The lethal role of ventilation in treating Covid-19 is a hot topic again after Elon Musk raised it in conversation with Joe Rogan on his recent Spotify podcast:
‘Well, 80 per cent of the people they put on ventilators died . . . what I’m hearing from Wuhan is that they made a big mistake in putting people on intubated ventilators for an extended period . . . this is actually what is damaging the lungs, not Covid. The cure is worse than the disease.’
There is a deeper, more disturbing, story about the origins of ventilation as a policy response to the ‘pandemic’ that we are not being told. Likewise, the known risks involved with ventilation (reported here in TCW), as well as the legal and ethical violations associated with such a response, are largely undebated.
Was China responsible for US ventilation policy?
In this article, lawyer and writer Michael Senger says that tens of thousands of Americans died after being placed on mechanical ventilators in 2020. He points out that early data from China had suggested that ventilators would need to be used widely in the treatment of covid-19 patients and this led to a major rush to procure ventilators worldwide. Further, he laid the blame for ventilation policy at China’s door: ‘This practice of extended intubation was apparently consistent with early guidance coming from China.’
Is this true? Can we really blame China for this policy? If not, then where did it originate?
It may come as a surprise that despite China being the first to make widespread use of ventilators, evidence suggests that the Chinese may have been following US policy.
Mass ventilation for respiratory distress is a key component in the US, and international, repertoire of what is known as ‘disaster medicine’, which covers pandemics as well as bioterrorism events.
Disaster medicine’s history goes back to at least 1991 when Heller et al use the example of the first Gulf War chemical attacks on Israel to argue that in the event of a chemical attack, hospitals will need to quickly deploy mechanical ventilation systems to deal with mass casualty events.
By 2005 the infrastructure was in place with Rubinson et al reporting on the ‘Working Group on Emergency Mass Critical Care’. On ventilators they say: ‘The Working Group believes that provision of a basic mode of mechanical ventilation (e.g., assist-controlled or pressure-controlled ventilation) for large numbers of patients should be a priority in these conditions. Mechanical ventilators in this setting need not be state of the art but should be rapidly available and portable, should provide adequate gas exchange for a range of clinical conditions that warrant mechanical ventilation, should be safe for patients (disconnect alarm capabilities), should be safe for staff (reduce staff time in patients’ rooms if disease is contagious) and should allow for efficient use of staff.’
Notice that one of the supposed benefits of ventilation is that it reduces the time staff spend in patient’s rooms if the disease is contagious (as we know during covid-19 staff were made highly anxious and fearful of catching the supposedly novel and deadly virus).
Modelling and planning for pandemics was in full swing by 2006, and that included tracking and managing ventilator stockpiles.
Risk, ethical and legal issues
Disaster medicine is primarily focused on treating patients in pandemics and bio-terror events, but it also covers ethical standards of care and legal liability of those operating ICUs.
In 2008 Branson et al at the University of Cincinnati did a literature review covering respiratory failure, disaster preparedness, pandemic influenza and mass casualty care. They cite a number of events where manual ventilation was necessary, but they reported that during hurricane Katrina, the Copenhagen polio epidemic of 1952 and the sarin gas attacks in Japan, there was a lack of available equipment.
In a crucial warning they note that: ‘There is little historical or empirical evidence upon which to base decisions regarding mass casualty respiratory failure and augmenting positive-pressure ventilation capacity.’
Ventilation was therefore being recommended with NO consideration of the risks, and with little to no real evidence to support it.
In an editorial for the journal Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness by Rubinson and Christian, published in 2013, they report on the allocation of mechanical ventilators during medical catastrophes:
‘To best use scarce resources, managing medical catastrophes requires deliberate transition from individual-centered to population-focused critical care. In the United States, the federal government provides neither permission nor definitive guidance for such modifications in care delivery. Although the federal government has oversight for practices related to health care, relevant federal statutes . . . and civil rights protections, most health professionals’ clinical activities are overseen by states. In recognition of the states’ role, the New York State Workgroup developed a process to fairly and justly transition to population-focused care.’
A number of hugely contentious legal and ethical red flags are being raised here, including the suspension of individual rights with priority being placed on collective protection via population-focused care.
Furthermore, they add that their efforts have been influenced by the legal aftermath from hurricane Katrina:
‘In the wake of the response to Hurricane Katrina, the post-event lawsuits and prosecutions have become a significant concern for health care professionals for future disasters. A major advantage of a statewide effort rather than isolated local planning is the greater possibility for protection from criminal and civil liability for health professionals and institutions that implement the guidance.’
(For context the events they are referring to occurred at the Memorial Hospital Center in New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Hospital and toxicology tests were performed on 41 bodies, and 23 tested positive for one or both of morphine and the fast-acting benzodiazepine sedative midazolam. Following an investigation into these deaths, the local district attorney decided there was sufficient evidence to charge three medical staff with four counts of second-degree murder. Charges against two were dropped in exchange for testimony.)
In 2015 New York State issued its policy on ventilator allocation, strongly suggesting that they expected a shortage of ventilators. The accompanying detailed guidelines run to 266 pages showing there was a well thought out and extremely detailed plan for the use of ventilators including a ‘solid’ ethical and legal basis for their use.
However, Michael Senger believes that, even though the public health authorities were obviously well aware of the legal and ethical risks, the information coming from China might excuse them from responsibility or blame: ‘Regardless of how much harm was done, it’s simply too difficult to prove that the procedure violated the emergency standard of care given the information coming from China at the time.’
Disaster Medicine (literally)
There can be no doubt that the well-established US disaster medicine plans were implemented in the ‘pandemic’ despite the known very high risks presented by ventilation and the acknowledged profound legal and ethical issues in enforcing a ‘collectivist’ approach in the form of ‘population-focused’ care.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the assertion that ventilation use was reactive and adopted in a panic, or mis-applied en masse. On the contrary, the expectation was that ventilation was the default, and sole, reaction to a respiratory medical emergency, be it from a natural virus or a bioweapon.
Mass ventilation formed a central plank of the US’s planned response to the Covid-19 ‘pandemic’. It was built into the protocols, procedures and plans, from national to state level. Likewise, given the technological leadership exerted by the US, it would not be surprising that other countries, such as the Nato, EU and Five Eyes nations, would follow their lead.
It is therefore not too much of a stretch to assume that, to demonstrate the technological power of the party, that the CCP and China would adopt the same approach. In fact, evidence strongly suggests that the Chinese may have been following – rather than leading – US policy in this critical matter.
Co-authored with 𝗗𝗿 𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗮 𝗛𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘁𝘁 and 𝗗𝗿 𝗝𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗲𝗿
There are a number of reasons people do not tell the truth. They might look to those around them and think they all believe something different and they do not want to become an outlier. They might fear they are wrong and will be humiliated. They might fear it will upset someone in power who might cause deliberate harm to them as a consequence.
Let’s take each of those in turn and show how weak and dangerous those arguments are.
Fear of becoming an outlier
The idea of the wisdom of crowds is a myth. In reality, groupthink goes terribly wrong where there are no correction mechanisms in place. Each of us is part of that correction mechanism. A crowd can only hope to be wise when it is listening to all voices. Examples of where groupthink led to very dark places is not hard to come by: the Salem witch trials, frontal lobotomies, the Stanford prison experiment. It is utter cowardice to not speak the truth simply because you want to blend in.
Psychological experiments have shown that individuals often conform to the behaviour of the majority, even if that behaviour seems obviously wrong or harmful. A classic example is the ‘bystander effect,’ where individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim when others are present. In experiments where a person appears to collapse in a public space, many bystanders often hesitate to help, waiting for someone else to take the lead. Yet, once one person steps forward, it acts as a trigger for others to spring into action. This is a clear demonstration of the power of the individual in breaking the chains of groupthink. It underscores the importance of taking initiative, being the first to stand up for what’s right, and not waiting for others to lead the way. In reality, where that is the main issue, someone who speaks truth first may well find allies readily appearing, who had been just waiting for someone else to take the first step.
Fear of humiliation
There is an easy excuse of saying I cannot speak the truth because I might be wrong, I do not know everything for certain. Of course you don’t! No one is omniscient! If everyone thought like that the only people who would speak would be the psychopaths who are not afraid of lying and then where would we be?
Yes, you might be wrong. Yes, some people might take great pleasure in that. Your ego is less important than telling the truth. If everyone set ego aside and spoke, the truth would reveal itself rapidly. All of us would be wrong along the way but at least we would start travelling towards the truth together.
Cancel Culture
Inconvenient truths upset people in powerful positions. There might indeed be consequences of speaking and you might well show me examples where the consequences for others have been severe. Silencing people through fear in this way is authoritarianism. The only antidote to that is to have the multitude speak the truth. You are a part of us getting to the point where the truth cannot be repressed through fear. The dam is about to break, the risk from speaking now is far smaller than it was earlier on. Take the risk for the sake of your children’s future.
Start small
Creating a social media profile and broadcasting to the world is not for everyone. Speaking the truth to your family, your friends and your colleagues is a fine place to start. In fact those conversations are worth many times more than communication through any screen.
If you’re uncomfortable going too far too fast then start with questions, express uncertainty, seed some doubt.
“A land without a people, and a people without a land” is how the relationship between Palestine and the Jewish people was described by Christian writers in the 1800s. And the 20th-century history of the Middle East has largely been written through these eyes.
But this film from Al Jazeera Arabic looks at Palestine from a different angle. It hears from historians and witness accounts, and features archive documents that show Palestine as a thriving province of Greater Syria and the Ottoman Empire at the dawn of the 20th century.
The evidence suggests that its cities had a developing trade and commercial sector, growing infrastructure, and embryonic culture that would enable it to meet the challenges of the decades ahead. However, the political ramifications of the Balfour Declaration, San Remo Conference and British Mandate set in motion a series of events that profoundly affected this vibrant, fledgeling society and led to the events of 1948 and beyond.
This film is the other side of the Palestinian story.
In a new development in the ongoing Israeli atrocities against Palestinians, about 100 Israeli doctors have signed an open letter demanding that the Israeli military bomb hospitals in the Gaza Strip.
Claiming that it is the Israeli occupation army’s “right and duty” to attack hospitals, the petition accused the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas of using the medical facilities as “terrorist nests.”
The Israeli doctors see that Palestinian hospitals have become a legitimate target for the Israeli occupation forces, upholding the narrative that Palestinian Resistance groups are using hospitals for protection.
“The residents of Gaza saw fit to turn hospitals into terrorist nests to take advantage of Western morality, they are the ones who brought destruction upon themselves; terrorism must be eliminated everywhere. Attacking terrorist headquarters is the right and the duty of the Israeli army.”
The letter has been widely condemned online. Ghassan Abu Sitta, a British-Palestinian surgeon who is currently in Gaza, took to social media platform X, formerly Twitter, to criticize the letter.
“100 Israeli doctors sign a petition calling for the destruction of all hospitals in Gaza. Lovely people with a great collegiate attitude. They must have taken the same Hippocratic oath as Harold Shipman,” he wrote, referring to an English doctor and serial killer who was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2000.
Earlier this week, 43 rabbis issued a religious decree to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying it is religiously acceptable and permissible to bomb Palestinian hospitals in Gaza.
A document signed by the rabbis states that there was no religious or moral objection to striking hospitals when civilians are allegedly used as shields and hidden behind them, Israel’s Channel 14 television news reported on Thursday.
The message had now been conveyed to military units, the prime minister and cabinet members, the report added.
This comes as the Israeli forces, for the 30th day in a row, are waging a devastating war on Gaza, in which at least 9,770 Palestinians were killed, including 4,800 children and 2,509 women, and more than 24,000 others were injured.
Israeli airstrikes on Gaza have repeatedly targeted hospitals, residences, mosques, and churches. Under the Geneva Convention, attacks on hospitals are strictly prohibited.
On October 18, at least 500 civilians were killed by Israeli airstrikes on al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza City. The attack has been condemned as an act of genocide by many governments around the world although the Israeli regime has denied responsibility.
According to Gaza’s health ministry, as many as 15 people were killed and 60 others injured on Friday after the regime targeted a convoy of ambulances leaving al-Shifa hospital.
Several hospitals in Gaza City have become refuges for Palestinians hoping to be spared Israeli bombardments, which began on October 7.
Israel Today newspaper said today, Sunday, that Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu suggested dropping a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip would be one of the options to be considered.
“We must recognize what scares them enough to force them to flee, as death does not frighten them. Thus, we must search for ways to horrify and eliminate them,” the Israeli minister said.
“I disagree with those who refer to Gaza Palestinians as civilians. In Gaza, there are no civilians, and there is no difference between them and Hamas,” Eliyahu added.
Referring to the Israeli captives taken by Hamas and other Palestinian factions throughout Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, the Zionist minister said, “The lives of Israeli captives and detainees are no more valuable than the lives of soldiers, and we must recognize that warfare entails human losses.”
Yifat Biton, a Knesset member, reacted to the aforementioned comments, saying that “through his statement, a stupid minister is destroying ‘Israeli’ propaganda efforts around the world. The only way to reply is to dismiss him immediately.”
Palestinian Factions Respond
The Hamas movement perceived the Zionist minister’s statements as evidence of the enemy government’s terrorism against the Palestinians.
According to the Islamic Jihad movement, ‘Israel’ is gradually carrying out what its minister stated, and all evidence exposes the severity of their ongoing crimes.
“What the minister in the Zionist government said about dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza was not a slip of the tongue or an act contrary to reality, as the criminal Netanyahu tried to justify. Rather, it is reality itself as the thousands of tons of explosives are being dropped by the Israeli occupation forces on the Strip”, said the head of the media office in Gaza.
On Saturday evening, Israeli missiles killed dozens of Palestinians and injured hundreds, mainly women and children, in the Gaza Strip.
Media sources said the army fired missiles at a home of the Sam’an family in Al-Maghazi refugee camp, in central Gaza, killing fifty-one and wounding dozens, mainly women and children.
The sources added that the Israeli Air Force fired dozens of missiles in many neighborhoods west and north of Gaza City and fired phosphorous shells into the areas, especially the Al-Maghazi refugee camp.
The Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza said the number of casualties is much higher than confirmed as search operations under the rubble of bombarded homes and buildings were ongoing.
The Municipality of Beit Lahia, in northern Gaza, said the Israeli army has not only been bombing homes, medical centers, and various residential and commercial buildings, in addition to media facilities, but is also deliberately bombing water wells and water tanks and destroying infrastructure needed to provide basic services to the displaced families.
It said two of the bombed targets were a well and a water reservoir providing water for more than 70.000 Palestinians in the Tal Az-Za’atar area in northern Gaza, causing flooding in various surrounding homes and buildings.
Furthermore, the Israeli Air Force carried fifteen air strikes in the vicinity of the Indonesian Hospital in northern Gaza.
In addition, the Palestinians located the corpses of five Palestinians and rescued many others from the rubble of the Abu Haseera family home, which Israel bombed west of Gaza City.
At least seven Palestinians were killed, and dozens injured by Israeli missiles targeting homes in the Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza.
Also, seven Palestinians were killed and many injured by Israeli missiles that struck a home for the Mheisin family in the center of Jabalia refugee camp.
Among the Israeli bombing targets were not only homes and civilian buildings but also dozens of bakeries, water stations, fishing boats, and various infrastructure facilities and streets.
The Israeli army also bombed the main gate and yard of the An-Nasr Children’s Hospital in Gaza City, killing and wounding dozens of Palestinians, in addition to firing missiles at the Al-Quds Hospital in Tal Al-Hawa.
The Israeli army also fire many missiles at the AlAzhar University in Gaza, destroying killing, killing and wounding dozens of Palestinians.
On its part, the Al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, published videos showing their fighters targeting and destroying many Israeli tanks, including some that were detonating at point-blank range, and confirmed the death of many Israeli soldiers.
Al-Qassam added that the constant Israeli bombing on the Gaza Strip has also resulted in the killing of 60 Israelis, who were captured by the group, since October 7, and said that twenty-three of them remain buried under the rubble of bombarded buildings.
The Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza said Israeli missiles and shells have killed at least 9488, mainly women and children, and injured at least 26.000, most of them are children, women, and seniors.
The number of Palestinians who were killed by Israeli soldiers and paramilitary colonizers in the occupied West Bank is 147, in addition to more than 2200 injured.
Iran’s President Ebrahim Raeisi has highlighted the role played by Hamas in the Gaza Strip as the territory’s legitimate government, saying the war against the Palestinian resistance movement is tantamount to waging war on democracy.
During a telephone conversation with Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre on Saturday night, Raeisi welcomed Oslo’s position on the need for an immediate end to Israel’s killing of civilians in Gaza as well as international efforts to lift the siege on the coastal enclave and deliver aid to its residents.
He also expressed Iran’s readiness to cooperate with the Norwegian Justice Ministry in an investigation into the atrocities committed by Israel in Gaza, stressing that the regime’s war crimes and the US support for such criminal acts should not go unpunished.
“Hamas is the legal, elected and legitimate government of Gaza,” he said. “The war against Hamas is a war on democracy.”
Israel waged a bloody war on the blockaded Gaza Strip on October 7 after Hamas’s Operation Al-Aqsa Storm against the occupying entity.
Since the start of the aggression, the Tel Aviv regime has killed at least 9,572 Palestinians, mostly women and children, and injured more than 26,000 others.
It has also imposed a “complete siege” on the coastal sliver, cutting off fuel, electricity, food and water to the more than two million Palestinians living there.
Raeisi noted that the killing of almost 10,000 Gazans, including 4,000 children, is the result of the massive shipment of weapons and equipment by the United States to the Zionist regime.
“The fact that a child is killed in Gaza almost every 10 minutes is horrible and a clear example of crime against humanity and genocide. The disgusting silence of the US and some European countries along with their weaponry support for the Zionist regime prove the West’s double standards and its obvious partnership in the Zionists’ crimes,” he said.
The Iranian chief executive further censured the ineffectiveness of 180 UN resolutions to change Israel’s behavior.
The Islamic Republic, he added, has presented a UN-registered democratic and fair solution to the Palestinian issue based on the idea of one vote for every Palestinian.
The Norwegian premier, for his part, said his country is aware of Iran’s important and effective role in the region.
He also appreciated Tehran’s attempts to reduce regional tensions and called for interactions with the Islamic Republic toward resolving the Palestine issue.
Iran and Norway, he emphasized, can consult and cooperate through diplomatic channels to find a solution that immediately ends the fighting, lifts the Gaza siege and provides relief aid to its people.
Steven Koonin reviews the state of climate science, focusing on data trends, climate models, and the uncertainties involved. He highlights issues with climate models, including their high sensitivity and inability to accurately reproduce historical temperature changes, cautioning against relying on inaccurate model projections.
Federal law requires HHS to send bi-annual reports to Congress detailing how it has made childhood vaccines safer. Yet, HHS has never filed a single report. ICAN’s attorneys have called HHS out on this multiple times, but it continues to shamelessly flout the law.
When Congress eliminated pharmaceutical companies’ liability for vaccines in 1986, it recognized that it eliminated the fear of losing money that drives companies to assure the safety of their products. Congress, therefore, made the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the parent department of the CDC and FDA, responsible for vaccine safety.
To assure HHS is actually performing this critical duty of assuring the safety of products injected into babies, the same 1986 law that eliminated pharmaceutical company liability also created a “task force” on safer childhood vaccines. This task force, made up of the heads of the NIH, FDA, and CDC, was supposed to make recommendations to the Secretary of HHS on how to make vaccines safer. And, as noted above, the law also required the Secretary of HHS to file a report with Congress every two years detailing its efforts to improve vaccine safety.
As many of you know, ICAN previously sued HHS for failing to file these reports with Congress and it admitted in 2018 that it never once filed a single required report with Congress. It also admitted that the task force had been disbanded in 1998!
After publicly shaming them for this misconduct, including in the Vaccine Safety Debate we had with HHS, you would think HHS would start filing bi-annual reports and the task force would start making recommendations. Sadly, our attorneys have confirmed neither has happened.
While HHS has a $2.95 trillion budget, it apparently doesn’t care about safer childhood vaccines—and never has. ICAN will continue to monitor the situation and share any important updates.
See below for more instances where ICAN has confronted health agencies over vaccine safety:
Dr Norman Pieniazek is a molecular biologist, geneticist, epidemiologist with 147 publications in virology and parasitology. Before he retired, he spent 24 years working at the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA. He has also spent time abroad including time working in Spain and Poland.
We met up with Norman for what was planned to be a short meeting to introduce ourselves and informally discuss common interests around covid. However, this turned into a two-hour long, wide-ranging and fascinating discussion that touched on a huge number of topics.
Early on in the meeting Norman made the wise suggestion that we record and share the discussion. So, he hit the record button on Skype and we started again. The video, accessible below, is approximately two hours long. Be aware that, given it wasn’t planned as an ‘interview’ or for broadcast, it is largely unstructured. However, for those short of time here is a synopsis of the discussion with a focus on what Norman said1:
Pneumonia and early treatments
The bacterial pneumonia hypothesis suggests that early treatment – hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and antibiotics address bacterial infection. Norman confirmed bacteria are everywhere in our bodies including in the lungs, creating an ever-present potentially hazardous predisposition that, given the right circumstances, might cause a deadly bacterial pneumonia infection.
Well-understood remedies such as the stockpile of antibiotics, as recommended by Fauci, were cast aside in 2020. Bacterial infection can cause sepsis hence we need antibiotics. A Cytokine storm is caused by bacterial infection in the lungs, filling them with fluid; this lowers the oxygen level in the blood because of poor lung function.
In-person diagnosis by a physician based on physical symptoms was largely replaced by the PCR test, and with the rise in tele-health visits, social distancing etc physicians stopped using stethoscopes to listen to a patient’s chest. This is an essential diagnostic tool to enable a doctor to audibly tell whether a patient has crossed the line into a bacterial infection which will then require antibiotics.
NPIs and discarded organisational memory
Norman knew Donald Henderson who co-authored a classic work on how to best respond to a flu epidemic. Henderson and colleagues did not recommend any of the NPIs that were followed during covid because of the obvious severe health, social and economic costs. (As an aside this work was co-authored by Prof. Thomas Inglesby at John Hopkins who attended Event 201 and, oddly, recommended NPIs be used for covid – the very same ones he had rejected previously).
Orthodox immunology was ignored – herd immunity is a fiction given there is a ‘soup’ of constantly mutating coronaviruses.
Why didn’t scientists at the CDC question things early in 2020? Work from home restrictions meant that people at CDC couldn’t communicate and coordinate to overturn the madness being imposed from the ‘sixth floor’ top brass. You could not isolate CDC from the HHS (Health and Human Services) and it was HHS that were calling the shots.
Wuhan, bronchial lavage and PCR
The Wuhan scientists were on a routine ‘fishing expedition’ for coronaviruses and unusual pneumonias. Why was this work being done in Wuhan? It is easier to do in China because it is legal and because there are lots of hospitals, in a concentrated area, where the population is in relatively poor health. Also, it is easier to get permission to perform a painful bronchial lavage procedure on patients to obtain pathogens in China; this is much harder to do in the USA. This procedure is done in the lower respiratory tract and guarantees higher quality samples than can be obtained using swabs, which really just measure the quality of the air that has entered your upper respiratory tract.
To determine what pathogen is causing lower respiratory tract symptoms you should not use swabs and PCR. Why not? CDC acknowledges the inability of swabs to collect causative agents as reported by the EPIC study in these 2015 NEJM articles (one done on adults and one on children). Hence a positive result gained from a sample taken from the upper throat or the nose does not mean an infection is caused by the detected pathogen.
In 2002-2004 SARS-COV was not subject to mass PCR testing, yet SARS-COV-2 was. PCR was used for SARS-COV but only on samples taken using bronchial lavage, but NOT from swab samples taken from the nose or upper throat.2
Virus origins – from labs or bats or neither?
Wu et al discovered WH-Human-1 using samples collected by bronchial lavage, and next generation sequencing of the collected genetic samples, and ultimately reported it in GenBank.
Before reporting on GenBank they published a preprint identifying the genetic sequences3, which was appropriated and found its way into the hands of Corman and Drosten, who then decided to exploit it for personal gain (via commercial PCR testing), fabricating a story about validating it against SARS-1. It was subsequently renamed SARS-COV-2. (For a proposed timeline of events see here).
Norman thinks SARS-COV-2 is simply a beta coronavirus (a cold), one of the many thousands of cold viruses that had remained undiscovered until 2020, but which have always been ever present in nature.
SARS-COV-2 cannot be a novel virus created in a lab or by natural zoonotic mutation. It is simply novel to detection4. As soon as the EUA approved PCR tests started to be used the virus was simultaneously discovered in a number of disparate geographical regions. There was no evidence of sudden spread.
In effect the results of any test are as much determined by the choice of test to apply as by the presence/absence of viruses. Norman says, “you will find whatever you want to find”. Hence people will be symptomless yet will have a lot of, whatever viruses happen to be around in their nose or throat.
The established taxonomy of viruses is unusable simply because there are so many unknown viruses circulating in the wild.
Vaccines
The mRNA vaccine technology ended in a ‘garbage heap’, because it is extremely toxic, and was rendered obsolete by protein subunit vaccines by 2019. So, the mRNA vaccines were doomed from the start. Subunit (protein-based) vaccines have been known since the late 1970s, but Moderna, Pfizer and BioNTech needed a way to realise a return on their vast investments in mRNA. Hence the pandemic.
Novavax is a protein subunit vaccine, based on the spike protein, which was available in August 2020 but did not get approval from the FDA. Although it is protein based it will stay in the deltoid muscle injection site. It was however approved in Canada. It may not be very good for you (and ineffective against coronaviruses), but it is less dangerous than the mRNA vaccines.
mRNA vaccines were found to be too dangerous for animals. Also, arguments that they are a safe basis for cancer drugs are based on lies. There is a competing technology called humanised monoclonal antibodies that cured President Carter from a melanoma that had migrated to his brain and there are now 500 versions of these drugs currently available.
Norman was told that the patent on the flu vaccines, grown in eggs, expired in 2020. Hence there was little ROI in continuing with this technology.
Viruses are in your respiratory tract and antibodies, responding to vaccines, are in your blood. These two things do not match well because the antibodies in the blood do not get into the lungs. The immune system ‘stays away’ from the complex respiratory system that deals with the thousands of pathogens we breathe in with every breath.
Antibody and antigen testing
Are serology studies a pointless exercise? Because of wide variation between individual’s antibody measurement only makes sense by studying change in any single individual over time.
Testing for antibodies means nothing because antibodies in the blood cannot travel to the lungs to react.
Testing for antigens is a cheaper and less sensitive version of the PCR test with the same limitation.
Infectious clones and bioweapons
Norman is very sceptical of a number of covid virus theories including those by Walter Chesnut and JJCoey’s infectious clone theory, though they weren’t discussed in any great detail and were probably not characterised fully (or maybe even fairly).
The issue with ‘infectious clones’ is that ‘you do not know what to create’ because there are millions of sequences of coronavirus so there is no ‘clonality’ and each one has 30 thousand nucleotides and there are combinatorically infinite changes you could potentially need to consider when creating a coronavirus5. It therefore isn’t possible to know what to change, via Gain of Function (GoF), to make the virus behave in more dangerous ways.
As part of the ‘partnership for peace’ programme in 1994 Norman hired two ex-Soviet bioweapons scientists and asked them ‘how come you worked for 20 years and didn’t create any new deadly viruses?’
They can create thousands of virus combinations, but the problem is how to test these creations. There is no way to test the billions and billions of possible changes to a virus and identify which changes to the sequence are ‘bad’. You need the phenotype, and you cannot deduce the phenotype from the genotype. So how would GoF researchers – E.g., EcoHealth alliance – know exactly what to create?
The claim that Saddam Hussian had biological weapons was groundless and this was confirmed to Norman by Donald Henderson who was involved at the time and who said it was not possible.
Thus, GoF claims that changes to spike protein and furin cleavage sites make a virus more deadly are fiction. It isn’t possible and there is no proof they can produce deadly bioweapons. Those advocating this position and making these claims – EcoHealth alliance (Fauci, Baric and Duszak) should get fired by their bosses for producing “not a tiger but a kitty”.
We discussed Gulf War syndrome. Norman said people imagine anthrax is dangerous, but the ex-Soviet bioweapons researchers said to attack New York with anthrax would need 20,000 Boeing 747s flying over the city, dropping millions of tons of anthrax spores from a low height then people spreading it with shovels. The only way to infect people with anthrax is by direct means via an oxygen line or a direct injection.
Norman said the Tokyo gas attack was successful in Japan because the terrorist used sarin, a nerve agent. The biological agents used, botulinum and anthrax, fortunately failed.
Fauci – the ‘mean midget’
Within the CDC Fauci was called the ‘mean midget’ and during the AIDS epidemic he sunk Robert Gallo by inventing the story that Gallo had stolen the HIV virus from Luc Montagnier, thus destroying Gallo’s chances of being awarded the Nobel prize (he was also denied a patent).
Fauci is “not stupid, he is mean”. Fauci wanted to get a Nobel prize, but he didn’t get a Nobel prize for AIDS, so he wanted it for the Wuhan virus. In January 2023 knowing that he wasn’t going to get the Nobel prize he “pulled the plug” and published this paper saying new types of vaccines are needed for respiratory infections, as an act of spite.
We learned a lot from Norman and are very grateful to him for giving us his valuable time. You will notice that we briefly discussed the vaccines, but you will be very pleased to hear that Norman has agreed to follow up with another meeting in early December to share his thoughts on this important topic (see here for a sneak peek)
You can access Norman’s other material on YouTube and Facebook (much of his material is in Polish and Norman speaks six languages!) His twitter handle is @normanpie.
1 Note that this synopsis is not a verbatim and true transcription of the conversation.
2 This document presents evidence PCR was used to collect samples, but no mass testing was undertaken.
3 Submitted (05-JAN-2020) Department of Zoonoses, National Institute of Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The first submission to GenBank had two subsequent revisions.
4 The supposed ‘novel and deadly’ attributes of the virus are discussed extensively here.
5 See this paper. “Mammals are the reservoir hosts of the majority of emerging zoonoses (2, 3, 18). If we assume that all 5,486 described mammalian species (19) harbor an average of 58 viruses in the nine families of interest (as estimated here in P. giganteus) and that these viruses exhibit 100% host specificity, the total richness of mammalian viruses awaiting discovery exceeds ~320,000.”
Israeli ambassador Dana Erlich “should no longer enjoy diplomatic status in Ireland,” Sinn Fein party leader Mary Lou McDonald said on Friday. McDonald’s party, which has deep historical ties to the Palestinian cause, has repeatedly condemned Israel’s bombardment of Gaza.
“[The Israel Defence Forces] are engaged in a ferocious military offensive against a civilian population; breaking international law by targeting civilians, destroying civilian infrastructure, forcing mass population displacement and cutting off vital supplies of water, food, medicines and fuel,” McDonald told reporters.
Erlich’s presence in Ireland has become “untenable,” McDonald continued, adding that the ambassador should “no longer enjoy diplomatic status in Ireland while Israel refuses the imperative for ceasefires and as the suffering and death toll grow.”
Earlier on Friday, McDonald discussed the conflict with diplomats from Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Israel’s embassy in Dublin criticized the Sinn Fein leader for not inviting Erlich to the meeting, accusing her of “only [seeking] to isolate Israel, rather than offer a forum for constructive engagement.”
“To exclude Israel from such a forum is quite telling of Sinn Fein’s position on the conflict,” the embassy said in a statement.
Sinn Fein is Ireland’s most popular political party, with a 13-point lead on its closest rival, the centrist Fine Gael. Sinn Fein is excluded from power, however, by a coalition agreement between Fine Gael and historical rivals Fianna Fail, as well as the Green Party.
As the former political wing of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Sinn Fein’s support for the Palestinian cause is long-standing. The party’s supporters, particularly in Northern Ireland, view their own struggle against British colonialism as analogous to the Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation. While the IRA has laid down its arms, Sinn Fein has remained in contact with Hamas; former party leader Gerry Adams met with Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza in 2009, while McDonald hosted an online conference with the militant group’s foreign relations head, Dr Basem Naim, in 2020.
Sinn Fein “will never rule out meeting or talking to anybody, because that doesn’t serve any purpose” in securing peace in the Middle East, the party’s foreign affairs spokesman, Matt Carthy, said last month.
Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar has adopted a more neutral stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict, declaring on Friday that Israel “has a right to defend itself [and] has the right to go after Hamas, so they can not do this again.” Varadkar also condemned Israel’s response to Hamas’ October 7 attack, stating that it “isn’t just self-defense, it resembles something more approaching revenge.”
Ireland voted last month for a UN resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and opposed a now-scrapped EU plan to suspend aid payments to the enclave. However, Varadkar told reporters on Friday that he is “not sure [the Israelis] listen very closely to what we have to say, quite frankly.”
Mainstream media and official government commentary on the violence in Gaza appears to have acquired a certain rhythm to make sure that everyone understands that it is the poor Israelis who are the real victims being assailed by a group called Hamas that is invariably labeled as “terrorists.” It is absolutely obligatory in the first paragraph of an article on developments in the fighting to remind the reader that on October 7th the “terrorist” group Hamas “invaded” Israel and killed 1,400 peace loving Israelis, taking 200 additional Israelis as hostages. Israel is described as “retaliating” and it is frequently seen as relevant to state that it was the most dreadful mass killing of Jews since the alleged “holocaust.” To add a bit of current cultural and historic relevance, “9/11” and “Pearl Harbor” are often also cited to suggest that it was a both a surprise attack and a game changer in terms of how Israel now sees the external threat and will have to harden its national security imperatives. And there might even be inserted a comment from Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi or Senator Chuck Schumer that “Israel has a right to defend itself!” Joe Biden was also quoted as saying it was 15 “9/11”s for Israel given the comparative size and populations of the US and the Jewish state, emphasizing the enormity of the tragedy.
And that’s just in the first paragraph to make sure that the reader gets his or her mind right. The second paragraph is the really important contribution to the discussion, raising the issue of “surging antisemitism” in the United States and Europe, frequently including a quote from the relentless Jonathan Greenblatt of the redoubtable and widely feared Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Greenblatt is cited frequently, often intoning something along the lines of “There is a growing, radical movement on many campuses in which opposition to Israel and Zionism is required to be fully accepted, effectively marginalizing campus Jewish communities.” The intention of raising the antisemitism issue is to lead the reader away from any possible perception that an apartheid Israel was attacked because of its exceptionally brutal behavior towards the Palestinians over the past 76 years and was instead a victim of vicious terrorists who did what they did largely because they hate Jews. In that fashion, the possible issue of Israeli responsibility for what occurred goes away and Benjamin Netanyahu and his fanatical and racist colleagues Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir get a pass to do whatever they want to solve their Arab problem. Both men have expressed their dream of an Israel without any Palestinians, whom they regard as not quite acceptably human, and have endorsed shoot to kill authority for policemen and soldiers who are confronted by any Arab demonstrators. More than 100 Palestinians have already been killed on the West Bank by armed settlers, police and soldiers who will not be held accountable for the murders while there have also been hundreds of arrests of protesters.
In America Fox News has been a leader in pumping out the interviews and reports suggesting that America’s Jewish students are so terrified by the threats implicit and explicit in the antisemitic rage that is manifest on college campuses and elsewhere that they have stopped eating at the university kosher dining halls lest they become the targets of a madman. And there are the inevitable calls to completely ban gatherings expressing sympathy with the Palestinians or even waving or displaying Palestine’s flag. The moaning about surging antisemitism is indeed all over the mainstream media even though there are quite a few things wrong with the narrative about Israel-Palestine and the events on October 7th and subsequently. In short, the American and European public are being subjected to the usual con job when it comes to anything having to do with Israel. And the propagandization is certainly also given additional effectiveness when it is repeated by senior politicians coming from both parties with a unanimous Senate vote of 97-0 and a House of Representatives vote of 412 to 10 on resolutions pledging unconditional and total support for Israel and whatever it chooses to do, backed up by two US carrier groups plus Marines standing by in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Colleges and universities have been particularly targeted by Israel’s many friends, with mostly Jewish alumni holding back donations from those schools that do not explicitly denounce Hamas and praise Israeli “restraint” or that permit demonstrations by students supporting Gaza. Students who sign on to protests about what is being done to the Palestinians are being identified and placed on lists that will be submitted to potential future employers and universities to make it more difficult for them to get good jobs or secure academic appointments and fellowships. Ambitious politicians out to endear themselves to Jewish campaign donors and voters, like Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, have gone to extremes, banning Palestinian political groups at state universities and considering prosecution of members of such organizations for “hate crimes” as they are automatically being regarded as motivated by “antisemitism.” DeSantis has also vowed that his state will not accept any Palestinian refugees, though it is not clear how he would enforce that, basing his decision on his judgment that they are “all antisemites,” and Florida has recently purchased $135 million’s worth of so-called Israel Bonds to help in the Jewish state’s war effort. Senator Lindsey Graham has said that there should be “no limit” on Israelis killing Palestinians while Donald Trump has called for all Palestinian students in the US to be deported. It is just one more example of how low and even inhumane our politics have become when Israel is in any way involved, but it is also interesting to note that several European countries and Israel itself are also silencing critics of the Gaza massacres, in some cases by firing them from their jobs.
Part of the problem is that the narrative of what took place on October 7th and subsequently has been so spun by the media and talking heads that it continues to be somewhat unclear regarding what actually happened. The Israelis have persistently claimed that 1,405 Jews and Asian farm workers were killed by Hamas, 386 of whom were apparently soldiers. But how they died is where the tale goes adrift. Israeli survivors of the attack have told journalists that they were treated well when captured by Hamas and that the real killing began when Israeli Army units including tanks, artillery and helicopters counter-attacked Hamas, creating a brutal cross fire referred to in the trade as “friendly fire” which killed many if not most of the civilians. Houses in one kibbutz, where civilians were sheltering, were largely destroyed by fire from heavy weapons, which Hamas did not possess.
What we now also know from a growing body of evidence obtained from the Israeli media and eyewitnesses is that the Israeli military appear to have been overwhelmed by the day’s events. The reaction may have triggered an apparently long-standing policy referred to as the “Hannibal procedure” that seeks to prevent Israeli soldiers from being taken captive due to the high price the Israeli public insists on paying to make sure that the soldier-prisoners are returned. As a result, the military command has authorization to order Israeli troops to kill fellow soldiers rather than allow them to be taken prisoner. For the same reason, Hamas expends a great deal of energy in trying to find innovative ways to seize soldiers.
The possible reality that the Israeli military killed many of its own soldiers and civilians is, of course, being suppressed in the mainstream and by politicians eager to assist Israel in the Gazan genocide, but it is nevertheless out there. There is, however, another part of the story that is devastating in terms of its implications, and that is the immediate response to the crisis by offering to send Israel $14.5 billion to help in its defense, an incomprehensibly large figure that appears to have been pulled out of some lobbyist’s behind, which translates to performing genocide in Gaza and committing a host of war crimes along the way. The tribute payments, as some have described it, was approved by a party-line 226-196 vote in Congress last Thursday. The vote would have been closer to unanimous but for a partisan dispute over the funding of the measure. If Joe Biden and Congress are not aware that genocide is a big time crime against humanity as defined by the United Nations charter and by the Geneva Conventions and most international lawyers would agree that arming and funding an organization or state that is exterminating a nation or identifiable ethnicity is complicity or even participation in the crime.
Biden and Blinken may not have any idea of how much money Israel gets from the American taxpayer at all levels of government in a year beyond the $3.8 billion per year that it gets in direct “military assistance,” a gift from Barack Obama. Additional money flows from joint military projects, through dubious charities and via state and even local level development boards that bring the total up to roughly $10 billion. That contributes to making Israel a wealthy country which can afford to give its Jewish citizens free health care and college education as well as subsidized housing and it does not need additional US support to fight its wars.
And, by the way, that brings us to the final issue, Israel’s secret nuclear program which certainly should be of concern to US policymakers confronted by an exploding conflict that could engulf the entire Middle East and even spread beyond that area. The fact that Israel uniquely has the nukes in the region, numbering more than 200 by some estimates, is significant. In the United States government there exists a so-called “legislative rule” that no federal employee can confirm that Israel has nuclear weapons. The rule is ridiculous as the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal is well attested, including by Colin Powell, who once confirmed that “Israel had over 200 nuclear weapons pointed at Iran.” Powell made the statement when he was out of office but even prominent Israel-firster Senator Chuck Schumer has confirmed the existence of the arsenal.
The reason for acute sensitivity by the Israel Lobby and its bought-and-paid-for politicians over its nukes is the Symington Amendment in Section 101 of the US Arms Export Control Act of 1976 which bans foreign aid to any country that has nuclear weapons and has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Which means that Israel’s annual $3.8 billion in aid would be in jeopardy if Washington were to enforce its own laws, though one cannot imagine that President Joe Biden or the Attorney General Merrick Garland, both fervent Zionists, will take the necessary steps to do so.
Another sticky bit of law consists of the so-called Leahy Amendments, which prohibit the US Department of State and Department of Defense from providing military assistance to foreign security force units that violate human rights “with impunity.” Israel’s numerous brutal assaults on Gaza, including the current one in which it is targeting hospitals and churches, bombing and killing helpless civilians, half of whom are children, is a textbook case for when the Leahy Amendments should be applied, but, of course, they never will be. That reality illustrates once again the actual political power of the Jewish Lobby in the United States backed up as it is by Christian Zionists like the new Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.
Finally, one must take a look at the Israeli nuclear arsenal itself coupled with the country’s reckless and aggressive leadership and what that represents, a subject that no one currently is even considered as a factor in what the expanding Gaza war might lead to. Twenty years ago, when the United States President George W. Bush initiated his disastrous neocon devised “war on terror” Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon saw the war as an opportunity and Israel as a major beneficiary, poised as it was to draw the US into the much-desired attack against Iran coupled with a renewed drive to terrorize the remaining Palestinians into fleeing into the neighboring Arab states. Israel clearly intended its nuclear capability to be used against its neighbors if needed, as described in the 1991 book by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, entitled The Samson Option. The book’s title refers to the Israeli government’s nuclear strategy whereby Israel would launch a massive nuclear retaliatory strike if the state itself was under threat from outside forces and was in danger of being overrun, just as the Biblical figure Samson pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and the thousands of Philistines who had gathered to see him humiliated. One of Hersh’s sources in the Israel intelligence service reportedly told him “We can still remember the smell of Auschwitz and Treblinka. Next time we’ll take all of you with us.”
When Sharon was queried about how the rest of the world might respond to Israel using its nukes to effectively wipe out its Arab neighbors, he responded “That depends on who does it and how quickly it happens. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’ I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”
So, there we are, poised on the edge of what might plausibly be the second avoidable nuclear war mishandled by Joe Biden and the muttonheads that he has chosen to “advise” him. Colonel Douglas Macgregor is rightly referring to the exploding crisis that contains a nuclear threat as an “Armageddon War.” Few Americans know that Israel only has nuclear weapons because it stole the enriched uranium and triggers from the United States with the cooperation of a Jewish industrialist Zalman Shapiro, owner of the NUMEC plant in Pennsylvania and a Jewish-Israeli Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan, neither of whom has ever been seriously held accountable by the US government. So, we have an Israel with a secret nuclear arsenal that no American official can even mention and that it currently is at “war” and is in theory prepared to use the weapons, most likely against an arch-enemy like Iran, but if threatened, to “take the world down.” As for the mostly silent majority of us Americans who would like to see a government that actually tries to do good for the people who live here and pay taxes, having a world at peace where Washington leaves everyone alone and is in return left alone by others, is an aspiration whose time seemingly has expired.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
The volcanic mineral medicine will not patent — for the toxic burden medicine will not name
Lies are Unbekoming – October 30, 2026
Zeolite is old. It is in Roman concrete that has held for two thousand years. It’s in the water filters of ancient cisterns. It’s in the stomachs of Pacific livestock whose keepers knew, somehow, that this grey crumbling rock made the animals healthier. It’s in Soviet clinical protocols from the 1960s. It’s in the standard emergency response to the Chernobyl explosion.
In 1986, after the Chernobyl reactor failure, the Soviet Union manufactured and distributed natural zeolite at industrial scale — for soil remediation, for livestock feed, for human consumption, for the cleanup itself. Karl Hecht, who had been director of the Institute for Experimental and Clinical Pathophysiology at the Charité of Humboldt University Berlin, spent the six decades after that building the clinical research base — on silicon’s role in human health, on zeolite’s clinical safety, on its applications in ageing. In 2018, Pavelić and colleagues published a comprehensive clinical safety review of natural clinoptilolite in Frontiers in Pharmacology. In 2019, Mastinu analysed its binding affinities. In the Western medical literature, these works sit largely uncited.
What has not been treated at book length, until now, is how a volcanic mineral with six decades of Soviet clinical work behind it, two major peer-reviewed Western reviews, and ongoing clinical use across the former Eastern Bloc, remains almost entirely absent from Western medical practice — and what the toxic burden it’s meant to address actually is.
The Zeolite Book gathers the Soviet clinical record, the Western peer-reviewed studies, three contemporary practitioner voices, and three serious counterviews into one honest treatment. That’s why the book runs to seven appendices. 288 pages, four parts, three practitioner voices, three counterviews, seven appendices. The honest treatment is the argument.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Zeolite is old. It is in Roman concrete that has held for two thousand years. It’s in the water filters of ancient cisterns. It’s in the stomachs of Pacific livestock whose keepers knew, somehow, that this grey crumbling rock made the animals healthier. It’s in Soviet clinical protocols from the 1960s. It’s in the standard emergency response to the Chernobyl explosion.
Aletho News
