Tiny But Toxic: Nanoparticles In Vaccines

🖨️ Print post

Nanotechnology, or “nanotech” for short, deals with the very smallest components of our world—atoms and molecules. As the Merriam- Webster definition of nanotechnology points out, it is hard for most of us to imagine just how infinitesimal the nanoscale really is, “since it in­volves objects with dimensions of 100 billionths of a meter. . . or less.”¹ To better understand how small a nanometer is, consider that a sheet of paper is about one hundred thousand nanome­ters thick. Or, as the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) explains, “[I]f a marble were a nanometer, then one meter would be the size of the Earth.”²

The NNI, a U.S. government research and development initiative, coordinates efforts to “control matter at the nanoscale” across twenty different departments and independent agencies.³ The NNI credits nanotechnology innovations with transforming nearly every industrial sector, including information technol­ogy, homeland security, transportation, energy and medicine.⁴ Engineered nanoparticles also feature prominently in emerging “green” tech­nologies such as renewable energy capture and lightweight, fuel-saving cars.^4,5

Using nanotech, “materials can effectively be made stronger, lighter, [or] more durable,” along with many other traits that industry con­siders advantageous.⁴ As a result, nanomaterials have already entered wide-scale commercial use, with over one thousand nanomaterial-containing products on the global market.

“Nanomaterials” is an umbrella term encompassing nanoparticles, nanotubes, nano-wires, quantum dots, carbon fullerenes (also known as “buckyballs”) and more. Metallic nanoparticles are made either from pure met­als (including silver, titanium, iron and others) or metal compounds (such as metal oxides). Organic and metallic nanoparticles are used extensively in consumer, textile, food packag­ing and industrial products, as well as by the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, includ­ing in vaccines.⁶

THE DOUBLE-EDGED NANOTECH SWORD

Despite the many advantages touted by industry, nanotech may best be described as a double-edged sword. A principal concern, already demonstrated by research on “first-generation” nanotechnology products, is that nanoparticles “inevitably” enter our bodies, and do so through many routes and at many differ­ent stages—including during their research, development, manufacture, use and even after they are discarded.⁷

Nanoparticles enter our bodies via both direct and indirect pathways. Methods of entry include as drugs and drug delivery vehicles, as well as through dermal, pulmonary and gastro­intestinal exposure.^6,8

In general, the impact of nanoparticles on the body depends on “chemical composition, shape, surface structure, surface charge, ag­gregation and solubility, and the presence of ‘functional groups’ of other chemicals.”⁷ The Belgium-based Health and Environment Alli­ance explains that nanomaterials are inherently toxic due to their extremely small size: “Smaller particles have a greater reactive surface area than larger particles, are more chemically reac­tive and produce greater numbers of reactive oxygen species that include free radicals.”⁷ Researchers describe the metals silver, gold, aluminum and copper, for example, as “inert in their bulk form” but exhibiting increased toxicity as particle size decreases.⁶

Unlike larger particles, nanoparticles may be taken up by the cell’s mitochondria and nucleus.⁷ Nanoparticles can interact with proteins and enzymes and alter gene expres­sion, affecting biological behavior at the organ, tissue, cellular, subcellular and protein levels. Because of this, nanoparticle toxicity may result in increased oxidative stress; inflammation; damage to proteins, membranes and DNA; and cellular death.⁷

VACCINE NANOCONTAMINATION

In 2017, quality-control investigations by Italian researchers Antonietta M. Gatti and Stefano Montanari raised awareness about the problem of micro- and nanocontamination of vaccines. Concerned with the number and se­riousness of reported adverse effects following childhood vaccination, the husband-and-wife research team developed a novel method of analyzing physical vaccine contaminants using a field emission gun environmental scanning electron microscope. They summarized the results of their research in a study titled “New quality-control investigations on vaccines: micro- and nanocontamination,” published in the International Journal of Vaccines & Vac­cination.⁹

Gatti and Montanari sought to detect the possible presence—and identify the chemical composition—of inorganic particulate contami­nants in forty-four types of vaccines manufac­tured in Italy and France.⁹ The researchers ana­lyzed vaccines against chickenpox (varicella), diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, human papillomavirus, influenza, measles, meningococcus, mumps, pertussis, pneumococcus, polio, rubella, tetanus, typhoid, yellow fever and several others. To ensure the accuracy of their results, three different mem­bers of the research team counted all identified particles three times each, resulting in an error rate of less than 10 percent.

The scientists’ analyses verified the ex­pected presence of saline and aluminum salts, components declared by the vaccine manu­facturers. However, in all but one sample, the researchers also found micro-, sub-micro- and nanosized inorganic foreign bodies not declared by manufacturers—ranging from one hundred nanometers to about ten microns in size. These foreign bodies included single particles and clusters of particles as well as aggregates (or­ganic-inorganic composites) resulting from “an interaction of the inorganic particulate matter with the organic part of the vaccine.”⁹ The clusters contained anywhere from two to seven different metals.

Across vaccines and manufacturers, the researchers found a wide range of metallic nanocontaminants (either alone or in alloy form), in­cluding aluminum, antimony, bismuth, calcium, chromium, iron, lead, nickel, platinum, scandium, silicon, silver, stainless steel, tungsten and vanadium—contaminants that cannot be considered benign. For in­stance, chromium is linked to carcinogenic and mutagenic effects, while lead causes central nervous system damage in children and can lead to peripheral neuropathy in adults. Nickel can be both carcinogenic and a potent inducer of DNA lesions.¹⁰

Illustrating the study’s wide-ranging results, tungsten appeared in vaccines manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Novartis, Pfizer and Wyeth, either as single particles (in eight of forty-four vaccines) or in aggregated form (two vaccines). Chromium (alone or aggregated with iron or nickel) appeared in twenty-five vaccines made by six different manufacturers. Seven vaccines—notably the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines manufactured by GSK and Sanofi—contained lead or lead aggregates, while stainless steel was detected in thirteen vaccines. The measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur contained (either singly or in combination) twelve different metals (aluminum, antimony, bismuth, chromium, calcium, iron, nickel, platinum, scandium, silicon, silver and vanadium).

A critical point emphasized by Gatti and Montanari is the fact that the inorganic particles identified were neither biocompatible nor biodegradable.⁹ In other words, such particles are biopersistent and can induce effects that may become evident either immediately after injection or after a period of time. As the two scientists explained, not only can “microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates. . . stay around the injec­tion site forming swellings and granulomas,” but the non-biodegradable foreign bodies can also “be carried by the blood circulation”—getting distributed virtually anywhere in the body, including in the organs and microbiota, where they are likely to elicit a chronic inflammatory response. Additionally, the Italians noted, nanoparticles in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with cellular DNA.

The Italian researchers hypothesized that vaccine micro- and nanocontaminants could explain both immediate and delayed adverse events following vaccination, particularly because the contaminants’ “final destination” is likely to vary from person to person. If nanocon­taminants reach the brain rapidly, individuals may experience damage within a few hours of vaccination. On the other hand, it is also plausible that contaminants could travel to the microbiota and there interfere with the production of enzymes necessary to carry out critical neurological functions, prompting symptoms weeks later.

In their conclusions, Gatti and Montanari hypothesized that the extensive vaccine contamination they observed was likely unintentional and possibly due to polluted components or flawed industrial filtration. Long-time vaccine awareness advocate Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, an osteo­pathic medical doctor who is board-certified in three medical specialties and has over fifty thousand hours of vaccine research under her belt, has indirectly raised a different possibility. Pointing out that the one veterinary vaccine tested by the Italian researchers proved to be the only product (out of forty-four vaccines) free from contami­nation, Dr. Tenpenny noted that if the problem were indeed solely due to “sloppy manufactur­ing,” the pet vaccine should have displayed the same nanocontamination.¹⁰

COVID INJECTIONS: THE NEW NANOPARTICLE FRONTIER

Setting aside the issue of whether the nanoparticle contamination found by the Italian researchers was accidental, there is no debate that some nanoparticles are an intentional feature of twenty-first-century vaccines. Vaccine scientists are persuaded that nanomaterials not only offer an “ideal” solution to the challenges plaguing traditional vaccines—problems such as “weak immunogenicity. . . , intrinsic instability in vivo, toxicity, and the need for multiple administra­tions”¹¹—but can also serve multiple purposes, including delivering antigens, functioning as adjuvants and mimicking viral structures.¹²

The Covid-19 “pandemic” has propelled new and emerging nanotechnologies onto the vaccine front lines, with nanotechnology a central feature of the two nucleic-acid-based messenger RNA (mRNA) injections developed by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech. Whereas conventional vaccines claim to stimulate an immune reaction by introducing a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies (as well as adjuvants such as toxic aluminum), the two Co­vid injections—a form of gene therapy—instead carry a chemically synthesized piece of mRNA (the genetic material that makes DNA code into a protein) into the cells. The synthetic genetic information in the Covid injections reportedly instructs the recipient’s cells to produce a piece of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein from within, on the premise that our bodies will then make neutralizing antibodies to fight against future coronavirus infection.¹³

The synthetic mRNA in the two Covid injections would go nowhere without fatty mo­lecular envelopes called lipid nanoparticles (LNPs)—the “carrier systems” that protect the fragile mRNA payload from degradation and allow it to make it into the cells.¹⁴ In clinical and in vitro studies, LNPs are also making inroads into modern oncology, serving as “promising” carriers for chemotherapeutic agents that would otherwise be “chemically and biologically frag­ile or present severe side effects.”¹⁵

In order to hide the mRNA from our im­mune system, which would ordinarily kill the foreign material once injected into our bodies, the LNPs in the two Covid vaccines are coated with a potentially dangerous substance called polyethylene glycol (PEG) using a process called “PEGylation.” PEGylated LNPs and PEG are not new to the drug market, but this is the first time they have been used in vaccines. The inclusion of PEG in both the Moderna and Pfizer injections is troubling in light of PEG’s well-documented immunogenicity. A large and growing body of scientific literature shows that PEGylated compounds often trigger the formation of anti-PEG antibodies, which in some people leads to “hypersensitivity reac­tions. . . entailing severe allergic symptoms with occasionally fatal anaphylaxis.”¹⁶ A study published in 2016 by University of North Caro­lina researchers found that up to 72 percent of people may harbor anti-PEG antibodies—at levels, in about 7 percent of people, high enough to predispose them to anaphylactic reactions.¹⁷

In a corporate prospectus submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in late 2018, Moderna acknowledged the following —hardly reassuring—information:

[T]here can be no assurance that our LNPs will not have undesired effects. Our LNPs could contribute, in whole or in part, to one or more of the following: immune reactions, infusion reactions, complement reactions, opsonation reactions, antibody reactions including IgA, IgM, IgE or IgG or some combination thereof, or reactions to the PEG from some lipids or PEG otherwise associated with the LNP. Certain aspects of our investigational medicines may induce immune reactions from either the mRNA or the lipid as well as adverse reactions within liver pathways or degradation of the mRNA or the LNP, any of which could lead to significant adverse events in one or more of our clinical trials.¹⁸

Was this why Moderna and Pfizer excluded people with a history of severe allergic reactions from their clinical trials, while quietly telling doctors “to look out for such reactions in trial participants who weren’t previously known to have severe allergies”?¹⁹ By mid-May, five months into the two mRNA vaccines’ emer­gency use authorization, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had received almost two thousand reports of allergic, anaphy­lactoid or hypersensitivity reactions following receipt of the Pfizer and Moderna injections—and another two hundred reports following the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson Covid injection.²⁰ The latter contains polysorbate 80, which is structurally similar to PEG and similarly associ­ated with anaphylaxis and hypersensitivity reac­tions.²¹ Investigations indicate that PEG is the likely culprit behind many of these potentially life-threatening allergic reactions.^22,23

MORE LIPID DANGERS

Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Kruger, a cell biolo­gist with over twenty years’ experience in mo­lecular medicine, has extensively researched and assessed Pfizer’s clinical trial methodology. On January 30, 2021, she expressed grave concern about trial shortcomings during testimony at a hearing of the German Corona Extra-Parliamen­tary Inquiry Committee.²⁴

Among several important points, the scien­tist emphasized the risks of the LNP technology in injections intended for healthy individuals. While being careful not to “completely malign” what she called a “superb technology,” the cell biologist stated that “the toxicity is still too high,” making it “much too early” to roll out for general population use. (In her view, the risk-benefit ratio is different for cancer patients.)²⁴

Dr. Schmidt-Kruger explained that Pfizer’s Covid injection includes four different types of lipids: a non-toxic “helper lipid” called DSPC; the positively charged (cationic) PEG compo­nent; cholesterol; and another cationic—and “very very toxic”—lipid (called ALC-0315) that forms up to 50 percent of the LNP. The scientist noted that because DNA strands have a negatively charged backbone, cationic lipids can interact with DNA and create strand breaks, and also interact with negatively charged lip­ids in the membrane of the mitochondria—the cellular powerhouses that produce energy. This can set in motion a series of toxic reactions: destruction of the mitochondrial membrane, formation of free radicals that damage the cell, disruption of ion balance, loss of cellular function, and DNA damage. Ultimately, the cell will either self-destruct or turn into a cancer cell.²⁴

Recently attracting attention is the fact that Moderna’s Covid in­jections also contain a proprietary cationic lipid, called SM-102, used in combination with PEG, DSPC and cholesterol in the formation of its LNPs.²⁵ According to the SM-102 safety data sheet, SM-102 is “for research use only, not for human or veterinary use,” is harmful if swal­lowed, causes skin and eye irritation, can be fatal in contact with skin and is “very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects.”²⁶ Despite data sheet indications that SM-102 is suspected of causing cancer, Moderna performed no carcinogenicity studies on the SM-102 component of the vaccine.²⁷ The safety data sheet also lists suspected damage to fertility and unborn children, and known damage “to the central nervous system, the kidneys, the liver and the respiratory system through prolonged or repeated exposure.”²⁶

Commenting that LNPs are “always damaging to cells,” Schmidt-Kruger described the findings of in vivo animal studies in which inhaled long-lasting LNPs caused DNA strand breaks in the lungs, triggering serious lung disease or lung cancer. Studies have also identified LNP uptake—and DNA strand breaks—in the spleen. Possible consequences of LNP transport in the blood, Schmidt-Kruger noted, include thrombosis (blood clots) and hemolysis (rupturing of red blood cells), with the latter leading to hypoxia (oxygen deficiency).²⁴

In fact, researchers have known for more than a decade that LNPs composed of cationic lipids, PEG and cholesterol can induce multifaceted toxicities and cause dangerously low platelet counts (a condition called thrombocytopenia).²⁸ The Moderna and Pfizer mRNA injections have both been linked to immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), a disorder that can lead to easy or excessive bruising and bleeding.²⁹ Researchers also suspect that the key technology used to make the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Oxford/AstraZeneca injections may be linked to a type of blood clot called cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) seen in combination with low platelets in some vaccine recipients.³⁰ The problem prompted temporary pauses of the J&J and AstraZeneca injections in the U.S. and two dozen other countries.^31,32

In the preclinical animal trials, Pfizer-BioNTech injected rodents with LNPs carrying the mRNA of a bioluminescent enzyme called luciferase (rather than the mRNA of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein) in order to track the lipids’ distribution in the body. This procedure demonstrated that the lipids traveled from the muscle to the plasma and organs (includ­ing the liver, spleen, adrenals and sexual organs) in a matter of fifteen minutes—“everywhere where blood flows.” The majority of the cationic lipids—60 percent—ended up in the liver.²⁴

How long the cationic lipids remain in human bodies is an unknown, according to Schmidt-Kruger, because the question has only been studied in rodents—but estimates are that they could remain in humans for four to five months. In animals, the researchers found that the cationic lipids remained “for a very long time”—at least twelve days in the plasma and with a three-week half-life in the liver. (The researchers also found evidence of PEG lasting for at least six days.) Although the investigators emphasized that in healthy individuals the liver has a strong regenerative capacity, Schmidt-Kruger observed that the risks for individuals with liver disorders—including the possibility of organ failure—have been “completely swept under the carpet.”²⁴

Disturbingly, the animal studies also revealed that the red blood cells (RBCs), which are exquisitely sensitive to oxidative stress, were “massively damaged by the lipid nanoparticles.” The moderate to strong reductions observed in both mature RBCs and immature RBCs (called re­ticulocytes) should be interpreted, according to Schmidt-Kruger, as “very clear signs of hypoxia.” The cell biologist warned that the vaccines could, therefore, be particularly dangerous for people with cardiac disorders.²⁴

Another point made by Schmidt-Kruger involves Pfizer’s determina­tion of the vaccine dose. Although Pfizer-BioNTech obtained the same results whether testing dosages using ten, twenty or thirty micrograms of mRNA, the companies settled on thirty micrograms, despite the fact that clinical trial participants in the higher dose groups reported more and stronger side effects, particularly after the second dose. Because the mRNA is wrapped in LNPs, the higher-microgram dosage comes with more LNPs as well as more mRNA.

BYPASSING THE BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIER

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) plays an important role in protect­ing the brain from circulating pathogens and toxins, and is “the most significant element responsible for the preservation of [central nervous system] homeostasis.”³³ However, the BBB has long been a thorn in the side of a pharmaceutical industry eager to deliver drugs straight to the brain. In a 2018 study titled “Lipid nanoparticles: a novel approach for brain targeting,” the authors suggested that lipid-based nanoparticle for­mulations like those used to create mRNA vaccines are the drug delivery answer that companies have been looking for due to the nanoparticles’ “tremendous potential to bypass [the] BBB and. . . dodge the reticular endothelial system.”³⁴

Covid-19 vaccine trials did not evaluate the LNPs’ ability to cross the BBB or the potential down sides of “brain targeting.” However, accord­ing to Dr. Tenpenny, the spike proteins that our bodies theoretically will produce in response to Covid injections can cause loss of BBB integrity, leading to neuropathology and brain degeneration.35 Tenpenny cites peer-reviewed studies indicating that spike protein disruption of certain genes or mutation of certain proteins could plausibly contribute to loss of speech and loss of facial recognition as well as conditions ranging from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and cancer to dementia and early Alzheimer’s disease.^35-37

Cellular and molecular biologist Dr. Judy Mikovits concurs that LNPs can enter the brain, and she warns that this may foster pathologic neuroinflammation, possibly leading to adverse effects like ALS or mul­tiple sclerosis.³⁸ A recent paper titled “COVID-19 RNA based vaccines and the risk of prion disease” further backs up these claims, noting that long-term health effects of the Pfizer injections may include ALS, Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases.³⁹

REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY

In a 2018 study titled “Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system,” Chinese researchers pointed out that nanoparticles have been proven to bypass bio­logical barriers and exert toxic effects on the brain, liver and kidney.40 However, research on the reproductive toxicity of nanometer-sized materials has been neglected, they noted, even though nanoparticles can also pass through the barriers that protect reproductive tissues. Nanoparticles can then accumulate in and damage organs such as the testes, epididymis, ovaries and uterus. The resulting reproduc­tive organ dysfunction may “adversely [affect] sperm quality, quantity, morphology, and mo­tility or [reduce] the number of mature oocytes and [disrupt] primary and secondary follicular development.”⁴⁰ The Chinese researchers also left little room for doubt that nanoparticles can cross the placental barrier, accumulate in fetal organs and “affect the development of the offspring.”⁴⁰

Dr. Michael Yeadon, UK microbiologist and former Pfizer vice president and chief sci­entific officer-turned-whistleblower, has been warning of looming infertility from Covid-19 injections. On December 1, 2020, Yeadon and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg of Germany filed a stay of action with the European Medicines Agency, alleging that the Pfizer-BioNTech injections could potentially result in miscarriages, birth defects and female infertility.⁴¹ Specifically, they cautioned that the Covid injections could train a woman’s immune cells to cross-react to and attack syncytin-1, a protein in placental tissue.

In light of these warnings, it is troubling that subsequent to the mass Covid-19 injection campaign, thousands of women have reported menstrual cycle disturbances and reproductive dysfunction, including thousands of “repro­ductive and breast disorders” in the UK (over twenty-two hundred reported by late April after receipt of the Pfizer or AstraZeneca injections) and a wide range of reproductive complications in the U.S., including spontaneous abortions, premature labor, stillbirths, irregular menstrual bleeding, vaginal hemorrhaging, “artificial” menopause and more.⁴² Men, too, have reported reproductive disorders following Covid vac­cination.⁴²

Even more shocking, there have been an unusual number of reports of these same repro­ductive abnormalities occurring in unvaccinated individuals who have been in close proximity to recently vaccinated persons. This begs the question: Are the “vaccinated” transmitting something toxic to the unvaccinated? ⁴³ Pfizer’s clinical trial protocol (pp. 67-68) describes situations in which vaccinated participants could adversely affect the health—including reproductive outcomes—of unvaccinated per­sons through exposure “by inhalation or skin contact” to the “study intervention” (the Covid injection).⁴⁴

A 2021 study by another group of Chinese researchers retrospectively analyzed sex hor­mones and menstruation in women of child­bearing age diagnosed with Covid-19.⁴⁵ The investigators found that 28 percent of women who acquired Covid-19 naturally had a change in their menstrual cycle (such as prolonged menstruation), and 25 percent had a change in their menstrual cycle volume. Because Covid-19 vaccination forces the body to mount a similar immune response, it would not be surprising to find a comparable correlation between injec­tion and menstrual disturbances. However, the vaccine makers collected no data about female participants’ menstrual cycles during the 2020 clinical trials.⁴⁶

According to Sayer Ji, founder of Green­MedInfo, “horizontal information transfer” within biological systems may offer a plausible explanation for possible effects of vaccinated individuals on the health of the unvaccinated. Horizontal information transfer is mediated by particles that facilitate intercellular com munication called extracellular vesicles and even smaller particles called microvesicles. Ji speculates that microvesicles could theoretically “transmit mRNA from a recently vaccinated individual to those within close proximity, and therefore could, in fact, ‘shed’ mRNA and related biomolecules induced from the mRNA vaccination process to non-vaccinated individuals, causing symptoms similar to those experienced by the vaccinated.”⁴⁷ Perhaps this is why Pfizer’s study protocols warned pregnant women about exposure to injected male partners via inhalation or skin contact.⁴⁴

NANOTECH AND TRANSHUMANISM

In April 2020, the Rockefeller Foundation released a report titled National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan: Pragmatic steps to reopen our workplaces and our communities.⁴⁸ In the plan, updated in July 2020, the Foundation presented its goals for “a national system to track Covid-19 status,” including integration and expansion of “Federal, state, and private data platforms”—in essence, a permanent surveillance system similar to efforts already well underway in China.⁴⁹ A decade earlier, the Rock­efeller Foundation published another report, Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development, that laid out plans for “coor­dinated worldwide strategies” and “authoritarian control and oversight” in the face of hypothetical challenges such as pandemics.⁵⁰ Not unlike the Gates Foundation-driven October 2019 simulation called Event 201, the Rockefeller report eerily foreshadowed many features of the current “pandemic,” including universal quarantines, masking and more.

In June 2020, World Economic Forum head Klaus Schwab proclaimed the need for a global “reset” to “restore order in a world steeped in panic, conflict and economic turmoil.”⁵¹ Other world leaders—including Prince Charles and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau—as well as major media outlets and the world’s central bankers have also endorsed the notion of a reset.⁵² In a recent article, Dr. Joseph Mercola opined on the real meaning of these pronouncements and the reports produced by the Rockefeller Foundation. Mercola wrote, “The plan is to use bioterrorism to take control of the world’s resources, wealth and people. It’s to use coordinated pandemic response as a justification for wealth redistribu­tion and the resetting of the global financial system.” The architects of this proposed “reset” envision round-the-clock surveillance, tracking of physical location and biological data, digital IDs integrated with health data, banking “reform” and, ultimately, a social credit system.⁵³

Integral to Schwab’s vision of a global reset is “a fusion of our physi­cal, digital and biological identity”—in other words, transhumanism.⁵⁴ Adherents of the transhumanist movement, such as SpaceX, Tesla and Neuralink founder Elon Musk and Google’s Ray Kurzweil, theorize that the human race can—and should—evolve beyond current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology. Transhumanist goals are well illustrated on the website of the 2045 “strategic social initiative” called the Avatar Project (2045.com), which features discussion of “neo-humanity,” a “new evolutionary strategy” and “cybernetic immortality,” among other topics.

Nanotechnology is one of the primary tools enabling the rollout of the global control grid envisioned by central bankers, technocrats and transhumanists, and the science of “brain augmentation devices” is already well advanced.⁵⁵ Kurzweil has stated, “In the future, there will be no distinction be­tween human and machine, or between physical and virtual reality.”⁵⁶ Earlier this year, Musk announced a successful trial run of Neuralink’s brain-computer interface in a monkey, which al­lowed the brain-chipped animal to play a video game with its mind.⁵⁷ (Musk has declined Co­vid-19 injections for himself and his children.)

According to Tenpenny, Kurzweil has predicted technological advances by 2030 that would allow injectable nanosized robots (“nano­bots”) into the bloodstream, where they would cross the BBB and enter the brain.⁵⁸ While this may sound like science fiction, microrobots and nanobots already exist. In August 2020, Cornell researchers announced their ability to “build [an] army of 1 million microrobots that can fit inside a hypodermic needle”; according to a summary of this research, the microro­bots were “designed to operate in all manner of environments such as extreme acidity and temperatures” and to “investigate the human body from the inside” [emphasis in original].⁵⁹

Nanobots can be produced using many or­ganic or inorganic materials, including lipids, metals, minerals and synthetic polymers. Unlike programmed computers, they are created and formed to carry out specific functions such as sensing, information processing and communi­cation.⁶⁰ The ability of nanobots to form arrays or other structures is called “self-assembling.”⁶¹

The intention to use nanobots for the pur­poses of “targeted” drug delivery and “precision medicine” is already well out in the open,⁶² but internal medicine specialist Dr. Carrie Madej is on a mission to sound the alarm about the omi­nous but less obvious merger of nanotechnology and transhumanism.⁶³ According to Dr. Madej, the technology may already exist to record and alter thoughts, emotions and memories via injection.

Nanobots can encapsulate DNA and RNA and deliver nucleic acids and other ingredients into the cells. They can be activated externally from light or other energetic sources like elec­tromagnetic radiation.⁶⁴ Currently, technologies exist that allow nanobots to swim, attach, drill into cells and deliver a payload.⁶⁴ (Sound familiar?)

In one of her videos, Madej explains that human DNA is very similar to computer code, meaning that a slight change in our genome could have significant repercussions.⁶⁵ “How much of a change to our code (or our software program) would it take to make us not human?” she asks. When pondering this question, she also reminds her audience that while we can­not patent anything from nature, we can patent something that has been modified or engineered. For example, the chemical/biotech company Monsanto can patent its genetically engineered seeds. In Madej’s view, the mRNA-based design of the Covid-19 injections, in essence, turns us into genetically modified organisms. Could humans become patentable (and thus “owned”) if our genomes are modified?

Madej warns that exploitation of artificial intelligence (AI) via injected implants could bring about a system where global elites imple­ment rewards and punishments based on each individual’s behavior.⁶⁵ To be clear, the implants themselves would not be capable of AI because they are too small, but electromagnetic wireless communication systems could enable a “read/write” function to and from a “cloud” that has a network of computers running AI. As Dr. Dr. Tenpenny has cautioned, “if our brains can tap UP into the cloud, it only makes sense [that] what’s in the cloud could be pushed DOWN into our brain.”⁵⁸ Is it a coincidence that Mod­erna compares its mRNA technology platform to a computer “operating system” and calls its mRNA products the “software of life”?⁶⁶

DARPA’S NANOTECH RESEARCH

Approximately five years ago, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the once-secretive agency responsible for the In­ternet, GPS and stealth aircraft, announced that it would develop a “next-level” brain-computer interface program called Neural Engineering System Design (NESD),⁶⁷ part of a wider Brain Initiative announced by the White House in 2013.⁶⁸ According to Tenpenny, NESD is de­signed to “turn brain activity into a binary code, allowing humans to engage with machines wire­lessly, by simply thinking.”⁵⁸ Another DARPA program, called Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology, proposes to develop bidi­rectional brain-machine interfaces to read and write directly onto the brain.⁶⁹ Madej’s interpre­tation: “You become a character in a computer program that you do not control.”

DARPA admits on its website that it is working closely with the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services, in addition to industry partners (such as vaccine manufacturers), to provide technical and scientific solutions to address the Covid-19 “pandemic,” but its focus on the new technologies that have been rolled out during Covid began years previously. In fact, DARPA began investing in nucleic acid (RNA and DNA) injections at least a decade ago, including providing funding for Moderna and Cure­Vac.⁷⁰ A current DARPA program—Nucleic acids On-demand Worldwide (NOW)—offers a manufacturing platform for “near immediate doses of vaccine,” enabling the rapid production, formulation and packaging of “hundreds of doses of nucleic acid therapeutics in days—rather than months or years.”⁷¹

In 2016, DARPA awarded the company Profusa seven and a half million dollars to begin working on a tiny nanotechnology biosensor that can be embedded under the skin to detect disease, a technological development already billed as “the future of pandemic detection.”^72,73 The stated purpose of the nanotech sensors is to track chemical reactions in the body to reveal viral infections before a person becomes symptomatic; if the sensor signals that the individual is “sick,” a self-administered blood draw then gives a diagnosis within three to five minutes. The sen­sor would allow individuals’ physiological data to be shared with health care providers via smartphone connectivity.⁷⁴

The Profusa biosensor is bioengineered using “smart” hydrogel nano­technology. Madej warns that this hydrogel nanotechnology, once im­planted, could have the capability to grow and spread in the body through a self-replicating process—with considerable uncertainty about how this would affect our DNA.⁶⁵ In a May 25 “Covid Town Hall” organized by Children’s Health Defense, Madej asserted that the hydrogel technology is a feature of the LNPs in the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 injections.⁷⁵

Nanotechnology’s applications do not end with its uses in Covid-19 (or other) injections but extend to the development of devices and plat­forms to administer the injections.⁷⁶ The “microneedle” prototype, for example, is a collection of dozens of microscopic polymer needles lined up on a small patch that is placed on the skin like a Band-Aid. The patches encapsulate the “vaccine” within the dissolvable microneedles, obviating the need for vials of vaccine that must be drawn up by needle-and-syringe for injection.⁷⁷

Using the microneedle platform, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has invented a specialized dye, delivered along with the vaccine, that would enable “on-patient” storage of one’s vaccination history. As MIT News reported in late 2019, the dye, “which consists of nanocrystals called quantum dots, can remain for at least five years under the skin, where it emits near-infrared light that can be detected by a specially equipped smartphone.”⁷⁸ The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded the “quantum-dot tattoo” technology, and also provided significant funding (in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health) for the development of the Moderna Covid injection.⁷⁹

Manufacturers and officials claim that Covid-19 injections do not currently contain tracking capabilities, but back in 2016, the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab was already forecasting the need for implantable microchips within a decade to serve as a global health pass.⁸⁰ Clearly, we are not far off from a future characterized by quantum dot tattoos and hydrogel biosensors—technologies that enable the collection, storage, tracking and transmis­sion of personal information going far beyond vaccination status. As countries (and some U.S. states) begin to require “vaccine passports” for entry to everyday businesses—using apps like IBM’s Digital Health Pass⁸¹ and CLEAR’s Health Pass⁸² that link personalized biometric identification via smartphones—it is evident that we are rapidly heading toward a two-tiered society.

Each of these increasingly center-stage nanotechnologies begs the question: Are we willing to accept twenty-four-hour monitoring in exchange for “safety”? Shouldn’t we be con­cerned about being hooked up to the “cloud,” perhaps permanently? In fact, the possibility of misuse of in-body nanotechnology by totalitar­ian governments has not been lost on those who dare to do a little homework. As technology critic Adam Keiper presciently wrote in The New Atlantis nearly two decades ago, “Aside from nanotech’s potential as a weapon of mass destruction, it could also make possible totally novel forms of violence and oppression. Nano­technology could theoretically be used to make mind-control systems, invisible and mobile eavesdropping devices, or unimaginably hor­rific tools of torture.”⁸³

“LIFE-SAVING” AT WHAT COST?

Many current and future applications of nanotechnology are touted for their life-saving potential, but one must consider the irony of a “life-saving” technology that is also deadly. To date, the nanotech-dependent mRNA injec­tions are the most lethal of any “vaccines” ever administered.⁸⁴ In the first quarter of 2021, there was a 6,000 percent increase in reported deaths by injection compared to the same period the previous year.⁸⁵ With all of the injuries and deaths caused by previous vaccines and now Covid injections, it is little wonder that manu­facturers have long insisted on exemption from legal liability.

For more than a year now, we have endured repeated deception on all manner of topics, in­cluding PCR testing, masks, lockdowns, social distancing, asymptomatic carriers, immunity, infection and fatality rates—and now vari­ants. For this reason alone, we cannot trust the “experts.” We also cannot allow the bad actors who are authorizing, administering or coerc­ing people into taking experimental Covid-19 injections to determine our health outcomes. Nor can we sit back and silently watch as the media deliberately misstate the science to either pacify or terrify the public.

Around the world, governments and private businesses are pushing for the mandatory Covid-19 injections, which represent the gateway into a system of centralized surveillance and control—a system whose engineers care little for bodily integrity or economic freedom. What we are witnessing are crimes against humanity. Some go so far as to say we are in the midst of a spiritual war and that Covid-19 “vaccination” is the biblically foretold Mark of the Beast. It is imperative that we take control of our own health—blind acceptance and obedience will be the death of us, or worse.

As non-consensual medical experimentation is ever more widely imposed, our children also receive nanoparticle contamination in every childhood vaccine. If we ignore the detrimental effects of nanoparticle contamination in human vaccines and the LNPs in mRNA injections, we will surely be guilty of failing to safeguard our children. Fear of a virus that may or may not exist, with a global survival rate of 99.8 percent, is not an excuse for standing by as deaths and harms continue to accumulate, particularly when all available evidence and science indicate that Covid-19 injections are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe.

---

SIDEBARS

ADVERSE EVENTS FROM COVID INJECTIONS: THE TALLY AS OF MAY 2021

Over the five-month period since the emergency use authorization of Covid injections (December 14, 2020 – May 14, 2021), almost two hundred twenty-eight thousand Covid-vaccine-related adverse events (227,805) were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) jointly operated by the CDC and FDA.⁸⁶ In the first five days, the Pfizer injection alone produced over five thousand “health impact events”—the equivalent of a one-in-forty-three injury rate.⁸⁷

A CDC webpage titled “Selected adverse events reported after COVID-19 vaccination” indicated that as of May 18, reported adverse events included over forty-six hundred deaths (4,647),⁸⁸ exceeding the total number of post-vaccination deaths reported to VAERS over the past twenty-two years.⁸⁹ About one-third of deaths occurred within forty-eight hours of vaccination.⁹⁰ No one knows what proportion of Covid-related adverse events VAERS (a passive reporting system) is capturing, but a 2010 government-funded study by Harvard estimated that fewer than 1 percent of all vaccine injuries are ever reported.⁹¹

Many of the adverse events have been severe, in numerous instances leaving recipients unable to perform “normal daily activities,” unable to work, or requiring medical attention.⁸⁷ Severe outcomes have included allergic and anaphy­lactic reactions; skin reactions; neurological reactions; cognitive, psychiatric and behavioral changes; eye, ear, nose and throat problems; problems affecting the respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, renal, urological, lymphatic, gynecological, hematological, and endocrine systems; and infections, including frequent reports of herpes zoster reactivation.^92,93 Unfortunately, widespread censorship is helping to ensure that many members of the public remain oblivious to these injuries. On May 3, 2021, twelve state attorneys general even went so far as to demand that Big Tech platforms eliminate all reports from people injured by vaccines.⁹⁴

According to Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, there are an astounding twenty different mechanisms whereby Covid-19 injections can cause illness or death.⁹⁵ These can be broken down into four broad categories: (1) acute reactions such as cardiac arrest, or anaphylaxis caused by previous exposure and sensitization to the PEG component of the LNPs; (2) illness or damage resulting from immune system suppression; (3) illness or damage caused by spike proteins; and (4) illness or dam­age caused by anti-spike-protein antibodies.

Not surprisingly, conscientious doctors are signing open letters conveying serious concerns that approval of Covid-19 injections was premature and reckless, and that administration of the injections constitutes “human experimentation”—a violation of the Nuremburg Code of medical ethics when the experimentation is not voluntary.⁹⁶ For these doctors, the Hippocratic oath they took promising to “first, do no harm” is sacred. According to the 1947 Nuremburg Code, a participant must be fully informed of both the risks and the benefits in order to be able to give full legal consent. If the medical experiment causes harm, disability or death, it must be suspended.⁹⁷ Neither of these has happened.

DEPOPULATION AGENDA?

At the outset of the “pandemic,” former Pfizer lead scientist Dr. Michael Yeadon said, “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the world’s population.”⁹⁸ Going even further, Yeadon stated, “Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death,” adding that “It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.”

Yeadon is not alone in expressing his distrust of the architects behind the Covid-19 injection campaign. He is joined by the likes of Drs. Sherri Tenpenny, Joseph Mercola, Carrie Madej, Christiane Northrup, Lee Merritt, Larry Palevsky and many other prominent doctors and scientists who have been repeatedly warning that the Covid injections are a bioweapon intended to reduce population.⁴³

Although many of us have a hard time believing that those in charge could be so evil, one need only look back in history to find examples of forced sterilization and depopulation. Up until 1976, for example, the U.S. government prac­ticed forced sterilization on Native American women.⁹⁹ Consider, too, the link between the lead developer of the Oxford/AstraZeneca injection, Professor Adrian Hill, and the eugenics movement. In 2008, Hill gave a lecture at the Galton Insti­tute (formerly known as the U.K. Eugenics Society) in honor of its one-hundred-year anniversary.¹⁰⁰ One might also recall that entities that actively promoted eugenics in North America and Nazi Germany included the Rockefeller Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Human Sterilization League for Human Betterment (now called Engender Health), each of which have played “leading roles” in recent years at the World Health Organization.¹⁰¹

Finally, it is worth remembering that Bill Gates, who has perhaps the most egregious conflicts of interest regarding Covid-19 injections, gave a TED Talk in 2010 in which he boasted that vaccines could help cut the global population by 10 to 15 percent.¹⁰² Gates also bragged in front of a live audience about how he injects genetically modified organisms into children.¹⁰³ Ironically, Gates is behind the coming Covid-19 Commission Planning Group charged with “investigating” the origins of SARS-CoV-2.⁵³

THE “COVID MAGNET CHALLENGE”

The most recent—and bizarre—phenomenon to surface in connection with the Covid injections are reports from people who have received the injections stating that they are able to adhere a magnet to their injection site. With nu­merous videos of what people are calling the “COVID magnet challenge” going viral on social media, many people are asking whether metallic nanoparticles in the vaccines could be responsible.¹⁰⁴ Meanwhile, an individual who received the AstraZeneca injection posted a report on social media that he now “connects” to Bluetooth devices.¹⁰⁵ The fact that there are numerous published studies describing the use of “superparamagnetic nanoparticles”¹⁰⁶ for vaccine delivery suggests that these troubling anecdotes may be worthy of greater attention.

SERIAL FELONS

Before deciding to receive a Covid-19 injection (or any other vaccine), one might consider that the four companies that make all of the vaccines mandated for America’s children are convicted serial felons, including Pfizer, which made the biggest criminal payout in history.¹⁰⁷ Johnson & Johnson is currently part of a fifty-billion-dollar lawsuit over allegations they downplayed the risk of opioid addiction to boost sales of the powerful painkillers.¹⁰⁸ As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has repeatedly pointed out, “Together, these companies have paid nearly thirty-five billion dollars in criminal penalties and damages since 2009 for defrauding regulators, falsifying science, lying to doctors and for killing hundreds of thousands of Americans with their products they knew were lethal.”¹⁰⁹

A massive marketing campaign with a seemingly endless amount of celebrity endorsements appears to have placed many members of the public under a form of “hypnosis,” which allows them to overlook pharma’s criminal track record and embrace the idea that the only way to end the “pandemic” is to accept one of the experimental injections. Consid­ering that two of the four manufacturers of Covid-19 injections mentioned in this article had never previously produced a vaccine, one might even go so far as to say that the hypnosis is really a form of psychosis.

The use of propaganda to mask manmade injuries and deaths is not new, of course. Pharmaceutical companies and other industries have been poisoning us for decades with medicines and vaccines as well as fluoride in our water, glyphosate in our food and mercury in dentistry.

---

REFERENCES

1. 1. “Nanotechnology.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nanotechnology.
   2. National Nanotechnology Initiative. What is nanotechnology? https://www.nano.gov/nanotech-101/what/definition.
   3. National Nanotechnology Initiative. About the NNI. https://www.nano.gov/about-nni.
   4. National Nanotechnology Initiative. Benefits and applications. https://www.nano.gov/you/nanotechnology-benefits.
   5. Wright PFA. Potential risks and benefits of nanotechnology: perceptions of risk in sunscreens. Med J Aust. 2016;204(10):369-370.
   6. Jamuna BA, Ravishankar RV. “Environmental risk, human health, and toxic effects of nanopar­ticles.” Chapter 31 in Nanomaterials for Environmental Protection (BI Kharisov, OV Kharissova, HV Rasika Dias, eds.). John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
   7. Nanotechnology and health risks fact sheet. Brussels, Belgium: Health and Environment Alliance, 2008. https://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/17-_NANOTECHNOLOGY_AND_HEALTH_RISKS.pdf.
   8. Wang R, Song B, Wu J, et al. Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system. Int J Nanomedicine. 2018;13:8487-8506.
   9. Gatti AM, Montanari S. New quality-control investigations on vaccines: micro- and nanocontamination. Int J Vaccines Vaccin. 2017;4(1):00072. https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/new-quality-control-investigations-on-vaccines-micro-and-nanocontamination.html.
   10. Tenpenny S. Vaccine contaminants, nanotechnology, and cancer. Vaxxter, Feb. 7, 2017. https://vaxxter.com/vaccine_contaminants_nano_cancer/.
   11. Kim MG, Park JY, Shon Y, et al. Nanotechnology and vaccine development. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2014;9(5):227-235.
   12. Shin MD, Shukla S, Chung YH, et al. COVID-19 vaccine development and a potential nanomaterial path forward. Nat Nanotechnol. 2020;15(8):646-655.
   13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Understanding mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Updated Mar. 4, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html.
   14. Let’s talk about lipid nanoparticles. Nat Rev Mater. 2021;6:99.
   15. García-Pinel B, Porras-Alcalá C, Ortega-Rodríguez A, et al. Lipid-based nanoparticles: application and recent advances in cancer treatment. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2019;9(4):638.
   16. Kozma GT, Shimizu T, Ishida T, Szebeni J. Anti-PEG antibod­ies: properties, formation, testing and role in adverse immune reactions to PEGylated nano-biopharmaceuticals. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2020;154-155:163-175.
   17. Yang Q, Jacobs TM, McCallen JD, et al. Analysis of pre-exist­ing IgG and IgM antibodies against polyethylene glycol (PEG) in the general population. Anal Chem. 2016;88(23):11804- 11812.
   18. Moderna, Inc. Form S-1 Registration Statement, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on No­vember 9, 2018. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000119312518323562/d577473ds1.htm.
   19. Kirka D. UK probing if allergic reactions linked to Pfizer vaccine. The Denver Post, Dec. 9, 2020.
   20. See tinyurl.com/b4rycm5w (Pfizer), tinyurl.com/vmmf9239 (Moderna) and tinyurl.com/udk7h6sp (Janssen).
   21. Children’s Health Defense. These “inactive” ingredients in CO­VID vaccines could trigger allergic reactions. The Defender, Mar. 12, 2021. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/inactive-ingredients-covid-vaccines-allergic-reactions/.
   22. Garvey LH, Nasser S. Anaphylaxis to the first COVID-19 vac­cine: is polyethylene glycol (PEG) the culprit? Br J Anaesth. 2021;126(3):e106-e108.
   23. de Vrieze J. Suspicions grow that nanoparticles in Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trigger rare allergic reactions. Science, Dec. 21, 2020.
   24. Interview with Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Kruger. Hearing #37 of German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, Jan. 30, 2021. http://enformtk.u-aizu.ac.jp/howard/gcep_dr_van­essa_schmidt_krueger/.
   25. https://www.fda.gov/media/144637/download.
   26. SM-102 Safety Data Sheet. Printing and revision date 04/11/2021. https://www.caymanchem.com/msdss/33474m.pdf.
   27. Summary of product characteristics for COVID-19 vaccine Moderna. Updated Apr. 19, 2021. https://www.gov.uk/govern­ment/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-moderna/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-covid-19-vaccine-moderna.
   28. Tao W, Mao X, Davide JP, et al. Mechanistically probing lipid-siRNA nanoparticle-associated toxicities identifies Jak inhibitors effective in mitigating multifaceted toxic responses. Mol Ther. 2011;19(3):567-575.
   29. Lee EJ, Cines DB, Gernsheimer T, et al. Thrombocytopenia following Pfizer and Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Am J Hematol. 2021;96(5):534-537.
   30. Neuman S. CDC, FDA to review J&J shot after 6 blood clot cases reported out of nearly 7M doses. NPR, Apr. 13, 2021.
   31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FDA and CDC lift recommended pause on Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) COVID-19 vaccine use following thorough safety review [press release]. Apr. 23, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/fda-cdc-lift-vaccine-use.html.
   32. AstraZeneca vaccine falls from grace. The Highwire, Mar. 26, 2021. https://thehighwire.com/videos/astrazeneca-vaccine-falls-from-grace/.
   33. Bernacki J, Dobrowolska A, Nierwinska K, Malecki A. Physiology and pharmacological role of the blood-brain barrier. Pharmacol Rep. 2008;60(5):600-622.
   34. Shankar R, Joshi M, Pathak K. Lipid nanoparticles: a novel approach for brain targeting. Pharm Nanotechnol. 2018;6(2):81-93.
   35. Tenpenny S. Spike protein crosses the blood brain barrier by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny. Apr. 14, 2021. https://www.bitchute.com/video/UogEyqjhNoao/.
   36. Buzhdygan TP, DeOre BJ, Baldwin-Leclair A, et al. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alters bar­rier function in 2D static and 3D microfluidic in-vitro models of the human blood-brain barrier. Neurobiol Dis. 2020;146:105131.
   37. Mackenzie IRA, Rademakers R. The role of TDP-43 in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and fronto­temporal dementia. Curr Opin Neurol. 2008;21(6):693-700.
   38. Mercola J. COVID-19 vaccination: experimental gene therapy under the guise of immunity? A spe­cial interview with Judy Mikovits, PhD. https://everydayconcerned.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/drmercola-judymikovits-covid-19-vaccination2.pdf.
   39. Classen JB. COVID-19 RNA based vaccines and the risk of prion disease. Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021;5(1):1-3. https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/covid19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-1503.pdf.
   40. Wang R, Song B, Wu J, et al. Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system. Int J Nanomedicine. 2018;13:8487-8506.
   41. Petition/Motion for Administrative/Regulatory Action Regarding Confirmation of Efficacy End Points and Use of Data in Connection with the Following Clinical Trial(s). . . . https://web.archive. org/web/20201209042033/  https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wodarg_Yeadon_ EMA_Petition_Pfizer_Trial_FINAL_01DEC2020_EN_unsigned_with_Exhibits.pdf.
   42. McGovern C. Thousands of reports of menstrual irregularities, reproductive dysfunction follow­ing COVID vaccines. LifeSite News, Apr. 19, 2021.
   43. Shilhavy B. Urgent! 5 doctors agree that COVID-19 injections are bioweapons and discuss what to do about it. Health Impact News, Apr. 25, 2021.
   44. A Phase 1/2/3 placebo-controlled, randomized, observer-blind, dose-finding study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, immunogenicity, and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 RNA vaccine candidates against COVID-19 in healthy individuals. https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2020/11/C4591001_Clini­cal_Protocol_Nov2020_Pfizer_BioNTech.pdf.
   45. Li K, Chen G, Hou H, et al. Analysis of sex hormones and menstruation in COVID-19 women of child-bearing age. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;42(1):260-267.
   46. Larsen K. Reports of menstrual cycle changes after COVID vaccine highlight issues with clinical trials. ABC News, Apr. 28, 2021.
   47. Ji S. Miami school asks staff not to take COVID jab; global media assault follows; Pfizer trial may support school’s concerns. GreenMedInfo, May 7, 2021.
   48. National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan: Pragmatic steps to reopen our workplaces and our communities. The Rockefeller Foundation, Apr. 21, 2020. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/national-covid-19-testing-action-plan/.
   49. Mozur P, Zhong R, Krolik A. In coronavirus fight, China gives citizens a color code, with red flags. The New York Times, Mar. 1, 2020 (updated Jan. 28, 2021).
   50. Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. The Rockefeller Founda­tion and Global Business Network, May 2010.
   51. Nordangård J. Global goals and the global reset for global technological control. Pharos, June 23, 2020. http://pharos.stiftelsen-pharos.org/global-goals-and-the-global-reset-for-global-technolog­ical-control/.
   52. Delaney P. Time Magazine announces “The Great Reset” to usher in world socialism. LifeSite News, Oct. 30, 2020.
   53. Mercola J. Coming COVID Commission is a Gates-led cover-up. Mercola.com, Apr. 27, 2021.
   54. Watson PJ. Klaus Schwab: Great Reset will “lead to a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity.” Summit News, Nov. 16, 2020.
   55. Saniotis A, Henneberg M, Sawalma AR. Integration of nanobots into neural circuits as a future therapy for treating neurodegenerative disorders. Front Neurosci. 2018;12:153.
   56. Kurzweil R. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Penguin Books, 2006.
   57. Elon Musk’s Neuralink monkey brain demo explained. CNET, Apr. 9, 2021. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=3Ya-bAYri84.
   58. Tenpenny S. DNA, vaccines, and transhumanism. Vaxxter, Aug. 31, 2020. https://vaxxter.com/ dna_vaccines_transhumanism/.
   59. Ryan J. Scientists build army of 1 million microrobots that can fit inside a hypodermic needle. CNET, Aug. 26, 2020.
   60. Fischer P. How nanobots are used in medicine? Serious Science, Feb. 3, 2020. http://serious-science. org/nanorobots-in-medicine-9686.
   61. Steffen AD. Researchers have made self-assembling DNA nanobots with encoded structural plans. Intelligent Living Media, Feb. 18, 2021. https://www.intelligentliving.co/self-assembling-dna-nanobots/.
   62. Soto F, Wang J, Ahmed R, Demirci U. Medical micro/nanorobots in precision medicine. Adv Sci (Weinh). 2020;7(21):2002203.
   63. Dr. Carrie Madej: why vaccines alter the human DNA. https://www.stopworldcontrol.com/madej/.
   64. “Nanobots.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/nanobots.
   65. Dr. Carrie Madej warning on 2020 Covid vaccine. Jul. 10, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=mx6Qu-xQE1Y&t=286s.
   66. mRNA platform: enabling drug discovery & development. https://www.modernatx.com/mrna-technology/mrna-platform-enabling-drug-discovery-development.
   67. Emondi A. Neural Engineering System Design (NESD). https://www.darpa.mil/program/neural-engineering-system-design.
   68. DARPA and the Brain Initiative. https://www.darpa.mil/program/our-research/darpa-and-the-brain-initiative.
   69. Emondi A. Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology. https://www.darpa.mil/program/next-generation-nonsurgical-neurotechnology.
   70. Usdin S. DARPA’s gambles might have created the best hopes for stopping COVID-19. Biocentury, Mar. 19, 2020.
   71. DARPA program to offer near immediate doses of vaccine, therapeutics for infectious diseases. Feb. 4, 2021. https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2021-02-04.
   72. Huntley A. Profusa awarded $7.5M DARPA grant to work on implantable biosensors. FierceBio­tech, Jul. 12, 2016.
   73. Tucker P. A military-funded biosensor could be the future of pandemic detection. Defense One, Mar. 3, 2020.
   74. Profusa. Injectable body sensors take personal chemistry to a cell phone closer to reality. Mar. 19, 2018. https://profusa.com/injectable-body-sensors-take-personal-chemistry-to-a-cell-phone-closer-to-reality/.
   75. Covid Town Hall. Children’s Health Defense, May 25, 2021. https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/townhall.
   76. University of California San Diego. A nanomaterial path forward for COVID-19 vaccine devel­opment. Newswise, Jul. 15, 2020. https://www.newswise.com/coronavirus/a-nanomaterial-path-forward-for-covid-19-vaccine-development.
   77. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Less pain, more gain: measles vaccination using a microneedle patch holds great life-saving potential. https://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/immuniza­tion/stories/microneedle-patch.htm.
   78. Trafton A. Storing medical information below the skin’s surface. MIT News, Dec. 18, 2019.
   79. Knauss D. Alarm call to the world: What do you think about going from human 1.0 to human 2.0. Prepare for Change, Dec. 25, 2020. https://prepareforchange.net/2020/12/25/alarm-call-to-the-world-what-do-you-think-about-going-from-human-1-0-to-human-2-0/.
   80. Breaking! Klaus Schwab calls for global health pass based implantable microchip. Infowars, May 9, 2021.
   81. https://www.ibm.com/products/digital-health-pass?p1=Search&p4=43700061541029300&p5=e&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI85qdooPC8AIV0ciUCR0pBAtrEAAYASAAEgKwoPD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds.
   82. https://www.clearme.com/healthpass.
   83. Keiper A. The nanotechnology revolution. The New Atlantis, Summer 2003. https://www.thene­watlantis.com/publications/the-nanotechnology-revolution.
   84. https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZ0uosXZKJtl7kgFRhmA72DGIn83Ok3Rlsvk.
   85. Shilhavy B. 6000% increase in reported vaccine deaths 1st quarter 2021 compared to 1st quarter 2020. Health Impact News, Mar. 31, 2021.
   86. From the 5/14/2021 release of VAERS data (Medalerts.org). tinyurl.com/5mv8f6u2.
   87. Clark T. Anaphylaxis following m-RNA COVID-19 vaccine receipt. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group, Dec. 19, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-12/slides-12-19/05-COVID-Clark-508.pdf.
   88. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Selected adverse events reported after COVID=19 vaccination. Updated May 18, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html.
   89. Shilhavy B. CDC: Death toll following experimental COVID injections now at 4,647 – more than 22 years of recorded vaccine deaths from VAERS. Health Impact News, May 23, 2021.
   90. Children’s Health Defense. One-third of deaths reported to CDC after COVID vaccines occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. The Defender, Feb. 19, 2021. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/latest-data-cdc-vaers/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=defender.
   91. Lazarus R. Electronic Support for Public Health—Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS). Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. 12/01/07 – 09/30/10. https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Lazarus-report.pdf.
   92. Furer V, Zisman D, Kibari A, et al. Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccina­tion in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Apr 12;keab345.
   93. https://www.ukmedfreedom.org/resources/covid-19-vaccine-info#Adverse-Reactions.
   94. Johnson LD. 12 state attorney generals demand big tech platforms eliminate all speech from people injured by vac­cines. Natural News, May 3, 2021. https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-05-03-12-state-attorneys-general-demand-big-tech-platforms-eliminate-all-noncompliant-speech-about-vaccines.html.
   95. Tenpenny Sherri. How COVID-19 Injections Can Make You Sick. . . Even Kill You (20 Mechanisms of Injury eBook). May, 2021. https://www.drtenpenny.com/ebook-20-moi.
   96. Doctors for Covid Ethics. Urgent open letter from doctors and scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety concerns. Feb. 28, 2021. https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-to-the-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-f6e17c311595.
   97. The Nuremburg Code (1947). BMJ. 1996;313:1448.
   98. Exclusive: Former Pfizer VP to AFLDS: “Entirely possible this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.” America’s Frontline Doctors, Mar. 24, 2021. https://www.americasfront­linedoctors.org/frontline-news/exclusive-former-pfizer-vp-to-aflds-entirely-possible-this-will-be-used-for-massive-scale-depopulation.
   99. 1976: Government admits unauthorized sterilization of Indian women. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/543.html?fbclid=IwAR3bQs8KBWVVAQzHodOJyTHjJJ_FIC­QbYvJ7fbINbLKvWazjsrQ1Hlqa1KU.
   100. http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/wp-content/up­loads/2015/09/Conference20082.pdf.
   101. Ehret M. Nazi healthcare revived across the Five Eyes: killing useless eaters and Biden’s COVID relief bill. Off-Guardian, Mar. 16, 2021.
   102. Gates B. Innovating to zero! TED, 2010. https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_innovating_to_zero/transcript.
   103. https://twitter.com/DeLo1973/status/1383767443475107840?s=20.
   104. Magnets stick to Covid shot sites on arms, readings on metal detectors, and complaints of tasting metal. LewRockwell.com, May 18, 2021. https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/magnets-stick-to-covid-shot-sites-on-arms-readings-on-metal-detectors-and-complaints-of-tasting-metal/.
   105. https://dogsareloyal1s.com/psa/connection_failed.mp4?w=400.
   106. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?linkname=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=24715289.
   107. Department of Justice. Justice Department announces largest health care fraud settlement in its history: Pfizer to pay $2.3 billion for fraudulent marketing. Sep. 2, 2009. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history.
   108. Sagonowsky E. Johnson & Johnson, AbbVie, Teva and Endo face $50B opioid trial, pharma’s first since 2019. Fierce-Pharma, Apr. 19, 2021.
   109. The truth behind the vaccine trials. Forbidden Knowledge, Mar. 10, 2021. https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/the-truth-behind-the-vaccine-trials/.

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Summer 2021

🖨️ Print post