One of the latest GMO Frankenfoods is Piggy Sooy, a soybean genetically engineered to contain pig protein. One or more undisclosed pig genes are spliced into conventional soya to create a soybean with 26.6% animal protein
Moolec, the U.K.-based company that developed Piggy Sooy, is also working on developing a pea plant that produces beef protein. The company claims these transgenic hybrids will provide similar taste, texture and nutritional value as meat, without the high cost of cultured or lab-grown meat alternatives
June 21, 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture authorized the sale of cell-cultivated chicken from Good Meat and Upside Foods. Both plan on rolling out their synthetic chicken to “high-end” restaurants across the U.S. first, while they scale up production
Researchers have discovered that CRISPR-Cas gene editing wreaks havoc in the plant genome, causing several hundred unintended genetic changes to occur simultaneously “in a catastrophic event” that ripples across large parts of the genome
Because these changes are impossible to predict, gene edited plants cannot be assumed safe without extensive testing
As expected, more and ever-wilder transgenic foods are being produced. Among the latest is Piggy Sooy, a soybean genetically engineered to contain pig protein.1,2 According to Moolec, the U.K.-based company that developed this latest Frankenfood, pig genes were spliced into conventional soya to create a soybean with 26.6% animal protein.
The exact pig genes used is a trade secret. As a result of this genetic engineering, the interior flesh of the soybean is also a rosy flesh color. The company is also working on developing a pea plant that produces beef protein. Moolec claims these transgenic hybrids will provide similar taste, texture and nutritional value as meat, without the high cost of cultured or lab-grown meat alternatives. According to New Atlas:3
“Farmers will raise the plants via conventional agricultural practices. Once the beans have been harvested and processed — again, via conventional techniques — their proteins will go into meat substitutes and other products …
As is the case with lab-grown pork, it is hoped that commercial adoption of Piggy Sooy could ultimately eliminate the raising and slaughtering of pigs, along with the associated ethical and environmental concerns.
‘Moolec has developed a unique, successful, and patentable platform for the expression of highly valuable proteins in the seeds of economically important crops such as soybeans,’ says the company’s chief science officer, Amit Dhingra.
‘This achievement opens up a precedent for the entire scientific community that is looking to achieve high levels of protein expression in seeds via molecular farming.’ There’s currently no word on when foods containing the proteins may be available to consumers.”
US Authorizes Cultured Chicken
Lab-grown chicken is also heading toward our plates. June 21, 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) authorized the sale of cell-cultivated chicken — meaning chicken meat grown from stem cells in a bioreactor — from Good Meat and Upside Foods.4,5
Both plan on rolling out their synthetic chicken to “high-end” restaurants across the U.S. first, while they scale up production. In addition to these two, more than 100 other companies are also working on different iterations of cultured meat, from cell-based ground beef and 3-D printed steak and fish (see video above), to synthetic foie gras and cultured seafood.
If you care about your health, I have but one recommendation. Stay clear of all these lab-grown concoctions. I don’t even want to call them food. There’s simply no telling how they may affect your health, and no one is studying it either. It could be decades before the effects become evident, and by then it may be far too late to roll things back.
On the one hand, the know-how of how to grow and raise real food might be lost. On the other, we might lose the ability to grow real food because there won’t be any unadulterated seeds left to work with unless we break open the doomsday seed vault at the North Pole.6
Gene Editing Causes Chaos in the Genome
As reported by GMWatch in June 2023, researchers have discovered7 that CRISPR-Cas gene editing ends up wreaking havoc in the plant genome:8
“Recent scientific findings have revealed chromothripsis-like effects after the application of CRISPR/Cas gene editing in the genome of tomatoes … Chromothripsis refers to a phenomenon in which often several hundred genetic changes occur simultaneously in a catastrophic event. Many sections of the genetic material can be swapped, recombined, or even lost if this occurs …”
Importantly, the same catastrophic cascades of gene swaps, recombination and loss also occurs in mammalian and human cells in response to gene editing. Actually, that’s been known for some time.
This is the first time they’ve found that CRISPRthripsis occurs in gene edited plants as well, and the unintended genetic alterations not only occur far more frequently than previously suspected, but they also occur across large parts of the genome.
Gene Edited Plants Cannot Be Regarded as Safe
As explained by Test Biotech:9
“… when both strands of DNA are cut, as is typically the case with the CRISPR/Cas, the ends of the chromosomes can lose contact with each other. If the repair of the break in the chromosomes fails, the severed ends can be lost, restructured or incorporated elsewhere.
Chromothripsis otherwise seems to be relatively rare in plants. CRISPR/Cas applications can frequently result also in changes at genomic sites that are particularly well-protected by natural repair mechanisms. The risks cannot generally be estimated, so they must be investigated thoroughly in each and every case …
The recent findings shed new light on the alleged ‘precision’ of gene scissors: although the new technology can be used to target and cut precise locations in the genome, the consequences of ‘cutting’ the genome are to some extent unpredictable and uncontrollable.
Plants obtained from new genetic engineering (New GE) cannot, therefore, be regarded as safe per se, and need to be thoroughly investigated for risks. Without exact genomic analyses, chromothripsis can be easily overlooked. It is, for example, not unlikely that it also occurred in plants obtained from New GE that were already deregulated in the US.”
Precision in Gene Editing Is Overrated
Those in favor of gene editing frequently stress the fact that it’s far more precise than natural breeding, the insinuation being that precision assures we only get the desired changes, nothing more and nothing less. But that’s clearly not true.
Precision does not guarantee safety, because hundreds of unintended genetic changes can occur from a single alteration, and unintended genetic rearrangements and/or the disruption of gene expression, in turn, can result in:
Alterations in the biochemical composition of the plant (or animal tissue)
Production of novel toxins
Production of novel allergens
Europe Seeks to Deregulate CRISPR Edited Plants
At present, the U.S. has no specific regulations for gene edited plants. The same regulations that apply for conventional crops apply for GMOs.10
That said, in late May 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on “Pesticides and Exemptions of Certain Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) Derived from Newer Technologies,”11,12 which now requires GMO developers to submit data showing that plants that have been gene edited to resist pests are harmless to other components of the ecosystem, don’t contain pesticide levels beyond those found in conventional crops, and won’t cause negative health effects in consumers.
For years, Europe has had rather stringent restrictions on GMO plants, but they’re now seeking to deregulate as well. As reported by Test Biotech:13
“Attempts are currently being made in Europe to largely deregulate plants obtained from CRISPR/Cas applications. According to leaked documents, the EU Commission plans to give companies permission to release New GE plants into the environment and to market their products after only a short period of notification.
Similar to the USA, the proposed criteria exempting them from mandatory risk assessment would not require any investigation of unintended genetic changes, e.g. chromothripsis.
The new regulation would not only be applicable to plants used in agriculture, but also would allow the release of wild plants with no in-depth risk assessment. Testbiotech is warning that the planned deregulation and large scale releases of New GE organisms could threaten natural resources needed by future generations.”
Lab-Made Meats Are Ultraprocessed Junk Food
Between genetically altered produce and lab-created meats, we’re getting close to not having many real, unadulterated whole food options left. Importantly, many meat alternatives fall into the category of ultraprocessed foods, which we already have far too much of.
In 2018, Friends of the Earth (FOE), a grassroots environmental group, released a report that posed critical questions about the trend toward synthetic biology. In it, they stressed the highly processed nature of these products:14
“Various ‘processing aids’ are employed to make some of these products, including organisms (like genetically engineered bacteria, yeast and algae) that produce proteins, and chemicals to extract proteins.
For example, chemicals like hexane are used to extract components of a food, like proteins (from peas, soy, corn etc.) or compounds (from genetically engineered bacteria) to make xanthan gum … disclosure of these ingredients is not required.
Other processing aids (e.g. bacteria, yeast, algae), including those that are genetically engineered to produce proteins, are also not currently required to be disclosed on package labeling. The lack of transparency makes it difficult to assess the inputs and impact of their use.”
Can We End the Tyranny of Ultraprocessed Food?
In a June 2023 Wired article, Dr. Chris Van Tulleken, an expert in infectious diseases and author of “Ultra-Processed People: Why Do We All Eat Stuff That Isn’t Food … and Why Can’t We Stop?” made a heartfelt plea to policymakers and doctors to protect public health by leading the fight for real food:15
“Diet-related disease — which includes obesity, heart attack, strokes, cancer, and dementia — is the leading cause of early death in the UK. Driving it is a set of industrially processed products … known formally as ultraprocessed food (UPF).
This type of food is usually wrapped in plastic and has additives that you won’t find in a typical kitchen. In the US and the UK, we get on average 60% of our calories from UPF products like pizza, bread, breakfast cereals, biscuits, and nutritional drinks …
UPF is a byproduct of a complicated financial system that involves repurposing waste from animal food into human food.
To solve this problem, the first thing we need to do is include in the official UK guidance about nutrition the information that ultraprocessed foods are associated with weight gain and diet-related diseases, and that the recommendation for people is to avoid these foods.”
Unfortunately, while an admirable call to action, I don’t foresee governments issuing guidance to avoid ultraprocessed foods anytime soon, seeing how many countries, especially the U.S., are all-in on transitioning the entire food system to one that is wholly, or close to wholly, made up of genetically engineered and processed fare.
It’s part of the technocratic takeover known as The Great Reset. By replacing real animal foods with patented lab-made alternatives, globalists will have unprecedented power to control the world’s population. It’ll also grant them greater control over people’s health.
It’s well-known that the consumption of ultraprocessed food contributes to disease,16 and the benefactor of ill health is Big Pharma. The processed food industry has spent many decades driving chronic illness that is then treated with drugs rather than a better diet.
We’re now looking at more ultraprocessed foods being rolled out in the name of combating climate change, so don’t hinge your hopes on legislators. The financial and geopolitical forces against them are enormous. No, I believe the real power resides with each and every one of us. We need to ensure real food still has a place in the marketplace by spending our money on it and leaving all the processed and genetically engineered food on the store shelves.
The World Health Organization and their “One Health” approach are coming for the world’s food systems, aiming to meld them with health and medical fields
The outcome will be food tokens, medically tailored meals and prescription food programs that dictate what you eat
Part of this is a new “food is medicine” agenda, which is being put in place to ultimately screen, track and control people through food, according to investigative journalist Corey Lynn
The Rockefeller Foundation, the American Heart Association and Kroger have already partnered to develop and launch the Food is Medicine Research Initiative, which includes programs like produce prescriptions and medically tailored meals
Expect that as the Food is Medicine initiative ramps up, you’ll hear more about the “necessity” of bioengineered food, lab-grown meat and insects for “good” human health and to protect the planet
The World Health Organization and their “One Health” approach are coming for the world’s food systems, aiming to meld them with the health insurance and medical fields. The outcome will be food tokens, medically tailored meals and prescription food programs that both dictate what you eat and have the power to impose penalties if you stray too far off course.
“How do you get people to break? Control their food and money,” investigative journalist Corey Lynn explains. “What is the weapon? Controlling your identity through digital means. The smart phone, QR codes, digital identities, biometrics, AI, and chips are all weapons being used against humanity.”1 You can listen to Corey discuss this on Spotify by going to her channel Dig It! Episode #189.2
Are Food Tokens in Your Future?
It was October 2022 when the WHO announced its One Health Joint Plan of Action, launched by the Quadripartite, which, in addition to WHO, consists of the:3
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, founded as OIE)
“The Quadripartite will join forces to leverage the needed resources in support of the common approach to address critical health threats and promote the health of people, animals, plants and the environment,” according to a WHO press release.4
Echoing this statement, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated that “a transformation of the world’s food systems is needed urgently, based on a One Health approach that protects and promotes the health of humans, animals and the planet.”
Part of this is a new “food is medicine” agenda, including from the White House,5 which isn’t nearly as holistic as it sounds. Instead, “food is medicine” is the phrase “being used to campaign, launch programs, change policies and financing, aggregate data, tie the health care industry in with the food supply, and ultimately screen, track and control people through food,” Lynn says.6
It’s a smokescreen, under which more people will be ushered into the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC), and similar initiatives so digital food tokens can be implemented. This allows for the tracking and control of people’s food purchases.
A number of big names have recently joined in the push to increase SNAP enrollment, including Google, which intends to make it easier to find out eligibility and apply for the program.
Other partners include Instacart, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food Industry Association. Benefits Data Trust is also working to help facilitate the enrollment of college students into SNAP, Medicaid and the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides help to obtain internet access.
Again, these seemingly altruistic plans have an ulterior motive — surveillance and control. “Food, health care and internet may seem like a wonderful free benefit, until a college student tries to get their first cheeseburger, doesn’t get the Covid jab, or puts out ‘misinformation’ on the internet,” Lynn says. “Watch how quickly it’s all taken away. It’s like making a deal with the Devil.”7
It’s All a Trap
Once you’re locked into receiving food tokens, you’ve fallen into their trap. Who’s “their”? Lynn has previously described key organizations pulling strings behind the scenes, allowing them to “operate as ghosts without transparency or accountability.”8 These powerful organizations enjoy unrestricted privileges and layers of immunity, allowing them to exert control over the globe.
“These aren’t just ordinary organizations,” Lynn explains. “They happen to be the prime organizations that run the new world order globalists’ agendas against humanity, and they have hundreds of NGOs working with and through them.”9 The roll-out of “healthy eating tokens” isn’t just a possibility.
They’ve already been woven into key propaganda pieces, like this 2018 image below from the Illinois Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Task Force:10,11 “Whereas this example may be reflective of a welfare applicant,” Lynn says, “make no mistake, this is the goal all states are trying to accomplish for all people, not just those on welfare.”12
Pitfalls of White House’s $8 Billion Commitment
In line with WHO’s One Health, the White House laid out a Fact Sheet detailing its “transformational vision for ending hunger and reducing diet-related disease by 2030 – all while closing disparities among the communities that are impacted most.”13
The initiative intends to invest in “new businesses and new ways of screening for and integrating nutrition into health care delivery,” along with devoting at least $2.5 billion to startup companies “pioneering solutions to hunger and food insecurity.” Another $4 billion is earmarked for “philanthropy that improves access to nutritious food, promotes healthy choices and increases physical activity.”
Here again we have the smoke-and-mirrors effect, which masks the integration of food and health as a means to enact broad policies of control. As Lynn reports:14
“A helping hand is always nice, until it has ulterior motives. Sure, physical activity for all and the reduction of sugar in food items are both welcome approaches, but the rest of this agenda is not in the best interest of human beings.
The problem is, when reviewing this Fact Sheet it may seem like a good idea, just as while reviewing a single white paper from the WEF [World Economic Forum] could even sound like it has the potential to be a good thing.
However, when one takes the Fact Sheet with countless white papers, websites, funding, and other internal documents and puts it all together — it paints quite a different story. They know full well that most people won’t gather all of the pieces of the puzzle so they won’t be able to see the reality of the situation and discern the true agenda. That’s why it is so critical to do just that.”
The White House intends to work with a long list of private organizations to reach its goals. The American Heart Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Joint Commission, National Grocers Association, Food Industry Association and the Rockefeller Foundation are among them.
Globalists Team Up to Tell You What to Eat
The Rockefeller Foundation, the American Heart Association and Kroger have already partnered to develop and launch the Food is Medicine Research Initiative.15 It includes programs like produce prescriptions and medically tailored meals,16 which sound good in theory. But entities like the Rockefeller Foundation aren’t looking to further the reach of small farmers producing real, healthy food.
Consider the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which was launched in 2006 with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. With strategies centered on promoting biotechnology and chemical fertilizers, AGRA’s influence significantly worsened the situation in the 18 African nations targeted by this “philanthropic” endeavor. Hunger under AGRA’s direction increased by 30% and rural poverty rose dramatically.17
The Green Revolution is another Rockefeller Foundation-funded conversion of natural farming to a system dependent on chemicals, fossil fuels and industry. You can expect that under this Food is Medicine initiative, genetic engineering, lab-grown meat and, eventually, insects will take center stage. Plus, it’s another tool for integrating food under health care, so you can ultimately be tracked with one digital health passport. Lynn says:18
“Of course food is medicine, but that’s not the true intention of this initiative. By integrating food under medicine just imagine how this will change the landscape of the control mechanisms being put in place under the guise of health care.
This isn’t the only avenue the Rockefeller’s are using to orchestrate this shift in food control. They are also one of the major funders of the Center for Good Food Purchasing, along with W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Panta Rhea Foundation, Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, and the 11th Hour Project — the grant-making vehicle of the Schmidt Family Foundation — former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
The stated goal of this “Center” is to manage the Good Food Purchasing Program, which is all about getting institutions to convert over to their “supply chain transparency from farm to fork and shift towards a values-based purchasing model.”
Converting schools, hospitals, and public administrations is a strong goal, for starters. They’ve established standards, certifications, and a point system as the first of its kind and are building local and national partners as quickly as they built the website.”
Meanwhile, they’re rolling out Food is Medicine courses at hospitals and universities in order to indoctrinate health care providers into this plan. Among the training will be “screening for nutrition” and instruction on how to refer patients to their community nutrition resources, likely along with education on the “benefits” of gene-edited foods and fake meat.19
What Happens if You Veer From Their Prescribed Diet?
Expect that as the Food is Medicine initiative ramps up, you’ll hear more about the necessity of bioengineered food, lab-grown meat and insects for “good” human health and to protect the planet. It’s important to share knowledge with your circle about the pitfalls of these foods and why traditional whole foods are truly what your body needs.
If the powers-that-be take control of the food supply and dictate what people can and can’t eat, humanity is threatened. Envision a world in which your weekly groceries are only released if you’ve met certain requirements, and even then, those groceries are made up of what they ration for your use.
“Imagine if one refuses to eat bugs — they may not receive proper health care,” Lynn says. “Or what happens if one refuses to go on the food token program and only eat as instructed? Did they just lose their ability to receive health care? … What happens if edible vaccines hit the market and they try to make it mandatory as part of one’s diet?”20
To fight back, continue to source food from small, local sources instead of multinational corporations — and pay for your food with cash. As Lynn reports:21
“Just as with their other agendas that all tie into this one, the narrative control is being piped out by universities, medical associations, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and many others to bring a whole new outlook on what a nutritional diet should look like to prevent disease.
It’s as though a complete overhaul is being done on what’s ‘good’ for human beings to ingest, and gene-edited produce, insects, and cultured cells seem to be the top priority.
This may seem like a slow burn, but they are clicking multiple pieces of the structure into place simultaneously, and when that burn finally reaches inside people’s homes, in their cabinets, fridge, and wallets, it will be too late to rollback all of the policies and regulations that have locked into place.”
Since I was very young, I noticed a minority of people “got it” and could see through the current lie everyone else was falling for. Being like this can be incredibly isolating, so I tried to seek these people out and connect them. As time went forward, the question we all asked was, “What makes certain people be awake?”
Note: “Awake” was the best word we could ever find to describe this characteristic. This is somewhat frustrating because it is still not the correct word and because “awake” is also used by countless spiritual groups to gratify the participants and nothing more.
From looking into this question, we concluded depending on how strict the criteria you used, between 1-10% of the population was “awake.”
Interestingly, a market research study found 10% of the population was self-directed (meaning to sell them things, you had to justify the product on its merits), while 90% were not and bought products based on being repeatedly told to buy them. I was shown this study years ago, and I believe MIT or Harvard conducted it, but I could never find it.
Similarly, some meditation schools do not promote themselves (hence why few know of these faiths). This is because those schools felt that only the previously mentioned 10% had the necessary self-direction to complete their practices, and it was unlikely they would be among those who were persuaded into joining the faith rather than having sought it out of their own accord.
When I discussed this topic with Pierre Kory, he told me that his experience has been that, at most, only 10% of doctors were capable of non-algorithmic thinking and real problem-solving — which became quite challenging for him because his job was to train the next generation of ICU doctors.
Similarly, he found when he ordered consults, around 90% of specialists (irrespective of the specialty) would repeat a standardized algorithm back to him for the patients he had already seen more times than he could count. Conversely, only 10% could actually think about the case and provide valuable insights that assisted Kory in developing a treatment plan for a challenging patient.
As the previous example illustrates, when exploring this question, we often found being awake did not correlate with intelligence; many extremely intelligent but unawake people who often “just don’t get it” roam the earth.
Conversely, there are many remarkably perceptive individuals that could not succeed whatsoever within the conventional academic paradigm. Sadly, our educational system, which we trust with developing the young minds that can advance our society into the future, rather than addressing this trend, has increasingly discouraged critical thinking and replaced it with algorithmic thought and blind deference to authority.
This, amongst other things, has been reflected in a progressively declining quality of applicants to medical schools and the residency training that follows medical school.
In college, I attempted to prove to one friend that awake people were not as rare as they thought, and afterward, I shared my “successes” with my friend and was told, “Those people aren’t awake; you just replaced their programming with something a bit closer to the truth.” That stuck with me. I then began to notice this issue all around me.
For example, I would see many groups dedicated to an (often alternative) cause and realize that many members had adopted the group either because they wanted to conform to their peers or to look good to the world around them. Because of this, those members will typically abandon the principles the group stands for once the group no longer benefitted them.
Another way to put it is that people often say they sincerely care about things, but when you break it down, there is no integrity or substance behind those words.
This is a common critique of some of the newer spiritual movements and many aspects of the holistic health field (e.g., many of the health influencers you see on Instagram). However, this same issue also applies in a lot of other areas, many of which are encapsulated by this meme recently shared by Elon Musk.
Consider these examples:
•Most of the current left idolizes and continually references Martin Luther King. Yet, they do the exact opposite of what MLK advocated for — non-violent protest, harmony between different races, and not judging each other by the color of their skin — by continually trying to fracture and define people by their identities.
Then, in the name of “equity,” policies that create significant animosity between those groups are pushed for. One of the most amazing things about this is that the U.S. military, after World War 2, put out a remarkable message on the subject that warned us to be immensely wary of anyone doing what we now see everywhere around us:
•Many liberals who grew up protesting Vietnam have spent their lives being identified as “anti-war.” Trump was the first president since Carter who did not start any new wars (even when Assad crossed the red line for allegedly gassing his own people [later proven to be a lie] — an instance when many other presidents would have begun a war).
Furthermore, Trump also ended longstanding military conflicts we had been involved in. Despite this, very few “anti-war” liberals supported his policies, and instead, the majority of the Democratic party is now entirely behind the military-industrial complex.
•Physicians who claim to identify with supporting the Hippocratic oath and treating all patients equally complied with extremely questionable hospital policies for managing COVID-19.
For example, they would not provide repurposed pharmaceuticals to patients requested by both the patient and family members — even when the patient was otherwise expected to die, and despite there being cases where lawsuits forced the treatment to be provided, and the patients survived.
Worse still (mirroring some of what happened in Nazi Germany), there was widespread discrimination in the medical field against the unvaccinated that clearly and unambiguously violated the tenets of medical ethics.
•Many religious leaders chose to abandon their faith’s teachings by complying with the COVID-19 and vaccine narratives. Similarly, many Christians, including the doctor mentioned below, were disgusted by how many fellow members of their faith in medicine abandoned its principles to discriminate against the unvaccinated.
•Many people in the “holistic” health field who espouse the importance of never putting any toxins or unnatural things (e.g., GMOs) into your body and believe in the healing power of nature aggressively pushed for the COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
Sadder still, I saw cases of left-wing physicians who were immensely distrustful of vaccines because they specialized in treating childhood vaccine injuries, nonetheless got the COVID-19 vaccine, admitted they developed a significant complication from it, and even now are still pushing for masking.
Similarly, I saw numerous institutions teaching dedicated to alternative schools of medicine (e.g., naturopathic medicine) whose founders, and many of who followed in their footsteps, felt very strongly about not vaccinating, yet these leading institutions of their respective professions forcefully mandated the vaccines on both their students and employees.
Mattias Desmet and Mass Formation
One of the best explanations I have seen to explain the disaster we watched unfold over the last few years what Mattias Desmet’s mass formation hypothesis, which essentially describes how, under the right conditions, a collective crowd consciousness can form that approximately 95% of the population complies with.
I expressly endorse Desmet’s theory because he touches upon many aspects of totalitarian states that are very difficult for those who did not witness them firsthand to appreciate. Furthermore, much of what Desmet describes cuts to the core of so many issues in society that are imperative for us to address as soon as possible, and his perspectives, detailed later in the interview, match much of the life philosophy that many awake individuals I know all independently arrived at.
Half a year ago, Desmet sat down with Tucker Carlson and gave one of the best interviews I have seen in my lifetime, where he explained his hypothesis. I recently rewatched that interview as part of an intervention for someone struggling to leave a cult.
I did this after I realized almost all of Desmet’s points also applied to the victim’s experience, and it ended up being one of the key things that got through to that individual (I share that to highlight how broad the applicability of the interview was).
I would specifically like to share one quotation from this interview that I believed heavily influenced Tucker Carlson’s final speech:
“Tucker: This is one of the most amazing conversations I’ve ever had. And I’m so grateful that you’re here. I feel like you’re speaking directly to our country. What is the difference between the people who go along, which is the majority, it sounds like, and the smaller percentage who decide, “No, I’m going to say what I believe is true no matter what.” What makes people decide to take one path or the other? And can you predict it ahead of time?
Desmet: No, you can’t. From the 19th century onwards, from the moment the psychologists have been studying the phenomenon of mass formation, it has been remarked and observed time and time again that every time a mass emerges in a society, there is a small group who doesn’t go along with it.
But the small group is extremely diverse and heterogeneous and nobody seems to know what connects these people, which characteristic these people share, but in one way or another, they all make this fundamental decision, a decision that cannot be reduced to anything else.
They make this decision to choose for truth speech instead of choosing the easy way and going along with the narrative for everybody believes in, but which of which everybody actually knows that it is utterly absurd and unethical.”
Tucker Carlson’s Final Speech
Tucker Carlson was abruptly fired from Fox News shortly after he aired a segment criticizing the media’s crimes against the American people with the COVID-19 vaccines and its complicity with the War in Ukraine.
After his last broadcast, immediately before his unexpected firing, he gave an address at the Heritage Foundation’s 50th anniversary, within which he touched on a question many of us have asked since COVID-19 began.
“I would say two things that I think we’re thinking about. The first is, you look around, and you see so many people break under the strain, under the downward pressure of whatever this is that we’re going through.
And you look with disdain and sadness as you see people you know become quislings, you see them revealed as cowards, you see them going along with a new, new thing, which is clearly a poisonous thing, a silly thing, saying things they don’t believe because they want to keep their jobs.
If there’s a single person in this room who hasn’t seen that through George Floyd and COVID and the Ukraine War, raise your hand. Oh, nobody? Right. You all know what I’m talking about.
The herd Instinct is very strong impulse. And you’re so disappointed in people. You are. And you realize that the herd instinct is maybe the strongest instinct. I mean, it may be stronger than the hunger and sex instincts, actually. The instinct, which again, is inherent to be like everybody else and not to be cast out of the group, not to be shunned.
That’s a very strong impulse in all of us from birth. And it takes over, unfortunately, in moments like this, and it’s harnessed, in fact, by bad people in moments like this to produce uniformity. And you see people going along with this, and you lose respect for them. And that’s certainly happened to me at scale over the past three years.
I’m not mad at people; I’m just sad. I’m disappointed. How could you go along with this? You know it’s not true, but you’re saying it anyway. Because I’m paid to predict things, I try and think a lot about what connects certain outcomes that I should have seen before they occurred.
And in this case, there is no thread that I can find that connects all of the people who’ve popped up in my life to be that lone, brave person in the crowd who says, “No, thank you.”
You could not have known who these people are. They don’t fit a common profile. Some are people like me. Some of them don’t look like me at all. Some of them are people I despised on political grounds just a few years ago.”
Tucker’s words echo a speech from Peter Gøtzsche, a remarkable physician who has dedicated his career to be one of the leading voices speaking out against the crimes of the pharmaceutical industry. In this talk, Gøtzsche describes what he believes drives a minority of the population to break from the herd and take on a great deal of risk to do the right thing:
Note: A common critique Tucker Carlson received was that he would not cover controversial subjects his audience wanted him to cover and, therefore, could not be trusted. My own read was that he was engaging in a delicate balancing act of saying the most he could without losing the ability to continue having an impact. This is a situation almost every awake individual repeatedly finds themselves in, regardless of the industry (e.g., I regularly see it throughout medicine).
Interestingly, Tucker recently admitted this was the case when he announced his plans for an uncensored production on Twitter — as did RFK Jr., who shared that his friend, the CEO of Fox News, very much wanted to air content discussing vaccine safety but could not due to 70% of the network’s revenue coming from pharmaceutical advertising (something only the United States and New Zealand allow).
As I have learned more about those who spoke out against COVID-19, I’ve realized, despite being in different fields and holding different values, the fundamental ways we all think are very similar, and I believe I would have followed a similar path to many of them had I entered their profession instead of medicine.
Similarly, while many caved to the COVID-19 (and vaccine) narrative, none of my mentors ever did. Many of them, in fact, are lifelong liberals who are in complete disbelief at what their party and peers now support (e.g., the current war policy). Because of this, what they had in common may be able to provide some valuable answers to what made some stand up over the last few years.
My Mentors
I have been fortunate to have been mentored by a few remarkably talented physicians. In turn, I have often wondered what set them apart from their peers, and in all instances, I found the following to be true:
They were “awake” individuals (which is also why they were willing to open up to me).
They did not rely on social proof to make decisions (I suspect this tendency increases with age, as that was my experience).
They tried to remain invisible and not publicly promote themselves (e.g., most of them still do not have websites).
They were very perceptive and frequently utilized this capacity in conjunction with their intuition and vast medical knowledge to practice medicine.
They had a spiritual faith (most commonly Christianity) they held a deep conviction in following.
They had a deep commitment to morality.
Note: Morality is another subject that I believe essentially boils down to those who follow it because they want to be moral versus those who follow it for convenience. The former are willing to suffer to do what they feel is right and put a lot of thought into the proper ways to handle difficult situations.
The latter are typically looking for ways to manipulate the existing rules of ethics to get what they want. This is a major problem in medicine, and I recently shared a court case against a doctor who forcefully vaccinated two teenagers that illustrates many of the shortcomings in the current model of medical ethics.
Dr. James Miller
A reader I’ve corresponded with for the last year reached out to me to share what happened to him, and since I felt people needed to hear, I offered to publish it. Dr. Miller has a powerful story, and the primary purpose of the rest of this article is to provide the context to further appreciate the importance of what he is sharing.
Dr. Miller’s story went viral and aired on Fox News for the whole country to see a few days later. There Dr. Miller did a remarkable job articulating its key points in the 5 minutes that were allotted to him:
Dr. Miller worked as a trauma surgeon (something very difficult to do, which requires a significantly larger investment than the typical path doctors follow to enter practice). During COVID-19, he saw that everyone, including colleagues he’d trusted for years, had lost their minds and were following a COVID-19 narrative that was at odds with reality.
Once the vaccines entered the market, he saw discrimination begin against the unvaccinated, which went against every principle of medical ethics he had been taught and had never seen throughout his career.
Eventually, he got fed up with the cruelty he was seeing and decided to start a free clinic because many of the unvaccinated patients abandoned by the medical system were suffering greatly and sometimes dying. Because he did this, he was retaliated against and eventually had to flee the state so he would not permanently lose his medical license. Three things stand out about Dr. Miller’s story.
The personality traits that drove him to do what he did are very similar to those I have observed in many of my mentors listed in the previous section. So, if you want to get an appreciation for them, Dr. Miller’s interviews are the best examples I can provide.
Dr. Miller provides an excellent example of what we all expect from physicians and what we, as the public, should encourage them to be.
Dr. Miller’s experiences help to explain what drove physicians to not conform to the COVID-19 and vaccine narrative. I will also note that friends of other (now famous) doctors who have stood against the vaccines have told me that those doctors shared many of the same motivations Dr. Miller did.
In every era, remarkable individuals appear who can see what no one before them saw. They then create a variety of innovations from their observations that significantly advance humanity and have the internal strength to bring their message to the world regardless of the persecution they receive for doing so.
I believe these individuals represent the awake individuals found within the strictest cut-off for the definition and that their nature is a quality some people are born with that is entirely independent of how they were raised.
The best metaphor I have seen for this is how individuals deal with trauma. Most people who have traumatic childhoods are scarred by that experience for life (e.g., even the CDC acknowledges the severe and lifelong impacts of childhood trauma).
Yet, every once in a while, I meet someone who had a truly horrific childhood, that without any outside help, somehow has gotten completely past what happened to them and is a remarkably compassionate individual who accomplishes a great deal during their lifetime. In cases like these, I can only interpret that capacity as being something the individual was born with.
Note: Since trauma tragically is such a common issue, I attempted to compile my thoughts on the subject and approaches I have found helpful for dealing with it here.
Psychological Fulcrums
Over the last month I’ve worked on this article, I kept coming back to the same question — what causes some people to resist a mass formation? Saying someone is “awake” describes a commonly shared characteristic but still is a cop-out — saying someone was intrinsically resistant to falling for the narrative doesn’t explain why they didn’t fall for it. Today one of the answers finally came to me.
When I was in middle school and high school, I noticed many of the things people found meaning in life from were ultimately just them experiencing brief highs from dopamine rushes inside their brains. While that rush is classically associated with things like cocaine, it also holds for attaining any expectation one has held, and since our entire marketing system is built around fulfilling expectations, this comes up a lot.
In my case, once an expectation was fulfilled, I never experienced those rushes. Because of this, more and more, I only saw the whole process as a series of brief highs that would fade away and have nothing of substance behind them. Since I lacked the “high” to make life seem real and meaningful, it forced me to do a lot of thinking about what type of life purpose and focus I could pursue that would feel real and meaningful — which was very difficult.
Note: The above image shows a 2-dimensional fulcrum. The concept I am aiming to illustrate is in 3+ dimensions, but I am using this image because the concept is difficult to show in higher dimensions.
A fulcrum in this context is defined as the point which supports a system and the system organized around. One of my realizations in my early search for meaning and purpose in life was that almost every person’s mind had to have a “fulcrum” to support it, and if a fulcrum was not present, the mind could not function. Because of this, if people had the choice between a bad fulcrum or no fulcrum, they would always choose the bad psychological fulcrum.
The thing that initially clued me into this was a few discussions with peers where I sought to understand why they so fanatically clung to dysfunctional ideologies, and in each case, I heard the same story:
“I was in a very bad place in life where I felt hopeless and as though my life had no meaning, then I was introduced to [the adopted ideology] by a very charismatic and intelligent individual who proved* to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that [the ideology] was true.
I became overjoyed there as finally a purpose and meaning to my life, and ever since then I’ve dedicated myself to promoting this ideology.”
*in each case I looked at, the “proof” was very questionable.
From these events, I realized the individual lacking an existing psychological fulcrum while simultaneously being unwilling to do the difficult work to develop their own made them extremely vulnerable to adopting whatever psychological fulcrum was forced upon them. This brings me to one of my all time favorite quotes (which has many variations and authors it has been attributed to):
“If you don’t stand for something, you fall for anything.”
Each of the well-known COVID dissidents I had gotten to know, beyond being an “awake” individual, as James Miller demonstrated in his interviews, also had, for one reason or another, a strongly developed psychological fulcrum before the pandemic began.
This lies in contrast to much of the population, who, instead of following a clear purpose they chose for themselves, move through life in a walking daze and adopt whatever (often corporate-sponsored) psychological fulcrum society forces upon them.
As the years have gone by, this has become a larger and larger issue because each of the anchors which previously gave us purpose and meaning (a strong community, a traditional family, a faith, regularly being outside, etc.) have been systematically dismantled so individuals desperate for a psychological fulcrum will readily adopt the one fed to them.
This is especially a problem in medicine — the conditioning we undergo to adopt the allopathic ideology as our identity is difficult for anyone who has not experienced it firsthand to appreciate — and I believe this is a key reason so few doctors questioned the narrative.
Closing One’s Mind
In a recent article, I discussed my perspectives on developing a healthy relationship with one’s emotions and which of the many treatments out there actually improve mental health. In the article, I argued that our culture’s critical mistake is the widespread tendency to intellectualize or constrict our emotions rather than choosing to accept and experience them.
That contraction prevents the emotion from being able to exit one’s body. Instead, the emotion is patterned into the body and, eventually, one’s unconscious mind, where it exerts a profound but invisible influence over their life. In many cases, those individuals will move through life in the same disconnected walking daze observed in individuals who lack their own psychological fulcrum and likewise easily fall prey to malicious external influences.
Trapped emotions cause many other issues, too, such as significantly worsening one’s moment-by-moment experience of life, compelling people to make self-sabotaging decisions their rational mind would never support, and disconnecting the individual from experiencing life. For all of these reasons, oppressive governments seeking to control the public always encourage this emotional suppression.
At the same time, wise individuals throughout the ages have continually reechoed the refrain that their fellow human beings needed to stop closing down their hearts.
The most common reasons why we habitually contract our emotions are the discomfort of experiencing the emotion (especially if it is painful) and the strain our awareness (particularly within the heart) is placed under when its reality is expanded to something outside of its familiar comfort zone.
For example, consider the psychological impact of having to both accept everything you thought you knew for over a decade was wrong and no longer knowing where to go or what to trust. Because of the difficulty in doing that, many will instead choose to follow the crowd and adopt its psychological fulcrum instead of taking on the responsibility of developing and maintaining their own.
In the same manner we contract the feelings within our hearts, as the previous example shows, we also contract the thoughts within our minds. In my own experience, I’ve found that while many crave the comfort of contracted thoughts and emotions, awake individuals typically do the opposite — although, in many cases, that unwillingness to contract exists only in one of the two but not the other.
If we again circle back to Dr. Miller’s story, it should be clear that he had developed a psychological fulcrum that was independent of his identity as an M.D. and that he had a mind that was not willing to contract or allow him to close his eyes to what he saw going on before him.
Note: His mental resistance to contraction is likely what drove him to create a strong psychological fulcrum in the first place. Conversely, many of his peers did share this trait, and even though they knew what they were participating in was wrong (either on a conscious or subconscious level), they still went along with it and, in many cases, embraced the mass formation being fed to them.
One of Desmet’s most important observations about mass formations is that their dissolution depends if enough awake individuals who resist the narrative are also willing to speak out against it. This cuts to the core of why stories like Dr. Miller’s are so important to share, as by inspiring others to do the same, they go a long way to creating the population-wide immunity we need to prevent future mass formations from occurring.
Furthermore, Desmet highlighted what is possibly the most important part of this story. Throughout history, in the most challenging situations, where almost everyone is pulled into a mass formation and committing abhorrent actions that create deep conflicts within hearts and minds, something very interesting happens to those who nonetheless take the risk to speak out with the truth.
They are filled with a strength they cannot explain that allows them to persevere through the darkest situations imaginable, and beyond Desmet’s claim, this occurs, I have also witnessed it in many, including some of the well-known figures in this movement.
I believe this observation is because much of our internal strength depends upon having a lack of internal contractions, which in turn requires you to be free of internal conflict by following the path you know in your heart to be right (which is also something spiritual systems throughout the ages have realized). Remember:
“If you don’t stand for something, you fall for anything.”
Conclusion
I believe that many of the problems we face now are due to a crisis of consciousness that allows people to be easily misled and a widespread loss of faith that has removed the anchors that could be relied upon to keep us from drifting astray.
In recent articles, I’ve tried to present solutions for a few of the common issues I’ve observed that hinder our ability to see what is in front of us, come together and then effectively work against the darkness that has entered our world. In addition to those mentioned previously in this article, those have included:
Letting go of your need to be right and covet information or truths that make one feel superior to their peers. Beyond creating division between people who should be supporting each other, this coveting blinds you from being able to see what is directly in front of you.
Tolerating ambiguity and accepting that until you fully understand something (which can border on impossible), there will always be contradictions with what you “know.”
Recognizing how we selectively edit out much of the world around us, especially when we are confronted with an excessive amount of information — something which characterizes the modern age. Many of the things we need to see around us are only visible to those who can operate without these filters.
Throughout my time observing awake individuals, I’ve noticed many traits, are consistently seen within their minds, and as best as I could I tried to list them throughout this article.
Although some of these capacities are challenging to develop, I believe much in the same way we can restore the critical anchors of life (e.g., following a faith, having genuine human connections, being connected to your body rather than an electronic screen), many of them can also be developed if it is clear what is being aimed for and our priority is to promote the greatest good.
A Note From Dr. Mercola About the Author
A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I’m grateful to share them. I also respect his desire to remain anonymous as he is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.
Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact CheckedMay 31, 2023Link for Video of Sucharit Bhakdti dscussing this issue: https://rumble.com/v2owij0-why-the-covid-mrna-vaccines-are-actually-dna-gene-therapies-that-must-be-re.html
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Microbiologist Kevin McKernan — a former researcher and team leader for the MIT Human Genome project — has discovered massive DNA contamination in the mRNA COVID shots, including simian virus 40 (SV40) promoters
SV40 has been linked to cancer in humans, including mesotheliomas, lymphomas and cancers of the brain and bone. In 2002, the Lancet published evidence linking polio vaccines contaminated with SV40 to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. According to the authors, the vaccine may be responsible for up to 50% of the 55,000 Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases diagnosed each year
The level of contamination varies depending on the platform used to measure it, but no matter which method is used, the level of DNA contamination is significantly higher than the regulatory limits in both Europe and the U.S. The highest level of DNA contamination found was 30%
The finding of DNA means the mRNA COVID shots may have the ability to alter the human genome
Even if genetic modification does not occur, the fact that you’re getting foreign DNA into your cells poses a risk in and of itself. Partial expression could occur, or it might interfere with other transcription translations that are already in the cell. Cytoplasmic transfection can also allow for genetic manipulation, as the nucleus disassembles and exchanges cellular components with the cytosol during cell division
In the video1 above, Dr. Steven E. Greer interviews microbiologist Kevin McKernan — a former researcher and team leader for the MIT Human Genome project2 — and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi about the DNA contamination McKernan’s team has found in the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA shots.
As it turns out, spike protein and the mRNA are not the only hazards of these injections. McKernan’s team have also discovered simian virus 40 (SV40) promoters that, for decades, have been suspected of causing cancer in humans, including mesotheliomas, lymphomas and cancers of the brain and bone.3 The findings4,5,6,7 were posted on OSF Preprints in early April 2023. As explained in the abstract:8
“Several methods were deployed to assess the nucleic acid composition of four expired vials of the Moderna and Pfizer bivalent mRNA vaccines. Two vials from each vendor were evaluated … Multiple assays support DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 330ng/mg requirement and the FDAs 10ng/dose requirements …”
As noted by Greer,9 this means that governments and drug companies “have misled the world to a far greater extent than previously known.” If these findings are correct, it would also mean that “the so-called ‘vaccines’ are actually altering the human genome and causing permanent production of the deadly spike protein,” and this internal production of spike protein would, in turn, “trigger the immune system to attack its own cells,” Greer says.
In the interview, McKernan explains how the DNA contaminants found in the COVID jabs can result in the genetic modification of the human genome, and Bhakdi reviews how and why the shots can trigger autoimmune diseases.
Background: What Is SV40?
In 2002, the Lancet published10 evidence linking polio vaccines contaminated with SV40 to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. According to the authors, the vaccine may be responsible for up to half the 55,000 Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases diagnosed each year.
How did this simian (monkey) virus get into the human population? According to the late Dr. Maurice Hilleman, a leading vaccine developer, Merck inadvertently unleashed the virus via their polio vaccine.11 It’s unclear exactly when SV40 was eliminated from the polio vaccine. The timing also varies from country to country. For example, SV40-contaminated polio vaccines were administered in Italy as recently as 1999.12
As reported in a Lancet book review of “The Virus and the Vaccine: The True Story of a Cancer-Causing Money Virus, Contaminated Polio Vaccine and the Millions of Americans Exposed”:13
“By 1960, scientists and vaccine manufacturers knew that monkey kidneys were sewers of simian viruses. Such contamination often spoiled cultures, including those of an NIH researcher named Bernice Eddy, who worked on vaccine safety … Her discovery … threatened one of the USA’s most important public-health programs …
Eddy tried to get word out to colleagues but was muzzled and stripped of her vaccine regulatory duties and her laboratory … [Two] Merck researchers, Ben Sweet and Maurice Hilleman, soon identified the rhesus virus later named SV40 — the carcinogenic agent that had eluded Eddy.
In 1963, U.S. authorities decided to switch to African green monkeys, which are not natural hosts of SV40, to produce polio vaccine. In the mid-1970s, after limited epidemiological studies, authorities concluded that although SV40 caused cancer in hamsters, it didn’t seem to do so in people.
Fast forward to the 1990s: Michele Carbone, then at NIH, was working on how SV40 induces cancers in animals. One of these was mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the pleura thought in people to be caused mainly by asbestos. The orthodoxy held that SV40 didn’t cause human cancers.
Emboldened by a 1992 NEJM paper that found DNA ‘footprints’ of SV40 in childhood brain tumors, Carbone tested human mesothelioma tumor biopsies at the National Cancer Institute: 60% contained SV40 DNA. In most, the monkey virus was active and producing proteins.
He published his results in Oncogene in May, 1994, but the NIH declined to publicize them … Carbone … moved to Loyola University. There he discovered how SV40 disables tumor suppressor genes in human mesothelioma, and published his results in Nature Medicine in July, 1997. Studies in Italy, Germany, and the USA also showed associations between SV40 and human cancers.”
mRNA COVID Jabs Contaminated With Double-Stranded DNA
With that background, let’s get back to McKernan’s findings, which in addition to the featured video are also discussed in Daniel Horowitz’s podcast above. In short, his team discovered elevated levels of double-stranded DNA plasmids, including SV40 promoters (DNA sequence that is essential for gene expression) that are known to trigger cancer development when encountering an oncogene (a gene that has the potential to cause cancer).
The level of contamination varies depending on the platform used to measure it, but no matter which method is used, the level of DNA contamination is significantly higher than the regulatory limits in both Europe and the U.S., McKernan says. The highest level of DNA contamination found was 30%, which is rather astounding.
As explained by McKernan, when using a typical PCR test, you’ll be considered positive if the test detects the SARS-CoV-2 virus using a cycle threshold (CT) of about 40. In comparison, the DNA contamination is detected at CTs below 20.
That means the contamination is a million-fold greater than the amount of virus you’d need to have in order to test positive for COVID. “So, there’s an enormous difference here with regards to the amount of material that’s in there,” McKernan says.
In his Substack article,14 he also points out that people who argue that double-stranded DNA and viral RNA is a false equivalency because viral RNA is replication competent, are wrong.
“The majority of the sgRNA you are detecting in a nasal swab in your nose is NOT REPLICATION COMPETENT as shown in Jaafar et al.15 It is just an RNA fragment that should have lower longevity in your cells than dsDNA contaminating fragments,” he writes.
In that Substack article, McKernan has also copied a 2009 study discussing how DNA in vaccines can cause cancer and highlighted the most relevant parts. It’s a helpful resource if you want to learn more.
Quality Control Is Sorely Lacking
As for how SV40 promoters ended up in the mRNA shots, it appears to be related to poor quality control during the manufacturing process, although it’s unclear where in the development SV40 might have sneaked in. Quality control deficiencies may also be responsible for the high rate of anaphylactic reactions we’ve been seeing. McKernan tells Greer:
“It’s in both Moderna and Pfizer. We looked at the bivalent vaccines for both Moderna and Pfizer and only the monovalent vaccines for Pfizer because we didn’t have access to monovalent vaccines for Moderna. In all three cases, the vaccines contain double-stranded DNA contamination.
If you sequence that DNA, you’ll find that it matches what looks to be an expression vector that’s used to make the RNA … Whenever we see DNA contamination, like from plasmids, ending up in any injectable, the first thing people think about is whether there’s any E. coli endotoxin present because that creates anaphylaxis for the injected.
And, of course … there’s a lot of anaphylaxis going on, not only on TV but in the VAERS database. You can see people get injected with this and drop. That could be the background from this E. coli process of manufacturing the DNA …”
Regulatory Agencies Knew There Was a Contamination Problem
In a May 20, 2023, Substack article,16 McKernan points out that Pfizer itself submitted evidence to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) showing sampled lots contained vast differences in the levels of double-stranded DNA contamination.
The arbitrary limit for dsDNA that the EMA came up with was 330 nanograms per milligram (ng/mg). Data submitted to the EMA by Pfizer shows sampled lots had anywhere from 1 ng/mg to 815 ng/mg of DNA. McKernan adds:17
“This limit likely did not consider the potency of this dsDNA contamination if it was packaged in an LNP [lipid nanoparticle]. Packaged dsDNA is more potent as a gene therapy. We now know this DNA is packaged and transfection ready.18 Even lower limits should be applied if the DNA is packaged in transfection ready LNPs …
Even with Pfizer being able to cherry pick the data they provided to the EMA for 10 lots, they see a 1 to 815ng/mg variance. If you were to expand this study to 100 or 1000 lots, you’d likely see another order or two of magnitude variance.”
Double-Stranded DNA May Integrate Into Your Genome
The presence of double-stranded DNA also brings up another major concern, and that is the possibility of genomic integration.
“At least on the Pfizer side of things, it has what’s known as an SV40 promoter. This is an oncogenic virus piece. It’s not the entire virus. However, the small piece is known to drive very aggressive gene expression.
And the concern that people, even at the FDA, have noted in the past whenever injecting double-stranded DNA, is that these things can integrate into the genome,” McKernan says.
While McKernan’s paper does not present evidence of genome integration, it does point out that it’s possible, especially in the presence of SV40 promoters:19
“There has been a healthy debate about the capacity for SARs-CoV-2 to integrate into the human genome … This work has inspired questions regarding the capacity for the mRNA vaccines to also genome integrate. Such an event would require LINE-1 driven reverse transcription of the mRNA into DNA as described by Alden et al.
dsDNA [double-stranded DNA] contamination of sequence encoding the spike protein wouldn’t require LINE-1 for Reverse Transcription and the presence of an SV40 nuclear localization signal in Pfizer’s vaccine vector would further increase the odds of integration.”
Manifold Risks
That said, even if genetic modification does not occur, the fact that you’re getting foreign DNA into your cells poses a risk in and of itself, McKernan says. For example, partial expression could occur, or it might interfere with other transcription translations that are already in the cell.
Bhakdi also points out that the SV40 promoters do not need to be present in the nucleus of the cell for problems to occur. Cytoplasmic transfection can, in and of itself, allow for genetic manipulation, because the nucleus disassembles and exchanges cellular components with the cytosol during cell division.
In addition to having DNA floating around and causing potential problems, the RNA in the COVID jab is also modified to resist breakdown. “So, we have TWO versions of the spike protein floating around that can persist longer than anticipated,” McKernan says, and the spike protein, of course, is the most toxic part of the virus that can cause your body to attack itself.
Both McKernan and Bhakdi are adamant that ALL mRNA “vaccines” must be immediately stopped, whether for human or animal use, due to the magnitude of the risks involved.
In the video above,20 Yusuke Murakami, a professor at Tokyo University, expresses alarm over the finding of SV40 promoters in the COVID jabs. The interview is in Japanese but has English subtitles. I’ve included it because I think he does a good job of putting the problem into layman’s terms:
“The Pfizer vaccine has a staggering problem,” Murakami says. “This figure is an enlarged view of Pfizer’s vaccine sequence. As you can see, the Pfizer vaccine sequence contains part of the SV40 sequence here. This sequence is known as a promoter.
Roughly speaking, the promoter causes increased expression of the gene. The problem is that the sequence is present in a well-known carcinogenic virus. The question is why such a sequence that is derived from a cancer virus is present in Pfizer’s vaccine.
There should be absolutely no need for such a carcinogenic virus sequence in the vaccine. This sequence is totally unnecessary for producing the mRNA vaccine. It is a problem that such a sequence is solidly contained in the vaccine.
This is not the only problem. If a sequence like this is present in the DNA, the DNA is easily migrated to the nucleus. So it means that the DNA can easily enter the genome. This is such an alarming problem.
It is essential to remove the sequence. However, Pfizer produced the vaccine without removing the sequence. That is outrageously malicious. This kind of promoter sequence is completely unnecessary for the production of the mRNA vaccine. In fact, SV40 is a promoter of cancer viruses.”
Resources for Those Injured by the COVID Jab
The more we learn about the COVID jabs, the worse they appear. While they suck as vaccines, they’re truly masterful bioweapons, as they’re capable of destroying health in any number of ways, through myriad mechanisms.
If you got one or more jabs and are now reconsidering, first and foremost, never ever take another COVID booster, another mRNA gene therapy shot or regular vaccine. You need to end the assault on your body. Even if you haven’t experienced any obvious side effects, your health may still be impacted long-term, so don’t take any more shots.
If you’re suffering from side effects, your first order of business is to eliminate the spike protein that your body is producing. Two remedies that can do this are hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Both of these drugs bind and facilitate the removal of spike protein.
The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has developed a post-vaccine treatment protocol called I-RECOVER. Since the protocol is continuously updated as more data become available, your best bet is to download the latest version straight from the FLCCC website at covid19criticalcare.com21 (hyperlink to the correct page provided above).
For additional suggestions, check out the World Health Council’s spike protein detox guide,22 which focuses on natural substances like herbs, supplements and teas. To combat neurotoxic effects of spike protein, a March 2022 review paper23 suggests using luteolin and quercetin. Time-restricted eating (TRE) and/or sauna therapy can also help eliminate toxic proteins by stimulating autophagy.
Shorter telomeres are said to indicate increased risk of premature death; longer telomere length has therefore been assumed to represent health and longevity
Research published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) revealed long telomeres are linked to cancer and clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), a blood disorder
Shorter telomere length is linked to degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease, while longer telomere length is associated with increased cancer risks
Cells with long telomeres accumulate mutations, promoting tumors that might otherwise be prevented via normal telomere shortening processes
Rather than relying on telomere length as a measure of longevity or disease, harness the power of lifestyle strategies to slow the aging process and improve your health span
Telomeres are repetitive nucleotide sequences at the end of each chromosome. Sometimes compared to the plastic tip on a shoelace, telomeres help protect DNA, preserving chromosome stability and preventing “molecular contact with neighboring chromosomes.”1
Evidence suggests telomere length may predict morbidity and mortality, with shorter telomeres linked to an increased risk of premature death.2 Longer telomere length has therefore been assumed to represent health and longevity, but the link is controversial. New research suggests, in fact, that telomeres’ link to aging may have been wrong all along.3
Is Telomere Attrition a Hallmark of Aging?
The idea that telomere length serves as a marker of aging has become scientific dogma. Writing in the journal Cell, researchers described telomere attrition as one of the hallmarks of aging that lead to most age-related disorders.4 Telomeres, they noted, are especially vulnerable to age-related deterioration, and telomere shortening occurs during the normal aging process in humans and animals, such as mice.
When DNA damage occurs at telomeres, it leads to persistent harm and “deleterious cellular effects including senescence and/or apoptosis.”5
Further, the team explained, when telomerase, a key maintenance mechanism of telomere length, is deficient in humans, it’s associated with premature disease development, including those involving loss of regenerative capacity in tissues, such as pulmonary fibrosis, dyskeratosis congenita and aplastic anemia.6 According to the Cell study:
“Genetically-modified animal models have established causal links between telomere loss, cellular senescence and organismal aging. Thus, mice with shortened or lengthened telomeres exhibit decreased or increased lifespan, respectively. Recent evidence also indicates that aging can be reverted by telomerase activation.
In particular, the premature aging of telomerase-deficient mice can be reverted when telomerase is genetically reactivated in these aged mice.
Moreover, normal physiological aging can be delayed without increasing the incidence of cancer in adult wild-type mice by pharmacological activation or systemic viral transduction of telomerase. In humans, recent meta-analyses have indicated a strong relation between short telomeres and mortality risk, particularly at younger ages.”
Risks Revealed for Short or Long Telomeres
Just because short telomeres have been linked to aging and disease, it doesn’t mean long telomeres have the opposite effect. In fact, research published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) revealed long telomeres are linked to cancer and clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) — a blood disorder.7
“Short telomeres were thought to be bad — people with premature aging syndromes had short telomeres — so, by analogy, long telomeres were thought to be good,” study author Dr. Mary Armanios, professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, told The New York Times. “And the longer the better.”8
Previous research by Armanios, who also directs the telomere center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and colleagues revealed, however, that the reality is much more complicated. While short telomere length (TL) was linked to disease, longer telomere length increased the risk of cancers, including lung, melanoma and glioma.9
“The upper threshold that increases the risk of these cancers is not known, but these recent findings add significant warning to the oversimplified interpretation of short TL being linked to aging and long telomeres to youth,” they concluded in 2018. It seemed that having either very short or very long telomeres may be a risk factor for disease.
Researchers with UCSF School of Medicine and Stanford echoed this sentiment in 2020, revealing that shorter telomere length is linked to degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease, while longer telomere length is associated with increased cancer risks.10
“Genetically determined long and short telomere length are associated with disease risk and burden of approximately equal magnitude,” they concluded.
Long Telomeres Linked to Cancer, Disease
The NEJM study involved 17 people with a POT1 genetic mutation, known to not only lengthen telomeres but also increase cancer risk. The study participants ranged in age from 7 to 83 and had a variety of tumors, ranging from benign uterine fibroids to melanoma. They also had significantly longer telomeres than the average population — 90% longer in 13 participants and 99% longer in nine.11
While six of the participants had some signs of youth, including no gray hair even in their 70s, many had high rates of clonal hematopoiesis-related mutations. The mutations are linked to the development of blood and other cancers, and existed at much higher rates than expected in the general population.
One participant had cells with 1,000 mutations per clone, which the researchers believe began when the person was just 4 years old. “The long telomere length allowed the blood cell propagation since then,” Armanios said.
The research suggests long telomeres are leading to CHIP and giving more time for cancer-causing mutations to develop. According to Armanios:12
“Our findings challenge the idea that long telomeres protect against aging. Rather than long telomeres protecting against aging, long telomeres allowed cells with mutations that arise with aging to be more durable … Cells with very long telomeres accumulate mutations and appear to promote tumors and other types of growths that would otherwise be put in check by normal telomere shortening processes.”
Telomere shortening, for instance, is said to represent a “major measurable molecular characteristic of aging of cells in vitro and in vivo,” which may have developed as a mechanism to protect against tumors in long-lived species.13
Is DNA Methylation a Better Measure of Your Biological Age?
It’s possible to determine your biological age, as opposed to your chronological age, by measuring your DNA methylation, and in head-to-head comparisons, DNA methylation is significantly more correlated to the aging process than telomeres.
DNA methylation is the silencing of gene transcription. Your genes have promoter sites at the beginning of the DNA strand, and methylation is measured at those sites. The level of methylation at the promoter site correlates to the degree of expression of that particular gene.
Ryan Smith is the founder of TruDiagnostic, a commercial testing system that measures DNA methylation. What’s being measured is not your ability to methylate or not methylate. Rather, it measures the actual expression of your DNA. And, contrary to conventional genetic testing like 23andMe, which is done once, DNA methylation can be measured multiple times as the actual expression of your DNA is alterable and changes over time.
DNA methylation is a better marker of disease risk and health span than telomere length, Smith said during our 2022 interview.
“If you were to make sure that the telomere length never decreased in a cell, you’d still see methylation-related biological aging. If you made sure that the methylation age was reset, you would still see telomere length aging. So, there’s two separate processes.
In a recent review, they actually looked at twins and tried to ascribe how much of the difference in their aging process was affected by these different markers. They said right around 2% of the variance in phenotypic aging was due to telomere length, whereas right around 35% of that was based on these epigenetic methylation clocks.
So, while they both might be important, we definitely would think that the DNA methylation clocks are significantly better.”
Antiaging Strategies That Work
While measuring your rate of aging, or biological age, is intriguing, harnessing the power of lifestyle strategies to slow the aging process and ward off disease can improve your health span and quality of life. Simple antiaging strategies you can implement today include:
•Vitamin D optimization — Ideally, you want to maintain a blood level of 60 ng/mL to 80 ng/mL. Smith cited an interventional trial in which overweight participants reduced their biological age by 1.8 years on average, taking just 4,000 IUs of oral vitamin D a day for 16 weeks.
•Optimize your metabolic flexibility — Core strategies include time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting, and eating a diet high in healthy fats and low in refined carbs to optimize your insulin sensitivity. Also, eat your last meal each day at least three hours before bed.
•Get regular exercise and daily movement — In one study, among 1,481 older women included in the study, those who sat the longest were, on average, eight years older, biologically speaking, than women who moved around more often.14
Another study touted exercise as a “possible cure” for the declines in mitochondrial biogenesis and mitochondrial protein quality commonly seen with aging. Not only did exercise training reverse or lessen age-associated declines in mitochondrial mass, but it also “decreased the gap between young and old animals in other measured parameters.”15
•Stress management — According to Smith, people who meditate or engage in other stress-reduction strategies on a regular basis tend to age at a slower rate than those who don’t.
•Limit consumption of unsaturated fats — Omega-6 linoleic acid (LA) is particularly harmful. It’s highly susceptible to oxidation, causing oxidative stress, and can remain in your cells for up to a decade. So, you want to eliminate vegetable/seed oils, which are high in LA.
In terms of supplement options, glycine is a powerful longevity enhancer that’s inexpensive and has a pleasant, slightly sweet taste. Research shows glycine extends lifespan in worms, mice and rats while improving health in models of age-related disease.16
If there were any doubt about its importance, consider that collagen — the most abundant protein in your body17 — is made mostly of glycine. It’s also a precursor to glutathione, a powerful antioxidant that declines with age. To gain all of glycine’s healing potential, doses of 10, 15, or 20 grams a day may be necessary. I personally take three teaspoons of it a day.
Collagen is also an outstanding source of glycine. You can boost your collagen intake by making homemade bone broth using bones and connective tissue from grass fed, organically raised animals. But remember, there’s no magic potion to stop the aging process.
Methods that claim to stop aging by lengthening your telomeres appear to be misguided. And if your telomeres are too long — or too short — it could be indicative of disease. The fact remains that the best longevity benefits come from leading a comprehensively healthy lifestyke.
National vaccine policy recommendations in the U.S. are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.
It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being seriously threatened.
Not only are lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws, but global political operatives lobbying the United Nations and World Health Organization are determined to take away the human right to autonomy and protection of bodily integrity.
We must take action to defend our constitutional republic and civil liberties, including the right to autonomy, in America. That includes reforming oppressive mandatory vaccination laws and stopping the digital health ID that will make vaccine passports a reality for us, our children and grandchildren if we don’t take action today.
Signing up to use the free online Advocacy Portal sponsored by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state and federal legislators on your smartphone or computer so you can make your voice heard.
NVIC will keep you up to date on the latest bills threatening to eliminate — or expand — your legal right to make vaccine choices and give you guidance about what you can do to support or oppose those bills. So, please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.
I encourage you to visit the four websites of the National Vaccine Information Center, at www.NVIC.org, a nonprofit charity that has been educating the public about the need to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths since 1982. The information you get on their websites is fully referenced and will help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your community:
NVIC.org — This website was established in 1995 and is the oldest and largest consumer operated website publishing information on diseases and vaccines on the internet. Learn about vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths and the history and current status of vaccine science, policy, law and ethics in the U.S. on more than 2,000 web pages.
NVICAdvocacy.org — This communications and advocacy network, established in 2010, is your gateway to taking action to protect your right to make vaccine choices where you live.
TheVaccineReaction.org — This weekly journal newspaper published by NVIC since 2015 is dedicated to encouraging an “enlightened conversation about vaccination, health and autonomy.”
MedAlerts.org — This is a user-friendly search engine for the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) established under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and sponsored by NVIC since 2006. Search for descriptions of vaccine injuries and deaths reported to VAERS on this popular website.
Find a Doctor Who Will Listen and Care
If your doctor or pediatrician refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, coercion and refusal to provide medical care to someone declining one or more doses of government recommended vaccines is a violation of the informed consent ethic.
Unfortunately, it is becoming routine among members of the medical establishment to be reluctant to share vaccine decision-making power with patients and parents of minor children, especially during the aggressive push for all Americans to get COVID shots.
There are doctors out there who respect the precautionary and informed consent principles, so take the time to locate a doctor who treats you with compassion and is willing to listen and respect the health care choices you make for yourself or your child.
An analysis of personal care and cleaning products found the top 10 most hazardous products include a children’s shampoo, JLo Glow perfume, Kaboom with OxiClean, Axe body spray and Organix Shampoo
Over-the-counter products are not inherently safe as there are nearly 13,000 chemicals used in cosmetics and only 10% have been tested for safety. This loophole was created by the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, which does not force companies to disclose trade secrets
The Environmental Working Group found perfumes typically contain a dozen or more potentially hazardous chemicals, some of which are derived from petroleum. This chemical cocktail may be responsible for the rising number of adverse events reported after exposure to personal care products
Look for products without dangerous chemicals, including parabens, “fragrance,” triclosan and toluene, or consider making your own products at home from safe and natural ingredients
Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published October 24, 2018.
Unfortunately, just because it’s sold over-the-counter does not mean a product is safe for you. In fact, of the nearly 13,000 chemicals used in cosmetics, only 10% have been tested for safety. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to regulate ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products, they often do not exercise it.1
Adding insult to injury, the FDA tasks companies manufacturing and marketing cosmetics with ensuring their safety. Not only is this an obvious conflict of interest, but “neither the law nor FDA regulations require specific test to demonstrate the safety of individual products or ingredients.”2
So, while cosmetic companies are responsible for substantiating safety, there are no required tests and the companies do not have to share safety data. In fact, the FDA isn’t even authorized to order recalls of hazardous chemicals from the market.
Cosmetic3 companies may also fall back on a loophole in the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act,4 which allows companies to withhold information relating to “trade secrets,” under which fragrances and flavor ingredients fall.5
Participating with Environmental Defense and other U.S. groups, the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP) tested personal care products and cleaning products sold at major Canadian retailers in order to identify undisclosed fragrance ingredients.6 A lack of federal regulation in Canada and the U.S. results in an increased risk of exposure to consumers.
Your Right to Know
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a project of the BCPP, is a broad-based national coalition of nonprofit organizations whose mission it is to protect the health of consumers by securing reforms necessary to eliminate dangerous chemicals linked to adverse health effects.7
The research project was triggered by scientific literature and prior product testing indicating chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, endocrine disruption and other adverse effects were used heavily in beauty, personal care and cleaning products.
However, despite research evidence, there continues to be a lack of legislatively mandated labeling requirements, leaving consumers uninformed of the dangers in products they bring into their homes every day. For this test, BCPP and their partners purchased 140 different beauty, personal care and cleaning products for testing.
Of particular concern were products marketed to children, women of color and products marketed by celebrities as “good for the environment” or “green.” One of the more concerning results was that many of the personal care products tested contained more hazardous chemicals than the cleaning products.8
Millions of dollars and countless hours of lobbying have been poured into the industry’s fight against legislatively mandated ingredient disclosure. Fragrance is a big business as they are used in personal care products and cleaning products.
The value of the North American flavor and fragrance market is nearly $6 billion and forecast to reach $7.42 billion by 2020.9
Top 10 Most Hazardous Products Tested
The fragrance industry has nearly 4,000 fragrance chemicals at its disposal, which companies are not mandated to disclose. BCPP hired two independent third-party testing laboratories. The first assessed volatile organic compounds and the other performed two-dimensional gas chromatography on a subset of 32 products, including shampoo, deodorant, multipurpose cleaners and lotions.
There was an average of 136 chemicals in the cleaning products and an average of 146 in personal care products. The team then compared the product name against the type of chemicals triggering hormone disruption, asthma, developmental toxins and cancer.
From this data they ranked the top 10 products with the most hazardous chemicals in terms of the highest number linked to these health effects.10 The products making the top 10 dangerous products directly from the BCPP report were:11
Just for Me Shampoo — A children’s shampoo, from a hair-relaxing kit marketed to kids of color by Strength of Nature.
JLo Glow Perfume — A fine fragrance made by Coty and endorsed by music, television and film icon Jennifer Lopez.
Kaboom with OxiClean Shower Tub & Tile Cleaner — Marketed as a “great cleaner that is safe and friendly to use,” made by Church & Dwight Co.
Olay Luminous Tone Body Lotion — Made by Procter & Gamble and marketed for its antiaging qualities.
Axe Phoenix Body Spray — A body spray made by Unilever and marketed to young men using an overtly sexual ad campaign.
Marc Jacobs Daisy Perfume — Another Coty fragrance carrying the famous designer’s name and using beatific, radiant young girls in its marketing campaigns.
Taylor Swift Wonderstruck Perfume — A Revlon fine fragrance endorsed by the beloved pop country singer Taylor Swift.
Organix (OGX) Shampoo — A Johnson & Johnson product marketed as part of a “green/sustainable” line of products to young women.
Formulation 64-RP — An industrial cleaner and disinfectant used by custodians firefighters and others.
White Linen Perfume — Created by Estée Lauder in 1978, marketed as “a beautiful perfume” for women young and old.
While these were the top 10 products, it is important to remember the team conducted tests on 140 personal care and cleaning products, the lowest of which, yellow soap, had 46 chemicals. Other cleaning products such as Kaboom with OxiClean Shower, Tub and Tile Cleaner had 229. Of the 25 personal care products tested, only three had less than 100 and none had less than 75.
Perfumes Tied to Chronic Disease
Are perfumes really the scent of danger? The Environmental Working Group (EWG) found the most popular perfumes, colognes and body sprays may contain trace amounts of natural essence, but they typically contain dozen or more potentially hazardous chemicals. Some of the synthetic chemicals are derived from petroleum.
In an independent laboratory test, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics12 found 38 secret chemicals in 17 leading fragrances including top offenders from American Eagle, Coco Chanel, Britney Spears and Giorgio Armani. Following an analysis of the data, EWG commented:13
“The average fragrance product tested contained 14 secret chemicals not listed on the label. Among them are chemicals associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety in personal care products.”
Makers of these popular perfumes often use marketing terms such as “floral,” “exotic” or “musky” without disclosing the complex cocktail of synthetic chemicals used to create the scent.
The average fragrance product tested by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics contains 14 chemicals not listed on the label, among those associated with hormone disruption, allergic reactions and substances without safety testing.
Undisclosed ingredients also include chemicals that accumulate in the human tissue, such as diethyl phthalates, found in nearly 97% of Americans and linked to sperm damage.
Their report14 also found the FDA was similarly uninformed, as a review of government records revealed a vast majority of the chemicals used in fragrances were not assessed for safety when used in spray-on personal care products.
Phthalates Continue To Be Used in Personal Care Products
However, it isn’t only the undisclosed chemicals under the generic label “fragrance” that are cause for concern. Some chemicals listed included ultraviolet protector chemicals associated with hormone disruption and nearly 24 chemical sensitizers responsible for triggering allergic reactions.
Some manufacturing companies are moving toward restricting or eliminating certain chemicals from fragrances, such as phthalates.15 Although phthalates are only one chemical of concern in fragrances, this is a step in the right direction.
Findings from a multicenter study made a strong correlation between a mother’s exposure to phthalates during pregnancy and changes to the development in a baby boy’s genitals.
Another study at an infertility clinic demonstrated exposure was correlated to DNA damage in sperm and a third study in children aged 4 to 9 linked behavioral problems to higher maternal exposure to low molecular-weight phthalates.16
Adverse Event Reports on the Rise
While FDA regulation is weak at best, it is completely ineffective when adverse effects are not reported. The FDA has an adverse event reporting system containing information on product complaints submitted to the FDA. The database is designed to support safety surveillance programs and includes symptoms, product information and patient outcome.17
The FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) adverse event reporting system was made publicly available in 2016.18 An analysis of events dated between 2004 and 2016, including voluntary submissions by consumers and health care professionals, showed over 5,000 events reported, at an average of 396 events per year.
However, the average number hides a growing trend. For instance, in 2015 there were 706 events reported and in 2016 there were over 1,500. The three most commonly reported products were hair care, skin care and tattoos. The authors of the report suggest more surveillance is needed, saying:19
“Unlike devices, pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements, cosmetic manufacturers have no legal obligation to forward adverse events to the FDA; CFSAN reflects only a small portion of all events. The data suggests that consumers attribute a significant portion of serious health outcomes to cosmetics.”
The spike in adverse effects reported to the FDA in 2016 occurred only after the agency appealed to consumers and physicians to report events related to products manufactured by Chaz Dean Cleansing Conditioners under the brand name Wen.20
When adverse event complaints are made to a manufacturer they are not legally obligated to pass the reports to the FDA. Following an investigation, the FDA uncovered another 21,000 complaints made to Chaz Dean.21 It is highly likely adverse effects are commonly reported to the manufacturer and not to the FDA, indicating the total numbers in the CFSAN system are underreported.
Avoid These Toxic Chemicals in Your Personal Care Products
Despite over 21,000 consumer complaints to the contrary, Guthy-Renker, WEN’s marketing company, told NPR:22
“We welcome legislative and regulatory efforts to further enhance consumer safety across the cosmetic products industry. However, there is no credible evidence to support the false and misleading claim that WEN products cause hair loss.”
Until control improves over chemicals used in personal care products, safety testing and regulation protecting the consumer, it’s important you read the label on every personal care and cosmetic product you purchase. Here’s a list of some of the more hazardous chemicals found in many personal care products:23,24
Parabens — This chemical, found in deodorants, lotion, hair products and cosmetics, is a hormone disruptor mimicking the action of the female hormone estrogen, which can drive the growth of human breast tumors. A study published in 2012 found parabens from antiperspirants and other cosmetics appear to increase your risk of breast cancer.25
BHA and BHT — These chemicals are used as preservatives in makeup and moisturizers and are suspected endocrine disruptors.26
Synthetic colors — FD&C or D&C are the labels used to represent artificial colors. The letters are preceded by a color and number, such as D&C Red 27. The colors are derived from coal tar or petroleum sources and are suspected carcinogens. They are also linked to ADHD in children.
Fragrance — This is a large category of chemicals protected as proprietary information, and manufacturers do not have to release the chemical cocktails used to produce the scents in fabric sheets, perfumes, shampoos, body washes — anything having an ingredient called “fragrance.”
Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives — While adding formaldehyde is banned as it is a known carcinogen, manufacturers have found other chemicals act as preservatives and release formaldehyde. Chemicals such as quaternium-15, diazolidinyl urea, methenamine and hydantoin are used in a variety of cosmetics and slowly release formaldehyde as they age.
Sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate — These are surfactants found in more than 90% of cleaning products and personal care products to make the product foam. They are known to irritate your eyes, skin and lungs and may interact with other chemicals to form nitrosamines, a known carcinogen.
Toluene — Toluene is made from petroleum or coal tar, and found in most synthetic fragrances and nail polish. Chronic exposure is linked to anemia, lowered blood cell count, liver or kidney damage, and may affect a developing fetus.
Triclosan — This antibacterial ingredient found in soaps and other products has been linked to allergies, endocrine disruption, weight gain and inflammatory responses, and may aggravate the growth of liver and kidney tumors.
Propylene glycol — This small organic alcohol is used as a skin conditioning agent and found in moisturizers, sunscreen, conditioners, shampoo and hairspray. It has also been added to medications to help your body absorb the chemicals more quickly and to electronic cigarettes. It is a skin irritant, is toxic to your liver and kidneys, and may produce neurological symptoms.27,28,29
Prevent Exposure by Making Your Own
Your skin is an excellent drug delivery system, so what goes on your body is as important as what goes in your mouth. Chemicals you ingest may be filtered through a health gut microbiome, a protection you don’t get when they are absorbed through your skin.
Consider preventing exposure by making many of your own personal care products at home and consulting the EWG Skin Deep searchable database30 to help you find personal care products free of potentially dangerous chemicals. Products bearing the “USDA 100% Organic” seal are among your safest bets if you want to avoid potentially toxic ingredients.
Seek out recipes to make your own homemade bath and handwashing products that don’t contain additional by-products and preservatives. For instance, coconut oil is a healthy skin moisturizer with natural antibacterial properties. Coconut oil may also be used as a leave in conditioner on your hair — be sure to start with very little.
Consider a 25% dilution of apple cider vinegar and water to wash your hair. Spritz your hair with the solution and leave it in for five minutes before thoroughly rinsing. You may have to tweak the dilution for your hair type as apple cider vinegar is a conditioning agent.
In mid-February 2023, I reported that the U.S. government has secretly been tracking those who didn’t get the COVID jab, or are only partially jabbed, through a previously unknown surveillance program
Within days, fact checkers tried to debunk the idea that individual people are being tracked, or that these data could be misused by government or third parties
COVID “vaccination” status was not considered a private medical matter at all during 2021 and 2022, yet mainstream media now want you to believe that your COVID jab status is protected by medical privacy laws
Your medical data are not nearly as private as you think. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is rife with exemptions when it comes to your privacy. Federal agencies such as Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, are exempt from the privacy clauses and can access identifiable data — especially if there’s an outbreak of infectious disease, be it real or fictitious
Government agencies and a number of third parties or “covered entities” can also use a number of loopholes to re-identify previously de-identified patient data
In mid-February 2023, I reported that the U.S. government has secretly been tracking those who didn’t get the COVID jab, or are only partially jabbed, through a previously unknown surveillance program designed by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.1
Within days, fact checkers were burning the midnight oil trying to debunk the idea that individual people are being tracked, or that these data could be misused by government or third parties.
Strangely enough, the most egregious “misinformation” example USA Today’s fact checker could find was a social media post that “generated nearly 200 likes in less than a month.”2 Two hundred likes? To most influencers, that’s nothing, especially not over the course of 30 days.
Why is USA Today stressing over a post with 200 likes? Seems a bit panicky if you ask me. Reuters also came out with a fact check and, like USA Today, Reuters claimed there was a lack of “context:”3
“New diagnostic codes that describe a patient as under-immunized against COVID-19 were introduced to help doctors identify patients potentially at risk for more-severe COVID and to help health officials track vaccine effectiveness and mortality statistics, among other public health questions, not for U.S. government tracking of unvaccinated individuals, as some are claiming online.
The codes in an individual’s medical record, like all personal health information, are protected by U.S. privacy law and could only be analyzed at the group or population level uncoupled from individual identities …”
Your Medical Records Are Far From Private
As is so often the case, the fact checkers are the ones taking the issue out of context or, rather, not presenting the full picture. The fact is, your medical data are not nearly as private as you think. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is rife with exemptions when it comes to your privacy.
Federal agencies such as Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have every right to access identifiable information, as they are exempt from the privacy clauses, and they’re particularly justified to access your private vaccination data if there’s an outbreak of infectious disease, be it real or fictitious. As noted in the HHS’s and CDC’s HIPAA guidance:4
“Balancing the protection of individual health information with the need to protect public health, the Privacy Rule expressly permits disclosures without individual authorization to public health authorities authorized by law to collect or receive the information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury, or disability, including but not limited to public health surveillance, investigation, and intervention …
[T]he Privacy Rule expressly permits PHI [protected health information] to be shared for specified public health purposes. For example, covered entities may disclose PHI, without individual authorization, to a public health authority legally authorized to collect or receive the information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury, or disability …
Further, the Privacy Rule permits covered entities to make disclosures that are required by other laws, including laws that require disclosures for public health purposes.”
Loopholes Also Allow Re-Identification of Personal Data
Government agencies and a number of third parties or “covered entities” can also use a number of loopholes to re-identify previously de-identified patient data. As explained in a CDC Public Health Law document detailing the lawful sharing of private medical data:5
“While HIPAA limits the use and disclosure of health information, it also permits certain secondary use exceptions for public health purposes. HIPAA provides certain circumstances under which patient data can be disclosed to health departments without patient authorization.
Under HIPAA, providers may disclose identifiable patient data (protected health information or PHI) if required by law, allowing states to pass legal exceptions to HIPAA restrictions.
Providers may also disclose PHI to health departments without patient authorization for public health activities, such as communicable disease reporting, or to a public health authority to prevent or control disease, injury, or disability under the public health exemption. A covered entity may access, use, and disclose PHI for clinical research without an individual’s authorization if:
1)it obtains documentation of waiver of individual’s authorization by an institutional review board or privacy board
2)the PHI is necessary for this research
3)the research is using PHI of decedents
Providers may disclose EHI without patient authorization when the data have been ‘de-identified’ … but still permits re-identification by providers or regional health information organizations through randomized patient source codes should a public health alert or case report become necessary.
Finally, providers may disclose a ‘limited data set,’ including dates and zip codes, without authorization and still re-identify patients if they maintain patient codes derived from certain identifiers.”
So, can your vaccination status be accessed by federal health agencies? Yes. Can that information be identifiable? Absolutely yes. Does that mean that you, as an individual, could be surveilled and/or get caught in a forced vaccination dragnet or end up experiencing negative repercussions in other areas of your life due to your vaccination status? Probably.
U.S. “privacy” laws certainly make allowances for such scenarios, and considering the behavior of government over the past three years, it would be naïve to believe they would never use your vaccination data against you.
Reuters Muddies the Water
Reuters also muddies the water in other ways. For example, the fact check stresses that medical providers have used the general code Z28.3 (which represents “underimmunized”) since 2015, and that “these codes are not used with purposes beyond monitoring and reporting diseases and mortality statistics or for insurance billing.”
While it’s true that the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code Z28.3 has been around for years, the new subcodes that track COVID jab status were added in mid-September 2021 during a ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting, and during that meeting, they specified that “there is interest in being able to track people who are not immunized or only partially immunized.”
Below is a screenshot of page 194 of the agenda6 distributed during that meeting. There’s no ambiguity here. The new ICD-10 codes were added for the specific purpose of “tracking people” who are unjabbed or only partially jabbed against COVID-19.
They didn’t say they wanted to track “general population data.” They specifically said “people” are to be tracked. They also clearly state that this tracking is “of value for public health” — and again, the key words “public health” open the door to federal health agencies accessing identifiable data.
Moreover, additional subcodes specify the “why” a person chose not to get the COVID shot or stopped getting boosters. Those codes are listed in the screenshot below, under Z28.3 Underimmunization Status.7
The use of “delinquent immunization status” under code Z28.39 also tells us something about where this is all headed. “Delinquent” means being “neglectful of a duty” or being “guilty of an offense.” Is refusing boosters a criminal offense? Perhaps not today, but some day, it might be, and these codes lay the foundation for that kind of medical persecution.
All Missed Vaccinations Will Be Tracked
Another tipoff that these codes will become part and parcel of the biosecurity control grid, even if they’re not used in this way now, is the fact that code Z28.39 — “Other underimmunization status”8 — is to be used “when a patient is not current on other, non-COVID vaccines.”9
In other words, they have already begun tracking ALL of your vaccinations, not just the COVID shot, and they can use the Z28.3 sub-codes to identify why you refused a given vaccine.
They’ve also added a billable ICD-10 code for “immunization safety counseling,” which explains the codes detailing “why” you refused a vaccine. So, if you didn’t get a vaccine due to “personal decision” (code Z28.2), or due to “personal beliefs or group pressure” (code Z28.1), then your doctor can bill your insurance for regurgitating vaccine propaganda and trying to change your mind.
Codes Could Be Put to Good Use
Giving credit where credit is due, Reuters Fact Check did point out a potentially beneficial purpose for the new ICD-10 codes:10
“[Eric Burnett, who specializes in hospital and internal medicine at Columbia University] said the ICD-10 codes could also help track data on vaccine efficacy, including comparisons between vaccination statuses of hospital or ICU patients with COVID, or patient mortality data based on vaccination status.”
That would be great, but the risk of these data being misused by the government is, I believe, greater than the possibility of them being used to protect the public from dangerous mRNA shots, seeing how overwhelming amounts of data showing harms are already being willfully ignored.
CDC Refuses to Answer Questions About the New Codes
Another red flag is the fact that the CDC has refused to answer questions about how it intends to use the new ICD-10 codes. In mid-February 2023, nine House Republicans sent a letter to the CDC demanding answers to these five questions:11
Why did the CDC and National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) decide to start gathering data on why Americans chose not to take the COVID-19 vaccine?
How do the CDC and NCHS intend to use these new COVID-19 vaccination ICD codes?
What steps are the CDC and NCHS taking to ensure that Americans’ private health information contained in the ICD system is protected?
Will the CDC and NCHS confirm that they have not, will not, and cannot create a database of Americans based on their COVID-19 vaccination status?
Can the CDC and NCHS confirm that private companies do not have access to lists of Americans’ COVID-19 vaccination status through the ICD system, or any other database overseen by the CDC and NCHS
As reported by The Daily Signal February 28, 2023, the CDC for some reason does not want to answer these questions:12
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told The Daily Signal that it ‘will not be tracking’ the reasons Americans give for refusing to take a COVID-19 vaccine … Meanwhile, congressional Republicans told The Daily Signal that the CDC failed to respond to their questions by a deadline last week.
‘Two weeks ago, we sent a letter to the CDC demanding answers about its new COVID-19 vaccine database,’ Rep. Josh Brecheen, R-Okla., told The Daily Signal in a statement …
‘The CDC is stonewalling us and refusing to respond. Why won’t the CDC explain why it’s gathering data about Americans’ personal choices? House Republicans are not afraid to use the budgetary process to keep the CDC accountable to the American people,’ Brecheen warned.
House Republicans raised the alarm about the CDC’s involvement with the World Health Organization’s recently codified International Classification of Disease, or ICD, codes related to COVID-19 vaccination status, which went into effect last April. The codes enable the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to collect data on the reasons Americans refuse to take one of the vaccines …
‘The ICD codes were implemented in April 2022, however the CDC/NCHS does not have any data on the codes and will not be tracking this information,’ Nick Spinelli, a CDC spokesman, said in an emailed statement. ‘The codes are developed and managed by the World Health Organization to enable healthcare providers to track within their practices …'”
End Goal Is Global Database for the Vaccine Passport System
The mention of the WHO brings me to my next point, which is that all of this information will likely, eventually, be transferred into a global vaccination database. Hence the reason why the WHO develops and manages the ICD-10 codes. It’s to allow for the “harmonization” of health care across the world.
Incidentally, the fact that the WHO develops and manages these codes also means that the WHO has approved these new codes that track vaccination status, and we already know that the WHO is working on a global vaccine passport.
To work properly, a global vaccine passport system needs a global vaccination database, and there’s no telling what privacy measures, if any, such a database might end up with. What we do know is that white papers13 and proposed legislation14 published during the COVID era that discuss health tracking and/or vaccine passports have stressed that privacy concerns must be relaxed or dropped altogether to ensure global biosecurity.
We also saw how COVID “vaccination” status was not considered a private medical matter at all during 2021 and 2022. In many places, you had to disclose your status and show proof that you’d been jabbed. Yet mainstream media now want you to believe that your COVID jab status is protected by medical privacy laws. What a joke.
As noted by Dr. Robert Malone in a January 25, 2023, Substack article, this vaccine passport system is being put into place right under our noses, and it would be incredibly naïve to think that these new ICD-10 codes are not part of that scheme:15
“The administrative state is busy building a vaccine passport system that will be active before most Americans are aware of what is being done to them. No one is going to knock on your door asking for your vaccine status because they already know …
They don’t need approval from Congress or the courts because we have given them the information through our health care providers. The CDC is the governmental organization tasked with tracking vaccine status on individuals.
They already have the records, as well as updated booster information. They just need to tweak a definition here and there, or get President Biden to keep the COVID-19 public health emergency in place indefinitely and the vaccine passports will be a fait accompli.”
A Data Collection Dragnet
As of January 1, 2014, the U.S. government required public and private health care providers to adopt and use electronic medical records (EMR) if they wanted to quality for full Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement.
The government also financially incentivized physicians and hospitals to adopt electronic HEALTH records or EHR.16 The difference between EMR and EHR is that EHR provides a far more comprehensive patient history than EMR, as it contains a patient’s medical history from more than one medical practice.
In essence, EHR is what you get when doctors share your medical data to create one comprehensive file that covers all your interactions with the medical system. While that sounds good in theory, Big Pharma immediately seized the opportunity to misuse it by placing drug ads within the EHR system.
This in turn has driven up medical costs and resulted in poor prescribing decisions that put patients at risk.17 Patients are also directly targeted with drug marketing through patient portals.
Physicians and hospitals who adopted EHR got paid extra. Between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) paid out EHR incentive payments to hospitals totaling $14.6 billion.18 Meanwhile, those who chose not to capture, share and report clinical data on patients were financially penalized through reduced Medicare reimbursements.19,20
Needless to say, these “sticks” and “carrots” led to the rapid adoption of both EMR and EHR, both of which government requires if it wants the power to control the population through medicine, and we now know that’s exactly what government intends to do.
Transhumanism Is Being Implemented Through Food and Medicine
At the end of September 2022, President Biden laid out a “bold goal” to “end hunger and increase healthy eating and physical activity by 2030” through a federally-backed “Food Is Medicine” campaign.21
Integrating food and nutrition with health care so that food and health policies are under one umbrella will facilitate the creation of new policies, funding and control over both areas. Eventually, food purchases and health records will be linked to your vaccine passport/digital identity, which also holds your educational records, travel records, work records and bank accounts.
That this “Food Is Medicine” campaign has nothing to do with promoting real nutrition or whole food is obvious, as that same month Biden also signed the “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy.”22
On a larger scale, this plan is also promoted by the World Health Organization, which is trying to seize power over health care globally through International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments and the Pandemic Treaty. For more information on that, see “Pandemic Treaty Will Usher In Unelected One World Government.”
The WHO is also seeking to put food, medicine and climate under one umbrella. This would allow it to control the global population in any number of ways, as a climate issue could be positioned as a public health issue, or a food issue, and vice versa. In other words, people could be forced to eat bugs instead of beef because it “benefits the climate.” Private vehicle use could be restricted because it helps lower vehicular pollution that endangers public health, and so on.
So, to bring us full circle back to where we started, while media are now trying to lull you to sleep with “promises” that there’s nothing nefarious about tracking the unvaccinated or “undervaccinated,” think long and hard before you close your eyes to the possibility that this is all part of biosecurity-based totalitarian control grid.
In Part 2 of her report, investigative journalist Corey Lynn describes key organizations pulling the strings behind the scenes, allowing them to “operate as ghosts without transparency or accountability”
Unrestricted privileges and layers of immunity are enjoyed by powerful organizations worldwide, which use them to exert control over the globe
A little-known entity headquartered in Washington, D.C. — the Organization of American States (OAS) — controls the western hemisphere
OAS is involved in elections throughout the globe, carrying out “electoral observation missions”: it oversaw a recent election in Brazil that many residents consider stolen, and the U.S. requested OAS election services in 2016 for the first time in history
The U.S. funds more than 50% of OAS’ budget; however, each of OAS’ “specialized agencies and entities” has its own budget and funding, with deep globalist connections
As the global cabal continues to wage its war against the sovereignty of humanity, we’re continuing to expose the unrestricted privileges and layers of immunity enjoyed by powerful organizations worldwide.
In November 2022, we featured Part 1 of investigative journalist Corey Lynn’s Laundering With Immunity report, which revealed 76 international organizations and banks that enjoy and leverage these immunities, privileges and tax exemptions to maintain power and control.
“These aren’t just ordinary organizations,” Lynn explains. “They happen to be the prime organizations that run the new world order globalists’ agendas against humanity, and they have hundreds of NGOs working with and through them.”1
Part 2 of the report,2 discussed in detail in the video above,3 goes even deeper into key organizations pulling the strings behind the scenes, allowing them to “operate as ghosts without transparency or accountability.” “Hold onto your seats,” Lynn says.4
Layers of Immunity Allow for World Domination
To understand the threat that comes along with granting organizations the power to operate outside of laws and constitutions, it helps to understand how deep the layers of immunity go. The International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), passed by the U.S. Congress in 1945, granted dozens of organizations with privileges that equate to that of diplomats.
Each organization’s headquarters receives additional protections from the government of the country in which it’s located, via “headquarters agreements.” Further, the protected organizations can extend their immunities to individuals, organizations or banks working with them, including family members of staff. According to Lynn:5
“To put it in layman terms, a wealthy bunch of corrupt families got together centuries ago and plotted how they wanted to control the world. The challenge was in how they would get around constitutions, state laws and international laws so they could operate outside the system that the rest of humanity had to function within.
This would afford them the ability to move like ghosts, transfer wealth, and camouflage all of their schemes with false storylines as they secured more and more control with each decade, while alleging how ‘transparent’ they are.
Getting the banking systems into place, such as the Bank for International Settlements, the Federal Reserve, the World Bank Group, and central banks was the key step in building the ghost-like infrastructure. Making sure BlackRock and Vanguard had top shareholder positions in every major corporation in order to bend and squeeze them into submission, was also a necessary evil.”
The Little-Known Entity in Control of the Western Hemisphere
After establishing the banking systems such as the Federal Reserve, the globalists needed a way to act on international laws and treaties, manipulating them as needed to maintain control. This is where the United Nations, which enjoys 22 IOIA immunities and privileges, comes in, along with a much lesser-known entity — the Organization of American States (OAS).6
OAS is headquartered in Washington, D.C., just outside of the White House, yet it’s rarely mentioned by U.S. media. First started in 1890 as the International Union of American Republics, OAS has gone through several name changes over the decades and now operates in 35 member states in the Western Hemisphere, in an area that’s home to more than 1 billion people.
It manages the Western Hemisphere and also hosts the World Health Organization’s regional office via the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), which was originally founded in 1902 to control the spread of epidemics between countries.
“PAHO is the oldest and largest regional health organization, and has long coordinated with the OAS through projects, funding, goals, and even shared a building at one point. Today, PAHO is a ‘specialized organization’ of the OAS,” Lynn says.7 OAS, meanwhile, works alongside the UN, but is not under its control. Lynn continues:8
“The WHO is to the UN as PAHO is to the OAS. Two very powerful organizations that are in lock-step, consisting of member states that account for the entire global population, and the OAS with headquarters just steps away from the White House and the UN Foundation even closer, with immunities and privileges that afford them the ability to keep forging ahead with the New World Order agenda.
… Their budget may be far smaller than the UN, but their reach isn’t. OAS has also granted permanent observer status to over 72 states, as well as to the European Union, who all enjoy immunities and privileges.”
Further, all of OAS’ agencies and entities are granted their immunities and privileges, via their headquarters agreement with the U.S. and other agreements. Here’s just a sampling of these OAS entities:9
Inter-American Council for Integral Development
Inter-American Juridical Committee
Inter-American Children’s Institute
Inter-American Commission on Women
Inter-American Indian Institute
Inter-American Agency for Cooperation Development
Justice Studies Center of The Americas
Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism
Inter-American Committee on Natural Disaster Reduction
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Inter-American Defense Board
Inter-American Defense College
Inter-American Development Bank
Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission
Inter-American Juridical Committee
OAS Enjoys ‘Unprecedented Level of Protection,’ Power
The immunities and privileges granted to OAS allows it to avoid both transparency and accountability. Under IOAI, for instance, OAS gets the following benefits:10
Property and assets immune from suit and judicial process
Immunity from search and seizure of property and assets
Archives are inviolable
Exempt from all forms of taxes
Admission of officers, employees and their family members without checks from customs
Officers and employees exempt from all legal actions relating to work activities
No alien registration or fingerprinting of employees and immediate family members
OAS is also involved in elections throughout the globe, carrying out “electoral observation missions.” “And by ‘observation,'” Lynn notes, “that means financing a team to travel to the country, monitor, analyze, verify compliance, be a channel between conflict, make recommendations, and provide reports that carry weight by ‘extensive and recognized technical expertise.'”11
OAS oversaw a recent election in Brazil that many residents consider stolen, and the U.S. requested OAS election services in 2016 for the first time in history. OAS observers were deployed to 13 U.S. states.12 Agreements also exist beyond government entities into the Big Tech sector and beyond. Lynn explains:13
“The OAS doesn’t just work with governments; they have a registry with over 465 civil society groups that work in different areas for the member states. The registry provides the exchange of information to assist in creating governmental policies, which includes dialogue between governments, international organizations and the civil society groups.
The International Planned Parenthood Federation is part of the 465 civil society groups, along with Lawyers Without Borders, Amnesty International, National Wildlife Federation, Center for Reproductive Rights, Center for International Environmental Law, Open Society Institute, and Rotary, just to name a few.
George Soros was a keynote speaker for the OAS Lecture Series of The Americas in 2006. Additionally, they have an OAS Consortium of Universities they work with to provide training programs and offer scholarship opportunities.”
Who Funds the OAS?
OAS has a budget of about $142 million. The U.S. funds more than 50% of it. However, each of OAS’ “specialized agencies and entities” has its own budget and funding, with deep globalist connections. For instance, Lynn notes:14
“Take PAHO for example, whose operating budget was increased in 2022-2023 to over $881 million. Under the agreement between PAHO and the WHO, that increases the amount the WHO must contribute to PAHO, bringing it to over $291 million. The Rockefeller Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and numerous other globalists all fund PAHO.”
Digging deeper, OAS has five areas of funding, one of which is “trust funds.” The nonprofit Trust for the Americas, which has conducted projects in 24 countries, is just one of those trusts. It’s received funding from USAID, Microsoft, Mastercard, Citi, Walmart and U.S. embassies, for starters. Other corporate giants also contribute to OAS funds. Among them:15
Amazon Web Services
Cisco Systems
Citibank
Ford Foundation
Google
Hilton Foundation
Meta Platforms
Microsoft
The United Nations
A ‘Powerhouse of Ruin’ Is Coming
Unless the immunities granted to OAS, the UN, the Federal Reserve and others are rescinded, and multiple governments pull out of these organizations, Lynn says, “no battle can be won.”
Meanwhile, Agenda 2030, aimed at reducing middle-class’ consumption of basic goods and energy, which includes limiting, with an eye toward eliminating, property rights and private ownership for future generations, is barreling toward us. She explains:16
“Together, the BIS [Bank for International Settlements], Central Banks, UN, OAS, and the other international organizations and banks enjoying immunities and privileges, are a powerhouse that has the ability to move undetected, behind closed doors, with no transparency or accountability, and move their agendas forward with little to no legal ramifications.
While people go about their days putting their children to bed, sending them off to school, getting themselves to work, and cooking a family dinner, these masterminds are plotting out everyone’s future in a gradual manner that most don’t recognize as the global takeover that it is.
And yet, the clock ticks down as they attempt to accomplish their ultimate goal in less than seven years — a digital world with a digital workforce, a genderless society with no individualism or self-identity, a transhumanist decay where humans meld with robots, in an environment where these powers hold the keys to control everything one needs to survive on, all with the exception of one thing — one’s soul.”
Three Steps to Fight Back — and Win
All is not yet lost, however, and Lynn offers three solid strategies to attack this globalist threat:17
Share this information far and wide, via journalists, social media, podcasts and your community. “The louder we are and the more we push, the harder it becomes for them to push back, and they are forced to change directions and switch up their game, and they get sloppy,” she says.
Tell your legislator that the immunities and privileges granted to OAS and other organizations need to be revoked, and “demand that their country pull out of the UN and OAS.” Lynn adds, “They need to nullify the Federal Reserve and get out of the central banks and build state banks and a sovereign state that doesn’t rely on the federal government.”
Stop funding this enslavement system. This means not doing business with associated banks, stocks, apps and devices, and not shopping at big box stores or using convenience systems that act as forms of entrapment. Also, Lynn adds, “Stop complying with so-called rules, mandates, and regulations that are meant to break you. These people think they own you — prove them wrong.”
So far, children have been largely unfazed by COVID-19 because their interferon pathway works really well. Interferon is an immune molecule that protects cells against invading pathogens
The COVID jab inhibits the type-1 interferon pathway, so mass injecting young children may actually erase the natural herd immunity against COVID-19 that would develop if all children remained unjabbed
Aggressive cancers have exploded among adults who got the shots, even though it’s only been a little over two years since their rollout
Analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) data suggests the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is redesignating cancer deaths as COVID deaths to eliminate the cancer signal, and has been doing so since April 2021
We’ve also seen massive increases in excess mortality from abnormal clotting issues and heart problems since the COVID shots rolled out. If side effects such as cancer, heart disease and stroke are killing working age adults in unprecedented numbers already, what will the excess mortality be, say, 10 years from now if children and teens keep getting mRNA boosters every year?
What will the future hold for people whose exposure to COVID-19 occurs during the first years of life? That question was recently asked by Katherine J. Wu, a staff writer at The Atlantic.1
“To be a newborn in the year 2023 — and, almost certainly, every year that follows — means emerging into a world where the coronavirus is ubiquitous … Beyond a shadow of a doubt, this virus will be one of the very first serious pathogens that today’s infants — and all future infants — meet,” she writes.
“Eventually, the expectation is that the illness will reach a stable nadir, at which point it may truly be ‘another common cold,’ says Rustom Antia, an infectious-disease modeler at Emory.
The full outcome of this living experiment, though, won’t be clear for decades — well after the billions of people who encountered the coronavirus for the first time in adulthood are long gone.
The experiences that today’s youngest children have with the virus are only just beginning to shape what it will mean to have COVID throughout a lifetime, when we all coexist with it from birth to death as a matter of course.”
COVID Jab Prevents Natural Herd Immunity
Wu praises the COVID jab as being part of why we can be hopeful for future generations that have to live with this new virus, but is that really realistic? Right now, everything points to the COVID shot being a disaster, and no one actually knows what the long-term effect will be on children who get it.
Wu highlights the fact that children’s immune systems have the advantage of “marshaling hordes of interferon — an immune molecule that armors cells against viruses.” This is thought to be a primary reason why COVID-19 isn’t nearly as lethal in young children as in older adults.
The problem that Wu completely misses is that the COVID jab inhibits the type-1 interferon pathway,2 so mass injecting young children may actually erase the natural herd immunity against COVID-19 that would develop if all children remained unjabbed. The shots will NOT, as Wu suggests, help us achieve herd immunity at all.
Cancer Rates in Young People Will Likely Rise
Mass injecting children with a drug that impairs their immune system may also (rather predictably) result in exploding cancer rates. Already, aggressive cancers have exploded among adults who got the shots,3 even though it’s only been a little over two years since their rollout.
For example, data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED)4 — historically one of the most well-kept and most heavily relied-upon medical databases in the world — showed that, compared to the previous five-year averages, cancer among Department of Defense (DOD) personnel in 2021 skyrocketed.
Overall, cancers tripled among servicemen and their family members after the rollout of the COVID shots. Breast cancer went up 487%. Exploding cancer rates are also seen elsewhere. Indeed, the explosion of cases is so bad that cancer is now one of the top three leading causes of premature death among young working-age adults — a trend that in turn has driven down U.S. life expectancy by three years.
Cancer Relapses and Metastasis Rates Are Exploding
November 26, 2022, The Daily Sceptic published a letter5,6 to the editor of The BMJ, written by Dr. Angus Dalgleish, professor of oncology at St. George’s University of London, warning that COVID boosters may be causing aggressive metastatic cancers:
“COVID no longer needs a vaccine programme given the average age of death of COVID in the U.K. is 82 and from all other causes is 81 and falling,” Dalgleish wrote. “The link with clots, myocarditis, heart attacks and strokes is now well accepted, as is the link with myelitis and neuropathy …
However, there is now another reason to halt all vaccine programmes. As a practicing oncologist I am seeing people with stable disease rapidly progress after being forced to have a booster, usually so they can travel. Even within my own personal contacts I am seeing B cell-based disease after the boosters.
They describe being distinctly unwell a few days to weeks after the booster — one developing leukemia, two work colleagues Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and an old friend who has felt like he has had Long COVID since receiving his booster and who, after getting severe bone pain, has been diagnosed as having multiple metastases from a rare B cell disorder.
I am experienced enough to know that these are not coincidental anecdotes … The reports of innate immune suppression after mRNA for several weeks would fit, as all these patients to date have melanoma or B cell-based cancers, which are very susceptible to immune control — and that is before the reports of suppressor gene suppression by mRNA in laboratory experiments. This must be aired and debated immediately.”
In a December 19, 2022, article7 in Conservative Woman, Dalgleish continued discussing the phenomenon of rapidly spreading cancers in patients who were in stable remission for years before receiving their COVID boosters. He noted that after his letter to The BMJ was published, several oncologists contacted him to say they’re seeing the same thing in their own practices.
“Seeing the recurrence of these cancers after all this time naturally makes me wonder if there is a common cause?” he wrote.8“I had previously noted that relapse in stable cancer is often associated with severe long-term stress, such as bankruptcy, divorce, etc.
However, I found that none of my patients had any such extra stress during this time, but they had all had booster vaccines and, indeed, a couple of them noted that they had a very bad reaction to the booster which they did not have to the first two injections.
I then noted that some of these patients were not having a normal pattern of relapse but rather an explosive relapse, with metastases occurring at the same time in several sites … Scientifically, I was reading reports that the booster was leading to a big excess of antibodies at the expense of the T-cell response and that this T-cell suppression could last for three weeks, if not more.
To me, this could be causal as the immune system is being asked to make an excessive response through the humoral inflammatory part of the immune response against a virus (the alpha-delta variant) which is no longer in existence in the community.
This exertion leads to immune exhaustion, which is why these patients are reporting up to a 50% greater increase in Omicron, or other variations, than the non-vaccinated.”
Swedish pathologist, researcher and senior physician at Lund’s University, Dr. Ute Krueger, has also observed an explosion in rapidly advancing cancers in the wake of the COVID shots, with the largest increase occurring among 30- to 50-year-olds.9,10 According to Krueger, tumor sizes are also dramatically larger, multiple tumors in multiple organs are becoming more common, and cancer recurrence and metastasis are both increasing.
Cancer Deaths Are Being Intentionally Hidden
Disturbingly, as detailed in “How Cancer Deaths From the COVID Jabs Are Being Hidden,” analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) data suggests the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is filtering out and redesignating cancer deaths as COVID deaths to eliminate the cancer signal, and has been doing so since April 2021.
The signal is being hidden by swapping the underlying cause of death with main cause of death. As many as 20% of the weekly so-called COVID deaths are actually cancer deaths.
An Unconscionable Experiment on Humanity
Absolutely no one knows what the long-term ramifications of giving these injections to infants and young children will be. It’s a public health experiment unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. So far, we’ve not seen cancer rates among children skyrocket, but the uptake among young children has also been low.
Since their immune systems are also more robust, children may be protected from cancer for a time even if they do get the jab. The question is how long? The U.S. childhood vaccination schedule now includes the initial series plus an annual COVID booster. How many boosters will it take before a child’s immune system breaks and cancer starts to proliferate?
Excess Mortality Skyrocketing
We’ve also seen massive increases in excess mortality from abnormal clotting issues and heart problems since the COVID shots rolled out. If side effects such as cancer, heart disease and stroke are killing working age adults in unprecedented numbers already, what will the excess mortality be, say, 10 years from now if children and teens keep getting mRNA boosters every year?
I shudder to even think about it. Making matters even worse, drug makers are working overtime to deliver other mRNA-based “vaccines” as well, including one against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already fast-tracked it. This, despite the fact that previous attempts to create an RSV vaccine failed because they caused antibody dependent enhancement (ADE).
No Benefit, Massive Cost
Now that we’re more than two years into the COVID injection campaign, the cost-benefit analysis is clearer than ever. The benefit is so small as to be inconsequential, while the costs are enormous. Here’s a quick summary breakdown, based on available evidence:
•Benefit — Short-term (four to six months) protection from severe COVID illness and death.
•Cost — Negative effectiveness after a few months (meaning the risk of infection, hospitalization and death from COVID is higher than before the injection). It also doesn’t prevent infection or spread of the virus, so vaccine-induced herd immunity can never be achieved.
The shots destroy immune function, making people more prone to all types of infections and chronic diseases, which in turn puts pressure on the health care system, raises disability rates and excess mortality, and lowers life expectancy. On top of all that, there’s evidence suggesting the shots have adverse effects on fertility, which could potentially result in a population collapse.
Evidence mRNA Jabs Cause Fertility Problems
By December 2021, at which time the COVID jabs had only been out for one year, reports of surges in menstrual changes and stillbirths were already proliferating. And, while health officials were, and still are, adamant that the COVID shot is safe for pregnant women, the data tell a very different story.
The study11 most widely used to support the U.S. recommendation for pregnant women to get injected was sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in April 2021. According to this study, the miscarriage rate among COVID jab recipients was 13.9%.
However, there was a MAJOR mistake made in this study, which was highlighted in a rapid communication12 from the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK). The authors are Aleisha Brock, Ph.D. of New Zealand, and Simon Thornley, Ph.D., a senior lecturer in the section of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland.
They explained that the NEJM study “presents falsely reassuring statistics related to the risk of spontaneous abortion in early pregnancy, since the majority of women in the calculation were exposed to the mRNA product after the outcome period was defined (20 weeks’ gestation).”13
When the risk of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) was recalculated based on the cohort that was injected prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, the incidence of miscarriage was seven to eight times higher than the original study indicated, with a cumulative incidence of miscarriage ranging from 81.9% to 91.2%!
What’s more, 12.6% women who received the jab in the third trimester reported Grade 3 adverse events, which are severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening.
Another 8% also reported a fever of 38 degrees C (100.4 degrees F), which can lead to miscarriage or premature labor.14 Another problem with the NEJM study is that follow-up only continued for 28 days after birth, meaning the long-term effects of prenatal exposure to babies is still unknown.
A Pfizer-BioNTech rat study also showed the injection more than doubled the incidence of preimplantation loss. Birth defects, specifically mouth/jaw malformations, gastroschisis (a birth defect of the abdominal wall) and abnormalities in the right-sided aortic arch and cervical vertebrae, were also observed.15
Transhumanist Cabal Intend to Change Humanity
It’s become quite clear that the technocratic, transhumanist cabal that it trying to seize worldwide control is aggressively trying to genetically alter humanity. But to what end? Considering all the negative effects we’re seeing in adults, just two years in, what will happen to the infants and children who have been jabbed over the next decade or two? Especially if they start getting mRNA boosters every year?
Transhumanism is “sold” as the way of the future — a future in which everyone is in perfect health and can live as long as they want. We already see how the COVID shots are advertised as a simple “software update” for your immune system. The idea is that, eventually, any health issue will be solved this way.
The problem with this utopia is manifold, however. First of all, considering how disastrous this first mRNA injection is, it seems clear the reengineering of an already perfect biological system isn’t as easy as they make it out to be, and I for one doubt they’ll ever perfect it.
Secondly, while they say this transhumanist utopia is for everyone, it’s absolutely not. Do you really believe they want 8 billion people to be in perfect health and live for hundreds of years?
Perfect health means perfect reproductive capacity, so the number of offspring would be staggering. Clearly, they don’t want this, seeing how these same individuals are already complaining that the world is overpopulated. So, perfect health for everyone is a pipedream.
Extreme life extension for the masses also isn’t in the cards. Already, they want people to die as close to retirement age as possible, to minimize payouts. Do you really think they’d be willing to pay billions of people to spend 100 years in retirement?
Even if the retirement age was pushed way back to, say, 150, and the average life span is 175, who’s going to employ all these people? Remember, robots and artificial intelligence are already slated to take over most jobs, making most humans obsolete. There’s simply no incentive to extend the health span and life span of billions of people.
No, the transhumanist utopia is intended to be reserved for a select few, and this is something to keep in mind as they continue these genetic experiments on humanity. They’re not for our benefit.
What Are They Turning Us Into?
In closing, here’s a snippet from a November 22, 2022, Truth Talk article, in which blogger Katrina Wicks ponders the reasons behind the transhumanist push:16
“They make no secret of it, it’s not some wild conspiracy theory and is in fact being implemented in front of us and around us. Changing humans from what we are, into something else. Augmented humans seem to be on the horizon, as well as disrupted, corrupted and spliced humans too …
‘The Island of Dr. Moreau’ … by H.G. Wells … highlights an obsession with making animals more human through ‘medical intervention’ … I wonder if they are trying to do the opposite … to make humans more animal like? …
A certain international organization seems to have a nominated mascot who is the mouthpiece of how they want us to be bio-mechanical beings essentially, being constantly monitored, tested, observed and upgraded. Weird huh? Yet they gleefully put these plans forward and explain how and when. Just not really covering the why, or at least the real reasons for it.
But you can make up your own mind on what their purpose really is … what is out there for everyone to see is that they do want control.
Of your daily activities, thoughts, fears, aspirations … and generally of your future. So that is where you do get to take an active role, unless you already consider your life forfeit and have already accepted their new regime and landscape. But if you do not … and you have chosen to live, then now is the time.”
