Tag: human experimentation

From Mind Control to Viruses: How the Government Keeps Experimenting on Its Citizens

“They were monsters with human faces, in crisp uniforms, marching in lockstep, so banal you don’t recognize them for what they are until it’s too late.” — Ransom Riggs, Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children

The U.S. government, in its pursuit of so-called monsters, has itself become a monster.

This is not a new development, nor is it a revelation.

This is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest, the acquisition of greater wealth, scientific experimentation, and technological advances, all packaged in the guise of the greater good.

Mind you, there is no greater good when the government is involved. There is only greater greed for money and power.

Keep reading

Vaccine-Hesitant Americans Aren’t Ignorant Rubes, They’re Understandably Cautious

Recent polls show about a quarter of American adults either don’t plan to get a COVID-19 vaccine or want to wait on it. The numbers have held steady for months: 27 percent in a recent Quinnipiac poll, 25 percent in an NPR/Marist poll from late March, and 30 percent in a Pew survey from mid-February. After federal health officials called for a pause in the distribution of Johnson and Johnson’s one-shot vaccine last week over fears of severe blood-clotting, the number of vaccine-hesitant Americans could be slightly higher now.

That means tens of millions of American adults won’t be getting a vaccine, at least not right away. Why? For corporate media, the answer is simple: those people are idiots who have either bought into crazy conspiracy theories about the pandemic or are simply too selfish and lazy to do the right thing. Dr. Anthony Fauci, for one, is very frustrated with them.

For outlets like The New York Times, it’s even simpler: “Least Vaccinated U.S. Counties Have Something in Common: Trump Voters,” ran a recent headline in the Times. The article argues that vaccine hesitancy “is highest in counties that are rural and have lower income levels and college graduation rates — the same characteristics found in counties that were more likely to have supported Mr. Trump.”

In other words, it’s all those science-denying MAGA idiots who are wary of getting a COVID-19 vaccine. The Times article notes the vaccine gap persists even in wealthier Trump-supporting areas, so it’s not just poor and uneducated Trump voters who are vaccine-suspicious, they’re all like that. Figures, right?

Not quite. The Trump administration shepherded these vaccines into existence. It was Trump’s own Operation Warp Speed that oversaw the record-breaking development of COVID-19 vaccines. Indeed, Trump himself boasted last fall that every American would be able to get a vaccine by April of this year, a prediction the media mocked at the time but has now come to pass. Devotion to Trump, then, would suggest an enthusiasm for the vaccines he championed, not hesitancy.

Keep reading

Physician: Informed Consent For COVID Vaccine Requires Full Disclosure Of Risk & Liability, And Here It Is…

Note: Most of the links below are from medical journals, the FDA, CDC, and other entities that generally support vaccination, yet the information in this article shows how EXTREMELY RISKY the COVID-19 vaccines are.

In my family, we have a rule:  If you consider having an experimental medical procedure done,

  1. Don’t even think of insisting that anyone else have it done, inside or outside the family, because they control their own bodies and health decisions, not you; and
  2. Be sure you have read about and can explain in your own words all of the known risks of that procedure before embarking on it.  Also, consider potential future risks.

I ask that you, the reader, at least take time to consider the above, and at least consider reading information in the links below, before submitting to this experimental medical procedure.

Is the COVID vaccine experimental?  Pfizer and Moderna make the COVID-19 vaccines in the US. The FDA granted “emergency use authorization” for these vaccines (herein “COVID injections,” because they are unlike conventional vaccines).   Emergency use authorization is required by law to be made only if there are no effective treatments for COVID-19.  

  • But are there effective COVID-19 treatments?  – 100s of studies done around the world have established, and repeatedly confirmed, fast, effective, well-tolerated treatments for COVID-19 that are in widespread use.  I briefly summarize them here. 
  • General risk vs benefit – An emergency experimental vaccine cannot be assumed to be safer than a virus with a very high survival rate, such as COVID-19.  The average survival rate for     NO COVID treatment at all is 99.74%, and we have very successful treatments available, which should easily achieve universal survivability from COVID, if widely available.  Where does 99.74% survival come from?  Dr. John Ioannidis is the most widely cited scientist in the world.  His estimate in June 2020 of a 0.26% infection fatality rate is now confirmed around the world.    100% – 0.26% = 99.74% average survival rate.

Does the COVID injection work?  The COVID injection is not even known to stop the spread of COVID.  Dr. Larry Corey, who oversees National Institutes of Health COVID-19 vaccine trials said on 11/20/20: “The studies aren’t designed to assess transmission.  They don’t ask that question, and there’s really no information on this at this point in time.”  https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/941388

What happened to the animals in the studies?  This technology has been tried on animals, and in the animal studies done, all the animals died, not immediately from the injection, but months later, from other immune disorders, sepsis and/or cardiac failure.  There has never been a long-term successful animal study using this technology.  No experimental coronavirus vaccine has succeeded in animal studies.  In this study, coronavirus vaccine caused liver inflammation in test animals.

Keep reading

Biden-Harris Administration to Ramp Up Experiments Using Aborted Baby Body Parts

The Biden-Harris administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced it is reversing the Trump administration’s decision to end taxpayer funding for experimental research that uses fetal tissue derived from aborted babies.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency under the authority of HHS, announced Friday an “Update on Changes to NIH Requirements Regarding Proposed Human Fetal Tissue Research”:

On June 5, 2019, HHS announced that NIH intramural research that requires new acquisition of human fetal tissue from elective abortions will not be conducted. Simultaneously, HHS announced new requirements for documentation and review by an Ethics Advisory Board of extramural research applications for NIH grants, cooperative agreements, and R&D contracts proposing the use of human fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions.

…

This notice informs the extramural research community that HHS is reversing its 2019 decision that all research applications for NIH grants and contracts proposing the use of human fetal tissue from elective abortions will be reviewed by an Ethics Advisory Board. Accordingly, HHS/NIH will not convene another NIH Human Fetal Tissue Research Ethics Advisory Board.

The announcement refers to the fact that, in addition to ending internal research with fetal tissue from elective abortions, the Trump administration applied a rigorous ethics review protocol in considering funding for research outside of its department – both of which the Biden-Harris HHS is overturning.

Keep reading

Scientists Create Early Embryos That Are Part Human, Part Monkey

For the first time, scientists have created embryos that are a mix of human and monkey cells.

The embryos, described Thursday in the journal Cell, were created in part to try to find new ways to produce organs for people who need transplants, said the international team of scientists who collaborated in the work. But the research raises a variety of concerns.

“My first question is: Why?” said Kirstin Matthews, a fellow for science and technology at Rice University’s Baker Institute. “I think the public is going to be concerned, and I am as well, that we’re just kind of pushing forward with science without having a proper conversation about what we should or should not do.”

Still, the scientists who conducted the research, and some other bioethicists defended the experiment.

Keep reading