Jesus said, "Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you . For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest." Gospel of Thomas (5)
ROBERT KENNEDY – I need your help. Watching from the side is already becoming risky for all of us, I do not allow this anymore. Great injustices are happening before my eyes. Share this with everyone you know! Everyone needs to hear what I have to say.
COVID-19 | Calls mount to halt vaccination drive
War criminal and globalist Tony Blair talking about digital surveillance for the unvaccinated and talks about “multiple shots down the line”
Footage from within a in a recently liberated city in the Donbas. This is clear evidence of western multinational big pharma conducting inhumane experiments which are crimes against humanity and also highlights why the west is throwing billions at the Kiev regime.
Kari Lake continues the fight again election fraud. The election fraud is for all to see. Now we will see how corrupt the justice system is. Time to wake up
Pfizer CEO refuses to answer questions.
China has self destruct helmet for their soldiers.
The west likes to claim Russia is a totalitarian dictatorship when in fact it is the west that suppresses free speech.
US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin says the US will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” Top DOD officials are part of the swamp and it is time to for the people to wake up.
The Maniacal push for a new world order by Laura Ingraham
The Holy Grail Of Absolute Proof!!! This video exposes a television commercial that the federal government aired. Hidden in the video are some very disturbing hidden messages. In other related news McDonalds was busted using subliminal messages by means of flashing their logo really fast so that your subconscious mind sees it.
There is widespread strike action pending in the UK. In this upload I give my thoughts on this matter – and make connections between the Australian Unions and the WEF.
RFK Jr. Details the Vaccine Manufacturers’ Stunning Admission of Causing Injury & Harm
Each of the 405 diseases that have become epidemic since 1989 is listed as a side effect in the vaccine inserts. Autism is among those diseases listed.
“The Federal law says that they’re not allowed to list anything on that manufacturer’s insert unless [the] FDA determines that it is likely that the vaccine caused that injury.”
Brought to you by Pfizer
The next episode of ☀️ICIC – International Crimes Investigative Committee with: Dr. Claus Köhnlein, Dr. Hans-Joachim Maaz & Samuel Eckert
It’s never been about health or a cure…its about big pharma and hospitals scheming for profit. This doctor calls it “politics.”
If a hospital admits a COVID-19 patient, they get paid $13k.
If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, the hospital gets paid $39k—three times as much.
While HCQ is better known, has fewer side-effects, and costs about $20 a dose for out-patients, Remdesivir is a therapeutic course that costs $2,340/patient that has been proven to cause liver damage. Being intravenous, Remdesivir requires expensive hospital care (hospital receives an additional $13k from Medicare.)
There have been many accounts of hospitals placing non covid patients on covid floors…increasing exposure and the hospital’s chance of cashing in more. This is why some hospitals refuse to allow family in. It’s not a “safety” protocol.
MHRA YELLOW CARD REPORTING SUMMARY UP TO 23rd NOVEMBER 2022 (Data published 1st Dec 2022)
Adult & Child – Primary, Third Dose & Boosters (mono/bivalent)
People in UK who have received one or more vaccine = 53,813,491
(Up to 11th Sept 2022)
Woman having a mammography scan. (Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock)
Getting older is a complicated business. As we age, trips to the doctor increasingly conclude with requisitions for different screenings—tests meant to help diagnose potential problems and keep us healthy for the long haul.
Although many tests used to detect cancer have been hailed as life-saving miracles of modern medicine, some have a dark side. Concerns over the prolific use of mammograms for detecting breast cancer have been growing in the scientific community as journals publish research revealing these tests come with their own risks. With roughly seventy percent of women in the U.S. over forty having mammograms at least every two years, it raises questions about their safety, if information about potential dangers is being obscured, and who might really be benefitting from this widespread testing.
What if millions of women are fueling a billion-dollar industry with ever-increasing profits by using screening that not only hasn’t improved outcomes, but may be harming the women it is supposed to save?
Cancer in Our Society
Cancer is pervasive and widely feared due to its relentlessness, brutality, and the grueling nature of many cancer treatments. The National Cancer Institute spends billions on cancer research each year and cancer fundraisers are a perennial activity in our communities. Virtually every cancer has a month dedicated to its awareness. October is breast cancer awareness month, which it politely shares with liver cancer awareness in the United States.
As we get older, cancer is something we think about more and our doctors push us to get tests and screenings to make sure cancer cells haven’t been seeded in our bodies.
Breast Cancer
Breast cancer deeply frightens many women (and yes, men can get it too). If you happen to be considered high-risk, screenings may start as early as your twenties. In the United States, mammograms are considered the gold standard of testing for breast cancer and there are now both 2D and 3D varieties for women to choose from.
Mammograms use x-rays (a form of ionizing radiation) to take pictures of the breast. A machine is used where a woman places her breast between two plates or paddles where it is then compressed and x-ray images are captured.
In a 2D mammogram, two images are taken, one from the top and one from the side, creating a 2D picture.
3D, or tomosynthesis, is largely the same process, using slightly more radiation and capturing additional images, creating a three-dimensional picture of the breast.
Radiologists use the images to look for abnormalities, with breast cancer usually appearing as a white mass. If abnormalities are found, the patient is asked to come back for more tests, often an MRI, or to have a biopsy. Mammograms do not diagnose breast cancer. They look for abnormalities in the breast and can give the patient more information about their breast tissue, if masses are present, and if further investigation is needed. The only way to diagnose breast cancer after an abnormality is seen is to do a biopsy.
Mammography: What You Should Know
Mammography does, however, have risks that all women should be aware of. The two main concerns of mammography are radiation exposure and overdiagnosis.
Because mammography uses a type of ionizing radiation, it comes with inherent risk. We are all exposed to radiation every day. Some of that radiation, like the ultraviolet and infrared rays of the sun, is essential to our health (in appropriate doses). But we are well adapted to these natural, low levels of radiation. The same is not true of man-made radiation.
The ionizing radiation used in mammograms is much stronger than natural sources. At high levels, ionizing radiation can harm our tissues, organs, and lead to cancer. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS) the dose of radiation people receive from a mammogram is about the same amount of radiation people get from their natural surroundings in a three-month period.
This is of concern because there are parts of the body that are particularly sensitive to radiation, and we should limit our exposure whenever possible. In fact, Cornell University’s Program on Breast Cancer Environmental Risk Factors states that “The female breast is known to be highly susceptible to the cancer-causing effects of radiation when exposure occurs before menopause.” A mammogram is also directing this radiation not only at the breast, but at the other organs inside the chest, like the heart and lungs.
A cohort study published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2012 followed more than 500,000 women from 1973 until 2009. The study found that women who had received radiation treatment for breast cancer (high energy x-rays) had a significant increase in heart disease and lung cancer in the decades after their treatment.
The study clearly demonstrates a progressive increase in both risk and mortality from radiation-related heart disease and lung cancer with time (into the third decade) after exposure to radiation.
The study is one of many to raise questions about routine mammograms for women at low risk of breast cancer.
Overdiagnosis
The other issue with mammography is overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis is a concern because mammograms can detect abnormalities that may not be cancer, or cancers that would have regressed on their own but are treated once they are discovered. That means many women are exposed to chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery that may not have been not needed.
An article published in Public Health Research and Practice entitled What Is Overdiagnosis and Why Should We Take It Seriously? offers a very good explanation of what overdiagnosis is and why it is a problem, defining overdiagnosis this way:
“In cancer screening, overdiagnosed cancers are those that did not need to be found because they would not have produced symptoms or led to premature death.”
“Overdiagnosis in cancer screening arises largely from the paradoxical problem that screening is most likely to find the slow-growing or dormant cancers that are least likely to harm us, and less likely to find the aggressive, fast-growing cancers that cause cancer mortality. This central paradox has become clearer over recent decades. The more overdiagnosis is produced by a screening program, the less likely the program is to serve its ultimate goal of reducing illness and premature death from cancer.”
An article published in The Lancet in 2013 argued that two 30- to 35- year old randomized studies underestimated when they concluded that there was a 19 percent rate of overdiagnosis when screening with mammography.
The author, Per-Henrik Zahl, a researcher with the Norwegian Institute of Public Health who has looked at breast cancer overdiagnosis, argues that detection rates and the level of overdiagnosis have increased 100 percent or more as the sensitivity of mammograms has improved.
Zahl notes that when screening was introduced in Sweden and Norway there was a 50 percent increase in invasive breast cancer. The total increase in diagnosis in Norway was 75 percent. He concluded that almost all of the increase in cancer detection through screening was due to lesions that normally go into spontaneous regression.
A comparative study published in the journal BMC Women’s Health in 2009 set out to quantify overdiagnosis in the Danish mammography screening program. Denmark is unique as only 20 percent of the population has been offered mammography over an extended period. Incidence rates of carcinoma in situ (stage 0 breast cancer) and invasive breast cancer were collected in areas with and without screening over thirteen years, and twenty years before its introduction. The study found that in the screened women, the overdiagnosis rate was 33 percent.
A systematic review published in the British Medical Journal in 2009 tracked the incidence of breast cancer before and after the introduction of mammography screening in specific areas—the United Kingdom; Manitoba, Canada; New South Wales, Australia; Sweden and parts of Norway—both seven years before and seven years after public breast cancer screening programs were implemented. The review found that overdiagnosis was estimated at 52 percent and concluded that one in three breast cancers detected in a population offered screening was overdiagnosed.
As evidence of overdiagnosis has accumulated, it is now recognized as the most serious downside of population-wide breast screening.
What Women Think
One of the main concerns with mammograms is that women may not be warned about the potential risks and all the factors involved in breast cancer screening. A cross-sectional survey of 479 women in the United States, aged 18-97 published in the British Journal of Medicine set out to understand women’s attitudes to and knowledge of false-positive mammography results as well as the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (a type of stage 0 breast cancer) after screening mammography.
Ductal carcinoma in situ is defined as the presence of abnormal cells inside the milk duct in the breast. DCIS is considered an early form of breast cancer. DCIS is non-invasive, meaning it is still isolated and has not spread out of the milk duct and has a low risk of becoming invasive.
The survey concluded that women were aware of false positives, seeming to view them as an acceptable consequence of screening mammography. In contrast, most women were unaware that screening can detect cancers that may never progress (ductal carcinoma in situ) and felt that that information was relevant.
The study also found that only 8 percent of women thought mammography could harm a woman without breast cancer and 94 percent did not realize (doubted) that mammograms could detect cancers that might not progress. Few of the women in the study knew about ductal carcinoma in situ, but 60 percent of the women wanted to take into account the possibility that any cancer detected may not progress.
Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2013 looked at overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer, and what physicians were telling patients about the risks of screening, specifically the possibility of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
Less than 10 percent said they were told about the risks of mammograms by their physicians. Little more than half (51 percent) said they would not agree to screening if it resulted in one overtreated person per one life saved. These numbers imply that millions of Americans might not choose to be screened if they knew the whole story, but unfortunately, 90 percent are not getting that information.
The Cancer Industry Recommendations
In the United States, mammograms are the standard screening used to detect breast cancer, and doctors usually begin speaking to their women patients about mammograms at around age forty.
Mammograms are approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) which regulates the standards for mammography machines and the people who provide them. The FDA has also released several warnings about using thermography instead of mammograms, reminding the public that mammography is still the most effective primary breast cancer screening test.
Do Regular Mammograms Lead to Better Outcomes?
The question becomes, do regular mammograms lead to better outcomes? Well, it would depend on how you define better outcomes. If we are talking about detecting breast cancer, it seems the answer is most certainly yes. Mammograms seem an excellent tool for detecting breast cancer. But, if we define better outcomes as fewer women dying of breast cancer, then we seem to have entered a different territory.
An article, “Mammograms and Mortality: How Has the Evidence Evolved?” published in 2021 noted that a previous meta-analysis of mammogram studies revealed that mammograms have led to no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (death from any cause) for women of any age group. The article, by Amanda Kowalski, a health economist and the Gail Wilensky Professor of Applied Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan Department of Economics, also notes that some trials even show imprecise increases in all-cause mortality across all age groups or within an age group. These findings were based on eight large randomized controlled trials that combined included over 600,000 women.
A very large Canadian randomized screening trial published in the British Medical Journal followed nearly 90,000 women aged 40-59 over 25 years, who were considered at average risk for breast cancer. One group of women received routine mammograms, and the other did not. The somewhat surprising results were that mortality rates in both groups were almost identical. The overall conclusion of the study was that annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer any better than a physical examination. The study also noted that they found the overdiagnosis rate among the mammography participants was 22 percent.
An analysis published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine in 2015 concluded that mammograms have been promoted to the public with three promises that all seem to be wrong. The first is that they save lives, the second is that they save breasts, and the third is that they catch cancer early. The author, Peter C Gøtzsche, formerly with the Nordic Cochrane Center and co-founder of the influential Cochrane Collaboration, states that mammogram screenings do not help women live longer, increasemastectomies, and many cancers are still caught at a very late stage.
It’s a sentiment other researchers have also expressed.
“The time has come to reassess whether universal mammographic screening should be recommended for any age group because the declines in breast cancer mortality can be ascribed mainly to improved treatments and breast cancer awareness; currently, we see that screening has only a minor effect on mortality (if any),” researchers from Nordic Cochrane Centre wrote in the journal Radiology in 2011.
In 2013, the Swiss Medical Board—an independent health technology assessment initiative—was asked to prepare a review of mammography screening. After a panel reviewed the available evidence—and contemplated its implications in detail—they were extremely concerned. The Swiss Medical Board’s report was released on Feb. 2, 2014, and acknowledged that systematic mammography screening might prevent about one death from breast cancer for every one thousand women screened, even though there was no evidence that overall mortality was affected. It also emphasized the harm caused by mammography, specifically false-positive test results and the risk of overdiagnosis. The report cites the following statistics, from a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association:
“For every breast-cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year course of annual screening beginning at 50 years of age, 490 to 670 women are likely to have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination; 70 to 100, an unnecessary biopsy; and 3 to 14, an overdiagnosed breast cancer that would never have become clinically apparent.”
Based on their findings, the board recommended that no new systematic mammography screening programs be introduced in Switzerland and that a time limit be placed on existing programs in the country, phasing them out entirely.
The Nordic Cochrane Centre, thought to be one of the world’s best and least biased research institutions, conducted a systematic review to assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity. The trials they looked at included 600,000 women aged 39-74 years. The conclusions, published in 2013, are as follows:
“If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15 percent and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30 percent, it means that for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings.”
The study’s authors, Peter C Gøtzsche and Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, state that women should be fully informed of both the benefits and harms. They went so far as to write an evidence-based leaflet in several languages to help women understand the risks.
The Mammography Industry-Projected Earnings
What might perhaps be interesting to know is that mammography is a multi-billion dollar industry.
In September 2022, Vantage Market Research released a report that projected earnings for the mammography market would be from US $1.8 billion in 2021 to $3.2 billion by 2028.
Growing markets in Asia will provide most of that expansion. The report attributes the huge growth in the region to the existence of a significant number of mammography companies, and the high adoption rate due to government measures that stimulate the industry and increasing collaborations between the mammography industry and governments in the region.
Final Thoughts
Success when it comes to breast cancer really depends on the outcome we are trying to achieve. If it is early detection, then we seem to be doing a stellar job. But if our goal is lowering mortality rates, we seem to be in a gray zone and possibly moving backwards. With the present technology—and its increasing sensitivity—we seem to have created many more cancer patients, perhaps unnecessarily, and are keeping women in the dark about the dangers.
Michael Baum, a Professor Emeritus of Surgery and a visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London (UCL), is a British surgical oncologist specializing in breast cancer treatment and one of the architects of Britain’s national breast screening program.
Baum went from being one of the most determined supporters of breast cancer screening to one of its most vocal opponents.
In his book, “The History and Mystery of Breast Cancer,” he explains why.
“The largest threat posed by American medicine is that more and more of us are being drawn into the system not because of an epidemic of disease, but because of an epidemic of diagnoses. The real problem with the epidemic of diagnoses is that it leads to an epidemic of treatments. Not all treatments have important benefits, but almost all can have harms.”
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
Emma Suttie D.AC, AP is an acupuncture physician and founder of Chinese Medicine Living—a website dedicated to sharing how to use traditional wisdom to live a healthy lifestyle in the modern world. She is a lover of the natural world, martial arts, and a good cup of tea.
Meditation is a natural relaxation state of the mind and is considered to be most important mental exercise to practice during our lifetime. Meditation is actually our natural state and our connection to the Divine.
Mindfulness can be practice all the time by simply focusing on the current moment, not yesterday or tomorrow but the present moment.
The proper way to meditate is just start. You will develop a practice over time but start with what works for you. Sitting in a chair or floor with good posture, close your eyes, take 5–10 slow deep breaths, following your breath. Your relaxing your mind so try not to think of anything. Just focus on a point in the front of eyes. You will find your thoughts drifting to problems just bring the focus back to the point in front of the eyes. The time you meditate is up to you.
Make meditation part of your life and you will see the world anew.
Public health officials are sounding the alarm about a new Omicron variant, XBB, that is spreading across the northeast US. Studies suggest it is vastly different from the original Wuhan strain and is evading herd immunity and the latest BA.5 boosters. Are the mRNA shots to blame?
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
At the end of December 2022, John Campbell, Ph.D., posted a video calling on the British health authorities to halt the use of mRNA COVID injections, as the data suggest there are far too many safety issues
Campbell argues that while the risk of complications and death due to COVID has significantly lessened since the early days of 2020, the risks associated with the COVID jabs remain the same. Hence, the risk-benefit ratio of the mass injection campaign has flipped, and the risk associated with the shot now outweighs the risk of infection
The COVID jabbed are now dying in greater numbers than the unjabbed — so much so that it has driven down the overall life expectancy in the U.S. by nearly three years
Across the world, excess mortality has dramatically risen since the rollout of the jabs. If they were beneficial, you’d expect excess mortality to drop. We’re also not seeing mass death from COVID. The only clear factor that might account for these discrepancies is mass injection with an experimental gene transfer technology
Most COVID-19 related deaths are also occurring among the fully jabbed and boosted
Since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, John Campbell, Ph.D., a retired nurse educator, has gained a following for his even-handed evaluations of COVID science and statistics. While he’s not known for taking a stand against the COVID shots, that recently changed.
At the end of December 2022, Campbell posted a video (above) calling on the British health authorities to halt the use of mRNA COVID injections, as the data suggest there are far too many safety issues to continue.
Moreover, most COVID-19 hospitalizations in 2022 were incidental, meaning they were not hospitalized “for” COVID but, rather, tested positive once admitted. Waves of outbreaks with newer, less hazardous variants have also resulted in high levels of natural immunity.
Campbell argues that while the risk of complications and death due to COVID has significantly lessened since the early days of 2020, the risks associated with the COVID jabs remain the same as they were at the outset.
Hence, the risk-benefit ratio of the mass injection campaign has flipped, and the risk associated with the shot now outweighs the risk of infection. Campbell is now urging the British government to pause the continued booster campaign until a population-wide risk-benefit analysis has been carried out, and the data published with full transparency so that independent researchers can verify the findings.
Life Expectancy Plummeted After COVID Jabs Rolled Out
What Campbell does not address in this video, but has reviewed in others, is that the COVID jabbed are actually dying in greater numbers than the unjabbed — so much so that it has driven down the overall life expectancy in the U.S. by nearly three years.1
In 2019, the average life span of Americans of all ethnicities was 78.8 years.2 By the end of 2020, it had dropped to 77.0 years3 and by the end of 2021, it was 76.4.4
We know this drop isn’t due to people dying of COVID-19, because the age groups with the highest increases in mortality were working age adults, 25 through 54, followed by children between the ages of 1 and 4.5 And, they are not tiny increases.
Rates of death increased 16.1% for 35- to 44-year-olds, 13.4% for 25- to 34-year-olds, 12.1% for 45- to 54-year-olds, and 10.1% for 1- to 4-year-olds. Meanwhile, COVID mortality was, from the start, highest among the elderly.
The average age of death due to COVID-19 was 82,6 which is actually older than the average life span, and mortality rates only increased by 3.8% among 65- to 74-year-olds and 2.4% among those aged 75 to 84. Life insurance data also confirm that it’s working age adults who are dying in record numbers.7
Excess Mortality Took Off After COVID Shots Were Introduced
COVID-19 is also an unlikely cause for the rapid decline in life expectancy for the simple fact that it’s not a major contributor to rising excess mortality, which only took off after the introduction of the COVID shots in early 2021.8
Excess mortality is a statistic that is related to but separate from life expectancy. It refers to the difference between the observed numbers of deaths (from all causes) during a given time, compared to the expected number of deaths based on historical norms, such as the previous five-year average. (Formula: reported deaths – expected deaths = excess deaths.)
Across the world, excess mortality has dramatically risen since the rollout of the jabs, and barely a day now goes by without a healthy adult suddenly dropping dead with no apparent cause.
If the COVID jabs were beneficial, you’d expect excess mortality to drop, yet that’s not what we’re seeing. We’re also not seeing mass death from COVID. The only clear factor that might account for these discrepancies is mass injection with an experimental gene transfer technology.
The Jabbed Also Account for Most COVID-19 Deaths
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data also show that most COVID-19 related deaths are now occurring among the jabbed and boosted, and this despite the fact that numbers are artificially suppressed by only counting people as “vaccinated” or “boosted” if they’re at least two weeks out from their last shot. As reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF):9
“In fall 2021, about 3 in 10 adults dying of COVID-19 were vaccinated or boosted. But by January 202210 … about 4 in 10 deaths were vaccinated or boosted. By April 2022 … data11 show that about 6 in 10 adults dying of COVID-19 were vaccinated or boosted, and that’s remained true through at least August 2022 (the most recent month of data).”
The data from this chart come from the CDC, which collects data on the number of deaths by vaccination status from 30 health departments (including states and cities) across the country.
In order to be counted as vaccinated, a person must be at least two weeks out from completing their primary series … Similarly, to be counted as having a booster, a person must be at least two weeks out from their booster or additional dose before testing positive. People who were partially vaccinated are not included in this data.”
COVID Jab Is Likely Fueling Mutation of Variants
Another reason to halt the COVID booster campaign that Campbell does not address is the very likely possibility that the shots are fueling mutations, giving rise to ever new and more resistant variants. As reported in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Allysia Finley,12 “The virus appears to be evolving in ways that evade immunity,” which is bad for the jabbed and unjabbed alike.
“Public-health experts are sounding the alarm about a new Omicron variant dubbed XBB that is rapidly spreading across the Northeast U.S.,” Finley writes.
“Some studies13 suggest it is as different from the original COVID strain from Wuhan as the 2003 SARS virus … It isn’t clear that XBB is any more lethal than other variants, but its mutations enable it to evade antibodies from prior infection and vaccines as well as existing monoclonal antibody treatments.
Growing evidence also suggests that repeated vaccinations may make people more susceptible to XBB and could be fueling the virus’s rapid evolution …
Under selective evolutionary pressures, the virus appears to have developed mutations that enable it to transmit more easily and escape antibodies elicited by vaccines and prior infection.
The same study posits that immune imprinting may be contributing to the viral evolution. Vaccines do a good job of training the immune system to remember and knock out the original Wuhan variant. But when new and markedly different strains come along, the immune system responds less effectively.
Bivalent vaccines that target the Wuhan and BA.5 variants … prompt the immune system to produce antibodies that target viral regions the two strains have in common … XBB has evolved to elude antibodies induced by the vaccines and breakthrough infections.
Hence, the Nature study suggests, ‘current herd immunity and BA.5 vaccine boosters may not efficiently prevent the infection of Omicron convergent variants.’”
Indeed, a drawback of the original COVID shot that was widely ignored was that it only triggered the creation of antibodies against a single piece of the virus (the spike), whereas natural immunity creates antibodies against all of its parts.
Experts warned that embarking on a mass injection campaign would put enormous pressure on the spike that would result in mutations to evade immunity, and this is precisely what happened.
How Vaccines Can Drive Viruses to Mutate
The idea that vaccines can cause viral mutations is not new. As explained in “Vaccines Are Pushing Pathogens to Evolve,” published in Quanta Magazine14 in 2018, “Just as antibiotics breed resistance in bacteria, vaccines can incite changes that enable diseases to escape their control.”
The article details the history of the anti-Marek’s disease vaccine for chickens, first introduced in 1970. Today, we’re on the third version of this vaccine, as within a decade, it stops working. The reason for this is because the virus continuously mutates to evade the vaccine. What’s worse, the virus is also becoming increasingly deadly and more difficult to treat.
A 2015 paper15 in PLOS Biology tested the theory that vaccines are driving the mutation of the herpesvirus causing Marek’s disease in chickens. To do that, they vaccinated 100 chickens and kept 100 unvaccinated. All of the birds were then infected with varying strains of the virus. Some strains were more virulent and dangerous than others.
Viruses mutate all the time, and if you have a leaky vaccine, meaning one that doesn’t block infection completely, then the virus will mutate to evade the immune response within that person.
Over the course of the birds’ lives, the unvaccinated ones shed more of the least virulent strains into the environment, while the vaccinated ones shed more of the most virulent strains. As noted in the Quanta article:16
“The findings suggest that the Marek’s vaccine encourages more dangerous viruses to proliferate. This increased virulence might then give the viruses the means to overcome birds’ vaccine-primed immune responses and sicken vaccinated flocks.”
The take-home message here is that viruses mutate all the time, and if you have a leaky vaccine, meaning one that doesn’t block infection completely, then the virus will mutate to evade the immune response within that person.
As it happens, that is one of the distinct features of the COVID shots. They’re not designed to block infection. They allow infection to occur and at best lessen the symptoms, and as a result, the virus can mutate more or less unhindered. So, while the unjabbed were initially accused of being the ones responsible for mutations, it’s actually the jabbed who are the primary vectors.
Risk of COVID Infection Rises With Number of Shots
While newer variants can circumvent both “vaccine” immunity and natural immunity, natural immunity still provides far better protection, because the more shots a person gets, the more predisposed they become to COVID-19 infection.
This was most recently demonstrated in a Cleveland Clinic study,17 which concluded that the risk of COVID-19 infection “increased … with the number of vaccine doses previously received.” As reported by Finley:18
“Notably, workers who had received more doses were at higher risk of getting sick. Those who received three more doses were 3.4 times as likely to get infected as the unvaccinated, while those who received two were only 2.6 times as likely.
‘This is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19,’ the authors noted. ‘We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.’”
COVID Shots Suppress Your Immune Function
The COVID jabbed are also contracting other infections, as the shots weaken their innate immune system. In December 2022, MIT researcher Stephanie Seneff and Drs. Peter McCullough, Greg Nigh and Anthony Kyriakopoulos published a paper19 in which they described how the COVID shots inhibit the type-1 interferon pathway, which is the first-stage response to all viral infections.
As a result of this interferon inhibition, your innate immune system is suppressed, opening the door for all kinds of infections. Type-1 interferon also keeps latent viruses in check, so if your interferon pathway is suppressed, latent viruses, such as shingles, 20,21,22,23 can start to emerge. Importantly, cancer can also proliferate unchecked when your immune system is impaired.
Bivalent Boosters Are Minimally Effective at Best
The Cleveland Clinic study24 cited earlier also found that the bivalent COVID-19 booster was only 30% effective in preventing infection “during the time when the virus strains dominant in the community were represented in the vaccine.”
In other words, the boosters provide minimal protection even when well-matched to the circulating strain, and as its protection wanes, it leaves you at higher risk of infection than before.
Got the Jab? Take Action to Safeguard Your Health
If you already got one or more jabs and now have concerns about your health, what can you do? Well, first and foremost, never take another COVID booster, another mRNA gene therapy shot or regular vaccine. You need to end the assault on your system.
If you developed symptoms you didn’t have before your shot, I would encourage you to seek out expert help. Unfortunately, most conventional doctors are clueless when it comes to COVID jab injuries (and vaccine injuries in general), so you’ll need to do some homework.
At present, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) seems to have one of the best treatment protocols for post-jab injuries. It’s called I-RECOVER and can be downloaded from covid19criticalcare.com.25
Dr. Pierre Kory, who co-founded the FLCCC, has transitioned to treating the vaccine injured more or less exclusively. For more information, see DrPierreKory.com. Dr. Michelle Perro26 is also helping patients with post-jab injuries. I interviewed her about her treatment strategies in May 2022.
The World Health Council has also published lists of remedies that can help inhibit, neutralize and eliminate spike protein, which most experts agree is the primary culprit. I covered these in my 2021 article, “World Council for Health Reveals Spike Protein Detox.”
Other Helpful Treatments and Remedies
Other treatments and remedies that may be helpful for COVID jab injuries include:
•Lower your Omega-6 intake. Linoleic acid is consumed in amounts 10 times higher than the ideal in well over 95% of the population and contributes to massive oxidative stress that impairs your immune response. Seed oils and processed foods need to be diligently avoided. See “How Linoleic Acid Wrecks Your Health” for more information.
•Pharmaceutical grade methylene blue, which improves mitochondrial respiration and aid in mitochondrial repair. A dose of 15 to 80 milligrams a day could go a long way toward resolving some of the fatigue many suffer post-jab.
It may also be helpful in acute strokes. The primary contraindication is if you have a G6PD deficiency (a hereditary genetic condition), in which case you should not use methylene blue at all. To learn more, see “The Surprising Health Benefits of Methylene Blue.”
•Near-infrared light, as it triggers production of melatonin in your mitochondria27 where you need it most. By mopping up reactive oxygen species, it too helps improve mitochondrial function and repair. Natural sunlight is 54.3% infrared radiation,28 so this treatment is available for free. For more information, see “What You Need to Know About Melatonin.”
•Lumbrokinase and serrapeptidase are both fibrinolytic enzymes that, when taken on an empty stomach one hour before a meal, or two hours after, will help reduce your risk of blood clots.
Originally published January 10, 2023 on Mercola.com
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
Joseph Mercola is the founder of Mercola.com. An osteopathic physician, best-selling author, and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, his primary vision is to change the modern health paradigm by providing people with a valuable resource to help them take control of their health.
Coming up on this episode of Alison at Large: A one-on-one with J6 political prisoner Jake Lang. We will remember the infamous day and discuss the new book he has released behind bars. Plus a shocking ruling out of new Zealand… Regarding pedophilia. And “to censor or not to censor”… That is the question… And Elon Musk’s latest maneuver may shock you. And B.M.W. introduces you to a car with a ‘digital soul.’
The Higher View is a brand-new show using The View as a format. If you are a fan or not a fan of The View which has been on for 25 years. We have taken the show format to a Higher Consciousness perspective. Our first show aired live yesterday. Please check it out and share. It is time that Humanity moves to a Higher Consciousness together. Awake 2 Oneness Radio: https://www.awake2onenessradio.org/
In Sept. 2021, President Joe Biden declared a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” and blamed this on the roughly 80 million Americans who failed to get the COVID-19 shot.
However, by 2022, vaccinated people made up the majority of the population, with about 79 percent of adults having completed at least their initial shots.
The most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data now find the majority of adults dying of COVID-19 are vaccinated or boosted.
60 Percent of COVID-Related Deaths Among the Vaccinated
An alarming trend has become apparent: Vaccinated and boosted individuals account for a sharply increasing proportion of deaths from COVID-19.
Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) showed in an analysis posted on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, that about 4 in 10 COVID-related deaths were among the vaccinated or boosted by January 2022.
The most recent analysis of CDC data by KFF finds 6 out of 10 COVID-related deaths from April to August 2022 were among people with some level of vaccination.
According to KFF, this is due to a variety of factors relating to how many people were vaccinated earlier in the pandemic when the shots were first made available.
When the vaccines were first rolled out, people who received their initial series of injections represented only a small share of total deaths, because they were such a small number compared to the unvaccinated majority.
But that share was expected to rise as vaccinated people represented a growing share of the U.S. population. Ultimately, if everyone in the United States was vaccinated, then vaccinated people would represent 100 percent of COVID-19 deaths. The same would be observed among those who received a booster dose.
This is because some people who are up to date with vaccines will still get COVID-19, incidents which are considered “breakthrough infections.” As the CDC states, COVID-19 vaccination is effective at preventing severe illness and death, but the shots are not perfect.
Vaccine Benefit Has Become Marginal
The rising share of the vaccinated population is only one factor and doesn’t seem to explain all the increased deaths among vaccinated people over the last year.
KFF concluded that vaccination rates have only grown slightly during this time, yet the number of vaccinated people dying rose more steeply.
Another possible reason we’re seeing increased deaths among the vaccinated is that even in 2021, one study showed vaccine effectiveness waned significantly over time for all adults.
This effect was most pronounced in the older age groups, particularly in those between 40- and 59-years-old, and in those 80 and older.
Effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Delta phase by age group and priority risk category, Italy, July 19 to Nov. 7, 2021. The British Medical Journal
“The data is suggesting that at this point, with the vast majority of the population having had contact with either the infection or the vaccine, the effects of the vaccine are marginal,” Dr. Jacob Teitelbaum, an expert in long COVID and post-viral chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia, told The Epoch Times.
An Israeli study found vaccine efficacy dropped to the same as three doses just months afterward, while research funded by Moderna found their COVID vaccine’s effectiveness actually became negative over time.
Is Modern Medicine Causing More Harm Than Good?
The updated (bivalent) booster shots became widely available in September 2022, and uptake of those vaccinations has been slow throughout the country.
Dr. Robert G. Lahita, director of the Institute for Autoimmune and Rheumatic Disease at Saint Joseph Health, said the new booster is a tough sell because people are sick of vaccinations.
“People were told that the vaccine would prevent infection and it did not,” he continued. “The man in the street sees only his family and friends sick over and over again and they have all been vaccinated, so he says ‘what’s the point?’”
Teitelbaum also pointed out the possible limitations of modern medicine.
He said there are four areas where modern medicine has clearly been of benefit: antibiotics, acute surgical care, correctly used vaccines (smallpox, tetanus), and public hygiene.
“For many of the others, it’s often a toss-up whether our modern medical system causes more harm than good,” he said. Regardless, Lahita noted that turning our population—and especially our children—into “pincushions for more and more vaccines” isn’t the best idea.
“What I have found in my 50 years in medicine is that, as people take more and more boosters of the same vaccine, I see greater toxicity,” he noted.
An example of this would be the hepatitis B vaccine, where receiving more than two doses was associated with a number of cases in which Teitelbaum observed patients develop chronic fatigue syndrome.
Teitelbaum considers the two initial COVID-vaccine doses reasonable for people over 50 or who have diabetes, cancer, or other severe illnesses, or for children with leukemia or other severe diseases. However, he thinks it’s a mistake to give the vaccine to healthy children because their risk of death from infection is so low and the risks of the vaccines are still unknown.
Optimizing Your Immunity
Experts still have no idea why some people, vaccinated or not, have more severe COVID infections.
Lahita said this might be due to factors like genetics and a person’s overall lifestyle.
For example, obesity is associated with impaired immune function, as is type 2 diabetes. Both conditions are common in the United States and are lifestyle-related.
More severe COVID infections may also involve factors like someone’s individual gut microbiome, his or her environment, or particular immunogenetics (genetic basis of our immune response), said Lahita.
The recent COVID-19 outbreak in China also raises concerns.
China’s current COVID-19 outbreak is led by the Omicron subvariants BA.5.2 and BF.7, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Jan. 4, 2023. Chinese data also show no new coronavirus variant has yet been identified, while also underrepresenting how many people have died in the rapidly spreading outbreak.
According to the most recent data, nearly 90 percent of the Chinese mainland population has been fully vaccinated.
“The Chinese outbreaks are worrisome,” explained Lahita, “because the virus tends to upregulate and mutate in large infected groups.” This could bring about a new spike in COVID-19 infections worldwide, as new variants appear—against which we’ll have no naturally acquired or vaccine-induced protection.
“I expect a new and possibly lethal variant for the near future,” Lahita warned.
Teitelbaum emphasized the importance of optimizing our immunity. He said this could easily be done by:
Sleeping a full eight hours every night, as sleep deprivation is a powerful way to suppress immunity.
Staying hydrated, but not with sugary drinks, which can suppress immunity.
Several key nutrients, especially zinc and vitamin D, are critical for dramatically improving immunity and outcomes in infections in general, especially in COVID-19.
“Personally, during COVID outbreaks (or when I had the infection), I take a mix of elderberry along with these nutrients,” said Teitelbaum.
Finally, an unbiased pathologist has taken a vaccine into the lab to demonstrate exactly what’s causing ‘the mystery of the rubbery clots.’
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
A recent laboratory investigation by The Highwire reveals the only consistent thing about the COVID shots are their inconsistency. There is no quality control. Some appear clear like saline, while others are loaded with contaminants
In August 2021, Japan rejected 1.63 million doses of Moderna’s mRNA shot due to contamination. Last year the European Medicines Agency (EMA) also expressed concern over vials that were only 50% to 55% pure
The vials also contain massively inconsistent amounts of polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG can cause anaphylactic shock in some people. PEG also gets in the way of proper immune response
If you are unfortunate enough to get a vial that is loaded with PEG, your risk of adverse effects such as anaphylactic shock and dysregulated immune response is greater than if you get a vial with lower amounts
According to Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist, what looks like microchips or nanotechnology in the liquid are actually stacked cholesterol, sugar and salt crystals, and what has been described as parasites are stellate trikons, found on the bottom of leaves. They’re likely a contaminant picked up at some point during the lab investigation
December 12, 2022, The Highwire posted1 a fascinating and shocking lab investigation of the COVID shots. Del Bigtree begins by reviewing some of the many alleged findings by organizations looking at the shots using various technologies. For example, some claim to have found graphite in the vials, while others have discovered what looks like nanotechnology and parasites.
“Some of these we’ve addressed here and others we haven’t,” Bigtree says. “Part of it is I really don’t like addressing something that I don’t know where the information is coming from …
I do not trust experts just because they tell me they’re an expert. I want to see the science, I want to see the evidence, I want to see how it’s done … So, I reached out to Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist who has proved to me that he’s impeccable in the work that he does. He’s unbiased.
And I said, ‘Would you do me a favor? Can we get a hold of these vaccines? I want to come into the laboratory. I want to see it with my own eyes. Can we bring some cameras in and do a real investigation?’”
The Mystery of the Rubbery Clots
Cole agreed, and that taped investigation is what you see in the video above. Cole begins by showing what some of the white rubbery clots look like under the microscope, and slides showing the distribution of spike protein in various tissues.
A number of embalmers have reported pulling these stringy, stretchy objects out of deceased people who got the jab, and they’re different from anything they’ve ever seen before. Cole agrees that these clots are something brand-new.
Cole describes the white elastic clots as “an amyloid-type of material” induced by the spike protein, which is actually a glycoprotein. He cites a paper2 from August 2021 by Etheresia Pretorius and her team, in which she describes finding “persistent circulating plasma microclots that are resistant to fibrinolysis” in long-COVID patients and those who have received the COVID jab.
She refers to them as “anomalous amyloid microclots.” In summary, what she discovered was that even when she took the platelets out of the blood, once she added spike protein, the proteins still glommed together, forming masses, and processes that would normally break down a blood clot do not work on these amyloid-like depositions.
COVID Injections Under the Microscope
Cole then moves on to look at the COVID shots under a microscope. The first one is the Janssen shot, which has what looks like debris in it, including, potentially, a shard of glass. As noted by Cole, when manufacturing is ramped up to the current speeds at which these shots are produced, there’s really no purity guarantee.
As you may recall, in August 2021, Japan rejected 1.63 million doses of Moderna’s mRNA shot due to contamination. Last year the European Medicines Agency (EMA) also expressed concern over vials that were only 50% to 55% pure.
This impurity also means that you may be getting fragmented RNA, as opposed to complete RNA, which can have unforeseen consequences, as shortened RNA can end up producing incomplete proteins. Of the Pfizer vials, some also contained unidentifiable particles, some of which were stuck together.
That said, where others see nanotechnology — square objects that resemble microchips — Cole sees stacked cholesterol. So, while there’s debris (which is bad enough) he does not ascribe to theories that the shots include nanotech.
Some have also discovered what looks like parasites but, according to Cole, they are stellate trikons, found on the bottom of leaves. He suggests it’s an impurity that landed in the liquid or on the glass during the process of investigation. Bigtree summarized their findings:
“Generally speaking, as we looked at all the different vaccines, one of the conclusions that we came away with is, it’s just a hodgepodge. There were vaccines that seemed like they had no particles, almost nothing, there; almost like a saline shot. And then the [next] one would be just packed with all sorts of things. You just get this sense that the manufacturing is totally and completely inconsistent.”
Cole agreed:
“I agree 100%. Some are more concentrated, some were less, and that goes to the point, where are these being made? Is the FDA inspecting each facility? No. And these are being made around the world, and they were ramped up so quickly. It’s not good manufacturing process … And … this is a very unique, brand-new process which they’re using at a mass scale.”
COVID Shots Analyzed With Mass Spectronomy
The shots were also analyzed using mass spectronomy, which revealed the presence of metallic particles, including aluminum, silicon, magnesium, sodium chloride, calcium, titanium and iron. Cole cites research showing that some of these metals come from the needle used to extract the liquid from the vial, so they may or may not be part of the actual formula in the vial.
They also found massively inconsistent amounts of polyethylene glycol (PEG) in the different vials. PEG, which is what coats and protects the mRNA, is what causes anaphylactic shock in some people, as PEG sensitivity and allergies are common among the general public. Worse, however, is the fact that PEG also gets in the way of proper immune response.
“Poor, inconsistent manufacturing processes are resulting in wildly varying contents from one batch or vial to another.”
If you are unfortunate enough to get a vial that is loaded with PEG, your risk of adverse effects such as anaphylactic shock and dysregulated immune response is greater than if you get a vial with the appropriate amount, or less than what the recipe calls for. Again, it’s a sign of poor, inconsistent manufacturing processes resulting in wildly varying contents from one batch or vial to another. Notably, no graphene was found in any of the 100 vials tested. Cole explains:
“Those little flakes that we were seeing, those little lines and floating things, those are three things: cholesterol crystals — there’s a cholesterol cholesterin spike on some of these mass spec graphs — … salt and some sugars … So, at the end of the day, the mass spec showed that’s what it was.
These vials have lipid content. They have polyethylene glycol content in varying ratios. They have salts, they have sugars. They do have genetic material … and some lots had some contaminants …
There’s lipid nanoparticle and a gene sequence that makes your body make a foreign protein. Those two things are necessary and sufficient to cause harm. Sure, you want a pure product, but those are the two harmful things. The lipid nanoparticle is hyper-inflammatory and can be toxic.
When it was designed, it was made to be given once. Studies on giving it two, three, four times aren’t there in humans. So, the cumulative toxicity of the nanoparticle itself is concerning.
Even more concerning is [that] the more of this gene you get into your cells that continues to make a protein that has known countless side effects … that toxic spike protein. That’s what matters.”
The Show-Stopper
The real show-stopper is toward the end, where they take a drop of Bigtree’s blood, who is unjabbed, and then add a drop of the COVID “vaccine.” The slide containing nothing but his unjabbed blood looks perfectly normal, with nice doughnut-shaped cells.
The slides to which a drop of COVID “vaccine” was added show remarkable inconsistencies. On one slide, in the area touched by the liquid, the red blood cells looked like they’d evaporated. According to Cole, the cells were basically “de-hemoglobiated.”
The hemoglobin was just wiped out. As a result, the cells turned white, which makes it look as though they evaporated. “That just says that many of these vials are very, very irritating in their pre-mixture … It all goes back to purity and consistency of manufacturing,” Cole says. The blood cells were also clumping toward the outside of the drop, many were folding together and echinocytes were clearly visible. As explained by Cole:
“It instantly changed the pH of the interior. These are little blobs of protein on the membrane of the red cell, because the red cell has involuted … All these little fingers, that is not spike protein. That’s another myth.
But that’s fascinating, because that instantly changed the pH of the interior of the cell. And it caused a massive outflow of fluid from the interior of the cell causing all that cell membrane folding. That’s wild.
It was almost instantaneous, and it is everywhere. Those red cells are now nonfunctional red cells. Those aren’t going to carry a whit of oxygen. Now your body has to decide what to do and has an inflammatory reaction, because now it has to gobble those up.”
This Technology Must Be Stopped
In closing, Cole says:
“To go back to the key point — I want to drive this home — they’re going to try to do lipid nanoparticles plus influenza genes, plus RSV genes for all these other shots going forward. We already know that this was a failed ‘vaccine’ program. They have a technology that’s harmful. Human cells are meant to make human proteins. Human cells were not meant to make foreign toxic proteins.
Traditional vaccines don’t do that. Your body wants to make its own protein, not a flu protein, not an RSV protein, not any other viral protein, not SARS-CoV-2 protein. This platform is sufficiently proven to be dangerous that not only do the COVID shots need to be stopped, but the platform [as well] …
We see enough things going wrong already. I think that’s the message to humanity, to regulatory agencies, to government officials that are willing to step in and block regulatory corruption … Let’s stop these programs. Let’s continue to do proper science and not rush science.
You know that quote in the European Committee? ‘We were working at the speed of science.’ Good science isn’t rushed. And the Pfizer exec that just stepped down? [She said] ‘We were building the airplane while we were trying to fly it.’ Good grief. And she was proud of that. No, that’s not what you do to your fellow human beings. And that’s not what we do in medicine and safety.”
Bigtree adds:
“We stopped these gene programs multiple times. They’ve [been] stopped in their tracks because they were causing too much cancer. We’re having serious problems with this technology.
It has been stopped for all those reasons, so we should have been very concerned [about] using it as a vaccine. We certainly should not have rushed it. Instead we put it in front of a bunch of ‘kindergarteners’ that know nothing about what they’re looking at, and they approved it …
[T]here is something going wrong. And when we listen to Edward Dowd, insurance actuaries are going [under] because of the rise in all-cause mortality. All of this is happening, and they literally want to fast-track a system where they can just start banging these out [without] safety trials. This is a movie. This is a cartoon. How are real people acting like this? … These are critically damaging choices being made.”
Remedies that can help inhibit, neutralize and eliminate spike protein have also been identified by the World Health Council. Inhibitors that prevent the spike protein from binding to your cells include Prunella vulgaris, pine needle tea, emodin, neem, dandelion extract and the drug ivermectin. Dr. Pierre Kory, of FLCCC, believes ivermectin may be the best approach to bind the circulating spike protein.
Spike protein neutralizers, which prevent the spike from damaging cells, include N-acetylcysteine (NAC), glutathione, fennel tea, star anise tea, pine needle tea, St. John’s wort, comfrey tea and vitamin C.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
Joseph Mercola is the founder of Mercola.com. An osteopathic physician, best-selling author, and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, his primary vision is to change the modern health paradigm by providing people with a valuable resource to help them take control of their health.
