Death By Medicine

by Nick Bosco

Dr. Robert Mendelsohn has been labeled a medical heretic by many members of his profession. He embraces this epithet as a badge of honor. It is Mendelsohn’s contention that doctors may be more lethal than the diseases they claim to be fighting.

His professional credentials are impressive. He is presently a pediatrician and family practitioner; he was formerly the senior consulting pediatrician for the Department of Mental Health of the State of Illinois; he has served as chairman of the Medical Licensure Committee for the State of Illinois and as national director of the Medical Consulting Service for Project Head Start. He is currently an associate professor in the department of preventive medicine at the University of Illinois. Dr. Mendelsohn also writes a nationally syndicated newspaper column titled “The People’s Doctor,” and is the author of Confessions of a Medical Heretic, now available from Contemporary Books, Chicago, Illinois.

Forum: Why do you call yourself a medical heretic?

Dr. Mendelsohn: Actually, I was first called a heretic by other people, although it’s been so long I don’t remember who was the first to do so.

But I don’t mind the term. In fact, I kind of like it. I am a medical heretic because modern medicine is a church, a religion I no longer believe in.

Forum: Why do you refer to modern medicine as a religion?

Dr. Mendelsohn: For one thing, very few of modern medicine’s procedures can be proved either scientifically or logically. Doctors use their own subjective brand of logic to “prove” things they want proved and disprove things they want to challenge. For example, if you tell your doctor you’d like to try laetrile, he’ll tell you that there are no scientific studies that prove its effectiveness. If you tell him that many people who have taken laetrile report a real benefit, he’ll say that’s subjective evidence and not worthy of his attention.

But then, if your doctor wants you to have a coronary bypass operation, and if you object on the grounds that some scientific studies have shown no real benefit from the operation, he’ll tell you that all his patients who have had the operation felt better. You can’t win, so you’re better off not playing the game.

Only in a religion are you required to believe things without proof, to take things on faith. Most modern medical procedures are treated as sacraments – rituals that are supposed to impart some good to the participants.

The high priests of this religion, of course, are doctors. They wear sacred vestments, speak an elite language, and operate with highly specialized tools. And modern medicine has its temples, too: hospitals. Hospitals, by the way, are just about the most dangerous places in the world.

Forum: What do you mean?

Dr. Mendelsohn: Hospitals are dangerous in more ways than I can even mention. I like to compare them to combat zones: You stay out as long as possible, but if you have to go in, you get out as fast as you can. That’s the only way.

For one thing, there are more different germs in hospitals than you can find in any single place anywhere else. Then you have to consider all the drugs that are used in hospitals. The average is about a dozen per patient and mix-ups are common, not rare. Not only do drugs get mixed up, but hospital personnel confuse the identities of patients as well. Babies are mixed up, people are lost. Patients have been found dead in out-of-the-way places in hospitals.

Then, since hospitals are the temples of modern medicine, they are the places where the “sacred rituals” are most highly concentrated. That’s dangerous, too. People don’t generally let themselves believe it, but doctors have quota systems for various diagnostic and surgical procedures. So once you get in the hospital, the doctor has you on his turf and is obliged to use as many of the rituals available to him as he can. Not only are drugs and diagnostic procedures overused, but the ritual mutilation of surgery is frequently performed needlessly as well.

Forum: Ritual mutilation?

Dr. Mendelsohn: That’s right. Conservative estimates put the amount of needless surgery at around 10 to 25%. I’d say the number is closer to 90%. That means there would not be any loss of life or health if 90% of the surgery now going on was simply not performed. As proof, whenever there is a doctors’ strike in which only emergency procedures are carried out, the death rate always goes down. That happened in Los Angeles, in Israel, in South America wherever there’s a strike.

Then, when the strike is over and the doctors go back to work on everybody, the death rate goes back up. So actually, if 90 or even 95% of the doctoring now going on were to stop – not just the surgery – we’d be much better off.

Forum: There probably aren’t too many doctors who’d agree with you.

Dr. Mendelsohn: There probably aren’t too many insurance agents who’d agree that we have too much insurance, or generals who’d admit that we need fewer guns, or publishers who’d agree that we need fewer books and magazines than we have.

Let me point out one example that I’m especially fond of: obstetrical surgery. This is a line of surgery that we could eliminate almost entirely. Unnecessary obstetrical surgery runs even higher than 95%; it’s more like 99.9%. When obstetricians took over from midwives, an immediate consequence was a rise in maternal death rates. This is because the doctors were going straight from the autopsy rooms of hospitals into the delivery rooms – without washing their hands.

Years after this error was discovered, years after the man who had pointed it out was driven into an insane asylum by his colleagues’ blind denial of the truth, doctors finally started washing their hands before delivering babies. And the death rate went down. Doctors then congratulated themselves, typically.

Nowadays, doctors frighten perfectly healthy women into having their babies in the hospital. They scare them with stories of what might go wrong if they don’t have their babies in the hospital. The truth is, is that hospital births are a lot more dangerous than home births, provided an experienced home birth doctor or midwife is present and has been consulted all along. Hospital births have six times more distress, an eight times higher incidence of the baby getting caught in the birth canal, four times more babies needing resuscitation, four times more infection, and a thirty times higher risk of permanent injury.

It’s not hard to understand these shocking statistics when you take a look at the hospital birth setting: an operating room. With all that equipment around, the obstetrician feels like he’s not doing his job if he doesn’t use some of it. So we have the episiotomy, which is a surgical slicing of the perineum to “enlarge” the birth canal. Actually, it’s usually used to make up for the doctor’s lack of skill in coaching the birth. If the mother isn’t knocked out with anesthesia, she can slow down the birth herself so the chances of tearing are lessened. But of course, from the doctor’s point of view, if the mother’s awake the doctor is no longer in total control.

Doctors don’t limit themselves to unnecessary episiotomies, though. They hook up a fetal monitor to the baby’s scalp and at the first sign of distress they want to perform a Cesarean delivery. When I was just starting out in medicine, if a hospital’s Cesarean section rate went over 3 or 4%, there was an investigation. Now the average rate in most hospitals is 15% and in some hospitals it’s pushing 50%! Yet there are no investigations.

Forum: And this is dangerous?

Dr. Mendelsohn: Sure it’s dangerous! The maternal death rate is about twenty-six times higher for Cesarean sections than for normal births.

Forum: Do you think doctors are really out to mutilate people?

Dr. Mendelsohn: Not exactly. Doctors believe in surgery. Families of doctors have more surgery than anybody else. But that doesn’t make surgery any safer or more necessary. The blind faith of doctors in surgery is just a symptom of our technological pride: What can be done must be done. Nobody bothers to question whether it should be done. Another example: close to a million women have their uterus removed every year. I am convinced that no more than a small fraction of those women really need that operation. My guess is that if those were testes coming out, you’d never see a million operations every year. In fact, you don’t see very many testes removed, do you?

Forum: Are you suggesting that the medical establishment is sexist?

Dr. Mendelsohn: I’m more than suggesting, I’m stating it as a fact. Doctors are taught in medical school to mistrust and compete with their peers, and to be deceitful when competing with others. They learn contempt for all groups of people who are inferior to them in social position and power.

This contempt comes out in very interesting ways. You see a lot of female sexual organs removed surgically, like breasts and uteruses, but very few male organs. Women are robbed of much of their dignity in the hospital. Not only are they demeaned in childbirth, but they have to practically get a lawyer in order to be “allowed” to care for their own baby immediately after its birth.

You may think a woman’s right to an abortion is important, but her right to care for her child the way she sees fit is more important and in greater danger. Convincing women that bottle-feeding was just as good as breastfeeding – which it isn’t – robbed women of their birthright, took away from them the use of their bodies in a way that is not only natural but very pleasurable.

Forum: In what other ways is modern medicine dangerous?

Dr. Mendelsohn: Doctors dispense drugs like priests give out blessings. Of course, the drugs cost a lot more – and they’re deadly, as well. More people die from the effects of legally-prescribed Valium than from illegal heroin. Doctors sometimes don’t even follow the instructions given by the drug companies themselves. They neglect to carry out recommended tests or investigate the possibilities of drug interactions.

Doctors are dangerous even before they prescribe drugs or surgery, however. Just going in for an exam is hazardous. I tell everybody to stay away from doctors if they have no symptoms. And even if you do have some problems, you should think twice.

Forum: How can a simple exam be dangerous?

Dr. Mendelsohn: There’s no such thing as a simple exam anymore. Doctors assume you feel cheated if they don’t use at least a hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment on you. Not that they need all that hardware, though; even a $20 stethoscope can be dangerous. I’m thinking of all the mothers who become hysterical when the doctor tells them their child has a “functional heart murmur” after using a stethoscope. Even if he tells them it’s harmless and the child will grow out of it, many parents still treat the kid like a cripple for years afterwards.

X-ray machines are highly dangerous and should be used about one-tenth as much as they are presently used. Yet trying to avoid x-rays is difficult to do, and getting harder. The same goes for electrocardiograms and electroencephalograms. These two tests are dangerous because of the arbitrary nature of the interpretation. Even heart specialists disagree on the interpretation of these tests, so what can you expect from a general practitioner who’s been trained in a week or two to read the results?

Another pitfall of exams is that the doctor assumes you’re “guilty” until proven innocent. And it’s not easy to prove you’re healthy. Doctors aren’t trained to acknowledge health, only find and treat disease.

Forum: So what’s the solution? How does a person protect himself?

Dr. Mendelsohn: Become a heretic. Stop believing in the Church of Modern Medicine.

Forum: Does that mean you stop going to doctors?

Dr. Mendelsohn: Not necessarily. You simply become more selective and aggressive. Don’t automatically accept everything a doctor tells you. The first thing you have to learn to do is ask the question Why? If you ask Why? Enough times, one of two things will happen: Either the doctor will answer your questions and satisfy you, or he’ll sooner or later tell you “Just trust me.”

If that happens, you should put as much distance between him and yourself as possible. Never trust your doctor unless absolutely necessary, which means unless it’s a true emergency.

However, even if your doctor answers your questions, you should still do your homework. You should know more about your disease and treatment than he does. And with the state of medical education being what it is, that isn’t too hard to do.

In general, try to avoid doctors as much as possible. That means staying as healthy as possible. Of course, that’s heresy right there, since doctors think they are the only ones who can keep you healthy.

Just like any religion, modern medicine wants to maintain a monopoly on people’s access to health. So whenever anything comes along that promises to have a beneficial effect on health that doesn’t involve drugs, surgery or some potentially lucrative procedure, most doctors dismiss it as a fad or quackery.

Forum: With that kind of attitude, it seems likely that the medical profession will continue to consider you a heretic for many years to come.

Dr. Mendelsohn: I consider it an honor. My concern is with patients, not doctors.

Death By Medicine by Gary Null

by Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D.

The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunization.

I know, as I write that line, that this concept is one that you may find difficult to accept. Immunizations have been so artfully and aggressively marketed that most parents believe them to be the “miracle” that has eliminated many once-feared diseases. Consequently, for anyone to oppose them borders on the foolhardy. For a pediatrician to attack what has become the “bread and butter” of pediatric practice is equivalent to a priest’s denying the infallibility of the pope.

Knowing that, I can only hope that you will keep an open mind while I present my case. Much of what you have been led to believe about immunizations simply isn’t true. I not only have grave misgivings about them; if I were to follow my deep convictions in writing this, I would urge you to reject all inoculations for your child. I won’t do that, because parents in about half the states have lost the right to make that choice. Doctors, not politicians, have successfully lobbied for laws that force parents to immunize their children as a prerequisite for admission to school. (more…)

by Leon J. Ricks

One of the most baffling mysteries of modern science is the question of why a living organism ages. According to all scientific observation and deduction it cannot happen — yet it does. When an independent section of tissue is maintained in the proper laboratory environment its cells continue to divide and aging does not occur. But tissue which is part of a living organism begins to age once full growth, as specified by the heredity-carrying genes, is reached.

If the answer to this riddle could be found youth and experience could be combined. Leadership would be improved. Old maids would be a thing of the past. The frustrating “over-40 employment problem” would be gone. The degenerative diseases (heart disease, cancer, etc.) would be largely eliminated. Women would retain their full beauty for a reasonable time instead of starting to lose it almost as soon as they get it. (more…)

This is the movie we wish we didn’t have to make. But this is a movie everyone needs to see. For the first time ever, hear the stories of COVID shot deaths as told by the parents who lost their children. Shot Dead premiered on November 9, 2023 – the one-year anniversary of 18 year-old Trista Martin’s death from the shot, in her hometown of Tulsa (Trista is featured prominently in the film).

Hear from the families brave enough to speak up and admit that the shot killed their children. Hear from the ones who have refused to keep quiet. We all know that there are so many who have sold out to pharma, denying that their loved ones were hurt or killed by the shots. But there is no amount of money or threats that can keep these parents from speaking truth in honor of their children so this doesn’t happen to one more child. (more…)

Introduction by Elana Freeland

The unfinished third documentary UNconventional Grey by Michael J. Murphy has been missing in action since 2016, the year Murphy had planned to release it. It is his third film of truth-telling about geoengineering, the other two being What in the World Are They Spraying? (2010) and Why in the World Are They Spraying? (2012).

Michael’s targeting began in 2012 just after Why in the World debuted in Los Angeles at the Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails Conference—just as he began organizing for a third film that, unlike his first two films, would not just wake the public up but rally activists around the Aerosol Collection Project while filling in their grasp of how geoengineering entails crimes against humanity because of an operating agenda for global political power. The objective of the character assassination Michael was subjected to by the usual federally protected perpetrators and “insider” trusted colleagues was about preventing the production of his third documentary UNconventional Grey. Michael managed to rally from the post-2012 assault and to all but complete UNconventional Grey before yet another, even more brutal assault began at the same time that a remarkably similar assault began on the great Canadian activist Suzanne Maher who was spreading chemtrails awareness billboards across Ontario. (more…)

by Mark M. Rich

Introduction

Over a period of decades some vaccines have been found to be contaminated with live viruses. It is implied that these have been a series of accidents. Now that we have detected a population control agenda, these events take on a new meaning. A brief description follows.

Simian Virus

Simian virus 40 (SV40) is a polyomavirus found in monkeys and humans. Because this virus has been detected in a variety of human cancers, including lymphatic, brain, lung, and bone, medical researchers have concluded that it is a cancer-causing virus. These cancers have increased tremendously in recent decades.

In 1954 a bacteriologist named Dr. Bernice Eddy found that the polio vaccines were contaminated with a live monkey virus, which caused paralysis when injected into monkeys. Rather than being rewarded, the NIH demoted Dr. Eddy for her discovery. She continued her work independently, however, and announced in 1961 that what she had discovered in 1954 was definitely the cancer-causing SV40. Her discovery was later validated by Dr. Maurice Hilliman of Merck.

For years, independent medical researchers warned that polio vaccines have been infecting people with the SV40. Unfortunately, they were ridiculed. In 1994, Loyola University researcher, Dr. Michele Carbone, discovered the SV40 in about 50% of the human lung tumors he observed. His finding would eventually be replicated by 60 different laboratories in multiple countries.

During the 1950s and 1960s alone, about 98 million people in the US were injected with these contaminated polio vaccines. Some have suggested that these vaccines may have been administered up to 1999.

It was reported by United Press International in October of 2004 that the SV40 was accidentally placed in the polio vaccines because the manufacturer, Wyeth-Lederle, may not have taken all of the safety precautions.

Porcine Virus

In March of 2010 the FDA discontinued GSK’s oral rotavirus vaccine Rotarix after an independent laboratory found that it was contaminated with a pig virus known as porcine circovirus. In swine this virus is known to induce sudden death, enlarged lymph nodes, stunted growth, jaundice, skin rashes, breathing difficulties, and stomach ulcers.

Rotavirus vaccines are usually given to infants starting at 2, 4, then 6 months of age. The FDA and GSK said there was no cause for concern because there are no known health risk to humans. However, this is not because the agency has conducted studies to determine that there are no health risks. The FDA claims this virus doesn’t affect humans because no such studies have been done.

The FDA ruled in May of the same year that doctors should continue pushing the vaccine because there was no evidence that it was harmful to humans. Although FDA spokespeople said they’d be looking into it, no reason was given for the contamination, leaving us to conclude that it was simply a mistake.

H5N1

In February of 2009 Baxter was caught shipping the live H5N1 Avian Flu virus in its H3N2 seasonal flu vaccines to 18 countries. The contamination, which took place at Baxter’s research facility in Orth-Donau, Austria, was discovered by the National Microbiology Laboratory in Canada. This deadly virus has a kill-rate of 60%.

Baxter spokespeople referred to it as a “technical” error. The independent media sources, Prison Planet and Natural News, suggest otherwise.

Although the H5N1 doesn’t spread well through the air, if combined with the airborne seasonal flu virus, it could spread quickly, acting as a deadly airborne biological weapon. Baxter International adheres to a set of bio-safety protocols that are designed to make this type of contamination virtually impossible.

If this deadly virus was not detected it would have caused a pandemic, which, says Adams, would have sold an enormous amount of vaccines. “Spreading bird flu is a clever way to create demand for bird flu vaccines,” he acknowledged, “and we’ve all seen very clearly how drug companies first market the problem and then leap to the rescue by selling the solution.”

HIV

It was mentioned in the London Times in May of 1987 that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was spread through the smallpox vaccine during one of the WHO’s decade-long campaigns in Brazil and Haiti, as well as African countries such as Zaire, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Malawi, Rwanda, and Burundi.

The vaccines used during the 1978 hepatitis B vaccination campaign run by the WHO and NIH were also found to be contaminated with HIV. These injections were administered to men in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Denver, and Chicago.

It was reported by CBS News in February of 2009 that Bayer kept selling its hemophiliac medication in the mid 1980s after it was found to be contaminated with HIV. After the virus was discovered in its product, Bayer continued to sell it for at least a year in countries such as China, Taiwan, Argentina, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, France, and Spain.

Cervical Cancer

A group that offers scientific studies on vaccinations known as Safe, Affordable, Necessary and Effective Vaccines (SANE VAX) collected a variety of Gardasil samples from New Zealand, Australia, Spain, Poland, France, and the US, and sent them to the Milford Hospital in Connecticut to be examined by pathologists.

SANE reported in September of 2011 that all samples had the recombinant DNA (rDNA) of HPV-11 and HPV-18. In other words, the vaccines contained a genetically modified version of the exact virus they had allegedly been created to defend against.

Because of its potential toxicity, rDNA is considered a biohazard by the NIH. The normal and common HPV virus only stays in the bloodstream for a short period. However, the genetically engineered rDNA of the HPV contained in the Gardasil vaccine is unnatural. It is, therefore, unknown how long it remains or whether or not it mutates.

All vials contained the genetically modified HPV. So it has been determined that this version of the virus must be placed in the vaccines during the manufacturing process.

On August 29, 2011, SANE president Norma Erickson sent a letter detailing these results to the FDA, stating: “Because one hundred percent of the samples tested were positive for HPV DNA contamination, SANE Vax requests the FDA investigate the extent of the HPV DNA contamination in the Gardasil HPV4 vaccine currently on the market.”

The FDA responded in September of that year: “We have evaluated the concerns conveyed to us in your letter. We have determined that Gardasil is not contaminated with HPV DNA and remains a safe and effective vaccine.”

per Children’s Health Defense: Gardasil Vaccine Injuries

Excerpt from Invisible Eugenics

Contamination In The Covid-19 Shots

As it turns out, spike protein and the mRNA are not the only hazards of these injections. McKernan’s team have also discovered simian virus 40 (SV40) promoters that, for decades, have been suspected of causing cancer in humans, including mesotheliomas, lymphomas and cancers of the brain and bone. The findings were posted on OSF Preprints in early April 2023. As explained in the abstract:

“Several methods were deployed to assess the nucleic acid composition of four expired vials of the Moderna and Pfizer bivalent mRNA vaccines. Two vials from each vendor were evaluated … Multiple assays support DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 330ng/mg requirement and the FDAs 10ng/dose requirements …”

As noted by Greer, this means that governments and drug companies “have misled the world to a far greater extent than previously known.” If these findings are correct, it would also mean that “the so-called ‘vaccines’ are actually altering the human genome and causing permanent production of the deadly spike protein,” and this internal production of spike protein would, in turn, “trigger the immune system to attack its own cells,” Greer says.

In the interview, McKernan explains how the DNA contaminants found in the COVID jabs can result in the genetic modification of the human genome, and Bhakdi reviews how and why the shots can trigger autoimmune diseases.

Background: What Is SV40?

In 2002, the Lancet published evidence linking polio vaccines contaminated with SV40 to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. According to the authors, the vaccine may be responsible for up to half the 55,000 Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases diagnosed each year.

How did this simian (monkey) virus get into the human population? According to the late Dr. Maurice Hilleman, a leading vaccine developer, Merck inadvertently unleashed the virus via their polio vaccine. It’s unclear exactly when SV40 was eliminated from the polio vaccine. The timing also varies from country to country. For example, SV40-contaminated polio vaccines were administered in Italy as recently as 1999.

As reported in a Lancet book review of “The Virus and the Vaccine: The True Story of a Cancer-Causing Monkey Virus, Contaminated Polio Vaccine and the Millions of Americans Exposed”:

“By 1960, scientists and vaccine manufacturers knew that monkey kidneys were sewers of simian viruses. Such contamination often spoiled cultures, including those of an NIH researcher named Bernice Eddy, who worked on vaccine safety … Her discovery … threatened one of the USA’s most important public-health programs …

Eddy tried to get word out to colleagues but was muzzled and stripped of her vaccine regulatory duties and her laboratory … [Two] Merck researchers, Ben Sweet and Maurice Hilleman, soon identified the rhesus virus later named SV40 — the carcinogenic agent that had eluded Eddy.

In 1963, U.S. authorities decided to switch to African green monkeys, which are not natural hosts of SV40, to produce polio vaccine. In the mid-1970s, after limited epidemiological studies, authorities concluded that although SV40 caused cancer in hamsters, it didn’t seem to do so in people.

Fast forward to the 1990s: Michele Carbone, then at NIH, was working on how SV40 induces cancers in animals. One of these was mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the pleura thought in people to be caused mainly by asbestos. The orthodoxy held that SV40 didn’t cause human cancers.

Emboldened by a 1992 NEJM paper that found DNA ‘footprints’ of SV40 in childhood brain tumors, Carbone tested human mesothelioma tumor biopsies at the National Cancer Institute: 60% contained SV40 DNA. In most, the monkey virus was active and producing proteins.

He published his results in Oncogene in May, 1994, but the NIH declined to publicize them … Carbone … moved to Loyola University. There he discovered how SV40 disables tumor suppressor genes in human mesothelioma, and published his results in Nature Medicine in July, 1997. Studies in Italy, Germany, and the USA also showed associations between SV40 and human cancers.”

mRNA COVID Jabs Contaminated With Double-Stranded DNA

With that background, let’s get back to McKernan’s findings, which in addition to the featured video are also discussed in Daniel Horowitz’s podcast above. In short, his team discovered elevated levels of double-stranded DNA plasmids, including SV40 promoters (DNA sequence that is essential for gene expression) that are known to trigger cancer development when encountering an oncogene (a gene that has the potential to cause cancer).

The level of contamination varies depending on the platform used to measure it, but no matter which method is used, the level of DNA contamination is significantly higher than the regulatory limits in both Europe and the U.S., McKernan says. The highest level of DNA contamination found was 30%, which is rather astounding.

As explained by McKernan, when using a typical PCR test, you’ll be considered positive if the test detects the SARS-CoV-2 virus using a cycle threshold (CT) of about 40. In comparison, the DNA contamination is detected at CTs below 20.

That means the contamination is a million-fold greater than the amount of virus you’d need to have in order to test positive for COVID. “So, there’s an enormous difference here with regards to the amount of material that’s in there,” McKernan says.

In his Substack article, he also points out that people who argue that double-stranded DNA and viral RNA is a false equivalency because viral RNA is replication competent, are wrong.

“The majority of the sgRNA you are detecting in a nasal swab in your nose is NOT REPLICATION COMPETENT as shown in Jaafar et al. It is just an RNA fragment that should have lower longevity in your cells than dsDNA contaminating fragments,” he writes.

In that Substack article, McKernan has also copied a 2009 study discussing how DNA in vaccines can cause cancer and highlighted the most relevant parts. It’s a helpful resource if you want to learn more. [Substack article]

Quality Control Is Sorely Lacking

As for how SV40 promoters ended up in the mRNA shots, it appears to be related to poor quality control during the manufacturing process, although it’s unclear where in the development SV40 might have sneaked in. Quality control deficiencies may also be responsible for the high rate of anaphylactic reactions we’ve been seeing.

McKernan tells Greer:

“It’s in both Moderna and Pfizer. We looked at the bivalent vaccines for both Moderna and Pfizer and only the monovalent vaccines for Pfizer because we didn’t have access to monovalent vaccines for Moderna. In all three cases, the vaccines contain double-stranded DNA contamination.

If you sequence that DNA, you’ll find that it matches what looks to be an expression vector that’s used to make the RNA … Whenever we see DNA contamination, like from plasmids, ending up in any injectable, the first thing people think about is whether there’s any E. coli endotoxin present because that creates anaphylaxis for the injected.

And, of course … there’s a lot of anaphylaxis going on, not only on TV but in the VAERS database. You can see people get injected with this and drop. That could be the background from this E. coli process of manufacturing the DNA …”

Regulatory Agencies Knew There Was a Contamination Problem

McKernan also points out that Pfizer itself submitted evidence to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) showing sampled lots contained vast differences in the levels of double-stranded DNA contamination.

The concern that people, even at the FDA, have noted in the past whenever injecting double-stranded DNA, is that these things can integrate into the genome. ~ Kevin McKernan

The arbitrary limit for dsDNA that the EMA came up with was 330 nanograms per milligram (ng/mg). Data submitted to the EMA by Pfizer shows sampled lots had anywhere from 1 ng/mg to 815 ng/mg of DNA. McKernan adds:

“This limit likely did not consider the potency of this dsDNA contamination if it was packaged in an LNP [lipid nanoparticle]. Packaged dsDNA is more potent as a gene therapy. We now know this DNA is packaged and transfection ready. Even lower limits should be applied if the DNA is packaged in transfection ready LNPs …

Even with Pfizer being able to cherry pick the data they provided to the EMA for 10 lots, they see a 1 to 815 ng/mg variance. If you were to expand this study to 100 or 1000 lots, you’d likely see another order or two of magnitude variance.”

Double-Stranded DNA May Integrate Into Your Genome

The presence of double-stranded DNA also brings up another major concern, and that is the possibility of genomic integration.

“At least on the Pfizer side of things, it has what’s known as an SV40 promoter. This is an oncogenic virus piece. It’s not the entire virus. However, the small piece is known to drive very aggressive gene expression. And the concern that people, even at the FDA, have noted in the past whenever injecting double-stranded DNA, is that these things can integrate into the genome,” McKernan says.

While McKernan’s paper does not present evidence of genome integration, it does point out that it’s possible, especially in the presence of SV40 promoters:

“There has been a healthy debate about the capacity for SARs-CoV-2 to integrate into the human genome … This work has inspired questions regarding the capacity for the mRNA vaccines to also genome integrate. Such an event would require LINE-1 driven reverse transcription of the mRNA into DNA as described by Alden et al.

dsDNA [double-stranded DNA] contamination of sequence encoding the spike protein wouldn’t require LINE-1 for Reverse Transcription and the presence of an SV40 nuclear localization signal in Pfizer’s vaccine vector would further increase the odds of integration.”

Manifold Risks

That said, even if genetic modification does not occur, the fact that you’re getting foreign DNA into your cells poses a risk in and of itself, McKernan says. For example, partial expression could occur, or it might interfere with other transcription translations that are already in the cell.

Bhakdi also points out that the SV40 promoters do not need to be present in the nucleus of the cell for problems to occur. Cytoplasmic transfection can, in and of itself, allow for genetic manipulation, because the nucleus disassembles and exchanges cellular components with the cytosol during cell division.

In addition to having DNA floating around and causing potential problems, the RNA in the COVID jab is also modified to resist breakdown. “So, we have TWO versions of the spike protein floating around that can persist longer than anticipated,” McKernan says, and the spike protein, of course, is the most toxic part of the virus that can cause your body to attack itself.

Both McKernan and Bhakdi are adamant that ALL mRNA “vaccines” must be immediately stopped, whether for human or animal use, due to the magnitude of the risks involved.

‘Alarming Problems’

“The Pfizer vaccine has a staggering problem,” Murakami says. “This figure is an enlarged view of Pfizer’s vaccine sequence. As you can see, the Pfizer vaccine sequence contains part of the SV40 sequence here. This sequence is known as a promoter.

Roughly speaking, the promoter causes increased expression of the gene. The problem is that the sequence is present in a well-known carcinogenic virus. The question is why such a sequence that is derived from a cancer virus is present in Pfizer’s vaccine.

There should be absolutely no need for such a carcinogenic virus sequence in the vaccine. This sequence is totally unnecessary for producing the mRNA vaccine. It is a problem that such a sequence is solidly contained in the vaccine.

This is not the only problem. If a sequence like this is present in the DNA, the DNA is easily migrated to the nucleus. So it means that the DNA can easily enter the genome. This is such an alarming problem.

It is essential to remove the sequence. However, Pfizer produced the vaccine without removing the sequence. That is outrageously malicious. This kind of promoter sequence is completely unnecessary for the production of the mRNA vaccine. In fact, SV40 is a promoter of cancer viruses.”

Editor: I decided to see what ChatGPT had to say about the subject of free DNA in a cell. This is the question and response:

Question: Is free DNA in the cell dangerous?

ChatGPT:

Free DNA in the cell refers to DNA that is not enclosed within the nucleus or other cellular compartments. This can include extracellular DNA released from damaged cells, circulating cell-free DNA, or DNA fragments present in the cytoplasm.

The potential danger or harm associated with free DNA in the cell depends on the specific context and circumstances. Here are a few scenarios where free DNA can have different implications:

1. Cell Damage: When cells are damaged due to injury, infection, or cell death, they can release their contents, including DNA, into the surrounding environment. In such cases, the presence of free DNA may trigger an immune response as the body recognizes it as a sign of cell damage or danger. This immune response can contribute to inflammation and tissue damage.

2. Infection: Certain bacteria and other microorganisms can release DNA into their surroundings as part of their normal biological processes. This extracellular DNA can have various roles, including promoting biofilm formation or facilitating horizontal gene transfer among bacteria. In the context of infection, the release of free DNA can contribute to the virulence and persistence of certain pathogens.

3. Cancer and Genetic Mutations: In cancer, the presence of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in the bloodstream is of particular interest. Tumor cells can release DNA fragments into the circulation, which can contain genetic mutations specific to the tumor. cfDNA can be used as a diagnostic tool to detect the presence of cancer or monitor treatment response. While the presence of cfDNA in itself is not dangerous, the genetic mutations it carries can provide valuable information about the tumor’s characteristics.

4. Genetic Engineering: In the field of genetic engineering and biotechnology, the deliberate introduction of free DNA into cells is a common practice. This is often done to insert foreign genes or modify existing ones to confer specific traits or produce desired proteins. While the introduction of exogenous DNA can have intended consequences, it should be done under controlled conditions and with proper safety measures to prevent unintended effects or risks.

Overall, the presence of free DNA in the cell can have different implications depending on the specific context. It is important to consider the source, nature, and purpose of the free DNA, as well as the potential consequences and risks associated with its presence.

by Clinton Ober

Earthing restores and maintains the human body’s most natural electrical state, which in turn promotes optimum health and functionality in daily life. The primordial natural energy emanating from the Earth is the ultimate anti-inflammatory and the ultimate anti-aging medicine.

ELECTRICAL YOU AND YOUR ELECTRICAL PLANET

Have you ever noticed a subtle tingling or sensation of warmth rising up from your feet during a barefoot stroll on a sandy beach or grassy field glistening with the morning dew?

Did you feel revitalized at the end of your walk?

If you did, you experienced the Earth energizing your body. The fact is, is that we live on a planet alive with natural energies. Its surface teems with subtly pulsating frequencies, a phenomenon unknown to most people. Who regards the sand, grass, sidewalk, or dirt beneath their feet as an energy field? (more…)

by Herbert M. Shelton

The conservatism of the ancient priesthoods preserved for ages the hygienic practices of an immemorable past. These normal factors of life continued to form vital and important elements of the care of the sick throughout that vast period during which the priestcraft held sway, and they continued to constitute a part of the mode of care during the early part of the evolution of leechcraft. Although both priest and leech taught man to rely upon artificial adventitious and harmful processes and substances, neither of them were able to completely divorce man from reliance upon his primitive requirements; indeed, the priests made no effort to do so. Neither the prayers and magic of the priest, nor the poisons of the physician could dispense with the normal needs of life. Western man made no attempt to abandon the primal mode of care of his body, in both health and illness, until a few centuries after the rise of the medical profession. The struggle between those who would rely upon drugs to restore health and those who would reject drugs and rely upon regulation of the ways of life, continued right down to the ushering in of that long night of intellectual darkness which we know as the Dark Ages.

Under the sway of anti-naturalism and super-naturalism, with its condemnation of the body and the “works of the flesh,” hygiene was neglected and the sanitary systems broke down. Europe degenerated into a continental pig stye. Epidemics and plagues abounded and a people who thought so much more of a hypothetical postmortem existence above the clouds than they did of life in this “lowly vale of tears” found their way to heaven in great numbers. Superstition took the place of learning, the people forgot to bathe. Compared to man in the Middle Ages, the life of the savage is a heavenly Paradise. (more…)

by Herbert M. Shelton

What most distinguishes medicine in the twentieth century from medicine in the preceding centuries is its burgeoning into a giant industry. Particularly the pharmaceutical and hospital industries have grown to gigantic proportions during this century. At the same time medicine has donned the bright robes of science and has succeeded in hypnotizing mankind with the illusion that it is a scientific evocation. With its great show of research and its vast array of statistics, which are made to order, today’s medicine fools the unwary into believing that, with its stronger poisons, it achieves successes which the past hardly dared dream of.

In its issue of December 31, 1910, The Lancet (London), is an article entitled “The Annus Medicus,” which said: “That medicine has advanced during the last twelve months, we have no doubt, though the time is too early to pick upon any given piece of recorded work and point to it as the beginning of a new principle or the embryo of a method of treatment with which great things will be wrought.” (more…)

by Dawn Lester & David Parker

Anti-Hypertensives

The establishment definition of hypertension refers to, “high blood pressure i.e. elevation of the arterial blood pressure above the normal range expected in a particular group.”

There is a great deal of concern within the medical establishment about elevated blood pressure, because it is said to force the heart to work harder in its efforts to pump blood through the arteries and around the body. This extra work is said to cause excess strain on the heart and blood vessels and lead to health problems, especially heart disease. It is claimed that elevated blood pressure above the range considered to be ‘normal’ is a reliable indicator of an increased risk for the occurrence of a heart attack or a stroke.

The medical establishment clearly considers high blood pressure to be synonymous with hypertension; as also indicated by the May 2019 WHO fact sheet entitled Hypertension, which states that, “Hypertension – or elevated blood pressure – is a serious medical condition that significantly increases the risks of heart, brain, kidney and other diseases.” (more…)

by Dawn Lester & David Parker

It is widely acknowledged that ‘risks’ are associated with the use of medicines, as explained by Dr Dean in Death by Modern Medicine in her reference to a report produced by the U.S. GAO (General Accounting Office), which found that, “…of the 198 drugs approved by the FDA between 1976 and 1985…102 (or 51.1%) had serious post-approval risks…”

The ‘risks’ listed in the report include heart failure, kidney and liver failure, and birth defects, which provide clear evidence of the dangers that can result from ‘approved’ drugs. The fact that these serious conditions had not been identified prior to the approval of the drugs indicates serious problems with the drug testing procedures, as well as with the original consideration that the compounds were appropriate for use as a medicine. Professor Sheldon Krimsky PhD offers a suggestion, in his book entitled Science in the Private Interest, of the reason why questions are not raised over drug testing procedures; he states that, “Among the tens of thousands of clinical trials occurring each year, most are funded by for-profit companies seeking to gain FDA approval for new drugs, clinical procedures or medical devices.”

This situation is not improving; it is, in fact, a worsening problem, that refer to the increasing level of control over the medical system that has been gained by profit-seeking pharmaceutical companies and other vested interests. (more…)