• More Proof mRNA Shots Edit Human Genome
    New Study Again Shows LINE-1 "Junk DNA" Does The Dirty Work

    Dr. Syed Haider
    Could the mRNA shots edit germline DNA?
    Honest scientists have always been worried about retrointegration of foreign mRNA from “vaccine” shots into our own cellular DNA.

    This fear should have been allayed by rigorous genotoxicity safety studies before the mRNA shots where rolled out, but those studies were waived by the Big Pharma controlled FDA (with the DoD behind the scenes pulling all the strings).

    Previous research showed that this could theoretically occur in a human liver cancer cell line inside a controlled laboratory setting utilizing our own bodies reverse transcriptase enzymes that are upregulated in cancer cells.

    Naysayers still argued that this situation was impossible or at least extremely unlikely to occur in our bodies.

    Unfortunately there is now further proof that this really does occur, either right away after vaccination, or if not, then it’s even more likely to occur once a vaccinated individual catches COVID-19, as long as vaccinal mRNA remains present in the body (so far we know it remains in circulation for weeks and in the lymph nodes for months - likely far longer, since all the studies had to be stopped, presumably due to lack of funding, or out of fear of creating unpublishable papers since the news wasn’t looking good).

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

    Share

    A new paper by Zhang et al, just released on Feb 13, 2023 proves that at artificially high concentrations in a lab setting, the SARS-CoV-2 virus can retrointegrate into our genome.

    Thankfully during natural infection such high levels of viral RNA do not typically occur, but … (you knew there had to be a “but”)

    … such high levels are induced by mRNA vaccination.

    So what the paper may actually prove in the roundabout way of most modern research (required for publication to ever happen in todays politically charged Big Pharma controlled publishing environment) is that the mRNA in the shots is in fact likely to retrointegrate into our cellular DNA.

    To dig into the details we need to start with a quick basic bio refresher:

    Understanding Genetics
    Nearly every cell in our bodies carries a full copy of our genetic code, or genome (the exceptions are red blood cells that have no genome, and sperm and egg cells that have half a genome since they are meant to combine with half of someone else's genome).

    Our genome is made up of individual genes encoded by DNA and bundled together into 46 chromosomes that are stored in a central compartment of our cells called the nucleus.

    In order to “read" the DNA code and convert it into the structure that makes up our bodies, it is first translated by a “reader” protein that writes it out into a new free floating molecule called mRNA for messenger RNA (the mRNA shots carry this messenger RNA, not modified RNA as some people think).

    The mRNA, unlike the DNA is not stuck inside the chromosome and it can exit the nucleus, going into the larger compartment called the cytoplasm of the cell, where its message is “read” and translated into an amino acid sequence that folds itself into a protein (either a body protein, or in the case of the shots the spike protein, or in the case of an RNA virus infection like SARS-CoV-2, all the proteins of the virus).

    Now going back to the nucleus: some of the individual DNA encoded genes can move around within their chromosomes and have therefore been described as "jumping genes" or technically speaking: transposable elements (TEs).

    Jumping genes!
    Some of these jumping genes (Class 1 TEs) use a copy and paste mechanism and others (Class 2 TEs), like the one in the cartoon depiction above, use a cut and paste mechanism.

    The Class 1 TEs (AKA retrotransposons) that use the copy and paste mechanism do so by translating their DNA into RNA and then converting the RNA back into DNA and inserting it somewhere else in the genome.

    The Class 1 TEs or retrotransposons, include within themselves the genetic code necessary to create their own protein enzyme to convert the DNA back into RNA, which is termed reverse transcriptase.

    Fun fact: retroviruses like HIV can be considered a special subtype of retrotransposon that can not only reinsert inside the same cell, but also travel to other cells “infecting” them and reverse transcribing into their genomes.

    In humans the only active jumping genes are from CLASS 1 TEs/retrotransposons and are called LINE-1 retrotransposons (LINE stands for Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements).

    LINE-1 retrotransposons were once considered to be junk DNA, they are usually inactivated, but can be turned on in aging cells, cancer cells, virus infected cells and in general in any cell subjected to significant stress.

    Junk DNA, which makes up 98.5% of our genome, is still little understood. It may help regulate the activity of the other 1.5% of the genome that does code for proteins, is likely involved in genome evolution, and has been implicated in disease states like cancer, autism and dozens of genetic diseases.

    So, what’s been shown in this new paper by Zhang et al, is that a lab clone of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, when present in very high levels, does turn on LINE-1, which means it also turns on the LINE-1 reverse transcriptase enzyme, which it then makes use of to reverse transcribe itself into our DNA.

    But even worse: genome sequencing found the viral genetic code transcribed into our DNA not only in cells where LINE-1 was actively turned on, or overexpressed above baseline, but even in cells where it was not.

    Is Sangamo's Gene-Editing Approach a Bust? | The Motley Fool
    Then, instead of studying the LNPs and spike protein RNA used in the shots, the researchers (who valued their careers) used a different mechanism of delivering low levels of nucleocapsid RNA into the cells in the lab to see if they also up regulated LINE-1 expression and were integrated into the cellular DNA.

    Turns out this handicapped experiment did not up regulate LINE-1, or get taken up in detectable quantities by healthy cells, though it did lead to genomic uptake in cells that already had LINE-1 upregulated - which again happens in aging cells, cancer cells, virus infected cells or simply in cells under stress (perhaps from LNP and spike protein induced inflammation?).

    The study authors addressed the discrepancy in retrointegration between the viral clone and their handicapped version of an mRNA shot by theorizing there were:

    "...several possible explanations for the differences in the levels of retrotransposition in infected and transfected cells: (i) The relative abundance of viral RNA is almost 2 orders of magnitude higher in infected than in transfected cells which would increase the probability of association with LINE1 proteins; (ii) virus infection, but not viral mRNA transfection, can induce endogenous LINE1 expression; (iii) multiple factors during SARS-CoV-2 infection can inhibit the antiviral/anti-retrotransposition function of stress granules (48–53), which could increase retrotransposition.”

    The first theory is the most concerning.

    Based on what we know from a 2020 study by Xie et al that showed the very high levels of intracellular viral RNA achieved by infectious clones, we can extrapolate that in the current study by Zhang et al the concentration of mRNA achieved by the SARS-CoV-2 viral clone was likely about 1000X greater than the low levels typically found during a natural infection.

    In fact the levels of mRNA in each cell achieved by the viral clone in the current study are actually far more likely to be achieved by transfection into cells of LNPs in the shots carrying spike protein mRNA than they are during a natural infection.

    Life finds a way. - Reaction GIFs
    So if the authors first theory is correct, that the difference in retrointegration rates simply depends on the intracellular concentration of foreign RNA, then retrointegration is very likely to occur due to exposure to mRNA in the shots, and it is likely to dramatically increase in case someone who has received the shot later becomes infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus - since we know it upregulates LINE-1 expression, or if they are put under other stressors including the development of cancer, or by the stress of long COVID, chronic vaccine injury, autoimmune disease, autonomic dysfunction, POTS, MCAS, etc - all of which are also sadly enough triggered by the shot.

    This is less likely to happen in germ cell DNA - our sperm and egg cells - and lets hope it doesn’t happen, since we already know that the shots likely do transmit altered immunity from mother to child, if they also pass on the mRNA coding the spike protein itself then huge swaths of humanity may be forever genetically altered.

    Heres hoping the label “junk DNA” actually applies in this case…

    But, if you’ve been vaccinated: don’t worry!

    At mygotodoc we routinely reverse vaccine injuries and sincerely believe every disease has a cure.

    Fear is more likely to kill you than the shot (but do stop getting the boosters), and I mean that literally: fear destroys the immune system.

    A healthy immune system can keep any illness in check even if from a retrointegrated virus or viral mRNA fragment.

    There are a lot of unknowns, but don’t let that scare you. Take your health into your own hands and start making positive changes today.

    https://blog.mygotodoc.com/p/more-proof-mrna-shots-edit-human


    https://telegra.ph/More-Proof-mRNA-Shots-Edit-Human-Genome-09-17-2
    More Proof mRNA Shots Edit Human Genome New Study Again Shows LINE-1 "Junk DNA" Does The Dirty Work Dr. Syed Haider Could the mRNA shots edit germline DNA? Honest scientists have always been worried about retrointegration of foreign mRNA from “vaccine” shots into our own cellular DNA. This fear should have been allayed by rigorous genotoxicity safety studies before the mRNA shots where rolled out, but those studies were waived by the Big Pharma controlled FDA (with the DoD behind the scenes pulling all the strings). Previous research showed that this could theoretically occur in a human liver cancer cell line inside a controlled laboratory setting utilizing our own bodies reverse transcriptase enzymes that are upregulated in cancer cells. Naysayers still argued that this situation was impossible or at least extremely unlikely to occur in our bodies. Unfortunately there is now further proof that this really does occur, either right away after vaccination, or if not, then it’s even more likely to occur once a vaccinated individual catches COVID-19, as long as vaccinal mRNA remains present in the body (so far we know it remains in circulation for weeks and in the lymph nodes for months - likely far longer, since all the studies had to be stopped, presumably due to lack of funding, or out of fear of creating unpublishable papers since the news wasn’t looking good). Thank you for reading Dr. Syed Haider. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share A new paper by Zhang et al, just released on Feb 13, 2023 proves that at artificially high concentrations in a lab setting, the SARS-CoV-2 virus can retrointegrate into our genome. Thankfully during natural infection such high levels of viral RNA do not typically occur, but … (you knew there had to be a “but”) … such high levels are induced by mRNA vaccination. So what the paper may actually prove in the roundabout way of most modern research (required for publication to ever happen in todays politically charged Big Pharma controlled publishing environment) is that the mRNA in the shots is in fact likely to retrointegrate into our cellular DNA. To dig into the details we need to start with a quick basic bio refresher: Understanding Genetics Nearly every cell in our bodies carries a full copy of our genetic code, or genome (the exceptions are red blood cells that have no genome, and sperm and egg cells that have half a genome since they are meant to combine with half of someone else's genome). Our genome is made up of individual genes encoded by DNA and bundled together into 46 chromosomes that are stored in a central compartment of our cells called the nucleus. In order to “read" the DNA code and convert it into the structure that makes up our bodies, it is first translated by a “reader” protein that writes it out into a new free floating molecule called mRNA for messenger RNA (the mRNA shots carry this messenger RNA, not modified RNA as some people think). The mRNA, unlike the DNA is not stuck inside the chromosome and it can exit the nucleus, going into the larger compartment called the cytoplasm of the cell, where its message is “read” and translated into an amino acid sequence that folds itself into a protein (either a body protein, or in the case of the shots the spike protein, or in the case of an RNA virus infection like SARS-CoV-2, all the proteins of the virus). Now going back to the nucleus: some of the individual DNA encoded genes can move around within their chromosomes and have therefore been described as "jumping genes" or technically speaking: transposable elements (TEs). Jumping genes! Some of these jumping genes (Class 1 TEs) use a copy and paste mechanism and others (Class 2 TEs), like the one in the cartoon depiction above, use a cut and paste mechanism. The Class 1 TEs (AKA retrotransposons) that use the copy and paste mechanism do so by translating their DNA into RNA and then converting the RNA back into DNA and inserting it somewhere else in the genome. The Class 1 TEs or retrotransposons, include within themselves the genetic code necessary to create their own protein enzyme to convert the DNA back into RNA, which is termed reverse transcriptase. Fun fact: retroviruses like HIV can be considered a special subtype of retrotransposon that can not only reinsert inside the same cell, but also travel to other cells “infecting” them and reverse transcribing into their genomes. In humans the only active jumping genes are from CLASS 1 TEs/retrotransposons and are called LINE-1 retrotransposons (LINE stands for Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements). LINE-1 retrotransposons were once considered to be junk DNA, they are usually inactivated, but can be turned on in aging cells, cancer cells, virus infected cells and in general in any cell subjected to significant stress. Junk DNA, which makes up 98.5% of our genome, is still little understood. It may help regulate the activity of the other 1.5% of the genome that does code for proteins, is likely involved in genome evolution, and has been implicated in disease states like cancer, autism and dozens of genetic diseases. So, what’s been shown in this new paper by Zhang et al, is that a lab clone of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, when present in very high levels, does turn on LINE-1, which means it also turns on the LINE-1 reverse transcriptase enzyme, which it then makes use of to reverse transcribe itself into our DNA. But even worse: genome sequencing found the viral genetic code transcribed into our DNA not only in cells where LINE-1 was actively turned on, or overexpressed above baseline, but even in cells where it was not. Is Sangamo's Gene-Editing Approach a Bust? | The Motley Fool Then, instead of studying the LNPs and spike protein RNA used in the shots, the researchers (who valued their careers) used a different mechanism of delivering low levels of nucleocapsid RNA into the cells in the lab to see if they also up regulated LINE-1 expression and were integrated into the cellular DNA. Turns out this handicapped experiment did not up regulate LINE-1, or get taken up in detectable quantities by healthy cells, though it did lead to genomic uptake in cells that already had LINE-1 upregulated - which again happens in aging cells, cancer cells, virus infected cells or simply in cells under stress (perhaps from LNP and spike protein induced inflammation?). The study authors addressed the discrepancy in retrointegration between the viral clone and their handicapped version of an mRNA shot by theorizing there were: "...several possible explanations for the differences in the levels of retrotransposition in infected and transfected cells: (i) The relative abundance of viral RNA is almost 2 orders of magnitude higher in infected than in transfected cells which would increase the probability of association with LINE1 proteins; (ii) virus infection, but not viral mRNA transfection, can induce endogenous LINE1 expression; (iii) multiple factors during SARS-CoV-2 infection can inhibit the antiviral/anti-retrotransposition function of stress granules (48–53), which could increase retrotransposition.” The first theory is the most concerning. Based on what we know from a 2020 study by Xie et al that showed the very high levels of intracellular viral RNA achieved by infectious clones, we can extrapolate that in the current study by Zhang et al the concentration of mRNA achieved by the SARS-CoV-2 viral clone was likely about 1000X greater than the low levels typically found during a natural infection. In fact the levels of mRNA in each cell achieved by the viral clone in the current study are actually far more likely to be achieved by transfection into cells of LNPs in the shots carrying spike protein mRNA than they are during a natural infection. Life finds a way. - Reaction GIFs So if the authors first theory is correct, that the difference in retrointegration rates simply depends on the intracellular concentration of foreign RNA, then retrointegration is very likely to occur due to exposure to mRNA in the shots, and it is likely to dramatically increase in case someone who has received the shot later becomes infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus - since we know it upregulates LINE-1 expression, or if they are put under other stressors including the development of cancer, or by the stress of long COVID, chronic vaccine injury, autoimmune disease, autonomic dysfunction, POTS, MCAS, etc - all of which are also sadly enough triggered by the shot. This is less likely to happen in germ cell DNA - our sperm and egg cells - and lets hope it doesn’t happen, since we already know that the shots likely do transmit altered immunity from mother to child, if they also pass on the mRNA coding the spike protein itself then huge swaths of humanity may be forever genetically altered. Heres hoping the label “junk DNA” actually applies in this case… But, if you’ve been vaccinated: don’t worry! At mygotodoc we routinely reverse vaccine injuries and sincerely believe every disease has a cure. Fear is more likely to kill you than the shot (but do stop getting the boosters), and I mean that literally: fear destroys the immune system. A healthy immune system can keep any illness in check even if from a retrointegrated virus or viral mRNA fragment. There are a lot of unknowns, but don’t let that scare you. Take your health into your own hands and start making positive changes today. https://blog.mygotodoc.com/p/more-proof-mrna-shots-edit-human https://telegra.ph/More-Proof-mRNA-Shots-Edit-Human-Genome-09-17-2
    BLOG.MYGOTODOC.COM
    More Proof mRNA Shots Edit Human Genome
    New Study Again Shows LINE-1 "Junk DNA" Does The Dirty Work
    0 Comments 0 Shares 22636 Views
  • Verizon Turns Super Bowl Stadiums into Kill boxes..

    Can you say new pandemic?

    Just like Wuhan China Vegas and other high profile areas are implementing 5G Beamforming technology into their daily services.

    The Super Bowl is now utilizing 5G for communications between players and the coach.

    They also just installed 45 new 5G nodes all around the stadium turning the entire stadium into a literal cell tower.

    It’s so obvious that no one wants to believe it. They warned you with 4G when you’re near a cell tower, but now with 5G they don’t need to warn anyone, even though it’s stronger and more dangerous?

    More awareness needs to be spread and understood about EMF and RF.

    https://www.thestreet.com/technology/allegiant-stadium-super-bowl-verizon-5g-network-rollout


    Subscribe: NESARA GESARA-SECRETS Private
    Verizon Turns Super Bowl Stadiums into Kill boxes.. Can you say new pandemic? Just like Wuhan China Vegas and other high profile areas are implementing 5G Beamforming technology into their daily services. The Super Bowl is now utilizing 5G for communications between players and the coach. They also just installed 45 new 5G nodes all around the stadium turning the entire stadium into a literal cell tower. It’s so obvious that no one wants to believe it. They warned you with 4G when you’re near a cell tower, but now with 5G they don’t need to warn anyone, even though it’s stronger and more dangerous? More awareness needs to be spread and understood about EMF and RF. https://www.thestreet.com/technology/allegiant-stadium-super-bowl-verizon-5g-network-rollout Subscribe: NESARA GESARA-SECRETS ✅ Private
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 4260 Views 1

  • FRIGHTENING TRUTH: Airborne mRNA Vaccines are being created that can be delivered straight into the Lungs without the need for Injection
    The ExposéDecember 22, 2023
    Researchers have developed an airborne mRNA vaccine offering a vehicle by which to rapidly vaccinate the masses without their knowledge or consent.

    A team from Yale University has developed a new airborne method for delivering mRNA right to your lungs. The method has also been used to vaccinate mice intranasally, “opening the door for human testing in the near future.”

    While scientists may celebrate this invention as a convenient method to vaccinate large populations, skeptics raise obvious concerns about the potential misuse of an airborne vaccine, including the possibility of covert bioenhancements a concept that has previously been suggested in academic literature. (source).

    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…

    Roman Balmakov of Facts Matter discusses the study in the video below

    The Study: Polymer nanoparticles deliver mRNA to the lung for mucosal vaccination

    In a research conducted on mice, scientists from Yale University developed polymer nanoparticles to encapsulate mRNA, transforming it into an inhalable form for delivery to the lungs. Courtney Malo, who serves as an editor at Science Translational Medicine, the publication that featured the study, explained,

    “The ability to efficiently deliver mRNA to the lung would have applications for vaccine development, gene therapy, and more. Here, Suberi et al. showed that such mRNA delivery can be accomplished by encapsulating mRNAs of interest within optimized poly(amine-co-ester) polyplexes [nanoparticles].

    Polyplex-delivered mRNAs were efficiently translated into protein in the lungs of mice with limited evidence of toxicity. This platform was successfully applied as an intranasal SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, eliciting robust immune responses that conferred protection against subsequent viral challenge.

    These results highlight the potential of this delivery system for vaccine applications and beyond.“

    The team, which was led by cellular and molecular physiologist Mark Saltzman, claims that the inhalable mRNA vaccine “successfully protected against “SARS-CoV-2“, and that it “opens the door to delivering other messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics for gene replacement therapy and other treatments in the lungs.”(source)


    For the study, mice received two intranasal doses of nanoparticles carrying mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which proved to be effective in the animals. In the past, lung-targeted mRNA therapies had trouble making it into the cells necessary to express the encoded protein, known as poor transfection efficiency (source).

    “The Saltzman group got around this hurdle in part by using a nanoparticle made from poly(amine-co-ester) polyplexes, or PACE, a biocompatible and highly customizable polymer,” a Yale University news release explained. In a previous study, Saltzman had tried a “prime and spike” system to deliver COVID-19 shots, which involved injecting mRNA shots into a muscle, then spraying spike proteins into the nose.

    It turned out the injection portion may be unnecessary, and Saltzman has high hopes for the airborne delivery method, beyond vaccines: (source).

    “In the new report, there is no intramuscular injection. We just gave two doses, a prime, and a boost, intranasally, and we got a highly protective immune response. But we also showed that, generally, you can deliver different kinds of mRNA. So it’s not just good for a vaccine, but potentially also good for gene replacement therapy in diseases like cystic fibrosis and gene editing.

    We used a vaccine example to show that it works, but it opens the door to doing all these other kinds of interventions.”

    Air Vax Could ‘Radically Change’ How People Are Vaccinated

    Saltzman says this “new method of delivery could ‘radically change the way people are vaccinated,’” making it easier to vaccinate people in remote areas or those who are afraid of needles.10 But that’s not all. An airborne vaccine makes it possible to rapidly disseminate it across a population.

    No Jab Needed

    By releasing the vaccine in the air, there’s no need to inject each person individually — which is not only time-consuming but difficult if an individual objects to the shot. This isn’t the case with an airborne vaccine, which can be released into the air without consent or even the public’s knowledge.

    A similar strategy is being used with mRNA in shrimp, which are too small and numerous to be injected individually. Instead, an oral “nanovaccine” was created to stop the spread of a virus. Shai Ufaz, chief executive officer of ViAqua, which developed the technology, stated:

    “Oral delivery is the holy grail of aquaculture health development due to both the impossibility of vaccinating individual shrimp and its ability to substantially bring down the operational costs of disease management while improving outcomes …”

    While the Yale scientists are targeting an intranasal mRNA product, the outcome is the same — get as many exposed as possible with the least amount of cost and effort. According to the Yale study:

    “An inhalable platform for messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics would enable minimally invasive and lung-targeted delivery for a host of pulmonary diseases. Development of lung-targeted mRNA therapeutics has been limited by poor transfection efficiency and risk of vehicle-induced pathology.

    Here, we report an inhalable polymer-based vehicle for the delivery of therapeutic mRNAs to the lung. We optimized biodegradable poly(amine-co-ester) (PACE) polyplexes [nanoparticles] for mRNA delivery using end-group modifications and polyethylene glycol. These polyplexes achieved high transfection of mRNA throughout the lung, particularly in epithelial and antigen-presenting cells.

    We applied this technology to develop a mucosal vaccine for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and found that intranasal vaccination with spike protein–encoding mRNA polyplexes induced potent cellular and humoral adaptive immunity and protected susceptible mice from lethal viral challenge. Together, these results demonstrate the translational potential of PACE polyplexes for therapeutic delivery of mRNA to the lungs.”

    The following excerpts are from Dr Joseph Mercola, who explains his concerns regarding the airborne mRNA

    US Government Has History of Bioweapons Release

    When you put the pieces of the puzzle together, a disturbing picture emerges. As reported by The Epoch Times, we have a history of the U.S. government taking extreme measures to mandate and promote COVID-19 shots to the public. Now, researchers have developed an airborne mRNA vaccine, offering a vehicle by which to rapidly vaccinate the masses without their knowledge or consent (source).

    Is there proof that the government or another entity has plans to covertly release an air vax on the population? No. But there is a history of it carrying out secret bioweapon simulations on Americans. In 1950, the U.S. Navy sprayed Serratia marcescens bacteria into the air near San Francisco over a period of six days.

    Dubbed “Operation Sea Spray,” the project was intended to determine how susceptible the city was to a bioweapon attack. Serratia marcescens turns whatever it touches bright red, making it easy to track. It spread throughout the city, as residents inhaled the microbes from the air. While the U.S. military initially thought Serratia marcescens wouldn’t harm humans, an outbreak occurred, with some developing urinary tract infections as a result.

    At least one person died “and some have suggested that the release forever changed the area’s microbial ecology,” Smithsonian Magazine reported. This wasn’t an isolated incident, as the U.S. government carried out many other experiments across the U.S. over the next 20 years. (source).

    So, while it’s disturbing to think of an air vax experiment being conducted on an unsuspecting public, it’s not unprecedented.

    Bioethics Study Promotes Covert, Compulsory Bioenhancement

    Adding to the story is academic endorsement of the use of compulsory, covert bioenhancements. Writing in the journal Bioethics, Parker Crutchfield with Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, discusses moral bioenhancements, which refers to the use of biomedical means to trigger moral improvements.

    Drug treatments, including vaccines, and genetic engineering are potential examples of bioenhancements. Further, according to Crutchfield:

    “It is necessary to morally bioenhance the population in order to prevent ultimate harm. Moral bioenhancement is the potential practice of influencing a person’s moral behavior by way of biological intervention upon their moral attitudes, motivations, or dispositions.

    The technology that may permit moral bioenhancement is on the scale between nonexistent and nascent, but common examples of potential interventions include infusing water supplies with pharmaceuticals that enhance empathy or altruism or otherwise intervening on a person’s emotions or motivations, in an attempt to influence the person’s moral behavior.”

    Some argue that moral bioenhancements should be compulsory for the greater good. Crutchfield believes this doesn’t go far enough. He also wants them to be covert: (source).

    “I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement.”

    He even goes so far as to suggest “a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality and autonomy better than an overt program does.” (source).

    So here we have evidence of academic support for covertly releasing drugs and other bioenhancements onto the public. This, combined with the creation of an airborne mRNA vaccine and the government’s history of experimenting on the public, paints an unsettling picture of the future.

    Problems With mRNA COVID Shots Persist

    Aside from the concerns of airborne delivery, mRNA COVID-19 shots are associated with significant risks — no matter how you’re exposed. People ages 65 and older who received Pfizer’s updated (bivalent) COVID-19 booster shot may be at increased risk of stroke, according to an announcement made by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration. (source).

    Further, a large study from Israel revealed that Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA jab is associated with a threefold increased risk of myocarditis, leading to the condition at a rate of 1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons (source). Other elevated risks were also identified following the COVID jab, including lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes), appendicitis, and herpes zoster infection (source).

    At least 16,183 people also say they’ve developed tinnitus after receiving a COVID-19 shot (source). The reports were filed with the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database. But considering only between 1% and 10% of adverse reactions are ever reported to VAERS, the actual number is likely much higher.

    It’s because of risks like these that informed consent is essential for any medical procedure, including vaccinations. The development of airborne mRNA jabs, however, makes the possibility of informed consent being taken away all the more real. From Mercola


    FRIGHTENING TRUTH: Airborne mRNA Vaccines are being created that can be delivered straight into the Lungs without the need for Injection

    https://expose-news.com/2023/12/22/airborne-mrna-vaccines-are-being-created

    T.me/AgentsOfTruth
    T.me/AgentsOfTruthChat
    FRIGHTENING TRUTH: Airborne mRNA Vaccines are being created that can be delivered straight into the Lungs without the need for Injection The ExposéDecember 22, 2023 Researchers have developed an airborne mRNA vaccine offering a vehicle by which to rapidly vaccinate the masses without their knowledge or consent. A team from Yale University has developed a new airborne method for delivering mRNA right to your lungs. The method has also been used to vaccinate mice intranasally, “opening the door for human testing in the near future.” While scientists may celebrate this invention as a convenient method to vaccinate large populations, skeptics raise obvious concerns about the potential misuse of an airborne vaccine, including the possibility of covert bioenhancements a concept that has previously been suggested in academic literature. (source). 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… Roman Balmakov of Facts Matter discusses the study in the video below The Study: Polymer nanoparticles deliver mRNA to the lung for mucosal vaccination In a research conducted on mice, scientists from Yale University developed polymer nanoparticles to encapsulate mRNA, transforming it into an inhalable form for delivery to the lungs. Courtney Malo, who serves as an editor at Science Translational Medicine, the publication that featured the study, explained, “The ability to efficiently deliver mRNA to the lung would have applications for vaccine development, gene therapy, and more. Here, Suberi et al. showed that such mRNA delivery can be accomplished by encapsulating mRNAs of interest within optimized poly(amine-co-ester) polyplexes [nanoparticles]. Polyplex-delivered mRNAs were efficiently translated into protein in the lungs of mice with limited evidence of toxicity. This platform was successfully applied as an intranasal SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, eliciting robust immune responses that conferred protection against subsequent viral challenge. These results highlight the potential of this delivery system for vaccine applications and beyond.“ The team, which was led by cellular and molecular physiologist Mark Saltzman, claims that the inhalable mRNA vaccine “successfully protected against “SARS-CoV-2“, and that it “opens the door to delivering other messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics for gene replacement therapy and other treatments in the lungs.”(source) For the study, mice received two intranasal doses of nanoparticles carrying mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which proved to be effective in the animals. In the past, lung-targeted mRNA therapies had trouble making it into the cells necessary to express the encoded protein, known as poor transfection efficiency (source). “The Saltzman group got around this hurdle in part by using a nanoparticle made from poly(amine-co-ester) polyplexes, or PACE, a biocompatible and highly customizable polymer,” a Yale University news release explained. In a previous study, Saltzman had tried a “prime and spike” system to deliver COVID-19 shots, which involved injecting mRNA shots into a muscle, then spraying spike proteins into the nose. It turned out the injection portion may be unnecessary, and Saltzman has high hopes for the airborne delivery method, beyond vaccines: (source). “In the new report, there is no intramuscular injection. We just gave two doses, a prime, and a boost, intranasally, and we got a highly protective immune response. But we also showed that, generally, you can deliver different kinds of mRNA. So it’s not just good for a vaccine, but potentially also good for gene replacement therapy in diseases like cystic fibrosis and gene editing. We used a vaccine example to show that it works, but it opens the door to doing all these other kinds of interventions.” Air Vax Could ‘Radically Change’ How People Are Vaccinated Saltzman says this “new method of delivery could ‘radically change the way people are vaccinated,’” making it easier to vaccinate people in remote areas or those who are afraid of needles.10 But that’s not all. An airborne vaccine makes it possible to rapidly disseminate it across a population. No Jab Needed By releasing the vaccine in the air, there’s no need to inject each person individually — which is not only time-consuming but difficult if an individual objects to the shot. This isn’t the case with an airborne vaccine, which can be released into the air without consent or even the public’s knowledge. A similar strategy is being used with mRNA in shrimp, which are too small and numerous to be injected individually. Instead, an oral “nanovaccine” was created to stop the spread of a virus. Shai Ufaz, chief executive officer of ViAqua, which developed the technology, stated: “Oral delivery is the holy grail of aquaculture health development due to both the impossibility of vaccinating individual shrimp and its ability to substantially bring down the operational costs of disease management while improving outcomes …” While the Yale scientists are targeting an intranasal mRNA product, the outcome is the same — get as many exposed as possible with the least amount of cost and effort. According to the Yale study: “An inhalable platform for messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics would enable minimally invasive and lung-targeted delivery for a host of pulmonary diseases. Development of lung-targeted mRNA therapeutics has been limited by poor transfection efficiency and risk of vehicle-induced pathology. Here, we report an inhalable polymer-based vehicle for the delivery of therapeutic mRNAs to the lung. We optimized biodegradable poly(amine-co-ester) (PACE) polyplexes [nanoparticles] for mRNA delivery using end-group modifications and polyethylene glycol. These polyplexes achieved high transfection of mRNA throughout the lung, particularly in epithelial and antigen-presenting cells. We applied this technology to develop a mucosal vaccine for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and found that intranasal vaccination with spike protein–encoding mRNA polyplexes induced potent cellular and humoral adaptive immunity and protected susceptible mice from lethal viral challenge. Together, these results demonstrate the translational potential of PACE polyplexes for therapeutic delivery of mRNA to the lungs.” The following excerpts are from Dr Joseph Mercola, who explains his concerns regarding the airborne mRNA US Government Has History of Bioweapons Release When you put the pieces of the puzzle together, a disturbing picture emerges. As reported by The Epoch Times, we have a history of the U.S. government taking extreme measures to mandate and promote COVID-19 shots to the public. Now, researchers have developed an airborne mRNA vaccine, offering a vehicle by which to rapidly vaccinate the masses without their knowledge or consent (source). Is there proof that the government or another entity has plans to covertly release an air vax on the population? No. But there is a history of it carrying out secret bioweapon simulations on Americans. In 1950, the U.S. Navy sprayed Serratia marcescens bacteria into the air near San Francisco over a period of six days. Dubbed “Operation Sea Spray,” the project was intended to determine how susceptible the city was to a bioweapon attack. Serratia marcescens turns whatever it touches bright red, making it easy to track. It spread throughout the city, as residents inhaled the microbes from the air. While the U.S. military initially thought Serratia marcescens wouldn’t harm humans, an outbreak occurred, with some developing urinary tract infections as a result. At least one person died “and some have suggested that the release forever changed the area’s microbial ecology,” Smithsonian Magazine reported. This wasn’t an isolated incident, as the U.S. government carried out many other experiments across the U.S. over the next 20 years. (source). So, while it’s disturbing to think of an air vax experiment being conducted on an unsuspecting public, it’s not unprecedented. Bioethics Study Promotes Covert, Compulsory Bioenhancement Adding to the story is academic endorsement of the use of compulsory, covert bioenhancements. Writing in the journal Bioethics, Parker Crutchfield with Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, discusses moral bioenhancements, which refers to the use of biomedical means to trigger moral improvements. Drug treatments, including vaccines, and genetic engineering are potential examples of bioenhancements. Further, according to Crutchfield: “It is necessary to morally bioenhance the population in order to prevent ultimate harm. Moral bioenhancement is the potential practice of influencing a person’s moral behavior by way of biological intervention upon their moral attitudes, motivations, or dispositions. The technology that may permit moral bioenhancement is on the scale between nonexistent and nascent, but common examples of potential interventions include infusing water supplies with pharmaceuticals that enhance empathy or altruism or otherwise intervening on a person’s emotions or motivations, in an attempt to influence the person’s moral behavior.” Some argue that moral bioenhancements should be compulsory for the greater good. Crutchfield believes this doesn’t go far enough. He also wants them to be covert: (source). “I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement.” He even goes so far as to suggest “a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality and autonomy better than an overt program does.” (source). So here we have evidence of academic support for covertly releasing drugs and other bioenhancements onto the public. This, combined with the creation of an airborne mRNA vaccine and the government’s history of experimenting on the public, paints an unsettling picture of the future. Problems With mRNA COVID Shots Persist Aside from the concerns of airborne delivery, mRNA COVID-19 shots are associated with significant risks — no matter how you’re exposed. People ages 65 and older who received Pfizer’s updated (bivalent) COVID-19 booster shot may be at increased risk of stroke, according to an announcement made by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration. (source). Further, a large study from Israel revealed that Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA jab is associated with a threefold increased risk of myocarditis, leading to the condition at a rate of 1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons (source). Other elevated risks were also identified following the COVID jab, including lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes), appendicitis, and herpes zoster infection (source). At least 16,183 people also say they’ve developed tinnitus after receiving a COVID-19 shot (source). The reports were filed with the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database. But considering only between 1% and 10% of adverse reactions are ever reported to VAERS, the actual number is likely much higher. It’s because of risks like these that informed consent is essential for any medical procedure, including vaccinations. The development of airborne mRNA jabs, however, makes the possibility of informed consent being taken away all the more real. From Mercola FRIGHTENING TRUTH: Airborne mRNA Vaccines are being created that can be delivered straight into the Lungs without the need for Injection https://expose-news.com/2023/12/22/airborne-mrna-vaccines-are-being-created T.me/AgentsOfTruth T.me/AgentsOfTruthChat
    EXPOSE-NEWS.COM
    FRIGHTENING TRUTH: Airborne mRNA Vaccines are being created that can be delivered straight into the Lungs without the need for Injection
    Researchers have developed an airborne mRNA vaccine offering a vehicle by which to rapidly vaccinate the masses without their knowledge or consent. A team from Yale University has developed a new a…
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 13420 Views
  • Virology - The Damning Evidence
    The Stake In The Heart For This Pseudoscientific Profession

    dpl
    Introduction

    One never realize how big the task of writing on a subject is until you start. One thing you can be assured of is how much you learn by writing about your findings or thoughts. My stance on virology has been clarified in two previous posts as follows:

    The Gatekeepers Club.

    Virus Lie - The Result of 4 Years of Study.

    Another thing you quickly realize on this journey is how easy it is to censor someone, especially if you start hitting a nerve. I have documented some of it underneath the conclusion of the The Gatekeepers Club article. It is very important to make copies of your work, as shadow banning is one thing, but if these platforms decide to terminate your channel and all the work you have done is on it, you will obviously lose it all. We were in that same position about a year ago when Discord decided to terminate our channel. Twenty of the smartest people you would ever know had been working on it for close to two years, and it was gone overnight. Therefore, this post will serve as safekeeping for some of the best information that I have come across in the last few weeks proving that virology is pseudoscience.


    Update - 18 September 2023

    The order of the sections of this article has been rearranged to introduce the most important information first. As mentioned in my most recent article titled: Hacking at the Root of the Virus Issue it was explained that for the longest time I thought that failure to “isolate” viruses was the most important evidence to focus on. This is however not the case as explained in detail in the “Hacking at the Root of the Virus Issue” article.

    Transmission is the fundamental assumption on which virology rest. Without proof of transmission, nothing downstream matters. Even though understanding these downstream concepts will never be a waste of time one must consider that the normal man on the street will not be interested in complicated terminology and processes.

    It is of crucial importance for the no virus community to find easier ways to explain the fallacy that is virology. Seeing as no one need a laboratory to assess whether transmission is possible and because we can observe this phenomena ourselves (Inductive reasoning) this is the linchpin for virology. A twitter space where we discussed this can be viewed here (*Note: Jamie was cut off during his talk and his section was not included).

    As discussed during the twitter space, we have reviewed the available transmission studies and a summary of these studies can be seen below.

    Transmission / Infection

    One of the funniest things you will see while debating the trolls on Twitter is that they will provide studies conducted to prove the efficacy of vaccines. The people that undertake these studies assume that transmission or infection has already been proven, but nothing could be further from the truth. That is why it is important for us to list the peer-reviewed studies that disprove transmission or infection to further demonstrate that virology is a pseudoscience. The list of studies was compiled with the help of Jamie, georgie&donny, and Aldhissla (also see Aldhissla’s list on polio here).

    (*Please note that this section is open to comments at the moment and anyone that want to add notes or studies are free to leave a comment).

    The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Mar. 1, 1905):
    - Chapman, 1801: Tried to transmit measles using the blood, tears, the mucus of the nostrils and bronchia, and the eruptive matter in the cuticle without any success.
    - Willan, 1809: Inoculated three children with vesicle fluids of measles but without success.
    - Albers, 1834: Attempted to infect four children with measles without success. He quoted Alexander Monro, Bourgois, and Spray as also having made unsuccessful inoculations with saliva, tears, and cutaneous scales.
    - Themmen, 1817: Tried to infect 5 children with measles. 0/5 children became sick.

    Charles Creighton, 1837 (A history of epidemics in Britain). "No proof of the existence of any contagious principles by which it was propagated from one individual to another."

    EH Ackernecht, writing about Anticontagionism between 1821 and 1867 - “That the anticontagionists were usually honest men and in deadly earnest is shown, among other things, by the numerous self-experiments to which they submitted themselves to prove their contentions.” also see “Famous are the plague self-experiments of Clot-Bey, the offers for plague self-experiment by Chervin, Lassis, Costa, Lapis, and Lasserre, and the cholera self-experiments of Fay, Scipio Pinel, Wayrot, and J.L. Guyon. The amazing thing is that almost all of these experiments failed to produce the disease.”

    Note on Hospitals by Florence Nightingale, 1858 - "Suffice it to say, that in the ordinary sense of the word, there is no proof, such as would be admitted in any scientific inquiry, that there is any such thing as 'contagion." also see "Just as there is no such thing as 'contagion,' there is no such thing as inevitable 'infection."

    Andreas Christian Bull, 1868 - “It does not seem apparent in this small [polio] epidemic that contagion played any role, because the disease occurred here and there in the different places of the district without the possibility of establishing any relation between the various cases or the families of the same.”

    Karl-Oskar Medin, 1887 - A Swedish pediatrician who was the first to examine a polio outbreak, concluded that it was an infectious, but not contagious, disease.

    Charles Caverly, 1894 - Investigated the first US polio epidemic: ”it is very certain that it was non-contagious.”

    Journal of American Medical Association, Volume 72, Number 3, 1919 (or additional link here):

    - Warschawsky, 1895 - Injected small pigs and rabbits with blood taken in the eruptive stage. All results were negative.
    - Belila, 1896 - Placed warm nasal mucus and saliva from measles patients on the nasal and oral mucous membrane of rabbits, guinea-pigs, cats, mice, dogs and lambs, but without any positive results.
    - Josias, 1898 - Rubbed measles secretions over the throat, nose and eyes of several young pigs, but without any effects.
    - Geissler, 1903 - Inoculated sheep, swine, goats, dogs and cats in various ways with the bodily fluids from patients with measles; including smearing, spraying, rubbing. All results were negative.
    - Pomjalowsky, 1914 - Injected measles blood into guineapigs, rabbits and small pigs. All results were negative.
    - Jurgelunas, 1914 - Inoculated blood from patients with measles into suckling pigs and rabbits, but without effect.

    Leegaard, 1899 - Was not able to prove a single case of patient-to-patient contagion in a polio outbreak in Norway. "Infantile paralysis is of an infectious, but not of a contagious nature. As a matter of fact no indisputable instance of contagion could be proved."

    Dr. Rodermund, 1901 - From his diary of SmallPox experiments. For 15 years he smeared the pus of smallpox patients on his face and used to go home with his family, play cards at the gentleman’s club and treat other patients and never got sick or saw a single other person get sick.

    Walter Reed, 1902 - “Without entering into details, I may say that, in the first place, the Commission saw, with some surprise, what had so often been noted in the literature, that patients in all stages of yellow fever could be cared for by non-immune nurses without danger of contracting the disease. The non-contagious character of yellow fever was, therefore, hardly to be questioned.”

    Landsteiner & Popper, 1909 - "Attempts to transmit the disease [polio] to the usual laboratory animals, such as rabbits, guinea pigs, or mice, failed."

    F.E. Batten, (1909) - “Against the infectivity of the disease may be urged, first, the absence of spread of infection in hospital. The cases of poliomyelitis admitted to hospital freely mixed with other cases in the ward without any isolation or disinfection, some 70 children came in contact, but no infection took place. (p. 208, last paragraph)”

    The Boston medical and surgical journal, 1909 - An inquiry a 1908 polio outbreak found the following: “A large number of children were in intimate contact with those that were sick, and of these children an insignificant minority developed the disease.” 244 children were in intimate contact with those who were afflicted with polio. Of those 244 children, an "insignificant minority" developed the disease.

    Massachusetts State board of health, 1909 - "Poliomyelitis prevailed in epidemic form in Kansas during the summer of 1909 … No method of contagion could be found, and the author does not consider the disease contagious."

    Flexner & Lewis, 1910 - Multiple unsuccessful polio transmission attempts. "Many guinea-pigs and rabbits, one horse, two calves, three goats, three pigs, three sheep, six rats, six mice, six dogs, and four cats have had active virus introduced in the brain but without causing any appreciable effect whatever. These animals have been under observation for many weeks."

    A Washinton, 1911 - “I have not seen any cases of Polio contagion. We put the patients on one side and typhoid cases on the other, and no nurse or mother was infected. If the disease was so contagious, I don't see why the nurses and mothers would not have been infected.”

    J.J. Moren, 1912 - "Monkeys suffering from polio in the same cage with healthy monkeys, do not infect others."

    P. H. Römer, 1913 - "No proofs of the contagiousness of the disease [polio] could be obtained in the great epidemic in New York in 1907, nor in the epidemic in the Steiermark (Furntratt, Potpeschnigg) nor in Pomerania (Peiper).

    H. W. Frauenthal, 1914 - "Advocates of the contagion theory were at a loss to account for the fact that spontaneous [polio] transmission among laboratory monkeys was never known to occur ... There is no proof that spontaneous transmission of acute poliomyelitis, without an inoculation wound, can take place. There is no proof that contact contagion takes place. Spontaneous development of the disease among laboratory animals is unknown."

    W.H. Frost, 1916 - "The disease [polio] develops in a such a small proportion of people known to have been intimately associated with acute cases of polio." ... "The majority of cases of poliomyelitis can not be traced to known contact, either direct or indirect, with any previous case."

    W. L. Holt, 1916 - Investigated an epidemic of polio and found that he was "surprised that I could trace hardly any cases to personal contact with others, there rarely being successive cases."

    Dr. I. D. Rawlings, 1916 - "Any one who has had much experience with poliomyelitis is struck by the infrequency, relatively, of the secondary cases among direct contacts ... there were approximately 1,500 direct contacts, and yet but one possible case occurred among them. Also among the large number of people that came from New York and other infected areas not a single case occurred.”

    H. L. Abramson, 1917 - Attempts to induce polio in a monkey by injecting the spinal fluid of 40 polio patients (rather than the ground cord) into the brain failed.

    Dold et al. 1917 (Original paper in German from Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift 64 ( 1917), bottom of p 143) - Injected healthy people with the nasal secretions taken from one ill person, 1/40 healthy people became ill.

    A review of the investigations concerning the etiology of measels, A. W. Sellards
    harvard Medical School. Boston, Massachusetts as seen below:
    - Jurgelunas, 1914: Tried to produce measles in monkeys using inoculations of the blood and mucus secretions from measles patients as well as by exposing the animals to patients in measles wards. All results were negative.
    - Sellards, 1918: Tried to transmit measles to 8 healthy volunteers without a prior history of measles exposure. 0/8 men became sick after multiple failed attempts.
    - Sellards and Wenworth, 1918: Inoculated 3 monkeys in various ways, including intensive injections of blood from measles patients. The animals remained well.
    - Sellards and Wenworth, 1918: Blood from measles patients was injected simultaneously into 2 men and 2 monkeys. Both men remained symptom-free. One of the two monkeys developed symptoms that were not suggestive of measles.

    Milton Rosenau, 1918 - Professor of preventive medicine and hygiene at Harvard, notes that "monkeys have so far never been known to contract the disease [polio] spontaneously, even though they are kept in intimate association with infected monkeys." Page 341.

    Hess & Unger, 1918 - "In three instances the nasal secretion of varicella patients was applied to the nostrils; in three others the tonsillar secretion to the tonsils, and in six, the tonsillar and pharyngeal secretions were transferred to the nose, the pharynx, and the tonsils. In none of these twelve cases was there any reaction whatsoever, either local or systemic."

    Hess & Unger, 1918 - The vesicle fluids from people with chickenpox was injected intravenously into 38 children. 0/38 became sick.

    Published in the Journal - American Medical Association, 1919 - Need Of Further Research On The Transmissibility Of Measles And Varicella. “Evidently in our experiments we do not, as we believe, pursue nature's mode of transmission; either we fail to carry over the virus, or the path of infection is quite different from what it is commonly thought to be.”

    Milton J. Rosenau, March 1919 - Conducted 9 separate experiments in a group of 49 healthy men, to prove contagion. In all 9 experiments, 0/49 men became sick after being exposed to sick people or the bodily fluids of sick people.

    More information on the Rosenau studies here.

    Wahl et al, 1919 - Conducted 3 separate trials on six men attempting to infect them with different strains of Influenza. Not a single person got sick.

    Schmidt et al, 1920 (Original paper in German here) - Conducted two controlled experiments, exposing healthy people to the bodily fluids of sick people. Of 196 people exposed to the mucous secretions of sick people, 21 (10.7%) developed colds and three developed grippe (1.5%). In the second group, of the 84 healthy people exposed to mucous secretions of sick people, five developed grippe (5.9%) and four colds (4.7%). Of forty-three controls who had been inoculated with sterile physiological salt solutions eight (18.6%) developed colds. A higher percentage of people got sick after being exposed to saline compared to those being exposed to the “virus”.

    Williams et al, 1921 - Tried to experimentally infect 45 healthy men with the common cold and influenza, by exposing them to mucous secretions from sick people. 0/45 became ill.

    Mahatma Gandhi, 1921 - "and the poison that accumulates in the system is expelled in the form of small-pox. If this view is correct, then there is absolutely no need to be afraid of small-pox" also see "This has given rise to the superstition that it is a contagious disease, and hence to the attempt to mislead the people into the belief that vaccination is an effective means of preventing it."

    Blanc and Caminopetros, 1922 (original paper in French here) - Material from nine cases of shingles was inoculated into the eyes, cornea, conjunctiva, skin, brain, and spinal cord of a series of animals, including rabbits, mice, sheep, pigeons, monkeys, and a dog. All results were negative.

    Robertson & Groves, 1924 - Exposed 100 healthy individuals to the bodily secretions from 16 different people suffering from influenza. 0 people of 100 whom they deliberately tried to infect with Influenza got sick That is because Viruses don't cause disease.

    Bauguess, 1924 - "A careful search of the literature does not reveal a case in which the blood from a patient having measles was injected into the blood stream of another person and produced measles."

    The problem of the etiology of herpes zoster, 1925 - "Many other authors report entirely negative results following the inoculation of herpes zoster material into the sacrified corneas of rabbits: Kraupa (18); Baum (19); LSwenstein (8), Teissier, Gastinel, and Reilly (20) ; Kooy (21) ; Netter and Urbain (22); Bloch and Terris (23); Simon and Scott (24); and Doerr (25). It is evident, therefore, that the results of attempts to inoculate animals with material from cases of herpes zoster must be considered at present to be inconclusive."

    Volney S and Chney M.D., 1928 - A study where it is clearly stated that cold is not infectious.

    Dochez et al, 1930 - Attempted to infect 11 men with intranasal influenza. Not a single person got sick. Most strikingly one person got very sick when he accidently found out that is what they were trying to do. His symptoms disappeared when they told him he was misinformed.

    L. L. Lumsden, 1935 - “Painstaking efforts were made throughout the studies to obtain all traces of transmission of the disease through personal contact, but it appears that in this outbreak in Louisville evidence of personal association between the cases of poliomyelitis, suggestive of cause and effect, was no more common than that which might have been found if histories had been taken of personal association between cases of broken bones occurring in the city in the same period.”

    Thomas Francis Jr et al, 1936 - Gave 23 people influenza via 3 different methods. 0 people got sick.. They gave 2 people already "suffering from colds" the influenza who also did not get sick

    Burnet and Lush, 1937 - 200 people given "Melbourne type" Influenza . 0 people showed any symptoms of disease. 200/0.

    Lumsden, 1938 - "It is quite usual in small [polio] outbreaks in rural counties for individual cases to develop in separate homes three or for miles apart without there being any evidence of direct or indirect personal contact having operated between persons afflicted."

    L. L Lumsden, 1938 - ”The general and usual epidemiological features of the disease [polio] all appear opposed to the hypothesis that poliomyelitis is a contagious disease spread among human beings by nose-to-nose or any other direct personal contact.”

    Burnet and Foley, 1940 - Attempted to experimentally infect 15 university students with influenza. The authors concluded their experiment was a failure.

    Thomas Francis Jr, 1940 - Gave 11 people "Epidemic Influenza" 0 people got sick. That is because viruses don't cause disease.

    John Toomey, 1941 - A veteran polio researcher: "no animal gets the disease from another, no matter how intimately exposed."

    A. R. Kendall, 1945 - “The epidemiological facts of poliomyelitis are these: … (2) A majority of cases of clinically diagnosable poliomyelitis (polioparalysis) occur sporadically, with no history of contact with previous cases. (3) Two cases of polioparalysis in one family are unusual, even though no precautions are taken to prevent cross infection. (4) Clinically diagnosable cases of poliomyelitis (polioparalysis) show little tendency to spread, even in schools or other places of public gathering. (5) Incidence of polioparalysis is no greater among doctors and nurses, in intimate contact with acute cases than it is among the civil population, even though the former are exposed freely to infection.” […] “Polioparalysis is not contagious.”

    E. B. Shaw & H. E. Thelander, 1949 - “The epidemiology of the disease [polio] remains obscure. There has been a tendency to depart from an early theory that the disease spreads by means of direct contact.”

    Albert Sabin, 1951 (inventor of the polio vaccine). "There is no evidence for the transmission of poliomyelitis by droplet nuclei."

    Archibald L. Hoyne, 1951 (alternative link here) - “However, in the Cook County Contagious Disease Hospital where the latter procedure has not been used there has never been a doctor, intern, nurse or any other member of the personnel who contracted poliomyelitis within a period of at least thirty-five years, nor has any patient ever developed poliomyelitis after admission to the hospital.”

    Ralph R. Scobey, 1951 - ”Although poliomyelitis is legally a contagious disease, which implies that it is caused by a germ or virus, every attempt has failed conclusively to prove this mandatory requirement of the public health law.” Professor of clinical pediatrics and president of the Poliomyelitis Research Institute, Syracuse, N.Y.

    Ralph R. Scobey, 1952 - "In addition to the failure to prove contagiousness of human poliomyelitis, it has likewise been impossible to prove contagiousness of poliomyelitis in experimental animals."

    Douglas Gordon et al, 1975 - This study gave 10 people English type Influenza and 10 people a placebo. The study was negative. Most telling is they admit that mild symptoms were seen in the placebo group, proving that the inoculation methods cause them.

    Beare et al 1980 (refer to reference 6 in the linked paper). Quote from John J Cannell, 2008 as follows - “An eighth conundrum – one not addressed by Hope-Simpson – is the surprising percentage of seronegative volunteers who either escape infection or develop only minor illness after being experimentally inoculated with a novel influenza virus.”

    Nancy Padian, 1996 - A study which followed 176 discordant couples (1 HIV positive and the other negative) for 10 years. These couples regularly slept together and had unprotected sex. There were no HIV transmissions from the positive partner to the negative partner during the entirety of the study.

    John Treanor et al, 1999 - Gave 108 people Influenza A. Only 35% recorded mild symptoms such as stuffy nose. Unfortunately 35% of the placebo control group also developed mild symptoms proving the methods of inoculation are causing them.

    Bridges et al, 2003 - "Our review found no human experimental studies published in the English-language literature delineating person-to-person transmission of influenza... Thus, most information on human-to-human transmission of influenza comes from studies of human inoculation with influenza virus and observational studies."

    The Virology Journal, 2008 - ”There were five attempts to demonstrate sick-to-well influenza transmission in the desperate days following the pandemic [1918 flu] and all were ’singularly fruitless’ … all five studies failed to support sick-to-well transmission, in spite of having numerous acutely ill influenza patients, in various stages of their illness, carefully cough, spit, and breathe on a combined total of >150 well patients.”

    Public Health Reports, 2010 - ”It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases [1918 flu] could not be transferred under experimental conditions.”

    Jasmin S Kutter, 2018, - Our observations underscore the urgent need for new knowledge on respiratory virus transmission routes and the implementation of this knowledge in infection control guidelines to advance intervention strategies for currently circulating and newly emerging viruses and to improve public health.
    - There is a substantial lack of (experimental) evidence on the transmission routes of PIV (types 1–4) and HMPV.
    - Extensive human rhinovirus transmission experiments have not led to a widely accepted view on the transmission route [35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40].
    - However, until today, results on the relative importance of droplet and aerosol transmission of influenza viruses stay inconclusive and hence, there are many reviews intensively discussing this issue [10, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50].
    - Despite this, the relative importance of transmission routes of respiratory viruses is still unclear, depending on the heterogeneity of many factors like the environment (e.g. temperature and humidity), pathogen and host [5, 19].

    Jonathan Van Tam, 2020 - Conducted these human trials of Flu A in 2013. 52 people were intentionally given "Flu A" and made to live in controlled conditions with 75 people. 0 people sick. 0 PCR positive.

    J.S. Kutter, 2021 - “Besides nasal discharge, no other signs of illness were observed in the A/H1N1 virus-positive donor and indirect recipient animals.” The animals were subsequently euthanized after the animals experienced what the scientist describe as having breathing difficulties (no further details were given to describe their condition). *Refer to Note 1.

    Ben Killingley, 2022 - Gave 36 people what he considered to be purified Covid Virus Intranasally. The Results: Nobody got sick. *Refer to Note 2.

    Notes

    *Note 1 - Jasmin Kutter, 2021:

    From the Results section: “Throat and nasal swabs were collected from the donor and indirect recipient animals on alternating days.” This on its own can lead to nasal discharge which is the only “sign of illness” that was noted in this study.

    *Note 2 - Ben Killingley, 2022:

    See the video explanation by Jamie here.

    Ben Killingley also conducted a study in the early 2010's in which he had inoculated people in a room with 75 others some wearing masks others as a control. Not a single person even tested PCR positive. Some links to his previous studies include a 2011, 2019 and a 2020 study.

    It is assumed that his latest, 2022 study, is a follow up to cover the findings of his previous findings. Some additional notes on the study referenced include:

    - They gave 10 people the potent nephrotoxin Remdisivir.

    - They measure sickness by means of a PCR test which isn't indicative of disease because it can tests positive with “asymptomatic” cases as well.

    - Even if you say that a runny nose after swabbing is Covid. A 50% outcome to a direct challenge of something is a negative result. It doesn't suggest causation which would need to be at least 90%.

    - The very methods of inoculation used during the study could cause the nasal congestion/discharge (which is their measure of whether someone is sick or not). This has been shown in previous studies.

    - Lastly nobody was given "regeneron" because nobody got "sick".

    *Note 3 - Dr Robert Willner, 1994:

    December 7th 1994 Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, Greensboro, N.C., Dr Willner (a medical doctor of 40 years experience) an outspoken whistleblower of the AIDS hoax. In front of a gathering of about 30 alternative-medicine practitioners and several journalists, Willner stuck a needle in the finger of Andres, 27, a Fort Lauderdale student who says he has tested positive for HIV. Then, wincing, the 65-year-old doctor stuck himself. In 1993, Dr. Willner stunned Spain by inoculating himself with the blood of Pedro Tocino, an HIV positive hemophiliac. This demonstration of devotion to the truth and the Hippocratic Oath he took, nearly 40 years before, was reported on the front page of every major newspaper in Spain. His appearance on Spain’s most popular television show envoked a 4 to 1 response by the viewing audience in favor of his position against the “AIDS hypothesis.” When asked why he would put his life on the line to make a point, Dr. Willner replied: “I do this to put a stop to the greatest murderous fraud in medical history. By injecting myself with HIV positive blood, I am proving the point as Dr. Walter Reed did to prove the truth about yellow fever. In this way it is my hope to expose the truth about HIV in the interest of all mankind.” He tested negative multiple times. He died of a Heart attack 4 months later 15th April 1995 (yeh right, funny how these naysayers all die suddenly. Link to the presentation here.

    Ludicrous “Transmission” Studies

    The picture of virology’s ludicrousy won’t be complete without a list of studies showing the insanity of what virologists claim to be transmission of disease. This include the injection of fluids into the brains and lungs of animals and we may just include some epidemiological studies to show how these are also not proof of anything. Joe Hendry mostly put it together and the papers we have are as follows (*Please note that this section is open to comments at the moment and anyone that want to add notes or studies are free to leave a comment):

    Louis Pasteur, 1881 - For rabies, tried to demonstrate transmission by injecting diseased brain tissue "directly onto the surface of the brain of a healthy dog through a hole drilled into its skull."

    Simon Flexner and Paul A. Lewis, 1910 - Spinal cords from deceased children were ground up and emulsified to be injected into the brains of monkeys. Study explained in detail here.

    John F. Anderson and Joseph Goldberger, 1911 - Injected blood from a measles patient directly into the heart and brains of monkeys.

    Carl Tenbroeck, 1918 - A mixture of ground up rat's livers, spleens, kidneys,
    testicles, lungs, hearts, and brains was injected into the brains of other rats.

    Claus W. Jungeblut, 1931 - Ground up monkey spinal cord was injected into the brains of other monkeys.

    Wilson Smith, 1933 - “The infected animal is killed when showing symptoms, often at the beginning of the second temperature rise. The turbinates are scraped out, ground up with sand, and emulsified in about 20 c.cm. of equal parts of broth and saline. The emulsion is lightly centrifuged, and about 1 c.cm. of the supernatant fluid is dropped into the nostrils of another ferret.”

    Thomas Francis and Jr, T. P. Magill, 1935 - Ground up ferret lung tissue was injected into the brains of rabbits.

    Ann G. Kuttner and T'sun T'ung, 1935 - Ground up kidney and brain of a guinea pig was injected into the brain of another guinea pig.

    Erich Traub. April 01 1936 - Ground up mouse brain was injected into the brains of guinea pigs.

    Albert B. Sabin and Peter K. Olitsky, 1937 - Ground up mouse brain was injected into the brains of other mice.

    G. John Buddingh, 1938 - Ground up chick embryo was injected into the brains 2 or 3 day old chicks.

    Gilbert Dalldorf, 1939 - Ground up ferret spleens was injected into the brains of mice.

    Claus W. Jungeblut et al, 1942 - Ground up brain or spinal cord of paralyzed mice was injected into the brains of 13 monkeys.

    Henry Pinkerton and Vicente Moragues, 1942 - Ground up brain tissue from dying mice was injected into the brains of pigeons.

    C. Kling et al, 1942 - Injected sewage sludge into the brains and abdomen of monkeys. This convinced him that he had isolated a virus and proven that the sewer is a vehicle for polio transmission.

    D.M. Horstmann, 1944 - Allegedly "proved" that the feces of polio patients contained "poliovirus" by injecting fecal samples into monkeys' brains and spines.

    Joseph E. Smadel et al, 1945 - Ground up pigeon spleen was injected into the brains of mice.

    F. Sargent Cheever et al, 1949 - Ground up mouse brain was injected into the brains of rats and hamsters.

    Isolation

    Isolation has been well defined in Virus Lie - The Result of 4 Years of Study and to this day there has not been a single paper presented that could show the isolation of a virus without first contaminating the sample. This is shown in detail in the virus lie article and will not be repeated here again. One interesting point that can be captured here is all the studies showing a control test proving that the isolation method used for viruses is flawed. They can be listed as follows:

    John F Enders, 1954 - Under other agents isolated during the study. "A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells. The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles." It is highlighted here. Refer to the video explanation here.

    Image
    It is further discussed in the paper that "While there is no ground for concluding that the factors in vivo (in the body) are the same as those which underlie the formation of giant cells and the nuclear disturbances in vitro (outside a living organism), the appearance of these phenomena in cultured cells is consistent with the properties that a priori might be associated with the virus of measles.”

    Image
    Rustigian et al, 1955 - This paper is described in an article by Viroliegy here (look under Rustigain in the article).

    Cohen et al, 1955 - This paper is also described in the same article by Viroliegy here (look under Cohen in the article).

    Bech and von Magnus, 1959 - This paper is also described in the same article by Viroliegy here (look under Von Magnus in the article).

    F Rapp et al, 1959 - This paper is described in a video by Spacebusters here. Most noteworthy is “Monkey kidney cells, however, are unsuitable for the investigations of the type reported here; Peebles et al. and Ruckle showed that monkeys, and cell cultures derived from them, are often infected with an agent serologically indistinguishable from human measles virus, which causes cytopathic changes in monkey kidney cell cultures almost identical with those caused by human measles virus.”

    Image
    Carl J. O’Hara et al, 1988 - The study demonstrated "HIV" particles in 18 out of 20 (90% of) AIDS-related lymph node enlargements but also in 13 out of 15 (88% of) non-AIDS-related enlargements. Which means that particles claimed to be HIV virions are non-specific since identical particles can be found in the majority of patients with enlarged lymph nodes not attributed to AIDS, and at no risk for developing AIDS. Refer to @Aldhissla45’s tweet here.

    P Gluschankof et al, 1997 - This paper described in a video here with additional notes by Jamie here.

    Julian W. Bess Jr., 1997 - This paper described in a video here with additional notes by Jamie here.

    C.A. Cassol, 2020 - This paper is described by Andrew Kaufman here as well as by Thomas Cowan here.

    “Unofficially” we can also add the Lanka 3 phase control experiment that can be seen here or searched for it here.

    A further indication of the isolation procedure fallacy is shown in a study during which the CPE becomes more well defined with the addition of specific substances. The study is as follows:

    Leon Caly et al, 2020 - “Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringes of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin to the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.” See a video explanation here.

    Recent Requests and Statements

    Further and more recent requests and statements that were sent to me by my good friend Courtenay are as follows:

    May 5, 2022:
    U.S. CDC and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry confirmed that a search of their records failed to find any that describe anyone on Earth finding an alleged “avian influenza virus” in the bodily fluids of any diseased diseased host (animal or human) and purifying “it”… which is necessary so that “it” could be sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments. This can be viewed here.

    May 20, 2022:
    Public Health Agency of Canada confirmed that they have no record of any alleged “avian influenza virus” having been found and purified from the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of any diseased “host” on the planet (in order for “it” to be sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments) by anyone, anywhere, ever.
    Insanely, they insist that:

    “Viruses” are in hosts despite their utter inability to find them there,.

    It’s necessary to “grow them” in non-host cells (as if “they” would grow better there than they allegedly grew in the diseased host lol).

    They pretend that mixing complex substances together results in purification.

    This can be viewed here.

    December 20, 2021:
    Public Health Agency of Canada confirmed that they have no record of any alleged “virus” having been purified from a sample taken from any diseased human on Earth, by anyone, ever, period. To be viewed here.

    March 11, 2022:
    U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry respond to a FOIA request for all studies / reports in their possession, custody or control describing the purification of any “virus” addressed by any “vaccine” on either their childhood or adult U.S. “immunization” schedule, directly from a sample taken from any diseased "host" on Earth where the sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material. CDC/ATSDR provided 5 studies on “rotavirus” (thereby admitting they have no records for any other alleged viruses). None of these 5 studies actually describe isolation/purification of a “rotavirus” from a human.
    Request, response, studies to be viewed here.

    March 8, 2023:
    Italy 2020: Inside Covid’s “Ground zero” in Europe - Three years ago the Western World came to a standstill. The official Covid-19 narrative depicted a strange suddenly-super-spreading, deadlier-than-flu virus hailing from China that landed in Northern Italy.

    On February 20, 2020 the first alleged case of Covid-19 was discovered in the West in the Lombardy town of Codogno, Italy. Later that day the Italian government reported their first “Covid-19 death.”

    Dramatic media reports emerging from Northern Italy were hammered into and onto the Western psyche giving the impression there was a mysterious “super spreading” and “super lethal” novel virus galloping across the region infecting and killing scores of people.

    Read the rest of the report here.

    Conclusion

    The above list will be worked on over the coming years. If you think that any corrections need to be made or if you want to add additional studies, please leave a comment.


    Share

    Leave a comment

    https://open.substack.com/pub/dpl003/p/virology-the-damning-evidence?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    Virology - The Damning Evidence The Stake In The Heart For This Pseudoscientific Profession dpl Introduction One never realize how big the task of writing on a subject is until you start. One thing you can be assured of is how much you learn by writing about your findings or thoughts. My stance on virology has been clarified in two previous posts as follows: The Gatekeepers Club. Virus Lie - The Result of 4 Years of Study. Another thing you quickly realize on this journey is how easy it is to censor someone, especially if you start hitting a nerve. I have documented some of it underneath the conclusion of the The Gatekeepers Club article. It is very important to make copies of your work, as shadow banning is one thing, but if these platforms decide to terminate your channel and all the work you have done is on it, you will obviously lose it all. We were in that same position about a year ago when Discord decided to terminate our channel. Twenty of the smartest people you would ever know had been working on it for close to two years, and it was gone overnight. Therefore, this post will serve as safekeeping for some of the best information that I have come across in the last few weeks proving that virology is pseudoscience. Update - 18 September 2023 The order of the sections of this article has been rearranged to introduce the most important information first. As mentioned in my most recent article titled: Hacking at the Root of the Virus Issue it was explained that for the longest time I thought that failure to “isolate” viruses was the most important evidence to focus on. This is however not the case as explained in detail in the “Hacking at the Root of the Virus Issue” article. Transmission is the fundamental assumption on which virology rest. Without proof of transmission, nothing downstream matters. Even though understanding these downstream concepts will never be a waste of time one must consider that the normal man on the street will not be interested in complicated terminology and processes. It is of crucial importance for the no virus community to find easier ways to explain the fallacy that is virology. Seeing as no one need a laboratory to assess whether transmission is possible and because we can observe this phenomena ourselves (Inductive reasoning) this is the linchpin for virology. A twitter space where we discussed this can be viewed here (*Note: Jamie was cut off during his talk and his section was not included). As discussed during the twitter space, we have reviewed the available transmission studies and a summary of these studies can be seen below. Transmission / Infection One of the funniest things you will see while debating the trolls on Twitter is that they will provide studies conducted to prove the efficacy of vaccines. The people that undertake these studies assume that transmission or infection has already been proven, but nothing could be further from the truth. That is why it is important for us to list the peer-reviewed studies that disprove transmission or infection to further demonstrate that virology is a pseudoscience. The list of studies was compiled with the help of Jamie, georgie&donny, and Aldhissla (also see Aldhissla’s list on polio here). (*Please note that this section is open to comments at the moment and anyone that want to add notes or studies are free to leave a comment). The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Mar. 1, 1905): - Chapman, 1801: Tried to transmit measles using the blood, tears, the mucus of the nostrils and bronchia, and the eruptive matter in the cuticle without any success. - Willan, 1809: Inoculated three children with vesicle fluids of measles but without success. - Albers, 1834: Attempted to infect four children with measles without success. He quoted Alexander Monro, Bourgois, and Spray as also having made unsuccessful inoculations with saliva, tears, and cutaneous scales. - Themmen, 1817: Tried to infect 5 children with measles. 0/5 children became sick. Charles Creighton, 1837 (A history of epidemics in Britain). "No proof of the existence of any contagious principles by which it was propagated from one individual to another." EH Ackernecht, writing about Anticontagionism between 1821 and 1867 - “That the anticontagionists were usually honest men and in deadly earnest is shown, among other things, by the numerous self-experiments to which they submitted themselves to prove their contentions.” also see “Famous are the plague self-experiments of Clot-Bey, the offers for plague self-experiment by Chervin, Lassis, Costa, Lapis, and Lasserre, and the cholera self-experiments of Fay, Scipio Pinel, Wayrot, and J.L. Guyon. The amazing thing is that almost all of these experiments failed to produce the disease.” Note on Hospitals by Florence Nightingale, 1858 - "Suffice it to say, that in the ordinary sense of the word, there is no proof, such as would be admitted in any scientific inquiry, that there is any such thing as 'contagion." also see "Just as there is no such thing as 'contagion,' there is no such thing as inevitable 'infection." Andreas Christian Bull, 1868 - “It does not seem apparent in this small [polio] epidemic that contagion played any role, because the disease occurred here and there in the different places of the district without the possibility of establishing any relation between the various cases or the families of the same.” Karl-Oskar Medin, 1887 - A Swedish pediatrician who was the first to examine a polio outbreak, concluded that it was an infectious, but not contagious, disease. Charles Caverly, 1894 - Investigated the first US polio epidemic: ”it is very certain that it was non-contagious.” Journal of American Medical Association, Volume 72, Number 3, 1919 (or additional link here): - Warschawsky, 1895 - Injected small pigs and rabbits with blood taken in the eruptive stage. All results were negative. - Belila, 1896 - Placed warm nasal mucus and saliva from measles patients on the nasal and oral mucous membrane of rabbits, guinea-pigs, cats, mice, dogs and lambs, but without any positive results. - Josias, 1898 - Rubbed measles secretions over the throat, nose and eyes of several young pigs, but without any effects. - Geissler, 1903 - Inoculated sheep, swine, goats, dogs and cats in various ways with the bodily fluids from patients with measles; including smearing, spraying, rubbing. All results were negative. - Pomjalowsky, 1914 - Injected measles blood into guineapigs, rabbits and small pigs. All results were negative. - Jurgelunas, 1914 - Inoculated blood from patients with measles into suckling pigs and rabbits, but without effect. Leegaard, 1899 - Was not able to prove a single case of patient-to-patient contagion in a polio outbreak in Norway. "Infantile paralysis is of an infectious, but not of a contagious nature. As a matter of fact no indisputable instance of contagion could be proved." Dr. Rodermund, 1901 - From his diary of SmallPox experiments. For 15 years he smeared the pus of smallpox patients on his face and used to go home with his family, play cards at the gentleman’s club and treat other patients and never got sick or saw a single other person get sick. Walter Reed, 1902 - “Without entering into details, I may say that, in the first place, the Commission saw, with some surprise, what had so often been noted in the literature, that patients in all stages of yellow fever could be cared for by non-immune nurses without danger of contracting the disease. The non-contagious character of yellow fever was, therefore, hardly to be questioned.” Landsteiner & Popper, 1909 - "Attempts to transmit the disease [polio] to the usual laboratory animals, such as rabbits, guinea pigs, or mice, failed." F.E. Batten, (1909) - “Against the infectivity of the disease may be urged, first, the absence of spread of infection in hospital. The cases of poliomyelitis admitted to hospital freely mixed with other cases in the ward without any isolation or disinfection, some 70 children came in contact, but no infection took place. (p. 208, last paragraph)” The Boston medical and surgical journal, 1909 - An inquiry a 1908 polio outbreak found the following: “A large number of children were in intimate contact with those that were sick, and of these children an insignificant minority developed the disease.” 244 children were in intimate contact with those who were afflicted with polio. Of those 244 children, an "insignificant minority" developed the disease. Massachusetts State board of health, 1909 - "Poliomyelitis prevailed in epidemic form in Kansas during the summer of 1909 … No method of contagion could be found, and the author does not consider the disease contagious." Flexner & Lewis, 1910 - Multiple unsuccessful polio transmission attempts. "Many guinea-pigs and rabbits, one horse, two calves, three goats, three pigs, three sheep, six rats, six mice, six dogs, and four cats have had active virus introduced in the brain but without causing any appreciable effect whatever. These animals have been under observation for many weeks." A Washinton, 1911 - “I have not seen any cases of Polio contagion. We put the patients on one side and typhoid cases on the other, and no nurse or mother was infected. If the disease was so contagious, I don't see why the nurses and mothers would not have been infected.” J.J. Moren, 1912 - "Monkeys suffering from polio in the same cage with healthy monkeys, do not infect others." P. H. Römer, 1913 - "No proofs of the contagiousness of the disease [polio] could be obtained in the great epidemic in New York in 1907, nor in the epidemic in the Steiermark (Furntratt, Potpeschnigg) nor in Pomerania (Peiper). H. W. Frauenthal, 1914 - "Advocates of the contagion theory were at a loss to account for the fact that spontaneous [polio] transmission among laboratory monkeys was never known to occur ... There is no proof that spontaneous transmission of acute poliomyelitis, without an inoculation wound, can take place. There is no proof that contact contagion takes place. Spontaneous development of the disease among laboratory animals is unknown." W.H. Frost, 1916 - "The disease [polio] develops in a such a small proportion of people known to have been intimately associated with acute cases of polio." ... "The majority of cases of poliomyelitis can not be traced to known contact, either direct or indirect, with any previous case." W. L. Holt, 1916 - Investigated an epidemic of polio and found that he was "surprised that I could trace hardly any cases to personal contact with others, there rarely being successive cases." Dr. I. D. Rawlings, 1916 - "Any one who has had much experience with poliomyelitis is struck by the infrequency, relatively, of the secondary cases among direct contacts ... there were approximately 1,500 direct contacts, and yet but one possible case occurred among them. Also among the large number of people that came from New York and other infected areas not a single case occurred.” H. L. Abramson, 1917 - Attempts to induce polio in a monkey by injecting the spinal fluid of 40 polio patients (rather than the ground cord) into the brain failed. Dold et al. 1917 (Original paper in German from Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift 64 ( 1917), bottom of p 143) - Injected healthy people with the nasal secretions taken from one ill person, 1/40 healthy people became ill. A review of the investigations concerning the etiology of measels, A. W. Sellards harvard Medical School. Boston, Massachusetts as seen below: - Jurgelunas, 1914: Tried to produce measles in monkeys using inoculations of the blood and mucus secretions from measles patients as well as by exposing the animals to patients in measles wards. All results were negative. - Sellards, 1918: Tried to transmit measles to 8 healthy volunteers without a prior history of measles exposure. 0/8 men became sick after multiple failed attempts. - Sellards and Wenworth, 1918: Inoculated 3 monkeys in various ways, including intensive injections of blood from measles patients. The animals remained well. - Sellards and Wenworth, 1918: Blood from measles patients was injected simultaneously into 2 men and 2 monkeys. Both men remained symptom-free. One of the two monkeys developed symptoms that were not suggestive of measles. Milton Rosenau, 1918 - Professor of preventive medicine and hygiene at Harvard, notes that "monkeys have so far never been known to contract the disease [polio] spontaneously, even though they are kept in intimate association with infected monkeys." Page 341. Hess & Unger, 1918 - "In three instances the nasal secretion of varicella patients was applied to the nostrils; in three others the tonsillar secretion to the tonsils, and in six, the tonsillar and pharyngeal secretions were transferred to the nose, the pharynx, and the tonsils. In none of these twelve cases was there any reaction whatsoever, either local or systemic." Hess & Unger, 1918 - The vesicle fluids from people with chickenpox was injected intravenously into 38 children. 0/38 became sick. Published in the Journal - American Medical Association, 1919 - Need Of Further Research On The Transmissibility Of Measles And Varicella. “Evidently in our experiments we do not, as we believe, pursue nature's mode of transmission; either we fail to carry over the virus, or the path of infection is quite different from what it is commonly thought to be.” Milton J. Rosenau, March 1919 - Conducted 9 separate experiments in a group of 49 healthy men, to prove contagion. In all 9 experiments, 0/49 men became sick after being exposed to sick people or the bodily fluids of sick people. More information on the Rosenau studies here. Wahl et al, 1919 - Conducted 3 separate trials on six men attempting to infect them with different strains of Influenza. Not a single person got sick. Schmidt et al, 1920 (Original paper in German here) - Conducted two controlled experiments, exposing healthy people to the bodily fluids of sick people. Of 196 people exposed to the mucous secretions of sick people, 21 (10.7%) developed colds and three developed grippe (1.5%). In the second group, of the 84 healthy people exposed to mucous secretions of sick people, five developed grippe (5.9%) and four colds (4.7%). Of forty-three controls who had been inoculated with sterile physiological salt solutions eight (18.6%) developed colds. A higher percentage of people got sick after being exposed to saline compared to those being exposed to the “virus”. Williams et al, 1921 - Tried to experimentally infect 45 healthy men with the common cold and influenza, by exposing them to mucous secretions from sick people. 0/45 became ill. Mahatma Gandhi, 1921 - "and the poison that accumulates in the system is expelled in the form of small-pox. If this view is correct, then there is absolutely no need to be afraid of small-pox" also see "This has given rise to the superstition that it is a contagious disease, and hence to the attempt to mislead the people into the belief that vaccination is an effective means of preventing it." Blanc and Caminopetros, 1922 (original paper in French here) - Material from nine cases of shingles was inoculated into the eyes, cornea, conjunctiva, skin, brain, and spinal cord of a series of animals, including rabbits, mice, sheep, pigeons, monkeys, and a dog. All results were negative. Robertson & Groves, 1924 - Exposed 100 healthy individuals to the bodily secretions from 16 different people suffering from influenza. 0 people of 100 whom they deliberately tried to infect with Influenza got sick That is because Viruses don't cause disease. Bauguess, 1924 - "A careful search of the literature does not reveal a case in which the blood from a patient having measles was injected into the blood stream of another person and produced measles." The problem of the etiology of herpes zoster, 1925 - "Many other authors report entirely negative results following the inoculation of herpes zoster material into the sacrified corneas of rabbits: Kraupa (18); Baum (19); LSwenstein (8), Teissier, Gastinel, and Reilly (20) ; Kooy (21) ; Netter and Urbain (22); Bloch and Terris (23); Simon and Scott (24); and Doerr (25). It is evident, therefore, that the results of attempts to inoculate animals with material from cases of herpes zoster must be considered at present to be inconclusive." Volney S and Chney M.D., 1928 - A study where it is clearly stated that cold is not infectious. Dochez et al, 1930 - Attempted to infect 11 men with intranasal influenza. Not a single person got sick. Most strikingly one person got very sick when he accidently found out that is what they were trying to do. His symptoms disappeared when they told him he was misinformed. L. L. Lumsden, 1935 - “Painstaking efforts were made throughout the studies to obtain all traces of transmission of the disease through personal contact, but it appears that in this outbreak in Louisville evidence of personal association between the cases of poliomyelitis, suggestive of cause and effect, was no more common than that which might have been found if histories had been taken of personal association between cases of broken bones occurring in the city in the same period.” Thomas Francis Jr et al, 1936 - Gave 23 people influenza via 3 different methods. 0 people got sick.. They gave 2 people already "suffering from colds" the influenza who also did not get sick Burnet and Lush, 1937 - 200 people given "Melbourne type" Influenza . 0 people showed any symptoms of disease. 200/0. Lumsden, 1938 - "It is quite usual in small [polio] outbreaks in rural counties for individual cases to develop in separate homes three or for miles apart without there being any evidence of direct or indirect personal contact having operated between persons afflicted." L. L Lumsden, 1938 - ”The general and usual epidemiological features of the disease [polio] all appear opposed to the hypothesis that poliomyelitis is a contagious disease spread among human beings by nose-to-nose or any other direct personal contact.” Burnet and Foley, 1940 - Attempted to experimentally infect 15 university students with influenza. The authors concluded their experiment was a failure. Thomas Francis Jr, 1940 - Gave 11 people "Epidemic Influenza" 0 people got sick. That is because viruses don't cause disease. John Toomey, 1941 - A veteran polio researcher: "no animal gets the disease from another, no matter how intimately exposed." A. R. Kendall, 1945 - “The epidemiological facts of poliomyelitis are these: … (2) A majority of cases of clinically diagnosable poliomyelitis (polioparalysis) occur sporadically, with no history of contact with previous cases. (3) Two cases of polioparalysis in one family are unusual, even though no precautions are taken to prevent cross infection. (4) Clinically diagnosable cases of poliomyelitis (polioparalysis) show little tendency to spread, even in schools or other places of public gathering. (5) Incidence of polioparalysis is no greater among doctors and nurses, in intimate contact with acute cases than it is among the civil population, even though the former are exposed freely to infection.” […] “Polioparalysis is not contagious.” E. B. Shaw & H. E. Thelander, 1949 - “The epidemiology of the disease [polio] remains obscure. There has been a tendency to depart from an early theory that the disease spreads by means of direct contact.” Albert Sabin, 1951 (inventor of the polio vaccine). "There is no evidence for the transmission of poliomyelitis by droplet nuclei." Archibald L. Hoyne, 1951 (alternative link here) - “However, in the Cook County Contagious Disease Hospital where the latter procedure has not been used there has never been a doctor, intern, nurse or any other member of the personnel who contracted poliomyelitis within a period of at least thirty-five years, nor has any patient ever developed poliomyelitis after admission to the hospital.” Ralph R. Scobey, 1951 - ”Although poliomyelitis is legally a contagious disease, which implies that it is caused by a germ or virus, every attempt has failed conclusively to prove this mandatory requirement of the public health law.” Professor of clinical pediatrics and president of the Poliomyelitis Research Institute, Syracuse, N.Y. Ralph R. Scobey, 1952 - "In addition to the failure to prove contagiousness of human poliomyelitis, it has likewise been impossible to prove contagiousness of poliomyelitis in experimental animals." Douglas Gordon et al, 1975 - This study gave 10 people English type Influenza and 10 people a placebo. The study was negative. Most telling is they admit that mild symptoms were seen in the placebo group, proving that the inoculation methods cause them. Beare et al 1980 (refer to reference 6 in the linked paper). Quote from John J Cannell, 2008 as follows - “An eighth conundrum – one not addressed by Hope-Simpson – is the surprising percentage of seronegative volunteers who either escape infection or develop only minor illness after being experimentally inoculated with a novel influenza virus.” Nancy Padian, 1996 - A study which followed 176 discordant couples (1 HIV positive and the other negative) for 10 years. These couples regularly slept together and had unprotected sex. There were no HIV transmissions from the positive partner to the negative partner during the entirety of the study. John Treanor et al, 1999 - Gave 108 people Influenza A. Only 35% recorded mild symptoms such as stuffy nose. Unfortunately 35% of the placebo control group also developed mild symptoms proving the methods of inoculation are causing them. Bridges et al, 2003 - "Our review found no human experimental studies published in the English-language literature delineating person-to-person transmission of influenza... Thus, most information on human-to-human transmission of influenza comes from studies of human inoculation with influenza virus and observational studies." The Virology Journal, 2008 - ”There were five attempts to demonstrate sick-to-well influenza transmission in the desperate days following the pandemic [1918 flu] and all were ’singularly fruitless’ … all five studies failed to support sick-to-well transmission, in spite of having numerous acutely ill influenza patients, in various stages of their illness, carefully cough, spit, and breathe on a combined total of >150 well patients.” Public Health Reports, 2010 - ”It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases [1918 flu] could not be transferred under experimental conditions.” Jasmin S Kutter, 2018, - Our observations underscore the urgent need for new knowledge on respiratory virus transmission routes and the implementation of this knowledge in infection control guidelines to advance intervention strategies for currently circulating and newly emerging viruses and to improve public health. - There is a substantial lack of (experimental) evidence on the transmission routes of PIV (types 1–4) and HMPV. - Extensive human rhinovirus transmission experiments have not led to a widely accepted view on the transmission route [35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40]. - However, until today, results on the relative importance of droplet and aerosol transmission of influenza viruses stay inconclusive and hence, there are many reviews intensively discussing this issue [10, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50]. - Despite this, the relative importance of transmission routes of respiratory viruses is still unclear, depending on the heterogeneity of many factors like the environment (e.g. temperature and humidity), pathogen and host [5, 19]. Jonathan Van Tam, 2020 - Conducted these human trials of Flu A in 2013. 52 people were intentionally given "Flu A" and made to live in controlled conditions with 75 people. 0 people sick. 0 PCR positive. J.S. Kutter, 2021 - “Besides nasal discharge, no other signs of illness were observed in the A/H1N1 virus-positive donor and indirect recipient animals.” The animals were subsequently euthanized after the animals experienced what the scientist describe as having breathing difficulties (no further details were given to describe their condition). *Refer to Note 1. Ben Killingley, 2022 - Gave 36 people what he considered to be purified Covid Virus Intranasally. The Results: Nobody got sick. *Refer to Note 2. Notes *Note 1 - Jasmin Kutter, 2021: From the Results section: “Throat and nasal swabs were collected from the donor and indirect recipient animals on alternating days.” This on its own can lead to nasal discharge which is the only “sign of illness” that was noted in this study. *Note 2 - Ben Killingley, 2022: See the video explanation by Jamie here. Ben Killingley also conducted a study in the early 2010's in which he had inoculated people in a room with 75 others some wearing masks others as a control. Not a single person even tested PCR positive. Some links to his previous studies include a 2011, 2019 and a 2020 study. It is assumed that his latest, 2022 study, is a follow up to cover the findings of his previous findings. Some additional notes on the study referenced include: - They gave 10 people the potent nephrotoxin Remdisivir. - They measure sickness by means of a PCR test which isn't indicative of disease because it can tests positive with “asymptomatic” cases as well. - Even if you say that a runny nose after swabbing is Covid. A 50% outcome to a direct challenge of something is a negative result. It doesn't suggest causation which would need to be at least 90%. - The very methods of inoculation used during the study could cause the nasal congestion/discharge (which is their measure of whether someone is sick or not). This has been shown in previous studies. - Lastly nobody was given "regeneron" because nobody got "sick". *Note 3 - Dr Robert Willner, 1994: December 7th 1994 Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, Greensboro, N.C., Dr Willner (a medical doctor of 40 years experience) an outspoken whistleblower of the AIDS hoax. In front of a gathering of about 30 alternative-medicine practitioners and several journalists, Willner stuck a needle in the finger of Andres, 27, a Fort Lauderdale student who says he has tested positive for HIV. Then, wincing, the 65-year-old doctor stuck himself. In 1993, Dr. Willner stunned Spain by inoculating himself with the blood of Pedro Tocino, an HIV positive hemophiliac. This demonstration of devotion to the truth and the Hippocratic Oath he took, nearly 40 years before, was reported on the front page of every major newspaper in Spain. His appearance on Spain’s most popular television show envoked a 4 to 1 response by the viewing audience in favor of his position against the “AIDS hypothesis.” When asked why he would put his life on the line to make a point, Dr. Willner replied: “I do this to put a stop to the greatest murderous fraud in medical history. By injecting myself with HIV positive blood, I am proving the point as Dr. Walter Reed did to prove the truth about yellow fever. In this way it is my hope to expose the truth about HIV in the interest of all mankind.” He tested negative multiple times. He died of a Heart attack 4 months later 15th April 1995 (yeh right, funny how these naysayers all die suddenly. Link to the presentation here. Ludicrous “Transmission” Studies The picture of virology’s ludicrousy won’t be complete without a list of studies showing the insanity of what virologists claim to be transmission of disease. This include the injection of fluids into the brains and lungs of animals and we may just include some epidemiological studies to show how these are also not proof of anything. Joe Hendry mostly put it together and the papers we have are as follows (*Please note that this section is open to comments at the moment and anyone that want to add notes or studies are free to leave a comment): Louis Pasteur, 1881 - For rabies, tried to demonstrate transmission by injecting diseased brain tissue "directly onto the surface of the brain of a healthy dog through a hole drilled into its skull." Simon Flexner and Paul A. Lewis, 1910 - Spinal cords from deceased children were ground up and emulsified to be injected into the brains of monkeys. Study explained in detail here. John F. Anderson and Joseph Goldberger, 1911 - Injected blood from a measles patient directly into the heart and brains of monkeys. Carl Tenbroeck, 1918 - A mixture of ground up rat's livers, spleens, kidneys, testicles, lungs, hearts, and brains was injected into the brains of other rats. Claus W. Jungeblut, 1931 - Ground up monkey spinal cord was injected into the brains of other monkeys. Wilson Smith, 1933 - “The infected animal is killed when showing symptoms, often at the beginning of the second temperature rise. The turbinates are scraped out, ground up with sand, and emulsified in about 20 c.cm. of equal parts of broth and saline. The emulsion is lightly centrifuged, and about 1 c.cm. of the supernatant fluid is dropped into the nostrils of another ferret.” Thomas Francis and Jr, T. P. Magill, 1935 - Ground up ferret lung tissue was injected into the brains of rabbits. Ann G. Kuttner and T'sun T'ung, 1935 - Ground up kidney and brain of a guinea pig was injected into the brain of another guinea pig. Erich Traub. April 01 1936 - Ground up mouse brain was injected into the brains of guinea pigs. Albert B. Sabin and Peter K. Olitsky, 1937 - Ground up mouse brain was injected into the brains of other mice. G. John Buddingh, 1938 - Ground up chick embryo was injected into the brains 2 or 3 day old chicks. Gilbert Dalldorf, 1939 - Ground up ferret spleens was injected into the brains of mice. Claus W. Jungeblut et al, 1942 - Ground up brain or spinal cord of paralyzed mice was injected into the brains of 13 monkeys. Henry Pinkerton and Vicente Moragues, 1942 - Ground up brain tissue from dying mice was injected into the brains of pigeons. C. Kling et al, 1942 - Injected sewage sludge into the brains and abdomen of monkeys. This convinced him that he had isolated a virus and proven that the sewer is a vehicle for polio transmission. D.M. Horstmann, 1944 - Allegedly "proved" that the feces of polio patients contained "poliovirus" by injecting fecal samples into monkeys' brains and spines. Joseph E. Smadel et al, 1945 - Ground up pigeon spleen was injected into the brains of mice. F. Sargent Cheever et al, 1949 - Ground up mouse brain was injected into the brains of rats and hamsters. Isolation Isolation has been well defined in Virus Lie - The Result of 4 Years of Study and to this day there has not been a single paper presented that could show the isolation of a virus without first contaminating the sample. This is shown in detail in the virus lie article and will not be repeated here again. One interesting point that can be captured here is all the studies showing a control test proving that the isolation method used for viruses is flawed. They can be listed as follows: John F Enders, 1954 - Under other agents isolated during the study. "A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells. The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles." It is highlighted here. Refer to the video explanation here. Image It is further discussed in the paper that "While there is no ground for concluding that the factors in vivo (in the body) are the same as those which underlie the formation of giant cells and the nuclear disturbances in vitro (outside a living organism), the appearance of these phenomena in cultured cells is consistent with the properties that a priori might be associated with the virus of measles.” Image Rustigian et al, 1955 - This paper is described in an article by Viroliegy here (look under Rustigain in the article). Cohen et al, 1955 - This paper is also described in the same article by Viroliegy here (look under Cohen in the article). Bech and von Magnus, 1959 - This paper is also described in the same article by Viroliegy here (look under Von Magnus in the article). F Rapp et al, 1959 - This paper is described in a video by Spacebusters here. Most noteworthy is “Monkey kidney cells, however, are unsuitable for the investigations of the type reported here; Peebles et al. and Ruckle showed that monkeys, and cell cultures derived from them, are often infected with an agent serologically indistinguishable from human measles virus, which causes cytopathic changes in monkey kidney cell cultures almost identical with those caused by human measles virus.” Image Carl J. O’Hara et al, 1988 - The study demonstrated "HIV" particles in 18 out of 20 (90% of) AIDS-related lymph node enlargements but also in 13 out of 15 (88% of) non-AIDS-related enlargements. Which means that particles claimed to be HIV virions are non-specific since identical particles can be found in the majority of patients with enlarged lymph nodes not attributed to AIDS, and at no risk for developing AIDS. Refer to @Aldhissla45’s tweet here. P Gluschankof et al, 1997 - This paper described in a video here with additional notes by Jamie here. Julian W. Bess Jr., 1997 - This paper described in a video here with additional notes by Jamie here. C.A. Cassol, 2020 - This paper is described by Andrew Kaufman here as well as by Thomas Cowan here. “Unofficially” we can also add the Lanka 3 phase control experiment that can be seen here or searched for it here. A further indication of the isolation procedure fallacy is shown in a study during which the CPE becomes more well defined with the addition of specific substances. The study is as follows: Leon Caly et al, 2020 - “Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringes of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin to the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.” See a video explanation here. Recent Requests and Statements Further and more recent requests and statements that were sent to me by my good friend Courtenay are as follows: May 5, 2022: U.S. CDC and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry confirmed that a search of their records failed to find any that describe anyone on Earth finding an alleged “avian influenza virus” in the bodily fluids of any diseased diseased host (animal or human) and purifying “it”… which is necessary so that “it” could be sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments. This can be viewed here. May 20, 2022: Public Health Agency of Canada confirmed that they have no record of any alleged “avian influenza virus” having been found and purified from the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of any diseased “host” on the planet (in order for “it” to be sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments) by anyone, anywhere, ever. Insanely, they insist that: “Viruses” are in hosts despite their utter inability to find them there,. It’s necessary to “grow them” in non-host cells (as if “they” would grow better there than they allegedly grew in the diseased host lol). They pretend that mixing complex substances together results in purification. This can be viewed here. December 20, 2021: Public Health Agency of Canada confirmed that they have no record of any alleged “virus” having been purified from a sample taken from any diseased human on Earth, by anyone, ever, period. To be viewed here. March 11, 2022: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry respond to a FOIA request for all studies / reports in their possession, custody or control describing the purification of any “virus” addressed by any “vaccine” on either their childhood or adult U.S. “immunization” schedule, directly from a sample taken from any diseased "host" on Earth where the sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material. CDC/ATSDR provided 5 studies on “rotavirus” (thereby admitting they have no records for any other alleged viruses). None of these 5 studies actually describe isolation/purification of a “rotavirus” from a human. Request, response, studies to be viewed here. March 8, 2023: Italy 2020: Inside Covid’s “Ground zero” in Europe - Three years ago the Western World came to a standstill. The official Covid-19 narrative depicted a strange suddenly-super-spreading, deadlier-than-flu virus hailing from China that landed in Northern Italy. On February 20, 2020 the first alleged case of Covid-19 was discovered in the West in the Lombardy town of Codogno, Italy. Later that day the Italian government reported their first “Covid-19 death.” Dramatic media reports emerging from Northern Italy were hammered into and onto the Western psyche giving the impression there was a mysterious “super spreading” and “super lethal” novel virus galloping across the region infecting and killing scores of people. Read the rest of the report here. Conclusion The above list will be worked on over the coming years. If you think that any corrections need to be made or if you want to add additional studies, please leave a comment. Share Leave a comment https://open.substack.com/pub/dpl003/p/virology-the-damning-evidence?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    OPEN.SUBSTACK.COM
    Virology - The Damning Evidence
    The Stake In The Heart For This Pseudoscientific Profession
    Like
    1
    1 Comments 0 Shares 37136 Views
  • The article discusses concerns that contamination in the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, specifically residual DNA from the manufacturing process, could help explain the recent rise in cancer rates and autoimmune diseases. Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole explains that while the initial Pfizer vaccine trials used a very controlled synthetic mRNA production process, when they scaled up manufacturing for billions of doses they switched to a less precise method involving bacteria and plasmids, without properly cleaning the residual DNA. He and other experts believe this contaminated DNA could be intercalating into human DNA and causing mutations, suppressing the immune system, and driving cancers that are more aggressive and no longer responding to traditional treatments. More research is still needed, but this provides a potential mechanism for the alarming patterns doctors are observing of rapid cancer growth and previously stable cancers coming out of remission after vaccination.

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/the-rise-in-cancers-autoimmune-diseases-the-role-of-dna-contamination-5544587

    No paywall source:
    https://archive.is/G0Shq


    The Rise in Cancers, Autoimmune Diseases: The Role of DNA Contamination
    The Rise in Cancers, Autoimmune Diseases: The Role of DNA Contamination
    Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole in Dallas, Texas on Nov. 4, 2023. (York Du/The Epoch Times)
    In a recent episode of “American Thought Leaders,” host Jan Jekielek speaks with Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist and an expert on SARS-CoV-2 and the mechanisms of the genetic injections labeled as vaccines. Here, they discuss how these COVID-19 genetic vaccines may be related to the rise in cancers and autoimmune diseases.
    Jan Jekielek: I’ve done an interview with Kevin McKernan about what’s in the vaccine vials, this contamination that multiple labs had already verified. Let’s start with that, because that’s something you’ve been covering.

    Dr. Ryan Cole: Many laboratories around the world have been looking at this issue, and Kevin has been a leader in this area. When these products were made, there was the J&J, that’s an adenovirus factor, but then there was Moderna and Pfizer. These are mRNA; synthetically engineered, modified RNA.

    For the trials, at least for Pfizer, there’s a synthetic PCR-type process in making up the mRNA sequence for these shots. That was given to 40,000 people, and was a deliberate, synthetic, engineered attempt at a precision-type process.

    Mr. Jekielek: That’s dubbed “Process 1”?

    Dr. Cole: Yes. To make a lot of this for billions of people, a second process was used, which was only tested on about 252 people instead of 40,000. That was taking this complementary DNA sequence that is the reverse pattern of the spike to make mRNA a message, and then your body would make that protein in your cells.

    We did the trials on this very controlled synthetic process, but then at the last minute they snuck under the radar and said, “But we’re going to make all the rest of them using a process we’ve barely tested.” That’s what got rolled out into billions of people’s arms. It was kind of a bait and switch. Those large data sets one would want to see in terms of harms, you’re not going to find that in 250 patients.

    Mr. Jekielek: They actually use E. Coli, a bacterium, to grow these plasmids of DNA, which can then be turned into the RNA, but they just didn’t clean them up.

    Dr. Cole: They didn’t clean them up properly. They’re supposed to put in an enzyme that breaks down any residual DNA. Even up to the current vials of the fall booster, the XBB 1.5, Kevin and 12 other laboratories have shown there is still bacterial plasmid DNA contamination within these vials. The FDA allows up to, in gene products, 10 nanograms of DNA per dose, but that’s based on old technology.

    The smaller the fragment of DNA, the greater the opportunity it has to intercalate into your own DNA as well. More testing and probes are still needed to prove this, but it explains a lot of the strange happenings we’re seeing in clots, autoimmune disease, and cancers, because we’re changing signals within cells. Human cells are meant to make human proteins. They’re not meant to make foreign proteins. When we program people’s cells to make things they’re not supposed to make, they can go haywire. They can mutate and become a target of our own immune system.

    My big concern is that billions of people around the world have received a product that was contaminated, which was admitted to by the Canadian health regulatory agency.

    Mr. Jekielek: It was Epoch Times reporting that caused that disclosure to happen.

    Dr. Cole: Yes, well done. And my concern isn’t just these COVID shots. It’s this entire technology. A lipid nanoparticle in and of itself is an unproven product. It takes on whatever you put into it. They’re trying to create them for RSV, flu, and for many other pathogens. It still takes those little gene sequences anywhere and everywhere in the body.

    In some of his autopsy findings, the late Dr. Burkhardt, a friend and mentor to me, showed spike protein in the testes, in the placenta, and in the uterus. I’ve seen some of those in the studies we were doing in my laboratory.

    Mr. Jekielek: You feel this provides some explanation for these turbo cancers and this clotting we’ve been seeing.

    Dr. Cole: Dr. Ute Krüger from Sweden coined the term turbo cancer. She’s a breast pathologist who was looking at the damage of these shots. She noticed increases in cancer, an uptick not only in the size of the cancers, but also in the stage of the cancers. Instead of just taking out a lesion, she was finding it had spread to lymph nodes, the liver, the bone marrow, and the brain. She was seeing cancers behave in a manner like never before. Everywhere I go, I hear oncologists and physicians telling this story.

    A prominent oncologist in Texas told me, “At first I saw the clots, then the blood cancers, the leukemias, and the lymphomas. Now, I’m seeing solid tissue cancers at rates I’ve never seen. Patients that were stable or cancer-free for 1, 2, 5, or 10 years, their cancer is now back, and it’s not responding to traditional therapies.”

    It’s not necessarily that the gene sequence is causing cancer. The gene sequence can cause some of the mutations that lead to cancer. But it’s also suppressing the immune system, and your immune system is what kills cancer. If your immune system is asleep, your killer cells can’t be activated

    In addition, there are so many basic things our public health system isn’t addressing. Do we have a horrible diet? Are we vitamin D-deficient? Absolutely. In addition, a lot of people received a contaminated adulterated gene-based product, and we don’t know the long-term outcomes.

    Mr. Jekielek: Ryan, any final thoughts as we finish up?

    Dr. Cole: If we can resolve conflicts by having face-to-face conversations, the world will be a better place, and maintaining our rights to speak and think freely is more important than anything. Stay positive. Stay optimistic. Life is still good.

    This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
    The article discusses concerns that contamination in the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, specifically residual DNA from the manufacturing process, could help explain the recent rise in cancer rates and autoimmune diseases. Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole explains that while the initial Pfizer vaccine trials used a very controlled synthetic mRNA production process, when they scaled up manufacturing for billions of doses they switched to a less precise method involving bacteria and plasmids, without properly cleaning the residual DNA. He and other experts believe this contaminated DNA could be intercalating into human DNA and causing mutations, suppressing the immune system, and driving cancers that are more aggressive and no longer responding to traditional treatments. More research is still needed, but this provides a potential mechanism for the alarming patterns doctors are observing of rapid cancer growth and previously stable cancers coming out of remission after vaccination. https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/the-rise-in-cancers-autoimmune-diseases-the-role-of-dna-contamination-5544587 No paywall source: https://archive.is/G0Shq The Rise in Cancers, Autoimmune Diseases: The Role of DNA Contamination The Rise in Cancers, Autoimmune Diseases: The Role of DNA Contamination Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole in Dallas, Texas on Nov. 4, 2023. (York Du/The Epoch Times) In a recent episode of “American Thought Leaders,” host Jan Jekielek speaks with Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist and an expert on SARS-CoV-2 and the mechanisms of the genetic injections labeled as vaccines. Here, they discuss how these COVID-19 genetic vaccines may be related to the rise in cancers and autoimmune diseases. Jan Jekielek: I’ve done an interview with Kevin McKernan about what’s in the vaccine vials, this contamination that multiple labs had already verified. Let’s start with that, because that’s something you’ve been covering. Dr. Ryan Cole: Many laboratories around the world have been looking at this issue, and Kevin has been a leader in this area. When these products were made, there was the J&J, that’s an adenovirus factor, but then there was Moderna and Pfizer. These are mRNA; synthetically engineered, modified RNA. For the trials, at least for Pfizer, there’s a synthetic PCR-type process in making up the mRNA sequence for these shots. That was given to 40,000 people, and was a deliberate, synthetic, engineered attempt at a precision-type process. Mr. Jekielek: That’s dubbed “Process 1”? Dr. Cole: Yes. To make a lot of this for billions of people, a second process was used, which was only tested on about 252 people instead of 40,000. That was taking this complementary DNA sequence that is the reverse pattern of the spike to make mRNA a message, and then your body would make that protein in your cells. We did the trials on this very controlled synthetic process, but then at the last minute they snuck under the radar and said, “But we’re going to make all the rest of them using a process we’ve barely tested.” That’s what got rolled out into billions of people’s arms. It was kind of a bait and switch. Those large data sets one would want to see in terms of harms, you’re not going to find that in 250 patients. Mr. Jekielek: They actually use E. Coli, a bacterium, to grow these plasmids of DNA, which can then be turned into the RNA, but they just didn’t clean them up. Dr. Cole: They didn’t clean them up properly. They’re supposed to put in an enzyme that breaks down any residual DNA. Even up to the current vials of the fall booster, the XBB 1.5, Kevin and 12 other laboratories have shown there is still bacterial plasmid DNA contamination within these vials. The FDA allows up to, in gene products, 10 nanograms of DNA per dose, but that’s based on old technology. The smaller the fragment of DNA, the greater the opportunity it has to intercalate into your own DNA as well. More testing and probes are still needed to prove this, but it explains a lot of the strange happenings we’re seeing in clots, autoimmune disease, and cancers, because we’re changing signals within cells. Human cells are meant to make human proteins. They’re not meant to make foreign proteins. When we program people’s cells to make things they’re not supposed to make, they can go haywire. They can mutate and become a target of our own immune system. My big concern is that billions of people around the world have received a product that was contaminated, which was admitted to by the Canadian health regulatory agency. Mr. Jekielek: It was Epoch Times reporting that caused that disclosure to happen. Dr. Cole: Yes, well done. And my concern isn’t just these COVID shots. It’s this entire technology. A lipid nanoparticle in and of itself is an unproven product. It takes on whatever you put into it. They’re trying to create them for RSV, flu, and for many other pathogens. It still takes those little gene sequences anywhere and everywhere in the body. In some of his autopsy findings, the late Dr. Burkhardt, a friend and mentor to me, showed spike protein in the testes, in the placenta, and in the uterus. I’ve seen some of those in the studies we were doing in my laboratory. Mr. Jekielek: You feel this provides some explanation for these turbo cancers and this clotting we’ve been seeing. Dr. Cole: Dr. Ute Krüger from Sweden coined the term turbo cancer. She’s a breast pathologist who was looking at the damage of these shots. She noticed increases in cancer, an uptick not only in the size of the cancers, but also in the stage of the cancers. Instead of just taking out a lesion, she was finding it had spread to lymph nodes, the liver, the bone marrow, and the brain. She was seeing cancers behave in a manner like never before. Everywhere I go, I hear oncologists and physicians telling this story. A prominent oncologist in Texas told me, “At first I saw the clots, then the blood cancers, the leukemias, and the lymphomas. Now, I’m seeing solid tissue cancers at rates I’ve never seen. Patients that were stable or cancer-free for 1, 2, 5, or 10 years, their cancer is now back, and it’s not responding to traditional therapies.” It’s not necessarily that the gene sequence is causing cancer. The gene sequence can cause some of the mutations that lead to cancer. But it’s also suppressing the immune system, and your immune system is what kills cancer. If your immune system is asleep, your killer cells can’t be activated In addition, there are so many basic things our public health system isn’t addressing. Do we have a horrible diet? Are we vitamin D-deficient? Absolutely. In addition, a lot of people received a contaminated adulterated gene-based product, and we don’t know the long-term outcomes. Mr. Jekielek: Ryan, any final thoughts as we finish up? Dr. Cole: If we can resolve conflicts by having face-to-face conversations, the world will be a better place, and maintaining our rights to speak and think freely is more important than anything. Stay positive. Stay optimistic. Life is still good. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
    WWW.THEEPOCHTIMES.COM
    The Rise in Cancers, Autoimmune Diseases: The Role of DNA Contamination
    Can DNA vaccine contamination explain the rise in cancer rates and autoimmune diseases? A conversation with pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 9232 Views
  • PAID POST
  • The Elephant in the Room: The Oreos Are Poisoned
    Dr. Joseph Sansone
    In a recent depiction of the blatant and unusual type of lying that politicians and government officials are now engaging in, Tucker Carlson described a child lying when asked if they ate the Oreos. The child would typically deny eating the Oreos at first, but when busted, finally admit to it. In the case of our politicians and elected officials, imagine that child looking you straight in the eye, and saying, “You ate the Oreos!”

    This is of course a dead on the nose description of the psychological projections politicians and government officials are engaging in. If they engage in racism, they accuse you of being a racist. If they engage in misinformation, they accuse you of engaging in misinformation for exposing it. If they behave like fascists, they accuse you of being a fascist for resisting or exposing it.

    Why is this occurring?

    It is by design. It is an intimidation tactic. It is an attempt to manipulate your emotions. It is designed to put you on defense. It is designed to shame you into following the social path of least resistance. It is designed to maneuver you to go along with the lies and not pay attention to the elephant in the room. To go along with just about every aspect of this farce requires a total denial of the truth.

    The elephant in the room is that Israel, Iran, Russia, the United States, and so on, all engaged in the same unscientific lockdowns and mask mandates. All poisoned their citizens with C19 nanoparticle bioweapon injections. Pay no attention to a global campaign of mass murder…

    The elephant in the room is that the United States government, every state government, and every local government, as well as every major institution, academic, medical, corporate, media, etc., participated in a biological warfare campaign using nanoparticle weapons in the form of C19 injections against the American population. The elephant in the room is that countless medical doctors participated in murdering and maiming the human population. The elephant in the room is that medical doctors are gaslighting their patients that were injured by these injections and telling them their injuries are in their head or that they were due to preexisting conditions.

    We must pretend the injections don’t contain self assembling nanotechnology. We must also pretend that the shots don’t contain Silicone, Titanium and Yttrium. We must of course not consider the possibility that there are biosensors and parasitic nodes syphoning the energy of your cells creating biosynthetic cells. Pay no attention to the WBAN (Wireless Body Area Network). We definitely don’t want to consider the distinct possibility (hint this means it is happening) that our food and biosphere are being contaminated with this nanotechnology...

    The surest way to spot the scam is when nobody is allowed to talk about it. The most vulnerable position that just about any politician has, is that they supported the C19 injection and refused to speak out against the nanoparticle weapons. The elephant in the room is that not one politician, to my knowledge, has stated this is a biological/technological warfare campaign against the human population. This includes all of the presidential candidates. To engage and support a candidate wholeheartedly, you are required to pretend this campaign of mass murder is not occurring. Pay no attention to the biological warfare depopulation campaign being waged….

    Regarding the election, you also have to pretend there is a way to authenticate a computerized election where machines can be accessed by modems and the source code is proprietary information…

    This is a big multifaceted elephant. We must also pretend that it is normal for young people to have strokes and heart attacks. It is normal for them to drop dead. It is normal for so many people to have turbo cancer. It is normal for all cause mortality to go up. It is normal for all these diseases to increase.

    The elephant in the room is that we are at war with Russia and edging closer toward global nuclear war. The elephant in the room is that a full blown Middle Eastern war will bring us even closer toward nuclear war. If it doesn’t there is still a strong probability that it was cause an economic collapse.

    The elephant in the room is that there is a deliberate dissolution of the United States occurring, and has been occurring, since at least, 1965. This has been facilitated partly by massive migration and a clearly deliberate refusal to protect the nation’s borders. Somehow in the twisted mind of our political and legal system it was okay to lock American citizens up in mass in their homes, but not to secure the United States border.

    The elephant in the room is that the U.S. military has becomes a mercenary force for globalists. It is that the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and all the secret wars in between were a cash cow for globalist conspirators and simultaneously designed to bankrupt the United States. The United States looks to be rapidly declining as a civilization.

    The elephant in the room is that C19 was merely an extension of 911. The difference being that the intention is to turn the whole world into the airport…

    The elephant in the room is that herding human beings into sophisticated smart cities called 15 minute cities is being planned and implemented. The elephant in the room is that there are plans to create a Centralized Digital Bank Currency and this will amount to total slavery.

    The elephant in the room is that there is less than a week for one head of state to send a simple letter to WHO declaring that they reject the amendments that were adopted on May 27th, 2022. Let’s pretend a global coup to create a biomedical tyranny is not occurring.

    Did one governor consider sending a letter?

    The elephant in the room is that there is an emerging Fascist, Socialist, Marxist, Communist, Technocratic, choose your metaphor for Totalitarianism, I like Psychopathic Authoritarianism, super state bent on depopulating the planet, deindustrializing much of it, and enslaving what is left in a neofeudalistic global plantation. It is also driven by transhumanist goals to transform what is left of humanity into something no longer human.

    The C19 injections were likely the most catastrophic event in human history. The reality is that we don’t even know if the human race will survive it. Unless of course we experience global nuclear war, which probably is not off the table.

    Ultimately, the elephant in the room is that the Oreos were poisoned.

    Dr. Joseph Sansone is a psychotherapist opposed to psychopathic authoritarianism.

    Share

    Refer a friend

    https://open.substack.com/pub/josephsansone/p/the-elephant-in-the-room-the-oreos?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    The Elephant in the Room: The Oreos Are Poisoned Dr. Joseph Sansone In a recent depiction of the blatant and unusual type of lying that politicians and government officials are now engaging in, Tucker Carlson described a child lying when asked if they ate the Oreos. The child would typically deny eating the Oreos at first, but when busted, finally admit to it. In the case of our politicians and elected officials, imagine that child looking you straight in the eye, and saying, “You ate the Oreos!” This is of course a dead on the nose description of the psychological projections politicians and government officials are engaging in. If they engage in racism, they accuse you of being a racist. If they engage in misinformation, they accuse you of engaging in misinformation for exposing it. If they behave like fascists, they accuse you of being a fascist for resisting or exposing it. Why is this occurring? It is by design. It is an intimidation tactic. It is an attempt to manipulate your emotions. It is designed to put you on defense. It is designed to shame you into following the social path of least resistance. It is designed to maneuver you to go along with the lies and not pay attention to the elephant in the room. To go along with just about every aspect of this farce requires a total denial of the truth. The elephant in the room is that Israel, Iran, Russia, the United States, and so on, all engaged in the same unscientific lockdowns and mask mandates. All poisoned their citizens with C19 nanoparticle bioweapon injections. Pay no attention to a global campaign of mass murder… The elephant in the room is that the United States government, every state government, and every local government, as well as every major institution, academic, medical, corporate, media, etc., participated in a biological warfare campaign using nanoparticle weapons in the form of C19 injections against the American population. The elephant in the room is that countless medical doctors participated in murdering and maiming the human population. The elephant in the room is that medical doctors are gaslighting their patients that were injured by these injections and telling them their injuries are in their head or that they were due to preexisting conditions. We must pretend the injections don’t contain self assembling nanotechnology. We must also pretend that the shots don’t contain Silicone, Titanium and Yttrium. We must of course not consider the possibility that there are biosensors and parasitic nodes syphoning the energy of your cells creating biosynthetic cells. Pay no attention to the WBAN (Wireless Body Area Network). We definitely don’t want to consider the distinct possibility (hint this means it is happening) that our food and biosphere are being contaminated with this nanotechnology... The surest way to spot the scam is when nobody is allowed to talk about it. The most vulnerable position that just about any politician has, is that they supported the C19 injection and refused to speak out against the nanoparticle weapons. The elephant in the room is that not one politician, to my knowledge, has stated this is a biological/technological warfare campaign against the human population. This includes all of the presidential candidates. To engage and support a candidate wholeheartedly, you are required to pretend this campaign of mass murder is not occurring. Pay no attention to the biological warfare depopulation campaign being waged…. Regarding the election, you also have to pretend there is a way to authenticate a computerized election where machines can be accessed by modems and the source code is proprietary information… This is a big multifaceted elephant. We must also pretend that it is normal for young people to have strokes and heart attacks. It is normal for them to drop dead. It is normal for so many people to have turbo cancer. It is normal for all cause mortality to go up. It is normal for all these diseases to increase. The elephant in the room is that we are at war with Russia and edging closer toward global nuclear war. The elephant in the room is that a full blown Middle Eastern war will bring us even closer toward nuclear war. If it doesn’t there is still a strong probability that it was cause an economic collapse. The elephant in the room is that there is a deliberate dissolution of the United States occurring, and has been occurring, since at least, 1965. This has been facilitated partly by massive migration and a clearly deliberate refusal to protect the nation’s borders. Somehow in the twisted mind of our political and legal system it was okay to lock American citizens up in mass in their homes, but not to secure the United States border. The elephant in the room is that the U.S. military has becomes a mercenary force for globalists. It is that the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and all the secret wars in between were a cash cow for globalist conspirators and simultaneously designed to bankrupt the United States. The United States looks to be rapidly declining as a civilization. The elephant in the room is that C19 was merely an extension of 911. The difference being that the intention is to turn the whole world into the airport… The elephant in the room is that herding human beings into sophisticated smart cities called 15 minute cities is being planned and implemented. The elephant in the room is that there are plans to create a Centralized Digital Bank Currency and this will amount to total slavery. The elephant in the room is that there is less than a week for one head of state to send a simple letter to WHO declaring that they reject the amendments that were adopted on May 27th, 2022. Let’s pretend a global coup to create a biomedical tyranny is not occurring. Did one governor consider sending a letter? The elephant in the room is that there is an emerging Fascist, Socialist, Marxist, Communist, Technocratic, choose your metaphor for Totalitarianism, I like Psychopathic Authoritarianism, super state bent on depopulating the planet, deindustrializing much of it, and enslaving what is left in a neofeudalistic global plantation. It is also driven by transhumanist goals to transform what is left of humanity into something no longer human. The C19 injections were likely the most catastrophic event in human history. The reality is that we don’t even know if the human race will survive it. Unless of course we experience global nuclear war, which probably is not off the table. Ultimately, the elephant in the room is that the Oreos were poisoned. Dr. Joseph Sansone is a psychotherapist opposed to psychopathic authoritarianism. Share Refer a friend https://open.substack.com/pub/josephsansone/p/the-elephant-in-the-room-the-oreos?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    OPEN.SUBSTACK.COM
    The Elephant in the Room: The Oreos Are Poisoned
    In a recent depiction of the blatant and unusual type of lying that politicians and government officials are now engaging in, Tucker Carlson described a child lying when asked if they ate the Oreos. The child would typically deny eating the Oreos at first, but when busted, finally admit to it. In the case of our politicians and elected officials, imagine that child looking you straight in the eye, and saying, “You ate the Oreos!”
    0 Comments 0 Shares 11444 Views
  • Simple Option Trade Alerts
    Plus Training To Help You Get The Biggest Profits!
    OptionsPop.com gives you simple options buy alerts
    that have a high probability of moving up in price in the
    next 2 to 9 days... plus trader training to help you get the best results.
    Click Here 👉 https://bit.ly/3ubyWpi
    #farming #staking #resume #Bridge #IDO #tokenomics #NFTs #P2E #metaverses #testnets #nodes #Ambassador #Vacancies
    Simple Option Trade Alerts Plus Training To Help You Get The Biggest Profits! OptionsPop.com gives you simple options buy alerts that have a high probability of moving up in price in the next 2 to 9 days... plus trader training to help you get the best results. Click Here 👉 https://bit.ly/3ubyWpi #farming #staking #resume #Bridge #IDO #tokenomics #NFTs #P2E #metaverses #testnets #nodes #Ambassador #Vacancies
    Options Pop Options Alerts
    simple options trading alerts
    0 Comments 0 Shares 8864 Views

  • Image Source: https://d3lkc3n5th01x7.cloudfront.net#blockchain #thgaming #someeofficial #waiv #proofofbrain
    Blockchain technology has the potential to surpass the internet in terms of its transformative impact and widespread adoption. While the internet revolutionized communication and information sharing, blockchain introduces a new paradigm that revolutionizes trust, security, and decentralized transactions. Here are several reasons why blockchain has the potential to surpass the internet:
    Enhanced Security and Trust: One of the fundamental features of blockchain technology is its ability to create a highly secure and tamper-resistant network. Unlike the internet, which relies on centralized authorities and intermediaries to validate transactions and secure data, blockchain utilizes a decentralized network of nodes that collectively validate and record transactions in an immutable ledger. This distributed consensus mechanism eliminates the need for intermediaries, reduces the risk of fraud, and enhances trust among participants. As data breaches and online fraud continue to plague the internet, blockchain's inherent security features make it a compelling alternative.
    Decentralization and Empowerment: The internet brought about a centralized model where power and control are concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations. In contrast, blockchain enables decentralization by distributing control and decision-making among network participants. This decentralized nature has the potential to democratize various industries, such as finance, supply chain, and governance. Through blockchain-based platforms, individuals can directly interact and transact with one another, bypassing traditional gatekeepers and intermediaries. This empowerment of individuals and communities fosters innovation, reduces inequality, and challenges the centralized status quo.
    Immutable and Transparent Records: Blockchain's distributed ledger technology ensures transparency and immutability of records. Every transaction or piece of data added to the blockchain is recorded permanently and cannot be altered without the consensus of the network. This feature eliminates the need for trust in centralized authorities, as anyone can independently verify the integrity of the blockchain's history. Such transparency and immutability can have far-reaching implications for industries that require auditability, such as supply chain management, healthcare, and voting systems. By providing an indisputable and traceable record of events, blockchain technology enhances accountability and reduces fraud.
    Smart Contracts and Automation: Blockchain's programmable capabilities, particularly through smart contracts, enable the automation of complex transactions and agreements. Smart contracts are self-executing contracts with predefined rules and conditions embedded in the blockchain. They eliminate the need for intermediaries and automate the enforcement of agreements, thereby reducing costs, increasing efficiency, and minimizing human error. This automation potential has vast implications across various sectors, including finance, real estate, intellectual property, and supply chain management. By streamlining processes and increasing efficiency, blockchain's smart contracts can reshape industries and drive substantial economic benefits.
    Tokenization and New Economies: Blockchain technology facilitates the tokenization of real-world assets, enabling the representation of physical or digital assets as tokens on the blockchain. This tokenization unlocks the potential for creating new economies and markets. It enables fractional ownership, liquidity, and seamless transferability of assets that were previously illiquid or inaccessible. Tokenization has the potential to revolutionize finance, art, real estate, and even personal data ownership. By enabling the creation of decentralized marketplaces and new economic models, blockchain technology can disrupt traditional industries and foster innovation.
    While the internet has transformed the world, blockchain technology presents a paradigm shift that can surpass its impact. With enhanced security, decentralization, transparency, automation, and the potential for new economies, blockchain has the power to reshape industries, empower individuals, and foster trust in ways that the internet alone cannot achieve. As blockchain continues to evolve and find applications in various sectors, its transformative potential is becoming increasingly evident, making it a strong contender to surpass the internet in terms of its overall impact.
    Image Source: https://d3lkc3n5th01x7.cloudfront.net#blockchain #thgaming #someeofficial #waiv #proofofbrain Blockchain technology has the potential to surpass the internet in terms of its transformative impact and widespread adoption. While the internet revolutionized communication and information sharing, blockchain introduces a new paradigm that revolutionizes trust, security, and decentralized transactions. Here are several reasons why blockchain has the potential to surpass the internet: Enhanced Security and Trust: One of the fundamental features of blockchain technology is its ability to create a highly secure and tamper-resistant network. Unlike the internet, which relies on centralized authorities and intermediaries to validate transactions and secure data, blockchain utilizes a decentralized network of nodes that collectively validate and record transactions in an immutable ledger. This distributed consensus mechanism eliminates the need for intermediaries, reduces the risk of fraud, and enhances trust among participants. As data breaches and online fraud continue to plague the internet, blockchain's inherent security features make it a compelling alternative. Decentralization and Empowerment: The internet brought about a centralized model where power and control are concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations. In contrast, blockchain enables decentralization by distributing control and decision-making among network participants. This decentralized nature has the potential to democratize various industries, such as finance, supply chain, and governance. Through blockchain-based platforms, individuals can directly interact and transact with one another, bypassing traditional gatekeepers and intermediaries. This empowerment of individuals and communities fosters innovation, reduces inequality, and challenges the centralized status quo. Immutable and Transparent Records: Blockchain's distributed ledger technology ensures transparency and immutability of records. Every transaction or piece of data added to the blockchain is recorded permanently and cannot be altered without the consensus of the network. This feature eliminates the need for trust in centralized authorities, as anyone can independently verify the integrity of the blockchain's history. Such transparency and immutability can have far-reaching implications for industries that require auditability, such as supply chain management, healthcare, and voting systems. By providing an indisputable and traceable record of events, blockchain technology enhances accountability and reduces fraud. Smart Contracts and Automation: Blockchain's programmable capabilities, particularly through smart contracts, enable the automation of complex transactions and agreements. Smart contracts are self-executing contracts with predefined rules and conditions embedded in the blockchain. They eliminate the need for intermediaries and automate the enforcement of agreements, thereby reducing costs, increasing efficiency, and minimizing human error. This automation potential has vast implications across various sectors, including finance, real estate, intellectual property, and supply chain management. By streamlining processes and increasing efficiency, blockchain's smart contracts can reshape industries and drive substantial economic benefits. Tokenization and New Economies: Blockchain technology facilitates the tokenization of real-world assets, enabling the representation of physical or digital assets as tokens on the blockchain. This tokenization unlocks the potential for creating new economies and markets. It enables fractional ownership, liquidity, and seamless transferability of assets that were previously illiquid or inaccessible. Tokenization has the potential to revolutionize finance, art, real estate, and even personal data ownership. By enabling the creation of decentralized marketplaces and new economic models, blockchain technology can disrupt traditional industries and foster innovation. While the internet has transformed the world, blockchain technology presents a paradigm shift that can surpass its impact. With enhanced security, decentralization, transparency, automation, and the potential for new economies, blockchain has the power to reshape industries, empower individuals, and foster trust in ways that the internet alone cannot achieve. As blockchain continues to evolve and find applications in various sectors, its transformative potential is becoming increasingly evident, making it a strong contender to surpass the internet in terms of its overall impact.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 15178 Views

  • Aptos Crypto is a blockchain-based platform that offers numerous advantages over traditional financial systems. It is a decentralized platform that uses cutting-edge technology to provide a secure, transparent, and efficient financial ecosystem. Aptos Crypto offers several advantages over traditional financial systems, which are discussed below.
    One of the main advantages of Aptos Crypto is its decentralized nature. Unlike traditional financial systems, which are controlled by centralized authorities, Aptos Crypto is controlled by a network of nodes that work together to maintain the integrity of the platform. This decentralization ensures that no single entity can manipulate the system for their own benefit, ensuring greater security and transparency for users.
    Aptos Crypto offers faster and cheaper transactions than traditional financial systems. Transactions on the Aptos Crypto platform can be completed in a matter of seconds, compared to the days it can take for transactions to clear on traditional financial systems. This speed is made possible by the use of blockchain technology, which allows for instant verification of transactions without the need for intermediaries.
    Aptos Crypto provides greater financial privacy than traditional financial systems. Transactions on traditional financial systems are often subject to government and regulatory oversight, which can compromise users' privacy. In contrast, Aptos Crypto transactions are pseudonymous and can be made without revealing the user's identity or personal information.
    Aptos Crypto is highly secure. The use of blockchain technology ensures that all transactions are encrypted and tamper-proof, making it virtually impossible for hackers to access user data or steal funds. Additionally, the decentralized nature of Aptos Crypto means that there is no central point of failure, reducing the risk of system-wide security breaches.
    Aptos Crypto offers greater financial inclusivity than traditional financial systems. Traditional financial systems often require users to have a bank account or credit history, which can be a barrier for many people, especially in developing countries. Aptos Crypto, on the other hand, can be accessed by anyone with an internet connection, allowing even the unbanked to participate in the financial system.
    In conclusion, Aptos Crypto offers several advantages over traditional financial systems. Its decentralized nature, faster and cheaper transactions, greater financial privacy and security, and greater financial inclusivity make it an attractive alternative to traditional financial systems. As blockchain technology continues to evolve, it is likely that we will see even more innovative financial systems emerge that leverage the unique advantages of this technology.
    Aptos Crypto is a blockchain-based platform that offers numerous advantages over traditional financial systems. It is a decentralized platform that uses cutting-edge technology to provide a secure, transparent, and efficient financial ecosystem. Aptos Crypto offers several advantages over traditional financial systems, which are discussed below. One of the main advantages of Aptos Crypto is its decentralized nature. Unlike traditional financial systems, which are controlled by centralized authorities, Aptos Crypto is controlled by a network of nodes that work together to maintain the integrity of the platform. This decentralization ensures that no single entity can manipulate the system for their own benefit, ensuring greater security and transparency for users. Aptos Crypto offers faster and cheaper transactions than traditional financial systems. Transactions on the Aptos Crypto platform can be completed in a matter of seconds, compared to the days it can take for transactions to clear on traditional financial systems. This speed is made possible by the use of blockchain technology, which allows for instant verification of transactions without the need for intermediaries. Aptos Crypto provides greater financial privacy than traditional financial systems. Transactions on traditional financial systems are often subject to government and regulatory oversight, which can compromise users' privacy. In contrast, Aptos Crypto transactions are pseudonymous and can be made without revealing the user's identity or personal information. Aptos Crypto is highly secure. The use of blockchain technology ensures that all transactions are encrypted and tamper-proof, making it virtually impossible for hackers to access user data or steal funds. Additionally, the decentralized nature of Aptos Crypto means that there is no central point of failure, reducing the risk of system-wide security breaches. Aptos Crypto offers greater financial inclusivity than traditional financial systems. Traditional financial systems often require users to have a bank account or credit history, which can be a barrier for many people, especially in developing countries. Aptos Crypto, on the other hand, can be accessed by anyone with an internet connection, allowing even the unbanked to participate in the financial system. In conclusion, Aptos Crypto offers several advantages over traditional financial systems. Its decentralized nature, faster and cheaper transactions, greater financial privacy and security, and greater financial inclusivity make it an attractive alternative to traditional financial systems. As blockchain technology continues to evolve, it is likely that we will see even more innovative financial systems emerge that leverage the unique advantages of this technology.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3955 Views
  • Hello everyone. I am back with tutorials, I hope you didn't miss me much.

    Today I will be talking about STAKING

    1. WHAT IS CRYPTO STAKING

    Cryptocurrency staking is an act of locking up a specific amount of crypto tokens especially tokens native to a particular Blockchain in other to gain more influence or participate in node activities on the chain.

    The staking activity is often common to blockchains that operate using a proof-of-stake consensus algorithm. This type of Blockchain ensures security by allowing certain users to participate as nodes which verifies transaction and add new blocks to the Blockchain.

    In other to participate as a node, a given amount of the Blockchain native token is required to be staked and these staked tokens add more value and security to the Blockchain by aiding transaction validations thereby making it impossible for fake transactions to be approved.

    For this reason, the owners of the staked tokens are rewarded with extra tokens and this reward is what is regarded as a staking reward or incentive.

    #SME #AweSME #someeofficial #crypto #staking #upvotes

    Hello everyone. I am back with tutorials, I hope you didn't miss me much. Today I will be talking about STAKING 1. WHAT IS CRYPTO STAKING Cryptocurrency staking is an act of locking up a specific amount of crypto tokens especially tokens native to a particular Blockchain in other to gain more influence or participate in node activities on the chain. The staking activity is often common to blockchains that operate using a proof-of-stake consensus algorithm. This type of Blockchain ensures security by allowing certain users to participate as nodes which verifies transaction and add new blocks to the Blockchain. In other to participate as a node, a given amount of the Blockchain native token is required to be staked and these staked tokens add more value and security to the Blockchain by aiding transaction validations thereby making it impossible for fake transactions to be approved. For this reason, the owners of the staked tokens are rewarded with extra tokens and this reward is what is regarded as a staking reward or incentive. #SME #AweSME #someeofficial #crypto #staking #upvotes
    Like
    8
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5143 Views
  • Greetings SoMee Family

    Today I will be teaching a very important topic BLOCKCHAIN FORK. This topic is rare and very important in the blockchain world. Please Don't skip this post

    1. WHAT IS BLOCKCHAIN FORK

    A fork is simply when a cryptocurrency splits into two different cryptocurrencies due to changes in the original cryptocurrency. Forks often happen when the coding of a blockchain or cryptocurrency is changed. When discussing forks, there are probably two types of forks, which are hard forks and soft forks. We will look at them later.

    However, in a nutshell, a hard fork is when two blockchain networks are not compatible with each other, whereas a soft fork is when both the new and old versions of the blockchain network are compatible with each other.

    Forks can sometimes be so complicated for users since they require the acquisition of new wallets, software updates, and also learning how to make use of the new system. In a nutshell, a fork is simply a division of a cryptocurrency, which often occurs. based on the disagreement that led to separation. As you keep on reading, you will get to know more about the hard fork and soft fork.

    2. What are the differences between hard forks and soft forks?

    2a. Soft forks are viewed as a more secure option that is backward compatible, ensuring that nodes that do not update to newer versions will still regard the chain as valid.

    2b. A simple operating system upgrade on a computer or a mobile device can be compared to the distinction between hard forks and soft forks. All of the applications on the smartphone will continue to function after the upgrade with the new.

    3. THE HIVE HARD FORK

    Hive, on the other hand, was created on January 1, 2020, as a hard fork of the Decentralized Blogging Social Media Platform that separates itself from SoMee. Hive also rewards users with cryptocurrency just like SoMee. Hive cryptocurrency rewards include the Hive native coin and the Hive-backed Dollar (HBD).

    the second image shows the genesis block of the hive

    When a blockchain hard forks, the newly formed blockchains download the transaction history of the original blockchain and so share a common ancestor.

    I hope you understand the concept. thank you for reading.

    #SME #AweSME #crypto #someeofficial #SoMee #hive #learning #blockchain #forks

    Greetings SoMee Family Today I will be teaching a very important topic BLOCKCHAIN FORK. This topic is rare and very important in the blockchain world. Please Don't skip this post 1. WHAT IS BLOCKCHAIN FORK A fork is simply when a cryptocurrency splits into two different cryptocurrencies due to changes in the original cryptocurrency. Forks often happen when the coding of a blockchain or cryptocurrency is changed. When discussing forks, there are probably two types of forks, which are hard forks and soft forks. We will look at them later. However, in a nutshell, a hard fork is when two blockchain networks are not compatible with each other, whereas a soft fork is when both the new and old versions of the blockchain network are compatible with each other. Forks can sometimes be so complicated for users since they require the acquisition of new wallets, software updates, and also learning how to make use of the new system. In a nutshell, a fork is simply a division of a cryptocurrency, which often occurs. based on the disagreement that led to separation. As you keep on reading, you will get to know more about the hard fork and soft fork. 2. What are the differences between hard forks and soft forks? 2a. Soft forks are viewed as a more secure option that is backward compatible, ensuring that nodes that do not update to newer versions will still regard the chain as valid. 2b. A simple operating system upgrade on a computer or a mobile device can be compared to the distinction between hard forks and soft forks. All of the applications on the smartphone will continue to function after the upgrade with the new. 3. THE HIVE HARD FORK Hive, on the other hand, was created on January 1, 2020, as a hard fork of the Decentralized Blogging Social Media Platform that separates itself from SoMee. Hive also rewards users with cryptocurrency just like SoMee. Hive cryptocurrency rewards include the Hive native coin and the Hive-backed Dollar (HBD). the second image shows the genesis block of the hive When a blockchain hard forks, the newly formed blockchains download the transaction history of the original blockchain and so share a common ancestor. I hope you understand the concept. thank you for reading. #SME #AweSME #crypto #someeofficial #SoMee #hive #learning #blockchain #forks
    Like
    Love
    17
    2 Comments 0 Shares 3719 Views
  • Greetings SoMee Family

    Today I will be teaching about the blockchain technology.

    1. WHAT IS BLOCKCHAIN?

    Blockchain is a developing technology. It is the immutable public ledger that supports the process of recording transactions and tracking the assets stored in any network. The transactions are stored on the nodes, These nodes are helpful for confirming the transactions and getting the fees in return. Our financial system is developing by gaining this blockchain technology. The world is changed after the evolution of blockchain technology. This technology is used in a wide range of different fields. Almost every field has the step to blockchain technology such as transport, music, finance, and a lot more applications of blockchains in advancing human systems in front of us.

    2. What are the main issues arising in the existing system of blockchain technology?

    Although blockchain technology is an evolved technology with a lot of benefits and attributes. It is acquiring popularity and technology is improving day by day. With every spectacle and elaboration of new technology, there are some issues also, as I also illustrated earlier that blockchain technology is in the progressing face so it is also important to keep the focus on the issues that we face while implementing the technology so that we will be able to solve these issues and the blockchain technology will move towards more betterment.

    2a. SCALABILITY:

    The first problem in the execution of blockchain technology is scalability. We know that with the advancement of blockchain technology, more users are entering the technology world and the procedure of transactions is slowing down day by day.

    Due to this the rewards fee is also varying especially in the most famous Ethereum blockchain. There are a large number of nodes that are used in blockchain technology to hold the data which have limited depository due to the increasing hindrance of the work it is difficult to operate to and store all the information.

    2b. SECURITY:

    Another issue with the current blockchain technology is the security problem. We all are well conscious of the many events of hacker attacks or cyber-attacks. Security is the first priority before the implementation of any technology, So security matters become a hindrance in the implementation of blockchain technology.

    As a decentralized technology, no third party provides security responsibility. If the hacker gets access they can get out all the data and tokens of the user. As anyone can use this open-source technology so it decreases its accuracy in it the way that it becomes easy for hackers to steal data.

    2c. COMPACTIBILITY:

    Blockchain Technology is a network that operates independently which can make the procedure of transmitting the data and network in other networks difficult. This process restricts the process to improve the network. So less compatibility is another issue that is present in blockchain technology.

    3. ADVANTAGES OF BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY

    3a. TRANSPARENCY:

    One of the unique features of blockchain technology is its transparency. This indicates that all transactions that take place on the blockchain are publicly available for anyone to view. Since the transactions cannot be changed once they are recorded, this creates a system of trust and accountability, making it easy to track and verify transactions.

    We can say that the transparency of blockchain technology is a powerful tool that promotes trust and helps to reduce fraud.

    3b. DECENTRALIZATION.

    Blockchain is a decentralized technology which means no third party is involved in the transactions. We can easily access our transactions at any time. Instead, many computers operate together to check if a transaction is accurate. When a transaction is made, it is sent to many computers in the network to check if it is okay.

    If it is approved then the transaction is added to the blockchain and all the computers in the network update their copy of the blockchain. As no third party is involved this enhances security.

    3c. LOW FEE

    Blockchain technology is efficient because it can process transactions quickly and without the involvement of a third party which can lead to faster transaction times and lower fees. This is possible because the network is decentralized and can handle a large volume of transactions at the same time. This makes blockchain technology more efficient and impressive

    thank you all for reading, Don't forget to like, share and comment

    #SME #someeofficial #AweSME #SoMee # crypto #learning #blockchain
    Greetings SoMee Family Today I will be teaching about the blockchain technology. 1. WHAT IS BLOCKCHAIN? Blockchain is a developing technology. It is the immutable public ledger that supports the process of recording transactions and tracking the assets stored in any network. The transactions are stored on the nodes, These nodes are helpful for confirming the transactions and getting the fees in return. Our financial system is developing by gaining this blockchain technology. The world is changed after the evolution of blockchain technology. This technology is used in a wide range of different fields. Almost every field has the step to blockchain technology such as transport, music, finance, and a lot more applications of blockchains in advancing human systems in front of us. 2. What are the main issues arising in the existing system of blockchain technology? Although blockchain technology is an evolved technology with a lot of benefits and attributes. It is acquiring popularity and technology is improving day by day. With every spectacle and elaboration of new technology, there are some issues also, as I also illustrated earlier that blockchain technology is in the progressing face so it is also important to keep the focus on the issues that we face while implementing the technology so that we will be able to solve these issues and the blockchain technology will move towards more betterment. 2a. SCALABILITY: The first problem in the execution of blockchain technology is scalability. We know that with the advancement of blockchain technology, more users are entering the technology world and the procedure of transactions is slowing down day by day. Due to this the rewards fee is also varying especially in the most famous Ethereum blockchain. There are a large number of nodes that are used in blockchain technology to hold the data which have limited depository due to the increasing hindrance of the work it is difficult to operate to and store all the information. 2b. SECURITY: Another issue with the current blockchain technology is the security problem. We all are well conscious of the many events of hacker attacks or cyber-attacks. Security is the first priority before the implementation of any technology, So security matters become a hindrance in the implementation of blockchain technology. As a decentralized technology, no third party provides security responsibility. If the hacker gets access they can get out all the data and tokens of the user. As anyone can use this open-source technology so it decreases its accuracy in it the way that it becomes easy for hackers to steal data. 2c. COMPACTIBILITY: Blockchain Technology is a network that operates independently which can make the procedure of transmitting the data and network in other networks difficult. This process restricts the process to improve the network. So less compatibility is another issue that is present in blockchain technology. 3. ADVANTAGES OF BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY 3a. TRANSPARENCY: One of the unique features of blockchain technology is its transparency. This indicates that all transactions that take place on the blockchain are publicly available for anyone to view. Since the transactions cannot be changed once they are recorded, this creates a system of trust and accountability, making it easy to track and verify transactions. We can say that the transparency of blockchain technology is a powerful tool that promotes trust and helps to reduce fraud. 3b. DECENTRALIZATION. Blockchain is a decentralized technology which means no third party is involved in the transactions. We can easily access our transactions at any time. Instead, many computers operate together to check if a transaction is accurate. When a transaction is made, it is sent to many computers in the network to check if it is okay. If it is approved then the transaction is added to the blockchain and all the computers in the network update their copy of the blockchain. As no third party is involved this enhances security. 3c. LOW FEE Blockchain technology is efficient because it can process transactions quickly and without the involvement of a third party which can lead to faster transaction times and lower fees. This is possible because the network is decentralized and can handle a large volume of transactions at the same time. This makes blockchain technology more efficient and impressive thank you all for reading, Don't forget to like, share and comment #SME #someeofficial #AweSME #SoMee # crypto #learning #blockchain
    Like
    Love
    18
    1 Comments 0 Shares 4800 Views
  • Cardano blockchain is a third-generation blockchain that is designed to be more secure, scalable, and sustainable than other blockchains. Here are some of the ways that Cardano can be used to create more secure and efficient systems:

    Banking and Payments: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient payment systems. With Cardano’s Ouroboros consensus algorithm, transactions are verified by a network of nodes that work together to ensure the integrity of the blockchain.

    Cyber Security: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and tamper-proof systems. With Cardano’s Plutus programming language, developers can write smart contracts that are more secure and less prone to errors.

    Supply Chain Management: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more transparent and efficient supply chains. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track products from the source to the end consumer.

    Forecasting: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more accurate forecasting models. With Cardano’s data storage capabilities, it is possible to store large amounts of data in a secure and efficient manner.

    Networking and the Internet of Things (IoT): Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient networks for IoT devices. With Cardano’s low energy consumption and high scalability, it is possible to create networks that are both secure and efficient.

    Insurance: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more efficient insurance systems. With Cardano’s smart contract capabilities, it is possible to automate many of the processes involved in insurance claims.

    Private Transport and Ride Sharing: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient ride sharing systems. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track the movement of vehicles in real-time.

    Cloud Storage: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient cloud storage systems. With Cardano’s low energy consumption and high scalability, it is possible to store large amounts of data in a secure and efficient manner.

    Healthcare: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient healthcare systems. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track patient data in real-time while maintaining patient privacy.

    Real Estate: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more transparent and efficient real estate markets. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track property ownership in real-time.

    Energy Management: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more efficient energy management systems. With Cardano’s low energy consumption and high scalability, it is possible to create networks that are both secure and efficient.

    Voting Systems: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and transparent voting systems. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track votes in real-time while maintaining voter privacy.
    Cardano blockchain is a third-generation blockchain that is designed to be more secure, scalable, and sustainable than other blockchains. Here are some of the ways that Cardano can be used to create more secure and efficient systems:

    Banking and Payments: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient payment systems. With Cardano’s Ouroboros consensus algorithm, transactions are verified by a network of nodes that work together to ensure the integrity of the blockchain.

    Cyber Security: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and tamper-proof systems. With Cardano’s Plutus programming language, developers can write smart contracts that are more secure and less prone to errors.

    Supply Chain Management: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more transparent and efficient supply chains. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track products from the source to the end consumer.

    Forecasting: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more accurate forecasting models. With Cardano’s data storage capabilities, it is possible to store large amounts of data in a secure and efficient manner.

    Networking and the Internet of Things (IoT): Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient networks for IoT devices. With Cardano’s low energy consumption and high scalability, it is possible to create networks that are both secure and efficient.

    Insurance: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more efficient insurance systems. With Cardano’s smart contract capabilities, it is possible to automate many of the processes involved in insurance claims.

    Private Transport and Ride Sharing: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient ride sharing systems. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track the movement of vehicles in real-time.

    Cloud Storage: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient cloud storage systems. With Cardano’s low energy consumption and high scalability, it is possible to store large amounts of data in a secure and efficient manner.

    Healthcare: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient healthcare systems. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track patient data in real-time while maintaining patient privacy.

    Real Estate: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more transparent and efficient real estate markets. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track property ownership in real-time.

    Energy Management: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more efficient energy management systems. With Cardano’s low energy consumption and high scalability, it is possible to create networks that are both secure and efficient.

    Voting Systems: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and transparent voting systems. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track votes in real-time while maintaining voter privacy.

    (Generative language model was used in the making of this post)
    Cardano blockchain is a third-generation blockchain that is designed to be more secure, scalable, and sustainable than other blockchains. Here are some of the ways that Cardano can be used to create more secure and efficient systems: Banking and Payments: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient payment systems. With Cardano’s Ouroboros consensus algorithm, transactions are verified by a network of nodes that work together to ensure the integrity of the blockchain. Cyber Security: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and tamper-proof systems. With Cardano’s Plutus programming language, developers can write smart contracts that are more secure and less prone to errors. Supply Chain Management: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more transparent and efficient supply chains. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track products from the source to the end consumer. Forecasting: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more accurate forecasting models. With Cardano’s data storage capabilities, it is possible to store large amounts of data in a secure and efficient manner. Networking and the Internet of Things (IoT): Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient networks for IoT devices. With Cardano’s low energy consumption and high scalability, it is possible to create networks that are both secure and efficient. Insurance: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more efficient insurance systems. With Cardano’s smart contract capabilities, it is possible to automate many of the processes involved in insurance claims. Private Transport and Ride Sharing: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient ride sharing systems. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track the movement of vehicles in real-time. Cloud Storage: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient cloud storage systems. With Cardano’s low energy consumption and high scalability, it is possible to store large amounts of data in a secure and efficient manner. Healthcare: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient healthcare systems. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track patient data in real-time while maintaining patient privacy. Real Estate: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more transparent and efficient real estate markets. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track property ownership in real-time. Energy Management: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more efficient energy management systems. With Cardano’s low energy consumption and high scalability, it is possible to create networks that are both secure and efficient. Voting Systems: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and transparent voting systems. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track votes in real-time while maintaining voter privacy. Cardano blockchain is a third-generation blockchain that is designed to be more secure, scalable, and sustainable than other blockchains. Here are some of the ways that Cardano can be used to create more secure and efficient systems: Banking and Payments: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient payment systems. With Cardano’s Ouroboros consensus algorithm, transactions are verified by a network of nodes that work together to ensure the integrity of the blockchain. Cyber Security: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and tamper-proof systems. With Cardano’s Plutus programming language, developers can write smart contracts that are more secure and less prone to errors. Supply Chain Management: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more transparent and efficient supply chains. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track products from the source to the end consumer. Forecasting: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more accurate forecasting models. With Cardano’s data storage capabilities, it is possible to store large amounts of data in a secure and efficient manner. Networking and the Internet of Things (IoT): Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient networks for IoT devices. With Cardano’s low energy consumption and high scalability, it is possible to create networks that are both secure and efficient. Insurance: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more efficient insurance systems. With Cardano’s smart contract capabilities, it is possible to automate many of the processes involved in insurance claims. Private Transport and Ride Sharing: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient ride sharing systems. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track the movement of vehicles in real-time. Cloud Storage: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient cloud storage systems. With Cardano’s low energy consumption and high scalability, it is possible to store large amounts of data in a secure and efficient manner. Healthcare: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and efficient healthcare systems. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track patient data in real-time while maintaining patient privacy. Real Estate: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more transparent and efficient real estate markets. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track property ownership in real-time. Energy Management: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more efficient energy management systems. With Cardano’s low energy consumption and high scalability, it is possible to create networks that are both secure and efficient. Voting Systems: Cardano blockchain can be used to create more secure and transparent voting systems. With Cardano’s traceability features, it is possible to track votes in real-time while maintaining voter privacy. (Generative language model was used in the making of this post)
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4153 Views