Much like the Fed, CDC isn’t a government agency, it’s more like a prototype of today’s PPP’s (Private-Public Partnerships) used by the WEF to siphon public wealth into private pockets and subvert the political self-determination of the people.

One way for CDC to attract funds is their Foundation.
And we can’t follow the money if we don’t even know who the sponsors are.
If you had difficulties before in finding them, though I can’t imagine one, now you have no excuse, you just need to CLICK HERE to find out more about the conflict of interests in which Pharmafia thrives like a baby in the amniotic juice.
Removing that womb would terminate this vile genocidal cartel.
There’s more than just that page, but that’s where you start YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

Interestingly, the CDC Foundation self-portrait looks very much like Klaus Schwab:

“The CDC Foundation is an independent nonprofit and the sole entity created by Congress to mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources to support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s critical health protection work.

We are a catalyst for unleashing the power of collaboration between CDC and philanthropies, private entities and individuals to protect the health, safety and security of America and the world.

The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors. We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually. By aligning diverse interests and resources and leveraging all parties’ strengths, our focused collaborations with private and philanthropic partners help create greater impact than any one entity can alone. Your support saves and improves lives—right now and in the future.

Thanks to our donors, we have launched approximately more than 1,200 health protection programs and raised over $1.2 billion to support CDC’s work over the past two decades. To keep people healthy, safe and secure, we managed hundreds of programs in the United States and in more than 140 countries.” – SOURCE

Now, to make my point, I just need to highlight some of the names found there, for your later references.
These are some of the people who home-detain, muzzle and inject us.
Interestingly, most of them are also partners in the World Economic Forum.

Before fusing humans with technology, the Schwaborg has fused Pharmafia with Big Tech, mainstream media and the Governments. These are not independent voices confirming one another, they’re the same entity, like the Borg (and I’ll prove later that Star Trek’s Borg is not just science-fiction entertainment).


If your nutritionist has a McDonalds badge, you have no nutritionist.
Btw, many US and UK hospitals, maybe in other countries too, host McDonalds restaurants.
Same people.

Some things are not meant to be businesses, public health is one of them.

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

ORDER

They knew about everything else, years ahead sometimes, so of course they’ve been aware of the jabs side-effects too…
By means of hiding these from us, they actively infringed upon our right to informed consent, as per the Nuremberg Code.

FDA Safety Surveillance of COVID-19 Vaccines :
DRAFT Working list of possible adverse event outcomes
Subject to change

 Guillain-Barré syndrome
 Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis
 Transverse myelitis
 Encephalitis/myelitis/encephalomyelitis/
meningoencephalitis/meningitis/
encepholapathy
 Convulsions/seizures
 Stroke
 Narcolepsy and cataplexy
 Anaphylaxis
 Acute myocardial infarction
 Myocarditis/pericarditis
 Autoimmune disease
 Deaths
 Pregnancy and birth outcomes
 Other acute demyelinating diseases
 Non-anaphylactic allergic reactions
 Thrombocytopenia
 Disseminated intravascular coagulation
 Venous thromboembolism
 Arthritis and arthralgia/joint pain
 Kawasaki disease
 Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome
in Children
 Vaccine enhanced disease

TAKEN FROM:

DOWNLOAD PDF

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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 latest piece of evidence to confirm many of the revelations we’ve published for the past year or so. You have to read back to get more of the picture we’re about to sketch here.


We can’t offer informed consent for these experiments conducted on us because we are not offered much information. Only rich people can access some of it at prices most of us can’t dream. Maybe you can, or maybe people start donating enough so we can afford surviving another month and buying this info for the purpose of making it freely available to everyone, as it should be.

What am I talking about is the book pictured in our cover illustration and detailed below, which costs well over 1000$!

More precisely $1185 just for a single license PDF, the hardcover print would cost you about 100 more.

Why is this thing so expensive, you may ask?

THESE INFORMATIONS ARE SO EXPENSIVE EXACTLY TO BE PROHIBITIVE TO THE PLEBS AND OFFER A LEVERAGE OVER THOSE WHO ARE KEPT OUT OF THE LOOP, IN THE DARK

Predictably so, but:

These informations also must to have the highest degree of accuracy in order to sell as expensively!

Superb quality book delivered in a timely fashion with full financial documentation received via email.

Testimonial by Dr Tom Kidd, Associate Professor, University of Nevada

Bonus for us, this book is from May 2020, so it must have been elaborated prior to April 2020. This means it might be outdated by now for investors, but witty investigators like us find an advantage in this:

THE BOOK HAS BEEN ELABORATED WITH BEHIND THE SCENES SCIENCE ON THE INDUSTRIES WHICH, IN TURN MUST HAVE HAD PRE-SCIENCE ON THE PLANDEMIC!
There was no publicly available information in March to build such a book, and the industries they talk about must have been prescient, way ahead of the writers.
Only the fact that this book existed in May 2020 is single-handedly proving there was a whole lot of awareness in some industries about the pandemic.
Corroborated with all other evidence we’ve provided on this website, pandemic pre-planning, ergo pre-science, becomes a certitude.

Until plebs learn the GameStop lesson properly and start associating their financial power to break this classism and this information gatekeeping, we have to be happy with whatever meat we can chew from the bones they throw out.
Luckily for you, I can show you how to suck a bone dry and use it to find more.
It’s not going to be a full course, but it might become more than most people can load up.

Let’s start with the description (highlights are mine):

“Nanotechnology and nanomaterials can significantly address the many clinical and public healthcare challenges that have arisen from the coronavirus pandemic. This analysis examines in detail how nanotechnology and nanomaterials can help in the fight against this pandemic disease, and ongoing mitigation strategies. Nano-based products are currently being developed and deployed for the containment, diagnosis, and treatment of Covid-19.

Nanotechnology and nanomaterials promise:

  • Improved and virus disabling air filtration.
  • Low-cost, scalable detection methods for the detection of viral particles
  • Enhanced personal protection equipment (PPE) including facemasks.
  • New antiviral vaccine and drug delivery platforms.
  • New therapeutic solutions.

Report contents include:

  • Market analysis of nano-based diagnostic tests for COVID-19 including nanosensors incorporating gold nanoparticles, iron oxide nanoparticles, graphene, quantum dots, carbon quantum dots and carbon nanotubes. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include Abbott Laboratories, Cardea, Ferrotec (USA) Corporation, E25Bio, Grolltex, Inc., Luminex Corporation etc.
  • Market analysis of antiviral and antimicrobial nanocoatings for surfaces including fabric (mask, gloves, doctor coats, curtains, bed sheet), metal (lifts, doors handle, nobs, railings, public transport), wood (furniture, floors and partition panels), concrete (hospitals, clinics and isolation wards) and plastics (switches, kitchen and home appliances).
  • Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include Advanced Materials-JTJ s.r.o., Bio-Fence, Bio-Gate AG, Covalon Technologies Ltd., EnvisionSQ, GrapheneCA, Integricote, Nano Came Co. Ltd., NanoTouch Materials, LLC, NitroPep and many more.
  • Market analysis of air-borne virus filtration including photocatalytic Nano-TiO2 filters, nanofiber filers, nanosilver, nanocellulose, graphene and carbon nanotube filtration. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include G6 Materials, Daicel FineChem Ltd., NANOVIA s.r.o., Toray Industries, Inc., Tortech Nano Fibers etc.
  • Market analysis of nano-based facemask and other PPE products. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include planarTECH LLC, RESPILON Group s. r. o., SITA, Sonovia Ltd. etc.
  • Nanotherapies and drug delivery vehicles currently being produced and clinical trials of vaccines for COVID-19. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include Arcturus Therapeutics, Inc., Arbutus Biopharma, BlueWillow Biologics, Elastrin Therapeutics Inc., EnGeneIC Ltd. etc.
  • Key scientific breakthroughs and developments that are underway right now.”

As you can see, the description alone offers enough evidence that embedding a whole range of nanotech in facemasks, tests, drugs and many other product.

You can bet your ass your new fridge connect to the internet and has some antimicrobial nanocoating that later will prove to be worse than DDT or asbestos, but at least it’s not gonna be Covid, right?

“You could put the computational power of the spaceship Voyager onto an object the size of a cell”.
And that was back in 2018

Can we dig more clues though?

Sir, yes, sir!

I’m going to do something unusual and seemingly unpractical copying here the whole table of contents, just in case, because almost every chapter and figure title deserves to be a separate post on this website as well, besides the multitude of leads as to what to research.

1 RESEARCH SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
1.1 Report scope
1.2 Research methodology

2 INTRODUCTION

3 DIAGNOSTIC TESTING
3.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions
3.1.1 Current Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
3.1.2 Emerging Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
3.1.3 Nanosensors/nanoparticles (silver nanoclusters, Gold nanoparticles, Iron oxide nanoparticles, Quantum dot barcoding, nanowires, silica nanoparticles)
3.1.4 Carbon nanomaterials for diagnostic testing
3.2 Market revenues
3.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025.
3.3 Companies
3.4 Academic research

4 ANTIVIRAL AND ANTIMICROBIAL COATINGS AND SURFACES
4.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions
4.1.1 Nanocoatings.
4.1.2 Applications
4.1.3 Anti-viral nanoparticles and nanocoatings
4.1.3.1 Reusable Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
4.1.3.2 Wipe on coatings
4.1.4 Graphene-based coatings
4.1.4.1 Properties
4.1.4.2 Graphene oxide.
4.1.4.3 Reduced graphene oxide (rGO)
4.1.4.4 Markets and applications
4.1.5 Silicon dioxide/silica nanoparticles (Nano-SiO2) -based coatings
4.1.5.1 Properties.
4.1.5.2 Antimicrobial and antiviral activity
4.1.5.3 Easy-clean and dirt repellent
4.1.6 Nanosilver-based coatings.
4.1.6.1 Properties
4.1.6.2 Antimicrobial and antiviral activity
4.1.6.3 Markets and applications.
4.1.6.4 Commercial activity
4.1.7 Titanium dioxide nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.7.1 Properties
4.1.7.2 Exterior and construction glass coatings
4.1.7.3 Outdoor air pollution
4.1.7.4 Interior coatings
4.1.7.5 Medical facilities
4.1.7.6 Wastewater Treatment
4.1.7.7 Antimicrobial coating indoor light activation
4.1.8 Zinc oxide nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.8.1 Properties.
4.1.8.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.9 Nanocellullose (cellulose nanofibers and cellulose nanocrystals)-based coatings.
4.1.9.1 Properties
4.1.9.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.10 Carbon nanotube-based coatings
4.1.10.1 Properties
4.1.10.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.11 Fullerene-based coatings
4.1.11.1 Properties
4.1.11.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.12 Chitosan nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.12.1 Properties
4.1.12.2 Wound dressings
4.1.12.3 Packaging coatings and films
4.1.12.4 Food storage
4.1.13 Copper nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.13.1 Properties
4.1.13.2 Application in antimicrobial nanocoatings
4.2 Market revenues
4.2.1 Market revenues adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2030.
4.3 Companies
4.4 Academic research

5 AIR-BORNE VIRUS FILTRATION
5.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions (nanoparticles titanium dioxide, Polymeric nanofibers, Nanosilver, Nanocellulose, Graphene, Carbon nanotubes)
5.2 Market revenues
5.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025
5.3 Companies
5.4 Academic research

6 FACEMASKS AND OTHER PPE
6.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions (Polymer nanofibers, Nanocellulose, Nanosilver, Graphene)
6.2 Market revenues
6.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025
6.3 Companies
6.4 Academic research

7 DRUG DELIVERY AND THERAPEUTICS
7.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions
7.1.1 Products
7.1.2 Nanocarriers
7.1.3 Nanovaccines
7.2 Market revenues
7.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025
7.3 Companies
7.4 Academic research

8 REFERENCES

List of Tables
Table 1. Current Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
Table 2. Development phases of diagnostic tests
Table 3. Emerging Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
Table 4. Nanoparticles for diagnostic testing-Types of nanoparticles, properties and application
Table 5. Gold nanoparticle reagent suppliers list
Table 6. Carbon nanomaterials for diagnostic testing-types, properties and applications
Table 7. Global revenues for nanotech-based diagnostics and testing, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 8. Academic research in nano-based COVID-19 diagnostics and testing.
Table 9: Anti-microbial and antiviral nanocoatings-Nanomaterials used, principles, properties and applications.
Table 10. Nanomaterials utilized in antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings coatings-benefits and applications.
Table 11: Properties of nanocoatings.
Table 12: Antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings markets and applications
Table 13: Nanomaterials used in nanocoatings and applications.
Table 14: Graphene properties relevant to application in coatings
Table 15. Bactericidal characters of graphene-based materials
Table 16. Markets and applications for antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings graphene nanocoatings
Table 17. Markets and applications for antimicrobial and antiviral nanosilver coatings.
Table 18. Commercial activity in antimicrobial nanosilver nanocoatings
Table 19. Antibacterial effects of ZnO NPs in different bacterial species.
Table 20. Types of carbon-based nanoparticles as antimicrobial agent, their mechanisms of action and characteristics
Table 21. Mechanism of chitosan antimicrobial action
Table 22. Global revenues for antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.
Table 23. Global revenues for Anti-fouling & easy clean nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.
Table 24. Global revenues for self-cleaning (bionic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 25. Global revenues for self-cleaning (photocatalytic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 26. Antimicrobial, antiviral and antifungal nanocoatings research in academia
Table 27. Cellulose nanofibers (CNF) membranes
Table 28: Comparison of CNT membranes with other membrane technologies
Table 29. Nanomaterials in air-borne virus filtration-properties and applications
Table 30. Global revenues for nanotech-based air-borne virus filtration, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 31: Oji Holdings CNF products
Table 32. Academic research in nano-based air-borne virus filtration
Table 33. Nanomaterials in facemasks and other PPE-properties and applications
Table 34. Global revenues for nanotech-based facemasks and PPE, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 35. Academic research in nano-based facemasks and other PPE
Table 36. Applications in drug delivery and therapeutics, by nanomaterials type-properties and applications
Table 37. Nanotechnology drug products
Table 38. List of antigens delivered by using different nanocarriers
Table 39. Nanoparticle-based vaccines
Table 40. Global revenues for nano-based drug delivery and therapeutics, 2019-2030, billion US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 41. Academic research in nano-based drug delivery and therapeutics to address COVD-19

List of Figures
Figure 1. Anatomy of COVID-19 Virus
Figure 2. Graphene-based sensors for health monitoring
Figure 3. Schematic of COVID-19 FET sensor incorporating graphene
Figure 4. Global revenues for nanotech-based diagnostics and testing, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 5. Printed graphene biosensors
Figure 6. AGILE R100 system
Figure 7. nano-screenMAG particles
Figure 8. GFET sensors.
Figure 9. DNA endonuclease-targeted CRISPR trans reporter (DETECTR) system
Figure 10. SGTi-flex COVID-19 IgM/IgG
Figure 11. Schematic of anti-viral coating using nano-actives for inactivation of any adhered virus on the surfaces
Figure 12: Graphair membrane coating
Figure 13: Antimicrobial activity of Graphene oxide (GO)
Figure 14. Nano-coated self-cleaning touchscreen
Figure 15: Hydrophobic easy-to-clean coating
Figure 16 Anti-bacterial mechanism of silver nanoparticle coating.
Figure 17: Mechanism of photocatalysis on a surface treated with TiO2 nanoparticles
Figure 18: Schematic showing the self-cleaning phenomena on superhydrophilic surface.
Figure 19: Titanium dioxide-coated glass (left) and ordinary glass (right).
Figure 20: Self-Cleaning mechanism utilizing photooxidation.
Figure 21: Schematic of photocatalytic air purifying pavement.
Figure 22: Schematic of photocatalytic water purification
Figure 23. Schematic of antibacterial activity of ZnO NPs
Figure 24: Types of nanocellulose
Figure 25. Mechanism of antimicrobial activity of carbon nanotubes
Figure 26: Fullerene schematic
Figure 27. TEM images of Burkholderia seminalis treated with (a, c) buffer (control) and (b, d) 2.0 mg/mL chitosan; (A: additional layer; B: membrane damage)
Figure 28. Global revenues for antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 29. Global revenues for anti-fouling and easy-to-clean nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 30. Global revenues for self-cleaning (bionic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 31. Global revenues for self-cleaning (photocatalytic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 32. Lab tests on DSP coatings
Figure 33. GrapheneCA anti-bacterial and anti-viral coating
Figure 34. Microlyte® Matrix bandage for surgical wounds
Figure 35. Self-cleaning nanocoating applied to face masks.
Figure 36. NanoSeptic surfaces.
Figure 37. NascNanoTechnology personnel shown applying MEDICOAT to airport luggage carts
Figure 38. Basic principle of photocatalyst TiO2
Figure 39. Schematic of photocatalytic indoor air purification filter.
Figure 40. Global revenues for nanotech-based air-borne virus filtration, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.
Figure 41. Multi-layered cross section of CNF-nw
Figure 42: Properties of Asahi Kasei cellulose nanofiber nonwoven fabric
Figure 43: CNF nonwoven fabric
Figure 44: CNF gel..
Figure 45. CNF clear sheets
Figure 46. Graphene anti-smog mask
Figure 47. Global revenues for nanotech-based facemasks and PPE, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 48. FNM’s nanofiber-based respiratory face mask..
Figure 49. ReSpimask® mask
Figure 50. Schematic of different nanoparticles used for intranasal vaccination
Figure 51. Global revenues for nano-based drug delivery and therapeutics, 2019-2030, billion US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.

So are you ready for your first “printed graphene bio-sensors”? Just picked a random item from the list above.

So what I’m going to do in the upcoming updates to this article is to follow every lead I got above, and I’m going to investigate every company they report on, as per their list below. You should do it too, independently, and compare your results with mine. It’s both science and investigative journalism, the juiciest combo.

  • Abbott Laboratories
  • Advanced Materials-JTJ s.r.o.
  • Arbutus Biopharma
  • Arcturus Therapeutics
  • Bio-Fence
  • Bio-Gate AG
  • BlueWillow Biologics
  • Cardea
  • Covalon Technologies Ltd.
  • Daicel FineChem Ltd.
  • E25Bio
  • Elastrin Therapeutics Inc.
  • EnGeneIC Ltd.
  • EnvisionSQ
  • Ferrotec (USA) Corporation
  • G6 Materials
  • GrapheneCA
  • Grolltex, Inc.
  • Integricote
  • Luminex Corporation
  • Nano Came Co. Ltd.
  • NanoTouch Materials, LLC
  • NANOVIA s.r.o.
  • NitroPep
  • RESPILON Group s. r. o.
  • SITA
  • Sonovia Ltd.
  • TECH LLC
  • Toray Industries
  • Tortech Nano Fibers

A taste of the future: Luminex, on of the companies listed above, makes PCR tests and stuff like magnetic micro-beads. They’ve just been bought for almost $2B by some Italians who can afford $1000+ books.

BESIDES THE DANGERS OF NANOBOTS, THIS INDUSTRY IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER AND A TOP CO2 PRODUCER

from Straight Magazine July 20th, 2011 :

Tiny nanoparticles could be a big problem

Ian Illuminato of Friends of the Earth says consumers deserve a say in nanotech regulation. JIM THOMAS/ETC GROUP

Nanotechnology was supposed to revolutionize the world, making us healthier and producing cleaner energy. But it’s starting to look more like a nightmare.

Nanomaterials—tiny particles as little as 1/100,000 the width of a human hair—have quietly been used since the 1990s in hundreds of everyday products, everything from food to baby bottles, pills, beer cans, computer keyboards, skin creams, shampoo, and clothes.

But after years of virtually unregulated use, scientists are now starting to say the most commonly used nanoproducts could be harming our health and the environment.

One of the most widespread nanoproducts is titanium dioxide. More than 5,000 tonnes of it are produced worldwide each year for use in food, toothpaste, cosmetics, paint, and paper (as a colouring agent), in medication and vitamin capsules (as a nonmedicinal filler), and in most sunscreens (for its anti-UV properties).

In food, titanium-dioxide nanoparticles are used as a whitener and brightener in confectionary products, cheeses, and sauces. Other nanoparticles are employed in flavourings and “nutritional” additives, and to reduce fat content in “health” foods.

In the journal Cancer Research in 2009, environmental-health professor Robert Schiestl coauthored the first comprehensive study of how titanium-dioxide nanoparticles affect the genes of live animals. Mice in his study suffered DNA and chromosomal damage after drinking water with the nanoparticles for five days.

“It should be removed from food and drugs, and there’s definitely no reason for it in cosmetic products,” said cancer specialist Schiestl, who is also a professor of pathology and radiation oncology at UCLA’s school of medicine.

“The study shows effects [from the nanoparticles] on all kinds of genetic endpoints,” Schiestl told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview from his office. “All those are precursor effects of cancer. It’s a wake-up call to do something.”

After Schiestl’s study came out, he said, he started getting calls from nervous people saying they had discovered titanium dioxide was listed as a nonmedicinal ingredient in their prescription medication. “They wanted to know how to get it out,” he said. “I said, ”˜I don’t know how to get it out.’ ”

Schiestl’s study is cited by groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth in their calls for a moratorium on nanomaterials in food and consumer products.

“They were thought to be safe. Our study shows a lot of harm,” Schiestl said.

Nanoparticles can be harmful because they are so tiny they can pass deep into the skin, lungs, and blood. They are made by burning or crushing regular substances like titanium, silver, or iron until they turn into an ultrafine dust, which is used as a coating on, or ingredient in, various products.

Schiestl is now studying two other common nanoparticles, zinc oxide and cadmium oxide, and he has found they also cause DNA and chromosomal damage in mice.

Yet two years after Schiestl’s first study, titanium dioxide and other nanoparticles remain virtually unregulated in Canada and the U.S. Products containing nanoparticles still don’t have to be labelled, and manufacturers don’t have to prove they are safe for health or the environment.

In fact, only a small fraction of the hundreds of nanomaterials on the market have been studied to see if they are safe.

“The public has had little or no say on this. It’s mostly industry guiding government to make sure this material isn’t regulated,” said Ian Illuminato, a nanotech expert with Friends of the Earth, speaking from his home office in Victoria.

“Consumers aren’t given the right to avoid this. We think it’s dangerous and shouldn’t be in contact with the public and the environment,” he said.

Meanwhile, the number of products using nanomaterials worldwide has shot up sixfold in just a couple of years, from 212 in 2006 to more than 1,300 in 2011, according to a report in March by the Washington, D.C.–based Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

Those numbers are based on self-reporting by industry, and the real numbers are thought to be much higher. A Canadian government survey in 2009 found 1,600 nanoproducts available here, according to a report in December from the ETC Group, an Ottawa-based nonprofit that studies technology.

Nanotech is worth big money. More than $250 billion of nano-enabled products were produced globally in 2009, according to Lux Research, a Boston-based technology consultancy. That figure is expected to rise 10-fold, to $2.5 trillion, by 2015.

Lux Research estimated in 2006 that one-sixth of manufactured output would be based on nanotechnology by 2014.

Nanotech already appears to be affecting people’s health. In 2009, two Chinese factory workers died and another five were seriously injured in a plant that made paint containing nanoparticles.

The seven young female workers developed lung disease and rashes on their face and arms. Nanoparticles were found deep in the workers’ lungs.

“These cases arouse concern that long-term exposure to some nanoparticles without protective measures may be related to serious damage to human lungs,” wrote Chinese medical researchers in a 2009 study on the incident in the European Respiratory Journal.

When inhaled, some types of nanoparticles have been shown to act like asbestos, inflaming lung tissue and leading to cancer. In 2009, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Cancer Research declared titanium dioxide to be “possibly carcinogenic to humans” after studies found that inhaling it in nanoparticle form caused rats to develop lung cancer and mice to suffer organ damage.

Nanoparticles can also hurt the skin. All those nanoparticles in skin creams and sunscreens may be behind a rise in eczema rates in the developed world, according to a 2009 study in the journal Experimental Biology and Medicine. The study found that titanium-dioxide nanoparticles caused mice to develop eczema. The nanoparticles “can play a significant role in the initiation and/or progression of skin diseases”, the study said.

Schiestl said nanoparticles could also be helping to fuel a rise in the rates of some cancers. He wouldn’t make a link with any specific kind of cancer, but data from the U.S. National Cancer Institute show that kidney and renal-pelvis cancer rates rose 24 percent between 2000 and 2007 in the U.S., while the rates for melanoma of the skin went up 29 percent and thyroid cancer rose 54 percent.

Schiestl said workers who deal with nanoparticles could be the most affected. That concern prompted the International Union of Food, Farm, and Hotel Workers to call in 2007 for a moratorium on commercial uses of nanotechnology in food and agriculture.

But despite all the health risks, we may already have run out of time to determine many of nanotech’s health impacts, Schiestl said.

“Nanomaterial is so ubiquitous that it would be very difficult to do an epidemiological study because there would be no control group of people who don’t use it.”

What happens when nanoparticles get out into the environment in wastewater or when products are thrown out?

Nanosilver is the most common nanomaterial on the market. Its extraordinary antimicrobial properties have earned it a place in a huge variety of products, including baby pacifiers, toothpaste, condoms, clothes, and cutting boards.

Virginia Walker, a biology professor at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, decided to study nanosilver one day after a grad student said her mother had bought a new washing machine that doused clothes with silver nanoparticles to clean them better.

It sounded intriguing, Walker recalled thinking, but what would happen if nanosilver in the laundry water wound up in the environment? “What would it do to the bacterial communities out there?” she wondered.

On a whim, Walker decided to study the question. She figured the nanosilver would probably have no impact on beneficial microbes in the environment because any toxicity would be diluted.

“I did the experiment almost as a lark, not expecting to find anything,” she said by phone. “I hoped I would not find anything.”

In fact, Walker found that nanosilver was “highly toxic” to soil bacteria. It was especially toxic to one kind of nitrogen-fixing bacterium that is important to plant growth.

“If you had anything that was sensitive to nanoparticles, the last thing you would want is to have this microbe affected,” Walker said in a phone interview from her office.

The study prompted Walker to do more studies on nanoparticles. In one study now being reviewed for publication, one of her students found that mice exposed to nanoparticles developed skeletal abnormalities.

“People should have their eyes open. There are so many different nanoparticles, and the consequences of their use could be grave. We know almost nothing about these things,” Walker said.

Other scientists have raised concerns about nanosilver too. Some clothes makers now put it in socks and shirts, promising it will help control body odour. In a 2008 study in the Washington, D.C.–based journal Environmental Science and Technology, researchers took nanosilver-laced socks and washed them in water. They found the socks released up to half of their nanosilver into the water.

“If you start releasing ionic silver, it is detrimental to all aquatic biota. Once the silver ions get into the gills of fish, it’s a pretty efficient killer,” said study coauthor Troy Benn, a graduate student at Arizona State University, in a ScienceDaily.com story in 2008.

“I’ve spoken with a lot of people who don’t necessarily know what nanotechnology is, but they are out there buying products with nanoparticles in them.”

And what about the promise that nanotech could produce cleaner energy? The idea was that nanoparticles could make solar panels more efficient, be used as fuel additives to improve gas mileage, and make lighter cars and planes.

Most of the promised efficiency gains haven’t materialized, according to a 2010 report from Friends of the Earth. And it turns out that making nanomaterial is itself a huge energy guzzler.

A kilogram of carbon nanotubes—a nanoparticle used in cancer treatment and to strengthen sports equipment—requires an estimated 167 barrels of oil to produce, the Friends of the Earth report said.

Carbon nanotubes are “one of the most energy intensive materials known to humankind”, said a 2010 report to a symposium of the U.S.–based Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

That report said many nanoproducts may remain profitable despite their high energy cost only because of enormous government subsidies to the nanotech industry—$1.6 billion from the U.S. government last year.

But despite all this, regulation of nanotech remains glacially slow. The European Parliament voted nearly unanimously to recommend that nanoproducts be banned from food in 2009. But the European Commission rejected that recommendation last year, agreeing only that it may require labels on food containing nanomaterials. It will also require labels on cosmetics containing some nanoingredients starting in 2014.

Canada and the U.S. have yet to go even that far. At Health Canada, which regulates nanotechnology, a web page dealing with nanoproducts hasn’t been amended in four years and contains outdated information.

Health Canada spokesman Stéphane Shank did not return calls.

They used to say small is beautiful. But that was before small got scary. – Straight.com

NO MEANS NO, YES MEANS NO TOO

So yeah, that’s it for now, and if you think this is not enough to prove much, you can’t be more wrong, you’re probably bathing in dangerous or lethal nanotech as you read this, but feel free to return to this link in the coming days and weeks, I will be adding more evidence as I dig it out. I have about 100 leads there, it’s going to be a long process, friends!

Until then please read this:

YES, THEY CAN VACCINATE US THROUGH NASAL TEST SWABS AND TARGET THE BRAIN (BIOHACKING P.1)

and this:

Application of Nanotechnology in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

Take it with a pinch of salt, as per usual, this still a product of MIT.

Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19

Stephanie Seneff1 and Greg Nigh – Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge MA, 02139, USA, E-mail: seneff@csail.mit.edu / Naturopathic Oncology, Immersion Health, Portland, OR 97214, USA

ABSTRACT

Operation Warp Speed brought to market in the United States two mRNA vaccines, produced by Pfizer and Moderna. Interim data suggested high efficacy for both of these vaccines, which helped legitimize Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA.

However, the exceptionally rapid movement of these vaccines through controlled trials and into mass deployment raises multiple safety concerns. In this review we first describe the technology underlying these vaccines in detail.

We then review both components of and the intended biological response to these vaccines, including production of the spike protein itself, and their potential relationship to a wide range of both acute and long-term induced pathologies, such as blood disorders, neurodegenerative diseases and autoimmune diseases.

Among these potential induced pathologies, we discuss the relevance of prion-protein-related amino acid sequences within the spike protein. We also present a brief review of studies supporting the potential for spike protein “shedding”, transmission of the protein from a vaccinated to an unvaccinated person, resulting in symptoms induced in the latter.

We finish by addressing a common point of debate, namely, whether or not these vaccines could modify the DNA of those receiving the vaccination. While there are no studies demonstrating definitively that this is happening, we provide a plausible scenario, supported by previously established pathways for transformation and transport of genetic material, whereby injected mRNA could ultimately be incorporated into germ cell DNA for transgenerational transmission.

We conclude with our recommendations regarding surveillance that will help to clarify the long-term effects of these experimental drugs and allow us to better assess the true risk/benefit ratio of these novel technologies.

Introduction

Unprecedented. This word has defined so much about 2020 and the pandemic related to SARS-CoV-2. In addition to an unprecedented disease and its global response, COVID-19 also initiated an unprecedented process of vaccine research, production, testing, and public distribution (Shaw,

2021). The sense of urgency around combatting the virus led to the creation, in March 2020, of Operation Warp Speed (OWS), then-President Donald Trump’s program to bring a vaccine against COVID-19 to market as quickly as possible(Jacobs and Armstrong, 2020). OWS established a few more unprecedented aspects of COVID-19.

First, it brought the US Department of Defense into direct collaboration with US health departments with respect to vaccine distribution (Bonsell, 2021).

Second, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) collaborated with the biotechnology company Moderna in bringing an unprecedented type of vaccine against infectious disease to market, one utilizing a technology based on messenger RNA (mRNA) (National Institutes of Health, 2020).

The confluence of these unprecedented events has rapidly brought to public awareness the promise and potential of mRNA vaccines as a new weapon against infectious diseases into the future. At the same time, events without precedent are, by definition, without a history and context against which to fully assess risks, hoped-for benefits, safety, and long-term viability as a positive contribution to public health.

In this paper we will be briefly reviewing one particular aspect of these unprecedented events, namely the development and deployment of mRNA vaccines against the targeted class of infectious diseases under the umbrella of “SARS-CoV-2.

”We believe many of the issues we raise here will be applicable to any future mRNA vaccine that might be produced against other infectious agents, or in applications related to cancer and genetic diseases, while others seem specifically relevant to mRNA vaccines currently being implemented against the subclass of corona viruses. While the promises of this technology have been widely heralded, the objectively assessed risks and safety concerns have received far less detailed attention. It is our intention to review several highly concerning molecular aspects of infectious disease-related mRNA technology, and to correlate these with both documented and potential pathological effects.

UNPRECEDENTED

Many aspects of Covid-19 and subsequent vaccine development are unprecedented for a vaccine deployed for use in the general population.

Some of these includes the following.

  1. First to use PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection (see text)

2. First to use mRNA vaccine technology against an infectious agent

3. First time Moderna has brought any product to market

4. First to have public health officials telling those receiving the vaccination to expect an adverse reaction

5. First to be implemented publicly with nothing more than preliminary efficacy data (see text)

6. First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths

7. First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans

8. First injection of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population

Vaccine Development

Development of mRNA vaccines against infectious disease is unprecedented in many ways. In a 2018 publication sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccines were divided into three categories: Simple, Complex, and Unprecedented (Young et al., 2018). Simple and Complex vaccines represented standard and modified applications of existing vaccine technologies.

Unprecedented represents a category of vaccine against a disease for which there has never before been a suitable vaccine. Vaccines against HIV and malaria are examples. As their analysis indicates, depicted in Figure 1, unprecedented vaccines are expected to take 12.5 years to develop. Even more ominously, they have a 5% estimated chance of making it through Phase II trials (assessing efficacy) and, of that 5%, a 40% chance of making it through Phase III trials (assessing population benefit). In other words, an unprecedented vaccine was predicted to have a 2% probability of success at the stage of a Phase III clinical trial. As the authors bluntly put it, there is a “low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines.” (Young et al., 2018)

Figure 1.Launching innovative vaccines is costly and time-consuming, with a low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines (adapted from Young et al, 2018).

With that in mind, two years later we have an unprecedented vaccine with reports of 90-95% efficacy (Baden et al. 2020). In fact, these reports of efficacy are the primary motivation behind public support of vaccination adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). This defies not only predictions, but also expectations.

The British Medical Journal(BMJ) may be the only prominent conventional medical publication that has given a platform to voices calling attention to concerns around the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. There are indeed reasons to believe that estimations of efficacy are in need of re-evaluation. Peter Doshi, an associate editor of the BMJ, has published two important analyses (Doshi 2021a, 2021b) of the raw data released to the FDA by the vaccine makers, data that are the basis for the claim of high efficacy. Unfortunately, these were published to the BMJ’s blog and not in its peer-reviewed content. Doshi, though, has published a study regarding vaccine efficacy and the questionable utility of vaccine trial endpoints in BMJ’s peer reviewed content (Doshi 2020).

A central aspect of Doshi’s critique of the preliminary efficacy data is the exclusion of over 3400 “suspected COVID-19 cases” that were not included in the interim analysis of the Pfizer vaccine data submitted to the FDA. Further, a low-but-non-trivial percent of individuals in both Moderna and Pfizer trials were deemed to be SARS-CoV-1-positive at baseline despite prior infection being grounds for exclusion. For these and other reasons the interim efficacy estimate of around 95% for both vaccines is suspect.

A more recent analysis looked specifically at the issue of relative vs. absolute risk reduction. While the high estimates of risk reduction are based upon relative risks, the absolute risk reduction is a more appropriate metric for a member of the general public to determine whether a vaccination provides a meaningful risk reduction personally. In that analysis, utilizing data supplied by the vaccine makers to the FDA, the Moderna vaccine at the time of interim analysis demonstrated an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% (p= 0.004), while the Pfizer vaccine absolute risk reduction was 0.7% (p<0.000) (Brown 2021).

Others have brought up important additional questions regarding COVID-19 vaccine development, questions with direct relevance to the mRNA vaccines reviewed here.

For example, Haidere, et. al. (2021) identify four “critical questions” related to development of these vaccines, questions that are germane to both their safety and their efficacy:

•Will Vaccines Stimulate the Immune Response?

•Will Vaccines Provide Sustainable Immune Endurance?

•How Will SARS-CoV-2 Mutate?

•Are We Prepared for Vaccine Backfires?

Lack of standard and extended preclinical and clinical trials of the two implemented mRNA vaccines leaves each of these questions to be answered over time. It is now only through observation of pertinent physiological and epidemiological data generated by widescale delivery of the vaccines to the general public that these questions will be resolved. And this is only possible if there is free access to unbiased reporting of outcomes –something that seems unlikely given the widespread censorship of vaccine-related information because of the perceived need to declare success at all cost.

The two mRNA vaccines that have made it through phase 3 trials and are now being delivered to the general population are the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The vaccines have much in common. Both are based on mRNA encoding the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Both demonstrated a relative efficacy rate of 94-95%. Preliminary indications are that antibodies are still present after three months. Both recommend two doses spaced by three or four weeks, and recently there are reports of annual booster injections being necessary (Mahose, 2021). Both are delivered through muscle injection, and both require deep-freeze storage to keep the RNA from breaking down. This is because, unlike double-stranded DNA which is very stable, single-strand RNA products are apt to be damaged or rendered powerless at warm temperatures and must be kept extremely cold to retain their potential efficacy (Pushparajah et al., 2021).

It is claimed by the manufacturers that the Pfizer vaccine requires storage at -94 degrees Fahrenheit (-70 degrees Celsius), which makes it very challenging to transport it and keep it cold during the interim before it is finally administered. The Moderna vaccine can be stored for 6 months at -4 degrees Fahrenheit (-20 degrees Celsius), and it can be stored safely in the refrigerator for 30 days following thawing (Zimmer et al., 2021).

Two other vaccines that are now being administered under emergency use are the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the AstraZeneca vaccine. Both are based on a vector DNA technology that is very different from the technology used inthe mRNA vaccines.

While these vaccines were also rushed to market with insufficient evaluation, they are not the subject of this paper so we will just describe briefly how they are developed. These vaccines are based on a defective version of an adenovirus, a double-stranded DNA virus that causes the common cold.

The adenovirus has been genetically modified in two ways, such that it cannot replicate due to critical missing genes, and its genome has been augmented with the DNA code for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. AstraZeneca’s production involves an immortalized human cell line called Human Embryonic Kidney (HEK) 293, which is grown in culture along with the defective viruses (Dicks et al., 2012).

The HEK cell line was genetically modified back in the 1970s by augmenting its DNA with segments from an adenovirus that supply the missing genes needed for replication of the defective virus (Louis et al., 1997).

Johnson & Johnson uses a similar technique based on a fetal retinal cell line. Because the manufacture of these vaccines requires genetically modified human tumor cell lines, there is the potential for human DNA contamination as well as many other potential contaminants.

The media has generated a great deal of excitement about this revolutionary technology, but there are also concerns that we may not be realizing the complexity of the body’s potential for reactions to foreign mRNA and other ingredients in these vaccines that go far beyond the simple goal of tricking the body into producing antibodies to the spike protein.

In the remainder of this paper, we will first describe in more detail the technology behind mRNA vaccines. We devote several sections to specific aspects of the mRNA vaccines that concern us with regard to potential for both predictable and unpredictable negative consequences.

We conclude with a plea to governments and the pharmaceutical industry to consider exercising greater caution in the current undertaking to vaccinate as many people as possible against SARS-CoV-2.

READ / DOWNLOAD THE FULL PAPER IN PDF

Conclusion

Experimental mRNA vaccines have been heralded as having the potential for great benefits, but they also harbor the possibility of potentially tragic and even catastrophic unforeseen consequences.

The mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been implemented with great fanfare, but there are many aspects of their widespread utilization that merit concern. We have reviewed some, but not all, of those concerns here, and we want to emphasize that these concerns are potentially serious and might not be evident for years or even transgenerationally.

In order to adequately rule out the adverse potentialities described in this paper, we recommend, at a minimum, that the following research and surveillance practices be adopted:

•A national effort to collect detailed data on adverse events associated with the mRNA vaccines with abundant funding allocation, tracked well beyond the first couple of weeks after vaccination.

•Repeated autoantibody testing of the vaccine-recipient population. The autoantibodies tested could be standardized and should be based upon previously documented antibodies and autoantibodies potentially elicited by the spike protein. These include autoantibodies against phospholipids, collagen, actin, thyroperoxidase (TPO), myelin basic protein, tissue transglutaminase, and perhaps others.

•Immunological profiling related to cytokine balance and related biological effects. Tests should include, at a minimum, IL-6, INF-α, D-dimer, fibrinogen, and C-reactive protein.

•Studies comparing populations who were vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines and those who were not to confirm the expected decreased infection rate and milder symptoms of the vaccinated group, while at the same time comparing the rates of various autoimmune diseases and prion diseases in the same two populations.

•Studies to assess whether it is possible for an unvaccinated person to acquire vaccine-specific forms of the spike proteins from a vaccinated person in close proximity.

•In vitro studies to assess whether the mRNA nanoparticles can be taken up by sperm and converted into cDNA plasmids.

•Animal studies to determine whether vaccination shortly before conception can result in offspring carrying spike-protein-encoding plasmids in their tissues, possibly integrated into their genome.

•In vitro studies aimed to better understand the toxicity of the spike protein to the brain, heart, testes, etc.

Public policy around mass vaccination has generally proceeded on the assumption that the risk/benefit ratio for the novel mRNA vaccines is a “slam dunk.” With the massive vaccination campaign well under way in response to the declared international emergency of COVID-19, we have rushed into vaccine experiments on a world-wide scale. At the very least, we should take advantage of the data that are available from these experiments to learn more about this new and previously untested technology. And, in the future, we urge governments to proceed with more caution in the face of new biotechnologies.

Finally, as an obvious but tragically ignored suggestion, the government should also be encouraging the population to take safe and affordable steps to boost their immune systems naturally, such as getting out in the sunlight to raise vitamin D levels (Ali, 2020), and eating mainly organic whole foods rather than chemical-laden processed foods (Rico-Campà et al., 2019). Also, eating foods that are good sources of vitamin A, vitamin C and vitamin K2 should be encouraged, as deficiencies in these vitamins are linked to bad outcomes from COVID-19 (Goddek, 2020; Sarohan, 2020).

Acknowledgements

This research was funded in part by Quanta Computers, Inc., Taiwan, under the auspices of the Qmulus project.Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests or conflicts to declare.

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

ORDER

The rare media reports on this case only mention WHO’s chief scientist, but after obtaining the original legal notice from IBA, we find out that Tedros and one more doctor are equally indicted.
The best part is that they repeatedly use the term “conspiracy”, and, finally, someone uses it correctly.

Quick update as of July 14th, 2021:
I’ve just learned of two more similar court cases that also involve Bill Gates, Fauci and GAVI, among others. Currently analyzing the documents and digging for more info. I will report more ASAP.

LEGAL NOTICE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AGAINST DR. TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS, DR. SOUMYA SWAMINATHAN AND THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES (DGHS)

POSTED BY INDIAN BAR ASSOCIATION ON  WITH 0 COMMENT

LEGAL NOTICE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AGAINST DR. TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS, DR. SOUMYA SWAMINATHAN AND THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES (DGHS)

The accused are served legal notice for their attempt to undermine the authority of the Bombay High Court and obstruct the use of Ivermectin for Covid-19 treatment.

DOWNLOAD

On 13th June 2021, Indian Bar Association has served a notice upon Dr.Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General, World Health Organisation, Dr.Soumya  Swaminathan, the Chief Scientist at WHO and Prof. (Dr.) Sunil Kumar for contempt of judgment of Bombay High Court.

The Bombay High Court vide its judgment dated 28th May 2021 has already given a green signal for use of Ivermectin for treatment of Covid-19.

Despite this, all the three contemnors have hatched a conspiracy and by spreading misinformation through media, are fuelling confusion amongst doctors by introducing Guidelines allegedly published on 27th May 2021 by DGHS, which are in fact not mandatory and are overruled by the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 28thMay 2021.

The State Government of Goa, in their affidavit filed before Bombay High Court, has specifically pointed out that the WHO advisory against the use of Ivermectin is flawed and the research showed that the Ivermectin is effective for treatment of COVID-19. The Bombay High Court on 28th May 2021, after considering WHO advisory and all other contentions of the rival parties, came to the conclusion that the use of Ivermectin cannot be stopped. The High Court has also taken the note of the guidelines dated 17th May 2021 issued by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), thereby advocating the use of Ivermectin.

Thereafter, a detailed and impactful article was published by the leading newspaper ‘Free Press Journal’ on 6th June 2021 (updated on 14th June 2021) wherein the author has articulated very well as to how the advisories of WHO are dubious.

https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/covid-19-are-whos-directives-being-taken-seriously-on-the-ground

Surprisingly, in its first, the Directorate of Health Services (DGHA) on 27th May, 2021 announced ‘Comprehensive Guidelines for Management of COVID-19 patients’ which excludes Ivermectin and several popular drugs.

It is worthwhile to note that DGHS is a repository of technical knowledge and is an attached organisation of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. The Guidelines/National Protocol have always been issued by the Joint Task Force of All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) and Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) under the aegis of Government of India. Moreover, the document containing these impugned Guidelines does mention version/date and does not carry logos of Government of India, ICMR and AIIMS,suggesting lack of consensus between DGHS and the Joint Task Force.

Now, in order to diminish the impact of the article published on 6th June, 2021, the main accused Dr. Soumya Swaminathan hatched a conspiracy and managed some media houses to publish news on 7th June, 2021 for appreciating the overruled guidelines dated 27th May, 2021. Some of these media houses have showed astounding alacrity in publishing news hailing removal of Ivermectin and other drugs, thereby deliberately ignoring the mountains of clinical data on effectiveness of Ivermectin in treatment of COVID-19.

These impugned Guidelines issued by DGHS were circulated first on 7th June 2021, without any mention of the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 28thMay, 2021, which in fact is against the said guidelines, rendering these guidelines as null and void.

As per the judgment of Supreme Court of India, the person responsible for spreading information with object of creating confusion and to obstruct and undermine the judgment of court is liable for punishment under contempt of Court. Sections like 505,192,302, 115,109,409,120(B) of the Indian Penal Code are also attracted against the accused in this case, as their intention was to kill several people to fulfil their ulterior purposes.

The maximum punishment in above cases is death penalty.

The notice states that Dr. Soumya Swaminathan and the WHO are dishonest and have no scientific evidences to back their advisories and such loose statements are issued from time to time, to serve their ulterior purposes.

The relevant part of the notice reads this:

“53.1. Each time and particularly from following specific instances, it is sufficiently proved that You Notice 1 & 2 do not possess any authentic and scientific evidences;

i) When the earlier Notice was served on Notice 1 on 25.05.2021, she has neither replied to the notice nor has she approached any court of law against us. On the contrary, she chose to delete the controversial tweet advising against the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19;

ii) When the Health Secretary of the State Government of Goa relying on affidavit of Under Secretary of Union of India made their submission on oath before Hon’ble High Court, with specific allegations against WHO that there are reports which have observed that the analysis by WHO on this medicine (IVERMECTIN) is flawed and that the mortality rate is actually much lower if the said medicine is used for early treatment as well as prophylaxisneither you Notice 1 or 2 chose to produce any proof to counter the said report. As a result, Hon’ble High Court has refused to accept the advisory of WHO.

iii) When All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) had published a statement on 24.05.2021 that there is no evidence to predict the third wave and its effect on children, you Notice 1 did not give any “Evidence” in support of your statement dated 25.05.2021 which was contrary to the said statement of AIIMS.

After you Notice 1 were served with legal notice on 25.05.2021, you feared for being exposed and being summoned in Court of Law and therefore you Notice 1 took a U turn and stated that there is no sufficient evidence to suggest that children would be affected in the third wave.

The agenda of misinformation is also exposed in the statement published in Press Bureau of India on June 8, 2021

“It is a piece of misinformation that subsequent waves of the COVID-19 pandemic are going to cause severe illness in children. There is no data – either from India or globally – to show that children will be seriously infected in subsequent waves.”

53.2. So it is crystal clear that You Notice 1 & 2 do not have scientific evidence except jugglery of words and you are thoroughly intellectually dishonest people who are playing with the lives and livelihood of the common people across the world.

However, in order to expose your intellectual dishonesty to the entire world, this notice is being served, calling for an explanation within 7 days of the receipt of this notice.”

The legal notice also explains the law of damages in India citing recently cases where Court had ordered compensation of Rs. 100 Crores ((USD 13.5 mn) to the aggrieved party, for loss of his reputation. Since the present matter involves death caused due to denial of early treatment resulting in deterioration and death of person, the damages claimed would be much higher that Rs. 100 Crores.

The notice also explains the liability of Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of WHO, for his act of commission and omission and also for his implied consent to the conspiracy.

In the similar manner, the DGHS Prof. (Dr.) Sunil Kumar is joined in as co-accused for his complicity in the conspiracy.

The three possible explanations for such an intense opposition to the use of highly promising, well-tolerated off-label medicine as Ivermectin are explained very well in following article:

WHO Celebrates As Indian Health Regulator Removes Ivermectin from Its Covid-19 Protocol | naked capitalism

  • “As a generic, Ivermectin is cheap and widely available, which means there would be a lot less money to be made by Big Pharma if it became the go-to early-stage treatment against covid.
  • Other pharmaceutical companies are developing their own novel treatments for Covid-19 which would have to compete directly with Ivermectin.
  • If approved as a covid-19 treatment, Ivermectin could even threaten the Emergency Use Authorisation granted to covid-19 vaccines.

It’s worth noting that while India’s DGHS has dumped most cheap off-patent treatment options against Covid, including even multivitamins, more expensive patented medicines continue to get the green light. They include Gilead’s prohibitively expensive antiviral Remdesivir, which DGHS continues to recommend for “select moderate/ severe hospitalised COVID-19 patients”, even though “it is only an experimental drug with potential to harm.” It has also authorised the use of the anti-inflammatory medicine to cilizumab, which costs hundreds of dollars a dose.” – IBA

I’m not very optimistic, I see this as another attempt to cement the existence of a fake virus in the collective mental, but either way this goes, the implications are huge.
Consider that WHO didn’t act alone, Big Tech, mass-mediots and politicians would be affected by the same logic and principles.
And if this falls flat, it’s only going to signal more corruption to the general population.

BUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, IF THESE DRUGS ARE OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AS EFFICIENT AGAINST COVID-19, THEN THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A LEGAL BASIS FOR EMERGENCY STATES / EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS FOR EXPERIMENTAL INJECTIONS DISGUISED AS VACCINES

If approved as a covid-19 treatment, Ivermectin could even threaten the Emergency Use Authorisation granted to covid-19 vaccines.

IBA

Demand from India to #ArrestDrTedros grows louder on social media

Goa Chronicle 11/04/20200 

 Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General, World Health Organisation

Panjim: The call from journalist and social activist Savio Rodrigues encouraging people of India to raise their voices on social media platform Twitter demanding arrest Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is growing louder.

#ArrestDrTedros is currently trending in India.

Savio Rodrigues is the Founder & Editor-in-Chief of GoaChronicle.com. The online new portal has been exposing the complicit role of Dr Tedros during the coronavirus pandemic due to his closeness with China. In fact, Rodrigues, opines that China backed Dr Tedros to the position of Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Dr Tedros in turn was China’s puppet in WHO

Rodrigues in his several informative articles has raised questions on the dereliction of duty and cover-up of China’s questionable actions by the Director-General of (WHO).

Earlier today Rodrigues called for the people of India to unite and demand for the arrest of Dr Tedros, post the publishing of his article:

https://goachronicle.com/dr-tedros-must-be-arrested/

He took to social media platform Twitter stating:

Here are some of the Twitter messages demanding #ArrestDrTedros

https://twitter.com/nitinpurandare/status/1248922807506849792?s=20

Rodrigues opines : “The World Health Organisation under the leadership of its Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus failed in its core responsibility to detect a health crisis and contain the spread of this contagious virus globally.

It instead chose to side with China – the nation from which the coronavirus originates and was the first epicentre of the virus. It is from Wuhan, China that the China Virus has spread globally to reportedly 180 countries.

We can go pontificating on different theories of the blame game. The political leaders can continue to play their own political games. Nothing will ever change the truth.

The truth is that this is a virus that has come out of a lab. The truth is that China had knowledge about its human-to-human transmission as early as December. The truth is that Dr Tedros relied on  the report of the Chinese Health Authorities in his statement on January 14, 2020, “No clear evidence of human-to-human transmission. The truth is that China has withdrawn the lockdown in Wuhan and city is back to normal business will the rest of the world is under lockdown.

But the most horrific truth is people are dying. They will continue to die. We have crossed 100,000 deaths but the count will not cease, it will only keep on increasing.”

Whether Dr Tedros is arrested is a question that can only be in answered in time but what is important to state the noise to get him to step down from his post is certainly getting louder.

Tedros is met with treason and genocide accusations even in his own country, Ethiopia, but the government there simply doesn’t have the balls to anger Tedros’ allies issuing and arrest warrant to complete the investigation. However, the chief of Ethiopian military, as well as much of Indian media and population, don’t seem to hold back anymore. It’s doubtful he’s ever going to step home again.

WHO Celebrates As Indian Health Regulator Removes Ivermectin from Its Covid-19 Protocol

Posted on  by Naked Capitalism

After India finally gets somewhat of a grip on its deadly second wave, one of its health regulators just took away one of its main lines of defense. 

India’s Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) has executed a policy reversal that could have massive implications for the battle against covid-19, not only in India but around the world. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives, could be at stake. The health regulator has overhauled its COVID-19 treatment guidelines and removed almost all of the repurposed medicines it had previously recommended for treating asymptomatic and mild cases. They include the antibiotic doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, zinc, ivermectin and even multivitamins. The only medicines that are still recommended for early treatment are cold medicines, antipyretics such as paracetamol and inhaled budesonide.

“No other covid-specific medication [is] required,” say the new guidelines, which also discourage practitioners from prescribing unnecessary tests such as CT scans.

“Patients are advised to seek tele consultation; and Covid-19 appropriate behaviour must be observed such as mask, strict hand hygiene and physical distancing… [Patients are also advised to maintain] a healthy diet with proper hydration… [and] to stay connected [with family] and engage in positive talks through phone, video-calls, etc.”

The decision to remove ivermectin, multivitamins and zinc from the treatment guidelines is hard to comprehend given the current state of play in India — unless one assumes foul play. After suffering one of the worst covid-19 outbreaks since the pandemic began, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, India is not just flattening the curve, it is crushing it. And the widespread use of ivermectin, a potent anti-viral and anti-inflammatory with an excellent safety profile, appears to have played an instrumental role.

WHO’s Happy

Other countries in the region have already taken notice. Indonesia just approved the use of ivermectin in Kudus, a local contagion hotspot. 

This is the last thing the World Health Organization (WHO) and the pharmaceutical companies whose interests it broadly represents want. As such, it was no surprise that WHO was delighted with the DGHS’ policy reversal. “Evidence based guidelines from @mohfw DGHS – simple, rational and clear guidance for physicians,” tweeted WHO’s chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan, of Indian descent. “Should be translated and disseminated in all Indian languages.”

As I posited in my recent article “I Don’t Know of a Bigger Story in the World” Right Now Than Ivermectin: NY Times Best-Selling Author, there are three possible explanations for global health regulators’ opposition to the use of a highly promising, well-tolerated off-label medicine such as ivermectin:

  • As a generic, ivermectin is cheap and widely available, which means there would be a lot less money to be made by Big Pharma if it became the go-to early-stage treatment against covid.
  • Other pharmaceutical companies are developing their own novel treatments for Covid-19 which would have to compete directly with ivermectin.  
  • If approved as a covid-19 treatment, ivermectin could even threaten the emergency use authorisation granted to covid-19 vaccines

It’s worth noting that while India’s DGHS has dumped most cheap off-patent treatment options against Covid, including even multivitamins, more expensive patented medicines continue to get the green light. They include Gilead’s prohibitively expensive antiviral Remdesivir, which DGHS  continues to recommend for “select moderate/ severe hospitalised COVID-19 patients”, even though “it is only an experimental drug with potential to harm.” It has also authorised the use of the anti-inflammatory medicine tocilizumab, which costs hundreds of dollars a dose.

Crushing the Curve

The DGHS began recommending the widespread use of ivermectin as early as April, in direct contradiction of the recommendations of the World Health Organization. Treatment packs were assembled in many states and distributed to patients testing positive for Covid. In at least two states — Goa and Uttarakhand — the medicine was distributed as a preventive. As has already happened in over 20 countries where ivermectin has been used — from Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Peru to Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Bangladesh — case numbers, hospitalizations and fatalities have fallen in almost vertical fashion. On Monday the country recorded its lowest number of new cases in 61 days.

“When we started seeing more cases, we decided to take up a door-to-door survey,” Bagalkot District Health Officer Dr Ananth Desai told New India Express. “When the health officials noticed people with symptoms during the survey, they tested them immediately and provided them with home isolation kits, which had medicines like Ivermectin, calcium and zinc tablets along with paracetamol. We advised the patients to start with the medication even before their Covid-19 test results came out. With these measures, we noticed that many patients recovered faster. This helped in increasing the recovery rate”.

In India’s capital, Delhi, the number of people testing positive for Covid-19 daily has fallen 97% from a peak of 24,000 on April 24. The number of deaths is down by around 85%. Only 17% of the total beds earmarked for Covid-19 treatment in Delhi and around 40% of the ICU beds were occupied late last week, according to the government’s Delhi Corona app. At the peak, there were days when no ICU beds were available in the city.

Imagen

Out of the Darkness, But For How Long?

Just over four weeks ago India was in a very dark place. At one point it was accounting for almost half of all global cases and one in every four covid-19 deaths. The government had lost complete control. Four weeks later, the country, while not out of the woods, is in a much better place. While the official numbers of cases and deaths are probably still a fraction of the real numbers, the trend is clearly moving in the right direction.

An important reason for that is that doctors in India have been treating covid patients as early as possible — something that isn’t happening in most countries, particularly rich ones that play an outsized role in setting global health policy. In India early treatment has helped to reduce the number of cases becoming acute. And that has helped to reduce the pressure on hospitals and vital resources such as oxygen. Ivermectin also appears to have helped reduce the spread of the virus, thanks to its potent anti-viral properties.

Just about everywhere ivermectin is used, the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths fall precipitously. Of course, this is only a temporal correlation. But nonetheless a clear pattern across nations and territories has formed that strongly supports ivermectin’s purported efficacy. And that efficacy has been amply demonstrated in dozens of clinical studies and multiple meta-analyses. But it’s not proof enough for global health authorities, which have set the bar for ivermectin so high that it’s almost impossible to straddle. 

Of course, other factors such as lockdowns, travel restrictions and increased herd immunity have also played a part in India’s rapid turnaround. But vaccines’ role has been minimal given that just 16 doses have been administered per hundred people. It’s going to take many more months, if not longer, to vaccinate a majority of the population. In the meantime, hundreds of millions of people will remain unprotected from the virus. Many will end up catching and transmitting it. Yet the Directorate General of Health Services has taken away one of the country’s only lines of defense.

It remains to be seen whether state governors and health bureaucrats will comply with the recommendations. For the moment the separate treatment protocols recommended by India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) continue to include ivermectin. As such, many doctors are likely to continue prescribing the medicine. But what happens if MOHFW and ICMR follow the DGHS’ lead and also drop ivermectin. Will doctors stop using a medicine they know to work against a virus that has already caused so much devastation?

India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, has been using ivermectin since last summer. In this second wave the turnaround was so dramatic that even the World Health Organization (WHO) showcased its achievements. In a May 7 article titled “Going the Last Mile to Stop Covid-19” the WHO noted that aggressive population-wide health schemes, including home testing and “medicine kits”, had helped regain control of the virus. But what the WHO failed to mention is what was in those medicine kits.

Instead, three days later WHO’s chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan, of Indian descent, tweeted out a reminder that ivermectin is not recommended to treat covid-19 patients. The tweet included a press release issued by the company that manufactures the drug, Merck, saying it had found no evidence to support the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19. Merck, it’s worth recalling, is developing an antiviral compound, molnupiravir, that will have to compete directly with ivermectin, one of the cheapest, safest drugs on the planet — unless, of course, ivermectin is taken out of the picture.

A Cautionary Tale

But if that happens, the result is likely to be a lot more deaths. Peru, the first country to use ivermectin against Covid, is living proof of that. The medicine was first used in eight states during the very early stages of the pandemic (May-July). After showing promise, it was extended to the whole country. Excess deaths dropped 59% (25%) at +30 days and 75% (25%) at +45 days after day of peak deaths. But in October, after the first wave had been brought under control, a newly elected government in Lima took the inexplicable step of withdrawing a number of medicines, including ivermectin, from its treatment guide for the disease.

Image

Within weeks hospitalizations and deaths were soaring once again. The graph above, taken from a study by Juan Chamie, Jennifer Hibberd of the University of Toronto and David Scheim of the US Public Health Service, shows the sharp rise, fall and resurgence in excess deaths (among the over 60 year-old cohort) in Peru as the virus waxed, waned and waxed again. Since Peru dropped ivermectin the virus has raged through the population. Peru now has the highest per-capita death rate from covid on the planet. It’s a cautionary tale that India, with a population more than 30 times that of Peru, would do well to heed.


To be updated

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

Graphene is the new asbestos. Plus injectable and mandatory.
The rest Of the graphene oxide story is here, if you need more background, this post is a result of that investigation

NOTE: A needed clarification solicited by some readers:
Yes, we knew of GRAPHENE COATING on masks in May, as seen below, which is horrible enough, even more so since not many followed Canada’s example in banning it.
What this article brings new is a confirmation for GRAPHENE OXYDE, which is not very different in properties and health impact, but seems to be specific to these mRNA jabs, and so we complete the new revelations on graphene oxide and vaccines from La Quinta Columna.

OOPS!

The World’s First Anti-Coronavirus Surgical Mask by Wakamono

By Dr. Priyom Bose, Ph.D. Sep 30 2020

Image Credit: Dragana Gordic/Shutterstock.com

In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was first detected in Wuhan, in China’s Hubei province. On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged and characterized the condition as a pandemic owing to the rapid spread of the virus across the globe infecting millions of individuals. Scientists are fighting tirelessly to find out ways to curb the spread of the virus and eradicate it.

SARS-CoV-2 is regarded as highly contagious and spreads rapidly through person-to-person contact. When an infected person sneezes or coughs, their respiratory droplets can easily infect a healthy individual. Besides enforcing social distancing, common citizens are encouraged to wear face masks to prevent droplets from getting through the air and infecting others.

Despite the efficiency of N95, a respiratory protective device, to filter out 95% of particles (≥0.3 μm), surgical facemasks are single-use, expensive, and often ill-fitting, which significantly reduces their effectiveness. Nanoscience researchers have envisioned a new respirator facemask that would be highly efficient, recyclable, customizable, reusable, and have antimicrobial and antiviral properties.

Nanotechnology in the Production of Surgical Masks

Nanoparticles are extensively used for their novel properties in various fields of science and technology.

In the current pandemic situation, scientists have adopted this technology to produce the most efficient masks. Researchers have used a novel electrospinning technology in the production of nanofiber membranes. These nanofiber membranes are designed to have various regulating properties such as fiber diameter, porosity ratio, and many other microstructural factors that could be utilized to produce high-quality face masks. Researchers in Egypt have developed face masks using nanotechnology with the help of the following components:

Polylactic acid

This transparent polymeric material is derived from starch and carbohydrate. It has high elasticity and is biodegradable. Researchers found that electrospun polylactic acid membranes possess high prospects for the production of filters efficient in the isolation of environmental pollutants, such as atmospheric aerosol and submicron particulates dispersed in the air.

Despite its various biomedical applications (implant prostheses, catheters, tissue scaffolds, etc.), these polylactic membranes are brittle. Therefore, applying frequent pressure during their usage could produce cracks that would make them permeable to viral particles. However, this mechanical drawback can be fixed using other supportive nanoparticles that could impart mechanical strength, antimicrobial and antiviral properties, which are important in making face masks effective in the current pandemic situation.

Copper oxide nanoparticles

These nanoparticles have many biomedical applications, for example, infection control, as they can inhibit the growth of microorganisms (fungi, bacteria) and viruses. It has also been reported that SARS-CoV-2 has lower stability on the metallic copper surface than other materials, such as plastic or stainless steel. Therefore, the integration of copper oxide nanoparticles in a nanofibrous polymeric filtration system would significantly prevent microbial adherence onto the membrane.  

Graphene oxide nanoparticles

These nanoparticles possess exceptional properties, such as high toughness, superior electrical conductivity, biocompatibility, and antiviral and antibacterial activity. Such nanoparticles could be utilized in the production of masks.

Cellulose acetate

This is a semi-synthetic polymer derived from cellulose. It is used in ultrafiltration because of its biocompatibility, high selectivity, and low cost. It is also used in protective clothing, tissue engineering, and nanocomposite applications.

With the help of the aforesaid components, researchers in Egypt have designed a novel respirator filter mask against SARS-CoV-2. This mask is based on a disposable filter piece composed of the unwoven nanofibers comprising multilayers of a) copper oxide nanoparticles, graphene oxide nanoparticles, and polylactic acid, or b) copper oxide nanoparticles, graphene oxide nanoparticles, and cellulose acetate, with the help of electrospun technology and high-power ultrasonication. These facemasks are reusable, i.e., washable in water and could be sterilized using an ultraviolet lamp (λ = 250 nm).

SOURCE
WORKING TO GET CONFIRMATION FROM THESE GUYS TOO
SOURCE

Graphene-coated face masks: COVID-19 miracle or another health risk?

by C. Michael White, The Conversation

mask
Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

As a COVID-19 and medical device researcher, I understand the importance of face masks to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. So I am intrigued that some mask manufacturers have begun adding graphene coatings to their face masks to inactivate the virus. Many viruses, fungi and bacteria are incapacitated by graphene in laboratory studies, including feline coronavirus.

Because SARS CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, can survive on the outer surface of a face mask for days, people who touch the mask and then rub their eyes, nose, or mouth may risk getting COVID-19. So these manufacturers seem to be reasoning that graphene coatings on their reusable and disposable face masks will add some anti-virus protection. But in March, the Quebec provincial government removed these masks from schools and daycare centers after Health Canada, Canada’s national public health agency, warned that inhaling the graphene could lead to asbestos-like lung damage.

Is this move warranted by the facts, or an over-reaction? To answer that question, it can help to know more about what graphene is, how it kills microbes, including the SARS-COV-2 virus, and what scientists know so far about the potential health impacts of breathing in graphene.

How does graphene damage viruses, bacteria and human cells?

Graphene is a thin but strong and conductive two-dimensional sheet of carbon atoms. There are three ways that it can help prevent the spread of microbes:

  • Microscopic graphene particles have sharp edges that mechanically damage viruses and cells as they pass by them.
  • Graphene is negatively charged with highly mobile electrons that electrostaticly trap and inactivate some viruses and cells.
  • Graphene causes cells to generate oxygen free radicals that can damage them and impairs their cellular metabolism.
Dr Joe Schwarcz explains why Canada banned graphene masks. Doesn’t say why other countries didn’t. When two governments have opposing views on a poison, one is criminally wrong and someone has to pay.

Why graphene may be linked to lung injury

Researchers have been studying the potential negative impacts of inhaling microscopic graphene on mammals. In one 2016 experiment, mice with graphene placed in their lungs experienced localized lung tissue damage, inflammation, formation of granulomas (where the body tries to wall off the graphene), and persistent lung injury, similar to what occurs when humans inhale asbestos. A different study from 2013 found that when human cells were bound to graphene, the cells were damaged.

In order to mimic human lungs, scientists have developed biological models designed to simulate the impact of high concentration aerosolized graphene—graphene in the form of a fine spray or suspension in air—on industrial workers. One such study published in March 2020 found that a lifetime of industrial exposure to graphene induced inflammation and weakened the simulated lungs’ protective barrier.

It’s important to note that these models are not perfect options for studying the dramatically lower levels of graphene inhaled from a face mask, but researchers have used them in the past to learn more about these sorts of exposures. A study from 2016 found that a small portion of aerosolized graphene nanoparticles could move down a simulated mouth and nose passages and penetrate into the lungs. A 2018 study found that brief exposure to a lower amount of aerosolized graphene did not notably damage lung cells in a model.

From my perspective as a researcher, this trio of findings suggest that a little bit of graphene in the lungs is likely OK, but a lot is dangerous.

Although it might seem obvious to compare inhaling graphene to the well-known harms of breathing in asbestos, the two substances behave differently in one key way. The body’s natural system for disposing of foreign particles cannot remove asbestos, which is why long-term exposure to asbestos can lead to the cancer mesothelioma. But in studies using mouse models to measure the impact of high dose lung exposure to graphene, the body’s natural disposal system does remove the graphene, although it occurs very slowly over 30 to 90 days.

The findings of these studies shed light on the possible health impacts of breathing in microscopic graphene in either small or large doses. However, these models don’t reflect the full complexity of human experiences. So the strength of the evidence about either the benefit of wearing a graphene mask, or the harm of inhaling microscopic graphene as a result of wearing it, is very weak.

No obvious benefit but theoretical risk

Graphene is an intriguing scientific advance that may speed up the demise of COVID-19 virus particles on a face mask. In exchange for this unknown level of added protection, there is a theoretical risk that breathing through a graphene-coated mask will liberate graphene particles that make it through the other filter layers on the mask and penetrate into the lung. If inhaled, the body may not remove these particles rapidly enough to prevent lung damage.

The health department in Quebec is erring on the side of caution. Children are at very low risk of COVID-19 mortality or hospitalization, although they may infect others, so the theoretical risk from graphene exposure is too great. However, adults at high immediate risk of harm from contracting COVID-19 may choose to accept a small theoretical risk of long-term lung damage from graphene in exchange for these potential benefits.

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

Less decency and honesty in science than in politics, these days.
I didn’t think there’s a few levels below politics.

You know when your juice bottle says “100% orange” and the small prints say it’s just 50% of fruit “concentrate”? They should be arrested for that.
Now concentrate on this:

SOURCE

If I were to sum it up in words, I’d quote the source of this revelation:

“It is like saying that there were 700 men and 127 women studied and only a small percent got pregnant. Well, from the start 700 could not have gotten pregnant in the first place.”

British oncologist Dr. Carmen Wheatley

Wheatley has just tipped LifeSite News on this, and I immediately did my own verification, anyone can and should do it.
The result became the cover image for this article, which really is the beginning and the end of the debate, sums up Covidiocracy for me.

The data was collected and “arranged” by a team of “CDC experts” who published it in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2021. It remained overlooked until mid July, when NEJM followed up with a shameless editorial that questioned nothing, just furthered the lie. And that’s when the small prints caught some diligent eyes and went to become our big headline today, as they deserve.
Evil is in the small prints, again, that’s why they hate you when you carefully read inserts and labels.


This is Covidiocracy Science for you, this is the highly esteemed New England Journal of Medicine, up there, close to the British Medical Journal as reputation.

Mind that 82% is 3x the normal rate. All that extra dead babies blood is on the hands of CDC, NEJM and the likes of.

UPDATE:

A reader pointed out that Jeffrey Jaxxen too blew the lid on this, on Del Bigtree’s show, a few days back, and they reached precisely the same conclusion.
BUT I noticed one very interesting detail that Del brought up and single-handedly proves intention in this fake narrative:
The study hast no less than 54 authors. There is no chance in heaven and hell that they all missed this.
If it’s not by mistake, it’s by intention.

This are just my highlights from the show, the full thing is linked above


And we really have to extrapolate this example to all walks of life, because they are all infected with the same corruption. None as blatantly as science, but you still can’t rely on anything you can’t research and verify yourself.

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

“The biggest conspiracies happen in open sight” – Edward Snowden

Segment taken from this show

The Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC) has worked in partnership with the German Bundeswehr Office for Defence Planning to understand the future implications of human augmentation (HA), setting the foundation for more detailed Defence research and development.

The project incorporates research from German, Swedish, Finnish and UK Defence specialists to understand how emerging technologies such as genetic engineering, bioinformatics and the possibility of brain-computer interfaces could affect the future of society, security and Defence. The ethical, moral and legal challenges are complex and must be thoroughly considered, but HA could signal the coming of a new era of strategic advantage with possible implications across the force development spectrum.

HA technologies provides a broad sense of opportunities for today and in the future. There are mature technologies that could be integrated today with manageable policy considerations, such as personalised nutrition, wearables and exoskeletons. There are other technologies in the future with promises of bigger potential such as genetic engineering and brain-computer interfaces. The ethical, moral and legal implications of HA are hard to foresee but early and regular engagement with these issues lie at the heart of success.

HA will become increasingly relevant in the future because it is the binding agent between the unique skills of humans and machines. The winners of future wars will not be those with the most advanced technology, but those who can most effectively integrate the unique skills of both human and machine.

The growing significance of human-machine teaming is already widely acknowledged but this has so far been discussed from a technology-centric perspective. This HA project represents the missing part of the puzzle.

Disclaimer

The content of this publication does not represent the official policy or strategy of the UK government or that of the UK’s Ministry of Defense (MOD).

Furthermore, the analysis and findings do not represent the official policy or strategy of the countries contributing to the project.

It does, however, represent the view of the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC), a department within the UK MOD, and Bundeswehr Office for Defence Planning (BODP), a department within the German Federal Ministry of Defence. It is based on combining current knowledge and wisdom from subject matter experts with assessments of potential progress in technologies 30 years out supporting deliberations and deductions for future humans and society. Published 13 May 2021 – UK DEFENSE WEBSITE

That disclaimer is a load of bollocks that means nothing, really, but covers the Ministry from some legal liabilities, just in case. You can totally ignore it. – Silview.media

GERMAN DEFENSE WEBSITE

People commented on that artist rendition: “They replaced the hand of God with a robotic one”. I answered: “No, they replaced your hand. Read up!”

Meanwhile, in Canada:

SOURCE

The US Department of Defense has something similar going on, but it doesn’t target the general population in presentations. However, if you input “DARPA” in our search utility, you find out DoD has been going same direction for decades.

DOWNLOAD PDF

If you’ve been around for a while, this should come as no surprise. The numbers in the headline below are now outdated, but not the info

SOURCE

At least US has the decency to pretend these are for military use only, I know they all are meant to be used on the general population, but I don’t know any other open admission of civillian use before.

DEMOCRACY? WE’RE OFFICIALLY 15 MONTHS INTO THE 4TH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND YOUR GOVERNMENT TOLD YOU NOTHING

This…

… perfectly overlaps on this:

Does this guy shock you that much now, or does he fall in line like the perfect Tetris piece that he is, “another brick in the wall”?

Now remember mRNA therapies are “information therapies” and these injections are the perfect tools for achieving the above goals.

Anyone remember the plebs ever being consulted on their future evolution, or are they just SUBJECTED to it, like slaves to selective breeding?!

You read this because some of my readers are generous enough to help us survive, and at least as hungry for truth as we are, basically the best readers I could hope for. Such as Corinne, who we should thank for pulling my sleeve about this one! If you’re on Gab (which you should), follow her, she has tons of great info to share every day!

DEVELOPING STORY, TO BE CONTINUED, SO BE BACK HERE SOON

ALSO READ: BOMBSHELL! 5G NETWORK TO WIRELESSLY POWER DEVICES. GUESS WHAT IT CAN DO TO NANOTECH (DARPA-FINANCED)

OBAMA, DARPA, GSK AND ROCKEFELLER’S $4.5B B.R.A.I.N. INITIATIVE – BETTER SIT WHEN YOU READ

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

How can you call yourself “intelligent” when you can’t understand simplest concepts like “consent” and you’re completely disconnected from human nature and feelings?
What better proof that the system is broken than the broken souls it produces industrially?

Fake news from Breitbart, Tucker didn’t tie him to human engineering, Tucker observed he’s so tied he barely speaks about anything else. More evidence below

You may have seen this show, yet Carlson gave you but a peak. I give you more than you can carry.
Warning: The only people who will not lose sleep over this are those who paid attention to this scandal when it started, almost a decade ago, highest echelon elites and the pseudo-people who clap at Jimmy Kimmel’s IQ-19 brainfarts.

This video has been recorded in 2013, but the guys was already making waves since 2012, see below.

Note from TED’s YouTube channel, under this video: Comments are disabled on this video. We made this difficult decision for the TED Archive because we believe that a well-moderated conversation allows for better commentary from more people and more viewpoints. Studies show that aggressive and hateful comments silence other commenters and drive them away; unfortunately, YouTube’s comment moderation tools are simply not up to the task of allowing us to monitor comments on so many videos at once. (We’d love to see this change, YouTube.) So for now, if you’d like to comment on this talk, please use Facebook, Twitter or G+ to discuss with your networks”

Dude’s credentials are almost as spectacular as his talk. Meaning this is what it takes to prosper in the scientific environment lately.

2007

He’s always been this freaky and obsessed with shortening people, he must be the polar opposite of tall.

The Ashley Treatment: Best Interests, Convenience, and Parental Decision-Making

by S. Matthew Liao , Julian Savulescu , and Mark Sheehan

“As a general point, it is entirely conceivable that in some natural, social, or psychological circumstances, having a normal body may be a disadvantage. In H.G. Wells’ short story “The Country of the Blind,” Nunez, a mountaineer in the Andes, falls and comes upon the Country of the Blind. Nunez has normal vision, but in this society of blind people, he is disadvantaged, and he eventually consents to have his eyes removed. Similarly, in a world of loud noise, being able to hear could be a disadvantage. In the case of apotemnophilia—a body dysmorphic disorder in which the patient feels incomplete possessing all four limbs—doctors justify amputation by reasoning that the patient’s psychology demands it. In Ashley’s case, having a normal-sized body could be a disadvantage.”

SOURCE

2012

Bioengineer humans to tackle climate change, say philosophers

Posted by Leo Hickman, Wednesday 14 March 2012 @ theguardian.com

Authors defend controversial academic paper saying their online critics have misunderstood nature of philosophical inquiry

Leo blog : Xbox game Deus Ex which is bio-modification of humans
Screen grab of a character from the computer game Deus Ex : Human Revolution, which is about bio-modification of humans. Photograph: deusex.com

Earlier this week, The Atlantic ran an eye-catching, disturbing interview with a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University called S. Matthew Liao. He was invited to discuss a forthcoming paper he has co-authored which will soon be published in the journal Ethics, Policy & Environment.

But within just a few hours of the interview going live a torrent of outrage and abuse was being directed towards him online. As I tweeted at the time, the interview was indeed “unsettling”. Liao explained how his paper – entitled, “Human Engineering and Climate Change” – explored the so-far-ignored subject of how “biomedical modifications of humans” could be used to “mitigate and/or adapt to climate change“. The modifications discussed included: giving people drugs to make them have an adverse reaction to eating meat; making humans smaller via gene imprinting and “preimplantation genetic diagnosis”; lowering birth-rates through “cognitive enhancement”; genetically engineering eyesight to work better in the dark to help reduce the need for lighting; and the “pharmacological enhancement of altruism and empathy” to engender a better “correlation” with environmental problems.

Both the interview and the paper itself include a prominent disclaimer. As the paper says:

To be clear, we shall not argue that human engineering ought to be adopted; such a claim would require far more exposition and argument than we have space for here. Our central aim here is to show that human engineering deserves consideration alongside other solutions in the debate about how to solve the problem of climate change. Also, as we envisage it, human engineering would be a voluntary activity – possibly supported by incentives such as tax breaks or sponsored health care – rather than a coerced, mandatory activity.

However, that wasn’t enough to prevent an extremely hostile reception to such ideas. Climate sceptics were the first to vent their anger. Somewhat inevitability, terms such as “eugenics”, “Nazis” and “eco fascists” were quickly being bandied around. One sceptic blogger said that the “sick” Liao and his co-authors should be “kept in Guantanamo”. Another said the paper “presages the death of science, and indeed the death of reason, in the West”.

But prominent environmentalists were also keen to denounce the paper. Bill McKibben tweeted that the paper contained the “worst climate change solutions of all time”. Mark Lynas tweeted that he thought it was an “early April Fool”. It was hard to disagree.

So, were the philosophers who co-wrote the paper surprised by the reaction? Or had all their critics misunderstood what they were trying to achieve? I contacted each of the authors in turn, and a co-editor of the journal, and asked them.

Liao was the first to respond:

First, I think that our paper/position is being grossly misrepresented by some people online. As we specifically say in our paper, a) we are not necessarily endorsing any of the solutions we have canvassed; and b) if these solutions were available, it should be up to individuals to adopt them voluntarily. Ross Anderson, the writer of the Atlantic interview, also makes this clear.
Secondly, the term “eugenics” often gets brought up whenever people mention human enhancements. This is unfortunate because my co-authors and I are positively against any form of coercion of the sort the Nazis had done in the past (segregation, sterilization, and genocide). The way the term ‘eugenics’ is used by some of the people who are against our proposal, it seems that voluntary use of contraception would be a form of eugenics.
Finally, many people who are against our proposal explicitly deny that climate change is really a problem. Given this, it is not surprising that they would find our solution to what they perceive as a “non-problem” incredible. Indeed, some of these people have also said that encouraging people to drive less is an overreaction to climate change. Our paper is intended for those who believe that i) climate change is a real problem; and ii) who, owing to i), are willing to take seriously geoengineering. All bets are off if someone doesn’t accept i).

I then sent the following questions to Liao’s co-authors, Dr Anders Sandberg and Dr Rebecca Roache, both based at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute. (Roache was at the institute when the paper was first being drafted 18 months ago, but has since left to be a “full-time mum”.)

Has your paper been misrepresented online? If so, how and why?

Sandberg: Most reactions are not based on what we actually wrote. People who comment on anything online have usually not read it, and then people comment on them, and so on. You are lucky if people remember the original topic, let alone any argument.
People seem to assume we are some kind of totalitarian climate doomsters who advocate biotechnological control over people. What we are actually saying is that changing our biology might be part of solving environmental problems, and that some changes might not just be permissible but work well with a liberal ethics.
Climate change and many other problems have upstream and downstream solutions. For example, 1) human consumption leads to 2) a demand for production and energy, which leads to 3) industry, which leads to 4) greenhouse gas emissions, which lead to 5) planetary heating, which leads to 6) bad consequences. One solution might be to try to consume less (fix 2). We can also make less emissive industry (fix the 3-4 link), remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (reduce 4), geoengineering that cools the planet (reduce 5) or adapt to a changed world (handle 6). Typically people complain about the downstream solutions like geoengineering that they are risky or don’t actually solve the cause of the problem, and say we should go for upstream solutions (where a small shift affects the rest of the chain). So, what would be the most upstream solution? Change human desires or consumption. While this can be done partially by persuasion and culture, there are many strong evolved drivers in human nature that act against it. But we can also affect the drivers.
For example, making people smarter is likely to make them better at solving environmental problems, caring about the environment, adopting a more long-term stance, cooperate better and have fewer children. It is of course desirable for a long list of other reasons too, and many people would freely choose to use enhancements to achieve this even if they cared little about the world. If there was a modification that removed the desire for meat, it would likely have not just green effects but also benefit health and animal welfare – again many might decide to go for it, with no external compulsion.

Roache: Yes. We argue that it might be worth considering making available some seemingly bizarre solutions to climate change, for people to use or not as they wish. We have been represented as arguing – among other things – that people should be forced to adopt these bizarre measures for the good of the environment. I imagine that this is partly because people assume that nobody would dream up such bizarre solutions to climate change unless they believed that they should be implemented. Philosophers, however, spend a lot of time discussing views that they do not necessarily endorse – it’s part of the learning process.

What do you say to those who are claiming you and your fellow authors are “eco Nazis”, “eugenicists” etc, for publishing this paper?

Sandberg: Well, none of us are deep greens or totalitarian. We are fairly typical liberal academics thinking about the world. In fact, in my normal work with global catastrophic risks at the Future of Humanity Institute, climate change is at the lower end of concern. Certainly a problem, but unlikely to wipe out humanity. That probably disqualifies me from being an eco Nazi.
Certainly one can imagine nasty governments imposing various green policies on the population, forcing them to act in ways that benefit the environment. But our paper doesn’t give them any particular ethical support: if you are willing to infringe on people’s reproductory liberty, why not just prevent them from consuming as much as they want? Green totalitarianism might be possible, but it is hardly moral – because it is totalitarian and doesn’t respect individual rights.
Of course, to many people even a hint that our biology might be subject to political considerations is horrific. Yet they do not seem to worry much about the political decisions that are constantly being made about our reproduction (laws against reproductive cloning are political decisons about the desired form of human reproduction), nutrition or health. We are living in an era of biopolitics. It is better to make the issues explicit and discuss them than assume they will go away if we ignore them.
I think parents should be allowed to select genes for their children (“liberal eugenics” in the term of Nicholas Agar) – the reason eugenics in the past has been such a bad thing was because it was 1) coercive, 2) imposed centrally by the state, and 3) often based on bad science. If one can avoid these problems I do think it could be useful: in that sense I am an eugenicist. However, I suspect other technologies are going to change our species faster than genetics.

Roache: I say that they haven’t read the paper! We explicitly state that we do not endorse coercion, and that we envisage human engineering to be a voluntary activity. The solutions we discuss may seem bizarre and unrealistic, but that does not entail they are not worth exploring.

Did you predict this level/type of response?

Sandberg: A bit. When I wrote the paper I felt I was to some extent trolling – I admit I was delighted when some of my normally rather bio-radical colleagues protested against the idea after a presentation we gave here in Oxford. I was a bit more surprised that the blogosphere and popular press took notice of the paper.
The problem with arousing emotions is that most people then become very stimulus-response driven. They don’t think very deeply about the issue, they react instead. We hoped the paper would be exciting enough to stimulate discussion but not to preclude thinking.
You could claim this paper is a reductio ad absurdum of the idea that we should aim for upstream solutions to environmental problems rather than downstream solutions. I’m not convinced about that: there might indeed be win-win enhancements that are both good for us individually, for society and for the environment, and they should be supported. What the paper does is to take environmental goals and collide them with some common bioethical intuitions (the sacredness of the natural, that human biology must not be touched, etc.) – that hopefully produces an uncomfortable itch that will stimulate some real thinking about what we want to give prioritiy. Could there be ethical reasons not to do things that would help the environment? Could there be environmental needs so pressing we would be forced to budge our biological policies?

Roache: It was always a possibility. Our normally unflappable bioethicist colleagues were shocked by the idea of human engineering, so the wider public was bound to find it ghastly. The fact that we presented it as a response to the widely-discussed problem of climate change is also relevant here: it’s not unusual for philosophers to write about wacky and horrifying ideas, but non-philosophers are rarely interested in them because they often have no obvious bearing on real life. For example, I was working on this paper at around the same time as I was working on a paper about whether it is conceptually possible for more than one person to inhabit a single body; but the publication of the latter passed without comment from the Daily Mail.

Ultimately, what were you trying to achieve with the paper? Are
people interpreting it too literally, namely, believing you personally
would advocate for these ideas?

Sandberg: People are unused to ethical analysis. In philosophy we take ideas and test them to destruction. This means that we often bring up concepts or lines of thought we do not personally believe in and then argue them as strongly as possible to see where they go and what we can learn. This is very different from everyday life where most people who state an idea or belief also believe in it – and it makes people misunderstand this kind of thinking. To make matters worse most people debating it will not read the paper and see how we discuss the ethical problems or why even we think it is a preposterous idea… they will just think some eggheads blithely promote eugenics.
The core idea is that we should not imagine that our biological nature is exempt from being part of a potential solution to environmental problems. In our opinion methods of changing people, habits, technology or the environment are all possible approaches, and what matters is whether they work, have good effects, are acceptable and practical, not what kind of method they are.
My personal view is that human engineering on its own is unlikely to fix climate change. The methods we mention are all too weak, indirect and slow. But thinking about out-of-the-box approaches is useful: too much of the climate debate has been forced into doctrinaire camps where any consideration of alternatives is heresy. Big complex problems are unlikely to have simple and neat solutions: we need to investigate (and perhaps use) a lot of approaches.
I do think that in the long run humanity has to become posthuman if it wants to be truly sustainable. I have a little essay about it here:
http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2009/03/a_really_green_and_sustainable_humanity.html
But this is not feasible for the next few decades, at the very least.

Roache: We wanted to encourage people to think about a group of solutions to climate change that have so far been ignored, despite the fact that in many cases it would be scientifically possible to implement them. Human engineering may seem bizarre and unrealistic, but this does not mean it could not turn out to be feasible and promising: telephones, “test tube babies”, and personal computers are all important aspects of modern life that were once regarded as bizarre and unrealistic. Of course, human engineering may ultimately be unworkable; but this should be because it is impossible to implement, or because its costs outweigh its benefits. It should not be rejected merely because, at first glance, it seems unappealing. And discussing it is itself valuable: it is by exploring and assessing potential responses to a problem that we make progress towards solving it.

I also asked Benjamin Hale, assistant professor of philosophy and environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and co-editor of Ethics, Policy & Environment, why the paper is being published and whether the journal anticipated this sort of response. He said:

We accept submissions from scholars across the academic community. The article went through the same double blind peer reviewed process that all of our articles go through. We haven’t received any questions on it yet. You’re our first. By publishing this article, we are not endorsing it at all. We have circulated the paper widely and are publishing between seven to nine critical responses from ethicists across the field.
The things I’ve seen written on it so far appear to miss the point. The article was clearly not a positive policy proposal. Instead, it was a series of Swiftian philosophical thought experiments more designed to contextualize actively discussed schemes like geoengineering, written by a professor who is not otherwise engaged with the climate community. In the same issue, we will be publishing several other articles critical of geoengineering.

In total, the responses indicate that both the authors and journal stand squarely behind the controversial paper and believe its critics have woefully misinterpreted its contents and the reasons for publishing it. One thing is sure: they have certainly been successful in courting attention (not to be sniffed at in the world of academic publishing, or any form of publishing, for that matter).

But if their aim was to generate a pensive, wide-ranging philosophical debate on the subject of human engineering and climate change I’m not convinced they have been successful. Well, not yet at least, if the online reaction is anything to go by. There remains a danger, too, that the paper will be used in the future as a stick to attack any suggestion of environmental action: “Let them do this, and this will be next on their agenda.” However, I agree with the authors that we should not fear debating such ideas – even if the end result is that we still roundly reject them.

2015

2017

He returns to TED with optogenetics and other DARPA-funded nightmares. Remember optogenetics, because you’ll hear a lot about it in the near future, at least from us.

Also this shameless thing:

2018

SOURCE

2021:

Tucker Carlson: Is Google Funding “Human Engineering” Scientific Research?

 Fox News
On Date June 23, 2021

TUCKER CARLSON: How many other dangerous, potentially world-altering experiments are going on right now, in this and other counties, funded by the secretive daisy-chain of government health agencies, and powerful NGOs? Experiments you’ve never heard of but that could change your life forever? If they can engineer bat viruses to make them more infectious, and oops, they escaped from a lab, what else are they doing? You’re not supposed to ask of course. You’ve been commanded to “trust the science,” and get back to watching Netflix. Only a Neanderthal asks questions. That’s been the arrangement in science for quite a while now. You pay for it, we do it, it’s all good. But why should that continue? Now that we know liars and moral pygmies — people like Tony Fauci, and the soulless bots at Google HQ — and running global science, maybe it’s worth being slightly more inquisitive about what’s happening in labs around the world. Why not? It could affect us.

For example, take a look at this tape. It’s from an annual conference called the “World Science Festival.” A few years ago, the conference featured a professor of bioethics and philosophy at New York University named Mathew Liao.

Liao is among the most influential bioethicists in the world — a fact that will amaze you. Liao explained that climate change can be solved with something called “human engineering.”

MATTHEW LIAO: My view is that what we need is a really robust ethical framework and within this ethical robust framework I think there’s a way going forward where we can do this ethically. But there’s actually a lot of opportunities for this to solve big world problems, one thing is climate change. Climate change is a really big problem we don’t really know how to solve it but it turns out we can use human engineering to help us address climate change.

Here’s a tip: anyone who uses the phrase “robust ethical framework” wouldn’t know ethics if they got in the shower with them. And you know that for a fact because he uses the phrase “human engineering.”

Human engineering? The name alone should make you pause. People aren’t bridge improvements. You can’t just add rebar, pour a few yards of concrete, and improve the human condition, much less the human soul. People are living beings. They’re alive. They can’t be engineered. Liao the eminent bioethicist seems unaware of this. He outlined some of his proposals in a recent paper in the Journal of “Ethics, Policy & Environment.” In that paper, Liao suggests a solution to the problem, the pressing problem, of people eating hamburgers. People like hamburgers, it turns out. How can we get people to stop eating hamburgers? Not by convincing them that hamburgers are bad. That was the old way. That’s how democracy worked. You would tell people something, if they believed they did it, if they didn’t believe you, they didn’t. But it turns out that’s too time-consuming. The new model is we just use pharmaceuticals. Your kids are getting uppity? Dope them out, and they’ll obey. Liao proposes a nationwide system like that, a pill that would make people nauseous at the sight of red meat. Given that climate change is an “existential threat,” that’s limiting our time on earth to 20 years, or 12 years, or 6 months, or pick your exaggeration, it’s hard to imagine a pill like that would soon become mandatory. Sound like a dystopian fantasy? It’s not. Liao is deadly serious. He said so at the “World Science Festival.”

MATTHEW LIAO: So here’s a thought, we have this intolerance for example I have milk intolerance, some people on intolerant to fish so possibly we can use human engineering to make it the case where we are intolerant to certain types of meat, certain types of bovine proteins, so that’s something we can do through human engineering, possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.

TUCKER CARLSON: “Human engineering.” Why do we laugh at Alex Jones again? Sincere question.

Again, says the bioethicist, “human engineering” is the answer. But wait a second, you ask. Human engineering? That’s kind of creepy. Didn’t we decide this kind of thing in Europe 80 years ago, and at the time, didn’t we agree we’re not going to do that ever again? True. But bioethicists have short memories apparently. And in any case, climate change is a pressing emergency. We don’t have time to consider the consequences of our response to this existential crisis.

So here’s an idea, said Liao at the World Science Festival: let’s fiddle with the human genome to see if we can make human children smaller than they are now. A race of dwarfs. They’d eat less, and be cheaper to transport. And that would reduce greenhouse gasses.

MATTHEW LIAO: So it turns out the larger you are, think of the lifetime of greenhouse gas emissions that are required, the energy that’s required to transport larger people rather than smaller people right. But if we are smaller just by 15cm, I did the math that about mass reduction of 25%, which is huge. And 100 years ago we’re all on average smaller, exactly about 15 cm smaller. So think of the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions if we had smaller children. So that’s something we can do.

Imagine if we had smaller children. Little tiny children. Think of how little they would emit in greenhouse gasses. Think about how easy it would be to pick them up, juggle them around, control them. All we need to do is experiment on human children. And we can solve climate change. That was at a public conference five years ago. Nobody said anything. That’s where we are. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. In fact, it’s less ghoulish than some of the things happening in labs right now.

This is what science looks like when it’s been completely decoupled from wisdom, decency and Christianity. It’s a science fiction novel come to life, except it’s real. In fact, Google might be funding it right now.

Same day Carlson picked on him and he responded with this tweet, guess what else he spent two hours on?
Discussing anti-natalism on YouTube with the Romanell Center for Clinical Ethics, who has three subscribers. Numerically.
As the name suggests, anti-natalism is hardcore eugenics that would make Hitler frown.

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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