Turning their backs on the human rights principle of voluntary informed consent memorialized in the Nuremberg Code after World War II, health authorities in France and Italy are fast-tracking involuntary vaccine mandates for school-age children. In Italy, millions of Italians have been demonstrating since June, protesting the infringements to parental rights. On July 28, industry-beholden Italian legislators voted 296-92 to pass a one-size-fits-all law that mandates multiple doses of ten vaccines for preschoolers through teenagers, imposing steep fines for parents who do not comply. Mainstream media outlets in both Italy and the US ignored the record protests against medical coercion.
Why Italy? And why now? Italy’s pharmaceutical sector is one of the largest in the world. Vaccines are big business, and the new vaccine mandate ensures the continued flow of profits to the $32 billion industry despite steady erosion of public confidence in vaccine safety. A recent survey found widespread doubts among Italian and French citizens about the importance and safety of vaccines. A cascade of recent scientific studies have described the emergence of new vaccine-related autoimmune illnesses and the inferior health status of vaccinated compared to unvaccinated children. Furthermore, a slate of films, news reports and government investigations have exposed widespread corruption among vaccine regulators, government efforts to hide serious vaccine-related adverse reactions and intimidation of scientists who publish data contrary to the orthodoxy that all vaccines are always safe for all children.
Kill the Messenger
One important study, published in early 2017 in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccinationby two highly regarded Italian scientists, raises alarming new questions about quality control by vaccine manufacturers with implications for the vaccine safety debate. (The World Mercury Project previously summarized the study here.) Coauthored by physicist Antonietta Gatti and pharmacist Stefano Montanari, the study uncovered the nearly universal presence in vaccines of “micro-, sub-micro- and nanosized inorganic foreign bodies” and “debris”—ingredients not declared in the package inserts.
In a reasonable world, the startling finding that vaccines are widely contaminated with heavy metal particulates would be front-page news, and the two researchers who discovered the contamination would be hailed as diligent scientists dedicated to improving vaccine safety. Instead, Drs. Gatti and Montanari have become targets for violent threats on Facebook. Accusers denounce their meticulous laboratory work as “pseudoscience” and call for the two scientists to be “beaten until they bleed,” “punched,” “kicked” and “taken out of commission” so as to make them “understand that they need to remain silent.”
An army of pharmaceutical industry trolls and bloggers have pressured the badly shaken journal editor to “unpublish” the study, which was published after a rigorous peer review process. Although these tactics have succeeded in rattling the editor, the article stands. Gatti and Montanari believe so strongly in the integrity of their findings that they have made known that they will sue if the journal takes down the paper.
Despite the passion of their attacks, industry bloggers have been hard pressed to find substantive fault with Gatti/Montanari’s methodologies. An industry flack, Guido Silvestri, working at a vaccine center in Atlanta, took a bungling shot at the Gatti-Montanari study on Italian Facebook by misapplying a nineteenth-century law of chemistry called Avogadro’s number. Silvestri misinterpreted Avogadro’s law, which applies only to gases and cannot calculate nanoparticle concentrations. According to Drs. Gatti and Montanari, the medical doctor “erred by 13 orders of magnitude but did not even understand his own mistake.”
Why the Vaccine Contaminant Study is Important
Gatti and Montanari work in the emerging fields of nanopathology and nanotoxicology. The two researchers coined the term “nanopathology” in the early 2000s after finding that nanoparticles (particles less than 100 nanometers in size) “induce far more severe [health] effects” than larger particles. As they explain, the minute size makes it “extremely easy” for the particles to infiltrate the body’s tissues.
Drs. Gatti and Montanari used cutting-edge electron microscope technology to physically examine inorganic, particulate contaminants in vaccines and identify their chemical composition. They assessed 44 vaccines manufactured in Italy and France (43 human vaccines and one veterinary vaccine), taking pains to include different types, batches and years of production. In every human vaccine, Gatti and Montanari found wide-ranging contamination, including minute particles of lead or stainless steel in all of the vaccine samples analyzed; chromium in over half (25/44); tungsten in almost a fifth (8/44); and many other varieties of metallic particles.
Ironically, the single veterinary vaccine tested as “clean,” proving that it is possible to manufacture a debris-free vaccine. Gatti and Montanari believe that the pristine hog vaccine is a homage to ham, a sacred culinary and agricultural product in Italy. Hog farmers, aware that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines harm their meat, had enough clout to successfully lobby for uncontaminated veterinary vaccines.
One of the study’s most sobering findings was the detection of “organic-inorganic composites” that represent a “nano-bio-interaction” between the inorganic particulate matter and the organic (protein) vaccine components. Gatti and Montanari believe that the immune system is permanently damaged by these composite particles, which constitute “a bigger-sized compound that is not biodegradable and can induce adverse effects,” including both immediate and deferred autoimmune problems.
The Questions We Should Be Asking
Dr. Gatti has considered several hypotheses about the origins of the vaccine contamination, including shoddy line protocols in the manufacturing process. According to Gatti, “The facilities need to be really clean to ensure that dust and pollutants do not find their way into the vaccines. If the labs do not have proper filtration, then this kind of contamination is very possible. And unfortunately, there are no regulations requiring manufacturers to do this kind of quality control, even though the manufacturers know that there is something wrong.” In short, the manufacturers “see no need to spend more money on quality control.”
Gatti and Montanari see an urgent need for more studies of the association between the debris and vaccine-related adverse events. “We still don’t know whether the kinds of adverse events that result from vaccines are the result of the aluminum adjuvants or the nano-bio interactions or something else. That is why it is so important to study the effects of the nano-bio materials inside the blood and body.”
Exposure via injection is known to induce toxicity reactions as compared to inhalation or ingestion. A study in mice found that exposure route was a crucial factor influencing toxicity and that orally administered compounds exhibited a “decrease of toxicity…as compared with injection route.” Scientists agree that “engineered metal-based nanoparticles can translocate to tissues,” and, in Gatti’s and Montanari’s view, when they enter the body via injection, “they stay there forever.”
Another point is that the barrage of toxic adjuvants and ingredients in vaccines (including aluminum and thimerosal, formaldehyde, antibiotics and “adjuvant systems” involving squalene and polysorbate 80) “have a synergistic action, thus…enhancing their aggressive potential.” Toxicologists know that, with toxins, one plus one rarely equals two but, in Dr. Gatti’s words, “always a higher number.”
Finally, Dr. Gatti observes that “the contaminants might not be homogenously distributed within a given batch of vaccines. For example, the bottom of the batch might be more contaminated than the top, which could explain why some people don’t have reactions and other people do.”
Drs. Gatti and Montanari outline a number of research topics that should form the basis of serious efforts to improve vaccine safety:
- Meaningfully study the adverse health effects of aluminum adjuvants
- Analyze the brains of infants who die immediately following vaccination
- Continue to monitor micro- and nanoparticle contamination in new and existing vaccines
- Conduct animal model studies to assess the effects of micro- and nanoparticle contamination
- Assess the injection process itself, given the use of metallic syringes polished with tungsten carbide that may leave some metallic residue
Follow the Money
Unfortunately, in Italy, as in the United States, serious studies of vaccine safety face practically insurmountable headwinds. Italy’s Minister of Health, Beatrice Lorenzin, has explicitly “forbidden” any research on nanoparticles in vaccines. Lorenzin aggressively pushed passage of the law mandating children’s vaccines. Lorenzin, a former journalist, has no formal education beyond ordinary high school. Gatti and Montanari point out that she has “no knowledge of chemistry or biology.” They add, “If you mention the nanoparticle research to her, she gets mad.” According to the two researchers, Lorenzin “does not understand science, but she understands money” and relies for guidance on Dr. Ranieri Guerra, the Ministry of Health’s Director General for Prevention. Guerra served on the board of Italy’s Smith Kline Foundation. The Smith Kline Foundation receives financial support from founding partner GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Consumer advocacy organizations and legislators in Italy have harshly criticized Guerra for conflicts of interest.
A year before the passage of the new vaccine mandate, an April 2016 news report indicated that GSK-Italy was “doubling down” on its vaccine portfolio and “betting 1 billion euros on Italy.” The drug company is beefing up a vaccine research and development hub in Siena and a vaccine manufacturing plant in Rosia. The article quoted the global president of GSK Vaccines, who characterized GSK’s vaccine branch as a “motor of innovation” and guarantor of the company’s long-term sustainability. The same GSK executive described Italy’s pivotal role as a vaccine research and production hub as “a not insignificant step” toward further “progress” in the vaccine marketplace.
Italian officials have historically been important supporters of aggressive vaccine policies. In 2009–2010, the Italian government (via the taxpayers) purchased 24 million bird flu vaccines that were never used. The unused vaccines were thrown away but, says Dr. Montanari, “the companies made a lot of money.” Referring to this situation as a “flop,” the Italian newspaper La Repubblica reported that the country was left holding the bag for the cost of the unused vaccines while the apparent “pandemic” evaporated into thin air.
Dr. Montanari views the new vaccine law as both a social and medical experiment: “The government and the pharmaceutical industry want to see what happens when 60 million people are forced to be vaccinated.”
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
Research Reveals How Sugar CAUSES Cancer
- The Facts:
This article was written by Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo.com where it first originally appeared. Posted here with permission.
- Reflect On:
The average American consumes their body weight annually in this cancer-causing substance, and yet hospitals freely feed it to their cancer patients, seemingly oblivious to the harm it does.
Hospitals feed cancer patients sugar and high carbohydrate diets for a simple reason: they are abysmally ignorant of the role of nutrition in health and disease — hence their burgeoning growth, packed rooms, and ‘return customers.’
Even though the science itself shows – at least since the mid-20’s with Otto Warburg’s cancer hypothesis — that tumors prefer to utilize sugar fermentation to produce energy rather than the much more efficient oxygen-based phosphorylation* – hospitals have actually invited corporations like McDonald’s to move into their facilities to ‘enhance’ their patient’s gustatory experience, presumably to provide comfort and take the edge off of the painful surgery, radiation and chemo treatments erroneously proffered to them as the only reasonable ‘standard of care.’
But the times are changing, with new research requiring these medical institutions to reform their dietary strategies, at least if they wish to claim that their interventions are in fact ‘evidence-based,’ as they so often claim.
Study Reveals Sugar Doesn’t Just Feed But Causes Cancer
A groundbreaking study, uncovered by one of our volunteer researchers at Greenmedinfo, is the first of its kind to identify sugar, not only as fuel source for an already existing cancer, but as a primary driver in oncogenesis – i.e. the initiation of cancerous characteristics (phenotype) within previously healthy cells.
Published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation and titled, Increased sugar uptake promotes oncogenesis via EPAC/RAP1 and O-GlcNAc pathways, researchers addressed a common perception (or misperception) in the cancer research community regarding sugar’s relationship to cancer: namely, “increased glycolysis [sugar based metabolism] is frequently viewed as a consequence of oncogenic events that drive malignant cell growth and survival.”
Contrary to this conventional view, the new study “provide[s] evidence that increased glycolytic activation itself can be an oncogenic event.” That is to say, the activation of sugar-based metabolism in a cell – driven by both the presence of increased quantities of glucose and the increase glucose receptors on the cell membrane surface (i.e. “overexpression of a glucose transporter”) – drives cancer initiation.
Moreover, the study found that “Conversely, forced reduction of glucose uptake by breast cancer cells led to phenotypic reversion.” In other words, interfering with sugar availability and uptake to the cell causes the cancer cell to REGRESS towards its pre-cancer structure-function (phenotype).
What Are The Implications of This Research to the Diet?
What this new research indicates is that sugar – of which Americans consume an astounding 160 lbs annually (imagine: 31 five-pound bags for each of us!) – is one of the primary causes of metabolic cell changes in the body consistent with the initiation and promotion of cancer. And, the research indicates that removing it from the diet, and depriving the cells of it, could REVERSE cancer. Why is this so surprising? It’s because Americans have been lead like lambs to the slaughter to think of “prevention” as “early detection,” focusing not on identifying and removing the well known nutritional and environmental causes of cancer, rather, to spend their time, energy, and money on cause-marketing campaigns focused on “finding a cure” — as if one didn’t already exist right in front of our noses, or more aptly, on the end of our forks.
Hidden Sugar, Crouching Cancer
It has been estimated by the USDA that the average American consumes 200 lbs of grain products annually. Why is this relevant to the question of sugar in the diet? Because refined carbohydrate products – e.g. crackers, bread, pasta, cereal – are actually ‘hidden’ forms of sugar. In fact, puffed rice causes your blood to become sweeter (and presumably feeds more cancer cells sugar) than white sugar, as it is higher on the glycemic index. Adding the two figures together – annual per capita consumption of sugar and grain-based products – we get a jaw dropping 360 lbs of sugar (both overt (table sugar/high fructose corn syrup) and covert (grain carbs) annually – all of which may contribute to promoting the ideal metabolic situation of cancer cells: aerobic glycolysis.
This is one reason why the ketogenic diet – that is, a fat- and protein-focused diet devoid of carbohydrate, both in simple (sugar) and complex (grain product) form – has been found so useful in the most aggressive of cancers: including brain cancer. Once you ‘pull the rug out’ from under the sugar/carb-craving cancer cells, they are forced to either undergo programmed cell death (apoptosis) or re-differentiate back into non-cancerous phenotypes.
If It’s So Bad For Us, Why Do We Eat So Much?
One of the primary reasons why we eat sugar and carbohydrate rich diets is because they are addictive. Within minutes of consuming sugar/carbs our body goes through a neuroendocrine roller coaster. Your brain can not survive very long without glucose, the fundamental energy unit of the cell, and will ‘freak out’ if deprived of a steady stream of this ‘nutrient’ within only 2-3 minutes. The endocrine system, on the other hand, perceives the danger of high sugar – namely, glycation associated damage to protein and lipid structures within the cells of our body; think: blood caramelizing, getting sticky, and gumming up the finely tuned works – and will release hormones such as insulin, adrenaline and cortisol, in order to try to get the elevated sugar in the blood and tissues under control. Insulin forces the sugar into storage within the cell, both as glycogen and as fat, but often does its job too well, causing available glucose levels in the brain to be depleted – setting off a vicious cycle of ’emergency signals’ telling the body to release more cortisol and adrenaline to increase the levels of glucose in the blood. This, of course, will result in additional insulin production and release, causing the same cycle to be repeated over and over again.
This seemingly endless vicious cycle is responsible for the insatiable cravings a high carb/sugar diet generates – not to mention the fructose-based hedonic effects generated in the brain that modulate both opioid and dopamine receptors in the nervous system (not unlike alcohol), and the pharmacologically active peptides in many gluten-containing grains, which also drive addictive behaviors and an almost psychotic fixation on getting carbs at each meal.
No wonder we have an epidemic of cancer in a world where the Westernized diet prevails. Certainly, we do not mean to indicate that a sugar/carb-rich diet is the only cause of cancer. There are many other factors that contribute to cancer initiation and promotion, such as:
- Chemical exposure
- Radiation exposure
- Chronic stress that suppresses the immune system
- Vaccines containing hidden retroviruses and cancer causing viruses
- Natural infection with bacteria and viruses that are cancer causing
- Lack of sleep
- Insufficient nutrients (lack of methyl donors such as B12, folate, and B6 will prevent the body from ‘turning off’ (methylating) cancer-promoting genes
Even though cancer is a complex, multi-factorial phenomena, with variables we can not always control, one thing we can do is control what goes into our mouth. Sugar, for instance, does not belong there if we truly want to prevent and/or treat cancer. And don’t forget, carbohydrates that don’t taste sweet on the front end – bread, crackers, cereal – certainly convert to sugar in the body within minutes post-consumption.
In a nutshell, if you are concerned about cancer, have cancer, or would like to prevent recurrence, removing sugar and excess carbohydrates is a must. Not only is it common sense, but it is now validated by experimental research.
Note: another recent study found that Candida albicans (yeast) also contributes to cancer initiation and promotion. C. albicans thrives on sugar, lending additional support to the notion that sugar (consumed excessively) may be a primary driver of the cancer epidemic in those consuming the modern Western diet. For information on sugar alternatives that are not synthetic toxicants like Splenda (sucralose), read my latest article on the topic: 4 Sugar Alternatives That Won’t Poison You.
*Note: Cancer cells prefer to ferment sugar as a form of energy even when there is sufficient oxygen available to the cells to do so; hence Warburg’s description of cancer metabolism as ‘aerobic glycolysis’ or the so-called ‘Warburg effect’
Originally published: 2017-12-04
Article udpated: 2019-07-19
Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here.
Link to the original article
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
Acetaminophen—Not Worth the Risk
Acetaminophen has been around for over a century and is the most widely used drug compound in the world. In the U.S., acetaminophen (also called paracetamol or APAP) is present as an active ingredient in over 600 prescription and over-the-counter medications marketed to relieve pain or reduce fever, including Tylenol. Every week, nearly one in four Americans takes an acetaminophen-containing medication, and pediatricians routinely recommend acetaminophen as the treatment of choice for fever in children.
Despite its ubiquity, acetaminophen also has many critics. These argue that the drug’s path to prominence has been littered with errors, false assumptions and undue complacency about risks. Documented problems include life-threatening liver damage in individuals who consume acetaminophen in “excess amounts”—something that is all too easy to do, given the drug’s different aliases and the sheer number of products in which it is present—as well as cardiovascular disease and renal injury risks associated with long-term use. In the critics’ view, these and other problems make acetaminophen “one of the most dangerous compounds in medical use.”
In the U.S., roughly 500 deaths are attributable to acetaminophen each year, as well as 100,000 poison control calls, 50,000 emergency room visits and 10,000 hospitalizations. Most acetaminophen-related emergency department visits are in young children (under age 5), adolescents or young adults. The problem of accidental (or intentional) overdoses is worrisome enough, but there are other reasons to be concerned about acetaminophen use in young people—notably, the drug’s association with asthma and developmental disorders such as autism. The research linking acetaminophen to these epidemic-level chronic conditions suggests that the drug’s automatic inclusion in the childhood medicine cabinet ought to be reconsidered.
… two different studies found that acetaminophen use in the first year of life predicted asthma at age three and at six to seven years of age, respectively.
Acetaminophen and atopic conditions
Numerous studies link acetaminophen use during pregnancy with increased asthma risks in offspring. Research also points to an association between use in infancy and asthma later on. For example, two different studies found that acetaminophen use in the first year of life predicted asthma at age three and at six to seven years of age, respectively.
The associations hold true not just for asthma but also for allergies and eczema. Polish researchers reported “a significant dose-dependent increase” in the risk of asthma, allergy and eczema symptoms in three age groups who used acetaminophen in the previous 12 months: children (ages 6-7), adolescents (ages 13-14) and adults (ages 20-44). A multi-center European study found that the drug was “strongly positively associated with asthma” in 20- to 45-year-old adults taking acetaminophen on a weekly basis, compared with less frequent users.
Taking stock of the size and consistency of the evidence, Spanish researchers—while stopping short of recommending an outright acetaminophen ban—have advocated for a significant rollback on its use:
“It is absolutely clear that the scientific literature is sending a large and consistent signal that challenges the traditional excellent safety profile of acetaminophen in children. […] A widespread, professional-based recommendation of limiting acetaminophen use to those cases in which ibuprofen cannot be administered would reduce the childhood population exposure to a minimum and would provide a good opportunity to minimize the detrimental effect of acetaminophen.”
… the authors note that the long-term effects of acetaminophen exposure on neural development have never been evaluated in humans and point out that even at very low doses, acetaminophen triggers immune system activation and oxidative stress responses—both of which are hallmarks of autism.
Autism and developmental disorders
In addition to asthma, research has linked prenatal acetaminophen use to “lower performance intelligence quotient (IQ), …autism spectrum disorder, neurodevelopmental problems (gross motor development, communication), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, poorer attention and executive function, and behavioral problems in childhood.”For example, a longitudinal study that looked at language development in two-and-a-half year-olds whose mothers had taken acetaminophen during the first trimester of pregnancy found a significant association between prenatal acetaminophen use and language delays, particularly in boys. The researchers concluded, “Given…the importance of language development, these findings…would suggest that pregnant women should limit their use of this analgesic during pregnancy.”
There is especially compelling research tying acetaminophen use to autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In a 2017 study (written by a “who’s who” of autism researchers at Duke, Harvard and the University of Colorado), the authors note that “the long-term effects of acetaminophen exposure on neural development have never been evaluated in humans” and point out that even at very low doses, acetaminophen “triggers immune system activation and oxidative stress responses”—both of which are hallmarks of autism. They also assemble evidence for both prenatal and postnatal associations between acetaminophen use and neurological problems in children, including mentioning a reported link between circumcision-related acetaminophen use and increased autism prevalence.
Many parents report witnessing the onset of regressive autism following their child’s concurrent receipt of acetaminophen and vaccines.
Studies published in 2018 propose that acetaminophen may function as an ASD risk factor in combination with other pharmaceutical and environmental toxins. For example, researchers speculate that acetaminophen magnifies the damage done by antibiotics and glyphosate because it impairs sulfate metabolism and depletes the master antioxidant—glutathione—that the body needs in order to engage in effective detoxification.
Many parents report witnessing the onset of regressive autism following their child’s concurrent receipt of acetaminophen and vaccines. However, researchers desirous of keeping the focus on acetaminophen tend to avoid discussing possible vaccine-related synergistic effects. This is somewhat puzzling, given vaccines’ aluminum content and aluminum’s capacity to impair detoxification in much the same way as acetaminophen. In fact, there are multiple mechanisms “whereby significant quantities of aluminium introduced via immunisation could produce chronic neuropathology in genetically susceptible children,” including oxidative stress, glutathione depletion and increased inflammation. The “synchronicity…between the onset of the autism epidemic and the surge in acetaminophen use” is undeniable, but so is the synchronicity between autism and the ever-expanding childhood vaccine schedule.
No more candy
For years, health providers and parents have handed out acetaminophen-containing products like candy, heedless of the compound’s documented toxicity. Johnson & Johnson, the manufacturer of Tylenol and one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, has been only too happy to continue encouraging perceptions of a “favorable safety profile”; however, recurrent lawsuits and recalls and the abundant literature describing toxic outcomes suggest that it may be time for acetaminophen’s glory days to come to a close.
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
US House of Representatives Investigating if the Government Created Lyme Disease As A Bioweapon
- The Facts:
A New Jersey lawmaker suggests the government turned ticks and insects into bioweapons to spread disease, and possibly released them. He is not the only one who believes so.
- Reflect On:
This is not the only example of supposed human experimentation on mass populations by the government
There are a number of subjects that were once considered ‘conspiracy theories,’ which are now no longer in that realm. ‘Conspiracy theories’ usually, in my opinion, arise from credible evidence. The implications, however, are so grand and so mind-altering that many may experience some sort of cognitive dissonance as a result. One of the topics often deemed a ‘conspiracy theory’ is weaponized diseases, and the latest example comes from an approved amendment that was proposed by a Republican congressman from New Jersey. His name is Chris Smith, and he instructed the Department of Defence’s Inspector General to conduct a review on whether or not the US “experimented with ticks and insects regarding use as a biological weapon between the years of 1950 and 1975” and “whether any ticks or insects used in such experiment were released outside of any laboratory by accident or experiment design.”
The fact that Smith brought this up shows that any intelligent person who actually looks into this has reason to believe it’s a possibility, yet mainstream media outlets are ridiculing the idea, calling it a conspiracy instead of actually bringing up the points that caused Smith to demand the review.
The fact that the amendment was approved by a vote in the House speaks volumes. Smith said that the amendment was inspired by “a number of books and articles suggesting that significant research had been done at US government facilities including Fort Detrick, Maryland, and Plum Island, New York, to turn ticks and insects into bioweapons”.
Most people don’t know that the US government has experimented on its own citizens a number of times. All of this is justified for “national security” purposes. National security has always been a term used as an excuse to prolong secrecy, justify the government’s lack of transparency, and create black budget programs that have absolutely no oversight from Congress.
For example, on September 20, 1950, a US Navy ship just off the coast of San Francisco used a giant hose to spray a cloud of microbes into the air and into the city’s famous fog. The military was apparently testing how a biological weapon attack would affect the 800,000 residents of the city.The people of San Francisco had absolutely no idea. The Navy continued the tests for seven days, and multiple people died as a result. It was apparently one of the first large-scale biological weapon trials that would be conducted under a “germ warfare testing program” that went on for 20 years from 1949 to 1969. The goal “was to deter [the use of biological weapons] against the United States and its allies and to retaliate if deterrence failed,” the government later explained. Then again, that’s if you trust the explanation coming from the government.
This could fall under the category of human subject research. It’s still happening! A dozen classified programs that involved research on human subjects were underway last year at the Department of Energy. Human subject research refers broadly to the collection of scientific data from human subjects. This could involve performing physical procedures on the subjects or simply conducting interviews and having other forms of interaction with them. It could even involve procedures performed on entire populations, apparently without their consent.
Human subjects research erupted into national controversy 25 years ago with reporting by Eileen Welsome of the Albuquerque Tribune on human radiation experiments that had been conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission, many of which were performed without the consent of the subjects. A presidential advisory committee was convened to document the record and to recommend appropriate policy responses.
When it comes to Lyme disease, the Guardian points out that:
A new book published in May by a Stanford University science writer and former Lyme sufferer, Kris Newby, has raised questions about the origins of the disease, which affects 400,000 Americans each year.
Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons, cites the Swiss-born discoverer of the Lyme pathogen, Willy Burgdorfer, as saying that the Lyme epidemic was a military experiment that had gone wrong.
Burgdorfer, who died in 2014, worked as a bioweapons researcher for the US military and said he was tasked with breeding fleas, ticks, mosquitoes and other blood-sucking insects, and infecting them with pathogens that cause human diseases.
According to the book, there were programs to drop “weaponised” ticks and other bugs from the air, and that uninfected bugs were released in residential areas in the US to trace how they spread. It suggests that such a scheme could have gone awry and led to the eruption of Lyme disease in the US in the 1960s.
This is concerning. It’s a story that, for some reason, instantly reminded me of the MK ultra program, where human subjects were used for mind control research.
If things like this occurred in the past, it’s hard to understand why someone would deem the possibility of this happening again a ‘conspiracy theory.’ What makes one think this wouldn’t be happening again, especially given the fact that there is sufficient evidence suggesting it is?
Lyme disease is also very strange. If you did get it, you probably wouldn’t know immediately – unless you’re one of the chronic sufferers that have had to visit over 30 doctors to get a proper diagnosis. Lyme disease tests are highly inaccurate, often inconclusive or indicating false negatives.
Why? Because this clever bacteria has found a way to dumb down the immune system and white blood cells so that it’s not detectable until treatment is initiated. To diagnose Lyme disease properly you must see a “Lyme Literate MD (LLMD).” However, more and more doctors are turning their backs on patients due to sheer fear of losing their practices! Insurance companies and the CDC will do whatever it takes to stop Chronic Lyme Disease from being diagnosed, treated, or widely recognized as an increasingly common issue.
You can read more about that here.
It’s becoming more apparent that our government as well as our federal health regulatory agencies are extremely corrupt. There are a number of examples to choose from throughout history proving this. The fact that something like this doesn’t seem believable to the public is ridiculous and further enhances and prolongs the ability for the powerful elite and the government to continue conducting these activities. Awareness is key.
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
Scientist: Milk From Cows Has “The Most Relevant Carcinogen Ever Identified” & “Turns on Cancer”
“What I did during the early part of my career was nothing more than what traditional science would suggest. I...
Scientist Explains How Cow’s Milk Leeches Calcium From Your Bones & Makes Them Weaker
It’s remarkable to analyze why many of us believe that milk, which is designed to help calves develop, is also...