“Although the South Atlantic Anomaly arises from processes inside Earth, it has effects that reach far beyond Earth’s surface. The region can be hazardous for low-Earth orbit satellites that travel through it. If a satellite is hit by a high-energy proton, it can short-circuit and cause an event called single event upset or SEU. This can cause the satellite’s function to glitch temporarily or can cause permanent damage if a key component is hit. In order to avoid losing instruments or an entire satellite, operators commonly shut down non-essential components as they pass through the SAA.”
The European Space Agency (ESA) weighed in earlier this year about the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) – the mysterious dent in Earth’s magnetic field over the South Atlantic that is being weakened to the point of splitting apart by the planet’s molten metal outer core churning around and shifting old tectonic plates on top of each other so that they block the outer core from forming the magnetic field. Now NASA decided it’s time to reveal its concern about the SAA and how it’s affected NASA’s moneymakers – satellites.
In a press release accompanying an explanatory video (watch it here), NASA scientists explain how the SAA is like “a pothole in space,” jarring satellites every time they pass over it, causing electronic glitches, short circuits and other physical damage. And no, they can’t just fly around it because the SAA is far too big and a detour would make the area of missed communications even larger.
“In addition to measuring the SAA’s magnetic field strength, NASA scientists have also studied the particle radiation in the region with the Solar, Anomalous, and Magnetospheric Particle Explorer, or SAMPEX – the first of NASA’s Small Explorer missions, launched in 1992 and providing observations until 2012.”
Even though the rip keeps getting bigger, NASA appears less concerned about what’s directly underneath it on the surface, so it seems to imply that the increased solar radiation is nothing to worry about … yet. It can still affect ships and planes passing through, but the worst part is that the anomaly is “slowly but steadily drifting in a northwesterly direction.” You don’t need Google maps (although you might want to use them while you still can) to figure out that ‘northwest’ is the direction of South and North America. However, the press release still refers to the South Atlantic Anomaly as a “dent” and focuses primarily on “Modeling a safer future for satellites” – where NASA and SpaceX make their money.
Cynical? Yes. The SAA is obviously more than a “pothole in space” to be getting this kind of attention.
Earlier this year, astronomers announced a dazzling discovery. A fast radio burst called FRB 121102 wasn’t just repeating – it was repeating on a discernible cycle.
For around 67 days, the source is silent. Then, for around 90 days, it wakes up again, spitting out repeated millisecond radio flares before falling silent, and the whole 157-day cycle repeats.
However, fast radio bursts are extremely mysterious, and there was no guarantee that the cycle would continue. So it’s pretty exciting that the source has flared up again, right on cue – consistent with predictions of its activity cycle.
This suggests that there’s significant value in monitoring known fast radio burst sources – but also in continuing to watch FRB 121102 to try to understand what could be causing the phenomenon.
A quick refresher: fast radio bursts are, as the name suggests, bursts of radio waves that are very fast, just a few milliseconds long, coming from galaxies millions to billions of light-years away. But they’re also extremely powerful; within those milliseconds, they can discharge as much power as hundreds of millions of Suns.
Most of the time, they flare once and we have not heard from them since, making them impossible to predict and very difficult to trace. And we don’t know what causes them, although recent evidence points pretty strongly to a type of neutron star called magnetars.
But a handful of fast radio burst sources have been detected repeating, and these could be one of the keys that helps at least partially solve the mystery.
Before its cycle was discovered by University of Manchester astronomer Kaustubh Rajwade and his team, FRB 121102 was already famous for being the most active fast radio burst discovered yet, spitting out repeated bursts several times since its discovery in 2012.
Because it repeats, astronomers could watch for activity, and trace it to a source galaxy. It was the first fast radio burst to be localised, to a star-forming region in a dwarf galaxy 3 billion light-years away.
The discovery of periodicity in its activity – based on five years’ worth of data – could place some important constraints on what it could be.
For instance, high-mass X-ray binaries in the Milky Way – those that contain neutron stars – can have orbital periods of up to hundreds of days. But there are some types of binary systems with much shorter periods – these could be ruled out for FRB 121102.
And now, periodicity is supported by new sets of observations – although the timing may need revision.
A team led by Marilyn Cruces of the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy detected 36 bursts from FRB 121102 using the Effelsberg 100-m Radio Telescope between September 2017 to June 2020. Combined with the data from Rajwade’s research, the team derived a periodicity of 161 days, in a new preprint paper uploaded to arXiv.
This paper gives dates between 9 July and 14 October 2020 for the source’s active period.
But Cruces and her team aren’t the only ones looking. A team led by Pei Wang of the National Astronomy Observatory of China used the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope to monitor FRB 121102’s location on several dates between March and August 2020.
Between mid-March and late July, they didn’t detect any bursts. But on 17 August, FAST detected at least 12 bursts from FRB 121102 – suggesting the source is once again in an active phase – although the team calculated a different periodicity from both Rajwade’s team and Cruces’ team.
“We combine the bursts collected in Rajwade et al. (2020) and Cruces et al. (2020) with these newly detected by FAST in 2019 and 2020, and obtain a new best-fit period of ~156.1 days,” they wrote in a notice posted to The Astronomer’s Telegram.
According to Wang’s team’s calculations, the active phase is due to end between 31 August and 9 September 2020. If FRB 121102 continues to show activity beyond these dates, this could suggest that either the periodicity isn’t real, or that it has somehow evolved, they noted in their post.
Of course, it’s also possible that the periodicity calculations need to be refined. Which means we should continue to keep an eye on FRB 121102.
“We encourage more follow-up monitoring efforts from other radio observatories,” the researchers wrote.
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” ~ William Shakespeare
By Catherine Austin Fitts
I am not a scientist. I am not a doctor. I am not a biotech engineer. I am not an attorney. However, I read, listen, appreciate, and try to understand those who are.
I was an investment banker until politics made it impossible to continue to practice my art. I was trained as a portfolio strategist—so I map my world by watching the financial flows and allocation of resources. I was also trained as a conspiracy generator and foot soldier—conspiracies being the fundamental organizing principle of how things get done in our world. It was not until I left the establishment that I learned that those not in the club had been trained to disparage and avoid conspiracies—a clever trick that sabotages their efforts to gather power.
My response to living at war with agencies of the U.S. government for a time was to answer the questions of people who were sufficiently courageous and curious to solicit my opinion. Over many years, that response transformed into two businesses. One was The Solari Report, which continues to grow as a global intelligence network—we seek to help each other understand and navigate what is happening and contribute to positive outcomes. The other was serving as an investment advisor to individuals and families through Solari Investment Advisory Services. After ten years, I converted that business to doing an ESG screen. What those who use it want—that is not otherwise readily available in the retail market—is a screen that reflects knowledge of financial and political corruption. Tracking the metastasizing corruption is an art, not a science.
When you help a family with their finances, it is imperative to understand all their risk issues. Their financial success depends on successful mitigation of all the risks—whether financial or non-financial—that they encounter in their daily lives. Non-financial risks can have a major impact on the allocation of family resources, including attention, time, assets, and money.
Many of my clients and their children had been devastated and drained by health care failures and corruption—and the most common catalyst for this devastation was vaccine death and injury. After their lengthy and horrendous experiences with the health care establishment, they would invariably ask, “If the corruption is this bad in medicine, food, and health, what is going on in the financial world?” Chilled by the thought, they would search out a financial professional who was schooled in U.S. government and financial corruption. And they would find me.
The result of this flow of bright, educated people blessed with the resources to pay for my time was that, for ten years, I got quite an education about the disabilities and death inflicted on our children by what I now call “the great poisoning.” I had the opportunity to repeatedly price out the human damage to all concerned—not just the affected children but their parents, siblings, and future generations—mapping the financial costs of vaccine injury again and again and again. These cases were not as unusual as you might expect. Studies indicate that 54% of American children have one or more chronic diseases. Doctors who I trust tell me that number is actually much higher, as many children and their families cannot afford the care and testing necessary to properly diagnose what ails them.
One of the mothers featured in VAXXED—a must-watch documentary for any awake citizen, as is its sequel VAXXED II: The People’s Truth—estimated that a heavily autistic child would cost present value $5MM to raise and care for over a lifetime. When my clients who were grandparents insisted that they would not interfere with their children’s vaccine choices because it was “none of their business,” I would say, “Really? Who has the $5MM? You or your kids? When your kids need the $5MM to raise their vaccine-injured child, are you going to refuse them? You are the banker, and it is your money that is at risk here, so it is your business. Do you want to spend that $5MM on growing a strong family through the generations or on managing a disabled child who did not have to be disabled?” Often, that $5MM in expenditures also translates into divorce, depression, and lost opportunities for siblings.
My clients helped me find the best resources—books, documentaries, articles—on vaccines. You will find many of them linked or reviewed at The Solari Report, including in our Library.
Of all the questions that I had, the one that I spent the most time researching and thinking about was why. Why was the medical establishment intentionally poisoning generations of children? Many of the writers who researched and wrote about vaccine injury and death assumed it was an aberration—resulting from the orthodoxy of a medical establishment that could not face or deal with its mistakes and liabilities. That never made sense to me. Writings by Forrest Maready, Jon Rappoport, Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Arthur Firstenberg have helped me understand the role of vaccines in the con man trick of saving money for insurance companies and the legally liable.
Here is one example of how the trick may play out. A toxin creates a disease. The toxin might be pesticides or industrial pollution or wireless technology radiation. The toxin damages millions of people and their communities. Companies or their insurance provider may be liable for civil or criminal violations. Then a virus is blamed. A “cure” is found in a “vaccine.” The pesticide or other toxic exposure is halted just as the vaccine is introduced, and presto, the sickness goes away. The vaccine is declared a success, and the inventor is declared a hero. A potential financial catastrophe has been converted to a profit, including for investors and pension funds. As a portfolio strategist, I admit it has been a brilliant trick and likely has protected the insurance industry from the bankrupting losses it would experience if it had to fairly compensate the people and families destroyed.
Thanks to the work of Robert Kennedy and Mary Holland of Children’s Health Defense, I now understand the enormous profits generated by so-called “vaccines” subsequent to the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and the creation of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program—a federal no-fault mechanism for compensating vaccine-related injuries or deaths by establishing a claim procedure involving the United States Court of Federal Claims and special masters. Call a drug or biotech cocktail a “vaccine,” and pharmaceutical and biotech companies are free from any liabilities—the taxpayer pays. Unfortunately, this system has become an open invitation to make billions from “injectibles,” particularly where government regulations and laws can be used to create a guaranteed market through mandates. As government agencies and legislators as well as the corporate media have developed various schemes to participate in the billions of profits, significant conflicts of interest have resulted.
The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA or the PREP Act) became law in 2005, adding to corporate freedoms from liability. The Act “is a controversial tort liability shield intended to protect vaccine manufacturers from financial risk in the event of a declared public health emergency. The act specifically affords to drug makers immunity from potential financial liability for clinical trials of . . . vaccine at the discretion of the Executive branch of government. PREPA strengthens and consolidates the oversight of litigation against pharmaceutical companies under the purview of the secretary of Health and Human Services.” (~ Wikipedia)
Over time, this has evolved to the engineering of epidemics—the medical version of false flags. In theory, these can be “psyops” or events engineered with chemical warfare, biowarfare, or wireless technology. If this sounds strange, dive into all the writings of the “Targeted Individuals.”
I learned about this first-hand when I was litigating with the Department of Justice and was experiencing significant physical harassment. I tried to hire several security firms; they would check my references and then decline the work, saying it was too dangerous. The last one took pity and warned me not to worry about electronic weaponry, letting me know that my main problem would be low-grade biowarfare. This biowarfare expert predicted that the opposing team would drill holes in the wall of my house and inject the “invisible enemy.” Sure enough, that is exactly what happened. I sold my house and left town. That journey began a long process of learning how poisoning and nonlethal weapons are used—whether to move people out of rent-controlled apartments, sicken the elderly to move them to more expensive government-subsidized housing, gangstalk political or business targets, or weaken or kill litigants—and the list goes on. Poisoning turned out to be a much more common tactic in the game of political and economic warfare in America than I had previously understood.
After I finished my litigation, I spent several years detoxing from heavy metal toxicity—including from lead, arsenic, and aluminum. As I drove around America, I realized it was not just me. Americans increasingly looked like a people struggling with high loads of heavy metals toxicity. In the process of significantly decreasing my unusually high levels of heavy metals, I learned what a difference the toxic load had made to my outlook, my energy, and my ability to handle complex information.
This brings me to the question of what exactly a vaccine is and what exactly is in the concoctions being injected into people today as well as the witches’ brews currently under development.
In 2017, Italian researchers reviewed the ingredients of 44 types of so-called “vaccines.” They discovered heavy metal debris and biological contamination in every human vaccine they tested. The researchers stated, “The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us.” They then drew the obvious conclusion, namely, that because the micro- and nanocontaminants were “neither biocompatible nor biodegradable,” they were “biopersistent” and could cause inflammatory effects right away—or later (http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-00072.pdf)
Whatever the ingredients of vaccines have been to date, nothing is more bizarre and unsettling than the proposals of what might be included in them in the future. Strategies—already well-funded and well on the way—include brain-machine interface nanotechnology, digital identity tracking devices, and technology with an expiration date that can be managed and turned off remotely. One report indicates that the Danish government and U.S. Navy had been paying a tech company in Denmark to make an injectible chip that would be compatible with one of the leading cryptocurrencies.
I was recently reading Mary Holland’s excellent 2012 review of U.S. vaccine court decisions (“Compulsory vaccination, the Constitution, and the hepatitis B mandate for infants and young children,” Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics) and I froze and thought, “Why are we calling the injectibles that Bill Gates and his colleagues are promoting ‘vaccines’? Are they really vaccines?”
Most people are familiar with how Bill Gates made and kept his fortune. He acquired an operating system that was loaded into your computer. It was widely rumored that the U.S. intelligence agencies had a back door. The simultaneous and sudden explosion of computer viruses then made it necessary to regularly update your operating system, allowing Gates and his associates to regularly add whatever they wanted into your software. One of my more knowledgeable software developers once said to me in the 1990s—when Microsoft really took off—”Microsoft makes really sh***y software.” But of course, the software was not really their business. Their business was accessing and aggregating all of your data. Surveillance capitalism was underway.
The Department of Justice launched an antitrust case against Microsoft in 1998, just as the $21 trillion started to disappear from the U.S. government—no doubt with the help of specially designed software and IT systems. During the settlement negotiations that permitted Gates to keep his fortune, he started the Gates Foundation and his new philanthropy career. I laughed the other day when my tweet of one of Robert Kennedy Jr.’s articles from Children’s Health Defense—describing the gruesome technology Gates is hoping to roll out through “injectibles”—inspired a response: “Well, I guess he is finally fulfilling his side of his antitrust settlement.”
If you look at what is being created and proposed in the way of injectibles, it looks to me like these technological developments are organized around several potential goals.
The first and most important goal is the replacement of the existing U.S. dollar currency system used by the general population with a digital transaction system that can be combined with digital identification and tracking. The goal is to end currencies as we know them and replace them with an embedded credit card system that can be integrated with various forms of control, potentially including mind control. “De-dollarization” is threatening the dollar global reserve system. The M1 and M2 money supply have increased in the double digits over the last year as a result of a new round of quantitative easing by the Fed. The reason we have not entered into hyperinflation is because of the dramatic drop in money velocity occasioned by converting Covid-19 into an engineered shutdown of significant economic activity and the bankrupting of millions of small and medium-sized businesses. The managers of the dollar system are under urgent pressure to use new technology to centralize economic flows and preserve their control of the financial system.
Just as Gates installed an operating system in our computers, now the vision is to install an operating system in our bodies and use “viruses” to mandate an initial installation followed by regular updates.
Now I appreciate why Gates and his colleagues want to call these technologies “vaccines.” If they can persuade the body politic that injectible credit cards or injectible surveillance trackers or injectable brain-machine interface nanotechnologies are “vaccines,” then they can enjoy the protection of a century or more of legal decisions and laws that support their efforts to mandate what they want to do. As well, they can insist that U.S. taxpayers fund, through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the damages for which they would otherwise be liable as a result of their experiments—and violations of the Nuremberg Code and numerous civil and criminal laws—on the general population. The scheme is quite clever. Get the general population to go along with defining their new injectible high-tech concoctions as “vaccines,” and they can slip them right into the vaccine pipeline. No need to worry about the disease and death that will result from something this unnatural delivered this quickly. The freedom from liability guaranteed by the PREP Act through the declaration of an emergency—and the ability to keep the emergency going through contact tracing—can protect them from liability for thousands if not millions of deaths and disabilities likely to follow such human experimentation. Ideally, they can just blame the deaths on a virus.
A colleague once told me how Webster’s Dictionary came about. Webster said that the way the evildoers would change the Constitution was not by amending it but by changing the definitions—a legal sneak attack.
I believe that Gates and the pharma and biotech industries are literally reaching to create a global control grid by installing digital interface components and hooking us up to Microsoft’s new $10 billion JEDI cloud at the Department of Defense as well as Amazon’s multibillion cloud contract for the CIA that is shared with all U.S. intelligence agencies. Why do you think President Trump has the military organizing to stockpile syringes for vaccines? It is likely because the military is installing the roaming operating system for integration into their cloud. Remember—the winner in the AI superpower race is the AI system with access to the most data. Accessing your body and my body on a 24/7 basis generates a lot of data. If the Chinese do it, the Americans will want to do it, too. In fact, the rollout of human “operating systems” may be one of the reasons why the competition around Huawei and 5G telecommunications has become so fractious. As Frank Clegg, former President of Microsoft Canada has warned us, 5G was developed by the Israelis for crowd control.
In the face of global “de-dollarization,” this is how the dollar syndicate can assert the central control it needs to maintain and extend its global reserve currency financial power. This includes protecting its leadership from the civil and criminal liability related to explosive levels of financial and health care fraud in recent decades.
Which brings me back to you and me. Why are we calling these formulations “vaccines”? If I understand the history of case law, vaccines, in legal terms, are medicine. Intentional heavy metal poisoning is not medicine. Injectible surveillance components are not medicine. Injectible credit cards are not medicine. An injectible brain-machine interface is not a medicine. Legal and financial immunity for insurance companies does not create human immunity from disease.
We need to stop allowing these concoctions to be referred to by a word that the courts and the general population define and treat as medicine and protect from legal and financial liability.
The perpetrators of this fraud are trying a very neat trick—one that will help them go much faster and cancel out a lot of risk—at our expense. I understand why they are doing it.
What I don’t understand is why we are helping them. Why are we acquiescing in calling these bizarre and deeply dangerous concoctions “vaccines”? Whatever they are, they are not medicine.
So, what shall our naming convention be? What name shall we give to the relevant poisons, neurologically damaging metals, and digital shackles?
Whatever we call them, I know one thing. THEY ARE NOT MEDICINE, WHICH MEANS THEY SURE ARE NOT VACCINES.
Gresham’s law holds that bad money drives out good money. If there are two coins with the same face value, but of different intrinsic value (assume that one is made of a more precious metal) the coin with less intrinsic worth (bad coin) will be used for currency transactions and the more valuable coin will go out of circulation.
This law applies to the pharmaceuticals today. If there are two drugs of comparable efficacy, the drug that costs more (bad coin) will drive out the good drug (less expensive one) out of the market. It is unfortunate that we are experiencing this in the midst of the humanitarian tragedy of the Covid pandemic.
The present pandemic is caused by a novel virus and mankind has no experience with how to deal with it. There are no drugs or vaccines we know will work. To fight the virus, one approach is to re-purpose approved drugs developed for other uses. A variety of drugs in the market can be tested for efficacy against the new virus. We will discuss the testing of two such drugs against Covid-19.
Remdesivir is a candidate drug. It had been developed for the Ebola virus but it was not found to be effective against it. A generic version of the drug manufactured by Hetero costs Rs 5000 to Rs 6000 per vial. The 11 vials needed for a 10-day course costs Rs 55,000. Remdesivir was subjected to a clinical trial against Covid-19 and the early results of this study were published by Beigel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on 22 May 2020. There was no statistically meaningful benefit for survival with use of the drug, but among those that survived, recovery time was reduced by four days to a median of 11 days instead of 15 days. The US FDA has approved this drug for compassionate use.
Hydroxychloroqunin (HCQ) is another drug under consideration. It is an antimalarial drug that costs Rs 68 for 10 tablets and a course of treatment requires 12 tablets. The WHO studied this drug in 400 hospitals in 35 countries. It was called the Solidarity trial. However, on 22 May 2020, on the same day that the Remdesivir report appeared in the NEJM, another famous medical journal, The Lancet, published a report that HCQ caused 35% more deaths due to adverse effects of the drug in another trial. Within three days of the publication of the Lancet paper, the WHO suspended the Solidarity study.
India, however, decided to defy the WHO and continue its trial of HCQ. During the period when the Solidarity study was suspended, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) wrote to the WHO, that Solidarity schedule was employing four times the recommended dose of HCQ. The WHO schedule prescribed 1600 mg of the drug on the first day and total of 9600 mg for the full course of treatment. This dose was likely to be toxic and potentially fatal. Dr Vinod Paul in the Niti Aayog was of the opinion (New Indian Express 29 May) that the drug given in the correct dose was useful against Covid in India.
It turned out that the Lancet paper about HCQ deaths was fraudulent and used fabricated data. The Lancet paper was retracted within 13 days of publication. On 3 June, the WHO resumed the Solidarity HCQ study. Inspite of the warning about the drug dosage from the ICMR, the same toxic dose was continued.
Ten days later, Dr Meryl Nass, an US physician and expert on adverse reactions with drugs, wrote in her blog on 14 June 2020 about the lethal dose of HCQ being used in the Solidarity trial. People on Twitter, took it up. Three days later, on the 17 June, the WHO announced that it was suspending the HCQ trial because ‘there was no reduction in mortality’ with the drug, without any mention of the controversy about the drug dosage being used. No data was published.
By a strange coincidence, on the same day the WHO stopped its HCQ trial, the UK announced that it was stopping its trial of HCQ (called the Recovery trial) because they found simultaneously, that there was no reduction in mortality with the drug. The UK Recovery trial was funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) and it was also using the same toxic dosage as the Solidarity trial. No data was provided about the other outcome measures like the reduction in time to recovery.
One can see the contrast here between the trials with the two drugs. The Remdesivir trial reported in the NEJM had found no reduction in mortality but the trial was continued on the basis of an improvement in recovery time among survivors. This was not reported on in the HCQ study. Clearly there are different standards operating here for the two drugs.
We cannot let matters rest here. The Lancet paper was retracted but we need to investigate who was really behind this effort to fraudulently discredit HCQ. “Surgisphere” is reported as the organisation that manufactured the data, but who got them to do this? Did they get any extraordinary help from the journal for publication?
Was this a concerted effort by pharma to discredit the less expensive drug? While it is made to appear as a rogue company “Surgisphere” appears to have done this to improve its visibility, it is necessary to have a deeper investigation into the motives and involvement of others, including publishers.
Further, one needs to know who was responsible for putting lives at risk by recommending toxic doses of HCQ in Solidarity and Recovery trials. One cannot assume this was an unintentional mistake, as the dose was not corrected even after the error was pointed out by the ICMR. We need to get to the bottom of this and those involved need to be discredited and weeded out, if we do not want bad science, like bad coins, taking over the world. If this is not done, in all probability, the results of the ICMR HCQ study will not be allowed to be published. Gresham’s Law of Pharmacotheraputics–only expensive drugs will show positive results.
ONE OF THE MOST FRUSTRATING ASPECTS of how academic science conducts itself in the US is high reliance to SELECTIVE ATTENTION to information that suits one’s particular viewpoint in science. Graduate students writing theses or dissertations are expected to provide a reasonable approximation of a background of the foundations upon which their thesis is built. Somewhere along the way, some scientists have forgotten the ethics of the moral responsibility of providing an unbiased representation of the state of knowledge upon which they base their positions. To seek only confirming instances that match one’s own viewpoint is positivistic – and it is the essential driver of confirmation bias. CDC and Fauci’s reliance of the Selective Attention Bias is monumental is size and historically destructive in scope.
Here I outline a few rather important facts that CDC and Fauci (and thus the rest of public health and most of the US medical system) have forgotten. The result is a public health policy response in the US that is full of … holes, at immense cost to the well-being of society.
When I read headlines like “Scientists discover” X, Y or Z about Coronavirus”, I almost always groan. “We ALREADY KNOW that about coronviruses” is my response, and so off to Pubmed I go.
Here are some things we already know that are being forgotten, or ignored, in public health policy in the US (and elsewhere) on the COVID-19 response.
(1) Coronavirus antibodies don’t last. Based on a non-peer-reviewed study preprint of a King’s College Study that monitored SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels for three months, the media represents this as new because the researchers who have presented the data failed to provide a thorough representation of past studies – and the media failed to pick up on the reality of what we already know. We’ve known that the antibody response to coronaviruses in humans is shorter than that, say, for human rhinoviruses (the common cold) since 1990.
Here’s the study on coronviruses (1990):
“After preliminary trials, the detailed changes in the concentration of specific circulating and local antibodies were followed in 15 volunteers inoculated with coronavirus 229E. Ten of them, who had significantly lower concentrations of preexisting antibody than the rest, became infected and eight of these developed colds. A limited investigation of circulating lymphocyte populations showed some lymphocytopenia in infected volunteers. In this group, antibody concentrations started to increase 1 week after inoculation and reached a maximum about 1 week later. Thereafter antibody titres slowly declined. Although concentrations were still slightly raised 1 year later, this did not always prevent reinfection when volunteers were then challenged with the homologous virus. However, the period of virus shedding was shorter than before and none developed a cold. All of the uninfected group were infected on re-challenge although they also appeared to show some resistance to disease and in the extent of infection. These results are discussed with reference to natural infections with coronavirus and with other infections, such as rhinovirus infections.“
And here’s the study on rhinoviruses (1989):
“The specific humoral immune response of 17 volunteers to infection with human rhinovirus type 2 (HRV-2) has been measured both by neutralization and by ELISA. Six volunteers who had HRV-2-specific antibodies in either serum or nasal secretions before HRV-2 inoculation were resistant to infection and illness. Of the remaining 11 volunteers who had little pre-existing HRV-2-specific antibody, one was immune but 10 became infected and displayed increases in HRV-2-specific antibodies. These antibodies first increased 1-2 weeks after infection and reached a maximum at 5 weeks. All six resistant volunteers who had high pre-existing antibody and eight of the volunteers who became infected maintained their HRV-2-specific antibody for at least 1 year. At this time they were protected against reinfection. Two volunteers showed decreases in HRV-2-specific antibodies from either serum or nasal secretions. They became infected but not ill after HRV-2 inoculation 1 year later.“
So, people infected with coronaviruses have short-lived active antibodies compared to rhinovirus, but have a mild infection a year later if re-exposed. To be fair to the authors of the study, they referenced the coronavirus study from 1990, as well as length of antibody responses in SARS and MERS. But it’s still a fair question to ask:
Why then are we reading headlines such as
?
The high profile emphasis is followed by proclamations that natural immunity from infections might not prove to be”enough”, begging the question of definition of “enough” – Fauci and others (like Paul Offit) have already presaged that an untested vaccine might only make the infection less severe, and not prevent infection or transmission. So this high emphasis and follow-on claim that natural herd immunity might not be enough is a type of distortion used to convince the public that they may have to wait for a vaccine to save society. Of course.
2. Masks Don’t Really Work Outside of Healthcare Systems.
A meta-analysis on masks concluded that masks should work in the healthcare setting, but the three studies that focused on the utility of masks to protect the wearer outside of the healthcare system? Two of three studies say “no effect” – and the one that is significant is only marginally significant, and oh, also (like all of the other studies) only focused on the ability of masks to protect the wearer.
And, for good measure, N95 does NOT mean they stop 95% of droplets, as incorrectly reported by “Ask Ethan” on Forbes – it means they can block viruses no smaller than 5 microns. SARS-CoV-2 is 30 times smaller than N95.
In a BSL3 laboratory, workers must wear much more effective equipment that an N95 mask, or a handkerchief, or a shirt collar, to block viruses the size of coronaviruses. Clearly we are being socially conditioned to submit to pressure to conform to an agenda to accept the spate of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines as the living Savior of society. Oh, if only that could even be theoretically true. Unfortuantely, CDC, Fauci and apparently FDA also forgot that
“Objective The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.
Setting 14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Participants 1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards.
Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.
Main outcome measure Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection.
Results The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000887077.”
From Ref #2
“Summary:
Respiratory infection is much higher among healthcare workers wearing cloth masks compared to medical masks, research shows. Cloth masks should not be used by workers in any healthcare setting, authors of the new study say.”
C. R. MacIntyre, H. Seale, T. C. Dung, N. T. Hien, P. T. Nga, A. A. Chughtai, B. Rahman, D. E. Dwyer, Q. Wang. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open, 2015; 5 (4): e006577 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577
Even Medpage today published an article that concluded that some politicians are pushing masks for fear mongers, not toward evidence-based medical purposes.
3. Coronavirus Vaccines Cause Pathogenic Priming… and Therefore Require Phase 1 Animal Studies to Detect Disease Enhancement
This has been covered in my blog before as suggested reading, but I’ll put those findings again right here for those expecting more from our regulatory agencies. In March 2020, FDA allowed Fauci, I mean, Moderna, to skip the critical Phase 1 animal studies that led to a halth to human studies for SARS and MERS vaccines. That was a LONG time ago now (5 months). How many times over could Moderna (I mean, Fauci) have conducted the animal studies to detect pathogenic priming by now? Maybe they have! Certainly we would have head of the results if they showed no disease enhancement. Come on, we may be – collectively- stupid, but we’re not dead. Yet.
Immunization with inactivated Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus vaccine leads to lung immunopathology on challenge with live virus.“Lung mononuclear infiltrates occurred in all groups after virus challenge but with increased infiltrates that contained eosinophils and increases in the eosinophil promoting IL-5 and IL-13 cytokines only in the vaccine groups. Inactivated MERS-CoV vaccine appears to carry a hypersensitive-type lung pathology risk from MERS-CoV infection that is similar to that found with inactivated SARS-CoV vaccines from SARS-CoV infection.”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27269431
Vaccine efficacy in senescent mice challenged with recombinant SARS-CoV bearing epidemic and zoonotic spike variants.“VRP-N vaccines not only failed to protect from homologous or heterologous challenge, but resulted in enhanced immunopathology with eosinophilic infiltrates within the lungs of SARS-CoV-challenged mice. VRP-N-induced pathology presented at day 4, peaked around day 7, and persisted through day 14, and was likely mediated by cellular immune responses.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17194199
Immunization with Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara-Based Recombinant Vaccine against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Is Associated with Enhanced Hepatitis in Ferrets“Immunized ferrets developed a more rapid and vigorous neutralizing antibody response than control animals after challenge with SARS-CoV; however, they also exhibited strong inflammatory responses in liver tissue.”
Animal Models for SARS and MERS coronaviruses. “The concern that is extrapolated from the FIPV vaccine experience to human SARS-CoV vaccines is whether vaccine recipients will develop more severe disease if they are exposed to or infected with SARS-CoV after neutralizing antibody titers decline. The second concern is whether recipients of a SARSCoV vaccine would be at risk of developing pulmonary immunopathology following infection with an unrelated human coronavirus e.g. 229E, OC43, HKU1 or NL63 that usually causes mild, self limited disease. Although findings from preclinical evaluation have revealed these concerns, studies in animal models may not be able to provide data to confirm or allay these concerns.”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550498
Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate“…a study on his team’s efforts to engineer a virus with the surface protein of the SHC014 coronavirus, found in horseshoe bats in China, and the backbone of one that causes human-like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in mice. The hybrid virus could infect human airway cells and caused disease in mice…”
There are many other bits of Science that CDC, Fauci, and the FDA have forgotten – such as how to accurately count deaths, how to design an accurate PCR test. And there will no doubt be some science they would like to forget . They seem hell bent on holding society hostage with lock-downs, and mask mandates, and destruction of small businesses, depletion of retirement accounts.
We won’t forget that the disaster is largely man-made, stemming first from CDC’s flawed PCR test, fumbled attempts to contain by early contact tracing, and made much worse by a lock-down that was supposed to last two weeks. We have not forgotten that we never signed up for lock-downs of long duration that destroy our means of making a living, feeding and housing ourselves and our children. But there is a bright light coming out of the tunnel BEFORE the untested vaccines.
A Bit of Science CDC and Fauci Would Like To Ignore
Here’s a bit of Science I want YOU to help make certain NO ONE forgets. Please share Dr. Brownstein’s case series study on his protocol used on 107 COVID-19 patients with zero deaths – and only 1 hospitalization on the core protocol – with every ND, DO, DC, nurse, geriatric specialist, nursing home employee, public health official, friend, neigbor, and family member you know. Share my editorial, too.
If this virus can be so easily treated, why are we destroying America?
Guided by the meticulous work of Dr. David E. Martin, Plandemic II: Indoctornation, tracks a three decade-long money trail that leads directly to the key players behind the COVID 19 pandemic.
Plandemic II connects the dots between all forms of media, the medical industry, politics and the financial industry to unmask the major conflicts of interests with the decision makers that are currently managing this crisis.
Consider this film to be a “must-see” documentary that will absolutely blow your mind and forever change your understanding of the total corruption of the “science” establishment and the for-profit medical system.
In essence, a group of evil people built this virus and released it onto the world so they could crush humanity and earn billions in profits. Even more shockingly, this isn’t the first time they’ve tried this.
You can watch the first Plandemic documentary here.
Many early Celtic Christians drew heavily on the Gospel of John for their inspiration … Early Celtic Christians …. (were) seeking to find God’s physical presence in the natural world and the wonders of Nature. Their art, prayers, teachings, poems and writings are full of deep mystical insights into the activities of Nature. For the 14th and 15th century English mystic Julian of Norwich, God was seen in everything – the human body and the body of creation – and she insisted, as the early Celtic tradition had done, that both Nature and grace were one.
Similarly for many Hindu yogis, God and (Nature) are one and the same. The Srimad Bhagavata Purana (11.2.41) states that, “Ether, air, fire, water, earth, planets, all creatures, directions, trees and plants, rivers and seas, they all are organs of God’s body; remembering this, a devotee respects all species”. We can see that when we penetrate the deeper dimensions of Christianity and Yoga, we discover elements of Nature mysticism embedded within them ….
In fact, any experience of deep contact with Nature often helps in the healing process … and leads us to discover wider and more holistic perspectives of existence that inevitably enrich us in profound and life enhancing ways. Doctors now recognise that simply walking in Nature is one of the best exercises for physical health and mental well-being. … Deep within the majority of children and adults there is a natural sense of awe and wonder experienced when they look up at the multitude of stars that can be seen at night or contemplate the rich beauty of Earth and its colossal array of plants, flowers, trees, insects, animals and birds.
At weekends and on holidays our love of Nature often impels us to escape our brick and concrete buildings to find time to rediscover this natural element of spirituality …
Yet because of mass urbanisation and consumerist pressures and through seeing the world full of resources to plunder and exploit, humankind often does not realise that much of what is loved about the natural world will not be around for long unless a dramatic U-turns is made. Interestingly, all spiritual and mystical traditions are about waking up, becoming more aware of life, seeing how all things are interrelated, how skilful and unskilful actions have consequences, and through this understanding to become more responsible for our impact on Earth life. …
Prophets of our age such as Thomas Berry emphasised the importance of ‘the great work’ that lies ahead. … Berry termed the new era of spirituality needed for our times ‘the Ecozoic era’: an era where humans live in mutually enhancing relationships with Earth and the Earth community – which is different to old ideas of stewardship – as it puts us humans on a more equal footing with the rest of Nature, instead of seeing humans as the peak of Creation.
Berry felt that we had lost our links with Earth because we no longer share myths and stories our early ancestors had that helped them find close bonds with the natural world. Because of this, what is now seen as a New Earth/Universe Story … was recognised by Berry and the evolutionary cosmologist Brian Swimme to be needed for humankind to reconnect with its roots and age-old quests for discovering meaning to life. … Before any God of scripture or God of humans, there has been a God of Nature. …
If we follow on from the paths of wisdom that have gone before and embrace wide visions of spirituality…, we will arrive at a more centred, nourishing and spiritual place. In the midst of such awakenings we tap into the power of authentic being …
Numerous spiritual traditions are about being awake to this potential, and the abilities and possibilities that are available to us in every moment, … This active form of spirituality is intrinsically bound-up with wholeness and compassion. It is bound-up with that which can naturally flow from us as a result of wholesome interconnections with all….
Note: Thank you to Anne Dachel for transcribing Dr. Larry Palevsky’s presentation to the CT Assembly last February, during which time the religious exemption was in jeopardy. Then… COVID.
By Anne Dachel
Nightmare in Connecticut
On February 19, 2020 there was hearing by the Connecticut Assembly on vaccine safety. There should have been a packed chamber and lots of press coverage because what one expert testified to was shocking. Sadly, most of the seats were empty, but we need to consider what was said.
Larry Palevsky, MD answered questions for 28 minutes. He described the appalling lack of studies when it comes to vaccine safety, especially involving the use of aluminum in vaccines and its damaging impact on the brain.
“We have never studied whether the aluminum we’re giving in vaccines gets into the brain, and we’ve never measured whether it stays in the brain, and what it does if it does stay in the brain.”
“What we’re seeing is a large outbreak of neurodevelopmental disabilities in adults, including Alzheimer’s, and one of the main factors that they’re finding in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s is the aluminum nanoparticle that’s directly related to the vaccines that we’re giving. “
The representatives should have been more than a little worried over the statistics Dr. Palevsky cited.
“We have more than half of our children with chronic inflamed conditions, and we’ve never allowed ourselves to ask the question: If the vaccines cause inflammation acutely, do they continue to create inflammation chronically
“We have one in 5 with neurodevelopmental disabilities, one in 10 with ADD/ADHD, one in 35 with autism, one in 11 with asthma, and one in 20 under the age of five with seizures.”
For me personally, the most encouraging part of Dr. Palevsky’s remarks was what he said about an upcoming vaccinated versus unvaccinated study. He described a colleague who was studying health outcomes in siblings, some of whom were fully vaccinated, some partially vaccinated, and some totally unvaccinated. These are children who have the exact same genetics and environmental exposures; the only thing different was the vaccines they were given.
“In his preliminary data he’s already seeing quite a stark statistically significance difference.
“Unvaccinated children are unanimously healthier with fewer chronic illnesses. The next fewer illnesses are seen in the partially vaccinated children, and the most severe chronically inflamed conditions are seen in the fully vaccinated children. …
“Those vaxxed versus unvaxxed studies have never been done by the mainstream medical community or scientific community.”
Here is Dr. Palevsky’s full testimony.
###
Hello Connecticut.
I can’t think of a better example of the
Notice the lack of attendance at the hearing.
Larry Palevsky, MD.Testimony Connecticut State Assembly Hearing
A coronavirus alert sign in the United Kingdom reminding people to maintain social distancing also tells them, “Look away when passing other people.”
The sign was seen in the northern market town of Stockton-on-Tees.
It says;
“CORONAVIRUS BE ALERT – NARROW WALKWAY AHEAD. Please ensure you keep your distance, pass others quickly, look away when passing other people.”
The person who originally tweeted the image remarked, “A prime example of psychological warfare and mind control.”
Author and commentator Peter Hitchens, a vehement critic of coronavirus lockdown laws, also weighed in.
“This official tax-funded placard from Stockton-on-Tees encourages human beings to treat each other as toxic hazards,” tweeted Hitchens.
“Leaving aside the disturbing philosophical and moral implications, surely such behaviour is incompatible with anything resembling a society,” he added.
As we previously highlighted, the UK is home to some of the most draconian social distancing rules in the developed world, with one company telling staff that only 40% of them will be able to return to work in January due to a rule that dictates cars must be “socially distanced” in the parking lot.
As we document in the video below, the public’s perception of the threat of coronavirus is infinitely greater than its actual lethality.
A survey revealed in the UK for example that people on average think COVID-19 has killed 7 per cent of the population – around 5 million people.
Having finally solved the grand monetary policy puzzle, Japan has now moved on to other crucial societal problems, like getting people to feel comfortable using public toilets.
At least, that was the thinking behind Tokyo’s new transparent public toilets: to help ease “toilet anxiety”, according to Forbes.
In Japan, where public toilets are held to a higher standard of cleanliness than most other place around the world, the country’s residents still “harbor a fear that public toilets are dark, dirty, smelly and scary.”
That’s why the non-profit Nippon Foundation has now launched “The Tokyo Toilet Project”, which has asked 16 well known architects to renovate 17 public toilets located in one of the busiest areas of Tokyo, the public parks of Shibuya.
The idea was to apply a design that would make public bathrooms comfortable and accessible to everyone. The Nippon Foundation has a goal “that people will feel comfortable using these public toilets and to foster a spirit of hospitality for the next person.”
Pritzker Prize-winning architect Shigeru Ban is the brain-child behind the transparent restrooms. The smartglass they are built with turns opaque when someone is in them. The Nippon Foundation commented: “There are two concerns with public toilets, especially those located in parks. The first is whether it is clean inside, and the second is that no one is secretly waiting inside.”
“At night, they light up the parks like a beautiful lantern,” the Foundation concluded.
In a press release accompanying an explanatory video (watch it here), NASA scientists explain how the SAA is like “a pothole in space,” jarring satellites every time they pass over it, causing electronic glitches, short circuits and other physical damage. And no, they can’t just fly around it because the SAA is far too big and a detour would make the area of missed communications even larger.
Even though the rip keeps getting bigger, NASA appears less concerned about what’s directly underneath it on the surface, so it seems to imply that the increased solar radiation is nothing to worry about … yet. It can still affect ships and planes passing through, but the worst part is that the anomaly is “slowly but steadily drifting in a northwesterly direction.” You don’t need Google maps (although you might want to use them while you still can) to figure out that ‘northwest’ is the direction of South and North America. However, the press release still refers to the South Atlantic Anomaly as a “dent” and focuses primarily on “Modeling a safer future for satellites” – where NASA and SpaceX make their money.
