Ninth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention Begins Today



ER Editor: We’re keeping our eyes on the bioweapons’ ball here. Think: Covid-19-as-bioweapon, the western deep state in Ukraine with all those biolabs that have been operating for quite some time. Russia’s leading the charge on this.

********

Ninth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention Begins Monday

The world’s eyes will shift to Geneva, Switzerland, beginning Monday, November 28th, 2022, and the Conference will last to mid-December.

This is where countries of the UN can propose changes to the current Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). These conferences have been occurring every 5 years since 1972, and have been nothing more than ceremonial. This year, however, given the recent allegations put forth from Russia against the United States, the Ninth installment of the BWC Review Conference is the next diplomatic battleground to hold the Deep State accountable for their biological malfeasance in Ukraine.

Russia will propose changes to the systems and structure of the BWC, because the current format gives the US, or any one of the big 5 permanent chairs, near diplomatic immunity by being able to veto any advances on themselves. In layman’s terms, in order for the rest of the world to investigate the US for their biological crimes against humanity, we have to change the checks and balances of the UN, because the US can veto any proposed investigations into the biolabs in Ukraine.

Russia, backed by much of the Eastern world, is prepared to bring forth a “package of initiatives” looking to accomplish their “main goal of eliminating the remaining weak spots and shortcomings of the Biological Weapons Convention”. As per the statement from Russian Foreign Ministry.1

Russia will propose more in-depth verification mechanisms, as well as a Scientific Advisory Committee “to monitor the latest developments in the sphere of biology for the purposes of the Convention.” This is in direct response to the significant advancements in US nanotechnology and microbiology, with which compromised Deep State actors used to create a wide variety of enhanced pathogens, to include C19.

Russian Ministry of Defense also released a statement today (ER: Nov. 26) pertaining to the upcoming Ninth BWC Review Conference, highlighting the massive dossier of evidence compiled against the US. Updated with new details surrounding the future US plans for Military biological activity, which includes an $88 Billion budget over the next 5 years. Russian MoD refers to the new documents obtained from Judicial Watch pertaining to US production of Anthrax, C19 pathogen studies at Boston University, global US bio-safety breaches, Hunter Biden’s Metabiota, John Bolton’s part in covering up US biological advancements as early as 2000, and much more.

2

Essentially, we have reached an impasse. The current construct of the UN makes it impossible for any of the permanent seats to be the target of a BWC investigation, so Russia and the East are looking to change the system so they can enact some level of recourse against the bad actors in the West for their crimes against humanity via biological genocide.

If diplomacy fails, Russia, China, and their allies will be forced to explore other options.

Eyes on Geneva starting Monday.

-Clandestine

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Visit Original Source

As an Oncologist I Am Seeing People With Stable Cancer Rapidly Progress After Being Forced to Have a Booster

As an Oncologist I Am Seeing People With Stable Cancer Rapidly Progress After Being Forced to Have a Booster


ER Editor: Oncologist Angus Dalgleish wrote the letter below, with all the surety and certainty he has as an expert in his field, to the editor of the BMJ, the British Medical Journal. We invite readers to glance over their front page, brimming over as it is with all sorts of story headlines. NOWHERE is there mention of the current excess mortality problem, nor of the now-established severe side effects of the Covid injections. NOWHERE. But you will see indications of the BMJ following various ideologically driven narratives.

********

As an Oncologist I Am Seeing People With Stable Cancer Rapidly Progress After Being Forced to Have a Booster

There follows a letter from Dr. Angus Dalgleish, Professor of Oncology at St George’s University of London, to Dr. Kamran Abbasi, the Editor in Chief of the BMJ. It was written in support of a colleague’s plea to Dr. Abbasi that the BMJ make valid informed consent for Covid vaccination a priority topic.

Dear Kamran Abbasi,

Covid no longer needs a vaccine programme given the average age of death of Covid in the U.K. is 82 and from all other causes is 81 and falling.

The link with clots, myocarditis, heart attacks and strokes is now well accepted, as is the link with myelitis and neuropathy. (We predicted these side effects in our June 2020 QRBD article Sorensen et al. 2020, as the blast analysis revealed 79% homologies to human epitopes, especially PF4 and myelin.)

However, there is now another reason to halt all vaccine programmes. As a practising oncologist I am seeing people with stable disease rapidly progress after being forced to have a booster, usually so they can travel.

Even within my own personal contacts I am seeing B cell-based disease after the boosters. They describe being distinctly unwell a few days to weeks after the booster – one developing leukaemia, two work colleagues Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and an old friend who has felt like he has had Long Covid since receiving his booster and who, after getting severe bone pain, has been diagnosed as having multiple metastases from a rare B cell disorder.

I am experienced enough to know that these are not the coincidental anecdotes that many suggest, especially as the same pattern is being seen in Germany, Australia and the USA.

The reports of innate immune suppression after mRNA for several weeks would fit, as all these patients to date have melanoma or B cell based cancers, which are very susceptible to immune control – and that is before the reports of suppressor gene suppression by mRNA in laboratory experiments.

This must be aired and debated immediately.

Angus Dalgleish MD FRACP FRCP FRCPath FMedSci

Angus Dalgleish is a Professor of Oncology at St George’s, University of London.

************

Source

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Visit Original Source

GMC under mounting pressure to get honest and straight



Intro by Steve Cook

Recently we highlighted the plight of Dr Mohammad Adil who was shamefully mistreated by the GMC [General Medical Council] for the “crime” of questioning the establishment’s Covid narrative – criticisms since proven to have been justified – out of concern for the wellbeing of his patients.

But this injustice does not appear to be an isolated case and there is a “long line of scandals” arising from its shoddy practices and failures to safeguard doctors and patients that needs to be addressed with a view to getting this degenerating regulator back on the straight and narrow. Or replacing it with a new, more honest body of people if it will not reform

The following featured article illustrates these points very aptly.

Dysfunctional’ GMC Labelled ‘Not Fit for Purpose’ After Latest Blunder

by Dr Sheena Meredith, MB BS, MPhil | Disclosures | 10 November 2022

After an ignominious apology wrested from the General Medical Council (GMC) last week, following an independent review of its handling of the now infamous ‘laptop’ case, the embattled regulator’s troubles might have seemed as though they could get no worse.

Then on Wednesday, the BMJ piled in with an opinion piece acerbic even by the standards of the Journal, which has been stalwart in holding the GMC to account for at least a quarter of a century – though, thus far, seemingly to little avail.

The latest in a long series of scandals for the GMC came about as a result of allegations that Dr Manjula Arora “lied to obtain a laptop”, resulting in her referral to the GMC, subsequent investigation by a medical practitioners tribunal, and suspension from practice for a month.

The case ultimately hinged on the fact that she told local IT officials that she had been “promised” a laptop by her boss when, in fact, he had merely “noted her interest” in getting one.

Stakes Seem Much Higher for Minority Doctors

The independent review was commissioned by the GMC, after it noted that the investigation and hearing had “generated significant anger and anxiety among the medical profession”. Co-chaired by Professor Iqbal Singh CBE and Martin Forde KC, it found that the GMC “incorrectly applied the legal test” in considering the allegations against Dr Arora, and that the allegation of dishonesty “should not have been taken forward”.

The GMC had “missed multiple opportunities to stand back and assess whether the allegations were serious enough to be referred to a tribunal”, the review concluded. “The case raised once again the perception of a regulatory process lacking in fairness; of a system in which the stakes seem much higher if you are a Black and minority ethnic doctor.”

In acknowledging the strength of feeling, the GMC had said it would not oppose Dr Arora’s appeal against the sanction. In their forward to the review, Prof Singh and Mr Forde said that they hoped that their recommendations “will lead to a 21st-century regulation that is compassionate, supportive, fair and caring, and that cases similar to Dr Arora’s will become ‘never events’”.

GMC: ‘Decisions We Did Not Get Right’

Responding to the review, Charlie Massey, GMC chief executive and registrar, said: “I welcome the report by Professor Singh and Martin Forde. Their examination of this case has been detailed, searching and constructive and I am grateful for their expertise and insight.

“The GMC accepts all of their recommendations without reservation. It is clear that there were decisions we did not get right and for those I have apologised to Dr Arora.

“The report’s co-authors found no evidence of bias at any stage of our decision making, or data to dispel those concerns. Like them, I believe that we must go further than simply comforting ourselves that bias is not apparent. The GMC is a collection of humans, each with their own biases. The challenge for us is to continue to seek out potential bias and address it head-on.

“We share the aspiration of the review’s co-chairs that modern regulation should contribute to a better health system which is compassionate, fair, and supportive. The recommendations in this report will help us to achieve those aims.”

‘Seismic change’ Needed to Restore Trust

The Doctors’ Association UK (DAUK), which supported Dr Arora throughout, noted in response to the review that: “The impact of a GMC investigation and any subsequent hearing on a doctors’ mental and physical wellbeing is immense.”

Dr Jenny Vaughan, co-lead of ‘Learn Not Blame’ at DAUK, said: “This case, in conjunction with several previous concerning cases, raises again the spectre of disproportionately unfair treatment of the Black, Asian, and minority ethnic medical population. This cannot be tolerated.”

Miss Helen Fernandes, Learn Not Blame committee member at DAUK, described the case as a “travesty” that “should never happen again”. She said:”Cases such as this are leading to an irreparable loss of confidence in the GMC.”

Dr Yasotha Browne, equality, diversity and inclusion lead at DAUK told Medscape News UK earlier this week: “What happened to Dr Arora was in the open arena, meaning many people and bodies were participants including the GMC. We think this highlights an illiterate anti-racist culture. Given that 25% of our NHS workforce is foreign born, this is a terrible concern for welfare and rights. Charlie Massey’s apology should be followed by seismic change to restore trust, that is what is critical.”

These concerns were echoed by the British Medical Association (BMA), whose Council Chair Professor Philip Banfield described the report as “damning”. He said: “This one case lays bare significant flaws in the GMC’s fitness-to-practise processes and decision making.

“With investigation by the GMC and cross examination at tribunal being one of the most traumatic experiences a doctor can go through, it is unforgiveable when this is done needlessly.”

Prof Banfield noted that the review “underlines the urgent need for a more compassionate and supportive approach at every level”, and stressed, “it should not be the case that it took significant social media attention for this to be properly investigated”.

No Evidence of Bias is Not Evidence of No Bias

The case is yet the latest to raise issues of discrimination. Prof Banfield said: “As we have said before, this case appeared to be another example in the worrying trend of ethnic minority doctors facing disproportionate regulatory action. While the authors indicated they could find no conclusive evidence of bias in Dr Arora’s case, they said that this was not the same as no bias existing and, crucially, noted that their report will not quell the concerns of ethnic minority doctors who feel routinely discriminated by the GMC process.”

He added: “It is all the more pressing that we now see a root and branch independent evaluation of the entire GMC referral pathway, to ensure that we have a regulation process that is just, fair and proportionate.

“We are glad to see that the GMC has admitted its mistakes, and we remain committed to working with them to rebuild the profession’s trust and confidence in the regulator.”

GMC Handling of Criticism ‘A Performative Masterclass’

And then, to this week, just to prove it is far from all over. In an opinion piece published in the BMJ, Aneez Esmail, professor (emeritus) of general practice at the University of Manchester, and Dr Sam Everington, general practitioner at Bromley by Bow Health Centre in London, said that the “GMC has been failing doctors and patients for 30 years”, which is indeed about as long as the pair have been highlighting its shortcomings.

“The General Medical Council has made dealing with criticism into a performative masterclass,” they said. “It has honed several strategies: deny that there is a problem, cite the lack of evidence, commission research that often produces predictable answers to banal questions, and produce an endless series of reports so that it can wring its hands in false contrition and promise that change will come.”

Describing the GMC as a failing, dysfunctional organisation “that serves only itself”, they added, “if the GMC was subject to public scrutiny in the same way that the Care Quality Commission assesses healthcare organisations and general practices, it would be rated as inadequate and subject to special measures”.

The GMC has been given the opportunity to reform itself for over 30 years, they said.

“The gulf between what the GMC says and what it must do to change is now so great that the only solution is for it to be placed in special measures so that a new organisation can be created that can truly represent the needs of patients and doctors.”

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

Telling (Non) Reactions to the Film ‘Died Suddenly’

Telling (Non) Reactions to the Film ‘Died Suddenly’


ER Editor: We’ve reported on embalmers’ findings in their cadavers. Kudos to Stew Peters for putting such important information into film format, information that the average person has no idea about.

A reminder that since the beginning, autopsies were being actively avoided for people who died because of ‘Covid’. The same avoidance has been happening over vaccine damage and death. The public needs to know the harms that have (likely) been done to people because of the mRNA injections. Thoughtless condemnation is easy. Check out Malone below.

The autopsy work of Dr. Arne Burkhardt stands out in this regard:

Germany: Out of 10 Autopsies, 7 Deaths are ‘Probably’ Linked to the Vaccines

Here’s a curious reaction to the film. Like a lot of people, we’re mightily suspicious of Dr. Robert Malone (Karen Kingston has shown us the patents involving spike protein insertions for two types of snake venom, by the way):

***

Here it is:

********

I just talked to embalmer Richard Hirschman about the reaction from Died Suddenly

No interest from the fact checkers or mainstream media on what was presented. What a surprise 🙂

I just got off the phone with embalmer Richard Hirschman who is featured in the film, Died Suddenly:

If you haven’t seen the whole film, please take just 14 minutes and watch between minutes 6 and 20.

Richard told me that:

  1. Nobody from the mainstream media is interested in covering the story. No calls. He’s lonelier than the Maytag repairman.
  2. No fact checker has contacted him about the movie.
  3. He’s been attacked. The doctors, who have no evidence whatsoever, have determined that these are just regular blood clots and the hundreds of embalmers that say they’ve never seen anything like these clots before are all lying.
  4. There is no motivation for the embalmers to lie. The vaccine is good for their business. By speaking out, they will reduce their business and run the risk of having their licenses revoked. So why are they lying?
  5. Richard related the story of people in a hospital talking about the movie. One of the doctors said, “This is just a conspiracy theory.” Another doctor said, “No it isn’t. I know one of the embalmers and I’ve seen this first hand. It’s legit.” The response was, “We aren’t allowed to talk about that” and then they changed the topic.

I’m going to shift my ad campaign to focusing on the clots.

Hundreds of embalmers are seeing these clots in over half the patients who die. If the clots are not due to the vaccine, then what is causing them?

That will be the question we’ll ask in our ads in local newspapers, TV, radio, and billboards.

Maybe someone will enlighten us.

Source

************

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Visit Original Source

Health of Pure Bloods Threatened by Shedding of Synthetic mRNA and Spike Protein

Health of Pure Bloods Threatened by Shedding of Synthetic mRNA and Spike Protein


ER Editor: As we’ve noted before in reference to Covid ‘vaccine’ shedding, health practitioners using quantum technology machines are noticing what they take to be the presence of graphene oxide in the blood of the UNvaccinated. Obviously, other vaccine components can be shed, too. These are the ones McCullough deals with.

********

Health of Pure Bloods Threatened by Shedding of mRNA and Spike Protein

Why the Unvaccinated are Concerned about Close Contact with COVID-19 Vaccinated

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

One of the most common questions I am asked from the unvaccinated stems from concerns over “shedding.”  Because the mRNA vaccines have been in development by the US Department of Defense DARPA since 2011, one would have expected that all of the necessary preclinical testing would have been completed before Operation Warp Speed was announced.

The 2015 FDA guidance on Gene Product Shedding Studies with gene therapies, which are defined as “all products that exert their effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integration into the host genome and that are administered in the form of nucleic acids, viruses or genetically modified microorganisms”.[i]   By this statement mRNA vaccines are indeed gene therapy products and should have been submitted to these excretion studies by DARPA-funded researchers long ago.[ii]  Sadly, these careful development steps were skipped from the beginning in our military-style vaccine development program, and now the public is grappling with the issue of nucleic acid and Spike protein shedding as a potential concern among those who have worked so hard to remain healthy and free of COVID-19 vaccination.

In the most comprehensive paper on shedding thus far, former Inserm researcher Dr. Helene Banoun has published the basis for which there is great likelihood that mRNA either on lipid nanoparticles or within exosomes is circulatory in blood and is secreted in every body secretion that would naturally expect to contain particles of this size.[iii]

Fertig et al, have shown mRNA is circulatory in blood for at least two weeks with no reduction in concentration out to that time point.[iv]  Likewise, Hanna et al, have found mRNA within breast milk.[v]   Less data exist on Spike protein shedding, but it is not a far stretch to understand this is well within the realm of reality.

The pivotal questions are:  1) for how long is a recently vaccinated person at risk to shed on to others?  2) can shed mRNA be taken up by the recipient and begin to produce Spike protein just like vaccination? 3) can shed Spike protein cause disease as it does in the vaccinated (e.g. myocarditis, blood clots, etc.)?

It’s time for the lapses by DOD BARDA and NIH BARDA to immediately be corrected by those agencies funding the necessary independent shedding studies to ensure the public safety of those who wisely deferred on COVID-19 vaccination.  This research should preferably be conducted while the current products are paused and taken off to market to protect others at risk.  Until then, we simply cannot answer these questions for those who sacrificed so much to remain “pure-blood.”

[i] Design and Analysis of Shedding Studies for Virus or Bacteria-Based Gene Therapy and Oncolytic Products Guidance for Industry AUGUST 2015

[ii] Department of Defense Driving Mass Vaccination While FDA and Vaccine Companies are Powerless to Stop It by Dr. Peter McCullough | Nov 8, 2022 | Health, Military, Politics,

[iii] Current state of knowledge on the excretion of mRNA and spike produced by anti-COVID-19 mRNA vaccines; possibility of contamination of the entourage of those vaccinated by these products by Helene Banoun Infectious Diseases Research 2022;3(4):22. https://doi.org/10.53388/IDR20221125022

[iv] Fertig TE, Chitoiu L, Marta DS, Ionescu VS, Cismasiu VB, Radu E, Angheluta G, Dobre M, Serbanescu A, Hinescu ME, Gherghiceanu M. Vaccine mRNA Can Be Detected in Blood at 15 Days Post-Vaccination. Biomedicines. 2022 Jun 28;10(7):1538. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10071538. PMID: 35884842; PMCID: PMC9313234.

[v] Hanna N, Heffes-Doon A, Lin X, et al. Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk. JAMA Pediatr. Published online September 26, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.3581

************

Source

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Visit Original Source

How ‘One Health’ Could Become A Global One Health Disaster

How ‘One Health’ Could Become A Global One Health Disaster


ER Editor: Dr. Byram Bridle usefully walks us through standard vaccines vs. mRNA injections in the first half of his piece. Our concern here is with the second half of the article: the immediate plan to use mRNA vaccines on animals, both for the welfare of the animals themselves and for humans through our food sources. This is already starting in Australia.

********

How ‘One Health’ Could Become A Global One Health Disaster

A Call for a Moratorium on mRNA Vaccines for Veterinary Use

This article discloses a major new concern that I have with mRNA vaccine technology in its current form. As such, I have taken care to build the rationale for this. Please take the time to read to the end because this is an issue that could potentially affect us all and should be opened to discussion and scientific investigations.

The Elegant Concept of Vaccines

The purpose of a vaccine is to simulate infection with a pathogen so a person can mount a protective immune response without having to be exposed to the risks associated with the disease caused by the pathogen. Naturally acquired immunity represents the gold standard that vaccinologists try to achieve with their immunization technologies. Natural immunity is usually broadly reactive to minimize risk of immunoevasion, confers long-lasting protection against acquisition of the disease and prevents transmission of the causative pathogen to others. In principle, the concept is sound. In practice, we still have much to learn about natural immune responses and some vaccines come closer than others to achieving this gold standard of immunity.

Lipid Nanoparticles and mRNA Vaccine Technology

Messenger RNA is a genetic blueprint that cells use to manufacture proteins. This can only happen if the mRNA can get into cells. To facilitate this, mRNAs get packaged into tiny bubbles made of fat, called lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). When LNPs come into contact with the fat layer that surrounds cells, which is called the cell membrane, they fuse and release the mRNAs into the cell.

LNPs were originally designed with the goal of delivering drugs throughout the body, including into the brain to treat things like Alzheimer’s diseasebrain cancers, and Parkinson’s disease. They were also being tested for wide-spread delivery of genetic blueprints to try to correct genes associated with diseases; known as gene therapy. However, one of the major roadblocks to using LNPs for these purposes was that multiple administrations resulted in excessive toxicities, in part due to activation of inflammatory mechanisms of the immune system. As a consequence, companies strategically decided to try using LNP-encapsulated mRNAs as vaccines. The rationale was two-fold:

  1. The immune system needs to detect something as being dangerous before it responds to it. LNPs containing mRNAs are highly ‘reactogenic’ and, therefore, perceived as being dangerous to the body. By virtue of being reactogenic, this technology induces inflammation, which is the foundation for any immune response.
  2. According to Health Canada, “An ideal vaccine is… effective in providing lifelong protection against disease after a single dose that can be administered at birth”. For multiple reasons, including having immature immune systems, newborn babies cannot respond properly to vaccines, so my opinion is that a couple of doses would normally be required for an ideal vaccine in infants and they would have to be administered well after birth. However, for those with fully mature immune systems, it is reasonable and, therefore, correct for Health Canada to expect that a good vaccine would only require a single dose to provide “lifelong protection against disease”. They appropriately left out the last-ditch effort of ‘reducing severity of disease’ in their delineation of an ideal vaccine. As such, companies working with LNPs that are toxic when administered multiple times latched onto the concept of using LNP-encapsulated mRNAs as vaccines in adults, where they would theoretically only have to be delivered once.

Therefore, companies like Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna made LNPs containing the mRNAs that encode the spike protein from severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is the causative agent of the novel coronavirus disease that was first identified (ER: or lab-created?) in 2019 (COVID-19). These products were tested to assess their potential to be used as vaccines.

mRNA ‘Vaccines’ Failed to Meet Expectations

Unfortunately, the mRNA products against COVID-19 failed miserably to live up to Health Canada’s definition of an ideal vaccine. First, they fail to protect against infection and acquisition of disease. And, on the basis of fifth doses (and beyond) now being recommended in Canada, they don’t come close to being effective with a single dose. Alarmingly, this means the entire premise of using them as vaccines to avoid multi-dose-associated toxicities has been lost. As such, Health Canada would likely be compelled to define the mRNA COVID-19 products as being as far from ideal as one can possibly get while still trying to cling to the otherwise elegant concept of a vaccine. Remarkably, in the United States, they had to change the definition of a vaccine to be able to apply this term to this technology once the aforementioned flaws were unveiled by the public rollout. At the end of the day, the public are expected to make their own informed decisions about vaccines, and their general perception matches the classical textbook definition of a vaccine, which is something that induces an immune response that protects a person from getting the disease and prevents them from transmitting the causative agent to others. As such, the public needs to be aware of how far from a benchmark vaccine the mRNA products are.

The COVID-19 ‘Vaccine’ Rollout Has Revealed Troubling Features of The Technology

Global experimentation on the public has revealed key problems with mRNA ‘vaccines’ that public health officials decided were not best studied prior their rollout. These include:

  1. Induction of immune responses that are far from protective. They cannot prevent infection, nor transmission. This means that they apply a sub-lethal immunological selection pressure against pathogens that are prone to mutation. This is a classical recipe for driving the emergence of variants that can evade the immune system. In short, it is not only probable but even likely that the mRNA products have accelerated the emergence of the new variants of SARS-CoV-2 that we keep hearing about.
  2. Identification of safety signals. Members of the public, outside of the context of the official and ongoing clinical experiments, have been used to identify an array of side-effects that were missed in the rush to get the mRNA products to market. These adverse events have the potential to be lethal. Publicly admitted ones include blood clots, myocarditis, pericarditis, and anaphylactic shock. The very mechanism of action of the mRNA products is cause for concern. Getting a person’s own cells to express the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2 means, by definition, that those cells will be killed by the ensuing immune response. The degree of this self-destruction and whether it can spill over into long-term autoimmune diseases remains understudied and actively debated within communities that still allow reasonable discussions to occur uncensored. By virtue of sole reliance during the rollout on passive monitoring systems, which substantially underestimate side-effects, additional dangers are also the subject of ongoing heated debates. Regardless, mRNA vaccines are admittedly unsafe and even lethal for at least some recipients.
  3. mRNA vaccines are injected into muscles, get distributed throughout the body seeding a wide array of organs and tissues, and these vaccines can be shed from the body. For example, it was recently demonstrated that mRNA COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ could be detected in the breastmilk of nursing mothers.

One Health: Vaccinating Animals to Protect the Health of People

The concept of ‘one health’ is that the health of people, animals, and the environment are interlinked and interdependent. The health of one can potentially impact the health of the other two. For example, the most potentially dangerous forms of the ‘flu’ occur when human influenza viruses exchange chunks of genetic material with influenza viruses that infect pigs and birds. This can result in outbreaks in the human population of swine and avian flus. There are also zoonotic pathogens that can be transmitted, unchanged, from animals to people. As such, there are growing efforts to to promote global human health by mass vaccinating animals. (ER: Surely this is a pretext for nefarious agendas!) The concept is elegant. If the animals can’t get a disease and transmit the causative agent to people, this could avoid outbreaks in the human population. (ER: Which sounds incredibly naive to us.)

One Health: Fast-Tracking of Veterinary mRNA Vaccines

Some people may be unaware that a large number of mRNA vaccines are being developed with the goal of administering these to species of veterinary interest. The first clinical testing of a mRNA vaccine was actually in cattle, preceding the rollout into people. Australia has a good example of new mRNA vaccines against Foot and Mouth Disease and Lumpy Skin Disease being fast-tracked as a way to address the economic impact of these diseases on their livestock industry. Yes, warp speed-like development of mRNA vaccines has been adopted by the veterinary industry. I encourage you to conduct a literature search, which will show that mRNA-based vaccines are being developed for a wide array of other pathogens, including influenza viruses in poultry and swine.

Why Should People Care About mRNA Vaccines for Veterinary Applications?

There are at least three reasons…

  1. If veterinary mRNA vaccines targeting pathogens that can infect people are as far from meeting Health Canada’s definition of an ideal vaccine as the COVID-19 products, then massive numbers of animals will be conferred with fare from sterilizing immunity. This, in turn, could produce massive reservoirs of animals around the world that can promote the emergence of unique and potentially immuno-evasive variants of zoonotic pathogens that could then infect people. Global regulators must insist, without compromise, veterinary mRNA immunization products for zoonotic pathogens confer sterilizing or near-sterilizing immunity, unlike the mRNA ‘vaccines’ for people. This means that animals receiving these products should not be susceptible to the target disease, nor should they be able to transmit the causative agent to others, especially humans. Unlike COVID-19 ‘vaccines’, veterinary mRNA vaccines should be required to undergo formal transmission testing as part of their approval process.
  2. COVID-19 mRNA ‘vaccines’ are injected into muscles, they distribute throughout the body and can leave the body such as via breastmilk. What if the vaccines can get into edible tissues of food animals? It would not be safe for people to consume veterinary mRNA vaccines in milk, eggs, and meat. Careful testing needs to be done to determine how long mRNAs from vaccines last in veterinary species. This would determine, in part, the ‘wash-out’ period, which is how long one needs to wait before obtaining food from agricultural species to ensure humans are not exposed to the medical product. Worse, wherever mRNA can be found, we can likely expect there to also be the protein that it encodes. This represents one of my biggest concerns about veterinary mRNA vaccines. Proteins are more durable and, therefore, longer lasting than mRNAs, and the synthetic mRNAs in vaccines last much longer than their natural counterparts. The potential problem here is the phenomenon of oral tolerance. Our immune systems are designed to interpret things that we eat as being non-dangerous. This is to avoid harmful chronic inflammation in our gastro-intestinal tract, as well as food allergies. When we eat something, even in tiny quantities, our immune system gets programmed to ignore it. Now, consider the possibility of eating or drinking key target proteins from pathogens that are dangerous to people. If our immune systems were to be trained to ignore these critical parts of pathogens, we would become more susceptible to the diseases they cause. By virtue of trying to protect ourselves by vaccinating animals, we could, theoretically and counterintuitively, render ourselves more susceptible to diseases. This could be disastrous for public health. Talk about a potential downside of ‘GMO foods’ (GMO = genetically modified organism).
  3. Concern for the well-being of the animals, especially if multiple different mRNA vaccines that require repeated dosing are used. mRNA vaccines are not entirely safe in people, especially if more than one dose is administered, and this may apply to animals as well. Care must be taken to ensure that animal welfare is preserved, along with their ability to reproduce efficiently. Research in animals represents an ideal scenario to conduct extensive and careful studies into the safety of mRNA vaccine technologies, including addressing the numerous legitimate, well-rationalized safety questions that have been raised but largely ignored during the rollout into humans.

The Precautionary Principle

In this article, have I proven risks of veterinary mRNA vaccines? No, that was not the purpose. It is possible that these concerns will one day be allayed by the careful conduct of scientific investigations; and let’s hope that is the case. However, as a medical scientist, I lean on two key principles when it comes to public health and safety…

  1. Hypotheses that are formulated with a strong scientific rationale are the legitimate starting point for discussions and investigations.
  2. The precautionary principle is that novel medical products should never be implemented into practice until very high standards of safety and efficacy have been proven. And when it comes to safety, this would include addressing all well-rationalized scientific concerns, including those that were deemed inappropriate to raise during the rollout into humans. Hopefully, a return to our scientific roots and principles will be allowed prior to veterinary mRNA vaccines being licensed for routine use.

What to Do

  1. Scholarly debate. No scientific topic should be off-limits for respectful discussions. The issues raised in this article should be critically assessed to either affirm or allay these concerns. After all, robust, uncensored scholarly debate represents the best way to ensure both the safety of the public when it comes to novel medical technologies, including making sure they are fully informed when making their own decisions.
  2. Research. Governments need to recognize the potential for mRNA vaccine technologies to not only have positive global impacts on health, but also the possibility of substantial negative outcomes. mRNA vaccines and funds for research need to be made readily available to third-party investigators to run critical experiments to address questions like, but not limited to:
  • Do veterinary mRNA vaccines induce immune responses that protect against infection?
  • Do they protect against transmission of the causative agent of the disease?
  • Do veterinary mRNA vaccines or any of their components, including the proteins they encode, get into milk, meat, eggs, and/or other food products (e.g., livers, etc.)?
  • If so, how long are they present?
  • Can consumption of proteins from zoonotic pathogens potentiate oral induction of immunological tolerance that would render a person more susceptible to the disease being targeted?

Until the concerns raised in this article are definitively addressed, it is my expert opinion that no mRNA vaccine intended for veterinary use (nor any for human use, for that matter) should be licensed by any regulatory body. This is for the sake of both human and animal health.

Overly rapid deployment of this technology anywhere in the world has the potential to cause public health problems elsewhere on the globe. After all, pathogens do not respect boundaries. Those developing mRNA vaccine technologies need to give consideration to their fellow human beings. What you do could impact the health of those around you, and not necessarily for the better.

************

Source

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Visit Original Source

EU Parliament Hit By Pro-Kremlin Cyberattack After Russian Terror Designation

EU Parliament Hit By Pro-Kremlin Cyberattack After Russian Terror Designation


ER Editor: See these two stories from RT yesterday — EU parliament brands Russia ‘state sponsor of terrorism’ and this surprising headline, Russia is not ‘state sponsor of terrorism’ – US ambassador. This is all symbolic, incidentally. But could precede a NINTH (9) round of sanctions that are already hitting Europe hard and apparently doing little against Russia.

Seriously, does anybody CARE what the EU Parliament calls ANYTHING? Like all Parliaments, they have become rubber-stamping organizations for oligarchal misdeeds.

********

EU Parliament Hit By Pro-Kremlin Cyberattack After Russian Terror Designation

Tyler Durden's Photo TYLER DURDEN

The European Parliament on Wednesday voted to formally recognize Russia as a “state sponsor of terrorism” for what it called “deliberate attacks and atrocities carried out by the Russian Federation against the civilian population of Ukraine.”

European legislators also cited “serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law amount to acts of terror” in the overwhelming vote in favor of the terror label. The move is more symbolic than anything, however, carry no specific legal consequences for Moscow.

The EP is now urging the European Union to enact the same, which would mark a major escalation in already spiraling relations, as it would also likely require more sanctions.

The parliament statement said it “recognizes Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism and as a state which uses means of terrorism.”

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky praised the designation, saying Wednesday, “Russia must be isolated at all levels and held accountable in order to end its long-standing policy of terrorism in Ukraine and across the globe.”

At the same time, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova angrily dismissed the move, writing on Telegram: “I propose recognizing the European Parliament as a sponsor of idiocy.”

Immediately after the vote, European officials accused Russia of mounting a “sophisticated” cyberattack:

“I confirm that the Parliament has been subject to an external cyber attack, but the Parliamentary services are doing well to defend the Parliament,” Dita Charanzová, Czech MEP and Parliament vice president responsible for cybersecurity, said in a statement.

Another senior Parliament official, requesting not to be named, said “it might be the most sophisticated attack that the Parliament has known so far.”

Eva Kaili, who is the Greek vice president of the European Parliament, pointed the finger at Moscow, saying, “We have a strong indication that it is from Killnet, the hackers with links to Russia indeed. This is my information, but it is under control. It only cut the external access to the Parliament’s website … Unless there is extra attacks we expect it to be back and accessible very soon.”

Shortly after, a group believed by the West to have ties to the Russian state claimed responsibility:

PRO-RUSSIA GROUP KILLNET CLAIMS RESPONSIBILITY FOR DDOS ATTACK

And similarly, the German Greens’ MEP Alexandra Geese said on Twitter: “This morning Russia was still designated as a terrorist state in an official resolution. This afternoon the entire network collapses in [the European Parliament].” The attack mainly impacted the European Parliament website.

************

Source

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Visit Original Source

Wife of Special Counsel in Trump Probe Contributed to Campaigns of Joe Biden, Rashida Tlaib



Wife of Special Counsel in Trump Probe Contributed to Campaigns of Joe Biden, Rashida Tlaib

BREITBART

The wife of Jack Smith, the newly-appointed special counsel in the investigation into the documents former President Donald Trump brought to Mar-a-Lago at the culmination of his term, made political donations to President Joe Biden and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) throughout the years and helped produce the 2020 Michelle Obama documentary Becoming.

Federal Election Commission records show that Smith’s wife, Katy Chevigny, contributed $1,000 each to Biden’s 2020 campaign, Biden for President, and the Biden Victory Fund super PAC, on September 9, 2020. Moreover, she donated $150 to the Friends of Rashida Tlaib committee in July 2008 when Tlaib was running for the Michigan House of Representatives in the state’s Twelfth District.

Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) speaks during the "People's Rally for Impeachment" on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on September 26, 2019. - Top US Democrat Nancy Pelosi announced on September 24 the opening of a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, saying he betrayed his oath of office by …ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Chevigny is a documentary film director and producer who co-founded the company Big Mouth Productions. She is listed on the company’s website as a producer of the 2020 Michelle Obama documentary titled Becoming, which received four Emmy nominations.

On Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the appointment of Chevigny’s husband, Smith, as special counsel in both the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation “and aspects of a separate probe” pertaining to January 6, as the Associated Press’s Erik Tucker and Michael Balsamo reported.

Prosecutor Jack Smith waits for the start of the court session of Kadri Veseli's initial appearance at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers court in The Hague, Netherlands, Nov. 10, 2020. Smith, the prosecutor named as special counsel to oversee investigations related to former President Donald Trump, has a long career confronting public corruption and war crimes. (Robin van Lonkhuijsen/Pool Photo via AP)Prosecutor Jack Smith waits for the start of the court session of Kadri Veseli’s initial appearance at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers court in The Hague, Netherlands, Nov. 10, 2020. (Robin van Lonkhuijsen/Pool Photo via AP)

“The Department of Justice has long recognized that in certain extraordinary cases, it is in the public’s interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an investigation and prosecution,” Garland said, per the Associated Press.

On Sunday, Trump told Fox News Digital he would not “partake” in the investigation.

Attorney General Merrick Garland and Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco arrive to deliver remarks at the U.S. Justice Department on November 18, 2022 in Washington, DC. Garland announced he will appoint a special counsel to oversee the Justice Department’s investigation into former President Donald Trump and his handling of classified documents and actions before the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol Building. Garland’s pick to oversee the special counsel is Jack Smith, an international criminal court prosecutor. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

“I have been going through this for six years — for six years I have been going through this, and I am not going to go through it anymore,” Trump said. “And I hope the Republicans have the courage to fight this.”

Continue reading at BREITBART

Header featured image (edited) credit:  Jack Smith/Katy Chevigny/Pool Photos via AP

Emphasis added by (TLB) editors

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)