University Forced Retraction of Study Linking Covid Shot With Cancer Risk, Co-Author Says
(LifeSiteNews) — The co-author of a study showing that the spike protein from both the COVID-19 virus and the COVID shots impairs DNA repair mechanisms, thereby contributing to cancer, claimed that the lead author was forced to retract the study.
Newly published emails now call into question the motives behind the retraction, showing vague reasons cited in the retraction request, as well as an uproar from one scientist over the “social relevance” of the study, complaining that it was “hacked by anti-vaccinationists.”
In October 2021, Dr. Hui Jiang of Stockholm University (the lead author) and Dr. Ya-Fang Mei of Umeå University published in the peer-reviewed journal MDPI Viruses a paper titled “SARS-CoV-2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro.” Independent journalist Rebekah Barnett has pointed outthat three days before an investigation into Jiang and Mei’s paper began on November 5, 2021, medical educator Dr. Mobeen Syed, known as “Dr. Been,” posted to YouTube a video about the implications of Jiang and Mei’s paper for cancer development, which has since garnered over 1.4 million views.
“Any cell that has spike protein in it, if it needs its DNA repaired… then spike protein can reduce the DNA repair… Cancer cells are the cells where the DNA has escaped the repair,” Been explained.
In addition to showing backlash from one scientist over this video, email exchanges from Stockholm University released to Barnett under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show concerns from another scientist that there was no evidence to support a retraction but merely concerns over “publicity.”
Furthermore, co-author Mei told Barnett that she never consented to the retraction, and that Stockholm University essentially forced the lead author, Jiang, to retract the paper.
“Stockholm University initially decided to retract the paper without the authors’ consent, a clear violation of academic ethics,” Mei said. “Stockholm University asked the first author, Hui Jiang, to retract it, and they began to formalize the process. This is an illegal retraction. I have reported to the editorial office that the retraction process is incorrect, and I strongly disagree with it.”
FOIA-released emails show that Mei firmly protested the retraction to co-author Jiang on February 1, 2022, just days before he formally submitted the retraction request:
“I absolutely not (sic) accept this retraction,” she wrote.
A retraction notice dated May 2022 cited “an improper experimental design with the potential to significantly affect the integrity of the resultant experimental data.”
“Both the chosen construct of the spike plasmid that contained a C-terminal fused with 6xHis tag and use of a GFP reporter system under overexpression conditions in the protocol were identified as having the potential to introduce significant ambiguity regarding the nature of the reported observations,” the notice read.
However, Mei objected to Barnett that these claims are “unfounded” and that “the retraction is unjustified.”
“I strongly disagree (with the retraction notice), because the experiments have a control sample: Nucleoprotein containing 6Histag and GFP report, which localizes in the cell plasmid rather than in the nucleus. Therefore, the notice contains incorrect information,” said Mei, adding, “I never signed the retraction notice.”
‘Not clear if public pressure or scientific faults’ led to retraction
Email records show that MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute), which publishes open-access scientific journals, challenged the retraction days after a “generic” request letter was submitted to it on November 9, 2021.
“We have checked your retraction request… and feel the information provided is insufficient,” MDPI publishing manager Donna Virlan wrote on November 22.
MDPI assistant editor Gloria Gao seconded the objection that there was insufficient evidence to support a retraction request, noting that the apparent basis for it was “publicity.”
“At the moment, the Committee and editors have seen no evidence, and all we hear is that there is some publicity,” she wrote on November 24.
In the same email thread, academic editor Dr. Oliver Schildgen, who had first approved Jiang and Mei’s paper for publication, noted, “The retraction letter was rather generic, and for me it was not clear if the public pressure or scientific faults were the cause for the requests.”
He went on to dismiss “Twitter s****storms as a reason for retracting the article: “If scientific misconduct took place, it is important for the readership to know explicitly what was wrong as also this has a learning effect in the self clearance process of science. However, I do not care about Twitter shitstorms as the guy who sent the e-mail below, we have to be neutral as scientists.”
Schildgen’s remarks came after German scientist Dr. Götz Schuck griped about the so-called “misinformation” spreading as a result of the paper.
“I fully understand that after the publication has gone through a peer-review process with five reviewers, you think a detailed justification by the authors is required why the publication should be withdrawn. But it is also the case that unusual times call for unusual measures and that the source of scientific knowledge is instrumentalized as a source of misinformation.
The next day, Schuck treated the article’s consequences as an emergency matter, citing “anti-vaccine propaganda” and emphasizing public reaction to the paper rather than the paper itself.
“This is a real scientific scandal… the article is spread virally on the internet… You can’t just rely on a scientific investigation of the case. Every day they hesitate enables further dissemination of misinformation,” Schuck wrote to Stockholm University employees.
“I urge you to remove the article in question as soon as possible,” he added.
According to Barnett, Schildgen assured Schuck proper procedure was being followed and recommended that any further concerns be directed to the chief editor, NIH scientist Dr Eric Freed, “to whom he formally handed over the case.”
However, Schuck then protested relying on a “purely scientific argument” in favor of considering the “social relevance” of the article.
“It can’t be that you’re just going back on a purely scientific argument here. What is the social relevance? I have seen questions on Twitter from a medical doctor who asks why his patients are asking him about this publication. Look at the reality. This publication was hacked by anti-vaccinationists. That’s what it looks like,” he wrote.
Retracting the paper ‘did not require evidence of scientific misconduct’
While Neus Visa (who?) wrote to the editors and Jiang to confirm that he carried out the study “without approval for lab’s resources and reagents,” Mei told Barnett that her lab “provided most chemicals, antibodies, plasmids, and the publication fee,” so Stockholm University resources used in the study would have been “minimal.” Barnett noted that even if that was not the case, it would not have sufficed for a study retraction.
Schildgen pointed this out in an email, proposing that the paper be corrected while questioning whether it deserved a retraction.
“While I agree that the usage of ressources (sic) should have been properly acknowledged and should be subject to a correction, my main question to all of you is if there is substantial scientific misconduct, is there any proof that the data were falsified?” he replied.
Shortly after this email, Freed argued that a retraction “does not require evidence of scientific misconduct.”
Visa then maintained that despite lack of misconduct the authors showed “deviations from good research practice that should be sufficient to justify an immediate retraction of the article.”
Despite replying shortly after that he was surprised “about the entire history of this process,” Schildgen co-wrote with Freed on December 22, 2021, an expression of concern vaguely referring to the “methodology employed in the study, the conclusions drawn and the insufficient consideration of laboratory staff and resources.”
The paper was officially retracted on May 10, 2022, citing “improper experimental design with the potential to significantly affect the integrity of the resultant experimental data.”
Hui Jiang’s retraction request
Barnett obtained a copy of Jiang’s retraction request letter under FOIA, noting that Schildgen had described it as “rather generic.” In fact, it is quite vague in that it does not specify the reasons behind its core claim: that the paper’s data “haven’t been conducted to the highest scientific standard and the results are not properly interpreted.
Incredibly, while Mei is recorded as signing off on the decision, she told Barnett that she was “forced to do that,” adding, “Stockholm University issued an order. We were asked to submit the letter within 48 hours before checking the lab book and experiment protocols.” Mei shared that she never signed the formal retraction request.
Science blogger and whistleblower Dr. Ah Kahn Syed (known as “Arkmedic”) has rebutted each of the six reasons Jiang listed for requesting a retraction of his article, noting that several of them are not reasons for retraction, and arguing that “the interpretation of the results as described in the paper was correct.”
Barnett pointed out that the final retraction notice does not mention “most” of Jiang’s listed concerns, remarking that this “suggests that Jiang was unable to produce evidence to support most of his reasons for retraction.”
Implications for cancer and immune suppression
Dr. Syed summed up in a statement to Barnett the disturbing implications of Jiang and Mei’s findings for immune suppression and cancer:
The Jiang and Mei study showed that the spike protein has a suppressive effect on a protein called p53, which is commonly called ‘guardian of the genome’ for its role in repairing DNA, which in turn helps to prevent cancer formation.
“The very heavy (90%) suppression of p53 in the study shows that the main cancer repair mechanism in the body can be suppressed by the presence of spike protein which was found in the nucleus of cells consistent with the findings in the preclinical studies submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (FOI 2389 document 6) following application of the mRNA product.
“p53 suppression is a primary driver of a number of cancers but in particular pancreatic, breast, ovarian cancer and lymphoma. The biggest effect is seen in women’s cancer where BRCA mutation, which interferes with p53 production, is associated with a dramatic increase in the lifetime risk of breast cancer to around 70% (from 12%) and ovarian cancer to around 50% (from 1.5%). This was seen in Angelina Jolie, for example, whose hereditary BRCA mutation led to her having a double mastectomy to prevent her getting breast cancer.”
Syed pointed out that “the study implied that the presence of the COVID virus could have the same effect,” although viruses are not present in the body as long as the vaccine.
He estimates that, because of the paper’s retraction, “some 20%-30% of the population were deprived of access to information” that would have led to their refusing the COVID jab “even in the presence of vaccine mandates due to the potential carcinogenicity risk.”
“A further 20% of the population may have declined the product purely based on the existence of this risk. It could therefore be reasonably estimated that up to half of the excess cancers, as reported in the ABS provisional mortality reports… might have been prevented had appropriate due diligence and pharmacovigilance been applied,” Syed wrote.
Barnett remarked that Jiang and Mei’s paper has since been “vindicated,” since “multiple high-quality papers have now entered the scientific record confirming and building upon” their results, including a paper published last month by two cancer experts at Brown University, Professors Shengliang Zhang and Wafik El-Deiry, “showing that the spike protein has a suppressive effect on the tumor suppressor protein p53.”
When Barnett asked Stockholm University’s press office about Freed’s role in retracting the paper, a spokesperson responded:
Stockholm University does not have insight into the retraction process. According to Swedish legislation and academic practice, Swedish researchers are the only owners of their research results (”upphovsrättsliga lärarundantaget”). As a consequence, researchers decide themselves if (and when) results should be published or retracted.
Stockholm University did not take part in the retraction (and did not receive any pressure). The university’s research is truth-seeking, free and unbound. Stockholm University strives for an open scientific system, where everyone has free and open access to scholarly texts, research results and research data.
Lara Logan Destroys The New World Order In Epic Alex Jones Interview
Canadian Military Officials Hesitated to Lift Covid Vaccine Mandate for Service Members Because it Would Hurt Their ‘Credibility’
Officials in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) were reportedly hesitant to lift its military Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine mandate for service members out of fear that doing so might impact their “credibility.”
According to notes obtained by the Epoch Times from a Strategic Operations Planning Group meeting in June 2022, the CAF’s Director of Military Careers Administration (DMCA) initially proposed three options: maintaining the mandate, suspending it with the possibility of future reinstatement or rescinding it altogether. At the time, the DMCA warned against hastiness, highlighting the need to consider “many second and third-order effects.”
Moreover, the DMCA voiced their concerns about the public perception of the military if they would follow the Trudeau government’s lead to end its federal workplace vaccine mandate.
“If we rescind the CDS [Chief of the Defense Staff’s] Directive, the credibility of the institution is weakened, particularly the relationship between the strategic and tactical levels,” the minutes of the meeting read.
The minutes of the meeting, which occurred a day after the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ended its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for workplaces, were circulated via email through CAF Col. Krystle Connerty, a director of the Strategic Joint Staff, who noted that front-line military staff were defending the mandate despite receiving numerous complaints and insults, including accusations of “war crimes.”
(Related: Over 200 servicemembers demand accountability for how COVID-19 vaccine mandates violated their rights.)
After some reconsideration and hesitancy, the CAF finally lifted its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in October 2022, several months after the Trudeau administration rescinded its federal mandate.
But despite the removal, CAF members are still “strongly encouraged” to receive the vaccine. In other words, the mandate remains for those in operational roles or those on short-notice deployments to locations with limited medical access or where vaccination is required for entry.
Service members leave the CAF due to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate
In 2021, Chief of the Defense Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre issued a CDS directive requiring all service members to receive COVID-19 vaccines.
However, LifeSiteNews revealed that CAF lost more personnel than it gained since the COVID-19 outbreak. The Blacklock’s Reporter, an Ottawa-based, government affairs-focused publication, disclosed that only 12,793 Canadians have enlisted in the CAF over the past three years, while 15,176 members have been released. The federal requirement to provide proof of vaccination of 275,983 employees from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the military and major federal departments in November 2021, almost certainly contributed to this drastic decline.
A CAF member, speaking anonymously, stated that there are multiple reasons for the declining numbers, with the vaccine mandates being a significant factor. The military lost hundreds of experienced soldiers due to these mandates, losing valuable institutional knowledge. The member criticized the strict enforcement of the vaccine rule, which allowed few exemptions and devalued long-serving veterans who refused the vaccine.
“And when you think of those hundreds and hundreds of people, you have to think in the corporate knowledge we lost, the trainers, the institutional knowledge, the corporate knowledge,” the source said. “We’re talking about hundreds and hundreds of years of collective corporate knowledge (that) has gone in months.”
But instead of prioritizing its declining population and addressing underlying issues, the CAF chose to worry about its credibility.
Lara Logan Destroys The New World Order In Epic Alex Jones Interview
Big Short 2.0 – Investors Holding Top-Rated Debt Backed by Commercial Real Estate Suffer Losses for the First Time Since 2008 Financial Crisis
For the first time since the 2008 financial crisis, investors who hold top-rated debt backed by commercial real estate (CRE) are suffering losses as the economy continues its downward spiral into oblivion.
The Federal Reserve’s ongoing interest rate hikes coupled with plummeting office tower values nationwide have created a situation in which there is really no safe haven in the conventional markets.
Debt backed by CRE is a derivative instrument that comes with considerable risk, especially in the lower tiers. The fact that the highest tier, AAA, is also heading downward generating just 74 cents on the dollar shows just how bad things are getting.
“Now that we’ve seen the first commercial mortgage-backed securities get hit, other AAA bonds are bound to see losses,” warns Lea Overby, a CMBS strategist at Barclays. “These losses may be a sign that the commercial real estate market is starting to hit rock bottom.”
(Related: The collapse of CRE will bring with it a wave of bank failures.)
The everything bubble will eventually pop
For years, financial experts have been warning that the bubble known as the financial system is going to collapse. Some people call it the everything bubble because, well, it includes and affects everything.
With so much money leveraged in high-risk derivatives, and all of it sitting on the backs of banks, one falling domino will eventually topple all the rest of the dominoes, which is what we are now starting to see happen.
“When you take the hot air out that inflated the balloon, the balloon has to deflate and fall out of the sky,” writes David Haggith of The Daily Doom.
“Bubbles never stay inflation when you suck the cheap money back out of them. Part of that, I’ve warned, would include a huge real-estate implosion in mortgage-backed securities again, except that this time it would happen first and foremost in commercial real-estate, rather than housing.”
Like a volcano that is continually building pressure, the Fed’s interest rate hikes are killing what remains of the CRE market. Think empty strip malls and office buildings coupled with ever-worsening bank losses due to upside-down loans. The system can only take so much of this before it collapses.
“With about $700 billion of non-agency CMBS (commercial mortgage-backed securities) outstanding and another $3 trillion of commercial mortgages on bank balance sheets, even a modest uptick in losses could weigh on the financial system for years,” Bloomberg reported.
“To be clear, no one is predicting a repeat of 2008, when bad mortgages, mostly residential, nearly brought down the financial system.”
The latest Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) minutes indicate much the same in describing a “deterioration in conditions in domestic CRE markets or a sharp tightening in financial conditions.” Is it really going to just blow over like Bloomberg seems to be suggesting?
“A little tip like that from the Fed, which sounds almost sanguine, can have volumes hidden behind it,” Haggith writes. “That is how the Great Recession came about. First nothing, then one bank, then a second, then many all over the place.”
Haggith predicted that 2024 would be the year when top-tier CRE bonds started to see losses. Next comes a much larger debt explosion, especially after it becomes clear that all these promises about rate cuts are empty and not going to happen anytime soon.
Housing prices also continue to rise despite very few actual Americans being able to afford them. Unless you already own a house, your chances of ever being a homeowner are getting slimmer and slimmer the longer this trainwreck takes to materialize.
The global financial system is built on a house of cards. Learn more at Collapse.news.
Lara Logan Destroys The New World Order In Epic Alex Jones Interview
WHO Passes ‘Watered-down’ IHR Amendments, Plans to Revisit Pandemic Treaty ‘Within a Year’
The World Health Organization (WHO) passed a set of revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) just before its June 1 deadline, in an outcome the agency described as “historic.”
But some critics of the amendments called it a pyrrhic victory for the WHO, noting that the approved amendments lack most of the proposals opposed by health freedom activists, who cited risks to national sovereignty and personal liberties and said the original proposals promoted a digital ID scheme.
In its announcement following the conclusion of the World Health Assembly, held last week in Geneva, Switzerland, the WHO said that the amendments “ensure comprehensive, robust systems are in place in all countries to protect the health and safety of all people everywhere from the risk of future outbreaks and pandemics.”
Negotiators did not agree on a final draft of the “pandemic agreement” — or “pandemic treaty” — but made “concrete commitments to completing negotiations on a global pandemic agreement within a year, at the latest,” the WHO stated.
According to the Geneva Health Files, the adoption of the IHR amendments is a “momentous” outcome and “a testimony to multilateralism” — though this result was also described as “a big win for the United States, among others, who spearheaded the amendments’ process in 2021.”
The Vaccine Safety ProjectLEARN MORE
But for health freedom activist Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and founder of Door to Freedom, an organization that lobbied against the WHO proposals, the outcome of this year’s World Health Assembly “was a huge win.”
“The globalists got essentially nothing that was important to them,” Nass wrote on Substack. “They will keep trying. We will keep stopping them. The meeting just ended. The Pandemic Treaty is to be negotiated for another year. So we can’t let up but we won the first round.”
Noting that many of the most restrictive proposals did not make the final set of amendments, Nass wrote the World Health Assembly “had to adopt something to save face, and it had become apparent to the globalists that they would not do any better if they delayed a decision.”
“The pandemic treaty will continue to be negotiated, but it has been mostly defanged too,” Nass added. “We will remain vigilant. We will continue to educate about pandemic preparedness.”
Speaking at a press conference in Geneva on Saturday, Swiss attorney Philipp Kruse said that the IHR amendments, even in their watered-down form, were the product of pressure from the U.S.
“There were intense negotiations going on late into this night under the tremendous pressure of the representatives of the United States to come to a conclusion,” Kruse said.
During the same press conference, Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, executive director of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Africa and founder of Transformative Health Justice, said many WHO member states complained about “being rushed” or “being threatened that they have to come out of this process with the IHR amendments being signed.”
But experts also noted that despite adopting a diluted version of the IHR amendments, further negotiations don’t appear to be in the cards.
Speaking to The Defender after Saturday’s press conference, Kruse said, “The mandate for providing these two legal instruments for a vote to the World Health Assembly has been terminated.”
For Steve Kirsch, founder of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, the outcome resulted from grassroots pressure on a global scale, which led some nations to balk at the full set of proposals in the two documents.
Maria Hubmer Mogg, a candidate from Austria in this week’s European parliamentary elections, agreed. She told The Defender that “people are waking up” worldwide. As a result, WHO negotiators and proponents of the two proposals are “pulling back and then they’re trying again.”
“This is part of the pushback that I believe will ultimately result in the failure of this WHO assault on sovereignty and freedom more generally,” Frank Gaffney, founder and executive chairman of the Center for Security Policy, told The Defender.
Speaking at a rally in Geneva on Saturday opposing the two documents, Joana Amaral Dias, a candidate from Portugal in the European parliamentary elections, told The Defender “The people that are here are the seeds of change. They’ve managed — we have managed — to stop the pandemic treaty.”
“The political momentum against the WHO is crucial because we are fighting one of the most important wars. If you can defend our health and our children’s health, we are accomplishing the main task and the main mission that every generation has to protect,” she added.
Did DOJ Lawyers Commit Fraud in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding?LEARN MORE
‘Major bullets’ were ‘dodged’
The amendments may be most notable not for what they contain — but for what was left out. According to Nass, numerous crucial proposals did not make their way into the final set of amendments, calling these excluded items “major bullets” that were “dodged.”
These include the pathogen access and benefit sharing system, provisions incorporating the One Health concept, medical mandates, a proposal for the WHO to order countries to pass laws it demands, the ability to declare emergencies for non-health reasons, and proposals to provide liability shields to unlicensed vaccines and treatments or to demand their rollout.
Nass compared the final version of the amendments with those proposed in February 2023, noting that references to gene therapy have been removed, while language protecting human rights and dignity, and affirming the non-binding nature of the amendments, was reinstated.
“One bad thing remained in the IHR, and that was ‘addressing’ misinformation and disinformation, but the IHR did not tell nations how to address it,” Nass said. She also noted that, with or without these amendments, most governments are proceeding with their own plans to combat “misinformation” and “disinformation.”
In another Substack post, Nass wrote that “people are unhappy with various provisions of the document, without realizing that most of the issues they dislike are in the existing IHR and have been there for many years.”
For example, Nass cited certificates of vaccination, which “have always been in the IHRs.” Changes made to this provision in the new amendments “are minor, compared to what was proposed, and … are recommendations, not orders from the WHO.”
“They will not need to be digital, which is a crucial point — as they were going to be the gateway to digital identity, digital money and massively increased surveillance. They need to be signed by a doctor, which was already true in many countries,” Nass added.
Questions remain about the legality of the new IHR amendments, as the final version was proposed less than four months before the World Health Assembly, in contravention of Article 55, Section 2 of the existing IHR. Instead, the final text was released on June 1 and the vote took place one hour before the end of the assembly.
Nass told The Defender that while some countries, such as Slovakia, have already rejected the new IHR amendments or “distanced themselves” from them, most countries are likely to take no action, as “it did not turn into a governing document, as desired, and won’t make much practical difference to the nations.”
Nass also noted that most nations will have “at a minimum 10 months to avoid any provisions it does not like in the newly amended document,” simply by notifying the WHO of its rejection.
For nations that rejected the 2022 IHR amendments which created a truncated 10-month review period, the previous 18-month period remains in effect, Kruse told The Defender. Those amendments came into effect on Saturday.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
Thousands rallied in Geneva against the WHO’s proposals
While the WHO deliberated the IHR amendments on Saturday, thousands of demonstrators gathered outside the United Nations office in Geneva for the “We Are The Change” rally against the two WHO proposals. Many attendees had converged in Geneva as part of the “Road to Geneva” motorcade.
Andrea Nazarenko, Ph.D., of The Inspired Network, one of the organizers of the rally, told The Defender, “It’s a collective effort where everybody played a role and created something far greater than we could have ever imagined … when 8 billion people come together and unite, the future is ours.”
Dan Astin-Gregory of Free Humanity who co-organized the rally, said, “The Road to Geneva was a beautiful convoy … We’re all here to make a very strong stand for freedom, independence and the right to self-determination. I’m really proud of what we’ve created.”
“We are declaring our sovereignty and saying that the system is broken,” said Dr. Kat Lindley, president of the Global Health Project and director of the Global Covid Summit. “We’re not giving these supranational agencies power over us. Truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it. Let it loose and it’ll defend itself.”
Robyn Cosford, a professor and chair of the board of CHD Australia, told The Defender that she felt “very much empowered and encouraged” by the “wonderful sense of unity” at the rally.
Lara Logan Destroys The New World Order In Epic Alex Jones Interview
How are GENETICALLY MODIFIED HUMANS and Everyone who got Covid mRNA Injections Similar to DNA-Mutated Crops Like GM Corn & Soy?
Most genetically modified crops contain toxins from a different plant or from an insect that kills other insects that eat those crops. For example, by inserting the Bt gene (Bacillus thuringiensis) into the DNA of the corn plant, scientists gave the popular vegetable an insect resistance trait.
In other words, that type of corn from those types of seeds all produce “protein” toxins inside them that kill bugs by dissolving their insides, that also makes those bugs infertile. The corn borers (caterpillars), wireworms and rootworms are exterminated because the DNA of the corn is modified, mutated and produces just enough poison to destroy them. More than 94 percent of all American corn and soy is GMO, meaning these ever-popular American staple crops now produce pesticides from the inside-out, so think about the humans that eat them. That brings us to the mRNA “vaccines.”
mRNA means injected humans are now genetically modified to produce “protein” toxins that their own body tries to destroy
Ever heard the term auto-immune disorder? If not, you will very soon, and quite often. It starts with even the healthiest people, who got brainwashed by the Pharma cartel into getting the toxic “forever” jab, where human cells are tricked into producing virus-mimicking “protein” prions, that are produced indefinitely (counter to medical narratives) and spread throughout the body. This signals the human immune system that every organ is under attack by foreign invaders, and the immune system is taxed, hyper-activated constantly, and the heart and CNS start breaking down too.
Human knowledge is under attack! Governments and powerful corporations are using censorship to wipe out humanity’s knowledge base about nutrition, herbs, self-reliance, natural immunity, food production, preparedness and much more. We are preserving human knowledge using AI technology while building the infrastructure of human freedom. Use our decentralized, blockchain-based, uncensorable free speech platform at Brighteon.io. Explore our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Support our efforts to build the infrastructure of human freedom by shopping at HealthRangerStore.com, featuring lab-tested, certified organic, non-GMO foods and nutritional solutions.
Just like GM corn and GM soy, the Covid-jab-injected human’s DNA system is now a toxic protein creating factory, but instead of killing insects and worms, the human body is destroying itself. In other words, the “pest” is itself, and the immune system identifies it this way. Still wondering why the Covid-vaxxed masses keep dropping like flies, from unexplainable heart attacks, spontaneous abortions and stroke-inducing fibrous vascular clots?
These mRNA-injected humans are now walking bio-weapons factories, and their doctors are never allowed to discuss it. The medical industry has every employee parroting and regurgitating all the false-narratives (disinformation) about how the mRNA remains at the site of injection, and how it only produces spike proteins for a few months. Lies. Does the genetically modified corn and soy only produce worm-exterminating proteins for a few weeks? This deserves careful consideration.
Do not ever let Big Pharma genetically modify you. There are more mRNA jabs being developed right now, being created to control the populace, eliminate the undesirables (everyone but the elitists and their slaves), and turn the Republic into a third-world hell-hole.
More mRNA coming to further infect 270 million Americans with “protein” toxins that invade every organ, including the heart and brain
Next is the experimental Bird Flu mRNA gene-mutating injection called a “vaccine.” It’s dirty, untested on humans and will further destroy human genetic coding to involve human cells creating toxic viral particles (spike proteins or prions) that instruct the immune system to attack wherever they lodge, throughout the body and brain. These microscopic nanoparticles are also able to congeal, clog the blood and cling to the walls of blood vessels, organs and the fetus. It’s already stockpiled and ready to go, even though the bird-flu has yet to be proven to have “gain-of-function” capability (meaning it can be spread from animal to human and human to human).
Bookmark Vaccines.news to your favorite independent websites for updates on experimental gene therapy injections that genetically modify HUMANS forever and lead directly to vascular clots, hypertension, myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attacks, strokes, PCVS, SPS and Long-Vax-Syndrome.
Lara Logan Destroys The New World Order In Epic Alex Jones Interview
Ukraine Officers Say Recruits Arrive At Front Lines Pathetically Undertrained
In the latest harbinger of Ukraine’s inevitable defeat, combat commanders say newly-mobilized soldiers are arriving at the front lines so poorly-trained and clueless that they can’t even disassemble their weapons, according to the Washington Post.
One soldier described his basic training as “complete nonsense...everything is learned on the spot [at the front lines].” An officer who’d trained recruits said their rifle training was limited to just 20 rounds per soldier.
In most armies, that would barely be considered “familiarization fire.” Consider that, as of 2018, the US Army’s basic combat training called for shooting 600 rounds in a 92-hour curriculum. Rifle ammo isn’t the only limiting factor: The Ukrainian officer also noted that that “there are no grenades for throwing in training centers, and there are no grenade launcher rounds in the training center.”
When soldiers arrive at the front, units are forced to spend weeks teaching them basis skills they should have already learned. “We had guys that didn’t even know how to disassemble and assemble a gun,” a deputy mechanized battalion commander told the Post. He dreads that sudden Russian progress will instantly turn new arrivals into pathetic cannon fodder:
“We are just wasting a lot of time here on basic training. If, God forbid, there will be a breakthrough near Chasiv Yar, and we get new infantry that doesn’t know basic things, they will be sent there to just die.”
Word of the poor preparation has gotten around — and is hampering recruitment efforts and fueling draft resistance. New advertising assures would-be enlistees that they’ll receive “60 days of preparation” before facing off with the Russian army.
Forced mobilization in Dnipro in native region of Zelensky in Ukraine. Daily number of such videos of forced mobilization in different regions of Ukraine increased significantly after his new mobilization law came into effect two weeks ago. Those who want to fight to the last… pic.twitter.com/wEHFjJCtZU
— Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) June 1, 2024
Earlier this year, Ukraine lowered its minimum draft age from 27 to 25. The Post story gives a darkly amusing picture of how the country’s military units engage in cutthroat competition to grab the best recruits arriving for basic training:
Some assault brigades might devote personnel to live practically full-time near training centers, the sergeant said, to quickly snatch up the youngest, fittest, most motivated men. The officer who was an instructor at a training center confirmed that some brigades indeed plot for first dibs.
“If they send us to recruit someone, all the good ones have already been taken by other brigades, and you have to choose from the crooked, lame, sick ones. And so you choose from them, dammit.”
PURE EVIL!
— Rev Laskaris (@REVMAXXING) May 27, 2023
Lindsey Graham: “The Russians are dying… it’s the best money we’ve ever spent.” pic.twitter.com/q4zNkwAY9u
The same sergeant complained that 50-year-old men with back and knee problems are routinely deemed fit to fit. When he resists taking such a soldier, he’s overrruled. “You try not to take them,” he said. “But again, in our army, it’s set up so that the personnel department tells you, ‘No way, you have to take him, he’s healthy’.” While it’s often said that war is a young man’s game, the average age of a frontline Ukrainian soldier is 43.
While the influx of soldiers from the modified draft is still being amassed, the military is, for now, shifting troops to the front who’ve been spending the the last months or years doing mundane duties far from danger — such as guarding bridges hundreds of miles from the front. Some are immediately assigned to challenging missions, such as infiltrating and operating behind Russian lines. Red shading indicates area of Russian control
“It’s scary,” said a 31-year-old who’d been guarding a bridge in Odessa since he enlisted after Russia’s February 2022 invasion — and then suddenly shipped to the eastern Donetsk battlefront on just 24 hours notice. “Nobody was really prepared.”
Against that depressing backdrop, the United States and its Western European allies continue relentlessly escalating the conflict and reinforcing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s motivation to decisively win the war. In just the most recent weeks:
- The Biden administration gave a green light to Ukrainian strikes on targets inside Russia using US weapons.
- Denmark similarly gave permission to use its F-16s to strike inside Russia
- Ukraine attacked radars that are part of Russia’s nuclear warning system
- France poised to deploy military trainers to Ukrainian soil
- Tiny Latvia’s president — trash-talking from beneath a NATO umbrella — said that “Russia must be destroyed”
- Secretary of State Antony Blinken assured the world that Ukraine has a “strong and well-lit bridge to [NATO] membership” — a prospect that is the core reason the war is being fought.
POWERFUL — MUST WATCH: The Globalist System Is Collapsing In Real Time, Warns Bilderberg Expert Daniel Estulin