The emergence of nanobot society
OUTRAGED HUMAN













So, they injected it into the military, police, emergency services.... Now everyone is injected with a device with a "real IP ADDRESS"....






0:00

Thank you very much. So one word of notice before we begin,

0:03

all the technologies that you are going to see here now are real.

0:06

And with that said

0:07

I'd like to first tell you the story about

0:10

this uh... little girl named Dana

0:12

she's very special for me because she's my daugther

0:14

and Dana was born with a leg condition requiring frequent surgeries like this one

0:19

uh... she had when we were in Boston

0:21

and um... I remember taking her to that particular surgery

0:25

and uh...

0:26

I rembember her being admitted and she was excited at first

0:31

and then just before they got into her the OR

0:33

I looked at her and she was... afraid, she was little worried and

0:38

who wouldn't be? Because surgeries today are complicated

0:41

and they're often very risky.

0:42

Now let's imagine a few years into the future, into the near future hopefully,

0:47

Dana will arrive to hospital for her ??? surgery

0:50

and instead of being prepped for anesthesia for the OR

0:54

the surgeon will just take a syringe and inside the syringe

0:58

there are millions of tiny robots, of tiny machines

1:02

that will be injected into Dana's bloodstream.

1:04

They will autonomously locate the place they need to be in,

1:08

they will excite out the injured tissue,

1:11

then will remove dead cells,

1:13

then they will...

1:14

stimulate and guide the regrowth of healthy cells across those tissue gaps,

1:18

they will release drugs that relief pain and reduce inflammation

1:23

and all the while Dana will be sitting on the chair

1:25

eating a sandwich, reading a book, might be the next

1:28

twilight saga book which she'll be able to read because she will be 16 by then

1:32

And...(giggles)

1:33

uh... when these robots

1:35

have completed their job they'll simply disintegrate

1:39

and disappear from her bloodstream the next day.

1:42

So these nanobots have been envisioned in the past 30 years

1:45

by people like Eric Drexler, Robert Freitas and Ray Kuzweil.

1:49

Today I'm going to show you that these robots exist

1:51

here in Israel.

1:54

I'll show you this syringe

1:56

which I've brought from my lab.

1:58

So this syringe has inside it a thousand billion robots.

2:03

So these robots are each fifty nanometers

2:06

long as you can see in this slide under the microscope.

2:11

Fifty nanometers is about 2000 times thinner than the thickness of your hair

2:16

OK? And... umm... These robots were born actually 3 years ago

2:20

in a research I did with Shawn Douglas, now a UCSF Professor.

2:24

But over the past year and a half

2:25

in my group at Bar-Ilan University

2:27

We've been developing and testing robots for a variety of

2:31

medical and therapeutic tasks.

2:33

We've invented ways of making them safe for use

2:37

and non-inmunogenic

2:38

and we learned how to tune their stability in our bloodstream

2:41

to fit either short-term or long-term

2:44

even days long medical procedures.

2:47

So to carry out medical and therapeutic procedures in our body

2:50

with the upmost precision,

2:51

we need to be able to control molecules

2:53

Controlling molecules is a very simple challenge

2:56

in modern scientific knowledge.

2:58

OK? Let's speak for example about the class of molecules we know as drugs

3:02

So despite...

3:04

amazing progress made in the past four decades

3:06

the way we think about drugs and we the way we use drugs

3:09

has been essentially unchanged

3:11

and it's similar as two hundred years ago

3:14

right? You hear about about big pharmaceutical companies

3:17

spending huge amounts of money

3:19

searching for better, safer drugs.

3:22

Attempts that usually fail.

3:24

OK? but,

3:25

searching for let's say a safer cancer drug,

3:28

half it is a concept that has a flaw in it.

3:30

Because searching for a safer cancer drug

3:32

is basically like searching for a gun that kills only bad people

3:36

We don't search for such guns,

3:37

what we do is training soldiers to use that gun properly

3:42

Of course in drugs we can't do this because it seems very hard

3:45

But there are things we can do with drugs

3:47

for example, we can put the drugs

3:49

in particles from which they difuse slowly.

3:51

We can attach a drug to a carrier

3:54

which takes someplace but, this is not real control.

3:57

When we were thinking about control we're thinking about

4:00

processes is the real world around us

4:02

and what happens when we want to control a process

4:06

that's beyond our capabilities as humans

4:08

we just connect this process to a computer

4:10

and let the computer control this process for us.

4:13

OK? So that's what we do.

4:15

But obviously this cannot be done with drugs because

4:19

the drugs are so much smaller than the computers as we know them

4:23

The computer is in fact so much bigger

4:25

it's about a hundred million times bigger that any drug molecule.

4:28

Our nanobots which were in the syringe

4:31

solve this problem because they are in fact

4:34

computers the size of molecules.

4:36

and they can interact with molecules

4:38

and they can control molecules directly,

4:40

so just think about all those

4:42

drugs that have been withdrawn from the market

4:45

for excessive toxicity

4:46

right?

4:47

It doesn't mean that they are not effective,

4:49

they were amazingly effective,

4:51

they were just guns shooting in all directions

4:53

but in the hands of a well-trained soldier

4:56

or a well-programed nanobot

4:58

using all the existing drugs

5:01

we could hypothetically kill almost any disease.

5:05

So we might not need even new drugs.

5:07

We have amazing drugs already,

5:09

we just don't know how to control them, this is the problem

5:11

and our nanobots...

5:13

hopefully solve this problem and I'll show you how.

5:15

So there is an interesting question "how do we build

5:19

a robot or a machine the size of a molecule?"

5:21

so the simple answer would be: we can use molecules

5:25

to build this machine.

5:26

So we're using molecules, but we're not using just any molecule.

5:30

We're using the perfect, most beautiful molecule on earth, at least in my opinion,

5:34

which is DNA.

5:36

And in fact every part of the robot,

5:38

every part of out nanorobots:

5:40

Moving parts, axis, locks, chasis, software,

5:44

everything is made from DNA molecules.

5:46

And the techonology that enables us to do this

5:49

originated thirty years ago when the pioneering works of Nadrian Seeman,

5:52

culminating 7 years ago in the works of Paul Rothemund from Caltech,

5:56

which was also featured in TED,

5:58

and it's called DNA origami.

5:59

Now in DNA origami we do not use a piece of paper,

6:02

we use a single long strand of DNA

6:05

and we fold it into virtually any shape we want.

6:08

For example these shapes, so these are actual microscopic images

6:12

of shapes the size of molecules that were folded from DNA.

6:16

so the smiley you see here in the center of the screen for example

6:19

are a hundred nanometers in size

6:21

and we make billions of them in few... in a single reaction.

6:24

Now since 2006 several researchers, really talented ones,

6:28

have been expanding the limits of the technically feasible in DNA origami

6:32

and now we have an astonishig array of shapes and objects which we can build

6:35

using this technique.

6:36

And these researchers also gave us computer-aided design tools

6:41

that enable everyone

6:43

very very simply to design objects from DNA

6:46

So these CAD tools amazingly

6:49

enable us to focus o n the shape we want

6:52

forgetting the fact that these structures are in fact assemblies of molecules.

6:57

so this is for example a shape the computer can actually turn into DNA molecules.

7:02

and the output of this CAD software, as you can see,

7:05

is a spreadsheet with fragments of DNA

7:08

which you can attach to a message and send to a company

7:11

one of two dozen companies that make DNA by order and you'll get those DNA's

7:16

several days later to your doorstep

7:18

and when you get them all you need to do is just mix them in a certain way

7:23

and these molecular bricks will self-assemble into

7:26

millions of copies of the very structure that you designed using that CAD software

7:30

which is free by the way, you can download it for free.

7:34

So, let's have a look at our nanorobots.

7:38

So, this is how the nanorobots look like, it's built from DNA as you can see

7:42

And it resembles a clam shell in which you can put cargo

7:45

You can load anything you want starting from small molecules, drugs,

7:49

proteines, enzymes, even nano-particles. Virtually any function

7:54

that molecules can carry out, can be loaded into the nanobot

7:57

and the nanobot can be programmed to turn on and off

8:01

these functions at certain places and at certain times

8:05

this is how we control those molecules

8:07

and so this particular nanorobot is in an off state, it's closed,it's securely

8:12

sequestres anything, any payload you put inside

8:16

so it's not accessible to the outside of the robot,

8:18

for example, it cannot engage target cells or target tissues

8:22

But we can program the nanobot to switch to an on state

8:26

based on molecular cues it finds from the environment

8:30

so programming the robot is virtually like assemblying a combination lock

8:34

using disks that recognize digits,

8:37

but of course instead of digits we are assemblying disks that recognize molecules.

8:42

So these robots can turn from off to on and when they do

8:47

any cargo inside is now accessible,

8:49

it can attack target cells or target tissues

8:52

or other robots which you'll see later on.

8:54

And so we have robots that can switch from off to on

8:58

and off again, we can control their kinetics of transition.

9:02

We can control which payload becomes accessible at which time point

9:05

Let's see an example how these robots for example control a cancer drug

9:12

So what you can do is you can take nanobots,

9:14

you can put the nastiest cancer drug you may find

9:17

into the robots, even a cancer drug

9:19

that's been withdrawn because of excessive toxicity

9:23

Ok? When the robot is locked

9:25

and you put them in your mixture of healthy cells and tumor cells

9:29

nothing happens, no cell is affected, because the robot

9:32

safely sequesters those drugs inside.

9:35

When we unlock the robots

9:37

all cells die because the cargo inside the [robot] attacks anything on sight.

9:42

So all cells eventually die. In this case this is a fluorescent molecule

9:46

to help us see better the output.

9:48

But when we program the nanobots to search for tumor cells particulary,

9:53

so only the tumor cells

9:56

uh... only the tumor cells die because

9:59

the robot doesn't care about the bystander cells, about the healthy cells.

10:04

So it does not harm them at all.

10:06

And we have nanorobots in our lab that can target

10:09

about ten types of cancer already and other cell targets

10:12

and my team keeps expanding this range monthly.

10:17

So these are nanorobots and to another topic

10:22

organisms in nature, like bacteria and animals

10:26

have learned very early in evolution that working in a coordinated group

10:29

conveys advantage

10:31

and capabilities beyond those of the individual

10:34

and since we are interested in

10:36

very complex medical procedures, very complex therapeutic settings,

10:40

we're wondering what we could do

10:42

if we could engineer artificial swarm behaviors

10:46

into our nanobots as well so we could have extraordinarily large groups of nanobots

10:51

Can we teach them to behave like animals, like insects

10:55

and how do you do this? So the question is interesting.

10:58

So you could think one way to do it would be

11:01

to look at a natural swarm like this one of fish

11:04

and simulate the dynamics of the entire swarm and then try to write the codes

11:09

in molecules of course

11:10

that mimic the same behaviour

11:12

this is virtually impossible, it's impractical

11:15

what we do is we take the single fish or a single nanobot in our case

11:20

and you design a very basic set of interaction rules

11:23

and then you take this one, this nanobot, you make a billion copies of it

11:27

and you let the behaviours emerge from that group

11:31

let me show you some examples of the things we can already do

11:35

for example, just as ants

11:38

can shake hands and form physical bridges between two trees

11:42

or two remote parts of the same tree,

11:44

we already have nanorobots that can reach out for each other

11:47

touch each other and shake hands in such a way

11:49

they form physical bridges.

11:51

Then you can imagine these robots

11:53

extending, making bridges extending from one-half

11:56

to the other half of an injured tissue,

11:58

an injured spinal cord for example

12:00

or an injured leg in the case of Dana, my daughter

12:03

and once they stretched over that tissue gap

12:06

they can apply growth factors, as payloads, and those growth factors

12:10

stimulate the re-growth and guide re-growth of cells across the gap.

12:14

So we already did that and...

12:17

we have robots that can cross regulate each other just like animals do in groups

12:21

and this is amazing because as you can see here

12:24

you can have two types of robots, Type-A and Type-B

12:28

they can cross regulate each other, such that "A" is active

12:32

while "B" is not and viceversa.

12:34

So this is good for combination therapy

12:36

with combination therapy we take multiple drugs, right?

12:39

and sometimes two or more of these drugs

12:41

can collide and generate side effects,

12:43

but here you can put one drug here, one drug here

12:46

and the robots will time the activities so that

12:49

one drug is active, the other is not and then they can switch

12:52

and so two or more drugs can operate at the same time without actually colliding.

12:57

Another example that we did is the quorum sensing.

13:00

Now quorum sensing is great, it's a bacterial inspired behaviour

13:05

It means nanorobots can count themselves

13:08

and they can switch to "on" only when reaching a certain population size

13:12

this is a mechanism invented by bacteria in evolution

13:15

and they regulate amazing behaviours based on just their population density

13:18

for example, bioluminescence, this one of the well-studied examples

13:23

so our robots can count themselves and switch to on

13:26

only when reaching a certain population size which we can program.

13:29

This is great because this is a mechanism of programming a drug

13:33

to become active only when reaching a certain dose

13:36

around the target, regardless of its inherent dose-response curve.

13:41

One last I'm gonna show to you is computing,

13:43

so this nanobots can do computing.

13:45

How's so? If you think about your computer at home,

13:48

the processor of the computer is in fact a gigantic swarm of transistors

13:53

In an i7 core for example you have 800 million transistors approximately

13:58

and they're set to interact in certain ways to produce logic gates

14:02

and these logic gates are set to interact to produce computations

14:05

so we can also produce computation by setting interactions between nanorobots

14:10

to emulate logic gates like you see here

14:13

and they form chains and they form pairs

14:15

and my team in Bar-Ilan University [has] already developed several architectures

14:19

of computing based on interacting nanorobots

14:22

and to prototype these

14:24

we are using animals, very interesting animals

14:27

these are cockroaches,

14:28

they are very easy to work with, the're very sweet,

14:30

they're actually from South America

14:32

and I'm a Soutamerican myself so I fell kinda related

14:35

[Laughter]

14:36

And hum... so what we do is we inject those robots into the cockroach

14:40

and to do that we of course had to put the cockroaches to sleep

14:43

have you ever tried putting cockroach to sleep?

14:46

We put in the freezer for seven minutes

14:48

in they fall asleep

14:49

and we can inject these nanorobots inside

14:52

and after 20 minutes they start running around, they're happy.

14:55

And those robots

14:57

while they're doing this, the robots read molecules

14:59

from the cockroaches' inputs

15:01

and they write their outputs in the form of drugs

15:04

activated on those cockroaches' cells

15:06

so we can do, we can see that and we already have, as you can see,

15:09

architectures of interecting nanorobots that can emulate logical operators

15:14

and you can use these as modular parts to build any type universal computer you want

15:19

[....]

15:21

that can control multiple drugs simultaneously

15:25

as a result of biocomputing, this is real universal computing in a living animal.

15:30

Now we already have systems that have [the] computing capacity

15:33

of an 8-bit computer like Commodore 64.

15:36

To make sure we don't lose control over the nanobots after they're injected

15:40

my team [has] developed nanorobots that carry antennae

15:44

these antennae are made from metal nano-particles.

15:47

Now, the antennae enable the nanobots

15:49

to respond to externally applied electromagnetic fields

15:52

so these nanorobots, this version of nanobots

15:55

can actually be activated with a press of a button on a joystick

15:58

or for example using a controller

16:01

such as the Xbox or Wii if you ever had the chance of playing with those

16:05

and you can see one of my students in the lab configuring an Xbox app

16:09

to control nanobots.

16:11

For example you can imagine nanorobots being injected

16:14

to Dana, my daughter for example,

16:16

and the doctor can guide those robots

16:19

into the site, into the leg and just activate them with a hand gesture.

16:23

And you can already see an example where we actually took

16:26

cancer cells and loaded robots with cancer drugs

16:29

and activated the drug by a hand gesture.

16:31

and we can actually kill cancer cells just by doing this,

16:34

as you can see here.

16:36

And the interesting thing is that

16:39

because the controller like the Xbox is connected to the internet,

16:44

the controller actually links those nanobots to the network

16:47

so they have an actual IP address

16:49

and they can be accessed from a remote device sitting on the same network,

16:53

for example, my doctor's smartphone

16:55

So, OK?, just like controlling a controller, this can be done.

17:00

The last thing I'm gonna show is, if you look at our body

17:04

you'll see that every cell type, every organ, every tissue

17:08

has their own unique molecular signature

17:11

and this is equivalent to a physical IP address made of molecules

17:15

and if you know these molecules

17:17

you can use those nanobots to browse the Organism Wide Web, as we call it

17:21

and you can program them to look for bits,

17:23

this could be for example signally molecules between cells,

17:26

and either fetch them for diagnostics

17:28

or carry them to different addresses.

17:30

And we already have robots that can hijack

17:33

signals between cells

17:34

and manipulate an entire network of communications between cells

17:37

and this is great for controlling very complex diseases in which many cell types

17:43

communicate and orchestrate to perpetuate a disease.

17:46

So before I finish I'd just like to thank

17:50

my amazing team at Bar-Ilan University

17:52

and all the colleagues that took part in this extraordinary journey,

17:55

starting from the George Chuch's Lab in Harvard

17:57

and ending today in Bar-Ilan University in the new Faculty of Life Sciences,

18:01

and I really hope that

18:03

anywhere between a year and five years from now

18:06

we'll be able to use this in humans

18:08

and finally witness the emergence of nanobot society.

18:11

Thank you very much.


https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nanobots-live-cockroach-thought-control/





https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nanobots-live-cockroach-thought-control/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-scientists-use-nanobots-and-thoughts-to-administer-drugs/


Israeli scientists say they have come up with a way for brain power to control when drugs are released into the body, by using tiny robots made out of DNA to deliver the medication internally.

Researchers at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya and Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan have built the nanobots to which medication is attached and then are injected into the body. The nanobots have a “gate” that opens or closes — thereby controlling drug release — depending on brain activity.

In order to achieve this, the New Scientist magazine said, the researchers developed a computer algorithm that could tell whether a person’s brain was resting or carrying out some form of mental activity, such as math problems. A fluorescent-tinted drug was then added to the nanobots, which were injected into a cockroach placed inside an electromagnetic coil.

Israeli scientists say they have come up with a way for brain power to control when drugs are released into the body, by using tiny robots made out of DNA to deliver the medication internally.

This coil was then connected to an EEG cap worn by a person asked to perform mental calculations. The computer recognized increased brain activity by the cap wearer, which triggered the “gate” on the nanobots inside the cockroach, releasing the fluorescent drug that was visible as it spread through the insect’s body.

The idea is to use the delivery system for people with mental health issues, which are sometimes triggered before sufferers are aware they need medication.

By monitoring brain activity, the nanobots could deliver the required preventative drugs automatically,

for example before a violent episode of schizophrenia.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2102463-mind-controlled-nanobots-could-release-drugs-inside-your-brain/


The group has built nanorobots out of DNA, forming shell-like shapes that drugs can be tethered to. The bots also have a gate, which has a lock made from iron oxide nanoparticles. The lock opens when heated using electromagnetic energy, exposing the drug to the environment. Because the drug remains tethered to the DNA parcel, a body’s exposure to the drug can be controlled by closing and opening the gate.

By examining when fluorescence appeared inside different cockroaches, the team confirmed that this worked.

The idea would be to automatically trigger the release of a drug when it is needed. For example, some people don’t always know when they need medication – before a violent episode of schizophrenia, for instance. If an EEG could detect it was coming, it could stimulate the release of a preventative drug.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxJPceCV51g Nanobots Successfully Used on Living Animal for the First Time - IGN News

0:38

to treat human ailments or weaponized

0:40

hijacked by a snake themed terrorist

0:42

organization and then used to destroy

0:43

Paris but I suppose it's only a matter

0:45

of time


“This syringe has inside it a thousand billion robots.”

https://outraged.substack.com/p/the-emergence-of-nanobot-society?utm_source=cross-post&publication_id=1087020&post_id=143145132&utm_campaign=956088&isFreemail=true&r=1sq9d8&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Follow @zeeemedia
Website | X | Instagram | Rumble

https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/04/the-emergence-of-nanobot-society.html

CASE 01 - Autopsy proven myocarditis death in AUSTRALIA
Barrack Heights NSW, AUSTRALIA - Roberto Garin was only 52 when he ‘died suddenly’ on 28 July 2021. The healthy father of two teenagers began feeling ill 48 hours after his first Pfizer shot and dropped dead in front of his terrified wife Kirsti six days later while she was on the phone to paramedics.
Garin’s family immediately suspected the vaccine caused his death. Kirsti was told her husband was the first person to die after a Pfizer shot. In fact, 176 deaths following Pfizer jabs had already been reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), starting in the first week of the vaccine rollout.
But when Kirsti shared her concerns with filmmaker Alan Hashem, who released the video together with the accounts of other vaccine injuries and deaths, it unleashed a storm.
‘Misinformation researchers’ published by the ABC dismissed Kirsti’s ‘claims her 52-year-old husband died from “sudden onset myocarditis” after receiving the Pfizer vaccine’ because it didn’t ‘square with official data’.
Yet that was exactly what forensic pathologist Bernard l’Ons wrote in a brilliant report on his autopsy stating that the deceased’s heart showed a clear transition to severe giant cell myocarditis that could be ‘histologically dated to the time period of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccination’ and it was ‘reasonable to state that the deceased’s previously undiagnosed cardiac sarcoidosis may have transitioned to a fulminating myocarditis as a result of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccination’ noting that myocarditis had been reported in reactions to the Pfizer vaccine. L’Ons proposed a mechanism by which the vaccine could trigger fatal myocarditis and advised that a possible therapeutic implication was that sarcoid patients be given an echocardiogram to detect whether their heart was affected in which case alternative vaccination types could be considered.
All of this was ignored by the TGA which refuses to admit to this day that any death can be attributed to a Pfizer vaccine and was parroted by the ABC. The TGA did admit that as of 22 August it had received ‘235 reports of suspected myocarditis, (inflammation of the heart muscle) and/or pericarditis (inflammation of the membrane around the heart) following vaccination’ with Pfizer but said, ‘These reports reflect the observations of the people reporting them and have not been confirmed as having been caused by the vaccine,’ and that ‘some events may be coincidental and would have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination.’
This is a particularly misleading statement. Four out of five reports to the TGA are submitted not by random ‘people’, but by highly qualified health professionals and in Garin’s case by a forensic pathologist.
Why would the TGA dismiss these reports? That’s a question Associate Professor Michael Nissen could perhaps shed light on. He was appointed to the TGA in February 2021, just as the Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out, to lead its Signal Investigation Unit which investigates safety issues that arise with vaccines in adverse reports or are raised by international regulators or the medical literature.
Prior to his appointment, Nissen was the Director of Scientific Affairs and Public Health at GSK Vaccines from October 2014 to January 2021, a period during which GSK and Pfizer entered into a joint venture. Nissen worked concurrently in hospital-based medical care and academia. He has led over 40 clinical trials and authored over 200 peer-reviewed publications including vaccine studies. In all these areas pharmaceutical companies are a major source of funding.
The TGA is sensitive about managing conflicts of interest for advisory committee members but offers no guidance on its website with regard to staff members although presumably the same principles should, at least in theory, apply. It notes that shares, involvement in clinical trials, employment, contracts, consultancies, grants, sponsorships, board memberships and so on, may give rise to a conflict of interest.
Robert Clancy, an Emeritus Professor of Pathology at the University of Newcastle Medical School and a member of the Australian Academy of Science’s Covid-19 Expert Database wrote in Quadrant online last week that ‘the power of the pharmaceutical industry and its pervasive influence at every level of political and medical decision-making’ has been underestimated in shaping the pandemic narrative which has been driven by commercial imperatives to such an extent that it has crushed scientific debate.
Clancy recounts that his approach to the College of Pathology (of which he was a Senior Fellow, a foundation Professor of Pathology, and past-Chairman of the College committee for undergraduate pathology education) calling for a national study to determine whether Covid vaccination was responsible for the increase in excess mortality in Australia and elsewhere by developing a protocol for post-mortems ‘to answer what is arguably the most important question facing medicine’ met with a rejection and a suggestion to take it instead to the TGA.
Nowadays, dying suddenly has become ominously familiar. According to a new film Died Suddenly available as of this week to stream via Twitter, in the last 18 months, the term ‘Died Suddenly’ has risen to the very top of ‘most searched’ Google terms. The film documents the surge in excess mortality in highly vaccinated countries. Dr. Peter McCullough, internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and one of the top five most-published, and most censored, medical researchers in the US, says that sudden death frequently occurs because the heart has been damaged by inflammation caused by Covid vaccines.
Papers that Pfizer and the Food and Drug Administration tried to hide for 75 years show that Pfizer knew in 2020 that myocarditis and pericarditis could be caused by its vaccine.
And in the Pfizer trial in Argentina, a report on a healthy 36-year old  participant – Augusto German Roux – who developed pericarditis immediately after his second Pfizer jab, mysteriously disappeared from the published trial results.
The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ) belatedly published a warning about myocarditis and pericarditis in September this year.
It was too late for Garin. Had his doctors known, his life might have been saved. His grieving family have still not received a cent in compensation. But Pfizer has apparently grossed nearly $100 billion from its sales of Covid-19 vaccines and treatments.
Rebecca Weisser is an independent journalist.
======


https://open.substack.com/pub/makismd/p/mrna-injury-stories-australian-dad?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios

Repugnant Trump PRO-VAX and PRO-ZIONISTS! - VT Foreign Policy
March 29, 2024
VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel

$ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts
Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State.

By Fabio Giusepe Carlo Carisio

VERSIONE IN ITALIANO

«The Pandemic no longer controls our lives. The Vaccines that saved us from COVID are now being used to help beat Cancer – Turning setback into comeback!” YOU’RE WELCOME, JOE, NINE MONTH APPROVAL TIME VS. 12 YEARS THAT IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN YOU!»

Trump’s Pro-VAX Propaganda for Big Pharma Money

This is what we read in a post published in recent days by Donald Trump, the only Republican candidate remaining in the running for the US Presidential Elections of November 2020, relaunched by the attentive analyst of the problems of mRNA genetic serums Igor Chudov who limited himself to a laconic comment.

«In the TruthSocial post above, Trump mentioned his nine-month approval time for Covid vaccines.I am frankly shocked by the stupidity of both statements.The vaccines did not “save us from the pandemic” – they made the pandemic worse. And being proud that such vaccines were pushed through in just nine months is perhaps a bit misguided».


Trump’s embarrassing post was immediately contested by one of his followers
Chudov’s comment was far too pitiful. Trump, who poses as an anti-system fighter, hits the ground running by relaunching propaganda on vaccines while completely ignoring three crucial elements:

the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic was created in the laboratory in a deal between CHINA and the USA (with the help of the EU and the United Kingdom) as reported by the late biologist Luc Montagnier and his biomathematician friend Jean-Claude Perez, confirmed by dozens of scientific studies and finally also supported by the US Senate Health Committee led by a Republican
there is evidence that Moderna patented its anti-Covid vaccine 9 months before the discovery of the Wuhan outbreak in collaboration with the virologist Anthony Fauci and with funding from the Pentagon’s DARPA military agency provided by the Obama-Biden administration
Suspicious Turbo-Cancer from Vaccines for Wales Princess Kate. Devastating Toll of VIPs Ill or Dead from Tumors after Genetic Serums

mRNA gene sera are causing a myriad of adverse reactions, including serious and lethal ones, precisely because they are based on the artificial manipulation of proteins and molecules that interact in a devastating way with the natural immune system of human beings
finally, these Covid vaccines have been identified as the main culprits in the degeneration of the Turbo-Cancer phenomenon, so much so that a doctor suffering from a tumor acted as a guinea pig for the new anti-Cancer vaccine in a grotesque spiral with the stench of transhumanism.
TRANSHUMANIST BIOMEDICINE! World 1st mRNA Cancer Vaccine to treat a Brain Turbo-Cancer from mRNA Covid

After 4 years and tens of thousands of deaths after reports of unwanted effects related to Covid vaccines, the former president seems not to want to make a “mea culpa” for the management of the pandemic left in the hands of the terrorist Fauci (former NIAID director but also consultant of the White House on the Covid emergency) nor question the work of Moderna (which benefited from the Warp Speed contribution provided by the Trump administration) and Pfizer, which refused the help but in return financed an avalanche of senators and Republican deputies.

The impression is that he is looking for sponsors among Big Pharma…

DA PFIZER SOLDI PURE AI PROCURATORI USA! Lobbying da 1milione di Dollari alla Conference Attorneys General. Altri 8 a 1.842 Politici Bipartisan

Lolling in wavering positions like a drunken elephant, after pretending to ride the battle against Big Pharma of Florida governor Ron DeSantis and surgeon general Joseph A. Ladapo who called for a stop to all mRNA serums precisely because they can cause cancer, now reveals his idolatry towards one of the fundamental components of the global immunization plan launched by Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation way back in 1999 in Italy and then culminated in a pandemic “planned for decades” as declared by Robert F-Kennedy jr and demonstrated by patent expert David Martin but above all detailed by the 74 investigations of the WuhanGates cycle by Gospa News.

BOMBSHELL! Florida State Surgeon General Calls for Halt of COVID MRNA Vaccines due to Dangerous, Oncogenes DNA Fragments

Believing that voters are drunk on ignorance like him, however, he is countered by one of his followers who gained 2.59 Likes, 10% of those of Trump’s post.

This would be enough to make it clear that the former president is hypocrisy personified.

Donny’s Connections to the Weapons Lobby

But since we have followed him since he had the US Navy launch 100 Tomahawk missiles on Syria in retaliation for the chemical attack in Douma attributed to Assad’s army but which turned out to be a “false flag” of the jihadists of Al Nusra with the complicity of the White Helmets trained by British intelligence, we know well the international damage it has done.

Especially in Venezuela, triggering electromagnetic sabotage against President Maduro and consequent lethal blackouts interrupted only by the intervention of Russian experts.


Il presidente Donald Trump ad un vertice internazionale accanto al ceo di BlackRock Larry Fink
In the first Weapons Lobby investigation we published a photo of Trump smiling next to Larry Fink, the Zionist financier from New York who founded BlackRock, shareholder of the main warlord corporations but also of Big Pharma.

Trump’s policy in the Middle East allowed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to build a Zionist dictatorship in his country and lay the foundations for the latest devastating war in Gaza which turned into a systematic and premeditated genocide.

And in fact the former MAGA president who fell like a fish in a barrel into the Capitol Hill trap on January 6, 2021, never misses an opportunity to reiterate his support for the Zionists.

Support for the Israeli Zionists of the Gaza Genocide

Here is what he recently wrote from the international newspaper Politico:

The Biden campaign and allied Democratic groups swiftly denounced Donald Trump on Monday after the former president told a conservative radio host that Jews who vote Democratic were sacrilegious.

The comments from Trump came during an interview with Sebastian Gorka, his one time campaign aide, who pressed him on criticism prominent Democrats have had for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the Israel-Hamas war.

Paradoxically, at the very moment in which Biden is trying to distance himself from the massacre of Palestinians aimed at depopulating the Gaza Strip, Trump strengthens his extremist positions thus becoming a fan of that New World Order of Masonic and Zionist origin which through Tel Aviv aims to take control of the Mediterranean Sea with the complicity of a NATO that almost seems like a supporting player.

Toward another Zionist Massacre in Gaza Strip: Netanyahu approves Rafah Operation Plan

Unfortunately too many people in Italy too are blinded by the image of Donny as the only opponent of NWO and Biden, but they have not understood that he is also the son of that same evil bipartisan alliance of Big Pharma and the Weapons Lobby which has imposition in its sights of military dictatorships for “inevitable wars” and who knows how many new “laboratory” pandemics for other compulsory vaccination campaigns.

WEAPONS LOBBY – 15. Kiev War: Gold Mine for NATO’s Merchants of Death. German Industry aims New Plants in Ukraine

Trump is nothing more than the right-wing – almost extreme – counterpart of his rival.

Indeed, given his different size, he could become a grotesque sarcophagus if, with the help of the Zionist lobbies, he won the challenge for the White House.

Subscribe to the Gospa News Newsletter to read the news as soon as it is published

Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio
© COPYRIGHT GOSPA NEWS
prohibition of reproduction without authorization
follow Fabio Carisio Gospa News director on Twitter
follow Gospa News on Telegram

MAIN SOURCES

GOSPA NEWS – COVID-19 DOSSIER

GOSPA NEWS – WUHAN-GATES DOSSIER

BLACKROCK “KILLED” CARLSON FOR VACCINES & WEAPONS BUSINESS. The Fund of WEF’s Zionist King owns Big Part of Fox News

WUHAN-GATES – 62. MANMADE SARS-Cov-2 FOR GOLDEN VACCINES: Metabiota, CIA, Biden, Gates, Rockefeller intrigued in Ukraine, China and Italy

WUHAN-GATES – 74. The Greatest Story Never Told: German Virology in China and Montana

“Soros” French Judges want to Arrest Assad for Douma Chemical Attack despite it was White Helmets False-Flag

Venezuela: Guaido’s Friends ParaMilitary Narcos Tied to Italian Mafia but Trump charges Maduro

WEAPONS LOBBY – REPORT 1: The Us Corporations shareholders

Gaza, Donbass, Syria: GENOCIDES of the Zionist, Nazi, Jihadist Regimes is US-NATO’s “New” Geopolitical WEAPON

UPDATE – Fauci’s Testimony before US Congress: “Pandemic from Lab Leak is not a Conspiracy Theory”.

Fabio G. C. Carisio
Fabio is investigative journalist since 1991. Now geopolitics, intelligence, military, SARS-Cov-2 manmade, NWO expert and Director-founder of Gospa News: a Christian Information Journal.

His articles were published on many international media and website as SouthFront, Reseau International, Sputnik Italia, United Nation Association Westminster, Global Research, Kolozeg and more…

Most popolar investigation on VT is:

Rumsfeld Shady Heritage in Pandemic: GILEAD’s Intrigues with WHO & Wuhan Lab. Bio-Weapons’ Tests with CIA & Pentagon

Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio, born on 24/2/1967 in Borgosesia, started working as a reporter when he was only 19 years old in the alpine area of Valsesia, Piedmont, his birth region in Italy. After studying literature and history at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, he became director of the local newspaper Notizia Oggi Vercelli and specialized in judicial reporting.

For about 15 years he is a correspondent from Northern Italy for the Italian newspapers Libero and Il Giornale, also writing important revelations on the Ustica massacre, a report on Freemasonry and organized crime.

With independent investigations, he collaborates with Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza in important investigations that conclude with the arrest of Camorra entrepreneurs or corrupt politicians.

In July 2018 he found the counter-information web media Gospa News focused on geopolitics, terrorism, Middle East, and military intelligence.

In 2020 published the book, in Italian only, WUHAN-GATES – The New World Order Plot on SARS-Cov-2 manmade focused on the cycle of investigations Wuhan-Gates

His investigations was quoted also by The Gateway Pundit, Tasnim and others

He worked for many years for the magazine Art & Wine as an art critic and curator.

VETERANS TODAY OLD POSTS

www.gospanews.net/

ATTENTION READERS

We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.

https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/03/repugnant-trump-pro-vax-and-pro-zionists/

The Silent Shame of Health Institutions
J.R. Bruning
For how much longer will health policy ignore multimorbidity, that looming, giant elephant in the room, that propagates and amplifies suffering? For how much longer will the ‘trend’ of increasing diagnoses of multiple health conditions, at younger and younger ages be rendered down by government agencies to better and more efficient services, screening modalities, and drug choices?

Multimorbidity, the presence of many chronic conditions, is the silent shame of health policy.

All too often chronic conditions overlap and accumulate. From cancer, to diabetes, to digestive system diseases, to high blood pressure, to skin conditions in cascades of suffering. Heartbreakingly, these conditions commonly overlap with mental illnesses or disorders. It’s increasingly common for people to be diagnosed with multiple mental conditions, such as having anxiety and depression, or anxiety and schizophrenia.

Calls for equity tend to revolve around medical treatment, even as absurdities and injustices accrue.

Multimorbidity occurs a decade earlier in socioeconomically deprived communities. Doctors are diagnosing multimorbidity at younger and younger ages.

Treatment regimens for people with multiple conditions necessarily entail a polypharmacy approach – the prescribing of multiple medications. One condition may require multiple medications. Thus, with multimorbidity comes increased risk of adverse outcomes and polyiatrogenesis – ‘medical harm caused by medical treatments on multiple fronts simultaneously and in conjunction with one another.’

Side effects, whether short-term or patients’ concerns about long-term harm, are the main reason for non-adherence to prescribed medications.

So ‘equity’ which only implies drug treatment doesn’t involve equity at all.

Poor diets may be foundational to the Western world’s health crisis. But are governments considering this?

The antinomies are piling up.

We are amid a global epidemic of metabolic syndrome. Insulin resistance, obesity, elevated triglyceride levels and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and elevated blood pressure haunt the people queuing up to see doctors.

Research, from individual cases to clinical trials, consistently show that diets containing high levels of ultra-processed foods and carbohydrates amplify inflammation, oxidative stress, and insulin resistance. What researchers and scientists are also identifying, at the cellular level, in clinical and medical practice, and at the global level – is that insulin resistance, inflammation, oxidative stress, and nutrient deficiencies from poor diets not only drive metabolic illness, but mental illnesses, compounding suffering.

There is also ample evidence that the metabolic and mental health epidemic that is driving years lost due to disease, reducing productivity, and creating mayhem in personal lives – may be preventable and reversible.

Doctors generally recognise that poor diets are a problem. Ultra-processed foods are strongly associated with adult and childhood ill health. Ultra-processed foods are

‘formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, typically created by series of industrial techniques and processes (hence ‘ultra-processed’).’

In the USA young people under age 19 consume on average 67% of their diet, while adults consume around 60% of their diet in ultra-processed food. Ultra-processed food contributes 60% of UK children’s calories; 42% of Australian children’s calories and over half the dietary calories for children and adolescents in Canada. In New Zealand in 2009-2010, ultra-processed foods contributed to the 45% (12 months), 42% (24 months), and 51% (60 months) of energy intake to the diets of children.

All too frequently, doctors are diagnosing both metabolic and mental illnesses.

What may be predictable is that a person is likely to develop insulin resistance, inflammation, oxidative stress, and nutrient deficiencies from chronic exposure to ultra-processed food. How this will manifest in a disease or syndrome condition is reflective of a human equivalent of quantum entanglement.

Cascades, feedback loops, and other interdependencies often leave doctors and patients bouncing from one condition to another, and managing medicine side effects and drug-drug relationships as they go.

In New Zealand it is more common to have multiple conditions than a single condition. The costs of having two NCDs simultaneously is typically superadditive and ‘more so for younger adults.’

This information is outside the ‘work programme’ of the top echelons in the Ministry of Health:

Official Information Act (OIA) requests confirm that the Ministries’ Directors General who are responsible for setting policy and long-term strategy aren’t considering these issues. The problem of multimorbidity and the overlapping, entangled relationship with ultra-processed food is outside of the scope of the work programme of the top directorates in our health agency.

New Zealand’s Ministry of Health’s top deputy directors general might be earning a quarter of a million dollars each, but they are ignorant of the relationship of dietary nutrition and mental health. Nor are they seemingly aware of the extent of multimorbidity and the overlap between metabolic and mental illnesses.

Neither the Public Health Agency Deputy Director-General – Dr Andrew Old, nor the Deputy Director-General Evidence, Research and Innovation, Dean Rutherford, nor the Deputy Director-General of Strategy Policy and Legislation, Maree Roberts, nor the Clinical, Community and Mental Health Deputy Director-General Robyn Shearer have been briefed on these relationships.

If they’re not being briefed, policy won’t be developed to address dietary nutrition. Diet will be lower-order.

The OIA request revealed that New Zealand’s Ministry of Health ‘does not widely use the metabolic syndrome classification.’ When I asked ‘How do you classify, or what term do you use to classify the cluster of symptoms characterised by central obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and insulin resistance?’, they responded:

‘The conditions referred to are considered either on their own or as part of a broader cardiovascular disease risk calculation.’

This is interesting. What if governments should be calculating insulin resistance first, in order to then calculate a broader cardiovascular risk? What if insulin resistance, inflammation, and oxidative stress are appearing at younger and younger ages, and ultra-processed food is the major driver?

Pre-diabetes and Type 2 diabetes are driven by too much blood glucose. Type 1 diabetics can’t make insulin, while Type 2 diabetics can’t make enough to compensate for their dietary intake of carbohydrates. One of insulin’s (many) jobs is to tuck away that blood glucose into cells (as fat) but when there are too many dietary carbohydrates pumping up blood glucose, the body can’t keep up. New Zealand practitioners use the HbA1c blood test, which measures the average blood glucose level over the past 2-3 months. In New Zealand, doctors diagnose pre-diabetes if HbA1c levels are 41-49 nmol/mol, and diabetes at levels of 50 nmol/mol and above.

Type 2 diabetes management guidelines recommend that sugar intake should be reduced, while people should aim for consistent carbohydrates across the day. The New Zealand government does not recommend paleo or low-carbohydrate diets.

If you have diabetes you are twice as likely to have heart disease or a stroke, and at a younger age. Prediabetes, which apparently 20% of Kiwis have, is also high-risk due to, as the Ministry of Health states: ‘increased risk of macrovascular complications and early death.’

The question might become – should we be looking at insulin levels, to more sensitively gauge risk at an early stage?

Without more sensitive screens at younger ages these opportunities to repivot to avoid chronic disease are likely to be missed. Currently, Ministry of Health policies are unlikely to justify the funding of tests for insulin resistance by using three simple blood tests: fasting insulin, fasting lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides), and fasting glucose – to estimate where children, young people, and adults stand on the insulin resistance spectrum when other diagnoses pop up.

Yet insulin plays a powerful role in brain health.

Insulin supports neurotransmitter function and brain energy, directly impacting mood and behaviours. Insulin resistance might arrive before mental illness. Harvard-based psychiatrist Chris Palmer recounts in the book Brain Energy, a large 15,000-participant study of young people from age 0-24:

‘Children who had persistently high insulin levels (a sign of insulin resistance) beginning at age nine were five times more likely to be at risk for psychosis, meaning they were showing at least some worrisome signs, and they were three times for likely to already be diagnosed with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia by the time they turned twenty-four. This study clearly demonstrated that insulin resistance comes first, then psychosis.’

Psychiatrist Georgia Ede suggests that high blood glucose and high insulin levels act like a ‘deadly one-two punch’ for the brain, triggering waves of inflammation and oxidative stress. The blood-brain barrier becomes increasingly resistant to chronic high insulin levels. Even though the body might have higher blood insulin, the same may not be true for the brain. As Ede maintains, ‘cells deprived of adequate insulin ‘sputter and struggle to maintain normal operations.’

Looking at the relationship between brain health and high blood glucose and high insulin simply might not be on the programme for strategists looking at long-term planning.

Nor are Directors General in a position to assess the role of food addiction. Ultra-processed food has addictive qualities designed into the product formulations. Food addiction is increasingly recognised as pervasive and difficult to manage as any substance addiction.

But how many children and young people have insulin resistance and are showing markers for inflammation and oxidative stress – in the body and in the brain? To what extent do young people have both insulin resistance and depression resistance or ADHD or bipolar disorder?

This kind of thinking is completely outside the work programme. But insulin levels, inflammation, and oxidative stress may not only be driving chronic illness – but driving the global mental health tsunami.

Metabolic disorders are involved in complex pathways and feedback loops across body systems, and doctors learn this at medical school. Patterns and relationships between hormones, the brain, the gastrointestinal system, kidneys, and liver; as well as problems with joints and bone health, autoimmunity, nerves, and sensory conditions evolve from and revolve around metabolic health.

Nutrition and diet are downplayed in medical school. What doctors don’t learn so much – the cognitive dissonance that they must accept throughout their training – is that metabolic health is commonly (except for some instances) shaped by the quality of dietary nutrition. The aetiology of a given condition can be very different, while the evidence that common chronic and mental illnesses are accompanied by oxidative stress, inflammation, and insulin resistance are primarily driven by diet – is growing stronger and stronger.

But without recognising the overlapping relationships, policy to support healthy diets will remain limp.

What we witness are notions of equity that support pharmaceutical delivery – not health delivery.

What also inevitably happens is that ‘equity’ focuses on medical treatment. When the Ministry of Health prefers to atomise the different conditions or associate them with heart disease – they become single conditions to treat with single drugs. They’re lots of small problems, not one big problem, and insulin resistance is downplayed.

But just as insulin resistance, inflammation, and oxidative stress send cascading impacts across body systems, systemic ignorance sends cascading effects across government departments tasked with ‘improving, promoting, and protecting health.’

It’s an injustice. The literature solidly points to lower socio-economic status driving much poorer diets and increased exposures to ultra-processed food, but the treatments exclusively involve drugs and therapy.

Briefings to Incoming Ministers with the election of new Governments show how ignorance cascades across responsible authorities.

Health New Zealand, Te Whatu Ora’s November 2023 Briefing to the new government outlined the agency’s obligations. However, the ‘health’ targets are medical, and the agency’s focus is on infrastructure, staff, and servicing. The promotion of health, and health equity, which can only be addressed by addressing the determinants of health, is not addressed.

The Māori Health Authority and Health New Zealand Joint Briefing to the Incoming Minister for Mental Health does not address the role of diet and nutrition as a driver of mental illness and disorder in New Zealand. The issue of multimorbidity, the related problem of commensurate metabolic illness, and diet as a driver is outside scope. When the Briefing states that it is important to address the ‘social, cultural, environmental and economic determinants of mental health,’ without any sound policy footing, real movement to address diet will not happen, or will only happen ad hoc.

The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, Te Hiringa Mahara’s November 2023 Briefing to Incoming Ministers that went to the Ministers for Health and Mental Health might use the term ‘well-being’ over 120 times – but was silent on the related and overlapping drivers of mental illness which include metabolic or multimorbidity, nutrition, or diet.

Five years earlier, He Ara Ora, New Zealand’s 2018 Mental Health and Addiction enquiry had recognised that tāngata whaiora, people seeking wellness, or service users, also tend to have multiple health conditions. The enquiry recommended that a whole of government approach to well-being, prevention, and social determinants was required. Vague nods were made to diet and nutrition, but this was not sufficiently emphasised as to be a priority.

He Ara Ora was followed by 2020 Long-term pathway to mental well-being viewed nutrition as being one of a range of factors. No policy framework strategically prioritised diet, nutrition, and healthy food. No governmental obligation or commitment was built into policy to improve access to healthy food or nutrition education.

Understanding the science, the relationships, and the drivers of the global epidemic, is ‘outside the work programmes’ of New Zealand’s Ministry of Health and outside the scope of all the related authorities. There is an extraordinary amount of data in the scientific literature, so many case studies, cohort studies, and clinical trials. Popular books are being written, however government agencies remain ignorant.

In the meantime, doctors must deal with the suffering in front of them without an adequate toolkit.

Doctors and pharmacists are faced with a Hobson’s choice of managing multiple chronic conditions and complex drug cocktails, in patients at younger and younger ages. Ultimately, they are treating a patient whom they recognise will only become sicker, cost the health system more, and suffer more.

Currently there is little support for New Zealand medical doctors (known as general practitioners, or GPs) in changing practices and recommendations to support non-pharmaceutical drug treatment approaches. Their medical education does not equip them to recognise the extent to which multiple co-existing conditions may be alleviated or reversed. Doctors are paid to prescribe, to inject, and to screen, not to ameliorate or reverse disease and lessen prescribing. The prescribing of nutrients is discouraged and as doctors do not have nutritional training, they hesitate to prescribe nutrients.

Many do not want to risk going outside treatment guidelines. Recent surges in protocols and guidelines for medical doctors reduce flexibility and narrow treatment choices for doctors. If they were to be reported to the Medical Council of New Zealand, they would risk losing their medical license. They would then be unable to practice.

Inevitably, without Ministry of Health leadership, medical doctors in New Zealand are unlikely to voluntarily prescribe non-drug modalities such as nutritional options to any meaningful extent, for fear of being reported.

Yet some doctors are proactive, such as Dr Glen Davies in Taupo, New Zealand. Some doctors are in a better ‘place’ to work to alleviate and reverse long-term conditions. They may be later in their career, with 10-20 years of research into metabolism, dietary nutrition, and patient care, and motivated to guide a patient through a personal care regime which might alleviate or reverse a patient’s suffering.

Barriers include resourcing. Doctors aren’t paid for reversing disease and taking patients off medications.

Doctors witness daily the hopelessness felt by their patients in dealing with chronic conditions in their short 15-minute consultations, and the vigilance required for dealing with adverse drug effects. Drug non-compliance is associated with adverse effects suffered by patients. Yet without wrap-around support changing treatments, even if it has potential to alleviate multiple conditions, to reduce symptoms, lower prescribing and therefore lessen side effects, is just too uncertain.

They saw what happened to disobedient doctors during Covid-19.

Given such context, what are we to do?

Have open public discussions about doctor-patient relationships and trust. Inform and overlay such conversations by drawing attention to the foundational Hippocratic Oath made by doctors, to first do no harm.

Questions can be asked. If patients were to understand that diet may be an underlying driver of multiple conditions, and a change in diet and improvement in micronutrient status might alleviate suffering – would patients be more likely to change?

Economically, if wrap-around services were provided in clinics to support dietary change, would less harm occur to patients from worsening conditions that accompany many diseases (such as Type 2 diabetes) and the ever-present problem of drug side-effects? Would education and wrap-around services in early childhood and youth delay or prevent the onset of multimorbid diagnoses?

Is it more ethical to give young people a choice of treatment? Could doctors prescribe dietary changes and multinutrients and support change with wrap-around support when children and young people are first diagnosed with a mental health condition – from the clinic, to school, to after school? If that doesn’t work, then prescribe pharmaceutical drugs.

Should children and young people be educated to appreciate the extent to which their consumption of ultra-processed food likely drives their metabolic and mental health conditions? Not just in a blithe ‘eat healthy’ fashion that patently avoids discussing addiction. Through deeper policy mechanisms, including cooking classes and nutritional biology by the implementation of nourishing, low-carbohydrate cooked school lunches.

With officials uninformed, it’s easy to see why funding for Green Prescriptions that would support dietary changes have sputtered out. It’s easy to understand why neither the Ministry of Health nor Pharmac have proactively sourced multi-nutrient treatments that improve resilience to stress and trauma for low-income young people. Why there’s no discussion on a lower side-effect risk for multinutrient treatments. Why are there no policies in the education curriculum diving into the relationship between ultra-processed food and mental and physical health? It’s not in the work programme.

There’s another surfacing dilemma.

Currently, if doctors tell their patients that there is very good evidence that their disease or syndrome could be reversed, and this information is not held as factual information by New Zealand’s Ministry of Health – do doctors risk being accused of spreading misinformation?

Government agencies have pivoted in the past 5 years to focus intensively on the problem of dis- and misinformation. New Zealand’s disinformation project states that

Disinformation is false or modified information knowingly and deliberately shared to cause harm or achieve a broader aim.
Misinformation is information that is false or misleading, though not created or shared with the direct intention of causing harm.
Unfortunately, as we see, there is no division inside the Ministry of Health that reviews the latest evidence in the scientific literature, to ensure that policy decisions correctly reflect the latest evidence.

There is no scientific agency outside the Ministry of Health that has flexibility and the capacity to undertake autonomous, long-term monitoring and research in nutrition, diet, and health. There is no independent, autonomous, public health research facility with sufficient long-term funding to translate dietary and nutritional evidence into policy, particularly if it contradicted current policy positions.

Despite excellent research being undertaken, it is highly controlled, ad hoc, and frequently short-term. Problematically, there is no resourcing for those scientists to meaningfully feedback that information to either the Ministry of Health or to Members of Parliament and government Ministers.

Dietary guidelines can become locked in, and contradictions can fail to be chewed over. Without the capacity to address errors, information can become outdated and misleading. Government agencies and elected members – from local councils all the way up to government Ministers, are dependent on being informed by the Ministry of Health, when it comes to government policy.

When it comes to complex health conditions, and alleviating and reversing metabolic or mental illness, based on different patient capacity – from socio-economic, to cultural, to social, and taking into account capacity for change, what is sound, evidence-based information and what is misinformation?

In the impasse, who can we trust?

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

Author

J.R. Bruning is a consultant sociologist (B.Bus.Agribusiness; MA Sociology) based in New Zealand. Her work explores governance cultures, policy and the production of scientific and technical knowledge. Her Master’s thesis explored the ways science policy creates barriers to funding, stymying scientists’ efforts to explore upstream drivers of harm. Bruning is a trustee of Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR.org.nz). Papers and writing can be found at TalkingRisk.NZ and at JRBruning.Substack.com and at Talking Risk on Rumble.

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

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-silent-shame-of-health-institutions/

The WHO Wants to Rule the World
Ramesh Thakur
The World Health Organisation (WHO) will present two new texts for adoption by its governing body, the World Health Assembly comprising delegates from 194 member states, in Geneva on 27 May–1 June. The new pandemic treaty needs a two-thirds majority for approval and, if and once adopted, will come into effect after 40 ratifications.

The amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) can be adopted by a simple majority and will be binding on all states unless they recorded reservations by the end of last year. Because they will be changes to an existing agreement that states have already signed, the amendments do not require any follow-up ratification. The WHO describes the IHR as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally-binding’ on its 196 states parties, including the 194 WHO member states, even if they voted against it. Therein lies its promise and its threat.

The new regime will change the WHO from a technical advisory organisation into a supra-national public health authority exercising quasi-legislative and executive powers over states; change the nature of the relationship between citizens, business enterprises, and governments domestically, and also between governments and other governments and the WHO internationally; and shift the locus of medical practice from the doctor-patient consultation in the clinic to public health bureaucrats in capital cities and WHO headquarters in Geneva and its six regional offices.

From net zero to mass immigration and identity politics, the ‘expertocracy’ elite is in alliance with the global technocratic elite against majority national sentiment. The Covid years gave the elites a valuable lesson in how to exercise effective social control and they mean to apply it across all contentious issues.

The changes to global health governance architecture must be understood in this light. It represents the transformation of the national security, administrative, and surveillance state into a globalised biosecurity state. But they are encountering pushback in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and most recently Ireland. We can but hope that the resistance will spread to rejecting the WHO power grab.

Addressing the World Governments Summit in Dubai on 12 February, WHO Director-General (DG) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attacked ‘the litany of lies and conspiracy theories’ about the agreement that ‘are utterly, completely, categorically false. The pandemic agreement will not give WHO any power over any state or any individual, for that matter.’ He insisted that critics are ‘either uninformed or lying.’ Could it be instead that, relying on aides, he himself has either not read or not understood the draft? The alternative explanation for his spray at the critics is that he is gaslighting us all.

The Gostin, Klock, and Finch Paper

In the Hastings Center Report “Making the World Safer and Fairer in Pandemics,” published on 23 December, Lawrence Gostin, Kevin Klock, and Alexandra Finch attempt to provide the justification to underpin the proposed new IHR and treaty instruments as ‘transformative normative and financial reforms that could reimagine pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.’

The three authors decry the voluntary compliance under the existing ‘amorphous and unenforceable’ IHR regulations as ‘a critical shortcoming.’ And they concede that ‘While advocates have pressed for health-related human rights to be included in the pandemic agreement, the current draft does not do so.’ Directly contradicting the DG’s denial as quoted above, they describe the new treaty as ‘legally binding’. This is repeated several pages later:

…the best way to contain transnational outbreaks is through international cooperation, led multilaterally through the WHO. That may require all states to forgo some level of sovereignty in exchange for enhanced safety and fairness.

What gives their analysis significance is that, as explained in the paper itself, Gostin is ‘actively involved in WHO processes for a pandemic agreement and IHR reform’ as the director of the WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law and a member of the WHO Review Committee on IHR amendments.

The WHO as the World’s Guidance and Coordinating Authority

The IHR amendments will expand the situations that constitute a public health emergency, grant the WHO additional emergency powers, and extend state duties to build ‘core capacities’ of surveillance to detect, assess, notify, and report events that could constitute an emergency.

Under the new accords, the WHO would function as the guidance and coordinating authority for the world. The DG will become more powerful than the UN Secretary-General. The existing language of ‘should’ is replaced in many places by the imperative ‘shall,’ of non-binding recommendations with countries will ‘undertake to follow’ the guidance. And ‘full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’ will be changed to principles of ‘equity’ and ‘inclusivity’ with different requirements for rich and poor countries, bleeding financial resources and pharmaceutical products from industrialised to developing countries.

The WHO is first of all an international bureaucracy and only secondly a collective body of medical and health experts. Its Covid performance was not among its finest. Its credibility was badly damaged by tardiness in raising the alarm; by its acceptance and then rejection of China’s claim that there was no risk of human-human transmission; by the failure to hold China accountable for destroying evidence of the pandemic’s origins; by the initial investigation that whitewashed the origins of the virus; by flip-flops on masks and lockdowns; by ignoring the counterexample of Sweden that rejected lockdowns with no worse health outcomes and far better economic, social, and educational outcomes; and by the failure to stand up for children’s developmental, educational, social, and mental health rights and welfare.

With a funding model where 87 percent of the budget comes from voluntary contributions from the rich countries and private donors like the Gates Foundation, and 77 percent is for activities specified by them, the WHO has effectively ‘become a system of global public health patronage’, write Ben and Molly Kingsley of the UK children’s rights campaign group UsForThem. Human Rights Watch says the process has been ‘disproportionately guided by corporate demands and the policy positions of high-income governments seeking to protect the power of private actors in health including the pharmaceutical industry.’ The victims of this Catch-22 lack of accountability will be the peoples of the world.

Much of the new surveillance network in a model divided into pre-, in, and post-pandemic periods will be provided by private and corporate interests that will profit from the mass testing and pharmaceutical interventions. According to Forbes, the net worth of Bill Gates jumped by one-third from $96.5 billion in 2019 to $129 billion in 2022: philanthropy can be profitable. Article 15.2 of the draft pandemic treaty requires states to set up ‘no fault vaccine-injury compensation schemes,’ conferring immunity on Big Pharma against liability, thereby codifying the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of risks.

The changes would confer extraordinary new powers on the WHO’s DG and regional directors and mandate governments to implement their recommendations. This will result in a major expansion of the international health bureaucracy under the WHO, for example new implementation and compliance committees; shift the centre of gravity from the common deadliest diseases (discussed below) to relatively rare pandemic outbreaks (five including Covid in the last 120 years); and give the WHO authority to direct resources (money, pharmaceutical products, intellectual property rights) to itself and to other governments in breach of sovereign and copyright rights.

Considering the impact of the amendments on national decision-making and mortgaging future generations to internationally determined spending obligations, this calls for an indefinite pause in the process until parliaments have done due diligence and debated the potentially far-reaching obligations.

Yet disappointingly, relatively few countries have expressed reservations and few parliamentarians seem at all interested. We may pay a high price for the rise of careerist politicians whose primary interest is self-advancement, ministers who ask bureaucrats to draft replies to constituents expressing concern that they often sign without reading either the original letter or the reply in their name, and officials who disdain the constraints of democratic decision-making and accountability. Ministers relying on technical advice from staffers when officials are engaged in a silent coup against elected representatives give power without responsibility to bureaucrats while relegating ministers to being in office but not in power, with political accountability sans authority.

US President Donald Trump and Australian and UK Prime Ministers Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson were representative of national leaders who had lacked the science literacy, intellectual heft, moral clarity, and courage of conviction to stand up to their technocrats. It was a period of Yes, Prime Minister on steroids, with Sir Humphrey Appleby winning most of the guerrilla campaign waged by the permanent civil service against the transient and clueless Prime Minister Jim Hacker.

At least some Australian, American, British, and European politicians have recently expressed concern at the WHO-centred ‘command and control’ model of a public health system, and the public spending and redistributive implications of the two proposed international instruments. US Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) warned on 5 February that ‘far too little scrutiny has been given, far too few questions asked as to what this legally binding agreement or treaty means to health policy in the United States and elsewhere.’

Like Smith and Wenstrup, the most common criticism levelled has been that this represents a power grab at the cost of national sovereignty. Speaking in parliament in November, Australia’s Liberal Senator Alex Antic dubbed the effort a ‘WHO d’etat’.

A more accurate reading may be that it represents collusion between the WHO and the richest countries, home to the biggest pharmaceutical companies, to dilute accountability for decisions, taken in the name of public health, that profit a narrow elite. The changes will lock in the seamless rule of the technocratic-managerial elite at both the national and the international levels. Yet the WHO edicts, although legally binding in theory, will be unenforceable against the most powerful countries in practice.

Moreover, the new regime aims to eliminate transparency and critical scrutiny by criminalising any opinion that questions the official narrative from the WHO and governments, thereby elevating them to the status of dogma. The pandemic treaty calls for governments to tackle the ‘infodemics’ of false information, misinformation, disinformation, and even ‘too much information’ (Article 1c). This is censorship. Authorities have no right to be shielded from critical questioning of official information. Freedom of information is a cornerstone of an open and resilient society and a key means to hold authorities to public scrutiny and accountability.

The changes are an effort to entrench and institutionalise the model of political, social, and messaging control trialled with great success during Covid. The foundational document of the international human rights regime is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pandemic management during Covid and in future emergencies threaten some of its core provisions regarding privacy, freedom of opinion and expression, and rights to work, education, peaceful assembly, and association.

Worst of all, they will create a perverse incentive: the rise of an international bureaucracy whose defining purpose, existence, powers, and budgets will depend on more frequent declarations of actual or anticipated pandemic outbreaks.

It is a basic axiom of politics that power that can be abused, will be abused – some day, somewhere, by someone. The corollary holds that power once seized is seldom surrendered back voluntarily to the people. Lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, travel restrictions, and all the other shenanigans and theatre of the Covid era will likely be repeated on whim. Professor Angus Dalgliesh of London’s St George’s Medical School warns that the WHO ‘wants to inflict this incompetence on us all over again but this time be in total control.’

Covid in the Context of Africa’s Disease Burden

In the Hastings Center report referred to earlier, Gostin, Klock, and Finch claim that ‘lower-income countries experienced larger losses and longer-lasting economic setbacks.’ This is a casual elision that shifts the blame for harmful downstream effects away from lockdowns in the futile quest to eradicate the virus, to the virus itself. The chief damage to developing countries was caused by the worldwide shutdown of social life and economic activities and the drastic reduction in international trade.

The discreet elision aroused my curiosity on the authors’ affiliations. It came as no surprise to read that they lead the O’Neill Institute–Foundation for the National Institutes of Health project on an international instrument for pandemic prevention and preparedness.

Gostin et al. grounded the urgency for the new accords in the claim that ‘Zoonotic pathogens…are occurring with increasing frequency, enhancing the risk of new pandemics’ and cite research to suggest a threefold increase in ‘extreme pandemics’ over the next decade. In a report entitled “Rational Policy Over Panic,” published by Leeds University in February, a team that included our own David Bell subjected claims of increasing pandemic frequency and disease burden behind the drive to adopt the new treaty and amend the existing IHR to critical scrutiny.

Specifically, they examined and found wanting a number of assumptions and several references in eight G20, World Bank, and WHO policy documents. On the one hand, the reported increase in natural outbreaks is best explained by technologically more sophisticated diagnostic testing equipment, while the disease burden has been effectively reduced with improved surveillance, response mechanisms, and other public health interventions. Consequently there is no real urgency to rush into the new accords. Instead, governments should take all the time they need to situate pandemic risk in the wider healthcare context and formulate policy tailored to the more accurate risk and interventions matrix.


The lockdowns were responsible for reversals of decades worth of gains in critical childhood immunisations. UNICEF and WHO estimate that 7.6 million African children under 5 missed out on vaccination in 2021 and another 11 million were under-immunised, ‘making up over 40 percent of the under-immunised and missed children globally.’ How many quality adjusted life years does that add up to, I wonder? But don’t hold your breath that anyone will be held accountable for crimes against African children.

Earlier this month the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group argued that lockdowns were a ‘class-based and unscientific instrument.’ It accused the WHO of trying to reintroduce ‘classical Western colonialism through the backdoor’ in the form of the new pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments. Medical knowledge and innovations do not come solely from Western capitals and Geneva, but from people and groups who have captured the WHO agenda.

Lockdowns had caused significant harm to low-income countries, the group said, yet the WHO wanted legal authority to compel member states to comply with its advice in future pandemics, including with respect to vaccine passports and border closures. Instead of bowing to ‘health imperialism,’ it would be preferable for African countries to set their own priorities in alleviating the disease burden of their major killer diseases like cholera, malaria, and yellow fever.

Europe and the US, comprising a little under ten and over four percent of world population, account for nearly 18 and 17 percent, respectively, of all Covid-related deaths in the world. By contrast Asia, with nearly 60 percent of the world’s people, accounts for 23 percent of all Covid-related deaths. Meantime Africa, with more than 17 percent of global population, has recorded less than four percent of global Covid deaths (Table 1).

According to a report on the continent’s disease burden published last year by the WHO Regional Office for Africa, Africa’s leading causes of death in 2021 were malaria (593,000 deaths), tuberculosis (501,000), and HIV/AIDS (420,000). The report does not provide the numbers for diarrhoeal deaths for Africa. There are 1.6 million such deaths globally per year, including 440,000 children under 5. And we know that most diarrhoeal deaths occur in Africa and South Asia.

If we perform a linear extrapolation of 2021 deaths to estimate ballpark figures for the three years 2020–22 inclusive for numbers of Africans killed by these big three, approximately 1.78 million died from malaria, 1.5 million from TB, and 1.26 million from HIV/AIDS. (I exclude 2023 as Covid had faded by then, as can be seen in Table 1). By comparison, the total number of Covid-related deaths across Africa in the three years was 259,000.

Whether or not the WHO is pursuing a policy of health colonialism, therefore, the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group has a point regarding the grossly exaggerated threat of Covid in the total picture of Africa’s disease burden.

A shorter version of this was published in The Australian on 11 March

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

Author

Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.

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

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-wants-to-rule-the-world/

For those that are vaxxed your heart is now having to work 47% harder those dying from heart failure suddenly you are being slowly murdered for depopulation sorry but true!

https://rumble.com/v4bxk9r-bombshell-study-we-now-have-100-scientific-proof-why-the-jabbed-are-dying-s.html?fbclid=IwAR2YzFCwIYfOMULXkJ7JUVrdHqS2xC8zUG34tOa4gNzDhe8bvp0tdN9_f1o

DNA contamination in Covid vaccines DOES get into human cells, new evidence shows
It also appears that the contamination enters the cell nucleus and integrates with human DNA

Rebekah Barnett
Regulators and fact checkers claim that plasmid DNA contamination in the mRNA Covid vaccines can’t change your genomic DNA, but new evidence suggests that it actually can.

The fact checkers assert that DNA contamination poses no risk to your genomic DNA because your body will naturally destroy any contaminant DNA before it even gets into the cells.

Even if the contaminant DNA could get into cells, there’s no way it can enter the cell nucleus, where genomic integration events occur, they say.

And even if the contaminant DNA could enter the nucleus, which it can’t, it still couldn’t genomically integrate unless specific enzymes are present, they say.

However, results from independent lab testing conducted on ovarian cancer cell lines show that contaminant DNA from Pfizer’s Covid vaccine not only crossed into the cells, but that it survived multiple cell divisions. This is suggestive that the contaminant DNA is able to transfect (enter) the cell nucleus, and that it integrated with the human cell DNA.

TLDR

1. Scientists claim that Pfizer vaccine contaminant DNA has been detected in ovarian cancer cell line DNA, but they do not yet know if it’s chromosomal (heritable) or extra-chromosomal DNA (not heritable)

2. This is an in vitro (in a lab dish) finding, and needs to be replicated in vivo (in a human patient)

3. As the finding is specific to cancer cell lines, it is not generalisable, but scientists say it may give an indication of what cancer patients in remission could experience after mRNA Covid vaccination

4. This finding calls into question fact checker claims that mRNA Covid vaccine DNA contamination can't enter cells, can't enter the nucleus, and cannot integrate with human DNA.
Last year, Boston-based genomics scientist Kevin McKernan made the shocking discovery that the mRNA Covid vaccines are contaminated with excessive levels of plasmid DNA, an artefact of the vaccine production process.

McKernan’s findings were soon confirmed by multiple independent labs around the world for both the Pfizer and Moderna mono- and bi-valent vaccines, including lots approved for children, with one Canadian study led by Dr David Speicher concluding that there are “billions to hundreds of billions of DNA molecules per dose.”

Scientists including McKernan, University of South Carolina cancer genomics scientist Dr Phillip Buckhaults, and Dr Wafik El-Diery, head of the Cancer Centre at Brown University, expressed concerns that fragments of plasmid DNA contamination could cause adverse events, autoimmune problems and cancers in some patients.

But perhaps most significantly, there is also a theoretical risk of the contaminant DNA integrating with patients’ chromosomal DNA and modifying the human genome. This is of particular concern with the Pfizer vaccine, which contains an SV40 enhancer sequence, used in gene therapies “to drive DNA into the nucleus,” explains McKernan.

While regulators have taken a ‘wait and see’ approach, independent scientists, including McKernan, have been more proactive, initiating experiments testing for evidence of genomic integration.

Now, the first results are in.

In an experiment conducted together with German molecular biologist Dr Ulrike Kämmerer, McKernan has detected vaccine contaminant DNA in ovarian cancer cell lines treated with Pfizer’s Covid vaccine.

The scientists found a chimeric combination of human ovarian cell line DNA and spike sequence DNA derived from the contaminating plasmid at at least one, and possibly two sites.

“If anything, this work has put to bed the question regarding if this contaminant DNA gets into the cell, and the chimeric human and contaminant spike DNA sequences imply it has entered the nucleus,” McKernan says.

“The PCR and sequencing data both demonstrate the vaccine is getting into the cell and surviving cell passaging. It is likely bioactive and being partially replicated.”

To reach this finding, Dr Kämmerer first treated ovarian cancer cell lines with mRNA Covid vaccines, using cells treated with AstraZeneca and Janssen vaccines as controls.

The cells were then ‘passaged’, meaning they were left to divide and replicate numerous times. This has the effect of “rinsing away residual vaccine,” explains McKernan.

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was then performed, a staining process that Dr Kämmerer used to detect levels of spike protein expression produced by the vaccine modified-RNA.

This was to confirm that the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) carrying mod-RNA and plasmid DNA contamination “did their job and delivered the payload,” says McKernan. Measuring how many cells expressed spike protein also allowed the scientists to determine how much of the vaccine to treat the cells with.


Immunohistochemistry performed with Pfizer top left, AstraZeneca top right as a control. Source: Kevin McKernan’s Substack
Cell lines were then sent in cold storage to McKernan’s Boston lab, where his team used qPCR to screen which samples to sequence the cell line DNA.

“What we found is, [contaminant] DNA that is getting transfected into ovarian cancer cell lines is replicating in the cells,” says McKernan, noting that the ratio of vaccine contaminant DNA to human cell DNA was “higher than we expected.”

Chimeric sequences of human and vaccine contaminant DNA were detected at two sites: chromosomes 9 and 12, with the evidence for the latter being the strongest. “But we don't know if it's extra-chromosomal or whether it's chromosomal because of the Illumina (short read) method we used to sequence,” explains McKernan.


Source: Kevin McKernan’s Substack
Extra-chromosomal DNA is not part of the chromosome, and is therefore less likely to replicate and to be heritable. Chromosomal DNA, on the other hand, is heritable and more likely to be replicated. A third category, mitochondrial DNA, is heritable, but only from the maternal line.

You can read a detailed account of methods and findings via McKernan’s Substack article, ‘Vaccine targeted qPCR of Cancer Cell Lines treated with BNT162b2.’

‘Major advance,’ but clinical implications are limited

McKernan emphasises that these findings cannot be generalised, stating that “it is too early to make comments on the clinical implications.”

“The study is performed in ovarian cancer cell lines. It is not performed in patient cells, but this is a proxy for what might happen in an ovarian cancer patient who's in remission,” says McKernan, especially as there is evidence that the LNPs go to the ovaries.

The risk for patients in this scenario is that integration events with contaminant DNA might cause aberrant cell growth, which poses a risk to immune suppression of new cancer cells.

McKernan notes that his experiment only picked up on putative integration events that persisted after multiple cell replications. That is to say, the scientists were not able to detect integration events that may have occurred, but then died off immediately.

At the moment, no one knows how many integration events might be occurring, or what effect that would have on patients. “The unknowns are just exponential,” says McKernan.

The cancer cell line experiment can be said to be “a microcosm of genome integration of contaminated DNA,” said Japanese molecular oncology scientist Hiroshi Arakawa, in his own analysis of McKernan and Dr Kämmerer’s experiment, published to his popular science blog on which he shares critical views on Covid vaccine safety.

Akira calls the two possible integrations observed in Dr Kämmerer’s experiment a “major advance” laying the ground for further experimentation. “What happens in cultured cells can also occur in normal cells, and a wide variety of abnormalities can occur depending on the site of genome integration,” such as “the induction of cancer or malignant transformation,” he wrote (translated from Japanese to English).

LNPs deliver contaminant DNA straight to the cells

A key assumption underlying claims that mRNA Covid vaccine contamination cannot enter the cell nucleus, and cannot genomically integrate with host DNA, is that the contamination will never make it into dividing cells, which would be required for integration to occur.

This is based on the assumption that the LNPs containing both mod-RNA and contaminant DNA mostly stay in the muscle at the injection site. As muscle cells do not divide, there’s no problem, the logic goes.

This is misleading, however, as Pfizer’s own biodistribution data shows that the LNPs enter the blood and every major organ system, including the ovaries, as mentioned above. While it is true that muscle cells don’t divide, LNPs distributed around the body can transfect any number of dividing cells in various organ systems.


Table 4-2. shows biodistribution of LNPs, Pfizer Nonclinical Evaluation Report, 2021
From there, it’s only a matter of time before the LNP contents get into the cell nucleus, says McKernan. “In any dividing cell, the nucleus dissolves. So, when people say the DNA can get into the cytoplasm [inside the cell membrane] but won't get into the nucleus, well, in any dividing cell, it will end up getting into the nucleus.”

It is possible that the dissolution of the cell nucleus during division is the mechanism underlying McKernan and Dr Kämmerer’s observed passaging of contaminant DNA, but further research will be required to confirm or disprove this hypothesis.

Because of the effectiveness of LNPs in delivering their contents into cells, McKernan, Dr Buckhaults and Dr Speicher have questioned the suitability of the current regulatory limits on contaminant DNA in vaccines, which were set prior to the introduction of LNP technology in vaccines.

Regulators unconcerned

I sent McKernan’s Substack article documenting the new DNA integration findings to Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, for comment.

The TGA did not address the new findings, but a spokesperson from the TGA responded,

“The Department of Health and Aged Care has every confidence in the safety, quality and efficacy of the various approved COVID-19 vaccines for use in Australia. The TGA’s assessment of all vaccines is based upon high quality evidence, including studies and reviews published in peer-reviewed scientific and clinical journals.”

However, when asked previously to provide evidence for its position that Covid vaccines pose no risk of DNA integration, the TGA provided no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support its claims.

Instead, the TGA provided links to a Mayo Clinic fact page with no scientific citations, an article by the discredited RMIT FactLab, and a scientific commentary article suggesting that in vitro findings cannot be generalised.

Furthermore, TGA has not been forthcoming with the evidence it does hold. When asked to release Covid vaccine batch testing results under Freedom of Information, the regulator provided all 74 pages - fully redacted.

In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denied that contaminant DNA in the mRNA vaccines can enter the nucleus or pose any threat to patients’ genomic DNA, in a response to concerns raised by Florida Surgeon General, Dr Joseph A. Ladapo in December of last year.

Additionally, the FDA misleadingly refuted the presence of SV40 proteins in the vaccines, when in fact Dr Ladapo raised concerns over the presence of an SV40 enchancer sequence in the Pfizer vaccine, as confirmed by Health Canada and numerous independent laboratories.

Such ham-fisted mischaracterisation of a gene therapy sequence by the FDA is suggestive of either gross incompetence, or a disinformation play. Both are concerning.

Science journalist Maryanne Demasi reported, in November last year, that the FDA shut down her enquiries into the DNA contamination matter, refusing to confirm if it found levels of DNA that exceeded acceptable levels, or if it was investigating further.

The presence of contamination has been officially acknowledged by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Health Canada, with the latter also acknowledging the presence of the SV40 enhancer sequence, though both regulators deny that the amounts exceed regulatory limits, or that the DNA contamination poses any risk.

‘No excuse’ for ignoring ‘screaming hot signal’

Instead of denying excessive DNA levels and deferring to manufacturers’ reported test results, regulators should run their own qPCR testing on batch lots, says McKernan.

Then, “they would see what everyone else is seeing, which is that sometimes the CT scores come out as low as 13… that’s a screaming hot signal.”

“As a reference, the Covid test would call people positive at 33-35,” McKernan explains. “That’s a million-fold difference (20 CTs). A million-fold less Covid RNA and you're positive and quarantined. But you can inject a million-fold more past your mucosa?”

There’s “no excuse” for regulators to not sequence every vaccine lot, says McKernan, when the costs for doing so have dropped dramatically in recent years.

“DNA sequencing costs have dropped 100,000 fold in the last decade. They have relaxed the DNA contamination limits 1000-fold in this time frame. It likely only costs $1,000 in reagents for millions-to-billions of dollars worth of product.”


Source: National Human Genome Research Institute
DNA sequencing by regulatory agencies is important not just for measuring quantities, says McKernan, but also for determining the type of DNA contamination.

“Not all DNA is created equal. Some is designed to replicate - when it gets into a cell, it can make more of itself. It's a massive loophole in the regulations that they don't do sequencing. But it's never been cheaper. You can precisely know the nature of the DNA in every single vial.”

Scientists pick up regulators’ slack

In the absence of any regulatory appetite for investigating the risks of DNA contamination in the mRNA Covid shots, and particularly the risk of genomic integration, independent scientists have taken the baton.

“We are writing up our findings and will publish a preprint soon,” says McKernan, who is planning further testing in partnership with Dr Kämmerer. “We’re doing more experiments first. We need to sequence deeper to find out if the integration events are in chromosomal or extra-chromosomal DNA.”

Dr Buckhaults is also running his own experiment, calling for de-identified samples of tumours or fresh blood from pathology and hematology labs. These samples will be tested for the presence of plasmid DNA contamination, with whole genome sequencing to then be carried out on positive samples to identify genomic integration sites.

In an email outlining his experiment, Dr Buckhaults told me that he intends to report his findings in a peer-reviewed publication, predicting that the work could take “a few months to a year,” depending on how fast samples come in.

“I am hopeful to prove my concerns are unwarranted by accumulating a lot of negative data, and of course negative data takes the most time to collect,” he said.

McKernan says he is aware of other labs running tests for contaminant plasmid DNA integration, but cannot disclose the details at present.

Decentralisation the future of science?

McKernan says he has experienced some pushback for publishing his methods and findings in real time via Substack, X, and preprints. But, he believes that making his data available as quickly as possible is a way for the field of science to regain public trust.

“Many will criticize our disclosure of preliminary findings but we feel this is an insult to the intelligence of the average person,” says McKernan.

“It's a form of scientific elitism that implies people can't handle the truth and will be scared like sheep if given a glimpse of how the true scientific process is performed. Scientists are 90% of the time wrong but only publish the times when they are right. There is no journal of negative results.“

In light of the prospect that most published research findings are false (as famously asserted in a 2005 article by Professor John Ioannidis), McKernan questions the value of peer-review, instead favouring replication or refutation in the real world.


Source: X
For this reason, McKernan says he has not prioritised peer-reviewed publication for his DNA contamination findings, but is rather focusing on conducting more experiments and releasing the data as he goes - even when it’s incomplete, or requires further experimentation.

“We were not expecting to find any integration events at this depth of coverage, but they are evident to anyone who downloads our public reads. To not speak to obvious evidence in such data would be irresponsible even when such evidence doesn't 100% answer a given question,” says McKernan.

Dr Buckhaults takes a somewhat different view. After sharing his initial plasmid DNA contamination findings in a South Carolina Senate hearing in September last year, the video recording broke the internet.

Believing the hearing to have been private, Dr Buckhaults was alarmed that the widespread distribution of his testimony may have caused “unintended, harmful side effects.” He requested that YouTube take down his testimony video, which is now defunct.


Source: X
In our correspondence, Dr Buckhaults stressed that while more research is warranted, he is of the opinion that the public “should not overreact to the news of the plasmid DNA contamination. It's serious enough that scientists need to hustle and figure out if it's causing any health problems now or down the road, but it's not cause for the general public to be alarmed.”

But, “The reality is that`transfection experiments with contaminated DNA' have been carried out on vast numbers of people around the world in the name of vaccination,” writes Arakawa.

Perhaps the experiment participants will be the ones to decide if they should be alarmed, or not.

The FDA was contacted for comment about Dr Kämmerer and McKernan’s new findings, but they did not respond by publication deadline. This article will be updated if comment is received.

View Kevin McKernan’s write up of his DNA integration experiment (in partnership with Dr Kämmerer) here. Scroll down for links to sequencing data files.

Pathology and hematology labs wishing to send samples to Dr Buckhaults are invited to contact him at the University of South Carolina.

Update 23 March 2024: This article was edited to add mention of the Dr David Speicher et al. finding of “billions to hundreds of billions of DNA molecules per dose” of the mRNA vaccines, and the scientists’ concerns that regulatory limits on DNA contamination have not taken LNP transfection into account.


To support my work, make a one-off contribution to DDU via my Kofi account and/or subscribe. Thanks!

Follow me on X

Follow me on Instagram

1
From an article I wrote for Umbrella News on this topic last year:

The TGA maintains that allegations put forward in the case about the potential for mRNA vaccines to alter the recipient’s DNA are unfounded. A spokesperson for the TGA told Umbrella News,

“COVID-19 vaccines do not alter a person’s DNA. The mRNA in the vaccines does not enter the nucleus of cells and is not integrated into the human genome. Thus, the mRNA does not cause genetic damage or affect the offspring of vaccinated individuals.”

“The TGA continues to monitor the scientific literature associated with the SARS – CoV-2 virus and the various COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in Australia.”

With reference to the specific studies cited in the case materials, the TGA pointed Umbrella News to an RMIT ABC Fact Check post from 2022 purporting to ‘debunk’ claims that mRNA jabs are genotoxic. This is the same site that ‘debunked’ claims that COVID vaccines can cause menstrual disruption, before peer-reviewed scientific studies proved that they can and do (the post has not been corrected).

As evidence that it is “well established” that vaccine mRNA and protein do not enter the nucleus, the TGA provided a link to a Mayo Clinic fact page which provides no studies or scientific evidence in support of its claims.

The TGA did provide one commentary article published in a scientific journal which pointed out that the in vitro liver cell line study cannot be extrapolated to generalise about in vivo findings (in a human, not a dish) without further research being undertaken.

Additionally, RMIT FactLab was suspended by Facebook in August 2023 after an uproar over its blatantly biased and factually dubious ‘fact checking’ of media articles relating to the Voice referendum campaign. It also transpired that RMIT FactLab had falsely represented its accreditation with the International Fact-Checking Network as current, when it had in fact lapsed.


https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/dna-contamination-in-covid-vaccines

FDA Loses its War on Ivermectin: Agrees to Remove All Related Social Media Content and Consumer Advisories on Ivermectin Usage for COVID-19
by Jim Hᴏft Mar. 22, 2024 8:30 am
In December 2021, the FDA warned Americans not to use Ivermectin, which “is intended for animals” to treat or prevent COVID-19.

“Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous,” FDA said at the time.

This was a very controversial statement at the time since the FDA pushed the drug on African migrants back in 2015, and the drug was praised in several scientific journals.

There have now been 101 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 62% lower risk in early treatment in COVID-19 patients.

New Deals At The Gateway Pundit Discounts Page At MyPillow – Up to 71% Off With Promo Code TGP

A group of brave doctors had filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block the use of ivermectin in treating COVID-19.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, argues that the FDA has overstepped its authority and unjustifiably interfered with their medical practice.

The plaintiffs, Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, are contesting the FDA’s portrayal of ivermectin as dangerous for human consumption. They note that the FDA has approved ivermectin for human use since 1996 for a variety of diseases. However, they allege that with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA began releasing documents and social media posts discouraging the use of the anti-viral drug for COVID-19 treatment.

“We’re suing the FDA for lying to the public about ivermectin,” said Dr. Bowden.

Claims were made that the initial article misrepresented the law by stating the FDA’s official stance against Ivermectin use without mentioning that doctors were allowed to administer the medicine.

U.S. law is cited in the complaint, including the provision that the FDA “may not interfere with the authority of a health care provider to prescribe or administer any legally marked device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.”

On Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly agreed to remove all its previous social media posts and consumer advisories that specifically addressed the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

“FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Bowden wrote on her social media.

Emily Post News reported:

The FDA agreed to delete the Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook posts from August 21, 2021 that read, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” (A screencap of the X/twitter one is above and still online here.)

It will also remove the Twitter post (below) from April 26, 2022 that reads, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.

Further, the FDA will delete all other social media posts on FDA accounts that link to its website (below) called “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.”

It will “retire” this website (called a consumer update) originally posted on March 5, 2021 and revised on September 7, 2021. The FDA retains the right to post a revised update.

Bowden said she and her co-plaintiffs Dr. Paul E. Marik and Dr. Robert L. Apter decided to drop the lawsuit they got what they wanted.

“After nearly two years and a resounding rebuke by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the FDA has agreed to remove its misleading social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and Covid-19,” said Bowden.

Trending: MAGA Beauty Isabella DeLuca’s Arrest Is Proof Positive That Biden’s Weaponized Justice System Has Become Outright Despotic Against Political Dissidents


The Gateway Pundit previously reported that during a hearing, the agency’s lawyers argued that the FDA was only giving advice and it was not mandatory when it told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19.

“The cited statements were not directives,” said Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.”

“They use informal language, that is true… It’s conversational but not mandatory,” he continued.

However, the statement from the lawyer contradicted the FDA’s social media post, stating, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” and another tweet says, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.”

Both tweets displayed the title of “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19” and included a link to that publication.

Last year, Doctors Mary Talley Bowden, Paul Marik, & Robert Apter appeared in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as part of their lawsuit.

“The FDA is not your doctor. Yesterday we took them to court to remind them of that,” Dr. Bowden wrote.

“A pharmacist cites CDC and US FDA as why she will continue to deny filling prescriptions for ivermectin. On Tuesday, the FDA’s attorney declared the FDA has no problem with doctors prescribing ivermectin off-label. It’s time for them to make a formal announcement and set the record straight,” Bowden wrote on Thursday.

During the oral argument, Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA stated that the agency “explicitly recognizes” that doctors do have the authority to administer ivermectin to treat COVID.

“”FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” said Honold.

“FDA made these statements in response to multiple reports of consumers being hospitalized, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses, which is available for purchase over the counter without the need for prescription,” Honold said.

“In some contexts, those words could be construed as a command,” Ms. Honold said. “But in this context, where FDA was simply using these words in the context of a quippy tweet meant to share its informational article, those statements do not rise to the level of a command.”

“FDA is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe human ivermectin to treat COVID. So they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe drugs or to practice medicine,” she said.

It can be recalled that Houston Methodist launched an investigation into Bowden and suspended her for defying health authorities and exercising free speech.

The hospital excoriated Bowden for “using her social media accounts to express her personal opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments,” NBC News reports. The suspension barred the physician from admitting or treating patients at the hospital.

Bowden repeatedly warned that it is “wrong” to mandate the experimental mRNA vaccines and continuously touted Ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment amid threats from public health officials against prescribing the drug.

Bowden was forced to resign. In her resignation letter, Bowden doubled down on the efficacy of Ivermectin.

“I have worked hard to provide early treatment for victims of COVID-19. My efforts have been successful. I have treated more than 200 COVID-19 patients, including many with co-morbidities, and none of these patients have required hospitalization. This is a testament to the success of my treatment methods,” she wrote. “Throughout this pandemic, there has been no FDA-approved treatment for COVID. Therefore I have done my best to care for patients and save lives in the absence of a clear scientific consensus.”

“Early treatment must still be part of any strategy for patient care. That is why physicians and hospitals should pay more attention to medications such as Ivermectin, which significant research and my clinical experience indicate is effective,” she continued. “I have decided to part ways with Houston Methodist because of the accusation that I have been spreading “dangerous information.” This is false and defamatory. I do not spread misinformation, and my opinions are supported by science. There is substantial evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19, and no evidence for serious or fatal side effects associated with the doses used to treat COVID-19.”


The U.S. FDA was sued over its false statements about ivermectin and now has to remove those false statements from their social media posts https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/fda-loses-its-war-ivermectin-agrees-remove-all/. I wonder if the Singapore MOH is following this development.

Medical Researchers Call for Urgent Actions to Deal with Mass Contamination of Blood Supply
"Japanese researchers have published disturbing evidence that blood transfusions from individuals who received COVID-19 shots are tainted with a myriad of dangers." - Jeff Dornik

Karen Kingston
March 22, 2024: Japanese researchers published a meta-analysis on the dangers of using blood donated from people who were injected with the COVID-19 ‘vaccines,’ increasing the risks for acute health conditions and severe diseases in recipients of blood donations. The researchers provide testing and screening recommendations, and proposed regulations to reduce these risks.


Share

Jeff Dornik published an excellent article summarizing the scientific meta-analysis, declaring;

“The blood supply, once deemed a lifeline, has now become a conduit for harm.” - Jeff Dornik


In his article entitled, Japanese Researchers Sound Alarm on Deadly Risks of Vaccinated Blood Transfusions, Jeff writes, “In a shocking revelation, Japanese researchers have unearthed disturbing evidence that could change the way we view COVID-19 Injections forever. According to their findings, blood transfusions from individuals who have received COVID-19 shots are tainted with a myriad of dangers, potentially wreaking havoc on both vaxxed and unvaxxed recipients. This discovery has sparked urgent calls for action from the global medical community, as the ramifications of this contamination could be catastrophic.”

I recommend reading and sharing Jeff’s breaking news article.

You Can Make an Impact

The COVID-19 injections have not only contaminated the blood of those who are injected, but due to shedding and blood donations, all individuals are at risk of being inoculated with gene-editing nanoparticle technologies and toxic biosynthetic spike proteins. These toxic biosynthetic nanoparticles are proven to increase the risk for cardiovascular, neurological, auto-immune, and pulmonary diseases, and can induce permanent changes to the human genome.


For the safety of the public, the use of mRNA nanoparticle injections must be banned from every county and state in America.

Every American has standing in their state to demand that the COVID-19 mRNA nanoparticle ‘vaccines’ be banned from their state. You can send a demand letter to your governor, attorney general, and even local sheriff. If they fail to take action, you can petition your state’s Supreme Court to order the governor and attorney general to seize the injections and ban the use of mRNA nanoparticle injections.

Hebrews 10:35-36

So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.

Pending Florida Supreme Court Case: Will DeSantis & AG Moody Be Court-Ordered to Remove ALL mRNA Injections from Florida?

Pending Florida Supreme Court Case: Will DeSantis & AG Moody Be Court-Ordered to Remove ALL mRNA Injections from Florida?
March 5, 2024: When I first began this endeavor, God put on my heart to have the mRNA shots removed from every community across the United States and around the world. I’m honored that I was integral in sending Dr. Joseph Sansone the document that I updated from the

Read full story

The Kingston Report. TRUTH WINS.

Ways to Support My Work

Mail: Karen Kingston/miFight Inc., 960 Postal Way #307, Vista, CA 92085

Buy me a coffee (Ko-fi)

Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

email: [email protected]

Get a FREE $99 Wellness Company Membership

You can keep a full armamentarium of prescriptions on-hand for bacterial, viral, or parasite infections through The Wellness Company. Use the code FREEMEMBER at checkout and SAVE $45.


Here is the direct link to Emergency Prescription Kit, which contains prescriptions for the above listed acute (not chronic) conditions and infections. Use the code FREEMEMBER at checkout and SAVE $45 PLUS Receive a FREE TWC Membership ($99 Value)


https://karenkingston.substack.com/p/medical-researchers-call-for-urgent

A compilation of corporate media’s explanation of sudden deaths
Rhoda WilsonMarch 22, 2024
As sudden deaths and cardiovascular diseases became more common, corporate media has needed to find explanations for the alarming trends.

Filipe Rafaeli has compiled corporate media headlines that provide the most curious explanations.

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…

The list of reasons for increased sudden deaths and strokes, according to the mainstream media

By Filipe Rafaeli

In the initial study of the Pfizer vaccine, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with around 44,000 people, with 22,000 in the placebo group and about 22,000 in the vaccine group, more people died from all causes in the vaccine arm than in the placebo arm. Initially, it was 15 to 14. Shortly after, when updating this number at the Food and Drug Administration, the US regulatory agency, the number changed to 21 to 17. Now, without any surprise, in the most recent update, it’s already 22 to 16.

“Most importantly, we found evidence of an over 3.7-fold increase in number of deaths due to cardiac events in the BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] vaccinated individuals compared to those who received only the placebo.” wrote the scientists in the latest update.

After the mass application of the product, an excess of population mortality was recorded. In The Lancet, the world’s most impactful scientific journal, they analysed UK data: a 7.2% excess in 2022 and an 8.6% excess in 2023. The highlight? Cardiovascular diseases. The comparison is with the 5 previous years.

And do you know what is the most interesting thing in this Lancet analysis? It’s the increase in deaths at home, that is, sudden deaths. There wasn’t even time to go to the hospital. There’s an impressive 22% increase.

US life insurance companies, the ones paying the bills, also found the same thing: more deaths in younger people since 2021.

Well, since everyone is seeing many people suddenly dying and others with cardiovascular diseases, the mainstream media needed to talk about heart attacks and sudden deaths. It made headlines. They needed to explain.

Normalisation

Here, the collection of headlines in the national and international mainstream media with the most curious explanations since 2021.

According to Wales Online, from Wales, what is causing heart attacks is the increase in electricity bills: Energy bill price rise may cause heart attacks and strokes, says TV GP – Wales Online

On the other hand, the Express from the UK claims that the cause of heart attacks is heavy metal and techno music: Atrial fibrillation: Two music genres linked to ‘potentially dangerous’ heart arrhythmias

In Revista Veja, from Brazil, the cause of heart attacks is attributed to global warming: With a warmer world, the impact of climate change on health increases

However, according to CNN Brazil, the real culprit isn’t heat but cold: Cardiovascular diseases can increase by up to 30% in winter; see precautions

For the Daily Mail, from the UK, it is indeed the cold, but the issue arises only if you remove the snow: Expert warns that shovelling snow can be a deadly way to discover underlying heart conditions

In The Times of India, the blame isn’t on the cold, but on the heat, along with humidity: Heart attacks more frequent when heat, humidity high: Study | Ahmedabad News

In The Guardian, from the UK, the blame is actually on rain: Floods linked to increased deaths from heart and lung disease, Australian-led research shows

In the Express, from the UK, it has nothing to do with the weather. The culprit for heart attacks is dirty dishes: Washing up helps wipe out heart risk

In the UK’s Express, the mystery is solved. Skipping breakfast is blamed for heart attacks: Heart attack: Does skipping breakfast increase your risk?

According to The Sun, from the UK, the reason for the excess of heart attacks is because you poop too much: RISK FACTOR How often you go to the toilet every day can ‘predict your risk of heart attack’

In The Times, from the UK, the cause of heart attacks is being single: Lonely older women at greater risk of heart attack, study shows

However, according to Wales Online, from Wales, the reason people die suddenly is the opposite. It’s because people are dating: Average age of sudden death during sex is 38 – why it happens – Wales Online

On the other hand, The Independent, from the UK, explains that the real cause is troubled relationships: A happy relationship enhances heart health, claims new study | The Independent

According to News19, from the US, the cause of increased heart attacks is breaking up: Doctors say ‘Broken Heart Syndrome’ is real, and it can be deadly | WHNT.com

In Isto é, from Brazil, the cause of cardiovascular problems is not exercising and watching too much TV: Watching TV can increase the risk of blood clots, study suggests

However, The Irish Times, from Ireland, says the opposite, that the culprit is exercising: Physical activity may increase heart attack risk, study suggests – The Irish Times

According to the British Heart Foundation, the cause is improper sleep. It’s because people sleep too little or too much: Does sleeping too little or too much raise your risk of heart disease? – BHF

In The Sun, from the UK, the cause is indeed related to sleep, but because of daylight saving time: Moving clocks forward an hour could be dangerous for millions of Brits with serious heart problems – The Sun

Meanwhile, for Canaltech, from Brazil, the culprit of heart attacks isn’t daylight saving time, but rather illuminated light: Sleeping with lights on increases the risk of heart disease and diabetes; understand

For the Express, from the UK, the cause of heart attacks is “low-fat” processed foods: Heart attack: The ‘healthy’ food which may ‘put you at risk for heart disease’ – avoid

According to The Standard, from the UK, what’s causing heart attacks is stress: Thousands facing heart problems due to ‘post-pandemic stress disorder’ | Evening Standard

In the North Wales Chronicle, from Australia, the culprit of heart attacks is artificial sweeteners: Artificial sweeteners found in diet drinks could increase risk of heart attack – research | North Wales Chronicle

In The Sun, from the UK, scientists have recently discovered the culprit. It’s the common cold: Common cold can trigger a killer blood clot disorder, scientists discover for the first time | The Sun

The Express, from the UK, blames obsessive-compulsive disorder for strokes: Stroke: People with a common disorder could be ‘three times’ more likely to have a stroke

In the UK’s Express, the culprit is the gluten-free diet: Heart attack: A gluten-free diet could increase the risk | Express.co.uk

According to The Scientist, from the US, the culprit of heart attacks and strokes is noise from cars, airplanes, and trains: How Environmental Noise Harms the Cardiovascular System | The Scientist Magazine®

According to UOL, from Brazil, the culprit for the increase in heart attacks and strokes is elections: How elections increased cases of heart attack and stroke in the US: is there the same risk in Brazil?

In the New York Post, from the US, sudden infant deaths are caused by video games: Video games could trigger deadly heart problems in children: study

According to Today, from the US, sudden infant deaths are actually common occurrences: All kids should be screened for possibility of sudden cardiac arrest, group says

According to Today, from the US, the cause is that people are angry or emotionally disturbed: Stroke may be triggered by anger, upset or intense exercise in the hour before

In the UK’s Daily Mail, the cause of heart attacks is said to be sun exposure for just one day: Sunbathing for just ONE DAY may increase your risk of heart disease – and stop the body fighting infections, study suggests

However, according to The Times UK, all of the above are wrong. It’s only known that it’s happening, but the reason is a mystery: Mystery rise in heart attacks from blocked arteries

The US-based New Scientist confirms it is indeed a mystery. Nobody knows the reason: There are thousands more UK deaths than usual and we don’t know why | New Scientist

And even though it’s a mystery, and therefore could be anything, absolutely anything, the Brazilian Government has already assured me that one thing, at least, is not the cause: It’s false that Covid-19 vaccines cause sudden illness

Although nobody should worry too much, because according to the US-based health and science website Revyuh News, it’s actually beneficial to have a heart attack: New Study Reveals Shocking Benefit of “Heart Attack”

About the Author

Filipe Rafaeli is a filmmaker and four-time Brazilian aerial acrobatics champion. He publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘Pandemia’ which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.


The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help...

Can you please help power The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful journalism for the years to come…

Your Government & Big Tech organisations
such as Google, Facebook, Twitter & PayPal
are trying to silence & shut down The Expose.

So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuse to…

We’re not funded by the Government
to publish lies & propaganda on their
behalf like the mainstream media.

Instead, we rely solely on our support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring you
honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy…

Just choose your preferred method
to show your support below support

Lawyer, Dr Reiner Fuellmich asks to Be Released From Jail With an Electronic Anklet.
While you were distracted by the “Where’s Princess Kate Conspiracy”, Deagel’s Depopulation Forecast was confirmed by Heavily Censored Pfizer Documents
It’s all over for the Anthropocene, the official geologic period of human-caused climate change
The List of Reasons for Increased Sudden Deaths and Strokes, According to the Mainstream Media.

https://expose-news.com/2024/03/22/corporate-medias-explanation-of-sudden-deaths/

Lawsuit Drops Bombshell on FDA’s Orwellian Lie About Ivermectin
The FDA has lost its war on ivermectin and agreed to remove all related social media content and consumer advisories on ivermectin usage for COVID-19.

vnninfluencersMarch 22, 2024
This article originally appeared on The Gateway Pundit and was republished with permission.

Guest post by Jim Hᴏft

In December 2021, the FDA warned Americans not to use Ivermectin, which “is intended for animals” to treat or prevent COVID-19.

“Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous,” FDA said at the time.

This was a very controversial statement at the time since the FDA pushed the drug on African migrants back in 2015, and the drug was praised in several scientific journals.

There have now been 101 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 62% lower risk in early treatment in COVID-19 patients.



A group of brave doctors had filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block the use of ivermectin in treating COVID-19.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, argues that the FDA has overstepped its authority and unjustifiably interfered with their medical practice.

The plaintiffs, Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, are contesting the FDA’s portrayal of ivermectin as dangerous for human consumption. They note that the FDA has approved ivermectin for human use since 1996 for a variety of diseases. However, they allege that with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA began releasing documents and social media posts discouraging the use of the anti-viral drug for COVID-19 treatment.

“We’re suing the FDA for lying to the public about ivermectin,” said Dr. Bowden.

Claims were made that the initial article misrepresented the law by stating the FDA’s official stance against Ivermectin use without mentioning that doctors were allowed to administer the medicine.

U.S. law is cited in the complaint, including the provision that the FDA “may not interfere with the authority of a health care provider to prescribe or administer any legally marked device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.”

On Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly agreed to remove all its previous social media posts and consumer advisories that specifically addressed the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

“FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Bowden wrote on her social media.

The plaintiffs have recently received the signed court order and are preparing to issue a press release about it later today.


The Gateway Pundit previously reported that during a hearing, the agency’s lawyers argued that the FDA was only giving advice and it was not mandatory when it told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19.

“The cited statements were not directives,” said Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.”

“They use informal language, that is true… It’s conversational but not mandatory,” he continued.

However, the statement from the lawyer contradicted the FDA’s social media post, stating, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” and another tweet says, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.”

Both tweets displayed the title of “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19” and included a link to that publication.




Last year, Doctors Mary Talley Bowden, Paul Marik, & Robert Apter appeared in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as part of their lawsuit.

“The FDA is not your doctor. Yesterday we took them to court to remind them of that,” Dr. Bowden wrote.

“A pharmacist cites CDC and US FDA as why she will continue to deny filling prescriptions for ivermectin. On Tuesday, the FDA’s attorney declared the FDA has no problem with doctors prescribing ivermectin off-label. It’s time for them to make a formal announcement and set the record straight,” Bowden wrote on Thursday.

During the oral argument, Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA stated that the agency “explicitly recognizes” that doctors do have the authority to administer ivermectin to treat COVID.

“”FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” said Honold.

“FDA made these statements in response to multiple reports of consumers being hospitalized, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses, which is available for purchase over the counter without the need for prescription,” Honold said.

“In some contexts, those words could be construed as a command,” Ms. Honold said. “But in this context, where FDA was simply using these words in the context of a quippy tweet meant to share its informational article, those statements do not rise to the level of a command.”

“FDA is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe human ivermectin to treat COVID. So they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe drugs or to practice medicine,” she said.

It can be recalled that Houston Methodist launched an investigation into Bowden and suspended her for defying health authorities and exercising free speech.

The hospital excoriated Bowden for “using her social media accounts to express her personal opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments,” NBC News reports. The suspension barred the physician from admitting or treating patients at the hospital.

Bowden repeatedly warned that it is “wrong” to mandate the experimental mRNA vaccines and continuously touted Ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment amid threats from public health officials against prescribing the drug.

Bowden was forced to resign. In her resignation letter, Bowden doubled down on the efficacy of Ivermectin.

“I have worked hard to provide early treatment for victims of COVID-19. My efforts have been successful. I have treated more than 200 COVID-19 patients, including many with co-morbidities, and none of these patients have required hospitalization. This is a testament to the success of my treatment methods,” she wrote. “Throughout this pandemic, there has been no FDA-approved treatment for COVID. Therefore I have done my best to care for patients and save lives in the absence of a clear scientific consensus.”

“Early treatment must still be part of any strategy for patient care. That is why physicians and hospitals should pay more attention to medications such as Ivermectin, which significant research and my clinical experience indicate is effective,” she continued. “I have decided to part ways with Houston Methodist because of the accusation that I have been spreading “dangerous information.” This is false and defamatory. I do not spread misinformation, and my opinions are supported by science. There is substantial evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19, and no evidence for serious or fatal side effects associated with the doses used to treat COVID-19.”

Copyright 2024 The Gateway Pundit


https://vigilantnews.com/post/lawsuit-drops-bombshell-on-fdas-orwellian-lie-about-ivermectin/

Academics raise concerns about shortcomings of UK Covid-19 Inquiry
Maryanne Demasi, PhD

Over 50 prominent UK academics have signed an open letter to Baroness Heather Hallett, chair of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, calling for urgent action to address the shortcomings of the probe so far. The signatories of the letter say the Hallett Inquiry suffers from bias, false assumptions, and a lack of impartiality.

“The Covid Inquiry is not living up to its mission to evaluate the mistakes made during the pandemic, whether Covid measures were appropriate, and to prepare the country for the next pandemic,” they write.

Kevin Bardosh, lead signatory and Director of Collateral Global has been following the Inquiry closely. He’s concerned it has focused too much on “who said what and when,” rather than homing in on key scientific questions about the evidence (or lack thereof) underpinning policy decisions.


Prof Kevin Bardosh, Director of Collateral Global. Photo credit: Shutterstock
“The Inquiry was pre-designed on the assumption that the government ‘didn’t do enough’ to protect people during the pandemic,” says Bardosh. “But the thing about the pandemic is that more measures, didn’t mean more lives saved. It’s a paradoxical aspect of health policy that more doesn't necessarily mean better.

Bardosh, who is affiliated with University of Edinburgh Medical School, says because the Inquiry’s starting position is that non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. masks) and lockdowns were necessary and effective, it’s not actually interrogating the trade-offs of these policies.

“If you go back to pre-Covid, policies like lockdowns, extended school closures, and contact tracing for a respiratory virus, were not the ‘scientific consensus’ for how to respond rationally to a pandemic,” he says. “In fact, the reverse was true. The goal was to minimise the disruption to society because it would have all these short and long-term unintended consequences.”

In December 2023, when Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was questioned at the Inquiry, he admitted the UK government had failed to discuss the costs and benefits of pandemic policies.


UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunk questioned at UK Covid Inquiry
Sunak pointed to a peer-reviewed report by Imperial College London and the University of Manchester that applied a Quality-Adjusted Life Year analysis to the first lockdown in the UK and found “for every permutation of lives saved and GDP lost, the costs of lockdown exceed the benefits.” [emphasis added]

Bardosh has also called out the Inquiry for its double standards in scrutinising experts.

Take for example, Neil Ferguson, professor at Imperial College and former SAGE member. He was the architect behind lockdowns after his March 2020 models warned that 500,000 Brits would die unless tougher restrictions were put in place to curb spread of the virus.

Bardosh says, “The Inquiry hasn’t really questioned Ferguson’s mathematical model in any substantial way. But if you compare that to the questioning of Professor Carl Heneghan, who's based out of Oxford, it was very confrontational, and they used provocative language to suggest he didn't have expertise in this area.”

Heneghan, the director of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, was among 32 senior UK academics who urged then-Prime Minister, Boris Johnson to think twice about plunging Britain into a second lockdown in the autumn of 2020.

It was revealed during evidence to the Inquiry, that the UK’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Dame Angela McLean, called Heneghan a “fuckwit” on a WhatsApp chat during a September 2020 Government meeting for his dissenting views on lockdowns.


Prof Carl Heneghan, director of Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford
Later, Heneghan penned a scathing article in The Spectator, calling the Inquiry a ‘farce – a spectacle of hysteria, name-calling and trivialities.”

“Lockdown was the most disruptive policy in British peacetime history, with huge ramifications for our health, children’s education and the economy,” wrote Heneghan.

“This is an opportunity for the inquiry to gather evidence and ask whether lockdown and other interventions actually worked….Instead we have a KC [King's Counsel] who seems uninterested in substance and obsessed with reading out rude words he has found in other people’s private messages.”

Share

Bardosh and the other signatories have also raised concerns about the structure of the scientific advisory groups in the Inquiry, which have omitted key experts in child development, schooling impacts, social and economic policy.

“The Inquiry must invite a much broader range of scientific experts with more critical viewpoints. It must also review the evidence on diverse topics so that it can be fully informed of relevant science and the economic and social cost of Covid policies to British society,” write the signatories.

So far, Bardosh is unimpressed with the ‘political theatre’ of the Inquiry, but hopes Baroness Hallett will urgently address its shortcomings to avoid compromising the credibility of future public inquiries.

“Not having an inquiry that really asks those questions is very damaging to the idea of accountability. We need to hold to account the policy decisions that were made because if we don’t, the next time there's a public health emergency, these measures will come back into place whether or not they actually work,” says Bardosh.

The Hallett Inquiry is slated to run until 2026 and is reported to be one of the largest public inquiries in UK history. The cost of the UK government’s covid measures are estimated to be between £310bn and £410bn.


*Correction: an earlier version of this article said the cost of the Hallett Inquiry was estimated to be between £310bn and £410bn, but that is the estimate for the government’s covid measures.

Give a gift subscription


https://blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/academics-raise-concerns-about-shortcomings

Chimaeras and interspecies hybrids; the sinister agenda hiding behind covid
Rhoda WilsonMarch 20, 2024
There is something that has quietly slipped through the din of the murderously phoney episode called covid-19, Dr. Mathew Maavak writes. “If the covid-19 vaccines were ‘experimental gene therapies’, what other genetic experimentations continue unhindered out there?” he asks.

In May 2020, Dr. Maavak wrote an article about how SARS-CoV-2 was not germinated in a vacuum. The Wuhan Institute of Virology conducted research with alarming global parallels including the pursuit of superintelligence and the development of chimaeras, or interspecies hybrids.

What he wrote in May 2020 is still relevant today, he says. So yesterday, Dr. Maavak reposted his now four-year-old article.

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…

Coronavirus in a Time of Chimaeras and Beyond

By Dr. Mathew Maavak

In May 2020, just as the coronavirus made hourly headlines, I had suspected that the virus was part of a much more sinister agenda. What I wrote back then remains just as relevant today. Here it is.

Genetically-Enhanced Competitiveness

The Sars-Cov-2 virus, which allegedly causes covid-19, was not germinated in a vacuum. The type of research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had ominous analogues worldwide. These included the quest for super intelligence and the development of interspecies hybrids or chimaeras.

What began as a scientific mission to remedy congenital defects has rapidly morphed into a global race to create designer babies, super soldiers and transhumans through the aid of biotechnology, artificial intelligence and/or machine-neuralinking. 21st century eugenics is tacitly justified by the need to boost “national competitiveness.”

China leads the way here. In one revealing episode, genome sequencing giant BGI Shenzhen had procured and sequenced the DNA of more than 2,000 people – mostly Americans – with IQ scores of at least 160. According to Stephen Hsu, a theoretical physicist from Michigan State University and scientific adviser to BGI:

An exceptional person gets you an order of magnitude more statistical power than if you took random people from the population …

BGI Shenzhen intends to become a “bio-Google” that will collate the “world’s biological information and make it universally accessible and useful.” From 2012 onwards, it began collaborating with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (“BMGF”). No surprises there.

Scientific endeavours like these are based on the assumption that an assemblage of smart samples can help in the identification and transplantation of optimal bits of genetic material into future generations.

Can a virus or vaccine perform this transplantation? Or will such agencies be used to cull the majority of the human population before a “genetic antidote” emerges to reverse their lethal effects? It will be too late for the vast majority of mankind by then. artificial selection, backed by artificial intelligence, may decide who gets this new booster. But is such a hypothetical scenario even realistic? There are too many imponderables here but viruses, nasal swabs and “vaccines” will surely deliver vital data for the “New Human Genome Project.”

New Eugenics Zeitgeist

The science of eugenics is not dissuaded by the nurture over nature debate, even after exhaustive studies had failed to establish genetic variants associated with intelligence. For example, a 2010 study led by Robert Plomin, a behavioural geneticist at King’s College London, had probed over 350,000 variations in single DNA letters across the genomes of 7,900 children but found no prized variant. Curiously, most of the smart samples procured by BGI Shenzhen were sourced from Plomin’s research activities.

Periodic setbacks did not deter the proponents of “procreative beneficence” who argue that it is a human duty to augment the genetic codes of future generations. Failure to do so is couched in terms of “genetic neglect” and even child abuse. If this sounds eerily familiar, look no further than the worldview which once animated the Western world before the Nazis elevated it to a whole new level altogether.

The eugenics zeitgeist has gripped China in a big way. Under its Maternal and Infant Health Care Law (1994), foetuses with potential hereditary diseases or deformities are recommended for abortion. At the rate Beijing is building its eugenics utopia, the definition of deformity may ultimately include a genetically pre-diagnosed average IQ.

Instead of inciting public outrage, the law precipitated a headlong rush to select “intelligent” babies through methods like preimplantation genetic diagnosis (“PGD”). The idea behind PGD is to screen and identify the most promising embryos for implantation and birth. Combined with CRISPR gene-editing tools, next-generation Chinese citizens are expected to exhibit remarkably higher IQs – at least according to bioethicists who fret over a future marked by the “genetic haves” and “genetic have-nots.” China already has three CRISPR-edited babies whose current fate remains unknown.

In the aftermath of the corona psychosis, the availability of “smart samples” would have increased exponentially and may dovetail nicely with the eugenics agenda of the Rockefeller Foundation and BMGF. Incidentally, Bill Gates grew up in a household that was heavily invested in population control and eugenics.

Our smart societies may inevitably face the existential question of “live-lets” and “live-nots” down the line. The orchestrated rebellion towards selective extinction, if it occurs, has a tragicomical public face: An autistic Swede who parrots the “listen to the science” and “listen to the experts” mantra.

How will future designer babies contribute to society? For one thing, we will be missing individuals like Beethoven (deaf); Albert Einstein (learning disability/late development); John Nash (schizophrenia); Andrea Boccelli (congenital glaucoma) and Vincent van Gogh (chronic depression/anxiety) and a host of others like them. A future Stephen Hawking (motor neurone disease) and Greta Thunberg (Asperger’s Syndrome – allegedly) will be genetically disqualified before birth.

It is now inconvenient to consider intelligence as a result of peer interactions, human environment and ingenious reactions to adversity. (I personally define intelligence as an ability to nip the bullsh*t in its foetid bud).

Mapping out the complex and sometimes unpredictable interplay between 100 trillion synaptic connections in a human brain may take centuries to accomplish but that does not deter the utopians of today.

After all, genetic manipulation is the eugenic wormhole that promises to accelerate the emergence of a super society at warp speed. The late billionaire paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, was a prominent proponent of this philosophy. Epstein intended to breed a “super race of humans with his DNA by impregnating women at his New Mexico ranch, genetic engineering and artificial intelligence.” Welcome to Lebensborn 2.0!

Prominent scientists linked to Epstein’s transhumanist fantasies included “molecular engineer George Church; Murray Gell-Mann, the discoverer of the quark; the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould; the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks; and the theoretical physicist Frank Wilczek.” The late Stephen Hawking – who will ironically flunk the genetic pre-screenings of tomorrow – was another Epstein associate.

Forget about Mars missions; major powers see eugenics as the next great frontier. Its hyper-materialistic focus is encapsulated by the following analogy from Russian scientist Denis Rebrikov:

It currently costs about a million roubles (US$15,500 at that time) to genetically change an embryo – more than a lot of cars – but prices will fall with greater use … I can see the billboard now: “You Choose: a Hyundai Solaris or a Super-Child?”

You are comparing a child, super or not, with a Hyundai? I mean a Hyundai, really? Sometimes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions but most of the time, it begins with a diabolically silly proposition.

But why stop at children? From genetically engineered horses in Argentina that are supposedly faster, stronger and better jumpers to super-dogs in China that are comprehensively superior to the average mutt, the DNA of the entire natural world is being slated for a revolutionary redesign.

Crouching Chimaeras, Hideous Hybrids

The masters of our universe however cannot create future generations of superhumans without being adept at recombining genetic sequences across species. That is the logic guiding eugenicists. As a result, a slew of chimaeras or interspecies hybrids have been spawned with the aid of CRISPR technology. These include ghastly human-monkey hybrids, monkey-pig hybrids, human-rabbit hybrids and a host of other lab-manufactured monstrosities.

Chimaeras are created when human embryonic stem cells are injected into embryos of other species. The goal, for the time being, is to induce growth of targeted human organs. Those facing terminal illnesses will no longer have to worry about long organ waiting lists. Chinese scientists have just transplanted a modified pig liver into a brain-dead human and it seems to have worked.

A less controversial approach to human organ replacement is 3D bioprinting or its 4D bioprinting iteration. These techniques involve the “printing” of a replacement organ from the stem cells of a transplant recipient, thereby eliminating the odds of organ rejection.

But why stop at replacement organs when we can have “replacement humans” altogether? Future generations must think like Einsteins, be as nimble as leopards and possess owl-like night visions. And, of course, be virus-resistant as well!

The manipulation of the human genome is the new “grand response” to the venerable set of “grand challenges” for 2030 and beyond. China is the go-to place for such genetic tinkering as some of these undertakings are technically illegal in the West. And this is where the utility of covid-19 comes into the picture. It provides the perfect pretext to remove such ethical constraints. After all, “Disease X” is just waiting to escape from the belly of some bat or pangolin …

Since 2014, the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been the recipient of a two-stage grant worth $7.2 million from the United States government for gain-of-function research into bat coronaviruses. According to a Newsweek report in April 2020:

Many scientists have criticised gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.

Such caution has not deterred a flurry of research into microbial gene manipulation. The Wuhan experiments may have either spawned the Sars-Cov-2 virus or it may have provided a fraudulent context for future tyrannical mandates.

But to solely blame China for the coronavirus “pandemic” is a tad unfair. Just as China is the factory of the world for foreign corporations, it is also the genetic incubator for a variety of viruses and chimaeras for foreign governments and foundations. Even so, the human-pig chimaera was the creation of the Salk Institute in California. Research into the world’s first human-mouse hybrid was largely a Japanese affair. The Portuguese in the meantime had created a virus chimaera.

The United Kingdom, on their end, had spawned a human-cow hybrid embryo in 2008 – perhaps in keeping with the bovine disposition of those glued to the BBC. It was in Britain where the game-changing Dolly the Sheep was cloned in 1996.

The transition from sheep to sheeple may turn out to be a short 21st century Jurassic Park ride.

Coincidences and Consequences

Before the advent of gene-editing tools and supercomputing, it would have been impossible to create a viable chimaera. The Biotech-Industrial Complex and contact tracing-type panopticons constitute a new growth area for Tech Titans that were once facing bankruptcy.

The dangers of genome editing were in fact included in the Worldwide Threat Assessment reports submitted to the United States Congress in 2016 and 2017. These risks were either omitted or glossed over in the 2018 and 2019 reports – just as such risks gravitated to the high impact-high likelihood quadrant.

Is it a coincidence that the nations most affected by covid-19 – at least during the first two years of its alleged spread – were the very ones that had either promoted or encouraged a variety of genetic experimentations that are contrary to nature? If – and that is a big “if” – these nations succeed in their quest for “designer babies” and “superhumans,” the rest of mankind will be rendered redundant. Some mass extermination event may transpire under the guise of World War III, food shortages, Disease X or a combination thereof.


If everything goes according to plan, however, there will be 500 million potential specimens left for The Great Reset. The Third World, whose leaders are being monetarily incentivised to focus on unattainable Sustainable Development Goals (“SDGs”), will be consigned to the ash heaps of history.

It is quite ironic that a new generation of cerebrally deficient “thought leaders” and “experts” are being groomed to promote the demises of their societies and themselves.

About the Author

Mathew Maavak, with a PhD in Policy Studies, specialises in systems science, global risks, strategic foresight, geopolitics and governance. He is a Malaysian expert on risk foresight and governance.

Dr. Maavak has published numerous op-eds on a variety of eclectic subjects for over 20 years – by ‘connecting the dots’ in a disjointed world. He is the author of a Substack page titled ‘The Eye Opener’ which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.



https://expose-news.com/2024/03/20/chimaeras-and-interspecies-hybrids/

Fasting On The White Days
Definition, benefits and steps on observing the fasting of White days

Definition, benefits and steps on observing the fasting of White days
Have you tried voluntary fasting on Monday or Thursday? Do you know that you can also fast on the White days? Do you know which days are White days? Today, the practice of fasting on the White days is often forgotten by many. This article intends to reintroduce this beautiful prophetic practice in hopes that it will not be considered a forgotten Sunnah.

Fasting of White days during Full moon

What are the White days?

The White days, or known as 'Al-Ayyam al-Bid' in Arabic, are the three consecutive days that fall on every 13th, 14th and 15th day of the Islamic month. It is called white days because the full moon shines brightly throughout the 3 mentioned days. Hence, the radiant full moon at night symbolises the White days.

Scientifically, the Islamic month begins with a new moon, and then it gradually expands from a crescent moon for 12 nights until it becomes a full moon which is when it radiates the brightest out of any other night, for three consecutive days. Afterwards, the moon will slowly fade away until it turns into a crescent once again and the cycle continues. One of the reasons why the Messenger of Allah s.a.w. and his companions r.a. fasted on the White days was to show gratitude towards Allah s.w.t.

Muslims are encouraged to fast during these three days on every Islamic month except for the 13th Zulhijjah as Muslims are prohibited to fast on the days of Tashriq. Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. has observed the fasting of White days and has encouraged his companions r.a. to fast along as reported by Abu Hurairah r.a. that the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. has advised him to do three things, which are;

صِيَامِ ثَلاَثَةِ أَيَّامٍ مِنْ كُلِّ شَهْرٍ، وَرَكْعَتَي الضُّحَى، وَأَنْ أُوتِرَ قَبْلَ أَنْ أَنَامَ

“Fasting for three days every month, performing two rakaats of Dhuha prayers and praying witr before sleep.”

(Sahih Al-Bukhari)

What are the merits of fasting on the White days?

The rewards gained from fasting during the full moon are equivalent to that of fasting the whole month as reported by Abdullah Bin Amr Bin Al-As r.a. that the Messenger of Allah s.a.w. said:

صَوْمُ ثَلاَثَةِ أَيَّامٍ صَوْمُ الدَّهْرِ كُلِّهِ

“Observing fasting on three days of every month is equivalent to fasting the whole year”

(Sahih Al-Bukhari)

The Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. himself has never failed to observe white days fasting as reported by Mu’adhah Al-‘Adawiyah r.a, that she asked the Prophet’s wife, Aisyah r.a

أَكَانَ رسولُ اللَّهِ صلَّى اللَّهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ يصومُ ثلاثةَ أيَّامٍ مِن كلِّ شهرٍ قالت نعَم

“Did the Messenger of Allah s.a.w. observed three days of fasting for every month?”, She replied: “Yes”

(Sunan At-Tirmizi)

Fasting of White days, glass of water and dates

Thus, following in the steps of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. fasting on White days will help us gain immense rewards. Furthermore, the greatness of the rewards of fasting is made only known to Allah s.w.t. as mentioned in a Hadith Qudsi:

كُلُّ عَمَلِ ابْنِ آدَمَ له، إلَّا الصِّيَامَ؛ فإنَّه لي، وأَنَا أجْزِي به

“Every good deed of Adam’s son is for him except fasting; it is for Me and I shall reward (the person fasting) for it”

(Sahih Al-Bukhari)

How do we observe the fasting of White Days?

To begin fasting on white days, one must make the niyyah (intention) as follows and then observe fasting as usual, from sunrise to sunset:

نَوَيتُ صَومَ أَيَّامِ البِيض سُنَّةً لله تَعَالَى

Nawaytu Sauma Ayyamil Bidh Sunnatan Lillahi Taa’la

I intend to observe the Sunnah fast of the White days for Allah the Most High

You may also establish your intention in your heart through the language that you understand. Once you have tried fasting on White days, try to continue to fast on the following month too and eventually, InsyaAllah, it will turn into a habit, just like how the Messenger of Allah s.a.w. has the habit of observing voluntary fasting.

Fasting of white days with full moon

Let us revive and practice this forgotten Sunnah together, following the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. in pursuit of Allah s.w.t’s love and blessings as well as collecting rewards along the way.

To be honest, I myself am trying to observe fasting on white days, though some months I did not manage to do so, nevertheless, it feels great to practice the Sunnah and I enjoyed sharing about it with the people around me. I highly encourage my fellow readers to try it out. So, come join me, let’s challenge ourselves to observe these 3 days of fasting and May Allah s.w.t. grant us the strength to ace this challenge. Amin.

And Allah knows best.

https://www.muslim.sg/articles/fasting-on-the-white-days

Subject: Fw: Dr Mike Yeadon: Introductory statement about serious crimes per Mark Sexton communication
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Mark Sexton

Dear Ben Bates,

I have been asked by former policeman, Mark Sexton (copied) to introduce myself to you & to indicate the fields in which I have unequivocal evidence of criminal activity.

Let me begin my outlining my credentials to have realised that the areas I will outline were incorrect in the first place.

My name is Dr Mike Yeadon. I am the most senior, former “big pharma” & biotech research executive speaking out about several serious crimes in relation to what I call the “Covid era”.

My original training was in Biochemistry & Toxicology, in which I was awarded the strongest first class joint honours degree that the School of Biomedical Sciences had ever awarded at the time (1985, University of Surrey).

Part of my undergraduate training involved research placements at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, Wiltshire, where I was a small cog in the long term development of injected antidotes for nerve gas poisoning to protect British troops. I also worked at the then Central Laboratory of the Forensic Sciences Service, Aldermaston, Berkshire, adjacent to the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment. While with the Forensic Science Service, I received training on several precision analytical methods including mass spectrometry, then a highly technically complex method.
As far as I recall, I had security clearance for both establishments. Porton Down, then as now, is a top security facility with an international reputation.

My PhD, in the field of Pharmacology was “On the effect of opiates on respiratory function” (1988) and this was sponsored by the MOD.

After securing my PhD, which gave me a sound training in several additional subdisciplines of biology, chemistry & drug metabolism, I joined the pharmaceutical industry.

I spent 24years with “big pharma”, starting at Wellcome Research Laboratories, where I briefly worked alongside a Dr Patrick Vallance (who became Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government).

For the longest period, I was in charge of Pfizer’s global research in the field of Allergic & Respiratory Disease Therapeutics. I left Pfizer in 2011, having reached the level of Vice President, because the company had decided to exit their large R&D base in Kent. The parting was cordial. Before leaving, I sought to find new homes for the portfolio of exploratory medicines I had helped create & was gratified that Mylan U.K. Ltd, the world’s second largest generics company, acquired much of my former portfolio soon after I had left.

I later founded & lead as CEO a highly successful biotechnology company, Ziarco Pharma Ltd. Pfizer and four other venture capital firms were investors in my company, which was acquired by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, in 2017.

My accomplishments are considered by some to have been unusual. So much so that a former Pfizer board member & previously worldwide head of R&D, Dr John LaMattina, wrote up my last venture in Forbes, a leading business magazine (February 2017).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2017/03/15/turning-pfizer-discards-into-novartis-gold-the-story-of-ziarco/

In summary, I have had a very strong training in multiple disciplines and over 30 years leadership experience in the field of inventing and testing new medicines for respiratory illnesses. I have an excellent analytical background and I can claim to be at least the equal of anyone advising the government in science.

I have no history of “conspiracy theory” or political campaigns or protests. I don’t believe I made a single public comment on anything prior to 2020.

My accomplishments in applied biomedical sciences qualify me to be taken seriously.
I ask that the evidence I marshall is evaluated thoroughly. I am confident in my assessments, which have been tested by dozens of others, internationally well known scientists and doctors.

https://t.me/DrMikeYeadon