Russia's biometric nightmare. A rushed "security" bill paves the way for a privatized digital control grid.
How to rid yourself of the bioweapon toxins
Toxicity of graphene-family nanoparticles: a general review of the origins and mechanisms.
Despite HPV Vaccine, Cervical Cancer Rates Keep Rising
UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad calls for Biden to replace his COVID advisors
Russia's biometric nightmare. A rushed "security" bill paves the way for a privatized digital control grid.
Weirdo Leaders…and we let them be. Nothing to see here folks…move along
Protect yourself and your family:
A combination therapy of prebiotics, probiotics, fermented soy, ivermectin, and a powerful anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer, anti-viral, etc., and a powerful nutraceutical like VIR-X could be the cure in plain sight for both Long Covid and VAIDS.
Here are some other strategies:
Supplements
* From Standard Process “Cardio Plus” 10 morning and night eb9mpty stomach
* lipospheric Vit C 5 paks
* magnesium chloride or oxide: rotate 1000mg
* methyl folate b9 / cobalamin b12
* hydrogen peroxide nebulization
* Vit D 1000-7000 daily
* UV blood irradiation
* hyperbaric oxygen treatments
* Ozone blood treatments
* PEMF or Scalar treatments daily
* nicotine gum
* edta
* macuna purines
* ivermectin
* glutathione
* NAC
* cdp choline
Ardis Protocol:
Nicotine gum / nicotine patches on skin
Melatonin hormone as an inhibitor
Ivermectin
EDTA - Topical or IV
Selenium - 200mcg
NAC - 500mg 4x a day
Liver detox:
3 cleanses with
Milk Thistle - take a lot 150mg 2x daily
1000mg of Tumeric daily
Dandelion - packed with potassium, causes liver to release toxins, gall bladder releases bile
Bluperum
Apple Cider Vinegar
Sauercraut
Kimche
Toxicity of graphene-family nanoparticles: a general review of the origins and mechanisms
Abstract
Due to their unique physicochemical properties, graphene-family nanomaterials (GFNs) are widely used in many fields, especially in biomedical applications. Currently, many studies have investigated the biocompatibility and toxicity of GFNs in vivo and in intro. Generally, GFNs may exert different degrees of toxicity in animals or cell models by following with different administration routes and penetrating through physiological barriers, subsequently being distributed in tissues or located in cells, eventually being excreted out of the bodies. This review collects studies on the toxic effects of GFNs in several organs and cell models. We also point out that various factors determine the toxicity of GFNs including the lateral size, surface structure, functionalization, charge, impurities, aggregations, and corona effect ect. In addition, several typical mechanisms underlying GFN toxicity have been revealed, for instance, physical destruction, oxidative stress, DNA damage, inflammatory response, apoptosis, autophagy, and necrosis. In these mechanisms, (toll-like receptors-) TLR-, transforming growth factor β- (TGF-β-) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) dependent-pathways are involved in the signalling pathway network, and oxidative stress plays a crucial role in these pathways. In this review, we summarize the available information on regulating factors and the mechanisms of GFNs toxicity, and propose some challenges and suggestions for further investigations of GFNs, with the aim of completing the toxicology mechanisms, and providing suggestions to improve the biological safety of GFNs and facilitate their wide application.
Toxicity of GFNs (in vivo and in vitro) ← Just a small list:
GFNs penetrate through the physiological barriers or cellular structures by different exposure ways or administration routes and entry the body or cells, eventually resulting in toxicity in vivo and in vitro
GFNs entry paths
GFNs reach various locations through blood circulation or biological barriers after entering the body, which results in varying degrees of retention in different organs. Due to their nanosize, GFNs can reach deeper organs by passing through the normal physiological barriers, such as the blood-air barrier, blood-testis barrier, blood-brain barrier and blood-placental barrier.
Blood-air barrier
Blood-brain barrier
Blood-testis barrier
Blood-placenta barrier
Toxicity of GFNs in organs
The toxicity and biocompatibility of GFNs has been observed and assessed through theoretical and animal model studies. At present, there are a mass of data demonstrating the toxicity of GFNs in different organs or systems in animals, so that it is hard to list all the data in this review.
Toxicity in internal organs
GO can result in acute inflammation response and chronic injury by interfering with the normal physiological functions of important organs
Toxicity in the central nervous system
Graphene has largely benefited neurosurgery with the application of drug/gene delivery for brain tumour treatment, intracranial and spinal biocompatible devices, biosensing and bioimaging techniques. Studies regarding the potentialities or risks of graphene in the brain have emerged. In the chicken embryo model, pristine graphene flakes decreased the ribonucleic acid level and the rate of deoxyribonucleic acid synthesis, leading to harmful effects on brain tissue development and the atypical ultrastructure was observed in the brain [101].
Toxicity in reproduction and development system
Pristine graphene reduced the vascularization of the heart and the density of branched vessels after injection into fertilized chicken eggs followed by incubation for 19 days.
Influence of haemocompatibility
Lung injury induced by GFNs has been studied in several studies, the results of which have demonstrated inflammatory cell infiltration, pulmonary edema and granuloma formation in the lungs.
Charge
A number of studies have highlighted the importance of the GO surface charge because of its ability to affect the internalization and uptake mechanism of cells [148–150]. GO internalization was negligible in non-phagocytes, which was likely due to the strong electrostatic repulsion between the negatively charged GO and the cell surface [34]. However, others have suggested that negatively charged nanoparticles can be internalized into non-phagocytic cells by binding to available cationic sites on the cell surface and be taken up by scavenger receptors [110, 146, 150]. GO/GS particles reportedly cause morphological changes and significant lysis, leading to high haemolysis in red blood cells (RBCs). RBC membrane disruption is probably attributed to the strong electrostatic interactions between the negatively charged oxygen groups on the GO/GS surface and positively charged phosphatidylcholine lipids on the RBC outer membrane [106].
Protein corona effect
Because of the high free surface charge, nanomaterials can easily form “coronas” with proteins in biological systems [163, 164]. The protein corona is suggested to affect the circulation, distribution, clearance and toxicity of nanoparticles.
Physical destruction
Graphene is a unique nanomaterial compared with other spherical or one-dimensional nanoparticles due to its two-dimensional structure with sp2-carbons. The physical interaction of graphene nanoparticles with cell membranes is one of the major causes of graphene cytotoxicity
ROS production leading to oxidative stress
Oxidative stress arises when increasing levels of ROS overwhelm the activity of antioxidant enzymes, including catalase, SOD, or glutathione peroxidase (GSH-PX) [174]. ROS act as second messengers in many intracellular signalling cascades and lead to cellular macromolecular damage, such as membrane lipid breakdown, DNA fragmentation, protein denaturation and mitochondrial dysfunction, which greatly influence cell metabolism and signalling [175–177].
Mitochondrial damage
Mitochondria are energy production centres involved in various signalling pathways in cells and are also a key point of apoptotic regulation [83]. After exposure to GO and carboxyl graphene (GXYG), the mitochondrial membrane was depolarized, and the amount of mitochondria decreased in HepG2 cells [180].
DNA damage
Due to its small size, high surface area and surface charge, GO may possess significant genotoxic properties and cause severe DNA damage, for example, chromosomal fragmentation, DNA strand breakages, point mutations, and oxidative DNA adducts and alterations [87, 122, 185, 186]. Mutagenesis was observed in mice after intravenous injection of GO at a dose of 20 mg/kg compared with cyclophosphamide (50 mg/kg), a classic mutagen [112].
Inflammatory response
GFNs can cause a significant inflammatory response including inflammatory cell infiltration, pulmonary edema and granuloma formation at high doses via intratracheally instillation or intravenous administration [30, 49]. Platelets are the important components in clot formation to attack pathogens and particulate matter during the inflammatory response, and GO could directly activate platelet-rich thrombi formation to occlude lung vessels after intravenous injection [98, 191].
Apoptosis
Apoptosis is defined as the self-destruction of a cell regulated by genes through complicated programmes [83, 195]. GO and rGO caused apoptosis and inflammation in mice lungs after inhalation [99], and GFNs also had pro-apoptotic effects in cells [111, 113, 124, 196]. Additionally, graphene and GO physically damaged cell membranes [166], increased the permeabilization of the outer mitochondrial membrane and changed the mitochondrial membrane potential; the increased ROS triggered the MAPK and TGF-β signalling pathways and activated caspase-3 via mitochondrial-dependent apoptotic cascades, prompting the execution of apoptosis [83, 99].
Autophagy
Autophagy is the process of self-degradation of cellular components and recently recognized as non-apoptotic cell death [198–200]. Autophagy activation requires autophagosome formation containing Beclin 1, multiple autophagy-related proteins (ATG), microtubule-associated protein light chain 3 (LC3) and p62 [201]. Autophagosome accumulation is associated with exposure to various nanoparticles [202–205], and autophagy can remove extracellular organisms and destruct the organisms in the cytosol [206].
Necrosis
Necrosis is an alternate form of cell death induced by inflammatory responses or cellular injury. The exposure of cells to pristine graphene causes apoptosis and necrosis at high doses (50 mg/mL) [83]. Reportedly, LDH leakage and the opening of the mitochondrial permeability transition pore, induced by elevated level of cytoplasmic Ca2+, lead to apoptosis/necrosis [210].
Epigenetic changes
Epigenetics involve DNA methylation, genomic imprinting, maternal effects, gene silencing, and RNA editing [213–215]. DNA methylation, which is one of the best-studied epigenetic modifications, includes phosphorylation, ubiquitination, and ATP-ribosylation and can lead to chromatin remodelling [197, 216, 217]. A recently paper reported that SL-GO/FL-GO exposure resulted in global DNA hypermethylation through upregulating DNMT3B and MBD1 genes; GNP treatment caused hypomethylation by decreasing the expression of DNMT3B and MBD1 genes [216]. GO could activate the miRNA-360 regulation pathway to suppress the DNA damage-apoptosis signalling cascade by affecting the component of CEP-1 [218].
Conclusions
In the past few years, GFNs have been widely utilized in a wide range of technological and biomedical fields. Currently, most experiments have focused on the toxicity of GFNs in the lungs and livers. Therefore, studies of brain injury or neurotoxicity deserve more attention in the future. Many experiments have shown that GFNs have toxic side effects in many biological applications, but the in-depth study of toxicity mechanisms is urgently needed. In addition, contrasting results regarding the toxicity of GFNs need to be addressed by effective experimental methods and systematic studies. This review provides an overview of the toxicity of GFNs by summarizing the toxicokinetics, toxicity mechanisms and influencing factors and aimed to provide information to facilitate thorough research on the in vitro and in vivo haemo- and biocompatibility of GFNs in the future. This review will help address safety concerns before the clinical and therapeutic applications of GFNs, which will be important for further development of GFNs in biological applications.
Graphene Oxide is bad stuff…
Despite HPV Vaccine, Cervical Cancer Rates Keep Rising
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
More than 200 strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) have been identified, and about 40 of them can cause cancer, including cervical, penile, oral, vaginal, vulvar and anal cancer. Of these, cervical cancer is the most common type of HPV-related cancer in the U.S.
The first HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was licensed in 2006. The vaccine was hailed as a breakthrough that would slash cervical cancer rates, but in the real world, it has largely failed to deliver. The original vaccine contained four HPV strains. The latest version contains nine
Since 2006, cancers associated with the four HPV strains included in the original quadrivalent vaccine have declined by 88% among 14- to 19-year-olds and 81% among women aged 20 to 24
However, when looking at cervical cancer in general, there’s now a “troubling spike” in rates. Between 2001 and 2018, cervical cancer rates have increased by 1.3% per year. The primary cause for this continued rise appears to be because cancers associated with non-vaccine strains are going up
Evidence suggests HPV vaccination makes women more susceptible than their nonvaccinated peers to HPV genotypes not covered by the vaccine. So, essentially, women who got the vaccine have traded one risk for another
More than 200 strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) have been identified, and about 40 of them can cause cancer, including cervical, penile, oral, vaginal, vulvar and anal cancer. Of these, cervical cancer is the most common type of HPV-related cancer in the U.S. Some strains are also responsible for genital warts.1
Ninety percent of HPV infections resolve on their own without treatment, as a well-functioning immune system will keep the virus in check. In rare cases, however, infection with a high-risk HPV that remains untreated and unchecked may turn into cancer.
In the U.S., 3% of all cancers in women and 2% of cancers in men are related to untreated chronic HPV infection.2 Because HPV infection rarely produces symptoms until it has turned cancerous, women are advised to get a Pap smear at least once every three to five years, which will identify the presence of HPV.
HPV Vax Has Failed Miserably to Reduce Cervical Cancer Rates
In 2006, the first HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was licensed; first in Europe in February,3 followed by the U.S. that June.4 The vaccine was hailed as a breakthrough that would slash cervical cancer rates, but in the real world, it has largely failed to deliver.
When Gardasil was first introduced, HPV researcher Dr. Diane Harper predicted it would take 60 years of vaccinating at least 70% of all 11-year-old girls to reduce cervical cancer rates in the U.S., due to the country's highly successful Pap testing.
Now, almost 17 years after the vaccine was introduced, there is a "troubling spike" in cervical cancer rates,5 despite vaccination rates as high as 80%6 (although rates vary widely between gender and ethnic groups. In 2019, 73% of female teenagers had received one dose and 57% had received both doses in the series).7 As reported in the December 2022 issue of the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer:8
"Over the last 18 years [2001 through 2018], 29,715 women were diagnosed with distant stage cervical carcinoma … When examining the trends over time, there has been an annual increase in distant stage cervical cancer at a rate of 1.3% per year. The largest increase is seen in cervical adenocarcinoma with an average annual percent change of 2.9%."
Cancers Associated With Vaccine Strains Have Declined
Despite lingering questions about its effectiveness, the medical establishment still hails the HPV vaccine as a success, as cervical cancers associated with the vaccine strains have in fact decreased.
Since 2006, cancers associated with the four HPV strains included in the original quadrivalent vaccine have declined by 88% among 14- to 19-year-olds and 81% among women aged 20 to 24.9 Aside from the fact that only 14 cases of cervical cancer a year were occurring in females aged 15 to 19 before the vaccine10 (meaning an 88% drop isn't all that impressive), the drop may not be all due to the vaccine, as rates have also declined among unvaccinated women.
What's more, when looking at HPV-related cancers in general, without regard for strain, rates have steadily increased since the vaccine's introduction. As reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in July 2021,11 "HPV-related cancers have increased significantly in the past 15 years12 — in 2015, 43,000 people developed an HPV-related cancer compared to 30,000 in 1999."
Oral and anal cancers related to HPV infection have also increased. Whereas cervical cancer used to be the most prevalent HPV-associated cancer, oral cancers are now the most common.13
HPV Vaccine Increases Risk of Cancer From Other HPVs
The primary cause for this continued rise appears to be because cancers associated with non-vaccine strains are going up. Indeed, new evidence suggests HPV vaccination makes women more susceptible than their nonvaccinated peers to HPV genotypes not covered by the vaccine.14 So, essentially, women who got the vaccine have just traded one risk for another. As reported by Medscape:15
"The data come from the Costa Rica HPV Vaccine Trial,16 which involved more than 10,000 women aged 18-25 years. The HPV vaccine used in the trial was Cervarix, from GlaxoSmith Kline. It covers the two leading causes of cervical cancer, HPV 16 and 18, and provides partial protection against three other genotypes.
After a follow-up of 11 years, among vaccinated women, there was an excess of precancerous cervical lesions caused by genotypes not included in the vaccine, resulting in negative vaccine efficacy for those HPV variants …
The results are likely the first evidence to date of 'clinical unmasking' with HPV vaccination, meaning that protection against the strains covered by the vaccine leaves women more prone to attack from other carcinogenic HPV variants.
This phenomenon 'could attenuate long-term reductions in high-grade disease following successful implementation of HPV vaccination programs,' the investigators comment.
The take-home message from the trial is that 'we have to be careful,' said Marc Steben, MD, co-president of HPV Global Action and a professor in the University of Montreal's School of Public Health."
The Replacement Phenomenon
This "replacement phenomenon" is precisely what happened with the pneumococcal vaccine, which is why vaccine companies were forced to keep adding new strains to the vaccine. The same thing is now happening with the HPV vaccine.
HPV16 and HPV18 have historically been responsible for about 70% of cervical cancer cases,17 which is why these two strains, plus HPV6 and HPV11, were included in the original quadrivalent Gardasil vaccine released in 2006.
In December 2014, Gardasil was updated to include five additional strains — HPV31, 33, 45, 52 and 58 — for a total of nine.18 Overall, these nine HPVs are responsible for the vast majority of HPV-related cancers, including cervical, throat and anal cancers, as well as most genital warts. (Cervarix, another HPV vaccine, is available in Europe and other parts of the world, but since 2017, Gardasil®9 is the only HPV vaccine approved for use in the U.S.)
Serious Adverse Reactions Are Still Downplayed
While the medical establishment maintains that Gardasil is safe and has few side effects, a significant number of young girls and boys have been seriously injured over the years. Serious adverse reactions reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in relation to Gardasil include but are not limited to the following:19
Anaphylaxis
Guillain-Barre Syndrome
Transverse myelitis (inflammation of the spinal cord)
Pancreatitis
Venous thromboembolic events (blood clots)
Autoimmune initiated motor neuron disease (a neurodegenerative disease that causes rapidly progressive muscle weakness)
Multiple sclerosis (MS)
Sudden death
All of these side effects are acknowledged by the FDA20 and are included in Gardasil's labeling. In addition to these, the Gardasil vaccine insert also lists:21
Blood and lymphatic system disorders such as autoimmune hemolytic anemia, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and lymphadenopathy
Pulmonary embolus
Arthralgia and myalgia (musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders)
Nervous system disorders such as acute disseminated encephalomyelitis
Safety Signal Detected for Premature Ovarian Insufficiency
According to a study22 published in July 2020, VAERS data mining also revealed a disproportionate number of reports of premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) and related problems, including amenorrhea (absence of menstruation), irregular menses, increased follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and premature menopause.
POI23 is when a woman's ovaries stop working normally before the age of 40, which reduces her chances of getting pregnant. It also raises her risk for anxiety and depression, certain eye diseases, heart disease, hypothyroidism (low thyroid function) and osteoporosis (low bone density). According to the authors:24
"The signal was detected by the methods of Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN) and Multi-item Gamma Poisson Shrinker (MGPS). When both methods detected a positive result, a signal was generated.
Besides, time-scan map is drawn based on the IC value and 95%CI of BCPNN, if the IC curve showed a steady upward trend and the 95%CI narrowed, the signal was stable and strong association … Our results only represent statistical association between HPV vaccine and POI related events, causal relationship needs further investigation."
Concern Over Gardasil Safety Is Rising
Over the years, parents have gotten increasingly concerned about the safety of Gardasil. According to a 2021 investigation,25 23% of parents who declined HPV vaccination for their child in 2018 cited concerns about safety, compared to 13% in 2015.
Normally, drugs become more accepted over time as their safety is demonstrated in the real world. Not so with Gardasil, however, which could be an indication that more and more people know or have heard of youngsters suffering serious problems.26
A woman's lifetime risk of a cervical cancer diagnosis is only 0.7%, so it's hardly a concern worth taking significant risks to avoid.
The fact of the matter is that tolerance for Gardasil-induced harm ought to be far lower than it is. It should be extremely low for the simple fact that the vaccine is given to perfectly healthy children and teens whose future risk of dying from cervical cancer is zero at the time it's given, and only 2.2 per 100,00027 by the time they're 58. Also, it's worth noting that risk factors for HPV infection among young females are:28
Early age of sexual debut
Multiple lifetime sexual partners
Short intervals between different partners
Use of hormonal contraceptives
Smoking
Diet deficient in certain micronutrients
So, considering that the main risk factors are modifiable behavior choices, wouldn't it make more sense to encourage young females to work on avoiding the risks, as opposed to simply counting on the vaccine to protect them?
Additionally, a woman's lifetime risk of a cervical cancer diagnosis is only 0.7%, so it's hardly a concern worth taking significant risks to avoid.
The threshold of tolerance for vaccine-induced risks is further lowered by the fact that it's a mandated requirement for school attendance in some jurisdictions, and is available without parental consent in others. There's also ample evidence showing that inexpensive Pap smears are the most effective way to identify an HPV infection and, by treating it, preventing it from turning into cancer.
Merck Accused of Fraud in Gardasil Safety Testing
There are other reasons to be suspicious of Gardasil's safety as well. According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Merck committed fraud in its safety testing by:
Testing Gardasil against a toxic placebo, and
Hiding a 2.3% incidence of autoimmune disease occurring within seven months of vaccination
Table 1 in the package insert29 for Gardasil looks at vaccine injuries at the site of injection. It shows that Gardasil was administered to 5,088 girls; another 3,470 received the control, amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS) — a neurotoxic aluminum vaccine adjuvant that has been associated with many serious vaccine injuries in the medical literature.
AAHS is also the adjuvant used in Gardasil, so it's hardly a reasonable control. They basically tested the complete vaccine against its most toxic component.
A third group, consisting of 320 individuals, received a proper placebo (saline). In the Gardasil and AAHS control groups, the number of injuries were fairly close; 83.9% in the Gardasil group and 75.4% in the AAHS control group. Meanwhile, the rate of injury (again, relating to injuries at the injection site only), was significantly lower at 48.6%.
Table 9 from the vaccine insert is the "Summary of girls and women 9 through 26 years of age who reported an incident condition potentially indicative of a systemic autoimmune disorder after enrollment in clinical trials of Gardasil, regardless of causality." These conditions include serious systemic reactions, chronic and debilitating disorders and autoimmune diseases.
Now all of a sudden, there are only two columns, not three as shown for the injection site injuries. The column left out is that of the saline placebo group. According to Kennedy, Merck cleverly hid the hazards of Gardasil by combining the saline group with the aluminum control, thereby watering down the side effects reported in the controls.
Looking at the effects reported in the two groups, 2.3% of those who received Gardasil reported an effect of this nature, as did 2.3% of those receiving the AAHS (aluminum) control or saline placebo. The same exact ratio of harm is reported in both groups, which makes it appear as though Gardasil is harmless.
In reality, the vast majority of the controls were given a toxic substance, and they don't tell us how many of those receiving a truly inert substance developed these systemic injuries.
Still, we can draw some educated guesses, seeing how the injection site injury ratios between Gardasil and the aluminum group were similar. In short, Merck's use of AAHS, a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant instead of a biologically inactive placebo, effectively nullifies its prelicensure Gardasil safety testing.
Aluminum Can Trigger Debilitating Health Problems
The use of aluminum (AAHS) in Gardasil, and its disastrous health effects, was also brought up in a January 2019 court case (Jennifer Robi vs. Merck and Kaiser Permanente). Kennedy was one of the expert witnesses in this trial. As reported by the Children's Health Defense (CHD) at the time:30
"… Paul Pennock of Weitz & Luxenberg … ran through a riveting 50-minute slide show demonstrating how Gardasil's super-powered Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate (AAHS) adjuvant over-stimulated the immune systems of vaccine recipients tipping them into autoimmune conditions in which their redlining immune defenses begin attacking their bodies' own organs.
This 'autoimmune process' causes a cascade of illnesses that, in Jennifer Robi's case, resulted in damage and deterioration in diverse organ systems throughout her body. Victims like Jennifer are left exhausted as the body fights off disease on multiple fronts.
Pennock explained that vaccine makers add aluminum adjuvants … to elicit an immune response, hoping to extend the short-term immunity otherwise provided by most vaccines. Among vaccinologists, it's axiomatic that the duration of immunity correlates directly to the toxicity of the adjuvant; the more toxic the adjuvant, the longer the duration of immunity …
Gardasil's promoters were promising lifelong protection, and needed a super toxic adjuvant that would provide this unprecedented level of protection. After all, Merck was promising regulators, pediatricians and the public that inoculations given to 9-12-year-old girls would provide immunity against a relatively rare cancer that typically doesn't kill until age 58!"
Crazy as it may seem, AAHS has never been safety tested by the government or Merck. Independent animal studies, however, have shown that animals such as mice and sheep, when exposed to aluminum adjuvants at concentrations comparable to what's used in human vaccines, "develop strange behavioral patterns and illnesses resembling autoimmune diseases," CHD noted.31
'Deceptive Canards'
Kennedy also gave a presentation before the court, "describing the parade of deceptive canards that composed Merck's clinical trials," CHD writes. In addition to using toxic AAHS as a "placebo," other fraudulent gimmicks included purging the study group of participants who had vulnerabilities to the vaccine or any of its ingredients.
In so doing, they effectively masked effects that would primarily occur in certain vulnerable subgroups. Study subjects excluded from the trial included those with allergies, immunological or nervous disorders, four or more lifetime sex partners, genetic vulnerabilities to any known disease (including cancer), and those with general infections, a history of alcohol or drug abuse, and/or a serious or chronic illness.
The problem, of course, is that children are not prescreened for any of these vulnerabilities before they get the vaccine. In reality, anyone with one or more of these conditions should not get Gardasil based on the fact that it's never been studied in anyone with these conditions. It's only been safety tested on the healthiest children possible.
"Even these flimflams could not conceal the mayhem caused by Gardasil," CHD wrote.32 "Kennedy showed the court data from Merck's own package insert showing that 2.3 % of the girls receiving the vaccine complained of symptoms of autoimmune disease within 7 months.
Since cervical cancer kills only 1.5 Americans in every 100,000, he noted, 'Merck's own data show that the chances of getting an autoimmune disease from this vaccine are 1,000 times the risk of dying from cervical cancer.'
Not only did a heartbreaking 50% of the subjects in both the study group and the spiked placebo group experience a serious adverse event within the seven months of the trial, death rates among girls in the study were double background rates. In fact, the rate for girls during the clinical trials (85/100,000) was 37 times the death rate from cervical cancer!
Birth defects among children conceived during the study period were 5x those of the control group and miscarriages were doubled over background rates. Reproductive problems among vaccinated girls were 10x background rates.
Finally, Merck's own data showed that administering the Gardasil vaccine to girls who had previous exposure to HPV actually raised their risk of developing precancerous lesions (or worse) by almost 45%."
For even more details on how Merck rigged its Gardasil trials, see my 2018 article, "Shocking Flaws in Gardasil Trial Design Prevents Safety Assessment," republished on LewRockwell.com.33
Carefully Weigh Risks and Benefits Before You Get Vaccinated
At the end of the day, even if Gardasil is responsible for lowering the rates of certain HPV-related cancers, the negatives, in my view, still outweigh that benefit.
No. 1, you become more prone to other HPVs, which can also cause cancer, and No. 2, you're playing Russian Roulette with your health both in the short and long term, as many experience serious side effects from the AAHS in the vaccine. I believe teen girls and women are far better off getting regular Pap smears and simply treating any infection found.
At least watch the first 30 seconds.
So why are they all coming out now and saying what we always knew? You have to learn to think like these nefarious clowns. Clowns, yes, evil corrupt clowns none the less. This is all a part of the WHO’s coming attempt to grab power. The WHO will say that they were never for masking, lockdowns, etc, and that they should be in control of the next ‘scamdemic’ response so we all have one uniform response, including vaccine passports tied into your digital identity and currency. That’s the end game. DO NOT COMPLY
Read These:
Please watch the 4 minute excerpt from the First Informal Focused Conference:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/wYPLS1CyZBH3/
So naturally, the WHO’s response is to IGNORE the failure of the “metrics” that they had been using to measure “preparedness.”
The process of pretending to negotiate an agreement to prevent the next pandemic is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to launder billions of dollars through the WHO in order to feed the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex.
This is the 56th article in this series.
Multilingual information regarding the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.
TEN THINGS EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT THE WHO'S PROPOSED "PANDEMIC TREATY"
Get the United States OUT of the United Nations and The World Health Organization A.S.A.P.
World Health Organization Virtual Press Conference on Global Health Issues
The People's Amendments to the International Health Regulations
A friendly, open and urgent letter to Professor Lawrence Oglethorpe Gostin...
The Proposed Amendments to The International Health Regulations
The WHO's Pandemic Treaty Just Broke Itself
by James Roguski
The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.
If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.
JamesRoguski.substack.com/about
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
310-619-3055
SPREAD THESE ARTICLES FAR AND WIDE
AND WATCH THE INTERVIEW BELOW:
Please listen to the ^^^ audio statement ^^^ by former member of Congress Michele Bachmann
Transcript:
My name is Michele Bachmann.
I’m a former member of the United States Congress, now serving as a Dean of a graduate school of government.
I oppose the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.
The article that reads: “the implementation of these regulations shall be” and crossed out, “
with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” are a complete red flag.This should be opposed by every person who is looking at this massive change in the international health rules.
Dignity is fundamental. Human rights are fundamental. Fundamental freedoms of persons is a bottom line, red line that all persons in the world need to have for protection.
Instead, this is focused on politics, as opposed to health. These are changes to health regulations but, the very specific agenda of equity, inclusivity, coherence - this is not defined and must be defined.
We know that these are political aspirations, as opposed to health aspirations.
The main concern is by striking out fundamental freedoms of persons, with full respect for the dignity and human rights, separates the individuality of all people on earth, and instead focuses on groups.
There is no such thing as group rights. There are individual rights.
In the United States of America, in particular, with the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States, the genius of these amendments in America is that rights are guaranteed to the individuals, individuals who are citizens, who can stand up for their rights.
The problem with these proposed amendments is the denial of individual human rights and amorphous, vague standards for group rights. Again, there is no such thing as group rights, because rights are either given or taken away from individuals, and it is individuals historically who have suffered.
If you look at the last one hundred years, the living laboratory of the advance of totalitarian regimes across the world, totalitarian regimes uniquely serve as denial of individual human rights, freedoms and dignity. Instead, it is group actions that are taken by totalitarian regimes, and it is groups that are opposed by totalitarian regimes who suffer the most.
I highly urge every individual to vehemently oppose the proposed rules and to understand what a massive overreach this would be by the World Health Organization, if these amendments are adopted.
Again, my name is Michele Bachmann, a former member of the United States Congress.
Thank you.
Russia's biometric nightmare
A rushed "security" bill paves the way for a privatized digital control grid
On Wednesday the State Duma adopted a bill that regulates the collection and storage of biometric data in Russia.
To prevent the misuse or mishandling of biometric data by private enterprises, the legislation requires all face scans and voice samples to be stored in a centralized Unified Biometric System (UBS).
A press release published by the State Duma claims the bill “protects” the biometric data of Russians and guarantees that the collection of such data is completely voluntary.
Sounds pretty good. What’s not to like? Well, for starters…
1. Russia’s Unified Biometric System will be controlled and operated by a commercial company
The bill is supposed to stop unscrupulous profiteering and abuse by corporations and businesses. The ingenious solution? Give the country’s biometric data to a commercial enterprise:
Read Full Story