sa-mRNA — What is it?

What is self-amplifying mRNA?

And it is already being used in Japan and maybe soon in the US. It combines the unknown duration of effect of mRNA with the mutation-producing effects of nuclear DNA.

Here is what the Perplexity AI says. Note that it can be called self-amplifying DNA also:

Self-amplifying DNA refers to a type of DNA-based vaccine platform that combines elements of conventional DNA vaccines with the self-replicating capabilities of RNA viruses. Here are the key points about self-amplifying DNA:

  1. Structure and components:
    • It is a circular double-stranded DNA molecule
  • Contains a strong promoter (e.g., human cytomegalovirus immediate early promoter)

Encodes viral replicase genes, typically from alphaviruses or flaviviruses. Includes the gene of interest (GOI) encoding the vaccine antigen

  • Mechanism of action:
    • After delivery into cells, the DNA is transcribed in the nucleus to produce self-amplifying RNA
  • This RNA is transported to the cytoplasm where it self-replicates and produces high levels of the antigen
  • The self-amplification process mimics viral infection, leading to sustained antigen production
  • Advantages:
    • Combines benefits of DNA vaccines (stability, ease of production) with self-amplifying RNA technology

Requires lower doses compared to conventional DNA or mRNA vaccines

  • Induces potent humoral and cellular immune responses
  • More stable than RNA, simplifying storage and distribution
  • Delivery methods:
    • Can be delivered as naked DNA, often using electroporation for improved cellular uptake
  • Can also be formulated with lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) for enhanced delivery
  • Applications:
    • Promising platform for rapid vaccine development against emerging infectious diseases
  • Potential for use in therapeutic cancer vaccines and other applications
  • Self-amplifying DNA, also referred to as DNA-launched replicons (DREPs), represents an innovative approach in vaccine technology that aims to combine the advantages of DNA vaccines with the potency of self-amplifying RNA systems.

I was asked to expand on this idea. I don’t want to alarm unnecessarily nor fail to alarm when appropriate. Let me give an example: how I approached the COVID mRNA vaccines before they were released.

  1. I was worried about them but there were noreal data to go on
  2. I assisted Dr. Sin Hang Lee in his petition (as editor) to the FDA to try and stop them in Nov 2020 on the basis that the Pfizer trials were not conducted per existing standards
  3. I shared information from Dr. Patrick Whelan on my blog about problems that might be anticipated.
  4. I did NOT tell people not to take them. I warned them about problem that might be anticipated.
  5. Later I did warn people, once the problems became clearer, in January 2021 and later. I was one of the first to issue warnings, as soon as I could identify problems.

Looking back, I wish I had issued stronger warnings. But I had no reason to think the vaccines would be as bad as they were.

Right now I am looking at a theoretical vaccine construct. I’m worried. But I don’t know how worried to be. I have no human data. But Japanese doctors, where these vaccines are already being made and used, have warned that they are a disaster.

How big a disaster, I don’t know. I hope to find out in September when I will be in Japan, speaking at the ICS 6 Conference in Tokyo with the Japanese doctors who are speaking out, if not before.

And now we learn that CSL Sequirus is involved in the Japanese vaccine. BTW, 6 cases of chest pain in 828 subjects shortly after vaccination were blown off by the investigators. The control vaccine was Comirnaty, which would (naturally) make comparator vaccines look not too bad.

Here is the rest of this press release:

The approval is based on positive clinical data from several ARCT-154 studies, including an ongoing 16,000 subject efficacy study performed in Vietnam as well as a Phase 3 COVID-19 booster trial, which achieved higher immunogenicity results and a favorable safety profile compared to a standard mRNA COVID-19 vaccine comparator.  Initial study results have been published in MedRxiv and are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal by the end of the year.

[Here is the preprint: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.13.23292597v1]

“We are proud of the role that Arcturus has played in this collaboration to develop and validate the first approved sa-mRNA product in the world,” said Joseph Payne, Chief Executive Officer of Arcturus Therapeutics. “This approval for the sa-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is a major achievement, and we are excited to embark on future endeavors that utilize our innovative sa-mRNA vaccine platform alongside our global exclusive partner, CSL.”

CSL’s vaccine business, CSL Seqirus, one of the largest influenza vaccine providers in the world, partnered exclusively with Meiji Seika Pharma for distribution of the sa-mRNA COVID vaccine, ARCT 154, in Japan.

“Our expertise in seasonal and pandemic influenza positions us well to help the global community reduce the burden of COVID-19 and we look forward to playing a key role in helping protect the people of Japan,” said Stephen Marlow, Senior Vice President and General Manager of CSL Seqirus.

About sa-mRNA
Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology protects against infectious diseases by instructing cells in the body to make a specific protein, stimulating the immune response, and leaving a blueprint to recognize and fight future infection. However, sa-mRNA makes copies of the mRNA which generates the production of more protein compared to an equivalent amount of mRNA in a vaccine.  The technology has the potential to create more potent cellular immune responses and increase duration of protection, while using considerably lower doses of mRNA.

About CSL
CSL (ASX:CSL; USOTC:CSLLY) is a global biotechnology company with a dynamic portfolio of lifesaving medicines, including those that treat haemophilia and immune deficiencies, vaccines to prevent influenza, and therapies in iron deficiency and nephrology. Since our start in 1916, we have been driven by our promise to save lives using the latest technologies. Today, CSL – including our three businesses: CSL Behring, CSL Seqirus and CSL Vifor – provides lifesaving products to patients in more than 100 countries and employs 32,000 people. Our unique combination of commercial strength, R&D focus and operational excellence enables us to identify, develop and deliver innovations so our patients can live life to the fullest. For inspiring stories about the promise of biotechnology, visit CSLBehring.com/Vita and follow us on Twitter.com/CSL. For more information about CSL, visit www.CSL.com.

About Arcturus Therapeutics
Founded in 2013 and based in San Diego, California, Arcturus Therapeutics Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: ARCT) is a global late-stage clinical mRNA medicines and vaccines company with enabling technologies: (i) LUNAR® lipid-mediated delivery, (ii) STARR® mRNA Technology (sa-mRNA) and (iii) mRNA drug substance along with drug product manufacturing expertise. The Company has an ongoing global collaboration for innovative mRNA vaccines with CSL Seqirus, and a joint venture in Japan, ARCALIS, focused on the manufacture of mRNA vaccines and therapeutics. Arcturus’ pipeline includes RNA therapeutic candidates to potentially treat ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency and cystic fibrosis, along with its partnered mRNA vaccine programs for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) and influenza. Arcturus’ versatile RNA therapeutics platforms can be applied toward multiple types of nucleic acid medicines including messenger RNA, small interfering RNA, circular RNA, antisense RNA, self-amplifying RNA, DNA, and gene editing therapeutics. Arcturus’ technologies are covered by its extensive patent portfolio (patents and patent applications issued in the U.S., Europe, Japan, China, and other countries). For more information, visit www.ArcturusRx.com. In addition, please connect with us on Twitter and LinkedIn.

from:    https://merylnass.substack.com/p/what-is-self-amplifying-mrna?publication_id=746368&post_id=147039126&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Collecting Kid’s DNA – Hmmm

After Uvalde, Texas Public Schools Send Home DNA Kits For Kids

It’s the first program of its kind since the deadly mass-shooting. Security experts worry it sends families the wrong message.
A pile of DNA collection kits in white boxes
PAUL ELLIS / GETTY IMAGES

This week, Texas public schools plan to distribute DNA and fingerprint identification kits to guardians of students in kindergarten through middle school. The Child Identification Program, which became a law in 2021, requires the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to provide inkless in-home fingerprint and DNA identification cards to the guardians of children in the public school system in the state.

After DNA is gathered, the parent or legal guardian is asked to hold onto the child identification cards for law enforcement use in cases of emergency including if they go missing or are suspected of being human trafficked.

The program is entirely opt-in for parents and guardians, but experts warn of the message it sends to children, particularly in light of the Uvalde shooting on May 24, when 19 children were killed by an armed gunman and parents were asked to provide DNA samples to help identify the victims.

Kenneth Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services, a school safety consulting firm, says he can see the value for parents, but cautions about what he calls “security theater”—the visible actions that may make people feel emotionally safer but actually have little effect on safety.

“I can just envision a kid coming home and the parent saying ‘Hi, how was your school day?’ and the kid reaches in the backpack, pulls out a DNA kit and says, ‘Here—our principal sent this home with us so we have all this information when the shooting occurs and if I get killed,” Trump, who is not related to the former U.S. president, told Motherboard.

According to the K-12 School Shooting Database, nearly 60 percent of active shooter incidents at educational institutions since Columbine in 1999 have occurred in high schools. Despite an increase in active shooting incidents occurring on school grounds across the country, Trump worries that sending DNA kits home as an official action of the school or governmental agency with children will undoubtedly send the message that school shootings are imminent.

“There needs to be a really strong messaging around this to make it clear that school shootings are low probability but high impact incidents,” he added. “One school shooting is one too many, but statistically we know that fortunately the vast majority of schools will never experience a mass shooting and you want to take steps that are reasonable. But you don’t want to create unintended consequences where you do more harm than good and the context where everyone’s in a state of high anxiety.”

Scott Poland, a psychology professor at Nova Southeastern University in Florida and director of the Suicide and Violence Prevention Office also wonders if sending children home with ID kits send the right message.

“Is there another reason why we would be fingerprinting kids, except like thinking of identifying bodies?” Poland asks Motherboard. “I mean, that’s the part that really worries me about what exactly is behind this and then, maybe most importantly, how do we convey this to kids in a way that doesn’t sound like ‘I don’t think you’re going to be abducted and I don’t think I’m going to have to identify your body.”’

Poland says that school administrators need to remember who they are dealing with—impressionable kindergarten, elementary, and middle schoolers.

“We need to be very careful and very cognizant of the developmental level of children,” he said. “So I think sometimes we’re very well-meaning but maybe we’ve gone a little far and I’m not sure it’s, you know, the best place to focus our money if we had to do with kids’ safety.”

This article is part of State of Surveillance, made possible with the support of a grant from Columbia University’s Ira A. Lipman Center for Journalism and Civil and Human Rights in conjunction with Arnold Ventures. The series will explore the development, deployment, and effects of surveillance and its intersection with race and civil rights.

from:    https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxn7dq/after-uvalde-texas-public-schools-send-home-dna-kits-for-kids

What is in Those Things?

COVID Shots, DNA & Transhumanism, With Dr. Madej

In this presentation with The New American magazine’s Alex Newman, Dr. Carrie Madej explains that the elites peddling the COVID shots are also pushing transhumanism… and the two are closely related. Genetic modifications and new technologies are on the verge of changing what it means to be human, and the elites are really pushing the boundaries. Don’t miss this critically important presentation by one of the most important doctors speaking out on these issues publicly.

from:   https://thenewamerican.com/covid-shots-dna-transhumanism-with-dr-madej-2/

Of Human Chimeras, Embryos, Family, & DNA

France adopts bioethics law that will introduce chimeras, genetic engineering of ‘human material’

In its latest revision, the law will also allow access to artificial procreation to all women, including women in same-sex couples and single women.
Fri Jun 11, 2021 – 12:50 pm EST
Featured Image
Lab work with petri dish Shutterstock

June 11, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The French National Assembly adopted a radically transgressive bioethics law that will likely enter into force at the beginning of July, once it has passed its last legislative hurdles after this third reading. It is truly revolutionary in its conception of the world and of society. It marks the end of the recognition of paternity, but also the beginning of legally manufactured chimeras, and other kinds of genetic engineering of “human material.”

France’s first bioethics law dates back to 1992; from the start, provisions were made for its periodic revision, and over the years, it has increasingly legalized embryo research. In its latest mutation, the law will allow access to artificial procreation to all women, including women in same-sex couples and single women, as had been promised by French president Emmanuel Macron in his election campaign.

Access to “medically assisted procreation for all” (“PMA pour toutes”) was rejected by the French population during public consultations before the draft law was set up, and was also taken out of the text by the Senate in February, leading to a further discussion by the National Assembly which reintroduced the measure. The newly adopted version will go back to the Senate for a third debate within a few weeks, but whatever happens there, the lower chamber will have the definitive vote which is expected to take place by the end of the month at the latest. This is in keeping with the government’s recent actions to force the text through Parliament.

The law will introduce other significant changes. For the first time, destructive research on the human embryo up to 14 days will be allowed in principle: until now, such research required special prior dispensation. The new law will also liberalize research on human embryonic stem cells, and allow the creation of artificial gametes, copies of human embryos, chimeric embryos (which can be implanted in animals), and transgenic embryos (including in vitro fertilization with “three parents”).

Access to abortion will be even easier than it already is. The new law is scrapping the cooling-off period of “at least one week,” and also provides a new justification for abortion: “the partial voluntary interruption of a multiple pregnancy.” At the same time, it does away with the obligation to consult a person holding parental authority when young women under 18 are having a “medical interruption of pregnancy:” abortions beyond the legal term of 12 weeks’ gestation and up to birth for health problems affecting the mother or the child validated by at least two doctors and a medical team.

Another barbaric provision introduced by amendment was rejected by the National Assembly. It aimed to introduce a new motive for “medical” abortions: “psycho-social distress.”

On the other hand, the specific conscience clause attached to the practice of medical abortions has been dismantled.

The most publicized aspect of the law, however, was that of fatherless procreation, as mentioned above. Old-fashioned law — law that organizes reality without contradicting it, that almost all of humanity has understood since the dawn of time — calls the woman who gives birth “mother,” and “father” the man who has begotten the new individual who was just born (such law even allows the unborn child to inherit from its deceased father, if orphaned in utero). French law assumes that the mother’s husband is a child’s father, unless proved otherwise.

All this is over. When the law enters into effect, begetting a child can become merely symbolic, and parenthood will be adapted to the woman’s desire. And if you dare say that a child needs a father, it must be because you are irremediably stuck in gender stereotypes, in hatred of the LGBTQI+ community, and that you are a supporter of the “patriarchy” that, as Antonio Guterres, U.N. secretary general, said in the middle of the pandemic, is the root of all our ills.

These are the words he used last August, according to a UN tweet: “The #COVID19 pandemic is demonstrating what we all know: millennia of patriarchy have resulted in a male-dominated world with a male-dominated culture which damages everyone – women, men, girls & boys.”

This is more important than it seems. It shows that the pandemic, “bioethics,” and promoting “LGBT rights” are all linked as facets of a same ideology.

France is presently facing a severe crisis consecutive to the restrictions imposed on its population in the name of COVID. Personal freedoms have been torn to pieces, often in absurd and contradictory ways, unemployment is at a height and public spending has gone through the roof, and despite all these major problems, the French government has been focusing on forcing the bioethics law through Parliament at high speed.

Remember that “bioethics” has nothing to do with natural law or respect for human life and the human person. When it was first developed, it was presented as a form of “ethics of life” at the service of life in general and of its improvement. Understood thus, bioethics considers man as a species living among other species, while the individual is less a person than an element of humankind, that is usable, interchangeable, and modifiable.

In its logic, the new French bioethics law is a eugenicist law: It allows for the turning of man into a genetically modified organism, the crossing of the barrier of species, choosing embryos for implantation in order to “use” them as “medication” for an older sibling, and editing them using the CRISPR-Cas9 technique. To be sure, the law prohibits the implantation and gestation of genetically engineered embryos, but allows the first steps that one day might lead to the nightmare of designer babies.

Besides the negation of the truth of filiation, this urge to make tampering with the human genome legal is the most terrifying aspect of the law.

According to French geneticist Alexandra Henrion-Caude, there is a direct relationship with the COVID crisis and the pushing through of the transgressive law: As she pointed out during a January interview on Radio Courtoisie, France’s historic independent associative radio station, there is a link between the drive to use experimental “vaccines” to make human cells produce proteins by introducing mRNA, “augmenting” their capacities, and allowing modification of the DNA of embryos. The purpose is clearly “transhumanist,” she argued. The idea of augmenting the capacities of the body and mind are also central to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, as the World Economic Forum founded by Klaus Schwab sees it.

Over the last year, most decisions in France have been made by executive orders, which Parliament was allowed, at best, to comment upon. The bioethics law, instead, is being pushed down Parliament’s throat, as if the government “needed” the approval of the nation’s representatives but was at the same time prepared to force their hand.

Many opponents of the planned law complained that the conditions for a proper democratic debate were not present. Only a small proportion of deputies and senators actually assist at the parliamentary debates: In the case of the bioethics law, 130 out of the 577 were present at voting time. Also, the issue goes way beyond the population’s present concerns: getting out of the COVID quagmire, keeping jobs, reuniting with family and friends.

The government imposed the debate anyway, going out of its way to prevent ordinary hearings of the parliamentary commissions involved in the issue. Time for amendments and discussion at the National Assembly were also severely restricted, and the whole text took less than three days to discuss: the opposition “Republicains” party and independent members were for the most part unable to explain their (over 1,500) amendments and obtain a rational debate on measures that have such far-reaching consequences.

The text garnered 84 votes in favor and 43 against (as well as abstentions), with a few courageous representatives doing overtime to try to weigh in on the debate. Emmanuelle Ménard, an independent representative from the south of France, explained why she would vote against it, accusing the government and its majority party of “opening Pandora’s box:” “You are false gods in training, who believe you are above everything: common sense, reality, our fleshly nature, and especially, and this is the most serious, the best interest of the child.”

The French Bishops’ Conference published a statement condemning the new bioethics law, saying: “Once again, the law claims to authorize new transgressions by setting them within a framework. But a framework never holds. Inevitably, it ends up being erased. To frame is to authorize. Humanity has grown by imposing prohibitions on itself: the prohibition of killing an innocent person, of incest, of theft, of rape. Mixing human cells and animal cells cannot be simply set within a framework: what must be forbidden must be clearly stated; what can be authorized must also be clearly stated. This is only possible with reference to a thoughtful vision of the human person and his or her filiation.”

On the day of the vote, Bishop Olivier de Germay of Lyon issued a call for prayer during the month of June, including fasting on Fridays, to ask God to help legislators to discern the true good of society and children. A miracle could still happen in the coming days …

from:   https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/france-adopts-bioethics-law-that-will-introduce-chimeras-genetic-engineering-of-human-material

A Little Shot of Cancer, Perhaps?

(Please note that I have excerpted a good deal of the text which is available at the link below)

Sausage Making at FDA: How Human Cancer Cells Got Into Vaccines

In a 2012 meeting, the FDA voted to allow the use of human fetal cells and adult human tumor cells in vaccines, despite acknowledging the many risks, including that vaccine recipients might later develop cancer.

“If the American people knew some of the things that went on at the FDA, they’d never take anything but Bayer aspirin.” — Len Lutwalk, FDA scientist

“The FDA, by spinelessly knuckling under to every whim of the drug companies, has thrown away its high reputation, and in doing so, forfeited our trust.” — Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of JAMA


Vaccines and related biological products advisory committee today

Today — Thursday, Dec. 10 — the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) internal panel that licenses new vaccines as “safe and effective,” will meet to consider Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. VRBAC will meet in one week, Dec. 17, to consider approval of the Moderna vaccine.

The damning safety studies in Pfizer’s late release clinical trial data dump, and the severe (life-threatening) allergic reactions that bedeviled the vaccine’s UK rollout, have raised red flags and public anxiety about the safety of the companies’ mRNA vaccines. Anthony Fauci has addressed growing skepticism about COVID vaccines and the Operation Warp Speed program, by reassuring the public that “VRBPAC” is an “independent panel of leading experts” whom the public can absolutely trust to assure vaccine safety.

How FDA originally approved use of fetal cells in vaccines

FDA allows both human fetal cells and adult human tumor cells in vaccines. Both types have cancer risks. While both Pfizer and Moderna tested their mRNA vaccine using fetal cells, there are no fetal cells, cell debris or DNA in their final products.

However, according to company documents, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen) and Altimmune’s COVID vaccines are manufactured in the human fetal cell line PER-C6, and thus the final vaccine products will contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from these cells. Researchers harvested these cell lines from the eyeball of an 18-week-old human fetus aborted in 1985, and then rendered them immortal by making them cancerous.

The AstraZeneca, Cansino, Gamayela, Vaxart, LongComm and Upitt vaccines are manufactured in the human fetal cell line HEK293, and thus the final vaccine products will contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from the fetal HEK-293 cell line. Scientists harvested this cell line from the kidney of a female Dutch fetus legally aborted in 1973 and then immortalized the cells by rendering them cancerous.

Normal primary cells, which are unable to replicate indefinitely, ultimately die. Immortalized cell lines are derived from known malignant cancer cells such as those obtained from Henrietta Lacks (HeLa) or created in the laboratory by introducing viral oncogenes or chemical exposures capable of mutating normal primary cells into immortal tumor cells.

According to FDA’s “The Pink Sheet” dated Nov. 29, 1999, for two decades the agency has been acutely aware of the inherent risks of using immortalized cell lines for vaccine development. The FDA CBER Director Dr. Peter Patriarca, M.D. explained that continuous cell lines are used for their ability to self-propagate, making them an ideal substrate on which to grow viruses, “the worst thing we are concerned about is …  malignancy, because some of these continuous cells have the potential for growing tumors in laboratory animals.”

Patriarca further conceded that “the technology to make these vaccines actually exceeds the science and technology to understand how these vaccines work and to predict how they will work.”   …

We call vaccines “biologics” because vaccinologists have traditionally grown their antigens on biological substrates — usually animal tissue. Competing companies culture COVID vaccines on a variety of animal strata. The Merck and IAVA COVID vaccines are manufactured in vero monkey cells, and thus contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from vero monkeys in the final product. The Sanofi, GSK, and Novavax COVID jabs are manufactured in insect cells and thus contain insect cellular debris and DNA fragments in the final products.

Public health advocates criticize the use of animal tissues in vaccines due to risks that they carry endogenous viruses, microbes, parasites and lack safety testing. (Plague of Corruption, Mikovits 2020). …

Researchers and regulatory agencies have worried for more than 50 years about the potential for injected DNA to cause cancer.  …

Regulators have in the past predicted that the odds of that happening were less than 1 in a trillion. However, in early gene therapy trials this event did indeed occur in 4 of 9 boys, 1 of whom died from the leukemia the insertions caused.

FDA as an arm of Big Pharma

Between 2000 and 2010, pharmaceutical companies paid the FDA $3.4 billion to gain rapid drug approvals. Today, Pharma companies underwrite three-quarters of FDA’s budget for scientific reviews (ProPublica) and fund nearly 50% of the FDA’s total annual budget through PDUFA fees. In exchange, the agency increasingly fast-tracks expensive drugs and vaccines with significant side effects and unproven health benefits.

Corrupt vaccine approval panels

But as corrupt as FDA is, the internal panels — VRBAC — that approve new vaccines make the rest of the agency look like a Sunday church picnic.

When Dr. Fauci, Paul Offit, Peter Hotez and Bill Gates tell you that you needn’t worry because FDA is the “gold standard” for vaccine safety and that the ultimate licensing decision will be made by an “independent panel of experts,” they are talking about VRBPAC. But VRBPAC is far from “independent.” It is not even comprised exclusively of public officials. Instead, it is populated by outside “experts” who are almost all pharmaceutical industry insiders.

In 2003, following a 3-year investigation, the United States Congress’s House Oversight Committee found VRBAC was completely dominated by the vaccine industry.

“Examples of Conflicts of Interest:

  1. “For instance, 3 out of 5 FDA advisory committee (VRBPAC) members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine in December 1997 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.
  2. “One out of five voting members’ employer had a $9,586,000 contract for a rotavirus vaccine.
  3. “One out of five voting members was the principal investigator for a Merck grant to develop a rotavirus vaccine.
  4. “One out of five voting members received approximately $1 million from vaccine manufacturers toward vaccine development.”

Congressional investigators concluded that, “Altogether, four out of the five committee members had conflicts of interest that required waivers, and their recommendation for approval of the vaccine was unanimous.”

Here’s what happened at the 2012 FDA meeting on fetal cells

HHS acknowledges that the FDA and Centers for Disease Control committees that contract and review new vaccines have historically not used “evidence-based medicine.” To illustrate what this means, one only need read (below) the astonishing transcript of the 2012 panel that first approved the use of adult cancer tumor cells in vaccines.

This transcript shows what the public is never supposed to see: the behind-the-scenes sausage-making of federal vaccine approvals. Here, you will read for yourself how the “independent,” “gold standard” panelists entrusted with protecting your children made monumentally consequential decisions, not on evidence-based science, but by rolling the dice and taking what they knew was a horrendously risky bet on public health

In any other realm, this transcript would be proof of negligent homicide. … We are all lab rats in their high-risk population-wide experiment. At FDA’s vaccine division, that sort of reckless decision-making is routine.

In 2012, most live virus vaccines were from animal tissue and the idea of putting potentially cancerous tumor cells from adult “donors” in vaccines was still a daring and audacious gamble. That September, the FDA VRBPAC committee met to discuss this risky innovation. The transcript of that meeting — showing captive FDA officials considering a proposal by the pharma cabal to allow the use of human cancer cells (HeLa) to replace animal tissue in the manufacture of vaccines — is proof of reckless criminal conduct.

The HeLa cells are well known to cause cancer in animals, but Big Pharma wanted to lower production costs of vaccines and this method is cheaper and faster than using animal tissue for the cultivated media. …

Unbelievably, FDA voted to allow pharmaceutical companies to produce vaccines using human cells without reviewing a single scientific study to determine if the outcome would be safe.

Before, I quoted some of the criminally reckless statements from the meeting directly. A more detailed account appears in this article.

This was a full meeting of FDA’s VRBPAC in 2012 to decide on the use of human tumor cell lines for the production of vaccines. I list these speakers and their titles at that time:

  • Dr. Philip Krause, Acting Deputy Director of OVRR (Office of Vaccine Research and Review) and FDA’s CBER (Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research). Also, Principal Investigator for Vaccine Safety: Virus Detection and Latency.
  • Dr. Doug Lowy, Director of the National Cancer Institute of the NIH.
  • Dr. Robert Daum, Chair of the VRBPAC.
  • Donald W. Jehn M.S., Designated Federal Officer for VRBPAC.
  • Keith Peden, PhD, Chief of LDNAV, DVP/OVRR/CBER.
  • Dr. Marion Gruber, Director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines.
  • Dr. Nathanial Brady, a self-described clinician.
  • Dr. Pamela McInnes, a vaccine development expert and the Director of the Division of Extramural Research at the NIH’s National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, and previously a Deputy Director under Anthony Fauci at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Pharma knew that their tumorigenic vaccines might cause tumors in recipients.

FDA officials knew that tumors might occur decades after vaccination.

FDA openly acknowledged that its primary objective was not to assure public safety but to help vaccine manufacturers.

FDA officials knew that they could not prove vaccine safety using test animals to assess oncogenicity.

FDA officials deliberately terminated animal safety tests too early in order to conceal consequences.

FDA decided to keep the tumor cell lines secret, because doctors and the public may be alarmed and say “Oh, my God!” if they knew the truth.

FDA decided to use deceptive language to convince doctors and the public that the vaccines were safe even when they, themselves, were unconvinced of safety.

FDA decided to hide information about their use of tumor cells and omit it from package inserts. 

Health authorities were skeptical about safety of the tumor lines, but they decided to subject the public to the risk, so that they could perform a global population-wide live human experiment.

FDA officials opted to toss the dice, perform the population-wide human experiment, and learn about the risks as time goes by.

The committee formally approves the method of making vaccines from human cancer tumors.

..

Prior to voting to go forward, the committee made the following conclusions:

  • Making vaccines with cells that are directly derived from human cancer tumors is faster and cheaper than breeding animals for the culture media.
  • Millions of potentially cancer-causing vaccines will be produced.
  • The vaccines may possibly cause genetic mutations.
  • Millions of dollars will be made by vaccine promoters.
  • The health of millions of consumers may be jeopardized.
  • Information about how vaccines are made will be hidden from doctors and

Finally, it’s worth considering that cancer treatment drugs like Keytruda are among pharmaceutical companies’ largest profit makers. Precipitating a cancer epidemic in human populations only benefits vaccine makers’ bottom line.

Remember, these are the same companies and the same FDA regulators that brought us the opioid epidemic.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-cancer-cells-in-vaccines/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=8fc80363-cace-4de1-bcd2-9e309b779ac5

New Numbers, Faulty Tests

Tested ‘Positive’ For COVID-19? Be Sure To Ask This Question

The lockdowns are based on surging “cases” which are based on positive PCR test results.

However, what exactly is a positive PCR test result? What does it mean? As Dr. Tommy Megremis summarized recently:

If you are generally aware, the PCR test is used to amplify small amount of genetic material so as to recognize patterns of DNA by “cycling.” (Also, for RNA virus, the RNA is converted to DNA in order to be detected, it’s just the way the test works) This is how we have been able to recognize the genomes in Egyptian mummies and Wooly Mammoths. It works because if you amplify and cycle enough times to “grow” legitimate DNA fragments, you get something with with a fair amount of specificity. What is becoming more and more apparent is that the PCR test was not designed as a diagnostic tool for infection, and really cannot function as one without having a huge amount of false positives, period.

When it comes to COVID, the presence of viral particles picked up by the PCR technique does not and has not been quantitatively linked to an active “symptomatic” infection. It simply cannot be so, because infection threshold as a result of viral load is different for each patient. It turns out, if you “cycle” over around 25 times, the false positivity of COVID infection starts getting very high.

I and others have explained in blogs how people can be exposed to virus, and mount a simple innate immune response and never know any differently. When you test these people with very low viral loads, who are not sick, you can find the viral RNA code that is used to “diagnose” if you cycle enough times. The last I read, Labcorp cycles at least 40 times to detect viral genome fragments. The PCR test was never intended for diagnosis of infection but as a qualitative test for presence of parts of a virus genome. I know there has been some confusion circulating the net about what the inventor Kary Mullis had said about that. But we walk daily with people who have any number of parts of killer virus or bacterial genomes which one could pick up with a PCR test if one had the specific test for it. Would we claim that that individual was an infected patient? No!

So given all that, PeakProsperity’s Chris Martenson explains below, in great details, the answer to the most important question you should ask if you or a loved one gets a positive PCR test result.

“What’s the Cycle Threshold (CT) value for that test?”

Sounds wonky but it’s actually really important to understand. A low CT value means someone is loaded with virus. A high value, oppositely, means less of a viral load.

Beyond a certain level the load is insufficient to either infect someone else or be of any clinical or epidemiological relevance whatsoever.

The problem? Governments all over the country and world are basing their decisions on CT values that are very high. Too high.

*  *  *

Links:

WHO PCR 47 (!) Cycles

https://www.who.int/diagnostics_laboratory/eul_0489_185_00_path_covid19_ce_ivd_ifu_issue_2.0.pdf?ua=1

CT over 35 is non-infectious

https://www.infectiousdiseaseadvisor.com/home/topics/covid19/ct-value-may-inform-when-patients-with-covid-19-can-be-safely-discharged/

Cycle Thresholds Too Damn High

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

Corman Drosten retraction request

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

Bad Testing Video Sept 1

https://youtu.be/ZFNdsRHKUM4

UK PCR positive standards

https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2020/03/guidance-and-sop-covid-19-virus-testing-in-nhs-laboratories-v1.pdf

Kansas CT cutoff of 42

https://www.coronavirus.kdheks.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1505/SARS-CoV-2-COVID-19-PCR-Ct-Cutoff-Values-PDF—10-5-20

from:    https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/tested-positive-covid-19-be-sure-ask-question?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

Testing for ET Among Us – Part 2

tidbit

TIDBIT: A DOCTOR QUESTIONING THE COVID TESTS

August 25, 2020 By Joseph P. Farrell

Apropos of today’s main blog, a physician has noticed the same thing and is posting to her twitter account:

Colleen Huber, NMD
@ColleenHuberNMD

Naturopathic Medical Doctor, headed Euro Cancer Summit, #LCHF doctor since 2006, wrote Manifesto for a Cancer Patient, featured in America’s featured in America’s Best Cancer Doctors

BOMBSHELL: If you’re human, you’ll likely test + for #COVID19, whether you’ve had it or not. More evidence that there is no pandemic, and that “covid deaths” are in fact old age deaths.
BOMBSHELL: WHO Coronavirus PCR Test Primer Sequence is Found in All Human DNA
This was important enough that I wanted to get it out immediately. My research into the NCBI database for nucleotide sequences has lead to a stunning discovery. One of the WHO primer sequences in t…pieceofmindful.com
Here is the article she references:

BOMBSHELL: WHO Coronavirus PCR Test Primer Sequence is Found in All Human DNA

WHO Primer

This was important enough that I wanted to get it out immediately. My research into the NCBI database for nucleotide sequences has lead to a stunning discovery. One of the WHO primer sequences in the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is found in all human DNA!

The sequence “CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT” is an 18-character primer sequence found in the WHO coronavirus PCR testing protocol document. The primer sequences are what get amplified by the PCR process in order to be detected and designated a “positive” test result. It just so happens this exact same 18-character sequence, verbatim, is also found on Homo sapiens chromosome 8! As far as I can tell, this means that the WHO test kits should find a positive result in all humans. Can anyone explain this otherwise?

I really cannot overstate the significance of this finding. At minimum, it should have a notable impact on test results.

WHO Primer 2

Homo sapiens chromosome 8, GRCh38.p12 Primary Assembly
Sequence ID: NC_000008.11 Length: 145138636
Range 1: 63648346 to 63648363 is “CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT”

Update: After some effort, I have finally discovered a way to display proof (beyond my screenshots) that human chromosome 8 has this exact same 18-character sequence. Please try the link below. The sequence is shown at the bottom of the page.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/NC_000008.11?report=genbank&log$=nuclalign&from=63648346&to=63648363

the article is from:  https://pieceofmindful.com/2020/04/06/bombshell-who-coronavirus-pcr-test-primer-sequence-is-found-in-all-human-dna/

AND the beginning article is from:    https://gizadeathstar.com/2020/08/tidbit-a-doctor-questioning-the-covid-tests/

Testing for ET Among Us

ARE THOSE COVID TESTS SEARCHING FOR “SOMEONE”?

ARE THOSE COVID TESTS SEARCHING FOR “SOMEONE”?

August 25, 2020 By Joseph P. Farrell

There’s been, of course, a focus in the news – and hence on this website – recently on the whole Fauci-Lieber-Wuhan virus narrative. Some of that focus has been on the various attempts to skew the numbers, and this in turn has focused on the tests for it. Odd stories have come out that have increasingly focused on the reliability, or lack thereof, of those tests, and some have entertained the speculation that the tests covertly involve (1) DNA testing and (2) DNA data collection. These types of speculations have focused on those odd stories of, for example, the governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, first tested positive for the virus, and then, mere hours later, negative! (See: Ohio Gov. DeWine tests negative for COVID-19 hours after testing positive)

All this is background grist for the mill of today’s high octane speculation, and it’s really, really high octane speculation, and it isn’t even my own speculation, save insofar as I’ve entertained similar speculations. In a word, and beyond the questions about the covid statistics and how they’re being counted, I’ve sensed there is something underneath even that problematic that is just… well… “off.”

Well, this week’s “inbox” included the following article that was shared by “S”, and it’s both a stunner and a “whopper doozie” that, if true, raises that “offness” to a whole new degree and by several orders of magnitude. Indeed, “S” offered his own speculations which I shall do my best to recapitulate, because the implications of the article – again, if true – are obvious. Here’s the article:

BOMBSHELL: WHO Coronavirus PCR Test Primer Sequence is Found in All Human DNA

This article is so short, and such a stunner, that I cite it in full:

This was important enough that I wanted to get it out immediately. My research into the NCBI database for nucleotide sequences has lead to a stunning discovery. One of the WHO primer sequences in the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is found in all human DNA!

The sequence “CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT” is an 18-character primer sequence found in the WHO coronavirus PCR testing protocol document. The primer sequences are what get amplified by the PCR process in order to be detected and designated a “positive” test result. It just so happens this exact same 18-character sequence, verbatim, is also found on Homo sapiens chromosome 8! As far as I can tell, this means that the WHO test kits should find a positive result in all humans. Can anyone explain this otherwise?

I really cannot overstate the significance of this finding. At minimum, it should have a notable impact on test results.

In other words, those who began to notice the peculiarity of the tests for the virus, and how they might be used to (1) collect human DNA, and (2) possibly covertly insert things into people’s nasal cavity, may have had a point, and then some. Again, assuming the article to be true, and given the vast amount of “positive” tests, are we really witnessing “false positives” that are, in fact, genuine in the sense that the patient is being shown to be human? And is this why there is such an emphasis on testing everyone?

Years ago, at the Secret Space Program conference of 2015 in Bastrop Texas, I offered the idea that the sudden rise of DNA testing corporations that will, through genetics, “show your ancestral history” might be a covert way of searching for people that look fully homo sapiens sapiens, but aren’t. The only way to determine whether or not such a population exists among us ala the old late 1960’s science-fiction TV show, The Invaders, would be to test for genetics. So why put a primer for a virus into a virus test that, essentially, is common to all humans, and then insist that everyone get tested? It might be exactly what one might do in order to search for such a population. This isn’t to say that the virus is not real, and that positive tests are ipso facto suspicious.  It is to suggest that maybe, under the guise of the planscamdemic, they’re really looking for something, or rather, someone else. And it might be that this is an underlying reason why the numbers “cases” as a percentage of the population appears to be so high, while actual deaths as a percentage of population appears to be so low.

If that sounds already off-the-end-of-the-speculation-twig, it is to be sure. But there’s an even worse implication, and this is where is gets completely crazy, because it might mean “testing negative” could be interpreted by the wilder and crazier sort, as testing not negative for the virus, but negative for humanity. In this regard, my mention of the old The Invaders TV series was not accidental, but to a purpose. The series, for those who do not know, starred actor Roy Thinnes, who accidentally discovers the “aliens among us”, who looks, walk, talk, and in all but very minor respects resemble humans, as they slowly take over the world through a process of infiltration. Thinnes’ character – “architect David Vincent”, an apt name for a small human trying to triumph over the covert “alien Goliath” – then spends the series trying to collect evidence and names of other witnesses to persuade the government to take action. Interestingly enough, Chris Carter, producer of the later aliens-among-us series, The X Files, in a master-stroke of TV esoterica had Thinnes star in a few episodes in the reverse role, playing one of those aliens-among-us.  But in any case, in the original Invaders series, Thinnes’ character shows up at the trial of a friend being accused of murdering a man, who it turns out, was one of those aliens-in-disguise, leading to the premise of “the alien defense” as the defense team, at Thinnes’ encouragement, argues that the murder was not murder because a human being had not been killed, neatly sidestepping the moral issue of how it is not murder when a thinking, rational intelligence being like us in all respects except DNA is dead at someone else’s hand.

See you on the flip side…

from:    https://gizadeathstar.com/2020/08/are-those-covid-tests-searching-for-someone/

Radiation, DNA, & Chloroquine

Treatment of radiation disorders

Abstract
The present invention provides methods and compositions for the treatment of DNA damage related disorders. One embodiment is a method for the inhibition of side effects associated with chemotherapeutic and radiotherapeutic agents using chloroquine compounds. Another embodiment is a method for treatment and/or prevention of lethal or sub-lethal radiation toxicities associated with terrorist acts or war.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050014785A1/en

They Are Coming For You

Contact Tracing: Your governors, red or blue, are coming after you

A coronavirus testing site outside International Community Health Services during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Seattle
A driver gets tested for COVID-19 at a drive-through testing center. CREDIT: Reuters

Red-state governors threaten their own citizens with arrest if they don’t comply with contact tracing investigators — up to six months in jail in Texas!

It was late morning on Tuesday, May 26, when James Daggett heard a knock on the door of his apartment home in Cedar Park, Texas, about 20 miles north of Austin.

When he answered it, two uniformed officers wearing badges and facemasks stood and stared.

One officer appeared to be a sheriff’s deputy and had a gun holstered on his side. The other wore a white uniform.

They said they had an important document to deliver that required his immediate attention.

The man in the white uniform handed him an envelope containing a letter from the Williamson County health department, demanding that he read it closely and follow its orders. What followed was a barrage of questions about his health, how many others he had living in his home, where he may have traveled recently.

As Daggett, 35, tore open the envelope and started to read the letter, the two men vanished from his doorstep as quickly as they had arrived.

James Daggett
James Daggett lives in Cedar Park, Texas, just north of Austin

These were just two of the foot soldiers in an army of 4,000 “contact tracers” hired by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, according to the Houston Chronicle, who signed a $295 million contract with Albany, New York-based MTX Group Inc., which partners with Google and SalesForce to data-mine the public and store their data forever in the Google Cloud.

The job of the contact-tracer investigators is to build a web, at the center of which are people like James Daggett, who just happened to test positive for COVID-19.

They reconstruct the spokes that come off the central hub – James’s family members, friends, the guy he may have sat next to on an airplane or at the local diner last night, or in the adjoining cubicle at work.

All it takes is to spend 10 or 15 minutes sitting or standing within six feet of another human being who was infected. These are all potentially infected persons who must be tracked down and sent into quarantine, then interviewed to get a list of their contacts.

In the end, one case such as that of James Daggett can ensnare hundreds of healthy, innocent Americans, and send them into lockdown, simply because they happened to breathe the same air that James breathed, or stood next to someone who did.

Contact tracers are trained to make sure all of these people, healthy or not, get thrown into complete isolation, away from their children, spouses and other family members while they get monitored for at least 14 days. Their release date is at the discretion of the public health authorities. The potential for abuse is great and could lead to continued rolling lockdowns throughout the country for months or even years. It is that very potential that has government watchdogs on alert.

As of this writing, every state has plans to exponentially expand their contact-tracing workforces.

………

Bye Bye Fourth Amendment

John Whitehead, a constitutional attorney and founder of the Rutherford Institute, said citizens are not generally required to speak to an officer about anything, much less their personal health.

“But if they have reasonable suspicion that you’ve committed a crime, they can hold someone for questioning,” he said. “Just an intimidation tactic.”

Whitehead said privacy rights are gone in today’s America, as the Fourth Amendment has been “shredded over and over and over again” since 9/11. The Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans’ rights against unreasonable searches and seizures of their personal property, papers and effects.

“The point is, who’s behind all of this? It’s Google and these big corporations,” Whitehead said. “They want to make the money on this. The dangerous thing I’m warning people about in all of this is if they get your DNA.”

He said Amazon, which built the intelligence cloud for all 17 intelligence agencies, “is now handing over your biometric information, your DNA, your fingerprints. There’s no privacy now. They can get whatever they want. And if they have it, either by police records, cases, or Ancestry.com, the FBI has access to that. A lot of this will drill down to this testing, where they get your DNA.”

What’s disappearing in today’s America, he said, is the legal principle of “bodily integrity.”

Once the state has your data and has turned it over to corporations, you will be vulnerable to them targeting you for various medical treatments [vaccine anyone?], as well as the possibility of discriminatory action by your employer.

“Here’s the key and people don’t realize this,” Whitehead said. “Access to healthcare data by big corporations will enable them to build a profile on people’s ailments, and target them for marketing campaigns; they will give that information over to employers and you could end up getting discriminated against. Landlords could ask you to leave their building. And they could also give it over to police. Police will have access to most of this information anyway because most of the police chiefs across the country are being trained by the FBI.”

Further arming the surveillance state

Americans must push back, now, or wave goodbye to their civil liberties.

….

Another red state goes all in for tracing, threatening arrest

In Georgia, GOP Gov. Brian Kemp has hired 1,000 contact tracers. He has given his contact-tracing program a new Orwellian name, “The Healthy Georgia Collaborative.”

In a report by Fox 5 Atlanta, health reporter Beth Galvin stated that she had received her information on Georgia’s contact tracers from the North Georgia Health District. Here’s how Galvin punctuated her May 28 report:

“If you’re in quarantine and you’re supposed to be checking in every day and you’re not, your health district will check in with you, and if you still don’t comply you could face a misdemeanor.”

Yet, a press release on the Georgia Department of Public Health website, implies that cooperation with contact tracers is “voluntary.”

“All information collected is provided voluntarily, and will be kept confidential according to HIPAA standards,” according to the state’s press release.

In an effort to clarify the state’s position, I called Jennifer King, the public-information officer with North Georgia Health District, who provided the following statement:

“All persons identified as infectious persons are required to comply with the quarantine ordered by the state (please refer to the attached ORDER FOR HOME QUARANTINE). They are required to check in daily while under quarantine in one of three ways: They may choose to have us call them to monitor, they may monitor through the application on their mobile device, or they may call the Georgia Poison Control Center. Information other than this requirement may be provided voluntarily and will be kept confidential according to HIPAA.”

The attached order provided by King states in bold print: “TAKE NOTICE that failure to comply with this Quarantine Order is a misdemeanor offense pursuant to O.C.G.A 31-5-8.”

Governors such as Kemp in Georgia and Jay Inslee in Washington are publicly stating that compliance with their contact-tracing spies will be “voluntary.”

But to say the program is “voluntary” is blatantly dishonest linguistic trickery. Remember how, in the early days of the lockdowns, we were told the draconian rules were just “temporary?”

The politicians and bureaucrats lied about “temporary,” knowing they would later shift to “new normal,” making “social distancing” and “no more handshaking” fixtures in a permanently reordered society.

Voluntary is the new temporary. It’s only voluntary until they say it’s not. It’s only voluntary until you refuse to volunteer. Then it becomes mandatory.

The scenario works something like this: Citizens will be asked to voluntarily quarantine and report daily to the local health authorities. If the citizen fails to submit to quarantine or to check in on a daily basis, the case becomes mandatory.

At that point, your medical privacy rights under the HIPAA law no longer apply.  You have become an enemy of the state.

“The information can be given to a public-health agency if the government says it’s required to prevent an imminent threat to public safety,” Whitehead said. “And guess who gets to determine the definition of an imminent threat? The public official who is sitting somewhere far away in an office with drapes and flowers on his desk that we pay for.”

The new normal: Enslavement to the state

With contact tracing in place as part of the “new normal,” very few governors are likely to return to mass lockdowns like they did in late March and early April. They will simply apply the lockdowns to individual persons through contact tracing.

Watch the disturbing video below from a woman in California who went through that state’s training program for contact tracers.

It will actually be possible for some healthy people to go in and out of multiple 14-day lockdowns, depending on who they happen to come in contact with at work, in restaurants, or other places where people gather.

Imagine a salon worker or barber who comes in close contact with dozens of customers per day. If one of them happens to test positive, that barber will get outed and sent into lockdown.

The only way to escape this endless loop is to accept the vaccine being pushed by Bill Gates in his repeated statements to the media that “we cannot go back to normal until the whole world is widely vaccinated.”

Whitehead said the most terrifying aspect of contact tracing is it turns people into government snitches, using fear to encourage a turn-in-your-neighbor mentality.

That’s the mentality that has existed in all totalitarian societies throughout history, from Nazi Germany to Soviet Russia and Communist China. After the state-run media whips up an atmosphere of fear, people are easily led and will turn on each other if they think it will protect themselves or their family.

“Fear builds its own prison walls,” Whitehead said. “Everybody becomes a suspect and this time we are using the word “lockdown;” that’s prison terminology. We are prisoners in our own homes now. We can be reported by a neighbor if you cough, you don’t wear a mask.”

How did people end up in the Nazi camps? Whitehead said he was curious so he studied history to find out.

“Almost 85 percent of people who wound up in the camps were reported by their neighbors,” he said. “That’s where we are going. We’re following that model. Everyone is going to be nervous. You’ll be afraid to speak. First Amendment rights are dwindling. Anybody who speaks the truth today is going to look like a rebel or a radical.”

That’s why the Fourth Amendment was written, he said, to protect Americans against such abuses. But today’s politicians and judges have little respect for it.

“All my research and study shows that we’re headed down a really bad path and I’m afraid that people are going to give in,” Whitehead said. “We are being psychologically re-engineered to accept really tight control over our movements, how we think, and how we relate to other human beings.”

What to do if you are called by a contact tracer?

“If people want to take a Fourth Amendment stand, they don’t have to give over any information, their name or whatever when asked. They’re not required to. One question I would ask is: ‘Am I being charged with a crime? Why would you be contacting me?’ If they show up at the door, you can say the same thing.

“Now, the caution is that you could get arrested, but the only thing that’s going to change things around in this situation is either the people stand up and say ‘I’m not going to take it,’ or they take it. If you take it, it’s going to get really bad. But I’m afraid that, this is what I see generally, most people believe what they see on the mainstream media; they’re going to fall into the game.”

One man who has decided not to “take it” is James Daggett in Texas.

“People need to understand that this is how they’re handling this,” Daggett said. “It’s very heavy-handed…That’s what tyrants depend on. People wilting in the heat of the moment. If I am in any way impeded from carrying out my normal life, then I am going to contact an attorney.”

Americans need to know that the warnings being given about contact tracing are not some vague conspiracy theories.

“It’s reality,” he said. “There were guys with guns at my door.”

As Whitehead says, the only way to tip the scales and turn things away from tyranny is to take a stand and refuse to cooperate with the burgeoning army of health spies.

The time to make that stand is now.

Leo Hohmann is an independent freelance journalist and author of the 2017 book “Stealth Invasion.” If you appreciate the research and reporting of LeoHohmann.com, please consider a donation of any size.

from:    https://leohohmann.com/2020/05/29/contact-tracing-your-governors-red-or-blue-are-coming-after-you/#more-4156