Posted on

Age of Aquarius Activation Report

Our activation was a huge success, we have reached the critical mass many times over with about 400,000 people participating in the meditation.

The meditation sent a strong flash of energy into the planetary energy grid, with tectonic plates reacting and volcanoes erupting:

https://eu.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2020/12/21/webcam-shows-overnight-eruption-hawaii-volcano/3997562001/

https://www.rt.com/news/510403-etna-erupts-shoots-lava-sicily/

Exactly at 6:22 pm UTC on December 21st, a very strong pulse of pure galactic Love energy has reached the surface of the planet from M 87 galaxy. The pulse lasted for about 10-15 seconds, but it was strong enough to instantly remove about 10% of all remaining primary anomaly that is accumulated close to the surface.

 


Many people meditating have felt this pulse, and it has brought instantaneous emotional and spiritual, and sometimes even physical healing to some people. Many traumatic events were erased from the energy fields of certain Lightworkers and Lightwarriors, and huge healing of the heart took place.

From then on, clearing of the primary anomaly on the surface of this planet is taking place.

The Light Forces have also managed to anchor pure Light on the surface of the planet for the first time since 1996. Many Light beings and goddesses were present in their energy bodies around people meditating, and they have managed to take a quite detailed sample of the Matrix structure. With greater understanding of the quantum structure of the Matrix, they are now removing exotic quantum dark technologies with full speed. They have also begun with gradual clearing of the implants of the surface humanity, and you can help them in this process with implant removal techniques mentioned here:

http://2012portal.blogspot.com/2015/06/implants.html

And here:

https://www.welovemassmeditation.com/2020/05/crack-the-matrix-implants-triangulation-exercises.html


 

 

The Light Forces are also continuing with the removal of the Chimera and this goes quite well in full alignment with their plan. They have already managed to remove over 50% of all Chimera underground bases, among them almost all of the ultra deep Chimera underground bases which are located more than 8 miles deep, just above the Mohorovicic discontinuity, the boundary between Earth crust and mantle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohorovi%C4%8Di%C4%87_discontinuity

Also, over 50% of the physical Chimera spiders are already gone. The Light Forces have also removed the spider king who was the main occult force behind countless wars throughout human history.

There is another pair of physical spider king and spider queen still remaining. They came from Rigel star system in 1996 and are since then situated in a Chimera underground base below Congo. The male counterpart is now the main occult force behind the quarantine status of planet Earth and the occult force behind coronavirus lockdowns (quarantine phase 2), whereas the female spider is the main occult force inhibiting Soul contact and unconditional love. They will both be removed soon.

In September 2019, I have warned about Jesuit plans for their version of the financial Reset which they have scheduled for January 2020:

http://2012portal.blogspot.com/2019/09/2020.html

The Jesuits are well versed in astrology, and they knew for a long time that Saturn Pluto conjunction in January 2020 was the greatest opportunity to trigger their plans, and this is when they triggered first public announcements about the coronavirus. Let us explore what is behind their plans.

After the formation of BRICS / Eastern positive alliances in 2014 and 2015, the Jesuits have shifted their main base to China and moved many Cabal agents there. Those agents took many positions within the Chinese government in the 2015-2019 timeframe, and immediately started the project of infiltrating the West:

https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-12-05-situation-update-dec-5th-operation-warp-speed-ccp-conspiracy-vaccines-military.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9046783/Leaked-files-expose-mass-infiltration-UK-firms-Chinese-Communist-Party.html

https://nypost.com/2020/12/11/chinese-honey-trap-could-hold-thousands-of-operatives/

https://gnews.org/440581/

Most people are not aware that communism is a Jesuit creation:

https://exploringrealhistory.blogspot.com/2020/10/a-final-three-way-game.html

What is even less known is that some of those Chinese agents infiltrating the West are actually positive Red Dragons posing as CCP members.

Orsini black nobility family is the main force behind pandemics since medieval times when they have engineered the black plague, and also the main force behind vaccination programs.

Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci and George Soros, together with certain people at the top levels of Chinese government are their main minions who made the pandemic and lockdowns possible:

https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=159744

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/12/07/the-china-lockdown-sun-tzu-and-the-art-of-war/

To prepare the terrain for the Jesuit version of the Great Reset, which is presented by the Jesuit-educated Klaus Schwab here:

https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/

Jesuits lack creativity, and the only thing they managed to do is to steal the idea and to plan for the inverted version of the positive financial Reset:

http://2012portal.blogspot.com/2012/04/normal-0-microsoftinternetexplorer4_28.html

 


 

Jesuit, Rothschild and Rockefeller factions have made trilateral agreements to join forces in their plans:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/509405-pope-vatican-global-capitalism/

Nevertheless, the negative Great Reset will NOT be successful:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/ai-computers/how-our-ai-computer-forecasts-the-failure-of-schwab-world-economic-forum/

https://alt-market.us/is-the-globalist-reset-failing-the-elites-may-have-overplayed-their-hand/

Although their plans will come very close to actually manifesting:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/27/tech/coronavirus-vaccine-passport-apps/index.html

https://www.weforum.org/projects/commonpass

Meanwhile, positive Dragon forces are working silently behind the scenes. Most of their plans can not be made public yet, the only thing I can say is they are supporting Chinese civilian space exploration, trying to make it accessible to international community in preparations for Disclosure:

https://www.space.com/china-sharing-chang-e-5-moon-samples

https://www.space.com/china-fast-radio-telescope-open-international-scientists

As scientists are researching radio signals from Proxima Centauri:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/dec/18/scientists-looking-for-aliens-investigate-radio-beam-from-nearby-star

Ding Yu, a Chinese pop singer, who was appointed as space music promotion ambassador by the China Aerospace Science and Technology Communication center in June, was singing a song named The Age of Aquarius on Chinese national TV on December 19th, promoting our meditation:

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=https://ameblo.jp/cobrameditation/entry-12645342387.html&prev=search&pto=aue

https://tv.cctv.com/2020/12/19/VIDEJ0oToL8qigwc5LLG5edv201219.shtml

My team has arranged a full translation of the famous Haim Eshed exopolitical interview from Hebrew into English. Although intel in that interview is not 100% correct, the interview itself will be interesting for many:

https://www.welovefirstcontact.com/2020/12/head-of-israeli-space-program-aliens.html

Positive factions have managed to infiltrate the Space Force, removing some of the Chimera agents from there. At some point in the future, the Space Force may play a role in the First Contact between humanity and the Ashtar Command:

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/space-force-personnel-will-be-called-guardians

An updated version of The Portal book with the posts from this blog is available here:

https://portal-report.com/

And a book about Tachyon chambers here:

https://www.tachyonhungary.com/book/?lang=en

 


 

The best is yet to come:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX4MnFkrOZI

Victory of the Light!

Posted on

The five key events in the fake pandemic

by Jon Rappoport

December 22, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

This article is a summary. I’ve written extensively on each of the five key events.

ONE: The false claim that a new virus was discovered and isolated.

No true isolation has been performed. The so-called genetic sequencing of the virus was actually a concoction, a cobbling together of pieces of data referencing segments of RNA. These segments were PRESUMED to be parts of the new virus—but researchers didn’t have the virus, so their presumptions amounted to fraud.

TWO: The erecting of a diagnostic test (PCR) for the virus they didn’t have. Obviously, no such test has meaning. It is built on the same sorts of absurd assumptions that led to the fictional discovery of the virus. However, strategically speaking, the test has produced millions of “positive results,” which are taken to mean “infected by the virus.” On this foundation of sand, the lockdowns were declared.

THREE: The Chinese lockdown of 50 million citizens, for no medical reason. This unprecedented event provided the model for other governments, and for the CDC and the World Health Organization. Now it was “acceptable” to imprison the global population and wreak economic devastation across the planet.

FOUR: The absurd computer prediction of 500,000 deaths in the UK and two million in the US, made by historically failed modeler, Neil Ferguson. His institute at the Imperial College of London is bankrolled by Bill Gates. Ferguson’s predictions were used to convince Trump and Boris Johnson that states of emergency and lockdowns were necessary.

FIVE: The forced premature deaths of millions of elderly people across the world—which were falsely called “COVID-19 deaths.”

These people were and are suffering from multiple long-term health conditions, made far worse by decades of medical treatment with toxic drugs. Terrified by a COVID diagnosis, then isolated from family and friends, they give up and die.

There are other important events, to be sure, but these are the key five.

The underlying fact that needs to be understood: what is called COVID-19 is not one condition. It is a variety of illnesses and effects stemming from different traditional causes RE-PACKAGED under the label, “COVID.”

Where authentic new conditions and causes may be involved, independent investigators need to look closely at such clusters of people, where they live. For example, the investigators should find out whether toxic vaccine campaigns were initiated in a community or region prior to declaration of the “COVID outbreak.”

Here is a short piece of fiction I wrote early on during the “pandemic.” It paints a far different picture of COVID events. At that time, I hoped “white hats” would squash the insane lockdowns and economic devastation. That never happened. Instead, high-powered business leaders gladly caved in and took their turn at the bailout trough.

Coronavirus and Island X-24

There was a small island.

Amazingly, it had never been claimed by any country. It just sat there. It was inconsequential. Geographers were irritated that it had no name. In 1998, they named it X-24.

123 families lived there. They emigrated from 14 countries.

During the 2019 onset of the trouble in China, 19 citizens had escaped the lockdown in Wuhan and found their way to the island in a small makeshift boat, which broke into pieces near shore. The resident families welcomed them without fanfare, and offered them housing in huts on the north side of the island.

People on the island practiced agriculture on their tiny farms, and they raised chickens and ate eggs. There was no government. The families met once a month to discuss any issues that might have arisen since their last meeting. They did not vote. They used common sense. They were sensible people. They had no ideology. They had no phones, no computers, no electricity.

One of the newly arrived Chinese women explained, at a meeting, the coronavirus, the epidemic, the lockdown, the testing. She asked whether anyone was concerned that her people might have brought the virus with them. The people of the island looked around at each other and shrugged. They didn’t seem interested.

Three weeks later, an article appeared in the mainland Chinese press about X-24 and the 19 escaped Wuhan residents. It was picked up by a wire service and then republished by a number of outlets around the world. It did not become a big story.

However, a boat soon arrived at the island. A Chinese official and an American public health officer from the CDC stepped off. Several conversations ensued. The two bureaucrats were concerned that the virus might have come to X-24. The residents said they didn’t travel, and they didn’t even fish. Why not? No one had an answer. The bureaucrats took samples of rainwater from a backyard container. They took a look at all the X-24 residents and saw they were healthy. They took throat swabs from the new 19 Chinese residents. There was a bit of tension when the Chinese official told these Wuhan escapees they were living illegally on the island and should return home. The Chinese residents said they wouldn’t, but they had no intention of causing trouble. The visitors left.

A week later, at a meeting in government offices in Wuhan, CDC and Chinese scientists told a deputy mayor of the city that nine immigrants on X-24 had tested positive for the coronavirus. A call was immediately made to the public health and safety office of the national government, and the news was reported. Two hours later, a message came back: leave the people on X-24 alone for now.

The government in Beijing took up the X-24 issue in several committees. A decision was made. Drones would do high flyovers and surveil the island. No one would be permitted to leave it.

Three months later, with the world in lockdown, a small elite government committee met in Beijing. The news: all the residents of X-24 were going about their daily business. No sick people were observed, even among the elderly. No one had tried to leave the island. No one was practicing social distancing. People met and mingled as usual. A CDC/WHO message was read: It expressed concern about X-24. People who were positive for the virus couldn’t be allowed to live outside the limits of control. Something needed to be done.

Three weeks later, X-24 residents observed a group of armed boats approaching. Maneuvers were executed, and the craft made a ring around the island. They sat about 20 miles offshore. They stayed there.

This operation was noticed by the press. The X-24 story made a brief limited comeback. INFECTED PEOPLE LIVING ON AN ISLAND. QUARANTINE FORCED. A few reporters tried to get information on the condition of the X-24 residents. They couldn’t.

CDC meetings took place. The gist was: These people remain healthy. There is no sign of trouble. No disease. No illness. “What happens if THIS becomes a story?”

The issue was kicked up to the Chinese and American military. Very private meetings took place. “We could launch a drone missile attack and wipe them out.” “We could send in a kill-team.” “How about a massive fire? Drop a few incendiaries.” “Spray them with nasty chemicals. They’ll have a hell of time trying to breathe, they’ll foam at the mouth and die.”

But in the end, the military held back. A message from a carefully guarded private source came down the line: “Leave them alone. Remove the stupid ships. Observe from drones. Do not attack. They rate as experimental subjects. They constitute a control group. By CDC projections, at least a few of them should become ill. So far, that’s not the case.”

…A year later, on X-24, the Chinese woman, who had originally told the island residents about the coronavirus, wrote in the diary she had been keeping, “The mainland madness is just a faint memory. My mother here is 93. She is reasonably healthy. A few people get sick, as a matter of course, and then they get well. Nothing unusual. There were two deaths last year. A French woman and an American man. They were both in their 80s. I helped their families make them comfortable. I saw no sudden illness of the lungs. I liked all these island people from the start. I feel close to them now.”

Old habits die hard. She looked around her small cabin, as if some government authority might be present. She walked to the pile of stones arranged in the corner, where a low fire was burning. It occurred to her there was no reason to continue her diary. She bent down and placed it in the flames and watched it for a minute. The past was past.

Nothing untoward had happened on the island.

Back at the CDC, a private analysis was carried out. Nine mitigating factors were listed to explain why no one on the island had fallen ill from the virus. The conclusion was the island was not a proper representation of the real world. The analysis was sent up the line to the guarded source who had ordered the ring of ships to back off. He read the CDC analysis.

He sent back a message. “I wasn’t asking you to cover your ass or justify your role in this fiasco. Your so-called mitigating factors are a crock. Apparently, you’re unable to be honest. So let me send you my analysis. The people on X-24 didn’t get sick because they didn’t get sick. Remove promoted fear, diagnostic tests, treatment with toxic drugs, and other damage falsely labeled as COVID, and you have nothing. I see why you were disturbed about the story of X-24. But then, accounting for healthy people who stay healthy has never been your strong suit, has it? You’ve gone too far. I should set my hounds loose on you.”

A colleague of his walked into the steam room, picked up a pitcher of cold water and poured it on the rocks. Steam rose and the rocks hissed. Wrapped in white sheets, the two men sat side by side.

“Did you tear them a new one?”

“I gave them something to think about. These people are incorrigible. They really are.”

“When our friends arrive tonight, we’ll discuss the situation.”

“Yes. Recess is over. The bureaucrats interrupted business. Products must flow. Money must flow. They don’t understand we’re the engine of the world, for better or worse.”

“We’ll school these little bureaucrats. They parade around thinking they’re princes. They’re going to pay.”

The steam spread. The men were invisible.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Posted on

Physician Specialists Urge CDC to Consider A Safe & Powerful Treatment For COVID-19

As Covid-19 infection and death rates continue their climb, public opinion is consolidating around our health agencies’ guidance and directives. Resolution of the pandemic could be around the corner given the recent announcements around their initial observations of volunteers in Pfizer and Moderna Phase III trials of their novel vaccine based on an mRNA (messenger RNA) platform. Both vaccine manufacturers claim an initial 90-95% efficacy rate of their experimental vaccines. 

The vaccines are in fact experimental as Phase III trials take a full 24 months to complete. Nevertheless widespread deployment of the vaccine will move ahead under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) policy. This policy does not indemnify vaccine manufacturers from legal action if their products cause harm. That protection has been in place for over thirty years under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act passed in 1986 in response to vaccine manufacturers refusal to produce vaccines without legal protection. The EUA goes a little further by allowing this particular vaccine to be administered to the public prior to the completion of safety and efficacy trials.

Given the unprecedented situation we find ourselves in, such bold measures seem justifiable in the interest of saving lives. After all, there aren’t any other potential options. At least that is what we are and have been told.

In reality, several relatively inexpensive and effective measures have been suggested based on anecdotal and even experimental evidence. These include the use of corticosteroids, Vitamin D and hydroxychloroquine among others. Physicians on the front line have been urging FDA approval for these medicines to treat Covid-19 since the beginning of the pandemic. These medicines have been reliably effective in treating other conditions and have shown promising benefit with symptomatic Covid-19 patients. Despite the completion of preliminary studies in June, 2020 that demonstrated seriously ill COV patients had ample benefit from steroid administration, the CDC position against this treatment did not relent even a month later according to this article in the British Medical Journal. 

As of today, the CDC recommended treatment guidelines continue to uphold the use of Remdesivir, an antiviral agent (that manufacturer Gilead charges $2,340 for a five day treatment) and bamlanivimab, casirivimab and imdevimab, monoclonal antibodies to the SARS-COV-2 spike protein (which medicare pays on average $340 per hour long infusion). Inexpensive, well known medicines like hydroxychloroquine and Vitamin D that have generous safety profiles when given judiciously remain conspicuously absent from their recommendations.

Could Ivermectin be the “miracle cure”?

Just this week, Pulmonary and Critical care specialist, Dr. Pierre Kory made this emphatic plea at the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on “Early Outpatient Treatment of Covid-19”. Dr. Kory is an academic physician and part of a larger group of critical care clinicians, the Frontline Covid Critical Care Alliance, that have been researching all treatment options since the onset of the pandemic. Recently they are attempting to bring awareness to the results of controlled studies involving the use of Ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of Covid-19. 

If you have a dog or cat this medicine may be familiar to you. Ivermectin is a first line remedy for heartworm. It has also been widely and successfully used to treat various parasitic and roundworm infections in humans for nearly four decades. Discovered in 1975, it was first prescribed in 1981 and is on the W.H.O.’s list of essential drugs. This medicine has been instrumental in fighting infections from river blindness and filariasis to scabies and head lice.

Ivermectin paralyzes parasites by blocking nerve conduction in their cellular membranes leading to their death. Why then would it be useful in SARS-COV-2 infection (Covid-19)? It has been demonstrated, in both in vivo and in vitro studies, to be effective in arresting the replication of certain viruses by blocking nuclear transport of various viral proteins required for the manifestation of disease in Dengue, West Nile Virus (WNV), Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus (VEEV) and Influenza. It has also been shown to stop the replication of SARS-COV-2 in this study from June of this year. Furthermore, Ivermectin has anti-inflammatory properties. The attenuation of an inflammatory response, especially in the late stages of the covid-19 disease process, is instrumental in improving outcomes as well. The possibility that this 40 year old heartworm medicine may have a role in treating Covid-19 is therefore not so far-fetched.

Despite the rigid and limited treatment guidelines offered by the CDC, physicians like Dr. Kory have been exploring all possible treatment options for months. As more study results get published it is becoming increasingly clear that this remarkable medicine may be more effective than any other in treating covid-19. 

Their conclusions are based on numerous studies from around the world. They have made them all available on their website and provide an excellent summary of the studies to date here. Admittedly, few of the studies have been peer-reviewed. As Dr. Kory points out, the peer-review process takes months. Given the fact that we are moving forward with vaccines that are nearly two years from completion of Phase III trials, granting some latitude to these studies is not necessarily out of step with the breakneck pace we are on to find a treatment. In any case, Ivermectin studies have been completed, Covid vaccination studies haven’t.

What does the evidence suggest?

Ivermectin is being shown to be remarkably effective in treating patients with both mild and severe symptoms. For the purposes of this article I will explore what is perhaps the most intriguing aspect to this medicine’s application: prevention of the disease. This is particularly relevant as millions of healthcare providers and school aged children are getting ready to roll up their sleeves to receive an experimental vaccine.

Four different studies are summarized on their above referenced page, all of which demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in infection rates of healthy people. Of note, a recently published randomized controlled study of 217 patients in Argentina demonstrated a 0% infection rate of healthy patients taking prophylactic Ivermectin compared to an 11% rate of infection of those with no treatment. Healthy people with regular contact with a known COVID positive person also had a greater than eight fold reduction in contracting the disease compared to those who received no treatment in a different randomized controlled study with 304 subjects. 

Perhaps even more interesting are the retrospective observations of large populations who received prophylactic Ivermectin compared to similar populations that didn’t. Here I am referring to a paper submitted by Alan Cannell, an engineer that has lived in Mozambique, who noticed that the Covid Rates in Mozambique and Ethiopia where Ivermectin is commonly used to combat the endemic parasitic infections were much lower than in South Africa where the drug is less frequently taken.

His interest piqued, he compiled Covid infection rates from three large towns in Brazil that instituted prophylactic Ivermectin to their population in mid July and compared the number of new cases in these towns in August to three other towns in Brazil of comparative size and geographical location that didn’t use the medicine during the same time period. When comparing each town’s August rates to their June and July rates, the towns that used Ivermectin fared 50 to 200% better. Of course this does not represent a controlled study, but we are looking at a combined population of over 3 million people with roughly the same demographics. His observations in East Africa seemed to play out in South America too.

Are the CDC and NIH biased?

Where does this leave us? Dr. Kory is making a direct and impassioned plea to the CDC and NIH to immediately form a taskforce to review and research the enormous amount of new information regarding this inexpensive, tried and true medicine that has been available around the world for decades. Despite all the convincing findings, these institutions have not changed their position from August 27 when they decreed that Ivermectin should not be used outside of a controlled trial. As a physician who has “cared for more dying Covid patients than anyone could imagine”, he finds the CDC’s seeming lack of interest in a safe and potentially game-changing regimen dumbfounding. This is in stark contrast to their resounding support given to a vaccine solution even though any meaningful study on their efficacy and safety cannot even begin for another 2 years. The implications here are hard to overlook.

I am a physician however I am not qualified to offer an authoritative opinion on the quality of the large amount of clinical data now available around this topic. Dr. Kory is. Nonetheless, he and all other medical professionals that directly care for Covid-19 patients ultimately must abide by the guidelines that are set forth by the CDC. His request to the CDC and NIH for an immediate assessment of the data and reevaluation of their position is more than reasonable. It is my personal opinion that any reluctance or refusal to do so should be considered negligent given these circumstances. I echo Dr. Kory’s plea and request that all my colleagues in clinical medicine consider the evidence and if so moved, join in this petition for an updated set of recommended treatment guidelines.

The Pandemic is NOT a Hoax

If you believe this group of clinicians is sincere, it is worthwhile to closely consider what Dr. Kory has to say about Covid-19 itself. “It is not the flu.” Here he is indicating his frustration with the continued comparisons with death rates between the flu and Covid-19 that demonstrate little difference in most age groups. That has not been his or his colleagues personal experience. Once a Covid patient arrives in the intensive care unit, he feels there is very little that can be done, especially using the treatment guidelines from the CDC. This is much different than a serious bout with influenza. Prevention and early treatment go a long way.

As we negotiate the widely divergent narratives about this complicated disease and sometimes perplexing response to it, it is very easy to succumb to polarization ourselves. Just because the death rate in the relatively young and healthy is very small doesn’t mean we should dismiss the disease as harmless. Just because little can be done to treat the critically ill does not mean we should look no further than a vaccine that is yet to be fully tested when other, safe and efficacious alternatives are available. Though there is controversy about the origins of this virus, it is most definitely not a “hoax”. Neither are the alternative treatment regimens we have to combat it. Dr. Kory notably is not suggesting that Ivermectin is a replacement for a vaccine. He believes it would serve in tandem with one.

Medical Therapies are often found in Nature

Ivermectin is itself a variation of a product of a species of bacteria called Streptomyces avermectinius. If you are familiar with pharmacology you will not find this surprising. Many of our most potent pharmaceuticals, especially antibiotics, were first found in nature serendipitously and later isolated, purified and synthesized. In that sense the “cure” often comes from the same source as the “disease”.

Indeed, the vaccines we have manufactured over the decades are often bits and pieces of the very same pathogens we seek to eradicate. Often they are grown in cell lines of other species. Now we are slowly turning away from nature and synthesizing the solution ourselves. The advent of the mRNA-based vaccine platform is perhaps the biggest step towards a truly “man-made” solution. Rather than presenting the “enemy” to the immune system for future recognition, we are taking over the recognition step itself by programming a cell to build antibodies of our own design, peptide by peptide.

The Takeaway

We cannot know with any certainty which approach is better or safer at this moment. However, doubt doesn’t seem to exist in the institutions that are governing our response to this pandemic. They seem to be inexplicably offering us a synthetic solution to a natural problem at all costs.

Posted on

MSM deathly silent as PCR test legally ruled useless to test for Covid

From NexusNewsfeed.com

 Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose. So what do the MSM do? They ignore it

Four German holidaymakers who were illegally quarantined in Portugal after one was judged to be positive for Covid-19 have won their case, in a verdict that condemns the widely-used PCR test as being up to 97-percent unreliable.

Earlier this month, Portuguese judges upheld a decision from a lower court that found the forced quarantine of four holidaymakers to be unlawful. The case centred on the reliability (or lack thereof) of Covid-19 PCR tests.

The verdict, delivered on November 11, followed an appeal against a writ of habeas corpus filed by four Germans against the Azores Regional Health Authority. This body had been appealing a ruling from a lower court which had found in favour of the tourists, who claimed that they were illegally confined to a hotel without their consent. The tourists were ordered to stay in the hotel over the summer after one of them tested positive for coronavirus in a PCR test – the other three were labelled close contacts and therefore made to quarantine as well.

Unreliable, with a strong chance of false positives

The deliberation of the Lisbon Appeal Court is comprehensive and fascinating. It ruled that the Azores Regional Health Authority had violated both Portuguese and international law by confining the Germans to the hotel. The judges also said that only a doctor can “diagnose” someone with a disease, and were critical of the fact that they were apparently never assessed by one.

They were also scathing about the reliability of the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, the most commonly used check for Covid.

The conclusion of their 34-page ruling included the following: “In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”  

In the eyes of this court, then, a positive test does not correspond to a Covid case. The two most important reasons for this, said the judges, are that, “the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used’’ and that “the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.’’ In other words, there are simply too many unknowns surrounding PCR testing.

Tested positive? There could be as little as a 3% chance it’s correct

This is not the first challenge to the credibility of PCR tests. Many people will be aware that their results have a lot to do with the number of amplifications that are performed, or the ‘cycle threshold.’ This number in most American and European labs is 35–40 cycles, but experts have claimed that even 35 cycles is far too many, and that a more reasonable protocol would call for 25–30 cycles. (Each cycle exponentially increases the amount of viral DNA in the sample).

Earlier this year, data from three US states – New York, Nevada and Massachusetts – showed that when the amount of the virus found in a person was taken into account, up to 90 percent of people who tested positive could actually have been negative, as they may have been carrying only tiny amounts of the virus.

The Portuguese judges cited a study conducted by “some of the leading European and world specialists,” which was published by Oxford Academic at the end of September. It showed that if someone tested positive for Covid at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher, the chances of that person actually being infected is less than three percent, and that “the probability of… receiving a false positive is 97% or higher.”

While the judges in this case admitted that the cycle threshold used in Portuguese labs was unknown, they took this as further proof that the detention of the tourists was unlawful. The implication was that the results could not be trusted. Because of this uncertainty, they stated that there was “no way this court would ever be able to determine” whether the tourist who tested positive was indeed a carrier of the virus, or whether the others had been exposed to it.

Sshhh – don’t tell anyone

It is a sad indictment of our mainstream media that such a landmark ruling, of such obvious and pressing international importance, has been roundly ignored. If one were making (flimsy) excuses for them, one could say that the case escaped the notice of most science editors because it has been published in Portuguese. But there is a full English translation of the appeal, and alternative media managed to pick it up.

And it isn’t as if Portugal is some remote, mysterious nation where news is unreliable or whose judges are suspect – this is a western EU country with a large population and a similar legal system to many other parts of Europe. And it is not the only country whose institutions are clashing with received wisdom on Covid. Finland’s national health authority has disputed the WHO’s recommendation to test as many people as possible for coronavirus, saying it would be a waste of taxpayer’s money, while poorer South East Asian countries are holding off on ordering vaccines, citing an improper use of finite resources.

Testing, especially PCR testing, is the basis for the entire house of cards of Covid restrictions that are wreaking havoc worldwide. From testing comes case numbers. From case numbers come the ‘R number,’ the rate at which a carrier infects others. From the ‘dreaded’ R number comes the lockdowns and the restrictions, such as England’s new and baffling tiered restrictions that come into force next week.

The daily barrage of statistics is familiar to us all by this point, but as time goes on the evidence that something may be deeply amiss with the whole foundation of our reaction to this pandemic – the testing regime – continues to mount.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

By Peter Andrews

Peter Andrews is an Irish science journalist and writer, based in London. He has a background in the life sciences, and graduated from the University of Glasgow with a degree in Genetics

 

Posted on

Vaccinated Children Are Sicker, Study Shows

by Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D.

 

Breaking science news: Vaccinated children are sicker than their unvaccinated peers, according to a landmark new study on vaccine safety: “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination.”

For over two decades, vaccine safety advocates have wondered if vaccinated children are sicker or healthier than their unvaccinated peers. These children’s health advocates have asked the CDC to conduct studies to compare health outcomes in completely unvaccinated children to those in vaccinated children, as per the CDC’s recommended schedule.

Every parent in America, and every doctor recommending vaccines, should want to see these studies done.

After all, in order to put the vaccine debates to rest, we must demonstrate that the current CDC-recommended vaccine schedule is actually safe.

But, despite constant hand-wringing over declining public confidence in vaccines, the CDC refuses to do these studies.

Their excuse has been that “it would be unethical” to withhold vaccines in order to study their safety.

This excuse assumes that randomized controlled trials, where children are randomly separated into two groups, one which gets vaccines and one which does not, are the only way to do such a comparison.

(If you’re wondering right now why it’s “unethical” to withhold vaccines to determine their safety but not unethical to recommend them for every infant before they are determined to be safe, you’re not alone.)

But these days plenty of families are choosing not to vaccinate or to selectively vaccinate. Their children can easily serve as the control groups. So the CDC could perform retrospective epidemiological studies. After all, it is retrospective epidemiological studies that are the studies the CDC has done that purportedly “prove” that “vaccines don’t cause autism.”

Vaccine safety concerns ignored 

But the CDC continues to turn a deaf ear to vaccine safety concerns, ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of parents, like this one, this one, and this one, have watched their children’s health decline after being given vaccines, Tylenol, and antibiotics. In fact, they seem to go out of their way to design health studies that do not include vaccine status as a variable.

At the same time, they disingenuously point to studies which compare vaccinated children with only slightly less vaccinated children and say, “See, we have done it!”

It’s almost as if our public health authorities don’t want to know which children are healthiest.

Why not?

Vaccinated children are sicker

Aware of the firestorm surrounding vaccine science, James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D. and Paul Thomas, M.D.’s analysis is scrupulous and thorough. They analyzed the data several different ways to account for potentially confounding factors, such as an increasing tendency to avoid vaccination. They compared the new metric (RIOV) with the old measure of incidence. And they found that the new method correlates well but is more sensitive, thus more likely to reveal a true negative effect than the old one.

So what did Drs. Lyons-Weiler and Thomas find?

The results: cumulative office visits for asthma, allergic rhinitis, breathing issues, behavioral issues, ADHD, respiratory infection, otitis media, ear pain, other infections, eye disorders, eczema, and dermatitis were all much higher in vaccinated children than unvaccinated children.

In even the most conservative analysis, the study finds statistically significant elevated risks of anemia and respiratory virus infection in the vaccinated children.

A conscientious pediatrician

Dr. Paul Thomas is a pediatrician with some 15,000 children in his Portland-based practice. He has such a large cohort of patients that researchers can study the data from his practice.

Dr. Paul, as his patients call him, is a friend and colleague of mine. We co-wrote The Vaccine-Friendly Plan: Dr. Paul’s Safe and Effective Approach to Immunity and Health – from Pregnancy through Your Child’s Teen Years together.

As a Dartmouth-educated physician who grew up the son of missionaries in Africa, Dr. Paul has always had a healthy respect for vaccines. But the more he observed the children in his large, diverse practice, the less comfortable he became with the CDC schedule. He watched as parents followed his health recommendations and saw their seemingly healthy children develop neurological disorders and other severe health conditions. Most often the health problems came after a round of vaccines. And Dr. Paul also noticed that families who were spacing out vaccines, or not vaccinating at all, seem to have healthier kids.

Dr. Paul wanted to know how vaccinating was affecting his patient population. So he hired an independent statistician to collect billing and medical records. He then teamed up with James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, an expert in study design, to analyze the data.

For this study they analyzed records of 3,324 patients born into Dr. Paul’s practice between June 8, 2008, and January 27, 2019. Of these children 561 are completely unvaccinated, and 2,763, received anywhere between 1 and 40 vaccines.

Lower incidence of vaccine injury

In Dr. Paul’s practice parents choose which vaccines their children receive in consultation with their doctors. Very few follow the CDC-recommended schedule. Instead, Dr. Paul helps families make personalized decisions, one vaccine at a time.

In addition to taking medical history into account (especially a family history of autoimmunity), the doctors at Integrative Pediatrics deliberately keep exposure to aluminum-containing vaccines to a minimum.

This way no child receives high doses of aluminum in a single day, and overall accumulation of aluminum is low.

Avoiding an overload of injected aluminum reduces adverse effects of vaccination, especially neurological disorders like ADHD and autism. These disorders have recently been strongly linked with high aluminum adjuvant exposure. Thus, the incidence of autism in Dr. Paul’s study population is only about half the national average. And there are no cases of ADHD in the unvaccinated children.

How sick are they?

It seems clear that vaccinated children are sicker than their unvaccinated peers. But just how sick?

Because most of his families do not follow the CDC to the letter, even the study’s most vaccinated group cannot be considered “fully vaccinated” according to the CDC. Even this study, then, may be missing the true dangers of following CDC recommendations.

James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., is an outstanding scientist who has published over fifty-five peer-reviewed scientific papers. He developed a new metric for this study: relative incidence of office visits (RIOV). Often in studies of this type, relative incidence of a particular condition, say asthma or eczema, is used to search for evidence of harm. This approach counts every child with at least one office visit for a particular condition. But medicine is not an exact science. Putting a child solidly in one group or another based on just a single office visit can muddy the true picture.

By counting office visits (plural) related to the condition, we can get a much clearer picture of the healthcare burden of that condition. We can see not only which children are sick, but also how sick they are. RIOV is a more sensitive and more powerful measure because it counts the entire health burden. And the results are eye-opening.

Healthy user bias

The concern in an epidemiological study is that healthy children are going to be vaccinated more often than unhealthy children. This is especially true in flu vaccine studies because people will only get the flu vaccine if they are healthy to begin with. This healthy user bias—the tendency for healthy people to accept risks of preventative vaccination more frequently than unhealthy people—would usually mean that if there were a negative effect of vaccination it would be masked. So we should expect to see fewer illnesses in the vaccinated group. Not only because vaccines prevent illness but also because the children being vaccinated presumably started out healthier. However, despite concerns about healthy user bias, the unvaccinated children were much healthier than the vaccinated children.

Critics might suggest that the number of office visits is lower in unvaccinated children not because they’re sick less often but because those families don’t trust doctors. Or perhaps because the parents are negligent and less likely to bring their kids in for standard medical care. However, in the study accounts for that possibility by comparing well child visits, which were almost identical in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. At the same time, office visits for fever, a known side effect of vaccination, were higher in the vaccinated group.

Chickenpox, pertussis, and rotavirus

The only illnesses more common in unvaccinated children were diseases we vaccinate for: chickenpox, pertussis, and rotavirus. Of 561 unvaccinated children, 9 got pertussis. Of the 2,763 children in the vaccinated group only one got it. There were only two cases of rotavirus in the unvaccinated group and none in the vaccinated group. There were 23 cases of chickenpox in the unvaccinated group and 6 in the vaccinated group. All recovered without incident.

Of course, if vaccines are at all effective, this would be expected. Surprisingly, perhaps, this increased risk still resulted in a low rate of illness in the unvaccinated group. This suggests that incidence of vaccine-preventable illnesses would not skyrocket if vaccination rates declined.

Findings dovetail with other research showing vaccinated children are sicker

This study’s findings that vaccinated children are sicker than their unvaccinated peers agree with other independent studies. Mawson et al. reported increased risk of numerous conditions. These conditions included allergic rhinitis, neurodevelopmental disorders, eczema, and chronic illness.

Studies on the effect of DPT vaccines introduced in the African country of Guinea-Bissau reported increased risk of death in children who received the vaccine.

McDonald et al. found that delayed DPT vaccination led to significantly decreased risk of asthma.

Most recently, Brian Hooker and Neil Miller, using medical records from three medical practices, found more than twice the rate of developmental delay, asthma, and ear infection in vaccinated children.

If comparing health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children led to reassuring conclusions about vaccine safety, the CDC would be doing these studies with alacrity.

In fact, such comparisons yield worrisome results. Studies that include completely unvaccinated children continue to show they are healthier and that completely vaccinated children are sicker. This suggests that our determination to prevent disease may not be working. It is becoming increasingly clear that over-vaccination is making our children sick—very sick.

Read the study for yourself. Print out a copy and share it with your child’s pediatrician. We need more of this kind of science. The CDC must start funding well designed studies with statistically significant numbers of children. Until they do, it’s the independent researchers willing to stick their necks out to tell the truth who will help us find the best way forward.

Curious to learn more about raising healthy children? This interview I did with Carmen Pritson, an Estonian television journalist, is full of helpful information:

More to come

Researchers at IPAK (The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge) tell me they are currently working on Phase 2 of the study. Phase 2 will specifically focus on whether there are different risks associated with aluminum-containing versus aluminum-free vaccines, differences in health outcomes in children receiving live virus inactivated vaccines, and whether specific vaccines are associated with specific poor health outcomes.

You can read the study in full by clicking here.

  1. comment:

    Hi, my name is Joy Garner, founder of The Control Group, (stands for entirely unvaccinated). GREAT article! I have something that might be of interest to you. The Control Group recently completed a Nationwide study of entirely unvaccinated people (all ages) across 95% of the states in the USA. We achieved a stunningly robust sample rate, far exceeding (by a wide margin) the sample rates for any Nationwide health survey conducted by our agencies that we can find. The data analysis came it at a 99% confidence with just under a 0.04% deviation (error) from the sample means. This staggering level of accuracy was due to the high sample rate, the broad geographic coverage across the Nation, and data-collection methods which resulted in a truly random sample, even though some of them were novel approaches.

    We have some stunning graphic charts on the comparisons with the cohorts, which in this case, are the matched age groups for our Nation’s 99.74% vaccine-exposed population, (at any level of exposure) as reflected in our National disease, disability, and death rates. The assumption here is that it is understood vaccines come with health risks, so obviously, increasing exposures will increase risks for the individual. Regardless, our National published stats are at least 99% accurate as a measure of the health of the 99.74% vaccine-exposed population in the USA, (the “herd”).

    We set about documenting the stats for the minority unvaccinated population and it worked out quite well. We’re bringing it all to federal court soon, demanding an injunction against all vaccine mandates, and/or any forms of discrimination based upon vaccination status, i.e., travel, education, employment, etc. Our lead counsel on this case is also lead counsel for the Physicians for Informed Consent. The basic skinny on our argument is that the overall risks of vaccination have never before been expressed in NUMBERS, but rather, in untrue slogans such as “rare” which results in the relatively “safe” lie. We all know the VAERS is over 99% INCORRECT, and that this system only collects data on short term risks in any case. Our retrospective epidemiological study captured historical data that reflects the long-term risk values when compared to the 99.74% vaccine-exposed herd in the USA.

    When cohort comparisons were made against the National health stats for the 99.74% vaccine-exposed population in the USA, we ended up with an ‘odds against vaccines being innocent’ (as the cause of the excess health problems seen in the vaccine-exposed population) exceeding 1 in 84,721,527,559,728,800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
    000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (well-over 84 “Sexvigintillion”). Basically, if this were expressed as a the odds against a suspect not having been at the scene of the crime (based upon forensic evidence) one could easily be convicted with a 1 in 100K odds ratio against innocence. (This is a Nationally recognized standard in criminal justice.)

    In the unvaccinated population we found ZERO percent with heart disease in the adults, (or any age) in a Nation where our vaccine-exposed adult cohorts are now at a 48% rate of heart disease. Zero with arthritis, and many similar. We also found ZERO diabetes in the unvaccinated, at any age. This doesn’t mean vaccines are the only possible cause of these things. It just means these things are so incredibly rare in the unvaccinated that even with this robust sample, we could not detect it. So the risk of these things from all other possible causes, if one remains unvaccinated, is infinitesimal.

    It is now coming out that heart disease, diabetes, and many more, are caused by a dysfunctional immune system that is attacking the body. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28891154/

    This explains why those who have never been exposed to vaccines are not having these types of problems, and why their chances of survival are so much better than the National averages, no matter what they eat, or where they live. The study produced much other valuable evidence, much of which is instantly understandable (numerically) by the comparison graphs. If you would like a peek at the graphs and the summary report, feel free to write me at: info.cg (AT symbol) thecontrolgroup DOT org. or call if you like: 530-210-1001

    Godspeed,

    Joy