Search Results

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/02/11/consolidation-of-big-ag-and-big-pharma.aspx A shocking connection between what you eat and how long you live - don't miss this. The Growing Consolidation of Agricultural and Pharmaceutical Industries and Its Impact on Health Story at-a-glance Chronic disease rates in America have increased dramatically, from 7.5% of the population in the 1930s to 60% today, representing a 700% surge, while obesity now affects 40% of Americans Four companies (Bayer, Syngenta, BASF, and Corteva) dominate the agricultural market, with Bayer controlling 18.2% of global agrochemicals and, together with Corteva, over half of U.S. retail seed sales for major crops The concentration ratio (CR4) in U.S. agriculture has reached extreme levels — 85% in beef packing, 70% in pork packing, and 95% control of corn intellectual property by just four companies In 2024, pharmaceutical companies spent $294 million on lobbying, while agribusinesses spent $32.7 million, with Bayer alone spending $6.46 million in the U.S. Modern industrial agriculture mimics pharmaceutical business models by creating dependency cycles. Farmers must repeatedly purchase synthetic inputs while patients require ongoing medication rather than cure-focused treatments ____________________________________________________________________________________________ America is facing a health crisis. In the 1930s, just 7.5% of Americans suffered from chronic diseases. 1 Today, that figure has surged by over 700%, with 60% of Americans now living with one or more chronic conditions. 2 We are also fatter than ever — obesity rates have reached 40% and continue to climb. 3 Even more alarming, the U.S. is the only developed nation where both healthy life expectancy and total life expectancy are in decline 4 — a trend that began before COVID-19. In other words, we’re not living as long as our grandparents did, despite all of our technological advancements. How did we get here? One answer lies in the disturbing parallels between Big Pharma and Big Ag — two industries that wield enormous power over our health. The relationship between our food systems and our healthcare systems is no coincidence. Food is being produced in ways that undermine our health and keep us dependent on pharmaceuticals. The business models of both the pharmaceutical and agriculture industries thrive on treating symptoms rather than addressing root causes, ensuring a continuous cycle of dependency. Pharmaceutical companies profit immensely by focusing on symptom management instead of curing underlying conditions. Chronic diseases like diabetes or hypertension, for example, have become lucrative markets, as patients often require lifelong medication rather than one-time treatments. Big Ag mirrors this approach. Farmers are locked into systems reliant on synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and genetically modified crops — inputs they must repurchase every season. Rather than restoring soil health or embracing regenerative farming, these practices perpetuate chemical dependency. (And fail to provide truly nutritious, health-promoting food). Both industries promise solutions but often create new problems. In agriculture, pests develop resistance, leading to the need for even stronger chemicals. In healthcare, one medication’s side effects often require another drug to manage. This cycle of dependency benefits corporations but leaves the rest of us sick, overmedicated, and struggling. The unfortunate reality is that the power over our health is concentrated in the hands of a few corporations. Understanding this connection between Big Ag and Big Pharma is the first step toward change. By supporting alternative systems — whether regenerative agriculture or holistic health practices — we can begin to reclaim our well-being. Bayer — Bridging Big Pharma and Big Ag When exploring the overlap between Big Pharma and Big Ag, Bayer stands out as a stark example. As of December 2023, Bayer comprised 340 consolidated companies operating in 80 countries. 5 , 6 Its vast reach ensures its influence spans nearly every aspect of health and agriculture, blurring the lines between industries that should prioritize health over profit. Before Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, the two companies operated in separate realms. Monsanto was a powerhouse in agriculture, dominating the seed and agrochemical markets, while Bayer focused primarily on pharmaceuticals and consumer health products. The $63 billion merger merged these sectors, creating a global behemoth that exerts significant influence over both food production and health care. This acquisition solidified Bayer’s dominance in agriculture. By 2018, Bayer controlled 18.2% of the global agrochemical market. 7 Between 2018 and 2020, Bayer and Corteva collectively accounted for more than half of U.S. retail seed sales for corn, soybeans, and cotton. Globally, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF, and Corteva dominate the agricultural market, controlling a substantial share. 8 This German multinational now operates across pharmaceuticals, consumer health, and agriculture — a structure that raises serious concerns. Bayer’s pharmaceutical division spans several therapeutic areas: Cardiology — Medications like Xarelto (rivaroxaban) treat blood clots, hypertension, and cardiovascular issues. Oncology — Cancer treatments such as Stivarga (regorafenib) and Nexavar (sorafenib) address colorectal, liver, and kidney cancers. Women’s health — Products include hormonal contraceptives and treatments for menopause-related conditions. Ophthalmology — Drugs like Eylea (aflibercept) combat macular degeneration. Bayer’s consumer health division includes household names, reinforcing Bayer’s influence in everyday health decisions: Allergy and cold remedies — Claritin and Alka-Seltzer. Digestive health — MiraLAX and Rennie. Skin and wound care — Bepanthen and Canesten. Bayer’s agricultural division, bolstered by Monsanto’s expertise, focuses on “crop science” and food production. While this may seem to serve public health by addressing food security, the reality is more complicated. Bayer’s focus on genetically modified seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides promotes systems of dependency that harm soil health and perpetuate chemical use. Bayer’s dual role in pharmaceuticals and agriculture exemplifies how intertwined these sectors have become. The consolidation of power across both industries raises pressing questions about the health of people and the planet. Is it truly possible for one corporation to champion health while contributing to agricultural practices that undermine it? Consolidation of Power and CR4 — A Rigged System The centralization of power in both Big Ag and Big Pharma has created systems that prioritize corporate profits over the health of people, farmers, and the environment. By examining the CR4 (Concentration Ratio of 4) — a metric that measures the market share of the four largest firms in an industry — we can see just how concentrated these industries have become. The CR4 provides a clear picture of market competitiveness: When the CR4 > 50%, the top four firms control more than half the market, suggesting significant concentration. A CR4 > 80% indicates a highly concentrated, oligopolistic market. A CR4 < 40% reflects a relatively competitive industry. High CR4 values signify reduced competition, giving dominant firms significant power over pricing, policies, and market access, often at the expense of consumers and smaller players. In the U.S. agricultural sector, CR4 values are alarmingly high, showcasing how a handful of corporations dominate key markets: Beef packing — From a CR4 of 25% in 1977, it soared to 85% by 2018. Pork packing — Rose from 33% in 1976 to 70% in 2018. Broiler (chicken) processing — Increased from 34% in 1986 to 54% in 2018. Seed market — By 2023, BASF, Bayer, Corteva, and Syngenta controlled 95% of U.S. corn and 84% of soybean intellectual property. Nitrogen fertilizer (North America) — CR4 stands at 77%. Agricultural machinery — The CR4 is approximately 60.8%. Farmers are forced into a system where they have little choice over inputs, crops, livestock, or markets, and a system that encourages a “go big or go home” mindset to make the numbers work. This industrialized and concentrated setup marginalizes small farmers and alienates consumers from the family farms that grow their food. Meanwhile, biodiversity, rural communities, and soil health suffer as corporations push monocultures and chemical dependency. While the pharmaceutical industry is slightly more fragmented, certain sectors exhibit high CR4 values: Vaccines — Pfizer, GSK, Sanofi, and Merck control nearly 80% of the global market. Diabetes drugs — Dominated by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Sanofi, with a CR4 of about 70%. Oncology — The top four companies (Roche, Merck, BMS, and Novartis) control 45% to 50% of the market. High CR4 values highlight a troubling reality: concentrated power creates a system ripe for market abuse. Whether it’s Big Ag controlling what farmers plant or Big Pharma deciding what treatments are available, these industries hold disproportionate power over our food and health systems. The result? Consumers pay more, farmers earn less, and the broader systems we depend on — our health and our environment — continue to erode. Government Funding — Reinforcing Unsustainable Systems Both Big Ag and Big Pharma rely on government funding and policies that prioritize their profit-driven models. This institutional support not only perpetuates cycles of dependency but also manipulates public perception through lobbying and control of educational narratives. Government subsidies unfortunately prioritize industrial farming practices, favoring monocultures that require chemical inputs to manage pests and maintain yields. Monocultures, with their lack of biodiversity, create environments where pests thrive, driving farmers to use more synthetic pesticides. The Federal Crop Insurance Program guarantees minimum profits for farmers. While this reduces risk for farmers, it also drives up input costs as suppliers exploit this guaranteed revenue stream. With rising costs for fertilizers, pesticides, and machinery, farmers’ slim profit margins make them increasingly dependent on subsidies. Subsidized crop insurance also incentivizes conventional farming methods over sustainable alternatives. Farmers are often required to use high-yield practices, genetically modified seeds, and chemical inputs to qualify. This system rewards high-yield chemical-intensive farming and does not provide any financial incentive to pursue regenerative practices like crop rotation, no till, and cover cropping. Subsidies help sustain chemical dependency in agriculture, so Big Ag companies want to make sure the subsidies stick around. Healthcare policies mirror agriculture, prioritizing conventional methods while sidelining preventive care. Health Insurance coverage focuses on medications, surgeries, and hospital visits but neglects preventive measures like nutrition, exercise, or alternative therapies. Isn’t it so frustrating that your gym membership or chiropractor visits aren’t covered by “health insurance”? Chronic diseases are often managed with pharmaceuticals, which treat symptoms but rarely address root causes. This creates a cycle of dependency similar to agriculture, where conventional practices are perpetuated, leaving healthier alternatives underfunded and underutilized. Manipulating and Controlling the Narrative Both industries invest heavily in shaping public perception and regulatory outcomes through extensive lobbying. In 2024, U.S. agribusinesses spent $32.7 million on lobbying to influence policies and regulations. 9 The pharmaceutical and health products sector spent a staggering $294 million on lobbying efforts. 10 In 2024, Bayer spent $6.46 million on lobbying in the U.S. alone. 11 In the EU, Bayer reported lobbying expenditures between €7 million and €8 million in 2023, the highest of any company. 12 Both Big Ag and Big Pharma also influence educational curricula to align with their interests. Textbooks often emphasize conventional farming methods, including synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, and GMOs, while giving less attention to sustainable alternatives. Large agribusinesses shape agricultural programs at universities, promoting practices that support their products. Pharmaceutical companies sponsor Continuing Medical Education (CME) programs for Doctors, promoting the latest drugs over non-pharmaceutical treatments. Many medical textbooks are influenced by pharmaceutical companies, sometimes including advertisements or content that favors their products. Companies like Bayer also shape public health narratives through educational campaigns about diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular conditions, and diabetes. While these campaigns raise awareness, they often steer solutions toward pharmaceutical products rather than holistic or preventative measures. Both industries have created systems that … Reward conventional, unsustainable practices. Suppress alternatives through lobbying and narrative control. Drive dependency on synthetic inputs and pharmaceutical treatments. The foundation of their massive profits lies in creating perpetual dependency by focusing on symptom management which ensures a consistent revenue stream. Cures, on the other hand, like addressing food choices and lifestyle habits, or implementing regenerative farming practices, would reduce long-term dependency, undermining the continuous profit model. It’s undeniably a clever business model — though one that comes at the expense of our health and well-being. Farmers and patients are not to blame! They are doing the best they can trying to navigate these difficult systems. The structures themselves — bolstered by government funding and corporate influence — limit options for healthier, more sustainable alternatives. Gut Health and Soil Health Parallels The analogy between gut health and soil health highlights a deeper connection between the human health and agriculture industries. Gut health is now scientifically linked to a wide range of chronic diseases (diabetes, autoimmune disorders, neurological disorders, digestive disorders, and more), highlighting the critical role of the gut microbiome in maintaining overall health. Just as a balanced, healthy microbiome is essential for human well-being, a thriving soil microbiome is crucial for producing nutrient-dense, sustainable food. An imbalanced soil microbiome disrupts the essential ecosystem functions that sustain healthy soil, triggering widespread issues like pest invasions, nutrient deficiencies, and disruptions in natural carbon and water cycles. Over-tilled soil, deprived of organic matter, and inundated with chemicals like pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, causes the microbiome to destabilize. As a result, soil fertility and plant health decline, creating a greater reliance on harmful chemicals to maintain crop production. Now imagine if you took an antibiotic every day. Over time, this could disrupt the delicate balance of beneficial bacteria in your gut, leading to digestive issues, weakened immunity, and overall health problems, right? Well, the same effect occurs in the soil when we rely heavily on agrochemicals. Many of these chemicals function like an “antibiotic” to the soil microbiome, killing or suppressing beneficial microorganisms that are essential for soil health and plant growth. Without a thriving community of beneficial microbes, the soil becomes less resilient, more prone to pests and disease, and less effective at absorbing water and nutrients. Over time, this leads to a dependence on even more chemical inputs to maintain productivity, much like how the overuse of antibiotics can lead to the need for stronger medications to manage infections. Image from: Land 2020, 9(2), 34; doi: 10.3390/land9020034 Just as enhancing gut health reduces our reliance on pharmaceuticals, improving soil health is essential to reducing the dependence on toxic chemicals in agriculture. Plus, these two microbiomes are deeply interconnected — healthy soil supports nutrient-dense crops, which, in turn, positively impact the human microbiome. Intellectual Power and Seed Saving The parallels between the agricultural and pharmaceutical industries become even more apparent when examining their approach to intellectual property (IP) development. Both industries profit by creating so-called “novel” products marketed as innovations to “improve our health.” This IP focus puts a heavy emphasis on technological solutions, often at the expense of more sustainable, natural alternatives. In reality, these efforts often center on market domination and securing exclusive access to resources, ensuring their control and profitability rather than prioritizing genuine health or sustainability. In agriculture, seed saving was a longstanding tradition that allowed farmers to preserve crop diversity and maintain independence. By saving and replanting seeds each year, farmers ensured they had access to crops suited to their local environments. However, with the advent of patented genetically modified (GM) seeds from companies like Bayer and Monsanto, this practice has been largely undermined. These corporations not only patent the seeds but also often bundle them with the requirement to buy proprietary herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers, creating a “package deal” that traps farmers into a cycle of dependence. Image from: Grain, April 8, 2015 The widespread use of GM seeds has led to monoculture farming, where large tracts of land are dedicated to a single crop. This practice is vulnerable to pests, diseases, and soil degradation, increasing the need for toxic chemical interventions. At the same time, the consolidation of the seed industry into a few powerful corporations has raised seed prices, limiting access for small-scale farmers and pushing out traditional varieties in favor of commercial crops designed for high yields, not biodiversity. The large-scale adoption of monoculture farming truly began around 1950, driven by the Green Revolution. This period saw the introduction of high-yielding crop varieties, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and modern irrigation techniques, which significantly shifted farming toward monoculture. It revolutionized agriculture, especially in developing countries, with crops like wheat, rice, and corn being grown in vast, uniform fields to maximize production. Prior to this, farming systems were more diverse, incorporating a mix of crops and livestock. Practices such as crop rotation, polyculture, and pasture-livestock integration were common and contributed to nurturing the soil microbiome. While some claim that industrial agriculture is necessary to feed the growing global population, the reality is that we already produce enough food to feed 1.5 times the world’s population. 13 The problem lies in food distribution, waste, and political barriers that prevent nourishing food from reaching those who need it most. Big Ag invests heavily in synthetic and technological solutions — such as genetic engineering, precision agriculture, and chemical treatments — that can be patented, protected, and profited from. These innovations often prioritize short-term yield increases without regard for the long-term health of the soil or ecosystem. In contrast, natural farming practices like agroecology and permaculture, which focus on biodiversity and ecosystem balance, can’t be patented. After all, you can’t dominate markets when you work in harmony with Mother Nature! This shift in focusing on IP and tech solutions over natural methods mirrors the situation in the pharmaceutical industry. Just as agricultural giants control the seed market through patents and proprietary technologies, pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Merck, and Johnson & Johnson hold patents on “life-saving” medications, limiting access to affordable alternatives. Generic drugs often face barriers due to patent protections, and smaller producers struggle to compete with these industry giants. Big Pharma “innovation” is primarily focused on developing new drugs, therapies, or medical devices, frequently overlooking low-cost, lifestyle-based interventions that they can’t profit from (like dietary, lifestyle and exercise improvements). In both sectors, the focus has shifted away from independent solutions to a reliance on corporate-controlled products. For agriculture, it means dependence on GM seeds and chemicals; for healthcare, it means reliance on patented pharmaceuticals. This model ensures a continuous revenue stream but limits the exploration of more holistic or alternative approaches — whether that’s crop rotation and heirloom seeds in farming or preventive care and natural treatments in medicine. How to Make Real Change The current systems in both healthcare and agriculture are designed to ensure that corporations profit at the expense of public health and sustainability. These industries prioritize efficiency, profit, and corporate control, rather than the long-term well-being of people or the planet. Just as access to non-GMO or heirloom seeds becomes more limited and expensive in agriculture, alternative healthcare treatments often face similar barriers. Natural remedies or integrative approaches are often excluded from insurance coverage or priced out of reach, much like organic or heirloom crops are more expensive than their conventional counterparts. Now don’t get me wrong — Technology and efficiency improvements are important, and pharmaceutical and chemical interventions do have their place! However, it’s clear that our current approach involving heavy reliance isn’t working. We rely on these solutions for short-term relief, but they often come with long-term consequences. In agriculture, the focus is on high-yield, chemical-intensive farming that sacrifices biodiversity and soil health. In healthcare, the emphasis is on symptom management through drugs, rather than addressing the root causes of illness. Both industries are becoming dangerously consolidated, limiting choice, increasing costs, and deepening a cycle of dependency on corporate-controlled solutions. Real change won’t come from the top down, as entrenched corporate interests hold too much power. It will come from the bottom up — through consumers, patients, and farmers making conscious decisions to support a healthier, more sustainable future. The alternative is clear: regenerative farming that nurtures the land and promotes biodiversity, paired with a healthcare system that empowers individuals through preventative, holistic approaches. We have the power to make a difference. By supporting farmers who embrace regenerative practices and avoiding food produced with harmful chemicals, we can drive a market shift toward healthier, more sustainable food. Likewise, by taking control of our health and focusing on prevention — through proper diet, exercise, and stress management — we can reduce our dependence on pharmaceutical drugs. The change we need starts with us. By choosing to invest in regenerative agriculture and preventative healthcare, we can break free from the systems that profit from our dependency. Together, we can build a future where health and sustainability take priority over corporate control. About the Author Ashley Armstrong is passionate about helping others restore metabolic health and in creating an alternative food system low in PUFAs and low in toxic agrochemicals. She’s the co-founder of Angel Acres Egg Club , which specializes in low-PUFA (polyunsaturated fat) eggs that are shipped to all 50 states. Armstrong also co-founded Nourish Food Club , which ships low-PUFA chicken, low-PUFA pork, beef, cheese, A2 dairy and traditional sourdough to all 50 states. While the egg club has memberships open, Nourish Food Club has a temporary waiting list.

But....perhaps this is the plan to destroy the economies of the 5 Eyes anyway in order to usher in the CBDC/Obsidian Social Credit System for total control??

Super Bowl LIX, The Day the Music Died, American Pie, Donald Trump, Black Sunday, the Pi Day Lunar Eclipse and the Number of the Beast. Hands down the most mathematically perfect decode you will ever come across! The Dark Knight Rises strange connection —Trump quoted Bane in 2017 and now, eight years later, becomes the first sitting president at a Super Bowl! WHY???

https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-02-06-trebing-ignites-debate-vaccines-disease-modern-medicine.html Dr. William P. Trebing challenges the germ theory of disease in his book "Good-bye Germ Theory," arguing that it is a "century-old fraud" and that diseases are actually the body's natural detoxification processes. Trebing claims that symptoms like fever, coughing and rashes are the body's attempts to heal itself, and that modern medicine suppresses these processes with harmful chemicals, leading to chronic illnesses. The book questions the efficacy and safety of vaccines, antibiotics and other mainstream treatments, and links vaccines to rising rates of autism, neurological disorders and autoimmune conditions. Trebing challenges the historical narrative that vaccines eradicated diseases like polio and measles, arguing that these illnesses were already in decline due to improved sanitation, better nutrition and higher-quality living conditions. Despite criticism from the medical establishment, Trebing's ideas resonate with a growing segment of the population seeking alternatives to conventional medicine, sparking debates about the future of medicine and public health. Dr. William P. Trebing challenges the foundational principles of modern medicine, arguing that the widely accepted germ theory of disease is a "century-old fraud." His work, " Good-bye Germ Theory: Ending a Century of Medical Fraud and How to Protect Your Family ," asserts that diseases are not caused by external pathogens but are instead the body’s natural detoxification processes. Published back in 2006, the book has ignited fierce debate among medical professionals and the public, raising questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines, antibiotics and other mainstream treatments. Trebing, a controversial figure in alternative health circles, contends that symptoms like fever, coughing and rashes are not signs of illness but rather the body’s attempts to heal itself. Instead of confronting these signs head on, modern medicine has labeled this "detoxification" process as signs of disease. The body's natural processes are then suppressed with chemicals that prevent detoxification, leading to chronic illnesses. This perspective, while unconventional, taps into growing skepticism about the pharmaceutical industry and its influence on public health. The book’s most contentious claims center on vaccines, which Trebing describes as not just ineffective, but downright dangerous. He points out that most vaccines today contain harmful substances such as formaldehyde, mercury and aluminum, which he links to rising rates of autism, neurological disorders and autoimmune conditions. All of these combined with the forced vaccination of children leads them to become more likely to suffer from asthma, allergies and chronic illnesses. Trebing also challenges the historical narrative that vaccines eradicated diseases like polio and measles. He claims these illnesses were already in decline due to improved sanitation, better nutrition and higher-quality living conditions. The medical establishment has largely dismissed Trebing’s claims. Dr. Emily Carter, an infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University , called the book "dangerously misleading." "Germ theory is the cornerstone of modern medicine," she said. "Vaccines have saved millions of lives, and dismissing them undermines public health efforts." Despite the backlash, Trebing's ideas resonate with a growing segment of the population disillusioned with conventional medicine. His call for a return to natural health practices – clean eating, stress reduction and toxin avoidance – has found an audience among those seeking alternatives to pharmaceuticals . The debate over germ theory is not new. In the 19th century, Louis Pasteur’s germ theory clashed with Antoine Béchamp’s "terrain theory," which emphasized the body’s internal environment over external pathogens. Trebing's work revives this centuries-old dispute, framing it in the context of modern health crises. As the book gains traction, it raises critical questions about the future of medicine and public health. Are vaccines a medical miracle or a profit-driven enterprise? Is disease an external invasion or an internal process? While the answers remain contested, Trebing’s work ensures that these questions will remain at the forefront of public discourse. For now, "Good-bye Germ Theory" serves as a rallying cry for those questioning the status quo . Whether it sparks a revolution in health practices or fades into obscurity, its impact on the conversation about disease and medicine is undeniable. Dr. William P. Trebing's book "Good-bye Germ Theory: Ending a Century of Medical Fraud and How to Protect Your Family" challenges conventional medical wisdom, arguing that germ theory is a fraud. Watch this video . This video is from the Bright Learn channel on Brighteon.com .

https://expose-news.com/2025/02/07/nhs-knows-covid-vaccine-are-bioweapons/ Featured image: Adapted from ‘ CBRN incidents: clinical management & health protection ’, Health Protection Agency, Public Health England, 2008 For more than a decade all emergency services, primary care and public health staff in England have known coronaviruses do not naturally occur and are bioweapons; yet they have been and still are permitting, if not encouraging, them to be injected into people en masse since the rollout of the covid vaccines. Public Health England guidance on Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (“CBRN”) threats that date back to 2008 has surfaced which states: “Human coronaviruses do not currently occur naturally in the UK … The first highly pathogenic human coronavirus diseases emerged in 2003 (SARS coronavirus) … SARS was first identified in Southern China in late 2002.” Last year, Dr. David E. Martin said, “Since 2002, there has not been a coronavirus; there has been an engineered pathogen.  Engineered by Ralph Baric at the University of Carolina Chapel Hill where, in 2002, he patented the’ infectious, replication defective, clone of coronavirus’.” Democracy Manifest has highlighted a 2018 document published by Public Health England.  Public Health England (“PHE”) was replaced by the UK Health Security Agency (“UKHSA”)and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which were formed on 1 April 2021 and 1 October 2021 respectively. Titled ‘ Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents: clinical management and health protection ’, the document is guidance to be followed by health care professionals in emergency departments, primary care and public health.  It is also guidance for emergency planners and trainers, and emergency service personnel.  Originally published in September 2008, the document was last updated on 31 May 2018. Democracy Manifest , a group that is in search of the origins of the covid-19 response, highlights information within the guidance that they feel is relevant specifically to covid.  You can read Democracy Manifest’s article HERE .  In the following, we are exploring what evidence it contains that indicates SARS-CoV-2 was, from the outset, known to be a Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (“CBRN”) threat by UK authorities. As the document is guidance for incidences of CBRN threats.  Let’s first remind ourselves what a CBRN threat is and also to check whether the definition of CBRN has changed in recent years.  To do this we did a quick internet search and trusted that the most recent information that matched our queries were returned.  If you are confident in what a CBRN threat is, you can skip this section. Table of Contents CBRN Threats CBRN Threats UK CBRN Clinical Management Dual Purpose CBRN Agents Public Health England CBRN Guidance CBRN Threats CBRN threats are significant security concerns that can cause severe harm to public health, infrastructure and economies. These threats can arise from accidents, poor safety measures, or malicious actors and include the use of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials or weapons. Read more: A quick guide to CBRN threats, response, and solutions , Risk Aware CBRN Threats UK CBRN threats in the UK involve the malicious use of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear materials or weapons with the intention to cause significant harm or disruption. Read more: Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Threats , National Protective Security Authority The UK has established various measures to mitigate CBRN risks, including the development of training and equipment capabilities for emergency services and military personnel. The NHS has streamlined its guidance for the initial management of self-presenters from incidents involving hazardous materials, incorporating the Initial Operational Response (IOR) programme developed by the Home Office. Read more: Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) and Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) , NHS England, 1 February 2022 In addition to the NHS, the UK has a network of organizations and initiatives aimed at enhancing CBRN risk mitigation. These include the European Union (“EU”) CBRN Risk Mitigation Centre of Excellence (“CoE”), which brings together over 60 countries to strengthen CBRN risk mitigation and promote a global culture of safety and security. Biological CBRN threats noted by the EU CBRN Risk Mitigation are, “Avian flu, the Ebola outbreak in West African countries, Dengue fever, Zika virus, zoonotic diseases or the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.” The EU CBRN Risk Mitigation diverges from other definitions of CBRN threats in that it notes they are dual purpose, both a threat and a benefit: “The acronym ‘CBRN’ defines chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials and agents that could potentially harm the society through their accidental or deliberate release, dissemination, or impacts. Nowadays many of these agents have been subject to innovative practices in medicine, agriculture and industry and are being used for the benefit of human health, the environment and the global economy.” Read more: Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Risk Mitigation , European Union CBRN Clinical Management The following is an artificial intelligence (“AI”) summary as of 6 February 2025 for the query “Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents: clinical management and health protection,” which is the title of the 2018 guidance from Public Health England.  Please note that AI is simply a computer programme and can, and does, make errors. Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (“CBRN”) incidents require a comprehensive approach to clinical management and health protection. Immediate actions include decontamination procedures, which vary based on the severity of the exposure. For instance, severe exposures may require stretcher decontamination and life-saving interventions, while less severe cases might involve walking decontamination procedures.2 Health impacts from CBRN hazards can range from immediate sickness and injury to long-term serious illness and death. These effects can be exacerbated by adverse psychological reactions due to uncertainty about the extent or effects of exposure. Some of the main causes of mortality from CBRN include multi-organ failure, respiratory failure and neurological events such as seizures, coma and stroke.1 In terms of clinical management, specific treatments are necessary for different types of exposures. For example, nerve agent exposure might require fitting or atropine treatments, while cyanide poisoning might need a combination of atropine and other antidotes.2 Health protection strategies include community engagement and education on prevention of exposure through contaminated food, land or water. Ensuring safe water, food and fuel supplies is crucial to prevent people from accessing contaminated areas to meet their basic needs. Additionally, moving at-risk populations to safe zones and providing sanitation facilities can help prevent exposure.1 The NHS England’s Initial Operational Response (“IOR”) programme was introduced to improve patient outcomes following contamination with hazardous materials or CBRN incidents. This programme is applicable to NHS settings that may expect to receive ambulant self-presenting patients following an incident.3 Health authorities also develop specific plans and clinical guidelines for responding to CBRN incidents, including the management of biological agents that could be used in bioterrorist acts. These plans cover recovery arrangements and aim to effectively coordinate a national health response to incidents of national significance.4 The risk of CBRN incidents is considered to be changing globally due to advances in technology and the increased likelihood of terrorists using unconventional weapons. Preparedness for these threats involves assessing risks and developing strategies to mitigate potential harm.5 In summary, managing CBRN incidents involves a combination of immediate clinical interventions, long-term health protection strategies and comprehensive preparedness plans to address the diverse health impacts of these hazards.1,2,3 [1] Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) hazards , International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 8 October 2023 [2] Bland SA. Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Casualty Management Principles . Conflict and Catastrophe Medicine. 2013 Jul 18:747–70. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-2927-1_46. PMCID: PMC7121337. [3] Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) and Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) , NHS England, last updated 1 February 2022 [4] Chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear health response, Department of Health and Aged Care , Australian Government, last updated 2 November 2022 [5] UKHSA Advisory Board: preparedness for chemical, radiological and nuclear threats , UK Government, 14 March 2023 [6] Calder A, Bland S. Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear considerations in a major incident . Surgery (Oxf). 2015 Sep;33(9):442-448. doi: 10.1016/j.mpsur.2015.07.006. Epub 2015 Aug 6. PMID: 32287820; PMCID: PMC7143674. Dual Purpose CBRN Agents From the descriptions above it is clear that a CBRN incident is a deliberate or accidental release of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials or weapons.  The European Union recognises the dual purpose or dual use of CBRN agents in its definition. In respect of biological CBRN agents, dual use means that biodefense and biowarfare are two sides of the same coin , which allows for biowarfare research to be conducted under the guise of biodefence. Dual use has particular relevance to biological agents such as the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 that is said to cause the set of symptoms labelled as the disease covid-19. As Dr. Harvey Risch explained during a roundtable discussion led by US Senator Ron Johnson last year, “The covid-19 pandemic virus exists because it was bioengineered.” [The] bioweapons industry [ ] has been performing secretive and nefarious biological weapons development for the last 70 years. The recognition of the possible accidental or intentional unleashing of an infectious agent capable of killing large numbers of humanity led to the Bioweapons Treaty of 1975. The Treaty prohibits the development of offensive bioweapons. However, the one loophole in the Treaty is that small quantities of offensive bioweapons are allowed to be developed in order to do research on vaccine countermeasures. Now , this loophole was then exploited by our bioweapons industry for the last 50 years. The Bioweapons Treaty limited offensive bioweapons to agents that would address vaccine development – so-called dual-use agents or dual-use research. Covid origins and that vaccines were unsafe and ineffective were covered up to protect the integrity of the bioweapon industry, Dr. Harvey Risch says , The Exposé, 14 March 2024 For years, Dr. David E. Martin has been warning the world that SARS-CoV-2 is a man-made bioweapon. And it’s not only SARS-CoV-2.  He says that all coronaviruses for more than 20 years have been man-made.  “Since 2002, there has not been a coronavirus; there has been an engineered pathogen.  Engineered by Ralph Baric at the University of Carolina Chapel Hill where, in 2002, he patented the’ infectious, replication defective, clone of coronavirus’,” he said during an interview with Alex Jones last year. During a lecture in Switzerland in 2023 , Dr. Martin said that the “coronavirus” virus was first described in 1965. Two years later, healthy British military personnel were infected with coronavirus pathogens from the US “as part of our biological weapons programme.” Alluding to the “dual use” of coronavirus research, Dr. Martin said, “The covid injections were 19 years in the making by the time they were rolled out.  These injections were rolled out despite the mRNA spike protein being publicly referred to as a bioweapon almost 20 years ago. In 2005, the mRNA spike protein was presented at a conference organised by DARPA and Miter Corporation as a ‘technology that enables biological warfare’.” Public Health England CBRN Guidance PHE’s guidance on biological agents begins on page 68 of its 2018 document titled ‘ Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents: clinical management and health protection ’. Biological agents may be deliberately released covertly or overtly, the guidance states.  “This manual focuses on organisms that could be aerosolised and/or would cause serious or fatal infections.” In PHE’s CBRN guidance, “coronavirus” is mentioned 22 times including four mentions of “novel coronavirus.” On page 90, PHE’s guidance lists key facts about novel coronaviruses.  The first two facts in the list are: “The first highly pathogenic human coronavirus diseases emerged in 2003 (SARS coronavirus)” and “ human coronaviruses do not currently occur naturally in the UK .” Another key fact PHE gives is: “SARS was first identified in Southern China in late 2002.” These key facts are not new to PHE’s guidance.  This has been the case since the guidance was first published in 2008.  Under key facts for severe acute respiratory syndrome (“SARS”), the 2008 guidance stated : “Caused by a human coronavirus discovered in 2003, SARS coronavirus does not occur naturally in the UK” and “first cases were seen in Southern China in late 2002.” Remember what Dr. Martin said? He said, “Since 2002, there has not been a coronavirus; there has been an engineered pathogen.” When SARS-CoV-2 was first announced to the world it had not yet been given a specific nomenclature. It was widely referred to as a “novel coronavirus.”  In January 2020, the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) recommended naming the novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV. “nCoV” is an abbreviation for “novel coronavirus.”  The official name SARS-CoV-2 was issued by WHO on 11 February 2020 . Anyone in the UK who was familiar with, or had even read, PHE’s CBRN guidance in the previous 10 years knew that the novel coronavirus, now known as SARS-CoV-2, is a bioweapon. That means healthcare professionals in emergency departments, primary care and public health, emergency planners and trainers, and emergency service personnel in England knew from the outset that SARS-CoV-2 was a bioweapon. Worse than that, they ALL KNEW from the outset, before any injections were given to the public, that the “vaccine” is also a bioweapon. The “vaccines” against SARS-CoV-2 were widely publicised as containing the genetic sequence of the bioweapon’s spike protein, which is the disease-causing agent of the coronavirus bioweapon. All the covid vaccines have been designed to introduce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein bioweapon into recipients’ bodies.  mRNA vaccines, such as Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, include genetic material in the form of messenger RNA (mRNA) that instructs the body’s cells to produce the spike protein.  Protein-based vaccines, such as inactivated whole-virus vaccines and subunit vaccines, contain the spike protein directly rather than genetic instructions for its production. AstraZeneca, an adenoviral vector vaccine, used a modified chimpanzee adenovirus to deliver the genetic instructions for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.  Janssen uses a modified human adenovirus to deliver the gene for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein into cells. In the following, we use Moderna as an example to give a more detailed description of how the vaccine bioweapon was designed before they were released on the public. On 18 December 2020, Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, described in an interview how his company designed a vaccine against the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) on a computer (in silico) in just two days. Bancel and his team were able to design the vaccine in just 48 hours after receiving the digital sequence of the virus from China.  “We thought it up in silico, we never had access to a physical virus,” he said in an interview a few months later. Moderna’s approach involved designing the vaccine to produce the full-length spike protein of the virus inside human cells, mimicking a natural infection. Moderna’s covid-19 mRNA vaccine instructs the recipient’s cells to make a viral protein called a spike protein. This spike protein is the bioweapon as mentioned above. During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum (“WEF”) annual meeting in 2023, Bancel revealed that before a novel coronavirus pandemic had been declared, he had told his staff that Moderna were going to need to make 1 billion doses of the company’s “vaccine.” WHO declared the coronavirus outbreak a pandemic on 11 March 2020 . At the time, there had been nearly 4,291 deaths worldwide attributed to the virus, according to WHO. Yet in late 2019 or early 2020, when worldwide deaths attributed to SARS-CoV-2 were even more insignificant, Bancel said to the WEF audience, “I remember walking after that into the office of Moderna manufacturing and I say: “How we make a billion doses next year?” And [you/they] look at me a bit funny say: “What?” I said: “Yeah we need to make a billion doses next year, there’s going to be a pandemic.” What can we take away from all of this? They unleashed their bioweapon into the world by calling it a vaccine and injecting it into billions of people, and England’s health care, public health and emergency services are complicit. Related:   Dr. Sabine Stebel: A virus does not need to be isolated to engineer a viral protein Never forget: The people who became billionaires from covid

https://greenmedinfo.com/blog/why-law-forbids-medicinal-use-natural-substances According to the FDA's legal definition, a drug is anything that "diagnoses, cures, mitigates, treats, or prevents a disease" The problem with this definition is that there are numerous substances , as readily available and benign as found on our spice racks, which have been proven by countless millennia of human experience to mitigate, prevent and in some cases cure disease, and which cannot be called drugs according to the FDA. How can this be? Well, the FDA has assumed for itself Godlike power, requiring that its official approval be obtained before any substance can legally be used in the prevention and treatment of disease. The FDA's legal-regulatory control therefore is totalitarian and Napoleonic in construct; what it does not explicitly permit as a medicine is implicitly forbidden. Historically the FDA has required new drugs undergo expensive and elaborate multi-phased clinical trials, which are out of the grasp of any ordinary interest who might want to demonstrate the efficacy of a non-patentable (and therefore unprofitable) herb, food or spice. The average out-of-pocket cost for obtaining a new drug approval is 2.6 billion dollars,[1] and therefore an investor putting capital into bringing to market a substance that does not lend itself to market exclusivity and therefore cannot produce a return on investment, is committing economic suicide, if not also breaking the law. The investor actually has a legally-binding fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to make a profit. And therefore, capital will not flow into any would-be commodity that can be produced or obtained with ease, including most things that grow freely on this Earth. It is an interesting footnote in history that shortly after the Declaration of Independence, Congress declared that natural substances, e.g. water or salt, were God's gift to mankind and that therefore products of nature should be limited in their patent protection. While this was a noble declaration, it has actually been used against those whose rights it would protect. It has forced private interests to synthetically alter natural substances -- for instance the burgeoning biotech field of recombinant DNA and RNAinterference technology, i.e. genetically modified organisms (GMOs) -- for the sole reason that it guarantees them ownership/patent rights.  In fact, a medical system that, due to its corporate structure,  legally requires it make a profit threatens to destroy and/or incriminate itself if non-patented, non-profitable natural substances or therapies are employed. It also results in so much collateral damage to those it purports to serve that it could rightly be called a modern form of human sacrifice .  As a result, instead of choosing prospective medicines logically: because they work, are easily accessible, and safe, billions of dollars flow in the exact opposite direction, capitalizing only those substances which are unnatural , and therefore while proprietary are almost invariably unsafe and less effective, and whose access and administration can be intensively controlled.  Has The Attempt To Co-opt Medicine Through the Drug-Based Model Undone Itself?  And yet, there is a silver lining to the story. Due to the fact that our bodies are ultimately constructed from the natural things (food, air and water), and obey very strict natural laws such as the well-known principle of chirality (handedness) - the fact that all amino acids in our body turn a beam of polarized light in the left-handed direction ( L -lysine) and sugars to the right-handed direction ( D -ribose)-- one cannot simply create biologically active, synthetic drugs arbitrarily, as a mistake in handedness (or similar property) could be fatal ( this is the lethal problem with ibuprofen ). Nature, therefore, still provides an elegant biomolecular architecture of irreproducible intelligence and complexity, from which synthetic analogs are modeled and/or derivatives are spun. As a result, billions of dollars of drug industry and government money (i.e. tax payer money) flow into finding lead compounds for drug development. Nature is put on the rack, if you will, and her secrets teased from her through innumerable animal and test tube experiments, in order to find compounds that can then be converted into synthetic, patented drugs. Inadvertently, some of the very same companies and interests which require that natural substances not receive the same drug-approval status as synthetic ones, are funding research that prove basic vitamins , foods and spices are as effective or more effective - and usually much safer - than the drugs they are developing to replace or supplant them.  This means that tens of thousands of studies do exist showing that natural substances may prevent and/or treat disease, at least in the in vitro (test tube) and animal models. These results often confirm traditional uses in Ayurvedic , Chinese and other traditional systems of medicine, and therefore may be compelling enough for individuals or healthcare practitioners to use the information to inform their treatment decisions. The Case For Curcumin In the Prevention and Treatment of Disease The government biomedical and life sciences database known as Medline contains over 28 million published study citations, and is accessible to search through engines such as Pubmed.gov . 3.6 million of them contain reference to cancer. 250,000 of them remain after applying the "Complementary Medicine" filter. There are 1,042 topics related to  cancer which can be found indexed on the GreenMedInfo.com database, referencing 838 natural substances of potential value. Turmeric, and particularly its polyphenolic constituent known as curcumin , which gives the spice its golden hue, is one of the most extensively studied natural compounds of all time, with  15,750 references to it on the National Library of Medicine's bibliographic database known as Medline [as of 9.03.2019]. And yet, despite having been shown to have therapeutic value in over 800 disease states in animal and in vitro studies, it still has not been the subject of extensive human clinical research - for the reasons stated above. GreenMedInfo.com , an open source natural medicine database, has indexed curcumin's anti-cancer properties in over 50 cancers, with the top 10 most cancers researched in association with curcumin listed below.  Cancer Number of Articles Breast Cancer 91 Colorectal Cancer 34 Colon Cancer 61 Prostate Cancer 61 Pancreatic Cancer 35 Cancers: Drug Resistant 50 Lung Cancer 63 Liver Cancer 46 Cancer Metastasis 36 Skin Cancer 19 Source: www.greenmedinfo.com/substance/curcumin As one can see curcumin holds great promise. It has been repeatedly demonstrated to possess simultaneously both chemoprotective/chemosensitizing and radioprotective/radiosensitizing properties, meaning it is capable of reducing the adverse effects on healthy cells caused by chemotherapy and radiotherapy, as well as enhance the cancer-killing properties of these conventional therapies. It also has an exceptionally high margin of safety, at least an order of magnitude greater than commonly used conventional chemotherapy agents such as 5-fluoruracil.[2] Given these facts curcumin, at the very least, should be considered an ideal candidate for use as an adjuvant in integrative cancer care, and perhaps as a first-line treatment alternative to conventional chemo-agents. To learn more about our Turmeric/Curcumin Research, watch my video below:  Become A Member Today and Access The Full Content and Features of GreenMedInfo!    __________________________________________________________________________________ References   [1]  https://cen.acs.org/articles/92/web/2014/11/Tufts-Study-Finds-Big-Rise.html [2] Curcumin's LD50 (lethal dose, 50%) in mice is at least 2,000 mg/kg, versus 5-fluorouracil 115 mg/kg, or  Article originally published: 2018-06-01   Article updated: 2019-09-03

(2 min 32 seconds)

Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary nominee explicitly says that in the future the U.S. is going to purchase 2 billion doses of Covid shots and in turn make profits from these deals.