Author Archive

Gene-Therapied Pork

**UPDATE**

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association lobbyist Shannon Cooper has caused significant confusion by telling House members he recently “double-vaccinated” his herd with “vaccinations that have this mRNA,” when the Association continues to state there are no approved mRNA “vaccines” for cattle in the U.S.  According to Cooper, the mRNA “vaccine” given was for bovine respiratory disease.  Source

Please see this Tweet update by attorney Thomas Renz that shows lobbyists have confirmed that they will be using mRNA vaccines in pigs and cows THIS MONTH.

I also recommend reading this article which points out that 100 million animals have already been injected with mRNA technology and this article which shows mRNA has been shown to be transmissible through the GI tract.  And it isn’t just for animals, it’s for plants as well.

How Long Have You Been Consuming Gene Therapied Pork?

http://  Approx. 7 Min

Merck Partnered With Moderna in 2019 to “Vaccinate” America’s Farms Using mRNA Technology

What implications does this have on the human immune system?

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

Source

  • For the last couple of years, I’ve recommended not eating pork due to its high linoleic acid (LA) content, but there’s an even bigger reason to avoid it now. Since 2018, pork producers have been using customizable mRNA-based “vaccines” on their herds
  • The very first RNA-based livestock vaccine, a swine influenza (H3N2) RNA shot licensed in 2012, was developed by Harrisvaccines. The company followed up with an avian influenza mRNA shot in 2015. Harrisvaccines was acquired by Merck Animal Health later that year
  • CureVac developed an mRNA-based rabies shot for pigs in 2016
  • The swine vaccine platform Sequivity, introduced in 2018, was developed by Merck in partnership with Moderna. Sequivity can produce endlessly customized “vaccines,” none of which undergo safety testing
  • Americans have been eating pork treated with gene therapy for nearly five years already, and even more of our meat supply is about to get the same treatment. mRNA-lipid nanoparticle shots for avian influenza are in the works, as are mRNA shots for cows. Lobbyists for the Cattlemen’s Association recently confirmed they intend to use mRNA “vaccines” in cattle, which might affect both dairy and beef
  • Missouri House bill 1169 would require labeling of products that can alter your genes. It would also require companies to share information about the potential transmissibility of gene-altering interventions, and asserts that fully informed consent must be given for all vaccines, gene therapies and medical interventions

For the last couple of years, I’ve recommended not eating pork due to its high linoleic acid (LA) content, but there’s an even bigger reason to avoid it now. Since 2018,1 pork producers have been using customizable mRNA-based “vaccines” on their herds, and this has slipped completely under the radar. I myself just found out about it. As described on Merck’s animal health website:2

“A revolutionary swine vaccine platform, SEQUIVITY harnesses RNA particle technology to create customized prescription vaccines against strains of influenza A virus in swine, porcine circovirus (PCV), rotavirus and beyond. It’s supported by a sophisticated dashboard filled with comprehensive data and insights …

Sequivity is a custom swine vaccine platform … Sequivity only targets swine pathogen gene sequences of interest. Doesn’t replicate or cause disease, delivering pathogen information to the immune system … There’s no need to transfer or handle live material like autogenous, killed or modified live vaccines …

Targets existing and evolving swine pathogens, including diseases not covered by conventional swine vaccines. Allows for the creation of multivalent formulations by blending RNA particles to target multiple swine pathogens in one shot.”

First RNA ‘Vaccine’ for Livestock Licensed in 2012

Merck was not alone in developing veterinary mRNA shots, however. They weren’t even first on the scene, although they later acquired the company that started it all.

The very first RNA-based livestock vaccine, a swine influenza (H3N2) RNA shot, was licensed over a decade ago in 2012, and was developed by Harrisvaccines.3,4 The company followed up with an avian influenza mRNA shot in 2015.5 Harrisvaccines was acquired by Merck Animal Health later that year.6,7

CureVac developed an mRNA-based rabies shot for pigs in 2016.8 (On a side note, they began conducting human rabies shot trials in 2020 in response to the World Health Organization’s goal to achieve “zero human rabies deaths by 2030.”9)

In 2016, Bayer also partnered with BioNTech to develop mRNA “vaccines” for both livestock and pets,10,11 but it doesn’t appear they ever launched anything. So, in retrospect, it appears Americans have been eating pork treated with gene therapy for the past five years, and even more of our meat supply is about to get contaminated with the same treatment.

In addition to the avian influenza RNA shot for chickens licensed in 2015, newer mRNA-lipid nanoparticle shots for avian influenza are also in the works.12 Iowa State University is also working on an mRNA shot for cows, and lobbyists for the Cattlemen’s Association recently confirmed they intend to use mRNA “vaccines” in cattle,13,14 which might affect both dairy and beef.

Merck and Moderna: Partners in mRNA Jab Race Since 2015

The same year Merck purchased Harrisvaccines (2015), it also entered into a partnership with Moderna to develop a number of undisclosed mRNA “vaccines.” It was slated to be a three-year collaboration, with a one-year optional extension, in which Merck would perform research and development and commercialization of five potential products using Moderna’s mRNA technology. As reported by Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News at the time:15

“Moderna has agreed to design and synthesize the mRNA product candidates directed against selected targets through its mRNA Therapeutics™ platform.

The platform builds on the discovery that modified mRNA can direct the body’s cellular machinery to produce nearly any protein of interest — ranging from native proteins to antibodies and other entirely novel protein constructs with therapeutic activity inside and outside of cells.”

Endless Customization, Zero Safety Testing

Sequivity, introduced in 2018, was one of the products that came out of that partnership. As explained by Merck (both on its website and in the video above), Sequivity is not so much a single vaccine as it is a platform that can be endlessly customized — all without additional safety analyses over and beyond the initial ridiculously inadequate testing. As noted by Zoetis, the largest producer of veterinary drugs and vaccines:16

“Sequivity has safety and efficacy studies based on the platform with a historical initial isolate, not likely the isolate that customers would be requesting in their product.”

Sequivity is customized as follows:17

  1. Pathogen is collected and sent to a diagnostic lab.
  2. The gene of interest is sequenced and sent electronically to Sequivity analysts.
  3. A synthetic version of the gene of interest is synthesized and inserted into the RNA production platform.
  4. The RNA particles released from incubated production cells are harvested and formulated into a customized “vaccine.”

Using this platform, a customized “vaccine” can be created in as little as eight weeks. Now, what could go wrong by not testing every new shot for safety?

In my view, there are any number of safety hazards, as every pathogen has distinct effects, and tricking the animal’s body to produce that pathogen (or a pathogenic portion of that pathogen, as done with SARS-CoV-2) can have wildly unexpected side effects.

We’ve clearly seen this with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in humans. Pfizer’s own documentation lists 158,000 recorded side effects, and many of these diseases and conditions have never before been reported in response to a vaccine.

I reviewed this evidence in “Newly Released Pfizer Documents Reveal COVID Jab Dangers” and “CDC Aware of Hundreds of Safety Signals for COVID Jab.” Yet despite the obvious risks, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has gone ahead and authorized updated COVID shots to be released on an annual basis without additional safety testing, and apparently safety testing of mRNA shots used in animals was foregone nearly five years ago!

The risk of dangerous side effects is one of the reasons why not all conventional vaccines work out. Some simply cause too many problems. Now we’re to believe that the possibility for dangerous side effects doesn’t exist just because we’re forcing the body to produce the antigen internally? If anything, the possibility for problems is higher than ever, as exposure to the antigen is continuous for a long period of time, possibly for the life of the animal.

Even Organic Pork Producers Can Use mRNA Shots

Unfortunately, due to search engines now only providing a short list of curated and heavily censored content, it’s been impossible to determine how many pork producers in the U.S. use Sequivity.

Without that data, I recommend erring on the safe side and avoiding pork altogether, including organic pork, as organic standards do not have any rules on the use of vaccines, mRNA-based or otherwise.18

Seeing how the Sequivity platform has been around for nearly five years already, it seems reasonable to assume nearly all large-scale swine producers have made this transition.

What Do the Cells in mRNA-Treated Meat Contain?

The question now is, how do mRNA shots affect the meat? For now, this is speculative, as we do not know whether veterinary mRNA shots are substituting uridine with pseudouridine, as was done in the COVID shots. But if they do, then one of the obvious concerns would be that the mRNA might end up in the final meat product that you eat because this substitution makes it extremely difficult to destroy. As explained by Dr. Peter McCullough:19

“Natural RNA is made of two purines adenine and guanine and two pyrimidines cytosine and uracil.

The replacement of uracil with its ribose ring (uridine) with N-1-methyl-pseudouridine, a synthetic product makes the genetic code for the Wuhan Spike protein better stabilized on lipid nanoparticles, long-lasting, and very efficient in terms of evading cellular destruction and able to undergo repeat reading by ribosomes for continued protein synthesis.

Morais et al20 indicate that both Pfizer and Moderna chose development strategies replacing all uridine units with pseudouridine, making the entire strand completely ‘unnatural’ to the human body. Thus vaccine consultants, companies, and patients unfortunately gambled on how long mRNA would be active within the human body.

Fertig et al21 found lipid nanoparticles with mRNA were measurable in plasma for — 15 days. Recently, Castruita et al22 demonstrated mRNA in blood out to 28 days. Röltgen et al23 have found mRNA in lymph nodes 60 days after injection.

None of these studies demonstrated complete clearance of mRNA from a group of patients.

This is worrisome since injections are recommended in some populations just a few months apart implying there will be stacking of long-lasting mRNA in the body without adequate opportunity for clearance and elimination.

We will look back for many years and ask: how could so many people readily accept injections of heavily modified synthetic genetic code giving the body instructions to manufacture a disease promoting and lethal protein engineered in a biosecurity lab in Wuhan, China?

Repeated administrations of mRNA studded with apparently indestructible pseudouridine may have changed the course of lives forever.”

If mRNA shots can cause significant disease in humans, how has it affected our pork supply for the last five years? And how will it affect beef and chicken in the future? Can consuming genetically manipulated meat affect your health? These are questions that currently do not have answers and must be thoroughly and comprehensively investigated.

Big Ag Didn’t Tell Us What They Were Doing

One of the most frustrating aspects of this is that the industry didn’t tell us they were using novel gene therapy to spin up customized “vaccines” in weeks without any safety testing. The only reason many of us became aware of this issue in recent weeks was because attorney Tom Renz started warning about it.

In an April 2, 2023, Substack article, he wrote:24

“I have been talking about gene therapy vaccines being introduced into the food supply without providing people informed consent on my Twitter account … as well as pushing Missouri HB1169 which is our best bet of stopping this happening.

This is a nightmare scenario whereby people’s genetics are potentially altered with ‘factory foods’ without them even knowing. Let me begin by putting to rest any questions as to whether this can happen. The idea of vaccines in food has been around for a long time …

Here is an article published in the NIH25 (you know — by our government) talking about foods ‘under application’ to be genetically modified to become edible vaccines — FROM 2013 … The fact that food can be altered to act as a vaccine is not disputable.

Which foods and in what ways is more of a question. It is claimed that beef, pork, etc. cannot transfer vaccination from the meat to the consumer of the meat. At initial glance that would make sense (cow DNA and people DNA is quite different and an mRNA designed for cows would probably not be able to transfer directly to people), but that is NOT the whole story.

You have to remember that the additives in the mRNA vaccines are by no means ‘proven safe’ and we don’t even actually know what all is in these shots … Ultimately the mRNA jabs still have not undergone long-term testing because long-term testing can take 10-20 years and they have not existed that long so any claims about the safety or efficacy of the stuff that’s in them are garbage at best.

What we do know about the mRNA vaccines is that they do not stop the spread of disease26 … and really do not help in any way with anything. We also do know that these jabs were demonstrated, in vitro, to alter the genetic makeup of some cells and I would say it is incredibly likely that they do the outside the Petri dish.

Given that we are now talking about a new level of genetic engineering with unknown effects and no long-term studies, do the potential genetic changes the mRNA injections facilitate pose a long-term risk to humans that ingest the altered food? Before you say no, wouldn’t you prefer it be tested rather than being the subject of the experiment?”

Support Missouri House Bill 1169

As noted by Renz, Missouri House Bill 116927 would require labeling of products that can alter your genes. It also asserts that fully informed consent must be given for all vaccines, gene therapies and medical interventions, and would require companies to share information about the potential transmissibility of gene-altering interventions.

The pushback by industry against this bill has been enormous, which should tell you something. It doesn’t ban anything; it only requires transparency. That, apparently, is a serious threat to industry, and the most obvious reason for that is because they’d have to admit that all sorts of foods can have gene altering effects.

Not only might this destroy Big Ag, but it would also decimate any surreptitious attempts by Big Pharma to use the food supply as a tool to distribute vaccines unbeknownst to consumers. As noted by Renz, “Big pharma DOES NOT WANT people to know they are going to use food to alter their genetics.” Farmers are also being set up as the fall guys, and they need to be made aware of this.

“The lobbyists opposing this bill … are pushing to shut this bill down because factory mega-farmers like Bill Gates,28 the CCP, and others want to put vaccines in your food,” Renz continues.29 “These guys are supporting the big money but this will come at the expense of the family farmers.

The problem is that the major factory-farmers like Gates have legal teams that can set up defense shields against the torts that may come if the food supply starts poisoning people … 

Meanwhile, the small farmers will be at risk of being sued if it turns out that the food they are selling is unsafe despite the fact that most of them will not necessarily know what is happening.

If the corn growers, soybean, cattle, and pork associations actually cared about the farmers they would be demanding the seed companies and vaccine manufacturers indemnify the small farmers for these products rather than opposing a bill that would force them to tell the farmers what they are doing.

The corruption regarding this bill is amazing. Ultimately the labeling requirement would likely serve to protect farmers from being sued because the makers of seed and vaccines would have to make sure the farmers knew if they were putting potential gene therapies into their products. The opposition from the ag lobby is not to help the farmers, it is to help their own pockets.”

As noted by Renz, if this bill is passed in Missouri, it could help protect the food supply of the entire United States. In the meantime, I recommend avoiding all pork products, including organic ones, as they not only have high levels of the omega-6 fat, linoleic acid, because of the grains they are fed, but virtually all have been contaminated with the mRNA vaccines for the past five years.

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Best Supplements For Arthritis

https://www.paintreatmentdirectory.com/posts/the-best-supplements-for-arthritis

The Best Supplements for Arthritis

The Best Supplements for Arthritis

By: Cindy Perlin, LCSW

3/26/23

There is no one treatment that will address all the complex factors that affect the onset and progression of osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Certain supplements can be very helpful for reducing arthritis pain and improving function . Some of the most powerful are turmeric, fish oil, ginger, SAM-e, chondroitin sulfate, glucosamine and CBD.These supplements have anti-inflammatory and/or joint rebuilding effects.

The best results will be obtained by combining supplements with an anti-inflammatory diet, exercise and stress management. There are also therapies that can be very effective, for the treatment of arthritis, including acupuncture, massage, physical therapy, low level laser therapy and pulsed electromagnetic therapy (PEMF).

Anti-inflammatory drugs can have serious, even fatal, side effects, including causing potentially fatal GI bleeding and increasing the risk of heart attacks and strokes and reducing immune response. Using safer, natural supplements to reduce inflammation and pain is a better strategy.

Although OA was once considered primarily a degenerative and non-inflammatory condition, it is now recognized as having inflammatory aspects, including elevated cytokine levels, as well as potentially being connected with systemic inflammation.

Turmeric 

Turmeric (active ingredient curcumin) reduces pain, inflammation and stiffness related to rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis (OA).  This herb is traditionally used in Chinese and Indian Ayurvedic medicine to treat arthritis. It also blocks inflammatory cytokines and enzymes, including cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), the target of the anti-inflammatory prescription drug celecoxib (Celebrex).

In a small 2012 pilot study, curcumin reduced joint pain and swelling in patients with active RA better than diclofenac (Voltaren), a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). Unlike NSAIDs, curcumin was not found to be associated with any adverse events.[3]

A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis provided scientific evidence that 8–12 weeks of standardized turmeric extracts (typically 1000 mg/day of curcumin) treatment can reduce arthritis symptoms (mainly pain and inflammation-related symptoms) and result in similar improvements of the symptoms as ibuprofen and diclofenac sodium without the gastrointestinal and cardiac risks of NSAIDs

A 2018 study lasting 12 weeks found that both turmeric and turmeric combined with boswellic acid improved function and reduced joint pain, though the combination worked better to improve performance than curcumin alone.

So turmeric could be part of the answer to the question, “What is the best supplement for arthritis?”

Arthritis Foundation recommended dosage: Capsules, extract (more likely to be free of contaminants) or spice. For OA: Capsule, typically 400 mg to 600 mg, three times per day; or 0.5 g to 1 g of powdered root up to 3 g per day. For RA: 500 mg twice daily. Curcumin is a key chemical in turmeric

Shop for Products with Turmeric 

Fish Oil (Omega-3 fatty acids)

Fish oil reduces inflammation and morning stiffness in rheumatoid arthritis and preliminary studies indicate it may have a similar effect on osteoarthritis. Fish oil is an excellent source of omega-3 fatty acids (including EPA and DHA), which block inflammatory cytokines and prostaglandins. The body converts them into powerful anti-inflammatory chemicals called resolvins. Resolvins are molecules that promote resolution of cellular inflammation, allowing inflamed tissues to return to a healthier state.EPA and DHA have been extensively studied for RA as well as many other inflammatory conditions.

A 2010 meta-analysis found that fish oil significantly decreased joint tenderness and stiffness in RA patients and reduced or eliminated NSAID use.

A 2005 study of people with RA showed enhanced positive effects when fish oil supplements were used in combination with olive oil.

A 2018 review of the evidence of the benefits of fish oil for RA found that consumption of Omega 3 fatty acids significantly improved eight disease-activity-related markers.

Fish oil is also important for brain, eye and heart health. It also helps with anxiety and depression. It is safe, with no significant adverse effects. So it just may be another answer to “What is the best supplement for arthritis?”

Arthritis Foundation recommended dosage: Fish, capsules, softgels, chewable tablets or liquid. For general health, two 3-ounce servings of fish a week are recommended. However, it’s difficult to get a therapeutic dose of fish oil from food alone. To treat arthritis-related conditions, use fish oil capsules with at least 30 percent EPA/ DHA, the active ingredients. For RA and OA, up to 2.6 g, twice a day

Ginger

Ginger decreases joint pain and reduces inflammation both in people with osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) Ginger has been shown to have anti-inflammatory properties similar to ibuprofen and COX-2 inhibitors such as celecoxib (Celebrex). Ginger also suppresses inflammatory molecule called leukotrienes and switches off certain inflammatory genes, potentially making it more effective than conventional pain relievers. Side effects are limited to mild gastrointestinal upset in some patients.

A 2010 study of 247 patients with knee OA found that ginger reduced knee pain when standing and walking and improved quality of life.

In a 2012 in vitro study, a ginger extract called Eurovita Extract 77 reduced inflammatory reactions in RA synovial cells as effectively as steroids.

For OA, In one trial of more than 200 patients, Eurovita Extract 77 improved OA pain after standing and walking.

A 2015 study found that using ginger extract nanoparticals in a cream 3x a day for 12 weeks improved knee joint pain, daily activities, sports activities and quality of life. There were no adverse effects.

A 2017 study of twice a week self-knee massage with ginger oil in patients with OA found patients had reduced pain and improved function after one and five weeks.

A 2019 study found that ginger can alter gene expression in people with RA to improve disease manifestation.

Arthritis Foundation recommended dosage: Powder, extract, tincture, capsules and oils, up to 2 g in three divided doses per day or up to 4 cups of tea daily. In studies, 255 mg of Eurovita Extract 77 (equivalent to 3,000 mg dried ginger) twice daily.

SAM-e

S-adenosyl-methionine (SAM-e) is a compound found naturally in the body that has anti-inflammatory, cartilage-protecting and pain-relieving effects. In studies, supplementing with SAM-e was as effective at relieving OA pain as NSAIDs like ibuprofen and celecoxib, without their side effects. A systematic review published in 2011 of complementary and alternative medicines in the management of osteoarthritis found consistent evidence that SAM-e was effective in the management of osteoarthritis. No adverse effects were found in any of the studies.

SAM-e also has a mild to moderate antidepressant effect, and is frequently used as a natural alternative to anti-depressant medication..

The typical SAM-e dose is 1,200 mg daily. It will take a few weeks to see the effects..

Glucosamine

Glucosamine is a major component of joint cartilage and levels drop as people age. It also helps keep the cartilage in joints healthy and may have an anti-inflammatory effect. Glucosamine produced in the body provides natural building blocks for growth, repair and maintenance of cartilage and may lubricate joints, helping cartilage retain water and prevent its breakdown.  It is often combined with chondroitin (see below).

Supplements are derived from the shells of shellfish (such as shrimp, lobster and crab) or from animal bones or fungi.

The largest study to date, the 2006 Glucosamine/chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial (GAIT) looked at 1,600 people with knee OA. The first phase found that patients with moderate-to-severe arthritis experienced significant pain relief from combined glucosamine and chondroitin. The 2008 phase found that glucosamine and chondroitin, together or alone, did not slow joint damage. In the two-year-long 2010 phase, glucosamine and chondroitin were found as effective for knee OA as celecoxib (Celebrex).

Other research has suggested that glucosamine does slow joint damage. A 2008 retrospective study of nearly 275 patients found those using glucosamine for at least 12 months underwent half as many joint replacement surgeries as those on placebo.

In a small 2012 study, an improvement in symptoms after 12 weeks was seen with combined glucosamine and NSAIDs, and a smaller but still significant improvement with glucosamine alone. Study authors speculate that long-term treatment with glucosamine may reduce dependence on NSAIDs and delay disease progression.

Glucosamine may cause mild gastrointestinal symptoms, as well as increased blood glucose, cholesterol, triglyceride and blood pressure. This supplement can increase eye pressure in people with glaucoma.

A 2018 review and metanalysis published in JAMAof all of the therapeutic agents used for knee arthritis long term, including analgesics, antioxidants, bone-acting agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intra-articular injection medications such as hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids, symptomatic slow-acting drugs in osteoarthritis and putative disease modifying agents,  found that only glucosamine sulfate was associated with pain improvement. This also may be another answer to “What is the best supplement for arthritis?”

Arthritis Foundation recommended dosage: Capsules, tablets, liquid or powder (to be mixed into a drink); 1,500 mg once daily or in three divided doses to prevent stomach upset. Often combined with chondroitin. May take up to one month to notice effect.

Chondroitin Sulfate

Chondroitin is a component of human connective tissues found in cartilage and bone. In supplements, chondroitin sulfate usually comes from animal cartilage. Reduces pain and inflammation, improves joint function and slows progression of osteoarthritis (OA). Chondroiton is believed to enhance the shock-absorbing properties of collagen and block enzymes that break down cartilage. Helps cartilage retain water and may reverse cartilage loss when used with glucosamine.

The largest study to date, the 2006 Glucosamine/chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial (GAIT) looked at 1,600 people with knee OA. (See above under glucosamine for results.)

A separate 2011 study showed a significant improvement in pain and function in patients with hand OA using chondroitin alone.

A 2013 review of the evidence on use of chondroitin for OA concluded that chondroitin has a beneficial effect on different kinds of cells involved in osteoarthritis and that it is an effective and safe treatment option for patients with OA.

Chondroitin and glucosamine supplements appear to be safe and constitute another good answer to the question, “What is the best supplement for arthritis?”

Chondroitin taken with blood-thinning medication like NSAIDs may increase the risk of bleeding. If you are allergic to sulfonamides, start with a low dose of chondroitin sulfate and watch for any side effects. Other side effects include diarrhea, constipation and abdominal pain.

Arthritis Foundation Recommended Dosage: Capsules, tablets and powder; 800 mg to 1,200 mg daily in two to four divided doses. Often combined with glucosamine. Allow up to one month to notice effect.

Shop Anti-Inflammatory Products

CBD (Cannabidiol)

Research has shown that CBD interacts with the body’s endocannabinoid system, which plays a role in regulating pain and inflammation. CBD may also help reduce the production of inflammatory cytokines, which are molecules that contribute to inflammation in the body.

Though research to date has been somewhat limited, both animal and human studies have shown positive effects.

In a 2019 study published in the journal European Journal of Pain, researchers found that CBD gel applied to the skin significantly reduced joint swelling and pain in rats with arthritis. The study suggested that topical CBD may be a safe and effective treatment for arthritis-related pain and inflammation in humans.

In a 2020 study published in the journal Pain Medicine, researchers found that CBD treatment improved pain and sleep in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The study suggested that CBD may be a promising therapeutic option for management of pain and other symptoms in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

A 2020 study published in the journal Cell Death and Disease concluded that “CBD possesses anti-arthritic activity and might ameliorate arthritis via targeting synocial fibroblasts under inflammatory conditions.”

A 2022 study published in the Journal of Cannabis Research found that CBD se was associated with improvements in pain, physical function,and sleep quality. The majority of respondentsreported a reduction or cessation of use of other medications after CBD use.

Shop for CBD Products

Other Beneficial Supplements for Arthritis

Other supplements that have evidence of effectiveness for arthritis include: Borage oil, Boswellia, Bromelain, Cat’s Claw, Devil’s claw, DMSO, Ginkgo, GLA, MSM, Pycnogenol, St. John’s Wort and Stinging Nettle.

Find Providers Who Treat Arthritis with Nutrition

Conclusion

There are many supplements that can reduce arthritis pain and functional limitations. All of them are less risky than using pharmaceuticals for pain relief. The supplements not only reduce pain, they appear to have a beneficial overall biological effect on the disease process.

________________

For more:

My last experiment for treating residual Lyme/MSIDS arthritis pain has been an elimination diet to determine what is causing the inflammation/pain.  This is quite a process but certainly an entirely new education on food and the body.  Again, what works for one doesn’t work for another but in my case food is a huge player.

So far I’ve discovered I can not tolerate gluten or nightshades.  I’ve already limited sugar, grains, and alcohol.  Still trying to figure out if there is any dairy I can partake of as well as nuts/seeds and other grains or beans.

One thing is for sure: if you suffer with enough pain you can give up almost anything!

Category:

Herbs, Inflammation, Pain Management, Supplements, Treatment

Tick Bites Begin to Spike in April, May: Here’s How to Keep Yourself, Your Pets Safe

https://myfox8.com/news/north-carolina/piedmont-triad/tick-bites-begin-to-spike-in-april-may-heres-how-to-keep-yourself-your-pets-safe/

Tick bites begin to spike in April, May: Here’s how to keep yourself, your pets safe

by: , 

Posted: 

(WGHP) — Warmer weather means there will be plenty of fun things to do outside but also tiny dangers to look out for.

Ticks can be found throughout North Carolina and carry serious diseases such as Lyme disease and Rocky Mountain spotted fever.

Now that April is here, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warn that bites will begin to spike and hit a peak in May.

But don’t worry. There are a variety of things you can do to keep yourself and your pets safe from these pesky bloodsuckers, starting with knowing what types of ticks live in North Carolina.

The four types of ticks to be aware of in North Carolina are:  (See link for article)

________________

SUMMARY:

  • Black legged tick, aka the deer tick (Lyme disease)
  • The lone star tick (STARI, ehrlichiosis, Alpha-gal allergy)
  • The American dog tick (Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever)
  • The brown dog tick

Check out your own state’s resources for local ticks and the diseases they carry, but one word of caution: just because something hasn’t been reported, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or can happen. A tick, is a tick, is a tick and ALL are suspect as they bite and exchange bodily fluids with whomever and whatever they bite.  Ticks are constantly moving and being found in places they shouldn’t be, carrying things they shouldn’t have.

If you are in Wisconsin, go to:  https://wisconsin-ticks.russell.wisc.edu/

The website points out the following and I’ve added more:

  • Black legged tick (Lyme disease, Anaplasmosis) – for some reason they forgot Powassan or Deer tick virus, Borreia miyamotoi, Bartonella, Babesia, Mycoplasma, Tularemia, Ehrlichia muris eauclairenis, hemocytic rickettsia-like organisms, tick paralysis from fully engorged female
  • lone star tick or seed tick (Ehlichia chaffeensis, Ehrlichia ewingii, Alpha-gal allergy – they have found Lyme in it but no reported cases.  They also suspect rickettsia) for some reason they forgot STARI, tularemia, Anaplasma, Rickettsia amblyommatis, tick paralysis)
  • American dog tick or wood tick (RMSF, tularemia – they have found Lyme in it but no reported cases) for some reason they forgot Anaplasma and tick paralysis.
  • brown dog tick (RMSF) can also transmit Ehrlichia canis, Babesia canis vogeli, Babesia gibsoni-like to dogs which makes them suspect for humans as well.  Source

Source:  Ticks, associated tick-borne pathogens copy

For more:

Category:

Activism, Prevention, Ticks, Transmission

Tell Your Federal and State Legislators to Introduce/Support Utility Meter Choice

Similarly to how ‘the powers that be’ continue to blame ‘climate change’ for every ill under the sun, they continue to roll out technology that affects human and animal health without independent safety testing.  You never hear anything in mainstream media or from public health agencies about the very real dangers of cell phones, 5G, wind turbines, electric cars, or Smart meters,  buildings and cities – but they ALL cause deleterious health effects, and nobody has a clue what the cumulative effect of this toxic cocktail has on biology.  Their proposed “green” solutions are a scam and never deal with the real problems, because of severe conflicts of interest.

Further, do your own research into these technologies and you will discover they aren’t “green” at all and are not only unsustainable, but dangerous to the environment

The following article is yet another example of an attack not only on individual freedom and choice, but on the health of the public.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/community-forum/support-utility-meter-choice

Tell Your Federal and State Legislators to Introduce/Support Utility Meter Choice!

Smart and digital utility meters are actively being deployed and mandated across the U.S. without adequately informing consumers of the health, safety and privacy risks.
Tell you elected officials to support utility meter choice

Smart and digital utility meters are actively being deployed and mandated across the U.S. without adequately informing consumers of the health, safety and privacy risks. In some cases, this is happening without notification or consent.

Unlike electromechanical analog meters that have been safely used for decades, smart meters and (some) digital meters emit toxic levels of pulsed radiofrequency (RF) radiation, are a fire hazard and enable companies to sell near real-time private usage data to third parties.

To mandate these utility meters is unacceptable – where there is risk, there must be choice!

Take Action and Demand Legislation to Protect Your Health, Safety and Privacy

Use the form below to ask your federal and state representatives to introduce and/or support legislation with the following protections:

  • Utility Meter Choice. In states where smart and digital meters have been deployed, allow consumers to opt out.
  • Consumer Consent. In states where smart and digital meters have not yet been deployed, require utility companies to obtain consumer consent before installations (i.e., require an opt in).
  • Protective Privacy Laws. Require utility companies to be transparent about how utility meter data is collected, managed, stored, used and sold.

Please consider making a donation to support the work of CHD by April 30 during our $2 million match.

_______________

**Comment**

Please know that many Lyme/MSIDS patients can not tolerate WiFi, smart meters, 5G, and other technologies.  These things immediately worsen their condition or makes them sick.  I’ve talked with many first-hand.

For more:

Category:

Activism

Remember Ebola? It Likely Leaked From a Lab Too

UPDATE: April, 2023

Go here for an interview with Professor Francis A. Boyle, a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia – Herzegovina at the World Court. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University.

He appears to be about the only one telling the truth on biowarfare as mainstream media has been bought-out long ago and has reneged on their purpose of seriously inquiring into inconvenient matters without bias.

Turns Out, Ebola Likely Leaked From a Lab as Well

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

March 28, 2023

Source

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • In December 2013, Zaire Ebola hemorrhagic fever broke out in Guinea and over the next three years spread across West Africa, ultimately killing 11,323 people. It was the largest and deadliest Ebola outbreak in history
  • According to a paper published at the end of December 2014, the Ebola epidemic was traced back to a 2-year-old boy in Meliandou, Guinea. Supposedly, the boy had come in contact with an infected fruit bat in a hollowed-out tree. However, no Ebolavirus was ever detected in any of the bat samples collected from the area
  • The senior author on that 2014 paper was Fabian Leendertz, a renowned virus hunter with the Robert Koch Institute in Germany. Leendertz was also a member of the World Health Organization team that investigated the origin of COVID-19, concluding without evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was of zoonotic origin
  • In late October 2022, Sam Husseini and Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., published a new analysis, in which they highlighted the holes in the zoonotic origin narrative and laid out the evidence pointing to a lab leak
  • Curiously, many of the same individuals, companies and organizations involved in the Ebola epidemic have also been linked to the alleged creation of SARS-CoV-2

In December 2013, Zaire Ebola hemorrhagic fever broke out in Guinea and over the next three years spread across West Africa, ultimately killing 11,323 people.1 While Ebola epidemics occur on a near-annual basis, this was the largest and deadliest in history.2

Of the five Ebola viruses known to cause disease in humans, Zaire Ebolavirus, first identified in Zaire in 1976, is the most dangerous, with a fatality rate ranging between 53% and 88%,3 depending on the variant.

The virus leads to severe immunosuppression, but most deaths are attributed to dehydration caused by gastric problems. Early signs of infection include nonspecific flu-like symptoms and sudden onset of fever, diarrhea, headache, muscle pain, vomiting and abdominal pains. Other less common symptoms include sore throat, rashes and internal/external bleeding.

As the infection sets in, shock, cerebral edema (fluid on the brain), coagulation disorders and secondary bacterial infections may occur. Hemorrhaging tends to begin four to five days after onset of the initial symptoms, which includes bleeding in the throat, gums, lips and vagina. Vomiting blood, excreting tar-like feces indicative of gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver- and/or multi-organ failure can also occur.

The Virus Hunter That Assigned Zoonotic Origin

According to a paper4 published at the end of December 2014, the Ebola epidemic was traced back to a 2-year-old boy in Meliandou, Guinea, named Emile Ouamouno. Supposedly, the boy had come in contact with an infected fruit bat in a hollowed-out tree.

This, even though no Ebolavirus RNA was ever detected in any of the bat samples collected from the area. Interestingly enough, the senior author on that paper was Fabian Leendertz, a renowned virus hunter with the Robert Koch Institute in Germany.

Leendertz was also a member of the World Health Organization team that investigated the origin of COVID-19.5 As you may recall, they also concluded, without evidence, that SARS-CoV-2 was most likely of zoonotic origin and dismissed the lab leak theory as not worthy of further consideration.

Lab Leak Suspected From the Start

However, just as with SARS-CoV-2, suspicions and rumors that the Ebola outbreak was the result of a lab leak were present from the start. Some scientists even suspected the virus might be a weaponized form of Ebola. As noted in a 2014 paper in the Journal of Molecular Biochemistry:6

“Another subject that may cause a plethora of arguments is that this virus may be a laboratory generated virus … There is a conjecture that the virus is transmitted to people from wild animals. However, by reason of the high mortality among them, it is impossible that these animals are the reservoir host of EVD.”

In late October 2022, Sam Husseini and Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., published a new analysis7,8,9 in Independent Science News, in which they laid out the evidence pointing to a lab leak. They also dissect Leendertz December 2014 report, highlighting the holes in the zoonotic origin narrative. In fact, there’s evidence to suggest the outbreak in in Meliandou wasn’t Ebola at all. Husseini and Latham write:10

“Chernoh Bah, an independent journalist from Sierra Leone, wrote a book on the 2014 Ebola outbreak and visited Meliandou. Bah found that: ‘Local health workers still think malaria may have been the actual cause of his [Emile’s] death.’

While in Meliandou, Chernoh Bah also interviewed Emile’s father. According to Bah, the Leendertz team (who never claimed to have interviewed the father) made a crucial error: ‘The child was actually 18 months old when he died’ … The age question, it should be noted, is crucial to the entire outbreak narrative. As Emile’s father told Reuters:

‘Emile was too young to eat bats, and he was too small to be playing in the bush all on his own. He was always with his mother.’ Bah also identified another apparent error: that Emile had four siblings who never became sick. These siblings are not mentioned anywhere in the scientific literature …

Further, although some bats appear to carry antibodies against Ebola viruses, only intact Bombali Ebola (a different virus species in the Ebola genus) has ever been isolated from a bat, despite intensive searches … Bombali is a species of Ebola that does not infect humans.

Taken together, this suggests that bats rarely carry Ebola viruses and when they do it is in small quantities. This context makes it somewhat surprising that Saéz et al. ascribed the 2014 outbreak (without supporting evidence) to contact with bats.

Indeed, Fabian Leendertz now doubts that bats are true reservoirs of Ebola viruses.11 Given the general want of evidence, one wonders by what exact process such poorly supported claims were transmuted into international headlines.”

Was Ebola Experimented On Before the Outbreak?

As detailed by Husseini and Latham,12 “persistent rumors in the region linked the outbreak to a US-run research laboratory in Kenema, Sierra Leone.13 This facility studies viral hemorrhagic diseases, of which Ebola is one.”

The Kenema lab, which has been run by the U.S.-based Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium (VHFC) since 2010, is located about 50 miles from the village in Guinea where the Ebola outbreak first emerged.14

The founder and president of the VHFC is Robert (Bob) Garry, who was also part of the group of virologists who in the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic concocted “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” paper15 in which they dismissed the lab leak theory and insisted zoonotic origin was the most plausible, despite the lack of evidence.16

As recently as November 2022, Garry still insisted SARS-CoV-2 “emerged via the wildlife trade.”17 In that same article, Garry drew parallels to the 2014 Ebola outbreak, claiming that conspiracy pundits were wrong about Ebola being leaked from the Kenema lab, because “we did not have EBOV [ebolavirus] in our laboratory and therefore could not have released or engineered it.”

According to Garry, the Ebola and SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks are both victims of “guilt-by-proximity.” However, in a March 11, 2023, interview on the Decoding the Gurus podcast, Kristian Andersen, vice president of the VHFC’s Kenema lab18 and another “Proximal Origin” author, clearly refuted Garry’s claim:19

“The problem is that people see these coincidences. One of the new ones is the Ebola lab leak, which also is being blamed on us, because we had been studying Ebola in Kenema in Sierra Leone, and lo and behold Ebola emerged just a few miles from there in 2014,” Andersen said.

So, what do we make of this? Garry claims the Kenema lab didn’t have any Ebola virus and Andersen says they did. Both are top executives at the lab and ought to know what was studied and what wasn’t. So, who’s telling the truth?

Was Kenema Lab Involved in Biowarfare Work?

According to Husseini and Latham,20 there’s good reason to believe the Kenema lab was working with Ebola before the outbreak in Guinea, some 50 miles from the lab. For starters, the Guinea outbreak was the first time Zaire Ebola emerged in West Africa. All previous outbreaks of this most-lethal strain of Ebola occurred in the Congo basin, in the central African equatorial zone, some 3,000 kilometers (approximately 1,864 miles) from Guinea.

“Hence Zaire Ebola’s appearance in West Africa was a striking and very unexpected development,” they write. How did it get there? Ebola is not highly contagious as transmission typically requires direct contact.

There were no outbreaks between the Congo basin and Guinea, which you’d expect if it was spreading naturally from person to person. Equally mysterious is the fact that genome sequencing and phylogenetic analysis showed only a single jump from animal to human. Husseini and Latham explain:21

“Zoonotic outbreaks, including most past Ebola outbreaks, typically feature multiple jumps to humans from an animal source. Single jumps, however, are consistent with lab origins and are often considered a red flag for that possibility.

The reason is that researchers often work with a single isolate, perhaps one that they have found is particularly easy to replicate in the laboratory, whereas natural populations are typically diverse. This difference provides a genetic signal for distinguishing natural origins from laboratory ones.”

Zaire Ebola is also the preferred species used by research labs studying Ebola-type viruses, as it’s the most lethal and therefore has the greatest biowarfare potential. Husseini and Latham continue:

“Noting the gap between the weakness of the Leendertz account of the outbreak origin … and the forcefulness with which the Emile narrative was asserted by western scientists and western media, [journalist Chernoh Bah] wrote:

‘it is difficult not to interpret the ‘zoonotic origin of the West African Ebola epidemic’ narrative advanced by Fabian Leendertz and his team as part of a cover-up or obfuscation of the actual chain of events that laid the foundation for the West African Ebola outbreak’ …

In 2011, three years before the West African Ebola outbreak, Reuters profiled the research in Kenema at length.22 Readers were told that a ‘laboratory in southeastern Sierra Leone is an outpost of the U.S. government’s ‘war on terror,’ funded by a surge in bio-defense spending … [By] the fiscal year 2007 the NIH was requesting more than $1.9 billion.’ Reuters concluded that the Kenema labs’ share of that allocation was $40 million.

On August 25, 2013, just months before the Ebola outbreak, the VHFC posted on its website an article titled: ‘Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute make major advances in the fight against Ebola virus.’ This article was later removed but its existence is verifiable using the WayBackMachine.

Nevertheless, the title alone raises some key questions: Why did the VHFC post about Ebola if it wasn’t working on it at the time? In particular, what Ebola variant was being studied? What was the nature of the experiments? Why remove the post? …

We do know that Ebola was important to the VHFC and its partners and a primary interest for at least some of its members.

Indeed, all the leading US-based researchers of the VHFC, Robert Garry, Kristian Andersen, Erica Ollmann Saphire and Pardis Sabeti have published multiple original research papers on Ebola virus.23,24,25,26,27,28 An Ebola focus also accords with US biosecurity research priorities under whose auspices the Kenema lab is largely funded …

In 2013 Robert Garry co-authored a paper29 on a novel treatment for Zaire Ebola. All eleven other authors were from USAMRIID, aka Fort Detrick. This site is the largest ‘biodefense’ facility in the world and Garry’s company, Zalgen, is located close-by.”

More Biowarfare Connections and Ebola Trials

Husseini and Latham point out that in 2014, when the Ebola outbreak occurred, Metabiota was a VHFC partner. As detailed in “Evidence of Pandemic and Bioweapon Cover-Ups,” Metabiota was hired by the WHO and the local government of Sierra Leone to monitor the spread of the Ebola epidemic, but clearly were not up to the task. A 2016 CBS News report detailed Metabiota’s bungled response.30

2014 was also the year when Metabiota was entrusted with the operations of U.S. biological research labs in Ukraine, with funding from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and:31,32

  • Pilot Growth Management, cofounded by Neil Callahan. Callahan is also a cofounder of Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners, and he sits on Metabiota’s board of advisers
  • In-Q-Tel, a CIA venture capital firm that specializes in high-tech investments that support or benefit the intelligence capacity of U.S. intelligence agencies
  • Rosemont Seneca,33 an investment fund co-managed by Hunter Biden34

Metabiota’s founder, Nathan Wolfe, is also tied to EcoHealth president Peter Daszak, Ph.D., a prime suspect in the COVID pandemic who worked closely with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China, where SARS-CoV-2 is suspected of having originated. Wolfe has also received more than $20 million in research grants from Google, the NIH and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, just to name a few.

Aside from the Kenema lab’s obvious biowarfare connections, and the possibility of Ebola being experimented on there, several Ebola treatment trials were also taking place in Port Loko, Sierra Leone, about 190 km (118 miles) from Kenema, right around the same time that Ebola broke out in Guinea.

“From the limited descriptions available, one of these trials fits the timing required for it to have triggered the 2014 Ebola outbreak but none of them fits the location,” Latham and Husseini write.35

“However, the data is incomplete; for his book, Constantine Nana corresponded with the lead investigator in the Port Loko Phase II trial, Dr. Peter Horby of the University of Oxford. Horby told Nana ‘he had no information as regards the results of the Phase I trial.’ To lead a Phase II trial and know nothing about that product’s Phase I trial is indeed mysterious and rather strange.”

Biosafety Is Lax at Kenema Lab

Latham and Husseini also review the lackadaisical approach to biosafety at the Kenema lab, despite working with extremely dangerous pathogens:36

“In the U.S., using live filoviruses requires biosafety level four (BSL-4) facilities, where researchers wear positive pressure ‘space suits.’ But in Kenema … according to Reuters, biosafety ‘measures include goggles, gloves and masks.’ The article quoted VHFC member Matt Boisen, a U.S. scientist from Tulane, now with Zalgen: ‘Certainly we have less safety, less containment, but we do have the ability to do a lot more in the same amount of time’ …

Others have corroborated this laxity. In the 2014 outbreak, the earliest emergency responder was the medical non-profit Doctors Without Borders (MSF) who were called in for their extensive Ebola experience. MSF’s emergency response coordinator was Anja Wolz. She was highly critical of the biosafety measures used by Metabiota at Kenema.

Having seen how they visited suspected Ebola cases, she told AP: ‘I didn’t go inside the Metabiota lab … I refused because I had already seen enough.’ A CDC official, Austin Demby, later sent to investigate, reached similar conclusions.

In an email about the Kenema lab he wrote: ‘The cross contamination potential is huge and quite frankly unacceptable.’ Thus, there seems to have been a pattern at Kenema of lax biosafety procedures both before and during the outbreak.”

Another oddity that doesn’t fit the nature of a natural outbreak was the fact that hotspots were broadly spread out. There was no epicenter. Moreover, according to WHO Ebola coordinator Philippe Barboza, Metabiota staffers were “systematically obstructing any attempt to improve the existing surveillance system.” MSF also complained they got no cooperation from Kenema.

“Given the intentionality imputed by many of these witnesses to the failings in Sierra Leone, were they deliberate? If so, were they intended to divert attention away from the Kenema lab?” Latham and Husseini ask.

Genomic Testing

Latham and Husseini then delve into the genomic testing results, which suggest there was a “hidden” or unreported outbreak in Sierra Leone, which only later spread into Guinea. That doesn’t prove it came out of a lab in Sierra Leone, however. But unique features in the Makona strain of Ebola that caused the Guinea outbreak suggest the virus may have undergone some form of manipulation. Latham and Husseini explain:

“The Makona strain of Ebola is not a standard or known strain, nor is it similar to any published strain. It is novel, having approximately 400 mutations that are not found in any previously known Ebola strain. Hence, for the 2014 Ebola outbreak to have begun in a lab, the Makona strain must either represent the escape of an unpublished strain, perhaps one collected during fieldwork in central Africa.

Alternatively, Makona could be a radically manipulated derivative of a known strain–either through genetic engineering or passaging. A combination of these two possibilities should also be considered.

Of these two alternatives, we know that Ebola and other viruses were being sought from wild animals in the Congo basin at the time as part of USAID’s PREDICT project. The chief actors in this were the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Metabiota, which, at the time, was at the time a partner of the VHFC …

[One] possibility is that Metabiota, or other collectors, used the VHFC lab at Kenema as part of a cold chain for the preservation of samples brought from the Congo basin …

The Kenema lab may also have been used for initial screening or testing of such samples. A third possibility is the formal or informal sharing of samples or strains with VHFC contacts or colleagues at Kenema, perhaps to help in the development of commercial treatments or diagnostic tools …

Given these potentialities it is remarkable to discover that, in July 2014, during the epidemic, the VHFC wrote a brief report in which they accused Metabiota of an activity that would be riskier still.

The VHFC accused Metabiota staff at Kenema of culturing cells from Ebola patients, which they insisted was dangerous and should ‘be stopped immediately.’

Metabiota issued a qualified denial, but the allegation is highly credible since the two organisations shared the same site; moreover its implications are very great. It suggests, first, that Metabiota had an interest in culturing novel strains of Ebola, second, that they had the technical capability and the personnel competent to do so at Kenema, and third, that they were willing to take exceptional risks …

The allegation therefore raises, in a very concrete way, the question of what Metabiota might have been doing in Kenema prior to the outbreak … given the research interests and the capacities of the VHFC lab in Kenema and its collaborators, it is a relatively simple matter to theorise how a novel strain of Ebola, like Makona, might have reached Kenema and then spilled over there during routine research activities.

Interesting too is the dual role of Metabiota. Besides collecting samples from the wild, Metabiota was also the company that, at least according to MSF and the WHO, obstructed or mishandled testing and diagnosis at Kenema and that Sylvia Blyden alleged ‘messed up the whole region.’

If a research error on the part of Metabiota was the source of the strain (and Metabiota’s incompetence has been widely alleged37), or even suspected to be, they would have had a strong incentive to also ‘bungle’ the identification of early cases and so obfuscate the origin.”

Pathogenic Research Must Be Reined In

While the case for the worst Ebola outbreak in history being the result of a lab leak is still based on circumstantial evidence, that evidence is compelling, and made even more so by the absence of evidence for a zoonotic origin. The same can be said for SARS-CoV-2.

Additionally, of all the scientists, companies and organizations involved in this kind of research across the world, how is it that the same short list of names pop up both in the Guinea Ebola case and COVID-19?

The take-home message here is that there is no possible way to guarantee containment of viruses in any of these laboratories, not even biosafety level 4 labs. And a pathogen doesn’t have to be developed as a bioweapon in order to act like one.

If gain-of-function research on lethal viruses is allowed to continue, the whole world will remain at risk, and I don’t think its hyperbolic to say gain of function research poses an existential threat to mankind. So far, we’ve been lucky in that escaped pathogens (suspected or confirmed) have not decimated the global population, but our luck may someday run out.

– Sources and References
For more:

Yet, ‘the powers that be’ continue to blame a supposed ‘climate emergency‘ on spreading ticks and disease.

Category:

Activism, Viruses