Close to 1000 earthquakes in a week, very atypical and scientifically unexplained. I’m not talking about Turkey, but their neighbor and Ukraine’s: my home-country, Romania. These occur as I type this and they unearthed a long-buried scandal: The Romanian mini-HAARP.
“So HAARP directs beams of enormous energy from the atmosphere to Earth, inside our planet. This causes disruptions in the Earth’s own magnetic field, which can cause major earthquakes. Many of the recent high-intensity earthquakes of the last period were preceded by atmospheric coloring phenomena, characteristic of illumination with HAARP radiation.” – General Dr. Marius Opran, scientific expert/coordinator on defense, security and critical space infrastructure issues within the Romanian Space Agency / Adevarul daily newspaper, February, 23, 2023
BREAKING: A team of Romanian scientists created a method of PREDICTING EARTHQAKES 2 DAYS IN ADVANCE, they already are contracted by NASA and several governments, but no one seems in a rush to implement it, Romanian TV news channel Realitatea reveals in an interview. Their technology has been internationally known and recognized for over FIVE YEARS now, just not implemented. Among them there are military experts WHO HAVE CONFIRMED EARTHQUAKES CAN BE ARTIFICIALLY PROVOKED WITH HAARP TECHNOLOGY. WHAT NO ONE ELSE TELLS YOU: THEIR NEW METHOD IS FOR NATURAL EARTHQUAKES, THEREFORE IT CAN REVEAL ARTIFICIAL EARTHQUAKES.
In August 2010, the landscape next to Corbu Beach in Romania has been visibly altered by two clusters of 20 antennas each and some barracks, suddenly landed there, next to an air-defense training camp belonging to the Romanian Army. By September, social media was already sounding the alarm: “is this anything like HAARP?!”. Because earthquakes are not a rare occurrence in Romania, neither are extreme weather phenomena. Some are just nature being nature, some of are truly scientifically inexplicable, some only defy experience and common sense. The topic generated a surprising amount of media coverage, talk shows, interviews and the whole shabazz, in which top Romanian Army experts and generals, as well as some government officials, expressed personal opinions and stances that are very rich in unsettling information they vouch for. And I can translate it for you. Yet, 13 years later, the general population is almost as clueless about this installation as it was in 2010, both the Romanian Government and the Romanian Army couldn’t be less bothered to calm the waters, they knew another scandal will diffuse this one soon. Some folks really went down the HAARP rabbit hole and that changed their lives. But no one has managed to come up with anything official, just mere speculations about that specific gear next to Corbu Beach, lurking somewhere middle way if you walk from Odessa to Ankara. No one before us, I mean…
SOURCE
But only after I finished the video above I bumped into the most coincidental of all coincidences here (from a long list):
LITTLE HAARP AND BIG HAARP COME FROM THE SAME MOTHER!
Below is the press release for HAARP’s completion, now deleted and archived HERE:
June 27, 2007 06:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
BAE Systems Completes World’s Premiere Facility for Ionospheric Physics Research
GAKONA, Alaska–(BUSINESS WIRE)–BAE Systems has completed work on the world’s largest and most capable ionospheric research facility. The facility will be used to study interactions between high-power radio signals and the earth’s ionosphere.
“HAARP is a scientific project to study the properties and behavior of the ionosphere, with emphasis on using the ionosphere to improve communications and surveillance systems for civilian and defense purposes”
As the prime contractor for the U.S. Defense Department’s High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) research station, BAE Systems designed and built the facility, operating software, and controls under a series of contracts valued at more than $250 million from the Office of Naval Research.
The research station was dedicated on June 27 in a ceremony held at the Gakona site. Construction of the station was jointly funded by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
It includes 360 radio transmitters with a combined power of 3.6 megawatts; 180, 68-foot-tall antennas covering an area of 40 acres; and five large generators providing more than 16 megawatts of power.
“HAARP is a scientific project to study the properties and behavior of the ionosphere, with emphasis on using the ionosphere to improve communications and surveillance systems for civilian and defense purposes,” said Rob Jacobsen, HAARP program director for BAE Systems in Washington, D.C.
The ionosphere is the part of the atmosphere between space and the earth in which electrically charged atoms, or ions, reflect radio waves, making long-distance radio communication possible.
About BAE Systems
BAE Systems is a global defense and aerospace company, delivering a full range of products and services for air, land, and naval forces, as well as advanced electronics, information technology solutions, and customer support services. BAE Systems, with 88,000 employees worldwide, had 2006 sales that exceeded $25 billion.
______________________
BAE Systems and Raytheon are perceived as top competitors in the military industry, but that’s only partly true.
Raytheon Aircraft Company is the owner of HAARP patents, and, NOAA-funded aerosol weather modification/AESA radar weather weapons”
“BAE Systems is program and apparatus-owner of the HAARP facility, Railgun technology, electromagnetic armor, and, a sub-corporation partner with Raytheon via British Aerospace Corporation
“General Dynamics Robotics (owned by Raytheon Corp) is the military contractor/manufacturer of Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles (UAV) aircraft designed for “all-weather,” computer-controlled weapons defense progams
“Boeing, Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, and Raytheon to create B2B exchange for the aerospace and defense industry, powered by Microsoft”
“Boeing, Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, and Raytheon to create B2B exchange for the aerospace and defense industry, powered by Microsoft”
“The Weather Modification Operations and Research Board (passed Oct.2005) – in corporate cooperation with BAE Systems (HAARP apparatus & facility owner) and Raytheon Corporation (HAARP patent owner)
Raytheon, in partnership with BAE, designed Excalibur to be fired from the Paladin (among other weapons systems). The Paladin’s ammunition magazine holds 39 rounds. And at last report, the U.S. Army and National Guard had bought a total of 975 Paladins for their arsenals.
BAE Systems selects Raytheon’s projector for UAE F-16 DLE HUD
Raytheon will design, develop and manufacture the projector for BAE Systems’ Digital Light Engine (DLE) Head-Up Display (HUD) on the F-16 Fighting Falcon for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) armed forces.
Raytheon’s partnership with BAE Systems provides pilots with real-time, mission critical information using its projector for BAE Systems’ Digital Light Engine (DLE) Head-Up Display (HUD) on the UAE’s F-16. Courtesy Lockheed Martin
BAE Systems completes $1.9 billion acquisition of Raytheon’s military GPS business
WASHINGTON — BAE Systems has completed its $1.9 billion purchase of Collins Aerospace’s military GPS business from Raytheon Technologies Corporation, BAE announced July 31.
The two companies had already struck a deal with BAE in January, which saw BAE purchasing Collins Aerospace’s military GPS business from UTC for $1.9 billion and Raytheon’s airborne tactical radio business for $275 million.
A special CBC report aired in Canada early 2000’s also reveals Raytheon is behind the “Mother HAARP” in Alaska.
A kind of FAQ:
SO WHAT IS THIS THING IN ROMANIA?
Officially, it’s a radar for monitoring the territorial waters in the Black Sea.
Comparing its description with the presentations on the HAARP official website, what I see is a pocket HAARP.
The main relevant difference I found is that HAARP has to use the word “transmitter” while Raytheon can avoid it because that’s not the on-label purpose.
A physics professor who’s just saw that Raytheon page told me in a recent private chat: If HAARP was a firetruck, this is like a car fire extinguisher. They use similar physics to accomplish similar goals, to different scales.
Can this thing use the ionosphere to focus energy in a specific location like HAARP does? Theoretically yes, de facto we can’t know as of now. These capabilities can even be hidden to the rightful owner and third parties can have access to them through backdoors, same way the Pegasus spyware that hands control over your phone to anyone who can afford to buy it. So the Romanian Army can use it in good will to surveil its territory and, same time, the DoD could use it to send an energy impulse somewhere else.
CAN THIS THING REALLY BE BLAMED FOR EARTHQUAKES
I personally have found NO evidence that causally connects this installation and an earthquake, that is NOT my thesis here.
My stance is that this thing COULD, theoretically, achieve that, we are in a territory of agnosticism on this topic and, if we are impartial, we need to be open to either possibilities and collect more information on both.
From this position, this is my analysis:
Someone argued that all HAARP-like installation known on Earth, about a dozen, summed up, can’t generate enough energy to kickstart an earthquake.
To which, a Romanian Army general responded on some Romanian cable news TV: “they don’t need to. “
Simplifying what he and other experts said publicly, in Romania and beyond, they only need to be the straw the breaks the camel’s back. And that’s something even a tiny installation like the Corbu one can over-achieve if enough seismic tension accumulates in Earth’s crust somewhere close enough. Even more so if you overlap two of them…
So what I’m saying is:
“Suspicious” is the reasonable default position about any earthquake in this day and age, regardless of what “de-radicalizers” say. Just collect enough evidence before any conclusion.
This question has been scientifically settled long ago, as you will see further below.
I have another one that no one dares to touch:
CAN THE ROMANIAN HAARP SET A RUSSIAN WARSHIP ON FIRE?
No quotable sources I know dared to answer.
WHERE IS THE SECOND POCKET-HAARP?
No one knows, as of now. No one even knew there were two, besides the parts that signed the contract and probably 10 more people who paid attention to the press release and forgot about it the next minute.
We explored the possibility that both of them have been deployed in the same location, as we have two rows x 20 antennas each.
First of all, it’s unusual because senseless to overlap radars, the whole point of radars being to surveil as much territory as possible. Even more so in this case, where one installation can cover the whole Romanian shore and beyond. Placing two radars in the same location doubles the power over the same area. The power to what, these are radars, officially at least…?
On the other hand, these are “beyond the horizon” radars, specifically useful for surveilling large surfaces of water, there are no other seas or oceans Romania has an opening to. Surely they can be used on land too, but Romania is about 2/3 mountains and hills, from a military standpoint, other types of radars were more needed to secure borders and this acquisition makes half-sense as announced.
So, if they deployed both of them in Corbu, that only makes things more illogical and suspicious.
HOW DOES ROMANIA NEED TWO IF ONE DOES THE JOB?? SOURCE
But we don’t know yet either way, this investigation is ongoing.
As an experienced former insider in Romanian politics, I advise investigating an alternative question:
HAS THE SECOND RADAR EVER BEEN DELIVERED?
I know some precedents there…
LAST MINUTE: CORPORATE SHILLS BLAME CORPORATE FRACKING FOR THE ROMANIAN EARTHQUAKES
A series of surprising voices raised to blame some natural gas exploitations nearby for about 1000 earthquakes in Gorj, Romania. “They’re fracking there, this caused the earthquakes”, activists claimed. Some MEP even started a social media campaign on this.
I almost bought that, but a red light kept blinking in the back of my head, as these voices came mostly from the NPC area of the Romanian society and media, the ones that usually line behind corporatist agendas, not against them. If they turned their weapons, much higher stakes are played.
It didn’t take long until the incriminated company responded with a press release simply stating they are not using any form of fracking there.
And I am open to believe they’re not bullshitting us this time because it’s something easily verifiable and I know they know it’s hard to get away with such a lie even in Romania. However, hard is not impossible.
I will update this if time proves me wrong. Until then, at least officially, it wasn’t fracking.
If I am correct, I am also correct when I say some people were sent out there to put out the fire on the topic of geophysical weapons.
PLOT TWIST: The event is used by authorities to expropriate people who live in “endangered edifices”.
I’m sitting on a mountain of sources and resources supporting the statements above and more, here are just some of them, more to come as I process them, always good to revisit our reports for updates:
The HAARP project and non-lethal weapons. Experts alarmed – public debate needed.
The hearing on the HAARP project and non-lethal weapons was held in connection with a European Parliament own-initiative report, to be drawn up by Maj Britt THEORIN (PES, S), on the possible use of military resources in environmental strategies.
Non-lethal (or non-deadly) weapons – a varied scenario As Peter TRUSCOTT (PES, UK) said in his introduction, “There is an invisible line between what is acceptable and what is suspect”. This is the nub of the issue.
Non-lethal weapons constitute a trend in military thinking which has developed since the end of the Cold War. The world is dealing with a different sort of crisis, which is less easily identifiable and less easy to manage with traditional methods and weapons – hence the desire to master the violence by means other than the same violence. Non- lethal weapons are compared by some authors to “straitjackets” and defined as “any action capable of modifying the behaviour of the adversary while avoiding his annihilation”. This appears to be a significant element of crisis prevention but can be – and is – also used in civilian situations (e.g. crowd control).
Mr Luc MAMPAEY, a researcher at GRIP, the Brussels-based European institute for research and information into peace and security, said he believed the expression “non-lethal weapons” was semantically contentious. He argued that the term had reassuring connotations. It was the politically correct term, and one which could delude the public into thinking that nowadays a clean war was possible and hence morally acceptable. In fact, as he himself and the Red Cross representative, Mr Robin COUPLAND (Geneva), pointed out, the dividing line between deadly and non-deadly weapons was not clear. Some weapons might result in death, while others could incapacitate their victims permanently or temporarily. Mr COUPLAND was quite categorical: the term “non-deadly”, he said, was ultimately a marketing slogan.
The problem of definition “by default” led all the experts to stress that there was no single type of non-lethal weapon and that a careful distinction must be made between the various types, from the simplest to the most sophisticated. These new weapons covered a broad spectrum of technologies, from optical systems with a dazzling or blinding effect, through sound and electro- magnetic waves, chemical, medicinal, adhesive, slippery, super-caustic and acidic substances, biological agents, bacteria and micro-organisms, to rubber bullets and electric-shock batons.
Dangers to health and the environment
The effects on health and the environment were also described as variable. Any weapon designed to disrupt an organism, as well as weapons capable of affecting an organism indirectly, by chemical or biological means, or optical, acoustic or neurological stimuli, could become fatal under certain conditions. Adhesive foam, it was said, could also have extremely dangerous side- effects.
Only if a precisely calculated dose were perfectly delivered could it be guaranteed that sensory (or xenobiotic) stimuli would not have irreversible, or indeed, fatal effects. In practice, this perfect control over the degree of disruption was the first thing likely to go by the board under extreme conditions, where the desire for a swift and decisive solution would rapidly override considerations of ethics or toxicology.
The risk of abuse in democratic societies
However, it was argued, health and environmental issues were not the only concerns raised by the use of non-lethal weapons. Mr COUPLAND expressed concern about an overlap of civil, police and military applications. He was also afraid that these weapons might be used not to replace conventional weapons but in addition to them.
In Mr MAMPAEY’s view, as non-lethal weapons developed, links were bound to be created between military and law-and-order operations, which, he said, would enable certain current conventions to be bypassed. There was a danger of growing militarisation of domestic police forces, which would have access to more sophisticated weaponry. This could raise problems in any state which was supposed to be based on the rule of law and to be mindful of human rights and individual freedoms.
The HAARP project
Tom SPENCER (EPP, UK), chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said that the United States had been invited to state its viewpoint on this matter to the hearing. Although the US had declined an initial invitation, Mr SPENCER reiterated his offer, saying that the Americans could send a representative to address the committee in future if they wished.
Ms Rosalie BERTELL, from Toronto (Canada), is one of the best-informed experts about HAARP (the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme), a programme which has been developed by the US military.
She described the background to HAARP. The ionosphere is a high-altitude layer of the atmosphere with particles which are highly charged with energy. If radiation is projected into the ionosphere, huge amounts of energy can be generated and used to annihilate a given region.
The HAARP project involves the manipulation of the earth’s ionosphere, whose natural role is to moderate energy transfer from the sun to the earth and is used as a missile trajectory and as a reflector for radio communication. The aim of HAARP is to control and manipulate the ionosphere so as to enable the manipulator to wipe out communications at will on a global scale, or to make them resilient in the event of a nuclear war.
It also enables communications to take place with submerged submarines and can, in theory, create geomagnetic pathways to guide particle beams which could then deposit large amounts of energy anywhere on the globe. In simpler terms, HAARP, with its power of intimidation, of delivery or denial of electrical energy on a global scale and its control of communications, is an element of a system which could control the global village in some frightening ways.
According to Dr Nick BEGICH, an expert from Alaska and author of one of the leading publications on the subject*, the HAARP programme would allow such concentrations of energy to be attained that an entire region of the planet could be deprived of water. Electromagnetic waves can cause earthquakes or tidal waves. Mr SPENCER pointed out that, under international conventions, any actions leading to climate change were prohibited.
Mr BEGICH said that in his eyes the project was purely and simply “Star Wars technology”. Moreover, it was a secret project, as the US Congress had refused to finance Star Wars. The USA, he claimed, had allocated 91 million dollars to the main programme, to which must be added the related programmes. Over the last 50 years, he said, certain levels of security had been developed which were protected from public scrutiny. State secrets were acceptable in themselves but if they involved such major repercussions for human beings and the environment they must be made public. In his view, the international community should be allowed to evaluate the risks of the HAARP programme.
Eurico DE MELO (EPP, P) said he regarded the revelations as terrifying and said that there was a need for a campaign to inform the public about it.
Winding up, Magda AELVOET (Green, B) told the hearing that there was a saying: “War is too important to be left to the generals”. She feared we had forgotten this truth.
Further information: Etienne BASSOT – tel. 284 47 41
Interestingly, the above report references this book:
* Angels Don’t Play This Haarp, Advances in tesla technology, Earthpulse Press, USA, 1995
The foreign affairs committee of the European Parliament has criticised plans by the US military to beam high-frequency signals into the atmosphere. The committee is worried about the effect of the high- frequency active auroral research programme (HAARP) on the environment.
HAARP is a facility to study upper atmospheric and solar terrestrial physics. The programme is paid for by the US Air Force and Navy and has already cost hundreds of million dollars. Opponents of the project believe that the defence department is studying ways of improving communications with the US submarine fleet. The array acts like a powerful radar and transmits high frequency 3600 kW signals into the ionosphere.
Starting 35 miles above the Earth’s surface, the ionosphere contains charged particles which distort and deflect radio signals. These particles are produced by the interaction of solar radiation with the atmosphere. HAARP can pump energy some 70 miles into the ionosphere diameter. Military applications for such phenomena are many – devising radar systems, disrupting communications, and improving US logistics.
When the foreign affairs committee invited North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the US permanent representative to NATO to discuss the HAARP project at a public meeting two weeks ago, both groups refused. The secretary general of NATO said that the organisation had neither a policy on this topic, nor an expert they could send to the committee. Tom Spencer, chairman of the committee chairman, vowed to take the matter further, possibly to the US Congress.
Not all researchers believe that opposition to HAARP is justified. Peter Cargill, a space physicist at Imperial College in London, believes that the physics is interesting in its own right, and points out that there are several other facilities carrying out this type of research. “HAARP is just bigger than the other programmes around the world, ” he says. “However, the military don’t spend that kind of money for pure science.”
Report on the environment, security and foreign policy Draftsman: Mr Olsson, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection (Hughes procedure)
14 January 1999
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy Rapporteur: Mrs Maj Britt Theorin
At the request of the Conference of Committee Chairmen, the President, at the sitting of 15 November 1996, announced that the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy had been authorised to submit a report on the matter.
At its meeting of 19 November 1996 the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy appointed Mrs Maj Britt Theorin rapporteur.
At the sitting of 19 June 1998 the President of Parliament announced that this report would be drawn up, pursuant to the Hughes Procedure, by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection.
The draft report was considered by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy at its meetings of 5 February, 29 June, 21 July, 3, 23 and 28 September, 13, 27 and 29 October 1998 and 4 and 5 January 1999, and by the Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament at its meetings of 5 February and 3 and 23 September 1998.
At the last meeting the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy adopted the motion for a resolution by 28 votes to none with one abstention.
The following took part in the vote: Spencer, chairman; Theorin, rapporteur; Aelvoet, AndréLéonard, Barón-Crespo, Bertens, Bianco, Burenstam Linder, Carnero González, Carrozzo (for Colajanni), Dillen, Dupuis, Gahrton, Goerens (for Cars), Graziani, Günther (for Gomolka), Lalumière, Lambrias, Pack (for Habsburg), Pettinari (for Imbeni pursuant to Rule 138(2), Piha, Rinsche, Sakellariou, Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Schroedter (for M. Cohn-Bendit), Schwaiger (for Mme Lenz), Speciale, Swoboda (for Mme Hoff), Tindemans, Titley and Truscott.
The opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection is attached.
The report was tabled on 14 January 1999.
The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant partsession.
A MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
Resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy
….
“…whereas, despite the existing conventions, military research is ongoing on environmental manipulation as a weapon, as demonstrated for example by the Alaska-based HAARP system”
Legal aspects of military activities
26. Calls on the European Union to seek to have the new ‘non-lethal’ weapons technology and the development of new arms strategies also covered and regulated by international conventions;
27. Considers HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) by virtue of its farreaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing; regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks connected with the high Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) programme currently being funded in Alaska;
28. Requests the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Panel to agree to examine the scientific and technical evidence provided in all existing research findings on HAARP to assess the exact nature and degree of risk that HAARP poses both to the local and global environment and to public health generally;
29. Calls on the Commission, in collaboration with the governments of Sweden, Finland, Norway and the Russian Federation, to examine the environmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme for Arctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its findings;
30. Calls in particular for an international convention for a global ban on all research and development, whether military or civilian, which seeks to apply knowledge of the chemical, electrical, sound vibration or other functioning of the human brain to the development of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings, including a ban on any actual or possible deployment of such systems;
31. Calls on the European Union and its Member States to work for the establishment of international treaties to protect the environment from unnecessary destruction in the event of war;
32. Calls on the European Union and its Member States to work towards the establishment of international standards for the environmental impact of peacetime military activities;
…
HAARP – a weapons system which disrupts the climate
On 5 February 1998 Parliament’s Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament held a hearing the subject of which included HAARP. NATO and the US had been invited to send representatives, but chose not to do so. The Committee regrets the failure of the USA to send a representative to answer questions, or to use the opportunity to comment on the material submitted.[21]
HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) is run jointly by the US Air Force and Navy, in conjunction with the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Similar experiments are also being conducted in Norway, probably in the Antarctic, as well as in the former Soviet Union.[22] HAARP is a research project using a ground based apparatus, an array of antennae each powered by its own transmitter, to heat up portions of ionosphere with powerful radio beams.[23] The energy generated heats up parts of the ionosphere; this results in holes in the ionosphere and produces artificial ‘lenses’.
HAARP can be used for many purposes. Enormous quantities of energy can be controlled by manipulating the electrical characteristics of the atmosphere. If used as a military weapon this can have a devastating impact on an enemy. HAARP can deliver millions of times more energy to a given area than any other conventional transmitter. The energy can also be aimed at a moving target which should constitute a potential anti-missile system.
The project would also allow better communications with submarines and manipulation of global weather patterns, but it is also possible to do the reverse, to disrupt communications. By manipulating the ionosphere one could block global communications while transmitting one’s own. Another application is earth-penetrating, tomography, x-raying the earth several kilometres deep, to detect oil and gas fields, or underground military facilities. Over-the-horizon radar is another application, looking round the curvature of the earth for in-coming objects.
From the 1950s the USA conducted explosions of nuclear material in the Van Allen Belts[24] to investigate the effect of the electro-magnetic pulse generated by nuclear weapon explosions at these heights on radio communications and the operation of radar. This created new magnetic radiation belts which covered nearly the whole earth. The electrons travelled along magnetic lines of force and created an artificial Aurora Borealis above the North Pole. These military tests are liable to disrupt the Van Allen belt for a long period. The earth’s magnetic field could be disrupted over large areas, which would obstruct radio communications. According to US scientists it could take hundreds of years for the Van Allen belt to return to normal. HAARP could result in changes in weather patterns. It could also influence whole ecosystems, especially in the sensitive Antarctic regions.
Another damaging consequence of HAARP is the occurrence of holes in the ionosphere caused by the powerful radio beams. The ionosphere protects us from incoming cosmic radiation. The hope is that the holes will fill again, but our experience of change in the ozone layer points in the other direction. This means substantial holes in the ionosphere that protects us.
With its far-reaching impact on the environment HAARP is a matter of global concern and we have to ask whether its advantages really outweigh the risks. The environmental impact and the ethical aspect must be closely examined before any further research and testing takes place. HAARP is a project of which the public is almost completely unaware, and this needs to be remedied.
HAARP has links with 50 years of intensive space research for military purposes, including the Star Wars project, to control the upper atmosphere and communications. This kind of research has to be regarded as a serious threat to the environment, with an incalculable impact on human life. Even now nobody knows what impact HAARP may have. We have to beat down the wall of secrecy around military research, and set up the right to openness and democratic scrutiny of military research projects, and parliamentary control.
A series of international treaties and conventions (the Convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, the Antarctic Treaty, the Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space including the moon and other celestial bodies, and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) casts considerable doubt on HAARP on legal as well as humanitarian and political grounds. The Antarctic Treaty lays down that the Antarctic may be used exclusively for peaceful purposes.[25] This would mean that HAARP is a breach of international law. All the implications of the new weapons systems should be examined by independent international bodies. Further international agreements should be sought to protect the environment from unnecessary destruction in war.
Climate change – an integral part of US ‘Star Wars’ programme
by Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa, November 2000. (Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and author of The Globalization of Poverty (second edition, Common Courage Press, 2000).
While world attention and concern have been focussed on the need to prevent climate change by the control of carbon emissions, the dangers of ‘weather warfare’ have been ignored. Michel Chossudovsky draws attention to a US drive to perfect technology under its ‘Star Wars’ programme which will have the capacity to trigger climate change.
THE important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides but a partial picture of climate change; in addition to the devastating impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, the world’s climate can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated ‘non-lethal weapons.’ Both the Americans and the Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the world’s climate.
In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP) as part of the (‘Star Wars’) Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability to potentially trigger floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.
While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been used, surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of ‘environmental warfare’ alongside the debate on the climatic impacts of greenhouse gases…
Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use has never been explicitly part of the UN agenda on climate change. Neither the official delegations nor the environmental action groups participating in the Hague Conference on Climate Change (COP6) (November 2000) have raised the broad issue of ‘weather warfare’ or ‘environmental modification techniques’ (ENMOD) as relevant to an understanding of climate change.
The clash between official negotiators, environmentalists and American business lobbies has centred on Washington’s outright refusal to abide by commitments on carbon dioxide reduction targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.1 The impacts of military technologies on the world’s climate are not an object of discussion or concern. Narrowly confined to greenhouse gases, the ongoing debate on climate change serves Washington’s strategic and defence objectives.
‘Weather warfare’
World-renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that ‘US military scientists … are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapour rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods.’2 Already in the 1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his book Between Two Ages that:
‘Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised… [T]echniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm. ‘
Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several types of ‘unconventional weapons’ using radio frequencies. He refers to ‘weather war,’ indicating that the US and the Soviet Union had already ‘mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s.’3 These technologies make it ‘possible to trigger atmospheric disturbances by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves].’4
A simulation study of future defence ‘scenarios’ commissioned for the US Air Force calls for:
‘US aerospace forces to ‘own the weather’ by capitalising on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications… From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather modification offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary… In the United States, weather modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels’.5
The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP)
The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP) based in Gokoma, Alaska – jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy – is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the SDI. Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating ‘controlled local modifications of the ionosphere’. Scientist Dr. Nicholas Begich – actively involved in the public campaign against HAARP – describes HAARP as:
‘A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere [upper layer of the atmosphere] by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything – living and dead.’6
Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as ‘a gigantic heater that can cause major disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet.’ 7
Misleading public opinion
HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a programme of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP’s main objective is to ‘exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defence purposes.’8 Without explicitly referring to HAARP, a US Air Force study points to the use of ‘induced ionospheric modifications’ as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar.9
According to Bertell, HAARP is part of an integrated weapons system which has potentially devastating environmental consequences:
‘It is related to 50 years of intensive and increasingly destructive programmes to understand and control the upper atmosphere. It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States. HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature. The military implications of combining these projects [are] alarming. … The ability of the HAARP/Spacelab/rocket combination to deliver very large amount[s] of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, [is] frightening. The project is likely to be ‘sold’ to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons, or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone layer.’10
In addition to weather manipulation, HAARP has a number of related uses:
‘HAARP could contribute to climate change by intensively bombarding the atmosphere with high-frequency rays… Returning low-frequency waves at high intensity could also affect people’s brains, and effects on tectonic movements cannot be ruled out.11
More generally, HAARP has the ability to modify the world’s electromagnetic field. It is part of an arsenal of ‘electronic weapons’ which US military researchers consider a ‘gentler and kinder warfare’.12
Weapons of the New World Order
HAARP is part of the weapons arsenal of the New World Order under the SDI. From military command points in the US, entire national economies could potentially be destabilised through climatic manipulations. More importantly, the latter can be implemented without the knowledge of the enemy, at minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a conventional war.
The use of HAARP – if it were to be applied – could have potentially devastating impacts on the world’s climate. Responding to US economic and strategic interests, it could be used to selectively modify climate in different parts of the world, resulting in the destabilisation of agricultural and ecological systems.
It is also worth noting that the US Department of Defence has allocated substantial resources to the development of intelligence and monitoring systems on weather changes. The US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defence’s National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) are working on ‘imagery for studies of flooding, erosion, land-slide hazards, earthquakes, ecological zones, weather forecasts, and climate change’ with data relayed from satellites.13
Policy inertia of the United Nations
According to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:
‘States have… in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the (…) responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.’14
It is also worth recalling that an international convention which entered into force in 1978 bans ‘military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.’15 Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. The Convention defines ‘environmental modification techniques’ as referring to ‘any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.’16
Why then did the UN – disregarding the ENMOD Convention as well as its own charter – decide to exclude from its agenda climatic changes resulting from military programmes?
European Parliament acknowledges impacts of HAARP
In February 1998, responding to a report of Mrs. Maj Britt Theorin – Swedish MEP (Member of the European Parliament) and longtime peace advocate – the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy held public hearings in Brussels on HAARP.17 The Committee’s ‘Motion for Resolution’ submitted to the European Parliament:
‘Considers HAARP… by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body…; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration… to give evidence to the public hearing …into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP programme.’18
The Committee’s request to draw up a ‘Green Paper’ on ‘the environmental impacts of military activities’, however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacks the required jurisdiction to delve into ‘the links between environment and defense’.19 Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington.
Fully operational
While there is no concrete evidence of HAARP having been used, scientific findings suggest that it is at present fully operational. What this means is that HAARP could potentially be applied by the US military to selectively modify the climate of an ‘unfriendly nation’ or ‘rogue state’ with a view to destabilising its national economy.
Agricultural systems in both developed and developing countries are already in crisis as a result of New World Order policies including market deregulation, commodity dumping, etc. Amply documented, IMF and World Bank ‘economic medicine’ imposed on the Third World and the countries of the former Soviet bloc has largely contributed to the destabilisation of domestic agriculture. In turn, the provisions of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have supported the interests of a handful of Western agri-biotech conglomerates in their quest to impose genetically modified seeds on farmers throughout the world.
It is important to understand the linkage between the economic, strategic and military processes of the New World Order. In the above context, climatic manipulations under HAARP (whether accidental or deliberate) would inevitably exacerbate these changes by weakening national economies, destroying infrastructure and potentially triggering the bankruptcy of farmers over vast areas. Surely national governments and the United Nations should address the possible consequences of HAARP and other ‘non-lethal weapons’ on climate change.
Notes
1. The latter calls for nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2% to become effective between 2008 and 2012. See Background of Kyoto Protocol at http://www.globalwarming.net/gw11.html.
12. Don Herskovitz, ‘Killing Them Softly’, Journal of Electronic Defense, August 1993. According to Herskovitz, ‘electronic warfare’ is defined by the US Department of Defence as ‘military action involving the use of electromagnetic energy…’ The Journal of Electronic Defense at http://www.jedefense.com/ has published a range of articles on the application of electronic and electromagnetic military technologies.
A leading American climate scientist has said he felt “scared” when a shadowy organisation claiming to represent the CIA asked him about the possibility of weaponised weather.
Professor Alan Robock received a call three years ago from two men wanting to know if experts would be able to spot a hostile force’s attempts to upset the US climate.
But he suspected the real intention was to find out how feasible it might be to secretly interfere with the climate of another country.
…
A further twist in Prof Robock’s story concerns the CIA’s alleged co-funding of a major report on geoengineering published this week by the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences.
The report mentions the “US intelligence community” in its list of sponsors, which also includes the American space agency Nasa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the US Department of Energy.
Prof Robock said the CIA had told one of his colleagues it wanted to fund the report, but apparently did not want this fact to be too obvious.
“The CIA is a major funder of the National Academies report so that makes me really worried who is going to be in control,” he added.
He pointed out that the US had a history of using the weather in a hostile way. During the Vietnam War clouds were seeded over the Ho Chi Minh trail – a footpath-based supply route used by the North Vietnamese – to make the track muddy in an attempt to cut it off.
The CIA had also seeded clouds over Cuba “to make it rain and ruin the sugar harvest”.
During a press conference on the potential risks of geoengineering, Prof Robock was asked what its greatest hazard might be.
He replied: “The answer is global nuclear war because if one country wants to control the climate in one way, and another doesn’t want it or if they try to shoot down the planes … if there is no agreement, it could result in terrible consequences.”
On the first day of 2015, a strange thing happened: a surface earthquake in Vrancea, at a depth of 31 kilometers, followed by aftershocks, also surface, in Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. We mention that the Vrancea seismic zone is a deep one, where natural tectonic movements occur below 50 kilometers. In parentheses, it must be said that the surface earthquake can produce greater destruction than the deep one, but zonally, on a much smaller area.
Eventually, another 18 earthquakes followed in 14 days. Among them, on Monday, a surface earthquake of 4.1 degrees Richter was registered in Vrancea. Kind of strong… Provoked tectonic movements? According to the Ieşe weekly “7 est”, the physicist Constantin Antohi, associate professor at the Faculty of Hydrotechnical Cadastre and Environmental Engineering, within the Gheorghe Asachi Technical University, believes that these atypical earthquakes for the Vrancea area are not the result of natural tectonic activity, but are caused by the use of HAARP-like technology by the Russians, for military purposes. The earthquake interrupted the phone land-lines. “I felt one of the earthquakes and immediately wanted to call my wife. When I called… nothing! The phone was dead! Usually, when the networks are busy, you are told that the subscriber cannot be reached or something like that. Nothing appeared on my phone and I didn’t even hear a message”, declared Constantin Antohi. This oddity made the professor think, who came up with the idea that electromagnetic induction might have taken place.
“I also talked with my colleagues and I realized that an electromagnetic field was produced. I immediately thought of the HAARP phenomenon, based on the inventions of Nikola Tesla (no. – physicist and inventor). Some states have this technology, of emitting microwaves into the ionosphere, and from there, they are reflected to certain points on Earth, to create earthquakes. I think someone from the East is causing earthquakes in the Vrancea area. I think that someone doesn’t want us in NATO!”, said Professor Antohi. In support of his theory, Antohi says that this “HAARP phenomenon” can also cause climate change, something that has also happened here recently. The past few days, for example, our country oscillated within a few hours from temperatures of -15 degrees to plus 10 degrees. Practically, there are temperature jumps of over 20 degrees in just 24 hours. And these changes are too frequent, in the sense that after two or three very cold days, below the annual average, two or three warm days follow, above the annual average.
The HAARP phenomenon also changes the climate
“The HAARP phenomenon can produce these oscillations! At some point, an interruption of the circuit of long-wave atmospheric currents, which propagates rapidly from east to west, may occur. Interrupting, a depression is created, which attracts the current of warm air, from the Sahara”, states the physicist.
Many earthquakes with a large magnitude in 2014
According to a statistic of the National Institute for Earth Physics, in Romania, in the area of Vrancea, since 2009, more and more earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 4.5 have occurred. In 2009, three such earthquakes occurred, the largest being the one on April 25, with a magnitude of 5.4. In 2010, there were only two stronger ones, in 2011 there were also two larger ones, in 2012, one, so that in 2013, there were three, the largest having a magnitude of 5.3. As for last year, there were no less than eight earthquakes with a magnitude of over 4.5, the largest being the one on November 21, which had a magnitude of 5.6. In 2015, no less than five earthquakes have already occurred, three of which were 4.3 degrees.
HAARP (Active Auroral High Frequency Research Program) started in 1992 at the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. It is a scientific project created to determine the behavior of ozone, nitrogen and ions during the bombardment of solar and cosmic radiation, as well as the emission of high or low frequency radiation from the Earth. The project holder is the Department of Defense of the United States, through the US Navy and the US Air Force.
The similar European project, called EISCAT, an acronym for the European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association, is located in Norway and Sweden, the participating countries being Great Britain, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, China and Japan.
Russia has developed its own ionospheric research base at Vas i l surk, called SURA.
“Geophysical warfare is that type of conflict that uses environmental modification techniques for military purposes. From a geoclimatic point of view, snow, rain, fog, tornadoes, typhoons, cyclones, hurricanes, drought are created on demand, and from a geophysical point of view, earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, directing asteroids and meteorites, all knowingly done against a potential enemy. This type of war, never declared, started in the 50s.
The most perfected systems in this category are the SURA System from the Russian Federation and HAARP from the USA”, says General Emil Străinu, the only Romanian who has a doctorate in the field of geophysical warfare .
Does Romania also have a geophysical weapon?
Romania also has a strange set of military antennas, which do not resemble anything that the Romanian army has used so far – but rather the HAARP network. It is a system consisting of approximately 40 antennas arranged in two rows. Several military containers are placed nearby – that is, the installation’s command center.
Not a single military specialist could specify what the array of antennas could be.
Moscow attacked Romania with a geophysical weapon before in 2005. At the end of June 2006, the Public Administration Committee of the Senate decided to establish a subcommittee to analyze the reasons for the catastrophic floods in the north of Moldova in 2005, which killed 38 people and devastated 476 localities. At the time, it was suspected that the Russians would have used geophysical weapons to cause torrential rains in Romania. The results of the investigation have remained secret, but simply raising the issue at this level suggests that the situation in the field of geophysical weapons is quite serious. Such technologies are used today in space espionage and in the testing, from a military point of view, of “space, to check the vulnerability of the enemy’s environment from the point of view of the operational response capacity in crisis situations.
Following the conflict in eastern Ukraine, these meteorological anomalies have increased due to the use of geophysical weapons in the confrontation between Russia and NATO forces. Romania, due to its geographical position, is a buffer zone and an experiment zone for such confrontations”, military analyst Silviu Crăescu (photo), president of the National Security Academy, told us.
Scandal in Haiti In 2010, political scientist Claudia von Werlhof of the University of Innsbruk, Austria, advanced the thesis that the 7.3-magnitude earthquake in Haiti in January 2010, following in which 230,000 people lost their lives, and another 300,000 were injured, would have been caused artificially, through the HAARP installation. Her statements created a huge international scandal, and the management of the university accused Werlhof of speaking inappropriately and harming the institution. – Libertatea, 2015
The development of devastating geophysical weapons as part of the United States’ Full Spectrum Dominance strategy is causing serious concern around the world. By Baffour Ankomah
The US military’s High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP), based at Gakona, Alaska, is the latest electromagnetic, geophysical warfare programme to raise concerns locally and internationally. So much is the concern that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) once interrupted its news programme to run a 15-minute documentary, titled Geophysical Warfare, to alert its viewers.
HAARP’s origins go back to Nikola Tesla, the Serbian-American cult hero whose inventions have influenced so many of the technologies we use today. Tesla theorised about a “Tesla Shield” of electromagnetic weapons which, he said, would protect the Earth from missiles. He also talked about the possibility of electronic particles being turned into a weapon using a beam. In the 1920s and 30s, this idea became known as the ‘Death Ray’.
Tesla’s ideas greatly influenced Dr Bernard Eastlund, an American physicist, who finally registered a patent for an invention that could be used to change the weather, disrupt communications all over the world, and might be used to deflect a missile attack. The biggest attraction of Dr Eastlund’s idea was the ability to blast enemy ballistic missiles from the air.
Eastlund himself was interviewed by the History Channel for its documentary, and he explained that his original plan involved the building of a huge antennae, “big enough and powerful enough to make major modifications to the ionosphere. This was at the height of the Cold War. My focus was on the defence against a major Russian missile occurrence. The plan was to make a shield over Canada, over the United States, over the whole world, which a missile could not penetrate.”
Sky zapper
Eastlund told the CBC: “The basic concept was to build a very large antennae, then to utilise a large amount of power to beam those radio waves up into the upper atmosphere.” Asked if he had approached the US Pentagon with his invention, Eastlund said, “yes, but what I am not able to tell you is the details of what they are going to do.”
The CBC said an American delegate, identified only as Mr X, called the journalist who broke the original story and said: “the maniacs are actually going to do it, up in Alaska”. The maniacs were in the Pentagon and he was convinced that they were conspiring to build Bernard Eastlund’s sky zapper under the guise of a nice research project deep in the Alaskan bush called HAARP.”
Soon word spread in the Alaskan cold recesses and a band of suspicious Alaskans set out to warn people of what they saw as the US military’s secret agenda.
Eventually, HAARP was designed and built by BAE Advanced Technologies, the company Dr Eastlund used to work for. Official construction started in 1993, and the first functional facility was completed by the winter of 1994.
The project was jointly funded by the US Air Force, US Navy, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the University of Alaska Fairbanks, but run by the US military between 1999 and 2014.
According to the US military, the project is “aimed at studying the properties and behaviour of the ionosphere, with particular emphasis on being able to understand and use it to enhance communications and surveillance systems for both civilian and defence purposes.
But if you believe this, you will also believe that pigs can fly. Judging from the urge to amass electromagnetic/geophysical weapons even before World War II, the benefit of the doubt should be given to Jim Roderick, an American anti-HAARP activist, who says: “The military is incapable of doing pure science. Science is conducted by them for application in weapon systems, for no other reasons.”
Though denied by HAARP officials, some respected researchers insist that HAARP was designed to achieve the US military’s stated goal of gaining full-spectrum dominance of the world from outer space by 2020.
The project was built based on the contents of a 600-page publication, titled Technical Memorandum 195, which the US military forbids its officials to publicly acknowledge.
The US military is not comfortable talking in public about Technical Memorandum 195 because it consists of notes from a secret conference on the breakdown of HAARP, where they were going to use the technology and how it was going to be applied.
In January 1999, the European Union described HAARP as a project of global concern and passed a resolution calling for more information on its health and environmental risks. Despite those concerns, officials at HAARP insist the project is nothing more sinister than a radio science research facility.
The EU resolution came with many bullet points. At bullet point 24, the EU “considers HAARP by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing.” But the US ignored the EU resolution.
Rather HAARP officials claim that “the radio waves in the frequency ranges that HAARP transmits are not absorbed in either the troposphere or the stratosphere – the two levels of the atmosphere that produce the Earth’s weather. Since there is no interaction, there is no way to control the weather.”
The CBC discovered that the small company that owned Eastlund’s patents was later swallowed up by a large military intelligence front company called E-Systems, which in turn was swallowed up by another bigger corporation that specialises in super-secret contracts with the Pentagon.
In the end, by 2014, when more eyes and tongues became focussed on HAARP and the controversy over its impact on the world’s weather system grew, the US military turned HAARP over to the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in August 2015 to be run by the university. But nobody was fooled
The Los Alamos Laboratory which was the principal site of the Manhattan Project that built the atomic bomb was operated by the University of California during World War II. Project Seal that experimented with the tsunami bomb was operated by the University of Auckland. So transferring HAARP to the control of the University of Alaska Fairbanks changes nothing about its essential military nature. In fact the military is only behaving to type.
Idai – experiment gone wrong?
Why people are questioning if Cyclone Idai was caused by a HAARP event gone awry is because the cyclone nearly coincided with the latest HAARP research campaign on 25-28 March 2019. Far from being “conspiracy theorists”, these people are not saying Idai was a direct electromagnetic attack on Mozambique or Zimbabwe, but that Idai could have been an electromagnetic experiment gone wrong.
Since HAARP was transferred to the University of Alaska Fairbanks in 2015, five research campaigns have been conducted: (a) 19-23 February 2017, (b) 21-25 September 2017, (c) 6-14 April 2018, (d) 30 July-1 Aug 2018, and (e) 29 Nov-3 Dec 2018.
Idai’s landfall on the Mozambican coast on the night of 14 March was 11 days before HAARP’s next advertised research campaign began on 25-28 March. All things being equal, one can safely say this research campaign might have had nothing to do with Idai.
But, as we all know, all things are not always equal in this world, particularly judging from how the world has been run in the past, and continues to be run, by the puppet masters. Therefore the people who are asking the world to look at Idai beyond it being a mere natural disaster deserve to be heard, even if they are making fools of themselves.
As at now, no one can say with an absolute yes that Idai was caused by electromagnetic warfare, or an absolute no that it was not caused by electromagnetic warfare. Only time will tell. But looking at the sheer quantum of the destruction wrought by Idai and the fierceness of the cyclone in general, one is tempted to say nature would have been more merciful if it sired this cyclone from its massive loins.
._____________
So it looks like we have to re-evaluate many events and many of our own beliefs, doesn’t it?
Here’s more food for thought:
Yes, nature is seriously deregulated by human activity, but not as advertised on TV. And it’s not OUR activity, it’s THEIRS, as per usual.
Put this on your list of things to be suspicious about: EVERYTHING that comes out these reality-inverters that populate your screens, but not your communities.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Sorry it took so long, I was waiting to see who else does The Noticing. Everyone noticed the many absentees, the empty seats and the general nervous vibe at Davos 2023, reeking of desperation. I don’t know anyone who noticed something that seems way more striking to me (I’m sure there are more people, but they aren’t on my radar) . So:
Not one peep at Davos 2023 about the most recognizable brands emanated from ( as opposed to “recruited by”) the WEF!
Let me repeat that:
You haven’t heard one single mention of The Great Reset and Build Back Better at Davos 2023. (Some of you think BBB is Biden’s buzzword, but Schwab’s team came up with it, Trudeau, BoJo and even Modi uttered it many times before Biden ever heard of it.)
This is your brand on WEF. Whether personal or corporate.
Meanwhile, Davos 2023 hosted several panels about independent media and opposing influencers, plus countless more mentions in other discussions.
One Alex Jones video still gets more real and organic eyeballs than all Davos 2023 videos summed up.
This is your brand’s future with us.
How come?
You see, societal cancer obeys the same laws as body cancer:
#0 Cancer is suicidal by nature, success only nears it to self-extinction, while healthy organism define success as expansion their lifespan, not size. Size only matters when it helps expanding the lifespan and the quality of that life. Schwab spends half his resources on life-expanding technologies, and the other half on acting as a cancer. That’s self-cancelling.
#1 The most expansive cancer disappears first. One way or another.
#2 Least resilient cancer goes second, healing still takes longer than #0
#3 Most benign cancer can go around for decades, sometimes without even being detected.
This is why most of you faired well before hooking up with the WEF and you will soon disappear after the WEF. “Pufff!” you go like The Great Reset.
My bet is Davos 2024 won’t be anything like the others, if at all.
Now you can’t say no one did the thinking for you.
Heal yourselves, join the healthy resistance!
Pro tip: Start by considering if Schwab’s mechanicist view of the world isn’t a bit (read “a hell lot”) dumb and primitive. As in “the polar opposite of genius”.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
European Union was a weird hybrid concept car built around Germany as engine, with UK foras wheel, and I’m not sure what France is supposed to be, looks more like a glove compartment, but sometimes acts as brake.
But UK left and I bet my ass it’s because they had inside intel on the impeding Euro-crash, so they didn’t want to stick around and go down with EU or be blamed for it. Nowadays, many blame Brexit for UK’s record- low economic performance lately, but it has little to do, and wait just a bit to witness the remainer countries getting mushed into war mud until dissolution, followed by some demented Build Back Better / Marshall Plan. Yeah, some mega-corporations will turn mega-profits which will boost some GDPs a bit, on paper only, but the plebs won’t benefit any of that, they will only sponsor it with the quality and the span of their lives.
So after Brexit, Germany took the wheel too, and France still not sure what position they play, besides Rothschild residence and winery. Sometimes reminds of the storage in a family-owned SUV, other times looks like a special school bus…
But “Germany uber alles” is over since the first American boots hit German ground.
Ask yourselves…
When did the US occupation army leave Germany after WW2?
No clue? Then you are correct:
They’ve never left!
Note: when I say “US” you should read “The Anglosphere under the Judeo-British Crown”, US is just the flagship.
Under the table Germany has been rubbing legs with Russia for cheap energy, and over the table they’ve always been an American proxy, after WW2.
“Germans being Germans…”
UK played a similar game too when it was aboard.
Which puts US at the helms of EU.
That’s not the only thing that makes EU an American caliphate, just a main and sufficient argument.
It’s very safe to say America and Russia shared control over Europe through Germany (plus its backyard called Austria), and US got tired of the situation because it needs Europe all for themselves, to pillage it hard and drink its blood in order to rejuvenate a decrepit and inbred organism in decay.
When #Nordstream was sabotaged, many MEP's went into overdrive blaming Russia for blowing up it's own pipeline – Then they went silent. Would #EU + MEP's who say they care about International Law + #environment like to know the truth about this Act of Environmental Terrorism…? https://t.co/IuGeKzmY7b
Some analysts rightfully said US is not at war with Russia, but with the competing EU economy. I’d tune that a notch: US has started a blood transfusion from European veins. The wars are just how they explain it to plebs.
Europe is so diverse there can be no serious respectable talk of common European spirit, cultural identity, spirituality or anything, they barely sustain a common arena for political and mostly economic decisions.
So we’re dealing with a large economic structure lead by US and comprised of all its European acolytes and colonies. Reminds you of anything?
It reminds me of NATO. An economic NATO, Murican/British troops under various flags.
False flags everywhere.
Remember when Trump said Europe needs to pay its fair share to NATO? Extrapolate that to EU now. The payments are rolling.
Good meeting with German Foreign Minister @ABaerbock in Münster. I thanked her for Germany’s leadership as #G7 President and for hosting the first Futures Forum. Our continued cooperation is vital to address global challenges and Russia’s unprovoked war against Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/r7ZWi01uWt
Same way they’re slaughtering Ukrainians for American interests, they have no problem sacrificing EU citizens, and EU was engineered in the Anglo-Judeo-sphere exactly to facilitate that when needed.
WHAT AMERICA’S DARKEST NIGHTMARE LOOKS LIKE. Not because of the loss of lives it can cause, rather for the threat it poses to its hegemony. So mow it makes its own communazis to work with.
2015: The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and Stratfor founder and CEO George Friedman present a discussion on the emerging crisis in Europe. Europe has inherent flashpoints smoldering beneath the surface which are destined to erupt again, including half a dozen locations, borderlands, and cultural dynamics that have the potential to upend Europe as we know it, says Friedman. He identifies the flashpoints and discusses how can we prepare.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
We’ve all heard of existing cancer cures, whether you believe in them or not, you can’t rationally hope they will be made available to plebs for as long a Pharmafia exists.
Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: ‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’
Goldman Sachs analysts attempted to address a touchy subject for biotech companies, especially those involved in the pioneering “gene therapy” treatment: cures could be bad for business in the long run.
“Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” analysts ask in an April 10 report entitled “The Genome Revolution.”
“The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies,” analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. “While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.”
Richter cited Gilead Sciences’ treatments for hepatitis C, which achieved cure rates of more than 90 percent. The company’s U.S. sales for these hepatitis C treatments peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015, but have been falling ever since. Goldman estimates the U.S. sales for these treatments will be less than $4 billion this year, according to a table in the report.
“Gilead is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients,” the analyst wrote. “In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise.”
The analyst didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
The report suggested three potential solutions for biotech firms:
“Solution 1: Address large markets: Hemophilia is a $9-10bn WW market (hemophilia A, B), growing at ~6-7% annually.”
“Solution 2: Address disorders with high incidence: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) affects the cells (neurons) in the spinal cord, impacting the ability to walk, eat, or breathe.”
“Solution 3: Constant innovation and portfolio expansion: There are hundreds of inherited retinal diseases (genetics forms of blindness) … Pace of innovation will also play a role as future programs can offset the declining revenue trajectory of prior assets.”
So you don’t see anyone pushing for any cures.
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Biden’s moonshot examined: Researchers say cancer cure is a long ways off
The White House is pressing ahead, saying a combination of research on cures and prevention efforts will end the scourge.
Congress has appropriated $1.8 billion for the “cancer moonshot” President Joe Biden began in 2016, and the positive reaction to Biden’s request for more suggests it’s eager to maintain the momentum. | Evan Vucci/AP Photo
President Joe Biden’s pledge to “end cancer as we know it” is a rare sliver of common ground between Democrats and Republicans.
Congress has appropriated $1.8 billion for the “cancer moonshot” Biden began in 2016, and the positive reaction to Biden’s request for more during Tuesday’s State of the Union suggests it’s eager to maintain the momentum.
But cancer researchers are less unified about the moonshot than Washington policymakers. A contrarian cadre question whether the money appropriated is being well spent. Cancer research is funded well enough, they said, and investing more in high-tech individualized treatments is more likely to help the wealthy live longer than it is to save those most likely to die of the disease: the poor and people of color.
“It’s a lot harder than getting a man to the moon,” Gilbert Welch, an internist and senior investigator at the Center for Surgery and Public Health at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said of curing cancer. “It’s a very complex set of diseases. You need to think of it as a family of diseases. The moon is just one thing. Just gotta get there. This is hundreds of different things.”
Biden wants to press ahead on a bipartisan initiative. He has called on Congress to maintain funding for the 2016 law that launched the moonshot, the 21st Century Cures Act. He pledged to cut cancer death rates by 50 percent in the next 25 years and to turn fatal cancers into treatable diseases.
Biden also has asked Congress to reauthorize the National Cancer Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1971. Reauthorization would help the National Cancer Institute support researchers around the country by building clinical trial networks and more robust data systems, according to Danielle Carnival, the White House’s moonshot coordinator.
But some experts, such as Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and former White House adviser, said there’s plenty of money devoted to cancer research. The National Cancer Institute had a nearly $6.4 billion budget for cancer research in 2021 and its annual spend has been growing since 2015. Cancer non-profits like the American Cancer Institute also raise hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
President Joe Biden has asked Congress to reauthorize the National Cancer Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1971. | AP Photo
Additionally, the pharmaceutical industry is incentivized to put money behind increasingly lucrative cancer diagnostics and therapeutics. Research shows that from 2010 to 2019 revenue generated from cancer medicines increased 70 percent among the top 10 pharmaceutical companies to reach $95 billion.
And not everyone thinks more funding is a good thing. “There’s so much money sloshing around,” Welch said of the cancer industry, adding, “Both academic and biotech or industry are excessively enthusiastic and just trying to put out as many products as they can.”
We’ve overinvested in cancer, according to Welch, especially in expensive cancer drugs with modest or unproven benefit for patients and in screenings — Welch’s research area. He’s particularly opposed to the Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act, sponsored by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), which would require Medicare to cover cancer blood tests if they’re approved by the FDA. From Welch’s vantage point, benefits from screenings have been exaggerated, while its harms have been minimized.
Other critics, such as Keith Humphreys, a public health professor at Stanford University who has published academic articles on the link between alcohol use and cancer, see cancer prevention as a more immediate way to save lives.
Managing disease and curing it
The president’s agenda goes beyond money, Carnival told POLITICO, emphasizing prevention efforts, such as improving nutrition for kids, discouraging smoking, and decreasing environmental risks.
“We’re going to have to reach more people with the tools we already have and those we develop along the way,” Carnival said. “The purview is much broader than research. I don’t think anyone would say we have all of the research advancements and knowledge and treatments that we need today to end cancer as we know it.”
Those closely involved in developing cutting-edge cancer therapeutics said the field has shifted dramatically in recent years. It’s gone from treating cancer as a chronic disease, to trying to cure patients.
During his medical fellowship in the early 2000s, improving patient survival by months or years was the goal, explained Marco Davila, a physician-scientist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., who helped pioneer some of the first CAR-T cell therapies for patients with blood cancer.
Since then, treatment breakthroughs for some previously incurable cancer have upended the cancer-as-chronic-disease philosophy. Now, doctors and researchers believe cancer-curing therapies are within reach. “It’s changed the nature of how we manage patients. There’s that option there. It’s on the table,” Davila said.
For Davila, moonshot funds earmarked for cancer research and therapies created a new pool of money for his work. It doesn’t fix the problem of underfunded science as a whole, he said, but it makes his work as a cancer researcher a priority.
“It’s great for us, because that’s our field. It’s also great for patients, because cancer is still going to be one of the most common causes of people’s death in the United States,” Davila said. (In the U.S., it’s second behind heart disease, taking more than 600,000 lives in 2020, the most recent year for which there are statistics.)
Indeed, since the late 1980s, scientists have developed effective treatments for lung cancer, breast cancer and Hodgkin’s lymphoma. There are caveats, of course. They don’t work for all patients.
“It’s maybe 20 percent, 30 percent,” Davila said. The goal now is to keep improving those cure rates over time — to 50 percent or 60 percent, for example.
“Will it get to 100 percent in your lifetime? I don’t know,” he said.
What Davila does know is that each 10 percent cure-rate increase means saving tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of lives.
‘Prevention takes action’
But some cancer experts said there’s a downside to the shift toward precision medicine and individualized treatments. Attempting to test everyone or characterize every tumor more precisely is a bit of magical thinking, according to Welch.
“The more you subset people, the more difficult it is to know whether your treatments help. It’s too small of a group,” Welch said. “It used to be just lung cancer. Now we’ve got eight genetic variants we’re testing in adenocarcinomas of the lung,” he added.
“Ironically, the more precise we get, the more types of cancer there are, as we genetically signature each cancer, all of a sudden we don’t really know what to do with any one of them.”
Others think there needs to be a fundamental shift away from screening and treatment and toward preventing cancer in the first place.
“It’s terrific when we develop new treatments for cancer, but it certainly is always better to prevent something than to treat it,” said Humphreys, who served as a drug policy adviser under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
“Very high-end, complicated treatments are never going to be accessible to the whole population,” he added. “Congress could definitely do more.”
“We have very good evidence that when we raise the federal alcohol tax that fewer people die.”
Keith Humphreys, public health professor at Stanford University
Tobacco taxation is widely considered one of the most effective practices in preventing people from starting to smoke in the first place, leading existing smokers to quit, and reducing deaths from tobacco-related cancers. Humphreys said Congress could take the same taxation approach to the alcohol industry. “We have very good evidence that when we raise the federal alcohol tax that fewer people die,” he said.
While broad blood-based cancer screening may not be a cost-effective strategy for stopping cancer early, targeted cancer screening for colorectal, breast, cervical, prostate, and lung cancers could be. Rules could stoke participation or ensure that patients on Medicaid, who are more likely to be at risk of cancer, are getting regular screenings.
“It’s important to acknowledge that our biggest success in cancer really reflects prevention,” Welch said. “It’s nothing fancy. It’s discouraging cigarette smoking.”
There’s a lot of money already in the moonshot cancer system. It just needs to be redirected and allocated differently, said Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist and former White House adviser.
The White House touts prevention in its moonshot agenda. In 2022, the first year of the reignited moonshot, the FDA proposed rules to prohibit menthol cigarettes. Among other agenda items, the moonshot program plans to increase cancer screenings in at-risk communities and facilitate donations of sunscreen to schools and youth organizations.
But prevention is a trickier cancer-prevention mechanism than treatment. It could mean cleaning up Superfund sites or removing lead pipes to reduce environmental cancer risk. It often requires people to change their behavior — to drink less alcohol and exercise more or stop smoking — a more challenging mission at the population level than directing patients to take a pill or offering them a diagnostic test.
“It’s not necessarily clear how one spends money on prevention,” Welch acknowledged. “It’s much easier to sell a test or a drug. It’s a concrete thing. Prevention takes action on the part of individuals,” he said. “You gotta say, that’s harder.”
More funding wouldn’t necessarily solve the problem, according to Emanuel.
There’s a lot of money already in the system. It just needs to be redirected and allocated differently, Emanuel explained.
Who is spending that money also matters. The government sponsors roughly one-third of clinical cancer research, according to Emanuel. Industry accounts for the remaining two-thirds of funding. “It’s good that they’ve got a lot of drugs that they’re testing. What’s bad is having industry shape the clinical research agenda, because industry has a bias.”
Emanuel’s solution: stronger government leadership and more non-industry sponsors.
“The NCI [National Cancer Institute] is the biggest NIH institute,” Emanuel said. “It’s not exactly like they’re starving.”
You also have to be a monster to sell halving the cases long after your death as a “cure”
Biden keeps rambling about curing cancer because he and Obama set up and funded the delusional mRNA industry, which was initially aimed at cancer. The Moderna guys promised him this and he ran with it. He still does, poor dumb fv<k…
And if you have a MAGA hat, don’t flash it before reading this:
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
The only thing worse than genocide is irreversibly compromising the human genetics with incalculable consequences for all current and future generations. And, once again, we bring proof they are knowingly doing this, and where there’s awareness, there’s also intention. So this video below should open the Nuremberg 2 trials.
The WEF published this video in 2016, one year prior to Moderna’s Tal Zaks video for TED that we’ve already manage to make quite viral. This crucial issue is hugely underrated and most people still are not so sure what to believe simply because The Military Biotech Complex is burning the books through its Big Tech arm. Hopefully the video before clarifies the issue for good.
Before we further discuss this, please see this “prequel” for very important context:
Actually, one of our first videos deleted by YouTube was just scientists describing their work in the field of epigenetics and epitratrascriptomics, a whole science dedicated to editing DNA using RNA as a screwdriver. See:
Now that we are on the same page, in terms of information, I’d like to go back to our new video, there’s a few key points that I’d like to stress:
They’ve been in the know since Day 1, this is not a surprising side effect, it’s the effect they pursued.
The above implies intention
Obviously they have no clue what this will lead to, other than genetic chaos. In the words of Bill Gates “If you want to see the effects after two years, you need to wait two years”. How about 20 or 200 years?
Cherry on the cake – the newest revelations: 50% truncated mRNA that no one has any clue what it does
All of the above is potentially irreversible, definitive and transmissible to the future generations. We have no clue what’s going to happen, but your grand-grand-grand kids may all suffer from it. Even if you’re a pure blood, you can get contaminated a million ways. AND THAT’S WHAT’S WORSE THEN GENOCIDING A GENERATION IN ONE COUNTRY OR ANOTHER.
Which brings me to another crucial question I launched in the public square long ago, without any satisfactory response:
You all know DNA is described as made of two protein spirals. If you take one and you break it to pieces, the result is hardly different from RNA or their description of a virus. In which case I would love an expert to explain:
What happens to the DNA debris resulted from cell death, where does it go and can it be mistaken for viruses? Are infections and diseases actually auto-immune attacks?
Here’s a possible starting point:
Mechanisms and physiology of the clearance of dead cells by efferocytosis
“Unlike PAMPs, which are derived from microbes, damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) are of cellular origin and can be liberated upon cell death. DAMPs trigger inflammatory responses, and may also serve as chemoattractants for macrophages. DAMPs are metabolically diverse entities, including genomic and mitochondrial DNA, nuclear proteins (HMGB, histones)25, cytoplasmic proteins (S100), cytokines (IL-1α, IL-33, IL-36), and other small molecules (ATP, UTP, uric acid crystals) (Table 1)26. In addition, inflammasome [G] -mediated caspase-1 activation generates inflammatory cytokines IL-1β and IL-18 during pyroptosis (see Box 1) that lead to inflammatory immune activation after cellular demise.27 Below, we review the relevance of DAMPs during efferocytosis, the ability of DAMPs to modulate inflammation, and specific DAMPs and their effects.
DNA as a DAMP.
Several mechanisms ensure low DNA burden following apoptotic death and contribute to its immune-silent phenotype. In healthy cells, caspase-activated DNase (CAD) exists in complex with its inhibitory chaperone ICAD and remains constitutively inactive in the cytosol28,29. Active caspase-3 cleaves ICAD28,30, promoting CAD homodimerization, nuclear translocation, and DNA hydrolysis between nucleosomes. Nuclear pieces are then neatly packaged with cytoplasm into apoptotic bodies that are eventually digested during efferocytosis31. In contrast, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), as well as pathogen-derived DNA molecules in those cells dying due to an infection, can be released to the extracellular environment from non-apoptotic dying cells. Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) is activated by unmethylated CpG sequences such as those found in mtDNA or bacterial DNA (Table 1), and activation of TLR9 triggers downstream inflammatory responses. circulating DNA DAMPs can accumulate in the body in cases where non-apoptotic cell death is widespread; for example, mtDNA was found to be elevated in the plasma of trauma patients32, likely as a result of injury-induced cell death.
DNA in the extracellular environment is processed by DNase-I33, while DNase-III (also known as TREX1) clears cytoplasmic DNA34, and DNase-II processes DNA from dying cells in the phagocyte’s lysosomes to help maintain negligible levels of DNA following efferocytosis. Should DNA escape to the cytosol, it can be recognized by cytosolic DNA sensors35, including cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS) and the inflammasome component AIM2. cGAS is activated upon cytosolic DNA binding and subsequently catalyzes a reaction between GTP and ATP to form cyclic GMP-AMP (cGAMP)36. The newly synthesized cGAMP binds to and activates the stimulator of interferon genes protein (STING), leading to TANK binding kinase 1 (TBK1)-dependent phosphorylation of the interferon regulatory factor IRF337. These events trigger the IRF3-mediated activation of a Type I interferon response.
DNase-II-deficient or DNase III-deficient mice die during embryogenesis and this embryonic lethality can be prevented if the response to misplaced DNA is abrogated through deletion of cGAS, STING, or the Type-I interferon receptor (IFNAR)38–41. It is possible that these DNases function to limit cytosolic DNA following efferocytosis during development, thereby preventing this lethal interferonopathy, although how the DNA of engulfed corpses might be released from the phagosome or lysosome to become cytosolic, triggering such responses, remains unknown.
Similarly, recognition of cytosolic DNA by AIM2 causes AIM2 to recruit and activate caspase-1, resulting in IL-1β processing and release, contributing to inflammation42,43. Again, when and how defects in the clearance of DNA during efferocytosis may engage AIM2 remains unclear.
Protein DAMPs.
High mobility group protein B1 (HMGB1) is a nuclear protein that binds to DNA and assists replication, repair and transcription44,45,46. Although some HMGB1 can be released to the extracellular milieu under steady state conditions47 or during apoptosis48, it is predominantly released during forms of immunogenic cell death25. Efficient efferocytosis can thus limit the release of HMGB1. Based on its redox status, HMGB1 can function as a chemotactic agent (reduced) or as an inflammatory agent (oxidized)49. In its reduced form, HMGB1 can prevent the induction of immune tolerance [G] to antigens associated with the dying cell48. Reduced HMGB1 may bind to TLRs or the receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE) (Table 1)50, leading to immune cell activation and cytokine production. Recently, binding of reduced HMGB1 to the chemokine receptor CXCR4 was observed during tissue regeneration following injury51, highlighting the possible importance of this molecule in the response to dying cells. S100 proteins can also be released from dying cells52, and efferocytosis can limit the release of these proteins from dying cells. Again, TLRs and RAGE appear to be the primary receptors on macrophages that promote inflammatory activation in response to S100 proteins.”
Efferocytosis is critical for tissue homeostasis.Efferocytosis can be carried out by professional phagocytes (red boxes), such as macrophages and dendritic cells, or to a lesser extent by non-professional phagocytes (blue boxes) such as epithelial cells. Disruption of normal efferocytosis can contribute to the development of a wide range of pathologies (light grey boxes) across a variety of tissues. (dark grey boxes). COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; IPD, idiopathic pulmonary disease; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus.
I keep my expectations low, but please surprise me!
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
The SARS-CoV-2 virus is still spreading worldwide, and there is an urgent need to effectively prevent and control this pandemic. This study evaluated the potential efficacy of Egg Yolk Antibodies (IgY) as a neutralizing agent against the SARS-CoV-2. We investigated the neutralizing effect of anti-spike-S1 IgYs on the SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, as well as its inhibitory effect on the binding of the coronavirus spike protein mutants to human ACE2. Our results show that the anti-Spike-S1 IgYs showed significant neutralizing potency against SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, various spike protein mutants, and even SARS-CoV in vitro. It might be a feasible tool for the prevention and control of ongoing COVID-19.
Coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has become a global pandemic disease that has social and economic chaos. An alternative mitigation strategy may involve the use of specific immunoglobulin (Ig)-Y derived from chicken eggs. Our study aimed to evaluate the neutralizing potential of specific IgY targeting S1, receptor-binding-domain (RBD) of spike glycoprotein and nucleocapsid (N) of SARS-CoV-2 to inhibit RBD and angiotensin-converting-enzyme-2 (ACE2) binding interaction. Hy-Line Brown laying hens were immunized with recombinant S1, RBD spike glycoprotein, and nucleocapsid (N) of SARS-CoV-2. The presence of specific S1,RBD,N-IgY in serum and egg yolk was verified by indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Specific S1,RBD,N-IgY was purified and characterized from egg yolk using sodium-dodecyl-sulfate-polyacrylamide-gel-electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), and was subsequently evaluated for inhibition of the RBD-ACE2 binding interaction in vitro. Specific IgY was present in serum at 1 week post-initial immunization (p.i.i), whereas its present in egg yolk was confirmed at 4 weeks p.i.i. Specific S1,RBD,N-IgY in serum was able to inhibit RBD-ACE2 binding interaction between 4 and 15 weeks p.i.i. The results of the SDS-PAGE revealed the presence of bands with molecular weights of 180 kDa, indicating the presence of whole IgY. Our results demonstrated that S1,RBD,N-IgY was able to inhibit RBD-ACE2 binding interaction in vitro, suggesting its potential use in blocking virus entry. Our study also demonstrated proof-of-concept that laying hens were able to produce this specific IgY, which could block the viral binding and large production of this specific IgY is feasible.
Aims: COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has become a public health crisis worldwide. In this study, we aimed at demonstrating the neutralizing potential of the IgY produced after immunizing chicken with a recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit.
Methods and results: E. coli BL21 carrying plasmid pET28a-S1 was induced with IPTG for the expression of SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein. The recombinant His-tagged S1 was purified and verified by SDS-PAGE, Western blot and biolayer interferometry (BLI) assay. Then S1 protein emulsified with Freund’s adjuvant was used to immunize layer chickens. Specific IgY against S1 (S1-IgY) produced from egg yolks of these chickens exhibited a high titer (1:25,600) and a strong binding affinity to S1 (KD = 318 nmol L-1 ). The neutralizing ability of S1-IgY was quantified by a SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped virus-based neutralization assay with an IC50 value of 0.99 mg ml-1 . In addition, S1-IgY exhibited a strong ability in blocking the binding of SARS-CoV-2 S1 to hACE2, and it could partially compete with hACE2 for the binding sites on S1 by BLI assays.
Conclusions: We demonstrated here that after immunization of chickens with our recombinant S1 protein, IgY neutralizing antibodies were generated against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit; therefore, showing the potential use of IgY to block the entry of this virus.
Significance and impact of the study: IgY targeting S1 subunit of SARS-CoV-2 could be a promising candidate for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19. Administration of IgY-based oral preparation, oral or nasal spray may have profound implications for blocking SARS-CoV-2.
Egg-Derived Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoglobulin Y (IgY) With Broad Variant Activity as Intranasal Prophylaxis Against COVID-19
COVID-19 emergency use authorizations and approvals for vaccines were achieved in record time. However, there remains a need to develop additional safe, effective, easy-to-produce, and inexpensive prevention to reduce the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. This need is due to difficulties in vaccine manufacturing and distribution, vaccine hesitancy, and, critically, the increased prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 variants with greater contagiousness or reduced sensitivity to immunity. Antibodies from eggs of hens (immunoglobulin Y; IgY) that were administered the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were developed for use as nasal drops to capture the virus on the nasal mucosa. Although initially raised against the 2019 novel coronavirus index strain (2019-nCoV), these anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgY surprisingly had indistinguishable enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay binding against variants of concern that have emerged, including Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), Delta (B.1.617.2), and Omicron (B.1.1.529). This is different from sera of immunized or convalescent patients. Culture neutralization titers against available Alpha, Beta, and Delta were also indistinguishable from the index SARS-CoV-2 strain. Efforts to develop these IgY for clinical use demonstrated that the intranasal anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgY preparation showed no binding (cross-reactivity) to a variety of human tissues and had an excellent safety profile in rats following 28-day intranasal delivery of the formulated IgY. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1 study evaluating single-ascending and multiple doses of anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgY administered intranasally for 14 days in 48 healthy adults also demonstrated an excellent safety and tolerability profile, and no evidence of systemic absorption. As these antiviral IgY have broad selectivity against many variants of concern, are fast to produce, and are a low-cost product, their use as prophylaxis to reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral transmission warrants further evaluation.
I found more science backing this, but sufficiency is underrated in our society, I’d like to set a good example.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
SILVIEW.media 