The sugar in sugar-coated truths ends up killing you

50+ Ongoing Chemical Geo Engineering Programs Discussed at the UN Climate Change Conference 2014

The e-mail makes up pages 2008-2013 of the 2nd and less discussed batch of Fauci e-mails provided by Del Bigtree’s ICAN and obtained through a FOIA request as well.
They discuss titaniumdioxide as antiviral coating for fabrics, but that bracket is undeniably historical.
The sender signs as
Richard J. Tubb, MD
Brigadier General (retired)
White House Physician Emeritus

BRIGADIER GENERAL (DR.) RICHARD J. TUBB

Retired   September 01,2009    

Brig. Gen. (Dr.) Richard J. Tubb is the Physician to the President, and Director, White House Medical Unit, the White House, Washington, D.C. He is responsible for providing direct support and advice to the President of the United States, and he oversees all healthcare services within the White House, Camp David, the Western White House, aboard executive aircraft, while deployed and at contingency locations.  The general develops the international medical intelligence infrastructure, and deploys the medical elements necessary to support the global reach of the President, Vice President and their supporting staff as well as U.S. Secret Service, the White House Military Office, U.S. State Department and other Presidential support elements. He serves as senior medical adviser to the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations. He advises the Director of the White House Military Office on, and directs all joint service, interagency and international operational assets in, medical contingency planning and execution supporting the continuity of the presidency and an enduring constitutional government. He also advises the White House Chief of Staff on implementation of the 25th Amendment of the Constitution.

General Tubb received his commission from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1981. He earned his Doctorate of Medicine from the University of Wisconsin and completed Family Practice Residency training at David Grant Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Calif., in 1988. He has held an appointment as Clinical Assistant Professor of Family Medicine at the Uniformed Services University since 1991, and has held leadership positions in all aspects of Air Force medicine including clinical, academic and operational medicine, garrisoned and deployed. President Clinton appointed him as Director, White House Medical Unit and Physician to the White House effective Jan. 20, 2000. President Bush reaffirmed Dr. Tubb’s leadership and subsequently commissioned him as Physician to the President (Deputy Assistant to the President) in March 2002.

EDUCATION
1981 Distinguished graduate, Bachelor of Science degree, U.S. Air Force Academy,
Colorado Springs, Colo.
1985 Doctor of Medicine degree, University of Wisconsin, Madison
1988 Aerospace Medicine Primary Course, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, Texas
2000 Air War College, by correspondence

ASSIGNMENTS
1. June 1981 – May 1985, medical student, Health Professions Scholarship Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison
2. June 1985 – June 1988, family practice resident, Travis AFB, Calif.
3. July 1988 – July 1991, Chief, Acute Care Clinic, 10th Tactical Fighter Wing, Royal Air Force Alconbury, England
4. August 1991 – July 1994, faculty and Clinical Assistant Professor, Family Practice Residency Program, 375th Medical Group, Scott AFB, Ill.
5. August 1994 – June 1995, Flight Chief, Flight Medicine and Physical Exams, 375th Medical Group, Scott AFB, Ill.
6. June 1995 – June 1996, White House Physician, the White House, Washington, D.C.
7. June 1996 – January 2000, Director, Vice Presidential Medical Operations, and Deputy Director, White House Medical Unit, the White House, Washington, D.C.
8. January 2000 – March 2002, Director, White House Medical Unit, the White House, Washington, D.C.
9. March 2002 – present, Physician to the President (Deputy Assistant to the President), and Director, White House Medical Unit, the White House, Washington, D.C.

FLIGHT INFORMATION
Rating: Chief flight surgeon
Flight hours: More than 1,800
Aircraft flown: C-9, C-17, C-20, VC-25A, C-32, CT-43, C-130, C137, C-141, CH-3, CH-46, CH-53, VH-3 and VH-60

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Defense Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster
Meritorious Service Medal
Air Force Commendation Medal
Air Force Achievement Medal with oak leaf cluster
Joint Meritorious Unit Award with two oak leaf clusters
Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with oak leaf cluster
National Defense Service Medal with bronze star
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
Humanitarian Service Medal with oak leaf cluster
Air Force Overseas Ribbon – Long Tour
Air Force Longevity Service Award with silver oak leaf cluster
Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon
Air Force Training Ribbon

OTHER ACHIEVEMENTS
1979 U.S. Air Force Academy exchange student to U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md.
1988 Diplomate, American Board of Family Practice
U.S. Secret Service Director’s Award (unit)
General Paul Meyer Award for Mentorship, Society of Air Force Physician Assistants

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND ASSOCIATIONS
American Academy of Family Physicians
Uniformed Services Academy of Family Physicians
Former member, Royal College of General Practitioners

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION
Second Lieutenant  May 26, 1981
Captain  May 3, 1985
Major  May 3, 1991
Lieutenant Colonel  May 30, 1996
Colonel  Jan. 20, 2000
Brigadier General  Nov. 1, 2005 

(Current as of July 2006)

SOURCE

Spraying nano-sized titaniumdioxide into the atmosphere to combat climate change

Posted on  by Science News Releases

Sun and clouds

Dispersing fine (sub-micron) light-scattering particles into the upper atmosphere could help to combat climate change, suggests a former UK government advisor and chemical engineer.

The technology concept developed in the UK and first revealed in this month’s tce magazine (“Up and away“; pdf), advocates dispersing benign titanium dioxide particles as used in paint, inks and sunscreens into the stratosphere to deflect the sun’s rays. In a tce webinar on 15 May, Peter Davidson, a Chartered Chemical Engineer, Fellow of IChemE and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and a former senior innovation advisor to a number of government departments, will call for this geoengineering concept to be researched as an insurance policy to cope with possible catastrophic effects of global warming if we don’t manage to reduce CO2 emissions fast enough.

“While it’s essential that we work to reduce carbon dioxide emissions now, it would be wise to have a well-researched emergency system in reserve as a Plan B,” says Davidson.

The idea may sound like science fiction; but the concept in fact mimics the earth-cooling effects of large volcanic eruptions which occur several times a century. When in 1991 Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines, it caused temperatures to drop by around 0.5°C around the globe for two years, ending most talk of global warming during this period. The eruption threw 20 million tons of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, forming a fine mist of sulphuric acid particles that spread over the globe in a matter of months.

As the size of volcanic aerosol particles is similar to the wavelength of sunlight, they scattered a small proportion of the light (~1 %), and hence its heat back into space. The Earth cooled.

Adding sulphuric acid to the stratosphere degrades the ozone layer, and may cause regional changes in precipitation. We need a benign but similarly sized particle; Davidson suggests Titanium Dioxide (TiO2), mankind’s most commonly-used pigment. It is stable in air, non-toxic and seven-times more effective at scattering light than sulphuric acid. Titanium is abundant in the earth’s crust and five million tonnes a year of pigment is produced currently so supply appears feasible. If you are reading this on a printed page the ink and the paper probably both have a TiO2 pigment in them.

With a candidate particle identified, the next challenge is devising a system to effectively and economically lift and disperse millions of tons of particles some 20 km (~ 65,000 feet) up into the stratosphere, so they stay up for a couple of years and do not immediately get rained out.

Davidson says: “The impact of global warming is predicted to be most severe on the world’s poorest peoples, both because of their lack of resources and because of where they happen to be living. I would hope we could ensure that these peoples have a stake in decision-making and the opportunity to have their voice heard, alongside the richer countries, and appropriate NGO’s (for example environmentalists), as well as other bodies.

“Ideally an independent charitable trust funded by a variety of stakeholders from around the world would research not only the technology but suitable governance, legal and ethical frameworks,” adds Davidson.

The total capital cost of the balloon, tethers, ultra high pressure pumps, and the production and transport of the particles is estimated to be £500m plus £600m in annual operating costs in a paper to be published by the Royal Society. These costs are perhaps thirty times lower than the next best technologies considered, such as large numbers of very sophisticated jet aircraft, and do not have the same carbon footprint. “Space mirrors on the scale needed and 20km tall towers are likely to be for the 22nd century not this one.”

Very approximate estimates are that we’d need to disperse over a million tonnes of titanium dioxide per year to keep planetary temperatures constant if CO2 levels in the atmosphere double. If such an insurance policy was needed we would have to do this for 50 to 150 years. Ocean acidification would be a worry but this might be still worse if such temperature control did not keep methane emissions from melting arctic tundra or seas under control.

At current prices, supplying these particles would cost around £3bn per year or around 50p per person per year.

Davidson says: “Creating a suitable insurance policy for climate remediation is a vital task. It will not do to underestimate the challenges. Much research and work on governance is still needed, but a vision is now on offer for debate, and development where potential means of solving some of the most difficult technical challenges have been identified. It would be short-sighted to put-off research of such a safety-device – like trying to develop a life-jacket when you’re swept out to sea and struggling in the water.”

SOURCE

Harvard states that they want to develop new methods, the go-to substances to spray in the air are listed below. If we take a look at SPICE, a United Kingdom government funded geo-engineering research project that collaborates with the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Bristol, this is what we get.

Evaluating Candidate Particles

Work Package 1: Finding the Perfect Particle

This section of the SPICE project is aiming to discover whether any particle other than sulphate is ideally suited for injection into the Stratosphere for the purpose of reducing global temperature while minimising unwanted side-effects. This phenomenon has been observed following major volcanic eruptions e.g. Mt Pinatubo in 1991.

If successful this might temporarily buy time to reduce carbon emissions and potentially prevent the worst effects of human-induced global warming.


Candidate Particles

If successful this might temporarily buy time to reduce carbon emissions and potentially prevent the worst effects of human-induced global warming. The particles SPICE is looking at is as follows:

  • Sulphate/Sulphuric Acid/Sulphur Dioxide
  • Titania (TiO2rutile)
  • Titania (TiO2anatase)
  • Silicon Carbide (SiC)
  • Diamond (C)
  • Dust(either Arizona test dust of NX-illite)
  • Calcium Carbonate
  • Alumina (alpha-Al2O3)
  • Silica (SiO2)
  • Zinc Oxide

Any particles action is goverened by the following characteristics:

  • Size
  • Surface properties
  • Chemical Composition 
  • Refractive Index

An ideal particle would have:

  • Be higly reflective of sunlight
  • Not too absorptive at longer (terrestrial) wavelengths
  • Little or no influence on the reactive chemistry of the stratosphere

Other Key Factors:

  • Lifetime of the particle in the stratosphere
  • Effects on human health
  • Supply/manufacture costs

To better understand the optical and chemical characteristics of the candidate particles we are using the following techniques:

  • AFT CIMS (Aerosol Flow Tube Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometer)
  • PFTR CIMS (Plug Flow Tubular Reactor Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometer)
  • AFT-OA (Aerosol Flow Tube Ozone Analyzer)
  • Coated-Wall Flow Tube
  • Dust Aerosol Generator
  • Laser Tweezers/Laser Beam Trap (Raman Spectroscopy)

Work is being undertaken at the Molecular Spectroscopy Facility (MSF) & the Central Laser Facility (CLF) at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) as well as at Bristol, Oxford & Cambridge Universities

HARVARD’S SOLAR GEOENGINEERING RESEARCH PROGRAM

Harvard Scientists Moving Ahead on Plans for Atmospheric Geoengineering Experiments

The climate researchers intend to launch a high-altitude balloon that would spray a small quantity of reflective particles into the stratosphere.by 

March 24, 2017

Harvard University professor David Keith

A pair of Harvard climate scientists are preparing small-scale atmospheric experiments that could offer insights into the feasibility and risks of deliberately altering the climate to ease global warming.

They would be among the earliest official geoengineering-related experiments conducted outside of a controlled laboratory or computer model, underscoring the growing sense of urgency among scientists to begin seriously studying the possibility as the threat of climate change mounts.

Sometime next year, Harvard professors David Keith and Frank Keutsch hope to launch a high-altitude balloon, tethered to a gondola equipped with propellers and sensors, from a site in Tucson, Arizona. After initial engineering tests, the balloon would spray a fine mist of materials such as sulfur dioxide, alumina, or calcium carbonate into the stratosphere. The sensors would then measure the reflectivity of the particles, the degree to which they disperse or coalesce, and the way they interact with other compounds in the atmosphere.

The researchers first proposed these balloon experiments in a 2014 paper. But at a geoengineering conference in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Keith said they have begun engineering design work with Arizona test balloon company World View Enterprises. They’ve also started discussions about the appropriate governance structure for such an experiment, and they plan to set up an independent body to review their proposals.

“We would like to have the first flights next year,” he said at the Forum on U.S. Solar Geoengineering Research, held at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

In an earlier interview with MIT Technology Review, Keith stressed that the experiments would not be a binary test of geoengineering itself. But they should provide useful information about the proposed method that he has closely studied, known as solar radiation management. 

The basic idea is that spraying certain types of particles into the stratosphere could help reflect more heat back into space. Scientists believe it could work because nature already does it. Large volcanic eruptions in the past have blasted tens of millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the sky, which contributed to lower global temperatures in subsequent months.

What’s less clear is how precisely the technique could control worldwide temperatures, what materials would work best, and what the environmental side effects might be. Notably, previous volcanic eruptions have also decreased precipitation levels in parts of the world, and sulfur dioxide is known to deplete the protective ozone layer. 

Keith has previously used computer modeling to explore the possibility of using other materials that may have a neutral impact on ozone, including diamond dust and alumina. Late last year, he, Keutsch, and others published a paper that found using calcite, a mineral made up of calcium carbonate, “may cool the planet while simultaneously repairing the ozone layer.”

The balloon tests could provide additional insight into how these chemicals actually interact with precursors to ozone in the real world and offer additional information that could help refine their understanding of solar geoengineering, he says: “You have to go measure things in the real world because nature surprises you.” 

Keith stresses that it’s too early to say whether any geoengineering technologies should ever be deployed. But he has argued for years that research should move ahead to better understand their capabilities and dangers, because it’s possible they could significantly reduce the risks of climate change. He stressed that the experiments would have negligible environment impacts, as they will involve no more than a kilogram of materials.

Funding for the initial experiments would come from grants that Harvard provided Keith and Keutsch as new professors. Additional funds may come from Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program, a multidisciplinary effort launching this spring to study feasibility, risks, ethics, and governance issues surrounding geoengineering. As of press time, it had raised more than $7 million from Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, the Hewlett Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Harvard-internal funds, and other philanthropists.

Geoengineering critics argue that the climate system is too complex to meddle with, that the environmental risks are too high, or that even talking about technological “fixes” could ease pressure to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Only two known experiments have been carried out in the open air to date that could be considered geoengineering-related: University of California, San Diego, researchers sprayed smoke and salt particles off the coast of California as part of the E-PEACE experiment in 2011, and scientists in Russia dispersed aerosols from a helicopter and car in 2009. The so called SPICE experiment in the United Kingdom was quickly scuttled in 2012, following public criticism and conflict of interest accusations after several of the scientists applied for a related patent.

In an earlier interview, Jane Long, a former associate director at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, stressed that researchers moving forward with geoengineering experiments need to go to great lengths to ensure proper public notification, opportunities for input, and appropriate oversight, particularly if they’re relying on private funds. But she said it’s time to begin seriously studying the technology’s potential given the growing dangers of climate change.

“We should have started a decade ago,” she said. “It’s critical to know as much as we can as soon as we can.”

CIA’S’John O. Brennan Speaks to CFR on Chemtrails

Department of Homeland Security to Simulate Biological Weapons Test in Oklahoma

November 13, 2017 Off Grid Survival

In early 2018, The Department of Homeland Security is planning to conduct chemical and biological tests near the border between Kansas and Oklahoma.

Homeland Security officials plan to execute a “low-level outdoor release” of inert chemical and biological simulant materials during at two buildings within the Chilocco Indian Agricultural School (Chilocco campus) in Newkirk, Kay County, OK. The tests will take place January/February 2018 and then again during June/July 2018.

According to DHS, the biological weapons simulation is designed to see how protected people would be when staying inside if biological agents are used in a terror attack.

For the particle test, the government plans to release titanium dioxide, which it describes as a “white, odorless powder that is chemically insoluble in water, nonreactive, nonflammable and nonhazardous.”

Despite the government’s claims that the chemical is harmless, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Titanium dioxide dust, when inhaled, can be carcinogenic to humans.

For the biological portion of the test, the government plans to release genetic barcoded spores of an insecticide sold under the trade name of Dipel. Dipel is not considered hazardous by the Environmental Protection Agency when handled appropriately, according to the assessment.

Republican U.S. Rep. Ron Estes of Kansas said Thursday he is “monitoring the situation closely.”

“I have numerous questions regarding this proposed test,” Estes said. “While it’s important for our federal agencies to test their abilities in response to threats, we need to be 100 percent certain this test is safe for the residents of south-central Kansas.”

The city of Arkansas City has also said it’s reviewing media reports of the testing.

“This is the first time the city has been made aware of any testing to occur at Chilocco,” the city posted on its Facebook page Thursday. “Inert means chemically inactive, which means by definition there should be no risk to the citizens. However, we are looking into the situation to gather more information for our citizens and their safety.”

What is Titanium Dioxide?

Many people are familiar with titanium dioxide as an active ingredient in sunscreen. Titanium dioxide works as a UV filtering ingredient in sunscreen – it helps protect a person’s skin by blocking absorption of the sun’s ultraviolet light that can cause sunburn and is also linked to skin cancer. Learn more about titanium dioxide and sunscreen.

Uses & Benefits

Pure titanium dioxide is a fine, white powder that provides a bright, white pigment. Titanium dioxide has been used for a century in a range of industrial and consumer products, including paints, coatings, adhesives, paper, plastics and rubber, printing inks, coated fabrics and textiles, as well as ceramics, floor coverings, roofing materials, cosmetics, toothpaste, soap, water treatment agents, pharmaceuticals, food colorants, automotive products, sunscreen and catalysts.

Titanium dioxide is produced in two main forms. The primary form, comprising over 98 percent of total production, is pigment grade titanium dioxide. The pigmentary form makes use of titanium dioxide’s excellent light-scattering properties in applications that require white opacity and brightness. The other form in which titanium dioxide is produced is as an ultrafine (nanomaterial) product. This form is selected when different properties, such as transparency and maximum ultraviolet light absorption, are required, such as in cosmetic sunscreens.

Pigment-grade Titanium Dioxide

Pigment-grade titanium dioxide is used in a range of applications that require high opacity and brightness. In fact, most surfaces and items that are white and pastel, and even dark shades of color, contain titanium dioxide. Pigment-grate titanium dioxide is used in a range of applications, including:

  • Paints and Coatings: Titanium dioxide provides opacity and durability, while helping to ensure the longevity of the paint and protection of the painted surface.  
  • Plastics, Adhesives and Rubber: Titanium dioxide can help minimize the brittleness, fading and cracking that can occur in plastics and other materials as a result of light exposure.
  • Cosmetics: Pigment-grade titanium dioxide is use in some cosmetics to aid in hiding blemishes and brightening the skin. Titanium dioxide allows for the use of thinner coatings of make-up material for the same desired effect.
  • Paper: Titanium dioxide is used to coat paper, making it whiter, brighter and more opaque.
  • Food Contact Materials and Ingredients: The opacity to visible and ultraviolet light offered by titanium dioxide protects food, beverages, supplements and pharmaceuticals from premature degradation, enhancing the longevity of the product. Specific classes of high purity pigment-grade titanium dioxide are also used in drug tablets, capsule coatings and as a decorative aid in some foods.

Ultrafine-grade, or Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide

Ultrafine-grades of titanium dioxide are most commonly used in the following specialty applications:  

  • Sunscreen: Nanoscale titanium dioxide becomes transparent to visible light while serving as an efficient UV light absorber. Because the particle size is so small, nano-titanium dioxide does not reflect visible light, but does absorb UV light, enabling a transparent barrier that protects the skin from the sun’s harmful rays. According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, using sunscreens containing titanium dioxide can help prevent the occurrence of skin cancer.
  • Catalysts: Nanoscale titanium dioxide is used as a support material for catalyst applications. Major uses include in the automotive industry to remove harmful exhaust gas emissions and in power stations to remove nitrous oxides.

Safety Information

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has assessed the safety of titanium dioxide pigment as a color additive in food, drug and cosmetic applications. FDA had issued guidance clarifying the safe use of titanium dioxide pigment as a food colorant, and has stated that titanium dioxide may be safely used in cosmetics, including cosmetics intended for use around the eye. FDA also regulates the safety and effectiveness of sunscreens and their ingredients, including nanoscale titanium dioxide.

Workers at titanium dioxide manufacturing plants and downstream value-chain manufacturing plants where titanium dioxide is used can be exposed to titanium dioxide dust. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has established a Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for titanium dioxide total dust and requires employers to control workplace exposure below that PEL.

Consumer exposure to titanium dioxide dust is presumed to be extremely low, because titanium dioxide is typically fully incorporated into the end product in which it is used.

SOURCE

Titanium dioxide: E171 no longer considered safe when used as a food additive

Published:6 May 2021

titanium dioxide

EFSA has updated its safety assessment of the food additive titanium dioxide (E 171), following a request by the European Commission in March 2020. 

The updated evaluation revises the outcome of EFSA’s previous assessment published in 2016, which highlighted the need for more research to fill data gaps.  

Prof Maged Younes, Chair of EFSA’s expert Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF), said: “Taking into account all available scientific studies and data, the Panel concluded that titanium dioxide can no longer be considered safe as a food additive. A critical element in reaching this conclusion is that we could not exclude genotoxicity concerns after consumption of titanium dioxide particles. After oral ingestion, the absorption of titanium dioxide particles is low, however they can accumulate in the body”. 

The assessment was conducted following a rigorous methodology and taking into consideration many thousands of studies that have become available since EFSA’s previous assessment in 2016, including new scientific evidence and data on nanoparticles. 

Our scientific experts applied for the first time the 2018 EFSA Scientific Committee Guidance on Nanotechnology to the safety assessment of food additives. Titanium dioxide E 171 contains at most 50% of particles in the nano range (i.e. less than 100 nanometres) to which consumers may be exposed.  

Genotoxicity Assessment 

Genotoxicity refers to the ability of a chemical substance to damage DNA, the genetic material of cells. As genotoxicity may lead to carcinogenic effects, it is essential to assess the potential genotoxic effect of a substance to conclude on its safety.  

Prof Matthew Wright, both a member of the FAF Panel and chair of EFSA’s working group on E 171, said: “Although the evidence for general toxic effects was not conclusive, on the basis of the new data and strengthened methods we could not rule out a concern for genotoxicity and consequently we could not establish a safe level for daily intake of the food additive.”

Risk managers at the European Commission and in EU Member States have been informed of EFSA’s conclusions and will consider appropriate action to take to ensure consumers’ protection.

Background 

Titanium dioxide (E 171) is authorised as a food additive in the EU according to Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.  

The safety of the food additive E 171 was re-evaluated by the EFSA ANS Panel in 2016 in the frame of Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, as part of the re-evaluation programme for food additives authorised in the EU before 20 January 2009.  

In its 2016 opinion, the ANS Panel recommended new studies be carried out to fill the gaps on possible effects on the reproductive system, which could enable them to set an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). Uncertainty around the characterisation of the material used as the food additive (E 171) was also highlighted, in particular with respect to particle size and particle size distribution of titanium dioxide used as E 171.   

In 2019, EFSA published a statement on the review of the risk related to the exposure to food additive titanium dioxide (E171) performed by the French Agency for Food, Environment and Occupational Health Safety (ANSES). In its statement, EFSA highlighted that the ANSES opinion reiterated the uncertainties and data gaps previously identified by EFSA and did not present findings that invalidated the Authority’s previous conclusions on the safety of titanium dioxide.

In the same year (2019), the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) also delivered an opinion on possible health effects of food additive titanium dioxide, which highlighted the importance of examining immunotoxicological effects in addition to potential reprotoxicological effects.

SOURCE

Tiny nanoparticles could be a big problem

by Alex Roslin on July 20th, 2011 at 11:59 AM

  • 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.

SOURCE

Bill Gates Names 10 Breakthrough Technologies of 2019

By DANIEL LIBERTO  Updated Jun 25, 2019

Carbon Dioxide Catcher

Technology that aims to trap carbon before it enters the atmosphere is now steadily becoming available at a reasonable price. Experts reckon carbon capture and storage tools can slash CO2 emissions from power stations by up to 90%. Gates and two oil and gas companies, Occidental Petroleum (OXY) and Chevron (OXY), have invested in Canada’s Carbon Engineering.

Bill Gates Is Thinking About Dimming the Sun

The billionaire is backing a study of the controversial technology called solar geoengineering.

 POPULAR MECHANICS ,MAR 26, 2021microsoft hosts windows hardware engineering conferenceRON WURZERGETTY IMAGES


Bill Gates, who recently suggested the world should eat 100 percent synthetic beef and said bitcoin is bad for the planet, has set his sights on a new foe: the sun.

Gates and other private donors are backing Harvard University’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program, which will soon launch a new study researching the efficacy of blocking sunlight from reaching Earth’s surface.

This week, the influential National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) also released a new report urging the U.S. government to spend at least $100 million to study solar geoengineering, a controversial technology.

What is solar geoengineering, anyway, and why are scientists suddenly interested in—and concerned by—the concept?

Solar Geoengineering, Explained

Geoengineering is a blanket term for technologies that try to alter Earth’s physical qualities on the largest scale possible. One example is cloud seeding, where airplanes flush clouds with particulate matter in order to coalesce into rain. Carbon capture, where emissions are taken and sequestered beneath Earth’s surface, is another major form of geoengineering.
This content is imported from {embed-name}. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Scientists have devised multiple ways to block sunlight from reaching Earth’s atmosphere or surface. These are gathered under the umbrella term “solar geoengineering.” The most common and studied method is to reflect sunlight away from Earth using aerosol particles in the atmosphere, but until now, this has been seen as more of a fringe idea. It’s the instigating event of the 2013 film Snowpiercer, for example, where blocking sunlight has turned Earth into a lifeless ice ball.

While the mechanism of an aerosol solar geoengineering study is simple—the physical structure of aerosol particles literally blocks and scatters light—the reality is more complex.

Remember the 2010 eruption of an Icelandic volcano that blocked the entire sky all the way into Europe? That was an atmospheric aerosol event. The meteor strike that might have killed the dinosaurs blanketed the Earth in a layer of aerosol dust. Almost any everyday substance can be aerosolized in the right conditions—the term is simply any airborne fine particulate that can float in clouds like a gas.

Why Do Scientists Want to Study This Now?

Solar geoengineering with aerosols runs head into the fact that aerosols, like ozone layer-destroying chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) spray aerosols, have often been a contributor to climate change. Scientists say this lack of concrete information and consensus is a critical failure that must be corrected with new studies.

The worst case scenario is that humankind faces an extreme climate emergency, but knows nothing about even the long-shot ways to address it. This is why scientists are asking now for a major investment in solar geoengineering research.

scopex experiment concept art

How the SCoPEx will work.KEUTSCH GROUP AT HARVARD

The researchers behind the forthcoming Harvard project, the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), say we must study solar geoengineering in case we need to take a drastic action against climate change. The Gates-supported study seeks to do exploratory, small-scale experiments in the atmosphere:

“We plan to use a high-altitude balloon to lift an instrument package approximately 20 km into the atmosphere. Once it is in place, a very small amount of material (100 g to 2 kg) will be released to create a perturbed air mass roughly one kilometer long and one hundred meters in diameter. We will then use the same balloon to measure resulting changes in the perturbed air mass including changes in aerosol density, atmospheric chemistry, and light scattering. [W]e plan to release calcium carbonate, a common mineral dust. We may also release other materials such as sulfates in response to evolving scientific interests.”

What Happens Next?

Calcium carbonate is a plentiful and harmless mineral that’s also the active ingredient in Tums. But “harmless” only goes so far—the repercussions of solar geoengineering aren’t necessarily found in the material released, but in the unexpected effects of mixing ingredients into the stratosphere. This is why, SCoPEx says, most research has focused on an aerosol chemical already found in the stratosphere: sulfuric acid, which is a pollutant. Both need to be studied, and likely more.

Meanwhile, for a new prepublication report, the NASEM convened a committee of 16 international science luminaries to develop solar geoengineering research. Researcher Chris Field writes:

“Globally, 2015-2019 were the 5 warmest years in the instrumental record. The creation of this study committee is one response to the need for understanding the full range of options for dealing with the climate crisis.”

Chapters in the report include the role of philanthropists like Gates, the goals of preparing future political decisionmakers, and the state of existing research about solar geoengineering.

So, is all of this a good idea or not? That’s hard to say right now, but all of the scientists and backers involved are only suggesting doing research—not taking large-scale action.

No one is suggesting we spray the clouds with calcium carbonate tomorrow, or even 10 years from now. But if we don’t understand how solar geoengineering will affect the world, by the time we need it as an option in our climate playbook, it will be too late. And that’s what this news really is: keeping options open and exploring the ramifications of a radical technology.

MORE COINCIDENCE THEORIES

If I were Bill Gates or other nefarious swamp creature like that, and if I needed a platform to manage and coordinate spraying the skies, as a prominent World Economic Forum sponsor, I could easily and efficiently coincide with WEF’s The Clean Skies for Tomorrow Coalition:

“The Clean Skies for Tomorrow Coalition provides a crucial global mechanism for top executives and public leaders, across and beyond the aviation value chain, to align on a transition to sustainable aviation fuels as part of a meaningful and proactive pathway for the industry to achieve carbon-neutral flying.

Stakeholders will work together to address the chicken-and-egg scenario whereby producers and consumers are both either unwilling or unable to carry the initial cost burden of investing in new technologies to reach a scale where they are competitive with existing fossil fuel-derived options.

Champions of the Clean Skies for Tomorrow Coalition will advance co-developed initiatives to break this impasse, to advance the commercial scale of viable production of sustainable low-carbon aviation fuels (bio and synthetic) for broad adoption in the industry by 2030. Initiatives include a mechanism for aggregating demand for carbon-neutral flying, a co-investment vehicle and geographically specific value-chain pilots.

The Clean Skies for Tomorrow Coalition is led by the World Economic Forum in collaboration with the Rocky Mountain Institute and the Energy Transitions Commission. It is advanced through close consultation with advisory partner, the Air Transport Action Group.

Founding champions include: Airbus Group, Heathrow Airport, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Royal Schiphol Group, Shell, SkyNRG, SpiceJet and The Boeing Company.”

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
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

ICAN just got banned by Twitter for unloading another FOIA release with Fauci e-mails!
This happened like hours ago. I haven’t reviewed many of the e-mails yet. Developing story

DOWNLOAD E-MAILS

FIRST BOMBSHELL I FOUND:

PAGE 103-104

PAGE 103-104

I haven’t covered the Commission much on SILVIEW.media, for more info I recommend searching it on the Corbett Report website

SECONDLY…

PAGE 142-143

Check: VACCINE COMPANIES NEVER HAD THE VIRUS IN THEIR LABS, JUST A MEMO FROM CHINA – TOP INDUSTRY INSIDER

AND FOR MY 3RD NUMBER…

Well deserved separate post here:

MOAB! FAUCI’S E-MAILS ACCIDENTALLY VINDICATE EVEN CHEMTRAIL THEORISTS

ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network, founded by Del Bigtree) website

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

BREAKING! 2ND BATCH OF FAUCI E-MAILS: INVITE TO ROCKEFELLER’S TRILATERAL COMMISSION

There’s no way the intelligence communities from at least 4-5 countries didn’t know of this. Not acting on it is participating in it.

SOURCE (PDF) – SEEK PAGE 2286

https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561-leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails

This is an official FOIA release obtained by Jason Leopold, Buzzfeed contributor. His article on this is below, but first I want to raise an eyebrow, because the sender of the e-mail is this semi-notorious pro-Ivermectin militant who you wouldn’t expect to have this conversation with Fauci, would you? But there he is.

LATER UPDATES:

FAUCI PROPOSED ZUCKERBERG’S BIOTECH FIRM TO INVESTIGATE THE SARS-COV-2 ORIGINS. BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THERE ‘ARE PAYING SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE WUHAN STRAIN’. IN FEBRUARY 2020!

Digging through Fauci’s e-mails is bad for your teeth and liver, I should stop

Page 3187

Apparently, this needs explained:
The e-mail above single-handedly proves the lab-leak suspicions are as old and based as the virus.

The guy who sent the e-mail above, later published this:

A second statement which had enormous influence in shaping public attitudes was a letter (in other words an opinion piece, not a scientific article) published on March 17, 2020, in the journal Nature Medicine. Its authors were a group of virologists led by Kristian G. Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute. “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” the five virologists declared in the second paragraph of their letter. – The Wire


Here’s the Buzzfeed report, mostly useless trash not worth your time, but for some context:

Anthony Fauci’s Emails Reveal The Pressure That Fell On One Man

Thousands of pages of communications obtained by BuzzFeed News show how Fauci tried to keep Americans calm and develop an effective strategy despite conflicts with the Trump administration. Natalie Bettendorf BuzzFeed Contributor Jason Leopold BuzzFeed News Reporter

Posted on June 1, 2021, at 1:59 p.m. ET

Anthony Fauci, wearing a face mask, looks down at his cellphone in his hands

The woman’s email arrived in Anthony Fauci’s inbox on Feb. 28, 2020, with a one-word subject line: “URGENT.”

The coronavirus crisis was still in its early stages, and Fauci, the US government’s top infectious disease scientist, was already under tremendous pressure, both because of the health threat facing the country and the political climate fostered by the Trump administration.

“I understand Vice President Pence has ordered you to not inform the public about Coronavirus without approval. This is quite terrifying, especially since Trump has already shown his desire to spread false or incomplete information about this public health crisis,” the woman wrote.

She had tracked down Fauci’s email, which is not easily accessible on government websites, because she had a pressing question: “I’m planning to fly domestically TOMORROW [REDACTED]. Is it safe??”

Of course, Fauci had urgent matters of his own to attend to, but he replied to the stranger anyway the next day. “There is much misinformation,” he wrote back. “I actually have not been muzzled at all by the Vice President. And BTW, it is safe to fly domestically [REDACTED].”

More than 3,200 pages of emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by BuzzFeed News — covering the period from January to June 2020 — provide a rare glimpse into how Fauci approached his job during the biggest health crisis of the last century, showing him dealing directly with the public, health officials, reporters, and even celebrities. (The Washington Post also received more than 800 pages of emails and published a story about them on Monday.)

The emails reviewed by BuzzFeed News reveal him sparring over an antiviral drug with Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama administration health adviser, fielding questions about vaccines, and receiving an update from Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook’s plans for a coronavirus “information hub.” Zuckerberg also asked whether the social media company could provide resources to accelerate vaccine testing. And Fauci even responded to an offer from actor Morgan Fairchild to use her Twitter account on his behalf.

An email from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to Anthony Fauci
Fauci discusses his response to Zuckerberg in an email to another NIAID official

“It would be great if you could tweet to your many Twitter followers,” he responded to Fairchild. “The American public should not be frightened, but should be prepared to mitigate an outbreak in this country by measures including social distancing, teleworking, temporary closure of schools, etc.”

An email from Morgan Fairchild to Anthony Fauci

The emails show Fauci received a flurry of correspondence about the theory that coronavirus leaked from a lab in Wuhan. One such email sent to Fauci on April 16, 2020 by Francis Collins, the director of the National Institute of Health, under the subject line “conspiracy gains momentum” contained a link to a news story highlighting a Fox News report that said the allegation had merit. Fauci’s response to Collins is entirely blacked out.

The records also lay bare Fauci’s ambivalence toward his newfound celebrity status but also his embrace of a documentary crew who would tell his story. Additionally, the emails hint at the personal toll this past year has taken on him. In one email sent on Feb. 18, weeks before COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic, he wrote that he had only been able to see his wife for 45 minutes in the previous 10 days.

Fauci, who has been director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, declined to comment for this story.

Some of the emails were reviewed by the Trump White House before being turned over to BuzzFeed News. They represent just a portion of what was requested, and they are filled with redactions, making them an incomplete record of the time period and Fauci’s correspondence. Additional tranches are expected to be released in the coming months.

However, the emails do give a sense of the type of communicator Fauci is: courteous, low-key, and empathetic. He politely interacts with the office assistants who help him with his correspondence, and he sweats over the proper way to let people down.

When a White House fellow and physician emails Fauci and offers to team up to write an opinion piece on the coronavirus and “unite the nation,” the NIAID director asks a colleague, “How do we nicely say no to this person?”

And when health professionals write him with harsh criticism of Trump’s handling of the pandemic, he doesn’t take the bait. Instead, he replies with a “thank you.”

An email from Dr. Fauci asking "How do we nicely say no to this person?"

His tone is a mix of friendly and formal, employing phrases like “let us discuss,” “many thanks,” and — in rare displays of displeasure — a delicate “yikes!” He signs off as “Tony.”

Even though he tends to sidestep controversy, Fauci does defend his decisions and push back.

In March 2020, Fauci and a few other colleagues received an email from Gregg Gonsalves, a prominent Yale School of Public Health epidemiologist, urging the NIAID director and his team to act promptly on the virus. The subject line was “We Are Desperate for Advice.”

“For those I know, I don’t doubt your commitment to public service,” Gonsalves wrote. “But time is running out. We need vocally, unequivocal leadership now, that offers real guidance to communities about what to do, what might happen next.”

An email from Gregg Gonsalves to Fauci and other officials at the CDC, NIAID, and NIH

Fauci clearly resented any implication that his health team’s response was being shaped by the political values of the Trump administration, and he responded curtly three hours later.

“Gregg: I am surprised you included me in your note,” he wrote. “I genuflect to no one but science and always, always speak my mind when it comes to public health. I have consistently corrected misstatements by others and will continue to do so.”

Fauci's response to Gonsalves
A followup email from Gonsalves

Fauci, 80, has tackled the world’s most difficult health crises and infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, Ebola, and Zika, earning respect in his field and the trust of many Americans. As the COVID-19 crisis deepened, his inbox filled with queries from people seeking guidance, solace, or morsels of medical advice.

On March 4, under the subject line “A humble request for your wisdom,” a woman wrote to Fauci and asked whether a person inoculated against pneumonia would be protected against COVID-19.

One hour later, at 9:45 p.m. on a Wednesday, Fauci replied that complications from COVID-19 are “heavily skewed” toward people who are older or have underlying conditions. He went into a lengthy explanation:

“Most of the pneumonias are pure viral pneumonia and so this vaccination will not help that,” he wrote. “However, on the chance that you have a pure viral pneumonia that gets secondarily complicated by a bacterial pneumonia (pneumococcal) the vaccine would be beneficial.

“If you are 65 years of age or older, you should get pneumonvax23 anyway regardless of the risk of coronavirus infection. Thanks, Tony.”

Five minutes later, the woman wrote back, “Oh my god. … I honestly never expected you to reply and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for being so generous!”

Some writers emailed mainly to vent. Among them: a Florida infectious disease specialist who was upset that some Americans were not taking proper precautions.

“I am putting my life on the line so folks can go pump iron, drink beer, have a burger and get a tan,” Doug Brust emailed Fauci on March 18.

“The band is playing on. Again,” Brust wrote, a reference to one of the most famous books of the AIDS epidemic, And the Band Played On, which exposed the hapless efforts of the government and the public medical establishment to address the health crisis.

Fauci's reply to Doug Brust

And reporters, of course, reached out with questions for the doctor considered the country’s foremost expert. One email exchange, however, shows how even Fauci couldn’t see all that was coming.

Just a day after the first reported COVID-19 death in the United States, the managing editor of ABC News’ medical unit emailed Fauci and asked him if he agreed with what a source at the Department of Homeland Security told him: that epidemiology models showed that 98 million people could be infected with COVID-19 and deaths from the virus could reach 500,000.

“That seems exceptionally high,” Fauci responded.

His guidance was not always welcomed by his own bosses at the White House. He faced a wide range of harassment, including angry tweets from Trump that questioned his expertise.

Those conflicts also get referenced in the emails. In April, a top Chinese health official emailed Fauci about vaccines. As part of that thread, the official expressed concern about him “being attacked by some people.”

“Thank you for your kind note. All is well despite some crazy people in this world,” Fauci replied.

Even as he gained enemies and roused critics, many of the emails also reflect his growing stature around the world.

“Dear — highly respected — Dr. Fauci,” a doctor from Austria writes in bolded text. “Why do I try to childishly support a respected expert and personally highly honored Gentleman like you — Dr. Fauxi? Because for me — it is heartbreaking and unbelievably disturbing, what was and is going on of the last 4 months in the USA.”

He goes on to lay out a strategy for nations to cope with the devastating effects of the pandemic.

“Not a crazy note. Please respond on my behalf,” Fauci writes to a staff member.

On May 5, 2020, Mary Harris, an NIAID employee, wrote: “I am grateful to say my Director is Dr. Anthony Fauci and share with my family, friends, and church that if you said it, it’s gospel.”

Along the way, the scientist was becoming a celebrity. Just a couple of months into the pandemic, T-shirts, bobbleheads, socks, and even prayer candles with his face plastered on them were being sold. Fauci’s emails show he was clearly uncomfortable with the attention.

“Click on the ‘Cuomo Crush’ and ‘Fauci Fever’ link below. It will blow your mind. Our society is really totally nuts,” Fauci wrote in an April 8, 2020, email he forwarded to undisclosed recipients after he received a Google alert about news stories mentioning his name.

The previous month, a colleague had emailed Fauci a Washington Post article headlined “Fauci Socks, Fauci Doughnuts, Fauci Fan Art: The Coronavirus Experts Attract a Cult Following.” The top of the article tells the story of a Rochester, New York, shop that had sold out of donuts with Fauci’s face on them.

“Truly surrealistic,” Fauci wrote. “Hopefully this all stops soon.” Later, he added: “It is not at all pleasant, that is for sure.”

But it didn’t stop, and, at times, Fauci actually couldn’t help but get a kick out of it, including when Brad Pitt played him on Saturday Night Live.

“One reviewer of the SNL show said that Pitt looked ‘exactly like me.’ That statement made my year, ” Fauci wrote to a colleague.

The emails also reveal behind-the-scenes negotiations over a documentary about Fauci’s work. He first sent a note to his team about the project on April 12, a month after the World Health Organization had declared the coronavirus a pandemic.

“Let us discuss this tomorrow before we do anything. No one has any ‘exclusives’ on anything about me,” he wrote to his team.

Still, there is little in his correspondence that strays from the central issues: the pandemic and how best to save lives. His exchanges with Ezekiel Emanuel, the former Obama health adviser, reflect the high stakes.

Emanuel, an oncologist, bioethicist, and vice provost of the University of Pennsylvania, sent Fauci an email on Feb. 25, 2020, asking for an updated assessment of the virus and noting that he was having a “hard time seeing this as serious as everyone else.”

“Am I blind? Yes very transmissible but low mortality like flu in many ways – the elderly, those with comorbidities, and total impact is likely to be less than flu,” Emanuel wrote.

Later, in April, Emanuel sent Fauci an email saying he was “perplexed” by his “seeming strong endorsement” of the antiviral drug remdesivir to treat COVID-19.

“Was it just a bit forced?” Emanuel asked. “My reading was the data was weak and in normal times for normal disease it is not enough to approve. And very unlikely to really impact COVID-19 disease pattern–regardless of supply issues.”

Fauci countered: “I did not ‘strongly’ endorse it. I specifically said it was not a knockout drug and was only a baby step in the direction of developing more and better drugs. I said that it was important because it proved in a well-powered, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that one can suppress the virus enough to see a clinical effect, as modest as the effect was. I do not think I forced anything.”

The next day, Emanuel sent another email, apologizing for misinterpreting Fauci’s comments about the drug and inviting him over for dinner “on the porch.”

“You are a national — international — treasure. And we are depending on your sanity and smarts.”

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
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

WTH ever happened to “verify from three independent sources”? All we have is a letter salad uploaded on a server by CCP and “isolation in cultures”.

Back to the normal programming for the normally-abled:

These guys:

… said this:

This is a video presentation, if YouTube Takes it down again, please look it up on Odysee, Brighteon or Bitchute

MANAGED TO UPDATE THE VIDEO TOO AS OF JULY 2021

Amazing list of investors for Illumina, btw!

HOLLY MACARONI: CDC confirmed piecing together the code for the virus from scraps and apparently different places use different codes, which better explains some incidents. See from minute 5 here

ADDENDUM 1: MODERNA AND PFIZER CONFIRM

MODERNA: WE CREATED OUR JAB IN 2 DAYS!
PFIZER: LOL N00BS!

Pfizer
Moderna

ADDENDUM 2: FACT-CHECKERS CONFIRM

ADDENDUM 3 (SEPT 1ST 20201): FOUND A GEM! PROF. DAVID RASNICK LITERALLY AND INDEPENDENTALY SAID SAME THING: “THIS VIRUS EXISTS ONLY ON COMPUTERS”. AND GOES ON CONFIRMING ALL MY THESIS AND MORE

Prof. David Rasnick PhD is a reputed researcher, a friend of Kari Mullis’ and one of the first to whistleblow on the AIDS hoax. A bit of a hero to me, which makes it all more exciting.

ADDENDUM 4 (FEB 2022): LOUD AND CLEAR

UPDATE JULY 10, 2021

And yet another loud and clear confirmation that no one notices because…

“A bipartisan pair of lawmakers want information from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) about the deletion of data on the genetic sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that could provide answers as to the virus’s origin.

In a letter sent Friday and shared first with The Hill, Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) and Mark Green (R-Tenn.) ask for answers about the missing genetic sequences, and press NIH Director Francis Collins to ensure there are safeguards in place to protect scientific data.

The letter comes after a scientist last month said he found some of the genetic sequences of the virus that had previously been uploaded to an NIH server in March 2020 were subsequently deleted at the request of the Chinese researchers from Wuhan who initially uploaded them.

Jesse Bloom, a principal researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, wrote in a preprint paper that he recovered 13 missing sequences that purportedly show the virus was circulating in the Chinese city of Wuhan before a December outbreak of COVID-19 that was linked to a “wet market” selling live animals.

The NIH said the requestor wanted the data removed from the agency’s Sequence Read Archive and indicated it was being submitted to another database. Submitting investigators hold the rights to their data and can request withdrawal of the data, the agency said.

Top U.S. public health officials and experts are increasingly lending credibility to the need for a deeper investigation into the origins of the coronavirus.

Scientists haven’t discovered definitive proof the virus leaked from a lab. But they also have not found hard evidence that shows the virus started in animals before naturally infecting humans, which is why some now argue an investigation is needed.” – The (S)Hill

ALL THEY EVER TALK ABOUT IS DATA, A STREAM OF CHARACHTERS.
I mean it’s hard to feel sorry for the human race when it’s this dumb, eugenicists are not totally wrong, just not in position to decide who dies, because no one is.

UPDATE #4: JUNE 4, 2021

BREAKING! 2ND BATCH OF FAUCI E-MAILS

UPDATE #1 : WE’VE JUST BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE UNFORTUNATE AMATEUR PROPAGANDISTS DISGUISED AS FRANCE PRESSE FACT-CHECKERS

SOURCE

ALL THEY HAVE IS A “POST IT” FROM CHINA!

Ah, and a “Nature publication”, I loled. o_O
What kind of people use “there is no question” as scientific argument/evidence? Pseudo-scientists, snake-oil salesmen and con artists of all kinds.

The sub-zeroes from the CBS-affiliate WUSA9 try to lend a helping hand to their owners, but they double down for us:

They link, as evidence, to this NIH page which ONLY MENTIONS GENBANK, which is the same fridge on which China stuck that “post it” note.
THAT IS ALL THEY HAVE.

WTH ever happened to “verify from three independent sources”?
It used to be Rule #0 in journalism, back when I studied it in college.

Here are a bit over three sources to support something:

SOURCE

FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the world have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever

SOURCE

“Would a sane person mix a patient sample (containing various sources of genetic material and never proven to contain any particular virus) with transfected monkey kidney cells, fetal bovine serum and toxic drugs, then claim that the resulting concoction is “SARS-COV-2 isolate” and ship it off internationally for use in critical research (including vaccine and test development)?

Because that’s the sort of fraudulent monkey business that’s being passed off as “virus isolation” by research teams around the world.

Just 1 of many examples is shown below – this is from a study cited by the Australian Department of Health as a paper “which led to the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in culture“. (Can you spot the oxymoron in that quote?)” – Fluoride Free Peel

If you are new to the topic of “virus isolation/purification”, I strongly recommend that you begin by reading the Statement On Virus Isolation by Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Thomas Cowan and
Sally Fallon Morell, MAhttps://andrewkaufmanmd.com/sovi/
or watch this 5 minute video from Dr. Cowan.

Here are 5 compilation pdfs containing FOI responses from 79 institutions in 22 countries/jurisdictions, re the isolation/purification/existence of “SARS-COV-2”, as well as emails from authors of studies that claimed to have “isolated the virus” and an email from the Head of the Consultant Laboratory for Diagnostic Electron Microscopy of Infectious Pathogens at Germany’s Robert Koch Institut, last updated July 13, 2021 (note: many of these responses were obtained by FOI-submitters other than Michael S. and myself, as indicated further down this page):
Part 1: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/FOI-replies-SARS-COV-2-isolation-existence-causation-47-institutions-Feb-12-2021-chrono-part-1.pdf
Part 2: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/FOI-replies-SARS-COV-2-isolation-existence-causation-47-institutions-Feb-12-2021-chrono-part-2.pdf
Part 3: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FOI-replies-SARS-COV-2-isolation-purification-existence-part-3-April-3.pdf
Part 4: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FOI-replies-re-SARS-COV-2-purification-existence-June-3-2021-part-4.pdf
Part 5: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FOI-replies-re-SARS-COV-2-purification-existence-July-13-2021-part-5.pdf

UPDATE2:
I discovered this when the video was already up…

Source

“Most of our readers are interested in consumer DNA testing for genealogy and ancestry research. Illumina played a massive role in making these services affordable. All the big DNA testing companies use Illumina’s chip technology.
But some companies are even more closely intertwined with Illumina. I mention briefly in an article on who owns 23andMe that the chip company was an investor in the 2015 funding found of its customer.”

https://www.dataminingdna.com/

“If you’ve ever used 23andMeAncestry.com, or any other genetics-testing service, chances are that your genes were sequenced on machines made by the $25 billion biotech behemoth. Now the undisputed leader in the emerging field of DNA sequencing in the U.S., Illumina has outstripped its rivals by selling its sequencing hardware to medical researchers around the world.”

https://www.fastcompany.com/

As we’ve shown in previous reports, 23andMe is owned by Richard Branson and a former wife and current partner of Google’s founder Sergey Brin. She also happens to be the sister of YouTube CEO.

“23andMe is owned by a sizeable number of large investors spearheaded by Anne Wojcicki (YouTube CEO sister and former Google owner wife – S.m) and Richard Branson. The list of investors with recent ownership stakes in the company includes Altimeter Capital, Fidelity, Casdin Capital, and Foresite Capital.
Since the company was founded in 2006, it has been involved in multiple funding rounds. There were at least 60 investors in 2020 before the merger, including GlaxoSmithKline and Sequoia Capital. Early investors include Alphabet (Google’s parent company) and WuXi Healthcare Ventures (a Chinese company).
When 23andMe merged with Richard Branson’s acquisition company, the existing stakeholders retained ownership of 81% of the merged company.”

dataminingdna.com

According to Wikipedia:

“In 2005, co-founder and former Chief Scientific Officer Anthony Czarnik sued Illumina; see Czarnik v. Illumina Inc.

In 2010, Cornell University and Life Technologies filed a lawsuit against Illumina, alleging that its microarray products infringed on eight patents held by the university and exclusively licensed to the start-up. The case was settled in April 2017 without any finding of fault. In September 2017 both parties asked to have the settlement reviewed, with Cornell accusing both Illumina and Life Technologies of misrepresentation and fraud.[44]

In February 2020, Illumina filed a patent infringement suit against BGI relating to its “CoolMPS” sequencing products.[48] In return BGI has filed patent infringement lawsuits for violation of federal antitrust and California unfair competition laws, claiming use of “fraudulent behavior” to obtain or enforce sequencing patents that it has asserted against BGI, preventing the firm from entering the US market.[49]

“BGI” as in…

BILL GATES’ & BIG TECH’S CHINESE DARLINGS: WORLD’S TOP DNA HARVESTERS, CLONERS, UIGHUR PERSECUTERS (BIOHACKING P.4)

Ah, also…

source

UPDATE 3:

Sharryl Atkinson investigates the source of the virus, finds out no one in US got samples in their lab, moves on trying to find the source of a virus that no one can provide samples / isolation / purification.

UPDATE 4 (hopefully final)

I think we’re done here.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
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