Aida V, Pliasas VC, Neasham PJ, North JF, McWhorter KL, Glover SR, Kyriakis CS. Novel Vaccine Technologies in Veterinary Medicine: A Herald to Human Medicine Vaccines. Front Vet Sci. 2021 Apr 15;8:654289. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.654289. PMID: 33937377; PMCID: PMC8083957.

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

The mRNA and adenoviral DNA COVID-19 vaccine debacle in humans has set populations on edge, distrustful of poorly conceived genetic technology. Meanwhile the field has advanced considerably in veterinary medicine. While these shots may protect animals from pathogens over the short term, what are the implications for our food supply? Any of the genetic material transmissible to humans through consumption? Raw or cooked? These and other questions are coming up as more information is being brought forward.

Aida and colleagues have graphically summarized the genetic technologies in use as of 2021 in veterinary medicine. In the consumer meat category at present, only swine are of concern given the use of plasmid DNA, replication incompetent viral vector, and RNA replicon products. Do these technologies cause noninfectious diseases in the animals? Can any of the genetic material survive denaturing during curing and cooking? How about pork intestines harvested for the production of heparin widely used in human medicine? It is conceivable that genetic incorporation of foreign RNA or DNA into humans and production of antigens for example, porcine endemic diarrhea or influenza A, could have untoward effects including autoimmunity similar to that with the COVID-19 vaccines?

Now is a good time for veterinary and human medicine including the FDA and USDA, to come together and review the published studies of these new products on genetic transmissibility to humans and its potential implications. The Aida paper does not even mention the possibility of collateral impact to humans. One can see that developers, sponsors, and authors are blinded with infatuation for molecular biology and have lost sight of biological product safety in the food supply.

[…]

Via https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/novel-vaccine-technologies-in-veterinary

FREE MIND FILMS

Via Aletho News

This is a great documentary by Free Mind Films about the 1995 False Flag Event bombing in Oklahoma City. The government claims that 168 people were killed, including nineteen children. For years following the bombing, countless victims family members, survivors, rescuers, and ordinary Americans, have questioned the government’s conspiracy theory (aka the official story) about that fateful day. Hoping to shed light on answers long ignored and censored, both by prominent media outlets and the U.S. Government, A Noble Lie peels back what we thought we knew about the bombing and the perpetrators. This film exposes information never before examined or brought to the attention of the American public. A Noble Lie is the culmination of years of research and documentation conducted by independent journalists, scholars, and ordinary citizens. Often risking their personal safely and sanity, they have gathered evidence which threatens to expose the startling reality of what exactly occurred at 9:02 am on April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City.

The Murrah building was bombed for three reasons, two having to do with records stored there and the destruction of those records, and overall to promote THE FAKE WAR ON TERROR. They were:
1) The first set of records were those concerning the Clinton’s and their CIA op’s in Mena, Arkansas which involved drug smuggling, gun running, and the whole Iran Contra affair.
2) The second set of records of greater concern had to do with the Anthrax vaccine and the use of depleted uranium weaponry, both which had many adverse effects on our troops which participated in Gulf War 1. These records were to be used in lawsuits against the federal government for what is known as Gulf War Syndrome.
3) The “official” definition of Terrorism had been changed in all dictionaries from GOVERNMENT BY INTIMIDATION to extremists fighting against democracy. The OKC bombing was setting the stage for their biggest “upcoming” False Flag Event which was 911. That event would be the Final Solution (along with the COVID-19 PLANdemic) in bringing forth the NEW WORLD ORDER agenda against mankind.

[…]

Via https://alethonews.com/2023/04/17/a-noble-lie-oklahoma-city-1995/

Pre-Roman Celtic Tribes

Episode 7 Celtic Britain and Roman Britain

The Celtic World

Dr Jennifer Paxton (2018)

Film Review

Despite a large presence of La Tene style Celtic art in Britain, there is no evidence the Celts ever invaded the British Isles. To the contrary, archeological evidence suggests strong cultural continuity of the islands’ population from the beginning of the Iron Age to the Roman invasion.

Paxton asserts the Celticization of Britain occurred via diffusion, ie a gradual migration of a Celtic diaspora from western France  and Spain to Britain.

Britain (especially Cornwall and Wales) were an important global source of tin, copper and iron from early in the Iron Age (1200-550 BC). Phoenician traders bought metals from Britain in the early first millennium BC.

Pre-Roman Britain was made up of numerous warring tribes. Those in the southeast had the best agricultural land and were the wealthiest. Those in the North and Southwest were well known for their hill forts.

During Julius Caesar’s two expeditions to Britain (55-53 BC), he persuaded a few of the southeastern tribes to pay tribute to Rome.

In 43 AD, the Roman emperor Claudius conquered the southern half of Britain, with the southeastern tribes happy to increase their wealth by collaborating with the Romans. He built two major Roman cities, Londinium and Eboracum (York), as well as numerous forts and roads.

During the 400-year Roman occupation, 40 urban areas (including Leeds, Newcastle and Exeter) adopted Latin as their primary language and (from the 3rd century AD) Christianity as their primary religion. All benefited from paved Roman roads, forums and amphitheaters. Wealthy southeasterners built large Roman villas and bought slaves to run them. The Romans introduced new fruits, such as apples, and coinage to Britain. The purpose of the coins was to enable a tax levy on all residents of Britain to fund (and pay) the garrisons who quashed rebellious tribes.

Paxton thinks it unlikely that either Latin or Christianity penetrated to rural Britain.

Numerous tribes, especially in Wales, Cornwall and the Northwest staged periodic rebellions against Roman rule (at one point burning Londinium and numerous other settlements to the ground). This led Rome to built large concentrations of heavily garrisoned forts in the most rebellious regions.

In 83 AD the emperor Agricula made an unsuccessful attempt to conquer Caledonia (modern day Scotland) and decided it wasn’t worth the number of troops that would be required for continuous occupation. Instead, in 122 AD, the emperor Hadrian built Hadrian’s wall to protect the southern half of Britain from raiding Picts.

The emperor Antonius subsequently built the Antonine Wall (through modern central Scotland) but was unable to defend it.

To archeologists, Britain is a treasure trove of Roman-style pottery, glassware and iron nails.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://pukeariki.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/5701024/5701038

Russian lawmakers have completed an investigation into Washington’s military-related biological activities at laboratories across Ukraine on the basis of findings made public by Russia’s Radiation, Chemical and Biological Defense Troops over the past year.

Washington is working on a “universal” genetically engineered bioweapon designed to cause severe damage to enemies comparable to that of a “nuclear winter,” a Russian parliamentary commission investigating US biolabs in Ukraine has concluded.

“The United States aims to develop a universal genetically engineered biological weapon capable of infecting not only people, but animals as well as agricultural crops. Its use involves, among other things, the goal of inflicting large-scale and irreparable economic damage on the enemy,” the commission wrote in its final report.

“The covert and targeted use of such a weapon in anticipation of a positive inevitable direct military confrontation could create a significant advantage for US forces over the adversary, even against those who possess other types of weapons of mass destruction,” the commission added. “The possession of such highly effective biological weapons creates, in the view of the US military, the real prerequisites to change the nature of contemporary armed conflicts.”

The commission report indicated that unfortunately, contemporary scientific advancements in the fields of genetic engineering, biotechnology, toxicology and synthetic biology have increased the possibility of their use to create advanced biological weapons agents of a new generation – at the same time that detecting and identifying their use using traditional diagnosis tools has become extremely difficult.

“The situation is aggravated by the fact that the production of such biological agents can easily be dispersed over various industrial enterprises, disguising them as products used for peaceful purposes,” the document noted.

The creation of new, ever more advanced biological agents doesn’t remove the dangers posed by traditional bioweapons, the report stressed. Among these are agents including “smallpox, anthrax, tularemia and the plague, all of which can be modified to enhance their deadly properties. Added to this is the objective difficulty in determining the true cause of outbreaks of infectious diseases, which can be both natural and artificial.”

US Bioweapons Danger

The Duma commission report cited the US bioweapons programs dotting the globe as the biggest clear and present danger to the biological security of both Russia and the world.

“The US military biological program has not only not been curtailed, but has acquired a large-scale character in recent years with a focus on offensive actions, carried out under the guise of activities which are permitted under the Biological Weapons Convention, as well as anti-terrorism projects. The United States is supporting and developing the ability to produce biological weapons and, if necessary, to use them. However, there have been changes in Washington’s strategic view with regard to the role of bioweapons in geopolitical competition, and the means of its possible use,” the report said.

US bioweapons programs are long term in nature, with their roots dating back to cruel experiments conducted on civilians and prisoners of war by Imperial Japan during the Second World War, including against citizens of the USSR.

“In our country, captured Japanese militarists were brought to justice within the framework of the Khabarovsk Process; however, in the US, such ‘specialists’ were provided safety, with their work factually continuing to live on to this day in the contemporary US programs on the development of biological weapons,” the report said.

According to the parliamentary commission, a key difference between traditional bioweapons programs and contemporary ones being pursued by the Pentagon is the propensity for the use of pathogens of little-studied natural infections with a high mortality rate, a long incubation period and symptoms typical of common diseases. This complicates adversaries’ ability to discover the use of such weapons, and to quickly identify the attacker, the report indicated.Among the biggest threats, according to the commission, is the military biological research based on work with the decoded human genome, which threatens to “radically” change the entire geopolitical and military situation in the world, and is comparable in significance to the start of the ‘atomic era’ in the 1940s and 1950s.

‘Key Role’ Played by Subcontractors

Drawing on evidence provided by the Russian military over the past year on US military biological activities in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, the Caucasus and countries in Africa and Asia, the commission pointed to the “key role” played by facilities abroad in the implementation of the Pentagon’s bioweapons programs.

“Washington is systematically creating an extensive network of biological laboratories beyond its national jurisdiction, allowing it to carry out a wide range of military-oriented biological research under the guise of medical biological projects,” the report stated. “This factually results in the ‘military-biological occupation’ of the entire planet, which opens to the US unrestricted access to information on the state of the health, microbiological and biological infrastructure of host countries.”

Foreign countries effectively serve as a ‘testing ground’ for US military biological researchers to study infectious agents in the climactic conditions of their habitat, to monitor their distribution and mutation, and determine the prospects for strengthening their dangerous properties,” the commission indicated. “The lack of international control over such work provides the United States the opportunity to act in other countries without being restrained by moral and legal norms and humanistic principles, and to ignore the demands of the public.”

These efforts are further hidden from public view via the transfer of programs to civilian ministries and private companies, the report stated.

The report pointed to the special attention US bioweapons research has committed to the transmission of pathogens which attack humans using insects, mammals and wild birds, including the study and identification of their migration routes.

“The results of this research provided American military biologists the ability to not only simulate the scenarios of the spread of epidemics in a particular region, but the opportunity to control them. They are also working out the ‘biological routes’ of the likely injection of atypical diseases through third countries to a territory of interest,” the commission said.

“The analysis of strategic US documents in the field of defense and security indicates that the activities in biolaboratories under their control are focused on providing potential military advantages to the US military and the waging of military operations using pathogenic microorganisms with desired properties created using synthetic biology,” the report said.

The commission believes the choice of countries where US bioweapons research infrastructure takes place is made on the basis of geopolitical considerations, and designed for scenarios in which host countries serve as a potential “bridgehead” against enemies in the event of conflicts.

This is particularly true in relation to US military biological activities in the post-Soviet space, the commission says, where their presence “allows the Pentagon to address a wide range of tasks: from the targeted collection of pathogens of especially dangerous infectious diseases and the study of of the reaction of immune systems of local populations to preparations of the territories of the former Soviet republics in the anti-epidemic sense for the deployment of large US military contingents there.

“The report considers the continued implementation of Pentagon biomilitary programs in the post-Soviet space a key security risk, given the free flow of people and goods across the region, including within the Eurasian Economic Community, the Commonwealth of Independent States or the Collective Security Treaty Organization, as well as labor migration, animal and bird migration, air flows and river flows.

Video link

J. Michael Springmann and I opened this week’s False Flag Weekly News by plugging RFK Jr.’s newly-minted presidential campaign. We noted that he is going to have to run against the media, like Donald Trump did in 2016.

Running against the media in politics is like betting against the house in gambling: The odds are against you, to say the least. I know that from personal experience, having run for Congress on a 9/11 truth platform in 2008. But it isn’t just me: There are countless examples of campaigns whose outcomes were determined by the media’s slanted coverage. (To cite an extreme example, big media’s decision to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story likely prevented Donald Trump from being re-elected in 2020.)

The power of the mainstream media is such that almost no serious politicians—people whose goal is to win, not just to make a statement or call attention to neglected issues, as I did in my 2008 run—ever dare to take any positions or voice any sentiments outside of the media’s Overton Window of acceptability. The major exception to that rule, of course, is Donald Trump, who defeated the media in his 2016 run for president.

Trump’s method was deceptively simple: Keep saying outrageous things that the media won’t be able to resist deriding and deploring and generally calling attention to. Lo and behold, the hoary bromide “any publicity is good publicity” came true. Trump recognized that a yu-uge tranche of voters was angry and alienated and ready to support someone the Establishment obviously hated. And since he had a Twitter account at hand to tweet his side of the story, Trump wasn’t handicapped like pre-social-media politicians, who had depended almost entirely on corporate-owned one-to-many media to communicate with voters. What’s more, turning his rallies into countercultural festivals allowed him to speak directly to throngs of people. Between Twitter and the Trump rallies, it became obvious that the media’s most important way of suppressing outside-the-Overton-Window candidacies—fostering the impression that only a tiny, widely-hated minority of fringe conspiracy theorists would ever say or believe such things—wasn’t going to work.

Trump composed his triumphant 2016 electoral symphony in the key of invective, scapegoating, demonization, and hatred (or “righteous anger” if you prefer, though not all of it was righteous). His needling and insults, which included allusions to the alleged complicity of George W. Bush in 9/11 and Ted Cruz’s father in the JFK assassination, were refreshing to those of us who have discovered the almost unimaginable corruption of the American political establishment. And his harsh treatment of Hillary Clinton, who on October 9th 2016 was forced to debate Trump with three of her husband Bill’s sexual assault victims glaring at her from the audience, and who cannot have been pleased by the tens of thousands of people at Trump rallies chanting “lock her up,” may not have been chivalrous, but it was effective.

Trump did not keep his promises. He didn’t lock her up. And he didn’t drain the swamp—he stocked it. His administration offered no meaningful change, except for completely surrendering to the ultra-extremist Zionist agenda of Bibi Netanyahu. Trump failed to withdraw from Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. He didn’t terminate NATO, but instead armed Ukraine to the teeth and set the stage for the current war on Russia. His administration nearly started World War III three times: once by bombing Syria, once by murdering Gen. Soleimani, and once by attacking Wuhan and Qom with the bioweapon known as COVID-19.

Though he failed to even attempt to dismantle the Establishment, Trump’s erratic words and behavior made him a destabilizing factor, so the consensus of the oligarchs was that he had to go.

To defeat Trump in 2020, the media and its oligarch owners had to go full-totalitarian. They began by spreading the lie that Trump had been elected because Russia had somehow taken over the internet. That provided the excuse the Establishment needed to impose a draconian regime of internet censorship that would have been unthinkable just a few years earlier. Then the COVID-19 pandemic was used to further stampede public opinion into tolerating the near-total destruction of meaningful internet freedom. In the wake of the 2020 election, a new, freedom-free information regime was erected over the smoldering ruins of the Trump Administration (and the First Amendment).

Trump’s entire project turned out to be suspiciously convenient for the oligarchy he supposedly hates. Thanks to Trump, they got what they want: More war, more wealth transfer from bottom-to-top, draconian internet censorship, and a hyperpolarized nation full of angry people fighting about things the oligarchy doesn’t really care about. As Sam Husseini keeps telling us, it sure looks like Trump is the opposable thumb of the Establishment.

So did Trump accomplish anything positive? Yes: He showed it’s possible to run against the media and win. Let’s hope and pray that lightning strikes twice, and that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can pull off the same trick.

How RFK Jr.’s Run Against the Media Will Differ from Trump’s

RFK Jr. enters the 2024 presidential race far more hated by the media than Donald Trump was at the beginning of his 2016 campaign. Before that campaign, Trump was cast as a relatively benign buffoon, a rich talk show host with a bloated ego who might add some entertainment value and boost ratings but who had no realistic chance of winning. The fact that the Establishment “misunderestimated” Trump allowed him to sneak up on them. By the time they knew what hit them, it was too late.

RFK Jr., unlike the pre-2016 Trump, is a known threat to the hyper-corrupt wing of the oligarchical Establishment. He carries the mythic Kennedy name, with all the baggage that implies. He has repeatedly made it clear that he knows the Establishment murdered his uncle and father to terminate/prevent their presidencies. There is absolutely no chance that he is going to sneak up on anybody.

Today’s communications environment, especially the internet, is not nearly as free as it was in 2016. The great majority of Democratic voters have been subjected to trauma-based mind control and accept the new COVID-era mantra “misinformation kills millions.” RFK Jr. has been endlessly and mendaciously slandered by the media as one of the “misinformation purveyors” who deserves to be censored because he is guilty of killing millions of innocent people. (In fact, RFK Jr.’s views on COVID and vaccine issues are quite moderate and in line with the best scientific evidence, but try telling that to a pack of hysterical witch-hunters.)

So compared to Trump in 2016, RFK Jr.’s 2024 run begins by finding itself behind the proverbial 8-ball. Just days after his announcement, the media has already ganged up on him. More and worse will surely follow.

So is there even a ghost of a chance that he could win? A superficial overview suggests it’s almost unthinkable. But allowing for the possibility of surprisingly rapid changes in public opinion—a phenomenon for which there is some precedent—I submit that RFK Jr. could conceivably pull off a miracle along the lines of what his uncle John nearly accomplished in 1963.

Link to full study in Frontiers in Public Health: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1125150/full

Conclusion

This systematic review comprehensively revealed ample evidence for multiple adverse physio-metabolic and clinical outcomes of medical face masks, with worse outcomes in the case of N95 masks. This can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups e.g., children, pregnant, older adult, and the ill. Besides transient and progressive hypoxemia, hypercarbia, and individualized clinical symptoms our findings are in line with reports on face masks caused down-stream aberrations (e.g., oxidative stress, hypercapnia, vasoconstriction, pro-inflammatory response, immunosuppression etc.) at the organ, cellular and microbiome levels and support the MIES (Mask Induced Exhaustion Syndrome). From our point of view, while a short application of the mask seems to be less harmful, longer and long-term use may cause shift toward the pathophysiological direction with clinical consequences even without exceeding physiological thresholds (O₂ and CO₂).

So far, several MIES symptoms may have been misinterpreted as long COVID-19 symptoms.

In any case, the possible MIES triggered by masks contrasts with the WHO definition of health.

The exact threshold of harmless and non-pathogenic time wearing a mask should exclusively be determined by further intensive research and studies. Due to the ultimate lack of exclusion of the harmfulness of mask wearing, mask use by the general public should be discouraged.

In the sense of effectiveness of face masks in the real-world setting (cost-benefit), the mask should show a benefit in terms of reduced respiratory infections, e.g., in healthcare through fewer consultations or hospitalizations (192). Unfortunately, this was not the case, e.g., in Germany (193) and USA (194), where mask mandates were ubiquitous (9). Additionally, there is evidence that COVID-19 rates have been able to expand swiftly when omicron hit (178) even in societies where mask use was assiduously followed—as in Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore (179).

From the above facts, we conclude that a mask requirement must be reconsidered in a strictly scientific way without any political interference as well as from a humanitarian and ethical point of view. There is an urgent need to balance adverse mask effects with their anticipated efficacy against viral transmission. In the absence of strong empirical evidence of mask effectiveness, mask wearing should not be mandated let alone enforced by law.