As I write on January 1, 2021, the new year is not starting very auspiciously. Ominous pronouncements are coming from the usual high places and their media mouthpieces, announcing “highly contagious virus variants” of so-called Covid-19.
Joseph Biden has warned of a very Dark Winter to come. His use of that term Dark Winter has been echoed by officials everywhere adept at reading the talking points handed to them. The echo chamber is resounding with dark warnings. Anthony Fauci and the CDC are predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths this month alone. These officials are now saying the vaccines they are rolling out will take time; will not eliminate the virus, etc. Hedging their bets as they announce utter disaster to come, rather like a fire and brimstone warning from Jonathan Edwards for the sins of celebrating festive times. Guess who will be blamed? Grim projections are following the holidays like buzzards to a dead carcass. Just follow the mainstream corporate media news headlines to confirm this. You don’t need any linked directions from me.
I prefer to be brief so you can read about the incredibly important 2014 book by Graeme MacQueen, The 2007 Anthrax Deception. Then read his book. His analysis of the anthrax attacks tied to 9/11 sheds important light on the current corona virus crisis.
Also, listen to this new video – before it is disappeared – with Heiko Schöning speaking about the 2001 anthrax deceptions and those being perpetrated today. Schöning is a German doctor and one of the world-wide leaders fighting to expose the truth about COVID-19 and the World Economic Forum’ “Great Reset.”
The new film Seven (trailer above), directed by Dylan Avery, examines the story of the scientific study of World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) recently published by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The study was led by structural engineering professor J. Leroy Hulsey and took nearly five years to complete. It evaluated the possibilities for destruction of WTC 7 using two versions of high-tech computer software that simulated the structural components of the building and the forces that acted upon it on September 11th.
After inputting worst case conditions, and painstakingly eliminating what didn’t happen, Hulsey and his team of engineers came to the following conclusions.
“The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.”
These peer-reviewed conclusions directly contradict the findings of the U.S. government’s final investigation into WTC 7 as reported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Seven documents the journey of Professor Hulsey and his team from their introduction to the subject and the related evidence to the final publication of their report in March of this year. It is an interesting story and important for several reasons. First, it shows what an objective group of engineering science professionals will find if they look closely at the destruction of WTC 7. Additionally, it provides a great example of what one concerned citizen can do to make a great difference in shedding light on the truth of the events of September 11, 2001.
The concerned citizen, who was barely mentioned in the film, is John Thiel, a nurse anesthetist from Alaska. In 2010, Thiel began a 3-year process of looking for an engineer to conduct an honest scientific investigation into the destruction of WTC 7. Thiel was not a structural engineer, but he knew that the official reports on the destruction of that building were false and he wanted to do something about it. Ten years later, after contacting 150 engineers, finally finding and gaining Hulsey’s commitment to do it, and persuading Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to get involved, Thiel’s persistence paid off.
Seven also features comments from some brave engineers who have spoken out in the past about WTC 7. This includes fire protection engineer Scott Grainger, structural engineer Kamal Obeid, civil engineer and AE911Truth board director Roland Angle, and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti. All these men make powerful statements in the film about NIST’s failures and omission of evidence.
The film reviews much of the evidence and how it was treated by the initial ASCE/FEMA building performance study and by NIST. It discusses circumstantial evidence including the suspicious tenants of WTC 7 (e.g. the CIA, the Secret Service, the DOD, and the SEC) and foreknowledge about the collapse of the building. It reviews the inexplicable “predictions” of WTC 7’s collapse by media giants CNN and BBC, both of which reported the collapse before it actually happened.
However, the strength of the film is in exposing the viewer to scientific facts and evidence as described by credible experts like Hulsey, Angle, Grainger, Obeid, and Szamboti. This includes the samples of steel exhibiting intergranular melting and sulfidation that the New York Times originally called “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation” but that were ignored in the NIST reports. It includes the fact that no tall building had ever collapse primarily from fire and that the fires in WTC 7 were ordinary and were fed by only 20-minutes of fire load in any given area. The film also highlights concerns about the lack of scientific integrity in NIST’s manipulation of model parameters like the coefficient of expansion of steel and the omission of shear studs on the WTC 7 floor assemblies.
The film is only 45 minutes long and focuses largely on the evidence related to Hulsey’s study. It does not include some facts and evidence about WTC 7 that have been pointed out in the past. For example, it does not detail NIST’s history of failed hypotheses, like the diesel fuel tank hypothesis or the claim that the design of the building contributed to the collapse. It also doesn’t mention that the new WTC 7 was completed in 2006, when NIST was stating it had no idea what happened to the first one.
In the film, Professor Hulsey comes across as very credible and driven by the desire for an objective approach that gives the public an understanding of what happened to WTC 7. His comments about building his study on a clear palate, using pure science, ring true. Avery tells Hulsey’s story simply, without engulfing the viewer in unanswered questions.
Overall, Seven is an excellent presentation for people with a scientific mindset. As John Thiel wrote to me, “Any engineer or scientist with a basic understanding of physics, who does not suffer from cognitive dissonance, should easily be convinced of the truth after watching this video.” I agree.
If people want to help reveal the truth about WTC 7, and therefore about 9/11, they should share this film with every scientist and engineer they know. It is available on multiple streaming platforms, including Amazon Prime, iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, and Microsoft. As a society, our understanding of the crimes of 9/11 continues to be crucial to our understanding of what is going on today.
Social engineers are pushing tiny 200-sq-ft Ikea houses as the solution to climate change in another example of how our living standards are set to be lowered.
In an article entitled ‘Ikea tiny homes can help fight climate change by giving small footprints a big toehold’, Carl Pope, former head of the Sierra Club, gushes over the micro-homes (basically trailers) that sell for $47,550.
“Housing is an important source of climate pollution — directly responsible for about 5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States plus their electricity. Given Ikea’s emphasis on recycled and reusable materials, the company seems likely to accelerate some important shifts in the housing market. Ikea will also almost certainly take advantage of what it learns in the “tiny” segment of the building market to establish a foothold in the broader, potentially highly green, manufactured building space,” writes Pope.
While solar panels would struggle to heat larger homes, this isn’t an issue for the tiny homes, so long as you’re content living in a box.
“The use of rooftop solar panels to generate power and the replacement of propane heating with a heat pump run by those solar panels is likely to become the standard in many states for manufactured homes,” he adds. “They will gravitate toward all-electric mobile homes because propane is a significant factor in the threat of fires to mobile home parks.”
“When utopia is achieved, we will be forced to live in tiny playhouses — for our own good, because living in a rabbit hutch will improve the weather,” writes Dave Blount.
“Winter could mean praying for sunny weather so that the heat comes on. That way we will be cozy and snug when we are placed under house arrest the next time a virus comes around.”
Houses are now becoming so unaffordable for debt-stricken millennials that young people are also now literally living in decorated sewer pipes.
They’re called OPod Tube Houses and literally consist of reclaimed bits of industrial piping renovated inside with other left over pieces from building sites to make them into micro apartments.
As we previously highlighted, last year CNN promoted the idea of young people living in ‘pods’ in the center of huge cities where they have no privacy.
Reports are streaming in, declaring a Dark Winter for the world due to COVID19. The media rushes to tell the public that case numbers are on the rise again. In response, case numbers are used to support calls for lockdowns, travel and dining restrictions, and the push for compulsory vaccines.
However, in recent months an abundance of evidence has shown that the “gold standard” procedure for detecting COVID-19 is unreliable and could be producing untold numbers of false positives. If this is the case, why are health officials around the world calling for more tests?
This report is a brief look into the history of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure and the evidence that PCR is unreliable and should not be used as a determinant for the number of COVID-19 cases or as a factor in political decisions. Please share with friends and family to keep them informed, and if someone shared this with you, please watch with an open mind.
The PCR Deception
In the months since the COVID-19 panic began health authorities around the world have encouraged the public to “get tested” to help track the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the strain of coronavirus that causes COVID19. However, as fear and hysteria subside, the scientific community and public at large are calling into question the efficacy of the test used to determine a patients status.
The main test that is used to determine an individual status involves the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. This incredibly sensitive technique was developed by Berkeley scientist Kary Mullis, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1993. The PCR method amplifies a small segment of DNA hundreds of times to make it easier to analyze. For COVID19, a process known as Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is used to detect SARS-CoV-2 by amplifying the virus’ genetic material so it can be detected by scientists.
PCR is sometimes described as a technique or process, but for simplicity we will refer to it as a test. PCR is viewed as the gold standard, however, it is not without problems. PCR amplifies a virus’s genetic material and then each sample goes through a number of cycles until a virus is recovered. This is known as the “cycle threshold” and has become a key component in the debate around the efficacy of the PCR test.
In late August 2020, I attended a press conference in Houston, Texas to ask Houston Health Authority Dr. David Persse about concerns about PCR.
Dr. Persse says that when the labs report numbers of COVID-19 cases to the City of Houston they only offer a binary option of “yes” for positive or “no” for negative. “But, in reality, it comes in what is called cycle-thresholds. It’s an inverse relationship, so the higher the number the less virus there was in the initial sample,” Persse explained. “Some labs will report out to 40 cycle-thresholds, and if they get a positive at 40 – which means there is a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of virus there – that gets reported to us as positive and we don’t know any different.”
Persse noted that the key question is, at what value is someone considered still infectious?
“Because if you test me and I have a tiny amount of virus, does that mean I am contagious? that I am still infectious to someone else? If you are shedding a little bit of virus are you just starting? or are you on the downside?.”
He believes the answer is for the scientific community to set a national standard for cycle-threshold. Unfortunately, a national standard would not solve the problems expressed by Dr. Persse.
UK Parliament and Scientists Have Concerns About PCR Test
In the first weeks of September 2020 a number of important revelations regarding PCR came to light. First, new research from the University of Oxford’s Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and the University of the West of England found that the PCR test poses the potential for false positives when testing for COVID-19. Professor Carl Heneghan, one of the authors of the study said there was a risk that an increase in testing in the UK will lead to an increase in the risk of “sample contamination” and thus an increase in COVID-19 cases.
The team reviewed evidence from 25 studies where virus specimens had positive PCR tests. The researchers state that the “genetic photocopying” technique scientists use to magnify the sample of genetic material collected is so sensitive it could be picking up fragments of dead virus from previous infections. The researchers reach a similar conclusion as Dr. David Persse, specifically they state:
“A binary Yes/No approach to the interpretation RT-PCR unvalidated against viral culture will result in false positives with segregation of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious and hence not a threat to public health.”
Heneghan, who is also the the editor of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, told the BBC that the binary approach is a problem and tests should have a cut-off point so small amounts of virus do not lead to a positive result. This is because of the cycle threshold mentioned by Dr. Persse. A person who is shedding an active virus and someone who has leftover infection could both receive the same positive test result. Heneghan also stated that the test could be detecting old virus which would explain the rise in cases in the UK and said setting a standard for the cycle threshold would eliminate the quarantining and contact tracing of people who are healthy and help the public better understand the true nature of COVID-19.
Shortly after Heneghan’s criticisms the UK’s leading health agency, Public Health England, released an update on the testing methods used to detect COVID-19 and appeared to agree with Professor Heneghan regarding the concerns on the cycle threshold. On September 9, 2020, PHE released an update which concluded, “all laboratories should determine the threshold for a positive result at the limit of detection.”
This is not the first time Heneghan’s work has directly impacted the UK’s COVID-19 policies. In July 2020, UK health secretary Matt Hancock called for an “urgent review” of the daily COVID-19 death numbers produced by Public Health England after it was revealed the stats included people who died from other causes. The Guardian reported that Professor Heneghan and a fellow scientist released a paper showing that if someone dies after having tested positive for COVID-19, their death is recorded in the COVID-19 death statistics. A source in the Department of Health and Social Care told The Guadian, “You could have been tested positive in February, have no symptoms, then hit by a bus in July and you’d be recorded as a COVID death.’”
Heneghan also recently told the BMJ , “one issue in trying to interpret numbers of detected cases is that there is no set definition of a case. At the moment it seems that a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive result is the only criterion required for a case to be recognised.”
“In any other disease we would have a clearly defined specification that would usually involve signs, symptoms, and a test result. We are moving into a biotech world where the norms of clinical reasoning are going out of the window. A PCR test does not equal covid-19; it should not, but in some definitions it does.”
Heneghan says he is concerned that as soon as there is the appearance of an outbreak there is panic and over-reacting. “This is a huge problem because politicians are operating in a non-evidence-based way when it comes to non-drug interventions,” he stated.
Heneghan is correct that the scientific authorities ought to take false positives seriously, especially when a person can be sent to isolate or quarantine for weeks due to a positive test result. Even the U.S. FDA’s own fact sheet on testing acknowledges the dangers posed by false positives:
“ in the event of a false positive result, risks to patients could include the following: a recommendation for isolation of the patient…. unnecessary prescription of a treatment or therapy, or other unintended adverse effects.”
A CDC fact sheet also acknowledges the possibility of false positives with the PCR test.
Professor Heneghan believes the confusion around COVID-19 has come as a result of a shift away from “evidence-based medicine.” In a recent opinion piece published at The Spectator, Heneghan wrote that patients have become a “prisoner of a system labelling him or her as ‘positive’ when we are not sure what that label means.” He warns:
“Governments are producing a series of contradictory and confusing policies which have a brief shelf life as the next crisis emerges. It is increasingly clear the evidence is often ignored. Keeping up to date is a full time occupation.”
More evidence for the unreliability of PCR came on November 11, 2020, when the Lisbon Court of Appeal ruled that PCR ““in view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
The decision relates to an appeal by the Regional Health Administration of the Azores,Portugal which forced four German citizens to comply with a 14 day quarantine in a hotel room. After the four citizens appealed the decision, the panel of judges concluded that “the number of cycles of such amplification results in a greater or lesser reliability of such tests. And the problem is that this reliability shows itself, in terms of scientific evidence (…) as more than debatable.”
The ruling was criticized by some scientists in Portugal and has been completely ignored by the United States media and politcians.
More recently, On December 3, 2020, the Florida Department of Health announced a new update requiring all laboratories conducting COVID-19 tests to record new details for the PCR test.
The update notes that all Florida “laboratories are subject to mandatory reporting to the Florida Department of Health (FDOH),” including for “PCR, other RNA, antigen and antibody results.” The update adds new requirements for the PCR test, asking labs to record the “cycle threshold” (CT) values for the process. The FDOH document states:
“Cycle threshold (CT) values and their reference ranges, as applicable, must be reported by laboratories to FDOH via electronic laboratory reporting or by fax immediately.”
On December 14, the World Health Organization (WHO) posted a notice on their website warning that PCR may not be entirely accurate for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The WHO memo admits that using too high of a cycle threshold will likely result in false positives.
“Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result.”
“The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.”
The fact that the Florida Department of Health and the WHO is taking this step is another sign that an increasing number of health professionals and regulators are questioning the accuracy of PCR. Unfortunately, both of these stories have been ignored by the mainstream media.
As noted earlier, this incredibly sensitive technique was developed by Berkeley scientist Kary Mullis, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1993. By the mid-90’s, Mullis had become skeptical that PCR was able to detect HIV and made several statements towards the end of his life indicating that he believed the technique was being improperly used by researchers.
As we approach 2021 the public is being told that a Dark Winter is waiting, with governments and media predicting a rise in cases and deaths. However, it’s important that we pause to acknowledge the many concerns surrounding the PCR test before international health authorities crash the economy, send millions into poverty, and threaten civil liberties. We must help the public understand the limitations of the PCR test and the dangers of resting public health policy on such a flawed process.
Finally, we must also hold accountable those who continue to promote PCR and refuse to answer these questions or even acknowledge these concerns. We cannot ignore the disastrous results produced by policymakers who failed to heed warnings about PCR.
Traditional medicine has become “symptom relief” as opposed to reversing disease and aging and patients have increasingly become profit centers for mainstream doctors. The pathology of medicine is “what do I do when I’m sick?” instead of “what can I do to stay healthy?”
In fact, one of the leading causes of death in the United States is iatrogenic medicine – which is illness caused by medical treatment!
Join Dr. Hotze and his guest Gary Null, PhD. as they discuss his book “Death by Medicine” and numerous other topics including the overuse of prescription drugs and the neurotoxicity of vaccines.
Today’s HuffPost happily proclaimed that once more President Trump had been proven by science to be wrong, this time about his support for the use of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment the coronavirus that is afflicting the world. Here is the HuffPost Morning Mail as it appeared in my inbox this morning:
HuffPost – TOP STORIES – Wednesday, April 22
NO BENEFIT AND MORE DEATHS FROM TRUMP MIRACLE DRUG
A malaria drug repeatedly touted by President Donald Trump for treating the coronavirus showed no benefit in a large analysis of its use in U.S. veterans hospitals. There were more deaths among those given hydroxychloroquine versus standard care, researchers reported. With 368 patients, the study is the largest look so far of hydroxychloroquine with or without the antibiotic azithromycin. [AP]
The HuffPost mailing and AP article they published are a clear demonstration that some progressives would rather see patients die than acknowledge that the President might be right about something. But more serious issues about the misuse of science are involved.
I have been evaluating drug studies in depth since the early 1990s when a federal judge in Indiana confirmed my appointment as the single medical expert to develop the scientific basis for all the more than 150 combined product liability suits against Eli Lilly & Co for its allegedly fraudulent testing and development of Prozac. The suits claimed that Prozac was causing violence, suicide and mayhem. As we demonstrated in our book, Talking Back to Prozac, the research used by Eli Lilly to get FDA approval was junk science; but it was pure gold compared to the research that claims to debunk Trump’s support of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID–19.
The study can be found here, along with often cogent criticism of it at the end.
My reanalysis of the skewed data used for the study raises a strong possibility that hydroxychloroquine by itself and in combination with azithromycin (the Z-pack) was saving lives. Yes, the drugs could have been saving lives in this study and are probably continuing to do so around the world.
How is it possible that a study which claims to show that a drug which supposedly caused an excessive death rate might instead have proven that the drug was saving lives? Because the patients getting the treatment with hydroxychloroquine were much more ill—much nearer to death and much more likely to die—than the patients who did not receive the drug.
Federal government approval for hydroxychloroquine was only “authorized” for “emergency use.” In line with this, President Trump has repeatedly said, in effect, “If people are going to die anyway, why not try it?” That is also what the FDA essentially approved it for—people in an “emergency” condition. Although the guideline does not define emergency use, it would certainly rule out using it routinely and probably not at all for patients who were not deathly ill.
The study itself recognizes this flaw far into their discussion (p. 12):
Baseline demographic and comorbidity characteristics were comparable across the three treatment groups. However, hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, was more likely to be prescribed to patients with more severe disease, as assessed by baseline ventilatory status and metabolic and hematologic parameters. Thus, as expected, increased mortality was observed in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, both with and without azithromycin. (bold added, p. 12)
It was expected that more patients would die while taking the drugs because they were being given to much sicker patients! The authors claim to have found a statistical way to overcome this fatal flaw, but there is no way to do so. Control groups would be needed in which patients who had equally bad prognoses were divided into medication treatment and non-medication treatment groups.
The study had no control groups at all.
In addition, many patients were put on the medications after attempting to treat them without the drugs. Of course, the patients on medication had a higher mortality rate—many were patients who were already getting worse on the non-drug treatments. Furthermore, the patients doing badly on no-drug treatment do not show up as no-drug failures in the study.
Furthermore, there is strong evidence that the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was saving lives. There was “no significant difference“ in the death rates from any cause for the patients on the drug combination compared to the patients on no drugs (p. 11). In other words, although the patients taking the drug combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were probably the sickest of the sick, there was no significant increase in deaths among them compared to the much less sick patients who received no drug treatment. This suggests that the drug combination had a lifesaving impact.
My initial analysis indicates that this study probably contains significance evidence for a reduction in fatalities on the medications; but it would take a complete re-evaluation starting with the draw data to be sure.
Beyond what I have said here, this article has seemingly countless additional flaws; but there is no need to go any further that what I have observed.
When I went to the link for the article, I was startled to read the following declaration by the journal to which it had apparently been submitted:
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review… It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
This article has not been peer reviewed and not officially published as yet. In fact, if there is an honest peer review, this article will be rejected for publication.
I want to conclude with an historical anecdote about Huff Post. I have nostalgia for the “newspaper” that was once called Huffington Post. Before it was created, founder Arianna Huffington invited me to join the new blogsite that she was creating and of course I happily agreed. Arianna and her conservative assistant, Andrew Breitbart, had been calling me and my wife Ginger on occasion for advice on Arianna’s columns. I viewed Arianna as an independent thinker, and I was proud to be included as a founding blogger on what would become her newspaper.
I did write several blogs for Huffington Post, but as the blogsite morphed into a progressive political screed, I found the increasing censorship intolerable. The editors did not like my criticism of psychiatric drugs, psychiatry, or drug companies. A few times, Arianna intervened on behalf of my freedom of speech; but she eventually sold her newspaper. The editors then invited a state Commissioner of Mental Health, an establishment enforcer, to supervise my blogs and I chose not to try to write for them any longer.
We have now reached the point that science is literally being created to meet the needs of progressive media and politics. That is very dangerous and could lead to science being viewed with the same disrespect and even disdain as the progressive media is increasingly viewed.
During the Vietnam War, 766 Americans were confirmed Prisoners Of War. Of them, 114 are known to have died in captivity , but the actual number is higher because many of those listed as missing in action probably died after capture. The status of American POWs was never clear. Vietnam never attacked the United States and the United States never declared war on Vietnam. One day American warplanes began bombing Vietnam and the Vietnamese declared these criminal attacks. When American pilots were shot down many were killed by vengeful farmers and were lucky not be executed by the Vietnamese government since they had no legal status as a Prisoner Of War. They were kept alive to collect military information and as political bargaining chips.
“Traitors or patriots? Eight Vietnam POWs were charged with collaborating with the enemy”; Michael Ruane; Washington Post; September 22, 2017; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/r…
Professor Roger Seheult, MD explains the important role Vitamin D may have in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Dr. Seheult illustrates how Vitamin D works, summarizes the best available data and clinical trials on vitamin D, and discusses vitamin D dosage recommendations. Roger Seheult, MD is the co-founder and lead professor at https://www.medcram.com
He is an Associate Professor at the University of California, Riverside School of Medicine and Assistant Prof. at Loma Linda University School of Medicine Dr. Seheult is Quadruple Board Certified: Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Disease, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine Interviewer: Kyle Allred, Producer and Co-Founder of MedCram.com REFERENCES: The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS)… (J. of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology) | https://www.researchgate.net/publicat…
Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis… (BMJ) | https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i…
Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A… (The American J.of Clinical Nutrition) | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20219…
Effect of Vitamin D3 … vs Placebo on Hospital Length of Stay…: A Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial | https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.11…
Short term, high-dose vitamin D… for COVID-19 disease: a randomized, placebo-controlled, study [SHADE study] (Postgraduate Medical Journal) | https://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/202…
Analysis of vitamin D level among asymptomatic and critically ill COVID-19 patients… (Scientific Reports from the Journal Nature) | https://www.nature.com/articles/s4159…
THE MEDCRAM WEBSITE: Visit us for videos on over 60 medical topics and CME / CEs for medical professionals: https://www.medcram.com
All coronavirus updates are at MedCram.com (including COVID-19 developments, cholecalciferol, vitamin d benefits, etc.) We offer over 60 medical topics on our website. Media contact: https://www.medcram.com/pages/media-c…
MedCram medical videos are for medical education and exam preparation, and NOT intended to replace recommendations from your doctor. #COVID19#SARSCoV2#VitaminD
If the Gateses and the Faucis and the representatives of the international medical establishment get their way, life will not return to normal until the entire planet is vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. What many do not yet understand, however, is that the vaccines that are being developed for SARS-Cov-2 are unlike any vaccines that have ever been used on the human population before. And, as radically different as these vaccines appear, they represent only the very beginning of a complete transformation of vaccine technology that is currently taking place in research labs across the planet. This is a study of The Future of Vaccines.
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
TRANSCRIPT
Since the dawn of the corona crisis, we have been told over and over that the world has changed forever.
MARIA VAN KERKHOVE: What we’re going to have to figure out, and I think what we’re all going to have to figure out together, is what our new normal looks like. Our new normal includes physical distancing from others. Our new normal includes wearing masks where appropriate. Our new normal includes us knowing where this virus is each and every day, where we live, where we work, where we want to travel.
DUCEY: What we’ve gone through and the challenges that I’m sharing with you really is Arizona’s new normal. And it’s our new normal for the foreseeable future. I really want ask people to get their heads around that.
JUSTIN TRUDEAU: This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset. This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change.
This “New Normal” with which we are being threatened brings with it great uncertainty. Uncertainty over work. Uncertainty over travel. Uncertainty over what our lives will look like on the other side of this “Great Reset.”
But there is one thing that we can be certain about: If the Gateses and the Faucis and the representatives of the international medical establishment get their way, life will not return to normal until the entire planet is vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.
GATES: It is fair to say things won’t go back to truly normal until we have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out to basically the entire world.
ZEKE EMANUEL: Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more. We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications.
ANTHONY FAUCI: So, if we get the overwhelming majority of people taking the vaccine, and you have, on the one hand, an effective vaccine, on the other hand, a high degree of uptake of the vaccine, we could start getting things back to relative normal as we get into the second and third quarter of the year, where people can start thinking about doing things that were too dangerous just months ago.
This message has been repeated so frequently and so consistently by public health officials, political “leaders” and media commentators that many have begun to believe it. And now, the public is being prepared for an unprecedented global vaccination campaign. Taking the form of a military operation . . .
GENERAL GUSTAVE PERNA: It is this effort that I can look you in the face and say to you, “E.U.A. [Emergency Use Authorization] comes, 24 hours later vaccines will be distributed out to the American people and be ready for administration.”
. . .the plan is to rush a new generation of experimental vaccines to market and deliver them at “warp speed” before any long term testing has even been attempted. What many do not yet understand, however, is that the vaccines that are being developed for SARS-Cov-2 are unlike any vaccines that have ever been used on the human population before.
And, as radically different as these vaccines appear, they represent only the very beginning of a complete transformation of vaccine technology that is currently taking place in research labs across the planet.
For almost the entirety of 2020, a traumatized public has been told that nothing resembling our pre-corona lives will return until there is a COVID vaccine.
So it is no surprise that the same media sources that have been promoting this talking point would celebrate the hopeful pronouncements of the Big Pharma manufacturers regarding their COVID vaccine candidates.
BECKY QUICK: Welcome back to Squawk Box everybody. We have some breaking news from Pfizer. Meg Tirrell joins us right now. Meg, good morning.
MEG TIRELL: Good morning, Becky. This is the news that we’ve been waiting to hear.
Pfizer and BioNTech reporting the first results from their phase 3 vaccine trial saying that in this interim look the vaccine showed to be more than 90 percent effective.
JAKE WHITTENBERG: Well, we begin with breaking news this morning. The push to find a coronavirus vaccine. This morning, Moderna says its vaccine is more than 94 percent effective.
TIM STENOVEC: Vaccine headlines are rolling in. One of AstraZeneca’s doses stopped an average of 70 percent of patients from falling ill and that even rose to 90 percent with additional regimens now the head of the government’s operation warp speed is saying that quote hopefully vaccinations in the u.s will start in less than three weeks.
But lost amid the hype of this media-led celebration are some sobering facts.
Firstly, these news stories were not generated on the back of publicly accessible data, but literal corporate press releases. This announcement-by-press-release style of corporate self-reporting was immediately exposed as a sham when AstraZeneca was found to have given an “unintentionally” lower dose to one group of trial participants and then touted the results of that smaller dose group without clarifying the confusion.
FRANCINE LACQUA: I’m not really sure what to make of this AstraZeneca-Oxford trial there’s confusion about whether it’s 60 efficacy whether it’s 90 what exactly happened.
ANDREW PEKOSZ: Well it is a little bit unclear, but let’s start with what we think we know. which is some of the patients that were in their phase three clinical trial ended up getting a half-dose of their of the initial inoculation and it turns out that the group that got that half dose followed by a boost had a much higher rate of protection from covid19 disease than the group that got the dosing schedule that the company wanted to give to everybody
Secondly, the “success” of these vaccines is not being measured by their ability to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2, as many in the general public believe, but merely to lessen the severity of the symptoms associated with COVID-19, like coughs and headaches.
ANJALEE KHEMLANI: Do you anticipate that the first sets of vaccines out the door will be more of a less effective blocker of the virus?
FAUCI: Well that’s the primary—that’s a great question, and that’s the primary endpoint of most of the virus, is to prevent clinical disease. To prevent symptomatic disease, not necessarily to prevent infection.
Thirdly, the studies are touted as involving tens of thousands of people, but in Pfizer’s trial, only 170 of them were reported as being “diagnosed with COVID-19” during the trial. Of those, 162 were in the placebo group and eight were in the vaccine group. From this, it is inferred that the vaccine prevented 154/162 people from developing the disease, or “95%”. But as even the British Medical Journalpoints out, “a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%.”
Fourthly, the trials are still ongoing. Although several countries have now issued “emergency use authorization” allowing these companies to begin distributing these vaccines to the public, the stage III trials of the vaccines are ongoing, with several of the planned “endpoints” for the data not being collected for 24 months after injection. As a result, as even the UK’s own “Information for UK Healthcare Professionals” pamphlet regarding Pfizer’s vaccine points out, “Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed,” meaning that, “It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.”
Even more chillingly, it is not healthcare professionals who are leading the charge to deliver this vaccine to the world, but the military
MURRAY BREWSTER: He commanded Canada’s NATO mission in Iraq. Now he’s in charge of making sure Canadians get the COVID vaccine.
TRUDEAU: Major General Dany Fortin will be heading up the logistics and operations within the centre.
RICHARD PASCOE: You know, we’re about to turn the corner here into 2021 and I think the American public should be very proud of what the army and the Department of Defense and our partners on the science side have done to bring these vaccines to the market.
BREWSTER: How much more involved the military will get is unclear. Public Health is still developing its plan. Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan acknowledges it is not beyond the realm of possibility in some parts of Canada troops could be running clinics and administering vaccine.
And most importantly, as incredible as this headlong rush to push an experimental vaccine on the majority of the world’s population is, it is even more incredible when it is revealed that Moderna and Pfizer’s vaccines are not, in fact, “vaccines” as anyone in the general public understands them. They are mRNA vaccines, a novel method of vaccination that has never before been approved for human use.
RHIJU DAS: So the concept of an RNA vaccine is: Let’s inject the RNA molecule that encodes for the spike protein.
ANGELA RASMUSSEN: It’s making your cell do the work of creating this viral protein that is going to be recognized by your immune system and trigger the development of these antibodies.
DAS: Our bodies won’t make a full-fledged infectious virus. They’ll just make a little piece and then learn to recognize it and then get ready to destroy the virus if it then later comes and invades us.
[. . .]
DAS: It’s a relatively new, unproven technology. And there’s still no example of an RNA vaccine that’s been deployed worldwide in the way that we need for the coronavirus.
RASMUSSEN: There is the possibility for unforeseen, adverse effects.
AKIKO IWASAKI: So this is all new territory. Whether it would elicit protective immune response against this virus is just unknown right now.
To be sure, the new mRNA vaccines work on an entirely different principle than any other vaccine that has ever been used on the human population. In order to understand that, it is important to understand the history of vaccine technologies.
The concept of “inoculation” has been around for centuries, with one of its earliest instances in China several centuries ago, where dried-out scabs of lightly infected smallpox sufferers were powdered and then blown up the nostrils of healthy people. The procedure aimed to infect the patient with a mild strain of smallpox, thus conferring immunity on them. This practice was brought over to Europe via Turkey and was eventually adopted around the world.
“Vaccination” developed in the late 18th century when Edward Jenner discovered that those who had been exposed to cowpox—a less virulent relative of smallpox—were themselves immune from smallpox. He “vaccinated” a boy with a cowpox vesicle from a milkmaid and then inoculated him with smallpox two months later. The boy did not develop smallpox, and the procedure was hailed as a breakthrough of medical science. The term “vaccination,” derived from the Latin word for cow, eventually came to refer to the general process of introducing immunogens or attenuated infectious agents into the body in order to stimulate the immune system to fight infections.
But this is not how mRNA vaccines function. In contrast to vaccination, which involves introducing an immunogen into the body, mRNA vaccines seek to introduce messenger RNA into the body in order to “trick” that body’s cells into producing immunogens, which then stimulate an immune response.
ELENA GUOBYTE: Two types of genetic vaccines are being investigated for COVID-19: mRNA and DNA. mRNA needs to reach the cytoplasm of host cells, while DNA needs to enter the nucleus. Then this genetic material gets taken up by the cell’s machinery, and the cell expresses the spike protein. These spike proteins are then recognized by the immune system, hopefully stimulating a protective response.
PAUL OFFIT: So the way this is going to work, the mRNA vaccine is—it’s the mRNA that codes for that coronavirus spike protein. You’re inoculated with that small little piece of genetic material. That genetic material then enters your cells and is is translated into a protein—in
this case, the coronavirus spike protein—which is then excreted from the cell. So, in essence, your body makes the spike protein and then your body makes antibodies to the spike protein, all because it’s been instructed to do that. Your cells have been instructed to do that by this little piece of messenger RNA.
NARRATOR: Protein factories in the cytoplasm, called ribosomes, bind to the messenger RNA. The ribosome reads the code in the messenger RNA to produce a chain made up of amino acids. There are 20 different types of amino acid. Transfer RNA molecules carry the amino acids to the ribosome. The messenger RNA is read three bases at a time. As each triplet is read, a transfer RNA delivers the corresponding amino acid. This is added to a growing chain of amino acids. Once the last amino acid has been added, the chain folds into a complex 3D shape to form the protein.
Any and all questions about this rushed, experimental vaccine technology are being labeled by the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the corporate press that runs on their advertising dollars as “anti-vax misinformation” and being actively censored. But despite the straw man argument that opposition to the vaccine comes solely from ignorant members of the public who are worried about being “injected with mircochips,” there are genuine concerns about the long-term safety of these vaccines coming from within the scientific community, and even from whistleblowers from within the ranks of the Big Pharma manufacturers themselves.
On December 1st, the former chair of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Health Committee, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, joined Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former Vice-President and Chief Scientific Officer at Pfizer Global R&D, to file a petition calling on the European Medicine Agency to halt the Phase III clinical trials of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine until they are restructured to address critical safety concerns associated with this experimental technology.
DEL BIGTREE: There is a petition now to try and stop the vaccine from being released in Europe and stop the trials in their tracks until some serious errors are fixed. The complaints are the potential dangers, if they are not rectified, of this vaccine. Let me very quickly just read through these before I bring on my next guest.
Here are the four major elements that are being pointed out by Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon.
The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.
We’ve just updated you that that vaccine has been approved for the UK as we speak.
[. . .]
BIGTREE: What is it that people can do what—your fellow scientists and doctors—what do we need to do to make sure we don’t make one of the greatest scientific errors in human history?
WOLFGNG WODARG: Protect yourself and protect all your neighbors and friends so that they don’t get this vaccine. and you have to be—you have to show up, you have to tell the politicians that you will blame them for what they do with this. I think what what’s happening, it’s a great betrayal. We are betrayed. And people who betray normally are punished, and we won’t forget this if they go on doing this with us.
Before the combined weight of the pharmaceutical manufacturers, global health bodies, governments and the corporate media combined to suppress any questions about this unprecedented rush for a globally-distributed, experimental vaccine, there were widespread calls for caution from within the heart of the scientific community.
Even mainstream publications like Scientific American were compelled to note back in June of this year that there are reasons for concern over the way the COVID-19 vaccines are being rushed to market:
Telescoping testing timelines and approvals may expose all of us to unnecessary dangers related to the vaccine. While preclinical trials to evaluate the potential safety and efficacy of vaccine candidates are likely to include tens of thousands of patients, it is still unclear whether that number will be large enough and a trial will last long enough to evaluate safety for a drug that would be administered to so many. The US alone plans to vaccinate hundreds of millions of people with the first successful candidate. One serious adverse event per thousand of a vaccine given to 100 million people means harm to 100,000 otherwise healthy people.
The potential dangers of these vaccines—not just the mRNA vaccines that hijack your body’s cells to begin producing proteins to stimulate an immune response, but vaccines like AstraZeneca’s that uses a chimpanzee adenovirus to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—are numerous. Not only do these vaccines present the potential for the antibody-dependent enhancement phenomenon that makes people more susceptible to the wild virus after having been vaccinated against it—which is a problem common to previous coronavirus vaccine candidates—but their potential impact on fertility has, even by the UK government’s own admission, not been tested at this point and remains “unknown.”
But even more fundamental than these particular safety concerns about these particular vaccines is the way that this fanatical, reckless and unprecedented headlong rush to push (and potentially even mandate) these vaccines on billions of people worldwide—women and children, young and old, healthy and unhealthy alike—is setting the most dangerous public health precedent in the history of humanity, a precedent that threatens to undermine our most cherished health freedoms in the name of a panic-induced “emergency.”
One of these core freedoms is the ability to refuse an experimental medical procedure, a freedom that was acknowledged in the Nuremberg Code of 1947 and enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”
Despite the fact that the clinical trials surrounding these experimental vaccines are ongoing and that the FDA itself admits that there is “currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine in subpopulations such as children less than 16 years of age, pregnant and lactating individuals, and immunocompromised individuals” and “risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown,” governments around the world are contemplating making these vaccinations mandatory, or compelling people to take them against their will by restricting their access to public life until they subject themselves to this medical experimentation.
ANCHOR: It’s a controversial idea that could end up being the law: “no jab, no job,” with some businesses considering making the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for employees.
CHRISTINE ELLIOTT: There may be some restrictions that may be placed on people that don’t have vaccines for travel purposes, to be able to go totheaters and other places. But that will be up to the individual person to decide.
JO LING KENT: So here’s how it works: The app gives you a health pass to show before you go into big stadiums like this to streamline the process to make it safer and faster to get to your seat.
TRACY GRIMSHAW: Alan, when there is a vaccine are you going to require all of your passengers to be vaccinated before they get on a plane?
ALAN JOYCE: Yeah we are looking at changing our terms and conditions to say for international travellers that we will ask people to have a vaccination before they can get on the aircraft.
The threat of forcing or compelling people to become unwilling guinea pigs in an ongoing medical experiment is immoral on its face. But even the prospect of enforcing such mandates would entail the erection of a surveillance and tracking system that further threatens basic rights and liberties. After all, in order to determine who has been vaccinated—and thus who is allowed to board an airplane or access a stadium or enter a store with a vaccine policy—there will need to be a system for identifying and tracking each vaccine recipient.
Whereas in days past, such tracking systems might have worked with identification papers, special badges to identify people’s status or other outwardly identifying marks, in the modern age, such schemes will take the form of digital apps and other technologically advanced methods for tracking, categorizing and identifying billions of people and their movements in real time.
There are already apps like IBM’s Digital Health Pass and CLEAR’s Health Pass that envision a world where our biometric ID will be linked via our smartphones to our health data in order to grant or deny access from public spaces and public events
NARRATOR: Here’s how Jane opens the CLEAR app and verifies her identity with a photo and real-time health insights. CLEAR’s developed touchless technology can take her temperature and confirm Jane is Jane so she can walk in with confidence
NARRATOR: Your COVID-19 status will efficiently display as green, amber or red, dependent on your test results. This allows us to go about our daily activities in a safer way. We can all use health passport ireland in many ways, such as travel, hospitality, education, health care, construction, offices, entertainment, visits and much, much more.
Once the COVID vaccines are widely distributed, it would simply be a question of linking one’s vaccination record to the health pass app to prevent the unvaccinated from accessing any given space.
And while this future—sold through glossy corporate advertising but rejected by the vast majority of the public—may seem like a science-fiction dystopia, such systems are already being used to control the movements of people in China, where access to certain building or the ability to leave one’s own neighbourhood can be restricted to those whose phone-based apps show a “green” immunity status.
Worse, the COVID vaccine presents governments, intelligence agencies and corporations that have a direct interest in suppressing dissent, monitoring dissidents and controlling their populations with the perfect opportunity to make such systems a permanent fixture of daily life. After the immediate “threat” of the declared public health crisis subsides, the public is already being warned that these apps will be transitioned seamlessly into general monitoring of the population.
ANCHOR 1: Well during the summer spike, Palm Beach County launched something called a Combat COVID app. they spent a huge chunk of CARES Act money to do it. The app can alert you if you come into contact with a COVID positive person.
ANCHOR 2: The problem is it only works if there’s widespread use and there isn’t. So was this just a big waste of money?
[. . .]
DANIELLE WAUGH: Palm Beach County officials would not make anybody available for an interview for this story but I did get a written statement from a county spokesperson, who tells me they will still have use for this app even after the pandemic is over. He says they plan on transitioning its functions to be a more general community app.
As chilling as these “immunity passports” opening the door for governments to implement persistent digital tracking of their entire population is, it represents only the most visible privacy invasion that is being enacted on the back of this unprecedented vaccine rollout.
As viewers of the “Who Is Bill Gates?” documentary will know, these smartphone apps and voluntary reporting mechanisms will eventually be replaced by an even more invasive technological means of certifying vaccination. Not the “microchip” strawman that the fact checkers use to attempt to debunk these concerns, but the verifiable existence of a program to develop quantum dot tags to instantly identify who has received a given vaccine.
Late last year, Gates once again turned to Robert Langer and his MIT colleagues to investigate new ways to permanently store and record the vaccination information of each individual. The result of their research was a new vaccine delivery method. They found that by using “dissolvable microneedles that deliver patterns of near-infrared light-emitting microparticles to the skin,” they could create “particle patterns” in the skin of vaccine recipients which are “invisible to the eye but can be imaged using modified smartphones.”
Rice University describes the quantum dot tags left behind by the microneedles as “something like a bar-code tattoo.”
So who was behind this development? As lead researcher Kevin McHugh explains:
“The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation came to us and said, ‘Hey, we have a real problem—knowing who’s vaccinated [. . .] So our idea was to put the record on the person. This way, later on, people can scan over the area to see what vaccines have been administered and give only the ones still needed.”
Experimental vaccine technologies. Rushed testing. Mandates and health apps. And, eventually, quantum dot tags and biometric IDs. The future that is coming into view on the back of this COVID nightmare is truly dystopian.
But as worrying as all of this, the most worrying aspect is the precedent that it sets for a new era of biosecurity. An era in which public health authorities will claim to have the right to force rushed, untested and experimental technologies on the public in the name of public “health.”
At the moment, these new technologies—like mRNA vaccines which reprogram cells to produce antigens or the DNA vaccines that seek to insert foreign genetic material directly into the cells’ nucleus and that even biotech giant Moderna admit “have a risk of permanently changing a person’s DNA”—are still understood by the public as “vaccines.” But they bare as little resemblance to the vaccines that have previously been given to the public as Edward Jenner’s cowpox vaccine bore to the old Chinese art of blowing smallpox scabs up the nose. And the medical technologies that are emerging now will once again utterly transform our understanding of “vaccines.”
One such technology is being actively developed by Profusa, Inc., a company that in 2016 received a $7.5 million grant from DARPA—the research and development agency of the US military—to “develop implantable biosensors that can continuously monitor multiple body chemistries.” Earlier this year, Profusa announced a study that will examine how the company’s technology—including a “wireless reader that adheres to the skin and collects and reports tissue oxygen levels” and a 3mm string of hydrogel, which can be inserted under the skin with a syringe and programmed to send “a fluorescent signal outside of the body when the body begins to fight an infection”—can be used to “develop an early identification system to detect not only disease outbreaks, but biological attacks and pandemics up to three weeks earlier than current methods.” The study is expected to be completed next year.
Hydrogels—networks of crosslinked polymer chains—are increasingly being turned to by proponents of these new technologies as potential delivery devices for drugs, cells, proteins, and bioactive molecules. In 2013, for instance, a team of European researchers announced a novel method for injecting a vaccine-containing hydrogel sphere to a spot beneath the skin, which could be released at a later time by swallowing a “stimulusresponsive biohybrid material.” Touted as a “remote-controlled vaccine delivery system,” the researchers proved their concept by injecting mice with a hydrogel containing human papillomavirus vaccine and later giving them a pill containing fluorescein, which dissolved the hydrogel mesh and released the vaccine. The research on this vaccine delivery method continues, with a Chinese team publishing research just this year on a self-adjuvanted hydrogel which “had both adjuvant potential and the ability to sustained release antigen.”
As viewers of the “Who Is Bill Gates?” documentary will know, the idea of implanting remote-controlled vaccines in large populations has been around since at least 2012, when, according to MIT Technology Review, Bill Gates personally asked MIT researcher Robert Langer to create an implantable birth control device that could be turned on or off remotely. The resulting device—a wireless birth control microchip that, as the National Post noted in 2014, “can be turned on and off with a remote control and that is designed to last up to 16 years”—was developed by Microchips Biotech, now part of Daré Bioscience, and has so far received $17.9 million in grant funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
From biolectronics to nanorobotics to synthetic biology, ever more incredible technologies are being pioneered that, whether or not they are marketed to the public under the catch-all term of “vaccine,” will operate in ways that are fundamentally unlike anything before used on the human population.
University of Ottawa researchers are working on creating “edible vaccines.”
Researchers at Harvard Medical School are developing autonomous DNA nanorobots capable of transporting molecular payloads directly into cells.
A team of scientists at Johns Hopkins University are working on shape-changing microdevices called “theragrippers” that can reside in the GI tract to aid in extended drug delivery.
Nanobots. Shape-changing bioelectronic devices. Remote-controlled vaccines. This is not the stuff of science fiction but of science fact, and the precedent that is being set during the COVID era to rush experimental and unproven medical technologies into use on the back of a declared crisis is the same precedent that could be used to foist these injectable technologies on the public in the future.
And, as Catherine Austin Fitts—former United States Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and founder of Solari, Inc.—explains, these injectables are part of an elaborate system of biological, economic, and political control that is being bankrolled into existence by powerful special interests.
CATHERINE AUSTIN FITTS: So let me go through where I think he’s going. I think where they’re going—and they’re they’re prototyping tons of technology, so I don’t think they have it yet—but where they want to go is they want to download a Microsoft Office system into your body, into your brain, and hook it up to the Jedi cloud contract and the Amazon Cloud contract at the CIA. And if they can get seven people seven billion people hooked up directly to their cloud contracts and use viruses—I mean, it’s very clever—use viruses to keep those updates coming. You know, just keep those updates coming.
So you saw my most recent article, “The Injection Fraud.” I think it’s a fraud to call these vaccines they’re not vaccines, they’re not medicine. But I think it’s the exact same model you used in the computers and the ideas. Just like Bill Gates made it possible for the intelligence agencies to get a backdoor into our—you know, our data—and our computers. They want a backdoor into our mind and it’s very hard if you haven’t if you haven’t looked into the creepy technology, the Charles Lieber kind of technology, it’s hard to fathom but we’re beginning to fathom it.
[. . .]
So what we have are people who have unimaginable liabilities for what they’ve done in the health area and what they’ve done in the financial area. And what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to do two things: one is to load an operating system into our bodies—I call it the injection fraud because they’re calling it a vaccine and under law a vaccine is medicine, this is not medicine, so to me what they’re up to is a fraud. And then the second thing they’re trying to do is implement contract tracing so they they can have—before they get the operating system in everybody they can have complete control. You know, kidnap you, put you in prison with no warrants, break into your house, take your kids.
And I keep saying to people: “Do you notice that it’s the people who flew Epstein Air who all want contract tracing? Why is that?” You know, why would you want the people who did Epstein Air to be able to come into your house and kidnap your kids?
Despite the protestations of those like Bill Gates who have a financial interest in these experimental vaccines, and the Big Pharma corporations that are selling these vaccines, and the governments that are being bribed by the international public health cartel to purchase these vaccines and pressure their public to accept them, and the corporate media who relies on these Big Pharma corporations for their advertising dollars, some facts about these novel coronavirus vaccines are indisputable:
They are the most rushed vaccines ever developed.
The manufacturers have been given total immunity from liability if their experimental vaccines cause injury.
The clinical trials testing the safety of these injections are not finished, meaning that every member of the public who takes one is now a human guinea pig in an ongoing medical experiment with the population of the planet.
The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines are themselves part of an experimental class of injection that has never before been given to the public;
These vaccines have not been tested for their ability to prevent infection or spread of SARS-CoV-2 and are not intended to do so.
And there is absolutely no long-term data about these vaccines to determine what their effects may be on fertility, the potential for pathogenic priming, or any other serious adverse reaction.
That this represents the most reckless and brazen experiment in the history of the world is undeniable on its face. Never before have billions of people been pressured to submit to a completely experimental, invasive medical procedure on the basis of a disease with a greater than 99% survival rate.
But large-scale, emergency vaccination campaigns have been tried before with sobering lessons about the danger of such a wide-scale experiment that are being deliberately ignored right now.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, hundreds of millions of people were injected with polio vaccines that, years later, were discovered to have been contaminated with SV40, a cancer-causing virus found in the rhesus monkey kidney cells that were used to create the vaccine.
In 1976, twelve soldiers at Fort Dix were diagnosed with swine flu. This kicked off a round of public health hysteria that led the US government to mandate that every citizen in the country be vaccinated. In the end, only one soldier at Fort Dix died of the swine flu and no one outside of the base even tested positive for it, but the emergency immunization program went ahead. It was brought to an abrupt end after hundreds who had received the rushed vaccine began to display severe neurological disorders.
MIKE WALLACE: Remember the swine flu scare of 1976? That was the year the U.S. government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer that could spread across the nation, and Washington decided that every man, woman and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nation-wide outbreak, a pandemic.
Well 46 million of us obediently took the shot, and now 4,000 Americans are claiming damages from Uncle Sam amounting to three and a half billion dollars because of what happened when they took that shot. By far the greatest number of the claims – two thirds of them are for neurological damage, or even death, allegedly triggered by the flu shot.
During the hysteria over swine flu in 2009, GlaxoSmithKline rushed a vaccine called Pandemrix to market in several European countries that was later associated with increased risk of narcolepsy. Years later, it was admitted that the 2009 flu season was no deadlier than any other flu season, but the British Medical Journal revealed that the body that advised the WHO on the declaration of the public health emergency that caused governments to purchase billions of dollars of vaccines was itself populated by advisors with direct financial ties to the Big Pharma vaccine manufacturers.
In each of these cases, the public was told to “follow the science,” and in each of these cases an unknown and perhaps unknowable number of people paid for that blind faith with their health. Now the revolver is once again being put to our heads and, with an assurance that that revolver probably contains a lot of empty chambers, the public is being asked to play Russian Roulette in the name of “trusting the science.”
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: I think we’re in the middle of a massive experiment worldwide. And that is—
STEPHEN COLBERT: —And we’re the guinea pigs?
TYSON: Maybe. The experiment is: will people listen to scientists?
Surely those who wish to be the test subjects in this ongoing experiment should be free to make themselves into guinea pigs for the Big Pharma manufacturers. But every mandate or compulsion to force the vaccine on an unwilling recipient sets a dangerous precedent, a precedent that will one day lead to a tracked and surveilled population unable to resist the next generation of injectable bioelectronics.
This is not a game, this is not a test. Billions of people are being asked to participate in a gigantic experiment, not just an experiment in medical technology, but an experiment in compliance and blind trust.
The pressure to say yes and to go along with the crowd in this experiment is enormous. But if we lose the freedom to say “no” to this, then we may lose control over our bodily autonomy—and, ultimately, our humanity—forever.
If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .
If you scoff at the notion that the US, a republic founded on principles of freedom and democracy, has morphed into a world empire, perpetrating assassinations, coups d’état, acts of terror and illegal warfare . . .
If you want to promote peace but haven’t yet explored deceptive events that precipitate US warmongering . . .
. . . here is a volume that will clear the air and paint an honest picture of the significant, not-so-rosy impact US foreign policy and actions have had in the world around us.
USA: The Ruthless Empire, by Swiss historian and peace researcher Daniele Ganser, is the newly published English language translation of his book Imperium USA, originally written in German and published in 2020. Here is a summary of key points — including some lesser-known ones — along with remedies for a more peaceful future, that are covered in the book. … continue
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.
If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .
Aletho News
Aletho News 