Archive for the ‘Viruses’ Category

‘One Health’: What Is It, Who’s Promoting It – And Why?

**UPDATE**

“One Health” conveniently combines messaging about environmentalism and emerging infectious diseases.

EcoHealth Alliance recently hosted a fundraising gala in NYC and joins the “Quadripartite Organizations” – that is, the collaboration between the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, founded as OIE), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Center for Disease and Control (CDC).  How convenient for the global tyrants for total control of virtually every aspect of human and animal life.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/one-health-initiative-world-health-organization/?

‘One Health’: What Is It, Who’s Promoting It — and Why?

The “One Health” concept has been gaining traction among public health policymakers in recent years — but questions remain about what One Health really means, who’s behind the concept and whether what started out as a sound idea has since been hijacked by individuals or groups that see it as a means to expand their power.

one health what who why feature

Editor’s note: This is part one of a two-part series on the One Health initiative. Part 1 introduces the One Health concept, looks at who is promoting it and draws connections between One Health and the COVID-19 pandemic narrative of the last three years.

The “One Health” concept has been gaining traction among public health policymakers in recent years — but questions remain about what One Health really means, who’s behind the concept and whether what started out as a sound idea has since been hijacked by individuals or groups that see it as a means to expand their power.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines One Health as “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems,” as they are “closely linked and interdependent.”

On the surface, that approach sounds noble and reasonable. But some scientists and medical experts told The Defender they’re concerned about the concept’s vague goals, and the motivation of those involved with the development and global rollout of the concept — including the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Bank.

Some experts also questioned the connections many key figures in the One Health initiative have to entities involved in controversial gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

Defining ‘One Health’

The WHO argues that by linking humans, animals and the environment, the One Health approach can “help to address the full spectrum of disease control — from prevention to detection, preparedness, response and management — and contribute to global health security.”

According to the WHO:

“While health, food, water, energy and environment are all wider topics with sector-specific concerns, the collaboration across sectors and disciplines contributes to protect health, address health challenges such as the emergence of infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and food safety and promote the health and integrity of our ecosystems.

“The approach can be applied at the community, subnational, national, regional and global levels, and relies on shared and effective governance, communication, collaboration and coordination. Having the One Health approach in place makes it easier for people to better understand the co-benefits, risks, trade-offs and opportunities to advance equitable and holistic solutions.”

However, according to independent journalist and researcher James Roguski, a definition of One Health also appears on page 952 of the recently passed National Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2023, which states:

“The term ‘One Health approach’ means the collaborative, multi-sectoral, and transdisciplinary approach toward achieving optimal health outcomes in a manner that recognizes the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment.”

And a WHO One Health “fact sheet” published Oct. 3, 2022, claims that “The health of humans, animals, and ecosystems are closely interlinked. Changes in these relationships can increase the risk of new human and animal diseases developing and spreading.”

The fact sheet states that “60% of emerging infectious diseases that are reported globally come from animals, both wild and domestic” and “Over 30 new human pathogens have been detected in the last 3 decades, 75% of which have originated in animals.”

“Human activities and stressed ecosystems have created new opportunities for diseases to emerge and spread,” the WHO notes.

What are such “stressors,” according to the WHO? They “include animal trade, agriculture, livestock farming, urbanization, extractive industries, climate change, habitat fragmentation and encroachment into wild areas.”

Hinting at claims that COVID-19 emerged in such a manner, rather than as part of a lab leak, the WHO claims:

“For example, the way land is used can impact the number of malaria cases. Weather patterns and human-built water controls can affect diseases like dengue. Trade in live, wild animals can increase the likelihood of infectious diseases jumping over to people (called disease spillover).

“The COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on the need for a global framework for improved surveillance and a more holistic, integrated system. Gaps in One Health knowledge, prevention and integrated approaches were seen as key drivers of the pandemic.

“By addressing the linkages between human, animal and environmental health, One Health is seen as a transformative approach to improved global health.”

Experts: One Health concept noble, but idea ‘hijacked’

Several experts who spoke with The Defender said the core concept of “One Health” is noble, but along the way, it was “hijacked” by powerful entities seeking to instrumentalize it for their own ends.

Dr. Meryl Nass, a member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, told The Defender that One Health “seems to have been invented by a doctor and a veterinarian, and I don’t think they had any idea of what it was going to be used for.”

“They just seemed to think it was a good idea to think about zoonotic diseases through the lens of a vet, as well as medical and zoonotic diseases or diseases that people catch from animals,” Nass added.

Dr. David Bell, a public health physician and biotech consultant and former director of global health technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund, called the One Health concept a “perfectly sensible approach to looking at health that’s been hijacked like so many other things.”

Bell told The Defender:

“The concept of One Health originally was just pointing out the obvious that people have known for thousands of years: that human health is connected to the environment, connected to their food chain, connected to the animals they live with, et cetera, and that if you are trying to improve general human health, population health, then dealing with these other influences that harm health is … perfectly rational.”

He noted, as an example, that “some diseases, like bovine tuberculosis, affect humans as well,” so managing that disease would lead to fewer humans contracting it.

Bell said that while “there’s nothing wrong with the concept of One Health in its generic form, the problem is it has been co-opted by people who want to use public health to control a society, enrich themselves and enrich their sponsors.”

Because One Health can be defined so broadly, Bell said, “It’s now being looked at as anything in the biosphere that could potentially affect human wellbeing … you could say anything that causes stress on people is part of the One Health agenda.”

He added:

“If you’re a really wealthy person that sponsors something like the WHO, and you wanted to increase the reach of your power and ability to enrich yourself, then One Health becomes really valuable in public health — because public health is virtually anything that humans interact with or do.

“And then, you can justify almost any way of controlling people on the basis that, in some way, you’re protecting someone, somewhere, from some form of ill health or reduced quality of health.”

Reggie Littlejohn, founder and president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers and co-chair of the Stop Vaccine Passports Task Force, described One Health as “a very holistic-sounding approach to healthcare” that emphasizes “the interface between human health, animal health, plant health and ecological health.”

“All of that sounds very inclusive and holistic,” said Littlejohn, but “my concern is that it gives the WHO, under the pandemic treaty, the ability to intervene in any aspect of life on earth. So, if they find a health risk that involves animals or plants or even the environment, not just humans, then they can go into operation concerning that.”

Nass noted that “very few people in the Western world actually catch diseases from animals unless you define them in a certain way,” citing claims made by some scientists that influenza is a zoonotic disease, for instance.

According to Nass:

“The reason half a billion people or more get the flu every year is because it goes person to person primarily, although it does reassort in animals … and so, the idea that you have to change the way we look at medicine to account for them is a completely ridiculous concept.”

The One Health concept “is much more popular in the public health and veterinary communities” than the medical community, Nass said, because “it doesn’t make any sense for doctors.”

WHO, World Economic Forum expanded the scope of ‘One Health’

According to Nass, while One Health, as a concept, was introduced approximately 20 years ago, it was later “rolled out at the World Economic Forum [WEF] in Davos,” with the support of the CDC.

“Apparently, globalists got the idea that they could use it for their own purposes, and subsequently they’ve expanded what it is,” Nass said. “So, it started out as humans and animals, then it went to food and agriculture and plants, and then recently, ecosystems were included, which meant the whole planet.”

According to the WHO, a “One Health Quadripartite” has been formed, along with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), who “have developed a One Health Joint Plan of Action.”

Following this, a “One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) was formed in May 2021, to advise FAO, UNEP, WHO and WOAH on One Health issues.”

The WHO says these issues include “recommendations for research on emerging disease threats, and the development of a long-term global plan of action to avert outbreaks of diseases like H5N1 avian influenza, MERS, Ebola, Zika, and, possibly, COVID-19.”

OHHLEP, composed of 26 “international experts,” meets five to six times per year. The panel says it will:

“… have a role in investigating the impact of human activity on the environment and wildlife habitats, and how this drives disease threats.

“Critical areas include food production and distribution, urbanization and infrastructure development, international travel and trade, activities that lead to biodiversity loss and climate change, and those that put increased pressure on the natural resource base — all of which can lead to the emergence of zoonotic diseases.”

Nass noted that “climate change and climate disaster” are the recent additions to the WHO’s One Health agenda, turning a tripartite into the current quadripartite plan.

At the November 2022 OHHLEP meeting, agenda items included developing a “Theory of Change” (ToC) in connection with One Health, and inserting commentaries in The Lancet to promote this “theory.”

The minutes of the meeting also appear to tie the Lancet commentary and the ToC with the pandemic treaty, stating:

“Publishing a Lancet commentary on the ToC detailing where it should be applied, with the objective of influencing the pandemic instrument (800 words commentary piece).

“A more extensive version could be finalized and sent to the Lancet for a separate publication.”

Earlier this year, The Lancet published a “series” on “One Health and Global Health Security,” composed of four articles — with OHHLEP members as the listed authors — plus an editorial, a “viewpoint” and a commentary. They include:

According to Nass, The Lancet previously created a “One Health Commission” in an effort to “try and develop some kind of science to show that One Health was a good thing and the One Health approach was going to help.

However, despite the many articles they have published, including in journals other than The Lancet, “they couldn’t explain why One Health was so important” but instead “waffle around,” Nass said.

In a recent Substack post, Nass analyzed The Lancet’s May 9, 2020, announcement regarding the formation of the One Health Commission, and highlighted excerpts from the announcement:

  • This past century has seen human dominance over the biosphere, manifest in technological innovations, accelerated mobility, and converted ecosystems that characterise industrialisation, globalisation, and urbanisation. These developmental trajectories have advanced human health in unprecedented ways. However, they also make humans increasingly vulnerable to contemporary global health challenges, such as emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases.
  • The apparent dominance of the human species comes with a huge responsibility. Thus, in our quest to ensure the health and continued existence of humanity, consideration must be given to the complex interconnectedness and interdependence of all living species and the environment.
  • The One Health concept has been recognised and promoted by the UN, the G20, and WHO, among several others. The Sustainable Development Goals in themselves can be understood as embodying a One Health strategy aimed at healthy people living on a perpetually habitable planet.
  • The Commission’s work is expected to offer a recalibrated understanding of the ways in which these global health challenges are implicated within the complex interconnectedness of humans, animals, and our shared environment, and to provide an approach for harnessing this knowledge to ensure a sustainably healthy future for all species, and the planet we inhabit.
  • Conclusions from the Commission are anticipated to be integrated in policy briefs, international guidelines and protocols, and various high-level global health resolutions.

Remarking on the proclamations, Nass wrote that these statements are based on “false” and “evidence-free” assertions, a goal to curb “human dominance,” a desire to “shove these ideas down your throat” and an effort to “train a young crop of impressionable leaders like the WEF does,” who will implement these plans.

“Did you gain any understanding of how One Health might provide value to any animal, human or plant?” Nass asked. “I sure didn’t.”

Key OHHLEP figures involved with EcoHealth Alliance, CDC, World Bank

Several members of the OHHLEP have connections with the EcoHealth Alliance — which was heavily involved with gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — the U.S. and Chinese CDC, the World Bank and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

One such individual is Catherine Machalaba, Ph.D., senior policy advisor and senior scientist for the EcoHealth Alliance, who also was lead author of the World Bank Operational Framework for Strengthening Human, Animal and Environmental Public Health Systems at their Interface, also known as the One Health Operational Framework.

Dr. Casey Barton Behravesh, a veterinarian who served on the “One Health Action Collaborative for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Forum on Microbial Threats” since 2018, is another. She previously “led CDC’s One Health response to COVID-19” and participated in “several COVID-19 working groups.”

Two officials from the Chinese CDC — Dr. George Fu Gao and Dr. Lei Zhou — also sit on the committee, along with members from Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Congo, France, Germany, Guinea, India, Indonesia, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, South Africa, Sudan, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom.

Littlejohn told The Defender she believes it’s no coincidence that individuals from the EcoHealth Alliance and other entities who vociferously denied the “lab-leak theory” of COVID-19 are members of OHHLEP.

“When they talk about One Health and the zoonotic origins of disease, and they cite as, as the example, the COVID-19 pandemic, they assume that it came from a bat or a pangolin, and it diverts attention away from the fact that it may very well have been — and looks more and more like — it was a lab leak.

“So, it diverts attention away from the dangers of gain-of-function research and puts it towards the entanglement of other wildlife. It’s almost like it makes nature the threat, as opposed to gain-of-function research.”

Nass shared a similar view. Referencing Peter Daszak, Ph.D., president of the EcoHealth Alliance — who also chaired The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission — she told The Defender:

“Early in 2020, I realized he and EcoHealth Alliance were involved with this whole cover-up of the COVID origin. And so, I was reading all these different articles that he’d authored and looking into what he was doing.

“I found he was talking about One Health and about all these environmental degradation problems, the loss of biodiversity that was going to affect human health. He was creating a narrative.”

In a June 6, 2021, post on her blog, Nass highlighted Daszak’s ties to Gao, the CDC, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), military funding sources, the WEF and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

In 2019, Daszak argued that many “emerging diseases” are “zoonotic,” necessitating a One Health approach that could “help disease prediction and preparedness.”

Nass told The Defender that Daszak and Fauci “were working on spreading this same narrative … that humans and human degradation of the environment is what causes pandemics, and that pandemics are all natural and come from these zoonotic exposures.”

In a Nov. 15, 2022, Substack post, Nass drew connections between Daszak, Fauci and the One Health concept, referencing a 2020 paper co-authored by Fauci which stated:

“The COVID-19 pandemic is yet another reminder, added to the rapidly growing archive of historical reminders, that in a human-dominated world, in which our human activities represent aggressive, damaging, and unbalanced interactions with nature, we will increasingly provoke new disease emergences. We remain at risk for the foreseeable future.

“COVID-19 is among the most vivid wake-up calls in over a century. It should force us to begin to think in earnest and collectively about living in more thoughtful and creative harmony with nature, even as we plan for nature’s inevitable, and always unexpected, surprises.”

Similarly, a December 2019 paper co-authored by Daszak claimed:

“Over 30% of all emerging infectious diseases are driven by factors associated with land use change and agricultural development.

“This process leads to expansion of wildlife hunting and trade networks that are responsible for multiple outbreaks of Ebola virus, and the first pandemic of the twenty-first century — SARS.”

Nass told The Defender:

“I thought that the reason they were spreading that narrative was to cover up the COVID origins. But I wasn’t sure why they were talking about environmental degradation and all that.

“And then, months down the road, I came to realize it was about this whole concept being made part of One Health and then being part of the justification for the whole biosecurity agenda.”

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, told The Defender:

“The entire One Health Scheme is based upon the patent lie and obvious disinformation that COVID-19 somehow magically leaped from some animal in the Wuhan wet-market instead of being an offensive biological warfare weapon with gain-of-function properties that leaked out of the Wuhan BSL4 [biosecurity level 4 lab].”

Nass wrote in June 2021 that Daszak chaired the International Workshop on Biodiversity and Pandemics Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, whose executive summary “seems to be a commercial for Daszak’s multibillion dollar One Health initiative to (supposedly) prevent pandemics. Not start them.”

Nass wrote that this summary “also contains many clues to where the purveyors of the pandemic seem to want to take the world’s people,” including the claim that the emergence of disease “is caused by human activities.”

Perhaps belying the real intentions behind the One Health agenda, as envisioned by public health agencies today, Nass noted that the summary also called for green corporate bonds, reduced meat consumption and “reassessing the relationship between people and nature.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense

__________________

**Comment**

I’m very thankful someone took on this topic which has disturbed me for some time.  While the original concept makes logical sense, it has truly been hijacked, like so many other topics, for nefarious reasons.  Definitions matter and the definition of One Health has become a broad meaningless label for global control in every aspect of life.

I must add here that the same bait and switch tactic is being used in Lymeland.

‘The powers that be’ continue to push an untrue narrative about ‘climate change’ and tick and disease proliferation that is patently false and needs to be called out and given the death sentence.  Unfortunately even well-meaning patients and patient advocates are falling for this blatant politicized lie.  The lie is important because it deflects from the very real bioweaponization of ticks which have been filled with deadly pathogens and then purposely spread. This is public record for those willing to swallow the red pill.  If not, blame Putin or the climate – everyone else does.

Category:

Activism, Viruses

Study: SOT Potential Treatment For Viruses & Lyme Disease

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36412742/

Supportive Oligonucleotide Therapy (SOT) as a Potential Treatment for Viral Infections and Lyme Disease: Preliminary Results

Panagiotis Apostolou 1, Aggelos Iliopoulos 1, Georgios Beis 1, Ioannis Papasotiriou 2

Free PMC article

Abstract

Antisense therapy is widely used as an alternative therapeutic option for various diseases. RNA interference might be effective in infections, through the degradation of messenger RNA and, therefore, translation process. Hence, proteins essential for microorganisms and viruses’ proliferation and metabolism are inhibited, leading to their elimination. The present study aimed to evaluate the use of oligonucleotide in patients infected by Epstein-Barr (EBV) or Herpes Simplex Viruses 1/2 or with Lyme Disease caused by Borrelia burgdorferi. Blood samples were collected from 115 patients and the different species were characterized using molecular biology techniques. Then, SOT molecules (Supportive Oligonucleotide Therapy), which are specific small interfering RNA (siRNA), were designed, produced, and evaluated, for each specific strain. Oligonucleotides were administered intravenously to patients and then a quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction was used to evaluate the effectiveness of SOT. This study revealed that for Lyme Disease, one or two SOT administrations can lead to a statistically significant decrease in DNA copies, while for viruses, two or three administrations are required to achieve a statistically significant reduction in the genetic material. These preliminary results indicate that antisense SOT therapy can be considered a potential treatment for viral as well as Lyme diseases.

For more:

The challenge with Lyme is correctly identifying the patient’s infections as they are typically coinfected with many. Further, it’s all based on using PCR to detect the DNA of various bacteria which is known to find Lyme only 30% of the time.  Further, many of the organisms with Lyme/MSIDS aren’t found in the blood so trying to detect it there is futile (another reason this is so hard to test, diagnose, and treat.)

Using genetic code for a treatment for this is like trying to catch a greased pig.  Lyme in particular changes its outer surface protein which means what goes into you isn’t what comes out of you as the organism mutates to survive.  Yet another reason it’s difficult treating this and why there has never and will never be a Lyme vaccine worth its weight in salt.  You can’t pin something down that changes.

Personally, all this work on treatments using genetics scares the bajeebers out of me.  Hopefully the past three years have caused all of us to pause and consider the implications of using genes and their ability to alter genetic code.  Also, what works in a petri dish often doesn’t work in reality.

Of course, at the end of the day, we are all big boys and girls and have to make our own decisions.  What works for one often doesn’t work for another and if you do your reading, are convinced of its merits, and want to try this, then by all means do it.  If you have success, or if you don’t, please let me know.  Often the best way we move forward is by educating one another on various treatments and health changes.

Category:

Lyme, research, Testing, Treatment, Viruses

Psychosis, Serious Side-Effect of COVID Shot. Many May Be Suffering From ‘Delusion of Benefit’ Says Cardiologist

https://twitter.com/DrAseemMalhotra/status/1650031510328692737  Video Here (Approx. 9 Min)

Psychosis: Serous Side Effect of COVID Shot

Re-analysis of mRNA vaccine data suggests one serious side effect is Psychosis.  Many people who took the jab may be suffering from ‘delusion of benefit’ says cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra
Overwhelming evidence to be presented in court that jab is ‘not safe & NOT effective.’
“In my whole career in medicine, Neil, with all the academic work I’ve done looking at all different areas of medicine, specifically also related to cardiovascular disease, I have never seen such high, overwhelming quality of evidence of harm of any drug and such poor efficacy,” ~ Dr. Aseem Malhotra
_________________
 2022 May; 71: 103129.
Published online 2022 Apr 13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2022.103129
PMCID: PMC9006421
PMID: 35447503

Psychiatric adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines: A rapid review of published case reports

Ilambaridhi Balasubramanian, Abdul Faheem, Susanta Kumar Padhy,1 and Vikas Menon2,⁎
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Abstract

We aimed to review the available reports of psychiatric adverse reactions to COVID vaccines. Electronic databases such as PubMed and Google scholar were combed to identify relevant reports. We found a total of 11 reports describing 14 cases of psychiatric reactions; these were mostly altered mental states, psychosis, mania, depression, and functional neurological disorder. The index case was commonly a young or middle-aged adult. All reports pertained to the use of either mRNA or vector-based vaccines. Symptom onset was within 10 days of vaccination in all cases; as such, this seems to be a high-risk period warranting vigilance.

  • One month after getting the mRNA-based COVID injection and then worsening three weeks later after getting the 2nd dose, a 31 year old man without a past medical or psychiatric history was brought to the ER because of erratic and bizarre behavior.  He was anxious, guarded, superficial and grandiose, reported becoming ‘clairvoyant’, being able to talk to dead people, hearing ‘people drumming outside his house’ and the constant voice of a co-worker whom he believed to be a lover (but was not).
  • Patient after 2nd dose of COVID injection immediately developed anxiety, nonspecific fear, and insomnia as the prodromal phase of psychosis. Starting the second week, patient manifested delusions of persecution, delusions of influence, thoughts insertion, and delusional behavior, culminating in a suicide attempt.  Psychosis lasted 8 weeks and symptom reduction was observed only after the graduate administration of antipsychotics over four weeks.
  • 12 other case reports of psychosis after COVID shots.
  • Doctor censured for suggesting “vaccine” psychosis led husband to murder wife.

https://theconversation.com/post-covid-psychosis-occurs-in-people-with-no-prior-history-the-risk-is-low-but-episodes-are-frightening-179193

Post-COVID psychosis occurs in people with no prior history. The risk is low but episodes are frightening

By Sarah Hellewell, Research Fellow, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University

Far from the respiratory disease it seemed at first, COVID can impact almost all parts of the body, including the brain. For a small number of people, COVID infection may be accompanied by an episode of post-COVID psychosis, a break from reality which can be frightening for the patient and their loved ones.

Psychosis is a condition characterised by confused thoughts, delusions and hallucinations. People with psychosis can struggle to tell what’s real from what isn’t. Psychosis occurs in “episodes” which may last for days or weeks. Since the start of the COVID pandemic, reports of post-COVID psychosis have come from all over the world.

Post-COVID psychosis is different to psychosis seen in other brain illnesses and diseases. So-called “first episode psychosis” is usually seen in teens or young adults in the development of schizophrenia, or alongside dementia in elderly people.

But people experiencing post-COVID psychosis are typically in their 30s, 40s and 50s, and are experiencing psychosis for the first time. They usually do not have any family history of psychosis. People with post-COVID psychosis also frequently have insight into the way they are feeling. They can recognise this is not normal for them, and something has changed in the way they are thinking.  (See link for article)

_______________

**Comment**

According to the article there were reports of post-viral psychosis during the Spanish flu as well as after the coronaviruses SARS and MERS.

This topic interests me as I experienced psychosis first-hand.  What a wild ride that was.  The event occurred while taking disulfiram/Antabuse, a new treatment at the time for Lyme disease and potentially Babesia.  If you are interested in that story, go here:

I attempt to highlight everything I can about the incident due to worries about single patients trying this treatment.  If you are single and live alone, you need to be checked on daily.  The psychosis can come on fast and you don’t know you are going nuts.  And you do go nuts.

Which brings me to Dr. Malhotra’s suggestion of ‘delusion of benefit’ theory.  I’m truly not trying to be divisive or mean here.  What I am attempting to do is point out that a perfect scenario was created in the past three years that could affect people’s reasoning ability: 

  1. Many had their faces covered for extended periods of time with oxygen depriving, CO2, and bacteria promoting toxic masks that science continues to show do nothing beneficial.
  2. Graphene, which is a toxic carcinogen, has been found in masks, PCR swabs, and the gene therapy injections. Symptoms caused by graphene are similar to COVID symptoms, further mudding the water of what a COVID case truly is since testing is fraudulently worthless.
  3. Graphene oxide in rats not only down-regulates glutamatergic synapses but changes synaptic function which is crucial to learning and memory. These changes are implicated in several brain diseases from dementia to anxiety disorders.
  4. Typically, these same people were then injected a graphene laced gene therapy with a known psychosis side effect that is linked to more reports of adverse reactions and death than any other vaccine in the history of VAERS.
  5. Multiple contaminants including metals have been found in the gene therapy.
  6. The gene therapy utilizes modified RNA (modRNA) forcing healthy cells to produce a toxic viral spike protein that disrupts cell metabolism, increases permeability of the blood-brain barrier, goes systemically into the body interfering with DNA repair, and is designed to persist – possibly forever.
  7. Another injection side-effect is blood clotting which will slow blood flow to the brain. One doctor found microclotting in over 60% of his vaxxed patients.
  8. Paxlovid, an “approved” yet ineffective treatment for COVID also can cause blood clotting.
  9. While authorities blame ‘climate change,’ these same authorities are spraying the air, and testing has confirmed graphene is in our precipitation along with a long list of toxins including aluminum particles, a known neurotoxin, which are found virtually everywhere from our food and body products to vaccines to cookware, which accumulate in the brain and are linked with Alzheimer’s, MS, asthma, autism, and autoimmune psychosis.
What a brilliantly orchestrated, or highly coincidental plan to affect the public’s ability to think and reason.
Food for thought.

Category:

Psychological Aspects, research, vaccines, Viruses

Mask Wearers Have Higher Rates of Infection, Critical Care, ER, Mental Disorder, Neuron Destruction, Anxiety, Death, Impaired Learning & Memory

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-65358308?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

Covid: No evidence shielding helped – Swansea uni study

April 22, 2023
Woman looking out of window
GETTY IMAGES
The study says further research is needed to fully evaluate the success of shielding

There is no evidence that shielding benefited vulnerable people during the Covid pandemic, according to a study.

Swansea University compared 117,000 people shielding in Wales with the rest of the population of three million.

The study found deaths and healthcare usage were higher among shielding people than the general population.

The Welsh government said shielding was introduced on medical and scientific advice and it will continue to review evidence from the pandemic.

The study also found the Covid rate was higher among those shielding – 5.9% compared to 5.7%.

The researchers said the data raised questions about whether the policy worked.

(See link for article)
____________________
Important excerpt:

“It was sort of made up at the time and implemented.”

Truer words were never spoken.

Study found here:  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350623000628?via%3Dihub

_________________

German Mask Study: Masks Do Not Prevent Viral Infections But Carry Harm

  • Humans are normally exposed to .04% CO2.  Mask wearers are exposed to 1.41-3.2% CO2, demonstrating toxicity.
  • A thorough review of current studies on mask efficacy shows there has never been solid data to show makes prevent viral transmission.
  • The medical community has long since known about the dangers of prolonged CO2 exposure. 

Study here:  https://www.cell.com/heliyon/pdf/S2405-8440(23)01324-5.pdf

Possible toxicity of chronic carbon dioxide exposure associated with face mask use, particularly in pregnant women, children and adolescents – A scoping review

Kai Kisielinski a,* , Susanne Wagner b , Oliver Hirsch c , Bernd Klosterhalfen d , Andreas Prescher e a Independent Researcher, Surgeon, Private Practice, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany b Non Clinical Expert, Veterinarian, Wagner MSL Management, 15831 Mahlow, Germany c Department of Psychology, FOM University of Applied Sciences, 57078 Siegen, Germany d Institute of Pathology, Dueren Hospital, 52351 Dueren, Germany e Institute of Molecular and Cellular Anatomy (MOCA), 52074 Aachen, Germany

ABSTRACT

Introduction: During the SARS-CoV-2-pandemic, face masks have become one of the most important ubiquitous factors affecting human breathing. It increases the resistance and dead space volume leading to a re-breathing of CO2. So far, this phenomenon and possible implications on early life has not been evaluated in depth.

Method: As part of a scoping review, literature was systematically reviewed regarding CO2 exposure and facemask use.

Results: Fresh air has around 0.04% CO2, while wearing masks more than 5 min bears a possible chronic exposure to carbon dioxide of 1.41% to 3.2% of the inhaled air. Although the buildup is usually within the short-term exposure limits, long-term exceedances and consequences must be considered due to experimental data. US Navy toxicity experts set the exposure limits for submarines carrying a female crew to 0.8% CO2 based on animal studies which indicated an increased risk for stillbirths. Additionally, mammals who were chronically exposed to 0.3% CO2 the experimental data demonstrate a teratogenicity with irreversible neuron damage in the offspring, reduced spatial learning caused by brainstem neuron apoptosis and reduced circulating levels of the insulin-like growth factor-1. With significant impact on three readout parameters (morphological, functional, marker) this chronic 0.3% CO2 exposure has to be defined as being toxic. Additional data exists on the exposure of chronic 0.3% CO2 in adolescent mammals causing neuron destruction, which includes less activity, increased anxiety and impaired learning and memory. There is also data indicating testicular toxicity in adolescents at CO2 inhalation concentrations above 0.5%.

Discussion: There is a possible negative impact risk by imposing extended mask mandates especially for vulnerable subgroups. Circumstantial evidence exists that extended mask use may be related to current observations of stillbirths and to reduced verbal motor and overall cognitive performance in children born during the pandemic. A need exists to reconsider mask mandates.

_________________

**Comment**

Yet, people continue to wear the face-diapers, and corrupt public health ‘authorities’ continue to insist, despite all reason, logic, and science, that they somehow work:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2023/02/10/walensky-face-plants-again-but-is-still-in-office/

  • When questioned over the known harm masks have caused children and adults, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky doubled down on the mantra that masks prevent transmission, despite a meta-analysis on 78 studies by Cochrane that determined masks probably make little to no difference in the outcome of influenza-like illnesses like COVID.The analysis also reported: “Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported.”  
    • Go here for a “must read” article on how despite the good scholarship of the mask review, Cochrane has become nothing more than a “political junk science rag.” Within the article is a rare interview with Tom Jefferson, one of the study authors, who doesn’t trust the media (gee I wonder why?).  Jefferson states: “Governments completely failed to do the right thing and demand better evidence.”  I highly recommend reading the transcript as Jefferson highlights the shenanigans within science journals that will do virtually anything nowadays to publish the “right answer,” i.e. accepted answer for the accepted narrative.
    • In this important video, Dr. Prasad reads a statement from CDC director Rochelle Walensky and then states the following:

      “She’s just making things up.  She’s good at making things up. She made up the fact that there’s credible data that we should mask kids between 2 and 5 even though UNICEF and the WHO said not to do that. She made that up.  She makes up lots of things, because she doesn’t actually use science to guide decision making, she just likes to make things up.” ~ Dr. Vinay Prasad  

  • While health “authorities” try and cover their backsides and excuse their incompetence and/or evil intent by stating they had to do something other than wait around for “the science,” a Cochrane study author states it best:

“…it’s a complete subversion of the ‘precautionary principle’ which states that you should do nothing unless you have reasonable evidence that benefits outweigh the harms.”  ~ Tom Jefferson, Cochrane epidemiologist

But here we still are……

For more:

Category:

Activism, research, Viruses

45 Times More Deaths After COVID Shots in 2 Years Compared With All Flu Vaccine-Related Deaths Since 1990 & Switzerland Stops Them For Spring & Summer

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/deaths-covid-shots-versus-flu-vaccines-vaers-dmed

45 Times as Many Deaths After COVID Shots in Just 2 Years Compared With All Flu Vaccine-Related Deaths Since 1990, Data Show

The authors of a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of national and international COVID-19 vaccine adverse events during the first two years of the rollout said their findings highlight the importance of reevaluating public health policies that promote universal mass injection and multiple boosters for all demographic groups.

covid vaccine adverse events deaths feature

Important excerpts:

“Our meta-analysis of both national and international vaccine adverse events emphasizes the importance of re-evaluating public health policies that promote universal mass injection and multiple boosters for all demographic groups,” said the authors of a peer-reviewed study published this month in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research.

They analyzed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database — the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S., which has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events — and the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), the medical events database for all active and reserve U.S. military.

The authors also examined data from other regulatory surveillance and self-reporting systems including the V-safe After Vaccination Health Checker, the U.K.’s Yellow Card reporting system, Public Health Scotland, the Israeli Ministry of Health and the Natural Cycles App.

More than 45 times as many deaths after COVID shots than all flu vaccine deaths combined since 1990
Credit: Romero, Fry and Hooker, “Safety of mRNA Vaccines Administered During the First Twenty-Four Months of the International COVID-19 Vaccination Program.”

(See link for article)

For more: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/12/21/warning-3150-injuries-in-1st-week-of-covid-vaccines-among-american-healthcare-workers-pregnant-women-included/  Latest VAERS report and mounting list of adverse reactions & death

_______________

Go here for the excellent downloadable resource, “COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates: 21 Scientific Facts That Challenge the Assumptions.”  In it you will read about studies that found:

  • All transmissions between patients and staff occurred between masked and “vaccinated” patients.
  • 74% of COVID cases were in the fully “vaccinated.”
  • COVID cases did not decrease with “vaccination.”
  • There is no significant difference in mortality between “vaccinated” and unvaccinated groups.
  • 100% of severe, critical, and fatal cases of COVID occurred in the “vaccinated.”
  • Mass “vaccination” has had NO measurable impact on COVID mortality in the U.S..
  • 1 in 556 observed a serious adverse event after the Pfizer shot, and 1 in 1,408 after the Moderna shot.
  • There are ZERO cases of severe COVID in children who did not get “vaccinated,” but the Pfizer shot caused severe (grade 3) systemic reactions.
  • 1 in 59 to 1 in 143 “vaccinated” children suffered severe systemic reactions within 7 days after the second dose.
  • 1 in 9 “vaccinated” adolescents suffered severe systemic reactions within 7 days after the second dose.
  • 1 in about 1,000 “vaccinated” children aged 12-15 had a grade 4 systemic creation after the first dose that required an ER visit.
  • The Pfizer trial did not have enough statistical power to show the “vaccine” is safe in children under 18.
  • Trial subjects were only observed for 2-6 months leaving long-term safety unknown.
  • Serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis in subjects under 40 and within 7 days of “vaccination”have been identified.
  • The “vaccine” wanes significantly over a short period of time.
  • The 3rd dose of Pfizer or Moderna or a second dose of J&J has not been evaluated for efficacy.
  • COVID treatments have improved significantly and the overall survival rate of COVID is 99.8% in the U.S. and 99.999% for children.
  • Hundreds of studies have observed the effectiveness of ivermectin, vitamin D, HCQ, and monoclonal antibodies.
  • Previous infection with COVID is more effective at preventing COVID than “vaccines.”
  • An unvaccinated person previously infected with COVID has a 99.9% chance of being protected from a repeat infection.
  • Infection and transmission of COVID occur at high rates in fully “vaccinated” populations and a significant percentage of severe, critical and fatal cases occur in fully “vaccinated” people and mass “vaccination” has had no measurable impact on COVID mortality.  1 in 6 to 1 in 9 “vaccinated” people aged 12-55 suffer severe (grade 3) systemic reactions and no long-term safety studies have been conducted.  “Vaccine” mandates have not created a safer environment.

https://petersweden.substack.com/p/bombshell-switzerland-stops-covid

Switzerland STOPS recommending covid vaccinations for spring and summer

The recommendations have been withdrawn for the time being.

PETER IMANUELSEN
APR 8, 2023

UPDATE: This is for the summer and spring, so it could well be that they will start recommending the shots again in the fall. If that is the case, people need to speak up about it!

We have some big news out of Switzerland. They are stopping the recommendation for the covid vaccines.

After years of pushing these products on people, we are now beginning to see countries somewhat backtrack.  (See link for article)

________________

**Comment**

The country’s Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) announced that the vaccine is no longer recommended even for people at high risk starting this spring. Swiss authorities attributed this decision to the number of citizens “vaccinated” against the disease and those who have developed natural immunity from the virus.

Finally.  Some logic.

For nearly three years the scientific facts about natural immunity have been shamefully denied and abandoned.

Other countries halting the shots:

  • A year ago Denmark halted the gene therapy injections stating the virus has been brought under control.
  • A year ago Japan halted over a million and a half Moderna shots due to contamination.
  • A year ago Denmark and Sweden halted Moderna shots for younger people because of potential side-effects.
  • Several European countries (Denmark, Germany, France, Ireland, Norway, Italy, Spain, and Sweden) halted AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine following reports of blood clots in people.
  • Back in Feb. after a conference in Stockholm where doctors warned about the dangers of the mRNA shots, Sweden threw away 8.5 million doses of the gene-therapy because people didn’t want them anymore.  

For more:

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses