Author: Peter Daniel Miller

Long-time resident of Kamakura Japan, artist/printmaker (photogravure etchings at https://kamprint.com/), high school in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania U.S.A., college Columbia in New York, PhD (Sociology) Berkeley, consultant at Stanford Research Institute, California U.S.A. Explorer, cultivator of garden, herbal remedies, healthy biome, and common-sense.

Sayings — On Credit Creation

Banks have a special power that no other player in the economy has, and that is the power to create money.

Excerpts from an interview with Richard Werner by Tucker Carlson in July 2025

How banks create money out of thin air. Economics has made no progress in a century, why is that? The answer is bank credit creation. This is a subject that is taboo in modern economics. Banks have been frozen out of economic theory. But if you ask business practitioners in any town what is important in the economy, they will mention banks. An academic economist, if asked the same question, will not mention banks. The reason is that the economists follow the theory that banks are merely intermediaries, that they just gather deposits, do their credit analysis, risk assessment and all that, then they allocate the funds to investors, just taking a percentage. But that’s wrong. That’s a theory of banking that’s still dominant in all the textbooks and leading journals.

There are actually three theories of banking. An older one is fractional reserve theory. Same intermediary function, but it posits that banks draw down deposits to make loans, hence reserve ratios can be used to regulate the scale of lending.

Then there is a third theory, and that one has been made out to be a wacky conspiracy theory. It was actually well known until about a century ago. That one is the credit creation theory of banking. This one says banks are not intermediaries. They are unique. They have a special power that no other player in the economy has, and that is the power to create money. Most people think this power is exclusively reserved to government. But it’s not true. That’s not how it works. The majority of the money supply is created by banks. Knowing that changes the analysis entirely.

What makes banks unique is the Client Money Rule [UK]. Something similar exists in the U.S. and other countries. If you have client money, this money has to be kept off your books. You have to hold it in custody, like a custodian. Everyone has to separate client money from their own funds — except banks. Banks are exempted from the Client Money Rule.

At law, there is no such thing as a bank deposit. It’s simply a loan. We give credit to the bank when we do what is called depositing our money. A bank deposit at law is not privileged. When you take out a loan, you issue an IOU and the bank will buy it. Then, when you want to take possession of the money the bank is lending you, the banker says ‘You’ll find this in your account with us‘. No transfer is made. Your account is credited because the accounts payable liability that arises from the loan contract is represented, or misrepresented, as another type of liability called a customer deposit. That is the trick you can only do when you [the bank] are the keeper of the record. Only banks can do that. Others have to keep it off their books. They can’t do this trick, of switching the type of liability between loan-contract accounts payable and another type of liability called client funds.

If the banks are engaged in money creation, that has great public impact. It’s very important who a bank is lending to and what is the purpose of the loan. If the bank were merely an intermediary, it wouldn’t matter so much. But because the bank is actually creating credit, there will be an impact on all of us. Bank credit can be a marvelous engine of enormous economic growth, prosperity, and in fact abundance. We can have stable economic growth and prosperity for the majority of us, without inflation and without crises. But we’re not getting it.

The Basel framework has been encouraging banks to lend for unproductive purposes such as asset purchases. That doesn’t contribute to GDP or national income. You’re merely purchasing an asset from someone else who owns it, not adding value. GDP is a value-added concept, and it [asset purchase] is not in there. When banks lend for asset purchases or financial asset purchases, they are creating money for unproductive purposes.

Now look at what Japan was doing in the 1980s. They were lending massively to people to buy real estate. If banks were merely intermediaries, it would not be a big deal. But the banks are creating money and pumping it into the real estate market. You don’t have to study economics to tell me what’s going to happen to real estate prices. But it’s a Ponzi scheme, because it works only as long as the banks create credit for others to join the game and buy these assets. And the moment the music stops, the banks don’t increase credit for asset purchases, then asset prices won’t rise anymore.

These asset prices collapse. But they’re the collateral for the loans. And because bank equity is very small, 10 percent, and you’ve pushed up asset prices 300 percent or 400 percent. If from the peak they fall by 20 percent, the banking system is bust, and that’s why we have banking crises. That’s what happened in Japan in the 1990s. We have these recurring banking crises.

Engineering a banking crisis. The Bank of Japan created the asset bubble of the 1980s intentionally. There are eyewitness accounts by insiders, data, anecdotal evidence. Why did they want to do that? In order to blow up a successful system. Japan was far too successful, it had to be destroyed.

TC: Who wanted it destroyed and why?

The one country that was most unhappy about Japan was the United States of America. They had one political initiative after another to try to force the Japanese to change their economic system. Structural impediments initiative, etc. Unfair, you must change all your business practices. Officially it was ‘we want to help you become a stronger economy‘. It didn’t work politically. So the central bank was used as a traitor. The Asian Financial Crisis [of 1987], it was clear the goal was to blow up the system, create a crisis, then use the IMF to force them to open up to foreign investment. The Asian crisis, the Korean crisis, the Japanese crisis, this was all to force them open so that Western investors could buy assets cheaply and participate in this growth.

The book Princes of the Yen, published only in Japanese, rocketed to the top of the best-seller lists in Japan. I was constantly interviewed on TV, wrote columns for the popular and economic press, became very widely known in Japan. Then one of the biggest advertisers told a broadcaster that Richard Werner cannot be on the show. They had nothing against me, they’re very sorry about it, but it was their bank saying that. The bank had to say that because the central bank (BOJ) asked them to do so. So I was cancelled. A magazine also had to not publish an interview, killed it at the last minute because of the pressure.

Recall, the book was published only in Japanese. Some years later, someone asked me to help translate it into English. The puzzle [of this request] was solved when someone came to visit me, said ‘Great book on Japan, Princes of the Yen‘. Well, hang on, you don’t read Japanese. No, of course not, but the translation is circulating in Washington. A few months later, I got the call from the U.S. Embassy. We have a request from the U.S. State Department. A senior person from the State Dept wants to arrange a meeting with you. He’s coming to Tokyo to see you. I thought, let’s meet in a public place, not a dark alley. And sure enough, when we met, the main message was, the CIA is watching you. There was no quizzing or trying to manipulate me. It’s just the CIA is watching now what you’re doing.

Why the Japanese economy was successful: decentralized banking. What is the link between the size of the bank and the size of the borrower? Big banks want to do big deals with big customers. Small banks want to do business with small firms. Why is that important? Small firms are the biggest employer, they employ 65 to 70 percent of the work force, in every country of the world. 99.9 percent of companies don’t issue publicly traded stocks and shares. They are small firms. Where do they get money from? Internally, family and friends. Externally, from banks. Which banks? If you have a banking system dominated by large banks, small firms don’t get money. Everything is affected by the concentration of banking in a few large companies. Even demographic trends and fertility. If you have to move to the cities where property is more expensive and apartments are smaller, you can’t have another child. So many things in society are affected directly by this trend [of banking concentration].

This concentration is driven by central banking. The ECB, the newest central bank, only founded around 2000, has already managed to kill 6,000 banks in Europe. Through over-regulation, reducing profit margins, forced mergers. So the number of banks goes down, and that means banks lend less for productive business investment. Germany when it had many many local banks also had the largest number of ‘hidden champions’, companies we never heard of that are the top in their niche. Germany had by far the largest number in the world of these hidden champions, because of its extremely decentralized banking system. That explains why Germany in the past did very well, but that’s now being eroded. Same in the U.S.

What happened in the 1930s [in the U.S.] is that farmers became destitute, their land was the collateral for the loans they couldn’t repay, they lost their land, they lost their livelihoods. The central banks when push comes to shove, they pursue the agenda of concentrating the banking system, and reducing the number of banks, which increases the power of the central banks.

Deng Xiao-Peng came to Japan seeking the magic elixir of economic growth. He didn’t care whether it was capitalist, communist, or anything, just so it would create prosperity. Japanese Ministry of Finance officials asked him ‘How many banks do you have?‘ One. One bank for what was then a population of 600 million people. They told him you need thousands, in every village and town, each with ten or twenty loan officers, five million people making loan decisions and creating credit. Deng went back to China and — we don’t know that he specifically implemented the Japanese model, but for two decades since Mao’s death in 1976 China experienced double-digit growth and brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. [Japan’s pre-1989 system of decentralized loan decisions and credit creation, it can be inferred, is what created what was then often called the Japanese ‘economic miracle‘.]

Full interview

Ariadne’s Thread

February 16, 2025

‘Pull this thread, and the whole sweater unravels.’

Ariadne's Thread, the key to the labyrinth
Ariadne’s Thread, the key to the labyrinth

Ariadne’s thread, named for the Greek goddess Ariadne, involves a method of solving problems with multiple paths, such as a maze or an ethical dilemma. Ariadne had given a ball of thread to her lover Theseus, along with directions to the center of the labyrinth where he could find and slay the Minotaur. By trying all paths through the maze while keeping detailed records of what works or does not work, it becomes possible to unlock the puzzle. This is how a few algorithms detected decades of fraudulent, duplicative, and unauthorized Treasury Department payment systems.

The account below details how U.S. Treasury payment systems built to insulate the Administrative State from all including Congressional supervision, crumbled within hours of 2:00 AM on January 21, 2025. This marks a truly epochal moment. The account below was originally published on Substack by an un-named author. Coincidentally or not, Substack is temporarily down due to ‘technical difficulties’, so we post it here.

INSIDE THE REVOLUTION REWIRING AMERICAN POWER

The clock struck 2 AM on Jan 21, 2025.

In Treasury’s basement, fluorescent lights hummed above four young coders. Their screens cast blue light across government-issue desks, illuminating energy drink cans and agency badges. As their algorithms crawled through decades of payment data, one number kept growing: $17 billion in redundant programs. And counting.

‘We’re in,’ Akash Bobba messaged the team. ‘All of it.‘
Edward Coristine’s code had already mapped three subsystems. Luke Farritor’s algorithms were tracing payment flows across agencies. Ethan Shaotran’s analysis revealed patterns that career officials didn’t even know existed. By dawn, they would understand more about Treasury’s operations than people who had worked there for decades.

This wasn’t a hack. This wasn’t a breach. This was authorized disruption. While career bureaucrats prepared orientation packets and welcome memos, DOGE’s team was already deep inside the payment systems. No committees. No approvals. No red tape. Just four coders with unprecedented access and algorithms ready to run.

‘The beautiful thing about payment systems’, noted a transition official watching their screens, ‘is that they don’t lie. You can spin policy all day long, but money leaves a trail.‘

That trail led to staggering discoveries. Programs marked as independent revealed coordinated funding streams. Grants labeled as humanitarian aid showed curious detours through complex networks. Black budgets once shrouded in secrecy began to unravel under algorithmic scrutiny.

By 6 AM, Treasury’s career officials began arriving for work. They found systems they thought impenetrable already mapped. Networks they believed hidden already exposed. Power structures built over decades revealed in hours.

Their traditional defenses — slow-walking decisions, leaking damaging stories, stonewalling requests — proved useless against an opponent moving faster than their systems could react. By the time they drafted their first memo objecting to this breach, three more systems had already been mapped.

‘Pull this thread’, a senior official warned, watching patterns emerge across DOGE’s screens, ‘and the whole sweater unravels’. He wasn’t wrong. But he misunderstood something crucial: That was exactly the point.

This wasn’t just another transition. This wasn’t just another reform effort. This was the start of something unprecedented: a revolution powered by preparation, presidential will, and technological precision.

The storm had arrived. And Treasury was just the beginning.

THE FOUNDATION

‘Personnel is policy.‘

For decades, this principle, articulated by conservative strategist Troup Hemenway, remained more theory than practice. Previous administrations spent months, even years, trying to staff key positions. Trump’s first term saw barely 100 political appointees confirmed by February 2017. Every delay meant another victory for the permanent bureaucracy. But this time was different.

While media focused on campaign rallies and political theater, a quiet army was being assembled. In offices across DC, veteran strategists mapped the administrative state’s pressure points. Think tanks developed action plans for every agency. Policy institutes trained rapid deployment teams. Former appointees shared battlefield intelligence from previous administrations’ failures.

By Inauguration Day, over 1,000 pre-vetted personnel stood ready—each armed with clear objectives, mapped legal authorities, and direct lines to support networks. This wasn’t just staffing; it was a battle plan decades in the making.

‘This is the new normal‘, Vice President JD Vance declared from his West Wing office, studying real-time data flows across agency systems. ‘He’s having the time of his life’, he added, referring to the President’s relentless drive. ‘We’ve done more in two weeks than others did in years’.

The secret wasn’t just speed — it was precision. Instead of waiting for Senate confirmations, the transition team prioritized non-Senate-confirmed positions. While Democrats prepared for traditional confirmation battles over cabinet posts, an army of aligned personnel was already moving into place. Strategic positions were identified. Legal authorities were mapped. Support networks were established.

‘We don’t have a lot of time‘, the President reminded his team daily. ‘Four years is a lot of time in political life but it’s not a long time in real life’.

This urgency drove innovation. When DOGE’s young coders breached Treasury’s payment systems, pre-positioned legal teams neutralized resistance within hours. When career officials tried revoking system access, they discovered DOGE’s authority came from levels they couldn’t challenge. When leaks surfaced, rapid-response units fed counter-narratives to alternative media almost instantly.

‘When you look at the people surrounding the president’, Vance noted, ‘we’re trying to make it sort of easy for him to do what he wants to do in government. When you have the entire team firing on all cylinders you can get a lot done’.

The permanent bureaucracy never saw it coming. They were prepared for resistance. They were ready for protests. They had plans for leaks and legal challenges. But they had no defense against an opponent who had spent years preparing for this moment.

This wasn’t just about filling seats — it was about building a machine designed to transform American governance. Every position mattered. Every appointment carried weight. And behind it all stood a president counting down not years or months, but weeks and days, driving his team forward with relentless energy.

The foundation was set. And the revolution was just beginning.

THE SPREAD

USAID fell next. No midnight raids this time. No secret algorithms. Just a simple memo on agency letterhead: ‘Pursuant to Executive Authority…‘ Career officials panicked — and for good reason. Created by Executive Order in 1961, USAID could be dissolved with a single presidential signature. No congressional approval needed. No court challenges possible. Just one pen stroke, and six decades of carefully constructed financial networks would face sunlight.

‘Pull this thread‘, a senior official warned, watching DOGE’s algorithms crawl through USAID’s databases, ‘and a lot of sweaters start unraveling‘. The resistance was immediate — and telling. Career officials who had barely blinked at Treasury’s exposure now worked through weekends to block DOGE’s access. Democratic senators who had ignored other moves suddenly demanded emergency hearings. Former USAID officials flooded media outlets with warnings about ‘institutional knowledge loss’ and ‘diplomatic catastrophe’. But their traditional defenses crumbled against DOGE’s new playbook. While bureaucrats drafted memos about ‘proper procedures’, the young coders were already mapping payment flows. While senators scheduled hearings, pre-positioned personnel were implementing new transparency protocols. While media allies prepared hit pieces, DOGE’s algorithms exposed decades of questionable transactions.

The scale was breathtaking:

EPA climate initiatives? Not just mapped — found unauthorized programs in 47 states. Education’s DEI maze? Not just exposed — revealed coordination across 1,200 programs. Intelligence community black budgets? Not just traced — uncovered patterns hidden for 30 years.

‘The administrative state runs on two things’, a senior advisor explained, watching patterns emerge across DOGE’s screens. ‘Control of information and money flows‘. His eyes tracked new connections forming in real-time. ‘We’re not just exposing their networks — we’re rewriting their DNA‘.

The cracks began showing in unexpected places. A career EPA director, tears streaming: ‘Everything we built…‘ A USAID veteran, hands shaking: ‘They’re inside all of it…’ A Treasury lifer, closing his office: ‘They move faster than we can think‘. Across Washington, officials who had weathered every reform since Reagan began quietly updating LinkedIn profiles. A Deputy Director: “Open to opportunities.” An Agency Chief: “Exploring new challenges.” A Bureau Head: “Time for change.”

DOGE’s algorithms weren’t just programs—they were archaeology tools, excavating decades of buried networks. Each data point connected to another. Each discovery revealed new targets. Each pattern exposed larger systems. ‘It’s beautiful‘, one of the coders whispered, watching connections form across his screen. ‘Like watching a galaxy map itself’.

For the permanent bureaucracy, this wasn’t just change. It was an extinction-level event. Their power came from controlling who got paid, when they got paid, and what they got paid for. Now those controls were evaporating like dawn burning away darkness.

The pattern was devastating in its simplicity:

  1. Map the money flows
  2. Deploy aligned personnel
  3. Expose the networks
  4. Restructure the systems

By the time bureaucrats drafted objections to one breach, three more had already occurred. The revolution wasn’t just spreading. It was accelerating.

THE IMPACT

The first bulldozer arrived in Springfield, Ohio at 6 AM on a Tuesday. By noon, three blocks of notorious potholes were filled. Local news crews arrived to find not just construction crews, but data analysts with laptops, mapping every dollar spent against real-time progress.

This wasn’t just road repair. This was revolution in action. A woman grabbed the analyst’s arm, tears in her eyes. ‘Twelve years’, she whispered. ‘Twelve years I’ve been calling about these potholes’. He turned his laptop, showing real-time data flows. ‘Look‘, he said. ‘Your tax dollars. Actually working‘.

She stared at the screen. ‘My God’, she whispered. ‘It’s really happening’. Across America, funds once lost in administrative mazes suddenly found their way to actual problems needing solutions. In rural Tennessee, broadband expansion projects long buried under bureaucratic red tape broke ground overnight. In Michigan, water treatment plants received upgrades that bureaucrats had studied for decades but never approved.

The transformation was measurable. In just two weeks:
· Tens of thousands of redundant programs identified
· Billions in waste exposed
· Hundreds of unauthorized initiatives halted
· Countless local projects unleashed
But the real metric? Trust in government rising for the first time in 50 years.

The revolution spread with surgical precision:
· Real-time tracking replaced quarterly reports
· Algorithmic oversight replaced review boards
· Local solutions replaced federal mandates
· Results replaced process

‘He’s done more in two weeks than Biden did in four years and Obama did in eight’, Vance noted from his West Wing office. ‘But this isn’t just about speed. This isn’t just about tech. This isn’t just about personnel. It’s all three, perfectly aligned’.

For ordinary Americans, the impact was undeniable. Roads repaired. Schools revitalized. Water purified. But more importantly, something else was being restored: trust. For the first time in generations, people saw their government not as an obstacle but as a tool for positive change.

The permanent bureaucracy had long operated on a simple assumption: presidents come and go, but they remain. That assumption now lay shattered, replaced by a new reality: when preparation meets presidential determination, nothing is permanent.

“They thought we’d slow down,” Vance said, studying real-time data flows across agencies. “They thought we’d get bogged down in process. They thought we’d play by their rules.” He smiled. “Instead, we’re just getting started.”

THE NEW DAWN

The sun rises early in Washington. On this morning, its first rays caught the classical columns of the Treasury building, casting long shadows across streets still quiet. But inside, beneath the marble and granite, screens still glowed blue. DOGE’s algorithms never sleep.

‘The administrative state was built over decades‘, a senior advisor explained, watching new patterns emerge across the displays. ‘Built to resist change. Built to outlast presidents. Built to preserve power‘. He paused, tracking a particularly interesting data flow. ‘But they never imagined this. They built walls against political attacks. Defenses against media exposure. Shields against congressional oversight‘.

‘They never prepared for algorithms that could map everything. For personnel pre-positioned everywhere. For a president who counts every week like it’s his last‘.

The numbers tell the story: In Treasury – networks mapped, waste exposed, systems rewired At USAID – decades of hidden flows revealed, power structures dismantled Across agencies – redundancies eliminated, authorities realigned, missions refocused. But numbers aren’t the whole story.

Imagine, changes, coming to a community near you: Springfield, Ohio, potholes that plagued residents for twelve years actually disappeared overnight. Rural Tennessee, where children can finally connect to high-speed internet their parents were promised decades ago. In Michigan, people truly drink clean water while bureaucrats’ memos about ‘studying the problem’ gather dust. This isn’t just reform. This isn’t just change. This is American governance reimagined.

“The pace is going to be the same,” Vice President Vance declared this week. “It’s just the priorities that are going to change.” The permanent bureaucracy built their administrative state over decades, brick by bureaucratic brick. They thought it would last forever. They thought it was too big to map, too complex to understand, too entrenched to change. They were wrong.

Four young coders with laptops proved that. One thousand pre-positioned personnel proved that. A president counting weeks proved that. The sun continues rising over Washington. Classical columns still cast their shadows. But inside those buildings, everything has changed. The administrative state finally met its match: preparation plus presidential will plus technological precision.

This isn’t the end of the story. This is just the beginning. The revolution isn’t just continuing. It’s becoming the new normal. And for those who thought the Deep State would rule forever? They’re about to learn what happens when smart strategic minds meet determination. When preparation meets opportunity. When a new generation decides it’s time for change. The storm isn’t just gathering. It’s here to stay. The sun continues rising over Washington.

But now, for the first time in generations, it illuminates something new: A government that works. A bureaucracy that serves. A system that delivers. The revolution isn’t just beginning. It’s already won.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano

Nobody in the Catholic Church is more astute in his assessment of the malign influence of globalists than Archbishop Vigano. A former Papal Nuncio (Ambassador) to the United States, he has also led efforts to identify and remove high-ranking prelates who have committed sexual crimes against children. On July 4, 2024, Vigano was excommunicated for the Canon Law crime of ‘schism’, for criticizing Pope Francis. Here are remarks Archbishop Vigano made on July 2, 2022:

Your Excellency, after the psycho-pandemic, we now have the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. Are we in “phase two” of one single project, or can we now consider the Covid farce to be over and concern ourselves with the increase in energy prices?


If in the last two years we had been faced with a true pandemic, caused by a deadly virus for which no other cures existed except for a vaccine, we would be able to think that the emergency was not intended. But this is not what happened: the SARS-CoV-2 virus is nothing but a seasonal flu that could have been cured with existing treatments and effective prevention based on strengthening immune defenses. The prohibition of treatment, the discrediting of the effectiveness of drugs that have been in use for decades, the decision to hospitalize the elderly who became sick in nursing homes and the imposition of an experimental gene treatment that has been demonstrated not only to be ineffective but also harmful and often fatal – all this confirms for us that the pandemic has been planned and managed with the purpose of creating the greatest damage possible. This is a fact that has been established and confirmed by the official data, despite the systematic falsification of that same data.

Certainly, those who wanted to manage the pandemic in this way are not disposed now to yield easily, also because there are billionaire interests behind all of it. But what “they” want does not always necessarily happen.

In your opinion, Your Excellency, was the pandemic managed in this way due to inexperience? Or was it due to the corruption of those in positions of control who are in a conflict of interest because they are paid off by the pharmaceutical industry?

This is the second element to consider: the response to the pandemic was the same all over the world, where health authorities slavishly adapted to health protocols that were contrary to the scientific literature and medical evidence, instead following the directives of self-proclaimed “experts,” who have a record of sensational failures, apocalyptic predictions completely divorced from reality, and very grave conflicts of interest. We cannot think that millions of doctors all over the world have lost their basic knowledge of the art of medicine, believing that a flu should be allowed to evolve into pneumonia and then be treated with tachypirin or by placing patients on ventilators. If they have done this, it is due to pressure – even to the point of blackmail – by health authorities over medical personnel, with the help of a scandalous campaign of media terrorism and with the support of Western leaders. Most of these leaders are members of a lobby – the World Economic Forum – that trained them and placed them at the highest levels of national and international institutions in order to be certain that those who govern would be obedient. Klaus Schwab has publicly boasted, on many occasions, of being able to interfere even with religious leaders. These too are documented facts in all the nations that followed the directives of the WHO and the pharmaceutical companies. There is clearly a single script under a single direction: this demonstrates the existence of a criminal design and the malice of its creators.

In some of your other statements, you have spoken of a “golpe bianco” (a “silent coup”). A “silent coup” is a coup d’état that takes place without the use of force, carried out by a government that exercises power in an unconstitutional way. In this case the coup was carried out in all the Western nations almost simultaneously, beginning with the first years of the 1990s. For Italy, this coup began with the divestment of investee companies and the privatization of services that normally burdened the treasury, such as health and transportation services, following the directives given by high finance to Mario Draghi on June 2, 1992, on the yacht Britannia. Yes, Mario Draghi, who at the time was General Director of the Ministry of the Treasury and whom then-President of the Italian Republic Francesco Cossiga called a “cowardly businessman.” In other nations this coup took place in an analogous way, with a series of progressive transfers of sovereignty to supra-national entities like the European Commission, the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. With the introduction of the euro [in 2002], monetary sovereignty was removed from the nations adhering to the Maastricht Treaty, transferring it to the European Central Bank, which is a private bank. This bank decides the rate with which it finances national budgets, using money that these same nations have already given it. In practice, the European Central Bank demands interest on money that it only returns a penny at a time, and only on certain conditions: reforms, cuts in public spending, the imposition of laws promoting gender equality, abortion rights, the indoctrination of children, etc. The introduction of a balanced budget requirement into the [Italian] Constitution – as if the State was a company – was also part of the silent coup.

All the members of these bodies, including the same rulers who have been appointed at the recommendation of non-elected powers or have succeeded in winning election thanks to the manipulation of information, are at the same time the servants of high finance power groups or of large investment funds – some were their employees, such as Draghi of Goldman Sachs – others became employees after their term ended. Just like the drug agencies and health organizations are composed of former BigPharma employees, who often receive consulting contracts and who are paid by the very pharmaceutical companies they are supposed to be keeping an eye on.

Up until the pandemic, power was in practice still managed at least formally by individual nations, and laws were passed by Parliaments. But for the last two years, the Parliaments have been deprived of authority, and all those whom the World Economic Forum and other lobbies have succeeded in placing at the high levels of governments and international institutions have begun to legislate against the Constitution and the interests of the Nation, obeying orders given to them from on high – “from the markets,” they tell us – which in fact is made up of a very small number of multinational corporations that engulf competing companies, flatten professional skills with damage to the quality of the product, and reduce the protection and wages of workers thanks to the complicity of unions and of the Left.

In short, we are governed by a high command of usurers and speculators, from Bill Gates who invests in large farms right on the eve of the food emergency or in vaccines just before the outbreak of the pandemic, to George Soros, who speculates on the fluctuations of currencies and government bonds and along with Hunter Biden finances a bio-laboratory in Ukraine.

To think that there is no relationship between the instigators of these crimes and those who carry them out at the highest levels of national governments, the EU, and the UN is a sign of bad faith, because even a child could understand that we are held hostage by a group of technocrats who are ideologically deviant and morally corrupt. The peoples of the world need to reclaim their sovereignty, which has been usurped by the globalist elite.

The instigators of this crime show themselves proudly at the Davos Forum, at meetings of the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg Group along with the rulers, prime ministers, directors of newspapers and television broadcasters, CEOs of social bankers and directors of social platforms and multinational corporations, bankers and directors of ratings agencies, presidents of foundations and self-styled philanthropists. All of these share the same agenda – which they publish on their websites – and are so confident in their own power that they affirm it with impunity – as Soros and Schwab have recently done – that it is necessary to create a narrative to be conveyed through the mainstream media, in order to make their decisions acceptable to the people. They embrace censorship and mass manipulation as instrumentum regni, and we have had proof of this both with the pandemic farce as well as with the pro-Zelensky propaganda in Ukraine.

We must understand that our rulers are traitors of our Nation who are devoted to the elimination of populations, and that all of their actions are carried out in order to cause the greatest amount of harm to citizens. It is not a problem of inexperience or inability but rather of an intentio nocendi – a deliberate intention to harm. Honest citizens find it inconceivable that those who govern them could do it with the perverse intention of undermining and destroying them, so much so that they find it very hard to believe. The main cause of this very serious problem is found in the corruption of authority along with the resigned obedience of those who are governed.

The Catholic Church also, beginning with the revolution of Vatican II and above all during the last nine years of the Bergoglian “pontificate,” has experienced the same cognitive dissonance: the faithful and the Clergy have resigned themselves to obeying mere cynical officials – who are no less corrupt and perverted than their counterparts in the deep state – although it has been evident that the purpose of the alleged “reforms” has always been the systematic destruction of the Church by its highest leaders, who are heretics and traitors. And I note that the deep church has had recourse to the same false arguments in order to pass off the doctrinal, moral, and liturgical dissolution: first of all, the false contention that those reforms were requested “from the ground up” and not imposed with force from on high. Just like the reforms planned by the World Economic Forum, the Bilderberg group, and the Trilateral are adopted by their infiltrators in the highest levels of nations and international organisms, making it appear that their plans are ratified by popular consent.

And what do you advise, Your Excellency, to get out of this dead end? Respect for authority is connatural to civilized man, but it is necessary to distinguish between obedience and servility. You see, every virtue consists of the just mean between two opposite vices, without being a compromise, but also as the peak between two valleys, so to speak. Disobedience sins by falling short, not wanting to submit to a good order of a legitimate authority; servility on the other hand sins by excess, submitting to unfair orders or orders given by an illegitimate authority. The good citizen should know how to disobey civil authority, and the good Catholic how to do the same with ecclesiastical authority, disobeying whenever the authority demands obedience to an iniquitous order.

Doesn’t such talk seem to be a bit revolutionary, Your Excellency? Far from it. The anarchists and courtiers both have a distorted concept of authority: the former deny it while the latter idolize it. The just mean is the only morally viable way, because it responds to the order that the Lord has imprinted on the world and that respect the celestial hierarchy. We owe obedience to legitimate authority in the measure in which its power is exercised for the purposes for which authority has been established by God: the temporal good of citizens in the case of the State and the spiritual good of the faithful in the case of the Church. An authority that imposes evil on its subjects is for that very reason illegitimate and its orders are null. Let’s not forget that the true Lord from whom all authority comes is God, and that the earthly authority – civil as well as spiritual – is always vicarious, that is, it is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ, King and High Priest. Setting up the vicarious authority of rulers in the place of the royal authority of the Lord is a mad gesture and – yes – revolutionary and rebellious.

Risk Aversion an Invitation to Authoritarian Government

‘Is it OK for me to hug my granddaughter?’ Now something odd has happened to a society in which people feel they need to ask the Prime Minister if it’s OK to hug their granddaughter.

Oration delivered by Lord Jonathan Sumption at the 2022 Robert Menzies Institute, Melbourne Australia, 13 October 2022.

In my adult life, there have been radical changes in our world that have undermined many of the values that Menzies held dear. The West’s share of the world’s resources and output, which Menzies took as a given, has been much reduced. We face problems of faltering growth, relative economic decline, redundant skills, and capricious patterns of inequality. At the same time, there has been a dramatic rise in public demands of the state, as the providers of amenities, as a guarantor of minimum standards of economic security, and as the regulator of an ever-widening range of human activity. Coercion is the ordinary language of the state. When we transfer responsibility for our well-being from ourselves to the state, we invite a larger measure of coercion and a more authoritarian style of government.

…I am concerned with what this particular [pandemic] episode in our history tells us about current attitudes to the state, and personal liberty. On that larger canvas, lockdowns are only the latest and most spectacular illustration of a wider tendency in our societies. At the root of the political problems generated by the pandemic was the public’s attitude to risk. People have a remarkable degree of confidence in the capacity of the state to contain risk and to ward off misfortune. An earlier generation regarded natural catastrophes as only marginally amenable to state action. In the century since the Spanish Flu, something radically changed in our collective outlook. Two things have changed: One is that we expect more of the state, and are less inclined to accept that there are limits on what it can or should do. The other is that we are no longer willing to accept risks which have always been inherent in life itself. Human beings have, after all, lived with epidemic disease since the beginning of time…. So the change is in ourselves, and not in the nature or severity of the risks that we face. Epidemic disease is a particularly clear example of the kind of risk from which we crave protection from the state, although it is inherent in life itself. But there are many other risks — financial loss, economic insecurity, crime, sexual abuse and violence, accidental injury. The quest for state protection against ever-wider categories of risk is a very powerful instinct of modern life. It is not, however, irrational. In some ways, it is a response to the remarkable increase in the technical competence of mankind since the middle of the 19th century, which has greatly increased the range of the things that the state can do. As a result, we have inordinately high expectations of the state. For all perils, there must be a governmental solution. If there is none, then that implies a lack of governmental competence.

Risk-aversion, and the fear that goes with it, are a standing invitation to authoritarian government. If we hold governments responsible for everything that goes wrong, they will take away our autonomy. If we demand protection from the state from risks which are inherent in life itself, then the state measures will necessarily involve the suppression of some part of life itself. The quest for security at the price of coercion, and state interventions, is a feature of democratic politics which was pointed out in the 1830s by the great political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville, in his remarkable study of American democracy, a book whose uncanny relevance to modern dilemmas can still take on by surprise after nearly two centuries. De Tocqueville’s description of the process can hardly be bettered. What he said was this:

‘The protecting power of the state extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but it is softened, and guided. Men are seldom forced to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence. It does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, and extinguishes; it stupefies the people until each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid industrious animals to which the government is the shepherd.’

Now by definition, regulation is designed to limit risk by limiting freedom. Governments do this primarily to protect themselves from criticism. During the pandemic, regulators addressed the risk of infection by closing [places of assembly] because governments identified that as the thing that they were most likely to be criticized for. Governments were quite willing to accept considerable collateral damage to mental health resulting from lockdowns, and large increases in deaths from cancer, ischemic heart disease, and dementia. Why was that? Because they knew they were less likely to be criticized for those things — they wouldn’t show up on TV screens. They would not appear in daily casualty figures….

… In Hobbes’ model of government, the state could do absolutely anything for the purpose of reducing the risks that threaten our well-being, other than deliberately killing us. Hobbes’ state as an exceedingly unpleasant thing, but he did grasp a profound truth: Most despotism comes not because a despot has seized power, but because people willingly surrender their freedoms in return for security. Our culture has always rejected Hobbes’ model of society. Intellectually, it still does. But in recent years, it has increasingly tended to act on it [Hobbes’ model]. The response to Covid-19 took that tendency a long way further. I could not have imagined in 2019 that my concerns [then] would be so quickly and dramatically vindicated.

Until March 2020, it was unthinkable that liberal democracies could confine healthy people to their homes indefinitely, with limited exceptions dependent entirely on the discretion of government ministers. It was unthinkable that a whole population could be subject to criminal penalties for associating with other human beings, and answerable to the police for all the most ordinary activities of daily life….

In the United Kingdom, the man mainly responsible for persuading the Government to impose a lockdown was Professor Neil Ferguson, an epidemiological modeler based at Imperial College, London. His work was influential both in the U.S. and elsewhere. In a press interview in February 2021, Professor Ferguson explained what changed their [U.K. Govt ministers’] minds: It was the lockdown in China. What he said was this: ‘It’s a Communist one-party state. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe. And then Italy did it, and we realized we could.‘ It’s worthwhile to reflect on what that statement meant. It meant that because a lockdown of the entire population appears to work in a country which was notoriously indifferent to individual rights, and traditionally treated human beings as mere instruments of state policy, they could, quote ‘get away with it‘, unquote, doing the same thing here [in the U.K.]. Entirely absent from Professor Ferguson’s analysis, was any conception of why this was hitherto unthinkable for Western countries to do this. It was unthinkable because it was based on a conception of the state’s relationship with its citizens which was morally repellent even if it worked.

It’s not merely the assault on liberty that matters. It’s the particular liberty which has been most obviously discarded, namely the liberty to associate with other human beings. Association with other human beings is not simply an optional extra, a leisure option. It is fundamental to our humanity. Our emotional relationships, our mental well-being, our economic fortunes, our entire social existence, is built on the ability of people to come together. Historically, the response to an epidemic like this would have been the responsibility of individual to make their own risk assessment, in the light of their own vulnerabilities, and those of the people around them. Sweden, which avoided coercion, in favor of sensible advice to vulnerable categories, had a death toll broadly in line with the European average, and considerably better than the United Kingdom. The substitution of a governmental decision applicable to the whole population, irrespective of their individual circumstances, is a most extraordinary development in the history of our society, and of other Western societies which have done the same thing….

All of this marks a very radical change in the relationship between citizens and the state. The change is summed up in the first question that was asked of the U.K. Prime Minister when Number Ten’s daily press conferences were opened up to the public. The question was ‘Is it OK for me to hug my granddaughter?’ Now something odd has happened to a society in which people feel they need to ask the Prime Minister if it’s OK to hug their granddaughter…. We have come to regard the right of a normal life as a gift of the state. And all of this was made possible by fear. Throughout history, fear has been the principal instrument of the authoritarian state….

As serious as the implications are for our relations with the state are the implications for our relations with each other. The use of political power as an instrument of mass coercion, fueled by public fear, is exceptionally corrosive. It’s corrosive, perhaps especially, even when it enjoys majority support. For it tends to be accompanied, as it has been in Britain, and I believe, in Australia, by manipulative government propaganda, and vociferous intolerance of any minority that disagrees. Authoritarian governments fracture the society in which they operate. The pandemic generated distrust, resentment, and mutual hostility among citizens in most countries where lockdowns were imposed.

It’s widely assumed that this is a phase which will pass when Covid-19 disappears, if it ever does. I’m afraid I think this is an illusion. We have turned a corner, and it will not be easy to go back. I say this for several reasons. The first is that governments to not lightly relinquish power that they have once acquired. In Britain, wartime controls were kept for years after the end of the war…. My second reason is that I see no reason why politicians should ever want or need to respect basic liberal values if the public is happy to see the back of them. There will be other pandemics. They will provoke the same reaction. But public support for Napoleonic government is not just simply a response to epidemic disease. It’s a response to a much more general feeling, of insecurity, combined with a profound faith in the ability of government to solve any problem if they throw enough money and talent at it. It’s a symptom of a much more general appetite for authoritarian government, as the price of security. And it’s accentuated by a growing feeling that one sees in countless polls that strong governments are efficient, they get on with the problem while deliberative assemblies like Parliament are just a waste of time and a source of dispute and inefficiency….

Most Western democracies have resisted the tendency [toward despotism] for something like two centuries, and avoided the disintegration which Aristotle regarded as their natural end. That has enabled this to happen is a shared political culture. Governments have immense powers, not just in the field of public health, but generally. These powers have existed for many years. Their existence has been tolerable in a liberal democracy only because of a culture of restraint, proportionality, and balance which has made it unthinkable that they should in a despotic manner. It has only ever been culture and convention which prevented governments from adopting a totalitarian model. But culture and convention are fragile. They take years to form, but can be destroyed very quickly. Once you discard them, there is no barrier left; the spell is broken. If something is unthinkable until someone in authority thinks of it, then the psychological barriers which have always been our main protection against despotism have vanished. There is no inevitability about any future course of a historical trend. But the changes in our political culture seem to reflect a very profound change in the public mood, which has been for many years in the making, and will be many many years in the unmaking. We are entering into a Hobbesian world, the enormity of which has not yet dawned on our people. Thank you very much.

Transcribed from:

Recovery: Your Choice

1. Introduction: Staying Healthy. Practical, inexpensive remedies that can be used at home to prevent or recover from circulating infections are widely available. If a visit with a doctor is necessary, it makes sense to consult those with a record of patients who have recovered from covid or other infectious disease. These doctors publish patient guides based on their extensive experience of what works safely and effectively. Prescription drugs all have side effects, including some not known in advance. Each person must take responsibility for his or her own health, with proper medical advice, because each person will enjoy or suffer the consequences.

2. Clinical Judgment and Experience. The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, led by pioneering cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough, published the first practical Patient Guide to home and hospital treatment of covid, including links to doctors and pharmacies. Practitioners of integrative medicine, physicians who adopt a whole-body approach to health and disease, publish their treatment protocols, also with links to doctors and pharmacies. Dr Vladimir Zelenko, who has successfully treated thousands of covid patients, publishes his protocol.  The Fareed/Tyson protocol uses many of the same medicines.  A group of doctors in Italy, ippocrateorg (Hippocrates), lists similar medicines they have used to save patients’ lives. In addition, entrepreneur Steve Kirsch, who founded the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF), provides a useful compilation of remedies (with a tendency to ‘throw everything’ at the problem) and doctors.

When contacting doctors unfamiliar with these procedures, it may be useful to give them these references. Some doctors recommend only drugs warranted by large-scale multi-million-dollar clinical trials, while others rely on clinical judgment and experience in early treatment. Clinical judgment and experience, case studies, and the much-maligned ‘anecdotal evidence’ are valuable sources of new knowledge. If such knowledge saves lives, enables recovery from disease, and promotes good health, why not use it?

3. Two Kinds of Medical Knowledge. ‘Evidence-based medicine’ means different things to different people. ‘No issue in the history of medicine’, Dr Thomas E Levy notes, ‘has been as strident and polarized as that of the risk/benefit profiles of covid vaccines’. Many researchers commit the fundamental statistical error of inferring individual characteristics from aggregate averages. You can generalize from particulars, but you cannot particularize from generalities. This is easy to understand with racial groups: There is more variation among, for example, Black people than there is between Blacks and Whites of similar health status. It is the same with any other demographic or health risk category.

Yet when individuals assume their own risk is equivalent to the average risk of a demographic group they belong to, or when they are reassured by statistical aggregates like ‘95% effective’, they are falling for the same fundamental statistical error. Clinical evidence is knowledge about individual patients; statistical averages cumulate knowledge about aggregates. They are different types of knowledge, neither one a basis for denying the validity of the other.

Another common error comes from inaccuracies in the data underlying comparative risk assessments. The argument that you have a greater chance of dying, or having your health severely compromised for a long time, without this drug than with it, can only be convincing if the mortality and illness data are accurate. The statistical error of inferring particularities from aggregate averages is compounded here by over-reporting of covid-caused deaths and under-reporting (by a factor of 41X, according to one estimate) of drug-caused deaths. The clinical picture of covid, and of spike-protein effects, is actually quite similar, not surprisingly, because the spike protein mimics the virus, plus it has its own brand of toxicity. Thus the practical remedies summarized below safely counteract both virus and spike-protein effects.

4. Nutrition. Good nutrition strengthens the innate immune system, and supplies vitamins and elements essential for breathing, respiratory clearance, lung aeration, blood oxygenation, heart-pumping, oxygen-carbon dioxide exchange, digestion, liver-cleansing, kidney and bowel functioning, elimination, thinking, and all other bodily processes. Nutraceuticals are plant-based foods that also serve as medicines to repel viruses, bacteria, fungi, and other pathogens. They do this by stimulating antibodies including killer T-cells, binding to sites favored by pathogens, blocking enzymes required for pathogen binding, oxidizing free radicals to prevent inflammation, and myriad other ways. Many common vegetables, herbs, and mushrooms supply these requirements. Their benefits are enhanced by extraction methods enabling their use as teas, tinctures, inhalants, topical salves, and essential oils.

5. Prevention. Viruses and other pathogens always exist in the body and its environment. The SARS-CoV2 virus is unusual in that it is a deadly bio-weapon engineered by scientists specifically to attack human endothelial cells in arteries and lungs. As with other viruses, though, preventing disease means keeping viral load to a low enough level to ensure survival and health. Realizing that self-protection and safe effective counter-measures are possible keeps fear in check. Fear itself, especially when magnified by public health authorities and news media, impairs healthy responses to disease. In that sense, practical precautions accessible to everyone can themselves contribute to positive overall health, quite apart from their somatic effects.

Vitamin C (Ascorbic acid), 1 to 3 grams/day, liposome-encapsulated, orally, works together with H2O2 to inactivate viruses before they cause debilitating disease. A curious genetic error eons ago left humans unable to synthesize Vitamin C, which is nevertheless essential for every bodily function and to neutralize pathogens. While dosage opinions differ, doctors generally agree on increasing it to ward off illness (for example, Dr Thomas Levy, Rapid Virus Recovery).

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) 3% nebulization (mist inhalation), 1 to 3 minutes daily, to oxidize and inactivate virus colonies in the respiratory tract, and break down the biofilm coatings that protect them. Omron and other companies make nebulizers that are available on Amazon and elsewhere.

Red wine and grape seed oil (extract) contain Resveratrol, a polyphenol anti-oxidant that is a ‘specific and selective inhibitor of SARS-CoV2‘, which also inhibits ‘three major steps of carcinogenesis’.

Magnesium chloride, 10 to 50 cc (depending on body weight) 2.5% magnesium chloride solution, 2X/day orally or nebulized, to relax respiratory airways.

Vitamin D (as Vitamin D3 – cholecalciferol), 1,000 or more units/day, as needed to supplement sunlight which stimulates internal Vitamin D synthesis, to strengthen innate immune system. (See How Cod Saved the Vikings, linked above, the fascinating story of why the Vikings did not suffer from Vitamin-D insufficiency.) An immunomodulator, Vitamin D reduces pro-inflammatory cytokines that worsen the course of respiratory disease. Depleted levels of Vitamin D always cause poor outcomes.

Iodine, a common disinfectant, can be used (diluted 10:1) with a nasal swab to kill viruses before they have a chance to get into the respiratory tract or lungs. Iodine is NOT for ingestion — it should only be applied topically, not swallowed. The principle of usage is that airborne infectious pathogens passing through masks enter the body nasally.

Zinc (as picolinate or citrate), 50 to 75 mg/day for two weeks (for first-time use), then 25 mg/day, to prevent virus replication.

Ginger,2 oregano, lemon balm, and rosemary have well-known anti-viral effects. These can be consumed in teas or seasonings. Salt water mouthwash/gargle to alkalynize mouth and throat reduces new viral intake.

Sleep, as noted by Dr Roger Seheult, enhances the ability of the antigen-presenting cell to bind to the viral-infected cell.3

6. If Infected. At the first signs of covid infection, the goal of early treatment with anti-viral agents is to block virus from entering cells, and to halt viral replication in cells to which it has gained entry. The widely followed public health authorities’ advice to ‘wait and see’ is irresponsible and wrong, as is their condemnation of medicines that have been successfully used for early treatment.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) 200 mg or Ivermectin (IVM) 6 – 24 mg (.6 mg/kg), together with zinc, as zinc citrate, gluconate, or sulfate, 220 mg. HCQ and IVM are ionophores (carriers) of zinc into cells where it impairs virus replication. Zinc, carried across the cell membrane by HCQ or IVM, prevents new binding of virus or spike protein to ACE2 receptors, especially in endothelial alveolar (oxygenating) tissues in lungs where ACE2 receptors are concentrated.

Antibiotics with antiviral properties may block pathogens in upper respiratory tract, preventing concurrent or secondary infection and may also reduce viral replication and cellular inflammation.

Vitamin C, 1,000 units/day, acts as a free-radical scavenger, activates  leukocytes and macrophages (antibodies), and supplies oxygen to blood and for numerous biochemical reactions where needed. Respiratory illness creates additional bodily demand for Vitamin C; deficiency causes poor outcomes.

Vitamin D, 10,000 units/day for six days accelerates recovery and reduces likelihood of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Iodine 1% solution mouthwash/gargle and nasal drops 3X/day starting on first symptoms. Dilute 10% solution down to 1%.

Aspirin 81 mg/day to reduce chances of endothelial injury and thrombosis which would otherwise lead to blood-oxygen desaturation.

7. If Lungs Are Involved. If virus or spike protein advances into lungs, causing breathing difficulties, the medical goal is to prevent damage to lungs and other critical organs. Quick-acting anti-inflammation medicines such as corticosteroids are then used (by prescription). Inflammation damages the airways and increases blood viscosity, impeding its flow through narrow capillaries from arteries to veins. This in turn interferes with normal oxygen-carbon dioxide exchange, reducing blood-oxygen levels. Forcing oxygen into the lungs is of little or no use when the oxygen-gathering cells of the lungs are already populated by virus or spike protein. The medical necessity then is to reduce inflammation.

Aspirin reduces inflammation and risk of blood clots.

8. Cytokine Storm. Pervasive infection of blood vessels and organs by virus or spike protein, typically two weeks after infection or vaccination, can take the form of a severe auto-immune reaction known as a cytokine storm where the body summons massive amounts of macrophages to attack its own cells, often accompanied by blood-clots leading to strokes, heart attacks, kidney shut-down, and death. The medical objective at this point is to prevent blood clots, with anti-coagulants.

Vitamin C improves blood-oxygen levels. The rationale for large amounts of Vitamin C in a life-threatening emergency such as a cytokine storm is set forth in the linked article.

Resveratrol (or grape seed extract), a more concentrated version of the polyphenol in red wine, is an anti-oxidant that also inhibits pre-cancerous growths. Traditional Chinese Medicine uses Qingfei Paidu decoction, derived from a widely used medicinal plant called Huzhang in Chinese and Japanese, knotweed in English. ‘Resveratrol was found to be a specific and selective inhibitor of SARS-CoV2.’ On this basis it may also be used for prevention of infection, in readily available forms such as red wine and grape seed extract.

9. Post-vaccination or Chronic Covid. Effects of both covid and vaccination can be diffuse, long-term, and characterized by a general feeling of malaise.

Hydrogen peroxide nebulization (mist inhalation), synergistic with vitamin C, clears out chronic pathogen colonization (CPC) of covid in the throat, in either chronic or acute infections, or post-vaccination.

Magnesium chloride relaxes respiratory airways.

Vitamin D reduces inflammation.

Zinc impairs viral replication.

‘Ivermectin might also competitively displace bound spike protein from the cell walls… [C]irculating spike protein may be bound up directly by Ivermectin, rendering it inactive and making it accessible for metabolic processing and excretion’. (Saha and Raihan, The binding mechanism of ivermectin and levosalbutamol with spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, Structural Chemistry Apr 12, 2021. PMID: 33867777.) See also.

10. Post-covid or Post-vaccination Recovery and Maintenance. Following recovery from covid or vaccination, the medical objective is to maintain good health and prevent other pathogens from exploiting spike-protein degradation of the innate immune system. If unvaccinated, the innate immune system prevents re-infection even with variants, via circulating and tissue-resident cellular memory. (Poon et al, SARS-CoV-2 infection generates tissue-localized immunological memory in humans)

‘The clinical pictures of chronic Covid and post-vaccine toxicity appear very similar,’ according to Dr Thomas levy, ‘and both are likely due to this continued presence, and body-wide dissemination, of the spike protein.’ The D-Dimer test shows micro-coagulations, precursors of polymer-like cross-linking leading to blood clots. Dark-field microscopy tests for rouleaux formation, where red blood cells stick to each other by stacking-up. Both of these forms of ‘stickiness’ impede the flow of blood, particularly through the small capillaries between arteries and veins. This in turn interferes with normal oxygen – carbon dioxide exchange, reducing blood-oxygen levels. At the same time, the spike protein lodged in endothelial cells may induce an auto-immune reaction, in extreme cases a cytokine storm.

Post-vaccine spike-protein damage may be mitigated by the same methods as those applied to covid itself: Vitamins C and D, nebulized hydrogen peroxide, Ivermectin or Hydroxylchloroquine with zinc, and corticosteroids. Over time, blood purifiers such as burdock root (gobo), dandelion root, mullein, parsley, and sarsaparilla may also help neutralize spike proteins.

Covid, and viruses in general, may persist for several months after clinical signs of disease are gone. Anti-virals ginger, oregano, lemon balm, echinacea and rosemary resist re-infection from residual virus in various ways, such as by blocking virus replication, and by activating macrophages, white blood cells that process antigens and present them to T-cells, increasing natural killer cell activity.

Anti-inflammatory herbs and foods can also assist in an integrated program of immune-system rebuilding and reduction of toxicity, following covid disease or vaccination. Onions have quercetin, an antioxidant flavonol which is also a zinc ionophore (carrier). White pine, tumeric, cinnamon, garlic, lemon balm, broccoli, green tea, berries, kale, and avocado also have anti-oxidant as well as other nutritional and medicinal qualities.

Mushrooms have emerged from underground in recent years in Western consciousness, though they have been used in Asia and parts of Europe for both food and medicine for thousands of years. Thanks to the work of Paul Stamets, Merlin Sheldrake2, and a growing industry of mycologist-experimenters, mushrooms are successfully treating a wide range of human diseases. Their modes of action differ from the chemical processes of pharmaceuticals, but their multiple inter-related benefits include scavenging dangerous free radicals (anti-oxidant), anti-inflammation, antibiotic, anti-viral, blood oxygenation, cholesterol reduction, and many others waiting to be discovered. Like plants, mycelial networks and fungi have been around for a long time, so it makes sense for humans to use what they have developed for their survival for our own health. The most widely used mushrooms for fighting disease and maintaining optimum health are chaga, reishi, lion’s mane, and turkey tail (yun zhi in China). All of them grow on rotting wood and can be foraged, or purchased in powder form from these suppliers, and others.

11. Afterword. The collective wisdom of doctors’ clinical experiences, research, and of herbal practitioners is summarized here to focus first on practical things everyone can do to take care of their own health, and if necessary, what medicines to request with professional medical consultation. To repeat: THIS IS NOT MEDICAL ADVICE. Everyone must take responsibility, at their own risk, for their own health, in considering anything listed or not listed here.

Santé.

Sayings — on Truth

Exploring the different unconscious and conscious blockages that lead people to close their eyes and ears to the Truth.

The Harsh Truth – Why So Many Refuse To See It
Henna Maria Vermeulen

Henna Maria VermeulenToday I want to talk about truth, and especially why is it that many people are not able to see the truth. Truth, we have to understand, is real. Truth is eternal, truth is immutable, truth exists whether we believe in it or not. But unfortunately because of the very popular satanic belief system that has infiltrated into the consciousness of many many people, it’s popular to now believe that there is no such thing as truth; and that there is your truth and my truth and that you have the right to believe what you believe, and I have to right to believe what I believe. But this is creating chaos. If we really want to grow spiritually, we have to come to understand that truth is a prerequisite for freedom, and if we hold on to mere opinions and beliefs, then we can only ever create chaos. Because true order, true Harmony is always based in truth.

What is truth? There’s no reason to mystify truth. Truth actually means what has happened in the past and what is actually happening now. That’s what truth is. So our work as conscious human beings is to refine our perception as close to the truth as possible. Of course there are many layers of truth and there are many sides to truth. Which is why this is an amazing task in our spiritual growth to learn to see the truth, to learn to really look at reality from different perspectives and see all the different variables, all the different conditions of the manifested reality. What is required of us is first to see the truth of ourselves, because if we have a blind spot within, the same blind spot occurs in the outer world. So really learning how to decipher truth in a world full of lies and perpetuated confusion, the remedy is to go within and learn to see the truth of our reality.

And the first question is: Am I lying to myself? Am I holding on to a positive lie in order to soothe myself because I am afraid to look at reality for what it truly is? This is one of the reasons that many people will not look at the truth — because they have unhealed wounds from their childhood. They have such profound insecurities in their inner world that they have developed this external structure of security, this bubble of fantasy, the bubble of positive lies that they tell themselves in order to soothe their wounded child. So they will not admit if there is a real threat happening. Like for instance what is happening now, when a health threat is being used as a justification to strip all of our fundamental human rights away from us. These individuals who are so insecure in themselves find that reality way too terrifying, so they would rather hold on to a positive lie or believe the media surface narrative, that all these measures, all this police enforced quarantine against healthy peaceful people, is merely for our own protection, because they are too terrified to see the actual reality of things. Which is of course that health is always a personal responsibility.

So they have created this narrative of an invisible enemy. For so many people that reality of sickness is something that they can identify with and they will gladly hold onto, because they have been promised that Big Daddy Government will look after them. But those of us who can see how the mind of a psychopath works, we understand that whatever protection the government provides is actually our own enslavement. So that is one reason why some people can’t see the truth. It’s because it’s far too frightening, their psyche cannot handle it, their worldview would totally collapse, they cannot even fathom that such a level of evil could exist in this plane. But those of us who understand the psychopathic mindset know that control is the real currency. And what better way to control them than through fear.

And the second reason why people cannot see the truth is because their lives are continuous struggle. They are so busy because they are having to overwork themselves that they simply do not have the energy to think. They don’t think. Many people work such hard jobs, their life is so challenging that when they get home from work they want nothing more than just to zero out their mind. They do not want to engage in analyzing reality and sorting through news, seeking for conflict of interest or any underlying agendas, or connecting the dots. They’re too exhausted, they don’t want to know.

And the third reason why some people can’t see the truth is because of their blinded place of privilege. They have never actually come across injustice in their lives. Somehow they managed to live their lives in this total fantasy where they believe that governments are actually elected rightfully, and the people that are in power are actually caring people and that the laws that are in place are all justified. They live in this rosy glass world where they believe that everything is what people claim it to be. These people are so naive that they don’t believe that somebody can lie to them. If that person says it’s so in the news, it must be so. This product says that it is good for me, then it must be good for me. If the doctor tells me to take this pill, then I must take it. Nothing’s ever happened to them that has shaken their trust in the system. They’ve never come across injustice and therefore it doesn’t exist for them, and they live in this permanent la-la-land. And if anyone goes to poke them and say you’re believing in a fantasy. The reality is actually horrific — look around. [Their response is] No no no no no no I don’t want to ruin my happy feeling. I put my blinkers on. No, you are the problem, you are bursting my bubble, get out of my life, I want to continue in my rosy perfect world.

The fourth reason people can’t see the truth is because they are so heavily brainwashed and conditioned to believe in the state — statism. When people take whatever the government says or does to heart with such fierce commitment and belief that it’s akin to worship, these people feel that if you insult their government — this nameless faceless entity that they have somehow accepted as their God — that you are insulting them. Then that is blasphemy to ever even consider that the laws that are in place are immoral, or that the president that is standing on the podium is a puppet, propped up by a cult of power. Because of this severe conditioning they will fight for the government until the end, even if it means annihilating all human rights. It doesn’t matter because government is always right. These isms and beliefs are what is really blocking our ability to see truth.

I honestly believe that homeless people are closer to attaining enlightenment than many of the spiritual people that I’ve met in my circles. Why is that? Because they can see the ugly truth. This story of the American dream or the modern Western dream, this glossy image of the Shining City has lost all glamour for them. They can see right through it, they know the reality and it’s painful. It’s so painful for them that instead of using it as an inspiration, that truth is actually so crushing that they have lost all hope. And they are self-medicating on the street, stuck in a loop of addiction. Many of the people on the street are actually veterans who once believed in government, who gave their every last bit of energy and blood and sweat and tears to defend their country. When they come back they realize it was all a lie, it was all illusion and they are not getting the help they need. They suffer from PTSD, they’re not getting the therapy to help, so they spiral out of society and end up on the streets, used and abused and lied to. If you’ve never spoken to a homeless person, it may be difficult to understand what I mean. But my husband and I a couple of months ago went around in San Francisco and we spoke with the homeless people there. They were wide awake. They see the ugly truth of our reality. Some of them are more generous people than I’ve ever met, giving every single bit that they get to the others, sharing their coat when they get cold — people who have nothing, not even shelter, are out there looking after each other, in the harsh streets.

But I hope that those of us who see the truth would not let the truth crush us, but would use this as the diagnostic tool to heal humanity. Because we need to be able to accurately diagnose a problem in order to treat it correctly. And if we never come to terms with the actual reality of all of these powers, of these industries, then we are willing slaves of an oppressive system. I liken it to having a splinter under your skin. It’s something that doesn’t belong to us, this enslavement, this tyranny, it’s not from us, it doesn’t belong to our nature, because we are sovereign beings, we are beings with creative consciousness. But this force is oppressing us, and it’s telling us a story that we depend on them. But I’m ready to tell another story. I’m ready to say, let’s remove that splinter. Because if we don’t remove that splinter, it will get infected. And it will begin to spread. And if we don’t treat that infection, it can turn into something that is life-threatening. This is what is happening to the collective soul of humanity right now. Our very nature is under attack. We are being told that our body is not our property. We are being threatened with mandatory medical treatments, examinations, injections, against our free will. That is the end of humanity. If we give in to this slavery, we will lose ourselves. And we will betray all the generations to come. Because if we don’t have bodily autonomy, then we have no freedom. If we don’t even have freedom to choose whether to take a medical pharmaceutical substance or not, then what freedom have we got left? Our body is our sacred temple, and the state does not have the right to violate it under any circumstance.

And this is why we have to take a stand now. We need to be able to look into the eyes of these oppressors, and say ‘No’. You do not have more rights than me. We are all created equal in our rights. And in the face of natural law, you do not have the right to coerce me into a medical treatment against my free will. This is what we must do now. So I call on all of you who can see the truth to become the Lighthouse; to be the voice for all the generations to come, as well. Because what is at stake is the sacred heart of humanity, our very Nature. So let’s keep speaking the truth, defend our true nature, which is freedom, and love.

Transcribed from a May 2020 video talk

お元気で、ご自分の力で

皆さまの自身の本能、皆さまの自身の常識、そしてあなた自身の自然免疫システムを信頼してください。あなたはあなたがあなたの体に何を入れるかを決める資格がある唯一の人であり、あなたが知っていて信頼している人々からのアドバイスを受けています

English version

私は医師でも生物学者でもないので、保健当局としての資格はありません。そしてそれがまさにポイントです。あなたはあなた自身の健康に関する究極の権威です。もちろん、信頼できる人からアドバイスを受けます。これについては、以下のｧ 16で検討します。しかし、常識的な健康上の決定は、医師や生物学者の独占的な領域ではありません。ここでは、医学雑誌、研究報告、文献レビュー記事、事例研究、プレプリント、オンラインビデオ、ハーブの参考資料から学んだことを、他の人が自分で情報の山をナビゲートできるように、情報源へのリンクとともに要約します。

医学出版物はウイルスSARS-CoV-2と病気新型コロナウィルスと呼んでいます。しかし、簡単にするために、ウイルスとそれが引き起こす病気の両方をSARS2と呼びます。これは、SARS1が改変されているためです。

1.ワクチンではありません。 mRNA薬は、SARS2ウイルスの感染を防ぎませんし、他の人への感染を防ぎません。これは、製造業者の緊急使用許可（EUA）の申請書、および例外なくこれらの薬剤のすべての試験と研究で開示されています。それらは、米国特許庁の「ワクチン」の定義を満たしていません。CDCが2021年9月にワクチンの定義を「免疫」の誘導から「免疫応答」に変更したにもかかわらず、私は以前の定義を保持し、mRNA薬を注射、接種、または注射と呼びます。

2.皆さまの自身の自然免疫システムは、コロナウイルスとすべての病原体に対する最高の保護を提供します。外来の侵入者を認識し、「オンザフライ」で生来の汎用抗体を適応させてそれらを食い尽くします。 「ナチュラルキラー」（NK）細胞は、侵入する病原体に対する2番目の自然防御線を提供します。したがって、病原体に対する最も効果的な準備は、自分自身の自然免疫システムを強化することです。これは無料で簡単に行うことができます。ぐっすり眠るとDNAが修復され、抗体とNK細胞の産生が強化されます。日光、魚油、およびサプリメントは、病原体に対する免疫応答を強化し、バランスをとるビタミンDを提供します。オレガノ、タイム、タンポポ、その他のハーブの葉から作られたお茶も、自然免疫システムを刺激します。自然免疫は、堅牢でと耐久性があります。さらに、SARS2から回復した人は誰でも、SARS2に対する抗体に加えて、曝露されたときに多くを生成する細胞記憶を保持します。変異体に対する免疫は、mRNA注射によって生成された静的（進化できない）抗体の免疫よりも優れています。イスラエルでは、世界で最も高いmRNA注射率の1つであり、デルタ変異体は、注射なしでSARS2から回復した人よりも、mRNA注射を受けた人の間で13倍多く見られます。注射されたものはまた、症状を患う可能性が7倍高くなります。この研究は、「自然免疫は、BNT162b2 [ファイザー] 2回接種ワクチン誘発免疫と比較して、SARS2のデルタ変異体によって引き起こされる感染、症候性疾患、および入院に対するより長く持続するより強力な保護を与えることを示しました。」

3.NIHが資金提供する生物兵器。以前のすべての病原体とは異なり、SARS2ウイルスは、人間が設計した生物兵器であり、人間の上皮細胞とアンジオテンシン変換酵素（ACE2）受容体に感染して結合するように特別に設計されています。これらの細胞は、血管や重要な臓器の内層を形成します。通常、それらはバリアとして機能します。しかし、SARS2ウイルスは、これらの受容体にラッチするスパイクのような形のタンパク質で設計されています。この能力は、反対の初期の主張にもかかわらず、自然に進化しませんでしたノースカロライナ大学と武漢ウイルス研究所で、米国国立衛生研究所（NIH）からの資金提供を受けて、致命的な生物兵器として意図的に設計されました。 これらの3つの機関はすべて、SARS2の病気の原因となるウイルスの特許を取得しましたが、自然に発生した場合は特許を取得できませんでした。 NIH、NIAID(アレルギーおよび感染症の国立研究所)、DOD(国防総省)、およびその他の米国政府の資金提供機関の高官は、この調査から生じる可能性のあるパンデミックの警告を無視しました。このNIH / WVIが設計したウイルスは、400万人以上を殺しました。

4.実際に患者を治療している医師は、何が効果的であるかについて最も信頼できる経験と証拠を持っています。アメリカの医師と外科医の協会は、ここ、ここ、そしてここで利用可能な彼らの最良の治療法の要約をまとめました。感染の初期段階では、治療は以前に他の目的で使用されていた薬剤で構成され、ACE-2細胞受容体へのウイルスの付着を阻止するという有益な副作用があります。治療の後期段階では、必要に応じて、抗凝血剤と抗炎症薬を使用します。

5.自然療法。一般的なタンポポの葉と花から作られたお茶は、SARS2がACE2細胞受容体に結合するのをブロックします。ザクロの皮の抽出物は、スパイク-ACE-2受容体の相互作用もブロックします。パイナップルに含まれるブロメラインと呼ばれる酵素は、スパイクタンパク質をブロックすることでSARS2感染を抑制し、血栓を破壊します。赤ワインはスパイクタンパク質も破壊し、抗凝血剤として作用し、血栓型心臓発作を予防することでよく知られています。レスベラトロールと呼ばれる分子がこれを行います。イチゴに一般的に見られる別の天然分子であるフィセチンは、スパイクタンパク質に強く結合するため、スパイクタンパク質の細胞への侵入をブロックします。 （出典：Journal Biomolecular Structure＆Dynamics、Volume 39、No。9、page 3225、2021。) 亜鉛イオンはin vitro / ラボラトリーでSARS1を中和します。しかし、外側の細胞膜を通過して中央の細胞質に入るには、亜鉛はそれを運ぶための「イオノフォア」を必要とします。緑茶には、亜鉛イオンに結合して細胞質に運ぶ化合物が含まれています。そこに到達すると、亜鉛は（当然のことながら）レプリカーゼと呼ばれるタンパク質の形成を阻害することによってウイルス複製をブロックします。 SARS1とSARS2はどちらも、この同じタンパク質を使用して自分自身を複製します。それがなければ、どちらのウイルスもRNAのコピーを作成できず、したがって増殖できません。緑茶（EGCG、エピガロカテキンガレート）は、実際にはそれ自体でウイルス複製をブロックしますが、さまざまなウイルスタンパク質を同時に攻撃するのは良いことです。 （これはin vitroでのみ、特に緑茶抽出物で研究されていますが、in vivo/体での実験が行われるまで、緑茶を飲んでも害はありません。）

6.もともとエイズワクチンを製造するための失敗した努力の一部として開発されたメッセンジャーRNA（mRNA）技術は、モノクローナル抗原特異的抗体を製造するために体を使用します。モノクローナルであるため、単一機能抗体から容易に逃れるウイルス変異体の広がりに見られるように、進化する病原体に適応することができません。抗生物質の過剰使用が細菌性病原体の耐性株を促進するのと同様に、大量接種はモノクローナル抗体を回避するウイルス変異体を促進します。ウイルス標的が進化するたびに新しい抗体をカスタム設計するよりも、製造業者がmRNA製剤を調整する方がはるかに安価であるため、mRNA技術は魅力的でした。

7.　緊急使用許可（EUA）の特異性。 EUAの手順は、もともと5　ー　6年かかるFDAの承認を回避するために開発されました。活動家や製薬会社は、新薬へのより迅速なアクセスを要求しました。これに応じて、EUAの手順は、（A）他に安全で効果的な治療法が利用できず、（B）製薬会社は危害に対する責任を免除されています。これらの条件を条件として、新薬は迅速に承認される可能性があります。倫理的には、安全で効果的な治療法が存在する場合、実験薬を提供または使用すべきではないというのが基本です。

SARS2のパンデミックは、迅速な治療法の要求をもたらし、それにより、抗体刺激mRNAの実験的大量注射に対する承認とEUAを促進しました。パニックでほとんど注目されなかったのは、他の救済策が利用できないというEUAの不測の事態でした。しかし、mRNAメーカーは、EUAを無効にする可能性があるため、その偶発性を非常に認識していました。彼らは他のすべての救済策の信用を傷つけることに着手しました。

亜鉛と一緒にマラリアに対して使用されるヒドロキシクロロキン（HCQ）、および熱帯寄生虫に対して使用されるイベルメクチン（IVM）は、症候性のSARS2感染患者の入院と死亡を減らします。HCQはACE2受容体（SARS2血管伝達の主要な手段）へのウイルスの結合をブロックし、IVMは細胞間シグナル伝達を改善して、隣接する細胞にウイルスの攻撃を警告し、炎症を引き起こすサイトカインを阻害し、ウイルス複製に必要なタンパク質の形成をブロックします。

有名な医学雑誌TheLancetは、HCQを心不整脈に関連付けることを目的とした記事を2020年4月に発表しました。数週間後、ランセットはこの主張のデータが存在しないことを発見し、調査会社と研究の著者は姿を消しました。 2020年6月、ランセットは記事を撤回しましたが、数か月後、医師と薬剤師は、安全で効果的な治療を処方または調剤するための免許と生計手段の喪失の脅威にさらされ、HCQについて話したり書いたりしたことでソーシャルメディアで検閲されました。 IVMの信用を傷つける同様の試みは、医療メディアや人気のあるメディアで定期的に見られ、FDAは依然として獣医と人間の治療を混同しています。代替治療法がないというEUAの不測の事態を考えると、mRNAメーカーは実際にはHCQとIVMを利用できないようにするために可能な限りのことをするしかありませんでした。悲劇的な皮肉なことに、これらの代替療法が成功すればするほど、mRNAメーカーは訴訟からのEUA免除を維持するために、それらをより徹底的に除去しようとしなければなりません。

mRNAメーカーにとって同様に重要なこととして、彼らは製品によって引き起こされた数万人の死と数十万人の負傷に対する責任に対するシールドとしてEUAを保持しなければなりませんでした。そうでなければ、訴訟は彼らを破産させる可能性があります。 2021年8月27日、FDAは、データをサポートすることなく、また通常の独立したレビューや公開コメントなしに、BioNTechmRNA製品に完全な承認を与えました。ただし、利用できません。ファイザー製品は、EUAステータスによっていかなる責任からも保護され、市場に残っています。

8.「95パーセントの有効性」。 EUAの申請について、ファイザーは、SARS-2疾患にかかった181人のうち、172人がプラセボを投与され、そのうち9人がファイザーのBioNTech接種を受けたことを発見しました。このことから、ファイザーは「95％の有効性」を主張しました。これはそれ以来広く引用されている数字です。ただし、この測定値に暗黙的に含まれる「有効性」の定義は、統計的に有意であったとしても、「ワクチン」に通常期待されるものには達していません。それ以来私たちが学んだように、多くの人々は症状を示さずにSARS2に感染します。 SARS2の存在に関するPCR検査には重大な欠陥があり、中止されました。また、ファイザーは、妊娠中の女性、子供、SARS-2で回復した患者、および高齢者をEUA前のテストから除外したため、これらのグループに関連するEUA前のテストデータはありません。

9. 実験薬。米国FDAは、ファイザーおよびその他のEUA申請を承認し、2023年10月に終了する予定の治験薬に関するデータを収集するための臨床試験を実施する許可を与えました。「調査」、「実験」、および「試験」という用語としてこの臨床試験の結果を事前に知ることはできないことを明確に示しています。しかし、これらの薬が安全で効果的であることを切に願うかもしれませんが、2年間の臨床試験が完了するまで、そしてその後、それらが確実であるという保証はありません。猛威を振るうパンデミックと同時に起こる極端な時間的プレッシャーでさえ、そのような実験の過程を加速することはできません。臨床試験の目的は、新しい実験薬がどれほど安全で効果的であるかを調べることです。

10. mRNA注射の利点。心臓病、肥満、糖尿病、免疫不全などの他の症状に苦しんでいる人々は、SARS2の追加の負担のリスクが最も高く、mRNA注射の恩恵を受けています。 mRNA注射は、体が弱くなった状態で許容されるよりも強力な免疫応答を開始することにより、SARS-2症状の重症度を軽減し、ウイルス複製を抑制し、多くの命を救います。

11. ワクチン接種後の死亡。 mRNA薬に対する個々の反応は大きく異なります。米国CDCのワクチン有害事象報告システム（VAERS）や他の国の同様のデータベースによると、腕の痛みなどの一時的な副作用は別として、注射されたものの99％はすぐに反応しません。しかし、接種された人の数が非常に多いことを考えると、深刻な副作用のほんのわずかな割合でさえ、数万人の死をもたらしました。統計学者は、とにかくいくつかの死亡が発生したであろうので、本当の尺度は予想されたものに加えて「過剰な死亡」であると警告します。同時に、注射後の死亡の多くが報告されていない可能性が非常に高いです。幾つか？誰も知らない。

統計的集合体の領域を離れて個々の症例に移ると、死因はしばしば脳卒中、心臓発作、血栓症、本質的には血栓であることがわかります。さらなる調査により、SARS2抗体の産生を刺激することを目的としたmRNAで生成されたスパイクタンパク質は、血管や重要な臓器の内層に付着していることが示されています。そこで、これらの小さなとげは、通常は滑らかな表面であるものを粗くします。血小板は、凝固の原因となる血球の一種であり、最も小さな流れの障害物の周りに凝集します。最初、これらの微小凝固は小さすぎて、心臓発作や脳卒中のリスクを評価するために使用されるCATスキャンで検出できません。 D-ダイマーテストと呼ばれるものがそれらを検出できます。 0.5マイクログラム/ミリリットルの血液未満のD-ダイマーレベルは正常です。

12. マイクロ凝固。 mRNA注射を受けた直後に死亡した人の剖検では、mRNAで生成されたスパイクタンパク質によるACE-2受容体を伴うすべての臓器の微小凝固と炎症が示され、写真を並べて比較するとはっきりとわかります。 mRNAの影響とは別に、動脈硬化症は、遺伝的要因、食事、コレステロール、ライフスタイル、および炎症に対する感受性に応じて、さまざまな人々でさまざまな速度で進行します。これらの属性に好意的に対処している人々は、おそらく、遺伝や食事などが詰まりを促進する人々よりもスパイクタンパク質に耐えることができます。これは、mRNA注射に対する即時反応の個人差、注射直後に死亡する人もいれば、即時反応を経験しない人もいる理由を説明している可能性があります。数年以内に予想よりも高い心血管系の問題が発生するかどうか、またいつ発生するかについては、さらに詳しく知ることができます。

13.心筋炎（心臓の肥大）は、mRNA注射の直接の結果として何千人もの若者に報告されています。正確なプロセスは不明ですが、おそらく他の場所で見られるのと同じ微小凝固が原因です。心臓では、通路が狭くなっていると心臓が働きにくくなり、心臓が大きくなります。損傷した心臓細胞は新しい細胞に置き換えられませんが、代わりに瘢痕組織で覆われます。これは通常、心臓病の前兆です。

14.再感染はありません。独自の生来の抗体によってSARS2から回復した人々は、SARS2の元のバージョンまたはバリアントに再感染することはめったにありません。この保護は、先天性抗体がモノクローナルではないために正確に発生します。これらは、新しい脅威に対抗するために適応および進化します。自然免疫の汎用抗体の代わりに特殊なmRNA生成モノクローナル抗体を使用すると、免疫系が変異体や新しい病原体に応答する能力が損なわれます。抗原特異的抗体は、SARS2への結合に関して自然免疫抗体を凌駕し、それによって自然免疫系のトレーニングを低下させます。 mRNA注射を受けた人は、突然変異や変異に反応することができません。なぜなら、彼らの免疫系は、SARS-2ウイルスの元の形態だけと戦うように設計された人工のmRNA生成防御システムによって引き継がれているからです。

15.病原性プライミング。 SARS2から回復した人は、再感染のリスクがありません。それらの抗体が回復後数ヶ月で減少したとしても、それらは細胞記憶を保持し、さらなる曝露でそれらの抗体を再生成します。これらの先天性抗体は、SARS2の変異や変異とともに進化します。しかし、免疫システムが正常に機能しているこれらの人々が、追加の特殊目的の抗体を生成する注射を行うと、彼らは自分の免疫システムを破壊するだけでなく、自然免疫とmRNAの組み合わせである「病原性プライミング」のリスクも冒します。 -生成された抗体は、体自身の細胞を攻撃する余剰を作成します。この「サイトカインストーム」はほとんどの場合致命的です。したがって、SARS2感染から回復した人は、たとえ感染に無症状があったとしても、mRNA薬を避けるべきです。

16. 信頼。他の人間の活動では、医療よりも信頼が不可欠です。私たちの健康と人生を他の人に委ねるには、他の環境ではもうほとんど感じられないような信仰が必要です。それでも私たちは、未知の効果で、私たちが何も知らない何かを私たちの体に注入するように求められています-いいえ、多くの場合、強制されます-。私たちは、白い白衣を着ている人々に盲目的で受動的な信頼を置いて、従うべき科学があるかのように「科学に従う」ように言われています。彼らの指示は私たち自身のためであると言われていますが、彼らが私たちを知らず、私たちが彼らを知らない場合、どうすれば彼らは私たちにとって何が良いかを知ることができますか？信頼は、個人的な関係は別として、不定形で自由に動く属性として存在することはできません。信頼は、個人間の経験と相互の知識に基づいている場合にのみ授けることができます。

私たちの体に実験物質を注射するように交互に懇願し、脅迫している公衆衛生当局について、私たちは何を知っていますか？米国国立衛生研究所（NIH）と国立アレルギー感染症研究所（NIAID）が、共産主義者が管理するウーハン（中国）ウイルス学における生物兵器の機能獲得研究と開発を研究し、資金を提供したことを私たちは知っています。研究所（WVI）。そしてそこから、現在の疫病とパンデミックが発生しました。彼らの役割を隠すために、これらの人々は、SARS2の起源の正確な追跡を可能にするデータを破壊し、沈黙させ、打ち切り、場合によっては、問題の事実を報告した科学者を逮捕し、死因統計を歪めてパニックを助長しました。ますます厳しくなる恐怖のキャンペーンに従事し、実験薬を拒否する自由への異常な攻撃で最高潮に達しました。

何か問題が発生した場合、これらの役人またはその製薬会社が私たちの面倒を見てくれますか？何百万人もの人々が彼らの失望に気づいているので、答えはノーです。製薬会社は、EUAに基づいて行動する場合、いかなる責任も免除されます。責任シールドを削除する必要がある完全なFDA承認は、入手できない製品にのみ適用されます。 FDAは、2021年8月24日に撮影されたBioNTechにそのような承認を与えましたが、これは実際には入手できない製品です。同時に、ファイザーショットは、EUAの下でのみではありますが、引き続き利用可能であり、責任を免除されます。この法的な官僚的な操作のすべては、公衆衛生当局と製薬会社が彼らの製品によってなされた危害に対する責任を免れることを可能にします。これは、介護者と患者の関係に通常適用されるような信頼を刺激するものではありません。

mRNA技術の発明者であるロバート・マローン博士は、外部のレビュー委員会とパブリックコメントなしにFDAの承認プロセスはこれまでなかったと述べています。 FDAは論争はないと主張している。マローン博士は次のように述べています。物議を醸している問題の少なくとも一つは、現在必要とされている多くの多くの研究がある心毒性です。彼らがやったことは、政府や州や企業がワクチンを義務付けることを可能にする何かを妨害することです。彼ら自身の声明によると、彼らは安全性と有効性の主張を裏付けるデータを持っていません。彼らが持っている有効性の主張は明らかに時代遅れのデータに基づいています。アルファ版とベータ版に基づいています。」

Geert Vanden Bosscheは、GSK、Novartis、Solvay、およびGates Foundationでのワクチン開発の豊富な経験を持つ、獣医学博士およびPhDウイルス学者です。彼と他の人々は3月（2021年）にパンデミック時の集団予防接種キャンペーンは、ウイルスの亜種を作成し、人工的に誘導された抗体が自然免疫系を打ち負かすこと汎用抗体。これらの予防接種キャンペーンは、彼が警告した、「現在のワクチンのどれもウイルス変異体の複製/伝達を防ぐことができないので、適応免疫脱出をさらに強化する可能性が高い」。そのようなものとして、 「パンデミックの真っ只中にいる人々を免疫するためにこれらのワクチンを使用するほど、より感染性の高いウイルスになります」。

そしてそれは起こった。

ファイザー-モダナショットは、これまで以上に感染性の変異体のシリーズを生成しながら、自然免疫系を劣化させることによってパンデミックを延長しています。私たちは今、「ム」までです。おそらくギリシャ語のアルファベットのアルファとオメガの間のどこかで、ゼータの変種は皆に感染するでしょう。「ゼータ」はたまたまメキシコの麻薬カルテルの名前でもあります。薬物中毒のクマを誘導するファイザー・モダナの手段は、ゼータ・カルテルの技術に似ています – 執行者として政府を参加させ、政府の役人やメディアに賄賂を送ります。その後、生活、教育、旅行、食品購入、銀行、ショッピング、エンターテイメント、社会生活を脅かすことによって、ユーザーを怖がらせます。これらの役人とテストされていない実験薬のサプライヤーは、私たちが私たちの生活を信頼するように求められている、または強制されている人々。

代わりに、皆さまの自身の本能、皆さまの自身の常識、そしてあなた自身の自然免疫システムを信頼してください。あなたはあなたがあなたの体に何を入れるかを決める資格がある唯一の人であり、あなたが知っていて信頼している人々からのアドバイスを受けています。結局、永遠に続くことができない何か…そうはなりません。十分な数の人々が実験動物のように振る舞うのをやめ、この狂った実験をオプトアウトすると、パンデミックは終わります。

~~　ミラー・ピーター (Peter Miller)、鎌倉、2021年9月14日

◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇

作品

識見(英語)

Take Care of Yourself

You are the ultimate authority on your own health, with advice from people you know and trust.

日本語

I am neither a medical doctor nor a biologist, therefore have no qualifications as a health authority. And that is exactly the point. You are the ultimate authority on your own health. Of course you take advice from those you trust, which we will consider in §16 below. But common-sense health decisions are not the exclusive province of doctors and biologists. Here I summarize what I have learned from medical journals, research reports, literature-review articles, case studies, preprints, online videos, and herbal references, with links to sources, so that others can navigate the thicket of information for themselves.

Medical publications call the virus SARS-CoV-2 and the disease covid or covid-19. But for simplicity, I refer to both the virus and the disease it causes as SARS2, since it is a modified SARS1.

  1. Not a Vaccine. The mRNA drugs don’t prevent infection with the SARS-2 virus and don’t prevent its onward transmission to others. This is disclosed in the manufacturers’ applications for Emergency Use Approval (EUA) and in all tests and studies of these drugs, without exception. They don’t meet the U.S. Patent Office’s definition of a ‘vaccine’. Despite CDC’s changing its definitiion of a vaccine in Sept 2021 from inducing an ‘immunity’ to nothing more than ‘an immune response’, I retain the earlier definition and refer to the mRNA drugs as injections, inoculations, or shots.

2. Your Own Innate Immune System provides the best protection against coronaviruses and all pathogens. It recognizes foreign invaders and adapts innate general-purpose antibodies ‘on the fly’ to devour them. Natural Killer (NK) cells provide a second natural line of defense against invading pathogens. Therefore the most effective preparation against any pathogen is to strengthen one’s own innate immune system. This can easily be done at no cost: A good night’s sleep repairs DNA and reinforces production of antibodies and NK cells. Sunlight, fish oil, and supplements provide Vitamin D which enhances and balances immune responses to pathogens. Teas made from leaves of oregano, thyme, dandelion, and other herbs also stimulate the innate immune system. Natural immunity is robust and durable. In addition, anyone who has recovered from SARS2 retains antibodies against it, plus cellular memory that produces more when exposed. Immunity against variants is superior to that of the static (unable to evolve) antibodies generated by mRNA injections. In Israel, with one of the highest rates of mRNA injections in the world, the Delta variant is 13 times more prevalent among those who have received mRNA injections than among those who have recovered from SARS2 without any injection. The injected are also seven times more likely to suffer symptoms. This study ‘demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS2, compared to the BNT162b2 [Pfizer] two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.‘

3. An NIH-Funded Bio-Weapon. Unlike all prior pathogens, the SARS-2 virus is a human-engineered bio-weapon, specifically designed to infect and bind to human epithelial cells and angiostatin-converting enzyme (ACE2) receptors. These cells form the inner lining of blood vessels and vital organs. Normally they act as a barrier. But the SARS2 virus has been designed with a protein shaped like a spike to latch onto these receptors. This ability did not evolve naturally, despite early assertions to the contrary — it was purpose-designed as a deadly bio-weapon, at the University of North Carolina and the Wuhan Virology Institute, with funding provided by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). All three of these institutions patented the SARS2 disease-causing virus, which could not have been patented if it had arisen naturally. Top officials of NIH, NIAID, DOD, and other U.S. Government funding agencies ignored warnings of the pandemic likely to result from this research. This NIH/WVI-designed virus has killed more than four million people.

4. Doctors Who Are Actually Treating Patients successfully have the most reliable experience and evidence of what works. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has compiled a summary of their best treatment practices, available here, here, and here. In early stages of infection, treatment consists of drugs previously used for other purposes, which happen to have the beneficial side-effect of blocking virus adherence to ACE2 cell receptors. Later stages of treatment, if needed, use blood thinners and anti-inflammatory drugs.

5. Natural Remedies. Tea made from the leaves and flowers of common dandelion blocks SARS2 from binding to ACE2 cell receptors. Pomegranate peel extract also blocks spike-ACE2 receptor interaction. An enzyme found in pineapples, called bromelian, inhibits SARS-2 infection by blocking the spike protein, and also breaks up blood clots. Red wine also disrupts the spike protein and is well-known to act as a blood thinner, preventing clot-type heart attacks. A molecule called resveratrol does this. Fisetin, another natural molecule commonly found in strawberries, binds strongly to spike protein, thus blocking spike protein entry into cells. (Source: Journal Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics,Volume 39, No. 9, page 3225, 2021.)

Zinc ions neutralize SARS1 in vitro, in a lab dish. But in order to pass through outer cell membranes into the central cell cytoplasm, zinc requires an ionophore to carry it there. Green tea contains a compound that does that — binds to zinc ions and carries them into cell cytoplasm. Once there, zinc blocks virus replication by inhibiting formation of a protein called (not surprisingly) replicase. Both SARS-1 and SARS-2 use this same protein to replicate themselves. Without it, neither virus can make copies of their RNA, and thus cannot proliferate. Green tea (EGCG, epigallocatechin gallate) actually blocks viral replication on its own, but it’s nice to attack various viral proteins at the same time. (While this has only been studied in vitro, and specifically with green tea extract, there’s certainly no harm in drinking green tea pending in vivo human experiments.)

6. Messenger-RNA (mRNA) Technology, originally developed as part of a failed effort to produce an AIDS vaccine, uses the body to manufacture monoclonal antigen-specific antibodies. Being monoclonal, they are unable to adapt to evolving pathogens, as is seen with the spread of viral variants that readily escape single-function antibodies. Similar to the way over-use of antibiotics promotes resistant strains of bacterial pathogens, mass inoculation promotes viral variants that evade monoclonal antibodies. The mRNA technology was attractive because it is much less expensive for manufacturers to adjust mRNA formulations than to custom-design new antibodies every time a viral target evolves.

7. Peculiarities of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). The EUA protocol was originally developed to circumvent FDA approval taking five to six years. Activists and drug companies demanded faster access to new drugs. In response, the EUA protocol provided that if (A) no other safe and effective treatments are available, and (B) drug manufacturers would incur no liability for harm, new drugs could get expedited approval. Ethically, it’s elementary that if a safe and effective remedy exists, then an experimental drug should not be offered or used.

The SARS2 pandemic brought demands for a quick remedy, and with it expedited approval and EUA for experimental mass injections of antibody-stimulating mRNA. Little noted in the panic was the EUA’s contingency on the unavailability of any other remedy. However, the mRNA makers were very much aware of that contingency, because it could nullify their EUA. They set out to discredit all other remedies.

Hydroxylchloroquine (HCQ), used against malaria, together with zinc, and Ivermectin (IVM), used against tropical parasites, reduce hospitalization and deaths among symptomatic SARS2-infected patients. HCQ blocks viral binding to ACE2 receptors (the primary means of SARS2 vascular transmission), and IVM improves inter-cellular signaling to alert neighboring cells to viral attack, inhibits inflammation-causing cytokines, and blocks formation of proteins required for viral replication.

The prestigious medical journal The Lancet published an article in April 2020 purporting to link HCQ to heart arrhythmia. Several weeks later, The Lancet discovered the data for this assertion did not exist, and the research firm and authors of the study disappeared. In June 2020 The Lancet retracted the article, though months later doctors and pharmacists were still being threatened with loss of licensure and livelihoods for prescribing or dispensing a safe and effective treatment, and being censored in social media for talking or writing about HCQ. Similar attempts to discredit IVM appear regularly in medical and popular media, and FDA still confuses veterinary and human treatments. The mRNA makers actually had no choice but to do everything possible to make HCQ and IVM unavailable, given the EUA contingency of there being no alternative treatment. With tragic irony, the more successful these alternative remedies are, the more thoroughly the mRNA makers must try to remove them, to maintain their EUA immunity from lawsuits.

Of equal importance to the mRNA makers, they had to retain their EUA as a shield against liability for the tens of thousands of deaths, and hundreds of thousands of injuries, caused by their products. Otherwise lawsuits could bankrupt them. On August 27, 2021, FDA granted full approval to the BioNTech mRNA product without supporting data, and without the usual independent review and pubic comment. It is not available, however. The Pfizer product remains on the market, shielded by its EUA status from any liability.

8. ’95 Percent Efficacy’. For its EUA application, Pfizer found that of 181 people who got SARS2 disease, 172 of them had received a placebo, nine of them Pfizer’s BioNTech inoculation. From this, Pfizer claimed ‘95 percent efficacy‘, a figure which has been widely quoted since. However, the definition of ‘efficacy’ implicit in this measure, even if it were statistically significant, falls short of what one would normally expect of a ‘vaccine’. As we have since learned, many people contract SARS2 without showing symptoms; the PCR tests for presence of SARS2 are seriously flawed and have been abandoned. Also, Pfizer excluded pregnant women, children, SAR2-recovered patients, and the elderly from its pre-EUA testing, so there are no pre-EUA test data pertaining to these groups.

9. Experimental Drugs. The U.S. FDA approved Pfizer’s and the others’ EUA applications, granting them permission to run a clinical trial to gather data on their investigational drugs, scheduled to conclude in October 2023. As the terms investigational, experimental, and trial clearly indicate, the outcome of this clinical trial cannot be known in advance. However fervently we may wish these drugs to be safe and effective, there can be no assurance that they are until completion of the two-year-long clinical trial in October 2023 and thereafter. Not even the extreme time-pressure coincident with a raging pandemic can accelerate the course of such an experiment. The purpose of a clinical trial is to find out how safe and effective a new, experimental drug may be.

10. Benefits of mRNA Injections. People suffering from other conditions such as heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and immuno-compromise, who are most at risk from the additional burden of SARS2, benefit from the mRNA injections. By causing the body to mount a more vigorous immune response than its weakened condition would otherwise permit, the mRNA injections mitigate the severity of SARS2 symptoms and stifle viral replication, saving many lives.

11. Post-Vaccine Deaths. Individual reactions to the mRNA drugs vary widely. Leaving aside transient side effects such as sore arms, 99 percent of those injected have no immediate reaction, according to the U.S. CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and similar databases in other countries. However, given the very large number of people inoculated, even a small percentage of severe adverse effects has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. Statisticians caution that since some deaths would have occurred anyway, the true measure is ‘excess deaths’ in addition to what would have been expected. At the same time, it is very likely that many post-injection deaths go unreported. How many? We don’t know.

When we leave the territory of statistical aggregates and move to individual cases, we find that the cause of death was often stroke, heart attack, thrombosis — essentially blood clots. Further investigation shows that the mRNA-generated spike proteins — which are intended to stimulate production of SARS-2 antibodies — attach themselves to the inner linings of blood vessels and vital organs. There these tiny thorns rough-up what is normally a smooth surface. Platelets, the type of blood cell responsible for clotting, aggregate around the tiniest flow-impediment. At first, these micro-coagulations are too small to be detected by CAT-scans that are used to assess risk of heart attack and stroke. Something called a D-dimer test can detect them. D-dimer levels less than 0.5 micrograms/ milliliter of blood are normal.

  1. Micro-Coagulations. Autopsies of those who have died soon after receiving mRNA injections show micro-coagulations and inflammation all organs with ACE-2 receptors by mRNA-generated spike protein, clearly visible in side-by-side photo comparisons. Quite apart from mRNA effects, arteriosclerosis progresses at different rates in different people, depending on hereditary factors, diet, cholesterol, lifestyle, and susceptibility to inflammation. People who are favorably disposed on these attributes can probably tolerate spike proteins better than those whose heredity, diet, etc. facilitate clogging. This may account for individual differences in immediate reaction to the mRNA injections, why some people die soon after injection, and others experience no immediate reaction. We will know more if and when higher than expected rates of cardio-vascular problems show up in several years.

13. Myocarditis — enlargement of the heart — has been reported in thousands of young people as a direct result of mRNA injections. The exact process is unknown, but is probably due to the same micro-coagulations seen elsewhere. In the heart, constricted passageways make the heart work harder, enlarging it. Heart cells when damaged are not replaced with new cells, but instead are covered with scar tissue, typically a precursor of heart disease.

14. No Re-Infection. People who have recovered from SARS-2 by means of their own innate antibodies rarely get re-infected with the original version of SARS-2 or with variants. This protection occurs precisely because innate antibodies are NOT monoclonal — they adapt and evolve to counter the new threat. Substituting a specialized mRNA-generated monoclonal antibody for innate general-purpose antibodies impairs the ability of the immune system to respond to variants and new pathogens. Antigen-specific antibodies out-compete innate antibodies for binding to SARS-2, thereby degrading training of the innate immune system. Those who have received mRNA injections are unable to respond to mutations or variants, because their immune systems have been taken over by an artificial mRNA-generated defense system, designed to combat only the original form of the SARS-2 virus and nothing else.

15. Pathogenic Priming. People who have recovered from SARS-2 have trivial risk of re-infection. Even if their antibodies are reduced in number several months after recovery, they retain cellular memory that re-generates those antibodies upon further exposure. These innate antibodies also evolve along with SARS-2 mutations and variants. If, however, these people with a healthy functioning immune system take an injection that generates additional special-purpose antibodies, they not only disrupt their own immune system, they also run the risk of ‘pathogenic priming’, the combination of innate antibodies plus mRNA-generated antibodies creating a surplus which attacks the body’s own cells. This ‘cytokine storm’ is almost always fatal. Thus anyone who has recovered from SARS2 infection, even if the infection was symptomless, should avoid any of the mRNA drugs.

16. Trust. In no other human activity is trust more essential than in medical care. To entrust our health and our life to another person requires faith such as we hardly ever feel anymore in other settings. And yet we are being asked — no, forced, in many cases — to inject something into our bodies of which we know nothing, with unknown effects. We are told to follow the science as if there were any science to be followed, with blind, passive trust in people wearing white lab coats. We are told their directives are for our own good, but how can they possibly know what is good for us if they don’t know us and we don’t know them? Trust cannot exist as some amorphous, free-floating attribute, apart from a personal relationship. Trust can only be bestowed when based on inter-personal experience and mutual knowledge.

What do we know of the public health officials who alternately beg and threaten us to inject an experimental substance into our bodies? We know that the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) researched and funded gain-of-function research and development of a bio-weapon at the Communist-controlled Wuhan (China) Virology Institute (WVI). And from that the present plague and pandemic originated. To conceal their role, these people destroyed data that would have allowed accurate tracing of SARS2 origins, silenced, censored, and in some cases arrested scientists who reported the facts of the matter, distorted cause-of-death statistics to promote panic, and otherwise engaged in an increasingly strident campaign of fear, culminating in extraordinary attacks on freedom to refuse an experimental drug.

Will these officials or their drug suppliers take care of us if something goes wrong? As millions of people are finding out to their dismay, the answer is no. The drug companies are exempt from any liability when acting under EUA. Full FDA approval, where the liability shield must be dropped, applies only to a product that is not available. FDA granted such approval to a BioNTech shot on August 24, 2021, a product that is not actually available. At the same time, the Pfizer shot is still available, though only under EUA, exempt from liability. All of this legal-bureaucratic maneuvering lets public health officials and drug companies escape responsibility for harm done by their products. This does not inspire the sort of trust usually applicable to the relationship of caregiver and patient.

Dr Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA technology, says there has never been an FDA approval process without an external review committee and public comment. FDA claims there is no controversy. Dr Malone says ‘There’s been a ton of controversy. Not the least of the controversial issues is the cardio-toxicity for which there are many many studies now required. What they’ve done is jam through something that will enable governments and states and companies to mandate vaccines. By their own statements, they don’t have the data to support the safety and efficacy claims. The efficacy claims that they do have are clearly based on data that is outdated. It’s based on the Alpha and Beta variants.‘

Geert Vanden Bossche is a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and Ph D virologist with extensive experience in vaccine development with GSK, Novartis, Solvay, and the Gates Foundation. He and others warned back in March (2021) that undertaking a mass vaccination campaign during a pandemic would create viral variants, and that the artificially induced antibodies would out-compete innate immune-system general-purpose antibodies. These vaccination campaigns are, he warned, highly likely to further enhance adaptive immune escape as none of the current vaccines will prevent replication/transmission of viral variants. As such, The more we use these vaccines for immunizing people in the midst of a pandemic, the more infectious the virus will become.

And so it has done.

The Pfizer-Moderna shots are prolonging the pandemic by degrading innate immune systems, while generating a series of ever more infectious variants. We’re up to mu now. Perhaps somewhere between Alpha and Omega in the the Greek alphabet, a Zeta variant will descend on the populace. That happens also to be the name of a Mexican drug cartel. The Pfizer-Moderna method of inducing drug addiction bears an uncanny resemblance to the Zeta cartel’s technique — enlist government as enforcer, by bribing government officials and media, and terrify users into complying by threatening their livelihoods, education, travel, food purchasing, banking, shopping, entertainment, and social life. These are the people we are being asked or forced to trust with our lives.

Instead, trust your own instincts, your own common-sense, and your own innate immune system. You are the only one qualified to decide what you put into your body, with advice from people you know and trust. Eventually, something that cannot go on forever… won’t. The pandemic will end when enough people stop acting like lab-rats, and opt-out of this mad experiment.

~~ Peter Miller, September 15, 2021

◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇

On pattern recognition and the engineering of consent

Artwork

Sayings — on Viruses

‘We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.’ — Peter Daszak, Eco-Health Alliance

Transcript of testimony by Dr Christina Parks before Michigan (U.S.A.) House of Representatives, on HR 4471, a Bill to ban employers from forcing employees to take vaccinations, Aug 2021

Dr Christina Parks

I have a PhD in cellular and molecular biology from University of Michigan Medical School, so I’m very well-versed in the science of both these mRNA gene therapy vaccines, this kind of technology as well as what the vaccine is designed to do in the body, what it can do, what it can’t do. This is extremely complex science that has been over-simplified in the media to basically take away our freedom of choice. What I want to address today is the fact that vaccine requirements and mandates are based on the faulty assumption that the vaccines prevent transmission of the pathogen.

Does the vaccine for flu prevent transmission? No. Do the vaccines for covid prevent transmission? No. In fact they were never designed to do that. So you’re asking what about this 95% effectiveness? If you look at those clinical trials, they do not say that they prevent transmission, they expressly say that they’re measuring whether they attenuate symptoms. So they’re 95% effective based on their clinical trials at attenuating symptoms for the first variant, which is essentially gone in our population right now. The predominant variant is Delta, and CDC Director Wollensky basically said that these vaccines have no ability to prevent infection by and transmission of the Delta variant. So our policy needs not to be built on the hope of what we think, something we wanted to do, but what the data actually tell us. So does the vaccine prevent the virus from infecting and replicating in the nose and nasopharynx? No. They’ve only been shown to prevent that replication in the lungs. The mucosa is very different in the lungs and in the blood.

Studies have shown that the vaccinated, especially with the Delta variant, and the unvaccinated have similar amounts of virus in their nose and throat. In Barnstable Massachusetts the CDC tracking an outbreak of 469 cases of covid found that 74 per cent occurred in the fully vaccinated, and four out of five of those hospitalized were vaccinated. The health agencies and CDC know better and are misleading the public. What about the flu vaccine? While they have shown that basically there’s no statistical difference if you’re vaccinated and unvaccinated whether you get the flu or not. But it’s even worse because although that first year it is somewhat effective, it’s about 65% effective at preventing symptoms in you. After that it actually has negative effects.

It’s very important to see that vaccines are made to a specific variant, and when that variant mutates, the vaccine no longer recognizes it, and so it’s like you’re seeing a completely new virus. And because that’s so, you actually get more severe symptoms when you’re vaccinated against one variant, and then it mutates and then your body sees the other variants. So there’s a potential, and the science shows, that in fact with the flu if you get vaccinated in multiple years, you are more likely to get severe disease you are more likely have more viral replication and you are more likely to be hospitalized — both in adults and in children. We are seeing the same thing with covid. So we are mandating that people get a vaccine that could actually make them more sick when they’re exposed to the virus, This week a paper came out, what it showed is that with this Delta variant, when you’re vaccinated your body makes antibodies that are supposed to neutralize the virus. But they were supposed to neutralize the old variant. When they see this new variant, antibodies are taking the virus and helping it in.

We need our policy to reflect the science and we also need it to reflect our rights. As a PhD who knows the science I’m in the category of the most vaccine-hesitant group. PhDs are the most vaccine-hesitant, followed by people who have less than a high school degree, because they know what they don’t know and they don’t trust their government. The other group that is very vaccine-hesitant is African-Americans. Seventy percent of African Americans have not taken this vaccine why because they don’t trust their government. Do they have reason not to trust our government? Well, between the years of 1930 and 1970 the CDC conducted the Tuskegee experiment where they took untreated males with syphilis and they refuse to treat them even after antibiotics became available. They did not tell them that they had syphilis, they told those people that they were there to secure their health. You say well that was in the past, but I don’t think 1970 was that long ago. As an African-American and a PhD I want to ask each of you are we going to exclude 70% of African-American people from the workforce and from education? My ancestors did not work this hard I come up at from a family that worked very hard and I’m very aware that my privileges are dependent on the work of my grandmother and my great-grandmother and I have great respect for these people that put me where I am. And yet you’re telling me that my son will not be able to be educated if, based on the history of African Americans in this country, he doesn’t want to be vaccinated. So I will leave you with that question: Who are we going to exclude from the workforce? Are we going to continue with discrimination and segregation in the United States of America? Thank you. [Video]

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Transcript of remarks by Dr David Martin, July 2021

Dr David Martin

Our firm has been the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries, so in the majority of the countries around the world. Our underwriting systems include the entire corpus of all patents, patent applications, federal grants procurement records, e-government records, etc. We have the ability to not only track what is happening and who is involved in what’s happening but we monitor a series of thematic interests for a variety of organizations and individuals as well as for our own commercial use, because as you probably know we maintain three Global Equity indices which are the the top performing large-cap and mid-cap equity indices worldwide. So our business is to monitor the innovation that’s happening around the world and specifically to monitor the economics of that innovation, the degree to which financial interests are being served, corporate interests are being dislocated etc. So our business is the business of innovation and its finance.

As you know we have reviewed the over 4,000 patents that have been issued around SARS Coronavirus and we have done a very comprehensive review of the financing of all of the manipulations of coronavirus which gave rise to SARS as a subclade of the beta coronavirus family. We took the reported gene sequence which was reportedly indicated as such by the ICTV (the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses) of the World Health Organization. We took the actual genetic sequences that were reportedly novel and reviewed those against the patent records that were available as of the spring of 2020. And what we found are over 120 patented pieces of evidence to suggest that the declaration of a novel coronavirus was actually entirely a fallacy. There was no novel coronavirus. There are countless very subtle modifications of coronavirus sequences that have been uploaded but there was no single identified novel coronavirus at all. As a matter of fact, we found records in the patent records of sequences attributed to novelty going to patents that were sought as early as 1999. So not only was this not a novel anything, it’s actually not been novel for over two decades.

Up until 1999 the topic of coronavirus was uniquely applied to veterinary sciences. The first vaccine ever patented for coronavirus was actually sought by Pfizer. The application for the first vaccine for Coronavirus which was specifically a Spike protein — so the exact same thing that allegedly we have rushed into invention — the first application was filed January 28th 2000 — 21 years ago. So the idea that we mysteriously stumbled on the way to intervene on vaccines is not only ludicrous, it is incredulous because Timothy Miller, Sharon Klepfer, Albert Paul Reed, and Elaine Jones on January 28th 2000 filed what ultimately was issued as U.S. patent 637-2224, which was the spike protein virus vaccine for the canine coronavirus, which is actually one of the multiple forms of coronavirus. But as I said the early work up until 1999 was largely focused in the area of vaccines for animals. The two animals receiving the most attention were probably Ralph Baric’s work on rabbits, and the rabbit cardiomyopathy that was associated with significant problems among rabbit breeders; and then canine coronavirus in Pfizer’s work to identify how to develop a spike protein. [These] target candidates give rise to the obvious evidence that says that neither the coronavirus concept of vaccine nor the principle of the coronavirus itself as a pathogen of interest with respect to the spike protein’s behavior is anything novel at all. As matter fact it’s 22 years old on based on patent files.

What’s more problematic and what is actually the most egregious problem is that Anthony Fauci and NIAID found the malleability of coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines, and so this is actually not a natural progression of a zoonotic modification of coronavirus. As a matter of fact, very specifically in 1999 Anthony Fauci funded research at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill specifically to create — this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19th, 2002 — you heard the date correctly, 2002 — where NIAID built an infectious replication-defective coronavirus specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. In other words we [U.S. NIAID] made SARS and we patented it on April 19th, 2002 before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia. Which [outbreak] as you know followed that by several months, that patent issued as US patent 727-9327. That patent clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing the fact that we knew that the ACE-2 receptor, the ACE-2 binding domain for the s-1 spike protein and other elements of what we have come to know as this scourge pathogen, was not only engineered but could be synthetically modified in the laboratory using nothing more than gene sequencing technologies, taking computer code and turning it into a pathogen or an intermediate of the pathogen. And that technology was funded exclusively in the early days as a means by which we could actually harness coronavirus as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine.

My organization was asked to monitor biological and chemical weapons treaty violations in the very early days of 2000. You’ll remember the anthrax events in September of 2001. And we were part of an investigation that gave rise to the Congressional inquiry into not only the anthrax origins but also into what was unusual behavior around Bayer’s ciprofloxacin drug, which was a drug used as a potential treatment for Anthrax poisoning. And throughout the fall of 2001 we began monitoring an enormous number of bacterial and viral pathogens that were being patented through NIH, NIAID, and the US Armed Services Infectious Disease Program, and a number of other agencies internationally that collaborated with them. And our concern was that coronavirus was being seen as not only a potential manipulable agent for potential uses as a vaccine vector, but it was also very clearly being considered as a biological weapon candidate. So our first public reporting on this took place, prior to the SARS outbreak in the latter part of 2001. So you can imagine how disappointed I am to be sitting here twenty years later having 20 years earlier pointed out that there was a problem looming on the horizon with respect to coronavirus. But after the alleged outbreak — and I will always say alleged outbreak — because I think it’s important for us to understand that coronavirus as a circulating pathogen inside of the viral model that we have is actually not new to the human condition and is not new to the last two decades. It’s actually been part of the sequence of proteins that that circulates for quite a long time.

But the alleged outbreak [of SARS-1] that took place in China in 2002 going into 2003 gave rise to a very problematic April 2003 filing by the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention. And this topic is of critical importance to get the nuance very precise, because in addition to filing the entire gene sequence on what became SARS coronavirus, which is actually a violation of 35 U.S. Code Section 101 — you cannot patent a naturally occurring substance. The 35 U.S. Code Section 101 violation, what is patent number 7220852, now that patent also had a series of derivative patents associated with it. These patent applications were broken apart because they were of multiple patentable subject matter. These include U.S. Patent 465-9270-3p which is actually a very interesting designation, U.S. Patent 7776521. These patents not only covered the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus but also covered the means of detecting it using RT-PCR. Now the reason why that’s a problem is, if you actually both own the patent on the gene itself and you own the patent on its detection, you have a cutting-edge advantage to being able to control 100% of the provenance of not only the virus itself but also its detection — meaning you have entire scientific and message control. And this patent sought by the CDC was allegedly justified by their public relations team as being sought so that everyone would be free to be able to research coronavirus. The only problem with that statement is it’s a lie. And the reason why it’s a lie is because the Patent Office not once but twice rejected the patent on the gene sequence as unpatentable because the sequence was already in the public domain. In other words prior to CDC’s filing for a patent the Patent Office found 99.9% identity with the already existing coronavirus recorded in the public domain.

And over the rejection of the Patent Examiner and after having to pay an appeal fine in 2006 and 2007, the CDC over[came] the Patent Office’s rejection of their patent, and ultimately in 2007 got the patent on SARS Coronavirus. So every public statement that CDC has made that said that this was in the public interest is falsifiable by their own paid bribe to the Patent Office. And to make matters worse, they paid an additional fee to keep their application private. Last time I checked, if you’re trying to make information available for the public to research, you would not pay a fee to keep the information private. I wish I could have made up anything I just said, but all of that is available in the public patent archive record which any member of the public can review. The United States Patent Office has not only the evidence but the actual documents which I have in my possession now.

This is critically important because fact-checkers have repeatedly stated that the novel coronavirus designated as SARS-CoV-2 is in fact distinct from the CDC patent. And here is both the genetic and the patent problem. If you look at the gene sequence that is filed by CDC in 2003, again in 2005, and then again in 2006, what you find is identity in somewhere between 89 to 99% of the sequence overlaps that have been identified in what’s called the novel subclade of SARS-CoV-2. What we know is that the core designation of SARS coronavirus which is actually the clade of the beta coronavirus family, and the subclade that has been called SARS-CoV 2, have to overlap from a taxonomy point of view. You cannot have SARS designation on a thing without it first being SARS. So the disingenuous fact-checking that has been done, saying that somehow or another CDC has nothing to do with this particular patent or this particular pathogen, is beyond both the literal credibility of the published sequences, and it’s also beyond credulity when it comes to the ICTV taxonomy, because it very clearly states that this is in fact a subclade of the clade called SARS coronavirus.

Now what’s important is on the 28th of April — and listen to the date very carefully because this date is problematic — 3 days after CDC filed the patent on the SARS coronavirus in 2003, 3 days later Sequoia Pharmaceuticals — a company that was set up in Maryland — Sequoia Pharmaceuticals on the 28th of April 2003 filed a patent on antiviral agents of treatment and control of infections by coronavirus. CDC filed three days earlier and then the treatment was available 3 days later. Just hold that thought for a second. Sequoia Pharmaceuticals and ultimately [Ablig] Pharmaceuticals became rolled into the proprietary Holdings of Pfizer, [Crysel], and Johnson & Johnson, So ask yourself a simple question: How would one have a patent on a treatment for a thing that had been invented three days earlier? The patent in question, the April 28th 2003 patent 715-1163, issued to Sequoia Pharmaceuticals has another problem. The problem is it was issued and published before the CDC patent on coronavirus was actually allowed. So the degree to which the information could have been known by any means other than insider information between those parties is zero. It is not physically possible for you to patent a thing that treats a thing that had not been published. Because CDC had paid to keep it secret. This, my friends, is the definition of criminal conspiracy, racketeering, and collusion. This is not a theory, this is evidence. You cannot have information in the future inform a treatment for a thing that did not exist. It is a RICO case and the RICO pattern which was established in April of 2003 for the first coronavirus was played out to exactly the same schedule when we see SARS-CoV show up, when we have Moderna getting the spike protein sequence by phone from the Vaccine Research Center at NIAID prior to the definition of the novel subclade. How do you treat a thing before you actually have the thing?

Before you actually have the thing on the 5th of June 2008 — which is an important date because it is actually around the time when DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Program in the United States, actively took an interest in coronavirus as a biological weapon — June 5th 2008 [Ablig], which as you know is now part of Sanofi, filed the series of patents that specifically targeted what we’ve been told is the novel feature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and you heard what I just said, this is the 5th of June 2008 they found the specific sequence they targeted, what was called the poly-basic cleavage site for SARS-CoV the novel spike protein in the ACE-2 receptor binding domain which is allegedly novel, to SARS-CoV-2, and all of that was patented on the 5th of June 2008. And those patents in sequence were issued between November 24th of 2015 which was U.S. Patent 919-3780, so that one came out after the gain-of-function moratorium. That one came after the MERS outbreak in the Middle East but what you find is that then in 2016, 2017, 2019 a series of patents all covering not only the RNA strands but also the subcomponents of the gene strands were all issued to [Ablig] and Sanofi and then we have Rubius Therapeutics, we have Children’s Medical Corporation, we have countless others that include Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Protein Science Corporation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, University of Iowa, University of Hong Kong, Chinese National Human Genome Center in Shanghai, all identifying in patent filings that ranged from 2008 until 2017 every attribute that was allegedly uniquely published by the single reference publication. The novel coronavirus reveals quote ‘natural insertions at the S1, S2 cleavage site of the spike protein and possible recombinant origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the paper that has routinely been used to identify the novel virus.

Unfortunately if you actually take what they report to be novel, you find 73 patents issued between 2008 and 2019 which have the elements that were allegedly novel in SARS-CoV-2 specifically as it relates to the poly-basic cleavage site ACE-2 receptor binding domain, and the spike protein, so the clinically novel components of the clinically unique, clinically contagious virus [were already in those 73 patents]. There was no outbreak of SARS because we had engineered all of the elements of that, and by 2016 the paper that was funded during the gain-of-function moratorium that said that the SARS coronavirus was poised for human emergence — written by none other than Ralph Baric — was not only poised for human emergence, but it was patented for commercial exploitation. A statement made in 2015 by [Eco-Health Alliance Director] Peter Daszak reported in the National Academies of Science Press publication February 12th 2016, and I’m quoting ‘We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process‘ end quote. Let me repeat the quote: ‘We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process‘ end quote.

There wasn’t a lab leak. This was an intentional by weaponization of spike proteins to inject into people to get them addicted to a pan-coronavirus vaccine. This has nothing to do with a pathogen that was released, and every study that has ever been launched to try to verify a lab leak is a red herring. And there’s really nothing that is new in this, zero. These patents on everything clinically novel, 73, [were] all issued before 2019. To prove that this was actually not a release of anything, because patent 727-9327, the patent on the recombinant nature of that lung targeting coronavirus, was transferred mysteriously from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to the National Institutes of Health in 2018. Now here’s the problem with that under the Bayh-Dole Act, the U.S. Government already has what’s called a march-in right provision. That means if the U.S. Government has paid for research they are entitled to benefit from that research at their demand or at their whim. So explain why in 2017 and 2018 suddenly the National Institutes of Health have to take ownership of the patent that they already had rights to, held by the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. And how did they need to file a Certificate of Correction to make sure that it was legally enforceable because there was a typographical error in the grant reference in the first filing so they needed to make sure that not only did they get it right but they needed to make sure every typographical error contained in the patent was corrected on the single patent to develop the Vaccine Research Institute’s mandate which was shared between the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in November of 2019 and Moderna in November of 2019, when UNC Chapel Hill and NIAID and Moderna began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine a month before an outbreak ever happened, you have all the evidence.

The script for this was written first January 6th 2004, in Bioterrorism, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Antimicrobial Therapeutics, and Immune Modulators. Moderna introduced the notion of what they called The New Normal which became the branded campaign that was adopted by the World Health Organization, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board which was the Board upon which the Chinese Director of Center for Disease Control, Elias of the Gates Foundation, and Anthony Fauci sat together on that Board of Directors. But the the first introduction of The New Normal Campaign, which was about getting people to accept a universal pan-influenza pan-coronavirus vaccine, was actually adopted January 6th 2004 so it’s it’s been around quite quite a long time.

Moderna knew that it was going to be placed in the front of the line with respect to the development of a vaccine in March of 2019, and this is a very important date because in March of 2019, for reasons that are not transparent, they suddenly amended a series of rejected patent filings, which is a very bizarre behavior, but they amended a number of patent filings specifically to make reference to a deliberate or accidental release of coronavirus. So in March 2019 [with] the amended failed patent applications, [they] begin the process of a coronavirus vaccine development. And they began dealing with a very significant problem that they had which was they relied on technology that they did not own. Two Canadian companies Arbutus Pharmaceuticals and Acuitas Pharmaceuticals actually own the patent on the lipid nanoparticle envelope that’s required to deliver the injection of the mRNA fragment. And those patents have been issued both in Canada and in the U.S. and then around the world. Moderna knew that they did not own the rights and began trying to negotiate with Arbutus and Acuitas to make the lipid nanoparticle patented technology available to be put into a vaccine. And we know, before that in November they entered into a research and cooperative research and development agreement with UNC Chapel Hill with respect to getting the spike protein to put inside of the lipid nanoparticle so that they actually had a candidate vaccine before we had a pathogen allegedly that was running around. What makes that story most problematic beyond the self-evident nature of it is that we know that from 2016 until 2019 at every one of the NIAID advisory Council Board meetings, Anthony Fauci lamented the fact that he could not find a way to get people to accept the universal influenza vaccine, which was his favorite target — he was trying to get the population to engage in this process.

And what becomes very evident with Peter Daszak (Eco-Health Alliance), UNC Chapel Hill and others and then most specifically by March of 2019 in the amended patent filings by Moderna, we see that there is an epiphany that says what if there was an accidental or an intentional release of respiratory pathogen. And what makes that particular phrase problematic is it is exactly recited in the book A World At Risk which is the scenario that was put together by the World Health Organization in September of 2019. So months before there’s an alleged pathogen, [this book from WHO] says that we need to have a coordinated global experience of a respiratory pathogen release which by September 2020 must put in place a universal capacity for public relations management, crowd control, and the acceptance of a universal vaccine mandate. That was September of 2019 and the language of an intentional release of a respiratory pathogen was written into the scenario that quote ‘must be completed by September 2020‘.

The ACE-2 receptor was already described in the patents before 2019. Specifically the ACE-2 receptor targeting mechanism for SARS coronavirus is in publications going back to 2008, in the weaponization conferences that took place in Slovenia in Europe, all across Europe, and all across the DARPA infrastructure. We’ve known about that since 2013 and its isolation and amplification, add to this 70 amendments that merge the two. The failed [Moderna] patent applications were essentially revitalized in March of 2019, to include the ‘deliberate release of a respiratory pathogen‘ language. Their [patenting] process is similar to other pharmaceutical companies where they ever-green applications and continually modify applications to enjoy the earliest priority dates available. But that’s why you have to go back and look at the amendment of the application records to find out when the actual amendment language is put in place. Any assertion that this pathogen is somehow unique or novel falls apart on the actual gene sequences which are published in the patent record and then more egregiously falls apart in the fact that we have Peter Daszak himself stating that we have to create public hype to get the public to accept the medical countermeasure of a pan-coronavirus vaccine. And what makes that most ludicrous is the fact that as we know World Health Organization had declared coronavirus kind of a dead letter — they said that that we had eradicated coronavirus as a concern. So why having eradicated it in 2007 and 2008, why did we start spending billions of dollars globally on a vaccine for a thing that had been eradicated by declaration in 2008? That falls into the zone of incredulity, to say the least.

The entirety of the evidence then is that this is a tool — the coronavirus and the vaccines, this is a tool and the interest of DARPA in creating a biological weapon out of this. This is a tool for everything else that latches onto this, including population control. This was seen as a highly malleable bio-weapon. There is no question that by 2005 it was unquestionably a weapon of choice. Unfortunately very well-meaning people get trapped into conversations about whether we’re having a vaccine for a virus. The fact of the matter is we’re not. We are injecting a spike protein mRNA secret mRNA sequence which is a computer simulation; it’s not derived from nature, it’s a computer simulation of a sequence which has been known and patented for years. And what we know is that that sequence is reported across phone conversations that took place between Moderna and the [NIH] Vaccine Research Center. The story that this is somehow prophylactic or preventative flies in the face of 100% of the evidence because the evidence makes it abundantly clear that there has been no effort by any pharmaceutical company to combat the virus. This is about getting people injected with the known-to-be-harmful spike protein. So the cover story is that if you get an expression of a spike protein you’re going to have some sort of general symptomatic relief but the fact of the matter is there has never been an intent to vaccinate a population as defined by the vaccination universe [namely, to prevent infection].

When Anthony Fauci tried desperately to get some of his quote ‘synthetic RNA vaccines’ [for HIV] published he had his own patents rejected by the Patent Office, and I want to read what the patent office told him when NIAID’s own Anthony Fauci thought that he could get an mRNA-like vaccine patented as a vaccine. And here’s the quote: ‘These arguments are persuasive to the extent that an antigenic peptide stimulates an immune response that may produce antibodies that bind to a specific peptide or protein, but it is not persuasive in regards to a vaccine.‘ This is the Patent Office. The immune response produced by a vaccine must be more than merely some immune response, it must also be protective as noted in the Patent Office action. ‘The art recognizes the term vaccine to be a compound which prevents infection. Applicant has not demonstrated that the instantly claimed vaccine meets even the lower standards set forth in the specification let alone the standard definition for being operative. In regards therefore claims five, seven, and nine are not operative.‘ As the anti-HIV vaccine which is what he was working on is not patentable utility. So Anthony Fauci himself was told by the Patent Office themselves that what he was proposing as a vaccine does not meet the patentable standard, the legal standard, or the clinical standard.

This is the problem going back to the very beginning of what’s alleged to be a pandemic. We do not have any evidence that the gene sequence alteration had any clinical significance whatsoever, There has not been a single paper published by anyone that is actually established that anything novel since November of 2019 has clinical distinction from anything that predates November of 2019. The problem with the 73 patents that I described is that those 73 patents all contain what was reported to be novel in December and January of 2019 and 2020 respectively, so the problem is that even if we were to accept that there are idiopathic pneumonias, even if we were to accept that there are some sets of pathogen induced symptoms, we do not have a single piece of published evidence that tells us that anything about the subclade SARS-CoV-2 has clinical distinction from anything that was known and published prior to November 2019 in 73 patents dating to 2008.

Influenza did not leave the human population. Influenza was a failed decade-long pan-influenza vaccine mandate that was desperately desperately desperately promoted by governments around the world. They failed and they decided if influenza doesn’t deliver on the public promise of getting everybody to get an injection, let’s change the pathogen.

Dr David Martin’s remarks are transcribed from here.

Sayings — on the sacred

The world has a meaning which is greater than what is revealed through to our ordinary scientific inquiries, but it is revealed directly in an everyday way to all of us, if only we would keep our attention ready for it.

Roger Scruton, Beauty and the Restoration of the Sacred, Catholic Art Guild, Oct 29, 2017

Roger Scruton

This is an opportunity for me to look inside some of my own views of the sacred, and about how important it is for us in the modern world to retrieve it. We live in a largely secular world, and yet, perhaps partly because of that, we feel all around us a growing need for the sacred, not just as an object, but also as a way of life. And I want to explore why that is so.

We all accept the scientific world-view. That is, we believe the universe has a kind of order to it, which can be explored and discovered by people who have no religious faith, and this universe was put before us by Newton with his his clockwork idea of how everything functions in accordance with rigorous laws of motion, and that for a long time in the 17th and 18th century was accepted as the truth about the universe. But people also believed that the universe was created, that the whole clock, the clock of being was set in motion by the Divinity, and that it went on forever in time, and forever in space. At a certain point, Kant raised this great question, where is the edge of the world?

If you think that it has a beginning in time then what was it about that beginning that made it possible that made the universe exist just then. There could be no answer to that question unless you referred to some prior moment. So it couldn’t have a beginning in time but of course it must have a beginning in time. Otherwise an infinite series of moments would have elapsed and how can an infinite series come to an end so it must have a beginning and it can’t have a beginning. So if we think about the universe in this way and as a totality we end up in contradictions. That’s what Kant thought. I won’t say his arguments were necessarily valid, but he put before people the thought that maybe we’re not in a position, we human beings, to understand the universe as a whole. We can only understand it from our point of view.

Our understanding can reach out to the edge of the universe but not beyond that edge. It’s as though we lived surrounded by a one-sided boundary confined in space and time but not able to get to the beginning of time or the end of time or likewise get beyond the edge of space. We are contained in an envelope and then the question arises, although we can’t get beyond that boundary is there nevertheless something beyond that boundary?

In our time quantum mechanics has obviously made a great difference to people’s way of looking at the world because quantum mechanics seems to imply that how things are in the universe and at the smallest level is something which is affected by our own attempts to measure it. In which case is there really such a distinction as we think there is between the universe and our point of view upon it? Are we even more firmly trapped in our point of view by modern science than even Kant thought we were? All of this has led to the question what our place in the cosmos is. I’m sure most of the people in this room will think that is not really a scientific question. Whatever science tells us, we know that we’re in relation to something else, it’s just that we cannot have a complete account of what that something else is except through faith.

Recently, as we know, we’ve been subjected to a barrage of propaganda on behalf of the evolutionary theory about nature which tells us that actually not only are we a small part of the universe, but we are simply the product of a process of adaptation which we share with all the other animals and with the plants, according to which we have come to be adapted to our environment and therefore to possess the capacities needed to understand that environment as something that is useful for our own reproduction. In the end, all we are is machines for the reproduction of our genes. And whatever we think about our point of view on the world, that’s all that its validity amounts to — the thing that gives us the means to reproduce. And what room is there for God in such a picture? That’s just a brief summary of something which you are all aware of, of course. And the question is is that all there is that we can say?

Kant introduced a concept of transcendental idealism partly in order to answer this question. He said we can transcend our point of view insofar as we can see just how limited it is. But we can’t get beyond those limits. Yet, as he also said, we have intimations of things beyond the limits, intimations of the transcendental in the moral life. For example we know with absolute certainty of necessity that we are free, we know that by the laws of reason that we must treat each other in such a way as to obey a law that all of us could accept. This is a categorical imperative which binds us regardless of any empirical circumstances. That is something we know, a priori. We don’t know how it is that we know it but it brings with it an intimation of a world beyond the one on which the eyes are opened. Likewise in aesthetic experience, the experience of art and the beauty of nature especially, we seem to be granted intimations of a world beyond, of a transcendental realm about which we can’t actually speak, but nevertheless of which we can have a certain kind of knowledge. Wittgenstein famously said at the end of his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus that that whereof we cannot speak we must consign to science, but the very sentence contains within it the thought that there IS something whereof we cannot speak. But of course he’s also telling us to shut up about it. A true artist is someone who doesn’t want to shut up about it. He doesn’t want to wrap it up with words, but do something else which provides an intimation of what that thing is that lies beyond the reach of the ordinary understanding. So this doesn’t mean that we have no knowledge of transcendental things, only that it is not a factual knowledge. And this brings me to the idea about which I’ve been asked to talk, which is the idea of the sacred.

At the turn of the century, the anthropologists who had done all that work in Africa and South America, exploring the visions of more primitive people, came up with the view that, indeed, all observed human beings seemed to have a conception of the sacred. And the famous sociologist, Emile Durkheim, who was the son of a rabii, brought up in the Jewish faith, became obsessed with this question: Why is it that all human beings, regardless of their circumstances, have a sense of the sacred? Certain things are set aside, and forbidden, like the Ark of the Covenant, a thing which cannot be touched without some transcendental authority for doing so. These things are surrounded by ritual, in which our bodies are taken over, so to speak, by the collective need for reverence. People are held together in a way they would never be by a mere contract. According to the evolutionists, by these rituals of taboo and purification, people are saving their gene pool, guaranteeing that their genetic inheritance will be passed on. In this way, people have tried to develop a kind of natural science of the sacred, saying this is just like any other experience, it’s there because it promotes the reproduction of the human gene, and that’s all there is to it.

But this natural science of the sacred, I maintain, would never actually satisfy us. Just as we would never be satisfied by a natural science of mathematics, or music. Suppose someone said, the reason why all human beings are mathematical, why we understand these extraordinary truths, such as that two plus two equals four, is that if we didn’t, we would never reproduce, you know, if you can’t add, you won’t multiply. We know that might be true as a scientific explanation, but it doesn’t tell us what mathematics means. And the same is true of music as well, and the same is true of the sacred.

It’s not an instinctual thing, it belongs to our way of thinking about each other; there grows around it a whole system of story-telling and beliefs which gain confirmation from our experience. We know that our sense of the sacred is directed towards the world, is directed towards that one-sided boundary which we cannot cross by ordinary thinking, but we do seem to be able to cross in moments of inspiration and elevation, of the kind that art puts before us. No science of the sacred would ever satisfy us.

Here is a painting, the Virgin and Child by Bellini. To modern people, it isn’t an object of worship. Even for the pious Catholic, perhaps especially for the pious Catholic, it’s not an object of worship. It expresses the sacred without itself being sacred. To worship that painting would be idolatry, wouldn’t it. But to address the Virgin Mother through that painting, and by means of it, is wholly appropriate. Indeed that’s why the artist painted it. But how do we know that it expresses the sacred? We know that there is a sacred story attached to it. But many of us perhaps have difficulty in believing that story, or recognize it as only part of the truth. And anyway, we are prepared to set the story aside, just because of the overwhelming presence in this painting, of the object of our reverence. So the artist is wanting to look beyond what we see, and also see that beyond in what is immediately present. It’s as if that blue of the cloak is in this world, but not of the world — something in which just the mere color is so beautifully presented and so beautifully wrapped around the holy figure itself, the tenderness of the mother is at the very edge of what a mother can reach. Again it’s pointing beyond that one-sided boundary in the same way, the painting is also telling us that there’s something other than what it presents.

Many things have meaning such as my words now, my gestures, there is something else that they mean [that they refer to]. Meaning is a relation. Sentences in language relate to that meaning. But some things have meaning even though there is nothing ELSE that they really mean [or refer to], nothing that you could put into words or that you can say is the meaning of this thing. The meaning of that Bellini painting is the Bellini painting. The meaning of a Beethoven quartet is in the music that you hear but could never be put into words. Many landscapes are like that. We all standing at the one-sided boundary looking out from our limited human perspective towards something which has no limit. To give you a famous example,

in the face of Botticelli’s Venus is embodied a wealth of feeling and ideas. But what are these ideas, what was he trying to say? This is one of the paintings behind which there IS a philosophy and that philosophy was Plato’s idea of the object of desire, that when you focus on the beauty of the other person and your desire is aroused by this, it’s a mistake to think that you are aiming to do something with that person, to unite with that person in the physical way that sexuality prompts us to unite with them; although erotic feeling fixes on the individual it’s actually seeking the transcendental. It can never really be satisfied by the act itself. The essence of each individual which captures the individuality of that thing and tells you why you you love it, you want to be with it, it’s not the individual but the idea of that thing, the transcendental — he takes us up to the boundary and the look of this face, this is what Botticelli who was himself a Platonist, does. He wanted to convey the look that comes from these eyes, from beyond them, from a place that we could never ourselves reach, it comes from a region that we know only in this way. We know it just as as we know it through the experience of prayer, so the meaning in this face, it’s in the face but it’s somehow not of this world.

This brings me to the conception of a sacred place. I’ve just told you about the meaning of the human face and how you can see in the beauty of a human face this sense that there is something beyond it which is revealed to us in it, even if we can’t reach through to it in this world. Likewise, places often have that significance for us. In the story of Moses and the burning bush he has an encounter with something, a strange encounter, he is of course afraid, he doesn’t know what it is that’s addressing him and of course it is a sense that in this place something is happening which doesn’t really HAVE a place in this world, this is one of those points of intersection of the Timeless with time. So he has the question with what am I being presented, what am I encountering here, in the burning bush? And he asks God to define himself. Tell me who you are. And God says, I am that I am. He doesn’t give him any more information except what is contained in the word I, and in other words, here he’s encountered just the very same thing that Botticelli was trying to force us to encounter within the face of his model, that sense of the subjective view of things which is addressing me through those eyes, addressing me from a point beyond, a point that I could never reach. And isn’t that what Moses encountered in the burning bush — that he was being addressed from a point beyond this world, which is like the point of view that each of us has, the point of view of the I that we can never reach through to your I or the ego with which you address me — to do so, I’d have to BE you. So this is a paradigm of an experience that we encounter in many other forms, and we feel as though we’re being addressed by the world. And the true artist is someone who is always stopping to be addressed by things, to recognize that transcendental perspective that has picked him out in the way that God picked out Moses.

We see this in landscape painting. We find a face in the facts of this world, in the transcendental that looks out at me but which I can never reach. You have a place in that landscape, and it also has a place in your heart. This brings me to another way of understanding what the sacred really is for us. We make a distinction, or ought to make a distinction, between consecrating things and desecrating them. It’s one proof that things have a sacred character that we can desecrate them. We live in a world where far too much of what we love and need has been desecrated. Not just the desecration of our cities by thruways and all the rest, but also the desecration of things that really matter to us. The face is one prime target of this. The defacing of the person by pornography and violence in the cinema is something that we’re all familiar with, aren’t we, as if taking attention from the thing that really matters, the thing that Botticelli was trying to show us. Taking attention from that and directing it to the body without the embodied subject that gives it meaning. All of pornography and cinematic violence has that as part of its repertoire. It’s as though people can’t live with the ordinary human face, because judgment comes from that face, and living with judgment is hard. So, to desecrate it, we all have a motive. We have to deface the environment too, with graffiti and garbage, and the clamorous adverts everywhere that put the world on sale. We are all familiar with the great Pacific garbage patch which is the size of Texas.

This is the result of a desecration of the world, the easy way in which we throw things onto what is actually an object of respect and reverence, namely the earth around us. We all know what a real environment which is a home looks like. Of course Venice is a paradigm.

This is a simple little backwater; whatever else you think about it, it’s obviously a home. It’s not only the washing hanging between the buildings that shows this, it’s the architectural forms and the details, and the way things jumbled together in the way that a conversation is jumbled together, fit together with a kind of spiritual affinity, but it’s an ordinary day-to-day sort of place, and you could desecrate it, and every little inch of it is now protected by custom or by law, but you know very well that if you got a modernist architect like Frank Gehry to work on the back streets of Venice, very little of that domestic peace would remain, indeed it would be something shiny and repellent towards the human observer, something which is like a spaceship landed from outer space. The Venice streets teach us about the ordinariness of sacred things.

That’s why we don’t notice them, and why we expose them to desecration. One of the great triumphs of the Roman Catholic Church is to have made the mass into something ordinary as well as extraordinary. It’s something which happens at any moment in a small corner of the city, visited just by two or three old ladies perhaps, and yet is a visitation of the transcendental. In just the same way these old forms of architecture bring the transcendental into this world as an ordinary and day-to-day thing. This is part of what I call the aesthetics of everyday life. We want to fit things together. We don’t do this for ourselves, we do it for other people, and we understand other people as having a face, as does the world that you share. You are both within the envelope and looking out of it. The true artist is always standing on that edge, like Botticelli, learning to see the world with Botticelli’s eyes, learning to see the why of things, why do things look like that. They look like that because that’s the way they look at us, even inanimate things.

We know the world in more than one way. Science explains things. It explains the sacred in terms of its evolutionary potential. Fine, we can accept all that, but that’s not the only way of knowing the world. We also interpret it, as in our moral life, our aesthetic understanding, when we are looking into things with Botticelli’s eyes. So science explains our sense of the sacred in one way, but it won’t understand what it is in itself. This is one of the problems we are living through — people don’t seem to accept that there is any other way of understanding things than the scientific way. And this leads to scientism, which is a kind of systematic misunderstanding of the human world.

OK, let me give you a few tentative conclusions. I think we need to introduce this concept of the sacred in out curriculum in schools. We need to show children from an early age that aesthetic values really matter, that they are part of understanding the world which points beyond itself. We should show where the sacred things are to be found and how we must respect them. I think poets, artists, architects — they find it, and they make it explicit, like Bellini in that painting, or like William Blake in his poetry. Their work also has to be put in the context of ordinary, practical knowledge, knowledge of how to act in ordinary everyday life. That’s why we need to be a little critical in these things, we need to show people how to make judgments about what is beautiful and what is not, what is desecrated by our treatment of it, or on the contrary, consecrated. This criticism isn’t art history or anything like that, it’s putting people directly into relation with works of art, showing the meaningfulness of the things that we ourselves create. I think if we had a curriculum in our schools like that, showing that the sacred and the beautiful are connected, and that they’re both things that could be spoiled, we would bring knowledge into the world that is more and more needed, in this secular time in which we live. You have to open the door to these experiences, make room in the ordinary skeptical mind for this sense that actually, the world has a meaning which is greater than what is revealed through to our ordinary scientific inquiries, but it is revealed directly in an everyday way to all of us, if only we would keep our attention ready for it. Thank you.