Pig butchering scams involving scammers that create fake online personas to lure victims into their fraudulent investment schemes.

By Rodd Mann

10/23/2024

Stop worrying about Skynet and start worrying about Pignet. Scammers have been expanding their use of tools that can hack into accounts and make off with cryptocurrency or currency.

So-called “pig butchering” scams are a type of online investment fraud that involving scammers that create fake online personas to lure victims into their fraudulent investment schemes. The term pig butchering refers to the practice of “fattening up” victims by building trust over time before ultimately “slaughtering” them and making off with their money.

The Pig Butchering Playbook

Scammers first create their phony online identity. This may be a good-looking, single wealthy investor, depending upon whether the vehicle used is a dating app or social media. The intended appeal is to the interests of the victims, while also exploiting their vulnerabilities. The photo and profile will either have been stolen or AI-generated, and the back-stories will be carefully and cleverly crafted.

Contact is first made using scripts and messages intended to assess the victim’s receptiveness. To make the venture lucrative, many contacts are made.

A period of weeks or even months pass as the relationship comes together nicely, and that may include a romantic interest. Sophisticated “mirroring” techniques enable the scammers to align closely with the victim’s language, interests, and opinions to create and foster connection, familiarity, and trust.

Once trust has clearly been made, the scammer turns the conversation to their “investment” pitch. That can be gold, foreign currency exchange, or cryptocurrency They hold themselves out to be knowledgeable and experienced investors who only want to help the victim get started and later succeed.

The scammer then seeks to get the victim to download an investment app or to visit a fraudulent investment platform. They explain how it will work, create an account, and accept the initial deposit. The most clever and sophisticated among the scammers is to allow the victim to withdraw money or have the “investment” appear to have made money over time. This is done to get the victim to pour in more and more money over time. Monthly statements such as the ones notorious fraudster Bernie Madoff had used, appear to be “proof” of the veracity and investment success of the “venture.”

In due course, when as much money as possible has been extracted, communication is then suddenly cut and the scammer disappears quietly and completely. In the worst cases, the information gleaned can then be leveraged into identity theft or perhaps target the victim’s friends and family.

Supercharging Social Engineering

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) issued a report just last week, warning about the recent rapidly growing criminal ecosystem.

Many of the digital scams rely on social engineering. That means manipulating victims into giving their money willingly, as opposed to leaning on malware or other methods.

Researchers are now alerting us that scammers are incorporating generative AI content and deepfakes to expand their scale and operational effectiveness.

Since scammers can be constrained by their language skills and their ability to keep up ongoing conversations with perhaps hundreds of victims at any given time, this limits the volume they can handle.

But generative AI developments these past few years (writing tools such as ChatGPT) are making it easy for criminals to eliminate language barriers and create the content needed for their scams—at high volume.

The U.N. report goes on to say that AI is used for automating phishing attacks, creating fake identities and online profiles, developing personalized scripts to trick their victims while messaging them in almost any language.

“These developments have not only expanded the scope and efficiency of cyber-enabled fraud and cybercrime, but they have also lowered the barriers to entry for criminal networks that previously lacked the technical skills to exploit sophisticated and profitable methods,” the report says.

Perhaps the most significant AI shift in digital attacks comes from so-called “deepfakes.” Scammers are using machine-learning systems to facilitate real-time face-swapping. This technology allows criminals to change their appearances on calls with victims, making them appear to be a different person. The technology is allowing “one-click” face swaps and high-resolution video feeds, the U.N. report states. These then allow attackers to “prove” they are who they claim to be.

How to Avoid the Pig Butcher’s Chopping Block

Common sense. You should trust your first impression and your instincts—be overly cautious when someone shows excessive interest in you.

Don’t share personal sensitive information with people you don’t know or barely know. Nothing. None of it. Nada.

Immediately block suspicious individuals, whether emails, texts, or phone calls.

A healthy skepticism when encountering unsolicited messages from strangers is a healthy online lifestyle.

Educate yourself about scam tactics and stay up to date. The new generation AI-related scams have taken fraud to an entirely new level, requiring all of us to do our research before trading or investing.

The Epoch Times copyright © 2024

To recap:

Coronavirus has been in play as a biological weapon agent since 1966. Most people first heard about coronavirus in 2019 but “the fact of the matter is it has been around since 1966 as a biological weapon,” Dr. Martin said.

“Since 2002, there has not been a coronavirus; there has been an engineered pathogen. Engineered by Ralph Baric at the University of Carolina Chapel Hill where, in 2002, he patented the’ infectious, replication defective, clone of coronavirus’,” Dr. David Martin said.

“The ‘coronavirus’ that has been branded to be part of covid-19, does not exist. What does exist is a pathogen modelled off of properties of what was once upon a time isolated as coronavirus,” he explained. “Properties that increased its pathogenicity [and] increased its toxicity but … decreased its transmissibility … In 2002 it was patented to be non-transmissable.”

In other words, since 2002 coronavirus has been man-made and has not been a pathogen of nature. Why would they do this?

DARPA has openly bragged on Twitter that Moderna’s mRNA vaccine technology, and by extension Moderna’s Covid vaccine, was a product of their ADEPT program, however, research shows that Moderna did not merely apply for a patent in 2016 with US9587003B2: as reported in the Daily Mail. They actually applied in 2013 for 4 patents with US9149506B2, US9216205B2, US9255129B2, US9301993B2, as well for their “Covid-19 virus” patent #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG

ADEPT is a Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (“DARPA”) program that began in 2012. The acronym stands for Autonomous Diagnostics to Enable Prevention and Therapeutics. PROTECT is a sub-program of ADEPT, and it stands for Prophylactic Options to Environmental and Contagious Threats

“We have a commercially interested group of sociopaths who want to make money while killing people,” Dr. Martin said, “that’s the bottom line.”

On Wednesday, Dr. David E. Martin joined Alex Jones to explain where the biological weapon called SARS-CoV-2 originated, who are the criminals behind it, the criminal counts against the perpetrators and much more.

In 1990, Pfizer filed the first patent for a vaccine for coronavirus.

In 1999, Ralph Baric’s modification and manipulation programme took what used to be a respiratory and gastrointestinal bug and turned it into something that would cause cardiomyopathy in rabbits. This gave rise to a patent that was filed in 2002 for an infectious, replication defective, clone of coronavirus.

In 2014, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill was authorised to waive the gain-of-function moratorium. The pathogen they were working on at the time was the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus 1 (“WIV-1”) spike protein, Dr. Martin said. In 2016 they said WIV-1 was poised for human emergence.

Donald Trump's tenure as the 45th president of the United States began with his inauguration on January 20, 2017, and ended on January 20, 2021. Wikipedia - note "2017-2021"

“In 2018/2019,” he said, “The United States government reclaimed the patent from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. The Department of Health and Human Services at the National Institutes of Health took the UNC Chapel Hill patent on an infectious, replication defective coronavirus and reclaimed title and interest to it. (Those who pull puppet Trump's strings: 2017-2021)

On 18 September 2019, they said that by 20 September 2020, the world would accept a universal vaccine. And, as Dr. Martin said, “they said, ‘they would do so in response … to an accidental or deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen’.” They had been planning these mandatory injections since 2015.

“The masterplan [to vaccinate the world] was done by none other than the Wellcome Trust, NIAID Anthony Fauci, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (specifically Dr. Chris Elias), Dr. Gao from the CDC of the People’s Republic of China and a whole host of others who sit on what is called the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board,” Dr. Martin said.

“To advance the social and commercial interests of sociopaths that wanted to kill human beings for the sake of their agenda, they decided to unleash a lethal respiratory pathogen on the population so the population would be bamboozled into taking an mRNA shot which would permanently, permanently alter their human condition,” Dr. Martin said.

In November 2019, Ralph Baric sent a genetic sequence to the Vaccine Research Centre at the US National Institutes of Health (“NIH”). “[The sequence] was not for ‘the coronavirus’ and it was not for ‘the coronavirus vaccine’, it was for the mRNA that was used to instruct the human body to make a scheduled pathogen,” Dr. Martin said.

“What they did is, they said, ‘We’re going to inject into the arms of billions of people the instructions to turn each individual into a bioweapons factory’ … Every single person that took the shot became the manufacturer of a synthetic spike protein associated with the coronavirus model.

“The difference between this and everything that’s been done before is really simple. In the case of mRNA, there are two distinctions that are absolutely unique to the covid pandemic. Number 1, we are actually creating the mechanism to instruct the body to manufacture a toxin … Number 2, the response is actually a ‘hopeful’ response that failed to consider two very critical things: the lipid nanoparticle in which the shot is delivered actually is also a toxin … and then the worst part about it is that we introduced a thing called pseudouridine.”

Pseudouridine was published in 2018 to be a pro-cancer agent. What this means is that “it shuts down the body’s response to how we recognise tumours and suppress tumours,” Dr. Martin explained. Pseudouridine has been included in mRNA injections to stabilise the mRNA so it stays in the human body longer to achieve its effect, he said.

Canada Begins EUTHANIZING Citizens with ‘COVID VACCINATION SYNDROME'

Canada has just killed the first citizen under the Canadian government’s controversial new plans to begin euthanizing patients who have been injured by Covid “vaccines.”

Lioness of Judah Ministry

Oct 25

By Frank Bergman October 25, 2024

Canada has just killed the first citizen under the Canadian government’s controversial new plans to begin euthanizing patients who have been injured by Covid “vaccines.”

An Ontario man in his late 40s has become the first person to be euthanized for “post-COVID-19 vaccination syndrome.”

The man was killed under Canada’s “assisted suicide” laws via the government’s taxpayer-funded Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) program.

Doctors had determined that the patient had become a burden on the socialized healthcare system.

They warned that he wouldn’t recover from “post-vaccine syndrome” and ruled that MAiD was a better option than long-term care.

The patient, identified only as “Mr. A,” had experienced “suffering and functional decline” following three Covid mRNA vaccinations.

The doctors said the patient was suffering from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and personality disorders as a result of the “post-vaccine syndrome.”

The man was twice admitted to hospital, once involuntarily, due to his condition.

Doctors noted that the patient had “thoughts of suicide” while “navigating his physical symptoms.”

The anonymized case is one of several highlighted in a series of reports issued by a 16-member MAiD death review committee struck by Ontario’s chief coroner’s office in January.

“Amongst his multiple specialists, no unifying diagnosis was confirmed,” according to the report.

However, his MAID assessors “opined that the most reasonable diagnosis for Mr. A’s clinical presentation (severe functional decline) was a post-vaccine syndrome, in keeping with chronic fatigue syndrome.”

Yet, there were no “pathological findings” at a post-mortem that could identify any underlying physiological diagnosis, the report notes.

The term “post-vaccine syndrome” has itself become controversial.

Canada’s current vaccine reporting system for adverse events doesn’t include “post-vaccine syndrome.”

Despite agreeing that the man’s condition was caused by a vaccine injury, multiple specialists consulted before his death couldn’t agree on a diagnosis.

The lack of a clear diagnosis raises further questions as to whether the man’s condition met the criteria for an “irremediable,” meaning a hopeless, incurable condition.

However, Canada’s assisted dying law requires people to have a grievous and irremediable physical condition.

Psychiatric experts raised concerns about whether the man’s mental illnesses would or should have rendered him ineligible for MAiD.

Some members of the MAiD death review panel also questioned whether a condition “previously unrecognized in medicine” — namely, a possible “post-vaccine somatic (meaning affecting the body) syndrome” — could be considered incurable.

Canada’s rapidly expanding euthanasia industry has been a growing concern for some time.

The Canadian government first introduced MAiD in June 2016.

By relaxing the laws, the nation legalized assisted suicide for those whose death was reasonably foreseeable.

The MAiD program was supposed to offer an alternative option for terminally ill people so they could avoid a painful death and die with dignity.

However, the nation’s Liberal government has increasingly expanded the laws since 2016.

Today, the Canadian government is euthanizing citizens for depression, hearing loss, autism, and even poverty and homelessness.

The government is even pushing to expand euthanasia laws to include children and infants.

What started as an option for terminally ill people is now being used to eliminate those who have become a burden on the nation’s socialized healthcare system.

The recent MAiD death review committee report highlights another case involving a different unemployed male in his 40s with inflammatory bowel disease.

The man was living with few social supports, was dependent on family for housing and financial support, and had struggled with alcohol and opioid addictions.

He wasn’t offered treatment for his addictions and was put forward for MAiD.

His family had concerns that he was railroaded into “assisted suicide” by doctors.

During a psychiatric assessment, the man was asked if he was aware of MAiD, and given information on the option.

His MAiD provider later personally drove the man to the location where he was euthanized.

Multiple members of the death review committee considered the case a transgression of professional boundaries that could be seen as “hastening a person towards death.”

Other members disagreed, however, and claimed the doctor’s actions were “helpful and compassionate.”

The news comes after a new study revealed that the Canadian government’s socialized healthcare system is saving millions of dollars a year by euthanizing patients instead of treating them.

The study found that Canada’s healthcare system saves up to $136.8 million annually thanks to the government’s MAiD program.

However, critics are warning that vulnerable patients are being pressured into choosing death over “costly” care.

Many argue that euthanizing citizens to relieve the burden on the government is “heartless utilitarianism” that must be rejected.

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

A “cost analysis of medical assistance in dying [suicide] in Canada” found that the policy saves the Canadian federal government up to $136.8 million every year, the study notes.

“As death approaches, healthcare costs increase dramatically in the final months,” the study states.

“Patients who choose medical assistance in dying may forgo this resource-intensive period.”

Source: slaCan COVID Vaccines Induce Mucosal Immunity? Two Studies Offer Conflicting Findings

CIDRAP reported:

Two studies published today in Science Translational Medicine differ on "whether COVID-19 vaccine boosters can trigger an immune response in mucous cells in the nose and mouth - a longtime goal of vaccine researchers" - see my free salt water cure, below.

Despite the disparate findings, editorial writers say mucosal immunization could go further than current intramuscular COVID-19 vaccines by preventing infection altogether, disrupting viral transmission and the ability of the virus to evolve.

“To prevent infection by respiratory viruses and consequently limit virus circulation, vaccines need to promote mucosal immunity,” the researchers wrote, noting current vaccines’ ability to protect against severe disease but not infection. “Failure to achieve this allows for continued virus circulation with the risk for the emergence of new variants.”

Merck, Pfizer Lifted as CDC Backs Broader Use of Pneumococcal Vaccines

ynews.com

However, the point I want to make is covered here: Two studies published today in Science Translational Medicine differ on whether COVID-19 vaccine boosters can trigger an immune response in mucous cells in the nose and mouth — a longtime goal of vaccine researchers.

UPDATED: 24 September 2024 My FREE Salt Water Cure for Bird Flu and Covid and MPox (virus) and any other virus.

Refuse all vaccines.

Join me in NEVER being ill with my free salt water cure. It's as yukky for me to do, as it is for you to do, but practice makes it easier with time - when the only option is potentially death by vaccines injections.

It is that simple.

3 minutes from preparation to job done: Mix one heaped teaspoon of table (or Iodine) salt in a mug of warm clean water, cup a hand and sniff or snort the entire mugful up your nose, in small lots, spitting out anything which comes down into your mouth. If burning sensation, then you have a virus, so continue morning noon and night, or more often if you want, until the burning sensation goes away (2-3 minutes) then blow out your nose with toilet paper and flush away, washing your hands afterwards, until when you do my simple cure, you don't have any burning sensation at all, when you flush - job done. Also swallow a couple of mouthfuls of salt water and if you have burning in your lungs, salt killing virus and pneumonia, there too.It washes behind the eyes, the brain bulb, brain stem (Long Covid), The Eustacian tubes - Tubes to the inner ears and the top of the throat which is at a point roughly level with half way up your ears and not where your mouth is and it goes down the back of your throat, when infected there too.

I have been doing this simple cure for over 31 years and I am and others, never sick from viruses and there is no reason why any of you should be.

Simply put, if the inside of your nose is dry and crusty, you are OK, if your nose is runny, you really need to do a salt water sniffle as quickly as possible AND THERE IS STILL CLEAN SEA WATER, TO USE INSTEAD.

Nobody has been injured or killed by my above salt water cure

Me: Am I pleased I refused vaccines - hopefully dying of natural causes is a more enviable option to vaccines and later in life forced Euthanasia - what is happening in Canada will be happening everywhere else, soon enough, I expect.

So how much are each of our politicians being paid back by Pfizer, Moderna and others - and is that why they keep pushing the vaccines credibility?

Is it commonplace for them to buy or build expensive homes, during or after politics?

Can’t say what article I saw this on, or where - be great to get verification from David Knight though.

Just saying

The first independent testing of Australian vials confirms findings from the US, Canada and Germany, highlighting that oncogenic and genomic integration risks are a global concern

Rebekah Barnett

Oct 22

Synthetic plasmid DNA contamination has been detected in Australian vials of Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines at levels of between seven to 145 times the allowable limit, a new report shows.

The independent testing of three modified RNA (mod-RNA) vaccine vials, including lots for children and adults, was commissioned to provide evidence in a Federal Court lawsuit over the validity of the regulatory status of the vaccines.

The case, brought by legal firm PJ O’Brien & Associates, alleges that the vaccines contain unlicenced genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the form of synthetic DNA contamination and mod-RNA-LNP complexes which could pose an untested safety risk, including the potential for DNA integration into the human genome.

In an affidavit provided to legal firm PJ O’Brien & Associates, molecular virologist Dr David Speicher said that the amount of synthetic DNA he detected in all three Australian vials “far exceeded” the allowable regulatory limit set by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

Given scientific evidence suggesting that synthetic DNA can enter the cell nucleus and potentially integrate into the human genome, “it is important to investigate whether integration can take place in primary cells in the vaccinated population,” Dr Speicher said.

The Australian testing confirms independent lab findings of high levels of residual DNA in mod-RNA Covid vaccines from Germany, the US and Canada, highlighting that this is a global concern.

Dr David Speicher, molecular virologist, University of Guelph, Canada. Image: Supplied.

The report

Residual synthetic DNA is a byproduct from the mod-RNA vaccine manufacturing process, and is allowed under TGA regulations in levels of up to 10 nanograms (ng) per vaccine dose, and in fragment sizes of up to 200 base pairs (bp).

The TGA denies that Covid mod-RNA vaccines are contaminated with synthetic DNA above 10ng per dose, but as high levels had been detected in vials from other regions, the legal team behind the GMO case commissioned this study to determine residual synthetic DNA levels in Australian vials.

PJ O’Brien & Associates arranged for shipment of three vials with chain of custody, one Moderna and two Pfizer, to Dr Speicher’s lab at the University of Guelph in Canada. The vials were shipped on dry ice and stored in the lab fridge on arrival. The Pfizer vials had tamper seals intact, while the Moderna vial had been half-used.

Dr Speicher used two methods to test for residual DNA levels - fluorometry and qPCR - each with its own advantages.

qPCR is the method preferred by regulators. It captures lower readings of DNA because it can fail to pick up small fragments of DNA below 200bp, and it measures less than 1% of the residual DNA plasmid, with the other 99% being extrapolated mathematically. This means the reading has greater repeatability, but it gives a less complete picture.

A Moderna patent (2014) related to “removal of DNA fragments in [the] mRNA production process” acknowledges that the qPCR method of quantitating residual DNA only detects some target DNA molecules, but “does not measure all other smaller DNA molecules that are partially digested” by the enzyme used to break them down for the filtration process.¹

Using qPCR, Dr Speicher detected synthetic DNA up to 15-fold above the TGA’s limit in both Pfizer lots, but the Moderna lot was compliant.

Analysis of the DNA loads for spike, ori and SV40 enhancer/promoter as quantitated by qPCR. The dotted red line denotes the TGA 10ng per dose guidance. Image: Dr David Speicher

To prepare for fluorometry testing, Dr Speicher boiled the vaccines to dissolve the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) encapsulating both the mod-RNA and residual synthetic DNA. This allowed for increased DNA yield in the reading.

However, there is the potential for “cross talk,” where mod-RNA can be accidentally included in the reading. To reduce cross talk, Dr Speicher treated the samples with an enzyme called RNase A to degrade the mod-RNA, ensuring that it would not be picked up in the DNA reading.

Using fluorometry, Dr Speicher detected seven to 145-fold more synthetic DNA than the TGA’s 10ng limit. All vials exceeded the limit, with Moderna having the highest DNA load of 1460ng per dose.

Analysis of total DNA loads as determined by fluorometry. The RNase= values equate to time since RNase A was added to the sample. Values are in ng/dose and the TGA 10ng/dose guidance would be slightly above the X-axis. Image: Dr David Speicher.

Dr Speicher detected three types of residual synthetic DNA in the vaccines: spike protein, ‘ori’ (short for the origin, where the synthetic plasmid begins to be read for copying) and the gene therapy SV40 enhancer/promoter sequence. Pfizer and Moderna contained DNA from the spike and ori, but only Pfizer contained the SV40 enhancer/promoter (not to be confused with the whole Simian Virus 40, which was not present.)

The spike protein DNA detected in the Pfizer vaccines was “the highest concentration levels seen in vials independently tested globally to date,” said Dr Speicher, prompting him to run the tests a second time to make sure it wasn’t an erroneous reading.

Dr Speicher also used vials from a previous study of mod-RNA Covid vaccines as controls to rule out any possibility of contamination or other sources of error. “The results were repeatable suggesting the result is true and valid,” he stated.

SV40 enhancer/promoter

Dr Speicher explained in his affidavit that the SV40 enhancer/promoter is “is known to promote nuclear localization,” meaning that it can drag DNA fragments into the nucleus of the cell after being delivered to the cytoplasm by LNPs.

Once in the nucleus, the probability of genomic integration “greatly increases” as compared to traditional vaccines, where any residual DNA is not packaged in LNPs nor accompanied by a nuclear localising sequence.

Dr Speicher and other scientists have also pointed out that this SV40 sequence could pose an oncogenic risk due to its effect on tumor suppressor gene p53.

Controversially, Pfizer “chose not to mention” the SV40 enhancer/promoter on the residual DNA map submitted to regulators as it should have done, emails obtained under freedom of information show.

Genomics scientist Kevin McKernan was the first to discover the SV40 enhancer/promoter in the Pfizer vaccine, in early 2023. He documented his findings in a preprint and alerted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Since McKernan made the presence of the SV40 enhancer/promoter known, regulators, including the TGA, have issued statements to the effect that the sequence is non-functional and poses no safety risk.

Nevertheless, internal emails show that at least one regulator, Health Canada, is working to get the SV40 enhancer/promoter sequence removed from Pfizer’s mod-RNA vaccine.²

Limitations

Dr Speicher acknowledged several limitations to the report. Though the vials were cool when they arrived to his lab, the dry ice had evaporated and no temperature was recorded at handover.

However, Dr Speicher told me that it is unlikely that this would have any effect on the DNA levels in the vaccines.

“We know that DNA is stable at room temperature for months. The shipping time would have very little negative effect on the DNA levels,” he said.

While breaking the cold chain “could make the LNPs less stable and begin to degrade the modRNA” and would therefore invalidate the vaccines for use in humans, it “would not significantly degrade or change the DNA loads,” said Dr Speicher.

The Moderna vial was not tamper-sealed, leaving open the possibility of external contamination. This is unlikely though, said Dr Speicher, as a person tampering with the vial would have to contaminate the vaccine with the exact same series of DNA sequences detected in the other independent studies around the world, an unlikely theory that McKernan refers to as the ‘elf on the shelf’.

Once the vials arrived in Canada, “the shipping container was opened by me, documented, time a date and placed in a secure fridge that can only be accessed by myself,” said Dr Speicher.

Dr Speicher also identified some variability between the results from the two flourometry runs, which he attributed to the “difficulty in pipetting LNPs due to aggregations and settling of LNPs.”

Regardless, Dr Speicher emphasised that these results “clearly show that the vials from Australia have more than 10ng per dose.”

“It’s not a matter of whether or not the vaccines have more DNA than 10ng per dose but a question of how much more do they contain,“ he said.

Regulator dismisses findings

In response to independent studies of residual DNA contamination date finding residual synthetic DNA at levels over the allowable limit, the TGA says that the mod-RNA Covid vaccines are “not contaminated,” and denies that the studies are valid. The TGA says that the presence of residual DNA, including the SV40 enhancer/promoter in the mod-RNA Covid vaccines poses no safety risk, and it says that the delivery of synthetic DNA to cells all around the body in LNPs is immaterial.

See the TGA’s full arguments below.

Australian drug regulator goes on record: Pfizer mRNA shots 'not contaminated'

Rebekah Barnett

Jul 24

Australian drug regulator goes on record: Pfizer mRNA shots 'not contaminated'

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) denies that the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccine is contaminated, as at least four independent labs around the world claim to have detected plasmid DNA contamination in vials of the mRNA Pfizer and Moderna shots, most well over regulatory limits.

Read full story

In response to Dr Speicher’s affidavit detailing his testing of three Australian mod-RNA vaccine vials, the TGA determined the findings are “not reliable.”

A TGA spokesperson referred me to the international guideline adopted by regulators to determine whether testing methods are reliable and accurate, stating,

“The TGA cannot tell from Dr Speicher’s affidavit whether he has validated his method according to this guideline, nor whether he has used a suitably characterised reference standard. There is no information in the affidavit that Dr Speicher has validated the method using RNAse according to the validation guidelines.

“Regulatory testing is conducted within tightly controlled frameworks that ensure traceability and certainty about the integrity and provenance of test samples.

“It appears that Dr Speicher only used three vials of unknown provenance, one of which he notes had been opened by the time it reached him. All three vials had expired when the testing was conducted. The “chain of evidence” provided in the affidavit only covered 4 hours of time and there is no temperature log with the samples.

“Given the lack of controls that could ensure the accuracy of the test methods used and given considerable uncertainty around sample integrity and provenance, the results presented in Dr Speicher’s affidavit are not reliable.”

Several of the concerns raised by TGA are limitations already addressed above, namely the use of alternative methods for measuring DNA loads, lack of temperature record on arrival of the vials, and the open Moderna vial.

The TGA is correct that Dr Speicher’s affidavit does not contain the chain of custody, however PJ O’Brien & Associates advised that chain of custody is documented and included in the prosecution brief.

Dr Speicher acknowledges the TGA’s adopted guideline but said that “there is no compendial standard for testing DNA inside LNPs.” This is because the approved method of testing measures DNA levels in the ‘mixture’ before packaging it in LNPs, but not in the final drug product as administered, once the DNA has been enveloped in the LNPs.

“The work was done in a research laboratory following good laboratory practice and show important preliminary findings on the vials that need to be confirmed by an independent lab under forensic conditions,” Dr Speicher said.

Oncogenic and genomic integration risks

While the TGA assures that the mod-RNA Covid vaccines are compliant with with regulatory guidelines on DNA limits, Dr Speicher’s affidavit highlights that the guidelines “do not account for multiple dosing of the same vaccine or platform, the risk of regulatory sequences [such as the SV40 enhancer/promoter], integration of small DNA fragments (7bp to 200 bp), or nuclear entry/integration.”

“While the number of these fragments entering a cell is unknown, it is known from Dean et al. (1999) that only 3-10 copies of these spike DNA fragments containing the SV40 enhancer are needed to be inserted into a single cell for the risk of insertional mutagenesis to exist,” he said.

This risk posed by millions to billions of small DNA fragments per dose was highlighted last year by cancer genomics scientist Dr Phillip Buckhaults, from the University of South Carolina, who verified McKernan’s DNA contamination findings in his own lab.

In sworn testimony in a South Carolina Senate hearing, Dr Buckhaults explained that by chopping residual DNA fragments into “itty bitty bits“ as part of the filtering process during mod-RNA vaccine production, the vaccine manufacturers “actually increased the hazard of genome modification in the process.”

Insertional mutagenesis (i.e.: insertion of small fragments in the genome) can in turn lead to cancer formation, Dr Speicher explained further via email.

“[That’s] why the p53 gene is so important. The SV40 promoter knocks out p53 and can cause the cell to turn cancerous. We also know from Kevin’s sequencing studies that the whole spike gene can insert into precancerous regions of chromosome 9 and 12,” he said.

DNA contamination in Covid vaccines DOES get into human cells, new evidence shows

Rebekah Barnett

Mar 21

DNA contamination in Covid vaccines DOES get into human cells, new evidence shows

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

Read full story

The oncogenic risk is highlighted in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) industry guidance, which states, “There are several potential mechanisms by which residual DNA could be oncogenic, including the integration and expression of encoded oncogenes or insertional mutagenesis following DNA integration.”

Several Moderna patents (here and here) similarly reference the risks of oncogenesis and DNA integration associated with residual DNA.

Dr Speicher’s affidavit references new research conducted by McKernan and molecular biologist Dr Ulrike Kämmerer showing that “integration of the DNA fragments in the Pfizer COVID-19 modRNA vaccine into the human genome is possible.”

“It is important to investigate whether integration can take place in primary cells in the vaccinated population,” he said.

Dr Speicher told me that the next step from here will be to “dive deeper into determining if and where insertional mutagenesis is occurring” in vaccinated people, “including by comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated blood and sperm samples.”

“Sperm will be especially huge because if it is shown that the spike DNA is in in sperm cells and that cell makes an offspring than every cell in the offspring’s body could be a spike factory.”

Cancer genomics scientist Dr Buckhaults has begun his own study to test for genomic integration in mod-RNA vaccines, which he said he hopes will “prove my concerns are unwarranted by accumulating a lot of negative data.”

McKernan intends to formally publish his Pfizer vaccine integration study with Dr Kämmerer and has more experiments in progress to figure out if the integration is occurring in hereditary or non-hereditary chromosomes.

Battle in the court

Dr Speicher’s affidavit will be presented as evidence in the case, Julian Fidge v. Pfizer, Moderna. The plaintiff, Victorian GP and pharmacist Dr Julian Fidge, is seeking an injunction from the Federal Court to stop Pfizer and Moderna from distributing their mod-RNA Covid vaccines.

Dr Fidge alleges that the vaccines contain GMOs, for which Pfizer and Moderna did not obtain the appropriate licence from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) before distributing the vaccines, a serious criminal offence under the Gene Technology Act (2000).

The OGTR and the TGA deny that the mod-RNA-LNPs and synthetic DNA fragments are GMOs under Australian law, but scientific and legal experts who provided evidence for the lawsuit disagree.

The matter was due to be settled in the Federal Court, but is in a holding pattern while the Federal Court formally investigates a judge who dismissed the case on the matter of standing.

The investigation was initiated in response to a complaint raised by Dr Fidge’s lawyers, which alleges that Justice Helen Rofe concealed her prior professional relationship with one of the defendents, Pfizer, as well as family ties to the biomedical industry, before dismissing the GMO case.

Moderna was contacted for comment on whether this shortcoming has been addressed in its protocol for measuring residual synthetic DNA in its Covid vaccines for submission to regulators, but did not respond before publication deadline.

2

A draft Clarifax response emailed from Senior HC Biologist/Evaluator Michael Wall to HC Manager of Vaccine Quality Tong Wu states, “Health Canada will continue to work with international regulator partners to achieve harmonisation regarding removal of these sequence elements from the plasmid for future strain changes.”

The CDC’s Partnering for Vaccine Equity Program provides a toolkit for communities that helps them find and pay social media influencers to increase vaccine uptake in ethnic and racial minority communities.

by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

October 22, 2024

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in partnership with the CDC Foundation, funded a toolkit to train community-based organizations on how to hire influencers to combat “vaccine myths” in communities of color.

The CDC Foundation’s donor list includes the World Health Organization, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and vaccine makers including Pfizer, Merck and Johnson & Johnson.

The toolkit, first rolled out in 2022, is part of a suite of resources created by the CDC’s Partnering for Vaccine Equity Program (P4VE), which targets ethnic and racial minority communities to increase vaccine uptake by funding “partnerships” with the CDC.

P4VE’s Vaccine Resource Hub is funded through a grant for over $80 million from the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It includes toolkits, unbranded digital materials and messaging in over 50 languages.

Community organizations can use the “Influencer Guide” to help them contact influencers who can spread the organizations’ messages in the influencers’ own voices.

The guide suggests targeting mid-level influencers — those who aren’t overly famous and who are preferably “self-made” — because they’re often seen as more relatable and trusted than large brands or celebrities on social media.

These influencers can effectively act as messengers with a wide reach to promote vaccination in racial and ethnic minority communities.

To maximize their online influence, the guide recommends community organizations first identify suitable candidates with a relevant background and who haven’t made “inappropriate” posts in the past.

Once they’ve identified the right influencers, organizations can ask influencers to partner with them to spread their message about, for example, the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for people in marginalized communities.

The guide provides advice on how to negotiate fees with influencers.

On Instagram, influencers with 1,000-10,000 followers typically get paid $10-100 per post, with rates increasing as follower counts rise. Instagram influencers with over a million followers typically receive $10,000 and up per post.

On TikTok, rates start at $5-25 per post and can increase to $2,500 and up per post for people with over a million followers.

The guide recommends organizations strike a balance between controlling what the influencer can say — ensuring the post doesn’t sound scripted — and allowing the influencer’s personality to come through.

After signing a contract, organizations can feed content to the influencer to post.

“It’s best,” the guide says, “to ask your influencer to use talking points supplied by your organization instead of sticking to an exact script, which can sound forced or promotional.”

Whose interests are P4VE promoting?

The “Influencer Guide” toolkit from the Resource Hub is just one example of many different programs sponsored by P4VE, which has received hundreds of millions of dollars in investments aimed at “promoting vaccine equity” in COVID-19 and flu vaccination among racial and ethnic minorities.

Launched in 2021 with supplemental COVID-19 funding, p4VE primarily aims to fund community organizations to spread the CDC’s pro-vaccine message — distributing over $156 million to over 500 organizations targeting racial and ethnic minorities across the U.S. to promote vaccines in 2021 alone.

P4VE’s work has been administered by multiple nonprofits, including the CDC Foundation and the Urban Institute — which primarily distributed P4VE money to community-based organizations.

In addition to running the P4VE Resource Hub, which creates resources like the “Influencer Guide,” the CDC Foundation’s role in P4VE includes partnering with 31 community organizations to increase vaccine uptake in their communities.

It also collaborates with five unnamed digital marketing and media partners to “combat misinformation about vaccines across social media channels and promote digital health literacy among communities experiencing disparities in immunization.”

The CDC Foundation is an independent nonprofit organization created by Congress to funnel private-sector resources into the CDC and CDC programs. From its founding in 1995 through 2023 the foundation raised $2.2 billion from private and government donors for its domestic and international programs.

Programs range from health communications, to increase confidence in public health institutions, to “data modernization” to improve health surveillance in the U.S., as well as to “global health” security initiatives — such as working with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to build disease surveillance labs in Africa or to create vaccine patches.

The CDC Foundation collaborates and also receives funding from other major foundations in public health, including the Public Health Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and Gavi, alongside most U.S. states.

It also takes money directly from companies like Merck and Pfizer, or from their philanthropic arms, such as the Moderna Charitable Foundation, the Johnson & Johnson Foundation and the GlaxoSmithKline Foundation, and Merck for Mothers.

Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and Google also are listed as donors to the CDC Foundation.

The CDC since 2021 has doled out hundreds of millions of dollars in grants for the creation of “culturally tailored” pro-vaccine materials and for training “influential messengers” to promote COVID-19 and flu vaccines to communities of color across the country.

In March 2021, the Biden administration also earmarked $3 billion for the CDC to support local initiatives to “strengthen vaccine confidence.”

Such grants have been contingent on grantees assisting the government in the enforcement of “federal orders related to quarantine and isolation,” effectively making them enforcers of U.S. health agencies’ recommendations and federal mandates.

Grant recipients also are required to collect community-level data and provide it to the CDC.

As funding for COVID-19 interventions dries up, projects like P4VE are explicitly shifting their strategy to continue the same work of cultivating non-governmental “trusted messengers” to promote vaccines, while expanding the target populations to include children and other “priority populations” to justify the continuation of the program in the post-COVID-19 pandemic period.

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender.

It’s all too easy to miss the early warnings of an impending disaster. Today’s culture wars are often interpreted as the symptoms of an ephemeral fad. Most can feel the tremors — restrictions on free speech, public shaming of those with unfashionable views, regressive identity politics masquerading as “progress” — but there is a widespread sense that if we ignore the problems, they will simply disappear. But what if these rumblings presage something far worse to come? What if, like the people of Pompeii, we are at risk of civilisational collapse but are misinterpreting the signs?

Further tremors have reverberated recently with renewed attacks on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, perhaps the final bastion of free speech in the West. Speaking at the World Economic Forum earlier this month, former Secretary of State John Kerry argued that when it comes to “disinformation”, the “First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence”.

Labour's war on free speech

By Andrew Doyle

The First Amendment codifies a “negative liberty”, not a licence for certain behaviour but rather a protection from government interference. It reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It can function as a kind of barrier to the worst excesses of the illiberal Left, even at a time when their party of choice occupies the White House.

Such challenges to the First Amendment began around 10 years ago with the emergence of the Critical Social Justice (or “woke”) movement, which sought to promote equity according to group identity through authoritarian means. In March 2018, an article appeared on the website of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which noted that by this point it was “common” for Leftist activists “to call for lower legal protections for speech”. The writer concluded that such calls were misguided, describing the First Amendment as “our most powerful tool to keep the government from regulating the conversations that spark change in the world”.

But other activists took a different view from the ACLU. In 2018, two of the founders of Critical Race Theory, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, republished their 1997 book Must We Defend Nazis?: Hate Speech, Pornography, and the New First Amendment. This version of the book was modified according to the shift in activists’ demands, and the subtitle was now Why the First Amendment Should Not Protect Hate Speech and White Supremacy. In that same year, activist and legal scholar Justin Hansford argued in the Yale Law Journal Forum that, when it comes to race, the “marketplace of ideas” does not apply. “When ideas on race that would disrupt the racial hierarchy of white over Black emerge,” wrote Hansford, “the First Amendment is disproportionately applied to trample that dissent”.

The “woke” movement had always taken a pro-censorship stance, but by 2018 the First Amendment was clearly identified as the key obstacle to their aims. This was developed further in The Cult of the Constitution (2019), in which legal scholar Mary Anne Franks took aim at “First Amendment fundamentalism”. An entire chapter was devoted to what Franks calls “the cult of free speech”, a chilling phrase that recalls Labour MP Nadia Whittome’s belief that “we must not fetishise ‘debate’ as though debate is itself an innocuous, neutral act”. Authoritarians frequently resort to this kind of sophistry rather than admit outright that they find the concept of free speech inherently rebarbative.

Suggested reading

Inside the EU's war on free speech

By Thomas Fazi

In October 2019, former editor of Time magazine Richard Stengel continued this disturbing trend with an article for the Washington Post entitled “Why America needs a hate speech law”. Stengel rehashed the typical concerns about “false narratives” and “lies”, as though any kind of speech regulator could possibly be immune from deceptive or misleading behaviour. He also repeated the “direct effects theory” which posits that people act on cue from social media posts, even though more than six decades of research into media impact on public behaviour has seen such notions fully discredited. The First Amendment, Stengel argued, “should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw”.

A snobbish mistrust of the masses lies at the heart of the opposition to the First Amendment, a feature that we can trace to the Frankfurt School and the French postmodernists of the Sixties, two groups that have substantially influenced the philosophy behind Critical Social Justice. According to this view, popular culture has created a society of unthinking clones. What Herbert Marcuse described as the “one-dimensional man” is irredeemably blind to his own subjugation and reacts mechanically according to decrees from above. According to this perspective, “hate speech” has the power to rile up one group against another, even though the evidence for this claim is scant.

Those of us familiar with the concept of the “long march through the institutions” will be aware that these theories take time to percolate and to infect the mainstream. John Kerry’s recent remarks would suggest that First Amendment scepticism has finally made the leap from academic activism into the political sphere. Whether it gains traction in its new home should trouble us all.

The signs are not promising. This week, Hillary Clinton weighed into the debate during an interview with CNN. “We should be, in my view, repealing something called Section 230,” she argued, referring to the section of the Communications Decency Act introduced in 1996 that protects online platforms from liability for comments posted by users. Without these protections, big tech would have little choice but to implement draconian censorship measures. The consequences for free speech, in the de facto public square of our digital age, would be catastrophic.

Clinton stopped short of a call for a ban on “hate speech”, but how long before other mainstream politicians are echoing Kerry’s assessment of the First Amendment as a “major block”? There was a telling moment in the recent vice-presidential debate, in which Tim Walz interjected to claim that “hate speech” is excluded from First Amendment protections. The remark was so fleeting that it was not even included in the official CBS News transcript, but it was perhaps the most significant moment of the evening. If the Democrats are triumphant in the election, Americans will be governed by an administration that does not believe the First Amendment is fit for purpose.

“If the Democrats are triumphant in the election, Americans will be governed by an administration that does not believe the First Amendment is fit for purpose”

History teaches us that legal proscriptions against offensive viewpoints do not have a mitigating effect; bad ideas that are driven underground tend to fester and multiply. We also know that laws against offensive speech soon become expanded to incorporate any viewpoints that are not approved by those in power. In 1644, John Milton published his Areopagitica, a counterblast to the Licensing Order of June 1643 which decreed that all printed texts be passed before a censor in advance of publication. In this essential defence of liberty, he pointed out that censors do not “stay in matters heretical” but inevitably broaden their remit to “any subject that is not to their palate”.

Once a state has been empowered to set the limits of speech, to introduce legislation against vague and indefinable concepts such as “hate” or “offence”, the groundwork for future tyranny is firmly established. One thinks of Juvenal’s famous question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?). Kerry, Clinton, Walz et al seem to believe that those in authority can be trusted to distinguish between fact and fiction, but this was roundly disproved during the Covid pandemic when the lab-leak theories, now widely accepted as credible, were censored as “disinformation”.

Any attempt to carve out exceptions to the First Amendment for “hate speech” will inevitably empower the state to curb freedom of expression at will. The hopelessly subjective notion of “hate” means that this will be tantamount to a censor’s charter, a means by which political opposition can be stifled with the backing of the Constitution. As more and more political figures are willing to openly question the validity of the First Amendment, the threat to free speech in the West is now palpable. The tremors are becoming more frequent, and we ignore them at our peril.

Andrew Doyle is a comedian and creator of the Twitter persona Titania McGrath

By Cassie B. // Oct 21, 2024

The dangers of electric vehicles have been gaining a lot of unwanted attention in the aftermath of hurricanes Helene and Milton after numerous cars went up in flames – much to the surprise of many owners who were unaware of the drawbacks of their “green” vehicles.

When electric vehicles are flooded by problems like storm surges, they can spontaneously combust. Florida State Fire Marshal Jimmy Patronis issued a statement about a string of fires that were seen following Helene’s landfall. At that time, at least 64 lithium battery fires had been recorded, with electric vehicles making up 17 of them and the remainder attributed to golf carts, hoverboards and scooters. In one case, an electric wheelchair sparked a fire.

The insurance company GEICO warned policyholders about the threat of EVs catching on fire, while Tesla sent push notifications to its vehicle owners warning them to keep them on higher ground.

In an interview with the Miami Herald, Patronis called flooded lithium ion batteries “ticking time bombs” that can wreak more havoc than the storms that caused the flooding.

He said: “The average citizen I guarantee you does not realize they have a liability in their house with the salt water flooding.”

Saltwater is capable of conducting electricity, and when it makes its way inside sealed lithium ion batteries in electric vehicles, it can lead to a short circuit, creating heat and potentially catching on fire.

However, this risk is always present, even in the absence of flooding, due to the design of the batteries and the way that they work. By storing a considerable amount of energy within a very compact space, they are highly efficient, but the damage can be significant if they overheat, sustain physical damage or short circuit, causing them to ignite and burn in spectacular fashion.

Making matters even more complicated, these battery fires might not occur until hours, or even weeks after the vehicle has been exposed to salt water, making it essential to move them outside of surge zones.

EV fires can be very difficult to extinguish

At least 36 electric vehicles caught on fire due to Hurricane Ian in 2022, with some of the fires erupting while the EVs were being towed. In one case, a fire truck used up all of its water in just 10 minutes trying to put out an electric vehicle fire in Collier County, requiring them to run a fire hose on the car for another hour. The flame was eventually put out, but it reignited a few hours later, underscoring how complicated these types of fires can be to extinguish.

This weekend, four people died in France after a Tesla electric vehicle they were riding in caught on fire outside the city of Niort. The driver and three passengers died after the vehicle caught on fire and slammed into road signs at a high speed. French authorities are launching an investigation into the incident, but it is not the first time that Tesla has found itself in the spotlight over this issue.

It has become a particular concern in China, where electric vehicles are now banned from using underground parking lots. The country is a leader in the electric vehicle market, and the global industry will be paying close attention to the situation there.

While a traditional vehicle fire can take between 220 and 400 gallons of water to put out, electric vehicles often require upwards of 6,600 gallons to fully extinguish.

In addition, these vehicles emit highly toxic fumes while they are burning, including carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide, putting those in the area surrounding the fire in danger.

Sources for this article include:

WattsUpWithThat.com

MiamiHerald.com

DailyMail.co.uk

NewsTarget

By S.D. Wells // Oct 21, 2024

Do you know what the term “weather warfare” means? A project called HAARP, the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program located in Gakona, Alaska and originally a joint effort of the U.S. Air Force and Navy, combines hundreds of massive antennas that can function as one huge steerable antenna, able to aim millions of watts of ELF (extremely low frequency) waves to one small patch of the atmosphere.

This concentrated energy, which can reach close to 4 million watts, can be “injected” into an area ranging approximately 12 miles wide, 2 miles deep and 90 miles up in the atmosphere. Is HAARP a weather weapon being utilized for mass destruction, or just a weather “study tool” used for seeking information? You be the judge.

Military records prove HAARP is used for weather modification as admitted within their own documents, so it’s not a “conspiracy theory” after all

To the public, the military still denies using HAARP as a weather weapon or that they modify the weather with this massive weather warfare weapon, but in their own documents, they admit it. HAARP is not the only ELF transmitter, as there are many more located around the world.

The USA owns and operates three of these weather modification weapons, two of which are located in Alaska, and the other is located in Puerto Rico, conveniently positioned to create hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, just like the two that recently devastated North Carolina (Helene) and Florida (Milton). HAARP may also have the power to create earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons, floods and droughts.

Russia and the European Union also have their own HAARP-style weather weapons. These are capable of altering the weather anywhere in the world, especially if several worked in tandem. These weather weapons have the ability to trigger massive rainfall, droughts, heavy winds including hurricanes, where the weather-modification system creates, manipulates and steers them by heating up the atmosphere and building up high pressure domes that change the course of the storms.

World’s highest-powered, high-frequency transmitter HAARP can excite areas of the ionosphere for “economic warfare, climate change and population control”

HAARP, also known as the Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI), is a sophisticated suite of scientific instruments that can excite and manipulate the physical processes in a targeted region. This weather-mod system has been described as a research tool, but there’s much more to it than that, as it has been continuously upgraded, modified and improved over decades, since the 1930s, and now poses dangers as a “weapon of the apocalypse,” as described by a Romanian general and geo-engineering experts.

They say it can be used for “economic warfare, climate change and population control.”

HAARP uses geoengineering to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, solar engineering to modify the amount of solar radiation absorbed and released into the Earth’s atmosphere, and military geoengineering to make use of environmental modifying technologies for military purposes. These “climate change” projects can take place in three environments – sea, air and land.

It is speculated that HAARP is now run by the U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) since 2016, under the purview of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF).

HAARP is said to be powerful enough to cause explosions that rival nuclear bombs, causing massive unnaturally driven disasters of all kinds. This can take place in areas prone to such phenomena, so it seems natural, like the earthquakes that hit Turkey and Syria just a couple years ago, leaving more than 50,000 people dead.

HAARP, therefore, may be used as a geoengineering superweapon to engineer heat waves, storms and droughts in order to purport and hype climate alarmism, fueling the “climate change” narrative and further brainwashing the climate change cult to submit to government control of their lives and assets. Is HAARP therefore a depopulation WMD? It appears so.

Visit GeoEngineering.news for more news on Weather Weapon WMDs being used against the American people and their assets.

Sources for this article include:

Censored.news

NaturalNews.com

X.com

NewsTarget

By Barbara Expose on October 23, 2024

On the 19th of October, 2024, Mr Peter Lynch, 61, died in HMP Moorland, near Doncaster. He was a husband of 36 years, a father to 3 grown children, and a grandfather to 3. He was sentenced on the 22nd of August, 2024, for 2 years and 8 months for pleading guilty to violent disorder. Why should anyone care? well, because Mr Lynch was held as a political prisoner from that day on.

He decided to make a placard and go along with many other concerned English people, to the Holiday Inn Express, Rotherham, which had been holding asylum seekers, to make his feelings known about the increasing cronyism within the government and voice his opinions at the state of the nation. He was angry about the murder of 3 little girls in Southport on July 29th, 2024, while they had been attending a Taylor Swift themed dance workshop. Being a family man, and concerned for the future of not only his own family, but the future of the way this country has changed so rapidly, with an illegal immigration explosion over the last decade. He also named many other dodgy, self-serving institutes on his banner, which obviously made him a target to authority.

Mr Peter Lynch at the protest on August 4th, 2024 at Rotherham demonstration.

He was vocal, he was very upset with the police being in the pocket of these sinister players, but he never, not once, hurt anyone on that day. Regardless of that fact, he was treated like a dangerous criminal and was promptly arrested and held on exaggerated charges.

There were some aggressive and frustrated people there that day, and some damage was done, however, none of those same people would have been there if the government had not, yet again, ignored completely, the concerns of the British public. Concerns that were well founded, after many news reports in the mainstream media over the last few years of violent crimes being committed upon native British victims, while defending the perpetrators and whipping up resentment and fear with every story that appeared.

Mr Lynch was told by his legal council to plead guilty, which is usually looked at by a judge favourably, it also speeds up the process and saves money. That was a huge mistake in the cases being judged by Jeremy Richardson KC. Although the judge admitted that Mr Lynch didn't attack anyone, he decided this man was such a huge danger to the public, that he sentenced him to 2 years and 8 months.

Judge Jeremy Richardson KC, who sentenced Mr Lynch to 2 years 8 months

while this same judge has been very lenient on child predators and actual violent offenders, his corrupt view and privileged position made him feel entitled to throw the book at this poor man. The UK legal system is there to be fair, but also just in how it dishes out penalties, while not being swayed by private, individual beliefs or being used as a tool for the corrupt opinions of any government.

This man and many others were paraded in front of the courts following these protests and were used as scapegoats, having the legal system let them down at every turn. The government decided these people's views needed to be destroyed and Keir Starmers inflated ego would not show them any mercy.

Mr Lynch had no previous criminal history, yet, he was treated like a common criminal, branded as a 'far right' thug and was put into prison alongside a large community of individuals who believed that was true. He, from that moment, had a large target put on his back.

It is believed that Mr Peter Lynch took his own life, which is incredibly sad, completely unfair, and makes any true British person feel sick to their stomach. This man was left to rot for having his own beliefs. This man was used as a political pawn in a sick game of power and control. This man saw no other option because his will had been destroyed. This man only wanted to show his patriotism and loyalty to the future of this country and its future generations.

This should send shivers through anyone with an opinion. In the United Kingdom in 2024, a person with a view that conflicts with this shocking excuse of a political class, can be dragged away, paraded through a corrupt system and detained at the pleasure of egomaniacs with a dangerous agenda. Shock and complete horror in a system that has no liability, and a growing feeling of unease upon a powder keg of pent-up emotion.

This man should not be forgotten, in fact, it is crucial that you remember, that Mr Peter Lynch could be you, me, or in fact anyone with an independent viewpoint, and that facts are only allowed if they suit the agenda of the lunatics at the top.

The Expose

Me: We "Human Rubbish", where ever we are, where ever we live.

How does this compare to the number of cells in the human body?

Again, I asked perplexity (here):

The number of cells in the human body has been a subject of extensive research, and recent studies provide more precise estimates. According to a comprehensive analysis of over 1,500 scientific papers, the average adult male human has approximately 36 trillion cells, while adult females have around 28 trillion cells. For children, the estimate is about 17 trillion cells

Hence, it seems true that there are more nanoparticles in a single dose of Comirnaty than there are cells in the human body.

Many more, in fact, possibly ten times or even more.

That’s a lot of transfection all around the body, since we now know that the LNPs travel to most or possibly every organ system.

Jonathan’s Substack

By S.D. Wells // Oct 21, 2024

Everyone has heard the vaccine propaganda at least a hundred times because the vaccine industrial complex coined the term “herd theory,” and they shove it down everyone’s throats every time they come out with a new vaccine. There’s a massive logic breakdown though, with the “herd theory” concept and vaccine “efficacy” in general.

The entire purpose of getting a vaccine is to create immunity to a specific virus or infectious disease, but then, all the doctors and “disease experts” remind everyone over and over that the only way they work is if at least 80 or 90 percent of the population gets them. Come again?

Now imagine if we were all told that about vitamin C, that it’s completely useless if 9 out of 10 Americans don’t take any. Who would even believe that vitamin C helps boost immunity and protect against viruses? Who would bother?

For the rollout of Covid “vaccines” Fauci and his CDC goons told everyone we could “flatten the curve” of the pandemic if most Americans got injected

The vaccine lies are so bad, but still 270 million Americans rushed to the doctors, pharmacies and clinics to get their mass-sheeple injections because they fell for the fear-based scamdemic of the century. We all found out later that Covid barely kills anyone, especially healthy folks, young folks or babies.

We found out later that the Covid jabs don’t prevent infection, they just keep you from getting a “bad case” of Covid. But that was also a lie. We found out later that the vaccines don’t keep you from spreading Covid to others, but actually help you spread it through “shedding” the spike proteins.

In other words, no matter how many people got the shots, it didn’t matter at all. Even if every single American, including kids, babies and pregnant women, got the mRNA gene mutation stabs, it would NOT have helped stop the spread or infection of the Wuhan virus.

That’s why they had to create the fraudulent PCR tests, that signified anyone with any kind of bacterial or viral infection was “positive” for Covid-19. Sure. It was just another ploy to get everyone scared enough to go get injected with the deadly spike-prion-factory, self-assembling nanoparticle clot shots.

Imagine if doctors told everyone that antibiotics don’t work unless the majority of the population takes them around the same time. Imagine if dentists told everyone that brushing your teeth won’t prevent cavities unless everyone does it. The logic is absurd, but the vaccine cult still thinks that “herd immunity” is real. They push everyone to get vaccinated. They scream that the unvaccinated spread disease to the vaccinated.

The Vaccine Cult literally blames the fully unvaccinated for killing people by spreading Covid-19 to the “vaccinated” people. Though they are all convinced on the front end by the CDC that all vaccines are always “safe and effective,” the vaccinated masses are getting infected with Covid, dying from vascular clots caused by the spike proteins, and spreading the disease to their own family, friends, neighbors and coworkers who are also “fully vaccinated.” Where’s the logic?

Imagine begging and pleading with all your family, friends, neighbors and coworkers to take vitamin C so that yours will work. “Please, please take your vitamin C so mine will work and I won’t get sick.”

Wake up folks. You are being duped by the Vaccine Industrial Complex. Everything you’ve been told about vaccines is a lie. Not only are they NOT safe and effective, but they are dangerous and ineffective. It’s just the opposite. Go figure. It’s population reductionism. It’s extermination of the masses through toxic injection. It’s genocide by Western “medicine.” The supposed “holy grail” of medicine is really the demise of mankind.

Sources for this article include:

Pandemic.news

NaturalNews.com

NewsTarget

It’s now the No. 2 most common COVID-19 strain in the country.

By Jack Phillips, Breaking News Reporter

10/16/2024

Recent estimates published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that the XEC COVID-19 variant is now circulating inside the United States.

According to the CDC’s Nowcast tracking tool, XEC makes up about 10 percent of all COVID-19 cases reported in the country as of Oct. 13. It’s now the No. 2 most common COVID-19 strain in the country, behind the K.P.3.1.1 variant that emerged earlier this year.

Both variants are derived from the Omicron strain that emerged in late 2021.

The XEC variant first appeared in Berlin in late June and has spread across Germany, France, Denmark, and Netherlands, according to a report from data integration specialist Mike Honey, citing the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data.

XEC was described by a CDC official to The Epoch Times as a proposed name of a “recombinant, or hybrid, of the closely related Omicron lineages KS.1.1 and KP.3.3.” Recombinants sometimes occur when a person is infected with two different COVID-19 strains.

Doesn’t Appear More Severe

On Oct. 10, UK Health Security Agency epidemiologist Jamie Lopez Bernal said that their surveillance has shown that about 1 in 10 COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom come from the XEC lineage.

“Current information doesn’t suggest we should be more concerned about this variant but we are monitoring this closely,” Bernal said.

In late September, CDC spokeswoman Rosa Norman told The Epoch Times that the CDC is monitoring “the emergence of variants in the population” such as XEC but stressed that “specific cases cannot be associated with specific variants.”

“Please continue to check the COVID Data Tracker for updated information on the common variants we’re seeing [in] the U.S.,” she said.

Symptoms

When asked last month about whether XEC may produce different or more severe symptoms, Norman said the CDC is not aware of any “specific symptoms” associated with the variant or “co-circulating” strains.

Another health organization that has been monitoring COVID-19 variants, including XEC, said in a recent update that it also has no data from patients or experiments about XEC’s symptoms or “what kind of illness” it can cause.

“However, this new variant will probably be similar to other COVID variants in terms of the disease caused, given its similar genetic information. So symptoms such as a high temperature, sore throat with a cough, headaches and body aches along with tiredness are to be expected,” said GAVI, an organization that has the goal of increasing vaccinations in poorer nations.

The CDC spokesperson recommended that people aged 6 months and older get one of the updated COVID-19 vaccines that were signed off by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the summer.

“At this time, we anticipate that COVID-19 treatments and vaccines will continue to work against all circulating variants,” Norman said. “CDC will continue to monitor the effectiveness of treatment and vaccines against circulating variants. There are other actions you can take to help protect yourself and others from health risks caused by COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses.”

COVID Levels ‘Low’

Despite XEC’s emergence, data provided by the CDC as of Oct. 5 show that COVID-19 is broadly trending downward across the United States and is currently at “low” levels.

A map provided by the agency, meanwhile, shows that COVID-19 levels are “high” in most New England states as well as the Pacific Northwest and several mountain region states.

Oregon and Montana are the only states in the country with “very high” levels of viral activity, according to the CDC. High levels of COVID-19 have also been reported in about a half-dozen other states.

Epoch Tmies

Me: UPDATED: 24 September 2024 My FREE Salt Water Cure for Bird Flu and Covid and MPox (virus) and any other virus.

Refuse all vaccines.

Join me in NEVER being ill with my free salt water cure. It's as yukky for me to do, as it is for you to do, but practice makes it easier with time - when the only option is potentially death by vaccines injections.

It is that simple.

3 minutes from preparation to job done: Mix one heaped teaspoon of table (or Iodine) salt in a mug of warm clean water, cup a hand and sniff or snort the entire mugful up your nose, in small lots, spitting out anything which comes down into your mouth. If burning sensation, then you have a virus, so continue morning noon and night, or more often if you want, until the burning sensation goes away (2-3 minutes) then blow out your nose with toilet paper and flush away, washing your hands afterwards, until when you do my simple cure, you don't have any burning sensation at all, when you flush - job done. Also swallow a couple of mouthfuls of salt water and if you have burning in your lungs, salt killing virus and pneumonia, there too.It washes behind the eyes, the brain bulb, brain stem (Long Covid), The Eustacian tubes - Tubes to the inner ears and the top of the throat which is at a point roughly level with half way up your ears and not where your mouth is and it goes down the back of your throat, when infected there too.

I have been doing this simple cure for over 31 years and I am and others, never sick from viruses and there is no reason why any of you should be.

Simply put, if the inside of your nose is dry and crusty, you are OK, if your nose is runny, you really need to do a salt water sniffle as quickly as possible AND THERE IS STILL CLEAN SEA WATER, TO USE INSTEAD.

Nobody has been injured or killed by my above salt water cure

By

Paula Jardine

October 22, 2024

IN THE name of pandemic preparedness, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is getting ready to take the world back to the future. Lord help us.

All indications are that we are returning to 2009, the year in which a ‘mock-up’ influenza vaccine developed by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) was updated and deployed on the public for use against H1N1 swine flu. The updated vaccine was the now-notorious Pandemrix.

In November 2009 an NHS Wales Swine Flu Pandemic Weekly Report stated openly that, in preparing for a pandemic, ‘appropriate trials to assess the safety and the immune responses’ were carried out ‘on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine’ (my italics). In those days, there was at least a modicum of informed consent when a ‘bait and switch’ occurred as it was publicly acknowledged that the authorised vaccines were only ‘similar’ to the tested ones. Not so, however, when it came to Matt Hancock and the MHRA’s Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine approval.

And it’s the case again today. The idea of testing one version of a vaccine and jabbing another never went away. On October 10, the FDA Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) met to discuss the ‘strain change process’ for the allegedly highly pathogenic H5 bird flu preparedness, in fact one of the most overhyped viruses in existence.

Jerry P Weir, the director of the FDA’s Division of Viral Products and adviser to the World Health Organization (WHO) on influenza virus vaccines and vaccine standards, whose department helps select the strains included in annual seasonal influenza vaccines, told the committee that ‘we are all . . . doing everything we can do to be as prepared as possible to shorten the time needed to get a vaccine to market‘. This means they’re testing similar ones again so that updated versions can then be made and rolled out quickly on the assumption they are equally effective.

As non-mRNA vaccine manufacture typically takes six months, manufacturers are told in February/March of each year which seasonal influenza strains to target for the next winter flu season. When these seasonal vaccines miss a strain, pandemic flu vaccines are on standby to plug the gap. In fact a library of prototype pandemic influenza vaccines exists to address the ‘rapidly evolving’ bird flu menace which the VRBPAC committee was told entered North America in 2021.

So far in this year’s winter flu hysteria season, the allegedly ‘highly pathogenic’ bird flu has been a damp squib. In the US, the year-to-date tally is a paltry 20 cases of human bird flu, yet the vaccines will be ready to roll when it’s turned into the next scariant and allegedly spreading asymptomatically. Fifty cases is the harbinger of doom, according to Professor Neil Ferguson’s infamous 2006 modelling of influenza pandemic prevention strategies, and should signal the start of mitigation measures to flatten the curve. It didn’t work for SARS-CoV-2, but any expectations that authorities have learned lessons leading to a revision of current dogma remain worryingly low.

Vaccine manufacturers are poised to cash in from government advance purchase agreements for hundreds of millions of doses should an influenza pandemic be declared by the WHO. Standing at the ready to turn on the pharma profit spigots once again are public health authorities, including the US Center for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and the EU Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA). Funny so many are named authorities which, far from inspiring confidence in their pronouncements, has increasingly sinister overtones of enforced obedience to their diktats.

As well as the questionable ‘need’ for these vaccines, their effectiveness once again is doubtful. A January 2024 Chinese review of real-world effectiveness of seasonal flu vaccines concluded it was ‘moderate’, varied substantially by demographic and by strain, and noted that the products had to be continuously reformulated due to the ‘dynamic and evolving nature of the virus’. Pandemic influenza vaccines, however, are reformulations for strains missing from these seasonal vaccines, yet the FDA says, ‘effectiveness [is] inferred from seasonal vaccine’. This is doublespeak for ‘they are equally useless but we’ll license them anyway because public health authorities are squawking about the sky falling in’. If they were financial products they’d carry a disclaimer saying ‘past performance is no guarantee of future results’; only with vaccines the often-dismal past performance is a surefire guarantee of future results.

In July 2024, BARDA announced a $174million award to Moderna to develop mRNA pandemic influenza vaccines against H9N7 bird flu. These are not however currently part of US preparedness plans which are based on H5 vaccine candidates from CSL Seqirus, Sanofi and GSK for whom BARDA is funding phase 3 trials.

The GSK vaccine being trialled is Adjupanrix which, as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) website shows, is a reformulated and rebranded version of Pandemrix, the mock-up vaccine deployed in 2009 and 2010 to six million people in Britain against H1N1 swine flu, and which had a higher level of adverse events than other H1N1 vaccines. Its death knell was the link identified in 2010 with an increase in the chronic neurological disorder narcolepsy, which afflicted dozens of children. The jab was withdrawn after doctors noticed a sharp rise in narcolepsy, which can cause sufferers to fall asleep suddenly at any time during any activity, among those who received it.

The link between the vaccine and narcolepsy was finally acknowledged by UK courts in 2015. As recently as December 2022, a Helsinki court ordered compensation to be paid to a group of Finnish patients who were found to have narcolepsy as a side effect of Pandemrix. Due to the bad publicity over narcolepsy, the demand for Pandemrix H1N1 collapsed and GSK let its marketing authorisation expire in August 2015.

As it turns out, cash cows die hard. Pandemrix had already been repurposed. Beginning in 2012, GSK applied to the EMA for variations to the original 2009 marketing authorisation including changing the name to Prepandrix, and reformulating and testing it for use against H5N1 (Vietnam-strain) bird flu. In December 2015, four months after the authorisation for the H1N1 version lapsed, the marketing authorisation was varied indicating it for use against H5N1. It is now called Adjupanrix.

Each version of the GSK vaccine contains AS03, an emulsified fish-oil (squalene) adjuvant used to stimulate a ‘stronger and broader’ immune response. The EMA notes that there is a risk that this adjuvant or another common ingredient is the cause of narcolepsy.

In April 2023, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) published guidance on its website which it says was issued to support the spring and autumn Covid-19 vaccination campaigns. Thisguidance downplayed the risk of narcolepsy from Pandemrix, saying it was rare. Ironically a 2015 presentation by Dr June Raine, the outgoing head of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), who was then its head of pharmacovigilance, listed narcolepsy as a ‘landmark’ safety signal for Pandemrix. Yet nine years later the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) told the public the reason for the link between Pandemrix and narcolepsy was unclear. Instead of flagging the adjuvant up as being the potential link with narcolepsy as the EMA does, it said the leading theory was that narcolepsy was probably caused by the H1N1 influenza antigen. In propping up the adjuvant it seemingly misses another glaringly obvious problem: if the antigen was causing the Pandemrix safety problem, how can pre-approved mock-ups that swap in new antigens ever be assumed to be safe?

On October 11 2024, UKHSA updated its website to say that the guidance had been withdrawn, but offered no explanation. In fact it was withdrawn in response to a public health misinformation maladministration complaint from a member of the public that UKHSA was misrepresenting the narcolepsy risk for children by stating only the rate in adults: one case per 175,000 Pandemrix doses. But the majority of harm caused by Pandemrix was in under-20s for whom the published incidence rate for narcolepsy following vaccination is around 1 in 30,000. The complainant also took issue with ‘victim gaslighting’ as the guidance was suggesting that narcolepsy victims of all ages were genetically susceptible to harm, thus deflecting from the harm caused by the vaccine.

Responding, UKHSA excused itself by saying that the MHRA had supplied it with the information which was published specifically to support the introduction in 2023 of GSK’s Covid vaccine VidPrevtyn beta which uses the same AS03 adjuvant as Pandemrix. UKHSA said this vaccine was offered only to older adults and is no longer available. Apparently they meant to update the website earlier but the guidance remained public because of a broken link. The complainant is pursuing this maladministration matter further.

In July 2022, the European Commission’s Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) signed a contract with GSK for 85million doses of Adjupanrix, previously called Pandemic Influenza Vaccine H5N1, noting it is to be used only in the event that the WHO declares a pandemic. The European Commission says that the vaccine has been authorised under ‘exceptional circumstances’, those apparently being that ‘the vaccine is a mock-up and does not yet contain the strain of flu virus that is causing a pandemic [so] it has not been possible to obtain full information about the final pandemic vaccine’.

The UK government has announced signing an advance purchase agreement with Liverpool-based CSL Seqirus for unspecified millions of doses of its BARDA-funded pandemic vaccine which ‘will be tested, licensed, and approved and tailored to combat the specific pandemic flu strain identified at the time’. Announcing the deal in September 2023, Dame Jenny Harries, the CEO of the UKHSA, said: ‘We have seen from past pandemic events, including Covid-19, that access to effective vaccines is vital to help save lives and minimise disruption to our lives and livelihoods.’

It seems odd that UKHSA has not announced an advance purchase agreement for GSK’s Adjupanrix. It couldn’t possibly be that the MHRA is doing a little more enabling, could it? Perhaps the limited deployment in 2023 of VidPrevtyn Beta, which GSK developed jointly with Sanofi with funding from US Department of Defense and BARDA, was a real-world test to see on the quiet if the adjuvant causes narcolepsy.

TCW

Me: UPDATED: 24 September 2024 My FREE Salt Water Cure for Bird Flu and Covid and MPox (virus) and any other virus.

Refuse all vaccines.

Join me in NEVER being ill with my free salt water cure. It's as yukky for me to do, as it is for you to do, but practice makes it easier with time - when the only option is potentially death by vaccines injections.

It is that simple.

3 minutes from preparation to job done: Mix one heaped teaspoon of table (or Iodine) salt in a mug of warm clean water, cup a hand and sniff or snort the entire mugful up your nose, in small lots, spitting out anything which comes down into your mouth. If burning sensation, then you have a virus, so continue morning noon and night, or more often if you want, until the burning sensation goes away (2-3 minutes) then blow out your nose with toilet paper and flush away, washing your hands afterwards, until when you do my simple cure, you don't have any burning sensation at all, when you flush - job done. Also swallow a couple of mouthfuls of salt water and if you have burning in your lungs, salt killing virus and pneumonia, there too.It washes behind the eyes, the brain bulb, brain stem (Long Covid), The Eustacian tubes - Tubes to the inner ears and the top of the throat which is at a point roughly level with half way up your ears and not where your mouth is and it goes down the back of your throat, when infected there too.

I have been doing this simple cure for over 31 years and I am and others, never sick from viruses and there is no reason why any of you should be.

Simply put, if the inside of your nose is dry and crusty, you are OK, if your nose is runny, you really need to do a salt water sniffle as quickly as possible AND THERE IS STILL CLEAN SEA WATER, TO USE INSTEAD.

Nobody has been injured or killed by my above salt water cure

The ”deliberative process” to make GOF safer, called for by Congress and hundreds of scientists, which took 3 years and which was cleverly ended during the Trump administration, because some people knew gain-of-function research projects SARS-2, monkeypox and H5N1 bird flu were coming and the USG/Fauci establishment needed to be able to blame them on lab leaks? Meryl Nass

Bird Flu Symptoms range from asymptomatic or mild cases, with conjunctivitis or mild flulike "upper respiratory symptoms", to severe conditions requiring hospitalization, such as pneumonia. Commonly reported symptoms include fever or feeling feverish, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, muscle or body aches, headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath or difficulty breathing. Less frequent symptoms include diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, or seizures - for a GOF Bird Flu which up to now, we can't catch, apparently.

Vaccine Medication Common side effects in adults include pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, malaise, myalgia, and arthralgia. In children aged 6-18 years, prevalent side effects include injection site pain, myalgia, fatigue, malaise, headache, loss of appetite, nausea, and arthralgia. In children 6 months to less than 6 years old, tenderness at the injection site, irritability, sleepiness, changes in eating habits, and fever are the most common side effects.

ADEPT is a Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (“DARPA”) program that began in 2012. The acronym stands for Autonomous Diagnostics to Enable Prevention and Therapeutics. PROTECT is a sub-program of ADEPT, and it stands for Prophylactic Options to Environmental and Contagious Threats

“We have a commercially interested group of sociopaths who want to make money while killing people,” Dr. Martin said, “that’s the bottom line.”

Proper Treatment of the Seriously Ill is the Only Covid Intervention That was Ever Needed

By Dr Andrew Bamji

In the last two years there has been increasing evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus arrived across the world as the result of a laboratory leak. There has likewise been increasing evidence that neither masks nor lockdowns materially altered the transmission of the virus, and also that the vaccines (which are in truth a gene therapy product) have significant risks of side-effects. The number and nature of these remain unclear, but some very recent research even suggests that repeat vaccination increases the likelihood of major side-effects. Worse, there is no clear evidence that they decrease individual susceptibility. Thus the mantra of “safe and effective” is open to question. Added to this is the discovery from Freedom of Information requests that some of the trials were constructed and run in a questionable manner, and that vaccine manufacturers were careful to write into their supply contracts absolution from indemnity. Yet this week a new advertising campaign by the NHS is encouraging the U.K. public to get revaccinated against coronavirus.

The origin of the virus is of academic interest. Wherever it came from, it is with us and we have to live with that. The issue of management by isolation is of academic medical interest, though not of academic economic interest. It has become very clear that the processes of lockdown have been highly damaging and it seems likely that no proper analysis was done on what the effect on the national economy (and education, and mental health) might be. That the vaccines may cause significant problems has an explanation; they are designed to make the body create copies of the spike protein of the virus, which is the very part that causes the recorded issues of myocarditis, thrombosis etc. due to overstimulation of the immune system in the virally-induced syndrome commonly called COVID-19. The variability of effect between individuals, either with COVID-19 or a vaccine, may depend on genetic susceptibility. Other forms of hyperimmune syndrome, or cytokine storm (CSS), were well-known to be more common in certain ethnic groups long before SARS-CoV-2. Given the total absence of any research into who suffers vaccine complications and why, it is remarkable that politicians and managers are keen to plough on using them. It’s not as if such complications are denied; there is a compensation programme running, and the AstraZeneca vaccine was withdrawn because the complications were becoming unacceptably prevalent.

The recent book by Norman Fenton and Martin Neil, Fighting Goliath: Exposing the flawed science and statistics behind the COVID-19 event, has exposed numerous faults in differing aspects of testing and vaccination. But perhaps the most egregious flaw in vaccination has been to categorise subjects as unvaccinated until 14 days after receiving the vaccine. If, as appears highly probable, the major life-threatening side-effects of vaccines are due to CSS, this can develop within 48 hours. Indeed in the drug trial at Northwick Park Hospital, where what turned out to be a highly immunogenic preparation was injected into six subjects, the subjects developed symptoms in minutes rather than hours. Thus, in the analyses performed, a substantial number of people falling ill with COVID-19 type symptoms immediately following vaccination (which is as one would expect) will have been incorrectly labelled as unvaccinated, significantly distorting the risk-benefit conclusions of the trials and rendering them useless.

That said, does any of it matter? I am going to say – no, it does not. Let us go back to the beginning.

What happens when a person acquires the SARS-CoV-2 virus? Most will be ill. A bit ill on the spectrum of seriousness. They will have cold-like or flu-like symptoms, may lose their sense of smell or taste, but will not collapse into a state of respiratory failure, widespread thromboses, stroke and renal shutdown. These serious events (COVID-19 proper) are the result of a cytokine storm; the immune system goes into overdrive producing abnormal quantities of inflammatory chemicals. Only a small proportion of the population will suffer any of these serious symptoms. So for the vast majority who do not, and will get better fairly quickly, nothing needs doing. For that small proportion, however, it is critical that they are identified and treated. A series of blood tests and measurement of oxygen saturation do the former, while steroids and anti-cytokine treatments do the latter.

If you accept this analysis you will have to agree that almost all of the coronavirus pandemic measures were completely unnecessary. If you don’t, then I suggest you read the textbook on cytokine storm syndrome written by Cron and Behrens, which appeared in 2019, before Covid, or his review article from 2023. There you will find all manner of triggers, including viruses, and more specifically coronaviruses, and all the clinical consequences of CSS which are identical to those of COVID-19. There also you will find tests to be done, and treatments to be applied to those who get very ill. And guess what? In the main, if caught in time, they will get better.

This explanation is clinician-generated. I am not the only one who has come to this conclusion. And yet the pandemic management was conducted, not by clinicians, but by people with no clinical experience. Experts maybe, but the wrong experts. If you had a heart attack would you want to be treated by a plumber? He may know a lot about pipework, but it would be the wrong sort of pipework.

This was the gist of my 20 page submission to the Hallett Inquiry in November 2022. I had an acknowledgement of receipt, and since then nothing. This month I read a summary of Professor Sir Chris Whitty’s latest evidence and was thereby prompted to go to the inquiry website and see where my submission was filed. I could not find it. So I wrote to the contact address of the inquiry asking where it was, and when I would be called to give my evidence. Two weeks have passed and I have had no response.

The inquiry has spent and continues to spend vast sums of money barking up the wrong tree. It might, it is true, conclude that lockdowns did not work, that economic disruption should have been factored into the risk-benefit equation, but we know that already. It has concentrated on process and missed the essential point – that all that was necessary was for those who got very sick to be rapidly identified and correctly treated.

I remain puzzled as to why my analysis has been ignored. In fact (as readers of my blog will know) I outlined this strategy in May 2020. I pointed out that I had personally treated a case. It was ignored then. Had it been implemented – and I have no doubt that if the right experts had been consulted it would have been – many deaths would have been saved, there would not have been any lockdowns, no vaccination fiascos, no inquiry. If the Hallett Inquiry does not conclude this then it will have been a complete waste of money, not just a partial waste but, given the omission of any informed input and the exaggerated respect accorded to those interviewees who made the wrong decisions from the beginning, I fear a whitewash.

There is one upside to the Covid saga. Thanks to the internet, scientific papers have been subjected to far more intense scrutiny than in the past, and many have been found wanting; critics from across the globe explain failures in trial design, sidelining of potential confounding factors and inadequate statistical analysis. But it remains true that research contradicting “settled science” (an oxymoron if ever there was) remains under significant and often irresistible pressure for it to be retracted. Proper science should allow proper debate. If a settled scientist finds evidence of errors in the work of “deniers” those errors must be detailed. It’s not enough to shout “Rubbish!” An example: after one of my blogs suggesting every physician (and politician) should read Cron and Behrens I received a comment that I should not trust textbooks. I indicated I was pleased that someone had read that textbook, and asked for a quick summary of what was wrong with it. The reply came back that he had not seen it. I rest my case.

Dr. Andrew Bamji is a retired Consultant Rheumatologist and was President of the British Society for Rheumatology from 2006-8

Daily Sceptic

Me: Like I've been saying these past 4 years. Moderna, with DARPA's help created the Covid-19 virus through Gain Of Function and Moderna patented it in 2013, the same year that The US Supreme court passed a Law with World Wide Applications that anything of nature cannot be patented, only something new, which has never existed before can be patented - these vaccines are patented, becasue they are new, never existed before and are created in a laboratory, so they can't be mRNA DNA, because that is natural to nature, so they are actually ModRNA DNA and patented accordingly.

The US Supreme Court ruling, above, went on to say that any injection which changes the Human Genome and DNA makes that Human a new species, Trans Human (Transforming from Human) and because they are no longer Human, they have zero Rights of any kind, which begs the question: If mRNA DNA is natural to all life on this planet and the key to heaven, then what door does ModRNA DNA open, after death?

My free salt water cure does what no vaccine ever will: UPDATED: 24 September 2024 My FREE Salt Water Cure for Bird Flu and Covid and MPox (virus) and any other virus.

Refuse all vaccines.

Join me in NEVER being ill with my free salt water cure. It's as yukky for me to do, as it is for you to do, but practice makes it easier with time - when the only option is potentially death by vaccines injections.

It is that simple.

3 minutes from preparation to job done: Mix one heaped teaspoon of table (or Iodine) salt in a mug of warm clean water, cup a hand and sniff or snort the entire mugful up your nose, in small lots, spitting out anything which comes down into your mouth. If burning sensation, then you have a virus, so continue morning noon and night, or more often if you want, until the burning sensation goes away (2-3 minutes) then blow out your nose with toilet paper and flush away, washing your hands afterwards, until when you do my simple cure, you don't have any burning sensation at all, when you flush - job done. Also swallow a couple of mouthfuls of salt water and if you have burning in your lungs, salt killing virus and pneumonia, there too.It washes behind the eyes, the brain bulb, brain stem (Long Covid), The Eustacian tubes - Tubes to the inner ears and the top of the throat which is at a point roughly level with half way up your ears and not where your mouth is and it goes down the back of your throat, when infected there too.

I have been doing this simple cure for over 31 years and I am and others, never sick from viruses and there is no reason why any of you should be.

Simply put, if the inside of your nose is dry and crusty, you are OK, if your nose is runny, you really need to do a salt water sniffle as quickly as possible AND THERE IS STILL CLEAN SEA WATER, TO USE INSTEAD.

Nobody has been injured or killed by my above salt water cure

Your Life, Your choice.

The ”deliberative process” to make GOF safer, called for by Congress and hundreds of scientists, which took 3 years and which was cleverly ended during the Trump administration, because some people knew gain-of-function research projects SARS-2, monkeypox and H5N1 bird flu were coming and the USG/Fauci establishment needed to be able to blame them on lab leaks? Meryl Nass

Bird Flu Symptoms range from asymptomatic or mild cases, with conjunctivitis or mild flulike "upper respiratory symptoms", to severe conditions requiring hospitalization, such as pneumonia. Commonly reported symptoms include fever or feeling feverish, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, muscle or body aches, headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath or difficulty breathing. Less frequent symptoms include diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, or seizures - for a GOF Bird Flu which up to now, we can't catch, apparently.

Vaccine Medication Common side effects in adults include pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, malaise, myalgia, and arthralgia. In children aged 6-18 years, prevalent side effects include injection site pain, myalgia, fatigue, malaise, headache, loss of appetite, nausea, and arthralgia. In children 6 months to less than 6 years old, tenderness at the injection site, irritability, sleepiness, changes in eating habits, and fever are the most common side effects.

However, the behavior of the many corporate health systems around the country effectively “weeded out” all unvaccinated employees - not only in the medical professions but also in all industries in general, which means for Doctors and the medical staff to retain their employment and qualifications, they had to be vaccinated and prescribe vaccines to all of their patents, irrespective of the harms those vaccines might later do - or they would lose their medical qualifications and never be able to practice as a Doctor, ever again.

When you next go to see your Doctor or medical professional, remember that whatever your personal relationship with them before, that has now changed, now they ARE representatives of Big Pharma and controlled by Big Pharma and you are the victim they are going to take advantage of, not because they want to, but because they must.

Let's put that into some sort of succinct appreciation then - you volunteered to an extermination program and the medical profession are just helping you push it along, so it makes sense that governments have, or are, introducing Euthanasia Laws, so they are in place to "terminate" those with Brain Fog, Cognitive Impairment, Alzheimer's, Vascular Dementia and Parkinson's Disease and any other illness deemed unsuitable, to be kept alive from, including old age, once you have "lost your marbles", which could relate to at least 75% of the vaccinated populations, in the next few years to come, all of which relates back to Big Pharma for the creation of that problem with their vaccines and the final solution to that problem with Euthanasia programs already in place and good to go, all helped along by Big Pharma - see below:

The mRNA “vaccine,” like Covid itself, causes immense amounts of cognitive dysfunction, i.e. “brain fog” and worse. In my Leading Edge Clinic specialty practice where we treat Long Covid/Long Vax (70% are Long Vax) of the almost 1500 chronically ill patients we have encountered, the vast majority report new-onset cognitive dysfunction.

The real tragedy is that the mandate from CMS specified that “accommodations” (i.e. exemptions) should be offerred by the involved health care facilities, however, as we well know, in the vast majority of facilities, exemptions were nearly impossible to obtain. Numerous lawsuits are ongoing to address the horrific negative consequences of the mass firings that resulted.

However, the behavior of the many corporate health systems around the country effectively “weeded out” all unvaccinated employees.

Although a number of centers apparently now welcome back their former unvaccinated employees, it appears that not many as hoped wanted to return to a former employer that treated them that way. Thus, I maintain that the vast majority of those currently working in the system are vaccinated, and heavily vaccinated at that.

So, if they are so heavily vaccinated, what is the probability that they are suffering cognitive issues? Well, from my recent (surprisingly popular) post about the goings on at Ohio State Medical Center, apparently numerous docs were retiring or going out on disability due to “neurological issues.”

The “anecdotes” I cited in that post are further supported by two recent papers out of South Korea which found shocking negative impacts on cognitive abilities in those who underwent mRNA vaccination. A Midwestern Doctor did an excellent job in not only analyzing that paper but also putting the Korean studies into the context of what we already know about the cognitive impacts of the mRNA platform. I am going to bullet some of the numerous data points AMD cited, beginning with the South Korea studies which analyzed a large database of the inhabitants of Seoul where vaccination status was accurately recorded. It’s not good:

One of their papers published in Nature (one of the top medical journals) found a 68% increase in depression, a 44% increase in anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, and somatoform disorders, a 93.4% increase in sleep disorders, a 77% decrease in schizophrenia, and a 32.8% decrease in bipolar disorder.

Another of their analyses was published by the senior author, again in a mainstream journal. It analyzed individuals over 65 and found COVID vaccination increased the risk of mild cognitive impairment 138% and the risk of Alzheimer’s by 23%, and a smaller increase in vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease the authors did not deem to be significant.

A MidWestern Doctor

Gareth Corfield

07 October 2024 6:09pm BST

Electric vehicle (EV) insurance premiums are set to soar under a regime shake-up, it has been warned.

Insurance premiums for EVs and Chinese-made cars in particular could skyrocket after a new Vehicle Risk Rating (VRR) system was rolled out last month, an expert said.

VRR will eventually replace the group-based system of insurance, which bands vehicles into 50 separate premium categories.

Five key categories go into the VRR rating, including performance, damageability, safety, security – and “repairability”.

It is this last category that will send EV premiums soaring, Chris Rosamond of Auto Express magazine said, because the insurance industry lacks the information it needs to offer lower premiums on EVs.

Woman using satellite navigation system in electric car

Five key categories go into the VRR rating, including performance, damageability, safety, security and ‘repairability’ Credit: Monty Rakusen

Mr Rosamond said: “If the data does show… as many or most of us expect, that there is this increased risk around batteries, then it’s likely that will emerge in, or be reflected in, premiums down the track.

“If you get a golf ball-sized dent in the battery casing of your new EV, for example, there is no sort of technical reference available for insurers to be able to say with 100 per cent certainty that a repair has fixed that and returned it to, effectively, its original condition.”

Professor David Bailey of the University of Birmingham told The Telegraph that Chinese EV manufacturers are struggling to keep up with the demand for spares for repairers.

“So they’ve entered the market [but] not necessarily set up a distribution system in terms of parts for the vehicles, which has meant that actually getting them repaired at all has proven to be quite difficult,” he said.

“Especially on the EV side. I mean, there’s a combination of things there anyway. One is repairers’ knowledge in general of repairing EVs; not all repairers can do that.”

People charging their electric cars at charging station

The insurance industry is lacking the information it needs to offer lower premiums on EVs Credit: Monty Rakusen

Ben Townsend, head of automotive at Thatcham Research, the data company behind VRR, insisted that not all EVs would be more expensive to insure than ICE vehicles, pointing out the average EV has around 20 moving parts, compared to “more than 2,000” in a petrol or diesel car.

“The repairability assessment was created to highlight repair challenges transparently into the insurance workflow and by doing so, help manufacturers gain granular visibility of the various factors that can drive insurance costs and in turn encourage them to take proactive corrective measures,” he said.

“An aspect of an EV’s battery cost will be a feature of the Vehicle Risk Ratings repairability assessment, but EVs are not fundamentally less repairable,” Mr Townsend continued.

“Repair challenges currently affecting the cost of insurance are not isolated to EVs. All collision-damaged vehicles are experiencing longer repair times, an issue driven by skills shortages and parts supply.”

VRR will eventually replace the current insurance groups system which assigns cars to more or less expensive premiums depending on how risky they are for insurers.

Group 1 is the cheapest, including cars such as the Fiat Panda and Nissan Micra, while Group 50 is the most expensive because it covers vehicles such as the Ferrari F430 and Ineos Grenadier, according to valuation site Parkers.

Insurance comparison site Confused.com said the average EV premium in May this year was £910, compared with £790 for a hybrid car and £670 for a petrol or diesel car.

Corporate fleet insurer QBE has previously said that settling claims brought over damage to EVs can be up to 25 per cent more expensive than for internal combustion engine (ICE) cars and vans.

“We expect insurance premiums in the short-term to continue to increase, reflecting the higher cost of repair – but the UK’s sophisticated insurance market can play a role to make substantial investments in understanding EVs, mitigating risks, and reducing costs in the longer-term,” said the firm’s director of motor underwriting, Jon Dye, at the start of the year.

The Association of British Insurers was contacted for comment.

The Telegraph

Me: Only rich people can afford an electric car, that's why they are rich, they can afford the associated costs which come with owning one - I'm good with that, although I don't own one and with them worth Zero second hand, because of battery replacement costs and the potential of driving an electric bomb which could explode at any time, what is the problem then?

By Brenda Baletti, PhD, as published by The Defender on 15 October 2024

A group of Argentine scientists identified 55 chemical elements - not listed on package inserts - in the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, CanSino, Sinopharm and Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccines, according to a study published last week in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research.

The chemical elements include 11 heavy metals - such as chromium, arsenic, nickel, aluminium, cobalt and copper - which scientists consider systemic toxicants known to be carcinogenic and to induce organ damage, even at low exposure levels.

The samples also contained 11 of the 15 lanthanides, or rare earth elements, that are heavier, silvery metals often used in manufacturing. These chemical elements, which include lanthanum, cerium and gadolinium, are lesser known to the general public than heavy metals but have also been shown to be highly toxic.

“The detection of multiple undeclared toxic elements, including heavy metals and lanthanides, in covid-19 vaccines raises a dual and multiplied concern for human health,” James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, a member of the journal’s editorial board who was not involved in the research, told The Defender. “Individually, these chemicals are known to cause neurological, cardiovascular and immunological damage.”

“Together, their synergistic toxicity could exacerbate these risks far beyond what regulators and manufacturers have disclosed or studied,” Lyons-Weiler added.

The research builds on a series of studies conducted since 2021 using different analytic techniques to analyse covid-19 vaccine vials from major manufacturers. Previous studies also identified significant numbers of chemical elements not listed on vaccine labels.

Research efforts included a 2022 study by a German working group, including the late pathologist Arne Burkhardt, submitted to the German government; a 2021 study by scientists in England; a 2022 study by Canadian Dr. Daniel Nagase; and a 2023 Romanian study by Dr. Geanina Hagimă.

[Related: Canadian Researchers Find Carbon Nanotech and Thulium in Moderna and Pfizer Covid Injections, The Exposé, 27 May 2022]

Across those global studies, by the end of 2023, researchers had identified 24 undeclared chemical elements in the covid-19 vaccine formulas.

Marcela Sangorrín, PhD, co-author of the Argentine study, told The Defender these different international studies are important because there is “a significant gap in the quality control of biological products by the national regulatory authorities of each country.”

“This situation is even more urgent and concerning when we consider the rapid advancements observed in cutting-edge biotechnological developments, the complexity of which requires a more thorough legislative and regulatory framework to ensure the safety of individuals who choose to use these therapies,” Sangorrín said.

CDC Makes Vaccine Excipient Information “Almost Impossible To Find”

For the Argentine study, researchers aimed to corroborate the previous findings of undeclared elements and to detect and measure any elements not identified in those studies.

They analysed 13 vials from different lots of six brands of the covid-19 vaccines at a laboratory at the National University of Córdoba. They used a highly sensitive analytic technique - inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry - which makes it possible to measure elements at trace levels in biological fluids.

The researchers analysed at least two vials of each vaccine, except for CanSino, a viral vector vaccine made in China, for which they analysed only one vial.

Their paper included a long list of covid-19 vaccine components declared by the manufacturers. The components vary by vaccine maker. The researchers obtained the lists through public information requests.

With the exception of Sputnik V and Sinopharm, manufacturers don’t declare the quantities of the named excipients in their vaccines, which the researchers flagged as a “very serious omission at the regulatory level.”

Vaccines often include excipients - additives used as preservatives, adjuvants, stabilisers or for other purposes. According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), substances used in the manufacture of a vaccine but not listed in the contents of the final product should be listed somewhere in the package insert.

Listing excipients is important, researchers argue because excipients can include allergens and other “hidden dangers” for vaccine recipients.

OpenVAERS reports that the CDC has made publicly available vaccine excipient information “almost impossible to find.” OpenVAERS offers a comprehensive list of vaccine of excipients by type and by vaccine.

However, the OpenVAERS website also notes that independent tests of vaccine vials have found “contaminants that go well beyond those publicly disclosed by the manufacturers,” as identified in this study.

The researchers found the results of their chemical analysis varied by vaccine and also by vial tested. In some cases, the vials were subjected to repeated testing on different dates and produced slightly different results.

In one lot of the AstraZeneca vaccine, researchers identified 15 chemical elements, of which 14 were undeclared. In the other lot, they detected 21 elements of which 20 were undeclared. In the CanSino vial, they identified 22 elements, of which 20 were undeclared.

The three Pfizer vials contained 19, 16 and 21-23 undeclared elements respectively. The Moderna vials contained 21 and between 16-29 undeclared elements. The Sinopharm vials contained between 17-23 undeclared elements and the Sputnik V contained between 19-25 undetected elements.

82% of Vaccines Tested Contained Undeclared Arsenic

Overall, researchers identified 55 different undeclared elements across the 17 samples analysed.

All of the heavy metals detected are linked to toxic effects on human health, the researchers wrote. Although the metals occurred in different frequencies, many were present across multiple samples.

“There are undeclared chemical elements in common, such as boron, calcium, titanium, aluminium, arsenic, nickel, chromium, copper, gallium, strontium, niobium, molybdenum, barium and hafnium in all of the brands” of covid-19 vaccines, the researchers wrote.

Others, such as chromium and arsenic, which increase the risk of serious cancers and skin diseases, were present as undeclared elements in 100% and 82% of the samples respectively. The researchers also found the lanthanide cerium, which can damage the liver and cause lung embolisms, in 76% of the samples.

These chemical elements are just a few examples of the 62 undeclared chemical elements identified by this study and previous studies combined, the researchers wrote.

They concluded that given the “diversity and notable presence in all brands, along with the peculiar characteristics of the elements found,” is unlikely the findings are due to contamination or accidental adulteration.

‘Utmost Urgency’ that Governments Investigate these Products

The researchers, who said the exploratory study was limited by the small sample size, called for a broader analysis of a larger number of samples. They suggested the broader analysis would confirm the trends they identified.

Sangorrín said this should be the work of government researchers.

“It is of utmost urgency that governments around the world conduct relevant investigations into these products, as is typically done in response to quality complaints identified through pharmacovigilance,” she said.

Those seeking justice, she added, must call on the World Health Organisation, the pharmaceutical companies and governments to take urgent action, “in accordance with the severity of the situation, given the rise in global mortality rates, recorded adverse effects and the clear demonstration that these products were not developed with the intention of providing immunity.”

The authors underscored the high rates of serious adverse events, including deaths, associated globally with the covid-19 vaccines. They suggested the adverse events and deaths, which are likely substantially undercounted, could be linked to the toxins they identified.

Lyons-Weiler also called for regulatory action to protect public health.

“Regulatory agencies must take immediate action to halt the use of these vaccines, thoroughly investigate how these toxins were missed, and ensure that the full spectrum of ingredients is transparently declared and the public duly and fully warned,” he said.

“The public’s health can no longer be gambled with in the face of such profound uncertainties.”

About the Author

Brenda Baletti, PhD,is a senior reporter for The Defender.

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.

Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice

NIHPA Author Manuscripts logo

EXS

. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Aug 26.

Published in final edited form as: EXS. 2012;101:133–164. doi: 10.1007/978-3-7643-8340-4_6

Heavy Metals Toxicity and the Environment

Paul B Tchounwou 1,*, Clement G Yedjou 1, Anita K Patlolla 1, Dwayne J Sutton 1

PMCID: PMC4144270 NIHMSID: NIHMS414261 PMID: 22945569

The publisher's version of this article is available at EXS

Abstract

Heavy metals are naturally occurring elements that have a high atomic weight and a density at least 5 times greater than that of water. Their multiple industrial, domestic, agricultural, medical and technological applications have led to their wide distribution in the environment; raising concerns over their potential effects on human health and the environment. Their toxicity depends on several factors including the dose, route of exposure, and chemical species, as well as the age, gender, genetics, and nutritional status of exposed individuals. Because of their high degree of toxicity, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury rank among the priority metals that are of public health significance. These metallic elements are considered systemic toxicants that are known to induce multiple organ damage, even at lower levels of exposure. They are also classified as human carcinogens (known or probable) according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. This review provides an analysis of their environmental occurrence, production and use, potential for human exposure, and molecular mechanisms of toxicity, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity.

Keywords: Heavy metals, production and use, human exposure, toxicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity

Introduction

Heavy metals are defined as metallic elements that have a relatively high density compared to water [1]. With the assumption that heaviness and toxicity are inter-related, heavy metals also include metalloids, such as arsenic, that are able to induce toxicity at low level of exposure [2]. In recent years, there has been an increasing ecological and global public health concern associated with environmental contamination by these metals. Also, human exposure has risen dramatically as a result of an exponential increase of their use in several industrial, agricultural, domestic and technological applications [3]. Reported sources of heavy metals in the environment include geogenic, industrial, agricultural, pharmaceutical, domestic effluents, and atmospheric sources [4]. Environmental pollution is very prominent in point source areas such as mining, foundries and smelters, and other metal-based industrial operations [1, 3, 4].

Although heavy metals are naturally occurring elements that are found throughout the earth’s crust, most environmental contamination and human exposure result from anthropogenic activities such as mining and smelting operations, industrial production and use, and domestic and agricultural use of metals and metal-containing compounds [4–7]. Environmental contamination can also occur through metal corrosion, atmospheric deposition, soil erosion of metal ions and leaching of heavy metals, sediment re-suspension and metal evaporation from water resources to soil and ground water [8]. Natural phenomena such as weathering and volcanic eruptions have also been reported to significantly contribute to heavy metal pollution [1, 3, 4, 7, 8]. Industrial sources include metal processing in refineries, coal burning in power plants, petroleum combustion, nuclear power stations and high tension lines, plastics, textiles, microelectronics, wood preservation and paper processing plants [9–11].

It has been reported that metals such as cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), selenium (Se) and zinc (Zn) are essential nutrients that are required for various biochemical and physiological functions [12]. Inadequate supply of these micro-nutrients results in a variety of deficiency diseases or syndromes [12].

Heavy metals are also considered as trace elements because of their presence in trace concentrations (ppb range to less than 10ppm) in various environmental matrices [13]. Their bioavailability is influenced by physical factors such as temperature, phase association, adsorption and sequestration. It is also affected by chemical factors that influence speciation at thermodynamic equilibrium, complexation kinetics, lipid solubility and octanol/water partition coefficients [14]. Biological factors such as species characteristics, trophic interactions, and biochemical/physiological adaptation, also play an important role [15].

The essential heavy metals exert biochemical and physiological functions in plants and animals. They are important constituents of several key enzymes and play important roles in various oxidation-reduction reactions [12]. Copper for example serves as an essential co-factor for several oxidative stress-related enzymes including catalase, superoxide dismutase, peroxidase, cytochrome c oxidases, ferroxidases, monoamine oxidase, and dopamine β-monooxygenase [16–18]. Hence, it is an essential nutrient that is incorporated into a number of metalloenzymes involved in hemoglobin formation, carbohydrate metabolism, catecholamine biosynthesis, and cross-linking of collagen, elastin, and hair keratin. The ability of copper to cycle between an oxidized state, Cu(II), and reduced state, Cu(I), is used by cuproenzymes involved in redox reactions [16–18]. However, it is this property of copper that also makes it potentially toxic because the transitions between Cu(II) and Cu(I) can result in the generation of superoxide and hydroxyl radicals [16–19]. Also, excessive exposure to copper has been linked to cellular damage leading to Wilson disease in humans [18, 19]. Similar to copper, several other essential elements are required for biologic functioning, however, an excess amount of such metals produces cellular and tissue damage leading to a variety of adverse effects and human diseases. For some including chromium and copper, there is a very narrow range of concentrations between beneficial and toxic effects [19, 20]. Other metals such as aluminium (Al), antinomy (Sb), arsenic (As), barium (Ba), beryllium (Be), bismuth (Bi), cadmium (Cd), gallium (Ga), germanium (Ge), gold (Au), indium (In), lead (Pb), lithium (Li), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), platinum (Pt), silver (Ag), strontium (Sr), tellurium (Te), thallium (Tl), tin (Sn), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V) and uranium (U) have no established biological functions and are considered as non-essential metals [20].

In biological systems, heavy metals have been reported to affect cellular organelles and components such as cell membrane, mitochondrial, lysosome, endoplasmic reticulum, nuclei, and some enzymes involved in metabolism, detoxification, and damage repair [21]. Metal ions have been found to interact with cell components such as DNA and nuclear proteins, causing DNA damage and conformational changes that may lead to cell cycle modulation, carcinogenesis or apoptosis [20–22]. Several studies from our laboratory have demonstrated that reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and oxidative stress play a key role in the toxicity and carcinogenicity of metals such as arsenic [23, 24, 25], cadmium [26], chromium [27, 28], lead [29, 30], and mercury [31, 32]. Because of their high degree of toxicity, these five elements rank among the priority metals that are of great public health significance. They are all systemic toxicants that are known to induce multiple organ damage, even at lower levels of exposure. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), these metals are also classified as either “known” or “probable” human carcinogens based on epidemiological and experimental studies showing an association between exposure and cancer incidence in humans and animals.

Heavy metal-induced toxicity and carcinogenicity involves many mechanistic aspects, some of which are not clearly elucidated or understood. However, each metal is known to have unique features and physic-chemical properties that confer to its specific toxicological mechanisms of action. This review provides an analysis of the environmental occurrence, production and use, potential for human exposure, and molecular mechanisms of toxicity, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury.

By Nick Hunt

For six months, the MHRA and other national regulators have been sitting on a Pfizer report about Covid vaccine safety. Worryingly, the abstract which I have just found online doesn’t look good at all:

the vaccinated cohort have at least 23-40% higher risk of some heart-related conditions; and

the risk is higher than in Pfizer’s previous report (i.e., it is increasing over time since vaccination).

The report in question is Pfizer’s report C4591021 ‘Interim Report 5’ dated March 12th 2024. It is a Post Authorisation Safety Study (PASS) of Pfizer’s Covid vaccine. In summary, national regulators routinely require pharmaceutical manufacturers to conduct PASS studies as a condition of authorisation of most new medicines. The regulators provide data to the manufacturer covering millions of patients registered in national healthcare systems. The manufacturer then conducts analysis to determine whether the medicine has increased the risk of specified health conditions.

I have previously written a couple of articles about Covid vaccine PASS studies. First, in October 2023, to raise awareness of the studies and the fact that most of them were not being published. Second, in January 2024, to report that I had obtained copies of PASS studies by Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca via a Freedom of Information request to the MHRA. In the second article I picked out three health conditions (arrhythmia, heart failure and acute coronary artery disease) from Pfizer’s ‘Interim Report 4’ where there was a higher incident rate in the vaccinated cohort.

Knowing that Pfizer had completed its ‘Interim Report 5’ in March 2024, in April I submitted FOI 24/075 to MHRA asking for a copy. MHRA applied a Section 22 Exemption: “information intended for future publication.” This seemed very odd given that it had sent me previous ones only three months before. However, helpfully, it stated that it “will be published in the fourth quarter of 2024”.

So in late August, I submitted another FOI (24/475) to check that this was still MHRA’s intention. Imagine my surprise when it backtracked: “We cannot confirm whether the Pfizer C4591021 Interim Study Report 5 prior to December 31st 2024 is still due to be published. We have contacted the company, who have informed us that the final report is due for submission at the end of 2024 and plans for publication will be decided at this point.” I read that as: “We’re worried about the results in Interim Report 5, so we’ve decided to wait for Pfizer’s Final Report before deciding if and when to publish either of them.”

Imagine my further surprise when I just found an abstract of Pfizer’s ‘Interim Report 5’ online. As I said at the start, it doesn’t look good. Here are the first six conditions mentioned in the abstract:

Now, a Hazard Ratio of 1.23 means that the condition is 23% more likely in the vaccinated cohort, and “CI” mean confidence interval, i.e., we can be 95% confident that the ‘true’ number lies between the following two numbers. So those data are extremely worrying. This is the manufacturer bearing out the numerous anecdotal reports of increasing heart issues since 2020 as well as various independent research reports.

Worse, those data are worse than the corresponding figures in Pfizer’s previous ‘Interim Report 4’. In other words, the risk appears to be increasing over time since Covid vaccination.

And by the way, none of the above can be attributed to Covid itself: the exposure to Covid will be broadly the same in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, which comprise millions of individual patients.

That said, there are potential confounders. The abstract suggests two:

that for any condition, the seriousness might vary within and between the cohorts; and

‘healthy vaccinee’ bias – the argument that vaccinated individuals are more likely to seek medical attention.

But that’s one reason why we need to see the whole Pfizer report – to see the whole dataset, results and argumentation which lead to Pfizer’s explanation about confounding.

Even more importantly, we need to see the whole report because the Hazard Ratio will vary by age: younger people are normally much less prone to heart-related conditions than older people. Imagine how surprised I will be if the Hazard Ratios in the full report for younger age groups are even worse than those in the abstract (which are averages across all age groups). Is MHRA sitting on information which actually confirms the many siren warnings that it was reckless for MHRA to authorise, and JCVI to recommend, Covid vaccination of younger people who were at extremely low risk from Covid when it was known at the time that the Covid vaccines didn’t stop transmission and there were no long term safety data?

In summary, if, as I suspect, MHRA is worried by the results in Pfizer’s ‘Interim Report 5’ then no wonder it is sitting on it.

One final thought. The Covid Inquiry Module 4 (Vaccine & Therapeutics) oral hearings are scheduled for January 14th-25th 2025. It would be a travesty if Pfizer’s ‘Interim Report 5’ and ‘Final Report’ were withheld from the inquiry. Perhaps one of the core participants or their legal representatives will request copies or question MHRA about the data at the oral hearings.

Until Nick retired a few years ago, he was a Senior Civil Servant in the Ministry of Defence responsible for the safety and effectiveness of ammunition used by the Armed Forces. He is co-author of the Perseus Group report on U.K. medicines regulator the MHRA.

Daily Sceptic

By Ronen Bergman and Aaron Boxerman

Updated October 18, 2024 — 1.54pm first published at 10.24am

It was a routine patrol for a unit of Israeli soldiers in the southern Gaza Strip. Then a firefight erupted and the Israelis, backed by drones, destroyed part of a building where several militants had taken cover, Israeli officials said.

When the dust cleared and they began searching the building, the soldiers found a body that bore a striking resemblance to someone they had not expected to find, a man their country had been hunting for since October 7, 2023: Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas.

For more than a year, as tens of thousands were killed in Gaza, Sinwar had eluded the full force of Israel’s military and security establishment, which had dedicated every means at its disposal to finding and killing him. Many believed he was hiding underground in Gaza and had surrounded himself with hostages taken from Israel.

In the end, the Israeli officials said, he was killed above ground on Wednesday, alongside two other militants, with no sign of hostages nearby. Israeli authorities said they had confirmed his death on Thursday, using dental records and fingerprints. His DNA was also tested for confirmation, according to one Israeli official and the White House.

Sinwar’s death was the most severe blow to Hamas’ leadership after more than a year of escalating violence in the Middle East, and it immediately plunged the war in Gaza into a new and uncertain phase. It came less than three weeks after Israeli forces killed the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, in an airstrike south of Beirut, the Lebanese capital.

While some hoped Sinwar’s death might signal an end to the Israeli invasion, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicated that the offensive would not stop just because the engineer of last year’s deadly surprise attack on southern Israel had been killed.

Yahya Sinwar, head of Hamas in Gaza, has been killed.

Yahya Sinwar, head of Hamas in Gaza, has been killed.Credit: AP

“Today, evil took a heavy blow – the mission ahead of us is still unfinished,” Netanyahu said in a statement. He said that Israel remained determined to free the hostages still in Gaza, calling it an “obligation”.

He told Gaza residents that whoever “sets aside their weapons and returns our hostages – we will allow them to leave and live”. But he warned that anyone who harmed Israeli hostages would pay with their lives.

Israeli leaders have long said they would not stop their offensive in Gaza until they had crushed Hamas as a military and political force and had freed the hostages seized on October 7. About 1200 people were killed in the attack and 250 were taken to Gaza as hostages. Of the 101 hostages remaining in Gaza, at least a third are believed to be dead.

Hamas’ assault reshaped the Middle East, setting off a devastating Israeli counterattack in Gaza that has killed more than 42,000 Palestinians, turned much of the territory into ruins, and left hundreds of thousands facing hunger and deprivation.

The October 7 attack also led to fighting between Israel and other groups that, like Hamas, are backed by the Iranian government, and between Israel and Iran itself. They include Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

Hezbollah started firing rocket barrages from Lebanon into Israel a day after the October 7 attack, prompting a year of cross-border fire. Last month, Israeli forces began a heavy bombing and ground campaign in Lebanon in an attempt to stop the attacks and dismantle Hezbollah. Israel has killed many of its top commanders, in addition to Nasrallah. Thousands in Lebanon have been killed in the continuing assault, and about 1 million displaced.

In Gaza, the soldiers who unexpectedly encountered Sinwar were part of a unit training to be squad commanders. After the firefight killed Sinwar and two other fighters, the Israelis found the area littered with explosives and approached the bodies cautiously. They found money and weapons, according to one Israeli official.

Photographs obtained by The New York Times, some of which later circulated online, show the body of a man with facial features strongly resembling Sinwar’s. The body had severe wounds, including to the head and leg.

News of the Hamas leader’s death was joyous to Israelis.

News of the Hamas leader’s death was joyous to Israelis.Credit: AP

Sinwar died after Israeli soldiers and intelligence agents had spent months trying to locate him, finding clues but never managing to trap him, an Israeli military spokesperson, Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, told reporters. Sinwar’s DNA had been found at one point in a tunnel a few hundred metres from where the bodies of six Israeli hostages were found six weeks ago, Hagari said.

The news that Sinwar had been killed led to celebrations in Israel, as people gathered on rooftops and streets to cheer and wave Israeli flags, and drivers honked their horns.

For some of the hostages’ families, it was a moment of both satisfaction and trepidation. Many worried that their relatives might now be in greater danger.

Einav Zangauker, whose son, Matan Zangauker, was kidnapped from Kibbutz Nir Oz, made a direct plea to Netanyahu in a video on social media: “Don’t bury the hostages.”

“You have your victory image,” she said. “Now bring a deal.”

Orna and Ronen Neutra, the parents of Omer Neutra, a hostage who grew up on Long Island, in New York, and later joined the Israeli military, urged that “all attention” should turn to securing the release of the captives.

As word of Sinwar’s death travelled through Gaza, many were stunned. At a makeshift cafe on the side of a road in Khan Younis, where Sinwar was born in 1962, people stopped to watch the news on television.

Another resident of the southern city, Rayan Raef Hamdan, 20, said she would wait until Hamas confirmed the news and was hoping it was false, like previous reports of his demise.

“Since the beginning of the war, we have heard many of these rumours,” she said, adding: “We hope that God will prolong his life and save him from death.”

Others welcomed Sinwar’s death, blaming him for the hunger, unemployment and homelessness the conflict had caused.

“He humiliated us, started the war, scattered us and made us displaced, without water, food or money,” said a 22-year-old named Mohammed, who has been repeatedly displaced and asked that his last name not be used for fear of reprisals from Hamas.

“He is the one who made Israel do this,” Mohammed said, calling Sinwar’s death “the best day of my life.”

Rezeq el-Sabti, a 44-year-old father who was sheltering with his family in a tent in central Gaza, said he hoped that Netanyahu would now declare victory.

“Netanyahu will say to his people that ‘We killed Sinwar, who waged war on us,’” el-Sabti said, “and this gives us hope that the war will end.”

Still others said little would change with Sinwar’s death. “Many preceded him,” said Rehab Ibrahim Odeh, 64. “And he is no better than those who have passed away before.”

US officials immediately seized on Sinwar’s death to try to renew stalled negotiations aimed at achieving a truce in Gaza that would free the hostages there and allow more aid into the enclave.

US President Joe Biden told reporters in Berlin that he had congratulated Netanyahu and would send the secretary of state, Antony Blinken, to Israel in the next four or five days. “Now is the time to move on,” Biden said, calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

“It’s time for this war to end and bring these hostages home,” he said.

Netanyahu’s office said in a statement that he had spoken to Biden and had “agreed that there is an opportunity to advance a deal to free the hostages and they will work together to achieve that goal”.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Me: Good Riddance to really Bad Rubbish.