Here’s What the mRNA Jab Does To the Body | Dr. Christina Parks, PhD in Cellular and Molecular Biology

VIDEO SOURCE: America’s Frontline Doctors | White Coat Summit website.

Dr. Christina Parks, who has a PhD in Cellular and Molecular Biology, talks about the dangers of mRNA technology used for the COVID-19 jab, including damaging the immune system. (SEE THE TRANSCRIPT BELOW) She was one of approximately 20 speakers at the “White Coat Summit” hosted by America’s Frontline Doctors on July, 27 2023. To watch the videos of the rest of the brilliant and brave speakers, including Dr. Robert Malone whose talk Dr. Parks mentions, visit the White Coat Summit website.

Note that Dr. Parks previously testified in the state of Michigan in support of HB4471, a bill that banned employers from requiring the COVID-19 vaccines in the workplace. You can watch her expert testimony HERE.

TRANSCRIPT

Thank you. Well, I think Dr. Malone did an excellent job of setting me up. Basically, the concern is that they are really looking to push this technology [genetic vaccines like the COVID-19 jab]. They are set to try to make a fortune off of it, and to that end, they neither are concerned that it’s not safe or effective, and they want to shut down all information that might suggest so.

What I’m going to do today is focus on the science, and you may hear me repeat some of the things that Dr. Malone has already said, but I think that it’s complex enough that that’s not going to hurt anybody. So, if I can have the first slide, I want to really talk about the dangers of this technology.

I’m supposed to be clicking it? OK, alright. Perfect.

So, how is this different from a traditional vaccine? In a traditional vaccine, a small amount of the viral protein or antigen, or sometimes only just a portion of it, is injected. It’s never inside the cell; it’s in the fluid between your cells. Sometimes, it gets into the bloodstream. Your immune system recognizes and makes antibodies. I’m going into the whole process beyond that.

Gene therapy is very different because, as Dr. Malone said, it turns your body into a manufacturing plant for the antigen. And in this case, it’s the full-length spike protein, which is toxic and is the cause of the deleterious effects of COVID. So, why would we want to turn our bodies into a manufacturing plant for a toxic foreign viral protein? It makes no sense.

So, when I learned that they were going to use these gene therapy vaccines, I was extremely concerned. I, like Dr. Malone, understood that this was a cell-free system that they’d bring to market very quickly, but I thought the potential harm had not been worked out and were substantial. And the ethical concerns of… they can basically make your body make anything that they want it to make.

And so, you’re even trusting them that the genetic information that they’re giving you is what they say they’re giving you. And even if it’s what they intended, there could be a defect in manufacturing, and you could either get a mutation in that gene or you could get something altogether different through some sort of recombinatory event.

Concerns With Gene Transfer Technology Being Used for Vaccines

So the concerns with gene therapy technology. First, here are the goals of gene therapy:

To get the target genetic material into as many cells of interest as possible. This is not necessary for a vaccination scenario. You only need a little bit.
In gene therapy, you want the mRNA for the gene to be expressed as long as possible.

The reason I’m telling you this is because all of the technology is geared toward these ends: toward getting it into as many cells and getting it expressed as long as possible. And that’s why they use that pseudouridine instead of regular mRNA, which is degraded much quicker, and to have as much of the target protein made as possible.

Now, if you were replacing a defective gene, those would be seen as good things. However, when you’re talking about making a toxic, viral, foreign protein that causes all of these problems, that’s a problem. Alright, so I’ll just read here.

The most important thing to consider when using gene therapy as a vaccine is that the cells are being instructed to make a foreign viral protein rather than a human protein. Thus, it should be expected that the immune system will target this foreign protein and the cells of your body that are producing it for destruction.

Alright, I want to back up just a step, because I’m going to go on that point more.
But the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), Dr. Malone talked about this, that was my first thought when they said they were using gene therapy. There are two platforms: the adenoviral vector and the nanoparticles. Both are highly inflammatory. I believe with the adenoviral vector, a young man actually died.

Concerns with the Lipid Nanoparticles in mRNA Vaccines

Now some of these technologies are being used where they take cells out of the body, do some gene therapy on them, and put them back in. That’s very different. And because these, once they’re in the body, are highly inflammatory.

The other thing I want to say is there’s some technology being used for something like cancer. It’s very different to take someone who has no quality of life because of a genetic defect, or has cancer, or is very elderly, and using a very controversial technology in them. But when you’re talking about using this in healthy individuals, the cost-benefit, there is almost all cost and no benefit.

And these nanoparticles are extremely inflammatory. Pfizer’s own distribution data show they’re fat-like particles, and they’re synthetic. So they dysregulate the lipid or fat signaling in the body and they accumulate in the fatty areas of your body. That’s your ovaries.

So, we’re sending material that’s going to make a toxic viral protein that’s highly inflammatory to your children’s ovaries. It gets in the bone marrow, where you can get insertional mutagenesis. It gets in your adrenal glands, which modulate your whole hormonal axis.

And so, if you’re freaking out because your adrenal glands are screwed up because they’ve got this material in them. And of course, the heart itself is surrounded by fat and we’re seeing myocarditis many times within days or hours after injection.

They can disrupt the blood-brain barrier integrity. They can mimic our body’s own natural lipids, specifically phosphatidylserine, causing the cells to fuse. If these mimic that, your heart cells and other cells might try to fuse instead of doing whatever they’re supposed to be doing. Alright?

And so, your cell membrane – think of the old switchboard. It’s like the world’s largest, most complicated switchboard in terms of cellular signaling. You’re taking a bunch of synthetic, man-made lipids and integrating those into the cell membrane. Should we be surprised when the body’s signaling is completely screwed up and disrupted?

And then Dr. Malone also talked about the problems with the synthetic mRNA.

Concerns with Synthetic mRNA

This is man-made. It’s made to be more efficient at making the protein than your normal mRNA. It doesn’t get broken down. We don’t know how long it continues to make this viral protein, but at this point, it looks like in some cases it could be indefinitely.

And then, your body reacts to this mRNA and it’s also going to react to these nano-lipid particles. In order to tamp down that immune response that has been so problematic throughout the lifetime of this technology, what they did is they engineered it to kind of turn off some of your toll-like receptors, to turn them down, to dysregulate them so that they wouldn’t have a hyper-inflamatory response.

Well, they’re not just turning them down to this technology; they’re turning them down to everything. So the technology itself becomes immunosuppressive, meaning it screws up your immune system in a way where you are not going to respond properly to a pathogen or an immune challenge.

Understanding the J&J and Astrazeneca Vaccines

The J&J, I just want to mention these briefly. I’m not going through all of this in the interest of time. Dr. Malone is an expert on this, and I don’t claim to be.

But my understanding is that this DNA technology is kind of a cassette system where they can put in multiple genes and multiple regulatory elements. So they could say you could use multiple vaccinations and multiple antigens, and they can regulate them all differently. What does that look like ethically?

Maybe they’re putting in this, that you know they’re putting in, maybe putting something else that’s regulated and then when you eat cheese it’s turned on, and now you’re expressing a protein you didn’t even know was in you.

Ethically, I have a huge problem with them putting in genetic information that they can then regulate through hormonal or other means – things they spray in the air, things they put in the food supply. Very problematic for me. OK, I’m gonna move on from that.

Now this gets to my central point that this technology turns your cells into manufacturing plants for whatever they decide to put in there. In this case, the spike protein.

Spike Protein Production in Lymph Cells

And so here we see cells, I believe these are from lymph tissue, making mRNA, and it was made out all the way until 60 days when they ended the experiment. And then right behind that, we see protein production. So at least 60 days. And some people have said that they have seen spike protein being produced in the non-classical monocytes up to six months, possibly up to two years in some of the vaccine injured.

Now, this is going to be extremely variable depending on what you got, how this is working in your cells. There are so many complex variations, and that’s the point, isn’t it? Nobody sort of standardized this process. Some people’s body may be degraded or maybe it was degraded before it got infected to you, we don’t really know.

And this is Dr. Ryan Cole’s work where he stained for the spike protein, and what he saw, what you’re seeing here, and these are many different tissues including heart tissue, brain tissue, and the coronary artery, is that these small focal points are where the cells are producing the spike protein.

So if you are producing a foreign protein, what is your body going to do? It’s going to send immune cells to destroy those cells that are making the spike protein. And that is exactly what we are seeing.

We are seeing immune infiltration. And when those immune cells infiltrate anything, what happens when you get some sort of infection? It swells. So you get swelling, you get immune infiltration, you get inflammation.

And beyond that, what happens is your immune cells, in eating the spike protein, start to eat through your very tissues.

Myocarditis After SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination

And so here’s what we’re seeing, in this case, these brown spots are the immune cells. And you can see in this bottom right one, it’s focal. So when the cells are producing the spike protein, that’s where you see it. It’s not every single cell, but where you see it, that’s what you see.

These cells can basically eat through your tissues. And so in the case of, we’re seeing aortic dissections, if you have your blood vessels producing the spike protein and you’re destroying infected cells, you end up with a perforation in that tissue or a weak spot in that tissue, especially when talking about an artery that is under a considerable amount of stress.

Now again, if this is in your ovaries, you’re getting immune infiltration and inflammation in your ovaries.

Alright, so I want to talk about Kevin McKernan’s work where he identified that there is plasmid contamination or adulteration.

Genetic Material in mRNA Vaccines

The very first clinical trials were done with synthetic mRNA produced in a lab. But then when they ramped up, they’re like we need a lot more template. What was the template? It’s something called a plasmid, something that is the backbone of DNA recombinant technology because it’s used to kind of cut and paste in a puzzle-like way whatever you want to put together.

So they put the spike protein in this plasmid, they grew up in a lot of bacteria, they theoretically purified it, and then they used it to make the mRNA. And they were supposed to purify the mRNA, and then put it in the nano-lipid particles, and then put in your body.

Either they didn’t, or they didn’t try very hard because there’s a ton of this plasmid DNA. Since they didn’t clean it out, there’s likely a lot of bacterial cell membrane as well.

If you’re a doctor, you know the bacterial cell membrane is highly, highly inflammatory. In terms of vaccinology, it’s one of the top causes of anaphylaxis and inflammation, leading to a kind of anaphylactic shock-like condition that causes people to die right after vaccination if it’s contaminated. And so that may be some of the anaphylaxis that we’ve seen. However, this DNA basically can get back into bacteria.

So, I want to show you when he sequenced it, this is a plasmid (there’s no controversy about this):

Pfizer’s Plasmid

This is what Pfizer used. And what it has in it, it has a promoter region from a monkey virus, simian virus 40 promoter region, that actually localizes it to the nucleus of mamalian cells. So, this contaminating DNA is now going to be localized. Maybe it gets in your gut, because all bacteria are going to take it up when they see this. Bacteria are going to take it up, they’re going to divide, they’re going to spread. You’re going to spread it to your unvaccinated neighbors, friends, relatives.

So this is an unintentional potential infectious agent that codes for the spike protein that could infect your nasopharynx and your gut and target the spike protein to the nucleus of your cells.

Is this being done? We don’t know, but did anybody test for it? And we know that this can happen because there was a lab working with a plasmid that had the capsid protein in it, and they kept testing positive for COVID. They found out that their bacteria had taken up the plasmid.

So, many of the vaccinated have gotten a lot of this plasmid, some of it whole, some of it broken, some of it being able to target into their nucleus. So this is an adulteration and contamination that should not be in there, and it’s a very intrinsic problem to this kind of technology that has not been addressed.

Beyond this, these plasmids are what are used to pop genes in and out of things. So when you have this in your gut, and you have another kind of infection or it’s in your (???) – wherever it is, on your skin, you can get recombination. That’s what genetic material does; it recombines.

If there’s another kind of viral infection, this can actually be packaged into bacterial viruses called bacteriophages, or it can recombine and become part of another virus. Could part of the spike protein now become part of another cold virus? So now we’ve got some active spike protein in the cold is going around.

Nobody has addressed these in the rush to just, you know, it looks like good technology. You know, basically, we’re playing God. We are playing God, and the only reason why we get away with it is the grace of God.

Likely Consequences of Plasmid Contamination of Pfizer Vaccine

Alright, so likely consequences of plasmid contamination of the Pfizer vaccine:

Contaminating bacterial endotoxins, if they didn’t purify it enough, may cause anaphylaxis, severe inflammation, and other vaccine injuries.
This pseudoridine and this plasma DNA can hybridize and make these weird DNA-RNA hybrids that are going to screw up your immune system and cause all sorts of dysregulated immune system functioning.
You know, as an aside, women go into labor because enough of the fetal DNA has gotten into their circulation, and it binds to these different receptors and signals the body to go into labor. So we have receptors to identify the genetic material in our body, whether it’s our own, our child, or bacterial or fungal. So our body’s responsive to this. To think that we can inject all this crap into our bodies without consequence is extremely arrogant. Right?
And again, they found that the plasmids are being encased in these lipid particles, and so they’re going all over into our bodies. And again, they can be targeted to the nucleus of different cells, and they can be incorporated into little bacteriophage particles. So the question becomes, have we created a synthetic infectious agent that’s going to infect the vaccinated and the unvaccinated alike?

Chronic Immune Activation

So again, I wanted to focus on the dangers inherent to the technology. But I want to talk about an overall paradigm for injury that we are seeing. Because the spike protein is so injurious and it’s so highly inflammatory.

The spike protein was used because it causes immune activation. Now, your body’s making it chronically, so you have chronic immune activation. When you have that, your T-cells, your T-cells have two jobs:

find infected cells like those infected by viruses or pathogens and destroy them
find cancer cells and destroy them.

When your body’s under a state of chronic immune activation, it’s like, “hey, we can’t keep destroying ourselves, we can’t keep hacking our tissues.” So like, you know what T-cells, you need to stand down, or you’re going to destroy the whole body. So the T-cells go into something called T-cell exhaustion or T-cell anergy, where they stop working.

What happens when they stop working? You get sick with whatever is coming around. It doesn’t matter what it is. And you stop destroying any cancer cells in your body. Most people don’t know when they’re diagnosed with cancer, that’s been growing maybe 5, maybe 10 years. What kept it in check? Your immune system. When does it flourish? When your immune system is compromised. We have just turned off our T-cells, and we’ve dis-regulated our immune receptors in every possible way. And now we’re wondering why cancer is flourishing.

If you keep stimulating the immune system past the point of T-cell exhaustion (the T-cells have given up the game), they actually start acting really wonky, and they interact with your B-cells to make antibodies. And they do it in a way that is not correct, and it results in auto antibodies against yourself. Alright? This is sort of a switch that is flipped, and it causes aberrant auto-antibody production. There can be genetic predispositions to this, but there’s a good deal of scientific literature showing this process.

So when we see an immune deficiency, cancer, and autoimmunity altogether, there’s a very good reason. And so, this is what chronic immune activation looks like, and why we cannot allow technologies that, whether it’s continually vaccinating our children again and again or making a protein that is stimulating chronic immune activation. We cannot allow that to happen. Alright?

And here’s an example:

A Rise In Cancer

In this is just one case study, although we are seeing a huge increase in cancers. This gentleman, on the 8th of September, and you see all these, most of these dark bodies, not his brain, you know, especially in the shoulder and armpit areas, are these small cancerous growths. And so he was like going to be scheduled for chemotherapy. He got his booster a few weeks later, on the 22nd of September. And eight days later, he went back, and you can see the cancer has just exploded in a way that’s hard to even believe happened.

So we are seeing the rise of these turbo cancers. Again, your immune system keeps cancer in check. So, do we want to continue to play God and dysregulate the immune system at every level?

And when we know that those who those who are just trying to support the immune system are being attacked by this government because there’s only one answer [that is allowed]. All these supplements, things like zinc and vitamin D and turmeric aren’t being allowed. The only thing that’s being allowed is what’s going to make them money.

Thank you

“We were duped” – Doctors Express Anger Towards the CDC and WHO for Their COVID Lies and Are Organizing Under the Global Health Project

Source: The Jimmy Dore Show

CLN EDITOR NOTE: There is strong evidence that a new phony pandemic is being planned. The director of the World Health Organization recently warned: “When the next pandemic comes knocking – and it will – we must be ready to answer decisively, collectively, and equitably.” See:

WHO Director-General Tedros Warns World To Prepare For An Even Deadlier Disease Than Covid And Pandemic That ‘Will’ Come ‘Knocking’

Doctors who were duped and betrayed by the CDC, FDA and World Health Organization (WHO) are now organizing under the Global Health Project to push back against the authorities that lied about the pandemic, masks, lockdowns and alternative treatments – so that it does NOT happen again.

Dr. Kat Lindley co-founded the Global Health Project to amplify those voices and ensure that the kind of mass hysteria and misinformation peddled by elite institutions never happens again.

Jimmy Dore speaks with Dr. Lindley about her program and the Global Health Project’s efforts to encourage physicians to raise their voices and restore faith in medical professionals.

Video Summary Including Timestamps

1. 00:00 Doctors form International Watchdog Coalition and speak out against corrupt CDC and WHO, highlighting the need for investigating the truth behind COVID-19 and the loss of trust in government agencies.
1.1 Doctors from around the world, who were originally deceived by the COVID narrative, have formed an International Watchdog Coalition and are speaking out against the CDC and WHO, stating that they are corrupt and not acting in the best interest of the public.
1.2 Dr. Kat Lindley, founder of the Global Health Project, discusses the importance of investigating the truth behind the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for human connection, while also highlighting the potential for future health emergencies.
1.3 Health professionals have lost trust in government agencies like the FDA and CDC due to their failure to provide accurate information during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a broken system and a lack of critical thinking among physicians.

2. 03:40 Doctors are angry about CDC and WHO’s COVID lies, lost trust due to inconsistencies in guidelines, patients being abandoned, scared to seek medical help, and laws criminalizing their ability to create their own protocols to treat COVID controlled by Big Pharma through the government, creating a coalition to push back against it.
2.1 Doctors are angry about the CDC and WHO’s COVID lies, as they followed a narrative that told patients to stay home until they can’t breathe and then go to the ER, and lost focus on serving and taking care of patients.
2.2 Doctors have lost trust in the CDC and WHO due to inconsistencies in their COVID-19 guidelines, leading to patients being abandoned and scared to seek medical help.
2.3 Doctors are angry about laws criminalizing their ability to create their own protocols to treat COVID, which they believe is controlled by Big Pharma through the government, and are creating a coalition to push back against it.

3. 07:08 Doctors and regular people have lost trust in the broken system of the CDC and WHO during the pandemic, and it is now their job to restore trust and for patients to take charge of their own lives and ask questions.
3.1 Doctors and regular people have lost trust in the broken system of the CDC and WHO during the pandemic, and it is now their job to restore trust and for patients to take charge of their own lives and ask questions.
3.2 Doctors are angry about the CDC and WHO’s COVID lies, and believe that we need to have a conversation about not blindly accepting recommendations, as the science now proves that masking and lockdowns have negative effects, and speaking up against these measures can result in being smeared and slandered, with YouTube guidelines prohibiting any statements that go against the WHO, which is funded by Bill Gates.

4. 09:43 Bill Gates’ influence on global healthcare policy and investment in the COVID vaccine, along with the unscientific lockdowns, have led to censorship and anger among doctors.
4.1 Bill Gates, who funds the WHO and is its richest funder, is dictating global healthcare policy despite not having a college degree, and his influence is leading to censorship by Google-owned YouTube.
4.2 Bill Gates invested $55 million in the COVID vaccine, made $500 million, and then criticized the vaccine’s effectiveness after cashing in his stock, while the lockdowns went against all science and were never recommended before COVID.

5. 11:32 Medical professionals expose the corruption of WHO and their billionaire leader invested in new COVID treatment, urging individuals to take charge of their health, finances, education, and faith to restore trust and protect bodily autonomy.
5.1 Medical professionals are blowing the whistle on the corruption of the WHO and their billionaire leader who is invested in a new COVID treatment, with some having been vocal about this for years.
5.2 Individuals need to take charge of their health, finances, education, and faith, and push back against the global masterminds who have hijacked healthcare for their own political and financial gain, in order to restore trust between patients and physicians and create their own communities.
5.3 Bodily autonomy is a value that should not be infringed upon by the state without complete informed consent, as stated in the Nuremberg Code.

6. 14:18 The vaccine mandates were built on a lie as the CDC and WHO never tested to see if the vaccine stopped transmission or contraction of the virus, and those who spoke out against it were smeared as conspiracy theorists, while the news business is corrupted by big Pharma cash.

7. 15:44 Doctors express anger over loss of freedom and emphasize the importance of discussing everything to prevent future COVID-19-like events, while regular people can get involved in the Global Health Project by visiting their website and sharing videos.
7.1 Regular people can get involved in the Global Health Project by visiting their website, downloading and sharing videos, and questioning doctors about potentially safe but unapproved medications.
7.2 Doctors express anger over the loss of human connections and the surrender of freedom during the COVID-19 pandemic and emphasize the importance of discussing everything to prevent such events from happening again.

8. 17:56 Jimmy Dore sarcastically promotes the COVID vaccine as super safe and effective, while acknowledging that it doesn’t stop the spread of the virus, and advertises their stand-up comedy tour.

Covid-19 as a Biological Weapon of Genocide – Dr. David E. Martin PhD – Covid Summit – European Union Parliament

The key idea of this presentation by Dr. Deavid E. Martin is that Covid-19 was a deliberate act of biological warfare for financial gain, and there is a need to stop gain of function research, weaponization of nature, and corporate influence in science without liability.

TRANSCRIPT Of Dr. David E. Martin’s Speech at the European Union Parliament MAY 2023
It is a, it is a particularly interesting location for B to be sitting today, given that over a decade ago I sat in this very chair right here in the European Union Parliament.
And at that time I warned the world of what was coming, during that conversation that was hosted at the time by the Green and EFA and a number of the other parties of the European Unions, of various representations.

We were having a conversation on whether Europe should adopt the United States policy of allowing for the patents on biologically derived materials.

And at the time I urged this body and I urged people around the world that the weaponization of nature against humanity had dire consequences.
Tragically, I sit here today, with that unfortunate line that I don’t like to say, which is “I told you so.”

But the fact of the matter is, we’re here not for a reprisal on past decisions. We’re here to actually, once again, come to the face of the human condition and ask the question, who do we want to be?

What do we want humanity to look like?

And rather than seeing this as an exercise in futility, which is very easy from time to time when you’re in the position I’m in, I actually see this not as an exercise in futility.

I see this as one of the greatest opportunities that faces us because we now have a public conversation, which is now front and center in people’s minds.

When this was an esoteric conversation about biological patents, nobody cared.
But when that conversation came home, then it became something people can care about.

So I’m actually quite grateful for this opportunity.

I thank the members of Parliament for hosting this.

I thank all of the translators who I apologize in advance. I will use terminology that is probably very difficult to translate, so my apologies, and I’d also like to acknowledge the fact that many of you are aware of my involvement with this in large part due to the amazing work of my wonderful wife, Kim Martin, who encouraged me at the very early days of this pandemic to get on front of the camera and talk about all the information that I had been sharing among very small groups around the world.

And it was in fact her encouragement that put me in a place where many of you have heard what I have to say.

Ironically, the world that I came from that used to be very popular, my CNBC and Bloomberg presentations, which were televised on mainstream media around the world, was an audience that I lost.

I can confidently say Covid diminished my fame, but I can also confidently say that I’d rather stand among the people with whom I’m standing today than any of the folks that were part of that previous world.
So, this is a much better place to be.

My role today is to set the stage for this conversation in a historical context, because this did not come in the last three years.

This did not come in the last five or six years.

This actually is an ongoing question that probably began here in Europe in the early stages of the mid 19 hundreds, but certainly by 1913, 1914, this conversation started right here in Central Europe. The pandemic that we alleged to have happen in the last few years also did not happen overnight.

In fact, the very specific pandemic using coronavirus began in a very different time.
Most of you don’t know that Coronavirus as a model of a pathogen was isolated in 1965.
Coronavirus was identified in 1965 as one of the first infectious, replicatable viral models that could be used to modify a series of other experiences of human condition.

It was isolated once upon a time and associated with the common cold. But what’s particularly interesting about its isolation in 1965 was that it was immediately identified as a pathogen that could be used and modified for a whole host of reasons.

And you heard me correctly, that was 1965. And by the way, these slides are public domain. You’re welcome to look at every single reference. Every comment that I made is based on published material. So do make sure that you look at those references.

But in 1966, the very first COV Coronavirus model was used as a transatlantic biological experiment in human manipulation, and you heard the date 1966.

I hope you’re getting the point of what I’m saying. This is not an overnight thing. This is actually something that’s been long in the making.

A year before I was born, we had the first Trans-Atlantic coronavirus data sharing experiment between the United States and the United Kingdom.

And in 1967, the year I was born, we did the first human trials on inoculating people with modified coronavirus.

Isn’t that amazing? 56 years ago, the overnight success of a pathogen that’s been 56 years in engineering, and I want that to chill with all of you.

Where were we when we actually allowed in violation of biological and chemical weapons treaties?

Where were we as a human civilization when we thought it was an acceptable thing to do to take a pathogen for the United States and infect the world with it?

Where was that conversation and what should have been that conversation in 1967?

That conversation wasn’t had. Ironically, the common cold was turned into a chimera in the 1970s, and in 1975, 1976 and 1977, we started figuring out how to modify coronavirus by putting it into different animals.

Pigs and dogs.

And not surprisingly, by the time we got to 1990, we found out that coronavirus as a infectious agent was an industrial problem for two primary industries, the industries of dogs and pigs.

Dog breeders and pigs found that Coronavirus created gastrointestinal problems, and that became the basis for Pfizer’s first spike protein vaccine.

Patent filed. Are you ready for this In 1990?

Did you hear what I just said?
1990.

Operation Warpspeed? I’m sorry. Where’s the warp and the speed?

Pfizer 1990. The very first spike protein vaccine for Coronavirus.

Isn’t that fascinating? Isn’t it fascinating that we were, we were told that, well, the spike protein is a new thing.

We just found out that that’s the problem.
No.

As a matter of fact, we didn’t just find out it was not just now.

Now the problem, we found that out in 1990 and filed the first patents on vaccines in 1990 for the spike protein of Coronavirus.

And who would’ve thought Pfizer?

Clearly the innocent organization that does nothing but promote human health.
Clearly, Pfizer, the organization that has not bought the votes in this chamber, in every chamber of every government around the world, not that Pfizer, certainly they wouldn’t have had anything to do with this, but oh yes, they did.

And in 1990 they found out that there was a problem with vaccines.

They didn’t work. You know why they didn’t work?

It turns out that Coronavirus is a very malleable model. It transforms and it changes, and it mutates over time.

As a matter of fact, every publication on vaccines for Coronavirus from 1990 until 2018, every single publication concluded that Coronavirus escapes the vaccine impulse because it modifies and mutates too quickly for vaccines to be effective.

And since 1990 to 2018, that is the published science ladies and gentlemen, that’s following the science, following the science is their own indictment of their own programs that said, it doesn’t work.

And there are thousands of publications to that effect, not a few hundred. And not paid for by pharmaceutical companies.

These are publications that are independent scientific research that shows unequivocally including efforts of the chimera modifications made by Ralph Bair in the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.

All of them show vaccines do not work on coronavirus.

That’s the science, and that science has never been disputed.

But then we had an interesting development in 2002, and this date is most important because in 2002, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill patented, and I quote, an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus.

Listen to those words …

Infectious replication, defective.

What does that phrase actually mean?

For those of you not familiar with language, let me unpack it for you.
Infectious replication. Defective means a weapon. It means something meant to target an individual but not have collateral damage to other individuals.

That’s what infectious replication defective means.

And that patent was filed in 2002 on work funded by NIAD’s Anthony Fauci from 1999 to 2002, and that work patented at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill mysteriously preceded SARS 1.0 by a year.

“Dave, are you suggesting that SARS 1.0 wasn’t from a wet market in Wuhan?”

“Are you suggesting it might have come from a laboratory in the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill?”

No, I’m not suggesting it. I’m telling you that’s the facts: we engineered SARS. SARS is not a naturally occurring phenomenon.

The naturally occurring phenomenon is called the common cold. It’s called influenza-like illness. It’s called gastroenteritis.

That’s the naturally occurring coronavirus.

SARS is the research developed by humans weaponizing a life system model to actually attack human beings, and they patented it in 2002.

And in 2003, giant surprise, the CDC filed the patent on Coronavirus isolated from humans in violation once again of biological and chemical weapons, treaties and laws that we have in the United States, and I’m very, very precise on this.

The United States likes to talk about its rights and everything else, and the rule of law and all the nonsense that we like to talk about, but we don’t ratify treaties about, I don’t know, defending humans.

We conspicuously avoid that we actually have a great track record of advocating for human rights and then denying them when it comes to actually being part of the international community, which is a slightly problematic thing.

But let’s get something very clear.

When the CDC, in April of 2003 filed the patent on SARS Coronavirus isolated from humans, what did they do?

They downloaded a sequence from China, and filed a patent on it in the United States.

Any of you familiar with biological and chemical weapons treaties knows that’s a violation. That’s a crime. That’s not an innocent, oops; that’s a crime.

And the United States Patent Office went as far as to reject that patent application on two occasions until the CDC decided to bribe the patent office to override the patent examiner to ultimately issue the patent in 2007 on SARS Coronavirus.

But let’s not let that get away from us, because it turns out that the RT PCR, which was the test that we allegedly were going to use to identify the risks associated with coronavirus, was actually identified as a bioterrorism threat by me in the European Union sponsored events in 2002 and 2003, 20 years ago that happened here in Brussels and across Europe.

In 2005, this particular pathogen was specifically labelled as a bioterrorism and bioweapon platform technology, described as such. That’s not my terminology that I’m applying to it. It was actually described as a bioweapons platform technology in 2005. And from 2005 onwards, it was actually a bio-warfare enabling agent.

It’s official classification from 2005 forward.

I don’t know if that sounds like public health to you, does it?
Biological warfare enabling technology that feels like not public health, that feels like not medicine, that feels like a weapon, designed to take out humanity.

That’s what it feels like, and it feels like that because that’s exactly what it is.
We have been lured into believing that EcoHealth Alliance and DARPA and all of these organizations are what we should be pointing to.

But we’ve been specifically requested to ignore the facts that over $10 billion have been funneled through black operations, through the check of Anthony Fauci and a side-by-side ledger where NIAD has a balance sheet, and next to it is a biodefense balance sheet.
Equivalent dollar-for-dollar matching that no one in the media talks about, and it’s been going on since 2005.

Our gain of function moratorium. The moratorium that was supposed to freeze any efforts to do gain-of-function research.

Conveniently, in the fall of 2014, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill received a letter from NIAD saying that while the gain of function moratorium on coronavirus in vivo should be suspended, because their grants had already been funded, they received an exemption.

Did you hear what I just said?

A biological weapons lab facility at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill received an exemption from the gain of function moratorium so that by 2016 we could publish the journal article that said SARS Coronavirus is poised for human emergence in 2016 and what, you might ask Dave, was the coronavirus poised for human emergence?

It was WIV ONE: Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus One.

Poised for human emergence in 2016 at the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, such that by the time we get to 2017 and 2018, the following phrase entered into common parlance among the community, there is going to be an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen.

The operative word, obviously in that phrase, the word release, does that sound like leak?

Does that sound like a bat and a Pangolin went into a bar in the Wuhan market and hung out and had sex?

And, and lo and behold, we got SARS Cov-2.

No accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen was the terminology used.

And four times in April of 2019, seven months before the allegation of patient number one, four patent applications of Moderna were modified to include the term accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen as the justification for making a vaccine for a thing that did not exist.

If you have not done so, please make sure that you make reference in every investigation to the premeditation nature of this, because it was in September of 2019 that the world was informed.

That we were going to have an accident or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen so that by September 2020 there would be a worldwide acceptance of a universal vaccine template.

That’s their words right in front of you on the screen.

The intent was to get the world to accept a universal vaccine template, and the intent was to use coronavirus to get there.

Let’s, let’s read this because we have to read this into the record everywhere I go.

“Until an infectious disease crisis is very real present and at the emergency threshold that is often largely ignored to sustain the funding base beyond the crisis.”
He said, “we need to increase the public understanding for the need for medical countermeasures, such as a pan influenza or pan coronavirus vaccine.”

“A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”

Sounds like public health. Sounds like the best of humanity. No.

Ladies and gentlemen, this was premeditated domestic terrorism stated at the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2015, published in front of them.

This is an act of biological and chemical warfare perpetrated on the human race, and it was admitted to in writing that this was a financial heist and a financial fraud.
“Investors will follow if they see profit at the end of the process.”

Let me conclude by making five very brief recommendations. The last slide:

Nature was hijacked. This whole story started in 1965 when we decided to hijack a natural model and decide to start manipulating it.

Science was hijacked when the only questions that could be asked were questions authorized under the patent protection of the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, and their equivalent organizations around the world.

We didn’t have independent science. We had hijacked science, and unfortunately there was no moral oversight in violation of all of the codes that we stand for.

There was no independent, financially disinterested independent review board ever impanelled around coronavirus. Not once, not once, not since 1965.

We do not have a single independent IRB ever empanelled, around Coronavirus. So, morality was suspended for medical countermeasures, and ultimately humanity was lost because we decided to allow it to happen.

Our job today is to say, no more gain of function research period. No more weaponization of nature period.

And most importantly, no more corporate patronage of science for their own self-interest unless they assume 100% product liability for every injury and every death that they maintain.

Thank you very much.
Dr David E. Martin
Speaker – Covid Summit – European Union Parliament – May 2023

EXPOSED: The Likelihood of Major Health Complications Following COVID Vaccination Is 13 Times That of Remaining Unvaxxed

Article Source: “Comparing Risks: The Right and Wrong Way” by Anette Stahel | Brownstone Institute

In her article on the Brownstone Institute website, Anette Stahel criticizes the methodology used in several large-scale studies sponsored by the American health authorities, particularly the CDC, to evaluate the risks and benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. Stahel argues that these studies make flawed comparisons that undervalue the risks associated with vaccination and overstate the risks of remaining unvaccinated.

Stahel presents an incontrovertible case that when the proper (common sense) methodology is used, the risk of serious conditions after vaccination is about 13 times higher than if one abstained from taking the vaccine.

CLN EDITOR NOTE: Stahel’s calculation is based on current data and does not include the vast number of people who will continue to experience major health issues after taking the jab (see the Swedish report below). Her calculation also does not consider the reality that physicians were barred from utilizing potential life-saving and COVID-mitigating treatments on the unvaxxed, including Ivermectin, Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Zinc, and Quercetin. Many hospitalized COVID patients were denied these treatments – even after the family specifically requested them – and instead were given ineffective and potentially harmful drugs like Remdesivir.

Stahel notes that while the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be ebbing worldwide, reports of serious symptoms and injuries following COVID-19 vaccination continue to rise. For example, in Sweden, reports have increased steadily over the past year.

CLN EDITOR NOTE: This is NOT unexpected. Over two years ago, virologist Geert Vanden Bossche warned that the COVID vaccine would compromise the immune system.

Stahel asserts that it is essential to compare the entire vaccinated group with the entire unvaccinated group when investigating serious symptoms and injuries following vaccination or infection. However, she claims that the studies she analyzed instead compared the risks of various serious symptoms and injuries after COVID-19 vaccination with the risks of the same ailments after infection in the unvaccinated.

This approach, Stahel argues, results in higher risk figures for the option to abstain from the vaccine than for the option to take the vaccine. She asserts that the researchers also chose to look at the risks after confirmed infection rather than estimated infection, which she says further skews the data in favor of vaccination.

Stahel alleges that both the American health authorities and the Swedish Public Health Authority have failed to correct these comparisons in their presentations of the studies. She argues that these authorities appear to consider the comparison between vaccinated and infected unvaccinated groups to be valid, as indicated by their reports, tables, and diagrams.

Stahel states that when she analyzed the results of the studies and used official statistics to make what she believes is the correct comparison, she found that the risk of serious symptoms and injuries after vaccination was many times higher than the risk of corresponding infection-related conditions in the unvaccinated state. She calculated that the risk of serious conditions after vaccination was about 13 times higher than if one abstained from the vaccine.

She argues that the alternative to vaccination is not necessarily infection, but remaining unvaccinated with a chance of contracting the infection. She points out that the risk of contracting COVID-19 for the unvaccinated is not 100%, but significantly lower, varying between about 0.5% and 15% depending on location and timing.

Stahel insists that the comparison between severe symptoms and injuries after vaccination and corresponding afflictions after infection in the unvaccinated should stop. She states that the correct comparison is between symptoms and injuries after vaccination and corresponding conditions in the entire group of unvaccinated people.

Stahel criticizes scientists and health authorities for making incorrect comparisons and for claiming that serious symptoms and injuries linked to vaccination are “very rare”, while failing to inform that the risk of corresponding infection-related afflictions in the unvaccinated state is lower.

In conclusion, Stahel calls into question the logic of vaccinating people if it increases their risk of developing serious afflictions.

Gregg Braden – Four Things You Can Do to Thrive and Extend Your Lifespan in the Changing World

Source: Gregg Braden Official

Gregg Braden shares 4 things you can do to thrive and extend your lifespan in this fast-changing world: nutrition, exercise, supplements, and heart-brain coherence.

Scientific Proof that We Can Heal Ourselves

Video Source: TEDx Talks

Lissa Rankin, MD explores the scientific literature, reviewing case studies of spontaneous remission, as well as placebo and nocebo effect data, to prove that our thoughts powerfully affect our physiology when we believe we can get well.

TRANSFORM Your BODY Incredibly FAST with These 2 SECRETS | Andrew Huberman

Source: Rewire Your Mind

In this video, Andrew Huberman discusses two secrets to transforming your body and accelerating fat loss: fat mobilization and fat oxidation. The first step in fat loss is to mobilize the fat by breaking the backbone between glycerol and fatty acids. Once the fatty acids are released into the bloodstream, they can be used for energy. The second step is oxidation, where the fatty acids enter cells and are transported to the mitochondria to be converted into ATP.

The first secret to accelerating fat loss is the realization that the nervous system, not just calorie deficit, plays a crucial role in fat mobilization and oxidation. Adrenaline, released from neurons connecting to fat cells, stimulates fat oxidation. The specific patterns of movements and environments can trigger these neurons to release more adrenaline, which promotes fat loss.

The second secret is that subtle movements, such as shivering or fidgeting, can greatly increase fat metabolism and fat loss. Studies from 2015 and 2017 have shown that people who fidget or engage in subtle movements throughout the day can burn anywhere from 20 to 30 percent more calories than those who do not. This strategy works best for people who are already slightly overweight and may not enjoy exercising.

The bottom line: activating the nervous system to promote fat mobilization and oxidation, along with incorporating subtle movements like fidgeting, can significantly increase fat loss and help transform the body. While exercise is still important for overall health, these two secrets can provide an additional, accessible way to burn calories and promote weight loss.

Watch more great videos on the Rewire Your Mind YouTube Channel.

Blueberries and Green Beans Join EWG’s ‘Dirty Dozen’ List of Pesticide-Drenched Produce

Source: ewg.org

Government tests found 54 different pesticides on blueberries and 84 on green beans

WASHINGTON – Thirty years after a landmark National Academies of Sciences study warning of the dangers posed to children by pesticides, 75 percent of non-organic fruits and vegetables sold in the U.S. are still riddled with the potentially toxic agricultural chemicals, according to the Environmental Working Group’s 2023 Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™, released today.

This year, blueberries and green beans join the Dirty Dozen™, the Shopper’s Guide section listing the 12 non-organic, or conventionally grown, fruits and vegetables with the highest amounts of pesticides, based on federal agencies’ tests. Some of the pesticides detected have been banned in the U.S. or Europe because of concerns about how they harm people.

“Despite the abundance of science linking exposure to pesticides with serious health issues, a potentially toxic cocktail of concerning chemicals continues to taint many of the non-organic fruits and vegetables eaten by consumers,” said Alexis Temkin, Ph.D., EWG toxicologist.

The findings underscore the need for stronger regulations around and oversight of how pesticides are used on food crops.

The Shopper’s Guide compiles EWG’s analysis of the latest fruit and vegetable testing data from the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. The 2023 edition includes data from 46,569 samples of 46 fruits and vegetables, covering 251 different pesticides.

In addition to the Dirty Dozen, the guide includes the Clean Fifteen™, EWG’s list of the fruits and vegetables with very low or no traces of pesticides. The guide also features a full report on pesticides on produce and more detailed analyses about specific fruits and vegetables and what chemicals were found on them.

“Everyone – adults and kids – should eat more fruits and vegetables, whether organic or not,“ Temkin said. “A produce-rich diet provides many health benefits.

“But in the ongoing absence of meaningful federal oversight, consumers concerned about pesticide exposure can use EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce to navigate the produce aisle in ways that work best for them and their families,” Temkin said.

EWG recommends that consumers buy organic versions of Dirty Dozen produce and choose either conventionally grown or organic versions of Clean Fifteen items..

Blueberries and green beans

Both blueberries and green beans – 11th and 12th, respectively, on this year’s Dirty Dozen – had troubling concentrations of organophosphate insecticides, pesticides that can harm the human nervous system. Nine out of 10 samples of each of the popular foods had residues of pesticides – with some showing traces of up to 17 different pesticides.

Nearly 80 percent of blueberry samples had two or more pesticides. Phosmet was detected on more than 10 percent of blueberry samples and malathion on 9 percent. Both are organophosphates that are toxic to the human nervous system, especially children’s developing brains. In 2015, malathion was classified as probably carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

More than 70 percent of green beans had at least two pesticides, with a combined 84 different pesticides found on the entire crop. Six percent of samples showed residues of acephate, a toxic pesticide the Environmental Protection Agency banned for use on green beans more than 10 years ago. Green beans also had traces of several pesticides banned in the European Union but allowed in the U.S.

The health risks posed by pesticides

Pesticides are toxic by design, created expressly to kill living organisms – insects, plants and fungi considered “pests.” But many pesticides pose health dangers to people, too, including cancer, hormone disruption, and brain and nervous system toxicity. These hazards have been confirmed by independent scientists, physicians, and U.S. and international government agencies.

Most pesticide residues found by the USDA and FDA fall below government limits and are legal. But legal limits don’t always indicate what’s safe for human consumption.

The conventional agriculture industry, and even the EPA, often claim pesticides like chlorpyrifos are safe, right up until the moment they are banned because of overwhelming evidence showing they are toxic to humans.

Children are especially vulnerable to many of the health harms associated with pesticide exposure. Research published by EWG in 2020 found that the EPA, which oversees pesticide safety, fails to adequately consider children in setting legal limits for 90 percent of the most common pesticides.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends parents concerned about their children’s exposure to pesticides consult EWG’s Shopper’s Guide.

“EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce is a key tool for parents and caregivers concerned about protecting vulnerable children from the potential serious risks of consuming even low levels of pesticides in food,” said Dr. Philip Landrigan, renowned public health expert and one of the principal authors of the 1993 National Academies of Sciences study on pesticides in children’s diets.

Also in 1993, EWG released its first report, Pesticides in Children’s Food, which analyzed federal government consumption data and pesticide tests of more than 20,000 samples of food, among other government and industry data. The exhaustive investigation found that millions of U.S. children were receiving up to 35 percent of their entire lifetime dose of some carcinogenic pesticides by age 5.

“The Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen provide simple guidelines for how to pursue a diet rich in vital fruits and vegetables, while avoiding the items that might be most contaminated with chemicals,” said Landrigan, director of the Global Public Health Program and Global Observatory on Planetary Health in the Schiller Institute for Integrated Science and Society at Boston College.

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.

‘No Doubt’ Fauci Funded Gain-of-Function Research That Likely Led to Pandemic, Former CDC Director Tells Lawmakers

On March 8, 2023, former CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield testified at the House COVID hearing and said that there is “no doubt” the National Institutes of Health and Dr. Anthony Fauci funded gain-of-function research that likely resulted in the creation of COVID-19 and its subsequent leak.

Source: The Defender | By READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE…

Dr. Robert Redfield, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), on Wednesday said he has “no doubt” the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Dr. Anthony Fauci funded gain-of-function research that likely resulted in the creation of COVID-19 and its subsequent leak.

Redfield made the statement during the first formal hearing of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

Former CDC Director Dr. Redfield: "There's no doubt that NIH funded gain-of-function research."

Malliotakis: "Is it likely that American tax dollars funded the gain-of-function research that created this virus?"

Redfield: "I think it did — not only from NIH but from the State… pic.twitter.com/KctyMd092K

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) March 9, 2023

The hearing included testimony related to the lab leak theory as a plausible explanation as the origin of COVID-19 and how the theory was shut down early in the pandemic in favor of narratives that COVID-19 had zoogenic — or natural — origins.

Committee members and witnesses also debated the future of gain-of-function research.

Other witnesses Wednesday included: Jamie Metzl, Ph.D., J.D., senior fellow at the Atlantic Council; Nicholas Wade, former New York Times science editor and former deputy editor of Nature; and Paul G. Auwaerter, M.D., MBA, clinical director in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

The hearing followed the subcommittee’s release of a memo revealing that key NIH figures, including Fauci, helped persuade virologists to write an influential article squelching the theory that COVID-19 may have leaked from a lab and asserting the virus evolved naturally.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) last month determined SARS CoV-2 most likely emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan, China — a theory later endorsed by FBI Director Christopher Wray. These developments helped lead to a Senate vote to declassify U.S. intelligence documents on the origins of COVID-19.

Gain-of-function research ‘caused the greatest pandemic our world has seen’

Some of the witnesses called for gain-of-function research to be slowed down, paused or stopped entirely.

Redfield testified that the “COVID-19 pandemic presents a case study on the potential dangers of such research,” and said, “we should call for a moratorium on gain-of-function research until we have a broader debate and we come to a consensus as a community about the value of [such] research.”

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE…

Watch more of Dr. Redfield’s testimony:

Anthony Fauci Admits That Vaccines Do NOT Generate Immunity Against Covid, Flu, And Other Respiratory Diseases

Source: The WinePress

“Because these viruses generally do not elicit complete and durable protective immunity by themselves, they have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines.”

After three years of habitually urging the public to get a Covid-19 vaccine, to not only protect ourselves but others around us from contracting and spreading Covid, that the vaccines were the only way to “stop the spread,” and after nearly 80% of the American population has received at least one dose, and 68% got two, and 33% with three injections – Dr. Anthony Fauci and his constituents are now saying that both old and new vaccines are not effective in generating immunity against viral diseases like Covid or the flu.

Fauci, along with Dr. David M. Morens, Senior Advisor to the Director at National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and Jeffery K. Taubenberger, M.D., Ph.D., a Senior Investigator for Viral Pathogenesis & Evolution Section at NIAID – recently published a paper in the journal Cell, that discusses vaccines and their effectiveness against ailments like Covid, influenza, RSV, and the common cold.

The paper is called “Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenzaviruses, and other respiratory viruses.”

In the opening summary, the doctors wrote:

“Because these viruses generally do not elicit complete and durable protective immunity by themselves, they have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines.

In this review, we examine challenges that have impeded development of effective mucosal respiratory vaccines, emphasizing that all of these viruses replicate extremely rapidly in the surface epithelium and are quickly transmitted to other hosts, within a narrow window of time before adaptive immune responses are fully marshaled.

We discuss possible approaches to developing next-generation vaccines against these viruses, in consideration of several variables such as vaccine antigen configuration, dose and adjuventation, route and timing of vaccination, vaccine boosting, adjunctive therapies, and options for public health vaccination polices.”

In the early introduction of the paper, the authors admit that long before Covid fears were on the scene the flu was the dominant annual threat, but had “less than suboptimal vaccines” available to the public to prevent infection.

The authors followed that with this admission:

“Over the years, influenza vaccines have never been able to elicit durable protective immunity against seasonal influenza virus strains, even against non-drifted strains.

Although current influenza vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death to some degree, their effectiveness against clinically apparent infection is decidedly suboptimal, ranging from 14% to 60% over the past 15 influenza seasons.”

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE….

Moderna CEO Admits That In 2019 He KNEW In Advance that “Next Year Is Going To Be a Pandemic”

Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel, speaking at a World Economic Forum event, admitted that he knew in 2019 (before the pandemic started) that Moderna would have to increase their vaccine production to a billion doses in 2020 because “next year is going to be a pandemic.” Check it out:

.
Also, check out the article and video referenced in the above video:

Shocking New Study Reveals Covid Jabs Are Actually ‘Weapons of Mass Depopulation’

Is Aging Reversible? A Scientific Look with David Sinclair | TEDxBoston

Source: TEDx Talks

Have you ever wondered how long you will live? And if so, how could you change that number to live drastically longer? The science might be in your favor: follow David Sinclair, Australian biologist and professor of genetics at Harvard University, as he shares his research on slowing and reversing the process of aging in mice, and how the same technology may someday be transferable to humans. David Sinclair, Australian biologist and professor of genetics at Harvard University, shares his insightful research into the science of age reversal and anti-aging medicine.

David Sinclair, Australian biologist and professor of genetics at Harvard University, shares his insightful research into the science of age reversal and anti-aging medicine. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community.

NOTE FROM TED: Research around aging discussed in this talk remains an ongoing field of study. Please do not look to this talk for health advice. TEDx events are independently organized by volunteers.

Covid-19 Vaccines: What They Are, How They Work, and Possible Causes of Injuries | Capitol Hill Forum Highlights + Full Hearing

U.S. Senator Ron Johnson hosted a forum of world-renowned experts in Public Health, Science, Medicine, Law, and Journalism, in a public forum titled, “Covid-19 Vaccines: What They Are, How They Work, and Possible Causes of Injuries,” held in the U.S. Senate’s Hart Building, on Capitol Hill on December 7, 2022. You will also hear testimony from victims of Covid vaccine injury.

Speakers Include Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Robert Malone, ICAN Attorney, Aaron Siri, Esq., OpenVAERS Founder, Liz Willner, Edward Dowd, Dr. Harvey Risch, Journalist, Del Bigtree, and more.

Watch the highlights immediately below and the full hearing below that:

https://consciouslifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Senate-hearing360p.mp4

Source: The Highwire
.

Note: Also check out the brilliant new feature on The Highwire consisting of short, factual clips about Covid and the jab that you can watch and share:
https://TheHighwire.com/GetFactsinated

Zero-Cost Method to Increase Motivation and Dopamine | Neuroscientist Andrew Huberman [VIDEO+TRANSCRIPT]

Source: Optimum Psychology

Neuroscientist Andrew Huberman shares studies on how cold water exposure increases motivation and dopamine. This method increases motivation and dopamine even better than sex and nicotine.

TRANSCRIPT
So we’ve been focusing a lot for the last few minutes on the kind of darker side of dopamine and how getting big peaks in dopamine can be detrimental. But I want to acknowledge the truth, which is that dopamine feels great. Being in pursuit and motivated and craving things feels wonderful. And I don’t want to demonize dopamine.

What I’m trying to do today is to illustrate how dopamine works in your brain so that you can continue to engage in dopamine-evoking activities. And certainly, there is a place for ingesting things that can increase dopamine provided that they are safe for us in the short and long term. There are activities that we can do that will give us healthy, sustained increases in dopamine, both the peaks (when they happen), and to maintain or even increase our baseline levels of dopamine. So how do we do that? What are some of these activities?

Well, in recent years, there’s been a trend toward more people doing so-called cold exposure. In part, this was popularized by Wim Hof, the so-called Iceman. Getting into cold showers, taking ice baths, and exposing oneself to cold water of various kinds can in fact increase our levels of dopamine, as well as the neuromodulator norepinephrine.

This is not a new phenomenon. In the 1920s, a guy by the name of Vincent Priessniz was one of the first people to popularize and formalize cold water therapies. He was an advocate of cold water exposure in order to boost the immune system and increase feelings of well-being. And actually this practice dates back long before Vincent popularized it, and Wim Hof is the more recent iteration of this.

First of all, some of the safety parameters. Let’s establish those first. Getting into very, very cold water, you know 30 degree Fahrenheit or even low 40 degree Fahrenheit can put somebody into a state of cold water shock. I mean people can die doing that. So obviously you want to approach this with some caution.

But for most people getting into 60 degreE water or 50 degree water or if you’re, acclimated and comfortable with it, you know, 40 degree water or 45 degree water can have tremendously beneficial results on your neuromodulator systems, including dopamine.

What temperature of water you can tolerate will depend on how cold water adapted you are and how familiar you are with the experience of getting into cold water. And when I say comfortable with, I should mention there is never a case in which getting into cold water does not evoke a release of epinephrine. So the quickening of the breath, the widening of the eyes, the feeling is if you can’t catch your breath and even some physical pain at the level of the skin. That happens almost every time, or every time that you get into cold water, even if you’re cold water adapted.

What almost everybody knows and understands is that that wall, as I like to refer to it, is coming. That’s always the first experience of getting into cold water. There’s no real way around that.

Now, the study that I mentioned earlier – human physiological responses to immersion into water of different temperatures, a really interesting study that was done and published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology. I can provide a link to that study in the show caption. It’s a really interesting study. They looked at people getting exposed to water that was warm, moderately cold, or very cold. It was 32 degrees Celsius, 20 degrees Celsius, or 14 degrees Celsius. You can just put those online and do the conversion or you can do the conversion to Fahrenheit if you like, but in any case what they looked at, were the concentrations of things like epinephrine and dopamine and so on.

And what they found was really interesting. First of all, upon getting into cold water, the changes in adrenaline and noradrenaline, epinephrine and norepinephrine were immediate and fast. And these were huge increases. So that’s the getting into the cold water that everybody experiences, these huge increases in adrenaline. But then what was interesting is they observed that dopamine levels started to rise somewhat slowly and then continue to rise and reach levels as high as 2.5 times above baseline. That’s a remarkably high increase.

Remember if we go back to our examples of chocolate, sex – a doubling above baseline; nicotine – two and a half times above baseline; cocaine. The increase in dopamine from a cold water exposure of this kind was comparable to what one sees from cocaine, except in this case it wasn’t a rise and crash, it was actually a sustained rise in dopamine that took a very long time up to three hours to come back down to baseline, which is really remarkable. And I think this explains some of the positive mental and physical effects that people report, subjectively, after doing cold water exposure.

One question that many of you are probably asking is just how cold should the water be? Well, you could mimic what was done in this study and do 14 degrees Celsius (57 degrees Fahrenheit), but for some people that won’t be cold enough, and for some people that will be too cold.

They did look at the release of stress hormones like cortisol. In addition to the release of things like epinephrine and adrenaline, and it’s interesting that they noted that in all cases, but especially at that coldest temperature, there was an increase in cortisol, but that it was transient – that eventually people’s cortisol, their stress hormone, subsided a bit.

There are basically two different approaches to remaining in the cold when it’s uncomfortable. One is to try and relax yourself: to try and practice slow breathing, to try and dilate your gaze. I’ve talked about this before in previous podcasts. You go into panoramic vision to essentially try and calm yourself so that it’s not as stressful in the cold.

Other people, however, take the approach of trying to ramp up their level of internal autonomic arousal, meaning to get really energized and kind of lean into the friction of the cold, and they find that easier. Other people distract themselves, they recite the alphabet, or they do something anything to try and distract themselves from the discomfort. To be totally honest, it does not matter for sake of dopamine release, because the dopamine release is triggered and then continues. Even after you get out of the cold water.

Now in this study it was long exposure to cold water. It was an hour that’s a long period of time, and I do warn you against getting into cold water, that’s so cold that it will make your temperature drop and make you hyperthermic for an hour. That actually could be dangerous for a lot of people. You might have a hard time reheating, and hypothermia is not a good thing. They had people monitoring subjects in these studies and paying attention to their core body temperature. They were able to reheat them afterwards.

It’s well established now that getting into cold water, whether or not it’s a shower an ice bath, circulating cold water, a stream, etc. – that can evoke the norepinephrine release immediately and the long arc of that dopamine release. Why would that be good?

Up until now, I’ve basically said getting increases in dopamine is detrimental to your baseline. Well, this does appear to raise the baseline of dopamine for substantial periods of time and most people report feeling a heightened level of calm end Focus after getting out of cold water. So cold water exposure turns out to be a very potent stimulus for shifting the entire milieu the entire environment of our brain and body, and allowing many people to feel much, much better for a substantial period of time after getting out of the ice bath or cold water of any kind than they did before.

Now you might ask how often to do this? Some people do this every day. It can be very stimulating, so typically doing it early in in the day is going to be better. I don’t necessarily recommend doing it right before sleep, but some people do it in the afternoon. And some people will indeed do that seven days a week, other people three days a week, other people every once in a while.

What I can say is once you become cold water adapted, once it no longer has the same impact of novelty and feeling a bit like a (I don’t want to say a shock to your system because you don’t want to go into cold water shock), but once it is comfortable for you, then it will no longer evoke this release. There really does seem to be something in the pathway from cold water exposure through the norepinephrine pathway and into the mesolimbic brain stem that causes this release in dopamine.

But nonetheless, it’s basically zero cost. I mean you need access to water of some sort: cold water shower, etc. But basically zero cost way of triggering a long lasting increase in dopamine without ingesting anything, no pharmacology whatsoever. Please again approach it with safety and caution in mind, but it is a very potent stimulus. Again, a 250 percent of a rise in baseline, two and a half times rise in baseline rivals that of cocaine, which is really remarkable.

Died Suddenly – Full Documentary

Died Suddenly graphically shows long, calamari-like clots being extracted from the blood vessels of people who died after taking the jab. Also discussed is the dramatic increase in stillbirths.

Why do we never believe them? For centuries, the global elite have broadcast their intentions to depopulate the world – even to the point of carving them into stone. And yet… we never seem to believe them.

The Stew Peters Network is proud to present DIED SUDDENLY, from the award-winning filmmakers, Matthew Skow and Nicholas Stumphauzer.