Search Results

https://expose-news.com/2024/04/20/germ-warfare-the-internecine-battle-over-germ-theory-is-ratcheting-up/ “The existence of viruses as causative, contagious agents of disease has been debated since Louis Pasteur and Antoine Béchamp in the 1860’s. Fast forward to the present time and we find that no virus taken from a human has ever been isolated. In fact, no one has ever seen a virus of any kind. They are all imaginary. Today, all are created in silicone” asserts Kyle Young. Yet, the virus, no virus dichotomy has continued and those most concerned about the no virus view according to Kyle, “seems to be those who have awakened enough to understand the problems associated with the current jab /lockdown /mask/ closure/ mandate agenda, but have not yet awakened to the fact that all of this has occurred because of an unfounded fear of viruses (germs)” (source). ‘I’ve read the original paper from the institute in Wuhan that purports to describe the covid-19 virus. It’s a reductionist nightmare involving chemicals, non human cells and computer generated gobbledygook.’ he says, continuing “The idea of whole systems biology is lost on virologists. ‘Their income depends on perpetuating the virus myth. Indeed, the entire pharmaceutical vaccine industry depends on perpetuating this myth.” Kyle Young recognises that it is more than a myth. It’s also a fear tactic. and as long as people can be convinced that viruses exist, whether natural or man made, there will be huge profits to be made by generating fear to get people to line up for more harmful vaccines, vaccines which make more people sick.” “Millions of sick people is exactly what the medical industrial complex needs to feed the machine. If viruses do not exist, how can they be manipulated? How can they be engineered in a lab?” While it is a given now among the self professed awake that we are being lied to, they are not prepared to entertain the idea that the Pasteurian theory has been one of those lies and would rather continue to push the global cult’s cash cow. but just as Kyle Young says “unlike many in the pro-virus camp, no one in the no-virus camp is protecting a position that makes them money.” He names three most prominent people in the no-virus camp Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Stefan Lanka PhD. and “other notables” are; Marc McDonald MD, Peggy Hall, Mark and Samantha Bailey MD’s, Sally Fallon, Alphonse Faggiolo, Barre Lando MD, Kelly Brogan MD, Veda Austin, Tony Roman, Sayer Ji, to name but a few. “These people have given up so much to speak the truth, which is one of the ways we know they’re on the right path.” he says. Kyle Young explains why he is so passionate about this topic in the article below which was originally published in his Substack The Secular Heretic. Germ Warfare. Written by Kyle Young As regular readers know, over the past 1.75 years I’ve written a number of articles questioning the official narrative about germ theory. This is not another one. Today we’ll be considering those who don’t question it and asking why not. But first, I hope you will allow me to give a brief explanation of why I’m so passionate about this topic. Somewhere in the first decade or so of my 35 year long history of dealing with gut issues I began to realize that most of what I had been told all my life about health, previous to that point, was bull hooey. Early in that unlearning/relearning process I became aware of the debate between Luis Pasteur and Antoine Béchamp that took place in the mid 1800’s, a debate about what was more important, the terrain or germs. The modern allopathic, ‘germ theory’ based medical system misdiagnosed my illness as giardia and treated me for that, when all along I was suffering from IBS. The result was that they nearly succeeded in putting me in an early grave. Once I began to read and understand more about the terrain, transitioning to terrain theory seemed right as rain. Because of my gut issues it was easy for me to understand how I had not provided a very good habitat (terrain) for my gut microbiome for much of my early life and that I needed to work on that. Although efforts to improve my terrain have paid off in spades, it’s a very complex subject and I’m still learning more all the time (source). The Current Issue But to get to the heart of how I came to my current position and how and when the recent debate over germ theory began, we need to fast forward to the Health and Freedom Summit in June of 2020 in Tucson, Arizona, right when much of the world was gripped by the covid fear porn being spread by mass media. Dr. Tom Cowan gave a presentation at that Summit in which he questioned the science behind germ theory. A video of that presentation was posted on youtube where it promptly went viral, which set the current debate in motion. That video was also one of the first (if not the first) videos questioning the official narrative about covid and viruses, that was censored (taken down) by Google/Youtube. They were too late. The seed had been planted and was already beginning to germinate. There are millions of people like myself who have suffered severe consequences from the allopathic, anti-life, antibiotic mind set of the medical-industrial-complex and many of them immediately resonated with Dr. Cowans presentation. For me, his presentation clarified my understanding of why germ theory is off-base and how this was used to take most of my life savings and put me at deaths door (source) Full disclosure: Because of our common interest in the work of Rudolf Seiner, about 6 years ago Dr. Cowan and I began emailing each other after an interview he did with Dr. Mercola. Long story short, that led to me supplying him with moringa from Mexico and local cholla buds for his plant powder business. I then had no contact with him for about 5 years until we did this interview in October of 2021. We have not communicated since then, although I would like to interview him again. Dr. Cowan’s 6/20 presentation led to a number of collaborations with other like minded doctors, many of whom have also decided to overcome their fear of being publicly chastised in favor of speaking out about the problems with germ theory and modern, allopathic medicine. Of course, neither Dr. Cowan nor any of those other doctors came to this position on their own. Since Béchamp/Pasteur’s time there have been numerous doctors who have questioned germ theory. Many more doctors were outraged when the Rockefeller funded Flexner Report and subsequent Rockefeller funded debunking of naturopathic and homeopathic medicine was used to elevate their preferred and highly profitable petrochemical based drugs and antibiotics. In more recent decades we have books like Say Goodbye to Germ Theory, The Contagion Myth, Invisible Rainbow, and a number of others that all question germ theory. The reality is, the scientific debate over the existence and causative effects of germs has been ongoing since the mid 1800’s. It remains an unsettled theory (source) The Proclamation Several weeks ago Dr. Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman and 18 of their colleagues wrote and signed a proclamation about germ theory. You can read the full document here. This document has been successful in generating waves of both approval and consternation. It’s interesting to note that the most concerned are not the deep state officials running the big plandemic magic show. The most concerned seems to be those who have awakened enough to understand the problems associated with the current jab/lockdown/mask/closure/mandate agenda, but have not yet awakened to the fact that all of this has occurred because of an unfounded fear of viruses (germs). In this previous piece I talked about the two camps that are at odds in this debate. On the side questioning the current ‘official’ virus narrative are all the above signatories of the proclamation, as well as many others. On the side that backs the ‘official’ virus narrative, but takes a less favorable approach to the rest of the covid agenda, you have Steve Kirsch, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (who has said he supports vaccines in general), Robert Malone and a number of other prominent outspoken critics of the covid plandemic who are, confusingly, supportive of vaccines in general (both Kirsch and Malone took the covid jabs) (source) Kirsch As far as this last group is concerned, when it comes to defending germ theory and attempting to debunk the Dr. Cowans of the world, Steve Kirsch has been one of the most outspoken critics, having written numerous articles on the topic in recent months. His most recent one, published on 8/1, was also his most scathing. In that piece, Kirsch spends a lot of capitol supporting the “100 years of scientific research” into viruses and their causative nature. Lest we forget, this is the very time period when medicine was being rewritten and revamped, all courtesy of the Rockefeller Foundation. I would suggest that to get up to speed with how we came to have our current medical system, Kirsch watch this documentary. He has also failed to consider that this scientific debate is far from settled, that it has been ongoing since the mid 1800’s. Furthermore, his defense of “the science” is unrelenting – so much so that it reminds me of something Dr. Anthony Fauci said about science. “Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science. … So if you are trying to, you know, get at me as a public health official and scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you’re attacking science … You have to be asleep not to see that.” — National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, “Meet the Press,” June 9, 2021 Here is what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said about Fauci’s statement. “It is troubling enough that Dr. Anthony Fauci, our country’s leading public health technocrat and the fiat leader of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — the world’s principal funder of scientific research — would make such a narcissistic and scientifically absurd statement.” At this point a question comes begging: What science are we talking about? As we all know, science is malleable, or at least it’s supposed to be. In the ideal world science is an ongoing work in progress that evolves with increased knowledge and understanding. Its foundation is the idea that all theories are to be questioned until proven. Unfortunately, it no longer works that way. Today science is a commodity bought and traded like stocks, wheat and pork bellies. That this is antithetical to our Constitutional right to freedom and liberty has been made very clear by the death and destruction that has occurred due to the war against humanity under the guise of the medical-science-driven covid pandemic. All of this was foreseen and predicted in 1962 by one of our greatest presidents (and fellow Kansan), Dwight D. Eisenhower. “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. … We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. …” “In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. … The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded. … “We must … be alert to the … danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” It would seem that the covid plandemic has brought about the very captivity that Eisenhower warned about. More to the point at hand, this is the very science that Steve Kirsch wants us to believe – science instigated and paid for under government contracts generated by deep-state bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci who oversaw research projects run by people like Robert Malone. In an open and free society, we would be giving equal consideration to independent, non-governmental, non-corporate funded research done by groups of folks similar to those who signed the Proclamation. Given the fact that Eisenhower’s warnings have come to pass, and given the current shambles that have come about due to the covid plandemic, it seems the time has come to disband all of those unconstitutional, government agencies. Gut the beast! Jon Rappaport, who predates me as a debunker of germ theory, has also weighed in on this debate, rightly pointing out the procedural flaws used in the studies Kirsch points to. I have to say, it seems Dr. Cowan has a better handle on the fact that science is not always an etched-in-stone truth. Unlike Kirsch, rather than constantly pointing to ‘the science’, he often repeats the need to ‘question the science’ and highlights numerous reasons why. This is the truly scientific approach. Science is an ongoing work in progress that evolves with increased knowledge and understanding. Its hallmark is the idea that all theories are to be questioned. As the doctors who signed the proclamation make clear, germ ‘theory’ has not yet been proven (source). Why Sit on the Fence? We know that Kirsch and Malone are aligned because of an interview they did together with Bret Weinstein, which I posted here on 6/27/21. That video also went viral and elevated both Kirsch and Malone to their current careers as ‘authorities’ questioning the covid narrative. Malone has made clear that he still has business interests connected to the virus industry. I can’t speak for Kirsch in that regard. Speaking of investments, Kirsch has put a million dollars on the table for anyone who can beat him in a debate about this topic. He claims that because neither Dr. Cowan or any of the others have taken up his offer that that proves he is right and they are wrong. This is fallacious because it’s circular reasoning. Proving a premise is right by using the premise to prove it’s right is not science. In this video of Dr. Cowan talking about the Proclamation with several of the signatories, he mentions in passing that he was bushwhacked in a recent debate by someone who he was not told was going to be part of the debate, showing up in the debate. I would also be gun-shy about public debates after such a thing. Apart from that, it’s easy to foresee that Kirsch would present a lot of peer reviewed articles from medical journals to make his case. The problem with this approach is that it falls very nicely into the established framework created by those deep state powers that Eisenhower warned us about. It also ignores the corruption that exists within the world of medical journals, again, due to that corrupt, deep state, power structure. Sadly, there is little to no profit to be made using terrain theory, so it doesn’t get funded. Because of this corrupt power structure, the amount of peer reviewed articles on terrain theory are slim to none, so Kirsch’s opponent would automatically be at a disadvantage. I have to think Kirsch knows this. And then there is the money issue. Using money to justify an argument is a ponzi scheme as old as the hills. Those who choose to use it need to examine their morals, especially as they pertain to scientific debate. Are Kirsch, Malone and their ilk concerned that if we take viruses out of the picture that the entire allopathic, antibiotic, vaccine, medical industrial complex will collapse? It becomes apparent that the only reason to continue to embrace germ theory and suppress other ideas is to maintain the status quo on behalf of those who are, in some fashion, profiting the from germ-theory-driven, deep state, medical industrial complex. Eisenhower was right. The influence of money and power has completely skewed how we perceive medicine… to our detriment. We also need to consider the face saving angle. If the terrain theory were to gain some approval, those who have put all their chips on the germ theory hand will have to eat cake. Because Kirsch is so confident in his version of “the science”, he has said that the article I referenced will be his last on the topic. Wow. That’s akin to the Vatican saying Copernicus is wrong, that the sun rotates around the earth and that’s the end of it. No more discussion needed. Copernicus was thrown in the dungeon for presenting a scientific theory that everyone now agrees is fact. The problem then was religious control – by the Church. The problem now is religious control – by the religion of “the science”. Fauci preaches it, Malone preaches it, Kirsch preaches it. Go against the official religion and like Copernicus, you get shamed, censored, banned, blacklisted, shut down, or… murdered (Dr. Kary Mullis? and others). My position is, we are just scratching the surface of what there is to learn and I’m looking forward to learning more. I’ll be writing more about this as the power base of money, influence and power becomes eroded, as opinions shift – and they will – and as knowledge and understanding changes. Do I see an end to this process? No. If history has taught us anything it’s that knowledge and understanding is never stagnant, it’s always in flux. Unlike Kirsch, I’ll likely be writing about this until I become fodder for earthworms (source) Kyle Young Interviews Dr Tom Cowan. “A mind bending discussion” Kyle interviewed Dr Tom Cowan which he published in 2021 and introduced the video which can be seen below by saying: “Some might think of Dr. Cowan as someone who functions outside the box. Although he certainly does that, I think his true gift is the ability to use truth, science, facts and practicality to break through the shield wall that’s been funded over the past 75 years by the pharmaceutical cartels to keep doctors cloistered within the official narrative. “ This works due to the negative consequences venturing outside the cloister has on their careers. I think this interview provides a good example of how passionate Dr. Cowan is about getting to the truth – which means he’s not afraid to consider questions and look deeply into topics that others fear to consider. “Perhaps if more doctors today had Dr. Cowans’ curiosity and integrity we wouldn’t be in the midst of this manufactured crises.“ Source: Kyle Young – Germ Warfare https://secularheretic.substack.com/p/germ-warfare Kyle Young – Interview With Dr. Tom Cowan https://secularheretic.substack.com/p/interview-with-dr-tom-cowan Kyle Young – Interview With Dr. Tom Cowan – Rumble https://rumble.com/vnd26k-red-pill-interview-dr.-tom-cowan.html Kyle Young – The Secular Heretic – https://secularheretic.substack.com/

https://expose-news.com/2024/04/21/prescription-drugs-are-the-leading-cause-of-death-according-to-peter-gotzsche-co-founder-of-the-cochrane-collaboration/ Peter Gotzsche was named Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen in 2010 and was the co founder of the Cochrane Collaboration which was for a long time considered to be the world’s preeminent independent medical research organisation Source. In the position that he has been in and the knowledge he would have accumulated, when Gotzsche writes an article with the title ‘Prescription Drugs Are the Leading Cause of Death‘ and ‘psychiatric drugs are the third leading cause of death,’ we should all heed his warning that most drug deaths are preventable and most people that have died a prescribed drug death didn’t need them in the first place. Gøtzsche who has been known to be an outspoken critic of the corruption of science by pharmaceutical companies for years has published more than 97 papers in the “big five” medical journals (JAMA, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine) and authored books on medical issues including Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime. Source ‘We could easily get our drug pandemic under control,’ says Peter who says that this is the tragedy, ‘but when our politicians act, they usually make matters worse’ due to being so heavily lobbied by the drug industry which has made drug regulation ‘much more permissive than it was in the past.’ Read more about the subject from Dr Peter Gotzsche who authored the article below which was originally published by The Brownstone Institute. Prescription Drugs Are the Leading Cause of Death. And psychiatric drugs are the third leading cause of death. BY PETER C. GØTZSCHE  The Brownstone Institute Overtreatment with drugs kills many people, and the death rate is increasing. It is therefore strange that we have allowed this long-lasting drug pandemic to continue, and even more so because most of the drug deaths are easily preventable. In 2013, I estimated that our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer,1 and in 2015, that psychiatric drugs alone are also the third leading cause of death.2 However, in the US, it is commonly stated that our drugs are “only” the fourth leading cause of death.3,4 This estimate was derived from a 1998 meta-analysis of 39 US studies where monitors recorded all adverse drug reactions that occurred while the patients were in hospital, or which were the reason for hospital admission.5 This methodology clearly underestimates drug deaths. Most people who are killed by their drugs die outside hospitals, and the time people spent in hospitals was only 11 days on average in the meta-analysis.5 Moreover, the meta-analysis only included patients who died from drugs that were properly prescribed, not those who died as a result of errors in drug administration, noncompliance, overdose, or drug abuse, and not deaths where the adverse drug reaction was only possible.5 Many people die because of errors, e.g. simultaneous use of contraindicated drugs, and many possible drug deaths are real. Moreover, most of the included studies are very old, the median publication year being 1973, and drug deaths have increased dramatically over the last 50 years. As an example, 37,309 drug deaths were reported to the FDA in 2006 and 123,927 ten years later, which is 3.3 times as many.6 In hospital records and coroners’ reports, deaths linked to prescription drugs are often considered to be from natural or unknown causes. This misconception is particularly common for deaths caused by psychiatric drugs.2,7 Even when young patients with schizophrenia suddenly drop dead, it is called a natural death. But it is not natural to die young and it is well known that neuroleptics can cause lethal heart arrhythmias. Many people die from the drugs they take without raising any suspicion that it could be an adverse drug effect. Depression drugs kill many people, mainly among the elderly, because they can cause orthostatic hypotension, sedation, confusion, and dizziness. The drugs double the risk of falls and hip fractures in a dose-dependent manner,8,9 and within one year after a hip fracture, about one-fifth of the patients will have died. As elderly people often fall anyway, it is not possible to know if such deaths are drug deaths. Another example of unrecognised drug deaths is provided by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). They have killed hundreds of thousands of people,1 mainly through heart attacks and bleeding stomach ulcers, but these deaths are unlikely to be coded as adverse drug reactions, as such deaths also occur in patients who do not take the drugs. The 1998 US meta-analysis estimated that 106,000 patients die every year in hospital because of adverse drug effects (a 0.32% death rate).5 A carefully done Norwegian study examined 732 deaths that occurred in a two-year period ending in 1995 at a department of internal medicine, and it found that there were 9.5 drug deaths per 1,000 patients (a 1% death rate).10 This is a much more reliable estimate, as drug deaths have increased markedly. If we apply this estimate to the US, we get 315,000 annual drug deaths in hospitals. A review of four newer studies, from 2008 to 2011, estimated that there were over 400,000 drug deaths in US hospitals.11 Drug usage is now so common that newborns in 2019 could be expected to take prescription drugs for roughly half their lives in the US.12 Moreover, polypharmacy has been increasing.12 How Many People Are Killed by Psychiatric Drugs? If we want to estimate the death toll of psychiatric drugs, the most reliable evidence we have are the placebo-controlled randomised trials. But we need to consider their limitations. First, they usually run for only a few weeks even though most patients take the drugs for many years.13,14 Second, polypharmacy is common in psychiatry, and this increases the risk of dying. As an example, the Danish Board of Health has warned that adding a benzodiazepine to a neuroleptic increases mortality by 50-65%.15 Third, half of all deaths are missing in published trial reports.16 For dementia, published data show that for every 100 people treated with a newer neuroleptic for ten weeks, one patient is killed.17 This is an extremely high death rate for a drug, but FDA data on the same trials show it is twice as high, namely two patients killed per 100 after ten weeks.18 And if we extend the observation period, the death toll becomes even higher. A Finnish study of 70,718 community-dwellers newly diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease reported that neuroleptics kill 4-5 people per 100 annually compared to patients who were not treated.19 Fourth, the design of psychiatric drug trials is biased. In almost all cases, patients were already in treatment before they entered the trial,2,7 and some of those randomised to placebo will therefore experience withdrawal effects that will increase their risk of dying, e.g. because of akathisia. It is not possible to use the placebo-controlled trials in schizophrenia to estimate the effect of neuroleptics on mortality because of the drug withdrawal design. The suicide rate in these unethical trials was 2-5 times higher than the norm.20,21 One in every 145 patients who entered the trials of risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, and sertindole died, but none of these deaths were mentioned in the scientific literature, and the FDA didn’trequire them to be mentioned. Fifth, events after the trial is stopped are ignored. In Pfizer’s trials of sertraline in adults, the risk ratio for suicides and suicide attempts was 0.52 when the follow-up was only 24 hours, but 1.47 when the follow-up was 30 days, i.e. an increase in suicidal events.22 And when researchers reanalysed the FDA trial data on depression drugs and included harms occurring during followup, they found that the drugs double the number of suicides in adults compared to placebo.23,24 In 2013, I estimated that, in people aged 65 and above, neuroleptics, benzodiazepines, or similar, and depression drugs kill 209,000 people annually in the United States.2 I used rather conservative estimates, however, and usage data from Denmark, which are far lower than those in the US. I have therefore updated the analysis based on US usage data, again focusing on older age groups. For neuroleptics, I used the estimate of 2% mortality from the FDA data.18 For benzodiazepines and similar drugs, a matched cohort study showed that the drugs doubled the death rate, although the average age of the patients was only 55.25 The excess death rate was about 1% per year. In another large, matched cohort study, the appendix to the study report shows that hypnotics quadrupled the death rate (hazard ratio 4.5).26 These authors estimated that sleeping pills kill between 320,000 and 507,000 Americans every year.26 A reasonable estimate of the annual death rate would therefore be 2%. For SSRIs, a UK cohort study of 60,746 depressed patients older than 65 showed that they led to falls and that the drugs kill 3.6% of patients treated for one year.27 The study was done very well, e.g. the patients were their own control in one of the analyses, which is a good way to remove the effect of confounders. But the death rate is surprisingly high. Another cohort study, of 136,293 American postmenopausal women (age 50-79) participating in the Women’s Health Initiative study, found that depression drugs were associated with a 32% increase in all-cause mortality after adjustment for confounding factors, which corresponded to 0.5% of women killed by SSRIs when treated for one year.28 The death rate was very likely underestimated. The authors warned that their results should be interpreted with great caution, as the way exposure to antidepressant drugs was ascertained carried a high risk of misclassification, which would make it more difficult to find an increase in mortality. Further, the patients were much younger than in the UK study, and the death rate increased markedly with age and was 1.4% for those aged 70-79. Finally, the exposed and unexposed women were different for many important risk factors for early death, whereas the people in the UK cohort were their own control. For these reasons, I decided to use the average of the two estimates, a 2% annual death rate. These are my results for the US for these three drug groups for people at least 65 years of age (58.2 million; usage is in outpatients only):29-32 A limitation in these estimates is that you can only die once, and many people receive polypharmacy. It is not clear how we should adjust for this. In the UK cohort study of depressed patients, 9% also took neuroleptics, and 24% took hypnotics/anxiolytics.27 On the other hand, the data on death rates come from studies where many patients were also on several psychiatric drugs in the comparison group, so this is not likely to be a major limitation considering also that polypharmacy increases mortality beyond what the individual drugs cause. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention list these four top causes of death:33 Heart disease: 695,547 Cancer: 605,213 Covid-19: 416,893 Accidents: 224,935 Covid-19 deaths are rapidly declining, and many such deaths are not caused by the virus but merely occurred in people who tested positive for it because the WHO advised that all deaths in people who tested positive should be called Covid deaths. Young people have a much smaller death risk than the elderly, as they rarely fall and break their hip, which is why I have focused on the elderly. I have tried to be conservative. My estimate misses many drug deaths in those younger than 65 years; it only included three classes of psychiatric drugs; and it did not include hospital deaths. I therefore do not doubt that psychiatric drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer. Other Drug Groups and Hospital Deaths Analgesics are also major killers. In the US, about 70,000 people were killed in 2021 by an overdose of a synthetic opioid.34 The usage of NSAIDs is also high. In the US, 26% of adults use them regularly, 16% of which get them without a prescription35 (mostly ibuprofen and diclofenac).36 As there seems to be no major differences between the drugs in their capacity to cause thromboses,37 we may use data for rofecoxib. Merck and Pfizer underreported thrombotic events in their trials of rofecoxib and celecoxib, respectively, to such an extent that it constituted fraud,1 but in one trial, of colorectal adenomas, Merck assessed thrombotic events. There were 1.5 more cases of myocardial infarction, sudden cardiac death or stroke on rofecoxib than on placebo per 100 patients treated.38 About 10% of the thromboses are fatal, but heart attacks are rare in young people. Restricting the analysis to those aged at least 65, we get 87,300 annual deaths. It has been estimated that 3,700 deaths occur each year in the UK due to peptic ulcer complications in NSAID users,39 corresponding to about 20,000 deaths each year in the US. Thus, the total estimate of NSAID deaths is about 107,000. If we add the estimates above, 315,000 hospital deaths, 390,000 psychiatric drug deaths, 70,000 synthetic opioid deaths, and 107,000 NSAID deaths, we get 882,000 drug deaths in the United States annually. Many commonly used drugs other than those mentioned above can cause dizziness and falls, e.g. anticholinergic drugs against urinary incontinence and dementia drugs, which are used by 1% and 0.5% of the Danish population, respectively, even though they do not have any clinically relevant effects.1,2 It is difficult to know what the exact death toll of our drugs is, but there can be no doubt that they are the leading cause of death. And the death toll would be much higher if we included people below 65 years of age. Moreover, from the official number of deaths from heart disease, we would need to subtract those caused by NSAIDs, and from accidents, deaths by falls caused by psychiatric drugs and many other drugs. If such a hugely lethal pandemic had been caused by a microorganism, we would have done everything we could to get it under control. The tragedy is that we could easily get our drug pandemic under control, but when our politicians act, they usually make matters worse. They have been so heavily lobbied by the drug industry that drug regulation has become much more permissive than it was in the past.40 Most of the drug deaths are preventable,41 above all because most of the patients who died didn’t need the drug that killed them. In placebo-controlled trials, the effect of neuroleptics and depression drugs has been considerably below the least clinically relevant effect, also for very severe depression.2,7 And, despite their name, non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs, NSAIDs do not have anti-inflammatory effects,1,42 and systematic reviews have shown that their analgesic effect is similar to that of paracetamol (acetaminophen). Yet, most patients with pain are recommended to take both paracetamol and an NSAID over the counter. This will not increase the effect, only the risk of dying. Most tragically, leading psychiatrists all over the world do not realise how ineffective and dangerous their drugs are. A US psychiatrist, Roy Perlis, professor at Harvard, argued in April 2024 that depression pills should be sold over the counter because they are “safe and effective.”43 They are highly unsafe and ineffective. Perlis also claimed that depression drugs do not increase the risk of suicide in people older than 25, which is also wrong. They double suicides in adults.23,24 Perlis wrote, “Some still question the biological basis of this disorder, despite the identification of more than 100 genes that increase depression risk and neuroimaging studies showing differences in the brains of people with depression.” Both of these claims are plain wrong. Genetic association studies have come up empty-handed and so have brain imaging studies, which are generally highly flawed.44 People are depressed because they live depressing lives, not because of some brain disorder. References 1 Gøtzsche PC. Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Health Care. London: Radcliffe Publishing; 2013. 2 Gøtzsche PC. Deadly Psychiatry and Organised Denial. Copenhagen: People’s Press; 2015. 3 Schroeder MO. Death by Prescription: By one estimate, taking prescribed medications is the fourth leading cause of death among Americans. US News 2016; Sept 27. 4 Light DW, Lexchin J, Darrow JJ. Institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals and the myth of safe and effective drugs. J Law Med Ethics 2013;41:590-600. 5 Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200–5. 6 FAERS Reporting by Patient Outcomes by Year. FDA 2015;Nov 10. 7 Gøtzsche PC. Mental Health Survival Kit and Withdrawal From Psychiatric Drugs. Ann Arbor: L H Press; 2022. 8 Hubbard R, Farrington P, Smith C, et al. Exposure to tricyclic and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants and the risk of hip fracture. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:77-84. 9 Thapa PB, Gideon P, Cost TW, et al. Antidepressants and the risk of falls among nursing home residents. N Engl J Med 1998;339:875-82. 10 Ebbesen J, Buajordet I, Erikssen J, et al. Drug-related deaths in a department of internal medicine. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:2317–23. 11 James JTA. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf 2013;9:122-8. 12 Ho JY. Life Course Patterns of Prescription Drug Use in the United States. Demography 2023;60:1549-79. 13 Gøtzsche PC. Long-term use of antipsychotics and antidepressants is not evidence-based. Int J Risk Saf Med 2020;31:37-42. 14 Gøtzsche PC. Long-Term Use of Benzodiazepines, Stimulants and Lithium is Not Evidence-Based. Clin Neuropsychiatry 2020;17:281-3. 15 Forbruget af antipsykotika blandt 18-64 årige patienter, med skizofreni, mani eller bipolar affektiv sindslidelse. København: Sundhedsstyrelsen; 2006. 16 Hughes S, Cohen D, Jaggi R. Differences in reporting serious adverse events in industry sponsored clinical trial registries and journal articles on antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2014;4:e005535. 17 Schneider LS, Dagerman KS, Insel P. Risk of death with atypical antipsychotic drug treatment for dementia: meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. JAMA 2005;294:1934–43. 18 FDA package insert for Risperdal (risperidone). Accessed 30 May 2022. 19 Koponen M, Taipale H, Lavikainen P, et al. Risk of Mortality Associated with Antipsychotic Monotherapy and Polypharmacy Among Community-Dwelling Persons with Alzheimer’s Disease. J Alzheimers Dis 2017;56:107-18. 20 Whitaker R. Lure of Riches Fuels Testing. Boston Globe 1998; Nov 17. 21 Whitaker R. Mad in America: Bad science, Bad medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill. Cambridge: Perseus Books Group; 2002:page 269. 22 Vanderburg DG, Batzar E, Fogel I, et al. A pooled analysis of suicidality in double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of sertraline in adults. J Clin Psychiatry 2009;70:674-83. 23 Hengartner MP, Plöderl M. Newer-Generation Antidepressants and Suicide Risk in Randomized Controlled Trials: a Re-Analysis of the FDA Database. Psychother Psychosom 2019;88:247-8. 24 Hengartner MP, Plöderl M. Reply to the Letter to the Editor: “Newer-Generation Antidepressants and Suicide Risk: Thoughts on Hengartner and Plöderl’s ReAnalysis.” Psychother Psychosom 2019;88:373-4. 25 Weich S, Pearce HL, Croft P, et al. Effect of anxiolytic and hypnotic drug prescriptions on mortality hazards: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2014;348:g1996. 26 Kripke DF, Langer RD, Kline LE. Hypnotics’ association with mortality or cancer: a matched cohort study. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000850. 27 Coupland C, Dhiman P, Morriss R, et al. Antidepressant use and risk of adverse outcomes in older people: population based cohort study. BMJ 2011;343:d4551. 28 Smoller JW, Allison M, Cochrane BB, et al. Antidepressant use and risk of incident cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among postmenopausal women in the Women’s Health Initiative study. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2128-39. 29 O’Neill A. Age distribution in the United States from 2012 to 2022. Statista 2024;Jan 25. 30 Olfson M, King M, Schoenbaum M. Antipsychotic Treatment of Adults in the United States. Psychiatrist.com 2015;Oct 21. 31 Maust DT, Lin LA, Blow FC. Benzodiazepine Use and Misuse Among Adults in the United States. Psychiatr Serv 2019;70:97-106. 32 Brody DJ, Gu Q. Antidepressant Use Among Adults: United States, 2015-2018. CDC 2020; Sept. 33 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Leading Causes of Death. 2024; Jan 17. 34 Drug Overdose Deaths. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2023; Aug 22. 35 Davis JS, Lee HY, Kim J, et al. Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in US adults: changes over time and by demographic. Open Heart 2017;4:e000550. 36 Conaghan PG. A turbulent decade for NSAIDs: update on current concepts of classification, epidemiology, comparative efficacy, and toxicity. Rheumatol Int 2012;32:1491-502. 37 Bally M, Dendukuri N, Rich B, et al. Risk of acute myocardial infarction with NSAIDs in real world use: bayesian meta-analysis of individual patient data. BMJ 2017;357:j1909. 38 Bresalier RS, Sandler RS, Quan H, et al. Cardiovascular Events Associated with Rofecoxib in a Colorectal Adenoma Chemoprevention Trial. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1092-102. 39 Blower AL, Brooks A, Fenn GC, et al. Emergency admissions for upper gastrointestinal disease and their relation to NSAID use. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1997;11:283–91. 40 Davis C, Lexchin J, Jefferson T, Gøtzsche P, McKee M. “Adaptive pathways” to drug authorisation: adapting to industry? BMJ 2016;354:i4437. 41 van der Hooft CS, Sturkenboom MC, van Grootheest K, et al. Adverse drug reaction-related hospitalisations: a nationwide study in The Netherlands. Drug Saf 2006;29:161-8. 42 Gøtzsche PC. Big marketing hoax: Non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are not anti-inflammatory. Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom 2022;Nov 10. 43 Perlis R. The time has come for over-the-counter antidepressants. Stat News 2024;April 8. 44 Gøtzsche PC. Critical Psychiatry Textbook. Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom; 2022. Freely available. Source: Written by PETER C. GØTZSCHE author at  The Brownstone Institute Brownstone Institute – Author Peter Gotzsche – https://brownstone.org/author/peter-c-gotzsche Brownstone Institute  – https://brownstone.org/

https://vigilantnews.com/post/wefs-metaverse-an-enforcement-regime-for-vaccination/ This article originally appeared on The Defender and was republished with permission. Guest post by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. As the United Nations, World Economic Forum (WEF), European Union, World Bank and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation push for a global digital ID, a new WEF report highlights the “pivotal role” a person’s “digital identity” is expected to play in the metaverse. The WEF’s “Metaverse Identity: Defining the Self in a Blended Reality” report, published last month and written in collaboration with Accenture, a multinational internet technology company, states: “The metaverse, poised to redefine the internet, intertwines the digital and physical, emphasizing the pivotal role of ‘identity’ in shaping immersive, human-centric experiences.” According to the foreword to the full WEF report, “The metaverse will act as a conduit to blend the digital world with the physical world and transform how people interact with information, others and their surroundings” and digital ID will be “a cornerstone in metaverse identity.” The WEF’s March report comes on the heels of last month’s report by the RAND Corporation and the U.K. Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which states that “future metaverses may reach such a sophistication level that they ‘come to function almost like new countries.’” The RAND report predicts the Internet of Bodies ecosystem, where humans and machines are essentially merged, may result in the development of the “Internet of Brains” sometime between 2035-2050. An opportunity ‘to control massive amounts of people’ Experts who spoke with The Defender warned that behind the WEF’s stated concern for the security of individuals’ digital identity in the metaverse, are major financial interests — and new privacy-intrusive digital tools. Seamus Bruner, author of “Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life,” and director of research at the Government Accountability Institute, told The Defender that, to understand the interests at play behind the WEF’s metaverse report, it’s vital to follow the money. “The first and most obvious answer is: money,” Bruner said. “Financial institutions like JPMorgan and Bank of America all believe the metaverse has multi-trillion-dollar potential. Goldman Sachs predicted the metaverse could be an $8 trillion opportunity.” According to a December 2023 Bankless Times report, nearly 30% of online users will use the metaverse “for work, shopping, education, or entertainment by 2026,” while “The global virtual reality market is expanding at a yearly compound rate of 31.8%.” “When people think of the metaverse, they often think of virtual reality, but that’s only one part of it,” Bruner said. “Augmented Reality will be a major component of future metaverses, but the difference between AR and VR is that the AR headsets actually see the physical world around you,” which poses privacy concerns for users. “They have cameras that see what you see and microphones that hear what you hear and say. Where will that data go?” Bruner said. Tim Hinchliffe, the publisher of The Sociable, told The Defender “Who needs facial recognition, geolocation tracking or contact tracing when any government or corporation can literally see what you are doing and where you are going in real time?” Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., author of “Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom,” told The Defender: “The conception is materialist and mechanistic at base, the hallmarks of social engineering. It represents the world as consisting of nothing but manipulable matter, or rather, of digital media mimicking matter.“It suggests that human beings can be reduced to a material substratum and can be induced to accept a technological reproduction in lieu of reality. Further, it assumes that those who inhabit this simulacrum can be controlled by technocratic means.” Rectenwald said this “materialist, mechanistic, techno-determinist and reductionist worldview is consistent with the transhumanist belief that humans themselves will soon be succeeded by a new transhuman species, or humanity-plus (h+) — perhaps a genetically- and AI-enhanced cyborg that will outstrip ordinary humans and make the latter virtually obsolete.” Bruner said the “deeper and more insidious reason” the WEF and its partners are obsessed with virtual realities like the metaverse is the opportunity it presents “to control massive amounts of people — either as a placating tool akin to ‘bread and circuses’ or even as a brainwashing and propaganda tool.” An ‘enforcement regime’ for vaccination? The metaverse is part and parcel of the “Great Reset,” Hinchliffe and others said. “When WEF founder Klaus Schwab officially launched the Great Reset in 2020, he said that the Fourth Industrial Revolution will lead to the fusion of our physical, digital and biological identities,” Hinchliffe said. “When you combine the Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, what you get is transhumanism and the metaverse — the blending of humans and technology in virtual and augmented spaces that dissolve individual and national identities,” he said. According to Rectenwald, “The metaverse may become a means of compensating for and distracting from the real-world impoverishment created by the enactment of the Great Reset, while serving as an enforcement regime for such matters as vaccination.” At the WEF’s annual meeting in January, digital ID was proposed as a means of tracking the unvaccinated. “Thanks to the reduced satisfactions of the ‘real world’ because of the Great Reset, the metaverse may become preferable to non-virtual reality,” Rectenwald said. “And given its governance by the same elites that govern the physical world, the limitations and threats imposed by authorities in the physical world will be doubled in the metaverse.” “If you are an unelected globalist at the WEF, or if you are a big corporation, then the idea of ruling over countries that exist only in cyberspace becomes very alluring,” Hinchliffe said. “You can invent all the rules and govern without ever having to hold an election,” he added, referring to the RAND Corporation report. Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former U.S. assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, told The Defender, “One of the WEF’s goals is to market the central bankers’ reset … to the general public.” “Metaverse promotion is part of using online entertainment — such as video games and multi-media combined with mind control — entertainment and subliminal programming — to distract and manipulate the portion of the population that can be captured to escape the real world, part and parcel of lowering cognition and IQs,” Fitts added. For Bruner, the endgame for proponents of the metaverse is to “build back better” by “digitalizing everything using Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies such as digital IDs, digital currencies, artificial intelligence and virtual realities like the metaverse.” “Schwab has said that each of these concepts will lead to ‘a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities,’” Bruner said. Opting out could ‘negatively influence social mobility in physical worlds’ According to the WEF report, “Given that the metaverse is an extension of and an evolution of today’s internet, it may be assumed that anyone online today can have a metaverse identity. … Digital entities will be an enabling aspect of metaverse identity, facilitating and augmenting digital interactions.” The report states that metaverse identity includes “representations” of “personal, social and role identity” through “avatars, pseudonyms or other digital expressions,” data that “capture the intricate web of knowledge about individuals generated by metaverse-supporting hardware and software” and traditional forms of identification. Together, these constitute “digital crumbs that accumulate to form a metaverse identity,” the report adds. Going beyond digital ID, the “metaverse identity includes data points,” the report states, that also extend “into the intricacies of an individual’s behaviours, actions and choices.” The report gives an example of such “intricacies:” “The way an individual speaks — for example, with unique tonal inflexions or cultural idioms — can offer insights into their background and upbringing. Similarly, a person’s distinctive movements, whether it’s the fluidity of their dance or the precision of their basketball shots, tell tales of their experiences and passions. Collectively, these attributes can generate insights and inferred data.” The metaverse “enables dynamic verification through real-time, inferred data.” For example, an individual’s behaviors, paired with facial scanning, can be used as ongoing age estimation or “‘behavioural credentials,’ effectively making verification an ongoing authentication process based on individual user conduct.” “Metaverse identity,” in turn, “connects and anchors a person to the physical and virtual world,” the report states, adding that this is “central to the future of the blended world.” Potential applications of these metaverse identities range from “fashion try-ons” to “health monitoring … by inputting an individual’s daily nutrition and exercise habits into the doppelganger’s simulated environment.” The report acknowledges that there will be people “who, by choice or circumstance, remain outside the formal bounds of identification” — i.e., consciously opting out of participating in the metaverse — and that this could “negatively influence social mobility in physical worlds, given the reliance economies have on digital platforms.” When implemented together, digital currency and digital ID “will create a global, interoperable system that allows WEF-allied central banks to track, trace, surveil, and ultimately control how people spend their money, and thus, live their lives,” Bruner said. According to Rectenwald, the WEF and its corporate partners are interested in “developing and promoting the metaverse particularly to create metaverse identities,” allowing all internet use to be collected in a database “connected to individual users.” He added: “In this way, all internet activity of users will become part of their digital identities, which will then be used to connect their online activities with all other activity, including but not limited to their banking, attitudes, beliefs, politics and even their compliance with various ‘health’ measures being rolled out.” Hinchliffe predicted that “some form of digital ID will be necessary to access the metaverse and to make digital payments,” which is connected to the idea of digital money via the introduction of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Hinchliffe cited a 2021 report by the Bank for International Settlements, which stated, “Identification at some level is … central in the design of CBDCs. This calls for a CBDC that is account-based and ultimately tied to a digital identity.” ‘Internet of Brains’ may ‘connect’ brains to ‘online data networks’ by 2050 According to the RAND Corporation-U.K. Defence report, the metaverse will lead to the creation of “a more interconnected global society emerging via virtual reality.” There may also be not one, but multiple, metaverses, which may “come to function almost like new countries … that exist in cyberspace rather than in physical locations but have complex economic and political systems that interact with the physical world.” This “may reduce the importance of national and individual identities and change how societies define and shape their cultural identities,” RAND states. “If you can’t physically invade a country to establish a New World Order or a One World Government, why not create a digital one that reduces ‘national & individual identities’ and then install a cyber-government of unelected technocrats?” Hinchliffe said. RAND also suggested the metaverse may include technology that allows users to “store and enforce the rules” they set “about what is allowed to come into their awareness, what takes up their time and what information is shared about their activities.” “The changing relationships between individual end users and those controlling virtual environments have led some to argue that ‘our sense of physical identity, time and agency will become subject to entirely new paradigms where the gateways to these experiences might be controlled by interests other than citizens,’” the report states. This may lead to an “internet of bodies” that may also ultimately lead to an “‘internet of brains’, i.e. human brains connected to the internet to facilitate direct brain-to-brain communication and enable access to online data networks,” leading to “the potential emergence of ‘trans-humanism’ within the 2050 timeframe,” according to the report. The report says those who opt out of such a system may be marginalized: “Given the direct embedding of technology into human cognitive, physical and psychological functions, substantial levels of human augmentation may ‘[blur] the notions of identity and of what it means to be human’, introducing new normative lenses on humanity and producing new stigma for those not seen as attaining those norms.” What’s more, “manipulations experienced in a digital environment may influence an individual’s physical or ‘real-world’ behaviours, potentially challenging established sociocultural institutions such as democratic political systems,” the report adds. Fitts rejected these visions. “From my point of view, the metaverse hypers are the marketing division of what I call the ‘Great Poisoning.’ Best to ignore it and teach children the joys of being healthy and building real wealth,” she said. “There is perhaps no better description of the metaverse than a painless transhumanist concentration camp, as Aldous Huxley predicted nearly six decades ago,” Bruner said.

https://expose-news.com/2024/04/21/the-end-of-humanity-as-planned-by-the-global-leaders/ Did you know there is an official agenda, one which is heavily promoted by the World Economic Forum to replace the human race with robots, cyborgs and AI? Their plan is to end the era of humanity and usher in a new era of neo-humanity, in which people are a mix of man and machine and our thoughts and emotions will be monitored by AI. Stop World Control, who ask us “Is that the world you want for yourself and your children?” have just released a short film THE END OF HUMANITY” with the intention that it will serve as a warning to mankind, to prevent this nefarious plan and to save the human race from both eradication and from this extreme form of slavery.” We have shared the film today which can be viewed following this introduction from Stop World Control: Ending humanity to ‘save the planet’ Many of us have seen the popular science fiction movies about robots taking over the world and eradicating humanity. But little do we know that this is exactly what is being prepared by the global leaders. It is what they are promoting, developing, financing and calling for, all around the world. The globalists even claim that this is the only way to save the Earth from total collapse. Without exiting the era of mankind and entering into the era of NEO-HUMANITY, the world is doomed, they say. One of their arguments is that humans are the cause of climate change, and must therefore be replaced with artificial alternatives to “save the planet”. This worldwide reformation is called “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” and is intended to completely digitize every aspect of life on Earth. Our film “THE END OF HUMANITY” exposes this global agenda, which is being powerfully promoted with massive support from the most powerful organizations worldwide. This is not just a film. This is reality. Klaus Schwab, founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum, stated during the recent World Government Summit in Dubai: “The future is already here. It’s coming like a tsunami! This Fourth Industrial Revolution will not only change everything we do, but it will have an impact on who we are.”Major developments are underway to transplant the human personality into robotic carriers, to give man artificial immortality. This is the ultimate dream of the elites: to become immortal. Robots are already replacing nurses, social workers, psychological assistants, doctors, cashiers, cooks, law enforcement, etc., in several areas of the world. The first computer chips are already being implanted into humans. The blending of man with machine is a reality, while AI is taking the world by storm, removing millions of human jobs as we speak. The horrifying thing is that specifically those sensitive jobs where people need a human touch, true understanding and emotional support are being replaced with robots. Can you imagine being taken care of by a robot in the hospital or nursing home? That’s exactly what is happening. Removing the human experience, which is so precious, beautiful and deep, and replacing it with unfeeling robotic alternatives. Inserting thoughts and emotions into everyone At the same time, technologies are being installed in every nation of the world that will continually record all the thoughts, emotions and dreams of everyone. These technologies even have the ability to insert thoughts and emotions into the population. That is not a conspiracy theory, as it is publicly stated by the former president of Chile, Sebastian Pinera, and by the Young Global Leader of the World Economic Forum, Ida Auken, former minister of the environment of Denmark. In Europe, the public ‘School TV’ tells kids how ‘cool’ it is to have a chip in your brain. Google is organizing symposia declaring how humans will become one with computers, while the CEO of Nokia says that, in a few years, everyone will have their smartphones inside their body. This means that every detail of our lives can be constantly monitored. Meanwhile, the World Economic Forum hosts conferences about ‘brain transparency’, discussing how all our most intimate, personal data will be stored in the cloud and controlled by Big Tech. All this falls in line with the announcement of the WEF that by 2030, no one will have any privacy. Klaus Schwab says we will have to get used to a society of “full transparency”, where everything we think, feel and dream is monitored. The film “THE END OF HUMANITY” is a warning to mankind, intended to prevent this nefarious plan and to save the human race, from both eradication and from this extreme form of slavery. Sources: Stop World Control – https://www.stopworldcontrol.com/supportStop World Control – The End Of Humanity –As Planned By The Global Leaders – https://stopworldcontrol.com/endhumanity/

"Covid was used to terrorize the world, convince them that we need some giant protector state that actually has some sort of supranational ability, and then suspend civil liberties as long as they need to be suspended... at the whim of funding agencies who have no criminal accountability." "These things are set up to be terror campaigns, to modify the public's willingness to give up their liberties."

💥New Free Flyer💥 The dangers of 5G. The flyer links to our article below. There have been a myriad of studies showing the adverse effects of RFR (radio frequency radiation) exposure on the human body...... View full article + video content here: www.itsy.pub/5g Direct download 2 flyers per A4 page here (https://didyouknow.ink/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/5G-Double-A4-flyer.pdf). Direct download A5 flyer here (https://didyouknow.ink/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/5G-A5-Flyer.pdf). View our other free downloadable awareness flyers and stickers or shirts at cost price here: www.didyouknow.ink/downloads Check out out website at: www.DidYouKnow.ink

https://expose-news.com/2024/04/19/japanese-study-finds-mrna-injections-cause-cancer/ A newly published Japanese study confirms UK Professor Angus Dalgleish’s concerns about mRNA injections causing cancer.  After the findings of the study were published, Australian Professor Ian Brighthope has classified the injections as class one carcinogens. More than a year ago, Professor Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a renowned oncologist practising in the UK, first published his concerns that his patients with melanoma were relapsing after several years of being in remission. “I could find none of the usual causes but on further investigation, I realised that they had all had a booster covid vaccine between three weeks and three months before their cancer’s resurgence, the time in which their immune repression fails,” he wrote in The Conservative Woman on Monday. After raising the alarm that the vaccine boosters could induce cancer relapse, he became aware of literally dozens of people who had not had cancer before developing leukaemia and lymphomas after the boosters. In November 2022, Prof. Dalgleish wrote an open letter to the editor-in-chief of the medical journal The BMJ, urging the journal that harmful effects of Covid injections be “aired and debated immediately” because cancers and other diseases are rapidly progressing among “boosted” people. A few weeks later, he reported that other oncologists had contacted him to say they were seeing the same phenomenon of the recurrence of cancer in many melanoma patients who had been stable for long periods. “Since pointing this out publicly I have been contacted by many physicians and patients from all over the globe saying that they are not only seeing the same phenomenon but also an increase in other cancers especially colorectal, pancreatic, renal and ovarian,” he wrote at the beginning of this week. Many people had covid vaccines against their will, Prof. Dalgleish said. “Others gave in to the bullying of the NHS and GPs who hounded them with texts and calls (which I myself received regularly) about the importance of having a booster even though they presented no evidence that it could be beneficial.” Adding, “Having worked in vaccine development for a decade I remembered an adage that if a vaccine needs a booster, it doesn’t work!” In his latest article, Prof. Dalgleish highlighted several sources of evidence that have proved his concerns to be justified.  One source being a paper from Japan published last week. “It was available on a pre-publication server last year but now it has been peer-reviewed and published in Cureus. Titled ‘Increased age adjusted cancer mortality after the third mRNA lipid nanoparticle vaccine dose during the covid pandemic in Japan’,” he said. The results are astounding. It shows there was a deficit for all cancers in the year 2020 when the first and second covid waves occurred. In 2021 there was an excess of deaths of 2.2 per cent and a 1.1 per cent increase in cancers. However, by 2022 the excess deaths had increased 9.6 per cent and cancer by 2.1 per cent. This paper was completed and published before the 2023 figures release which will almost certainly be much worse. What is remarkable here is that we are talking mortality, that is deaths from cancer not incidence of it. So what is the cause of this sudden increase? It is revealed in the title of the paper! Massive cancer deaths study vindicates my warnings over covid boosters, The Conservative Woman, 15 April 2024 In an article published on Wednesday, retired Australian medical practitioner Professor Ian Brighthope highlighted the same Japanese paper and said: Today, on behalf of my professional friends and medical colleagues, I declare the mRNA vaccines to be class one carcinogens. mRNA is also a broad-spectrum mutagen. mRNA must be banned internationally. mRNA is a class one carcinogen, Ian Brighthope, 17 April 2024 He then went on to explain what carcinogens are, the process of carcinogenicity and how carcinogens are classified before inviting readers to make up their own minds about how carcinogenic mRNA injections are based on the findings of the Japanese study. Below are some extracts from Prof. Brighthope’s article but we encourage readers to read his informative article in full. Carcinogens and Carcinogenicity Carcinogens are substances, organisms or agents capable of causing cancer by altering the cellular, genetic and epigenetic mechanisms within the body, leading to the transformation of normal cells into cancer cells. These agents can be chemical substances, viruses or even certain types of radiation therapies used to treat cancer. Carcinogens do not necessarily cause cancer in every case or under all circumstances. Factors such as the amount and duration of exposure, the individual’s genetic makeup and exposure to other environmental factors play a significant role in determining whether a person exposed to a carcinogen will ultimately develop cancer. Moreover, not all mutations caused by carcinogens lead to cancer; only certain mutations in specific genes that regulate cell growth, apoptosis, and DNA repair may result in uncontrolled cell proliferation and cancer. The process of carcinogenicity, also known as carcinogenesis or tumour genesis, involves multiple stages where normal cells undergo a series of changes at the cellular, genetic, and epigenetic levels, resulting in abnormal cell division and the formation of cancer. Breast Cancer Prevention Partners: Carcinogenesis | The transformation of normal cells to cancer cells, 13 November 2013 (2 mins) Classification of Carcinogens Carcinogens can be classified based on their mode of action into genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens. Genotoxic carcinogens directly interact with DNA and/or the cellular apparatus, affecting the integrity of the genome. Non-genotoxic carcinogens exert their effects through mechanisms that do not involve direct DNA damage. International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”) Classification The IARC Monographs identify factors that can increase the risk of human cancer, including lifestyle factors. Interdisciplinary working groups of expert scientists review the published studies and evaluate the weight of the evidence that an agent can increase the risk of cancer. Agents are then categorised as carcinogenic, probably or possibly carcinogenic, or not carcinogenic to humans, based on the strength of the evidence. The IARC Working Group also considers the body of evidence as a whole, to reach an overall evaluation of the carcinogenicity of the agent to humans. The categorisation of an agent into one of four groups is a matter of scientific judgment that reflects the strength of the evidence derived from studies in humans and in experimental animals and from mechanistic and other relevant data. The four IARC groups are: • Group 1: Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity, the highest IARC classification for carcinogenicity. [Agents that are judged to fall into this category are also referred to as “class one carcinogens.”] • Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans): Limited evidence of carcinogenicity, a positive association. Group 3: Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity. Group 4: Evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity. World Cancer Research Fund (“WCRF”) and American Institute for Cancer Research (“AICR”) Classification The 2007 WCRF and AICR Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective report and subsequent tumour-specific updates are based on systematic reviews of the scientific literature for food, nutrition and physical activity. A WCRF and AICR Panel judged and graded the evidence into five categories: convincing, probable, limited (suggestive evidence), limited (no conclusion) or unlikely to affect cancer risk. Decide for yourselves the level of carcinogenicity that characterises mRNA After describing how carcinogens are classified, Prof. Brighthope invited readers to judge for themselves how mRNA injections should be classified by sharing the conclusion from the recently published Japanese study: Statistically significant increases in age-adjusted mortality rates of all cancer and some specific types of cancer, namely, ovarian cancer, leukaemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancers, were observed in 2022 after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third or later dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccine. These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive [Estrogen Receptors Alpha-sensitive] cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than covid-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown. Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan, Cureaus, 8 April 2024 As the title of his article stated, Prof. Brighthope classifies mRNA injections as a “class one carcinogen.” Sources for this article include: mRNA is a class one carcinogen & a broad-spectrum mutagen, The Liberty Beacon, 18 April 2024

In a report for Infowars, Greg Reese says that the Moderna patent filed in 2020 lists variations for the technology that was used in their covid jabs and this technology contains self assembled nanoparticles. He supports these findings by citing Todd Callender’s team who have concluded that the jabs contain a variety of synthetic pathogens that can be released with external 5G frequencies and each have a catalogued IP address. Callender’s research shows that the technology is turning the human body into an antenna which can output energy. Meaning that humans are being turned into batteries to fuel the digital A.I. prison, Greg claims.

https://expose-news.com/2024/04/16/bird-flu-does-not-transmit-to-humans/ Featured image: A person in Texas caught bird flu after mixing with dairy cattle. Should we be worried? The Conversation, 8 April 2024 The Bird flu virus has been modified in laboratories in the USA using gain-of-function to make it infectious and transmissible among mammals. This research has been occurring for at least a decade.  During that time there have been laboratory accidents, one of which is known to have happened at the end of 2019. It is these laboratory accidents that pose a risk of infection to humans and mammals, not the naturally occurring bird flu. On 25 March 2024, the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) was notified about a case of human infection with an influenza A (H5N1), bird flu, virus by the national authorities of Vietnam. According to the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005, a human infection caused by a novel influenza A virus subtype is an event that has the potential for high public health impact and must be notified to the WHO. WHO will then assess the risk posed to the general population based on available information.  In the case of the Vietnamese, WHO assessed the risk of this virus as low. On 1 April, a person in Texas tested positive for H5N1 bird flu. The Texan worked with dairy cows “presumably infected with H5N1 bird flu viruses,” the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) said.  This was the second human case of H5N1 bird flu reported in the United States. There was a previous case in 2022 in Colorado in a poultry worker. The case of the Texan was also reported to WHO. WHO assessed the public health risk to the general population posed by this virus to be low and for occupationally exposed persons, the risk of infection is considered low-to-moderate. Related: Bird flu in 2005 was used to begin the biggest power grab in history – now it’s back Last week we published an article by Dr. Joseph Mercola who cautioned: “As we move forward, it is important for to keep an eye on the narratives we’re being fed. If bird flu becomes a human epidemic or pandemic, there are plenty of reasons to suspect it’s a weaponised virus, and the “solution” offered will be the same as that for covid-19: ‘Get vaccinated’.” Dr. Mercola also offered some advice on what to do should they release such a virus. John Leake agrees that any H5N1 epidemic would likely be due to a virus created in a laboratory. “H5N1 does NOT efficiently transmit to humans and therefore poses little risk to humans,” he notes. “Far more dangerous … is the possibility of a lab-modified H5N1 virus escaping from a laboratory.” A History of H5N1 Laboratory Accidents By John Leake Exactly one year ago, the investigative journalist and author, Alison Young, published a report in USA Today on an accident that occurred on 9 December 2019 at the University of Wisconsin’s Influenza Research Institute. The accident involved experiments with an H5N1 influenza virus that had been modified through gain-of-function (“GoF”) to make it transmissible among ferrets. The research team leader – a renowned virologist named Yoshihiro Kawaoka – had gained international attention (or notoriety) for his controversial GoF research on H5N1. As Alison Young reported: … in late 2011 the world learned that two scientific teams – one in Wisconsin, led by virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka, and another in the Netherlands, led by virologist Ron Fouchier – had potentially pushed the virus in that direction. Each of these labs had created H5N1 viruses that had gained the ability to spread through the air between ferrets, the animal model used to study how flu viruses might behave in humans. The ultimate goal of this work was to help protect the world from future pandemics, and the research was supported with words and funding by two of the most prominent scientists in the United States: Dr. Francis S. Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”), and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Kawaoka contended it would be “irresponsible not to study” how the virus might evolve in nature. “Some people have argued that the risks of such studies – misuse and accidental release, for example – outweigh the benefits. I counter that H5N1 viruses circulating in nature already pose a threat,” he said at the time. In November 2013, a needlestick accident happened on Kawaoka’s research team, followed by failure to adhere to the established quarantine rules. Though no human infection resulted from this accident, it was nevertheless alarming. Young’s report continues: By 2014, there was a growing discomfort at the highest levels of the US government about the risk of an accident with an engineered virus. Wisconsin’s needlestick incident, which drew questions within NIH but wasn’t publicly known, was soon followed by a series of high-profile accidents at federal labs in 2014 – from safety breaches with anthrax and avian influenza at the CDC to the discovery of forgotten vials of smallpox that had been kept for decades in a storage room on the NIH campus. In October 2014, citing these federal laboratory incidents, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy announced a moratorium on new federal funding for certain gain-of-function research while the risks and benefits of the controversial experiments were studied. The funding pause remained in place for three years until it was finally lifted in December 2017. But it was only in 2019 that some of the halted experiments were quietly allowed to begin again under a revised federal oversight process, which was criticised for keeping secret the details of the new experiments and the basis for the government approvals. The second accident on Kawaoka’s team occurred less than a year after GoF experiments were allowed to resume. This time, a laboratory researcher in training was working with ferrets infected with the GoF-modified H5N1 when his respirator hose was discovered to have detached from his hood, allowing him to breathe the possibly contaminated air in the cabinet. Again, the quarantine rules were not properly followed, and nor was the incident promptly reported to the NIH. Though the accident purportedly did not result in a human infection, it nevertheless raises many questions about the prudence of manipulating the H5N1 virus in a laboratory in order to make it infectious and transmissible among mammals. Alison Young’s report prompted me to start reading her book, ‘Pandora’s Gamble: Lab Leaks, Pandemics, and a World at Risk’, published on 25 April 2023. Young has a long history of researching and reporting on biolabs and their checkered past. Most laboratory manipulation of pathogens is purportedly done to develop vaccines against them in the event that their natural iterations should ever evolve to infect humans, but this rationale is highly questionable if not downright mendacious. Indeed, on 18 December 2013, the Foundation for Vaccine Research wrote a letter to the European Commission, signed by 56 scientists (including Nobel Laureates) in which they sharply criticised the GoF experiments on H5N1 by virologist, Ron Fouchier. The 56 scientists vehemently express their opinion that naturally occurring H5N1 does NOT efficiently transmit to humans and therefore poses little risk to humans. Far more dangerous, they claim, is the possibility of a lab-modified H5N1 virus escaping from a laboratory. The scientists refer to the resurgence of H1N1 influenza in 1977 after a 20-year hiatus, most likely after escaping from a laboratory in the former Soviet Union. About the Author John Leake is a true crime author and investigative journalist.  Among the books he has written is ‘The Courage to Face Covid-19: Preventing Hospitalisation and Death While Battling the Biopharmaceutical Complex’ which he co-authored with Dr. Peter McCullough.  Leake often publishes articles on Dr. McCullough’s Substack page titled ‘Courageous Discourse’ which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.

https://expose-news.com/2024/04/16/lettuce-virus-x-and-the-weaponisation-of-food/ In an article titled ‘Virus X is Not What Anyone is Expecting’ posted on her Substack, Karen Kingston highlighted an interview from more than 20 years ago with the late Michael Crichton, author of many bestselling novels including ‘Jurassic Park’. Crichton’s books have sold over 200 million copies worldwide, and over a dozen have been adapted into films. On 26 November 2002, Crichton was interviewed by American journalist and talk show host Charlie Rose about his book ‘Prey’ which was published that month. He also discussed “the dangers of self-replicating biosynthetic pathogens (or what we call genetically modified viruses), gene editing and the dangers of highly advanced biotechnologies,” Kingston said. The synopsis of Prey reads: In the Nevada desert, an experiment has gone horribly wrong. A cloud of nanoparticles – micro-robots – has escaped from the laboratory. This cloud is self-sustaining and self-reproducing. It is intelligent and learns from experience. For all practical purposes, it is alive. It has been programmed as a predator. It is evolving swiftly, becoming more deadly with each passing hour. Every attempt to destroy it has failed. And we are the prey. As Britannica notes, although he was often criticised by the scientific community for being sensationalist, Crichton was known for the careful research that went into his work. For example, he meticulously studied the science underlying the premise of Jurassic Park. “Crichton continued to postulate on the effects of scientific advancements in works of science fiction such as Prey (2002), about nanotechnology; Next (2005), in which he returned to the blurry ethical boundaries of genetic engineering; and the 2005 thriller State of Fear, his polemical take on global warming,” Britannica notes. Crichton described his book Prey as follows: In the case of Prey, I was interested in knowing where three trends might be going – distributed programming, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. As a concept, nanotechnology dates back to a 1959 speech by Richard Feynman called There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom. Forty years later, the field is still very much in its infancy. But practical applications are starting to appear. Nanotechniques are already being used to make sunscreens, stain-resistant fabrics, and composite materials in cars. Soon they will be used to make computers and storage devices of extremely small size. And some of the long-anticipated “miracle” products have started to appear as well. In 2002, one company was manufacturing self-cleaning window glass; another made a nanocrystal wound dressing with antibiotic and anti-inflammatory properties. Prey: In His Own Words In 2002, Michael Crichton wrote an article ‘Could Tiny Machines Rule the World’ for Parade magazine that coincided with the release of his novel, Prey.  In the following excerpt, Crichton speculates about how nanotechnology could change our world.  We were unable to find a copy of the original article published by Parade on 24 November 2002, however, there is an extract published on the Michael Crichton website and also by The Fountain magazine, a publication controlled by the Gülen or Hizmet movement. Crichton says: “These organisms [self-reproducing tiny computers] will be created by nanotechnology, perhaps the most radical technology in human history: the quest to build man-made machines of extremely small size, on the order of 100 nanometres, or 100/billionths of a meter. Such machines would be 1,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Experts predict that these tiny machines will provide everything from miniaturised computer components to new medical treatments to new military weapons. In the 21st century, they will change our world totally.” Nanotechnology, The Fountain, 1 July 2003 Two days after his article was published in Parade, Crichton was interviewed by Charlie Rose. “I’m quite worried about the whole area of self-reproducing technologies – which is already biotechnology … [With genetic engineering] conceivably, just conceivably, if there was some kind of a virus that interfered with the photosynthesis, in enough plants … everything’s gone. The biosphere is essentially wiped out,” he warned. Michael Crichton interview on Charlie Rose about ‘Prey’, 26 November 2002, (32 mins) If the video above is removed from YouTube, you can watch it and read the transcript on Charlie Rose’s website HERE. What Crichton was referring to is self-replicating biosynthetic viruses that could infect plants and hijack the photosynthesis process, Kingston wrote. “Please see THIS 2022 report on self-replicating biosynthetic pathogens being bred into plants to hijack the photosynthesis process.” Lettuce Virus X In 2008, Springer Link published an article about a virus infecting lettuce in Tehran province in Iran. The article stated: Based on particle morphology, physicochemical properties and the complete genome sequence, this virus is a member of a new species in the genus Potexvirus, for which the name lettuce virus X (LeVX) is proposed. Biological assays using an infectious cDNA clone and a wild-type isolate of LeVX revealed that the virus, despite reaching high concentrations in all lettuce cultivars tested, does not cause symptoms in lettuce. Dizadji, A., Koohi-Habibi, M., Izadpanah, K. et al. Characterisation of lettuce virus X, a new potexvirus infecting lettuce in Iran. Arch Virol 153, 1867–1875 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-008-0191-x For 180 euros, LeVX virus inoculum – any part of the pathogen that can initiate infection – can be purchased from the German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures (“DSMZ”). “There are NO known Nagoya Protocol restrictions for [LeVX],” DSMZ states. DSMZ claims to be the world’s most diverse collection of biological resources – bacteria, archaea, protists, yeasts, fungi, bacteriophages, plant viruses, genomic bacterial DNA as well as human and animal cell lines – providing all users with the necessary legal certainty in the handling of their bioresources under the Nagoya Protocol, a 2010 supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity signed at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Related:  Under the guise of biodiversity, they want to genetically manipulate all living things According to Wikipedia, DSMZ is a global supplier of microorganisms and cell cultures for university, non-university and industrial research with more than 10,000 customers in over 80 countries.  It is a member of several international organisations such as the European Culture Collections’ Organisation (“ECCO”), the World Federation for Culture Collections (“WFCC”) and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (“GBIF”), which is a partner in the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data. Related: Global Public Private Partnership on The Exposé At the end of March, the Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill dubbed the “House Lettuce bill” which defines any food that “contains a vaccine or vaccine material” as a drug under Tennessee law and the “food” would have to be labelled as a “vaccine.” “Lettuce is being weaponised with mRNA, not medicated,” Kingston said. Lettuce Virus X, or what we call “mRNA Vaccine Lettuce” includes mRNA viruses that hijack the chloroplasts of green plants to produce highly infectious pathogens instead of oxygen. Please see this report of the China National GeneBank Plant Databases and Lettuce Virus X. [Note: The ‘Lettice Virus X’ article Kingston linked to is behind a paywall.  However, we were able to find Lettuce Virus X on the China National GeneBank so we can assume she is using the term, abbreviated to LeVX, as described above.] If you’d like to better understand synthetic biology, Lettuce Virus X, mRNA gene editing technologies, and how you can protect you and your community, please subscribe to The Kingston Report [on Substack]. Virus X is Not What Anyone is Expecting, Karen Kingston, 15 April 2024