According to this, ticks have the potential of acting as a reservoir and/or vector of leprosy. Mycobacterium drugs have also been found to help chronically infected Lyme/MSIDS patients. Nobody is talking about this connection, but the following connections have been discussed:
Researchers in both India and the U.K. have found links between leprosy adverse events and COVID shots in people previously diagnosed with leprosy.
Zoonotic transmission from armadillos (but nobody’s been around them that’s infected)
International human migration (which doesn’t explain why Texas hasn’t been hit with leprosy)
According to the CDC, leprosy is very rare in the U.S., with fewer than 200 cases reported per year and most contracting it in a foreign country.
Dr. Robert W. Malone said he believes the sudden reporting on leprosy is “fearporn,” but added, “There is no question that being immunosuppressed is a key factor to contracting leprosy.”
He added:
“Therefore, as mRNA inoculations cause immunosuppression, it has been hypothesized that in some individuals this could pose a higher risk of contracting the disease after vaccination.”
Historically uncommon in the U.S., Leprosy, or Hansen disease is a chronic infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae. Florida accounts for 81% of leprosy cases and 159 new cases were reported in 2020.
The CDC is clueless as to transmission but states that prolonged person-to-person contact through respiratory droplets is the most likely culprit, but this has never been proven.
The strains found are the same strains found in 9-banded armadillos in the region so they hypothesize zoonotic transmission. (Is this sounding familiar yet?) The fly in that ointment is that these patients have had ZERO exposure to this animal. Other research suggests international human migration.
Romanov states it is an interesting coincidence that the cases are being found either in Southern states or the sanctuary state of New York where illegal migrants have been flowing over the boarders.
While no research on this has been done on the topic of migration and leprosy in the U.S., researchers in other countries have done this work and found a direct link between migration of people from countries that have leprosy and a surge in leprosy cases. Spanish researchers found that their spike in leprosy was not related to African migrants but from South American migrants (Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, and other South and Central America nationalities).
South American immigrants in North America increased from 27.6 M in 1990 to 58.7 M in 2020 so even the CDC admits the potential link to migration and leprosy cases in nonendemic areas, yet people continue to flow over the border. According to this report, there are nefarious reasons for this.
Both Texas and California are allowing immigrants to be peace officers even though they know nothing about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Texas’ Gov Abbot built a facility to house 200,000 illegals who are bringing infectious & antibiotic resistant diseases such as drug resistant TB. Tens of thousands of cattle in Texas are now being slaughtered due to these migrants transmitting this TB to the cattle, which further reduces meat in the food supply.
They have also built state of the art “schools” to be used as indoctrination camps to potentially weaponize these migrants against U.S. citizens by dangling carrots
TrakkaSystems advanced camera technology is being used to capture imaging so journalists and freedom workers on the ground can show the public what is happening at the border and that the problem is much worse than what we are being told.
Elon Musk’s Starlink system is used for communications.
SpaceX located nearby is allowing illegals to cross that property while others cannot enter.
So what other changes have been occurring in Florida? Don’t forget the massive release of GMO mosquitoes, i.e. Frankinbugs, which are effective dirty needles spreading disease which are now being seriously considered to “vaccinate” people. This technology goes back to 2010 when Japanese researchers genetically modified mosquitoes to produce SP15 against leishmaniasis (parasitic disease spread by sand flies).
Yes folks, it’s getting more frightening by the day.
The idea that pathogens will jump species and kill humans is a useful scare tactic, and it’s now being pushed like never before under One Health — a global agenda that will allow unelected bureaucrats at the World Health Organization to centralize power and make decisions relating to diet, agriculture and livestock farming, environmental pollution, movement of populations, health care and much more, for the entire world
A report from Harvard Law School and New York University predicts the next pandemic is likely to emerge from the U.S. meat supply — or the fur trade, or a petting zoo, or from pets. It reviews all the different areas of life and commerce that involve animal and human contact and the subsequent hypothetical zoonotic transmission chains. One Health documents are repeatedly referenced in this report
Incontrovertible evidence has emerged showing that the scientists who wrote “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” intentionally misled the public. In “Proximal Origin,” the authors insisted natural evolution was the most likely scenario, but in private, they thought a lab leak was the most likely origin
Correspondence shows the conspiracy to misdirect the public was driven by obedience to higher-ups within the U.S. and UK governments, including, potentially, the intelligence community
Based on the evidence now in the public domain showing that the authors of “Proximal Origin” did not believe their published conclusions, Biosafety Now! has launched a petition calling on Nature Medicine to retract the paper
The same people who went out of their way to convince us that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through natural evolution in the wild were privately saying they were convinced it came from a lab.
Now, were SARS-CoV-2 to be publicly acknowledged to be a genetically engineered lab-escape, the obvious conclusion would be that we need to shut down much of the gain-of-function research that led to its creation. Needless to say, that would be a significant setback for the biosecurity agenda, which needs pandemics to justify the centralization of power and decision-making.
Zoonotic Transmission Is Not the Threat It’s Made Out To Be
The fact of the matter is, zoonotic transmission is extremely rare, and most if not all global pandemics with lethal outcomes can be traced back to lab experiments. As just one example, USA Today1 recently reiterated the debunked claim that the 2013 Ebola outbreak in West Africa was caused by infected bush meat. (Another widely circulated hypothesis is that it emerged from infected bats.)
However, as detailed in “Turns Out, Ebola Likely Leaked From a Lab as Well,” there’s compelling evidence linking that outbreak to a U.S.-run research laboratory in Kenema, Sierra Leone. And, 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.
The idea that pathogens will jump species and kill humans is a useful scare tactic, however, and it’s now being pushed like never before under One Health — a global agenda that will allow unelected bureaucrats at the World Health Organization to centralize power and make decisions relating to diet, agriculture and livestock farming, environmental pollution, movement of populations, health care and much more, for the entire world.
Report Predicts Next Pandemic May Come From Meat
To that end, a report2 from the Brooks McCormick Jr. Animal Law & Policy Program at Harvard Law School and the Center for Environmental & Animal Protection at New York University now predicts that the next pandemic is likely to emerge from the U.S. meat supply — or the fur trade, or a petting zoo, or from pets.
It basically reviews all the different areas of life and commerce that involve animal and human contact, however brief or rare, and the subsequent hypothetical zoonotic transmission chains. Not surprisingly, One Health documents are repeatedly referenced in this report.
Overall, the One Health agenda calls for minimizing or eliminating certain animal-human contact, sterilizing areas where animals are kept or butchered, and/or increasing the use of antibiotics and vaccines in animals across the board. It also calls for massively increased biosurveillance and testing.
In contrast, the report in question primarily focuses on legislative and regulatory actions to curtail zoonotic disease, including the potential banning of certain animal practices that “present great risk but relatively little value, economic or otherwise.”
Will the warnings in this report be used to justify the transition to fake meat? It certainly wouldn’t surprise me. The fake meat industry wants you to believe that their cell-based lab-concoctions are the answer to today’s environmental woes, and that includes the threat of zoonotic disease transmission, as lab-grown meat is grown in highly hygienic and sterile (supposedly) conditions.3
Basically, the One Health narrative is that the natural environment poses countless risks to human health and must therefore be controlled. Meanwhile, it’s mankind’s efforts to control and replace nature in the first place that is causing most of the problems.
The ‘Proximal Origin’ Scandal
While the One Health narrative is that pandemics are caused by animals, there’s little doubt that the next pandemic will come from a lab, just like most previous pandemics, including COVID-19. Over the past several months, more and more evidence has emerged showing that the scientists who wrote “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”4 intentionally misled the public.
“Proximal Origin,” which became the most-cited paper (a Letter to the Editor mischaracterized everywhere as a serious scientific review), claimed SARS-CoV-2 emerged through natural evolution and spread via a wet market in Wuhan, China, and that there was no evidence to suggest genetic engineering or a lab origin.
Private communications, however, reveal they suspected the virus had leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and had been genetically engineered to infect humans.
Mounting evidence also suggests this act of misdirection (to put it diplomatically) was done at the behest of Dr. Anthony Fauci (then-director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID), Dr. Francis Collins (then-director of the National Institutes of Health, NIH) and Sir. Jeremy Farrar (then-head of the Wellcome Trust).
As noted in a July 20, 2023, Public Substack article by independent journalists Alex Gutentag, Leighton Woodhouse and Michael Shellenberger:5
“The documents … show [Kristian] Andersen and his co-authors, Andrew Rambaut, Edward C. Holmes, and Robert F. Garry, conspiring — by which we mean they made secret plans to engage in deceptive and unethical behavior and — to spread disinformation.
Their conspiracy included coordinating with their ‘higher-ups’ in the U.S. and UK governments to deceive journalists … We … today … release the full cache of Slack messages and emails covering the discussions between Andersen et al. as they wrote their influential ‘Proximal Origin’ paper, which Anthony Fauci and others in the U.S. government used to dismiss the lab leak hypothesis.”
While Fauci’s role in the creation of this paper has garnered the most attention, a more central culprit in this coverup may actually be Farrar — and he’s now the chief scientist for the WHO, a fact that hardly inspires confidence in the WHO’s future adherence to scientific truth and fact. The email exchange below between Andersen and Farrar (with other authors cc’d) suggests Farrar was a key decision-maker.
Proof of a Conspiracy
A 140-page PDF containing the “Proximal Origin” author’s Slack messages and a 163-page PDF of emails can be downloaded from the Public article,6 in which Gutentag, Woodhouse and Shellenberger go on to highlight some of the takeaways from this correspondence.
For starters, in “Proximal Origin,” the authors insisted natural evolution was the most likely scenario, but in private, they thought a lab leak was the most likely origin.
In “Proximal Origin” they claimed “the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus” and that “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.” Behind the scenes, however, Andersen wrote:
“I think the main thing still in my mind is that the lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.”
Andersen also stated that “The main issue is that accidental escape is in fact highly likely — it’s not some fringe theory.” Farrar and the other authors expressed similar views:7
February 2, 2020, Dr. Robert Garry wrote, “I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario … I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature … Of course, in the lab it would be easy …”
February 2, 2020, Dr. Michael Farzan wrote he was “bothered by the furin site” and had “a hard time explain[ing] that as an event outside the lab … I am 70:30 or 60:40 [lab].”
February 2, 2020, Dr. Andrew Rambaut wrote, “From a (natural) evolutionary point of view the only thing here that strikes me as unusual is the furin cleavage site.”
February 4, 2020, Dr. Edward Holmes indicated that he was “60-40 lab,” and Farrar wrote, “I am 50-50 [lab].”
Holmes also commented: “No way selection could occur in the market. Too low a density of mammals: just small groups of 3-4 in cases,” and Garry wrote:8
“Transmitting a bat virus-like RatG13 in HeLa cells and then asking your graduate student to insert a furin site … would get you there. It’s not crackpot to suggest this could have happened given the Gain of Function research we know is happening …
I’m thinking mostly about the PRRA to generate the furin site. Relatively easy to drop 12 bases in. The proline is the hang-up — why add that? Makes me think the cell culture passage scenario is possible/probably assuming this has in fact been observed before by Farzan and Fouchier.”
The following graphic, created by @RAEMKA1 and reposted by KanekoaTheGreat on Twitter summarizes the scientific consensus among the “Proximal Origin” authors:
Truth Took Backseat to Self-Preservation
Indeed, Andersen called Fauci February 1, 2020, specifically because he was concerned that the virus showed signs of being engineered. Immediately after that phone call, Fauci contacted Farrar and raised the possibility of taking the concern to the FBI in the U.S. and MI5 in the UK.
Instead, Farrar organized a conference call that led to the creation of “Proximal Origin.”9 From the emails, we know that the genetic engineering aspect of SARS-CoV-2 was discussed. However, concerns about harm to science apparently weighed heavier. After the call, Ron Fouchier wrote:10
“An accusation that nCoV-2019 might have been engineered and released into the environment by humans (accidental or intentional) would need to be supported by strong data, beyond reasonable doubt.
It is good that this possibility was discussed in detail with a team of experts. However, further debate about such accusations would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular.”
In a February 9, 2020, email, Christian Drosten also confirmed that the group had been “convened to challenge a certain theory,” and if possible, “drop” or eliminate that theory (i.e., the lab leak theory) from the public and scientific conversation. As recently as the day before, February 8, Andersen had made a case for keeping the possibility of a lab leak open, stating:11
“Our main work over the last couple of weeks has been focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory, but we are at a crossroad where the scientific evidence isn’t conclusive enough to say that we have high confidence in any of the three main theories considered.”
Authors Never Believed in the Pangolin Theory
In “Proximal Origin,” the authors went on to blame pangolins as an intermediate host between bats and humans, but in private, they remained unconvinced. The conclusion in “Proximal Origin” reads:12
“The presence in pangolins of an RBD [receptor binding domain] very similar to that of SARS-CoV-2 means that we can infer this was also probably in the virus that jumped to humans.”
However, shortly before the “Proximal Origin” pre-print was published, Andersen wrote: “For all I know, people could have infected the pangolin, not the other way,” and the day after the pre-print, he commented: “Clearly none of these pangolin sequences was the source though.”
Authors Thought Lab Leak Was Likely Months After Publication
The authors also clearly thought a lab leak was possible months after publishing the “Proximal Origin” paper. In mid-April 2020, a month after the paper was officially published and two months after the preprint was posted, Andersen wrote to his coauthors:
“I’m still not fully convinced that no culture was involved … are we absolutely certain that no culture could have been involved? What concerns me here are some of the comments by Shi in the SciAm article (‘I had to check the lab’ etc) and the fact that the furin site is being messed with in vitro …
Finally, the paper that was shared with us showing a very similar phenomenon (exactly 12 bp insertion) in other CoV’s has me concerned … We also can’t fully rule out engineering (for basic research).”
In fact, the authors — like so many other independent scientists, researchers and journalists — suspected Shi Zhengli’s work at the WIV could have produced SARS-CoV-2. As reported by Public:13
“Andersen discussed some of her papers in early February and noted his concerns about gain-of-function experiments on MERS and SARS viruses. In mid-April he noted that Shi’s work was ‘the main reason I have been so concerned about the ‘culture’ scenario.’
Cell culturing is a method through which viruses can be passed multiple times through cells in order to render them more infectious and is exactly the kind of ‘laboratory-based scenario’ the authors ruled out in their paper.”
Conspiracy Driven by Obedience to Higher-Ups
Finally, the correspondence shows that the conspiracy to misdirect, if not outright deceive, the public was driven by obedience to higher-ups within the U.S. and UK governments, including Farrar, Fauci and Collins, but also, potentially, other unnamed individuals within various government agencies and/or the intelligence community.
While Andersen has publicly denied that Fauci had any involvement in the publication, in an email to the journal Nature, Andersen specified that the paper had been “prompted” by Fauci, Collins and Farrar.14 If you want to take a deeper dive into how the “Proximal Origin” paper was created, check out U.S. Right to Know’s timeline.15
Scientists Call for Retraction of ‘Proximal Origin’
Based on all the evidence now in the public domain showing that the authors of “Proximal Origin” did not believe their published conclusions, Biosafety Now! has launched a petition16 calling on Nature Medicine to retract the paper. As noted by Biosafety Now!:
“Email messages and direct messages via the messaging program Slack among authors of the paper obtained under FOIA or by the U.S. Congress and publicly released in full in July 2023 … show, incontrovertibly, that the authors did not believe the conclusions of the paper at the time the paper was written, at the time the paper was submitted for publication, and at the time the paper was published.
They thus show that the paper was, and is, the product of scientific fraud and scientific misconduct. It is imperative that this clearly fraudulent and clearly damaging paper be removed from the scientific literature.”
A senior ABC journalist has been caught making an “astonishing admission” about the public broadcaster’s failure to investigate the origins of COVID-19, Sky News host Sharri Markson reports.
This is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, not the U.S.-based ABC but it is still a telling artifact for how biased the media was about the pandemic.
While the reporters awaited a speech from U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, they discussed a fellow reporter named Sharri Marksen. They acknowledged that the media has called her crazy throughout the pandemic but she is turning out to be right.
ABC reporter Stephen Dziedzic essentially admits that they got Covid wrong because of internal bias.
This is embarrassing for them, sure, but it is also the clarity that explains a lot. It shows why the media has been uncritical of Covid vaccine reactions, mask mandates, the origins of Covid, and more. This admission should be public and not “caught.” We are owed this from the media.
ABC foreign affairs reporter Stephen Dziedzic admits he probably didn’t look at the lab leak theory “dispassionately enough”.
In what is the fifth scientific report by Dr. Lennart Hardell, a previously healthy 49 year old develops severe heart problems within the week of a 5G antenna being installed across the street from his apartment building forcing him to flee. After leaving, his symptoms immediately lessened but would return each time he returned to collect his belongings. A 2021 scientific review showed that pulsed RF radiation is twice as bioactive as continuous radiation.
Thousands of international doctors, scientists, health practitioners, NGOs, and concerned citizens have signed a document calling for an immediate moratorium on 5G, wireless smart metering and any other new RF emissions due to the negative impact on health and the environmental as well as for reasons of ethics and human rights.
A July 2021 report, “Health impact of 5G,” requested by the European Parliament concluded that the commonly used frequencies of 450 to 6,000 MHz are probably carcinogenic for humans (in particular gliomas and acoustic neuromas) and clearly affect male and female fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns.
Existing cellphones and other wireless devices still use 3 and 4G which means mini cell towers are emitting 3, 4 and 5G. There is strong evidence that excessive exposure to 3G and 4G increases risk of cancer and reproductive abnormalities and triggers the syndrome of electro-hypersensitivity.” Walking down the street exposes you to excessively dangerous levels of RF.
Public Benefit or Big Profits for Big Telecom? Here’s What’s Really Driving the 5G Rollout.
Proponents of 5G say the technology will address the “digital divide” by increasing online services to the underserved — but critics say 5G is a marketing move the telecommunications industry is using to put their equipment up everywhere and strip away regulatory oversight.
Editor’s note: This is the second in a three-part series examining key questions in the public debate on the safety of wireless radiation. Part I addressed the question, How did the FDA arrive at its position on cellphones and cancer? Part 2 asks, What’s behind the rollout of 5G?
Important excerpts:
Telecom companies promote 5G, the “next generation wireless network technology,” as being faster and able to handle more connected devices than the 4G LTE network. And they assure consumers the result will be increased access for underserved communities that lack reliable internet connectivity.
But critics — including Theodora Scarato, executive director of the nonprofit research and education group Environmental Health Trust — said the 5G rollout is more about corporate greed than it is about helping people access fast and reliable internet.
Scarato told The Defender that 5G is a marketing term used to promote promises about “bridging the digital divide” when what’s really being marketed is the deregulation of the wireless industry.
“I see it as a corporate land grab. That’s what it is,” she said.
The wireless industry creates and uses the hype around 5G to install their equipment faster and more cheaply, Scarato said. They do this by convincing public officials that communities need this technology and that the established public review processes are too slow and must be streamlined, to allow companies to deliver the technology rapidly and with little oversight.
5G rollout ‘outrageous’ for ignoring harms
The infrastructure being installed as part of the 5G rollout not only carries 5G frequencies but may also include 2G, 3G and 4G, Scarato noted. “So when you get a 5G small cell in front of your house, it might be called that — but until you actually look at the technical specs, it could be a variety [of frequencies],” she said.
Small cells are individual wireless transmitters distributed roughly every 100-450 meters that can be mounted on utility poles or other structures, such as a fence. Before 5G, most wireless networks were built using a system of macro transmitters in the form of cellular towers. The 5G network uses both cellular towers and small cells.
Rosenberg said deregulation not only carries the general inherent risk of decreased oversight, but it also opens the door for other risks, too.
“There are serious human health concerns with 5G, safety concerns regarding animals and the environment, and privacy and cybersecurity risks, among others,” Rosenberg said. “As is the case with many industries, we are wise to not accept at face value that expansion of 5G networks and access to these networks is good for us.”
Dr. David Carpenter, environmental health sciences professor at the University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY), said it is “outrageous” that the U.S. government is allowing the rollout of 5G without any research to document that it is not harmful.
‘We need the public to understand and to demand change.’
Is graphene safe? Has it really been found in Covid-19 injectables? Could this be why some people were magnetic on the area of their injection site? Let’s take a look at the evidence.
Graphene oxide, or reduced graphene oxide (GO/rGO) has been the topic of much research, much use and many controversies since it was invented less than two decades ago.
Most people had not, a few years ago, heard of any of the things that are now common parlance, like PEG, lipid nanoparticles and even less of GO. Yet now, men and women in their millions, some would say billions, go to sleep at night with the dark, electric angel of graphene cradling their dreams. How so you may ask, if this is yet new to you?
The most powerful controversies are happening right now in the midst of this paradigm-changing prolonged health crisis that some are calling the ever-giving gift: the pandemic. If we are to believe the evidence from the European Union’s €1 billion Graphene Flagship project, running now since 2013, and the industry go-to website graphene-info.com, GO is in absolutely everything! It is in anything from batteries to sanitary pads, from sensing ink for biomedical applications to nasal vaccines, from water filters to DNA sequencing, from tennis rackets to car parts and electronics. It can self-assemble in response to changes in temperature, and also with changes in ambient electromagnetic frequencies. Discovered in 2004, it is used in larger-scale assemblies all the way down to self-assembling nanotubes.
It is said to be 200 times stronger than steel, as well as being an excellent conductor of heat and electricity, very magnetic and with excellent light absorption qualities, which makes it understandably highly sought after in just about every industry.
THE OBVIOUS QUESTION: IS GRAPHENE SAFE?
Toxicology studies have accompanied the exponential growth of the industry, without fail pointing to the need for more research before it is used ubiquitously in every field and in forms that can evidentially penetrate to any part of the human body, including the brain.
Various academics and researchers have further indicated through RAMAN spectroscopy electron microscope techniques that graphene is present in the Covid-19 injectables, starting in 2021 with chemist Dr Pablo Campra of Almeria University, backed by many others (Zeee Media 2022, Austrian Pathologists 2021, Biscardi 2021, Botha 2021, Burkhardt 2021, Cipelli 2022, Delgado Martin 2022, Deruelle 2022, Exposé News 2023, Gazzeri 2022, Giovannini 2022, Google Patents 2023, Hugues 2022, Iturriga 2021, Lee 2022, Madej 2021, Milhacea 2023, Monteverdi 2022, Nagase 2022, Nixon 2022, Noack 2021, Reissner 2021, Smith 2022, Van Welbergen 2022, Verkerk 2021, Wagh 2022, Wakeling 2022, Yanowitz 2022, Young 2021, Zalewski 2021).
Further to this, there is evidence that graphene is used in hydrogels (see nasal swabs above) and masks, so whichever way the human animal turns, there is a graphene trap.
GRAPHENE & THE INTERNET OF NANOTHINGS
There has been no public consultation that I know of towards the creation of human-machine interfaces, yet there is ample research that looks into just that:
“Bio-inspired molecular communications (MC), where molecules are used to transfer information, is the most promising technique to realise the Internet of Nano Things (IoNT), thanks to its inherent biocompatibility, energy-efficiency, and reliability in physiologically-relevant environments”.
The main difficulty with such nano communications seems to have been the electrically and magnetically conducive qualities of materials when used in biological systems, and graphene is the perfect solution. Note that in many studies they do not refer to the reality of living men, women and children or any other sentient being due to have technology implanted with or without consent: the language is always oblique and refers to ‘biocompatibility’ or ‘molecular communications’ or ‘physiologically-relevant’, yet we are clearly talking about human bodies. Other studies that focus with more clarity on certain biological functions like drug-delivery for cancer do acknowledge that it is the human body or its cells being targeted.
Naturally, there are many applications for these materials and nanotechnological systems that seem quite laudable, like applying them precisely to drug delivery to improve patient outcomes, or as scaffolding for tissues to enhance healing, nobody can argue with that. The doubt, however, that these rapidly developing technologies can be turned to darker purposes has been examined by numerous researchers, as above.
However, the decided lack of congruency and lack of science underpinning the synchronised transglobal governmental decisions right the way through the pandemic was so flagrant that those researchers and scientists that feared more for the wellbeing of humankind than for their own careers, income or reputations, turned to research to elucidate what could possibly have gone wrong.
Some were doctors who noted the crossover between their electrosensitive patients and those coming in with ‘Covid’ symptoms, where further research noted that the cases all came from an area where a mobile phone mast was erected. Further collaborative research revealed that elderly in 273 Spanish nursing homes curiously have mobile antennas directly outside their residences. Yet others refer to the magnetism shown by people, in thousands upon thousands of social media posts, on the area of their injection site or even on their chests, backs or foreheads. Of course the government, industry and think-tank sponsored ‘fact’ checkers all deny this phenomenon. Doth the industry protest too much? There are full conferences given over to the detection of graphene, and endless industrial suppliers of the same to be able to carry out these comparisons. There are even medical doctor-made documentaries claiming to show the phenomenon of undeclared MAC addresses coming from people, and even dead people (2021 onwards) in graveyards!
THE GRAPHENE ‘CORONA’
Information from Graphene Info explains that the human body treats graphene in the same manner it would a pathogen, calling on the rising suspicion that a graphene-radiation interface would be provoking what seemed to be a respiratory infection, as Dr Sevillano suspected on investigation into the geographical area his patients fell under (see above). This is during a time when the virus underlying the pandemic declared by the WHO remained unobtainable and undetected by any government, health department or institution questioned through freedom of information requests. Is it possible that graphene is magnified by the EMF emitted by mobile phone antennas? What about researchers who stated their research demonstrated no evidence of life or live matter in the coronavirus injectable vials? All graphene research in biotechnology is aimed at introducing it into the body one way or another, for multiple purposes, mostly obscure to ordinary people. However, I would not go from here to deride or underestimate the research done by esteemed virologists like Professor Montagnier, who alerted the public to the presence of HIV virus and other unusual viral sequences in the injectables. This is why I find it so confusing.
Once in the body, graphene attracts a web or crown of inflammatory proteins to deal with it and, in another remarkable coincidence, this bears an uncanny resemblance to the crown of the coronavirus so often depicted by the mainstream media and health authorities. The article linked further describes how “‘stealth’ NPs were developed by coating them with the hydrophilic polymer PEG” to dodge the immune system. The same article refers to the burgeoning number of research articles devoted to the phenomena of nanoparticle-provoked protein coronas and how to engage with them, in one way or another.
GRAPHENE & CHITOSAN, ANOTHER ELECTROMAGNETIC PROBLEM
As if the rest were not confusing enough, and has not created huge divides and inconsistencies even amongst scientists and commentators who are seemingly there for humanity and the Hippocratic oath, and not their wallets, there is yet another mind-boggling connection that is little investigated: the link between the functionality of graphene in all the applications mentioned, and further with chitosan, the carbon-rich insect exoskeleton extract. Again, this highly technical, combined nanomaterial is being hailed as a novel solution for health sciences. However, there are researchers that are questioning the potential uses in this field too, with extensive references.
Due to the number of incredible coincidences, onlookers are beginning to question the relationship between the triangle of injectible/intranasal modified nanoparticle drug delivery, the rapid expansion of the 5G network, and the insect diet being heavily promoted by supranational bodies down to primary schools (see “Insects on the menu” in this Substack). There is a little-elucidated query over the affinity between chitin and graphene, which some studies do suggest have natural affinity. Could it be that an insect-rich diet with non-disclosed graphene delivery from any of the potential fields of technology, including medicine, aviationfuel, and plant growth, would combine with the chitin automatically, enhancing the graphene within the body, thereby the potential as a sensor being used to gather or transmit information?
I consider the amount of research ordinary people have had to do in the last three years to keep abreast of developments and study hitherto-unknown areas of technology and medicine to be worthy of a Doctorate, indeed, why not DPan? Like the rest of my fellow pandemic graduates, I regard this collision and collusion of these different areas of technology, advancing at the speed of light with no consultation from ordinary men and women as to whether they choose this degree of complexity and intrusion into their bodies, families and lives, to be unconscionable. It calls for awareness, further research and consideration. Have you looked at the evidence, and what do you think?
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are Francesca’s own and do not necessarily represent the World Council for Health.
Please share this important post!
(Please see top link for an extensive list of references)
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 