is that why they tried so hard to shut down Ivermectin and other anti-parasitics during #Covid?

    Should we be looking at cancer in a different way? Is cancer related to parasites, worms or fungus?

    https://rumble.com/v47y06r-dr-lee-merritt-doctors-around-the-world-are-showing-that-cancer-is-intracel.html
    🚨Dr Lee Merritt : “Doctors around the world are showing that cancer is intracellular parasites”😳 “If you look at cancer under a light microscope, its essentially indistinguishable from parasite egg sacs” Is that why they tried so hard to shut down Ivermectin and other anti-parasitics during #Covid? Should we be looking at cancer in a different way? Is cancer related to parasites, worms or fungus? https://rumble.com/v47y06r-dr-lee-merritt-doctors-around-the-world-are-showing-that-cancer-is-intracel.html
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 798 Views
  • There is no need to use EDTA, synthetic Methylene Blue, Ivermectin, synthetic Nattokinase, or any other pharmaceutical drug! My protocols address all the same issues and works more effectively.

    https://t.me/drloveariyana/1394
    There is no need to use EDTA, synthetic Methylene Blue, Ivermectin, synthetic Nattokinase, or any other pharmaceutical drug! My protocols address all the same issues and works more effectively. https://t.me/drloveariyana/1394
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 492 Views
  • Here is why I don't support Ivermectin (part 1):

    Ivermectin is basically an antibiotic = anti-life. It is suppressive, which means when you have DETOX symptoms aka a cold or flu, this type of drug STOPS the body from doing so, giving the ILLUSION you are "better" when really it buries the expression deeper into organ tissues causing long-term damage and shortening of life (if the person is lucky, it will express along the same pattern, which means the mechanism has not been broken). Then people claim it is "miraculous" because their symptoms went away, but really they just killed their own pleomorphic microbes (who arrived at the scene of the toxicity to clean it up and remove the wastes aka to help the body heal) and caused more damage.

    The worst part about this drug currently is the propping up of FAKE COVID, and the FAKE COVID PANDEMIC: helping to support the lie of a virus that doesn't exist, the germ theory, which is false and supporting a pandemic that never happened while encouraging people into actually doing self-harm... staying in ignorance (and also supporting the Rockefeller medical cartel that persecuted natural practitioners who carried the knowledge of the methods of proper prevention, healing and cleansing with vibrational therapies, natural remedies and nutrition).

    It kills parasites and heartworm, malaria, river blindness, which means it kills life. In Countries where people are starving and dying of malnutrition and exposed to greater amounts of parasites due to wastes in the environment and in their bodies, nor having the nutritional capacity to cleanse the body properly, suppressive, poisonous drug like ivermectin are often needed, as there is no education or support for proper healing or the use of the thousands of natural medicines available to us.

    The trade off is a shorter life or other health losses (intelligence, coping skills, fertility, resilience, youthfulness, etc). This is why they use other suppressive antibiotics like methylene blue (originally designed as a dye for cotton), for example, which I found in most poor Countries when I was traveling. I was alarmed seeing young babies and children with dark blue tongues, my own intuition was telling me this was not the way. Ignorance is truly the greatest disease.

    These are chloride based drugs that are pro-oxidant. If you want a gentle pro-oxidant for emergencies that will not suppress, try MMS/chloride dioxide therapy or hydrogen peroxide therapy, these methods support cellular communication via electron donation and do not kill per se, they upregulate the detox mechanisms to hasten the clean up, without killing everything in sight. If you want these to work even better, pair it with DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide, to increase blood flow and manage run away inflammation aka further tissue damage).

    Our goal is not to kill these organisms in the body who are only there because we have food inside of us for them, usually metals. The goal is to chelate the metals and upregulate the organs of elimination (emunctories). Of course ignorance and disease states plague this world, so suppressive drugs and antibiotics are considered "heroes" by those who are still wandering through the germ theory illusion, but when these life forms are killed, the toxins they were eating spill out into the body, increasing the toxic load. Ideally, you wish to starve them, so they leave with all the toxins they ate from you still inside them.

    Again, the symptoms may temporarily decrease, but this is an illusion as the toxins are still present for "reinfection" of more parasites inviting new disease states that ignorant people and doctors seem unable to figure it out: there is nothing new, just deeper damage with a new constellation of symptoms.
    Here is why I don't support Ivermectin (part 1): Ivermectin is basically an antibiotic = anti-life. It is suppressive, which means when you have DETOX symptoms aka a cold or flu, this type of drug STOPS the body from doing so, giving the ILLUSION you are "better" when really it buries the expression deeper into organ tissues causing long-term damage and shortening of life (if the person is lucky, it will express along the same pattern, which means the mechanism has not been broken). Then people claim it is "miraculous" because their symptoms went away, but really they just killed their own pleomorphic microbes (who arrived at the scene of the toxicity to clean it up and remove the wastes aka to help the body heal) and caused more damage. The worst part about this drug currently is the propping up of FAKE COVID, and the FAKE COVID PANDEMIC: helping to support the lie of a virus that doesn't exist, the germ theory, which is false and supporting a pandemic that never happened while encouraging people into actually doing self-harm... staying in ignorance (and also supporting the Rockefeller medical cartel that persecuted natural practitioners who carried the knowledge of the methods of proper prevention, healing and cleansing with vibrational therapies, natural remedies and nutrition). It kills parasites and heartworm, malaria, river blindness, which means it kills life. In Countries where people are starving and dying of malnutrition and exposed to greater amounts of parasites due to wastes in the environment and in their bodies, nor having the nutritional capacity to cleanse the body properly, suppressive, poisonous drug like ivermectin are often needed, as there is no education or support for proper healing or the use of the thousands of natural medicines available to us. The trade off is a shorter life or other health losses (intelligence, coping skills, fertility, resilience, youthfulness, etc). This is why they use other suppressive antibiotics like methylene blue (originally designed as a dye for cotton), for example, which I found in most poor Countries when I was traveling. I was alarmed seeing young babies and children with dark blue tongues, my own intuition was telling me this was not the way. Ignorance is truly the greatest disease. These are chloride based drugs that are pro-oxidant. If you want a gentle pro-oxidant for emergencies that will not suppress, try MMS/chloride dioxide therapy or hydrogen peroxide therapy, these methods support cellular communication via electron donation and do not kill per se, they upregulate the detox mechanisms to hasten the clean up, without killing everything in sight. If you want these to work even better, pair it with DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide, to increase blood flow and manage run away inflammation aka further tissue damage). Our goal is not to kill these organisms in the body who are only there because we have food inside of us for them, usually metals. The goal is to chelate the metals and upregulate the organs of elimination (emunctories). Of course ignorance and disease states plague this world, so suppressive drugs and antibiotics are considered "heroes" by those who are still wandering through the germ theory illusion, but when these life forms are killed, the toxins they were eating spill out into the body, increasing the toxic load. Ideally, you wish to starve them, so they leave with all the toxins they ate from you still inside them. Again, the symptoms may temporarily decrease, but this is an illusion as the toxins are still present for "reinfection" of more parasites inviting new disease states that ignorant people and doctors seem unable to figure it out: there is nothing new, just deeper damage with a new constellation of symptoms.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5451 Views
  • Can 2 Cheap Meds, 1 Vitamin & Baking Soda Kill Any Cancer?
    Ivermectin, Fenbendazole, Vit C and Sodium Bicarb. But don't worry your cancer is safe because the FDA would never allow it.

    Dr. Syed Haider
    Cancer Treatment Options | Houston Methodist
    Cancer rates have skyrocketed in the past century for a number of reasons not least of which is the incredibly large number of toxins spewed into the environment and incorporated into our food supplies. And now with most of humanity exposed to the cancerous spike protein there is likely to be even further acceleration. Those exposed to the fallout from the East Palestine Ohio train wreck, which may spread quite widely along the eastern seaboard, are particularly at risk of developing cancer in the coming months and years from the ingition of the vinyl chloride cargo and it’s toxic breakdown products, especially dioxins.

    This post is not meant to be an exhaustive treatise on the prevention and treatment of cancer, but only to explain as simply as possible the scientific theory behind Adam Gaertner’s anti-cancer protocol, which combines 4 simple and cheap therapies that have been separately used and studied for a wide variety of human cancers with mixed results, but together have powerful synergistic effects that may, it is hoped, effectively eliminate any cancer. And at the end his simple 3 week protocol is included.

    Before we begin I also have to say that I have seen many people beat end stage cancer using drastic elimination diets and a modifed Gerson juicing protocol. And of course I have known many who decided on chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. Both paths are extremely difficult and require a lot of commitment and sacrifice. Perhaps the following protocol can help more people more easily overcome cancer.

    And after cancer is beaten, it pays to address the root causes because those who overcome cancer are often prone to an even more aggressive recurrence, especially if they persist in the unhealthy exposures and lifestyle habits that triggered it in the first place.

    WHAT IS CANCER?

    All tissues are made up of individual cellular building blocks that work together to accomplish a joint function. For example liver cells are like millions of workmen that all together make up the liver. Normally tissues maintain just the right amount of helpful worker cells. As old cells die off, new ones take their place.

    Cancers arise from cells in normal tissues that start to grow uncontrollably - the old workmen don't want to die and instead find a way to become immortal. They also don't want to work anymore and begin using up resources like the nutrients and oxygen coming into the tissue via the blood. These immortal cells also multiply very quickly and if left unchecked can destroy the normal cells and then the entire organ ceases to function. Not only that but they also enter the bloodstream and travel to other distant organs and take up new residence and continue to multiply out of control.


    Just as there are a tiny percentage of psychopaths and criminals in every society, who attempt to murder others and appropriate all the resources for themselves, there are cancer cells in everyone's bodies all the time that would like nothing better than to take over.

    Thank you for reading Dr. Syed Haider. This post is public so feel free to share it.

    Share

    And just as nations utilize a police force and military to maintain the peace, our bodies utilize specialized immune system processes and immune cells to keep the cancer cells in check - to continuously search them out and put them to death.

    However, when these defenses fail due to exposure to various carcinogens or simply old age, cancerous cells can gain a foothold and destroy us.

    DEFENSES AGAINST CANCER

    Intracellular Cytosolic Immunity

    Think of a cell like a 3D sphere. Inside the sphere there is another smaller sphere, which is the nucleus and holds the genetic material or DNA. Everything outside the nucleus is called the cytoplasm.

    Steph's Nature and Science
    Each individual cell has an internal immune system, called the cytosolic immune system that will monitor the cells health, and if the cell becomes cancerous will kill it in a process of cellular suicide termed apoptosis.

    You can imagine this as a person's conscience.

    Think of a horror movie scenario where someone becomes bitten by a mindless zombie and begins to change into a zombie themselves, feeling the first stirrings of hunger for the blood of those around them. Knowing they are doomed and wanting to preserve the lives of their loved ones they commit suicide rather than becoming a monster.

    In this way our own first line of defense against cancer is a system of internal checks and balances that will lead to cellular suicide or apoptosis.

    The checks and balances are a system of pro-suicide (pro-apoptotic) and anti-suicide (anti-apoptotic) pathways: p53 tumor suppressor gene, G1/S checkpoint, Hippo, TGF-β, Wnt signaling, Notch signaling, and PI3K/AKT signaling.

    Within these extremely complex pathways made up of numerous interacting chemical messengers there are just a small handful of signals that can lead to cellular death: caspases, apoptosis inducing factor (AIF), endonucleases, granzymes, BH3-interacting domain death agonist (Bid), Death receptor 5 (DR5), Fas-associated protein with death domain (FADD).

    A vast majority of cancers arise due to mutations affecting these critical cytosolic immunity pathways.

    So the conscience of the cell, its own internal checks and balances, become distorted and do not trigger suicide as they should when the cell begins transforming into a cancer cell.

    2 Zombie Stocks Coming Back from the Dead | Nasdaq
    The mutations work by producing malformed proteins that do not do their usual job of triggering cellular suicide.

    Usually malformed proteins would themselves be destroyed by the intracellular “chaperone” and “proteasome” systems - these are both meant to protect our cells from mutations.

    The reason this does not happen in the case of most cancers is that most cancers also stimulate an internal process that makes them more resistant to the chaperone and proteasome systems - by way of the production of heat shock protein 90 (hsp90).

    Ivermectin

    Doctors Sue FDA For Prohibiting Use Of Ivermectin To Treat Covid
    Ivermectin, the horse and cow and human drug, has traditionally been used as an antiparasitic (e.g. scabies), but also has antiviral and anti-inflammatory activities. It binds to hsp90 and other heat shock proteins blocking their ability to stabilize mutated checkpoint proteins. It likewise suppresses a number of the anti-apoptotic pathway especially TGF-β, as well as increasing the expression of p53 tumor suppressor gene pro-apoptotic pathway.

    So in effect ivermectin helps the cancer cell reestablish the ability to detect that it is cancerous and thereby trigger an internal process of suicide.

    Unfortunately not every cancer utilizes the pathways ivermectin targets.

    And as a result of the relatively rapid replication rate of cancerous cells, and the evolutionary imperative to survive, additional mutations are often present across the tumor mass. As a result, ivermectin may be effective against only 90% of a given tumor mass; however, if the 90% is killed in this way, the remaining 10% will, by default, not be able to be corrected, leading to relapse, with the remainder becoming harder to treat - as the 10% left over multiplies and becomes the entire 100% of tumor.

    Extracellular Natural Killer Cell Immunity

    Immense Immunology Insight: Girl, if we were lymphocytes... You'd be a ...
    Another arm of the immune system that protects against cancer is outside the cancer cell itself. We can think of this like the police force that keeps an eye out for dangerous cancer cells.

    Our internal police force uses markers to identify healthy cells and unhealthy cells as well as foreign intruders like bacteria and viruses.

    The markers our immune system uses for identification are called antigens - little bits of cells.

    Most of our immune cells are trained to recognize foreign particles that do not belong and destroy them - like crazy immigration agent death squads.

    But the Natural Killer (NK) cells are trained to check for what is supposed to be present - self-antigens - markers that indicate normal cells, kind of like ID cards.

    In policing terms: NK cells wander the streets and demand everyone's papers, regardless of any evidence of a crime, and immediately execute anyone who cannot prove they belong.

    "Ihre Papiere, bitte!" (Episode 48) | #FSCK 'Em All!
    The rapid rate of replication of cancerous cells places them under heavy evolutionary pressure; those cells that do not express self-antigens will be targeted and destroyed by the NK cells, whereas those that do may not be - so some cancer cells develop the ability to forge their own papers and pass themselves off as normal law abiding residents, rather than dangerous alien invaders.

    Those wily ones will multiply while the others die off, and eventually the entire tumor mass is comprised of cells that can trick the NK cells into leaving them alone by presenting proper identification, even though they will still be presenting other signs of being foreign - like devil horns growing out of their heads - “it’s just part of my mardi gras outfit officer”.

    While this is very bad news it does open up an avenue of treatment via T cell activation.

    T cell Immunity

    CD 4 T cells are also called helper T cells, they aid other immune cells via the release of cytokine messengers. CD 8 T cells are also called cytotoxic T cells. Cyto for cell, toxic for toxic - i.e. they kill cancer cells.

    T cells like NK cells detect self antigens and will ignore those that present them, but they also look for non self antigens (like those devil horns) as well as an additional costimulatory signal to trigger their death squad role.

    It’s like they not only check your papers, but they check to make sure those horns are actually real and they make you pass a lie detector test. If they find real horns and sense signs of stress during the lie detector test they have enough evidence to declare you guilty and execute you.

    Geek Comic for November 17th - You can Beat the Lie Detector Test Because…
    If they just find the horns, but no signs of stress, they let you go on your way.

    Cancer cells can’t avoid making weird mutated horn-like proteins, but they can figure out how to pass the lie detector test by muting their stress signals.

    The way to bypass that is by subjecting them to so much stress that their ability to mute the signs of stress breaks down, and at the same time triggering more foreign proteins and stopping proliferation would also be helpful, which brings us to the other 3 therapies.

    Fenbendazole, Sodium Bicarbonate & Vitamin C

    Fenbendazole

    Panacur Granules 22.2% [Fenbendazole] (1 lb)
    Humans are not listed on the side panel
    Fenbendazole is not FDA approved for use in humans, but is commonly used as an antiparasitic medication in animals, and has been studied in some human cancer studies, where it appears to be safe. It has multiple effects against cancer cells. Most significantly, it can lead to the influence the MAPK pathway to activate cellular suicide or apoptosis.

    It destabilizes cellular protein structures called microtubules that are essential to cell division.

    It also disrupts cancer cell energy production by blocking the breakdown of sugar (glycolysis) which is like crude oil for cells and also blocking the ability of mitochondria, the energy refining factories of cells from using the crude oil to produce the cellular equivalent of electricity, i.e. ATP - the universal bioenergy molecule.

    This collection of actions may not be applicable for all cancers, however a sizable proportion are affected; as such metabolic disruption occurs which then leads to production of cellular stress signals.

    An important manifestation of this is CD80, a costimulatory signal that in combination with T Cell Receptor binding to a foreign antigen, activates CD8 T-cells; alternatively if the antigen is self, it will inhibit them, as well as activate dormant NK cells in the area.

    Share

    So what’s happening here is if the cancer cell has non self antigens (those devil horns) the stress signals (failed lie detector test) will activate CD8 cytotoxic T cells to kill it.

    If however the cancer cell shows a normal self antigen to the T cell along with the stress signals, the T cell will stand down but the same stress signals may still activate nearby NK cells.

    Thereby some of the tumor cells will be destroyed releasing many new antigens into the area, both self and non self. These new antigens will be recognized by nearby immune cells and train them to better detect the remaining tumor cells. This triggers a far more robust immune activation and ends up in effectively nuking the area - destroying all remaining tumor as well as some friendlies and innocent bystanders mixed up in the fray.

    Sodium Bicarbonate

    Alkaline Diet for Cancer : Comprehensive Nutrional Guide to Cure and ...
    The mechanism of sodium bicarbonate action is easy to understand, based on the Warburg effect: decreasing acidity (increasing the pH or alkalinity) outside the cancer cells impairs their ability to maintain a highly alkaline environment within themselves. That alters cancer cells' metabolism, prompting similar immune system reactions as previously discussed and igniting further cascades.

    Unfortunately, if sodium bicarbonate is used without other agents from the protocol, tumors promptly become resistant and cancer-fighting benefits decrease to mere prolongation of life expectancy instead of complete elimination.

    Vitamin C

    Best Linus Pauling Cancer Vitamin C - Your Best Life
    When ascorbic acid is used in large quantities, along with the reduced form dehydroascorbate (DHA), it induces intense oxidative stress within cancerous cells; if that stress is insufficient to destroy the cell outright, it triggers the release of numerous cytokines, including our friend CD80, which initiates the cascade described above involving CD8 cytotoxic T cells.

    Not all forms of cancer are responsive to this pathway and sodium bicarbonate is capable of directly counteracting it.

    As a potent immunomodulator vitamin C even has the potential to disrupt the inflammatory response involved in targeting a significant-sized tumor.

    So it’s important to carefully balance the two options, and not use both simultaneously. The alkalization brought about by sodium bicarbonate won't last for particularly long; therefore, employing one after another in alternating fashion will likely provide more benefits than using just one of them at a time.

    In a Nutshell

    The following are four therapeutic pathways that, when used together, cause cancerous cells to undergo both apoptosis and loss of immune evasion features so the immune system can identify and attack them.

    Ivermectin inhibits mutant checkpoint and cascade transduction proteins, particularly PI3K, reduces TAM anti-apoptotic signaling, and increases expression of the tumor suppressor p53 by binding to the hsp90 protein.

    In addition to modulating the MAPK pathway, fenbendazole destabilizes microtubules, inhibits glycolytic metabolism, inhibits mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, and reduces anti-apoptotic PD-L1 expression feedback loops.

    Through alkalization of the cytosolic tumor environment, sodium bicarbonate induces metabolic stress.

    Vitamin C triggers oxidative stress and cytokine production.

    In this method, cytosolic apoptosis signaling cascades are promoted, and effector CD8 and NK cells are infiltrated into a tumor mass through adaptive recognition of foreign antigens and inhibition of anti-apoptotic pathways in order to achieve complete remission through both self-destruct signaling pathways as well as inflammatory immune destruction of cancerous cells.

    The Proposed Protocol

    Unlike most traditional cytotoxic cancer therapies that destroy both cancer cells as well as regular cells and especially the body's immune system cells, this protocol stimulates the body's own innate and adaptive immune system to fight off cancer.

    NLRP3 and STING enhance immune attack on cancer | Cancer Biology
    This protocol should not be used in combination with most mainstream cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, due to their ability to impair the immune system that the protocol depends on.

    It is likely to be most potent at the early stages of disease; further progress of the condition will prolong duration of treatment needed.

    A healthy immune system takes time to ramp up the necessary response, so the protocol is based on the time required for each drug to take effect, safety data, bioavailability, and elimination time.

    Day 1:

    Ivermectin: 1 mg/kg by mouth

    Fenbendazole: 1000mg by mouth

    Sodium Bicarbonate: 1 tsp morning and evening dissolved in 1 quart of water

    Day 2:

    Ascorbic acid: 50 mg/kg by mouth, two doses, 8 hours apart or 20g IV, once

    Day 3:

    Repeat Day 1

    Day 4:

    Repeat Day 2

    Days 5 to 10:

    Fenbendazole, 200mg by mouth daily

    Alternate sodium bicarbonate and ascorbic acid every other day beginning with sodium bicarb on day 5, then vitamin C on day 6, etc.

    Day 11:

    Ivermectin: 1 mg/kg by mouth

    Fenbendazole: 1000 mg by mouth

    Sodium Bicarbonate: 1 tsp morning and evening dissolved in 1 quart of water

    Days 12 to 20:

    Sodium Bicarbonate: 1 tsp morning and evening dissolved in 1 quart of water

    Day 20:

    Imaging: Check progress. Significant reduction or complete elimination of tumor mass should have occurred by this time, if not repeat the protocol.

    At this time the US FDA has not approved this protocol for study or for use in humans.

    It is unlikely that any pharmaceutical company will spend the millions of dollars it would take to prove this protocol in large randomized controlled trials because none of the four therapeutics are under patent and therefore cannot be effectively monetized.

    Even if some billionaire decided to back this protocol, Big Pharma would move heaven and earth to prove it doesn’t work as they did with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for COVID.

    Let me know below if you know of anyone who has utilized these 4 therapeutics together.

    And finally beating cancer inside us is a great first step to healing our world, but next we need to beat the cancerous psychopaths who are destroying our societies. If not we will go the way of Rome and a new civilization will rise from our ashes.


    I believe in the Judeo Christian ethic of working hard and giving back without big government. My online clinic, mygotodoc.com, exemplifies that by charging a fee that is well worth the service, but also offering free medical answers and (asynchronous) care for anyone that needs it.

    The same applies at my free online Summit Long COVID Reset, exclusive weekly content, including live Q&As and much more released on my video subscription platform, and in my course, Phoenix for Healing Long Haul and Lean Vitality - all are available for a fee or for free by request.

    So thank you to everyone who finds this written content valuable and supports it by being a paid subscriber (even though there are currently no paid subscriber benefits aside from a warm fuzzy feeling that you did something good). You are helping enable the significant amount of time and effort it takes to write. If you have the means also please consider donating to help support the care of those cannot afford it at mygotodoc.com/donation.

    If you are a free subscriber thanks for being here, and please also consider supporting my efforts in any way you can, but especially by sharing my posts widely.

    https://blog.mygotodoc.com/p/can-2-cheap-meds-1-vitamin-and-baking
    Can 2 Cheap Meds, 1 Vitamin & Baking Soda Kill Any Cancer? Ivermectin, Fenbendazole, Vit C and Sodium Bicarb. But don't worry your cancer is safe because the FDA would never allow it. Dr. Syed Haider Cancer Treatment Options | Houston Methodist Cancer rates have skyrocketed in the past century for a number of reasons not least of which is the incredibly large number of toxins spewed into the environment and incorporated into our food supplies. And now with most of humanity exposed to the cancerous spike protein there is likely to be even further acceleration. Those exposed to the fallout from the East Palestine Ohio train wreck, which may spread quite widely along the eastern seaboard, are particularly at risk of developing cancer in the coming months and years from the ingition of the vinyl chloride cargo and it’s toxic breakdown products, especially dioxins. This post is not meant to be an exhaustive treatise on the prevention and treatment of cancer, but only to explain as simply as possible the scientific theory behind Adam Gaertner’s anti-cancer protocol, which combines 4 simple and cheap therapies that have been separately used and studied for a wide variety of human cancers with mixed results, but together have powerful synergistic effects that may, it is hoped, effectively eliminate any cancer. And at the end his simple 3 week protocol is included. Before we begin I also have to say that I have seen many people beat end stage cancer using drastic elimination diets and a modifed Gerson juicing protocol. And of course I have known many who decided on chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. Both paths are extremely difficult and require a lot of commitment and sacrifice. Perhaps the following protocol can help more people more easily overcome cancer. And after cancer is beaten, it pays to address the root causes because those who overcome cancer are often prone to an even more aggressive recurrence, especially if they persist in the unhealthy exposures and lifestyle habits that triggered it in the first place. WHAT IS CANCER? All tissues are made up of individual cellular building blocks that work together to accomplish a joint function. For example liver cells are like millions of workmen that all together make up the liver. Normally tissues maintain just the right amount of helpful worker cells. As old cells die off, new ones take their place. Cancers arise from cells in normal tissues that start to grow uncontrollably - the old workmen don't want to die and instead find a way to become immortal. They also don't want to work anymore and begin using up resources like the nutrients and oxygen coming into the tissue via the blood. These immortal cells also multiply very quickly and if left unchecked can destroy the normal cells and then the entire organ ceases to function. Not only that but they also enter the bloodstream and travel to other distant organs and take up new residence and continue to multiply out of control. Just as there are a tiny percentage of psychopaths and criminals in every society, who attempt to murder others and appropriate all the resources for themselves, there are cancer cells in everyone's bodies all the time that would like nothing better than to take over. Thank you for reading Dr. Syed Haider. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share And just as nations utilize a police force and military to maintain the peace, our bodies utilize specialized immune system processes and immune cells to keep the cancer cells in check - to continuously search them out and put them to death. However, when these defenses fail due to exposure to various carcinogens or simply old age, cancerous cells can gain a foothold and destroy us. DEFENSES AGAINST CANCER Intracellular Cytosolic Immunity Think of a cell like a 3D sphere. Inside the sphere there is another smaller sphere, which is the nucleus and holds the genetic material or DNA. Everything outside the nucleus is called the cytoplasm. Steph's Nature and Science Each individual cell has an internal immune system, called the cytosolic immune system that will monitor the cells health, and if the cell becomes cancerous will kill it in a process of cellular suicide termed apoptosis. You can imagine this as a person's conscience. Think of a horror movie scenario where someone becomes bitten by a mindless zombie and begins to change into a zombie themselves, feeling the first stirrings of hunger for the blood of those around them. Knowing they are doomed and wanting to preserve the lives of their loved ones they commit suicide rather than becoming a monster. In this way our own first line of defense against cancer is a system of internal checks and balances that will lead to cellular suicide or apoptosis. The checks and balances are a system of pro-suicide (pro-apoptotic) and anti-suicide (anti-apoptotic) pathways: p53 tumor suppressor gene, G1/S checkpoint, Hippo, TGF-β, Wnt signaling, Notch signaling, and PI3K/AKT signaling. Within these extremely complex pathways made up of numerous interacting chemical messengers there are just a small handful of signals that can lead to cellular death: caspases, apoptosis inducing factor (AIF), endonucleases, granzymes, BH3-interacting domain death agonist (Bid), Death receptor 5 (DR5), Fas-associated protein with death domain (FADD). A vast majority of cancers arise due to mutations affecting these critical cytosolic immunity pathways. So the conscience of the cell, its own internal checks and balances, become distorted and do not trigger suicide as they should when the cell begins transforming into a cancer cell. 2 Zombie Stocks Coming Back from the Dead | Nasdaq The mutations work by producing malformed proteins that do not do their usual job of triggering cellular suicide. Usually malformed proteins would themselves be destroyed by the intracellular “chaperone” and “proteasome” systems - these are both meant to protect our cells from mutations. The reason this does not happen in the case of most cancers is that most cancers also stimulate an internal process that makes them more resistant to the chaperone and proteasome systems - by way of the production of heat shock protein 90 (hsp90). Ivermectin Doctors Sue FDA For Prohibiting Use Of Ivermectin To Treat Covid Ivermectin, the horse and cow and human drug, has traditionally been used as an antiparasitic (e.g. scabies), but also has antiviral and anti-inflammatory activities. It binds to hsp90 and other heat shock proteins blocking their ability to stabilize mutated checkpoint proteins. It likewise suppresses a number of the anti-apoptotic pathway especially TGF-β, as well as increasing the expression of p53 tumor suppressor gene pro-apoptotic pathway. So in effect ivermectin helps the cancer cell reestablish the ability to detect that it is cancerous and thereby trigger an internal process of suicide. Unfortunately not every cancer utilizes the pathways ivermectin targets. And as a result of the relatively rapid replication rate of cancerous cells, and the evolutionary imperative to survive, additional mutations are often present across the tumor mass. As a result, ivermectin may be effective against only 90% of a given tumor mass; however, if the 90% is killed in this way, the remaining 10% will, by default, not be able to be corrected, leading to relapse, with the remainder becoming harder to treat - as the 10% left over multiplies and becomes the entire 100% of tumor. Extracellular Natural Killer Cell Immunity Immense Immunology Insight: Girl, if we were lymphocytes... You'd be a ... Another arm of the immune system that protects against cancer is outside the cancer cell itself. We can think of this like the police force that keeps an eye out for dangerous cancer cells. Our internal police force uses markers to identify healthy cells and unhealthy cells as well as foreign intruders like bacteria and viruses. The markers our immune system uses for identification are called antigens - little bits of cells. Most of our immune cells are trained to recognize foreign particles that do not belong and destroy them - like crazy immigration agent death squads. But the Natural Killer (NK) cells are trained to check for what is supposed to be present - self-antigens - markers that indicate normal cells, kind of like ID cards. In policing terms: NK cells wander the streets and demand everyone's papers, regardless of any evidence of a crime, and immediately execute anyone who cannot prove they belong. "Ihre Papiere, bitte!" (Episode 48) | #FSCK 'Em All! The rapid rate of replication of cancerous cells places them under heavy evolutionary pressure; those cells that do not express self-antigens will be targeted and destroyed by the NK cells, whereas those that do may not be - so some cancer cells develop the ability to forge their own papers and pass themselves off as normal law abiding residents, rather than dangerous alien invaders. Those wily ones will multiply while the others die off, and eventually the entire tumor mass is comprised of cells that can trick the NK cells into leaving them alone by presenting proper identification, even though they will still be presenting other signs of being foreign - like devil horns growing out of their heads - “it’s just part of my mardi gras outfit officer”. While this is very bad news it does open up an avenue of treatment via T cell activation. T cell Immunity CD 4 T cells are also called helper T cells, they aid other immune cells via the release of cytokine messengers. CD 8 T cells are also called cytotoxic T cells. Cyto for cell, toxic for toxic - i.e. they kill cancer cells. T cells like NK cells detect self antigens and will ignore those that present them, but they also look for non self antigens (like those devil horns) as well as an additional costimulatory signal to trigger their death squad role. It’s like they not only check your papers, but they check to make sure those horns are actually real and they make you pass a lie detector test. If they find real horns and sense signs of stress during the lie detector test they have enough evidence to declare you guilty and execute you. Geek Comic for November 17th - You can Beat the Lie Detector Test Because… If they just find the horns, but no signs of stress, they let you go on your way. Cancer cells can’t avoid making weird mutated horn-like proteins, but they can figure out how to pass the lie detector test by muting their stress signals. The way to bypass that is by subjecting them to so much stress that their ability to mute the signs of stress breaks down, and at the same time triggering more foreign proteins and stopping proliferation would also be helpful, which brings us to the other 3 therapies. Fenbendazole, Sodium Bicarbonate & Vitamin C Fenbendazole Panacur Granules 22.2% [Fenbendazole] (1 lb) Humans are not listed on the side panel Fenbendazole is not FDA approved for use in humans, but is commonly used as an antiparasitic medication in animals, and has been studied in some human cancer studies, where it appears to be safe. It has multiple effects against cancer cells. Most significantly, it can lead to the influence the MAPK pathway to activate cellular suicide or apoptosis. It destabilizes cellular protein structures called microtubules that are essential to cell division. It also disrupts cancer cell energy production by blocking the breakdown of sugar (glycolysis) which is like crude oil for cells and also blocking the ability of mitochondria, the energy refining factories of cells from using the crude oil to produce the cellular equivalent of electricity, i.e. ATP - the universal bioenergy molecule. This collection of actions may not be applicable for all cancers, however a sizable proportion are affected; as such metabolic disruption occurs which then leads to production of cellular stress signals. An important manifestation of this is CD80, a costimulatory signal that in combination with T Cell Receptor binding to a foreign antigen, activates CD8 T-cells; alternatively if the antigen is self, it will inhibit them, as well as activate dormant NK cells in the area. Share So what’s happening here is if the cancer cell has non self antigens (those devil horns) the stress signals (failed lie detector test) will activate CD8 cytotoxic T cells to kill it. If however the cancer cell shows a normal self antigen to the T cell along with the stress signals, the T cell will stand down but the same stress signals may still activate nearby NK cells. Thereby some of the tumor cells will be destroyed releasing many new antigens into the area, both self and non self. These new antigens will be recognized by nearby immune cells and train them to better detect the remaining tumor cells. This triggers a far more robust immune activation and ends up in effectively nuking the area - destroying all remaining tumor as well as some friendlies and innocent bystanders mixed up in the fray. Sodium Bicarbonate Alkaline Diet for Cancer : Comprehensive Nutrional Guide to Cure and ... The mechanism of sodium bicarbonate action is easy to understand, based on the Warburg effect: decreasing acidity (increasing the pH or alkalinity) outside the cancer cells impairs their ability to maintain a highly alkaline environment within themselves. That alters cancer cells' metabolism, prompting similar immune system reactions as previously discussed and igniting further cascades. Unfortunately, if sodium bicarbonate is used without other agents from the protocol, tumors promptly become resistant and cancer-fighting benefits decrease to mere prolongation of life expectancy instead of complete elimination. Vitamin C Best Linus Pauling Cancer Vitamin C - Your Best Life When ascorbic acid is used in large quantities, along with the reduced form dehydroascorbate (DHA), it induces intense oxidative stress within cancerous cells; if that stress is insufficient to destroy the cell outright, it triggers the release of numerous cytokines, including our friend CD80, which initiates the cascade described above involving CD8 cytotoxic T cells. Not all forms of cancer are responsive to this pathway and sodium bicarbonate is capable of directly counteracting it. As a potent immunomodulator vitamin C even has the potential to disrupt the inflammatory response involved in targeting a significant-sized tumor. So it’s important to carefully balance the two options, and not use both simultaneously. The alkalization brought about by sodium bicarbonate won't last for particularly long; therefore, employing one after another in alternating fashion will likely provide more benefits than using just one of them at a time. In a Nutshell The following are four therapeutic pathways that, when used together, cause cancerous cells to undergo both apoptosis and loss of immune evasion features so the immune system can identify and attack them. Ivermectin inhibits mutant checkpoint and cascade transduction proteins, particularly PI3K, reduces TAM anti-apoptotic signaling, and increases expression of the tumor suppressor p53 by binding to the hsp90 protein. In addition to modulating the MAPK pathway, fenbendazole destabilizes microtubules, inhibits glycolytic metabolism, inhibits mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, and reduces anti-apoptotic PD-L1 expression feedback loops. Through alkalization of the cytosolic tumor environment, sodium bicarbonate induces metabolic stress. Vitamin C triggers oxidative stress and cytokine production. In this method, cytosolic apoptosis signaling cascades are promoted, and effector CD8 and NK cells are infiltrated into a tumor mass through adaptive recognition of foreign antigens and inhibition of anti-apoptotic pathways in order to achieve complete remission through both self-destruct signaling pathways as well as inflammatory immune destruction of cancerous cells. The Proposed Protocol Unlike most traditional cytotoxic cancer therapies that destroy both cancer cells as well as regular cells and especially the body's immune system cells, this protocol stimulates the body's own innate and adaptive immune system to fight off cancer. NLRP3 and STING enhance immune attack on cancer | Cancer Biology This protocol should not be used in combination with most mainstream cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, due to their ability to impair the immune system that the protocol depends on. It is likely to be most potent at the early stages of disease; further progress of the condition will prolong duration of treatment needed. A healthy immune system takes time to ramp up the necessary response, so the protocol is based on the time required for each drug to take effect, safety data, bioavailability, and elimination time. Day 1: Ivermectin: 1 mg/kg by mouth Fenbendazole: 1000mg by mouth Sodium Bicarbonate: 1 tsp morning and evening dissolved in 1 quart of water Day 2: Ascorbic acid: 50 mg/kg by mouth, two doses, 8 hours apart or 20g IV, once Day 3: Repeat Day 1 Day 4: Repeat Day 2 Days 5 to 10: Fenbendazole, 200mg by mouth daily Alternate sodium bicarbonate and ascorbic acid every other day beginning with sodium bicarb on day 5, then vitamin C on day 6, etc. Day 11: Ivermectin: 1 mg/kg by mouth Fenbendazole: 1000 mg by mouth Sodium Bicarbonate: 1 tsp morning and evening dissolved in 1 quart of water Days 12 to 20: Sodium Bicarbonate: 1 tsp morning and evening dissolved in 1 quart of water Day 20: Imaging: Check progress. Significant reduction or complete elimination of tumor mass should have occurred by this time, if not repeat the protocol. At this time the US FDA has not approved this protocol for study or for use in humans. It is unlikely that any pharmaceutical company will spend the millions of dollars it would take to prove this protocol in large randomized controlled trials because none of the four therapeutics are under patent and therefore cannot be effectively monetized. Even if some billionaire decided to back this protocol, Big Pharma would move heaven and earth to prove it doesn’t work as they did with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for COVID. Let me know below if you know of anyone who has utilized these 4 therapeutics together. And finally beating cancer inside us is a great first step to healing our world, but next we need to beat the cancerous psychopaths who are destroying our societies. If not we will go the way of Rome and a new civilization will rise from our ashes. I believe in the Judeo Christian ethic of working hard and giving back without big government. My online clinic, mygotodoc.com, exemplifies that by charging a fee that is well worth the service, but also offering free medical answers and (asynchronous) care for anyone that needs it. The same applies at my free online Summit Long COVID Reset, exclusive weekly content, including live Q&As and much more released on my video subscription platform, and in my course, Phoenix for Healing Long Haul and Lean Vitality - all are available for a fee or for free by request. So thank you to everyone who finds this written content valuable and supports it by being a paid subscriber (even though there are currently no paid subscriber benefits aside from a warm fuzzy feeling that you did something good). You are helping enable the significant amount of time and effort it takes to write. If you have the means also please consider donating to help support the care of those cannot afford it at mygotodoc.com/donation. If you are a free subscriber thanks for being here, and please also consider supporting my efforts in any way you can, but especially by sharing my posts widely. https://blog.mygotodoc.com/p/can-2-cheap-meds-1-vitamin-and-baking
    BLOG.MYGOTODOC.COM
    Can 2 Cheap Meds, 1 Vitamin & Baking Soda Kill Any Cancer?
    Ivermectin, Fenbendazole, Vit C and Sodium Bicarb. But don't worry your cancer is safe because the FDA would never allow it.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 14155 Views
  • Screening for Silent Spike Toxicity
    Spike levels build up over time with repeated exposures and eventually the dam breaks. Here's how to detect toxicity before it causes symptoms.

    Dr. Syed Haider
    Pet Toxin Safety - Mill Creek Animal Hospital
    This post will provide a deep dive on tests for spike toxicity, including the best screening tests for those who have no symptoms, but have been exposed. These tests detect specific spike-induced inflammation, clotting, AIDS, turbo cancer, etc, and can help get ahead of disease developing underneath the surface. In a future post I plan to cover the best tests for fine tuning a healing protocol.

    There are now hundreds if not thousands of physicians treating spike toxicity with varying protocols and degrees of success.

    In my experience most hesitate to escalate ivermectin enough. At high enough doses it almost always helps (at mygotodoc.com I usually start where others end, at 0.2mg/kg/day and then may gradually escalate as high as 10 times more than that ie 2mg/kg/day in some patients over the course of 5-10 weeks).

    Most physicians treating spike toxicity also refrain from much or any testing.

    This makes sense on a budget, and I often come across patients who can’t afford testing and we skip it as well, but if it can be afforded then it can be helpful in fine tuning the protocol and sometimes uncovering key missing ingredients, like nutritional deficiencies, or particularly stubborn micro clotting requiring escalated dosing and varied types of anticoagulants.

    The other place for testing is in screening of the general population without symptoms, both vaxxed and unvaxxed (though when you really press you often do find new symptoms have sprouted up since the beginning of the pandemic).

    But even in those who truly have no new symptoms and feel perfectly fine, it seems that it may simply be a matter of time before spike toxicity catches up with them, especially if, like so many people, they can’t detox quickly enough, can’t break up the atypical microclots fast enough, and then are reexposed to a new variant, or a big shedding bolus, and that tips the scales and sends them into outright long haul.

    People find it hard to believe that they could feel fantastic and yet there could be something brewing inside that is just 1 straw away from breaking their backs.

    Yet almost everyone was in this very situation even before the pandemic.

    We all have a health span and a lifespan, and for most in the modern world the overlap between them has been dramatically shrinking for generations, and it has only gained speed with each passing year, and especially the last 3 years since the pandemic hit.

    Health is wealthqbak - http://asianpin.com/health-is-wealthqbak/ | Funny cartoons jokes, Funny cartoon pictures, Funny cartoons
    source
    In plain English, we often gradually become chronically ill and then debilitated starting decades before we finally die. In the worst cases spending the last years of our lives in nursing homes, oblivious to our surroundings and infrequently visiting loved ones.

    The reason for this is a chronic mismatch between our bodies and our environments - not just lack of exercise and poor diets, but also the chemical soup we find ourselves in, the toxins in the air, water and soil, the lack of fresh air and sunlight throughout the day, the lack of grounding, and too much toxic blue light at night that is soaked up by our eyes and very skin while we lounge in front of our screens, greatly stressing ourselves, while thinking we’re relaxing, followed by restless, unfulfilling sleep.

    Most of us are drawing down on our health savings accounts - not the tax free HSA - but a metaphorical account that represents our life force.

    Thank you for reading Dr. Syed Haider. This post is public so feel free to share it.

    Share

    Just like a regular bank account, if it isn’t managed properly and wealth is overused, it will eventually get close to zero, by which time we will be liable to illness at the drop of a hat - anything that is too taxing can overdraw the account since what’s flowing into it can’t overcome what’s flowing out.

    And then some of us become chronically overdrawn, living on credit, and in the toxic embrace of chronic illness because of it, dragging us into the depths, while we struggle vainly to get back above the surface.

    This is why when you finally realize you have to change your ways to get better, it makes no sense to give up those changes as soon as you break free of illness.

    You are just above zero, still liable to dipping below the surface again. You need to build up your reserves of health over time and not overdraw your account again. You have to become a good steward of your body and resources. And over time you can get to the point where you’re on solid ground again and can put up with small and large stressors without backsliding. But you should always keep in mind how bad it can get to motivate you to stay on the straight and narrow going forward.





    To get back to the topic, the spike protein builds up in our bodies over time and causes detectable changes to our immune and vascular systems. There is an immune fingerprint of various cytokine markers, there are the microclots, there are alterations to the red blood cell zeta potential, there are predictable decreases of various micronutrients. There may be early warning signs of AIDS, or cancer or organ dysfunction.

    Nowadays almost all new patients with Long COVID or Vax injury made it through a few shots, or a few rounds of COVID without getting long haul, but the final infection or shot put them over the edge.

    If they had come before they got that last shot or infection I could have detected their susceptibility in the lab and we could have worked to correct it.

    This is the epidemic of Silent Spike Toxicity.

    And these are the tests we have available to screen for it:

    The Microclot Test: only available from 1 lab in the US (mail order). Detects abnormal clotting not seen on any other test. The single most specific spike toxicity test.

    The Comprehensive Spike Screening Panel: includes imaging tests: EKG, CXR, Echo. Blood tests that detect damage to the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys. Checks zeta potential. Can show the immune fingerprint of spike. Detection of AIDS. Typical gut microbiome changes. Advanced cancer screening (blood & whole body MRI), and more.

    The Masterjohn-Schilling Spike Healing Panel: detects neuroinflammation, free radicals, mitochondrial dysfunction, autoantibodies, reactivated viruses and bacteria, MCAS, specific micronutrients that are depleted by spike toxicity, and more.

    Masterjohn’s Deep Dive Nutrition Panel goes beyond nutrients depleted by spike toxicity to provide a complete snapshot of functional nutrition and is indispensable for deep healing when half measures don’t work.


    source
    A quick note on tests in general: There is no perfect test. Tests are evaluated by their sensitivity and specificities, but we don’t have research on any of these for spike toxicity diseases. Sensitivity is how good a test is at ruling out a diagnosis and specificity is how good it is at ruling in a diagnosis.

    The best screening tests would be 100% specific - meaning if you have the diagnosis it will be detected 100% of the time, but in order to gain that level of specificity they often have to cast a wide net and give up some sensitivity. What this means practically is that if the diagnosis is present you will test positive, but there will also be some people who don’t have the diagnosis who also test positive.

    Highly specific tests are usually paired with confirmatory tests that are hopefully highly sensitive. Meaning they can weed out the people who were including in the first round of screening, but don’t actually have the diagnosis in question.

    In the absence of research into spike toxicity diseases and optimal screening regimens we have to fall back on expert opinion.

    It seems that the microclot test is likely the best screening test, because those treating spike toxicity have never come across someone with the clinical symptoms of the disease who doesn’t have elevated microclots. Unfortunately microclots can be elevated by other conditions. So a confirmatory test like the incelldx Incellkyne panel might be ordered from the Comprehensive Spike Screening panel, along with other tests we’ll discuss below.

    If the diagnosis of spike toxicity is made then the Masterjohn-Schilling panel is the best next step for fine tuning the protocol, ensuring that the right micronutrients are topped up and the right treatments are prescribed.

    If not improving after targeted and sustained treatment, then the Deep Dive Nutrition panel is indicated to uncover rare and unusual nutritional deficits that could be holding you back.

    Here I’ll cover the primary screening tests: The Microclot Test and the Comprehensive Spike Screening Panel. In a future article I may cover the more expansive and complicated panels that are used primarily in treatment.

    Share

    The Microclot Test

    figure 3
    source
    Typical microclots are usually found in the elderly and those with chronic illnesses like diabetes.

    Spike induced atypical amyloid fibrin microclots are found in those with spike induced blood toxicity.

    The difference between typical and atypical are that spike induced microclots are very difficult to break down, so difficult that they often do not break down at all.

    This explains why the D-dimer isn’t helpful for detecting spike toxicity.

    D-dimer is always trapped inside of clots. Typical clots are always being broken down on the margins - at the edge of a typical clot there will be breakdown. Sometimes the breakdown happens slower than the growth of the clot, but there is always a battle going on between clot growth and clot destruction which will release D-dimer into the blood stream.

    Since it is virtually always elevated in the presence of clotting it is a very specific test, and is used as a screening test when a physician suspects a clotting disorder, but isn’t sure. For example if someone shows up with chest pain and it could be a pulled muscle or a pulmonary embolism (clot in the pulmonary veins), a D-dimer is a simple ad very cheap test that can be done to determine if further confirmatory, but more expensive more risky testing should be considered, like a CT Angiogram of the chest.

    For this reason every doctor going through residency comes to consider a positive D-dimer as indicative of clotting and a negative D-dimer as indicative of no clotting.

    figure 4
    source
    The D-dimer is often elevated during severe acute COVID-19 infection, and during a severe acute injection reaction, but it is not usually elevated in chronic spike toxicity, including chronic long haul and vaccine injured patients.

    The reason it isn’t elevated is that most people cannot break down the atypical microclots caused by spike protein without some additional help from medications and supplements.

    Once medications like aspirin (and sometimes prescriptions ones like plavix and eliquis), supplements like nattokinase, serrapeptase, lumbrokinase, bromelain and NAC are started the atypical microclots start to be broken down and D-dimer goes up, which in this case is usually reason for celebration.

    So the microclot test is the only test in America today that can detect elevated atypical microclots. It’s only available from one lab in the country via mail order (request it from mygotodoc.com), and it helps detect spike toxicity as well as helping track treatment.


    If initial treatment for microclots with aspirin and supplements doesn’t bring the levels down then we escalate to using higher doses, or add plavix and then later eliquis. And we can also consider plasma donation, or even therapeutic plasmapheresis, if available.



    DETOX [spike buster] PRE-ORDER NOW: initial stock is limited! Shipping late November 2023.

    The Comprehensive Spike Screening Panel

    This set of tests includes an EKG, CXR, Echo. It includes blood tests to screen for daamage to the major organs including the heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys. It checks for zeta potential in the blood, which is affected by spike toxicity. It detects an immune fingerprint of spike. It can detect AIDS. It covers stool testing for the gut microbiome as well as advanced cancer screening (via blood & whole body MRI), and more.

    Tests Included in the Panel:

    Spike antibody test: Measures your B cell’s response to the spike protein. In the absence of a direct test for spike protein this helps indirectly detect and track the spike protein levels in your body. Your body produces antibodies in response to the spike protein, and this test measures those antibodies. Generally speaking the more spike protein in your body, the higher the antibody levels. However, what's considered a problematic level varies by individual. The goal is to lower this level as much as possible. The test can also help detect those individuals who might be transmitting the spike protein to others. This is by no means a perfect test, but in the right setting it is helpful as a red flag for further workup, or as a way of monitoring response to therapies over time.

    Incellkyne Panel from Incelldx - provides an immune fingerprint of spike protein, a combination of elevated cytokine markers that are typically seen in spike protein disease. There are other immune fingerprints they have identified on this same test that indicate non spike Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Lyme disease. If CCL-5/RANTES and/or VEGF are elevated (VEGF is almost always elevated) then the medication Maraviroc can be helpful. VEGF indicates vascular inflammation and omega-3s, infrared light exposure, and a number of other approaches can be particularly helpful to deal with that. Other inflammatory markers tested are TNF-alpha, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-13, GM-CSF, SCD40L, CCL3, CCL-4, and IFN-Gamma. Ivermectin is known to decrease IL-6, which is commonly elevated in Long Haul and Vax injury.

    Lymphocyte Subset Panel or Cyrex Lymphocyte MAP:



    The subset panel is the standard test for AIDS and tests for these immune subsets: CD3, CD19,CD20, CD4, CD8, CD56+. The primary pathognomic feature of AIDS would be a CD4 T cell count lower than 200, though there are other red flags such as NK cell activity <10%, or a deficit of T helper cells (CD4+), as well as these others that would only be found on the Cyrex Lymphocyte MAP test: TH1 insufficiency, Increased T-Reg (CD4+ CD25+), deficits of cytotoxic cells (CD8+, CD56+), increased TGF-beta, etc. The Lymphocyte subset panel is cheaper and available at any standard lab and may be covered by insurance, the Cyrex test is more expensive and is a mail order blood test only that has to be paid in cash up front. The Cyrex test can detect 14 different immunotypes and reveal immune under or overactivity, infections, inflammation, autoimmunity, allergies, asthma, hypersentivities and some cancers. It also helps determine what further immune tests can be done to fine tune a healing protocol.

    Galleri Cancer Screening is an advanced test for 50+ types of common cancers based on a genetic marker found in the blood. It is a good screening test because it is 99.5% specific. This might be a good option for someone with a family or personal history of cancer as it can detect occurance at a the earliest microscopic stage, far before any visual test like an MRI or CT scan would show a mass. If cancer is found ivermectin, fenbendazole, vitamin C, baking soda and many other of label easily available substances are very promising for treatment.

    Can 2 Cheap Meds, 1 Vitamin & Baking Soda Kill Any Cancer?

    Can 2 Cheap Meds, 1 Vitamin & Baking Soda Kill Any Cancer?
    Cancer rates have skyrocketed in the past century for a number of reasons not least of which is the incredibly large number of toxins spewed into the environment and incorporated into our food supplies. And now with most of humanity exposed to the cancerous spike protein there is likely to be even further acceleration. Those exposed to the fallout from …

    Read full story

    Complete Blood Count (CBC)


    Measures various components and features of the blood, including red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. Amongst the white blood cells we can see various abnormalities - they can be high or low, and subsets like basophils, neutrophils and eosinophils might be off. For example a patient started aspirin which is a cornerstone of most treatments of spike toxicity, but in this case raised the eosinophil level and caused some histaminergic symptoms. The symptoms were the same as her usual disease symptoms so initially were written off as a normal fluctuation in symptomatology over time, but in light of the elevated eosinophil level we finally determined that the aspirin was triggering a problem, since that is possible side effect of aspirin. Once off aspirin the symptoms and the eosinophils normalized.

    Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP)


    Measures 14 different substances in the blood. It provides information about kidney and liver function, electrolyte levels, and blood sugar. Blood sugar can be high or low in spike toxicity, and that would indicate a pancreatic issue requiring further workup. Liver function often needs to be tracked in those on ivermectin and many other medications. Potassium balances sodium and usually needs to be supplemented in long haul, since most people don’t get enough, especially if blood pressure is rising.

    Cystatin C is a more specific marker of kidney dysfunction than the creatinine level that is included on the CMP.

    D-dimer: as mentioned earlier this is a product of the breakdown of clots, it’s often elevated in the acute phase of spike injury or disease, but over time the microclots being inherently difficult to break down stop releasing D-dimer unless the patient is taking a combination of supplements and/or medications to trigger this.

    Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR)

    Decoding ESR Test: What Your Results Could Reveal About Your Health | Pathkind Labs Blog
    Measures the rate at which red blood cells settle in a standardized tube over one hour. It is a nonspecific marker of inflammation in the body. It is also an indication of the zeta potential, which is a measure of the normal negative charge on red cells that prevents them from clumping together. Spike protein lowers the normal zeta potential which usually causes ESR to rise. Potassium citrate can help reverse this trend, as can sunlight and grounding.

    hs-CRP Test (C-Reactive Protein High-Sensitivity) is another non specific marker of inflammation in the body and if found require further workup. It can be elevated in myo-pericarditis.

    Troponin T is a protein relatively specific to heart muscle cells, leaked into the blood. This is a cardiac biomarker that indicates myocardial injury and along with an EKG is. one of the primary screening tests for a heart attack as well as for myocarditis/pericarditis.

    Pro BNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide) is produced by the heart in response to strain, particularly heart failure.

    Electrocardiogram (EKG)

    EKG: What is it and what does it mean? – JP Stroke Foundation
    Non-invasive medical test that records the heart's electrical activity. Can be used to diagnose myocarditis/pericarditis, heart attack, and various rhythm abnormalities like atrial fibrillation, SVTs and more that can raise the risk of sudden cardiac arrest, such as that seen in some athletes who have been vaxxed.

    Echocardiogram (ECHO)


    Provides valuable information about the heart's structure, function, and blood flow and is an important test for helping visualize the inflammatory changes of myocarditis-pericarditis, such as fluid leaking into the sack around the heart.

    Chest X-ray


    source
    Non-invasive imaging test that uses X-rays to visualize the structures and organs within the chest, including the lungs, heart, ribs, diaphragm, and large arteries. Anyone with shortness of breath should have a Chest Xray as a first screening test looking for pneumonia, inflammation, scarring, nodules/cancer, etc.

    Whole Body MRI

    The Latest Quantified Self Trend: Whole-Body MRI
    Another imaging modality that can turn up hidden cancers and a whole host of other abnormalities and might be ordered for someone where the Galleri test was negative but there was still some suspicion present (here is always the risk of over diagnosis with imaging tests like this, which can lead to otherwise unnecessary stress and procedures that can themselves cause harm).

    Microbiome testing: Microbiomix Metagenomic Sequencing of Stool by Genova or Sabine Hazan’s Whole Genome Deep Sequencing by Progenabiome. Spike toxicity leads to depletion of beneficial gut bacterials species such as Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Roseburia inulinivorans, and Roseburia hominis all of which are associated with long COVID complications. Presence of 'unfriendly' bacterial species is linked to poor performance on the 6-minute walk test among long COVID patients. Microbiomix is cheaper because it uses a less thorough sequencing technique, but can show some changes found due to spike toxicity. Sabine Hazan’s test is better if budgeting allows, both because it does a whole genome sequencing, but also because it benefits from her proprietary and private knowledge base (essentially studies and findings that have not yet been published). There are some supplements that can help correct deficits, and in stubborn cases a stool transplant can be transformative, though this is somewhat difficult to get done as it usually requires travel.





    And that’s a wrap!

    Next time We’ll look at the Masterjohn-Schilling panel which is our go to for optimizing treatment of long haul/vax injury and perhaps the Comprehensive Nutrition panel, which is important for anyone who has a chronic illness resistant to treatment, including long haul syndromes.

    https://blog.mygotodoc.com/p/screening-for-silent-spike-toxicity

    https://telegra.ph/Screening-for-Silent-Spike-Toxicity-01-07
    Screening for Silent Spike Toxicity Spike levels build up over time with repeated exposures and eventually the dam breaks. Here's how to detect toxicity before it causes symptoms. Dr. Syed Haider Pet Toxin Safety - Mill Creek Animal Hospital This post will provide a deep dive on tests for spike toxicity, including the best screening tests for those who have no symptoms, but have been exposed. These tests detect specific spike-induced inflammation, clotting, AIDS, turbo cancer, etc, and can help get ahead of disease developing underneath the surface. In a future post I plan to cover the best tests for fine tuning a healing protocol. There are now hundreds if not thousands of physicians treating spike toxicity with varying protocols and degrees of success. In my experience most hesitate to escalate ivermectin enough. At high enough doses it almost always helps (at mygotodoc.com I usually start where others end, at 0.2mg/kg/day and then may gradually escalate as high as 10 times more than that ie 2mg/kg/day in some patients over the course of 5-10 weeks). Most physicians treating spike toxicity also refrain from much or any testing. This makes sense on a budget, and I often come across patients who can’t afford testing and we skip it as well, but if it can be afforded then it can be helpful in fine tuning the protocol and sometimes uncovering key missing ingredients, like nutritional deficiencies, or particularly stubborn micro clotting requiring escalated dosing and varied types of anticoagulants. The other place for testing is in screening of the general population without symptoms, both vaxxed and unvaxxed (though when you really press you often do find new symptoms have sprouted up since the beginning of the pandemic). But even in those who truly have no new symptoms and feel perfectly fine, it seems that it may simply be a matter of time before spike toxicity catches up with them, especially if, like so many people, they can’t detox quickly enough, can’t break up the atypical microclots fast enough, and then are reexposed to a new variant, or a big shedding bolus, and that tips the scales and sends them into outright long haul. People find it hard to believe that they could feel fantastic and yet there could be something brewing inside that is just 1 straw away from breaking their backs. Yet almost everyone was in this very situation even before the pandemic. We all have a health span and a lifespan, and for most in the modern world the overlap between them has been dramatically shrinking for generations, and it has only gained speed with each passing year, and especially the last 3 years since the pandemic hit. Health is wealthqbak - http://asianpin.com/health-is-wealthqbak/ | Funny cartoons jokes, Funny cartoon pictures, Funny cartoons source In plain English, we often gradually become chronically ill and then debilitated starting decades before we finally die. In the worst cases spending the last years of our lives in nursing homes, oblivious to our surroundings and infrequently visiting loved ones. The reason for this is a chronic mismatch between our bodies and our environments - not just lack of exercise and poor diets, but also the chemical soup we find ourselves in, the toxins in the air, water and soil, the lack of fresh air and sunlight throughout the day, the lack of grounding, and too much toxic blue light at night that is soaked up by our eyes and very skin while we lounge in front of our screens, greatly stressing ourselves, while thinking we’re relaxing, followed by restless, unfulfilling sleep. Most of us are drawing down on our health savings accounts - not the tax free HSA - but a metaphorical account that represents our life force. Thank you for reading Dr. Syed Haider. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share Just like a regular bank account, if it isn’t managed properly and wealth is overused, it will eventually get close to zero, by which time we will be liable to illness at the drop of a hat - anything that is too taxing can overdraw the account since what’s flowing into it can’t overcome what’s flowing out. And then some of us become chronically overdrawn, living on credit, and in the toxic embrace of chronic illness because of it, dragging us into the depths, while we struggle vainly to get back above the surface. This is why when you finally realize you have to change your ways to get better, it makes no sense to give up those changes as soon as you break free of illness. You are just above zero, still liable to dipping below the surface again. You need to build up your reserves of health over time and not overdraw your account again. You have to become a good steward of your body and resources. And over time you can get to the point where you’re on solid ground again and can put up with small and large stressors without backsliding. But you should always keep in mind how bad it can get to motivate you to stay on the straight and narrow going forward. To get back to the topic, the spike protein builds up in our bodies over time and causes detectable changes to our immune and vascular systems. There is an immune fingerprint of various cytokine markers, there are the microclots, there are alterations to the red blood cell zeta potential, there are predictable decreases of various micronutrients. There may be early warning signs of AIDS, or cancer or organ dysfunction. Nowadays almost all new patients with Long COVID or Vax injury made it through a few shots, or a few rounds of COVID without getting long haul, but the final infection or shot put them over the edge. If they had come before they got that last shot or infection I could have detected their susceptibility in the lab and we could have worked to correct it. This is the epidemic of Silent Spike Toxicity. And these are the tests we have available to screen for it: The Microclot Test: only available from 1 lab in the US (mail order). Detects abnormal clotting not seen on any other test. The single most specific spike toxicity test. The Comprehensive Spike Screening Panel: includes imaging tests: EKG, CXR, Echo. Blood tests that detect damage to the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys. Checks zeta potential. Can show the immune fingerprint of spike. Detection of AIDS. Typical gut microbiome changes. Advanced cancer screening (blood & whole body MRI), and more. The Masterjohn-Schilling Spike Healing Panel: detects neuroinflammation, free radicals, mitochondrial dysfunction, autoantibodies, reactivated viruses and bacteria, MCAS, specific micronutrients that are depleted by spike toxicity, and more. Masterjohn’s Deep Dive Nutrition Panel goes beyond nutrients depleted by spike toxicity to provide a complete snapshot of functional nutrition and is indispensable for deep healing when half measures don’t work. source A quick note on tests in general: There is no perfect test. Tests are evaluated by their sensitivity and specificities, but we don’t have research on any of these for spike toxicity diseases. Sensitivity is how good a test is at ruling out a diagnosis and specificity is how good it is at ruling in a diagnosis. The best screening tests would be 100% specific - meaning if you have the diagnosis it will be detected 100% of the time, but in order to gain that level of specificity they often have to cast a wide net and give up some sensitivity. What this means practically is that if the diagnosis is present you will test positive, but there will also be some people who don’t have the diagnosis who also test positive. Highly specific tests are usually paired with confirmatory tests that are hopefully highly sensitive. Meaning they can weed out the people who were including in the first round of screening, but don’t actually have the diagnosis in question. In the absence of research into spike toxicity diseases and optimal screening regimens we have to fall back on expert opinion. It seems that the microclot test is likely the best screening test, because those treating spike toxicity have never come across someone with the clinical symptoms of the disease who doesn’t have elevated microclots. Unfortunately microclots can be elevated by other conditions. So a confirmatory test like the incelldx Incellkyne panel might be ordered from the Comprehensive Spike Screening panel, along with other tests we’ll discuss below. If the diagnosis of spike toxicity is made then the Masterjohn-Schilling panel is the best next step for fine tuning the protocol, ensuring that the right micronutrients are topped up and the right treatments are prescribed. If not improving after targeted and sustained treatment, then the Deep Dive Nutrition panel is indicated to uncover rare and unusual nutritional deficits that could be holding you back. Here I’ll cover the primary screening tests: The Microclot Test and the Comprehensive Spike Screening Panel. In a future article I may cover the more expansive and complicated panels that are used primarily in treatment. Share The Microclot Test figure 3 source Typical microclots are usually found in the elderly and those with chronic illnesses like diabetes. Spike induced atypical amyloid fibrin microclots are found in those with spike induced blood toxicity. The difference between typical and atypical are that spike induced microclots are very difficult to break down, so difficult that they often do not break down at all. This explains why the D-dimer isn’t helpful for detecting spike toxicity. D-dimer is always trapped inside of clots. Typical clots are always being broken down on the margins - at the edge of a typical clot there will be breakdown. Sometimes the breakdown happens slower than the growth of the clot, but there is always a battle going on between clot growth and clot destruction which will release D-dimer into the blood stream. Since it is virtually always elevated in the presence of clotting it is a very specific test, and is used as a screening test when a physician suspects a clotting disorder, but isn’t sure. For example if someone shows up with chest pain and it could be a pulled muscle or a pulmonary embolism (clot in the pulmonary veins), a D-dimer is a simple ad very cheap test that can be done to determine if further confirmatory, but more expensive more risky testing should be considered, like a CT Angiogram of the chest. For this reason every doctor going through residency comes to consider a positive D-dimer as indicative of clotting and a negative D-dimer as indicative of no clotting. figure 4 source The D-dimer is often elevated during severe acute COVID-19 infection, and during a severe acute injection reaction, but it is not usually elevated in chronic spike toxicity, including chronic long haul and vaccine injured patients. The reason it isn’t elevated is that most people cannot break down the atypical microclots caused by spike protein without some additional help from medications and supplements. Once medications like aspirin (and sometimes prescriptions ones like plavix and eliquis), supplements like nattokinase, serrapeptase, lumbrokinase, bromelain and NAC are started the atypical microclots start to be broken down and D-dimer goes up, which in this case is usually reason for celebration. So the microclot test is the only test in America today that can detect elevated atypical microclots. It’s only available from one lab in the country via mail order (request it from mygotodoc.com), and it helps detect spike toxicity as well as helping track treatment. If initial treatment for microclots with aspirin and supplements doesn’t bring the levels down then we escalate to using higher doses, or add plavix and then later eliquis. And we can also consider plasma donation, or even therapeutic plasmapheresis, if available. DETOX [spike buster] PRE-ORDER NOW: initial stock is limited! Shipping late November 2023. The Comprehensive Spike Screening Panel This set of tests includes an EKG, CXR, Echo. It includes blood tests to screen for daamage to the major organs including the heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys. It checks for zeta potential in the blood, which is affected by spike toxicity. It detects an immune fingerprint of spike. It can detect AIDS. It covers stool testing for the gut microbiome as well as advanced cancer screening (via blood & whole body MRI), and more. Tests Included in the Panel: Spike antibody test: Measures your B cell’s response to the spike protein. In the absence of a direct test for spike protein this helps indirectly detect and track the spike protein levels in your body. Your body produces antibodies in response to the spike protein, and this test measures those antibodies. Generally speaking the more spike protein in your body, the higher the antibody levels. However, what's considered a problematic level varies by individual. The goal is to lower this level as much as possible. The test can also help detect those individuals who might be transmitting the spike protein to others. This is by no means a perfect test, but in the right setting it is helpful as a red flag for further workup, or as a way of monitoring response to therapies over time. Incellkyne Panel from Incelldx - provides an immune fingerprint of spike protein, a combination of elevated cytokine markers that are typically seen in spike protein disease. There are other immune fingerprints they have identified on this same test that indicate non spike Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Lyme disease. If CCL-5/RANTES and/or VEGF are elevated (VEGF is almost always elevated) then the medication Maraviroc can be helpful. VEGF indicates vascular inflammation and omega-3s, infrared light exposure, and a number of other approaches can be particularly helpful to deal with that. Other inflammatory markers tested are TNF-alpha, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-13, GM-CSF, SCD40L, CCL3, CCL-4, and IFN-Gamma. Ivermectin is known to decrease IL-6, which is commonly elevated in Long Haul and Vax injury. Lymphocyte Subset Panel or Cyrex Lymphocyte MAP: The subset panel is the standard test for AIDS and tests for these immune subsets: CD3, CD19,CD20, CD4, CD8, CD56+. The primary pathognomic feature of AIDS would be a CD4 T cell count lower than 200, though there are other red flags such as NK cell activity <10%, or a deficit of T helper cells (CD4+), as well as these others that would only be found on the Cyrex Lymphocyte MAP test: TH1 insufficiency, Increased T-Reg (CD4+ CD25+), deficits of cytotoxic cells (CD8+, CD56+), increased TGF-beta, etc. The Lymphocyte subset panel is cheaper and available at any standard lab and may be covered by insurance, the Cyrex test is more expensive and is a mail order blood test only that has to be paid in cash up front. The Cyrex test can detect 14 different immunotypes and reveal immune under or overactivity, infections, inflammation, autoimmunity, allergies, asthma, hypersentivities and some cancers. It also helps determine what further immune tests can be done to fine tune a healing protocol. Galleri Cancer Screening is an advanced test for 50+ types of common cancers based on a genetic marker found in the blood. It is a good screening test because it is 99.5% specific. This might be a good option for someone with a family or personal history of cancer as it can detect occurance at a the earliest microscopic stage, far before any visual test like an MRI or CT scan would show a mass. If cancer is found ivermectin, fenbendazole, vitamin C, baking soda and many other of label easily available substances are very promising for treatment. Can 2 Cheap Meds, 1 Vitamin & Baking Soda Kill Any Cancer? Can 2 Cheap Meds, 1 Vitamin & Baking Soda Kill Any Cancer? Cancer rates have skyrocketed in the past century for a number of reasons not least of which is the incredibly large number of toxins spewed into the environment and incorporated into our food supplies. And now with most of humanity exposed to the cancerous spike protein there is likely to be even further acceleration. Those exposed to the fallout from … Read full story Complete Blood Count (CBC) Measures various components and features of the blood, including red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. Amongst the white blood cells we can see various abnormalities - they can be high or low, and subsets like basophils, neutrophils and eosinophils might be off. For example a patient started aspirin which is a cornerstone of most treatments of spike toxicity, but in this case raised the eosinophil level and caused some histaminergic symptoms. The symptoms were the same as her usual disease symptoms so initially were written off as a normal fluctuation in symptomatology over time, but in light of the elevated eosinophil level we finally determined that the aspirin was triggering a problem, since that is possible side effect of aspirin. Once off aspirin the symptoms and the eosinophils normalized. Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP) Measures 14 different substances in the blood. It provides information about kidney and liver function, electrolyte levels, and blood sugar. Blood sugar can be high or low in spike toxicity, and that would indicate a pancreatic issue requiring further workup. Liver function often needs to be tracked in those on ivermectin and many other medications. Potassium balances sodium and usually needs to be supplemented in long haul, since most people don’t get enough, especially if blood pressure is rising. Cystatin C is a more specific marker of kidney dysfunction than the creatinine level that is included on the CMP. D-dimer: as mentioned earlier this is a product of the breakdown of clots, it’s often elevated in the acute phase of spike injury or disease, but over time the microclots being inherently difficult to break down stop releasing D-dimer unless the patient is taking a combination of supplements and/or medications to trigger this. Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) Decoding ESR Test: What Your Results Could Reveal About Your Health | Pathkind Labs Blog Measures the rate at which red blood cells settle in a standardized tube over one hour. It is a nonspecific marker of inflammation in the body. It is also an indication of the zeta potential, which is a measure of the normal negative charge on red cells that prevents them from clumping together. Spike protein lowers the normal zeta potential which usually causes ESR to rise. Potassium citrate can help reverse this trend, as can sunlight and grounding. hs-CRP Test (C-Reactive Protein High-Sensitivity) is another non specific marker of inflammation in the body and if found require further workup. It can be elevated in myo-pericarditis. Troponin T is a protein relatively specific to heart muscle cells, leaked into the blood. This is a cardiac biomarker that indicates myocardial injury and along with an EKG is. one of the primary screening tests for a heart attack as well as for myocarditis/pericarditis. Pro BNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide) is produced by the heart in response to strain, particularly heart failure. Electrocardiogram (EKG) EKG: What is it and what does it mean? – JP Stroke Foundation Non-invasive medical test that records the heart's electrical activity. Can be used to diagnose myocarditis/pericarditis, heart attack, and various rhythm abnormalities like atrial fibrillation, SVTs and more that can raise the risk of sudden cardiac arrest, such as that seen in some athletes who have been vaxxed. Echocardiogram (ECHO) Provides valuable information about the heart's structure, function, and blood flow and is an important test for helping visualize the inflammatory changes of myocarditis-pericarditis, such as fluid leaking into the sack around the heart. Chest X-ray source Non-invasive imaging test that uses X-rays to visualize the structures and organs within the chest, including the lungs, heart, ribs, diaphragm, and large arteries. Anyone with shortness of breath should have a Chest Xray as a first screening test looking for pneumonia, inflammation, scarring, nodules/cancer, etc. Whole Body MRI The Latest Quantified Self Trend: Whole-Body MRI Another imaging modality that can turn up hidden cancers and a whole host of other abnormalities and might be ordered for someone where the Galleri test was negative but there was still some suspicion present (here is always the risk of over diagnosis with imaging tests like this, which can lead to otherwise unnecessary stress and procedures that can themselves cause harm). Microbiome testing: Microbiomix Metagenomic Sequencing of Stool by Genova or Sabine Hazan’s Whole Genome Deep Sequencing by Progenabiome. Spike toxicity leads to depletion of beneficial gut bacterials species such as Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Roseburia inulinivorans, and Roseburia hominis all of which are associated with long COVID complications. Presence of 'unfriendly' bacterial species is linked to poor performance on the 6-minute walk test among long COVID patients. Microbiomix is cheaper because it uses a less thorough sequencing technique, but can show some changes found due to spike toxicity. Sabine Hazan’s test is better if budgeting allows, both because it does a whole genome sequencing, but also because it benefits from her proprietary and private knowledge base (essentially studies and findings that have not yet been published). There are some supplements that can help correct deficits, and in stubborn cases a stool transplant can be transformative, though this is somewhat difficult to get done as it usually requires travel. And that’s a wrap! Next time We’ll look at the Masterjohn-Schilling panel which is our go to for optimizing treatment of long haul/vax injury and perhaps the Comprehensive Nutrition panel, which is important for anyone who has a chronic illness resistant to treatment, including long haul syndromes. https://blog.mygotodoc.com/p/screening-for-silent-spike-toxicity https://telegra.ph/Screening-for-Silent-Spike-Toxicity-01-07
    BLOG.MYGOTODOC.COM
    Screening for Silent Spike Toxicity
    Spike levels build up over time with repeated exposures and eventually the dam breaks. Here's how to detect toxicity before it causes symptoms.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 12959 Views
  • Legal action for the UK to defund and exit the WHO is launched; how we can help?
    Rhoda WilsonJanuary 29, 2024
    Efforts to expose the World Health Organisation’s nefarious Pandemic Treaty (Pandemic Accord) and its ugly sister the amendments to the International Health Regulations are being ignored by those elected to protect citizens’ rights to life, liberty and freedom.

    Although at this time we cannot rely on our government to protect and defend our rights and freedoms, there appears to be hope, Dr. Tess Lawrie writes.

    That hope lies in a recent discovery by researchers that the UK’s membership of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) is unlawful. Based on this, The People’s Lawyers have launched an injunction to reject the proposed amendments to the IHR and the Pandemic Treaty.

    The People’s Lawyers are also seeking to halt the UK government’s funding of WHO and related organisations and get the UK to exit the WHO.

    So, what can we do to help?

    Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

    Is the UK Unlawfully a Member of WHO?

    By Dr. Tess Lawrie

    A summary of what you need to know.

    A shocking (but hopeful!) discovery

    If those controlling the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) get their way, the United Kingdom and other member states will soon be subject to medical and political tyranny under amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 (“IHR”), and the so-called “Pandemic Treaty.” To date, citizen efforts to oppose these developments have been ignored. But suddenly it appears that there is hope!

    New research has revealed that the UK is unlawfully part of WHO! Based on this discovery, a group known as The People’s Lawyers are launching a legal action for an injunction to reject the IHR and proposed amendments, any “Pandemic Treaty,” and all dictates from WHO, both now and in the future. They are also seeking to halt UK Government funding of WHO and related organisations and to have the UK exit WHO on the basis that its membership has been unlawful from the start.

    How did this situation arise?

    The fundamental concern is that significant fraud was committed during the establishment of WHO. Documents, including diary entries, prove that the “official story” is a highly sanitised version of the actual events. You can read the details of the whole intriguing story HERE, but for a quick overview, here are the essential points that illustrate the fraudulent nature of WHO’s origins, and give hope that this may aid the UK’s withdrawal.

    1. The official story states that: “In April 1945, during the Conference to set up the United Nations (UN) held in San Francisco, representatives of Brazil and China proposed that an international health organisation be established and a conference to frame its constitution convened.”

    In fact, this was not a spontaneous proposal from two nations; instead, the two doctors who brought the proposal, Dr. Souza from Brazil and Dr. Sze, a Chinese American, worked together at the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (“UNRRA”) in Washington DC and were collaborating with the US Government and the Rockefeller Foundation (“RF”) to engineer WHO’s establishment. Dr. Sze wrote the documents claimed to be from the Chinese and Brazilian governments regarding “their” desires for an international health organisation, and both doctors worked hard to convince the Brazilian and Chinese delegates to cooperate.

    2. Dr. Sze also drafted a resolution from the San Francisco Conference and took this to Washington D.C., where Rockefeller-influenced officials approved it as a Health Interim Commission. This mechanism – first used to create the Food and Agriculture Organisation in 1943 – allowed an organisation to be set up exactly as required. People who had not been involved in the “expert” proceedings were unable to change things later. Thus, WHO was set up by stealth, without notification or participation of potential member states.

    3. The role of the Rockefeller Foundation, which has quietly steered the global public health agenda for over a century, cannot be underestimated. Since it was founded in 1913 it has been a major funder of public health research, policy, implementation, and education around the world. While it is a philanthropic body, this level of investment garners a great deal of geopolitical power and influence. Indeed, the progenitor of WHO – the League of Nations Health Organisation (“LNHO”), founded after World War I – was modelled on the RF’s own International Health Division (est. 1927), and the RF was its major patron.

    4. The UN Economic and Social Council (“ESC”) called for an International Health Conference in New York (19 June – 22 July 1946) to establish WHO. This proved to be a rubber-stamping exercise as, prior to the conference, the WHO Technical Preparatory Committee – comprising members with links to the RF, including Souza and Sze, as well as US government representatives – had finalised the proposed WHO Constitution.

    5. This Constitution was essentially forced on the delegates. They assumed that it would be properly considered and ratified and that it could be rejected by their own governments, but this did not happen. In the UK there was no attempt to review or ratify the document. On 22 July 1946, it was signed by representatives of 61 nations. While this would seem to be the date of the establishment of WHO, the Constitution only came into force in 1948, after 26 nations had ratified it. The Interim Commission remained in force for two more years, until it was succeeded by WHO on 31 August 1948.

    6. Mystery surrounds the involvement of the UK in the establishment of WHO. The official Parliamentary record, Hansard, makes no mention during May 1946 of the UK signing up to a “World Health Organisation” shortly after the UN ESC meeting in New York. While the official UN attendance list states that the minister in charge of the UK delegation was Hector McNeil, Hansard records him speaking in Parliament on the same day – so he could not have been present in New York. Very few MPs – not even the Health Minister – knew about the International Health Conference or the signing of the WHO Constitution. It is highly irregular that the UK was not required to ratify its membership and that the Cabinet neither discussed nor agreed to this international agreement.

    7. At the end of the International Health Conference, the WHO Constitution was signed by two ‘government advisors’ – Dr. McKenzie and Mr. Yates – on behalf of the UK. No UK Minister was present and the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, Sir Wilson Jameson, who attended the Conference was not a signatory. It is unconscionable that such an important agreement could have been signed without Parliament even being aware of the process, and without any senior members of the Government being present. There are even questions as to the legality of the original signed Constitution as many of the signatures were just squiggles, and the printed names and positions of the signatories, which are required on a legally binding document, were missing.

    8. One of the reasons for the establishment of WHO was to take over the functions of UNRRA, a body with a limited life span but massive public health powers. In 1944 it had imposed International Sanitary Conventions on the entire world and had the power to mandate vaccination of anyone they chose.

    9. Another organisation that was incorporated into WHO in 1946 was the LNHO. With all its staff being transferred to WHO, the new organisation incorporated much of LNHO’s sinister past, including a history of Nazi and fascist collaboration during World War II, promotion of eugenics – population control and sterilisation – in its policies, and control by Rockefeller and Big Pharma interests.

    Time for legal action

    WHO’s current desperate power grab clearly has a long history. Even before the signing of WHO’s Constitution in 1946, its progenitor organisations were already using public health as a means of expanding global control. The UK’s People and parliament were bypassed and deceived when WHO was created, and have continued to be deceived by the unlawful nature of the UK’s membership of WHO for the past 77 years. But now this immense fraud has been exposed and the legal challenge must follow.

    Considering the above, The People’s Lawyers assert that:

    The UK was unlawfully signed up to the WHO Constitution. It is therefore not legitimately a WHO member state and should not be subject to the International Health Regulations 2005, their recent amendments, or any ‘Pandemic Treaty’.
    The UK should not be subject to any dictates from WHO, nor should it have to
    make any further financial contributions to WHO or any associated organisations.
    Past contributions to WHO should now be refunded, as WHO knowingly allowed unelected advisors to unlawfully sign the Constitution, and this without ratification.
    Recognising the depth of the fraud, other alleged WHO “Member States” should now also examine how they ended up as part of WHO, without a referendum or even, in some cases, ratification. It is time for the people to hold WHO to account. Thanks to The People’s Lawyers, there is now evidence we can use to dismantle this discredited organisation.

    Further resources:

    Sign the Petition to End the UK’s membership of the World Health Organisation!
    Pledge to help to support The People’s Lawyers in their case to Reject and Exit the WHO!
    About the Author

    Dr. Tess Lawrie is the founder of the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development International (BIRD International), Director of EbMCsquared CiC and a member of the steering group of the World Council for Health. She is the author of a Substack page titled ‘A Better Way with Dr Tess Lawrie’ and you can follow her on Twitter HERE.



    https://expose-news.com/2024/01/29/legal-action-for-the-uk-to-defund-and-exit-the-who/
    Legal action for the UK to defund and exit the WHO is launched; how we can help? Rhoda WilsonJanuary 29, 2024 Efforts to expose the World Health Organisation’s nefarious Pandemic Treaty (Pandemic Accord) and its ugly sister the amendments to the International Health Regulations are being ignored by those elected to protect citizens’ rights to life, liberty and freedom. Although at this time we cannot rely on our government to protect and defend our rights and freedoms, there appears to be hope, Dr. Tess Lawrie writes. That hope lies in a recent discovery by researchers that the UK’s membership of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) is unlawful. Based on this, The People’s Lawyers have launched an injunction to reject the proposed amendments to the IHR and the Pandemic Treaty. The People’s Lawyers are also seeking to halt the UK government’s funding of WHO and related organisations and get the UK to exit the WHO. So, what can we do to help? Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… Is the UK Unlawfully a Member of WHO? By Dr. Tess Lawrie A summary of what you need to know. A shocking (but hopeful!) discovery If those controlling the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) get their way, the United Kingdom and other member states will soon be subject to medical and political tyranny under amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 (“IHR”), and the so-called “Pandemic Treaty.” To date, citizen efforts to oppose these developments have been ignored. But suddenly it appears that there is hope! New research has revealed that the UK is unlawfully part of WHO! Based on this discovery, a group known as The People’s Lawyers are launching a legal action for an injunction to reject the IHR and proposed amendments, any “Pandemic Treaty,” and all dictates from WHO, both now and in the future. They are also seeking to halt UK Government funding of WHO and related organisations and to have the UK exit WHO on the basis that its membership has been unlawful from the start. How did this situation arise? The fundamental concern is that significant fraud was committed during the establishment of WHO. Documents, including diary entries, prove that the “official story” is a highly sanitised version of the actual events. You can read the details of the whole intriguing story HERE, but for a quick overview, here are the essential points that illustrate the fraudulent nature of WHO’s origins, and give hope that this may aid the UK’s withdrawal. 1. The official story states that: “In April 1945, during the Conference to set up the United Nations (UN) held in San Francisco, representatives of Brazil and China proposed that an international health organisation be established and a conference to frame its constitution convened.” In fact, this was not a spontaneous proposal from two nations; instead, the two doctors who brought the proposal, Dr. Souza from Brazil and Dr. Sze, a Chinese American, worked together at the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (“UNRRA”) in Washington DC and were collaborating with the US Government and the Rockefeller Foundation (“RF”) to engineer WHO’s establishment. Dr. Sze wrote the documents claimed to be from the Chinese and Brazilian governments regarding “their” desires for an international health organisation, and both doctors worked hard to convince the Brazilian and Chinese delegates to cooperate. 2. Dr. Sze also drafted a resolution from the San Francisco Conference and took this to Washington D.C., where Rockefeller-influenced officials approved it as a Health Interim Commission. This mechanism – first used to create the Food and Agriculture Organisation in 1943 – allowed an organisation to be set up exactly as required. People who had not been involved in the “expert” proceedings were unable to change things later. Thus, WHO was set up by stealth, without notification or participation of potential member states. 3. The role of the Rockefeller Foundation, which has quietly steered the global public health agenda for over a century, cannot be underestimated. Since it was founded in 1913 it has been a major funder of public health research, policy, implementation, and education around the world. While it is a philanthropic body, this level of investment garners a great deal of geopolitical power and influence. Indeed, the progenitor of WHO – the League of Nations Health Organisation (“LNHO”), founded after World War I – was modelled on the RF’s own International Health Division (est. 1927), and the RF was its major patron. 4. The UN Economic and Social Council (“ESC”) called for an International Health Conference in New York (19 June – 22 July 1946) to establish WHO. This proved to be a rubber-stamping exercise as, prior to the conference, the WHO Technical Preparatory Committee – comprising members with links to the RF, including Souza and Sze, as well as US government representatives – had finalised the proposed WHO Constitution. 5. This Constitution was essentially forced on the delegates. They assumed that it would be properly considered and ratified and that it could be rejected by their own governments, but this did not happen. In the UK there was no attempt to review or ratify the document. On 22 July 1946, it was signed by representatives of 61 nations. While this would seem to be the date of the establishment of WHO, the Constitution only came into force in 1948, after 26 nations had ratified it. The Interim Commission remained in force for two more years, until it was succeeded by WHO on 31 August 1948. 6. Mystery surrounds the involvement of the UK in the establishment of WHO. The official Parliamentary record, Hansard, makes no mention during May 1946 of the UK signing up to a “World Health Organisation” shortly after the UN ESC meeting in New York. While the official UN attendance list states that the minister in charge of the UK delegation was Hector McNeil, Hansard records him speaking in Parliament on the same day – so he could not have been present in New York. Very few MPs – not even the Health Minister – knew about the International Health Conference or the signing of the WHO Constitution. It is highly irregular that the UK was not required to ratify its membership and that the Cabinet neither discussed nor agreed to this international agreement. 7. At the end of the International Health Conference, the WHO Constitution was signed by two ‘government advisors’ – Dr. McKenzie and Mr. Yates – on behalf of the UK. No UK Minister was present and the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, Sir Wilson Jameson, who attended the Conference was not a signatory. It is unconscionable that such an important agreement could have been signed without Parliament even being aware of the process, and without any senior members of the Government being present. There are even questions as to the legality of the original signed Constitution as many of the signatures were just squiggles, and the printed names and positions of the signatories, which are required on a legally binding document, were missing. 8. One of the reasons for the establishment of WHO was to take over the functions of UNRRA, a body with a limited life span but massive public health powers. In 1944 it had imposed International Sanitary Conventions on the entire world and had the power to mandate vaccination of anyone they chose. 9. Another organisation that was incorporated into WHO in 1946 was the LNHO. With all its staff being transferred to WHO, the new organisation incorporated much of LNHO’s sinister past, including a history of Nazi and fascist collaboration during World War II, promotion of eugenics – population control and sterilisation – in its policies, and control by Rockefeller and Big Pharma interests. Time for legal action WHO’s current desperate power grab clearly has a long history. Even before the signing of WHO’s Constitution in 1946, its progenitor organisations were already using public health as a means of expanding global control. The UK’s People and parliament were bypassed and deceived when WHO was created, and have continued to be deceived by the unlawful nature of the UK’s membership of WHO for the past 77 years. But now this immense fraud has been exposed and the legal challenge must follow. Considering the above, The People’s Lawyers assert that: The UK was unlawfully signed up to the WHO Constitution. It is therefore not legitimately a WHO member state and should not be subject to the International Health Regulations 2005, their recent amendments, or any ‘Pandemic Treaty’. The UK should not be subject to any dictates from WHO, nor should it have to make any further financial contributions to WHO or any associated organisations. Past contributions to WHO should now be refunded, as WHO knowingly allowed unelected advisors to unlawfully sign the Constitution, and this without ratification. Recognising the depth of the fraud, other alleged WHO “Member States” should now also examine how they ended up as part of WHO, without a referendum or even, in some cases, ratification. It is time for the people to hold WHO to account. Thanks to The People’s Lawyers, there is now evidence we can use to dismantle this discredited organisation. Further resources: Sign the Petition to End the UK’s membership of the World Health Organisation! Pledge to help to support The People’s Lawyers in their case to Reject and Exit the WHO! About the Author Dr. Tess Lawrie is the founder of the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development International (BIRD International), Director of EbMCsquared CiC and a member of the steering group of the World Council for Health. She is the author of a Substack page titled ‘A Better Way with Dr Tess Lawrie’ and you can follow her on Twitter HERE. https://expose-news.com/2024/01/29/legal-action-for-the-uk-to-defund-and-exit-the-who/
    EXPOSE-NEWS.COM
    Legal action for the UK to defund and exit the WHO is launched; how we can help?
    Efforts to expose the World Health Organisation’s nefarious Pandemic Treaty (Pandemic Accord) and its ugly sister the amendments to the International Health Regulations are being ignored by those e…
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6199 Views
  • COVID-19 VACCINATION IN CHILDREN
    Maddie's (12 years of age) tragic story

    phillip.altman

    Pfizer, the FDA and CDC say there was no problem with the Covid-19 “vaccine” in children. CLICK HERE to view the tragic story of Maddie who participated in the original Pfizer Covid-19 “vaccine” clinical trial. Investigative reporter Cheryl Attkisson reveals what really happened and the disgraceful behaviour of the doctors involved.

    Share

    WE NOW KNOW HOW IVERMECTIN WORKS IN POST-VACCINE INJURIES AND LONG COVID


    Prof. Robert Clancy, recognised as one of Australia’s top immunologists, describes the mechanism of action of ivermectin. CLICK HERE to view his interview with Dr. John Campbell (58 min).

    After much speculation, it has now been reported that ivermectin, which has been shown to be effective in prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in many published controlled and randomised clinical trials, binds tightly to both the spike protein on the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself and to the spike protein produced by the mRNA gene-based COVID-19 “vaccines”. It is the spike protein which is the mediator of toxicity of both the virus and the “vaccines”. The binding renders the spike protein incapable of facilitating its toxic effects.

    An understanding of the mechanism of action of a drug is fundamentally important to explain the clinical effectiveness of any drug. Now it appears clear there is a reason why ivermectin has been reported to produce dramatic effects in both treating Long Covid due to the virus and Long Covid due to vaccine injury.

    Why would you give the Order of Australia to somebody like Brett Sutton who helped to discourage the use of ivermectin when the evidence for the safety and efficacy of this drug has been widely known for three years?

    DISCLAIMER:

    The information and personal opinions presented in this Substack is based on or derived from sources which I believe are reliable but they cannot be guaranteed. Any inadvertent errors or inaccuracies which come to my notice will be corrected as soon as possible. I endeavour to reference any relevant published information and provide links to websites so readers can do their own research. The opinions expressed are not intended nor should they be interpreted to be medical advice. I neither seek nor receive any financial compensation for my writings.

    MY SUBSTACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARE ENTIRELY FREE. I ENDEAVOUR TO BRING YOU THE TRUTH. PLEASE SHARE WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY. THAT IS ALL I ASK.

    https://open.substack.com/pub/phillipaltman/p/covid-19-vaccination-in-children?r=1tqe1i&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    COVID-19 VACCINATION IN CHILDREN Maddie's (12 years of age) tragic story phillip.altman Pfizer, the FDA and CDC say there was no problem with the Covid-19 “vaccine” in children. CLICK HERE to view the tragic story of Maddie who participated in the original Pfizer Covid-19 “vaccine” clinical trial. Investigative reporter Cheryl Attkisson reveals what really happened and the disgraceful behaviour of the doctors involved. Share WE NOW KNOW HOW IVERMECTIN WORKS IN POST-VACCINE INJURIES AND LONG COVID Prof. Robert Clancy, recognised as one of Australia’s top immunologists, describes the mechanism of action of ivermectin. CLICK HERE to view his interview with Dr. John Campbell (58 min). After much speculation, it has now been reported that ivermectin, which has been shown to be effective in prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in many published controlled and randomised clinical trials, binds tightly to both the spike protein on the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself and to the spike protein produced by the mRNA gene-based COVID-19 “vaccines”. It is the spike protein which is the mediator of toxicity of both the virus and the “vaccines”. The binding renders the spike protein incapable of facilitating its toxic effects. An understanding of the mechanism of action of a drug is fundamentally important to explain the clinical effectiveness of any drug. Now it appears clear there is a reason why ivermectin has been reported to produce dramatic effects in both treating Long Covid due to the virus and Long Covid due to vaccine injury. Why would you give the Order of Australia to somebody like Brett Sutton who helped to discourage the use of ivermectin when the evidence for the safety and efficacy of this drug has been widely known for three years? DISCLAIMER: The information and personal opinions presented in this Substack is based on or derived from sources which I believe are reliable but they cannot be guaranteed. Any inadvertent errors or inaccuracies which come to my notice will be corrected as soon as possible. I endeavour to reference any relevant published information and provide links to websites so readers can do their own research. The opinions expressed are not intended nor should they be interpreted to be medical advice. I neither seek nor receive any financial compensation for my writings. MY SUBSTACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARE ENTIRELY FREE. I ENDEAVOUR TO BRING YOU THE TRUTH. PLEASE SHARE WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY. THAT IS ALL I ASK. https://open.substack.com/pub/phillipaltman/p/covid-19-vaccination-in-children?r=1tqe1i&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    OPEN.SUBSTACK.COM
    COVID-19 VACCINATION IN CHILDREN
    Maddie's (12 years of age) tragic story
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 2023 Views
  • After having COVID, Christy lost hearing in her right ear. However, after taking ivermectin for three days, her hearing began to return. Watch this uplifting MyStory now.

    Join🔹@Covid19_Critical
    After having COVID, Christy lost hearing in her right ear. However, after taking ivermectin for three days, her hearing began to return. Watch this uplifting MyStory now. Join🔹@Covid19_Critical
    0 Comments 0 Shares 536 Views 1
  • #PlasmidGate: Biotechnician raises plasmid DNA contamination in covid injections during Austrian TV talk show
    Rhoda WilsonDecember 17, 2023
    Two days after German television station MDR aired a report about foreign DNA contamination found in vials of covid injection, a panellist on a popular Austrian talk show spoke about PlasmidGate; vaccines contaminated with plasmid DNA.

    Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

    On Thursday, Austrian television station Servus TV aired its talk show ‘Talk on Hanger-7’ titled ‘Corona instead of Christmas: Is there a threat of compulsory measures again?’ to discuss whether there is a looming threat of covid restrictions being re-implemented in light of the new Pirola variant of covid reportedly being on the rise.

    Monitoring of wastewater, it is claimed, suggests a record-breaking wave of covid in the country and the number of sick days due to colds and flu is higher than ever. Of course, neither of those is a good enough reason to mandate restrictions which cost lives and livelihoods, and destroy the economy.

    According to a survey conducted in 2021, about 33% of the Austrian population watch a Servus TV programme at least once a week to keep up to date with covid.

    It’s not unusual for Servus TV to challenge the official narrative. For example, the director of Servus TV Ferdinand Wegscheider in his commentary series ‘Der Wegscheider’ explained that the covid injections were “insufficiently tested” and contained “genetically modified substances.” He also mentioned ivermectin as a treatment and regularly speaks of the “plandemic.” Microbiologist Sucharit Bhakdi is a frequent guest on Servus TV.

    Michael Fleischhacker hosted the discussion on Talk on Hanger-7 on Thursday. Guests included epidemiologist Klaus Stöhr, medical journalist Werner Bartens, psychoneuroimmunologist Christian Schubert, medical historian Daniela Angetter-Pfeiffer and biotechnician and former VP of German Pharmaceutical firm Boehringer Ingelheim Dr. Monika Henninger-Erber.

    The original talk show is in German and Servus TV is not available outside of Europe. However, Aussie17 managed to obtain a clip and has added English subtitles to it (see below).

    During the discussion, Dr. Henninger-Erber spoke about PlasmidGate. In February, microbiologist Kevin McKernan pioneered research on testing some of the covid-19 vaccine vials and discovered unacceptable levels of double-stranded DNA plasmids floating around. This is DNA contamination. He found the contamination in Pfizer and Moderna vials. Since then, several laboratories around the world have confirmed his findings.

    In September, Professor Dr. Phillip Buckhaults testified in the South Carolina Senate that his team had found 200 billion pieces of DNA contaminating a single dose of Pfizer’s covid injection.

    “Before you ever say that you are calling on people to get vaccinated again, you should think carefully [and] look at what you have learned in the last few years. And you learned, for example, back in February, this year it was published for the first time that the vaccine was contaminated, namely with plasmid DNA,” Dr. Henninger-Erber said during Talk on Hanger-7 on Thursday.

    “PlasmidGate … that’s not just any idea that someone has, but this is real data from laboratories, repeatedly shown that we are there have a huge problem,” she said.

    Bartens is a Covidian who, according to the programme description, defends the measures politicians have taken and thinks little of populist demands to come to terms with covid. He is the one in the video below with grey hair, wearing a blue shirt and who is looking very uncomfortable with what Dr. Henninger-Erber was saying.

    Talk on Hanger-7: Corona instead of Christmas: Is there a threat of compulsory measures again? 14 December 2023
    Source: Aussie17 on Twitter


    https://expose-news.com/2023/12/17/plasmidgate-biotechnician-raises-plasmid-dna-contamination-in-covid-injections-during-austrian-tv-talk-show/
    #PlasmidGate: Biotechnician raises plasmid DNA contamination in covid injections during Austrian TV talk show Rhoda WilsonDecember 17, 2023 Two days after German television station MDR aired a report about foreign DNA contamination found in vials of covid injection, a panellist on a popular Austrian talk show spoke about PlasmidGate; vaccines contaminated with plasmid DNA. Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… On Thursday, Austrian television station Servus TV aired its talk show ‘Talk on Hanger-7’ titled ‘Corona instead of Christmas: Is there a threat of compulsory measures again?’ to discuss whether there is a looming threat of covid restrictions being re-implemented in light of the new Pirola variant of covid reportedly being on the rise. Monitoring of wastewater, it is claimed, suggests a record-breaking wave of covid in the country and the number of sick days due to colds and flu is higher than ever. Of course, neither of those is a good enough reason to mandate restrictions which cost lives and livelihoods, and destroy the economy. According to a survey conducted in 2021, about 33% of the Austrian population watch a Servus TV programme at least once a week to keep up to date with covid. It’s not unusual for Servus TV to challenge the official narrative. For example, the director of Servus TV Ferdinand Wegscheider in his commentary series ‘Der Wegscheider’ explained that the covid injections were “insufficiently tested” and contained “genetically modified substances.” He also mentioned ivermectin as a treatment and regularly speaks of the “plandemic.” Microbiologist Sucharit Bhakdi is a frequent guest on Servus TV. Michael Fleischhacker hosted the discussion on Talk on Hanger-7 on Thursday. Guests included epidemiologist Klaus Stöhr, medical journalist Werner Bartens, psychoneuroimmunologist Christian Schubert, medical historian Daniela Angetter-Pfeiffer and biotechnician and former VP of German Pharmaceutical firm Boehringer Ingelheim Dr. Monika Henninger-Erber. The original talk show is in German and Servus TV is not available outside of Europe. However, Aussie17 managed to obtain a clip and has added English subtitles to it (see below). During the discussion, Dr. Henninger-Erber spoke about PlasmidGate. In February, microbiologist Kevin McKernan pioneered research on testing some of the covid-19 vaccine vials and discovered unacceptable levels of double-stranded DNA plasmids floating around. This is DNA contamination. He found the contamination in Pfizer and Moderna vials. Since then, several laboratories around the world have confirmed his findings. In September, Professor Dr. Phillip Buckhaults testified in the South Carolina Senate that his team had found 200 billion pieces of DNA contaminating a single dose of Pfizer’s covid injection. “Before you ever say that you are calling on people to get vaccinated again, you should think carefully [and] look at what you have learned in the last few years. And you learned, for example, back in February, this year it was published for the first time that the vaccine was contaminated, namely with plasmid DNA,” Dr. Henninger-Erber said during Talk on Hanger-7 on Thursday. “PlasmidGate … that’s not just any idea that someone has, but this is real data from laboratories, repeatedly shown that we are there have a huge problem,” she said. Bartens is a Covidian who, according to the programme description, defends the measures politicians have taken and thinks little of populist demands to come to terms with covid. He is the one in the video below with grey hair, wearing a blue shirt and who is looking very uncomfortable with what Dr. Henninger-Erber was saying. Talk on Hanger-7: Corona instead of Christmas: Is there a threat of compulsory measures again? 14 December 2023 Source: Aussie17 on Twitter https://expose-news.com/2023/12/17/plasmidgate-biotechnician-raises-plasmid-dna-contamination-in-covid-injections-during-austrian-tv-talk-show/
    EXPOSE-NEWS.COM
    #PlasmidGate: Biotechnician raises plasmid DNA contamination in covid injections during Austrian TV talk show
    Two days after German television station MDR aired a report about foreign DNA contamination found in vials of covid injection, a panellist on a popular Austrian talk show spoke about PlasmidGate; v…
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4432 Views
  • Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two
    Debbie Lerman
    In part one of this article, I reviewed the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots, using the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process.

    I showed that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was granted to these products based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with

    no binding legal standards,
    no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and
    no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms.
    In this follow-up article, I will provide a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation.

    Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA): A Military Acquisition Pathway

    The agreement between the US government, represented by the Department of Defense (DoD), and Pfizer, representing the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, for the purchase of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” was not an ordinary acquisition contract.

    It was an agreement under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) – an acquisition pathway that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.”

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

    A thorough review of the use of OTA by the DoD, including its statutory history, can be found in the February 22, 2019 Congressional Research Service report. This report, along with every other discussion of OTA, specifies that it is an alternative acquisition path for defense and military purposes. It is not intended, nor has it ever been used before Covid, for anything intended primarily for civilian use.

    If you look for OTA laws in the US Code, this is the path you will go down:

    Armed Forces -> General Military Law -> Acquisition -> Research and Engineering -> Agreements -> Authority of the DoD to carry out certain prototype projects

    This legal pathway very clearly shows that OTA laws are intended for acquisition of research and engineering prototypes for the armed forces.

    According to the DARPA website,

    The Department of Defense has authority for three different types of OTs: (1) research OTs, (2) prototype OTs, and (3) production OTs.

    These three types of OTs represent three stages of initial research, development of a prototype, and eventual production.

    Within those three types, there are specific categories of projects to which OTA can apply:

    Originally, according to the OTA Overview provided by the DoD, the Other Transaction Authority was “limited to apply to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD.”
    OTA was later expanded to include “any prototype project directly related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the Armed Forces.”
    So far, none of that sounds like an acquisition pathway for millions of novel medical products intended primarily for civilian use.

    Is There any Exception for Civilian Use of OTA That Might Apply to Covid mRNA Vaccines?

    The FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136) contained a section that gave Other Transaction Authority to “the head of an executive agency who engages in basic research, applied research, advanced research, and development projects” that “have the potential to facilitate defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack.”

    This provision was extended until 2018, but does not appear to have been extended beyond that year. Also, note that even in this exceptional case of non-DoD use of OTA, the situation must involve terrorism or an attack with weapons of mass destruction (CBRN).

    What Other OTA Laws Might Apply?

    The 2019 CRS report cited above provides this chart, showing that a few non-DoD agencies have some OTA or related authorities:


    According to this table, The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has some research and development (R&D) Other Transaction Authorities. The law pertaining to the OT Authority of HHS is 42 U.S.C. §247d-7e.

    Where is this law housed and what does it say?

    The Public Health and Welfare -> Public Health Service -> General Powers and Duties -> Federal-State Cooperation -> Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) -> Transaction Authorities

    So there is a place in the law related to civilian health and welfare where OTA might be applicable, although it is valid only for research and development, not prototypes or manufacturing.

    The law states that the BARDA secretary has OT Authority

    with respect to a product that is or may become a qualified countermeasure or a qualified pandemic or epidemic product, activities that predominantly—

    (i) are conducted after basic research and preclinical development of the product; and

    (ii) are related to manufacturing the product on a commercial scale and in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] or under section 262 of this title.

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

    The “regulatory requirements” enumerated in the law mean that it would be impossible for BARDA/HHS to enter into agreements – even just R&D – for any medical products (like the mRNA vaccines) that did not undergo rigorous safety testing and strict manufacturing oversight.

    HHS “Partnership” with DoD Circumvented Civilian Protection Laws

    To summarize the predicament of Other Transaction Authority/Agreements with respect to civilian authorities, in general, and Covid mRNA vaccines, in particular:

    OTA was written and codified as a way for the military to acquire weapons and other necessary systems and equipment without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It covers research and development, prototypes, and subsequent manufacturing.
    The only OTA for a public health agency is for the HHS and it only covers Research & Development, not prototypes or manufacturing.
    Even the R&D OTA given to the HHS still requires products to be manufactured “in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements” for drug and vaccine safety.
    In other words: There is no way HHS could have used its very limited OTA to sign contracts for hundreds of millions of novel medical products.

    So what did HHS do?

    As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in its July 2021 report on “Covid-19 Contracting:” HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities…which HHS lacked.” (p. 24)

    What are DoD’s OT Authorities for Medical Products?

    As discussed, OTA is intended to help the military get equipment and technology without lots of bureaucratic hassle. None of the original laws pertaining to OTA mentioned anything other than “platforms, systems, components, or materials” intended to “enhance the mission effectiveness of military personnel.”

    But five years before Covid, an exceptional use of OTA was introduced:

    In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.” [FDA = Food & Drug Administration]

    As described in the 2015 announcement, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” The list of agents included the top biowarfare pathogens, such as anthrax, ebola, and marburg.

    The announcement went on to specify that “enabling technologies can include animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis (multiple routes of exposure), assays, diagnostic technologies or other platform technologies that can be applied to development of approved or licensed MCMs [medical countermeasures].”

    Although this still does not sound anything like the production of 100 million novel vaccines for civilian use, it does provide more leeway for OTA than the very limited Other Transaction Authority given to HHS.

    While the HHS OTA requires adherence to extensive development and manufacturing regulations, the OTA pathway for the DoD to develop medical countermeasures requires only “FDA licensure.”

    Thus, using DoD Other Transaction Authorities, it would theoretically be possible to bypass any safety regulations – depending on the requirements for FDA licensing of an OTA-generated product. As we will see, in the case of the Covid mRNA vaccines, Emergency Use Authorization was granted, requiring no legal safety oversight at all.

    Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

    Here’s how the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) describes its EUA powers:

    Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3) allows FDA to strengthen public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents.

    With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives (among other criteria).

    It’s extremely important to understand that these EUA powers were granted in 2004 under very specific circumstances related to preparedness for attacks by weapons of mass destruction, otherwise known as CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) agents.

    As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health,

    Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization. After the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent anthrax mail attacks, Congress enacted the Project Bioshield Act of 2004. The act called for billions of dollars in appropriations for purchasing vaccines in preparation for a bioterror attack, and for stockpiling of emergency countermeasures. To be able to act rapidly in an emergency, Congress allowed FDA to authorize formally unapproved products for emergency use against a threat to public health and safety (subject to a declaration of emergency by HHS). The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic.

    The wording of the EUA law underscores the fact that it was intended for use in situations involving weapons of mass destruction. Here are the 4 situations in which EUA can be issued:

    a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents;
    a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of Title 10 or Title 50, of attack with—
    a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or
    an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces;
    a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or
    the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad.
    Nowhere in these four situations is there any mention of a naturally occurring epidemic, pandemic, or any other kind of public health situation that is not caused by “biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear agent/s.”

    Could SARS-CoV-2 qualify as such an agent?

    If you look for the definition of “biological agents” in the US Legal Code, you will go down the following pathway:

    Crimes and Criminal Procedure -> Crimes -> Biological Weapons -> Definitions

    So in the context of United States law, the term “biological agents” means biological weapons, and the use of such agents/weapons is regarded as a crime.

    Wikipedia provides this definition:

    A biological agent (also called bio-agent, biological threat agent, biological warfare agent, biological weapon, or bioweapon) is a bacterium, virus, protozoan, parasite, fungus, or toxin that can be used purposefully as a weapon in bioterrorism or biological warfare (BW).

    On What Legal Basis was EUA Issued for Covid mRNA Vaccines?

    It would seem, based on the laws regarding EUA, that none of the four possible situations described in the law could be applied to a product intended to prevent or treat a disease caused by a naturally occurring pathogen.

    Nevertheless, this law was used to authorize the mRNA Covid vaccines.

    Given the four choices listed in the EUA law, the one that was used for Covid “countermeasures” was

    C) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents.

    When applied specifically to Covid, this is how it was worded:

    the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)…

    There is no doubt here that “the virus that causes COVID-19” is deemed to be the equivalent of “a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents.”

    It is also important to note that the EUA “determination of a public health emergency” is completely separate from, and not in any way reliant on, any other public health emergency declarations, like the ones that were made by the WHO, the US government, and the President at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    So even when the WHO, the US government, and the President declare that the pandemic is over, there can still be Emergency Use Authorization if the HHS Secretary continues to claim that the situation described in section C) exists.

    Looking at all of the EUAs for hundreds of Covid-related medical products, it is very difficult to see how the HHS secretary could justify the claim that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of US citizens living abroad” in most, if not all, of these cases.

    Additional “Statutory Criteria” for FDA to Grant Emergency Use Authorization

    Once the HHS Secretary declares that there is a public health emergency that warrants EUA, based on one of the four situations listed in the law, there are four more “statutory criteria” that have to be met in order for the FDA to issue the EUA. Here’s how the FDA explains these requirements:

    Serious or Life-Threatening Disease or Condition
    For FDA to issue an EUA, the CBRN agent(s) referred to in the HHS Secretary’s EUA declaration must be capable of causing a serious or life-threatening disease or condition.

    NOTE: This criterion repeats the specification of a CBRN agent, which is legally defined as a weapon used in committing a crime.

    Evidence of Effectiveness
    Medical products that may be considered for an EUA are those that “may be effective” to prevent, diagnose, or treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions that can be caused by a CBRN agent(s) identified in the HHS Secretary’s declaration of emergency or threat of emergency under section 564(b).

    The “may be effective” standard for EUAs provides for a lower level of evidence than the “effectiveness” standard that FDA uses for product approvals. FDA intends to assess the potential effectiveness of a possible EUA product on a case-by-case basis using a risk-benefit analysis, as explained below.

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

    LEGAL QUESTION: How can anyone legally claim that a product authorized under EUA is “safe and effective” if the legal standard for EUA is “may be effective” and the FDA declares that this is a “lower level of evidence” than the standard used for regular product approvals?

    Risk-Benefit Analysis
    A product may be considered for an EUA if the Commissioner determines that the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat the identified disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.

    In determining whether the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, FDA intends to look at the totality of the scientific evidence to make an overall risk-benefit determination. Such evidence, which could arise from a variety of sources, may include (but is not limited to): results of domestic and foreign clinical trials, in vivo efficacy data from animal models, and in vitro data, available for FDA consideration. FDA will also assess the quality and quantity of the available evidence, given the current state of scientific knowledge.

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

    LEGAL NOTE: There is no legal standard and there are no legal definitions for what it means for “known and potential benefits” to outweigh “known and potential risks.” There is also no qualitative or quantitative legal definition for what constitutes acceptable “available evidence” upon which the risk-benefit analysis “may be” based. There could be zero actual evidence, but a belief that a product has a lot of potential benefit and not a lot of potential risk, and that would satisfy this “statutory requirement.”

    No Alternatives
    For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need.

    LEGAL QUERY: Aside from the egregious and potentially criminal vilification/outlawing of alternative Covid-19 treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, at what point was there an approved alternative for “preventing Covid-19” (the only thing the mRNA vaccines were purchased to do) – Paxlovid, for instance – which would render an EUA for the mRNA vaccines no longer legal?

    Here’s how all of these “statutory criteria” were satisfied in the actual Emergency Use Authorization for the BioNTEch/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines:

    I have concluded that the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 when administered as described in the Scope of Authorization (Section II) meets the criteria for issuance of an authorization under Section 564(c) of the Act, because:

    SARS-CoV-2 can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, including severe respiratory illness, to humans infected by this virus;
    Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, it is reasonable to believe that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19, and that, when used under the conditions described in this authorization, the known and potential benefits of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine when used to prevent COVID-19 outweigh its known and potential risks; and
    There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19.
    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

    NOTE: The only context in which the FDA weighed the potential benefits and risks of the vaccine, and in which the FDA determined it “may be effective” was in preventing Covid-19.

    There is no consideration, no evidence of actual or potential benefit, and no determination that there is any potential effectiveness for the vaccine to do anything else, including: lowering the risk of severe disease, lowering the risk of hospitalization, lowering the risk of death, lowering the risk of any conditions actually or potentially related to Covid-19.

    THEREFORE, one might reasonably question the legality of any claims that the vaccine is “safe and effective” in the context of anything other than “when used to prevent COVID-19” – which the vaccines were known NOT TO DO very soon after they were introduced.

    If people were told the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” at anything other than preventing Covid-19, and if they were threatened with any consequences for failure to take the vaccine for anything other than preventing Covid-19, might they have a legitimate argument that they were illegally coerced into taking an unapproved product under fraudulent claims?

    Third-Tier Requirements for EUA for Unapproved Products

    Once we have the EUA-specific emergency declaration, and once the FDA declares that the product may be effective and that whatever evidence is available (from zero to infinity) shows that its benefits outweigh its risks (as determined by whatever the FDA thinks those might be), there is one more layer of non-safety, non-efficacy related regulation.

    Here’s how a 2018 Congressional Research Service report on EUA explains this:

    FFDCA §564 directs FDA to impose certain required conditions in an EUA and allows for additional discretionary conditions where appropriate. The required conditions vary depending upon whether the EUA is for an unapproved product or for an unapproved use of an approved product. For an unapproved product, the conditions of use must:

    (1) ensure that health care professionals administering the product receive required information;

    (2) ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered receive required information;

    (3) provide for the monitoring and reporting of adverse events associated with the product; and

    (4) provide for record-keeping and reporting by the manufacturer.

    LEGAL QUESTION: What exactly is the “required information?” We know that people were informed that the vaccines were given Emergency Use Authorization. But were they told that this means “a lower level of evidence” than is required for “safe and effective” claims on other medical products? Were they informed that there are different levels of “safe and effective” depending on whether a product has EUA or another type of authorization?

    NOTE: The law requires that there be a way to monitor and report adverse events. However, it does not state who monitors, what the standards are for reporting, and what the threshold is for taking action based on the reports.

    EUA Compared to Every Other Drug/Vaccines Approval Pathway

    As researcher/writer Sasha Latypova has pointed out, many people were confused by EUA, because it sounds a lot like EAU, which stands for “Expanded Access Use.” This is a type of authorization given to medical products when there is urgent need by a particular group of patients (e.g., Stage IV cancer patients whose life expectancy is measured in months) who are willing to risk adverse events and even death in exchange for access to an experimental treatment.

    Emergency Use Authorization is in no way related to, nor does it bear any resemblance to, Expanded Access Use.

    The various legal pathways for authorizing medical products are neatly presented in a table highlighted by legal researcher Katherine Watt. The table is part of a 2020 presentation for an FDA-CDC Joint Learning Session: Regulatory Updates on Use of Medical Countermeasures.


    Comparison of Access Mechanisms
    This table shows very clearly that the EUA process is unlikely to provide information regarding product effectiveness, is not designed to provide evidence of safety, is not likely to provide useful information to benefit future patients, involves no systematic data collection, requires no retrospective studies, no informed consent, and no institutional review board.

    Moreover, in a 2009 Institute of Medicine of the National Academic publication, also highlighted by Watt, entitled “Medical Countermeasures: Dispensing Emergency Use Authorization and the Postal Model – Workshop Summary” we find this statement on p. 28:

    It is important to recognize that an EUA is not part of the development pathway; it is an entirely separate entity that is used only during emergency situations and is not part of the drug approval process.

    Does this mean that approvals of Covid-19 countermeasures that were based on EUAs were illegal? Does it mean that there is no legal way to claim an EUA product is “safe and effective” because it is NOT PART OF THE DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS?

    Conclusion

    It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population.

    Therefore, the adherence to regulations and oversight that we expect to find when a product is deemed “safe and effective” for the entire civilian population was not legally required.

    Can this analysis be used to challenge the legality of the “safe and effective” claim by those government officials who knew what EUA entailed? Are there other legal ramifications?

    I hope so.

    Importantly, in legal challenges to Covid mRNA vaccines brought so far, there have been no rulings (that I am aware of) on whether military law, like OTA and EUA, can be applied to civilian situations. However, there has been a statement by District Court Judge Michael Truncale, in his dismissal of the case of whistleblower Brook Jackson v. Ventavia and Pfizer, that is important to keep in mind.

    Here the judge acknowledges that the agreement for the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines was a military OTA, but he refuses to rule on its applicability to the non-military circumstances (naturally occurring disease, 100 million doses mostly not for military use) under which it was issued:

    The fact that both military personnel and civilians received the vaccine does not indicate that acquiring the vaccine was irrelevant to enhancing the military’s mission effectiveness. More importantly, Ms. Jackson is in effect asking this Court to overrule the DoD’s decision to exercise Other Transaction Authority to purchase Pfizer’s vaccine. But as the United States Supreme Court has long emphasized, the “complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments.” Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 10 (1973). Thus, it is “difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.” Id. This Court will not veto the DoD’s judgments concerning mission effectiveness during a national emergency.

    This is just one of many legal hurdles that remain in the battle to ultimately outlaw all mRNA products approved during the Covid-19 emergency, and any subsequent mRNA products whose approval was based on the Covid-19 approval process.

    Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

    Author

    Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA.

    View all posts
    Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.

    https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight-part-two/
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two Debbie Lerman In part one of this article, I reviewed the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots, using the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process. I showed that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was granted to these products based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. In this follow-up article, I will provide a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation. Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA): A Military Acquisition Pathway The agreement between the US government, represented by the Department of Defense (DoD), and Pfizer, representing the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, for the purchase of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” was not an ordinary acquisition contract. It was an agreement under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) – an acquisition pathway that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.” [BOLDFACE ADDED] A thorough review of the use of OTA by the DoD, including its statutory history, can be found in the February 22, 2019 Congressional Research Service report. This report, along with every other discussion of OTA, specifies that it is an alternative acquisition path for defense and military purposes. It is not intended, nor has it ever been used before Covid, for anything intended primarily for civilian use. If you look for OTA laws in the US Code, this is the path you will go down: Armed Forces -> General Military Law -> Acquisition -> Research and Engineering -> Agreements -> Authority of the DoD to carry out certain prototype projects This legal pathway very clearly shows that OTA laws are intended for acquisition of research and engineering prototypes for the armed forces. According to the DARPA website, The Department of Defense has authority for three different types of OTs: (1) research OTs, (2) prototype OTs, and (3) production OTs. These three types of OTs represent three stages of initial research, development of a prototype, and eventual production. Within those three types, there are specific categories of projects to which OTA can apply: Originally, according to the OTA Overview provided by the DoD, the Other Transaction Authority was “limited to apply to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD.” OTA was later expanded to include “any prototype project directly related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the Armed Forces.” So far, none of that sounds like an acquisition pathway for millions of novel medical products intended primarily for civilian use. Is There any Exception for Civilian Use of OTA That Might Apply to Covid mRNA Vaccines? The FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136) contained a section that gave Other Transaction Authority to “the head of an executive agency who engages in basic research, applied research, advanced research, and development projects” that “have the potential to facilitate defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack.” This provision was extended until 2018, but does not appear to have been extended beyond that year. Also, note that even in this exceptional case of non-DoD use of OTA, the situation must involve terrorism or an attack with weapons of mass destruction (CBRN). What Other OTA Laws Might Apply? The 2019 CRS report cited above provides this chart, showing that a few non-DoD agencies have some OTA or related authorities: According to this table, The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has some research and development (R&D) Other Transaction Authorities. The law pertaining to the OT Authority of HHS is 42 U.S.C. §247d-7e. Where is this law housed and what does it say? The Public Health and Welfare -> Public Health Service -> General Powers and Duties -> Federal-State Cooperation -> Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) -> Transaction Authorities So there is a place in the law related to civilian health and welfare where OTA might be applicable, although it is valid only for research and development, not prototypes or manufacturing. The law states that the BARDA secretary has OT Authority with respect to a product that is or may become a qualified countermeasure or a qualified pandemic or epidemic product, activities that predominantly— (i) are conducted after basic research and preclinical development of the product; and (ii) are related to manufacturing the product on a commercial scale and in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] or under section 262 of this title. [BOLDFACE ADDED] The “regulatory requirements” enumerated in the law mean that it would be impossible for BARDA/HHS to enter into agreements – even just R&D – for any medical products (like the mRNA vaccines) that did not undergo rigorous safety testing and strict manufacturing oversight. HHS “Partnership” with DoD Circumvented Civilian Protection Laws To summarize the predicament of Other Transaction Authority/Agreements with respect to civilian authorities, in general, and Covid mRNA vaccines, in particular: OTA was written and codified as a way for the military to acquire weapons and other necessary systems and equipment without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It covers research and development, prototypes, and subsequent manufacturing. The only OTA for a public health agency is for the HHS and it only covers Research & Development, not prototypes or manufacturing. Even the R&D OTA given to the HHS still requires products to be manufactured “in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements” for drug and vaccine safety. In other words: There is no way HHS could have used its very limited OTA to sign contracts for hundreds of millions of novel medical products. So what did HHS do? As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in its July 2021 report on “Covid-19 Contracting:” HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities…which HHS lacked.” (p. 24) What are DoD’s OT Authorities for Medical Products? As discussed, OTA is intended to help the military get equipment and technology without lots of bureaucratic hassle. None of the original laws pertaining to OTA mentioned anything other than “platforms, systems, components, or materials” intended to “enhance the mission effectiveness of military personnel.” But five years before Covid, an exceptional use of OTA was introduced: In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.” [FDA = Food & Drug Administration] As described in the 2015 announcement, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” The list of agents included the top biowarfare pathogens, such as anthrax, ebola, and marburg. The announcement went on to specify that “enabling technologies can include animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis (multiple routes of exposure), assays, diagnostic technologies or other platform technologies that can be applied to development of approved or licensed MCMs [medical countermeasures].” Although this still does not sound anything like the production of 100 million novel vaccines for civilian use, it does provide more leeway for OTA than the very limited Other Transaction Authority given to HHS. While the HHS OTA requires adherence to extensive development and manufacturing regulations, the OTA pathway for the DoD to develop medical countermeasures requires only “FDA licensure.” Thus, using DoD Other Transaction Authorities, it would theoretically be possible to bypass any safety regulations – depending on the requirements for FDA licensing of an OTA-generated product. As we will see, in the case of the Covid mRNA vaccines, Emergency Use Authorization was granted, requiring no legal safety oversight at all. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Here’s how the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) describes its EUA powers: Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3) allows FDA to strengthen public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives (among other criteria). It’s extremely important to understand that these EUA powers were granted in 2004 under very specific circumstances related to preparedness for attacks by weapons of mass destruction, otherwise known as CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) agents. As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health, Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization. After the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent anthrax mail attacks, Congress enacted the Project Bioshield Act of 2004. The act called for billions of dollars in appropriations for purchasing vaccines in preparation for a bioterror attack, and for stockpiling of emergency countermeasures. To be able to act rapidly in an emergency, Congress allowed FDA to authorize formally unapproved products for emergency use against a threat to public health and safety (subject to a declaration of emergency by HHS). The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic. The wording of the EUA law underscores the fact that it was intended for use in situations involving weapons of mass destruction. Here are the 4 situations in which EUA can be issued: a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of Title 10 or Title 50, of attack with— a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces; a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad. Nowhere in these four situations is there any mention of a naturally occurring epidemic, pandemic, or any other kind of public health situation that is not caused by “biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear agent/s.” Could SARS-CoV-2 qualify as such an agent? If you look for the definition of “biological agents” in the US Legal Code, you will go down the following pathway: Crimes and Criminal Procedure -> Crimes -> Biological Weapons -> Definitions So in the context of United States law, the term “biological agents” means biological weapons, and the use of such agents/weapons is regarded as a crime. Wikipedia provides this definition: A biological agent (also called bio-agent, biological threat agent, biological warfare agent, biological weapon, or bioweapon) is a bacterium, virus, protozoan, parasite, fungus, or toxin that can be used purposefully as a weapon in bioterrorism or biological warfare (BW). On What Legal Basis was EUA Issued for Covid mRNA Vaccines? It would seem, based on the laws regarding EUA, that none of the four possible situations described in the law could be applied to a product intended to prevent or treat a disease caused by a naturally occurring pathogen. Nevertheless, this law was used to authorize the mRNA Covid vaccines. Given the four choices listed in the EUA law, the one that was used for Covid “countermeasures” was C) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents. When applied specifically to Covid, this is how it was worded: the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)… There is no doubt here that “the virus that causes COVID-19” is deemed to be the equivalent of “a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents.” It is also important to note that the EUA “determination of a public health emergency” is completely separate from, and not in any way reliant on, any other public health emergency declarations, like the ones that were made by the WHO, the US government, and the President at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. So even when the WHO, the US government, and the President declare that the pandemic is over, there can still be Emergency Use Authorization if the HHS Secretary continues to claim that the situation described in section C) exists. Looking at all of the EUAs for hundreds of Covid-related medical products, it is very difficult to see how the HHS secretary could justify the claim that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of US citizens living abroad” in most, if not all, of these cases. Additional “Statutory Criteria” for FDA to Grant Emergency Use Authorization Once the HHS Secretary declares that there is a public health emergency that warrants EUA, based on one of the four situations listed in the law, there are four more “statutory criteria” that have to be met in order for the FDA to issue the EUA. Here’s how the FDA explains these requirements: Serious or Life-Threatening Disease or Condition For FDA to issue an EUA, the CBRN agent(s) referred to in the HHS Secretary’s EUA declaration must be capable of causing a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. NOTE: This criterion repeats the specification of a CBRN agent, which is legally defined as a weapon used in committing a crime. Evidence of Effectiveness Medical products that may be considered for an EUA are those that “may be effective” to prevent, diagnose, or treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions that can be caused by a CBRN agent(s) identified in the HHS Secretary’s declaration of emergency or threat of emergency under section 564(b). The “may be effective” standard for EUAs provides for a lower level of evidence than the “effectiveness” standard that FDA uses for product approvals. FDA intends to assess the potential effectiveness of a possible EUA product on a case-by-case basis using a risk-benefit analysis, as explained below. [BOLDFACE ADDED] LEGAL QUESTION: How can anyone legally claim that a product authorized under EUA is “safe and effective” if the legal standard for EUA is “may be effective” and the FDA declares that this is a “lower level of evidence” than the standard used for regular product approvals? Risk-Benefit Analysis A product may be considered for an EUA if the Commissioner determines that the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat the identified disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. In determining whether the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, FDA intends to look at the totality of the scientific evidence to make an overall risk-benefit determination. Such evidence, which could arise from a variety of sources, may include (but is not limited to): results of domestic and foreign clinical trials, in vivo efficacy data from animal models, and in vitro data, available for FDA consideration. FDA will also assess the quality and quantity of the available evidence, given the current state of scientific knowledge. [BOLDFACE ADDED] LEGAL NOTE: There is no legal standard and there are no legal definitions for what it means for “known and potential benefits” to outweigh “known and potential risks.” There is also no qualitative or quantitative legal definition for what constitutes acceptable “available evidence” upon which the risk-benefit analysis “may be” based. There could be zero actual evidence, but a belief that a product has a lot of potential benefit and not a lot of potential risk, and that would satisfy this “statutory requirement.” No Alternatives For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need. LEGAL QUERY: Aside from the egregious and potentially criminal vilification/outlawing of alternative Covid-19 treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, at what point was there an approved alternative for “preventing Covid-19” (the only thing the mRNA vaccines were purchased to do) – Paxlovid, for instance – which would render an EUA for the mRNA vaccines no longer legal? Here’s how all of these “statutory criteria” were satisfied in the actual Emergency Use Authorization for the BioNTEch/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines: I have concluded that the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 when administered as described in the Scope of Authorization (Section II) meets the criteria for issuance of an authorization under Section 564(c) of the Act, because: SARS-CoV-2 can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, including severe respiratory illness, to humans infected by this virus; Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, it is reasonable to believe that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19, and that, when used under the conditions described in this authorization, the known and potential benefits of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine when used to prevent COVID-19 outweigh its known and potential risks; and There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19. [BOLDFACE ADDED] NOTE: The only context in which the FDA weighed the potential benefits and risks of the vaccine, and in which the FDA determined it “may be effective” was in preventing Covid-19. There is no consideration, no evidence of actual or potential benefit, and no determination that there is any potential effectiveness for the vaccine to do anything else, including: lowering the risk of severe disease, lowering the risk of hospitalization, lowering the risk of death, lowering the risk of any conditions actually or potentially related to Covid-19. THEREFORE, one might reasonably question the legality of any claims that the vaccine is “safe and effective” in the context of anything other than “when used to prevent COVID-19” – which the vaccines were known NOT TO DO very soon after they were introduced. If people were told the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” at anything other than preventing Covid-19, and if they were threatened with any consequences for failure to take the vaccine for anything other than preventing Covid-19, might they have a legitimate argument that they were illegally coerced into taking an unapproved product under fraudulent claims? Third-Tier Requirements for EUA for Unapproved Products Once we have the EUA-specific emergency declaration, and once the FDA declares that the product may be effective and that whatever evidence is available (from zero to infinity) shows that its benefits outweigh its risks (as determined by whatever the FDA thinks those might be), there is one more layer of non-safety, non-efficacy related regulation. Here’s how a 2018 Congressional Research Service report on EUA explains this: FFDCA §564 directs FDA to impose certain required conditions in an EUA and allows for additional discretionary conditions where appropriate. The required conditions vary depending upon whether the EUA is for an unapproved product or for an unapproved use of an approved product. For an unapproved product, the conditions of use must: (1) ensure that health care professionals administering the product receive required information; (2) ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered receive required information; (3) provide for the monitoring and reporting of adverse events associated with the product; and (4) provide for record-keeping and reporting by the manufacturer. LEGAL QUESTION: What exactly is the “required information?” We know that people were informed that the vaccines were given Emergency Use Authorization. But were they told that this means “a lower level of evidence” than is required for “safe and effective” claims on other medical products? Were they informed that there are different levels of “safe and effective” depending on whether a product has EUA or another type of authorization? NOTE: The law requires that there be a way to monitor and report adverse events. However, it does not state who monitors, what the standards are for reporting, and what the threshold is for taking action based on the reports. EUA Compared to Every Other Drug/Vaccines Approval Pathway As researcher/writer Sasha Latypova has pointed out, many people were confused by EUA, because it sounds a lot like EAU, which stands for “Expanded Access Use.” This is a type of authorization given to medical products when there is urgent need by a particular group of patients (e.g., Stage IV cancer patients whose life expectancy is measured in months) who are willing to risk adverse events and even death in exchange for access to an experimental treatment. Emergency Use Authorization is in no way related to, nor does it bear any resemblance to, Expanded Access Use. The various legal pathways for authorizing medical products are neatly presented in a table highlighted by legal researcher Katherine Watt. The table is part of a 2020 presentation for an FDA-CDC Joint Learning Session: Regulatory Updates on Use of Medical Countermeasures. Comparison of Access Mechanisms This table shows very clearly that the EUA process is unlikely to provide information regarding product effectiveness, is not designed to provide evidence of safety, is not likely to provide useful information to benefit future patients, involves no systematic data collection, requires no retrospective studies, no informed consent, and no institutional review board. Moreover, in a 2009 Institute of Medicine of the National Academic publication, also highlighted by Watt, entitled “Medical Countermeasures: Dispensing Emergency Use Authorization and the Postal Model – Workshop Summary” we find this statement on p. 28: It is important to recognize that an EUA is not part of the development pathway; it is an entirely separate entity that is used only during emergency situations and is not part of the drug approval process. Does this mean that approvals of Covid-19 countermeasures that were based on EUAs were illegal? Does it mean that there is no legal way to claim an EUA product is “safe and effective” because it is NOT PART OF THE DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS? Conclusion It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population. Therefore, the adherence to regulations and oversight that we expect to find when a product is deemed “safe and effective” for the entire civilian population was not legally required. Can this analysis be used to challenge the legality of the “safe and effective” claim by those government officials who knew what EUA entailed? Are there other legal ramifications? I hope so. Importantly, in legal challenges to Covid mRNA vaccines brought so far, there have been no rulings (that I am aware of) on whether military law, like OTA and EUA, can be applied to civilian situations. However, there has been a statement by District Court Judge Michael Truncale, in his dismissal of the case of whistleblower Brook Jackson v. Ventavia and Pfizer, that is important to keep in mind. Here the judge acknowledges that the agreement for the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines was a military OTA, but he refuses to rule on its applicability to the non-military circumstances (naturally occurring disease, 100 million doses mostly not for military use) under which it was issued: The fact that both military personnel and civilians received the vaccine does not indicate that acquiring the vaccine was irrelevant to enhancing the military’s mission effectiveness. More importantly, Ms. Jackson is in effect asking this Court to overrule the DoD’s decision to exercise Other Transaction Authority to purchase Pfizer’s vaccine. But as the United States Supreme Court has long emphasized, the “complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments.” Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 10 (1973). Thus, it is “difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.” Id. This Court will not veto the DoD’s judgments concerning mission effectiveness during a national emergency. This is just one of many legal hurdles that remain in the battle to ultimately outlaw all mRNA products approved during the Covid-19 emergency, and any subsequent mRNA products whose approval was based on the Covid-19 approval process. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight-part-two/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 9118 Views
  • Ivermectin, AKA “horse dewormer,” has not only been vindicated as an effective treatment for COVID, but it is now also showing profound anti-cancer properties.

    Dr. Paul Marik attests to this: “The horse dewormer is very effective against certain cancers.”

    “We know of cases of patients who had solid tumors who were given the horse dewormer (ivermectin), and together with some other drugs ... the cancer disappeared.”

    https://x.com/vigilantfox/status/1745566990108958797?s=46
    Ivermectin, AKA “horse dewormer,” has not only been vindicated as an effective treatment for COVID, but it is now also showing profound anti-cancer properties. Dr. Paul Marik attests to this: “The horse dewormer is very effective against certain cancers.” “We know of cases of patients who had solid tumors who were given the horse dewormer (ivermectin), and together with some other drugs ... the cancer disappeared.” https://x.com/vigilantfox/status/1745566990108958797?s=46
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1105 Views
More Results