Eat these zinc-rich foods for better immune function amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

(Natural News) As COVID-19 continues to infect millions worldwide, experts are scrambling to develop viable treatments for the new disease. That said, the online statistics portal Statista pegged the total number of recoveries worldwide at 1.3 million, indicating that despite the rapid spread of the Wuhan coronavirus over the past few months, it is possible to…

Cancer and circadian rhythm: Can chronotherapy benefit patients with cancer?

(Natural News) The treatment for cancer is neither in the drugs nor in the radiation after all – it’s in the timing. According to a recent article published in Psychology Today, a leading magazine on behavioral science, chronotherapy may be used as a natural and non-invasive treatment for cancer. The circadian clock and human health…

The Smoking Gun Proving SARS-CoV-2 Is an Engineered Virus

Since the breakout of COVID-19, a number of scientists have spoken out saying the virus does not appear to have evolved naturally, and those suspicions are only getting stronger.

As reported1 by Newsweek April 28, 2020, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has in recent years funded dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory in Wuhan, China.

This research was backed by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is now heading up the White House pandemic response team. According to Newsweek:2

“In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.

Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.”

As noted by GM Watch,3 “Bolstering the lab escape hypothesis in the eyes of the media is the news that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has updated its assessment of the origin of the COVID-19 virus SARS-CoV-2 to reflect that it may have been accidentally released from a lab in Wuhan due to ‘unsafe laboratory practices.’”

Unfortunately, mainstream media journalists are by and large ignoring the long history of accidental releases of dangerous pathogens from BSL3 and 4 laboratories. Journalist Sam Husseini discusses this history in a May 5, 2020 article in Independent Science News.4

Mainstream media journalists clearly are also not asking enough questions, or the right questions, about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. In his May 4, 2020, video update (above), Chris Martenson,5 who has a Ph.D. in pathology, carefully details the science behind his assertion that SARS-CoV-2 must have undergone laboratory manipulation. The evidence he lays out is close to conclusive, and really would be front-page news if unbiased journalism still existed.

What Is Gain of Function?

As explained by Martenson, gain of function research refers to research in which the pathogenicity or transmissibility of pathogens is enhanced. In other words, pathogens are manipulated in various ways to make them deadlier, and/or allow them to infect humans with greater ease. They also take viruses that are harmless to humans and conduct experiments to make them transmissible to humans.

As noted by Martenson, while this kind of research is justified by saying we need to know how viruses adapt and mutate so we can more easily figure out how to combat them should they gain these functions naturally, there’s not a shred of evidence suggesting we’ve learned anything about how to combat SARS-CoV-2. If we’re not actually learning how to treat illnesses through gain-of-function research, then why are we doing it? 

How Viruses Enter Your Cells

Martenson goes on to explain the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into your cells. This is important, as viruses can only replicate by entering into and infecting a cell.

To gain entry, the virus must first bind to an ACE2 or CD147 receptor on the cell. Next, the S2 spike protein subunit must be proteolytically cleaved (cut). Without this protein cleavage, the virus would simply attach to the receptor and not get any further.

There are several enzymes that can do this job, including plasmin and furin. Plasmin, which is present in your blood, also degrades fibrin — plasma protein that can cause blood clots. When a blood clot is dissolved, a byproduct called D-dimer is created.

As explained in “Might Enzymes Help Blood Clotting Associated With COVID-19?” many patients with serious COVID-19 infection have elevated D-dimer, which is indicative of blood clots.

Martenson also cites the review paper6 “Elevated Plasmin(ogen) as a Common Risk Factor for COVID-19 Susceptibility,” which found that COVID-19 patients who have comorbidities that increase their susceptibility for the illness (i.e., those with high blood pressure, diabetes, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular illness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney dysfunction), tend to have elevated levels of plasmin.

In other words, it’s this elevated plasmin that — at least in part — puts these people at a higher risk for serious COVID-19 infection. In his May 6, 2020, update below, Martenson discusses this clotting problem encountered in many COVID-19 patients. As he points out, COVID-19 is “really more of a blood disorder, a clotting disorder,” than a normal lung infection.


Furin Cleavage Site Is the ‘Smoking Gun’

As mentioned, furin can also cut or cleave the S2 spike protein subunit. Furin is a protein coding gene that activates certain proteins by snipping off specific sections. As explained by Martenson, contrary to other protein-cutting enzymes, furin is very specific about the locations it cuts. What’s more, when arginine is present in the second or third place of the protein sequence, then the efficiency of the cleavage is magnified.

This, he says, is “the smoking gun” that proves SARS-CoV-2 was created in a lab. An excellent, well-written article7 in Medium also addresses this finding and explains why furin cleavage sites are so important for determining whether SARS-CoV-2 is natural or not.

In “Furin, a Potential Therapeutic Target for COVID-19,”8,9 Chinese researchers report that CoV-2 is the only coronavirus with a furin cleavage site. Not even distant relatives of CoV-2 have it, and the coronaviruses that do have it share only 40% of CoV-2’s genome. As reported in this paper:10

“It was found that all Spike with a SARS-CoV-2 Spike sequence homology greater than 40% did not have a furin cleavage site … including Bat-CoVRaTG13 and SARS-CoV (with sequence identity as 97.4% and 78.6%, respectively).

The furin cleavage site ‘RRAR’ in SARS-CoV-2 is unique in its family, rendering by its unique insert of ‘PRRA.’ The furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 is unlikely to have evolved from MERS, HCoV-HKU1, and so on.

From the currently available sequences in databases, it is difficult for us to find the source. Perhaps there are still many evolutionary intermediate sequences waiting to be discovered.”

Mutation Cannot Explain Furin Site in SARS-CoV-2

According to these researchers, the furin cleavage site present in SARS-CoV-2 “is unique in its family” and “is unlikely to have evolved.” In other words, the virus must have been modified somewhere along the way to give it a furin cleavage site, as there’s no apparent source for this virus.

Put another way, there’s no coronavirus out there that is similar enough that SARS-CoV-2 might have evolved or mutated from it.

Martenson does an excellent job of explaining this in his video, so I strongly recommend watching it. Yuri Deigin also does this in his Medium article,11 so if you prefer reading, you can review much of the same data there.

Importantly, both reveal how virologists claiming SARS-CoV-2 is a natural bat coronavirus that jumped to pangolin and then to humans are simply wrong, and the genetic sequence proves it. The furin cleavage site PRRA found in SARS-CoV-2 is NOT found in either bats or pangolins, so it could not have mutated through these animals.

furin cleavage site

The fact that this furin cleavage site is present in SARS-CoV-2 is evidence that it has been inserted (opposed to mutated), and Martenson provides an easy to understand illustration of the difference between a mutation and an insert in his video. It is extremely unlikely that 12 new nucleotide base pairs would all of a sudden emerge from where there was nothing before.

What About the Studies Saying It’s Natural?

Two studies heavily cited by mainstream media as evidence SARS-CoV-2 is a natural mutation that jumped from animal to human include a February 3, 2020, Nature paper,12 which claims SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus of bat origin that then jumped species. However, one of the authors of this paper, Shi Zhengli, was involved in the weaponization of the SARS virus, and therefore has reason to try to cover up any link to such research.

A second paper,13 published in Nature Medicine, March 17, 2020, offers “a perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome,” and discusses “scenarios by which they could have arisen.” According to this paper, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”

However, even though they acknowledge SARS-CoV-2 has a polybasic cleavage site (PRRA) that does not exist elsewhere, they fail to explain how these 12 base pairs could have magically been inserted naturally. As noted by Martenson, “whole inserts are not part of the mutation pathway.”

Scientific Community Has Reason to Hide Origin

He goes on to cite several studies showing how scientists around the world have been working on inserting cleavage sites to make coronaviruses more virulent. Clearly, we have the capability to create SARS-CoV-2, and scientists around the world have engaged in such research for many years.

Martenson calls out leading virologist Michael Osterholm who, in a March 10, 2020, interview with Joe Rogan, stated that “we could not have crafted a virus like this to do what it’s doing; I mean we don’t have the creative imagination or the skill set.”

Really? Published research shows we clearly have the technology, know-how and “creative imagination” to create SARS-CoV-2, and Osterholm simply cannot be ignorant of that fact.

Another source you may want to look over is the Project Evidence webpage,14 which lists more information pointing toward a lab-created SARS-CoV-2 than I could possibly cover here. A summary of the evidence can be found toward the bottom of the page under “Conclusion.”

Naturally, there must be people in the scientific community who would now want to cover up any link to such research. Would you want to be responsible for creating, funding or having any association whatsoever with a virus responsible for a pandemic that has killed people, destroyed the world economy and put people out of work around the globe?

Would you want to be found guilty of violating the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the punishment for which goes up to and includes life in prison? The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 states:15

“Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States.”

Other Experts Challenge Natural Evolution Claims

Martenson is far from alone in his belief that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically manipulated. An April 27, 2020, GM Watch article16 features professor Stuart Newman, who also believes “genetic engineering may have been involved at some point in the virus’ history.”

According to Newman, a professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College and editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Theory, the argument used to deny that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory construct in the March 17, 2020, Nature Medicine paper mentioned earlier (which stated “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus”) actually points to the exact opposite.
GM Watch writes:17

“As Adam Lauring, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School, has noted,18 Andersen’s paper argues that, ‘the SARS-CoV-2 virus has some key differences in specific genes relative to previously identified coronaviruses — the ones a laboratory would be working with. This constellation of changes makes it unlikely that it is the result of a laboratory ‘escape.’’

But Professor Newman says19 that this is totally unconvincing because “The ‘key differences’ were in regions of the coronavirus spike protein that were the subject of genetic engineering experiments in labs around the world (mainly in the U.S. and China) for two decades’ …

In an email interview with GMWatch, Newman … amplified this speculation by noting, ‘The Nature Medicine paper points to variations in two sites of the spike protein of the new coronavirus that the authors claim must have arisen by natural selection in the wild.

However, genetic engineering of one of these sites, the ACE2 receptor binding domain, has been proposed since 2005 in order to help generate vaccines against these viruses (see this paper20). It is puzzling that the authors of the Nature Medicine commentary did not cite this paper, which appeared in the prominent journal Science

The second site that Andersen et al. assert arose by natural means, a target of enzyme cleavage not usually found in this class of viruses, was in fact introduced by genetic engineering in a similar coronavirus in a paper21 they do cite. This was done to explore mechanisms of pathogenicity.’

Newman said that he does not believe that these changes were deliberately introduced to increase the pathogenicity of any single strain, but that SARS-CoV-2 may have had genetically engineered components in its history before being inadvertently introduced into the human population.”

There Are Many Ways to Manipulate Pathogens

Those who claim the lack of “fingerprints” in the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 is evidence of natural evolution also fail to take into account methods that do not leave clearly identifiable traces. As noted by Dr. Meryl Nass (my interview with her will be posted May 24):22

“Prior to genetic engineering techniques being developed (1973) and widely used (since late 1970s), more ‘primitive’ means of causing mutations, with the intention of developing biological weapons, were employed …

They resulted in biological weapons that were tested, well-described, and in some cases, used … These methods can result in biowarfare agents that lack the identifiable signature of a microbial agent constructed in a lab from known RNA or DNA sequences.

In fact, it would be desirable to produce such agents, since it would be difficult to prove they were deliberately constructed in a lab. Here are just a few possibilities for how one might create new, virulent mutants:

  1. Exposing microorganisms to chemical or radiological agents that cause high mutation rates and selecting for desired characteristics

  2. Passaging virus through a number of lab animals or tissue cultures

  3. Mixing viruses together and seeking recombinants with a new mix of virulence factors”

In my opinion, the strongest pieces of evidence so far all point toward SARS-CoV-2 being a laboratory creation. As Martenson asserts, the presence of furin cleavage sites23 makes a clear case for this, as this section of genetic code wouldn’t just emerge by itself by way of natural mutation. How it got released, however, is anyone’s guess.

COVID Treatment Scam — How Big Pharma Will Fleece You

Drug companies are often portrayed as benevolent companies that pour billions of dollars into the creation of new drugs and vaccinations for the greater good. This was certainly the case in a New York Times column on the antiviral drug remdesivir, which has shown some promise in treating COVID-19.1

Biotech giant Gilead Sciences, which produces the drug, began distributing it on a compassionate-use basis in January 2020. Compassionate use is a form of expanded access to a drug, describing “the individual patient use of an investigational medicinal product outside of a clinical trial that is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition.”2

That drug companies offer such medications to patients in crisis is again deemed a noble, altruistic endeavor. The Times column even noted, “Given the stakes involved, it seems perverse not to root for Gilead’s success … there should be no Big-Pharma haters in pandemics.”3

The reality, however, is far less rosy, as the pharmaceutical industry is developing drugs using taxpayer money, then turning around and selling them at exorbitant prices.

Political commentator David Sirota wrote in TMI that this alternative story is hardly ever shared by the press, and that’s no accident, because doing so would “… undermine the drug-companies-as-altruistic-heroes mythology, and admit that our laws actually help drug companies fleece Americans.”4

Remdesivir Was Developed Using Public Resources

In an April 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, remdesivir was provided on a compassionate-use basis to 61 patients hospitalized with severe Covid-19, and data were analyzed for 53 of them.5 Clinical improvement was observed in 36 of the 53 patients (68%).

Although this wasn’t a placebo-controlled study, the initial results suggest some potential usefulness in treating the condition. Gilead chairman and CEO Daniel O’Day, in a press briefing in March 2020, stated:6

“I’m really pleased to say that there’s an advanced investigational medicine called remdesivir that Gilead has been working on now for a decade. Spent really billions of dollars trying to develop this medicine that we are in late stage clinical trials with now, in both the United States and China and soon to be other countries.”

What he doesn’t say, however, as noted by Sirota and reported by Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) — a not-for-profit nongovernmental organization focused on social justice — the U.S. Army, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) subsidized the preclinical and clinical development of remdesivir.7 KEI laid out the drug’s discovery and preclinical research as follows:8

CDC scientists used a Gilead library of 1,000 compounds in a search for possible candidates to treat the Ebola virus; they identified a precursor to remdesivir, which was further developed by Gilead scientists and researchers with the U.S. Army Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)

USAMRIID scientists tested remdesivir against several pathogens, including Ebola, which showed 100% of rhesus monkeys infected with Ebola survived when treated with the drug; the results reported the drug had broad-spectrum activity against pathogenic RNA viruses, including coronaviruses

In a study published in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, it’s stated, “The partnership with government organizations, including CDC and USAMRIID, that generated the screening data and conducted the rhesus efficacy studies was critical to the successful identification of 4b [remdesivir]”9

An additional series of studies was then conducted by scientists with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Vanderbilt and Gilead looking into remdesivir to treat Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), which are caused by coronaviruses.

The research, which found the drug to be effective in preventing replication in coronaviruses, was funded by NIH grants, while later studies received funding from NIAID grants and federal funds from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

“Because this research was conducted, in large part, by U.S. scientists funded by U.S. taxpayers, it is not accurate to state or imply that remdesivir was developed by Gilead alone,” KEI stated.10 Later clinical research into the drug’s effects on Ebola also received funding from NIAID and NIH.

Rule Against Price-Gouging on Taxpayer-Funded Drugs Rescinded

In an article for the Journal of Legal Medicine, Rebecca Wolitz, J.D., from Yale University’s department of philosophy, explains:11

“The federal government subsidizes the research and development of prescription medications. Thus, a captivating critique of expensive medications is that prices are too high because of taxpayer co-financing. This critique is often framed in terms of ‘paying-twice’ — first for the research and second through the above market pricing of resulting products.”

Reasonable pricing clauses, which put limits on prices for federally funded drugs, have been proposed and put in place in the past to prevent price-gouging. One such clause was put in place by the NIH after high prices of AIDS drugs, developed using taxpayer dollars, were heavily criticized. The drug industry campaigned against the pricing clause, however, and it was rescinded years later.

“The upshot,” Sirota says, “remdesivir or any other COVID-related medicine developed at American taxpayer expense could ultimately be offered to American taxpayers at the world’s highest prices.”12 He then makes a valid point to anyone suggesting that Gilead will do the right thing and offer remdesivir at affordable prices “out of the goodness of its corporate heart” — history suggests Gilead will have other plans:13

Sovaldi, a hepatitis C drug made by Gilead, was under investigation for 18 months by the Senate Finance Committee. The Committee decided that the price of the drug — $1,000 per pill, or $84,000 per treatment — “did not reflect the cost of research and development and that Gilead cared about ‘revenue’ not ‘affordability and accessibility,'” according to The Epoch Times.14

Gilead’s drug Truvada, which is approved to treat and prevent infection with HIV, costs more than $20,000 in the U.S., but less than $100 per year in other countries;15 Truvada’s use for HIV prevention was discovered via research by a CDC scientist and then further developed by research funded by $50 million in federal grants.

The U.S. government patented the treatment in 2015, but Gilead has argued the patent isn’t valid and brought in $3 billion in sales for Truvada in 2018. It has paid no royalties to the U.S. government either.16

“Gilead is also the same company that already made a preliminary move to try to juice profits off a potential COVID treatment (it only backed off when it was publicly shamed),” Sirota continued, referring to Gilead’s receipt of the orphan drug designation for remdesivir, which is reserved for drugs treating rare diseases and would have given Gilead seven years of exclusive marketing for the product, which would likely drive up prices. After outcry, Gilead submitted a request to the FDA to rescind the orphan drug designation.17

NIH Contributed to Every New Drug Approved From 2010 to 2016

In addition to R&D tax credits, the pharmaceutical industry enjoys, in the case of vaccines, shields from liability if their products cause harm. In fact, vaccine manufacturers are the only corporations selling products in the U.S. that cannot be sued, even when there is evidence the company could have made a product less likely to injure or kill people.18

Taxpayer funding is also par for the course not only for Gilead but for Big Pharma as a whole. In a report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it’s stated that NIH funding contributed to published research associated with every new drug approved by the FDA from 2010 to 2016 — 210 drugs in all.19

“Collectively, this research involved >200,000 years of grant funding totaling more than $100 billion,” the researchers noted, adding:20

“The analysis shows that >90% of this funding represents basic research related to the biological targets for drug action rather than the drugs themselves. The role of NIH funding thus complements industry research and development, which focuses predominantly on applied research.

This work underscores the breath and significance of public investment in the development of new therapeutics and the risk that reduced research funding would slow the pipeline for treating morbid disease.”

Another example is Taxol, a cancer drug marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb starting in 1993. The U.S. government spent $484 million on the drug’s development, then negotiated a licensing agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb to market the drug. From 1993 to 2003, Bristol-Myers Squibb raked in $9 billion in Taxol sales globally, but paid the NIH just $35 million in royalties.21

In Utah, meanwhile, a price-gouging complaint was filed against the Utah pharmacy Meds in Motion, which sold 20,000 doses of experimental antimalarial drugs for COVID-19 to the state for $800,000. The complaint states that the price per tablet from Meds in Motion is nearly 10 times the price of the drugs for consumers.

“As if price gouging wasn’t bad enough, price gouging of an unproven drug during a pandemic in a transaction that uses public funds is truly beyond the pale,” said Chase Thomas, Alliance for a Better Utah’s executive director, in a statement.22

Drug company Jaguar Health also hiked the price of its antidiarrheal medication Mytesi by almost threefold. According to Axios, “The price hike coincides with the company’s push to get its drug to more patients — specifically those diagnosed with COVID-19.”23

Overall, despite the heavy taxpayer funding for drug development, Congress has stalled in reinstituting a reasonable pricing clause to protect Americans from exorbitant drug costs, even in the era of COVID-19. Sirota added:24

“Remember, it was none other than [HHS Secretary Alex] Azar — a former pharmaceutical executive — who went before Congress in late February and insisted with a straight face that when it comes to coronavirus treatments, ‘We would want to ensure that we work to make it affordable, but we can’t control that price because we need the private sector to invest.’ That word ‘can’t’ is being used as a substitute for ‘won’t.’”

Why a Fort Detrick Bioweapons Lab Scientist Was Murdered

Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland, is a U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command (MRDC) installation most well-known for being a center for biomedical research and development.

Now home to the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases where deadly agents like Ebola, smallpox and anthrax are studied, Fort Detrick spans 13,000 acres and 600 buildings surrounded by suburban sprawl — but when it was first developed nearly eight decades ago, the location was chosen for its isolation.1

Remoteness, at the time, was key, because Fort Detrick was to be a center for the development of highly secretive germ warfare. During World War II, biological agents were deemed to be a significant threat.

“Scientists converged at Camp Detrick in 1943 to develop defenses to protect our troops from this threat,” according to the U.S. Army. “The research program at Fort Detrick pioneered the laboratory facility designs, equipment and procedures used for infectious disease research that are in place today in laboratories worldwide.”2

One of the first scientists assigned to Fort Detrick’s secret biological warfare laboratory during WWII was bioweapons expert Frank Olson.3 In 1953, Olson died after plummeting to the ground from a high-rise hotel room window in Manhattan.

Days earlier, he had been secretly drugged by the Central Intelligence Agency, which claimed Olson’s death was a suicide. Decades later, it was revealed that Olson didn’t jump from the window — he was deliberately murdered after the CIA became concerned that he might reveal disturbing top-secret operations.

History of Murder at Fort Detrick

After Olson was discharged from the army in 1944, he continued research into aerobiology at Fort Detrick. For years, he was involved in testing biological agents, including exposing animals to toxic clouds during Operation Harness, engineering dust to float like anthrax during Operation Sea Spray, and traveling to Fort Terry on Plum Island, where deadly toxins were tested off the U.S. mainland.4

“This was the period when senior army and CIA officers were becoming deeply alarmed at what they feared was Soviet progress toward mastering forms of warfare based on microbes.

Their alarm led to the creation of the special operations division,” The Guardian reported, in an edited extract from “Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control.”5 Olson became the chief of the special operations division, which worked jointly with the CIA. According to the extract:6

“Dr. Olson had developed a range of lethal aerosols in handy sized containers. They were disguised as shaving cream and insect repellants. They contained, among other agents, staph enteroxin, a crippling food poison; the even more deadly Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis; and most deadly of all, anthrax …

Further weapons he was working on included a cigarette lighter which gave out an almost instant lethal gas, a lipstick that would kill on contact with skin and a neat pocket spray for asthma sufferers that induced pneumonia.”

By 1953, Olson stepped down as chief of the special operations division due to the high pressures of the job, but continued to work with the CIA. “He stayed with the division, which was officially part of the army but functioned as a CIA research station hidden within a military base,” the Guardian noted.7

He began to work alongside Sidney Gottlieb, the CIA’s “poisoner in chief,” who presided over the CIA’s top-secret MK-Ultra project, which engaged in mind control experiments, human torture and other medical studies, including how much LSD it would take to “shatter the mind and blast away consciousness.”8

Olson engaged in experiments that involved poisoning animals and monitored human torture sessions in Germany and other countries. The extract reads:9

“In CIA safe-houses in Germany,” according to one study, “Olson witnessed horrific brutal interrogations on a regular basis. Detainees who were deemed ‘expendable’ — suspected spies or moles, security leaks, etc — were literally interrogated to death in experimental methods combining drugs, hypnosis and torture, to attempt to master brainwashing techniques and memory erasing.”

Son: Olson Was Drugged by the CIA and Murdered

It’s believed that CIA officials became suspicious of Olson after he had misgivings about the interrogations he had witnessed, as well as objections to the alleged use of biological weapons during the Korean War. In 1953, he attended a retreat at a cabin on Deep Creek Lake in Maryland, along with a small number of CIA and special operations division scientists.

There, while the team was having drinks, Gottlieb and his deputy Robert Lashbrook, spiked several drinks, including Olson’s, with LSD. When Olson returned home, he expressed to a colleague that he wanted to leave his job. According to the extract:10

“By this time MK-Ultra had been under way for seven months. It was one of the government’s deepest secrets, guarded by security that was, as Olson had been told when he joined the special operations division, “tighter than tight”.

… Olson had spent 10 years at Fort Detrick and knew most, if not all, of the special operation division’s secrets. He had repeatedly visited Germany and brought home pictures from Heidelberg and Berlin, where the US military maintained clandestine interrogation centres …

Perhaps most threatening of all, if US forces did indeed use biological weapons during the Korean war — for which there is circumstantial evidence but no proof — Olson would have known. The prospect that he might reveal any of what he had seen or done was terrifying.”

In the weeks that followed Olson witnessed additional disturbing experiments conducted by government scientists, including a 20-year-old soldier who died one hour after being dosed with the nerve gas sarin. Gottlieb recommended that Olson travel to New York City to be evaluated by Dr. Harold Abramson, a physician who was well-connected with the MK-Ultra project.

After meeting with him on multiple occasions, during which Olson expressed difficulties sleeping and concentrating since the drugging, Abramson recommended that Olson check in to a Maryland sanatorium for hospitalization. That night, Olson and Lashbrook stayed together in the Manhattan hotel, from which Olson fell to his death at 2:25 a.m.11

During the 1970s, the CIA acknowledged that Olson had been drugged days before his death and paid a $750,000 financial settlement to his family, but still maintained that Olson had committed suicide.

It wasn’t until decades later that Olson’s sons had his body exhumed and examined by a forensic pathologist, who suggested that Olson suffered a blow to the head before exiting the window of the hotel room and stated, “I think Frank Olson was intentionally, deliberately, with malice aforethought, thrown out of that window.”12 Olson’s son Eric later told the press:

“The death of Frank Olson on 28 November 1953 was a murder, not a suicide. This is not an LSD drug-experiment story, as it was represented in 1975. This is a biological warfare story. Frank Olson did not die because he was an experimental guinea pig who experienced a ‘bad trip’.

He died because of concern that he would divulge information concerning a highly classified CIA interrogation program in the early 1950s, and concerning the use of biological weapons by the United States in the Korean War.”13

Stripped of License in 2019, Now Testing COVID-19 Vaccine

Fort Detrick remains a center of controversy and was stripped of its license to study highly restricted pathogens by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2019. The move came after a CDC inspection found its recently installed chemical-based decontamination system may not be adequately treating the facility’s waste water, which could mean that deadly pathogens could potentially escape.

Two breaches of containment were reported in 2019.14 In addition to mechanical failures by the decontamination system, the CDC inspectors cited researchers failing to follow proper rules. In 2009, Fort Detrick was also temporarily shut down after pathogens were discovered in storage that weren’t recorded in its inventory.

Regulations for tracking biological agents were tightened after the 2001 anthrax attacks — which also have a tie to Fort Detrick. The Independent reported:15

“The FBI’s chief suspect in the 2001 case, Bruce Ivins, was a senior biological weapons researcher at Fort Detrick. He killed himself in 2008, shortly before the FBI was planning to charge him with the attacks.”

In November 2019, the CDC partially lifted the suspension at Fort Detrick, but their studies involving SARS-CoV-2 were reportedly never affected. Further, the CDC announced that the full operational status had been restored as of late March 2020.16 U.S. Army researchers at Fort Detrick have since begun testing potential COVID-19 vaccines on animals, with plans to begin human trials next.17

Other COVID-19 testing is also underway, with Fort Detrick reportedly having received its first vial of COVID-19 from the CDC in late February 2020. “We can test about 300 drugs or compounds in each plate,” virology researcher Sheli Radoshitzky, Ph.D., told Fox News. “We add the compounds using this robotic system and then we transfer the plates into bio-containment where we add the virus.”18

In short, just months after being shut down for containment breaches, Fort Detrick is not only in possession of SARS-CoV-2 but is actively building up a stockpile of the virus to further test treatments and vaccines.19

Fort Detrick Is Spying on Coronavirus, Medical Devices

Fort Detrick is also home to the National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI), which is an intelligence unit focused on global disease outbreaks. NCMI employs virologists, toxicologists, medical doctors and other experts, who use communications intercepts, satellite imagery and even social media to gather intelligence, which it provides to the U.S. military and other branches of government.

Denis Kaufman, a retired NCMI officer, told NBC News, “The value that NCMI brings is that it has access to information streams that the World Health Organization does not have, nor does the Centers for Disease Control or anyone else.”20

NCMI reportedly warned that COVID-19 would become a global pandemic at least a month before it was declared one, and is engaged in monitoring the ongoing pandemic, including whether foreign governments are covering up the nature of the disease.

NCMI has also collaborated with the National Security Agency (NSA) to extract “medical SIGINT [signals intelligence]” from the intercepted communications of nonprofit groups, looking into topics such as “SARS in China, cholera in Liberia and dysentery, polio and cholera in Iraq.”21 One source of intelligence could be the surveillance of medical devices and body monitors. As The Intercept reported in 2016:22

“The joint effort to mine ‘medical SIGINT’ is particularly noteworthy 13 years later, as medical devices and body monitors are increasingly connected to the internet, opening up new possibilities to expand intelligence gathering beyond epidemics and bioweapons and into more focused forms of surveillance.

The NSA’s deputy director, Richard Ledgett, said in June that the spy agency was ‘looking … theoretically’ at exploiting biomedical devices like pacemakers in order to surveil targets, even as he admitted that there are often easier ways to spy.”

Texas Bio Lab Collaborated With 70 Countries, Wuhan Lab

The Galveston National Laboratory (GNL), which is part of the University of Texas, is a level 4 laboratory that studies highly dangerous pathogens. It is now being investigated, as it had approximately 24 contracts with Chinese universities and technology companies, along with ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and exchanges between national security scientists and research sharing.

Meanwhile, the idea that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a bioweapons laboratory in Wuhan, China is gaining traction. In a statement released by the University of Texas, it’s stated that GNL has collaborated with more than 70 countries on biosafety and biosecurity. This could be a red flag, as noted by Stephane Segal, a political economist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), to Fox News:23

“Increased collaboration between the United States and China is consistent with a general trend toward greater cross-border collaboration in science globally; however, the data also show a heavier reliance on bilateral collaboration with one another than with any other single country.

At the same time, the U.S. intelligence community has accused China of exploiting scientific collaboration and ‘stealing innovation.'”

In fact, Dr. Francis Collins, director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, sent a warning to 10,000 academic institutions warning of foreign threats to U.S. biomedical research in 2018. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, even more scrutiny is being placed on the ties between Wuhan and U.S. academia. Patrick Cronin, Asia-Pacific security chair for the Hudson Institute, told Fox News:24

“The scope of China’s exploitation of our open universities, including medical, biology, and other scientific labs, is only recently coming into focus … At the end of 2019, the FBI and the NIH announced they were investigating 180 separate cases involving more than 70 institutions.

In almost all cases, the alleged theft of biomedical research information was done by Chinese citizens or Americans of Chinese descent. Bit by bit, China found ways into government scientific labs.”

There are only 14 biosafety level (BSL) 4 labs in the U.S. BSL 4 laboratories are also found in China, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, The Czech Republic, France, Gabon, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United Kingdom.

In testimony in 2007 about high-containment biosafety laboratories presented to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in October 2007, Keith Rhodes, chief technologist at the Center for Technology and Engineering, pointed out that BSL4 labs in the U.S. increased from five to 15 between 2001 and 2007 alone, and that no one is actually responsible for tracking the proliferation of BSL 3 and 4 labs in the U.S. or determining the risks associated with them.25

Considering the potential for a massively lethal pandemic, I believe it’s safe to say that BSL 3 and 4 laboratories pose a very real and serious existential threat to humanity. U.S. biowarfare programs employ some 13,000 scientists,26 all of whom are hard at work creating ever-deadlier pathogens, while the public is simply told to trust that these pathogens will never be released, either involuntarily or voluntarily.

Cover-ups like the one that occurred with Frank Olson are only set to increase in those cases, as those involved in biowarfare-related research are in jeopardy of prison. Should the pathogens escape, as may have happened with COVID-19, involved researchers and public health authorities stand to spend the rest of their lives behind bars, which is the penalty that the Anti-Terrorism Act calls for.

Divine Feminine Round Table

Welcome to the Round Table Hosted by Paula Connor who is joined by a powerhouse of Divine Feminine Spiritual Teachers from around the world.

Topics include:

The importance of breath and supporting the body
Crystal and Indigo Energies, Divine Feminine, Our Sovereignty, Soul Families Connecting
Compassion and Forgiveness
Christ Consciousness, Body Changes and Feelings of Lightness, Buzzy
Importance of listening to your Inner voice your Internal Guidance
Feeling Vulnerable and reaching out for support
Crisis in the Lungs and Throat, Congestion
Collective Grief, Dark Night of the Collective Soul
Importance of FEELING again as We need each other as a collective Humanity
President Donald J Trump MMS Multi-Mineral Solution
Multiple Dreams from many people showing the truth of Trump
Guidance for those that have a great deal of hatred
Knowing will come when you are in alignment with the Higher Dimensions
Must understand multi-dimensions to understand what is happening with Trump
We can make each other better people
Unity Consciousness
Balance of Light and Dark within and Creation
Understanding Duality, Integration of Polarity, Higher Dimensional Perspectives
Great Reveal and the Removal of the Masks
Small Self EGO Mask
True Colours of SOULS are being revealed to each other, No more BS
Return of the Power of the Feminine
Global Resurrection and the Power of coming together
Meditate, Self Love is So important

Paula Connor, Intuitive Consciousness Coach, HeartMath Certified Trainer and Coach,
Website – www.elevatemehub.com
Contact at – info@elevatemehub.com

Christianne van Wijk – World of Consciousness, Investigative Filmmaker,
Website – www.mindthematrix.com/

Magenta Pixie, Intuitive Consultant, Consciousness Coach and Channel for The White Winged
Collective Consciousness of nine
Website – www.magentapixie.com

Laura Eisenhower – Global Alchemist, Researcher and Medical and Intuitive Astrologist
Website – www.cosmicgaia.org

Tara Love Perry – Master Soul Reader, Author, International Speaker and Global Pioneer with the ‘”I Love You, Me”
~ 7 Steps To Transformational Self Love’ Method
Website www.taraloveperry.com
Contact: info@taraloveperry.com
Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Linked in Tara Love Perry

Nina Starsong – Contact at ninastarsong@yahoo.com
Website – www.ninastarsongpleiadiantransmission/weebly.com

Recorded: April 26th 2020

Divine Feminine Roundtable Community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/297398288280437