Coerces, manipulates and forces its version of events - History has proven this to be a dangerous and draconian path leading to tyranny Under this one roof we offer some of the best alternative understanding discussion and interpretation.
Unlike YouTube - Twitter -FaceBook and other quislings, we do not censor truth - we expose it! We fight BS, propaganda and all manner of coercive manipulation. In that we are aided by some of the best and brightest critical minds on the planet.
When any source videos are taken down externally, we replace them with our own back ups or source them from a non draconian source feed.
WE REFUSE TO BE SILENCED!
12th April 2020 - Our drinking water has become contaminated with an enormous amount of dangerous chemicals and parasites. Recent evidence has suggested that there is no natural water source in the world that is free of micro plastics from clothing, cosmetic and other products. Bottled and spring water offer no guarantees of safety. Even bottled distilled water may contain chemicals from the bottle itself.
Heavy metals are one group of toxins in many water sources. These include lead from old infrastructure and arsenic, which may be naturally found but is more likely a product if industrial chemicals. Chromium VI can be very toxic, especially since it might replace the essential chromium III when you are deficient in trace minerals. These metals are removed by distillation or reverse osmosis filtration.
Agricultural runoff may contain herbicides, pesticides, and parasitic organisms from factory farms that invade the groundwater. Chlorine and fluoride additives from water treatment facilities are another problem. More recently, pharmaceuticals, such as Prozac and blood pressure medications, have been found ubiquitously in western countries.
6th April 2020 - After treating patients with COVID-19, a New York city physician suggests ventilator protocols may need revisiting
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
John Whyte, MD, MPH: Hello. I'm Dr John Whyte, chief medical officer at WebMD. Welcome to "Coronavirus in Context." Today we're going to talk about whether we're managing coronavirus correctly; do we need to think about a change in our treatment regiments?
My guest is Dr Cameron Kyle-Sidell. He's a physician trained in emergency medicine and critical care, and he practices at Maimonides in Brooklyn, New York. Welcome, Dr Sidell.
Cameron Kyle-Sidell, MD: Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me.
Whyte: You've been talking a lot about the number of patients, the percentage of patients dying on ventilators. When did you first notice this trend?
Kyle-Sidell: In preparation of opening what became a full COVID-positive intensive care unit, we scoured the data just to see what was out there—those who have experienced it before us, primarily the Chinese and the Italians; it was hard to find exactly, like the rate of what we call successful extubation—meaning, someone was put on a ventilator and taken off. And that data are still hard to find. I imagine there are a lot of people still on ventilators. But from the data we have available, it appears to be somewhere between 50% and 90%. Most published data puts it around 70%. So, that's a very, very high percentage in general, when one thinks of a medical disease.
Whyte: You've been talking on social media; you say you've seen things that you've never seen before. What are some of those things that you're seeing?
Kyle-Sidell: When I initially started treating patients, I was under the impression, as most people were, that I was going to be treating acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), similar in substance to AIDS, which I saw as a fellow. And as I start to treat these patients, I witnessed things that are just unusual. And I'm sure doctors around the country are experiencing this. In the past, we haven't seen patients who are talking in full sentences and not complaining of overt shortness of breath, with saturations in the high 70s. It's just not something we typically see when we're intubating some of these patients. That is to say, when we're putting a breathing tube in, they tend to drop their saturations very quickly; we see saturations going down to 20 to 30. Typically, one would expect some kind of reflexive response from the heart rate, which is to say that usually we see tachycardia, and if patients go too low, then we see bradycardia. These are things that we just weren't seeing. I've seen literally a saturation of zero on a monitor, which is not something we ever want and something we actively try to avoid. And yet we saw it, and many of my colleagues have similarly seen saturations of 10 and 20. We try to put breathing tubes in to avoid this very situation. Now, these patients tend to desaturate extremely quickly, so these situations have occurred. Still, what we're seeing—that there was no change in the heart rate—is just unusual. It's just something that we are not used to seeing.
Whyte: This is more like a high-altitude sickness. Is that right?
Kyle-Sidell: Yes. The patients in front of me are unlike any patients I've ever seen., and I've seen a great many patients and have treated many diseases. You get used to seeing certain patterns, and the patterns I was seeing did not make sense. This originally came to me when we had a patient who had hit what we call our trigger to put in a breathing tube, meaning she had displayed a level of hypoxia of low oxygen levels where we thought she would need a breathing tube. Most of the time, when patients hit that level of hypoxia, they're in distress and they can barely talk; they can't say complete sentences. She could do all of those and she did not want a breathing tube. So she asked that we put it in at the last minute possible. It was this perplexing clinical condition: When was I supposed to put the breathing tube in? When was the last minute possible? All the instincts as a physician—like looking to see if she tires out —none of those things occurred. It's extremely perplexing. But I came to realize that this condition is nothing I've ever seen before. And so I started to read to try to figure it out, leaving aside the exact mechanism of how this disease is causing havoc on the body, but instead trying to figure out what the clinical syndrome looked like.
Watch and read full interview here @ medscape.com
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg
14 April 2020
A young doctor in an intensive care unit (ICU) in New York made an important observation . He saw several patients who showed no typical symptoms of pneumonia, but were extremely short of breath and cyanotic (blue skin).
"They weren't Covid-19 patients, they looked like passengers on an airplane at high altitude that was losing pressure."
My warning is based on the following observations:
It is known that chloroquine and high intravenous doses of vitamin C affect erythrocyte function with a glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency ( G6PD deficiency / favism) damage. This is the most common enzyme defect worldwide. The defect is hereditary and the responsible genes are on the X chromosome. Since women have two X chromosomes, one of them might be fine. Therefore, this complication is less common in women.
Men have only one X chromosome and are therefore more at risk if this chromosome bears the defect. Most carriers of this genetic defect are found in countries where malaria is or has been endemic. Therefore, people with ancestors from such regions are at risk of lack of oxygen and dyspnea if they receive chloroquine derivatives or high doses of vitamin C intravenously. This effect is likely to be more common in countries with a higher prevalence of G6PD deficiency / favism and in regions with a large number of migrants from these countries.
I therefore ask the responsible authorities and bodies to clarify this problem immediately and, if necessary, to inform all medical facilities accordingly.
1st April 2020 -
a) COVID-19 - How do you infect so many old people in nursing homes? - PCR test chaos
Dr. Drosten is quoted in the press as saying that the death rate in Germany is significantly lower than in Italy because the average age of the sick in Germany is lower.
One can ask how it was possible in Italy, and obviously also in Germany, to infect old and to a large extent bedridden nursing cases to this extent? Doesn't that speak for a high infection rate of the population with what the test measures?
By contrast, the average age of the deceased is almost identical, according to Dr. Wieler from RKI 81 years , as of March 25, in Germany and according to figures from Italy there for 78.5 years , as of March 20. (France 81.2 years , Booth 24.3 . ).
ECDC, “ Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: increased transmission in the EU / EEA and the UK –eventh update ”, 25 March 2020 , https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ documents / RRA-seventh-update-outbreak-of-coronavirus-disease-COVID-19.pdf
The high multimorbidity of the deceased in Italy is also addressed in the report, I had already referred to it based on Italian data . (See graphic on the Italy page)
It should be remembered that Dr. Wieler RKI on March 20th confirmed in a press conference that every (!) deceased with positive SARS-CoV2 evidence counts as COVID-19 death, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI5SnAirYLw&feature=youtu.be&t=985 [from 16 : 25 min]
"We consider a corona death to be someone who has been diagnosed with a coronavirus infection."
Given the multimodidity reported from Italy, this is a very dubious approach, unless the 80-year-olds in Germany were significantly healthier than in Italy. Nothing speaks for that at the moment. On the other hand, there is much to be said for poor and questionable statistics on the part of the RKI. It seems rather unusual for the population to make science aware of scientific standards.
What is this strange new virus that mostly affects old people in its dangerousness? And why is the risk that an old person so dies in Germany significantly lower than Italy or Spain?
In some countries, the curves currently deviate from the seasonal normal case . At the same time, there are indications from the affected regions - there are not all - of incorrect instructions for very old people and their intensive medical over-treatment by means of mechanical ventilation or with risky medication.
Outpatient care and treatment in connection with anxiety, which is severely hampered by the lockdown, is also leading to increased risky emergency rooms for elderly people in clinics.
b) The PCR tests [ nucleic acid tests ] and that of Dr. Drosten Diagnostics, which has been praised several times, should be referred to the following 2 sources, both of which show how faulty a detection of SARS-CoV2 with the PCR method is, cf.
Emily Feng, " Mystery In Wuhan: Recovered Coronavirus Patients Test Negative ... Then Positive ", NPR, March 27, 2020 , https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/27/822407626/mystery -in-wuhan-recovered-coronavirus-patients-test-negative-then-positive
"In February, Wang Chen, a director at the state-run Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, estimated that the nucleic acid tests used in China were accurate at identifying positive cases of the coronavirus only 30% -50% of the time ."
We assume that it was in the Drosten / WHO test, also because there was no other test at this time. In a publication dated January 23, 2020, in which Dr. Drosten is the co-author, the Chinese Academy of Medical Science is thanked for the genetic data made available, cf.
Corman et al., " Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR .", Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan; 25 (3), 23.1.2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31992387
The 2nd source for the faulty PCR test is
Li et al., " Stability Issues of RT-PCR Testing of SARS-CoV-2 for Hospitalized Patients Clinically Diagnosed with COVID-19 .", J Med Virol. 2020 Mar 26.doi: 10.1002 / jmv.25786, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32219885
“In the first test for all patients, 168 cases were positive (27.5%), one was weakly positive (0.2%), 57 were dubious positive (9.3%), and 384 were negative (63.0%) (Figure 1A, Table 1 ). Among the 384 patients with initial negative results, the second test was performed. For these patients, the test results were positive in 48 cases (12.5%), dubiously positive in 27 patients (7.0%) , negative in 280 patients (72.9%), and results were not available for 29 patients (7.6%). ”
“In the patients confirmed as COVID-19, 17 patients have positive RT-PCR results for pharyngeal swab specimens at first, and their PCR results turned to be negative after treatment for several days. However, again several days later when the patient's symptoms improved, their PCR results returned to be positive . (Figure 1D, Table 4). Among them, one patient's RT-PCR result turned positive after two consecutive negative tests (Figure 1D, Table 4). ”
Tables 3 and 4 of this work show a colorful sequence of negative, positive and undetermined test results. It remains completely open how one can speak of evidence based on these results.
A PCR test alone is usually not enough and the test appears to be far less sensitive and specific than by Dr. Drosten and propagated by the RKI. In view of the high prevalence of coronaviruses in humans and the high diversity of these viruses, further questions need to be asked as to what this test measures.
Dr Wodarg's website - Articles translated into English
The corona hype is not based on any extraordinary public health danger. However, it causes considerable damage to our freedom and personal rights through frivolous and unjustified quarantine measures and restrictions. The images in the media are frightening and the traffic in China's cities seems to be regulated by the clinical thermometer.
The carnival in Venice was cancelled after an elderly dying hospital patient was tested positive. When a handful of people in Northern Italy also were tested positive, Austria immediately closed the Brenner Pass temporarily.
Due to a suspected case of coronavirus, more than 1000 people were not allowed to leave their hotel in Tenerife. On the cruise ship Diamond Princess 3700 passengers could not disembark, congresses and touristic events are cancelled and economies suffer.
At the beginning of February, 126 people from Wuhan were brought to Germany by plane and remained there in quarantine two weeks in übeperfect health. Corona viruses were detected in two of the healthy individuals.
There have been several similar horror scenarios in the last two decades. But the WHO's "swine flu pandemic" was in fact one of the mildest flu waves in history and it is not only migratory birds that are still waiting for "bird flu". Many institutions that are now again alerting us to the need for caution have let us down and failed us on several occasions. Far too often, they are institutionally corrupted by secondary interests from business and/or politics.
If we do not want to chase frivolous panic messages, but rather to responsibly assess the risk of a spreading infection, we must use solid epidemiological methodology. This includes looking at the "normal", the baseline, before you can speak of anything exceptional.
Until now, hardly anyone has paid attention to corona viruses. For example, in the reports on ARI of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), they are only marginally mentioned because there was SARS in China in 2002 and because since 2012 some transmissions from dromedaries to humans have been observed in Arabia (MERS). There is nothing about a regularly recurring presence of corona viruses in dogs, cats, pigs, mice, bats and in humans, even in Germany.
However, children's hospitals are usually well aware, that a considerable proportion of the often severe viral pneumonia is also regularly caused or accompanied by corona viruses worldwide.
In view of the well-known fact that in every "flu wave" 7-15% of acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) are coming along with coronaviruses, the case numbers that are now continuously added up are still completely within the normal range.
About one per thousand infected are expected to die during flu seasons. By selective application of PCR-tests - for example, only in clinics and medical outpatient clinics - this rate can easily be pushed up to frightening levels, because those, who need help there are usually worse off than those, who are recovering at home. The role of such s selection bias seems to be neglected in China and elsewhere.
Since the turn of the year, the focus of the public, of science and of health authorities has suddenly narrowed to some kind of blindness. Some doctors in Wuhan (12 million inhabitants) succeeded in attracting worldwide attention with initially less than 50 cases and some deaths in their clinic, in which they had identified corona viruses as the pathogen.
The colourful maps that are now being shown to us on paper or screens are impressive, but they usually have less to do with disease than with the activity of skilled virologists and crowds of sensationalist reporters.
We are currently not measuring the incidence of coronavirus diseases, but the activity of the specialists searching for them.
Wherever such the new tests are carried out - there about 9000 tests per week available in 38 laboratories throughout Europe on 13 February 2020 – there are at least single cases detected and every case becomes a self-sustaining media event. The fact alone that the discovery of a coronavirus infection is accompanied by a particularly intensive search in its vicinity explains many regional clustersi.
The horror reports from Wuhan were something, that virologists all over the world are waiting for. Immediately, the virus strains present in the refrigerators were scanned and compared feverishly with the reported newcomers from Wuhan. A laboratory at the Charité won the race at the WHO and was the first to be allowed to market its in-house tests worldwide. Prof C. Drosten was interviewed on 23rd of January 2020 and described how the Test was established. He said, that he cooperated with a Partner from China, who confirmed the specific sensitivity of the Charitè-Test for the Wuhan coronavirus. Other Tests from different Places followed soon and found their market.
However, it is better not to be tested for corona viruses. Even with a slight "flu-like" infection the risk of coronavirus detection would be 7% - 15% . This is, what a prospective monitoring in Scotland (from 2005 to 2013) may teach us. The scope, the possible hits and the significance of the new tests are not jet validated. It would be intersting to have soe tests not only on airports and cruising ships but on german or italian cats, mice or even bats.
If you find some new virus RNA in a Thai cave ore a Wuhan hospital, it takes a long time to map its prevalence in different hosts worldwide
But if you want to give evidence to a spreading pandemic by using PCR-Tests only, this is what should have been done after a prospective cross sectional protocoll.
So beware of side effects. Nowadays positive PCR tests have tremendous consequences for the everyday life of the patient and his wider environment, as can be seen in all media without effort.
However, the finding itself has no clinical significance. It is just another name for acute respiratory illnesses (ARI), which as every year put 30% to 70% of all people in our countries more or less out of action for a week or two every winter.
According to a prospective ARI-virus monitoring in Scotland from 2005 to 2013, the most common pathogens of acute respiratory diseases were: 1. rhinoviruses, 2. influenza A viruses, 3. influenza B viruses, 4. RS viruses and 5. coronaviruses.
This order changed slightly from year to year. Even with viruses competing for our mucous membrane cells, there is apparently a changing quorum, as we know it from our intestines in the case of microorganisms and from the Bundestag in the case of political groups.
So if there is now to be an increasing number of "proven" coronavirus infections. in China or in Italy: Can anyone say how often such examinations were carried out in previous winters, by whom, for what reason and with which results? When someone claims that something is increasing, he must surely refer to something, that has been observed before.
It can be stunning, when an experienced disease control officer looks at the current turmoil, the panic and the suffering it causes. I'm sure many of those responsible public health officers would probably risk their jobs today, as they did with the "swine flu" back then, if they would follow their experience and oppose the mainstream.
Every winter we have a virus epidemic with thousands of deaths and with millions of infected people even in Germany. And coronaviruses always have their share.
So if the Federal Government wants to do something good, it could learn from epidemiologists in Glasgow and have all clever minds at the RKI observe prospectively (!!!) and watch how the virom of the German population changes from year to year.
21st April 2020
Unfortunately, it seems that COVID-19 has infected everyone involved in healthcare management and turned their brains into useless mush.
Lockdown has two main purposes. One, to limit the spread of the virus. Two, and most important, to protect the elderly and infirm from infection – as these are the people most likely to become very ill, end up in hospital, and often die. [In my view, if we had any sense, we would lockdown/protect the elderly, and let everyone else get on with their lives].
However, the hospitals themselves have another policy. Which is to discharge the elderly unwell patients with COVID directly back into the community, and care homes. Where they can spread the virus widely amongst the most vulnerable.
This, believe it or not, is NHS policy. Still.
Yes, you did just read that. COVID-19 patients, even those with symptoms, are still to be discharged back home, or into care homes – unless unwell enough to require hospital care e.g. oxygen, fluids and suchlike. If this is not national policy, then the managers are telling me lies.
In fact, it does seem to be policy, although the guidance from the UK Government is virtually incomprehensible1. I have read it a few times and I fail to fully understand it – or partially understand it. I tried reading it upside down, and it made just about as much sense.
I wrote about this situation in my last blog, as the impact of COVID of care homes was becoming apparent – even to politicians. I thought that someone, somewhere, might have realised the policy of flinging COVID positive patients – or patients who may have COVID – out of hospital, and into care homes, might prove a complete and utter disaster.
I now call care homes COVID incubators. Places where the disease can grow and multiply, happily finding new host after new host. Not so happily for the residents.
Equally, sending people home is further complete madness. Sending them home to somewhere that, very often, contains another elderly and frail person. Normally a husband or a wife. Did anyone think through the consequences of this? Clearly not. Do you think the other person in the house may be at risk? Really, you think. Surely not, knock me down with a feather…
If there is not another elderly partner in the house, there will usually be carers who come in to look after the freshly discharged COVID positive patients. These carers will have almost no protective equipment. Even if they do, they will be lifting and moving the patient around, washing them, taking them to the toilet… in very close proximity. The chances of getting infected are very, very, high.
These carers will then go and visit other elderly, vulnerable patients scattered around the community. They become the perfect vectors to spread the virus far and wide, amongst the exact group of people that we are trying to protect.
I have been doing a lot of jumping up and down about this over the last few days. The hospital trusts appear incapable of understanding the argument. ‘Clear the hospital, clear the hospital’… are the only words they seem capable of uttering.
The hospitals, I point out repeatedly, have been cleared. Wards are standing empty, corridors echoing. The first peak has also been passed – even if no-one dares admit it. So why are we continuing to fling COVID positive patients out into the community? Why? Why? Why?
‘Because it is national policy’. Squawk. ‘Because it is national policy’. Squawk. ‘Pieces of eight, pieces of eight.’
The entire nation has been locked down. Do not travel, stay two meters apart, do not go outside blah, blah. Meanwhile we have the perfect anti-lockdown policy in place for the very people we are mostly supposed to be protecting. There are two parallel universes here.
If you wanted to create a system most perfectly designed to spread COVID amongst the vulnerable elderly population, you may well have come up with the current one. Infect people with COVID in hospital, and then scatter them into care homes and the rest of the community. Making sure that you infect all the carers on the way.
As Albert Einstein said. ‘Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity… and I’m not so sure about the universe.’
Thud… the noise of my head hitting the desk in utter frustration.
Dr John Ioannidis in StatsNews
17th March 2020
The current coronavirus disease, Covid-19, has been called a once-in-a-century pandemic. But it may also be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco.
The current coronavirus disease, Covid-19, has been called a once-in-a-century pandemic. But it may also be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco.
At a time when everyone needs better information, from disease modelers and governments to people quarantined or just social distancing, we lack reliable evidence on how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who continue to become infected. Better information is needed to guide decisions and actions of monumental significance and to monitor their impact.
Draconian countermeasures have been adopted in many countries. If the pandemic dissipates — either on its own or because of these measures — short-term extreme social distancing and lockdowns may be bearable. How long, though, should measures like these be continued if the pandemic churns across the globe unabated? How can policymakers tell if they are doing more good than harm?
Vaccines or affordable treatments take many months (or even years) to develop and test properly. Given such timelines, the consequences of long-term lockdowns are entirely unknown.
Related: We know enough now to act decisively against Covid-19. Social distancing is a good place to start
The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300. Three months after the outbreak emerged, most countries, including the U.S., lack the ability to test a large number of people and no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random sample of the general population.
This evidence fiasco creates tremendous uncertainty about the risk of dying from Covid-19. Reported case fatality rates, like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless. Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.
The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.
Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%). It is also possible that some of the passengers who were infected might die later, and that tourists may have different frequencies of chronic diseases — a risk factor for worse outcomes with SARS-CoV-2 infection — than the general population. Adding these extra sources of uncertainty, reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general U.S. population vary from 0.05% to 1%.
STAT Reports: STAT’s guide to interpreting clinical trial results
That huge range markedly affects how severe the pandemic is and what should be done. A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.
Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes. In fact, such “mild” coronaviruses infect tens of millions of people every year, and account for 3% to 11% of those hospitalized in the U.S. with lower respiratory infections each winter.
These “mild” coronaviruses may be implicated in several thousands of deaths every year worldwide, though the vast majority of them are not documented with precise testing. Instead, they are lost as noise among 60 million deaths from various causes every year.
Although successful surveillance systems have long existed for influenza, the disease is confirmed by a laboratory in a tiny minority of cases. In the U.S., for example, so far this season 1,073,976 specimens have been tested and 222,552 (20.7%) have tested positive for influenza. In the same period, the estimated number of influenza-like illnesses is between 36,000,000 and 51,000,000, with an estimated 22,000 to 55,000 flu deaths.
Note the uncertainty about influenza-like illness deaths: a 2.5-fold range, corresponding to tens of thousands of deaths. Every year, some of these deaths are due to influenza and some to other viruses, like common-cold coronaviruses.
In an autopsy series that tested for respiratory viruses in specimens from 57 elderly persons who died during the 2016 to 2017 influenza season, influenza viruses were detected in 18% of the specimens, while any kind of respiratory virus was found in 47%. In some people who die from viral respiratory pathogens, more than one virus is found upon autopsy and bacteria are often superimposed. A positive test for coronavirus does not mean necessarily that this virus is always primarily responsible for a patient’s demise..... read full article here
Reflect On:What is the role of the Awakening Community in honoring and protecting courageous whistleblowers who risk their lives and careers to stand in their truth?
If you have been following stories in recent years of scientists and researchers who make discoveries that are threatening to the bottom line of Big Pharma, you will have seen the pattern before. Those doctors are often ‘persuaded’ to recant their studies, offered bribes or other benefits to distance themselves from or even destroy their data, and even threatened with jail time or, if a legal case is too difficult to fabricate against them, they may simply be killed.
Such is the tale of molecular biologist Judy A. Mikovits, PhD, in the disturbing true story first detailed in this Natural News article that included the video below of how she was thrown in prison for research that led to the discovery that deadly retroviruses have been transmitted to twenty-five million Americans through human vaccines.
Isolating The Virus
With a well-established history of working for the National Cancer Institute as a cancer researcher, Dr. Mikovits worked with human retroviruses like HIV. Her work focused on immunotherapy research. In 2009, she was working on autism and related neurological diseases. She found that many of the study subjects had cancer, motor-neuron disorders and chronic fatigue Syndrome (CFS). She believed a virus may have been responsible for these symptoms, and through her research, she isolated the viruses that turned out to come from mice.
It looked like a virus, it smelled like a virus, a retrovirus, because those are the types of viruses that disrupt the immune system. And several other investigators back in the 90s had actually isolated retroviruses from these people but the government called them ‘contaminants,’ that they weren’t real and that they didn’t have anything to do with the disease. Well, we isolated a new family of viruses that were called xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus. So these viruses were murine leukemia viruses, mouse viruses.
So spin forward two years, our paper published in one of the best scientific journals in the world in Science, October 8th, 2009. Usually that makes one’s career, in my case it ended my life as a scientist as I knew it.
Virus Delivered Through Vaccines
Dr. Mikovits’ paper, in and of itself, did not immediately bring the wrath of the powerful pharmaceutical industry. However, when a paper published 2 years later made the connection between this new virus and vaccines, then Mikovits’ research findings became too dangerous for the Deep State. Here is how Mikovits explains it in the video:
So in 2011, another AIDS researcher in a journal called Frontiers in Microbiology wrote a paper that really cost me a lot; I didn’t know that he was going to write this paper, but it basically said the most likely way that these murine leukemia virus-related viruses, these types of viruses, entered humans, was through vaccines.
So when did we start vaccines? 1953, 1934, right in the 30s with the polio, and what we were doing to attenuate, to make the virus less pathogenic, less toxic, is we were passing them through mouse brains, so we were passing them through the brains of mice, and every scientist who works with these viruses, and worked at the National Cancer Institute recognized the possibility that if you put human tissue and mouse tissue together the possibility is that you’re going to pick up a virus that is silent, in the mouse, that is it doesn’t hurt the mouse, but it kills the human, or causes serious disease in the human.
Someone Comes Knocking?
It was not long after the implications from the paper became clear and the Deep State saw the threat that was being posed to the vaccine industry that their powerful mechanisms of cover-up, obfuscation, and deception were activated: .... read full article here
Jonathan L Trapman is an author, creative writer and photojournalist who has spent the better part of his 45 odd years in public life, learning from his personal experiences, sharing them, listening to others, whose lives have allowed him to open his own mind to a beauty, even within horror, that is transforming and empowering. His written work endeavors to convey, through true tales and fiction, impressions thus garnered. Dreams and Realities can be purchased (signed by the author if wanted) here.