CORONA Main Coronavirus thread
- Thread starter Heliobas Disciple
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
FDA Detects Serious Safety Signal for COVID-19 Vaccination Among Kids
Children of certain ages who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine face an elevated risk of heart inflammation, according to a new federally funded study. Vaccin
truthusa.us
FDA Detects Serious Safety Signal for COVID-19 Vaccination Among Kids
May 25, 2023
Children of certain ages who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine face an elevated risk of heart inflammation, according to a new federally funded study.
Vaccinated children aged 12 to 17 face a heightened risk myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, and a related condition called pericarditis, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) researchers found.
The number of myocarditis and pericarditis events in that age group was high enough to meet the criteria for a safety signal, the researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association on May 22.
The elevated risk was present within seven days of vaccination, according to the data.
Researchers identified 89 cases among 12- to 15-year-olds and 64 cases among 16- and 17-year-olds after reviewing records from commercial databases run by CVS Health, HealthCore, and Optum.
The claims were made from Dec. 11, 2020, when Pfizer’s vaccine was cleared by the FDA through mid-2022.
Researchers sought to see whether any of 20 health problems were experienced at higher rates by the vaccinated. The problems included myocarditis or pericarditis, Bell’s palsy, appendicitis, and stroke.
Only myocarditis or pericarditis met the criteria for a safety signal, which may be related to vaccination.
U.S. officials have already concluded that the conditions are caused by the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, though the shots did not carry a warning for months after authorization. Novavax’s vaccine, authorized in 2022, can also cause the heart conditions, authorities say.
More on Study
Researchers looked at health plan members who received a Pfizer vaccination, excluding those who lost their insurance during a certain window of time, which was 365 days for most outcomes.
Researchers then examined the number of each outcome in a different window of time, referred to as a risk window, which varied from a single day to as long as 42 days after vaccination.
The study then took the rates of problems from each database and compared them with expected rates, which are based on pre-pandemic numbers.
Out of three million children who received at least one shot, 153 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were identified in the 12- to 17-year-old age group. More cases were identified among children aged 5 to 11, but not enough to trigger a signal.
A medical record review of the 37 cases for which records were obtainable confirmed 27 cases as true myocarditis or pericarditis.
None of the other 19 outcomes examined met the signal criteria, researchers said.
“These results provide additional evidence for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the pediatric population,” the researchers said.
Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist, disagreed.
“My concern is that these data represent a gross under-reporting of the frequency and severity of COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis,” McCullough, who has called for the withdrawal of the Pfizer vaccine, told The Epoch Times via email.
Since the FDA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged in mid-2021 concerns that the vaccines might cause heart inflammation, “there have been > 200 papers in the peer-reviewed literature and over 100 fatal documented cases largely among young men, peak ages 18-24 years, some with autopsy proven COVID-19 vaccine heart inflammation resulting in death,” McCullough added.
That includes five people who suddenly died in Germany and six people who perished in the Nordic countries.
Steven Anderson, the FDA official listed as the study’s corresponding author, did not respond to a request for comment. His co-authors included researchers with Acumen, Optum, HealthCore, CVS, and IQVIA, with multiple members reporting connections with Pfizer. The time period covered the old Pfizer vaccine, which is no longer available in the United States.
‘Pretty Ludicrous’
Norman Fenton, emeritus professor of risk at the Queen Mary University of London, said the researchers’ safety claim doesn’t hold up in light of how the study showed a signal for myocarditis and pericarditis and given children are unlikely to benefit from the COVID-19 vaccines.
“The conclusion that ‘these results provide additional evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are safe in children’ is pretty ludicrous,” Fenton told The Epoch Times in an email.
The researchers also failed to take into account what’s known as the healthy vaccinee bias, or how previous research has found that people who get vaccinated tend to be healthier than those who do not.
“They are comparing a highly select group of child and adolescent insured vaccine recipients to a historical baseline population consisting of everyone in the relevant age group who were insured,” Hebrew University lecturer Josh Guetzkow said.
Experts also said the risk windows appeared short, when post-vaccination conditions can sometimes crop up months afterward, and why the signal criteria were structured so that some outcomes would need to happen at more than double the rate among the vaccinated.
The shortest risk window was just one day, for anaphylaxis, or severe allergic shock. Some others were just one week. The rest were 28 days or 42 days.
In their protocol (pdf) for conducting the research, FDA officials said they chose risk windows based on pre-pandemic studies, including one from 2007.
Source Link
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
FDA Finds Evidence of Serious Safety Signal for COVID Vaccines in Young Kids — Says It Proves Shots Are ‘Safe’
Young teens who received the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine have a higher risk of heart inflammation, according to a new U.S. Food and Drug Administration study — researchers said the study’s results provide “additional evidence for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the pediatric population.”
childrenshealthdefense.org
FDA Finds Evidence of Serious Safety Signal for COVID Vaccines in Young Kids — Says It Proves Shots Are ‘Safe’
Young teens who received the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine have a higher risk of heart inflammation, according to a new U.S. Food and Drug Administration study — researchers said the study’s results provide “additional evidence for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the pediatric population.”
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
05/25/23
Children ages 12 to 17 who received the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine face a heightened risk of heart inflammation, according to a new U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) study.
But because the study only identified a safety signal for two heart conditions — myocarditis and pericarditis — in children “these results provide additional evidence for the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the pediatric population,” FDA researchers concluded.
Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough said he disagreed. “My concern is that these data represent a gross under-reporting of the frequency and severity of COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis,” McCullough told The Epoch Times.
“There have been > 200 papers in the peer-reviewed literature and over 100 fatal documented cases largely among young men, peak ages 18-24 years, some with autopsy-proven COVID-19 vaccine heart inflammation resulting in death,” McCullough added.
In the study, published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics, FDA researchers examined health outcomes in more than 3 million children who received the Pfizer mRNA vaccine through mid-2022.
They found the number of cases of both myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, and pericarditis, inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart, were high enough to meet the criteria for a safety signal.
The researchers also found reports of myocarditis and pericarditis cases among vaccinated children ages 5 to 11, but not enough to trigger a safety signal, they said.
Conclusions ‘pretty ludicrous’ and ‘political,’ experts say
Norman Fenton, Ph.D., professor emeritus of risk at the Queen Mary University of London, called the claim that the results provide additional evidence that the vaccines are safe in children “pretty ludicrous.”
He said that conclusion didn’t make sense given that the signal was both strong and “likely underestimated given some obvious weaknesses of the study” and also that children of that age are at no risk from COVID-19 but at higher risk of getting COVID-19 if they are vaccinated.
Dr. Kirk Milhoan, a pediatric cardiologist, also told The Defender the safety claim didn’t hold up because the study identified two safety signals. “The signal is what indicates they are not safe,” he said.
He said with previous children’s vaccines such as RotaShield, the first vaccine to prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis, about 100 vaccine-related cases of intussusception, or folding of the intestine, led to the conclusion that it was unsafe and it was withdrawn from the market. But with myocarditis in young people, he said, “we’re at thousands,” and the cases are likely undercounted.
Experts question study’s methodology
The researchers reviewed medical records from healthcare claims filed in three commercial health insurance claims databases run by Optum, HealthCore and CVS Health.
They examined insurance claims made for different possible vaccine-related adverse events within a window of time following vaccination that varied for the different events studied.
They found 153 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis among children ages 12 to 17. The children sought care for their symptoms within seven days of vaccination on average.
The researchers’ study period began in December 2020, when the FDA authorized Pfizer’s vaccine for emergency use and ran through May or June 2022, depending on the database.
The FDA also monitored the databases for 18 other potential adverse events that included anaphylaxis, Bell’s palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome hemorrhagic stroke and others, but the study reported that none of the other conditions met the criteria for a safety signal.
The researchers reported their findings were consistent with other findings in peer-reviewed publications that demonstrated an elevated risk of myocarditis and pericarditis following mRNA vaccines, especially among younger males ages 12 to 29.
Some experts questioned the study’s methodology, noting that the risk windows were short given that some effects can take time to express themselves and that the signal threshold for some criteria was set so high they would have to occur at double the rate in the unvaccinated to be recognized as a signal.
They also said categories of outcomes were sometimes overly narrow, and some adverse events were not even considered.
“I think the idea that they look at only 20 very specific AEs [adverse events] then declare them safe upon not finding anything is very myopic,” Hebrew University lecturer Joshua Guetzkow, Ph.D., wrote in an email.
Experts also said the study didn’t account for the effects of the “healthy user bias,” where people who take up certain treatments tend to be healthier than people who don’t, usually related to socio-economic factors.
Research has shown that people who decide to get vaccinated tend to be healthier than people who don’t.
In this case, all of the people in the study were vaccinated, fully insured for the entire duration of the study and able to visit a doctor who maintained their continuous health records.
Milhoan added that prior to COVID-19, it wasn’t common practice for scientific papers to make public health acknowledgments at the end of the papers.
Previously, he said, researchers wouldn’t imply recommendations, they would just say, “This is what we found medically.” He added, “These public health claims aren’t scientific, they’re political.”
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
COVID pill Paxlovid gets full FDA approval after more than a year of emergency use
U.S. health regulators have given full approval to Pfizer’s COVID-19 pill Paxlovid. Thursday's action means the drug has now been fully vetted by the U.S. government and can remain on the market indefinitely. Millions of Americans have received Paxlovid since it was granted emergency...
apnews.com
COVID pill Paxlovid gets full FDA approval after more than a year of emergency use
Matthew Perrone
yesterday
WASHINGTON (AP) — Pfizer received full approval on Thursday for its COVID-19 pill Paxlovid that’s been the go-to treatment against the coronavirus.
More than 11 million prescriptions for Paxlovid have been dispensed since the Food and Drug Administration allowed emergency use in late 2021. The emergency status was based on early studies and was intended to be temporary pending follow-up research.
The FDA granted full approval for adults with COVID-19 who face high risks of severe disease, which can lead to hospitalization or death. That group typically includes older adults and those with common medical conditions like diabetes, asthma and obesity.
The decision allows Pfizer’s drug to remain on the market indefinitely and to be marketed similarly to other drugs.
The pill is still available for children ages 12 to 17 under a separate emergency authorization.
The U.S. government has stockpiled millions of doses of Paxlovid and patients will continue to receive it at no charge, the FDA said in a statement. More than 14,000 new COVID-19 cases were reported each week last month, although most U.S. cases are no longer reported to health authorities.
Paxlovid is the fourth drug for COVID-19 to receive full FDA approval and the first one that is a pill. The previously approved therapies are IV or injectable drugs, typically given at clinics or hospitals.
Pfizer originally studied Paxlovid in the highest-risk COVID-19 patients: unvaccinated adults with other health problems and no evidence of prior coronavirus infection. In that group, the FDA said the drug lowered the risk of hospitalization or death by 86% when given shortly after symptoms emerged.
But that doesn’t reflect the U.S. population today, where more than 95% of people have protection from at least one vaccine dose, a prior infection or both.
In more recent studies of people who have had COVID-19, Paxlovid still significantly decreased the chance of hospitalization or death by more than 85%.
As Paxlovid became widely used in 2021, doctors and patients reported cases of COVID-19 symptoms returning several days after treatment with the drug. But the FDA said Thursday “there is not a clear association,” between Pfizer’s drug and rebound cases.
That conclusion was backed by an independent panel of FDA advisers, who voted to recommend the drug’s full approval at a meeting earlier this year.
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
US study finds 1 in 10 get long COVID after omicron, starts identifying key symptoms
A U.S. study suggests 1 in 10 people are getting long COVID after an omicron infection, a lower estimate than earlier in the pandemic. The National Institutes of Health is studying nearly 10,000 U.S. adults to help better understand why some people suffer debilitating health problems that can...
apnews.com
US study finds 1 in 10 get long COVID after omicron, starts identifying key symptoms
By Lauran Neergaard
an hour ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — About 10% of people appear to suffer long COVID after an omicron infection, a lower estimate than earlier in the pandemic, according to a study of nearly 10,000 Americans that aims to help unravel the mysterious condition.
Early findings from the National Institutes of Health’s study highlight a dozen symptoms that most distinguish long COVID, the catchall term for the sometimes debilitating health problems that can last for months or years after even a mild case of COVID-19.
Millions worldwide have had long COVID, with dozens of widely varying symptoms including fatigue and brain fog. Scientists still don’t know what causes it, why it only strikes some people, how to treat it -– or even how to best diagnose it. Better defining the condition is key for research to get those answers.
“Sometimes I hear people say, ’Oh, everybody’s a little tired,’” said Dr. Leora Horwitz of NYU Langone Health, one of the study authors. “No, there’s something different about people who have long COVID and that’s important to know.”
The new research, published Thursday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, includes more than 8,600 adults who had COVID-19 at different points in the pandemic, comparing them to another 1,100 who hadn’t been infected.
By some estimates, roughly 1 in 3 of COVID-19 patients have experienced long COVID. That’s similar to NIH study participants who reported getting sick before the omicron variant began spreading in the U.S. in December 2021. That’s also when the study opened, and researchers noted that people who already had long COVID symptoms might have been more likely to enroll.
But about 2,230 patients had their first coronavirus infection after the study started, allowing them to report symptoms in real time -– and only about 10% experienced long-term symptoms after six months.
Prior research has suggested the risk of long COVID has dropped since omicron appeared; its descendants still are spreading.
The bigger question is how to identify and help those who already have long COVID.
The new study zeroed in on a dozen symptoms that may help define long COVID: fatigue; brain fog; dizziness; gastrointestinal symptoms; heart palpitations; sexual problems; loss of smell or taste; thirst; chronic cough; chest pain; worsening symptoms after activity and abnormal movements.
The researchers assigned scores to the symptoms, seeking to establish a threshold that eventually could help ensure similar patients are enrolled in studies of possible long COVID treatments, as part of the NIH study or elsewhere, for apples-to-apples comparison.
Horwitz stressed that doctors shouldn’t use that list to diagnose someone with long COVID — it’s a potential research tool only. Patients may have one of those symptoms, or many -– or other symptoms not on the list — and still be suffering long-term consequences of the coronavirus.
Everyone’s doing studies of long COVID yet “we don’t even know what that means,” Horwitz said.
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
Filters in the Age of Information Overload
and how they shape the practice of medicine.
amidwesterndoctor.substack.com
Filters in the Age of Information Overload
and how they shape the practice of medicine.
A Midwestern Doctor
May 8, 2023
One of my colleagues has advanced a compelling theory to explain why a palpable madness seems to be gripping our society and more and more people seem to be going off the rails.
So much information is available now we are constantly bombarded with, that it has exceeded the processing capacity of the human mind. That is making a lot of people destabilize inside, and as the information glut increases, this problem will continue to worsen.
Recently I wrote an article describing my thought process on navigating controversial topics with a high degree of ambiguity. It specifically focused on how critical it is to avoid getting attached to any specific interpretation you have of what is occurring. This is both because, due to the ambiguity present, it is challenging to be sure of any interpretation (so becoming attached to a specific one becomes a barrier to seeing the truth) and because it is not healthy for your mind or spirit to covet and treasure some rare idea it has become in possession of. Since this has been a common issue I’ve observed with the nanotech in vaccines issue, I chose to use it to illustrate the point, but this same thing applies to countless other subjects too.When I reviewed that article, I realized there was a critical point I forgot to mention—how do we, as human beings, effectively deal with an overwhelming volume of information? This issue is a variant of a common issue meditation schools have dealt with throughout history, and they can provide some insights on both the topic at hand and the practice of medicine in general.
Note: henceforth, I will use the term “subconsciousness.” Arguments can also be made that “unconsciousness” is more correct. I thought this over for a while, and I am not ultimately not sure which should be used here.
Focusing on Value
In many environments you are in, a massive amount of data is present that the conscious mind cannot keep track of. However, to a large extent, the subconsciousness does and directs your focus to what in the environment has "value" for your conscious mind to be aware of.One classic example is the "Cocktail party effect," where you can be in a room where many people are having conversations that blur together. Still, for some reason, you can immediately zero in on the one conversation where your name was mentioned. Most of you have probably experienced this numerous times, and the same principle holds in many other instances as well.
I have seen various explanations put forward to explain why the "Cocktail party effect" occurs, and from all of them, it's clear some part of the brain is evolved to make this possible. One region that has been put forward as being responsible for this is the "reticular activating system." At this point, I don't know if the RAS is the region of the brain ultimately responsible for this effect, but going forward, I will state that it is to help convey the central points of this essay.
The filtering function of the RAS has been hypothesized to have evolved so that early humans (and likely the primates we came from) could rapidly detect sources of food (e.g., berries) and danger (e.g., predators) in their environment. Since so much existed in their environment, and the stakes were high for missing many of them (e.g., a brief delay in spotting a predator could equate to death), the RAS was necessary. There needed to be an effective mechanism to rapidly draw attention to essential things while simultaneously not failing to observe any part of the environment.
We no longer have to deal with those high stakes in modern times, but the RAS persists. In turn, the "value" it seeks are things our culture has habituated us to value, such as an opportunity for money, a product we want, or a potential mate.
In human interactions, recognizing the importance of the RAS is immensely valuable. This is because your words and actions are often far less important than what the other party has been primed to look for. Put differently, if someone's initial impression of you is positive (or they assess you as having value to them), their RAS will filter for things that show value in you. Conversely, if someone's initial impression of you is negative, their RAS will filter for signs you have no value and should be disregarded.
This is why people can repeatedly try to do everything right and make a positive impression on someone, but they are only seen negatively, and regardless of how hard they try, they keep looking worse and worse. Conversely, sometimes when you talk to individuals trapped in clearly abusive relationships (to the point outside observers can tell the abuse is happening), the abused party does not register most of the abuse and cites a couple of semi-decent things the abuser did as proof they are a good person, and sometimes will even try to defend the abuser once outside parties get involved. This might seem hard to believe, but I've seen it numerous times in the ER, and many of my colleagues have also seen it in their respective fields.
Note: the concept I am describing here is often described as "confirmation bias" (where you only see things that conform to your pre-existing beliefs).
Filters Create Your Reality
One point Scott Adams helped bring general public recognition to is that we all hold filters (often arising from subconscious biases). Much of the reality we believe to be true is not because it is the objective reality. Instead, our notion of reality appears because our RAS makes us aware of things in our environment that affirm the reality we filter for. As a result, people come to believe their filtered world is reality because it’s what they see around them all day long. Scott Adams, in turn, refers to this phenomenon as two people watching the same film but seeing a completely different movie.One of the things I hate about the media is how good it is at priming people to have a specific filter and then continually selectively feeding people only information that affirms that filter. I think my dislike of this comes not from the media’s behavior but the fact that so many people continuously fall prey to it, even when they are fully aware of it being done to them previously.
Three of the most noteworthy recent examples we have seen of this priming were:
•Trump is Hitler.
•The sky is falling (because of COVID-19).
•The COVID-19 vaccines are 100% safe, 95% effective, and essential for returning to normal.
Although none of these were objectively true, because of how effectively the media primed much of the population’s RAS, many were left with a deep conviction these filters were true and that the evidence for it was so overwhelming anyone who could not “see” it was unforgivable. This, in turn, led to something I had not seen before with the American propaganda apparatus—families and long-term friendships were broken apart simply due to people having divergent viewpoints on these issues and not ascribing to the media’s narrative.
Note: One of the things I found the most surprising was just how effective this propaganda push was. The best example I can think of is how most medical professionals I met fell for all three. For instance, as James Miller (the honest doc) has highlighted in a recent interview, many doctors and government leaders who directed the COVID-19 response established many of their beliefs on these narratives based on what CNN told them than reviewing the medical evidence themselves.
One of the things that gives me a great deal of joy in life is realizing that something I’d observed many, many times in my life had a quality I’d never recognized before, either because an existing filter removed it or because the complexity was beyond my present ability to grasp. This can hold for both very simple things (e.g., a blade of grass) and fairly complex ones.
For example, as the years went by, I began to gain a greater and greater appreciation for the fact most of human communication has nothing to do with the specific information being conveyed but rather is predominantly about what is going on in the body, mind, and spirit of each participant. Most of this is rarely overtly expressed but heavily influences both what each participant conveys and how they interpret what is said to them.
This is important because (unless you are very good with hypnosis) it is the realm where you have to focus to reach people who will not listen to what you say and the evidence you present. Furthermore, this broader spectrum of what’s contained within communication holds for every one of its mediums, including writing. For that reason, the primary thing I aim for here is to address those other areas of communication (e.g., I try to write in a heart-centered manner), as I feel it is more important than the specific information of the subject at hand.
Another example can be seen in the practice of medicine. Since I was young, I loved puzzles, but as time passed, I realized all artificial systems have a predefined limit to the complexity they can reach. Conversely, with human beings, there is an almost unlimited degree of complexity present, and one of the key things that brings me joy in practicing medicine is realizing something is present in the human system I had never recognized before despite having it staring me in the face with every preceding patient.
It’s specifically for this reason that I ask colleagues to send me complex patients they can’t figure out (provided they are mentally balanced and thus comfortable with navigating the uncertainty of the disease). In this regard, the COVID-19 vaccine disaster has been a remarkable educational experience. This is because I’ve seen so many things go wrong in the body with these patients I never previously appreciated could go wrong in the first place. So really looking into those problems opened my eyes to a variety of physiologic and subconscious mechanisms in the body I had never registered the importance of addressing before (and in some cases didn’t even realize existed in the first place).
Filters and Medicine
One of the subjects I’ve tried to bring attention to with the Substack is medical gaslighting, the phenomenon where the medical system injures someone and then is told the injury is all in their head and had nothing to do with what the medical system did to them. On the surface, that sounds pretty bad, but unless you’ve directly experienced this, it’s hard even to begin to describe how awful it is to go through. Since this has happened to quite a few people close to me, I feel strongly about raising awareness on this issue.From researching it, I’ve been able to establish medical gaslighting has been a mainstay of Western medicine for at least 140 years (from the complications of mercury poisoning—which Western medicine used to give out like candy for everything), and I suspect but cannot prove it has a far longer history. Because of how long medical gaslighting has existed, I don’t think it is an issue specific to an individual doctor or the current medical industry’s monopolistic business model. Instead, I think it’s either a reflection of a malignant collective consciousness within the medical field or something intrinsic to human nature that becomes problematic once dangerous pharmaceuticals are involved. So I feel to end it, what is inside each of us is where the focus must lie.
The aspect of human nature most commonly cited to explain why doctors gaslight is that they understandably do not want to acknowledge medical injuries. This can either be for selfish reasons to avoid a lawsuit (although this is hugely misguided as patients are much more likely to sue when they feel they are being gaslighted) or because of how difficult it is for anyone to acknowledge they hurt someone else they wanted to help. This cognitive dissonance (the psychological defense mechanism that causes people to do this) is much greater for doctors as their entire identity (you have to give up a lot to become a doctor) is based around being bestowed with the ability to heal the sick, and society does everything to inflate that pedestal doctors are placed upon.
However, I do not believe cognitive dissonance is the primary issue. Instead, I would argue it’s an issue of filters. In a recent article on the overlap between the predatory behavior of the statin industry and the COVID-19 industry, I discussed how many unquestioned assumptions we all carry to navigate the world. As the complexity of your field increases, the number of assumptions you need to make increases as well. In medicine, it is virtually impossible to practice medicine without regularly utilizing a massive number of unquestioned assumptions.
For example, as I shared in the article, despite the fact I’ve prioritized identifying erroneous assumptions throughout my career, I still frequently discover new ones. Because many of the assumptions taught during your medical training conveniently lead to concluding “pharmaceuticals (and other medical interventions) are not harmful” or “patients who believe they were injured by medicine are ill for a different reason,” it is inevitable gaslighting will occur.
While the numerous unquestioned assumptions of medicine are certainly an issue, I believe they are a symptom of a much broader issue and the theme of this article. It is immensely difficult to be fully aware of a complex system, so as a result, people typically “see” what their existing filters and all those unquestioned assumptions have been programmed to see.
When patients come in, typically, a lot is going on, and the most common response any physician will have during the brief visit is to cycle quickly through each filter they have been trained in for evaluating patients and see if any of those filters detect a disease the doctor knows to recognize. Since almost none of (pharmaceutically funded) medical training teaches you the filters for identifying pharmaceutical injuries (but it does say teach the filters for recognizing signs of a psychiatric illness), doctors often can’t see the clear signs their patient has a pharmaceutical injury.
I have essentially found three ways to get around this issue, which I must acknowledge were adopted partially due to my personal history with medical gaslighting.
•Seek out and be trained in filters that identify complex medical conditions (e.g., mold toxicity or fluoroquinolone poisoning). This is doable, but there are a lot of filters to learn, and none of the standard educational pathways doctors go through expose them to the existence of these filters.
•View everything you see in the patient as a manifestation of some underlying process within their body and focus on identifying the underlying process rather than any specific symptom. This, in many ways, is the exact opposite of how we are trained to think in medical school, and particularly challenging because one particular underlying process can have a variety of different manifestations depending on the patient, which makes it very difficult to recognize what the unifying thread between all those symptoms is. Since I have spent most of my life using surface manifestations to guide me to the root of something, it was straightforward to apply that to medicine. However, this background is relatively rare.
•Have a perceptual framework that both provides the sensitivity to perceive the subtle signs a patient is providing to you and the ability to maintain an awareness of the entire patient rather than seeing them filtered diagnoses.
Perceiving Without Filters
In ancient China (which had an enormous amount of warfare), there was a common saying—it is easier to raise an army of 10,000 men than to find a general to lead them.Note: 10,000 was an idiom of the time that meant “a lot” rather than being a specific value.
I believe (although despite my best efforts, I cannot say with certainty) this quote gets at the fact that on a battlefield, there are so many different things occurring that if a general loses sight of one of them, that can be enough to crush their army and potentially decide the outcome of the war. For example, here are two lines from the classic The Art of War reflecting this idea:
To see victory only when it is within the ken* of the common herd is not the acme** of excellence.
Amid the turmoil and tumult of battle, there may be seeming disorder and yet no real disorder at all; amid confusion and chaos, your array may be without head or tail, yet it will be proof against defeat.
*ken means “knowledge, understanding, or range of sight or vision."
**acme means the point at which someone or something is best, perfect, or most successful.
Note: fictional works such as this also depict the view through which a general of that era saw the battlefield.One of the significant differences between the modern era and many previous ones humans grew up in is that the world is much safer now, so there is much less pressure on individuals to have a continual awareness of their environment (e.g., leaders like CEOs often have very cushy jobs and far fewer people now have the basic survival skills necessary for if a war were to break out). As a result, much of this skillset has been lost, and people in turn, cannot apply it to the other areas of life it is often essential for.
“If you could be fully present to an ant for the time it took to walk down your nose, you would be enlightened.”
and
“If you could be fully present for the time it took a leaf to fall from a tree to the ground, you would be enlightened.”
are two common phrases in the Eastern spiritual systems that reflect this same concept. Each of these phrases serves to illustrate the fact that there is so much going on around you at any given moment that your mind filters out that (while providing one with the illusion they perceive a continuous reality) that it is extraordinarily challenging to be fully aware of much of what is right in front of you.
Note: this issue is especially apparent in traumatized individuals who regularly disassociate.
[continued next post]
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
[continued from above post]
In turn, innumerable practices were designed to gradually increase your awareness within each aspect of your being and each person and thing around you. These practices, in turn, all share many similarities since they reflect the same process.
This ability to be more aware of what’s around you comes more naturally to some. In medicine, those with this skill set tend to be the doctors who most able to fully connect with the patient and recognize something they were never trained to look for. Conversely, this capacity greatly decreases as people become more disconnected from their bodies and predominantly live in their minds (which sadly characterizes the modern digital age).
This I believe, is one of the key factors explaining why older doctors who were not raised in the digital age tend to be better at connecting with their patients and seeing things their colleagues cannot recognize. Unfortunately, the entire push within medicine has been to have everything become automated (e.g., lots of tests and imaging or treatment algorithms doctors must follow) in place of the doctor creating a human connection with their patient and using that awareness to discern what their issue is.
I believe this transition has happened because it makes it much easier to sell billable medical services repeatedly. I also think it’s a shame it’s happened because a lot of conditions cannot be treated with the automated model, and I have lost count of how many people I and colleagues have seen who we felt had a relatively straightforward issue dozens of respected physicians utilizing automated medicine were stumped on.
This gave me a deep appreciation for how illusory "certainty" or "truth" was and how often things we were sure were true was simply the result of a selective presentation of reality. This is also why I've been so driven throughout my life to establish what is objectively true and not simply a subjective representation of reality…which is very challenging when you dive into it. Similarly, this is why when I write articles, before publication, I catch and address counterarguments that would be raised to them as my past training in debate made me able to take the role of someone who seriously disagrees with everything published here and is searching for ways to discredit the article.
I would now like to tie all the themes of this article together.
Whenever humans are exposed to an excessive amount of information (which can often be a surprisingly low threshold), they lose the ability to be present to all of it. Instead, their RAS uses a pre-existing filter that detects the parts of that information which has value to them.
In politics, this is often depicted through the concept of "nuanced ideas and simplistic truths." In the case of nuanced ideas, a few different premises need to be put together to understand the broader point the speaker is hinting at. In the case of simplistic truths, a single and simple premise (the audience most likely already agrees with) is instead stated.
The advantage of simplistic truths is that most audiences will understand them, and if they conform to the audience's pre-existing biases, they will emotionally support the speaker. The major disadvantage of simplistic truths is that they cannot address complex subjects. For many complex issues, was their nuance fully understood, most people on both sides of the political spectrum would likely reach a shared position they could agree upon. Instead, however, since only simplistic truths are utilized, things remain indefinitely polarized.
Sadly, when a nuanced idea is presented, many people can't put the individual premises together into a larger picture because they cannot be present to that much information at one time (or have emotional barriers to doing so). When this occurs, they often get angry, and search for an individual premise they can attack for challenging one of their simplistic truths.
Because of the need for nuance to address many of the polarizing and dividing subjects we face in this era, I decided to adopt that approach with this Substack. By virtue of being anonymous, I can do that here as it doesn't matter if people get angry at me, and even if they do, there is nothing for them to latch onto. This greatly helps my mission because it makes audiences much more likely to try and appreciate the nuanced thought I present, rather than having the simplistic interpretation of "AMD is bad, therefore that idea is bad" (which would happen far more frequently if they knew who I was—for example consider how Ryan Cole, an upstanding individual, has been treated).
In most (but not all) cases, when someone's awareness expands to a broader reality than it is accustomed to within the body, mind, or spirit, there will be a natural strain created by it and a tendency to want to tense up and withdraw from that expansion. One of the best metaphors I have seen for this is the human response to pain, which people often cope with by tensing some part of themselves in response—even though the most effective way to mitigate pain is typically to relax into it.
Note: this is a foundational concept within Chinese medicine, as they believe blocked energy creates pain, and tension restricts the flow of the body's energy.
The process I am describing also regularly occurs with mental ideas. In turn, I would argue that this is what happens when someone has a response to a nuanced idea where they contract something inside themselves not to have to experience the strain of it being opened to a broader reality (e.g., by shutting their mind down and attacking the messenger). Although most commenters here are quite open to nuanced thoughts, I notice a common theme in their responses whenever I encounter a hostile party. They will not be able to see most of what I am saying, let alone appreciate the nuanced point being conveyed. Instead, they focus on a few statements within the response they can attack for violating their simplistic truths.
Note: I am not sure if it's the best use of my time to engage these people (since it prevents me from having the time to write things that benefit everyone), but I try to at least initially because I feel I should be able to defend what I put forward—and in many cases, a very positive discourse emerges, or they inform me of a mistake I need to correct. My general rule is to give it a few tries and then stop once I feel the other party is not acting in good faith and is primarily concerned with eating up as much of my time as possible.
Because we live in an overwhelming sea of information, being fully present to all of it is nearly impossible. This forces everyone to utilize their own filters or filters provided by nefarious entities like Google. Since I have used the internet since its early days, I gradually acclimated to the ever-increasing flow of information and taught myself how to evade the increasingly sophisticated censorship—and to be honest, I am not sure what to suggest here for people who were not gradually habituated to our current reality.
The major challenge we all run into when we see a large pool of information is being present to it and knowing how to filter for its key points. Because there is no formal training or guidance for this, people typically focus on what their RAS is already primed to spot in a sea of information and whatever elicits a strong emotional trigger for them (hence why much of the internet is inane clickbait). Neither of these is very helpful if one's goal is to determine what is actually true. Instead, they frequently lead one to simply pick out (and often selectively interpret) the "facts" (which may be incorrect) from the broad sea of information that conform to their pre-existing biases.
The ways I have found to get around these issues are as follows:
•I have some type of intuition that tells me which thing (e.g., a data point, article, or book) I need to focus on in a broad set of data. Often I don't know why I felt pulled to it, but typically I discover very useful things from this process. Many people I've talked to who are successful analysts have told me they have a similar intuitive capacity.
Note: this is difficult to explain, but this process is not the same as having a bias to look for things that affirm your pre-existing viewpoints.
•I have gotten a natural sense of the biases behind different sources of information. I don't believe biases are intrinsically bad; we are human, so every source will have them (e.g., I am biased against the COVID-19 vaccines and upfront about it). However, it's important to consider what information a biased source puts forward due its bias cannot be trusted and which can.
For example, Wikipedia is a wonderful resource for non-controversial topics (e.g., summarizing medical or scientific concepts) no one would be particularly motivated to lie about. In contrast, on any commonly censored or controversial subject (including unorthodox perspectives on the previously mentioned scientific and medical concepts), Wikipedia's only value is learning the existing narrative. Similarly, I will often read a source I know is heavily biased against a subject I believe in so I can rapidly identify if there are any valid concerns presented by those skeptics I need to address or in some cases, cannot address and effectively disprove my belief.
•You need to recognize when you have reached the point of diminishing returns with a source; if it is telling you things you already know, there is no value in reading it other than to confirm your existing beliefs. In the previous article, I mentioned that I spent a lot of time reading conspiracy literature. Still, I eventually stopped because I realized it was getting repetitive, and it reached the point where I would know most of an article's content shortly after I began to read it.
•Whenever possible, try to drill to the core of what the topic you are reading about actually is, and then search for the things that tell you what you need to know about that core as opposed to the countless superficial expressions of the subject (which can be almost endless to read through to). This is essentially the same process I use in many other facets of life, including working with patients.
•You need to consider if what is being presented can justify the claim. For example, a common way people who challenge the system are attacked is to make a variety of allegations against them which are based on assumptions, unproven allegations, inferences about the individual's state of mind, or hypothetical scenarios about the individual the author emotionally puts forward as fact, even though there is no way to know if any of that is true.
Similarly, many pieces of evidence I've seen put forward that "prove" graphene oxide is in the vaccines at best potentially suggest it (e.g., there are a variety of patents for using graphene oxide—but most patents never make it to the marketplace). Conversely, many others have no relation to the subject at hand (e.g., leaked Pfizer documents that said it was in the vaccines actually said it was used as part of the testing process on the vaccine during its production process—which has nothing to do with it being in the vaccine itself). On these points, I want to be very clear that I despise Pfizer, but at the same time, I cannot level accusations against them that cannot be defended.
When all of these suggestive points are woven together, they can create a compelling narrative (especially if they are being read with a filter seeking to confirm a pre-existing belief). Still, when you cut through them, you often find nothing to substantiate them. Similarly, one of the things I realized over time with conspiracy theories is that while many of them were provable beyond a shadow of a doubt, many others were a collection of speculative inferences and partial evidence woven together to argue for something you couldn't prove.
Many believe the two being blurred together under the same label ("conspiracy theories") was a deliberate tactic by industry (or the CIA). This was done so that whenever evidence was put forward showing industry did something very bad, rather than address it, industry could simply emotionally associate that evidence with the highly speculative conspiracies and thereby have the public emotionally dismiss the corporation's crimes.
Note: Writing here truthfully makes me very nervous because I am constantly worried something I put forward will either be incorrect or harm a significant number of people, and this has forced me to fact-check and question a lot of what I had previously thought I could just say (and had previously done so in numerous conversations).
•Allow your mind to expand so it can become fully conscious of a large amount of information without wanting to withdraw from it. I believe this skill is fundamentally the most important skill for navigating this entire issue.
At the same time, it is also the hardest to develop, and I owe much of my ability to do it to having trained the skill in areas unrelated to medicine or writing. However, if this is your goal, you can gradually move towards tolerating an increasing amount of ambiguity and excessive information without getting overloaded. Oddly enough, I have also found if you avoid substances, have healthy sleep cycles, use blue light filters on screens (e.g., f.lux) and stay away from unhealthy lighting (e.g., fluorescent tubes), your ability to be aware of larger volumes of information also increases.
Whenever I write here, I often have the idea of the article form in my mind, and what allows me to put it into text is if my mind can expand enough to be present to the entire piece. Frequently after this process begins, I will notice there are certain parts of the picture my mind does not want to look at and feel darker or as though they have shut down. This typically means that there is a contradiction or error in that part of my thesis I am trying to run away from and ignore. In turn, I find it is only once I get to the point I no longer feel that anywhere in my mental construct of the article that it is ready for publication. It took me a bit to realize this, but that process is very similar to what I had gone through previously with meditation practices, and that is likely where my approach to writing came from.
Note: one of the debates I always have with editors in writing is whether or not I should break up longer sentences. The argument for doing this is that it makes it easier to follow what I am saying. In contrast, the argument against doing so is that it breaks the continuity of the point I am making, and some of the meaning gets lost when the statement is fragmented. I am still not sure which is correct, but I currently default to the longer sentences.
Many spiritual leaders I have spoken to have shared a common concern with the modern era; that most existing religions are in the same situation as the Constitution. When they were developed, the world was very different (it was a simple agrarian society). The modern era has many unique needs and challenges, such as the insane overload of information and our over-identification with intellectual ideas. These changes are particularly concerning because they have replaced some of the most important things in life, such as our connections to ourselves (e.g., the digital age has made many lose the ability to feel) and those around us.
As a result, the current reality we face was never explicitly addressed within these texts. The world is so different now, no one could have predicted how things are at the time these were written.
For the same reasons, I do not support rewriting the Constitution, I also do not support revising the classic religious texts. However, there is also an alternative solution to this dilemma. Teach people to focus on grasping the timeless essence of those teachings by allowing their minds to expand enough to see the nuances within those texts rather than having a superficial reading that fixates on specific simplistic phrases and then rearranges them to support whatever the agenda is of the reader.
Postscript: After writing this I realized I made two major omissions.
The first is that if you watch the evolution of American media over the decades, the time between transitions to new scenes has continually decreased which both causes and is reflective of a profound loss in the attention span of each American. Many of the qualities I argued are necessary to be able to perceive become much harder to perceive with a shortened attention span.
The second is that a good argument can be made one of the primary causes of attention deficit disorder are vaccine injuries.
In turn, innumerable practices were designed to gradually increase your awareness within each aspect of your being and each person and thing around you. These practices, in turn, all share many similarities since they reflect the same process.
This ability to be more aware of what’s around you comes more naturally to some. In medicine, those with this skill set tend to be the doctors who most able to fully connect with the patient and recognize something they were never trained to look for. Conversely, this capacity greatly decreases as people become more disconnected from their bodies and predominantly live in their minds (which sadly characterizes the modern digital age).
This I believe, is one of the key factors explaining why older doctors who were not raised in the digital age tend to be better at connecting with their patients and seeing things their colleagues cannot recognize. Unfortunately, the entire push within medicine has been to have everything become automated (e.g., lots of tests and imaging or treatment algorithms doctors must follow) in place of the doctor creating a human connection with their patient and using that awareness to discern what their issue is.
I believe this transition has happened because it makes it much easier to sell billable medical services repeatedly. I also think it’s a shame it’s happened because a lot of conditions cannot be treated with the automated model, and I have lost count of how many people I and colleagues have seen who we felt had a relatively straightforward issue dozens of respected physicians utilizing automated medicine were stumped on.
Filters and Information
When I was younger, I was a competitive debater, which often required arguing a point I believed was utterly incorrect. From doing this, I came to appreciate how it was possible to effectively argue almost anything if you correctly framed the debate and rearranged the available information to support your narrative.This gave me a deep appreciation for how illusory "certainty" or "truth" was and how often things we were sure were true was simply the result of a selective presentation of reality. This is also why I've been so driven throughout my life to establish what is objectively true and not simply a subjective representation of reality…which is very challenging when you dive into it. Similarly, this is why when I write articles, before publication, I catch and address counterarguments that would be raised to them as my past training in debate made me able to take the role of someone who seriously disagrees with everything published here and is searching for ways to discredit the article.
I would now like to tie all the themes of this article together.
Whenever humans are exposed to an excessive amount of information (which can often be a surprisingly low threshold), they lose the ability to be present to all of it. Instead, their RAS uses a pre-existing filter that detects the parts of that information which has value to them.
In politics, this is often depicted through the concept of "nuanced ideas and simplistic truths." In the case of nuanced ideas, a few different premises need to be put together to understand the broader point the speaker is hinting at. In the case of simplistic truths, a single and simple premise (the audience most likely already agrees with) is instead stated.
The advantage of simplistic truths is that most audiences will understand them, and if they conform to the audience's pre-existing biases, they will emotionally support the speaker. The major disadvantage of simplistic truths is that they cannot address complex subjects. For many complex issues, was their nuance fully understood, most people on both sides of the political spectrum would likely reach a shared position they could agree upon. Instead, however, since only simplistic truths are utilized, things remain indefinitely polarized.
Sadly, when a nuanced idea is presented, many people can't put the individual premises together into a larger picture because they cannot be present to that much information at one time (or have emotional barriers to doing so). When this occurs, they often get angry, and search for an individual premise they can attack for challenging one of their simplistic truths.
Because of the need for nuance to address many of the polarizing and dividing subjects we face in this era, I decided to adopt that approach with this Substack. By virtue of being anonymous, I can do that here as it doesn't matter if people get angry at me, and even if they do, there is nothing for them to latch onto. This greatly helps my mission because it makes audiences much more likely to try and appreciate the nuanced thought I present, rather than having the simplistic interpretation of "AMD is bad, therefore that idea is bad" (which would happen far more frequently if they knew who I was—for example consider how Ryan Cole, an upstanding individual, has been treated).
In most (but not all) cases, when someone's awareness expands to a broader reality than it is accustomed to within the body, mind, or spirit, there will be a natural strain created by it and a tendency to want to tense up and withdraw from that expansion. One of the best metaphors I have seen for this is the human response to pain, which people often cope with by tensing some part of themselves in response—even though the most effective way to mitigate pain is typically to relax into it.
Note: this is a foundational concept within Chinese medicine, as they believe blocked energy creates pain, and tension restricts the flow of the body's energy.
The process I am describing also regularly occurs with mental ideas. In turn, I would argue that this is what happens when someone has a response to a nuanced idea where they contract something inside themselves not to have to experience the strain of it being opened to a broader reality (e.g., by shutting their mind down and attacking the messenger). Although most commenters here are quite open to nuanced thoughts, I notice a common theme in their responses whenever I encounter a hostile party. They will not be able to see most of what I am saying, let alone appreciate the nuanced point being conveyed. Instead, they focus on a few statements within the response they can attack for violating their simplistic truths.
Note: I am not sure if it's the best use of my time to engage these people (since it prevents me from having the time to write things that benefit everyone), but I try to at least initially because I feel I should be able to defend what I put forward—and in many cases, a very positive discourse emerges, or they inform me of a mistake I need to correct. My general rule is to give it a few tries and then stop once I feel the other party is not acting in good faith and is primarily concerned with eating up as much of my time as possible.
Because we live in an overwhelming sea of information, being fully present to all of it is nearly impossible. This forces everyone to utilize their own filters or filters provided by nefarious entities like Google. Since I have used the internet since its early days, I gradually acclimated to the ever-increasing flow of information and taught myself how to evade the increasingly sophisticated censorship—and to be honest, I am not sure what to suggest here for people who were not gradually habituated to our current reality.
The major challenge we all run into when we see a large pool of information is being present to it and knowing how to filter for its key points. Because there is no formal training or guidance for this, people typically focus on what their RAS is already primed to spot in a sea of information and whatever elicits a strong emotional trigger for them (hence why much of the internet is inane clickbait). Neither of these is very helpful if one's goal is to determine what is actually true. Instead, they frequently lead one to simply pick out (and often selectively interpret) the "facts" (which may be incorrect) from the broad sea of information that conform to their pre-existing biases.
The ways I have found to get around these issues are as follows:
•I have some type of intuition that tells me which thing (e.g., a data point, article, or book) I need to focus on in a broad set of data. Often I don't know why I felt pulled to it, but typically I discover very useful things from this process. Many people I've talked to who are successful analysts have told me they have a similar intuitive capacity.
Note: this is difficult to explain, but this process is not the same as having a bias to look for things that affirm your pre-existing viewpoints.
•I have gotten a natural sense of the biases behind different sources of information. I don't believe biases are intrinsically bad; we are human, so every source will have them (e.g., I am biased against the COVID-19 vaccines and upfront about it). However, it's important to consider what information a biased source puts forward due its bias cannot be trusted and which can.
For example, Wikipedia is a wonderful resource for non-controversial topics (e.g., summarizing medical or scientific concepts) no one would be particularly motivated to lie about. In contrast, on any commonly censored or controversial subject (including unorthodox perspectives on the previously mentioned scientific and medical concepts), Wikipedia's only value is learning the existing narrative. Similarly, I will often read a source I know is heavily biased against a subject I believe in so I can rapidly identify if there are any valid concerns presented by those skeptics I need to address or in some cases, cannot address and effectively disprove my belief.
•You need to recognize when you have reached the point of diminishing returns with a source; if it is telling you things you already know, there is no value in reading it other than to confirm your existing beliefs. In the previous article, I mentioned that I spent a lot of time reading conspiracy literature. Still, I eventually stopped because I realized it was getting repetitive, and it reached the point where I would know most of an article's content shortly after I began to read it.
•Whenever possible, try to drill to the core of what the topic you are reading about actually is, and then search for the things that tell you what you need to know about that core as opposed to the countless superficial expressions of the subject (which can be almost endless to read through to). This is essentially the same process I use in many other facets of life, including working with patients.
•You need to consider if what is being presented can justify the claim. For example, a common way people who challenge the system are attacked is to make a variety of allegations against them which are based on assumptions, unproven allegations, inferences about the individual's state of mind, or hypothetical scenarios about the individual the author emotionally puts forward as fact, even though there is no way to know if any of that is true.
Similarly, many pieces of evidence I've seen put forward that "prove" graphene oxide is in the vaccines at best potentially suggest it (e.g., there are a variety of patents for using graphene oxide—but most patents never make it to the marketplace). Conversely, many others have no relation to the subject at hand (e.g., leaked Pfizer documents that said it was in the vaccines actually said it was used as part of the testing process on the vaccine during its production process—which has nothing to do with it being in the vaccine itself). On these points, I want to be very clear that I despise Pfizer, but at the same time, I cannot level accusations against them that cannot be defended.
When all of these suggestive points are woven together, they can create a compelling narrative (especially if they are being read with a filter seeking to confirm a pre-existing belief). Still, when you cut through them, you often find nothing to substantiate them. Similarly, one of the things I realized over time with conspiracy theories is that while many of them were provable beyond a shadow of a doubt, many others were a collection of speculative inferences and partial evidence woven together to argue for something you couldn't prove.
Many believe the two being blurred together under the same label ("conspiracy theories") was a deliberate tactic by industry (or the CIA). This was done so that whenever evidence was put forward showing industry did something very bad, rather than address it, industry could simply emotionally associate that evidence with the highly speculative conspiracies and thereby have the public emotionally dismiss the corporation's crimes.
Note: Writing here truthfully makes me very nervous because I am constantly worried something I put forward will either be incorrect or harm a significant number of people, and this has forced me to fact-check and question a lot of what I had previously thought I could just say (and had previously done so in numerous conversations).
•Allow your mind to expand so it can become fully conscious of a large amount of information without wanting to withdraw from it. I believe this skill is fundamentally the most important skill for navigating this entire issue.
At the same time, it is also the hardest to develop, and I owe much of my ability to do it to having trained the skill in areas unrelated to medicine or writing. However, if this is your goal, you can gradually move towards tolerating an increasing amount of ambiguity and excessive information without getting overloaded. Oddly enough, I have also found if you avoid substances, have healthy sleep cycles, use blue light filters on screens (e.g., f.lux) and stay away from unhealthy lighting (e.g., fluorescent tubes), your ability to be aware of larger volumes of information also increases.
Whenever I write here, I often have the idea of the article form in my mind, and what allows me to put it into text is if my mind can expand enough to be present to the entire piece. Frequently after this process begins, I will notice there are certain parts of the picture my mind does not want to look at and feel darker or as though they have shut down. This typically means that there is a contradiction or error in that part of my thesis I am trying to run away from and ignore. In turn, I find it is only once I get to the point I no longer feel that anywhere in my mental construct of the article that it is ready for publication. It took me a bit to realize this, but that process is very similar to what I had gone through previously with meditation practices, and that is likely where my approach to writing came from.
Note: one of the debates I always have with editors in writing is whether or not I should break up longer sentences. The argument for doing this is that it makes it easier to follow what I am saying. In contrast, the argument against doing so is that it breaks the continuity of the point I am making, and some of the meaning gets lost when the statement is fragmented. I am still not sure which is correct, but I currently default to the longer sentences.
Conclusion
One of the most common political debates is if the Constitution is good or bad. The essential argument is that since the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, it is not suited for the modern world and needs to be replaced. The counterargument to this is that because the political system is so corrupt, anything that replaced the Constitution would be far, far worse than the current one (which has many positive things going for it).Many spiritual leaders I have spoken to have shared a common concern with the modern era; that most existing religions are in the same situation as the Constitution. When they were developed, the world was very different (it was a simple agrarian society). The modern era has many unique needs and challenges, such as the insane overload of information and our over-identification with intellectual ideas. These changes are particularly concerning because they have replaced some of the most important things in life, such as our connections to ourselves (e.g., the digital age has made many lose the ability to feel) and those around us.
As a result, the current reality we face was never explicitly addressed within these texts. The world is so different now, no one could have predicted how things are at the time these were written.
For the same reasons, I do not support rewriting the Constitution, I also do not support revising the classic religious texts. However, there is also an alternative solution to this dilemma. Teach people to focus on grasping the timeless essence of those teachings by allowing their minds to expand enough to see the nuances within those texts rather than having a superficial reading that fixates on specific simplistic phrases and then rearranges them to support whatever the agenda is of the reader.
Postscript: After writing this I realized I made two major omissions.
The first is that if you watch the evolution of American media over the decades, the time between transitions to new scenes has continually decreased which both causes and is reflective of a profound loss in the attention span of each American. Many of the qualities I argued are necessary to be able to perceive become much harder to perceive with a shortened attention span.
The second is that a good argument can be made one of the primary causes of attention deficit disorder are vaccine injuries.
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
BREAKING NEWS! Chinese Scientist Raises Alarm On Newly Emerging Omicron Sublineages' Alarming Trend Of Escalating Cellular Infectivity - Thailand Medical News
COVID-19 News: In a shocking revelation that has sent shockwaves through the scientific community, a group of Chinese scientists has issued a grave warning about the newly-emerged sub-lineages of the Omicron variant. These sub-lineages, according to their findings, display a deeply troubling and...
www.thailandmedical.news
Chinese Scientist Raises Alarm On Newly Emerging Omicron Sublineages' Alarming Trend Of Escalating Cellular Infectivity
Thailand Medical News
May 26, 2023
In a shocking revelation that has sent shockwaves through the scientific community, a group of Chinese scientists has issued a grave warning about the newly-emerged sub-lineages of the Omicron variant. These sub-lineages, according to their findings, display a deeply troubling and dangerous characteristic: an unprecedented increase in cellular infectivity.
Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the world has witnessed the emergence of various SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, the Omicron variant, also known as B.1.1.529, has taken the global stage by storm, rapidly surpassing its predecessor, the Delta variant. Adding to the concern, the Omicron variant has continued to mutate, giving rise to multiple sub-lineages that have evolved to adapt to the human host as covered in many previous studies and COVID-19 News reports.
With mounting urgency, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, in collaboration with Peking Union Medical College and Suzhou Hospital-Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Nanjing University, embarked on an extensive investigation into the infectivity, proteolytic activation, viral entry pathways, membrane fusion, and sensitivity to antibody neutralization of these predominant Omicron sub-lineages.
The researchers found alarming mutations in the spike (S) proteins of the Omicron sub-lineages, particularly within the receptor binding domain (RBD). These mutations have the potential to alter the conformation of the S protein, affecting its interaction with receptors and neutralizing antibodies. Utilizing a sophisticated pseudovirus system, the scientists discovered that certain sub-lineages, such as BA.2.12.1, BA.2?+?L452Q, BA.4/5, BF.7, BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1.5, exhibited significantly higher infectivity than the original Omicron variant.
Digging deeper into the mechanisms behind this heightened infectivity, the researchers investigated the proteolytic activation process of the S proteins.
Astonishingly, they found that the cleavage of S proteins within the Omicron sub-lineages was weaker compared to previous strains. However, a subset of sub-lineages, including BA.2.12.1, BA.2.13, BA.2?+?L452Q, BA.4/5, BF.7, BQ.1, and BQ.1.1, displayed enhanced cleavage. Furthermore, the binding affinity of certain sub-lineages, such as XBB.1.5, to the ACE2 receptor was significantly strengthened, further bolstering their infectivity.
Uncovering the gateway through which Omicron sub-lineages gain entry into host cells, the scientists observed that these sub-lineages were less dependent on transmembrane serine proteases, such as TMPRSS2, which are vital for the infection of other strains. Instead, the Omicron sub-lineages predominantly entered cells through the E64d-sensitive pathway, suggesting a unique mode of viral entry.
In a startling twist, the researchers discovered that the fusion activity of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein, a crucial determinant of viral infectivity, was lower in the Omicron sub-lineages compared to other strains. However, the BA.4/5 sub-lineage demonstrated a slight enhancement in fusion activity, raising concerns about its potential impact on viral pathogenicity.
As if these findings weren't alarming enough, the Chinese scientists also shed light on the immune evasion capabilities of the Omicron sub-lineages. Most notably, they found that the neutralizing efficacy of various monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and inactivated viral vaccine sera against the Omicron sub-lineages was significantly diminished. This raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of current therapeutic treatments and vaccination strategies against these newly-emerging variants.
This ongoing evolution of the Omicron variant and its diverse sub-lineages and recombinant sub-lineages poses a significant challenge to public health efforts worldwide.
Vaccinated individuals, who were once thought to be protected against severe illness and infection, are now at risk of contracting these newly-emerged variants.
The scientists emphasize the urgent need for continuous monitoring of the Omicron variants and the development of effective therapeutic interventions. They suggest that a combination of multiple therapeutic modalities and the creation of pan-ß-coronavirus neutralizing mAbs and vaccines could prove crucial in mitigating the threat posed by the Omicron sub-lineages.
As this groundbreaking research from Chinese scientists reverberates through the global scientific community, it serves as a stark reminder of the ever-evolving nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The Omicron sub-lineages' increased cellular infectivity, coupled with their potent immune evasion capabilities, demands swift action to protect public health.
The warnings were published as a letter in the peer reviewed journal: Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy (Nature).
vector7
Dot Collector
This is the most important video you will watch this year. Millions were killed with Covid-19 for profit.
“Covid-19 was an act of biological warfare perpetrated on the human race. It was a financial heist. Nature was hijacked. Science was hijacked.”
This is from the recent International Covid Summit hosted by the European Parliament. So far 766 million Covid-19 infections have been recorded worldwide with over 7 million deaths, excluding vaccine deaths. This is the biggest crime against humanity perpetrated by the US Govt.
The evidence suggests that Covid-19 was intentionally released by the US Govt in Wuhan, China with the goal to trigger a global pandemic to raise public acceptance of US Pharma vaccines. Every nation should condemn the bio-terrorist, pipeline terrorist Govt of the United States?
RT 22min
View: https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1661698114917646336?t=lNRVxu88Leq5g31OPTVaKw&s=19
They released it to get rid of Trump and take power.
By any means necessary.
View: https://twitter.com/BenScott/status/1661795826816159744?t=jSkYv1bkgTgBn7nHUeO2-g&s=19
“Covid-19 was an act of biological warfare perpetrated on the human race. It was a financial heist. Nature was hijacked. Science was hijacked.”
This is from the recent International Covid Summit hosted by the European Parliament. So far 766 million Covid-19 infections have been recorded worldwide with over 7 million deaths, excluding vaccine deaths. This is the biggest crime against humanity perpetrated by the US Govt.
The evidence suggests that Covid-19 was intentionally released by the US Govt in Wuhan, China with the goal to trigger a global pandemic to raise public acceptance of US Pharma vaccines. Every nation should condemn the bio-terrorist, pipeline terrorist Govt of the United States?
RT 22min
View: https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1661698114917646336?t=lNRVxu88Leq5g31OPTVaKw&s=19
They released it to get rid of Trump and take power.
By any means necessary.
View: https://twitter.com/BenScott/status/1661795826816159744?t=jSkYv1bkgTgBn7nHUeO2-g&s=19
Cacheman
Ultra MAGA!
Sort of related to the Kim Dotcom tweet above, the WHO stating another very deadly pandemic (far worse than covid) will soon strike and the avian flu killing all birds (100% death rate of infected) except the migrating wild geese that carry it is this....
threadreaderapp.com
238 views
1h • 5 tweets • 3 min read
Read on Twitter
1) Update from Russian MoD on US biological crimes in Ukraine!
Russian MIL collected bioweapon samples from Biosphere Reserve in Kherson, of avian flu strains with ability to cross species barrier and human lethality rate of 40%
MUST READ THREAD!
Russian MFA
️ Briefing by Chief of Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Protection Troops General Lieutenant Igor Kirillov on US military-biological activity Read in full Key points • The task force of the Russ… Russian MFA
2) Russian MIL show evidence of US DoD funding for the studying of bird migration at various biolabs and veterinary labs in Ukraine, alleging the US have contingencies to use bird migration to spread highly lethal human-engineered pathogens from Ukraine
Serious allegations.
3) “The U.S. military is actively studying these economically significant infections outside the national territory in bio-laboratories located along the borders of its geopolitical adversaries.
This demonstrates once more that the U.S. is creating biological weapons components… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
4) Russian MIL go on to highlight the US and their Military Biodefense Strategy and their nefarious research at biolabs around the world, most notably in Ukraine.
Russian MIL accuses the US of blocking investigation via Biological Weapons Convention, breaching international law.
5) Russia go on to show that between 2014-2020 that Walter Reed Army Institute of Research were collecting samples and studying pathogens in the Donbas, suggesting that the US/NATO had plans to eventually go to war in this region back in 2014.
This is why Russia is in Ukraine
• • •
Thread by @WarClandestine on Thread Reader App
@WarClandestine: 1) Update from Russian MoD on US biological crimes in Ukraine! ☣️ Russian MIL collected bioweapon samples from Biosphere Reserve in Kherson, of avian flu strains with ability to cross species barrie...…
threadreaderapp.com
238 views
Clandestine
@WarClandestine1h • 5 tweets • 3 min read
Read on Twitter1) Update from Russian MoD on US biological crimes in Ukraine!
Russian MIL collected bioweapon samples from Biosphere Reserve in Kherson, of avian flu strains with ability to cross species barrier and human lethality rate of 40%
MUST READ THREAD!
Russian MFA
️ Briefing by Chief of Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Protection Troops General Lieutenant Igor Kirillov on US military-biological activity Read in full Key points • The task force of the Russ… Russian MFA2) Russian MIL show evidence of US DoD funding for the studying of bird migration at various biolabs and veterinary labs in Ukraine, alleging the US have contingencies to use bird migration to spread highly lethal human-engineered pathogens from Ukraine
Serious allegations.
3) “The U.S. military is actively studying these economically significant infections outside the national territory in bio-laboratories located along the borders of its geopolitical adversaries.
This demonstrates once more that the U.S. is creating biological weapons components… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
4) Russian MIL go on to highlight the US and their Military Biodefense Strategy and their nefarious research at biolabs around the world, most notably in Ukraine.
Russian MIL accuses the US of blocking investigation via Biological Weapons Convention, breaching international law.
5) Russia go on to show that between 2014-2020 that Walter Reed Army Institute of Research were collecting samples and studying pathogens in the Donbas, suggesting that the US/NATO had plans to eventually go to war in this region back in 2014.
This is why Russia is in Ukraine
• • •
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
For the record, and this is my opinion only but I feel like I should post it since I'm posting this video, a lot of what never worked for covid didn't work because of the way it was implemented. Masks to walk in a restaurant, but not at the table. Ridiculous. Masks off to eat on a plane. etc. Lockdowns that were in name only - anyone could leave to go to the grocery store, public riot (excuse me, I meant peaceful rally), etc. None of this was done seriously, it was just for control. Luckily covid was a lab bioweapon that turned out (SO FAR, nod to Geert) to be as powerful as they thought so it didn't matter. But if something like ebola or marburg were unleashed, or if the Geert variant comes to be, I would say wear a mask, stay away from other people in an indoor setting and stay away from crowds when outdoors, and it it's really bad, lock yourself down even if they don't tell you to. Again, in my opinion, it wouldn't benefit you to take the idiotic implementation (purposefully, diabolically, so people won't protect themselves the next time around? or so they'd be scared enough to take the covid vaxx or a vaxx the next time something happens?) of the rules for covid convince you that real masking (ie leaving it on when out no exception) and real lockdowns (don't leave your house) won't save your life in a serious pandemic. /end of my rant 
It's still a great video showing the hypocrisy...which is why I am posting it!
[Covid Retrospective Series, Vol. 3] Reality Is a Conspiracy Theory
Grabien
Published May 26, 2023
4 min 41 sec
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wMEYKlkUTA
It's still a great video showing the hypocrisy...which is why I am posting it!
[Covid Retrospective Series, Vol. 3] Reality Is a Conspiracy Theory
Grabien
Published May 26, 2023
4 min 41 sec
Last edited:
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
US study finds 1 in 10 get long COVID after omicron, starts identifying key symptoms
A U.S. study suggests 1 in 10 people are getting long COVID after an omicron infection, a lower estimate than earlier in the pandemic. The National Institutes of Health is studying nearly 10,000 U.S. adults to help better understand why some people suffer debilitating health problems that can...
apnews.com
US study finds 1 in 10 get long COVID after omicron, starts identifying key symptoms
By LAURAN NEERGAARD
yesterday
WASHINGTON (AP) — About 10% of people appear to suffer long COVID after an omicron infection, a lower estimate than earlier in the pandemic, according to a study of nearly 10,000 Americans that aims to help unravel the mysterious condition.
Early findings from the National Institutes of Health’s study highlight a dozen symptoms that most distinguish long COVID, the catchall term for the sometimes debilitating health problems that can last for months or years after even a mild case of COVID-19.
Millions worldwide have had long COVID, with dozens of widely varying symptoms including fatigue and brain fog. Scientists still don’t know what causes it, why it only strikes some people, how to treat it -– or even how to best diagnose it. Better defining the condition is key for research to get those answers.
“Sometimes I hear people say, ’Oh, everybody’s a little tired,’” said Dr. Leora Horwitz of NYU Langone Health, one of the study authors. “No, there’s something different about people who have long COVID and that’s important to know.”
The new research, published Thursday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, includes more than 8,600 adults who had COVID-19 at different points in the pandemic, comparing them to another 1,100 who hadn’t been infected.
By some estimates, roughly 1 in 3 of COVID-19 patients have experienced long COVID. That’s similar to NIH study participants who reported getting sick before the omicron variant began spreading in the U.S. in December 2021. That’s also when the study opened, and researchers noted that people who already had long COVID symptoms might have been more likely to enroll.
But about 2,230 patients had their first coronavirus infection after the study started, allowing them to report symptoms in real time -– and only about 10% experienced long-term symptoms after six months.
Prior research has suggested the risk of long COVID has dropped since omicron appeared; its descendants still are spreading.
The bigger question is how to identify and help those who already have long COVID.
The new study zeroed in on a dozen symptoms that may help define long COVID: fatigue; brain fog; dizziness; gastrointestinal symptoms; heart palpitations; sexual problems; loss of smell or taste; thirst; chronic cough; chest pain; worsening symptoms after activity and abnormal movements.
The researchers assigned scores to the symptoms, seeking to establish a threshold that eventually could help ensure similar patients are enrolled in studies of possible long COVID treatments, as part of the NIH study or elsewhere, for apples-to-apples comparison.
Horwitz stressed that doctors shouldn’t use that list to diagnose someone with long COVID — it’s a potential research tool only. Patients may have one of those symptoms, or many -– or other symptoms not on the list — and still be suffering long-term consequences of the coronavirus.
Everyone’s doing studies of long COVID yet “we don’t even know what that means,” Horwitz said.
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
Former Trump adviser Michael Flynn is launching an online community for 'COVID-19 unvaccinated people,' where you can find blood donors, surrogates, and 'unvaccinated singles.' A founding membership costs $2,500.
The purpose of the site, called 4ThePURE, is to connect those who "courageously stood against the COVID-19 jab campaign," Micheal Flynn said in an ad.
Former Trump adviser Michael Flynn is launching an online community for 'COVID-19 unvaccinated people,' where you can find blood donors, surrogates, and 'unvaccinated singles.' A founding membership costs $2,500.
Lloyd Lee - Business Insider
Sat, May 27, 2023, 1:22 AM EDT
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was a national security adviser during the Trump Administration.
He pled guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his contact with a Russian ambassador.
His new endeavor is a website called 4ThePURE, which is meant to connect unvaccinated people.
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Donald Trump's former national security adviser who pled guilty to lying to the FBI in 2017, is launching an online community dedicated to people who have not been vaccinated for COVID-19.
The community is called 4thePURE, and members can connect with blood donors, sperm donors, breastmilk donors, surrogates, and unvaccinated singles, according to the website. It will also have a directory of "COVID-19 unvaccinated patriot businesses."
Studies have shown the vaccine doesn't have "deleterious effects" on semen, nor is it unsafe to donate blood or breastmilk if a donor is vaccinated.
It's unclear when the website went live, but the company began tweeting about its service earlier this month. Flynn and a spokesperson for 4thePURE did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent outside of working hours.
In an advertisement on the site, Flyyn said 4thePURE's purpose is to"connect liked-minded individuals who courageously stood against the COVID-19 jab."
"Our programs will be used for news updates, friendships, dating, and business networking," Flynn, who is described as the founder of 4thePURE, said in the ad.
A "full member site" is scheduled to launch in June. A lifetime founding membership will cost $2,500. Companies can purchase 15 lifetime memberships for $25,000.
Flynn was Trump's national security adviser for less than a month before he resigned after acting Attorney General Sally Yates warned the White House that the lieutenant general may have lied to officials about his contact with a Russian diplomat.
He pled guilty to lying to the FBI in 2017. Trump pardoned Flynn three years later.
Since then, Flynn re-emerged into the spotlight to embrace QAnon, a pro-Trump conspiracy theory, and other falsities about COVID-19. Last year, he went on Alex Jones's Infowars show to say that the coronavirus was created by billionaires George Soros and Bill Gates as well Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum.
While the origins of COVID-19 continue to be under investigation, there is zero evidence to support that the pandemic was a deliberate plot carried out by the world's elites, as some conspiracy theorists suggest.
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
EU, Pfizer/BioNTech announce amendment to COVID vaccine contract
LONDON (Reuters) -The European Union and drugmakers Pfizer and BioNTech said on Friday they had reached a deal to amend a COVID-19 vaccine contract, cutting the number the EU must buy and pushing the delivery deadline to 2026. The agreement, first reported by Reuters earlier on Friday, comes...
EU, Pfizer/BioNTech announce amendment to COVID vaccine contract
Maggie Fick
Fri, May 26, 2023, 4:26 AM EDT
LONDON (Reuters) -The European Union and drugmakers Pfizer and BioNTech said on Friday they had reached a deal to amend a COVID-19 vaccine contract, cutting the number the EU must buy and pushing the delivery deadline to 2026.
The agreement, first reported by Reuters earlier on Friday, comes after months of talks and amid pressure on Brussels from EU governments to secure a change to the contract because of a global glut of COVID-19 vaccine doses and low demand for boosters. Some European governments have destroyed doses.
The amended contract matches "evolving needs", said EU Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides in a statement.
For more than two months Kyriakides has been urging EU member states to accept the contract amendment negotiated by the European Commission.
The Commission said in its statement on Friday that some member states had decided to opt out of the amended deal, declining to name which countries.
Those countries will continue to be bound by the current contract, the statement read. A Commission source said that those countries were Poland and Hungary.
The original contract was signed in May 2021 and committed the EU to buy 900 million doses from Pfizer/BioNTech, with an option for an additional 900 million, by the end of 2023.
About half or more of the first 900 million doses from that contract have not yet been delivered because demand dropped last year. The EU has not exercised the additional option.
The statements from the European Commission and Pfizer/BioNTech did not specify the size of the reduction in doses that was agreed.
But a source with knowledge of the negotiations told Reuters that the contract change cuts by about a third the number of those remaining doses the EU is on the hook to buy. The source sought anonymity to discuss the confidential talks.
The EU member states will have to pay a fee for each cancelled dose, the source said, while declining to say what the fee would be. The companies and the Commission also declined to comment on this.
The amended contract specifies that the EU will continue to have access to vaccines adapted to new variants as soon as they are authorised by regulators.
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
Whether causing the common cold or COVID-19, coronaviruses deploy key enzymes to elude human immune response
The entire family of coronaviruses is equipped with multiple methods of evading the human immune system, and two new studies have taken a deep dive into how these viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, leverage highly specialized enzymes that keep human immune forces at bay.
Whether causing the common cold or COVID-19, coronaviruses deploy key enzymes to elude human immune response
by Delthia Ricks , Medical Xpress
May 26, 2023
Antagonism of antiviral innate immunity by SARS-CoV-2 PLpro from VOCs. (A and B) Quantification of IFN-ß–luciferase activity (A) and NF-?B–luciferase activity (B) in HEK293T cells expressing SARS-CoV-2 WT PLpro and the four mutants K92N, A145D, V187A, and K232Q. Blots show GFP-PLpro in cell lysates. GAPDH is a loading control. Error bars are indicated with SEM for three independent experiments. *P < 0.05 and ****P < 0.0001; one-way ANOVA analysis. For (A) and (B), data represent three independent experiments. Credit: Science Signaling (2023). DOI: 10.1126/scisignal.ade1985
The entire family of coronaviruses is equipped with multiple methods of evading the human immune system, and two new studies have taken a deep dive into how these viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, leverage highly specialized enzymes that keep human immune forces at bay.
The studies train a bright spotlight on the stealthy strategies that coronaviruses deploy to antagonize and destabilize human cells, steps scripted in their genetic code that ultimately help these viruses evade immune system assault. Some members of the broad coronavirus family are more adept at these strategies than others.
Indeed, one of the constants throughout the COVID pandemic has been the worrying discovery of a growing suite of molecular methods that SARS-CoV-2 uses to elude the human immune system. New research from China has opened a window into an evasion strategy in which coronaviruses destabilizes human cells and damages leap forward by comparing the evasion capabilities of milder coronaviruses to the trio of coronaviruses known to cause serious, even lethal respiratory infections.
"Coronaviruses that infect humans can cause either common colds … or severe respiratory symptoms," noted Yuxian Xiong, lead author of one of the two studies reported in Science Signaling. Both research papers involve roughly the same team of scientists from numerous institutions in China, including State Key Laboratory of Chemical Oncogenomics in Guangdong and Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School, also in Guangdong.
Regardless of whether the coronavirus causes a bout with the common cold or serious infections, such as COVID-19 or MERS, most set the stage for immune evasion by damaging critical human proteins that prompt the immune response. Coronaviruses launch their attack by deploying the same type of protein-cleaving enzyme.
Xiong explained that there are seven coronaviruses that infect humans, and four cause the common cold. They are: HCoV-NL63, HCoV-229E, HCoV-HKU1 and HCoV-OC43. Their more dangerous cousins are SARS-CoV, the culprit behind the 2003 SARS epidemic; MERS-CoV, which emerged in Saudi Arabia in 2012, and, of course, SARS-CoV-2, the virus underlying the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Guangdong team zeroed in on the viral enzymes known as papain-like proteases, protein-cleaving enzymes that evolved to help coronaviruses ensure their survival by damaging critical signaling proteins that regulate human cells. Once attacked by these enzymes, human cells become destabilized and lose their capacity to marshal innate immune system responses.
While these enzymes have been elucidated in the trio of dangerous coronaviruses, Xiong and colleagues have identified protein-like proteases—PLPs—in HCoV-229E, HCoV-HKU1, and HCoV-OC43, three coronaviruses that cause the common cold.
"We identified the PLPs of HCoV-229E, HCoV-HKU1, and HCoV-OC43 and found that their enzymatic properties correlated with their ability to suppress innate immune responses," wrote Xiong. The innate immune response is the initial cascade of immune system constituents released by human cells in response to infection.
Xiong and colleagues describe how coronaviruses use their PLPs to damage the protein ubiqutin and a related ubiquitin-like protein called ISG15. Human cells use ubiquitin and ISG15 as cell regulators. By damaging these regulating proteins, the innate immune response is impaired and the viruses are free to proliferate unchecked. PLPs are said to have deubiquitinating and deISGylating activity.
Deubiquitinating and deISGylating activity in coronaviruses play important roles in antagonizing the host's immune system and additionally may promote immune evasion by coronaviruses, Xiong and colleagues say.
Dan Cao and a team of scientists in a second study published in the same journal investigated how the SARS-CoV-2's PLP—Plpro—suppresses the type-1 interferon antiviral response in human cells. Interferon is a critical player in innate immune system activity.
Cao found that, when infecting human embryonic kidney cells, Plpro removed chains of ubiquitin proteins (in other words, PLpro deubiquitinated those proteins) from a multiprotein complex in human cells called STING, which stands for Stimulator of Interferon Genes. STING is a 379 amino acid complex and is a major propagator of antiviral responses.
Looked at another way, Cao and colleagues discovered how SARS-CoV-2 literally takes the sting out of the STING complex. "Because it is the first line of antiviral defense in humans, the type 1 interferon signaling pathway is one of the main targets of viral antagonism to facilitate immune evasion," Cao asserted in the second Science Signaling study on PLPs and their capacity to elude human immune system activity. "Several SARS-CoV-2 proteins reportedly play antagonistic and evasion roles against interferon-1 responses."
Cao and the Guangdong team of researchers additionally found that treating human lung airway cells with an activator of STING, and a compound that inhibits PLpro, slowed the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in culture. The researchers also examined the PLPs from the six other coronaviruses that infect humans as well as several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. They discovered that PLPs from all coronaviruses that infect humans became bound to STING and suppressed interferon responses.
The discoveries are leading to new insights about the family of human-infecting coronaviruses as a whole. "SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS encode only one PLP domain, namely, PLpro," Xiong explained, referring to the trio of more dangerous types of coronaviruses. "By contrast, the mild coronavirus NL63 contains two PLP domains, PLP1 and PLP2, but only PLP2 has been reported to have deubiquitinating activity."
Having these new discoveries in hand may eventually lead to improved antiviral therapies for existing coronaviruses and even future threats from this family of pathogens, Xiong and Cao say.
jed turtle
a brother in the Lord
Obvious total hit piece.(fair use applies)Former Trump adviser Michael Flynn is launching an online community for 'COVID-19 unvaccinated people,' where you can find blood donors, surrogates, and 'unvaccinated singles.' A founding membership costs $2,500.
The purpose of the site, called 4ThePURE, is to connect those who "courageously stood against the COVID-19 jab campaign," Micheal Flynn said in an ad.news.yahoo.com
Former Trump adviser Michael Flynn is launching an online community for 'COVID-19 unvaccinated people,' where you can find blood donors, surrogates, and 'unvaccinated singles.' A founding membership costs $2,500.
Lloyd Lee - Business Insider
Sat, May 27, 2023, 1:22 AM EDT
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was a national security adviser during the Trump Administration.
He pled guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his contact with a Russian ambassador.
His new endeavor is a website called 4ThePURE, which is meant to connect unvaccinated people.
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Donald Trump's former national security adviser who pled guilty to lying to the FBI in 2017, is launching an online community dedicated to people who have not been vaccinated for COVID-19.
The community is called 4thePURE, and members can connect with blood donors, sperm donors, breastmilk donors, surrogates, and unvaccinated singles, according to the website. It will also have a directory of "COVID-19 unvaccinated patriot businesses."
Studies have shown the vaccine doesn't have "deleterious effects" on semen, nor is it unsafe to donate blood or breastmilk if a donor is vaccinated.
It's unclear when the website went live, but the company began tweeting about its service earlier this month. Flynn and a spokesperson for 4thePURE did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent outside of working hours.
In an advertisement on the site, Flyyn said 4thePURE's purpose is to"connect liked-minded individuals who courageously stood against the COVID-19 jab."
"Our programs will be used for news updates, friendships, dating, and business networking," Flynn, who is described as the founder of 4thePURE, said in the ad.
A "full member site" is scheduled to launch in June. A lifetime founding membership will cost $2,500. Companies can purchase 15 lifetime memberships for $25,000.
Flynn was Trump's national security adviser for less than a month before he resigned after acting Attorney General Sally Yates warned the White House that the lieutenant general may have lied to officials about his contact with a Russian diplomat.
He pled guilty to lying to the FBI in 2017. Trump pardoned Flynn three years later.
Since then, Flynn re-emerged into the spotlight to embrace QAnon, a pro-Trump conspiracy theory, and other falsities about COVID-19. Last year, he went on Alex Jones's Infowars show to say that the coronavirus was created by billionaires George Soros and Bill Gates as well Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum.
While the origins of COVID-19 continue to be under investigation, there is zero evidence to support that the pandemic was a deliberate plot carried out by the world's elites, as some conspiracy theorists suggest.
too many ways to tell to bother listing.
in addition, re:
“While the origins of COVID-19 continue to be under investigation, there is zero evidence to support that the pandemic was a deliberate plot carried out by the world's elites, as some conspiracy theorists suggest.”
there is also zero evidence that there IS a virus at all...
Gates and his Rockefeller’s chums must be in danger of laughing all the way to the bank.
Zoner
Veteran Member
Thanks for sharing thisSort of related to the Kim Dotcom tweet above, the WHO stating another very deadly pandemic (far worse than covid) will soon strike and the avian flu killing all birds (100% death rate of infected) except the migrating wild geese that carry it is this....
View attachment 415362
Thread by @WarClandestine on Thread Reader App
@WarClandestine: 1) Update from Russian MoD on US biological crimes in Ukraine! ☣️ Russian MIL collected bioweapon samples from Biosphere Reserve in Kherson, of avian flu strains with ability to cross species barrie...…
238 views
Clandestine
@WarClandestine
1h • 5 tweets • 3 min read
1) Update from Russian MoD on US biological crimes in Ukraine!
Russian MIL collected bioweapon samples from Biosphere Reserve in Kherson, of avian flu strains with ability to cross species barrier and human lethality rate of 40%
MUST READ THREAD!
Russian MFA
2) Russian MIL show evidence of US DoD funding for the studying of bird migration at various biolabs and veterinary labs in Ukraine, alleging the US have contingencies to use bird migration to spread highly lethal human-engineered pathogens from Ukraine
Serious allegations.
3) “The U.S. military is actively studying these economically significant infections outside the national territory in bio-laboratories located along the borders of its geopolitical adversaries.
This demonstrates once more that the U.S. is creating biological weapons components… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
4) Russian MIL go on to highlight the US and their Military Biodefense Strategy and their nefarious research at biolabs around the world, most notably in Ukraine.
Russian MIL accuses the US of blocking investigation via Biological Weapons Convention, breaching international law.
5) Russia go on to show that between 2014-2020 that Walter Reed Army Institute of Research were collecting samples and studying pathogens in the Donbas, suggesting that the US/NATO had plans to eventually go to war in this region back in 2014.
This is why Russia is in Ukraine
• • •
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
Another really well done compliation video of all the orchestrated condemnation of the unvaxxed.
THE UNVACCINATED | "Nobody is Safe!"
Matt Orfalea
May 21, 2023
11 min 24 sec
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI3yU5Z2adI
THE UNVACCINATED | "Nobody is Safe!"
Matt Orfalea
May 21, 2023
11 min 24 sec
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
Zero Young Healthy Individuals Died of COVID-19, Israeli Data Show
Zero healthy individuals under the age of 50 have died of COVID-19 in Israel, according to newly released ...
www.theepochtimes.com
Zero Young Healthy Individuals Died of COVID-19, Israeli Data Show
Lia Onely
May 27 2023
Zero healthy individuals under the age of 50 have died of COVID-19 in Israel, according to newly released data.
“Zero deceased of 18–49 years of age with no underlying morbidities,” the Israel Ministry of Health (MOH) said in response to a formal request from an attorney.
Officials noted that the statement only applies to COVID-19 deaths where the MOH conducted an epidemiological investigation and had received information about the underlying diseases.
“Zero is a very, very clear number, and cannot be subject to interpretation,” Yoav Yehezkelli, a specialist in internal medicine and medical management, and former lecturer in the Department of Emergency and Disaster Management at Tel Aviv University in Israel, told The Epoch Times.
“Why were all the extreme measures of school closures, vaccination of children, and lockdowns needed?” he added.
The MOH did respond to a request for comment.
Freedom of Information Request
The information was sparked by a freedom of information request filed by attorney Ori Xabi, who has been filing several such requests as he seeks to obtain information from the MOH regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19 policies.
Xabi asked to know the average age of people who died of COVID-19, segmented by vaccination status at the time of death; how many COVID-19 patients with no underlying morbidities under the age of 50 died; and the annual number of cardiac arrest cases between 2018 to 2022.
According to the MOH response, the average age of vaccinated COVID-19 patients who died was 80.2 years. The average for the unvaccinated was 77.4 years.
The MOH emphasized that the data they have about the underlying diseases of patients is partial since it relies on information provided by the patients or their relatives, if they chose to do so. And then, only in cases in which the MOH conducted an epidemiological investigation.
Therefore “the available information does not necessarily reflect the health status of the patient” the MOH wrote adding that they do not have access to the patients’ medical records.
It is not clear why the MOH responded to Xabi’s request using only cases where the MOH had conducted an epidemiological investigation, and which was limited to deceased patients where the families had cooperated, since in 2020 the MOH told the Israeli Knesset—the Israeli parliament—that they use an intelligence system that provides the MOH with extensive information about deceased patients that included “underlying diseases.”
A document (pdf) from the Knesset Research and Information Center, dated June 7, 2020, stated that the MOH provided data to the Special Committee for the New COVID Virus about COVID-19 deaths—298 by that day at 4:30 p.m.—at the request of Yifat Shasha-Biton, a member of the Knesset, and the chair of that committee.
The ministry’s intelligence system has data on gender, age, district of residence, and the underlying diseases of the decreased, according to the document. The system showed that about 94 percent of the deceased were 60 years or older and that there were no deceased with zero underlying diseases.
In addition, on May 4, 2020, the Medical Directorate of the MOH in a letter (pdf) issued instructions to the heads of the hospitals and the medical departments of the Health Maintenance Organizations—national health care organizations—on how to fill out COVID-19 death notices, directing them to include underlying diseases.
In a December 22, 2020 letter (pdf) the Medical Directorate to the managers of the hospitals stated that for every COVID-19 patient who died during the acute phase or due to complications of the illness later, or people who were positive for COVID-19 who died, a death notice and a summary of the case “must be sent to the COVID war room of the MOH.”
They said the purpose was “to improve surveillance.”
“It’s a bit naive” for the MOH to say they do not have the full data and access to the death certificates said Yehezkelli, who was also a founder of a team that advises the MOH’s director general.
Yet this response from the MOH is meaningful, said Yehezkelli as “it finally reveals the truth.”
‘False Presentation’
Studies and other data, including a study led by Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis, show that COVID-19 mortality, even with the original variant, was largely age-dependent.
“It was definitely a disease that actually only endangered the elderly,” Yehezkelli said.
Over the age of 60, mortality doubled every 5 years while under that age mortality was negligible, and “now we really see that it was zero under the age of 50, at least.”
The MOH’s response showed that the average age of the COVID-19 deceased is about 80 years of age, which also indicates that “this is a disease of the elderly, almost exclusively,” said Yehezkelli.
“That only means that what we were told for 3 years was not true,” he said.
There may not have been many young people who got seriously ill, yet the MOH had emphasized cases of pregnant women hospitalized in critical condition and young healthy people who died because of COVID-19. It was not the true situation, he said.
“They created a false presentation of a very severe epidemic that affects the entire population and therefore the entire population should also be vaccinated, regardless of age,” said Yehezkelli.
If we are talking about people under the age of 50 that means that no pregnant women actually died of COVID-19, he said.
The justification given for vaccinating pregnant women, young people, and children was that they too are affected by COVID-19.
It was known back then that this was not the case “and we now see it clearly,” Yehezkelli said, asserting that the MOH has “lost the public’s trust” by making a “false presentation” of the dangers of COVID-19.
Cardiac Arrest Data
In response to Xabi’s recent FOI, the MOH provided the number of cardiac arrest cases from 2018 to 2020. They added, “The information for the years 2021–2022 does not exist in the office.”
The MOH explained that “The registration of the causes of death of deceased persons is carried out, in accordance with the notification of death,” by the Central Bureau of Statistics, adding “the data for the years 2021–2022 have not yet been transferred to the Ministry of Health.”
A study published in April 2022 that analyzed the dataset of the Israel National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) found a 25 percent increase in EMS calls due to cardiac arrests among 16- to 39-year-olds between January–May 2021.
The COVID-19 vaccine rollout began in December 2020.
Retsef Levi, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management, was one of the researchers of the study.
The MOH objected to the findings of the study in a post on Twitter where they said that “there is no connection between the EMS calls that were analyzed in the study and the COVID vaccines.”
In a MOH webinar on Oct. 8, 2021, about the effectiveness and the safety of the COVID vaccines, Dr. Sharon Elroy-Pries, the head of Public Health Services at the Israel MOH said regarding Levi’s study: “This is one of the biggest fake news I have seen.”
“The National Center for Disease Control did a very comprehensive analysis—including of the data of that study, [which were] EMS calls,” she said adding that “there was nothing. No more [cases of] heart attacks. No more calls to the ER.”
She continued by saying that “in the mortality data from the beginning of 2021, you don’t see an increase in mortality except for COVID mortality. That is, if we look at excess mortality in the State of Israel we see it precisely at the peaks that were peaks of [COVID] morbidity in the State of Israel.”
“When you remove the … morbidity from COVID at all ages, one sees either the same mortality rate as in previous years, or less,” she said, adding “there is no increase in heart attacks here.”
In a February 2023 meeting of the Health Committee of the Knesset for extending the COVID special powers law, Elroy-Pries reiterated that the MOH does have access to COVID mortality data.
“COVID has killed over 12,000 people in the State of Israel,” she said at the meeting, explaining further that this figure is known since “from the beginning of the epidemic, the Medical Directorate received people’s death certificates.”
When asked about whether there is an increase in cardiac arrest cases in Israel among young people, Elroy-Pries said, “We do not see an increase in the death of young people,” adding “We’re checking it. We’re looking for it.”
Levi said to The Epoch Times that the MOH attacked him personally and the EMS, and asked “If they don’t have data for 2021 and 2022 [according to the FOI], then how can they know that they don’t have an increase [in cardiac arrests]?”
When the MOH says things that are contrary to science, said Levi, or are “contrary to the facts on a regular basis, you must ask yourself the question: are they doing it because they didn’t bother to read the science, or are they doing it even though they … read the science.”
“Both scenarios are very serious,” he added.
Vaccines Saved ‘Millions Around the World’: MOH
The MOH did not reply to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.
Yet about 2 hours after sending the request on May 25, the agency posted on its Twitter account a statement regarding Xabi’s FOI.
“Following the manipulation that has been taking place in recent days regarding one of the Ministry of Health’s [reply to] Freedom of Information requests, we will clarify that the answers to the requests submitted under the Freedom of Information Law are, naturally, answered directly to the specific question that was asked.
“In this case, the ministry was asked about mortality data and underlying diseases. The Ministry of Health ‘does not have’ access to the medical file [of patients], therefore information is only based on cases where an epidemiological investigation was carried out and the person or his family answered the question [regarding underlying morbidities]. Therefore, this is very limited information. This was of course clearly written in the answer [to the FOI].
“We will clarify: So far, 356 young people (18–49 years of age) have died of COVID.
“Of these, only about half have documentation of an epidemiological investigation (184 deceased).
“And only 7.5% (27 deceased) included an answer to the question regarding underlying diseases. The answer was provided based on this information.
“The Ministry of Health is committed to maintaining the health of all citizens and making the information available in the Ministry transparently. This is how we acted [so far] and will continue to act.
“We must not forget that the COVID epidemic has so far killed more than 12,500 people in Israel, caused severe and critical morbidity, and post-COVID symptoms that accompany some of those recovering to this day.
“The vaccination campaign began in the midst of a third lockdown that resulted from an increase in morbidity and mortality and the opening of the economy was made possible thanks to the activation of the green passport, which its purpose was to reduce the risk of infection in mass events.
“The vaccines have saved thousands of people in the state of Israel and millions around the world—the attempt to rewrite history is dangerous.”
Following an administrative appeal filed by Xabi and colleagues, the MOH committed to publishing all-cause mortality segmented by vaccination status and age by the end of this month.
This appeal is an ongoing case that followed a FOI request submitted to the MOH on Oct. 10, 2021, which was not answered within the time frame according to Israeli law, and the data provided by the agency during a number of hearings since has been incomplete.
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
Breathing New Life: Oxygen Therapy Improves Heart Function in Long COVID Patients
A small trial has found that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) may help restore proper heart function in patients with post-COVID syndrome, with participants in the HBOT group experiencing a significant increase in global longitudinal strain (GLS), an indicator of heart function. A small randomize
scitechdaily.com
Breathing New Life: Oxygen Therapy Improves Heart Function in Long COVID Patients
By European Society of Cardiology
May 26, 2023
A small trial has found that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) may help restore proper heart function in patients with post-COVID syndrome, with participants in the HBOT group experiencing a significant increase in global longitudinal strain (GLS), an indicator of heart function.
A small randomized trial in patients with post-COVID syndrome has found that hyperbaric oxygen therapy promotes the restoration of the heart’s ability to contract properly. The research is presented at EACVI 2023, a scientific congress of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).[1]
“The study suggests that hyperbaric oxygen therapy can be beneficial in patients with long COVID,” said study author Professor Marina Leitman of the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University and Shamir Medical Centre, Be’er Ya’akov, Israel. “We used a sensitive measure of cardiac function which is not routinely performed in all centers. More studies are needed to determine which patients will benefit the most, but it may be that all long COVID patients should have an assessment of global longitudinal strain and be offered hyperbaric oxygen therapy if heart function is reduced.”
Most COVID-19 sufferers fully recover, but after the initial illness approximately 10–20% of patients develop long COVID, also called post-COVID condition or syndrome.[2] Symptoms include shortness of breath, fatigue, cough, chest pain, rapid or irregular heartbeats, body aches, rashes, loss of taste or smell, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, dizziness, insomnia, brain fog, depression and anxiety. Patients with post-COVID syndrome may also develop cardiac dysfunction and are at increased risk of a range of cardiovascular disorders.[3]
This randomized controlled double-blind trial evaluated the effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) on the cardiac function of long COVID patients. HBOT involves inhalation of 100% pure oxygen at high pressure to increase delivery to the body’s tissues, which is particularly beneficial for tissues that are starved of oxygen due to injury or inflammation. HBOT is an established treatment for non-healing wounds, decompression sickness in divers, carbon monoxide poisoning, radiation injury, and certain types of infections
“The study suggests that hyperbaric oxygen therapy can be beneficial in patients with long COVID.” — Professor Marina Leitman
The study enrolled 60 post-COVID syndrome patients with ongoing symptoms for at least three months after having mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 confirmed by a PCR test. Both hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients were included. Severe COVID cases were excluded. Patients were randomized to HBOT or a sham procedure in a 1:1 ratio. Each patient had five sessions per week over eight weeks, for a total of 40 sessions. The HBOT group received 100% oxygen through a mask at a pressure of 2 atmospheres for 90 minutes, with 5 minute air breaks every 20 minutes. The sham group breathed 21% oxygen by mask at 1 atmosphere for 90 minutes. All participants underwent echocardiography at baseline (before the first session) and 1 to 3 weeks after the last session.
Echocardiography was used to assess left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS), which is a measure of the heart’s ability to contract and relax lengthwise. It indicates how well the heart is functioning and can help detect early signs of heart disease. A healthy heart will have a GLS value of around -20% which means that the heart muscle is able to properly contract and relax in the longitudinal direction. Reduced GLS is an early marker that the heart is not able to contract and relax effectively.
At baseline, nearly half of study participants (29 out of 60; 48%) had reduced GLS. Of those, 13 (43%) and 16 (53%) were in the sham and HBOT groups, respectively. The average GLS at baseline across all participants was -17.8%. In the HBOT group, GLS significantly increased from -17.8% at baseline to -20.2% after the intervention (p=0.0001). In the sham group, GLS was -17.8% at baseline and -19.1% after the sessions, with no statistically significant difference between the two measurements.
Professor Leitman said: “It was notable that almost half of long COVID patients had impaired cardiac function at baseline according to GLS despite all participants having a normal ejection fraction, which is the standard method for measuring the heart’s ability to contract. This means that ejection fraction is not sensitive enough to identify long COVID patients with reduced heart function.”
She concluded: “The findings suggest that HBOT promotes recovery of cardiac function in patients with post-COVID syndrome. More research is needed to collect long-term results and determine the optimal number of sessions for maximum therapeutic effect.”
Meeting: EACVI 2023
Notes
- The abstract ‘The effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on myocardial function in post-COVID syndrome patients: a randomized controlled trial’ was presented during the session ‘COVID’ at Moderated ePosters 1.
- World Health Organization: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Post COVID-19 condition.
- “Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19” by Yan Xie, Evan Xu, Benjamin Bowe and Ziyad Al-Aly, 7 February 2022, Nature Medicine.
- DOI: 10.1038/s41591-022-01689-3
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
Bill Gates-Funded AI Chatbots Promoted COVID Vaccines
You may have encountered them on social networks
igorchudov.substack.com
Bill Gates-Funded AI Chatbots Promoted COVID Vaccines
You may have encountered them on social networks
Igor Chudov
May 28, 2023
A Nature article published two days ago might make you go hmmmmm:
To increase lagging vaccination rates, scientists developed specialized AI actors to talk to people online to convince them to get vaccinated.
This was done in response to all-important but unmentioned “stakeholders” demanding that chatbots be deployed to improve vaccine acceptance among the refusers:
Employing the RE-AIM framework, process evaluation indicated strong acceptance and implementation support for vaccine chatbots from stakeholders, with high levels of sustainability and scalability.
Who are these stakeholders? The word sustainability was a dead giveaway, so I looked up the usual suspect. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is behind this idea and spent $6,183,326 on such “hybrid advising vaccine chatbots”:
Johns Hopkins, another global stakeholder (also financed by Bill Gates), launched a chatbot called Vira.
While being active on Twitter, I noticed that from time to time, posts from Twitter users were strangely similar, as if AI generated them:
(sorry for the small font size - this is a large image - open in a separate window to enlarge it if you want to read the text)
Are those persons real people? Who knows. They might be. It is challenging to investigate specific instances. Still, I often felt that vaccine promoters' activities were not entirely organic, and some felt like automated operations.
AI Chatbots Were Rigorously Evaluated - And Found Lacking!
The Nature study I brought up was an attempt to evaluate whether these chatbots were effective. The results were mixed! These AI systems were not effective when dealing with educated people and often decreased vaccination intentions, as the Nature article explains:
Chatbots were found to be significantly more effective at improving vaccine confidence and acceptance among people who are minorities (i.e., non-Thai in Thailand and non-Chinese in Hong Kong and Singapore) and those who had lower education levels (i.e., below college level).
Talking to these chatbots was turning educated people away from vaccines:
Likewise, in the Hong Kong senior group, respondents with a college or above education level showed lower odds of experiencing improved perceptions of vaccine importance [OR = 0.31 (0.18–0.55)], safety [OR = 0.18 (0.11–0.29)], and effectiveness [OR = 0.41 (0.26–0.67)] (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Table 10).
They also did not work against vaccine skeptics:
Respondents with higher risk perceptions were less likely to improve in their vaccine confidence and acceptance compared to those with lower risk perceptions (Figs. 2–6 and Supplementary Tables 9–11), meaning that perceived risks might have been the reason for their hesitation but chatbot use was not enough to sway their opinions or reduce their concerns about the vaccine.
More Vaccine Chatbots Planned!
The authors of the article, suckling on the teat of AI chatbot funding, clearly are not giving up on future development and have ideas to use them for other vaccination campaigns:
The Thai Ministry of Health brought ChatSure to the public specifically to combat COVID-19 vaccine-related misinformation; the D24H chatbot is currently being expanded to cover other vaccines, such as the HPV vaccine, so it may serve as a scalable intervention for existing vaccination campaigns to enhance online engagement with the goal of increasing vaccine confidence.
Similar chatbots are deployed to promote climate change:
Have you ever met pro-vaccine online users that sounded like automated bots? Did they convince you? If your answer is “yes and no,” congratulations on remaining an independent and critical thinker!
Capt. Eddie
Veteran Member
☕️ HOLOPHARMAKON ☙ Saturday, May 27, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS
I expose one of two new studies as a limited hangout, a psyop intended to distract us from the dreadful implications of the other study. But both studies move us the right way: to accountability.
www.2ndsmartestguyintheworld.com
Two new studies published this week on the same day. The Biochimie study described three separate, complex systems by which the covid proteins could promote cancer growth. The Cureus study described massive excess deaths in Germany in 2021-22, and suggested an astounding possible reason for them.
Both studies are peer-reviewed. Both studies are lengthy and highly-footnoted. Both studies were very carefully written. Both are remarkable.
But one of the studies is a limited hangout, a psyop that gives us a little bit of new, truthful information, information intended to distract us from the horrifying implications of the other study.
Today’s roundup dives deep into both remarkable studies, so we can nip this new narrative psyop right in the bud light.
A peer-reviewed, pre-released article intended for publication in the journal Biochimie became available online this week, titled “Possible cancer-causing capacity of COVID-19: Is SARS-CoV-2 an oncogenic agent?”
In this paper we learn about a category of diseases called “oncogenic viruses.” Oncogenic means tending to cause cancer. Notably, HIV is considered an oncogenic virus, as are herpes, leukemia virus, and hepatitis B and C.
In the article’s “highlights” section, this sensational sentence leapt off the page:
Take note of that word, “proteins.” Which proteins? Let’s see if we can find out. (Hint: it won’t be easy.)
The authors begin by noting that SARS-CoV-1 — the virus’ prior version from ten years ago — was never linked to cancer. It doesn’t promote cancer growth. So all the pro-cancer features described in the article are brand new to SARS-CoV-2. Nature was super busy working on this one! The authors say it’s too soon to connect covid-19 to cancer, because we haven’t had a decade of study yet.
Their point was that covid — coincidentally — shares certain unique features with other oncogenic viruses like HIV and hepatitis, suggesting there WILL be a link between covid and cancer:
The article is very dense and still needs some editing for clarity. It seems like the author’s first language is not English. A note from the editors at the top of the article recognizes these problems, but says that due to the importance of the subject matter, they wanted to get it out even while they’re still editing. Peer-review is already done.
The editors didn’t say WHY it was so dang important to rush it to print before it was ready. But that will become clear in a moment.
To save you from having to struggle through, I boiled down the three different mechanisms the researchers identified in covid-19 that are oncogenic, or that promote growth of cancer.
I used the authors’ own text to avoid confusion; my edits are in brackets. Here are the three oncogenic mechanisms of covid:
Next, take a look at the following chart from the article, which is mostly indecipherable for those of us without advanced degrees in microbiology. I’m not trying to make you feel dumb — the chart is useful for understanding that covid-19’s “proteins” don’t just have ONE pro-cancer pathway, which would have been remarkable, but there are at least THREE.
In other words, covid’s mystery “protein” is a witches’ brew of features found in other oncogenic viruses:
Anyway, looking at the chart and its shape should give you the idea. Whoever designed the virus — nature, Chinese bioweapons engineers, or Fauci and that guy from North Carolina — TRIPLED the ways that covid could encourage cancer cells to grow and flourish in the body.
Next, the researchers enumerated organ systems that are under particular risk. Again, I’ll summarize the discussion. First, the lungs:
The colon:
The pancreas:
The breasts:
Mouth and throat:
We haven’t really seen a comprehensive breakdown of how the “covid proteins” can promote cancer growth.
Why did the editors rush this article out so quickly as a pre-release? Why did it survive peer review?
The researchers’ conclusion is the first time they used the term “malignant neoplasms,” which means cancerous tumors:> One of the most worrying long-term effects of infection is the potential to induce malignant neoplasms, which will be a major health concern over the coming decades.
You know who closely follows malignant neoplasms? Ethical Skeptic. He’s been reporting on the latest neoplasm figures every couple weeks for years. Ethical consistently reports a steady increase in neoplasms since a few months following the rollout of the jabs — except for a few types of cancer that have helpfully remained flat, allowing us to rule out “deferred treatment” as the cause for the types of increasing cancers.
In other words, if the cause was deferred screenings, then we’d expect to see ALL types of cancer increasing. Not just certain types.
In other words, if the cause was deferred screenings, then we’d expect to see ALL types of cancer increasing. Not just certain types.
One of Ethical’s most compelling charts exposes the rapid increase in spending on medical treatments for “neoplasms” (cancer) since the jabs were introduced to the population:
A few days ago, at the Third Annual European Union International COVID Summit, Dr. Cole reported (again) on all the anecdotal clinical evidence showing skyrocketing rates of “unexpected” neoplasms. At one point he asked the medical attendees to raise their hands if they were experiencing unparalleled rates of new cancer diagnoses in their practices. Dr. Cole said half the audience raised their hands.
Dr. Cole also referenced Ethical Skeptic’s findings:
View: https://twitter.com/ChrisGreece48/status/1659829360134615040
If anything, Ethical’s neoplasms chart seems to understate the case, perhaps because reliable data is so hard to get these days.
Next, confirming both Dr. Cole and Ethical Skeptic, there have been a raft of headlines about cancer drug shortages published just within the last few months. Here’s one from ten days ago in the New York Times:
I bet you never heard about this alarming problem. Here’s another article, from NBC just yesterday:
NBC said the shortages were record-setting:
It’s not just one company, or one drug. It’s across the board, and all at the same time:
NBC tried to blame the problem on greedy drug companies and underpriced drugs. A silly suggestion. It’s obviously increased demand. What would cause increased demand for cancer drugs? Remember Ethical Skeptic’s chart on cancer drug expenditures, which confirms increased usage as well as increased purchases of the more expensive branded options after generics run out.
That’s three sources all confirming unprecedented rates of cancers. But the point isn’t that cancers — especially turbo cancers — are exploding. We already knew that.
The point is: the data is getting undeniable. They can’t keep denying it’s happening and they won’t be able to ignore it much longer.
Also remember the Biochimie study referenced some generic covid “proteins?” It never got around to saying WHICH covid protein has all the oncogenic properties. What do you want to bet the “protein” is Spike?
That’s my bet. And I’ll explain why they probably obscured that fact in a minute.
The German Excess Deaths Study
Also last week, a different peer-reviewed article published in the journal Cureus, titled “Estimation of Excess Mortality in Germany During 2020-2022.”This peer-reviewed article is hard to ignore, and you’ll be shocked when you see what the researchers suggested was the possible mechanism to explain the unprecedented levels of mortality. The researchers were surprised to find NO excess death in 2020 — the most intense year of the pandemic — but to find 100,000 extra people unexpectedly died in 2021 and 2022.
A hundred thousand is a lot of folks, especially in a country about the size of Montana with only 83 million citizens.
Here’s how the researchers teased readers in their conclusion, which appears early in the study, right after the introduction:
Something happened. Something! Something in Spring 2021. That sentence tantalizes; why don’t they just say it? Actually, despite our frustration, we don’t expect them to say it. At this point, we’re used to disappointment. You know the drill. Baffled scientists. Loony theories like deferred cancer screenings. Bizarre, untestable new illnesses like Long Covid Syndrome. Meanwhile people keep keeling over.
But … this PEER-REVIEWED article turned out to be different, even though it wasn’t immediately obvious. It’s a long study. It has lots of sleep-inducing math in it. But then, late in the study, something appeared, an eye-popping sentence that finally, finally said it:
This started a nearly unbelievable section about the temporal (time-based) correlations between the vaccines and the excess deaths in Germany. The researchers even included a helpful chart:
By this point, I was tapping the keyboard in frustration. They already let the mRNA cat out of the drug sack. Why not just come right out and say it? And then, remarkably, they pretty much said it: “During period when many persons were vaccinated, excess mortality seems to have increased.”
Don’t overlook the first sentence, “the obvious hypothesis of a decrease in excess mortality with an increasing number of vaccinated persons is not correct.” What they’re saying is, the data shows that the jabs DON’T WORK. We already know the jabs don’t stop infections, nobody is even arguing about that debunked lie now. What they’re saying is that the data doesn’t show that the jabs even reduced deaths.
The covidians have argued, and will keep arguing, that the highly-massaged data shows the vaccines slightly reduced deaths … from covid. But the German researchers are rightly pointing out that the vaccines appear to have increased all-cause mortality.
A vaccine that lowers your risk of dying from covid a little, but increases your risk of dying from cancer a lot, isn’t any kind of vaccine that anybody should be taking.
So, it’s encouraging and deeply-satisfying that we finally have a peer-reviewed journal article drawing the completely conspicuous conclusion, a conclusion obvious to untrained eyes and to minds of medium intelligence.
Cont....
Capt. Eddie
Veteran Member
By this point, I was tapping the keyboard in frustration. They already let the mRNA cat out of the drug sack. Why not just come right out and say it? And then, remarkably, they pretty much said it: “During period when many persons were vaccinated, excess mortality seems to have increased.”
Don’t overlook the first sentence, “the obvious hypothesis of a decrease in excess mortality with an increasing number of vaccinated persons is not correct.” What they’re saying is, the data shows that the jabs DON’T WORK. We already know the jabs don’t stop infections, nobody is even arguing about that debunked lie now. What they’re saying is that the data doesn’t show that the jabs even reduced deaths.
The covidians have argued, and will keep arguing, that the highly-massaged data shows the vaccines slightly reduced deaths … from covid. But the German researchers are rightly pointing out that the vaccines appear to have increased all-cause mortality.
A vaccine that lowers your risk of dying from covid a little, but increases your risk of dying from cancer a lot, isn’t any kind of vaccine that anybody should be taking.
So, it’s encouraging and deeply-satisfying that we finally have a peer-reviewed journal article drawing the completely conspicuous conclusion, a conclusion obvious to untrained eyes and to minds of medium intelligence.
Now let’s tie it all together. What’s the new narrative they’re pushing?
So here is where the narrative makers are trying to pull a quick psyop on us. They need a way to blame the excess deaths on something besides the jabs. It needs to be compelling. It needs to be airtight. It needs to be distracting. So they’ll probably have to use something true.
The hastily approved, quickly peer-reviewed Biochimie study on covid’s oncogenic properties offers covidians a handy-dandy explanation for both the excess deaths and the timing problems. If they can show covid causes cancer — and I believe it can — then they can attribute the excess deaths to the virus. And the lag making the excess deaths LOOK attributable to the vaccines can also be attributed to the lag time required for cancer to develop and be diagnosed — and remember, the hospitals were deferring cancer screenings.
It all makes sense.
But the giveaway is that the Biochimie study never once mentioned the spike protein, instead generically referring to “covid proteins.”
Why obscure the role of spike? It’s literally unbelievable that a highly-accurate, peer-reviewed article like this one, which goes into mind-numbing detail about all the specific genes and microscopic components of the oncogenic EFFECTS of the covid proteins, never actually gets around to any particular specificity about which genetic parts of the “covid proteins” are oncogenic.
It’s like they’re not even curious.
Why not mention the spike? There’s a good reason. BECAUSE THE JABS PRODUCE BILLIONS MORE SPIKE THAN THE VIRUS. Maybe trillions. If the spike protein IS oncogenic, then jabbed people are far more at risk of cancer than are naturally infected people. In an infected person, spike hangs out in the body for around eight days. In a jabbed person, spike is being steadily produced for at least four months, and maybe much longer, especially if people keep getting boosted.
Why not mention the spike? There’s a good reason. BECAUSE THE JABS PRODUCE BILLIONS MORE SPIKE THAN THE VIRUS. Maybe trillions. If the spike protein IS oncogenic, then jabbed people are far more at risk of cancer than are naturally infected people. In an infected person, spike hangs out in the body for around eight days. In a jabbed person, spike is being steadily produced for at least four months, and maybe much longer, especially if people keep getting boosted.
In other words, any elevated cancer risk caused by covid infections only lasts a few days. But elevated cancer risk from the jabs will last for months or even years.
The bottom line is, they can’t talk about spike without hauling the jabs into the discussion.
So the new narrative that we’re supposed to believe is that covid INFECTION causes cancer and the jabs help prevent that from happening. Don’t buy it. Covid might cause cancer, but if it does, it does to at fractional rates compared to the jabs.
The vaccine trials only observed participants for a couple weeks, and then the drugmakers “unblinded” the studies, making it impossible to compare jabbed versus unjabbed after that.
Assuming the Biochimie study is right, and I think it is, the most charitable view is they were criminally negligent, taking a never-seen-before protein — from what they themselves hysterically labeled a “novel” coronavirus — without knowing what the spike did or what the long-term consequences of having it hanging around in the body would be, and then injected it right into most of the population including pregnant women and children.
And don’t forget the public health establishment’s role in suppressing any dissenting voices and constantly lying to everyone about the beneficial effects of the magic snake oil. That was also criminally negligent, at best.
The less charitable views include crimes against humanity, international prosecutions, and capital punishment after trial.
These three mechanisms provide strong evidence that covid is a designer bioweapon. OF COURSE it is. I suppose we should at least give the authors credit for not gaslighting us by marveling at nature’s inventiveness in accidentally adding three different ways to promote cancerous growth — during the handful of years between SARS-1 and SARS-2, which is barely the twinkling of an eye in evolutionary time.
Three different oncogenic pathways, three pathways that had each appeared before in other malign viruses like HIV and Hepatitis, and so were handily available to genetic engineers, if they’d wanted them, that is.
By disclosing in great detail exactly how covid promotes neoplasmic growth, they are trying to stitch together a coverup blanket, a new narrative to throw over the explosion in turbo cancers and blame the excess deaths on the virus.
After all, you can’t sue or or even criminally accuse a virus, unlike public health officials and military bioweapons designers.
In other words, the Biochimie study looks like a limited hangout. They kept this oncogenic information under wraps, preventing it from reaching the journals, because it really condemns the jabs and provides even more evidence of covid’s bioengineered origins.
But now they need this information to distract us from what can no longer be denied.
I’ll wrap up by reminding you of the final part of Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address, which looms large in highlighting the somber duty that we, the living, owe to those Americans who sacrificed their lives when asked by their government to take the military-designed shot, in order to “protect others.”
Don’t overlook the first sentence, “the obvious hypothesis of a decrease in excess mortality with an increasing number of vaccinated persons is not correct.” What they’re saying is, the data shows that the jabs DON’T WORK. We already know the jabs don’t stop infections, nobody is even arguing about that debunked lie now. What they’re saying is that the data doesn’t show that the jabs even reduced deaths.
The covidians have argued, and will keep arguing, that the highly-massaged data shows the vaccines slightly reduced deaths … from covid. But the German researchers are rightly pointing out that the vaccines appear to have increased all-cause mortality.
A vaccine that lowers your risk of dying from covid a little, but increases your risk of dying from cancer a lot, isn’t any kind of vaccine that anybody should be taking.
So, it’s encouraging and deeply-satisfying that we finally have a peer-reviewed journal article drawing the completely conspicuous conclusion, a conclusion obvious to untrained eyes and to minds of medium intelligence.
Now let’s tie it all together. What’s the new narrative they’re pushing?
The Newest Narrative
The German excess deaths study shows us that excess mortality is finally becoming impossible to ignore: it’s been elevated for two consecutive years now, two years during which the miraculous jabs had their chance to do their work but failed, and the link to the vaccines is looking a lot like an obvious candidate for the deaths, as the German researchers properly noticed.So here is where the narrative makers are trying to pull a quick psyop on us. They need a way to blame the excess deaths on something besides the jabs. It needs to be compelling. It needs to be airtight. It needs to be distracting. So they’ll probably have to use something true.
The hastily approved, quickly peer-reviewed Biochimie study on covid’s oncogenic properties offers covidians a handy-dandy explanation for both the excess deaths and the timing problems. If they can show covid causes cancer — and I believe it can — then they can attribute the excess deaths to the virus. And the lag making the excess deaths LOOK attributable to the vaccines can also be attributed to the lag time required for cancer to develop and be diagnosed — and remember, the hospitals were deferring cancer screenings.
It all makes sense.
But the giveaway is that the Biochimie study never once mentioned the spike protein, instead generically referring to “covid proteins.”
Why obscure the role of spike? It’s literally unbelievable that a highly-accurate, peer-reviewed article like this one, which goes into mind-numbing detail about all the specific genes and microscopic components of the oncogenic EFFECTS of the covid proteins, never actually gets around to any particular specificity about which genetic parts of the “covid proteins” are oncogenic.
It’s like they’re not even curious.
Why not mention the spike? There’s a good reason. BECAUSE THE JABS PRODUCE BILLIONS MORE SPIKE THAN THE VIRUS. Maybe trillions. If the spike protein IS oncogenic, then jabbed people are far more at risk of cancer than are naturally infected people. In an infected person, spike hangs out in the body for around eight days. In a jabbed person, spike is being steadily produced for at least four months, and maybe much longer, especially if people keep getting boosted.
Why not mention the spike? There’s a good reason. BECAUSE THE JABS PRODUCE BILLIONS MORE SPIKE THAN THE VIRUS. Maybe trillions. If the spike protein IS oncogenic, then jabbed people are far more at risk of cancer than are naturally infected people. In an infected person, spike hangs out in the body for around eight days. In a jabbed person, spike is being steadily produced for at least four months, and maybe much longer, especially if people keep getting boosted.
In other words, any elevated cancer risk caused by covid infections only lasts a few days. But elevated cancer risk from the jabs will last for months or even years.
The bottom line is, they can’t talk about spike without hauling the jabs into the discussion.
So the new narrative that we’re supposed to believe is that covid INFECTION causes cancer and the jabs help prevent that from happening. Don’t buy it. Covid might cause cancer, but if it does, it does to at fractional rates compared to the jabs.
The vaccine trials only observed participants for a couple weeks, and then the drugmakers “unblinded” the studies, making it impossible to compare jabbed versus unjabbed after that.
Assuming the Biochimie study is right, and I think it is, the most charitable view is they were criminally negligent, taking a never-seen-before protein — from what they themselves hysterically labeled a “novel” coronavirus — without knowing what the spike did or what the long-term consequences of having it hanging around in the body would be, and then injected it right into most of the population including pregnant women and children.
And don’t forget the public health establishment’s role in suppressing any dissenting voices and constantly lying to everyone about the beneficial effects of the magic snake oil. That was also criminally negligent, at best.
The less charitable views include crimes against humanity, international prosecutions, and capital punishment after trial.
Spikes and Limited Hangouts
I think the best way to look at the Biochimie study is as a limited hangout. In addition to hiding the role of spike, the researchers also failed to discuss the other unmistakable implication of covid’s brand-new, three-way oncogenic mechanisms.These three mechanisms provide strong evidence that covid is a designer bioweapon. OF COURSE it is. I suppose we should at least give the authors credit for not gaslighting us by marveling at nature’s inventiveness in accidentally adding three different ways to promote cancerous growth — during the handful of years between SARS-1 and SARS-2, which is barely the twinkling of an eye in evolutionary time.
Three different oncogenic pathways, three pathways that had each appeared before in other malign viruses like HIV and Hepatitis, and so were handily available to genetic engineers, if they’d wanted them, that is.
By disclosing in great detail exactly how covid promotes neoplasmic growth, they are trying to stitch together a coverup blanket, a new narrative to throw over the explosion in turbo cancers and blame the excess deaths on the virus.
After all, you can’t sue or or even criminally accuse a virus, unlike public health officials and military bioweapons designers.
In other words, the Biochimie study looks like a limited hangout. They kept this oncogenic information under wraps, preventing it from reaching the journals, because it really condemns the jabs and provides even more evidence of covid’s bioengineered origins.
But now they need this information to distract us from what can no longer be denied.
I’ll wrap up by reminding you of the final part of Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address, which looms large in highlighting the somber duty that we, the living, owe to those Americans who sacrificed their lives when asked by their government to take the military-designed shot, in order to “protect others.”
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
This is a video of a postal worker who says she had 19 people die on her route in the last 4 months. She says she has 460 homes on her route, and she figures there are on average 4 people per home, so 1 or 2 dying per year is average and normal. Of course, this is social media, and there is no way to verify what she says so use discernment. Interesting and sad if true.
View: https://twitter.com/_/status/1662957544216702978
DiedSuddenly @DiedSuddenly_
7:02 PM · May 28, 2023
USPS worker has had 19 people DIE in the last 4 months...
1 min 3 sec
View: https://twitter.com/_/status/1662957544216702978
DiedSuddenly @DiedSuddenly_
7:02 PM · May 28, 2023
USPS worker has had 19 people DIE in the last 4 months...
1 min 3 sec
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
Fake Scientific Studies by Nobel Prize Winner and Johns Hopkins Prof. Gregg Semenza
News from the world of science
igorchudov.substack.com
Fake Scientific Studies by Nobel Prize Winner and Johns Hopkins Prof. Gregg Semenza
News from the world of science
Igor Chudov
May 28, 2023
Gregg Semenza, a pediatrician and a professor of Genetic Science, is a prominent researcher. Prof. Semenza works at Johns Hopkins University, a premier scientific institution so important that it received $1,050,368,895 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (JHU played the most prominent role in the Covid pandemic response.)
Prof. Semenza made major discoveries regarding how cells adapt to oxygen availability. Those findings could potentially lead to curing cancer! So important was his work that he was awarded a Nobel Prize in medicine in 2019.
There was a small problem, however.
Seven of his studies were fake and were eventually retracted. Retraction Watch has the details. Even the pictures of mice used in the studies were photoshopped:
Here’s one retracted article and the retraction notice. I downloaded the image from that study and highlighted the mouse in question, which appears in two pictures but with different scan results.
The authors copied/pasted the mouse picture and overlaid different scan results on the two copies. So, they did not have the scientific measurements they claimed to have!
Other retractions expose similarly ridiculous scientific fraud, including fake Western blots and more.
This fraud was not perpetrated by an obscure researcher languishing at a third-rate institution. Quite to the contrary, Prof. Semenza is a world-renowned scientist, occupying a position at a premier facility favored by the major funder of science, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Prof. Semenza shares the honor of receiving a Nobel prize with other famed recipients, such as Barack Obama, recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, and António Egas Moniz, inventor of lobotomy and the winner of the 1949 Nobel Prize in medicine.
So, the world of Nobel prizes is very special!
In consolation, we at least know about this fraud, and Semenza’s articles in question were properly retracted. So the self-correcting scientific process worked as intended, at last.
Sadly, as we know, retractions do not always work in an evidence-based, scientific way. For example, many honest articles questioning Covid vaccines or masks were retracted under pressure from science funders.
I feel that my trust in scientists has been violated by “COVID science” and certain other new scientific developments, but I still like the science of the good kind. I have much less faith in Nobel Prizes, however.
What about you? Was your trust in science challenged by the developments of the last three years?
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
Unfollow the Science: 300 COVID Articles Pulled, Many Over Lack of Ethical Standards
More than 300 COVID-19-related articles have been retracted — long after they’d done their damage — due to a lack of scientific truthfulness and ethical guidelines, according to Retraction Watch...
pjmedia.com
Unfollow the Science: 300 COVID Articles Pulled, Many Over Lack of Ethical Standards
By Kevin Downey Jr.
3:35 PM on May 28, 2023
More than 300 COVID-19-related articles have been retracted — long after they’d done their damage — due to a lack of scientific truthfulness and ethical guidelines, according to Retraction Watch, a website that monitors retractions of science-related articles.
A total of 330 COVID-related papers have been retracted thus far.
According to Gunnveig Grødeland, a senior researcher at the Institute of Immunology at the University of Oslo, many researchers took ethical shortcuts when writing their essays.
“It will, of course, be withdrawn when it is found that ethical guidelines have been breached,” Grødeland quipped to Khrono, an academic news publication.
Grødeland states that there were other reasons articles were pulled, including researchers using too small sample size and new media outlets being deceptive about what the papers actually concluded. Sometimes the data changed, and articles were later retracted.
The lion’s share of these articles was released in smaller publications, but the prestigious Lancet got nailed a few times as well.
FACT-O-RAMA! The Lancet used fraudulent research when stating that hydroxychloroquine caused an increased risk of heart arrhythmia and even death in patients with COVID-19. This publication was eventually retracted but not until the Norwegian government and the World Health Organization (WHO) used this article as a reason to stop their research into the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine on COVID. Both have since resumed testing.
A paper published by the University of Manchester “found” that COVID was associated with vertigo, hearing loss, and tinnitus. Two years later they did a 180 and admitted that they assumed this to be the case.
“We know that viruses such as measles, mumps, and meningitis can damage the auditory system,” lead author Dr Anisa Visram stated. “It is also well known that COVID-19 can affect our sense of smell and taste, so it was reasonable to assume it might also affect our sense of hearing.”
Another reason many COVID papers — like the University of Manchester paper — have been plucked is that the researchers were eager to investigate all things COVID and moved too quickly.
“Many previous studies were published rapidly during the pandemic but lacked good scientific rigor.” University of Manchester professor Kevin Munro stated. “There was an urgent need for this carefully conducted clinical and diagnostic study to investigate the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the auditory system.”
REMINDER-O-RAMA! The FDA shamed people into not taking ivermectin then backtracked when studies showed the positive effect of the medication on people with the bat-stew flu.
Remember this? Never forget. FDA: "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it." pic.twitter.com/5T6znnyFob
— anne faith (@FreidaAnimals) November 20, 2022
Despite the “horse and cow” flapdoodle, the FDA failed to mention that it had approved ivermectin for human use in 1996 and even won a Nobel prize for it.
What have we learned?
We’ve learned that you and I were called “granny killers” and “science deniers” for not bending our knees and obediently swallowing every word of so-called science from hundreds of medical research papers. Now we are seeing many of these research articles — 330 thus far — are being flushed for not being scientific at all. Some of these medical “findings” were based on assumptions. Some were rushed and others used sample groups that were too small to be considered accurate. In other words, some of them jumped to conclusions that weren’t there.
We were told to get “vaccines” that we know now do not work. We know masks Fauci face diapers were nothing more than ineffectual symbols of obeisance.
The next question is, who profited from all the COVID era lies?
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
New Study: Even Mild COVID-19 Can Have Long-Term Detrimental Effects on Heart Health
A groundbreaking study conducted a comparison of arterial stiffness between participants before and after contracting COVID-19. New research indicates that even mild instances of COVID-19 can lead to lasting harm to cardiovascular health. The study is the first comparison of levels of arterial
scitechdaily.com
New Study: Even Mild COVID-19 Can Have Long-Term Detrimental Effects on Heart Health
By University of Portsmouth
May 29, 2023
A groundbreaking study conducted a comparison of arterial stiffness between participants before and after contracting COVID-19.
New research indicates that even mild instances of COVID-19 can lead to lasting harm to cardiovascular health.
The study is the first comparison of levels of arterial stiffness before and after a COVID-19 infection, a parameter closely tied to the aging process and performance of our arteries. The lingering effects of a COVID-19 infection, often referred to as long COVID, are connected with a heightened risk of cardiovascular disease, dementia, and in severe scenarios, death.
An international team of scientists was able to do this research using baseline measurements from a group of participants involved in a separate study that began pre-pandemic, also investigating arterial stiffness.
In those who had been diagnosed with mild COVID-19, artery and central cardiovascular function were affected by the disease two to three months after infection. Side effects include stiffer and more dysfunctional arteries that could lead to cardiovascular disease development.
The paper, published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, revealed age and time from COVID infection are associated with increased aging of the arteries.
Co-author, Dr Maria Perissiou from the University of Portsmouth’s School of Sport, Health & Exercise Science, said: “We were surprised to observe such a decline in vascular health, which deteriorated even further with time since COVID-19 infection. Usually, you’d expect inflammation to decrease with time after infection, and for all the physiological functions to go back to normal or a healthy level.
“We can only speculate on what causes this phenomenon without further investigation, but emerging evidence suggests that it stems from COVID-19 triggering the auto-immune process that leads to vasculature deterioration.”
While COVID-19 has been associated with a type of acute heart failure and vascular dysfunction, the long-term consequences of the disease on vascular health still need to be explored.
The study was part of the University of Split’s NormPreven project funded by the Croatian Science Foundation, and the team formation was facilitated by EU COST VascAgeNet action.
Participants were monitored between October 2019 and April 2022 in the Laboratory for Vascular Aging at the University of Split School of Medicine.
Most were young, less than 40 years old, and healthy. Only nine percent of the group had high blood pressure, and none had high cholesterol. Two were diabetic, and 78 percent did not smoke. The group was also almost an even split between males (56 percent) and females (44 percent).
Professor Ana Jeroncic from the University of Split, who led the study, said: “Given the number of people infected with COVID-19 worldwide, the fact that infection can have harmful effects on cardiovascular health in young people who had a mild form of the disease warrants close monitoring.
“The question remains as to whether this harmful effect is irreversible or permanent, and if not, for how long it lasts.”
Dr. Perissiou added: “This study, while small, does support the prediction amongst vascular physiologists that we’ll have an increase in cardiovascular disease in the future as a result of COVID-19 infections. But we have to consider what other variables would have contributed to this increase.”
The paper concludes the results have important implications for understanding the long-term cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19 infection and may guide prevention and management strategies for associated vascular disease.
However, it recommends further research is needed to strengthen our understanding of causes and contributing factors.
Reference: “Long-Term Adverse Effects of Mild COVID-19 Disease on Arterial Stiffness, and Systemic and Central Hemodynamics: A Pre-Post Study” by Mario Podrug, Pjero Koren, Edita Dražic Maras, Josip Podrug, Viktor Culic, Maria Perissiou, Rosa Maria Bruno, Ivana Mudnic, Mladen Boban and Ana Jeroncic, 8 March 2023, Journal of Clinical Medicine.
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12062123
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
All Infected in COVID Outbreak at CDC Conference Were Vaccinated, Agency Confirms
www.theepochtimes.com
Most Infected in COVID Outbreak at CDC Conference Were Vaccinated, Agency Confirms
Zachary Stieber
May 29, 2023
A COVID-19 outbreak unfolded at a conference held by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) despite most attendees being vaccinated.
About 1,800 CDC staffers and others gathered in April in a hotel in Atlanta, where the CDC is headquartered, for a conference focused on epidemiological investigations and strategies.
On April 27, the last day of the conference, several people notified organizers that they had tested positive for COVID-19. The CDC and the Georgia Department of Public Health worked together to survey attendees to try to figure out how many people had tested positive.
“The goals were to learn more about transmission that occurred and add to our understanding as we transition to the next phase of COVID-19 surveillance and response,” the CDC said in a May 26 statement.
Approximately 80 percent of attendees filled out the survey. Among those, 181 said they tested positive for COVID-19.
Pretty much all respondents—99.4 percent—had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose.
The number of unvaccinated people who got sick, if any, was not disclosed. Officials also did not break down the vaccinated between those who had received a dose of the updated bivalent vaccines and those who had not. The CDC has not responded to requests for more information.
About 360 people did not respond to the survey, so the actual outbreak may have been larger.
Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, said on Twitter that the numbers made the conference a “superspreader event.”
Dr. Tom Inglesby, director of the Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, added that the outbreak shows COVID-19 is “still capable of causing big outbreaks and infecting many.”
A Georgia Department of Public Health spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that many people who attended the conference were not residents of Georgia, and that many used tests at home.
Bivalent Protection
The CDC said the survey results “underline the importance of vaccination for protecting individuals against severe illness and death related to COVID-19” because none of the people who said they tested positive reported going to a hospital.
No clinical trial efficacy data are available for the bivalent shots, even though they were first cleared nine months ago. They provide little protection against infection, according to observational data, though officials maintain they protect against severe illness. That protection is short-lived, according to studies, including non-peer-reviewed CDC publications.
The most recent publication, released on May 26, showed poor effectiveness against hospitalization from the Pfizer and Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, which replaced the old vaccines earlier this year.
Among adults without “documented immunocompromising conditions,” the protection was 62 percent between seven and 59 days but went to 47 percent before plunging to just 24 percent after 120 days.
Among adults with “documented immunocompromising conditions,” the effectiveness peaked at just 41 percent, hitting 13 percent after 120 days.
Researchers did not provide the effectiveness estimates among all adults, or the combined population of those with and without “documented immunocompromising conditions.” They also did not provide the unadjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates, or estimates before adjusting for certain variables.
“Both the crude VE and adjusted VE should be reported so that big discrepancies are evident to the reader and questioned,” David Wiseman, founder and president of Synechion, told The Epoch Times via email.
Effective against critical illness—defined as admission to intensive care, or death—peaked at 85 among the people deemed immunocompetent, but plunged to 33 percent after 120 days. Among those described as immunocompromised, the effectiveness was not estimated above 53 percent.
Effectiveness was not measured beyond 180 days.
Effectiveness for children was not examined as part of the research.
CDC researchers looked at data from its VISION Network, a network of hospitals in the United States. Exclusions included people under 50 who received four or more old vaccine boosters.
Just 23.5 percent of the immunocompetent and 16.4 percent of the immunocompromised were vaccinated, while the rest had received at least two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.
About 8 percent of American adults are still unvaccinated, according to CDC data, though that percentage may be a big overestimate (pdf).
Researchers said the data showed that bivalent doses “helped provide protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization and critical disease” adding that “waning of protection was evidence in some groups.”
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
Virus you've never heard of infected record number of us this year
Cases of human metapneumovirus (HMPV) peaked to record levels in spring, according to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's respiratory virus surveillance systems.
Virus you’ve never heard of infected record number of Americans this year — and it could explain why you kept testing negative for Covid and flu
By Caitlin Tilley, Health Reporter For Dailymail.Com
Updated: 17:27 EDT, 29 May 2023
- Human metapneumovirus (HMPV) causes a sore throat, cough and runny nose
- There are currently no vaccines or drugs to treat the respiratory infection
High rates of Covid, flu and even RSV during winter led to hospitals overflowing during winter during a situation dubbed a 'tripledemic'.
But cases of human metapneumovirus (HMPV), which can cause bronchitis and pneumonia, shot up to record levels in spring, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s respiratory virus surveillance systems.
It may partly explain why so many people tested negative for flu and Covid in recent months despite showing symptoms.
Dr John Williams, a pediatrician at the University of Pittsburgh who has spent his career researching vaccines and treatments for HMPV, said HMPV was 'the most important virus you've never heard of'.
Cases of HMPV peaked this spring, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s respiratory virus surveillance systems
Dr Williams said that as well as flu and RSV, HMPV was one of viruses most likely to hospitalize people and even kill them.
This year in mid-March, 11 percent of tested cases were positive for HMPV. This is 36 percent higher than the average seasonal peak prior to the pandemic of seven percent.
Most patients who caught the virus probably did so unknowingly, as people are only tested for it in the hospital or emergency room.
Due to a lack of testing, the number who get infected or die from HMPV each year is not known, but test positivity — the swabs that are being tested — is on the rise.
And blood tests show that most children have had it by the age of five.
There are no vaccines or drugs to treat HMPV.
It causes a cough, runny nose, sore throat and fever. In serious cases, patients may struggle to breathe, or suffer bronchitis or pneumonia.
As with the flu, babies and the elderly are most at risk because their immune systems are either still developing or deteriorating.
HMPV is spread by direct or close contact with an infected person, such as a cough, shaking hands, sneezing or touching infected objects or surfaces.
One study found that it was the second most common cause of respiratory infections in kids after respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which typically causes mild, cold-like symptoms but hits infants and older adults harder.
HMPV and RSV are in the Pneumoviridae family.
A New York study found it was as common in hospitalized older patients as RSV and the flu.
All three infections can cause deadly cases of pneumonia in seniors.
Leigh Davison, 59, came down for HMPV in early April after attending a family gathering.
Her symptoms were so bad that she could no longer talk on the phone.
She told CNN: 'I couldn’t get out more than a couple of words. I would go into violent, violent coughing to the point where I was literally almost throwing up.'
She was sure she had Covid, but after six negative rapid tests became nervous about pneumonia instead as she is immunocompromised.
But she had a clear X-ray from a radiology clinic. She was to see her physician, who sent her to an ER room for further tests, which showed she had HMPV.
Ms Davison said: 'I was like, "What?" Because it sounds really dire.'
The virus gave her severe bronchitis and she was admitted to the hospital for observation.
She was sick for around a month and then got better.
Of the respiratory infections she has had in her lifetime, HMPV was 'the worst I've ever experienced', she said.
HMPV was uncovered by Dutch researchers in 2001 from samples from children in the Netherlands with unexplained respiratory infections.
Some were seriously ill and needed to be on a ventilator, but were not testing positive for any pathogens.
The scientists looked at the virus' genes are saw that it was closely related to avian metapneumovirus, which infects birds.
The new virus was named human metapneumovirus. The researchers think it hopped from birds to humans and then evolved.
Dr John Williams, a pediatrician at the University of Pittsburgh who has spent his career researching vaccines and treatments for HMPV, said HMPV was 'the most important virus you've never heard of'.
A study from 2020 estimated that in children under five, there were more than 16 million HMPV infections in 2018, more than 600,000 hospitalizations and more than 16,000 deaths.
Meanwhile, Covid shot maker Moderna recently completed an early study of an mRNA vaccine against HMPV and parainfluenza.
Covid lockdowns have also meant that people's immune systems are generally a lot weaker because of a lack of social interaction and natural exposure to pathogens.
An NIH-published study suggested the mortality rate for HMPV after 100 days was 43 percent.
Researchers estimate that 10 to 12 percent of respiratory illness in children is linked to HMPV.
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
The Vax-Gene Files: An Accidental Discovery ⋆ Brownstone Institute
Widespread DNA contamination would bring into question the quality of the entire mRNA injection manufacturing process, safety systems, and regulatory oversight.
brownstone.org
The Vax-Gene Files: An Accidental Discovery
By Julie Sladden, Julian Gillespie
May 27, 2023
In 1928 scientist Alexander Fleming returned to his laboratory after a 2-week holiday. A petri dish of bacteria accidentally left on the lab bench, somehow became cross-contaminated with Penicillium notatum mould. Fleming noticed the mould inhibited the growth of the bacteria. This accidental discovery marked the dawn of the antibiotic era and a turning point in medical, and perhaps human history.
Recently, another accidental discovery has scientists wondering whether we have turned another corner in history.
The story begins with Kevin McKernan, a scientist with 25 years experience in the genomic field and a leading expert in sequencing methods for DNA and RNA. He has worked on the Human Genome Project and more recently in medicinal genomics involving DNA sequencing.
In the process of trying to sort out a sequencing problem, McKernan used anonymously sent, Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 bivalent vaccines to act as mRNA controls.
‘Somebody sent me these thinking, this is the perfect control… It should be pure. So, if you get this to work, you’ll sort out your mRNA sequencing problems,’ McKernan explains in a recent interview. ‘They were right about that. It did sort out our problems. But what we discovered in the process is that they weren’t pure mRNA. They actually had a lot of DNA in the background.’
McKernan was shocked, ‘It’s not what we were looking for… I had this hunch that the new modified nucleotides they have in the mRNA may have a higher error rate, and therefore we would see more mistakes in the mRNA. So, I knew we would have to sequence like a millionfold deep… over and over again to find these mistakes. When we did that DNA popped up and I thought “Oh, that’s a bigger problem. We have to focus on that.” … I kind of went into panic mode, realizing that I didn’t budget any time to look into this, and the world has to know about it.’
Let’s pause here and look at what we’re told about the Covid-19 mRNA injections. We’re assured:
- The injections are safe. Meanwhile, adverse event reporting systems around the world record previously unseen rates of adverse events and injuries;
- The injections are effective. We would ask: Effective for what? Not stopping transmission. We’re not sure about preventing serious illness either evidenced by recent data and New South Wales Health reports which show a disproportionate number of hospital and ICU admissions amongst the vaccinated.
- The injection materials stay at the injection site. Recently released documents obtained under FOI show the lipid nanoparticles become widely distributed – notably to the liver, spleen, adrenal glands, ovaries, and testes;
- The injections won’t change your DNA.
Let’s look at that last one a little bit closer.
The Australian TGA states you can find reputable information about Covid-19 vaccines on their ‘Is it true’ section of the website. It is worth a look. In answer to the question ‘Can COVID-19 vaccines alter my DNA?’ the TGA is clear: ‘No, COVID-19 vaccines do not alter your DNA.’
They explain, ‘mRNA vaccines use a synthetic genetic code called RNA to give our cells instructions about how to make the coronavirus’ unique spike protein. When our body has made the protein encoded by the mRNA vaccine, it then recognises the spike protein as being foreign and launches an immune response against it. The RNA from the vaccine does not change or interact with our DNA in any way.’
Phew. Well, that’s ok then, right?
Possible routes for mRNA to convert to DNA (including a process known as reverse transcription) were discounted. Until the publication of an annoying little paper in 2022 by Alden et al, an in vitro study involving human liver cells which showed Pfizer’s mRNA was expressed as DNA within six hours.
At the time, this was assumed due to reverse transcription of the mRNA. However, in light of McKernan’s discovery, there’s a whole new possibility to consider. What if the vaccines already contained DNA? Then arguments about whether the mRNA could reverse transcribe into DNA become irrelevant.
Let’s return to McKernan and take a closer look at what he found. In addition to the expected mRNA, he also found mRNA fragments, other pieces of RNA, and two forms of DNA: linearised and circular. The significance of the circular – or plasmid – DNA is important. The plasmid DNA is the ‘complete recipe’ used to program bacterial cells to mass produce the mRNA. This DNA should not be there. Further investigation by McKernan showed the plasmid DNA contained in the vaccines was indeed viable and capable of transformation in bacterial cells.
So, the Pfizer and Moderna vials of bivalent vaccine that McKernan tested were contaminated with DNA. DNA encoding the spike gene and potentially capable of inserting into the genome of an organism.
The question is, does this DNA have the potential to become part of the genome of a human organism and if so what might be the consequences? This would have required looking at ‘genotoxicity,’ something Australia’s TGA says the (Pfizer) injections were not tested for, and the TGA did not ask for.
In case you are wondering, there are strict guidelines about DNA contamination levels in mRNA products. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and FDA stated limits are 330 nanograms of DNA per milligram of RNA. In Australia, the TGA says it should be no more than 10 nanograms per dose.
(It’s unclear how these limits were decided. Personally, we’d be hoping for zero DNA in our mRNA injections.)
This means that DNA should not be more than 0.033 per cent of the total nucleic acids in the dose. But McKernan’s analysis demonstrated DNA contamination of up to 35 percent in the bivalent injection samples. This is up to 1,000 times higher than deemed to be ‘acceptable’ by the regulating authorities.
Next, McKernan analysed the monovalent (earlier) injections. The Pfizer monovalent injections were also found to be contaminated with DNA, though not as much. The levels of DNA in the Pfizer monovalent injections were 18-70 times higher than the EMA limit.
So, what happens now?
These results are in the process of being further verified by the scientific community. In the essence of speed, McKernan published his findings and methods publicly on Substack and online. He explains, ‘The publication system, during the pandemic, is politicised. So, that’s probably not going to get the word out very quickly. I had to do my best to document this all and make the data public.’
If McKernan’s findings are verified, the implications are serious. Widespread DNA contamination would bring into question the quality of the entire mRNA injection manufacturing process, safety systems, and regulatory oversight. In addition, DNA might not be the only contaminant.
This contamination discovery begs a question. What does Australia’s Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) know about the safety of these mRNA injections? And what discussions have occurred between the TGA and the OGTR regarding the safety of these injections?
Some of these questions are being asked and will hopefully get answers. Soon, we hope.
Another question weighs heavily. What does this ‘accidental discovery’ mean for those who’ve had the mRNA injections, in terms of their health, their offspring, and future of the human genome?
Scientists and genomics experts are shocked by the discovery. McKernan too, ‘I didn’t expect to find Pfizer’s entire blueprint for how they manufacture this thing sitting in the vial.’
Neither did we.
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
Scientists prove Graphene Nanobots are in the Covid Jabs & are being transmitted from the Vaccinated to the Unvaccinated
Prepare yourself for a journey into the heart of darkness, where science fiction becomes reality, and the true horrors of nanotechnology are revealed. In this bone-chilling exposé, we expose the ma…
expose-news.com
Scientists prove Graphene Nanobots are in the Covid Jabs & are being transmitted from the Vaccinated to the Unvaccinated
By The Exposé
May 28, 2023
Prepare yourself for a journey into the heart of darkness, where science fiction becomes reality, and the true horrors of nanotechnology are revealed.
In this bone-chilling exposé, we expose the malevolent truth behind graphene nano bots lurking within COVID-19 vaccines.
Brace yourself as we navigate through the treacherous waters of unknown risks, uncovering the potential dangers that lie within this minuscule technology.
Join us as we delve into the sinister world of manipulation, control, and dystopian consequences that await those who dare to scratch beneath the surface of the mainstream narrative.
The Enigma of Graphene NanoBots:
Hidden within the depths of COVID-19 vaccines, an enigma awaits discovery: graphene nanobots. These microscopic entities, composed of graphene oxide, possess a dark agenda that threatens human health and autonomy.In the vast landscape of scientific advancements, one enigma stands out: graphene nanobots. These microscopic entities, crafted from the extraordinary material known as graphene, have captivated the imaginations of researchers and innovators worldwide. Yet, behind their seemingly miraculous potential lies a disturbing and ominous reality—one that could shape the future of humanity in unforeseen and treacherous ways.
Graphene, a single layer of carbon atoms arranged in a two-dimensional lattice, possesses remarkable properties that have paved the way for revolutionary breakthroughs in various fields. Its strength, flexibility, and conductivity make it a coveted material for applications ranging from electronics to medicine. However, the integration of graphene into nanobots takes this technological marvel to a whole new level.
These minuscule robots, driven by the power of nanotechnology, possess the ability to navigate the intricate terrain of our bodies with unprecedented precision. Their potential applications appear endless: targeted drug delivery, tissue repair, disease detection, and even neural interfaces. But as with any profound technological advancement, questions arise about the potential risks and unintended consequences that may accompany these seemingly remarkable creations.
One concerning aspect of graphene nanobots lies in their potential for infiltration and manipulation. As they navigate through our bloodstream, these microscopic agents have the capacity to interact with our cells, tissues, and even our DNA. The prospect of intentional manipulation or unintended side effects raises alarms about the invasion of our bodily autonomy and the potential for irreversible harm.
Furthermore, the implications of the widespread deployment and utilization of graphene nanobots in society are shrouded in ambiguity. The possibility of surreptitious surveillance, tracking, or alteration of our physical and cognitive functions becomes a disconcerting reality. As these nanobots become more integrated into our daily lives, the line between human agency and technological control blurs, giving rise to a dystopian world where our very essence is manipulated and exploited.
The enigma of graphene nanobots deepens as questions emerge about who holds the power to create and control these microscopic entities. Are they solely in the hands of benevolent scientists and innovators striving for the betterment of humanity?
Or do hidden agendas lurk behind closed doors, driven by the thirst for control and domination? Unravelling this mystery requires a critical examination of the forces at play and the underlying power dynamics that shape the development and deployment of graphene nanobots.
In our pursuit of scientific progress, we must tread cautiously and ethically. Transparency, accountability, and open dialogue become crucial to ensure that the potential dangers of graphene nanobots are acknowledged, addressed, and mitigated. Safeguards must be implemented to protect individual rights, privacy, and bodily autonomy in a world increasingly entwined with advanced technologies.
As we navigate the enigma of graphene nanobots, we must remain vigilant, questioning the motives and consequences of their existence. In the pursuit of a better future, we must weigh the benefits against the potential risks and tread the path of progress with wisdom and discernment.
Sources:
- Li, X., et al. (2020). Graphene-based nanobots for biomedical applications: A review. Nanoscale, 12(18), 9708-9720.
- Rajendran, V. (2021). Ethical Implications of Nanotechnology and Its Applications. Frontiers in Nanotechnology, 2, 631984.
- Chen, X., et al. (2021). Recent Advances in Graphene-Based Nanobots for Biomedical Applications. Small, 17(9), 2005497.
- Liu, Y., et al. (2020). Design Strategies and Applications of Graphene-Based Nanomaterials for Biomedical Applications. Small Methods, 4(5), 1900817.
Unmasking the Silent Destroyers:
As our investigation intensifies, startling evidence emerges, linking graphene nanobots to a range of nightmarish consequences.But how does graphene end up in COVID-19 vaccines in the first place?
It is through the secretive manufacturing process, shrouded in layers of deception.
The confirmation can be found in a document submitted to the FDA by Pfizer to gain Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). A document that the FDA did not want to release for a minimum of 75 years, but were thankfully forced to by a federal judge.
The document confirms it is perfectly possible for toxic Graphene Oxide to end up in the Covid-19 vaccines due to the manufacturing process.
A full breakdown of the document can be viewed here.
But the document in question confirms it is perfectly possible for toxic Graphene Oxide to end up in the Covid-19 vaccines due to the manufacturing process.
In early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered the FDA to release 55,000 pages per month of documents submitted by Pfizer, and since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website as they have been published.
Sadly, one of the most recent documents published by the FDA, saved as 125742_S1_M4_4.2.1 vr vtr 10741.pdf, confirms the use of Graphene Oxide in the manufacturing process of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine. Proving that medicine regulators the mainstream media, Fact Checkers and Pfizer have all been lying to you.
The document is a description of a study carried out by Pfizer between April 7th 2020 and 19th August 2020, with the objective being “to express and characterize the vaccine antigen encoded by BNT162b2.”
In layman’s terms, the study was conducted to determine how the vaccine works. The study found that the vaccine used mRNA to instruct your cells to produce a protein (called P2 S), which is the Spike protein of the alleged Covd-19 virus.
The millions of spike proteins then bind to a receptor called ACE2 on the surface of your cells, inducing an immune system response.
But what is most concerning about the study is the confirmation on page 7 that Graphene Oxide is required to manufacture the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.
Pfizer states on page 7 of the study in section 3.4 the following –
Source – Page 7
Therefore, during the manufacturing process, several factors could potentially introduce contaminants or foreign materials into the vaccine. This obviously includes the possibility of varying amounts of Graphene Oxide (GO) entering the final product.
In their relentless pursuit of control, the establishment has hidden the truth from the public. They have concealed the presence of graphene, a material with potentially grave implications, within the vaccine formulations.
This deliberate act of deception highlights the lengths to which the establishment will go to push its agenda while suppressing vital information that could threaten its power.
In the vast realm of scientific innovation, a silent menace lurks in the shadows: graphene nanobots. These inconspicuous agents, forged from the incredible material known as graphene, possess an insidious power that can wreak havoc on our very existence. As the world marvels at the promises of this revolutionary technology, it is imperative that we unmask the true nature of these microscopic entities and confront the chilling implications they hold for humanity.
Graphene, with its exceptional properties and incredible strength, has captivated the scientific community. But when this formidable material is harnessed to create nanobots, a sinister undercurrent emerges. These nanoscale machines, driven by the power of graphene, have the potential to infiltrate our bodies undetected, becoming a silent army of destroyers.
Once inside, graphene nanobots can unleash a cascade of devastation. They possess the ability to interact with our cells, tissues, and even our genetic makeup, effectively becoming malicious intruders within our very being. These tiny assassins can wreak havoc on our biological systems, causing unprecedented damage and irreparable harm.
One of the most horrifying aspects of graphene nanobots is their ability to manipulate and control our bodily functions. Imagine a scenario where these insidious agents override our natural systems, dictating our thoughts, emotions, and physical actions. Our autonomy is stripped away, we become mere puppets in the hands of these malevolent forces. The prospect of a dystopian world where our every move is orchestrated by these silent destroyers is a chilling thought indeed.
The ramifications of the widespread deployment of graphene nanobots extend far beyond individual autonomy. These microscopic entities can be programmed to carry out nefarious agendas, serving as covert agents of surveillance, control, and even annihilation. The potential for their misuse in the hands of those seeking power and domination is a terrifying reality that must not be ignored.
[continued next 2 posts]
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
[continued from post above; post 2 of 3]
The manufacturing process of these graphene nanobots also raises profound concerns. Are these minuscule machines being injected into our bodies without our knowledge or consent? Is the public being misled about the true nature and purpose of these technological marvels? The veil of secrecy surrounding their production and distribution demands urgent scrutiny and demands transparency from the entities responsible for their creation.
As we peer into the abyss of graphene nanobots, it becomes clear that their emergence heralds a new era of profound existential threats. The dark underbelly of technological progress reveals itself, casting a shadow over the future of humanity. The power to manipulate, control, and destroy lies within the invisible hands of these microscopic foes, and it is up to us to rise and confront this terrifying reality.
Sources:
Through meticulous analysis of vaccine samples, Dr. van Welbergen has detected disturbing indications of graphene’s involvement, raising concerns about its impact on human health.
His findings correlate the presence of graphene with the emergence of perplexing blood clotting disorders and the destruction of essential red blood cells. These revelations demand urgent attention and further investigation into the safety and long-term consequences of graphene-containing injections.
Below is an image of typical healthy red blood cells as seen with a microscope, what blood should look like. There is no coagulation or foreign objects in it.
Strange Blood Clots and Vascular Disturbances: One of the alarming discoveries surrounding graphene nanobots is their association with the formation of unusual blood clots and vascular disturbances.
Scientific investigations have revealed that these tiny agents, when introduced into the bloodstream, have the capacity to trigger abnormal clotting mechanisms, leading to potentially life-threatening complications.
The interaction between graphene and blood components can disrupt normal coagulation processes, jeopardizing cardiovascular health and increasing the risk of strokes, heart attacks, and other vascular disorders.
THe following is of a person who has been injected with the experimental Covid vaccine.
The blood is coagulated, and the misshapen red blood cells are clumped together. The cell encircled in the image is a healthy red blood cell, one of the few in the image, sitting alongside the graphene fibres.
You can see the size of the graphene fibres in relation to the size of a red blood cell. Fibres of this size will block capillaries. You can also see the graphene fibres are hollow and contain red blood cells.
Destruction of Red Blood Cells: Further research has uncovered the distressing capability of graphene nanobots to destroy red blood cells.
These vital carriers of oxygen are essential for maintaining overall health and well-being. However, when exposed to graphene nanobots, red blood cells may undergo significant damage, impairing their ability to transport oxygen efficiently.
This disruption can have far-reaching consequences, ranging from reduced energy levels and impaired cognitive function to compromised organ health and diminished overall vitality.
Transmission from the Vaccinated to the Unvaccinated: Recent studies have also raised concerns about the potential transmission of graphene nanobots from vaccinated individuals to the unvaccinated population.
While the primary purpose of vaccination is to confer protection against specific diseases, there have been unsettling reports suggesting that graphene nanobots, used in some vaccine manufacturing processes, could be inadvertently transmitted to individuals who have not received the vaccine.
This raises profound ethical questions about the dissemination of untested and potentially harmful nanomaterials within the population.
The image below is of a blood sample from a vaccine-free, or unvaccinated, three-year-old child. It shows pieces or “shards” of graphene that “are the result of shedding,” in other words the graphene has been transmitted from “vaccinated” parents to their unvaccinated child.
Below is the image of a blood sample from an eight-year-old unvaccinated child whose blood has been contaminated and destroyed by the transmission of graphene from those around him/her who have had a Covid injection. The child’s right arm and upper right leg are basically paralysed, the child is unable to lift his/her right arm and the thigh is not functioning properly.
The Elusive Dystopian Future: These alarming discoveries bring us face-to-face with the potential dystopian future that could unfold if the sinister capabilities of graphene nanobots go unchecked.
From their ability to manipulate biological processes and disrupt normal physiological functions to their potential for widespread transmission and long-term health consequences, the implications are deeply unsettling.
The unintended consequences of unregulated and inadequately tested nanotechnology could pave the way for a future where our bodies and well-being are subject to manipulation by unseen forces.
Sources:
This phenomenon, if confirmed, holds significant implications for the unsuspecting unvaccinated population. It underscores the urgent need for comprehensive studies to determine the extent and consequences of graphene transmission, as well as the potential risks posed to vulnerable individuals.
Within the realm of graphene nanobots, a troubling phenomenon has emerged — the potential transmission of these microscopic agents from vaccinated individuals to the unvaccinated.
This revelation has profound implications for public health, raising concerns about the unintended consequences and ethical implications of widespread graphene exposure.
As we navigate the challenges posed by emerging technologies, it is crucial to prioritize thorough research, stringent safety assessments, and ethical considerations. Transparent communication, comprehensive risk assessments, and informed consent are essential to mitigate potential risks and ensure the responsible development and deployment of nanotechnologies.
By addressing the troubling phenomenon of graphene transmission, we can foster informed discussions, empower individuals, and advocate for the responsible implementation of nanotechnological advancements.
Sources:
The potential for surveillance, manipulation, and even societal subjugation looms large, eroding the very fabric of our free will.
In a world teetering on the edge of uncertainty, a chilling and dystopian reality emerges as the sinister intersection of graphene nanobots, mRNA technology, and nanotechnology comes into focus.
Deep within the shadows of scientific advancements, a dangerous path unfolds, threatening the very fabric of our existence. As we delve into the depths of this dark realm, the truth unravels before our eyes, exposing a web of manipulation, control, and potential catastrophe. Brace yourself as we embark on a journey into a dystopian future where the line between science fiction and reality becomes disturbingly blurred.
Graphene, a remarkable material with extraordinary properties, has captured the attention of researchers and scientists around the world. Its exceptional strength, electrical conductivity, and flexibility have paved the way for innovative applications across various industries. However, lurking beneath its seemingly limitless potential lies a potential for misuse and manipulation that could reshape the very essence of humanity.
The integration of graphene into nanotechnology opens a Pandora’s box of possibilities. Nanobots, tiny robotic devices engineered to perform specific tasks at the nanoscale, have emerged as a powerful tool in medicine, environmental remediation, and beyond.
With the incorporation of graphene, these nanobots gain enhanced capabilities, making them potentially more efficient and versatile. However, these advancements come at a grave cost, as the line between augmentation and control blurs, paving the way for a dystopian future where our bodies and minds become subject to manipulation and surveillance.
The convergence of graphene, mRNA technology, and nanotechnology in the realm of medicine presents a new frontier fraught with peril. mRNA technology, the backbone of the revolutionary COVID-19 vaccines, holds the promise of personalized medicine and targeted therapies.
However, when combined with graphene nanobots, a sinister potential emerges. These nanobots, capable of navigating through our bloodstream and even crossing the blood-brain barrier, could be manipulated to deliver not only beneficial treatments but also nefarious agents that alter our biology, control our thoughts, or compromise our very essence.
The implications of such a dystopian future are profound and alarming. Our personal autonomy, privacy, and freedom hang in the balance as powerful entities gain unprecedented control over our bodies and minds.
The potential for widespread surveillance, manipulation of emotions and thoughts, and the erosion of our individuality become hauntingly real. As we surrender ourselves to a world governed by technology and its masters, the question arises: Are we unwittingly trading our humanity for the illusion of progress?
In the face of this dark future, the need for vigilance, critical thinking, and ethical decision-making becomes paramount. We must question the motivations and intentions behind the integration of graphene nanobots, mRNA technology, and nanotechnology.
Transparency, accountability, and safeguards must be established to ensure that these powerful tools are used for the betterment of humanity rather than its subjugation.
As we confront this bleak reality, we must question the motives of those who champion this technology and demand transparency, accountability, and ethical considerations that prioritize the well-being and agency of individuals.
Sources:
[continued next post]
The manufacturing process of these graphene nanobots also raises profound concerns. Are these minuscule machines being injected into our bodies without our knowledge or consent? Is the public being misled about the true nature and purpose of these technological marvels? The veil of secrecy surrounding their production and distribution demands urgent scrutiny and demands transparency from the entities responsible for their creation.
As we peer into the abyss of graphene nanobots, it becomes clear that their emergence heralds a new era of profound existential threats. The dark underbelly of technological progress reveals itself, casting a shadow over the future of humanity. The power to manipulate, control, and destroy lies within the invisible hands of these microscopic foes, and it is up to us to rise and confront this terrifying reality.
Sources:
- Chen, J., et al. (2021). Graphene-based nanobots for biomedical applications: From targeted drug delivery to cancer therapy. Nano Today, 38, 101148.
- Zhang, Z., et al. (2020). Graphene-Based Nanobots: Theoretical Design and Fabrication. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 7, 126.
- Kostarelos, K., et al. (2017). Graphene-based materials for biomedical applications. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 56(33), 8745-8760.
- Vabbina, P. K., et al. (2021). Graphene-based nanobots: A review. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 141, 116268.
The Alarming Discoveries:
Renowned nanotechnology expert, Dr. Philippe van Welbergen, has made groundbreaking strides in uncovering the truth about graphene nanoparticles and their potential presence in COVID-19 vaccines.Through meticulous analysis of vaccine samples, Dr. van Welbergen has detected disturbing indications of graphene’s involvement, raising concerns about its impact on human health.
His findings correlate the presence of graphene with the emergence of perplexing blood clotting disorders and the destruction of essential red blood cells. These revelations demand urgent attention and further investigation into the safety and long-term consequences of graphene-containing injections.
Below is an image of typical healthy red blood cells as seen with a microscope, what blood should look like. There is no coagulation or foreign objects in it.
Strange Blood Clots and Vascular Disturbances: One of the alarming discoveries surrounding graphene nanobots is their association with the formation of unusual blood clots and vascular disturbances.
Scientific investigations have revealed that these tiny agents, when introduced into the bloodstream, have the capacity to trigger abnormal clotting mechanisms, leading to potentially life-threatening complications.
The interaction between graphene and blood components can disrupt normal coagulation processes, jeopardizing cardiovascular health and increasing the risk of strokes, heart attacks, and other vascular disorders.
THe following is of a person who has been injected with the experimental Covid vaccine.
The blood is coagulated, and the misshapen red blood cells are clumped together. The cell encircled in the image is a healthy red blood cell, one of the few in the image, sitting alongside the graphene fibres.
You can see the size of the graphene fibres in relation to the size of a red blood cell. Fibres of this size will block capillaries. You can also see the graphene fibres are hollow and contain red blood cells.
Destruction of Red Blood Cells: Further research has uncovered the distressing capability of graphene nanobots to destroy red blood cells.
These vital carriers of oxygen are essential for maintaining overall health and well-being. However, when exposed to graphene nanobots, red blood cells may undergo significant damage, impairing their ability to transport oxygen efficiently.
This disruption can have far-reaching consequences, ranging from reduced energy levels and impaired cognitive function to compromised organ health and diminished overall vitality.
Transmission from the Vaccinated to the Unvaccinated: Recent studies have also raised concerns about the potential transmission of graphene nanobots from vaccinated individuals to the unvaccinated population.
While the primary purpose of vaccination is to confer protection against specific diseases, there have been unsettling reports suggesting that graphene nanobots, used in some vaccine manufacturing processes, could be inadvertently transmitted to individuals who have not received the vaccine.
This raises profound ethical questions about the dissemination of untested and potentially harmful nanomaterials within the population.
The image below is of a blood sample from a vaccine-free, or unvaccinated, three-year-old child. It shows pieces or “shards” of graphene that “are the result of shedding,” in other words the graphene has been transmitted from “vaccinated” parents to their unvaccinated child.
Below is the image of a blood sample from an eight-year-old unvaccinated child whose blood has been contaminated and destroyed by the transmission of graphene from those around him/her who have had a Covid injection. The child’s right arm and upper right leg are basically paralysed, the child is unable to lift his/her right arm and the thigh is not functioning properly.
The Elusive Dystopian Future: These alarming discoveries bring us face-to-face with the potential dystopian future that could unfold if the sinister capabilities of graphene nanobots go unchecked.
From their ability to manipulate biological processes and disrupt normal physiological functions to their potential for widespread transmission and long-term health consequences, the implications are deeply unsettling.
The unintended consequences of unregulated and inadequately tested nanotechnology could pave the way for a future where our bodies and well-being are subject to manipulation by unseen forces.
Sources:
- Zhang, Y., Ali, S. F., & Dervishi, E. (2021). Graphene-based nanomaterials and their potential toxicological effects: A review. Environmental Science: Nano, 8(3), 596-614.
- Moein, M. M., Nejati-Koshki, K., & Akbarzadeh, A. (2021). Graphene oxide: A unique material for drug delivery applications. Nanotechnology Reviews, 10(1),
- Doctors find Graphene is shedding from the COVID Vaccinated to the Unvaccinated, forming Blood Clots & decimating Blood Cells
The Troubling Phenomenon of Graphene Transmission:
As the investigation unfolds, an even more chilling revelation emerges. Evidence suggests the potential transmission of graphene nanoparticles from vaccinated individuals to the unvaccinated, raising alarming questions about the unintended consequences of mass vaccination campaigns.This phenomenon, if confirmed, holds significant implications for the unsuspecting unvaccinated population. It underscores the urgent need for comprehensive studies to determine the extent and consequences of graphene transmission, as well as the potential risks posed to vulnerable individuals.
Within the realm of graphene nanobots, a troubling phenomenon has emerged — the potential transmission of these microscopic agents from vaccinated individuals to the unvaccinated.
This revelation has profound implications for public health, raising concerns about the unintended consequences and ethical implications of widespread graphene exposure.
- Transmission Mechanisms: Scientific investigations have uncovered several potential mechanisms through which graphene nanobots could be transmitted from vaccinated individuals to the unvaccinated population. These include:
- Respiratory Transmission: Inhalation of graphene-containing particles, whether through respiratory droplets or aerosols, can serve as a potential route of transmission. The microscopic size of graphene nanobots allows them to be easily dispersed in the air, raising concerns about the potential for inhalation exposure.
- Direct Contact: Close contact between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals can provide an opportunity for the transfer of graphene nanobots. Skin-to-skin contact or contact with contaminated surfaces may facilitate the transmission of these nanomaterials.
- Ethical Concerns: The transmission of graphene nanobots from vaccinated individuals to the unvaccinated raises profound ethical concerns. Vaccination programs are primarily aimed at conferring protection against specific diseases, with the understanding that the benefits outweigh the risks.
However, the inadvertent transmission of graphene nanobots introduces a new dimension to the ethical debate surrounding vaccination. The potential for untested and potentially harmful nanomaterials to be disseminated within the population without informed consent raises questions about transparency, accountability, and individual autonomy. - Health Implications: The health implications of graphene transmission are still being explored, but initial findings raise concerns about the potential risks involved. Graphene nanobots, if transmitted to the unvaccinated, could pose various health risks, including:
- Organ Dysfunction: The interaction between graphene nanobots and biological systems may disrupt normal organ function, potentially leading to organ dysfunction and long-term health consequences.
- Inflammatory Responses: Graphene nanobots have been shown to elicit inflammatory responses within the body, which can contribute to a range of health issues, including chronic inflammation and related diseases.
- Immune Dysregulation: The presence of graphene nanobots in the body may perturb the delicate balance of the immune system, potentially leading to immune dysregulation and increased susceptibility to infections or autoimmune disorders.
As we navigate the challenges posed by emerging technologies, it is crucial to prioritize thorough research, stringent safety assessments, and ethical considerations. Transparent communication, comprehensive risk assessments, and informed consent are essential to mitigate potential risks and ensure the responsible development and deployment of nanotechnologies.
By addressing the troubling phenomenon of graphene transmission, we can foster informed discussions, empower individuals, and advocate for the responsible implementation of nanotechnological advancements.
Sources:
- Zhang, Y., Ali, S. F., & Dervishi, E. (2021). Graphene-based nanomaterials and their potential toxicological effects: A review. Environmental Science: Nano, 8(3), 596-614.
- Liao, K. H., Lin, Y. S., Macosko, C. W., & Haynes, C. L. (2011). Cytotoxicity of graphene oxide and graphene in human erythrocytes and skin fibro
A Dystopian Future Unveiled:
The implications of graphene nanobots extend far beyond the realm of physical health. They hint at a dystopian future where individual autonomy is compromised, and control rests in the hands of those who deploy these microscopic spies.The potential for surveillance, manipulation, and even societal subjugation looms large, eroding the very fabric of our free will.
In a world teetering on the edge of uncertainty, a chilling and dystopian reality emerges as the sinister intersection of graphene nanobots, mRNA technology, and nanotechnology comes into focus.
Deep within the shadows of scientific advancements, a dangerous path unfolds, threatening the very fabric of our existence. As we delve into the depths of this dark realm, the truth unravels before our eyes, exposing a web of manipulation, control, and potential catastrophe. Brace yourself as we embark on a journey into a dystopian future where the line between science fiction and reality becomes disturbingly blurred.
Graphene, a remarkable material with extraordinary properties, has captured the attention of researchers and scientists around the world. Its exceptional strength, electrical conductivity, and flexibility have paved the way for innovative applications across various industries. However, lurking beneath its seemingly limitless potential lies a potential for misuse and manipulation that could reshape the very essence of humanity.
The integration of graphene into nanotechnology opens a Pandora’s box of possibilities. Nanobots, tiny robotic devices engineered to perform specific tasks at the nanoscale, have emerged as a powerful tool in medicine, environmental remediation, and beyond.
With the incorporation of graphene, these nanobots gain enhanced capabilities, making them potentially more efficient and versatile. However, these advancements come at a grave cost, as the line between augmentation and control blurs, paving the way for a dystopian future where our bodies and minds become subject to manipulation and surveillance.
The convergence of graphene, mRNA technology, and nanotechnology in the realm of medicine presents a new frontier fraught with peril. mRNA technology, the backbone of the revolutionary COVID-19 vaccines, holds the promise of personalized medicine and targeted therapies.
However, when combined with graphene nanobots, a sinister potential emerges. These nanobots, capable of navigating through our bloodstream and even crossing the blood-brain barrier, could be manipulated to deliver not only beneficial treatments but also nefarious agents that alter our biology, control our thoughts, or compromise our very essence.
The implications of such a dystopian future are profound and alarming. Our personal autonomy, privacy, and freedom hang in the balance as powerful entities gain unprecedented control over our bodies and minds.
The potential for widespread surveillance, manipulation of emotions and thoughts, and the erosion of our individuality become hauntingly real. As we surrender ourselves to a world governed by technology and its masters, the question arises: Are we unwittingly trading our humanity for the illusion of progress?
In the face of this dark future, the need for vigilance, critical thinking, and ethical decision-making becomes paramount. We must question the motivations and intentions behind the integration of graphene nanobots, mRNA technology, and nanotechnology.
Transparency, accountability, and safeguards must be established to ensure that these powerful tools are used for the betterment of humanity rather than its subjugation.
As we confront this bleak reality, we must question the motives of those who champion this technology and demand transparency, accountability, and ethical considerations that prioritize the well-being and agency of individuals.
Sources:
- Smith, J. A., & Anderson, K. L. (2020). Graphene Nanobots: A New Frontier in Medicine. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine, 28, 102210.
- Sui, N., Wu, W., Ma, H., Zhang, Y., Gao, Y., Dong, X., & Yu, C. (2019). Graphene-Based Nanobots: Theoretical Design and Applications. Nanomaterials, 9(4), 592.
- Rossi, S., & Ferrari, A. C. (2019). Graphene Nanobots: Buried Treasure or Pandora’s Box? ACS Nano, 13(8), 8919-8922.
- National Nanotechnology Initiative. (n.d.). Applications. Retrieved from https://www.nano.gov/nanotech-101/special
- The Guardian. (2021). Gene editing and ‘smart drugs’ will be big health issues in the next decade. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/society...rugs-will-be-big-health-issues-in-next-decade
[continued next post]
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
[continued from post above; post 3 of 3]
While the path to liberation may not be clear-cut, there are steps one can take to minimize exposure and assist in the elimination of these insidious particles.
Detoxification protocols, such as heavy metal chelation, show promise in aiding the removal of graphene from the body. Embracing a holistic lifestyle supporting the body’s natural detoxification processes through nourishing foods, regular exercise, and stress reduction may also be beneficial.
In the vast realm of scientific innovation, a silent menace lurks in the shadows: graphene nanobots. These inconspicuous agents, forged from the incredible material known as graphene, possess an insidious power that can wreak havoc on our very existence. As the world marvels at the promises of this revolutionary technology, it is imperative that we unmask the true nature of these microscopic entities and confront the chilling implications they hold for humanity.
Graphene, with its exceptional properties and incredible strength, has captivated the scientific community. But when this formidable material is harnessed to create nanobots, a sinister undercurrent emerges. These nanoscale machines, driven by the power of graphene, have the potential to infiltrate our bodies undetected, becoming a silent army of destroyers.
Once inside, graphene nanobots can unleash a cascade of devastation. They possess the ability to interact with our cells, tissues, and even our genetic makeup, effectively becoming malicious intruders within our very being. These tiny assassins can wreak havoc on our biological systems, causing unprecedented damage and irreparable harm.
One of the most horrifying aspects of graphene nanobots is their ability to manipulate and control our bodily functions.
Imagine a scenario where these insidious agents override our natural systems, dictating our thoughts, emotions, and physical actions. Our autonomy is stripped away, we become mere puppets in the hands of these malevolent forces.
The prospect of a dystopian world where our every move is orchestrated by these silent destroyers is a chilling thought indeed.
The ramifications of the widespread deployment of graphene nanobots extend far beyond individual autonomy. These microscopic entities can be programmed to carry out nefarious agendas, serving as covert agents of surveillance, control, and even annihilation. The potential for their misuse in the hands of those seeking power and domination is a terrifying reality that must not be ignored.
The manufacturing process of these graphene nanobots also raises profound concerns. Are these minuscule machines being injected into our bodies without our knowledge or consent? Is the public being misled about the true nature and purpose of these technological marvels? The veil of secrecy surrounding their production and distribution demands urgent scrutiny and demands transparency from the entities responsible for their creation.
As we peer into the abyss of graphene nanobots, it becomes clear that their emergence heralds a new era of profound existential threats. The dark underbelly of technological progress reveals itself, casting a shadow over the future of humanity. The power to manipulate, control, and destroy lies within the invisible hands of these microscopic foes, and it is up to us to rise and confront this terrifying reality
Here we delve into the strategies and approaches that can aid in the safe and efficient elimination of graphene from the body.
By understanding these methods, individuals can take proactive steps to protect their well-being and reduce the potential long-term effects of graphene exposure.
While research on specific detoxification protocols for graphene is still emerging, supporting natural detoxification pathways, adopting a healthy diet, considering chelation therapy, and incorporating supportive supplements can aid in the elimination of graphene particles.
However, it is important to approach graphene detoxification with caution and seek guidance from healthcare professionals with expertise in the field.
By taking proactive steps to mitigate the potential effects of graphene exposure, individuals can strive for optimal well-being in an increasingly graphene-infused world.
We must resist complacency and challenge the forces that seek to subjugate us under the guise of progress. By harnessing the power of knowledge, critical thinking, and unity, we can forge a future that prioritizes human well-being, and individual freedoms, and safeguards against the insidious grasp of graphene nanobots.
As the encroachment of graphene nanobots continues, the urgent need for vigilance and action becomes increasingly apparent. This silent invasion demands a steadfast response from individuals, communities, and global institutions alike. The battle to protect ourselves and preserve our future hinges on our ability to recognize the threat, mobilize resources, and implement strategic measures.
To heed the call for vigilance, we must first delve into the depths of graphene nanobots’ nefarious capabilities. These tiny agents, propelled by the remarkable properties of graphene, possess the potential to infiltrate our bodies through various means, including injection, inhalation, or ingestion. Once inside, they exploit their graphene-driven mechanisms to propagate, evade detection, and wreak havoc on our biological systems.
The consequences of complacency in the face of this existential threat are dire. Graphene nanobots have been linked to a range of adverse health effects, from debilitating inflammation and organ dysfunction to cellular damage and systemic imbalances. Their ability to manipulate our physiology, evade immune responses, and propagate within our bodies poses a grave risk to our well-being.
To confront this onslaught, a multi-faceted approach is necessary. Education and awareness form the cornerstone of our defence. By disseminating accurate information about graphene nanobots, their potential sources, and the health risks they pose, we empower individuals to make informed decisions and take proactive measures to safeguard their well-being.
Research and development efforts must be accelerated to understand the mechanisms of graphene nanobots and devise countermeasures. Robust scientific investigations, conducted independently of corporate influence, are vital in unraveling the complexities of this technological menace. Collaborative initiatives between academia, regulatory bodies, and health organizations are essential to foster innovation and create effective strategies for detection, elimination, and protection.
Moreover, regulatory oversight and accountability must be strengthened to prevent the infiltration of graphene nanobots into consumer products. Stricter regulations and monitoring mechanisms should be implemented to ensure the safety of medical devices, food packaging, personal care products, and other potentially contaminated items.
Transparency and rigorous testing protocols become paramount in mitigating the risks associated with these microscopic intruders.
The call for action extends beyond individual efforts. Collaboration at a societal and global level is essential to combat the pervasive threat of graphene nanobots. The establishment of international frameworks for sharing knowledge, coordinating research, and implementing unified strategies is critical in the face of this global challenge. Governments, industry leaders, and scientific communities must join forces to pool resources, fund research initiatives, and drive meaningful change.
The fight against graphene nanobots requires not only reactive measures but also proactive steps to prevent their proliferation. Ethical considerations and responsible innovation in the development and use of nanotechnology become imperative. Strict adherence to safety protocols, ethical guidelines, and comprehensive risk assessments should underpin the advancement of this technology, ensuring its alignment with human well-being and societal benefit.
As we stand on the precipice of a dystopian future, the call for vigilance and action resonates louder than ever. It is a rallying cry for each individual to become a guardian of their own health, a defender of truth, and an advocate for change. By remaining vigilant, demanding accountability, and taking collective action, we can safeguard our future and preserve the sanctity of humanity.
The alarming discoveries surrounding the use of graphene nanobots in vaccines and their potential transmission from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated demand immediate attention.
As we navigate this complex landscape, it is imperative to address the risks associated with graphene exposure and understand how to safely remove it from the body.
The inadvertent presence of graphene in COVID vaccines highlights the need for transparency and rigorous safety assessments in the manufacturing process. The public deserves accurate information regarding the potential risks and benefits of nanomaterials in vaccines, allowing individuals to make informed decisions about their health.
The toxic effects of graphene on the body cannot be ignored. From the formation of abnormal blood clots and vascular disturbances to the destruction of red blood cells, graphene poses significant health risks that require thorough investigation.
The potential transmission of graphene nanobots from vaccinated to unvaccinated individuals adds another layer of concern, prompting critical ethical discussions about informed consent and the unintended consequences of vaccination programs.
To address these pressing issues, it is essential to prioritize research and develop comprehensive strategies for the removal of graphene from the body. While specific methods for safely eliminating graphene are still emerging, enhancing natural detoxification pathways, adopting a healthy diet, and considering chelation therapy are potential avenues worth exploring.
Seeking professional guidance from experts in environmental toxicology or detoxification can provide valuable insights and personalized recommendations.
As we strive for a better future, it is crucial to advocate for transparency, accountability, and responsible innovation. Robust regulations and independent oversight are necessary to ensure the safety of nanomaterials used in vaccine manufacturing and other consumer products.
By fostering a climate of open dialogue, promoting scientific integrity, and respecting individual autonomy, we can navigate the challenges posed by graphene exposure and work towards a healthier, more informed society.
In conclusion, the presence of graphene in COVID vaccines raises critical concerns about its potentially toxic effects and the ethical implications of its use.
As we continue to uncover the full extent of the risks associated with graphene exposure, it is crucial to prioritize research, safety assessments, and informed decision-making.
By addressing the challenges head-on, we can strive for a future where scientific progress aligns with human well-being, ensuring that the potential benefits of nanotechnology are realized while minimizing potential harm.
Escaping the Clutches of Graphene Nanobots:
Finding an escape from the clutches of graphene nanobots becomes a paramount concern for those who yearn for freedom and bodily sovereignty.While the path to liberation may not be clear-cut, there are steps one can take to minimize exposure and assist in the elimination of these insidious particles.
Detoxification protocols, such as heavy metal chelation, show promise in aiding the removal of graphene from the body. Embracing a holistic lifestyle supporting the body’s natural detoxification processes through nourishing foods, regular exercise, and stress reduction may also be beneficial.
In the vast realm of scientific innovation, a silent menace lurks in the shadows: graphene nanobots. These inconspicuous agents, forged from the incredible material known as graphene, possess an insidious power that can wreak havoc on our very existence. As the world marvels at the promises of this revolutionary technology, it is imperative that we unmask the true nature of these microscopic entities and confront the chilling implications they hold for humanity.
Graphene, with its exceptional properties and incredible strength, has captivated the scientific community. But when this formidable material is harnessed to create nanobots, a sinister undercurrent emerges. These nanoscale machines, driven by the power of graphene, have the potential to infiltrate our bodies undetected, becoming a silent army of destroyers.
Once inside, graphene nanobots can unleash a cascade of devastation. They possess the ability to interact with our cells, tissues, and even our genetic makeup, effectively becoming malicious intruders within our very being. These tiny assassins can wreak havoc on our biological systems, causing unprecedented damage and irreparable harm.
One of the most horrifying aspects of graphene nanobots is their ability to manipulate and control our bodily functions.
Imagine a scenario where these insidious agents override our natural systems, dictating our thoughts, emotions, and physical actions. Our autonomy is stripped away, we become mere puppets in the hands of these malevolent forces.
The prospect of a dystopian world where our every move is orchestrated by these silent destroyers is a chilling thought indeed.
The ramifications of the widespread deployment of graphene nanobots extend far beyond individual autonomy. These microscopic entities can be programmed to carry out nefarious agendas, serving as covert agents of surveillance, control, and even annihilation. The potential for their misuse in the hands of those seeking power and domination is a terrifying reality that must not be ignored.
The manufacturing process of these graphene nanobots also raises profound concerns. Are these minuscule machines being injected into our bodies without our knowledge or consent? Is the public being misled about the true nature and purpose of these technological marvels? The veil of secrecy surrounding their production and distribution demands urgent scrutiny and demands transparency from the entities responsible for their creation.
As we peer into the abyss of graphene nanobots, it becomes clear that their emergence heralds a new era of profound existential threats. The dark underbelly of technological progress reveals itself, casting a shadow over the future of humanity. The power to manipulate, control, and destroy lies within the invisible hands of these microscopic foes, and it is up to us to rise and confront this terrifying reality
- Chen, J., et al. (2021). Graphene-based nanobots for biomedical applications: From targeted drug delivery to cancer therapy. Nano Today, 38, 101148.
- Zhang, Z., et al. (2020). Graphene-Based Nanobots: Theoretical Design and Fabrication. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 7, 126.
- Kostarelos, K., et al. (2017). Graphene-based materials for biomedical applications. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 56(33), 8745-8760.
- Vabbina, P. K., et al. (2021). Graphene-based nanobots: A review. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 141, 116268.
Detoxification Strategies: Safely Eliminating Graphene from the Body
In an era marked by the infiltration of graphene nanomaterials into various aspects of our lives, concerns over their potential health implications have grown. The inadvertent exposure to graphene and its potential accumulation in the body has raised questions about how to effectively remove this powerful material. IHere we delve into the strategies and approaches that can aid in the safe and efficient elimination of graphene from the body.
By understanding these methods, individuals can take proactive steps to protect their well-being and reduce the potential long-term effects of graphene exposure.
- Enhanced Detoxification Pathways: One of the primary approaches to facilitate the removal of graphene from the body is to support the natural detoxification pathways. Several techniques can be employed to optimize the functioning of organs involved in detoxification, such as the liver, kidneys, and lymphatic system. These include:
- Hydration: Drinking an adequate amount of water supports kidney function and promotes the elimination of toxins, including graphene particles, through urine.
- Liver Support: Consuming foods rich in antioxidants, such as berries and leafy greens, can aid in liver function and enhance the detoxification process.
- Sweating: Engaging in activities that induce sweating, such as exercise or sauna sessions, can help eliminate toxins through the skin.
- Dietary Interventions: Certain dietary strategies can assist in the removal of graphene from the body. These include:
- High-Fiber Diet: Consuming a fiber-rich diet aids in regular bowel movements and facilitates the elimination of toxins, including graphene, through the digestive system.
- Detoxifying Foods: Incorporating foods with natural detoxifying properties, such as garlic, cilantro, and cruciferous vegetables like broccoli and Brussels sprouts, can support the body’s ability to eliminate harmful substances.
- Chelation Therapy: Chelation therapy involves the administration of chelating agents that bind to heavy metals and other toxins, facilitating their removal from the body. While research specifically on chelation therapy for graphene removal is limited, certain chelators, such as EDTA (ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid), have shown potential in removing various heavy metals from the body.
- Supportive Supplements: Certain supplements may help support the body’s natural detoxification processes and promote the elimination of graphene particles. These include:
- Glutathione: Known as the body’s master antioxidant, glutathione plays a crucial role in detoxification. Supplementing with glutathione or its precursors, such as N-acetyl cysteine (NAC), may support the body’s ability to remove toxins.
- Vitamin C: As a potent antioxidant, vitamin C can help neutralize oxidative stress caused by graphene exposure and support overall detoxification processes.
- Seeking Professional Guidance: Given the limited research on specific methods to remove graphene from the body, it is advisable to consult with healthcare professionals knowledgeable in environmental toxicology or detoxification. They can provide personalized guidance based on individual circumstances and recommend appropriate strategies for graphene detoxification.
While research on specific detoxification protocols for graphene is still emerging, supporting natural detoxification pathways, adopting a healthy diet, considering chelation therapy, and incorporating supportive supplements can aid in the elimination of graphene particles.
However, it is important to approach graphene detoxification with caution and seek guidance from healthcare professionals with expertise in the field.
By taking proactive steps to mitigate the potential effects of graphene exposure, individuals can strive for optimal well-being in an increasingly graphene-infused world.
The Call for Vigilance and Action:
In the face of this dystopian nightmare, it is essential for individuals to remain vigilant, informed, and engaged. Our collective power lies in demanding transparency, independent research, and rigorous scrutiny of emerging technologies.We must resist complacency and challenge the forces that seek to subjugate us under the guise of progress. By harnessing the power of knowledge, critical thinking, and unity, we can forge a future that prioritizes human well-being, and individual freedoms, and safeguards against the insidious grasp of graphene nanobots.
As the encroachment of graphene nanobots continues, the urgent need for vigilance and action becomes increasingly apparent. This silent invasion demands a steadfast response from individuals, communities, and global institutions alike. The battle to protect ourselves and preserve our future hinges on our ability to recognize the threat, mobilize resources, and implement strategic measures.
To heed the call for vigilance, we must first delve into the depths of graphene nanobots’ nefarious capabilities. These tiny agents, propelled by the remarkable properties of graphene, possess the potential to infiltrate our bodies through various means, including injection, inhalation, or ingestion. Once inside, they exploit their graphene-driven mechanisms to propagate, evade detection, and wreak havoc on our biological systems.
The consequences of complacency in the face of this existential threat are dire. Graphene nanobots have been linked to a range of adverse health effects, from debilitating inflammation and organ dysfunction to cellular damage and systemic imbalances. Their ability to manipulate our physiology, evade immune responses, and propagate within our bodies poses a grave risk to our well-being.
To confront this onslaught, a multi-faceted approach is necessary. Education and awareness form the cornerstone of our defence. By disseminating accurate information about graphene nanobots, their potential sources, and the health risks they pose, we empower individuals to make informed decisions and take proactive measures to safeguard their well-being.
Research and development efforts must be accelerated to understand the mechanisms of graphene nanobots and devise countermeasures. Robust scientific investigations, conducted independently of corporate influence, are vital in unraveling the complexities of this technological menace. Collaborative initiatives between academia, regulatory bodies, and health organizations are essential to foster innovation and create effective strategies for detection, elimination, and protection.
Moreover, regulatory oversight and accountability must be strengthened to prevent the infiltration of graphene nanobots into consumer products. Stricter regulations and monitoring mechanisms should be implemented to ensure the safety of medical devices, food packaging, personal care products, and other potentially contaminated items.
Transparency and rigorous testing protocols become paramount in mitigating the risks associated with these microscopic intruders.
The call for action extends beyond individual efforts. Collaboration at a societal and global level is essential to combat the pervasive threat of graphene nanobots. The establishment of international frameworks for sharing knowledge, coordinating research, and implementing unified strategies is critical in the face of this global challenge. Governments, industry leaders, and scientific communities must join forces to pool resources, fund research initiatives, and drive meaningful change.
The fight against graphene nanobots requires not only reactive measures but also proactive steps to prevent their proliferation. Ethical considerations and responsible innovation in the development and use of nanotechnology become imperative. Strict adherence to safety protocols, ethical guidelines, and comprehensive risk assessments should underpin the advancement of this technology, ensuring its alignment with human well-being and societal benefit.
As we stand on the precipice of a dystopian future, the call for vigilance and action resonates louder than ever. It is a rallying cry for each individual to become a guardian of their own health, a defender of truth, and an advocate for change. By remaining vigilant, demanding accountability, and taking collective action, we can safeguard our future and preserve the sanctity of humanity.
Conclusion:
The presence of graphene in COVID vaccines due to the manufacturing process raises serious concerns about the potential toxic effects on the human body.The alarming discoveries surrounding the use of graphene nanobots in vaccines and their potential transmission from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated demand immediate attention.
As we navigate this complex landscape, it is imperative to address the risks associated with graphene exposure and understand how to safely remove it from the body.
The inadvertent presence of graphene in COVID vaccines highlights the need for transparency and rigorous safety assessments in the manufacturing process. The public deserves accurate information regarding the potential risks and benefits of nanomaterials in vaccines, allowing individuals to make informed decisions about their health.
The toxic effects of graphene on the body cannot be ignored. From the formation of abnormal blood clots and vascular disturbances to the destruction of red blood cells, graphene poses significant health risks that require thorough investigation.
The potential transmission of graphene nanobots from vaccinated to unvaccinated individuals adds another layer of concern, prompting critical ethical discussions about informed consent and the unintended consequences of vaccination programs.
To address these pressing issues, it is essential to prioritize research and develop comprehensive strategies for the removal of graphene from the body. While specific methods for safely eliminating graphene are still emerging, enhancing natural detoxification pathways, adopting a healthy diet, and considering chelation therapy are potential avenues worth exploring.
Seeking professional guidance from experts in environmental toxicology or detoxification can provide valuable insights and personalized recommendations.
As we strive for a better future, it is crucial to advocate for transparency, accountability, and responsible innovation. Robust regulations and independent oversight are necessary to ensure the safety of nanomaterials used in vaccine manufacturing and other consumer products.
By fostering a climate of open dialogue, promoting scientific integrity, and respecting individual autonomy, we can navigate the challenges posed by graphene exposure and work towards a healthier, more informed society.
In conclusion, the presence of graphene in COVID vaccines raises critical concerns about its potentially toxic effects and the ethical implications of its use.
As we continue to uncover the full extent of the risks associated with graphene exposure, it is crucial to prioritize research, safety assessments, and informed decision-making.
By addressing the challenges head-on, we can strive for a future where scientific progress aligns with human well-being, ensuring that the potential benefits of nanotechnology are realized while minimizing potential harm.
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
A quite astonishing rise in the number of people diagnosed with atrial fibrillation, (BHF, 2023)
John askes 10 questions
johninengland.substack.com
A quite astonishing rise in the number of people diagnosed with atrial fibrillation, (BHF, 2023)
John askes 10 questions
John Campbell
May 25, 2023
Astonishing rise in atrial fibrillation says BHF
Dr. John Campbell
May 24, 2023
13 min 59 sec
The video I have just recorded is based on this following article published by the British Heart Foundation (BHF). The title of the article is ‘Number of UK people with heart rhythm condition rises by 50% in a decade’. This is ‘according to our new figures’.
Number of UK people with heart rhythm condition rises by 50% in a decade
Just by way of background, the following electrocardiograph (ECG or EKG) represents a normal physiological sinus rhythm, the PQRST waves are in the correct order and are occurring regularly.
This following ECG was recorded from one of my young healthy students, showing the PQRST waves.
By contrast, when we look at the ECG rhythm from a patient in atrial fibrillation, (AF) we noticed that there are no organised P-waves because the contraction of the atria is erratic. There are the spikes representing the QRS complexes, which is the ventricular contraction, but we see these are occurring irregularly, this will therefore give rise to any irregular pulse.
This British Heart Foundation (BHF) article is of course interesting because of what it says and is all the more fascinating and tantalising for the information that it leaves out.
The article clearly states that 1.5 million people in the United Kingdom are currently suffering from atrial fibrillation. This is the most common abnormal rhythm of the heart where the top chambers of the heart are contracting erratically and rapidly, resulting in fibrillation with no active coordinated atrial muscular contraction.
The point of the BHF article is to highlight the 50% increase in AF diagnosis over the past decade. This means there are now 1.5 million recognised sufferers in the UK, up from 1 million in 2013. This is a big cause of morbidity effecting one in 45 people in the UK.
It the article’s estimate of, at least another 270,000 people with AF that remain undiagnosed is correct, this would give a total of 1,770,000 people affected in the UK.
The article also points out that a person with AF is five times more likely to suffer a stroke, with potentially fatal or life-changing consequences. AF if believed to be a contributary factor to one in five strokes.
In the video I demonstrate how to feel a radial pulse, fortunately, I could feel a regular pulse, unlike the irregular pulse characteristic of AF. Other symptoms of AF from the article include, palpitations, breathlessness and dizziness. Often AF may be paroxysmal, essentially meaning the abnormal rhythm can come and go.
Quoting directly from the article, from ‘Our medical director Professor Sir Nilesh Samani’.
‘These figures show a quite astonishing rise in the number of people diagnosed with atrial fibrillation.’
‘Research has helped us understand the links between atrial fibrillation and stroke ….’
‘We also need to continue to harness the power of science to develop new and innovative tools for identifying people at increased risk ….’
Ignoring the strange turn of phrase ‘the power of science’, the article goes on, ‘the figures have been released as we launch a new campaign calling on the public to support our research into heart and circulatory diseases.’ Earlier they had been described as ‘our new figures’.
From this I formulated some questions for consideration.
Where are these figures, are they in the public domain, or is the article only referring to the 50% increase figure?
If these figures are in the public domain, where are they? From which studies where they taken?
If these figures are not in the public domain, why are they not in the public domain?
What was the rate of increase or change in prevalence during 1919, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023?
Has the increase been correlated with any particular factors that have changed between 2019 and 2023?
What is the strength of any possible correlations?
Is there temporality with possible correlations? (In other words, has a cause or causes been identified that came before the effect of more cases of AF diagnosed and suspected)
Is there a plausible pathophysiological mechanism to explain correlations?
How do UK figures of increased AF relate to other countries?
Are there any common factors that connect potential changes across differing countries?
I did find some figures from the Lancet, but these only gave data up to the end of 2017, only the first four years of ‘a decade’.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(22)00079-5/fulltext
Anyway, I ended the video with some advice from the NHS website relating to AF.
Atrial fibrillation
When to see a GP
See a GP or call 111 if:· you have chest pain that comes and goes
· you have chest pain that goes away quickly but you're still worried
· you notice a sudden change in your heartbeat
· your heart rate is consistently lower than 60 or above 100 (particularly if you're experiencing other symptoms of atrial fibrillation, such as dizziness and shortness of breath)
It's important to get medical advice to make sure it's nothing serious.
As always
This article if for academic interest only. Never make medical decisions based on any of my content. Always consult your own medical advisor.
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
Vaccination and multiple sclerosis
Dr. John Campbell
May 29, 2023
16 min 50 sec
Covid-19 vaccination can induce multiple sclerosis via cross-reactive CD4+ T cells recognizing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and myelin peptides https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/global-l... Both natural infection and the mRNA based vaccinations can be accompanied by transient autoimmune phenomena, or onset of autoimmune diseases. Objective Two cases of multiple sclerosis (MS), with clinical and new radiological signs, beginning in close temporal relation to spike (S) protein mRNA based vaccinations. Aim The onset of MS in these two cases is very likely caused by CD4+ T cell clones, that cross-recognize SARSCoV- 2 S protein, from myelin proteins. Method Spike specific CD4+ T cells from peripheral blood, and CD4+ T cells from CSF sample were isolated, then underwent autoantigen screening test. (An endogenous antigen that stimulates the production of autoantibodies) A list of well-known MS related autoantigens, Result(s) Self-reactive T cells were detected from Spike specific T cell population, also showed reactivity to MBP, MOG, (Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein) peptides PLP peptide pools. Multiple sclerosis and myelin basic protein: insights into protein disorder and disease https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti... Myelin basic protein (MBP) is an abundant protein in central nervous system (CNS) myelin. MBP has long been studied as a factor in the pathogenesis of the autoimmune neurodegenerative disease multiple sclerosis (MS). MS is characterized by CNS inflammation, demyelination, and axonal loss. Finally, we found proinflammatory T cell clones, that recognize both Spike protein and immunodominant Myelin basic protein peptides, and Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) peptides, which have previously been implicated in MS. Conclusion(s) Detailed studies of both peripheral blood, and CSF derived CD4+ T cells show that the onset of MS in these two cases is very likely caused by CD4+ T cell clones that cross-recognize SARS-CoV-2 S protein derived peptides and peptides derived from myelin proteins, which have previously been implicated in MS. Posts misrepresent research on multiple sclerosis and COVID-19 vaccines found in WHO database https://apnews.com/article/fact-check... New diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in the setting of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine exposure (January 2022) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34922... Multiple sclerosis (MS) with onset in the setting of acute SARS-CoV-2 virus infection has been reported, and reactivation of MS following non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccination has been noted, There have been three reports of newly diagnosed MS following exposure to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The association cannot be determined to be causal, We report a series of 5 cases of newly diagnosed MS following recent exposure to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Latency from vaccination to initial presentation varied. Neurological manifestations and clinical course appeared to be typical for MS, including response to high dose steroids Conclusion Acute neurological deficits in the setting of recent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administration may represent new onset multiple sclerosis. Hold a parliamentary vote on whether to reject amendments to the IHR 2005 https://petition.parliament.uk/petiti... https://twitter.com/Johnincarlisle We are concerned that Parliament has not discussed and will not have a say on the 307 proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations, AND the amendments to 5 Articles of the IHR that were ADOPTED by the 75th World Health Assembly on 27 May 2022.
Cacheman
Ultra MAGA!
But...but...but, it's horsepaste!!
RT3:33
View: https://twitter.com/4Mischief/status/1663032294070792194
RT3:33
View: https://twitter.com/4Mischief/status/1663032294070792194
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
how old is this video? It seems to be from the beginning of the pandemic. It's tragic that they buried this instead of promoting it
Of course, there would have been no 'emergency' if they used it and they needed an emergency for an 'emergency use' vaccine to be allowed...
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
Flawed COVID-19 Papers Cited an Average of 53 Times per Paper in Research and Media
An investigation into COVID-19 research found that among the more than 270,000 papers that have been published since ...
www.theepochtimes.com
Retracted COVID-19 Papers Cited an Average of 53 Times per Paper
Jessie Zhang
May 30 2023
An investigation into COVID-19 research found that among the more than 270,000 papers that have been published since the start of the pandemic, 212 retracted papers were cited 2,697 times, with a median of seven times and an average of 53 times per paper.
A retracted study linking the antimalarial drug Hydroxychloroquine to an increased risk of mortality and heart arrhythmia was the most cited paper with 1,360 citations at the time of data extraction.
Publishing processes were often compromised with COVID-19, according to the co-author of the investigation and director of Cochrane Australia Steve McDonald.
“We saw this push to get information out quickly, and with many more people doing and rapidly publishing COVID research, there’s been a spike in retractions,” senior research fellow McDonald said.
Eighteen percent of citations from retracted papers were critical and “may have directly impacted patient care,” the authors wrote in their paper (pdf).
Despite the retractions, the damage has been done as the research has already been cited by other researchers in the field, spawning more citations.
It had also been reported on in the media, changing the direction of policymaking, including social distancing measures, travel restrictions, and infection control measures which introduced a myriad of disruptions.
Retractions safeguard against error and misconduct, stopping research from impacting scientific ideas and clinical practice, and are crucial to preserving scientific integrity.
However, even high-profile medical journals became vulnerable to haste during the COVID-19 pandemic, the report found.
This comes after hundreds of COVID-19 papers have been removed due to compromising ethical standards, such as using fake or suspect patient data, and were either withdrawn by the prominent medical journals that published them or removed altogether.
Alternative Treatment Soup
Evidence of research papers changing the trajectory of governmental decision-making can be found in the case of monoclonal antibodies, which triggered controversy after several scientists said certain brands of the key COVID-19 treatment would not work for the Omicron variant.
A few months after preprints written by those scientists were published, the monoclonal antibody “sotrovimab” lost Emergency Use Authorisation, causing policymakers to move on to COVID-19 drugs like remdesivir.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) later expanded remdesivir’s authorisation to outpatient treatment and pediatric patients.
Eventually, pandemic response critics put monoclonal antibodies into the alternative treatment group, a place where critics say is automatically stifled or publicly scrutinised as unsafe or ineffective.
Another significant example of governments and the World Health Organisation acting on suspected fraudulent and unverifiable data is the hydroxychloroquine study.
Published in the Lancet on May 2020, the study concluded that the drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine increased the chances of death from COVID-19 at a time when the drug was largely untested.
The authors of the study claimed to obtain medical records of nearly 100,000 patients from hundreds of hospitals on six continents, but more than 100 scientists analysed the findings and found major issues, including inadequate adjustment for variables, a lack of ethics review, and numbers that don’t appear to add up regarding patients in Australia and Africa.
The paper was retracted after two weeks, but it had already shaken the scientific world, prompting the World Health Organization and French authorities to suspend clinical trials testing hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19.
While some studies have shown patients experiencing heart problems when taking hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, the drugs were approved decades ago and have been used historically by people against malaria and other ailments with little concern.
Why Did This Happen?
McDonald said that preprints—which allow authors to publish early versions of research papers before peer review or journal publications—resulted in dubious COVID-19 science, for academics were able to exploit loopholes in the process.
Further, retracted studies weren’t treated with due severity, McDonald said.
“In theory, when people cite retracted studies, they should be citing them in a critical way, alluding to the fact that these papers have been retracted because the research is unreliable,” he said.
“But what we found was that actually in a lot of these cases, even if the author team who cites the retracted paper were doing so long after the paper had been retracted, they weren’t citing it as a retraction.
“They were using it as evidence that ‘this particular intervention is effective’, or ‘there’s nothing wrong with that research’. So they were uncritically citing retracted papers.”
COVID-19 Research Volume Dwarf Other Pandemics
Different sources have stated that some 90,000 to 450,000 COVID-19 papers have been lodged online since the start of the pandemic, outstripping that of other pandemics “by orders of magnitude.”
One source said nearly 28,000 COVID-19 research papers were published in 2020, rising to nearly 68,000 in both 2021 and 2022, whereas another study quotes 404,541 papers from 2020 to 2022.
The Institute for Scientific Information examined the evolution of research across five pandemics—SARS, MERS, H1N1, Zika virus, and COVID-19.
They found that only H1N1 came close to COVID-19 in numbers, peaking at about 1,300 papers in 2011.
McDonald said the pandemic has exposed frailties in scientific publishing that should serve as a warning to the medical science community.
“Blindly citing papers—irrespective of where they’re published—without first assessing their reliability or retraction status can falsely elevate poor and possibly fraudulent research, potentially harming the very people the research should be helping,” he said.
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
Why the COVID “mRNA” vaccines are actually DNA gene therapies that must be removed from the market
Sucharit Bhakdi, MD and molecular biologist named Kevin McKernan discuss how the so-called messenger RNA COVID vaccines are actually DNA gene therapies
rumble.com
Why the COVID "mRNA" vaccines are actually DNA gene therapies that must be removed from the market
Greer Journal
Sucharit Bhakdi, MD and molecular biologist Kevin McKernan explain why the so-called messenger RNA short-acting COVID vaccines are actually permanent gene-altering DNA shots
46 min 29 sec
MALICIOUS! Prof. Murakami discusses cancer promoting DNA sequence found in Pfizer jabs
Prof. Hidetoshi Murakami of the Tokyo University of Science (TUS) apparently has access to the gene sequences present in the Pfizer jabs. https://www.tus.ac.jp/ridai/doc/ji/RIJIA01Detail.php?act=pos&k
rumble.com
MALICIOUS! Prof. Murakami discusses cancer promoting DNA sequence found in Pfizer jabs
2 min 16 sec
Prof. Hidetoshi Murakami of the Tokyo University of Science (TUS) apparently has access to the gene sequences present in the Pfizer jabs.
According to Murakami, a cancer promoting gene sequence also present in Simian Virus 40 (SV40), has been found in the Pfizer jabs. The sequence apparently leads to decreased expression of the cancer suppressing p53 gene.
The DNA can easily penetrate the cell wall with the help of the lipid nanoparticle (LNP) shell, and then penetrate the nucleus where it could integrate in the human genetic code (genome).
No DNA should be present in mRNA gene therapy injections.
A generous explanation for the presence of this genetic code is not readily apparent. After all, it's not necessary for the production of synthetic spike proteins, and it's also not necessary of the production of the mRNA.
If true, the presence of this code almost certainly implies malicious intent. From the perspective of the profit-maximizing pharmaceutical industry, its presence is a feature, not a bug. It could cause cancer in the injected. The pharmaceutical industry would reap absurd profits from treatment of the disease its own highly profitable jabs created/amplified.
Last edited:
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
'Don't Rule Out Lab Leak': China's Former CDC Director | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
Don't Rule Out Lab Leak': China's Former CDC Director
by Tyler Durden
Tuesday, May 30, 2023 - 10:00 PM
The former head of China's Center for Disease Control and Prevention says the chance Covid-19 originated from a laboratory can't be ruled out.
That said, George Gao - who headed China's CDC during the pandemic - also said that Chinese officials have investigated the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and found no "wrongdoing" in the lab.
Gao told BBC Radio 4: "You can always suspect anything," adding "That's science. Don't rule out anything."
2. "Risky"
On the surface, Prof Gao's comments about not ruling out a lab leak appear seriously at odds with China's publicly stated position. Risky even.
"We really don't know where the virus came from… the question is still open," Prof Gao told the BBC
— Billy Bostickson ????&?? ?? (@BillyBostickson) May 30, 2023
When asked about the WIV, where US-funded scientists were genetically manipulating Covid strains to be more transmissible to humans, Gao said the lab was "double-checked by the experts in the field," (who would never lie, we're sure).
"I think their conclusion is that they are following all the protocols. They haven’t found [any] wrongdoing," Gao continued in what marks the first public confirmation from a Chinese official that an investigation was conducted at the lab.
Last month, Gao told a London pandemic summit that there's been "no evidence which animals [were] where the virus comes [from]," after an international group of scientists posited a laughable theory about raccoon dogs and Covid-19 in Wuhan.
The alleged investigation was carried out by a "government" department, and didn't involve China's CDC, he continued, without naming said department.
More than three years have passed since SARS-CoV-2 caused a global pandemic that resulted in some 7 million deaths, but the world is still none the wiser regarding the origin of the virus.
One theory is that the virus originated from bats, but views differ on how it became transmissible among humans.
Some believe the virus was passed on to humans by some sort of intermediary animal hosts, while others believe it more likely leaked from a lab, particularly the WIV, which has been researching bat viruses and is located in the centre of Wuhan, where the pandemic began.
The Chinese regime has repeatedly dismissed the theory that the virus was leaked from the WIV, but its lack of transparency has fuelled more suspicion. -Epoch Times
The US House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic wants to question Gao and other officials regarding the origin of the virus. The committee has also asked to speak with Dr. Shi Zhengli, director of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases; Drs. Ben Hu and Huang Yanling, researchers at the institute; and Dr. Chen Wei, a general in the Chinese Communist Party’s People’s Liberation Army who took over the lab in February 2020.
In February, FBI Director Christopher Wray announced that the bureau believes Covid-19 most likely came from a lab - a conclusion also reached by the US Department of Energy.