Tag: human experimentation

They’re Trialing Self-Amplifying RNA-LNP-Based Products

On November 11, 2024, an article was published online in Business Wire pertaining to the launch of a clinical trial NCT06602531 intended to test “Safety and Immunogenicity Study of Self-Amplifying RNA Pandemic Influenza Vaccine in Adults.” 

Question: Why is the word “Pandemic” in the title? 

The article provides information on the ARCT-2304 product which is a “sa-mRNA vaccine candidate formulated within a lipid nanoparticle (LNP).”

So. Many. Questions. For example, beyond the use of the word pandemic in the study title, why is this product being called a vaccine? Why is a new version of a product riddled with unresolved compendial standard issues being trialed?

ARCT-2304 is a gene-therapy-based prodrug that uses self-amplifying RNA technology (specifically, the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene, which allows it to replicate autonomously) that originates from an Alphavirus. Just so you know, this makes these products genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and this is because of the fact that the coding template is a modified Alphavirus genome with the virus sub-genomic bits spiked out and the foreign flu genes ‘spiked in.’ The genetic material is capable of reproduction. The following slide shows how they did this for the Covid-19 version (KOSTAIVE® (ARCT-154) Monovalent: JN.1). 

Keep reading

Experiments on Your Kids

Just this week, the Boston Globe published an article by Newton South High School math and physics teacher Ryan Normandin admitting that an allegedly progressive education experiment had been a failure.

Mind you, it was obvious to every single person on this planet that this experiment would fail.

But in the minds of these people, your kids exist to be experimented on, and to help usher in the progressive future.

Here was the experiment:

Let’s put all students in the same math class, regardless of skill.

Let’s put all students in the same foreign-language class, regardless of skill.

You already know a major motivation behind the policy: why, separating students by academic skill level yields insufficient “diversity” in the classroom.

Not keeping up with the latest in modern educational theory, you might have asked a coarse question like, “Will this new arrangement mean a better education for my kids?”

Oh, dear reader. The thought never even crosses their minds.

Precisely what you’re assuming would happen, happened.

Keep reading

Psychiatric Drug Cocktails – Risky Experiments on Human Minds

Despite zero understanding of how even one psychiatric drug “works” as “treatment” for alleged mental disorders, the rate of cocktail (polypharmacy) drugging among children is increasing. One doctor called for informed consent about the benefits and risks associated with the “contraindicated” drugging.

A recent study from Lawrence Kleinman, professor of pediatrics at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, reviewed Medicaid data for more than 141,000 patients (under 21) receiving any psychiatric medication and found that nearly 400 of those patients received at least one “potentially dangerous combination” of psychiatric drugs.

Dr. Kleinman warned that “good practice demands that patients and caregivers be informed of and assent to risks and benefits, including informing them that the intended pair of medications is typically contraindicated.” What Kleinman is warning is that there are serious risks to prescribing cocktails of psychiatric drugs and it is not recommended.

According to Kleinman’s research, polypharmacy (more than one drug prescribed together) is a common practice, with nearly 38 percent of patients in the study filling two or more medications with at least one month overlap, generating more than 11,000 distinct drug combinations.

Kleinman found that the most contraindicated combination involved the antipsychotic Ziprasidone, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the “treatment” of schizophrenia and bipolar. And the research further revealed that “other risky combinations involved antidepressants such as Fluoxetine (Prozac) and Trazodone paired with various antipsychotic medications…”

This isn’t the first of its kind research as a report in February of this year showed that kids in the state of Maryland also are receiving cocktails of psychiatric drugs at ever increasing rates. Yes. It’s a veritable behavioral chemical lobotomy for America’s children at the whim of the prescribing doctor, despite the serious risks associated with such prescribing.

According to the Maryland research conducted by University of Maryland School of Pharmacy graduate student Yueh Yi Chiang, between 2015 and 2020, those children under the age of 17 were receiving “multiple psychiatric drugs during that time that rose from 4.2% in 2015 to 4.6% five years later.” And sadly, those kids who were disabled or in foster care “were significantly more likely than individuals with low income to receive three or more psychotropic classes overlapping for 90 days or more.”

Three or more psychiatric drugs at one time? How is this prescribing not criminal? Physicians are abundantly aware of the serious risks associated with cocktail drugging, especially in light of the fact that not one doctor has even a clue about how these drugs “work” in the brain as “treatment.”

Keep reading

1970 Hearing Reveals ADHD as Government-Funded Drug Experiment on Children

In 1970 a lawmaker wanted to know if the federal government had a hand in drugging school-age children that largely has today remained an unspoken, well-funded, uncontrolled clinical drug trial.

September 29, 1970, New Jersey Congressman Cornelis E. Gallagher held a hearing into the federal government’s role in promoting the use of amphetamines and Ritalin as behavior modification of grammar school children.

Fifty-four years later, AbleChild applauds Representative Gallagher for presiding over the House Special Studies Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations investigation as it was one of the first hearings to draw attention to the government’s funding of experimental drug research using school-age children.

Gallagher wanted to know from the experts how it was okay to drug children with amphetamines and Ritalin to modify behavior in school, while at the same time pushing an active national campaign against drug abuse stating that “speed kills.”

The Congressman was concerned about whether the drug therapy being used by the child would become a permanent part of the child’s school record, thus years later negatively impacting the child’s life.

And, finally, the Congressman raised concerns “about the mislabeling of the child and packaging an ill-conceived program as an answer to our ills in the education of our children.”

At the time of the 1970 hearing, researchers were then labeling hyperactive children with Minimal Brain Dysfunction (MDA), then renaming it as Hyperkinetic disorder (HKD) or Hyperkinesis and finally settling on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

At the time of the hearing, none of the experts testifying could provide any scientific data proving the alleged brain abnormality existed.

Still, fifty-four years later, there is no science to prove the alleged brain abnormality ADHD exists.

Ironically, one of the experts that testified at 1970 hearing warned that the drug therapy would “zoom” from its then usage in approximately 200 to 300 thousand American children.

The prophecy was fulfilled. In 2020 alone, 9,585,203 Americans were taking some form of psychiatric mind-altering drug as “treatment” for the alleged ADHD.

Almost four and a half million Americans between the ages of 0 and 24 alone were prescribed ADHD drugs in 2020.

The “experts” testifying before Gallagher’s subcommittee were as clueless then as the “experts” are today when it comes to any understanding of how the drugs worked as “treatment.”

Keep reading

American Pharmaceutical Companies Accused of Carrying Out Clinical Trials With Chinese Military

A bipartisan House committee has revealed that American pharmaceutical companies carried out drug trials in conjunction with the Chinese military for more than 10 years.

The revelation came in a letter penned by Republican and Democratic leaders on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Robert Califf. In the letter, they pressed him to supply information about these clinical trials for new medications.

In their letter, they explained: “These collaborative research activities raise serious concerns that critical Intellectual Property is at risk of being transferred to the [Chinese military] or being co-opted under the People’s Republic of China’s National Security Law.”

They also expressed reservations about how much the results of clinical trials produced by China can be trusted.

The letter states that hundreds of clinical trials for drugs have been carried out at medical centers and hospitals in China that are affiliated with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) at sites such as the PLA’s Air Force Medical University and the PLA’s General Hospital and Medical School.

One of the institutions is operated by the PLA’s Academy of Military Medical Sciences, an institution which the Department of Commerce has banned businesses in the United States from sharing technology with due to national security concerns.

Keep reading

Under The Skin: The Internet Of Bio-NanoThings

The Internet of Things (IoT) has become an important research topic in the last decade, where things refer to interconnected machines and objects with embedded computing capabilities employed to extend the Internet to many application domains. While research and development continue for general IoT devices, there are many application domains where very tiny, concealable, and non-intrusive Things are needed.

The properties of recently studied nanomaterials, such as graphene, have inspired the concept of Internet of NanoThings (IoNT), based on the interconnection of nanoscale devices. Despite being an enabler for many applications, the artificial nature of IoNT devices can be detrimental where the deployment of NanoThings could result in unwanted effects on health or pollution. The novel paradigm of the Internet of Bio-Nano Things (IoBNT) is introduced in this paper by stemming from synthetic biology and nanotechnology tools that allow the engineering of biological embedded computing devices.

Based on biological cells, and their functionalities in the biochemical domain, Bio-NanoThings promise to enable applications such as intra-body sensing and actuation networks, and environmental control of toxic agents and pollution. The IoBNT stands as a paradigm-shifting concept for communication and network engineering, where novel challenges are faced to develop efficient and safe techniques for the exchange of information, interaction, and networking within the biochemical domain, while enabling an interface to the electrical domain of the Internet.

Keep reading

AI Industry Growing Human Brains in a Lab: Wetware

Recently, there’s been a great deal of hoopla about brains, specifically presidential and presidential-candidate brains. Perhaps because of this, my own brain has been thinking about the broader issue of brains. 

And I happened to run across something about that and wanted to share it with you. I recently learned of a Swiss startup that is creating human brains — and planning to link them together into superbrains. 

Why do this?  

Because you can apparently get artificial intelligence more effectively, more cheaply, and with less environmental consequence — by using actual brain cells. 

Not yours, and not mine. No, they’re growing brains to order in the lab. 

I know there was a time when this sounded like science fiction. But this… is real. 

Once they whip up some mini human brains, they interconnect a bunch of them, and voila!  A pretty effective network for AI. (Brain cells communicate with each other and the rest of the body through electrical signals — which makes them compatible with silicon chips.)

Only it’s not called AI. It’s called “:ware” — as opposed to “hardware” (and not to be confused with “wetwork”) — defined as thinking human brain cells without any inconvenient bodies attached.  

My first reaction was to wonder where they got the brain cells, and if they’re fussy about the source. Did they prefer the brains of brainy professors — dead ones, of course.  

Answer: From stem cells — derived from human skin. But they don’t say whose stem cells. Stem cells are fascinating. They can be coaxed into becoming other kinds of tissue, from bone to brain. A paralyzed man can now walk again, thanks to stem cell therapy. 

Maybe someday these magical cells will be sold over the counter in jars at a drugstore near you. 

Well, I scarcely know what to do with this.   

Keep reading

Birth Defects in US Military is Congressionally Directed Medical Research

I became aware of the US Military concern over Uranium from exploded so-called “Depleted Uranium” shells and tank armour decades ago.

My friend was exposed in Kosovo and Gaza while working for the UN investigating War Crimes and Human Trafficking.

I told people that we can expect Cancer Clusters and Birth Defects as a result of Jets with Uranium Stabilizers hitting the Twin Towers of New York and anywhere else where the radioactive dust is spread.

I was interested in a recent post by Mathew Crawford where he recounted a conversation with a recently married young soldier concerned about having children in a world like the one that we live in.1

Mathew said:

For any readers who are still unaware, the DMED does NOT contain data representing any form of injury or illness among babies born to military personnel. Why not? Because babies aren’t soldiers (true). The DMED is intended to track the health of soldiers. And while we might be interested in the health of the children born to soldiers, we would have to locate that data elsewhere.

I am surprised that Mathew did not refer the young soldier to the extensive Birth Defects Registry set up for descendants of US Military personnel as Congressionally Directed Medical Medical Research.2

For descendants, baseline data may be collected at birth or after enrollment in the HMRP. For parents who are not active-duty service members or veterans, baseline data may be collected when they enter the program or when they (if women) become pregnant.

Looking back in time.

Study designs that have particular relevance for the HMRP include perinatal and birth cohorts such as the National Collaborative Perinatal Project conducted by NIH between 1959–1974, which obtained information on pre- and postnatal child health for 58,000 pregnancies in the United States

They have looked at Uranium, Burn Pits, Hexavalent Chromium and Sarin.

Keep reading

DOD Funds Research on Fake Meat Rations to Improve Soldiers’ ‘Military Readiness’

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has partnered with the BioIndustrial Manufacturing and Design Ecosystem (BioMADE) to produce lab-grown foods intended to feed the nation’s military. The public-private partnership, which is largely DOD funded, released a project call in May 2024 looking for proposals in a number of focus areas, including “sustainable food production.”1

Under this category, the Sustainable Logistics for Advanced Manufacturing (SLAM) project includes a call for innovations in food production that “could include, but are not limited to, production of nutrient-dense military rations via fermentation processes, utilizing one carbon molecule (C1) feedstocks for food production, and novel cell culture methods suitable for the production of cultivated meat/protein.”2

Ultimately, the partnership sets up military members as lab rats who will be fed synthetically grown, ultraprocessed junk foods in lieu of a healthy, whole-food-based diet.

DOD Plans to Feed Soldiers Fake Meat

The biotech industry is rolling out a “tsunami of fake foods”3 that are being positioned as environmentally friendly and health-promoting alternatives to real foods like meat and dairy. Lab-grown meat may one day represent 80% or more of the “meat” consumed worldwide,4 a dramatic departure from the way humans have eaten for centuries.

The DOD describes BioMADE as “a nonprofit created by the Engineering Biology Research Consortium (EBRC).” In 2020, it awarded the outfit $87 million in funding for a new Manufacturing Innovation Institute (MII):5

“Through a close relationship with DOD and the Military Services, BioMADE will work to establish long-term and dependable bioindustrial manufacturing capabilities for a wide array of products.

Anticipated bioindustrial manufacturing applications include the following products: chemicals, solvents, detergents, reagents, plastics, electronic films, fabrics, polymers, agricultural products (e.g., feedstock), crop protection solutions, food additives, fragrances, and flavors.”

However, the DOD also funds innovation grants, each of which has a $2-million limit up to a total budget of $500 million — funding that earmarked at least in part for BioMADE’s development of lab-grown fake meat products.6 In fact, in March 2023, BioMADE announced that its federal funds budget ceiling had increased from an initial $87.5 million to over $500 million.7

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) condemned the idea. Ethan Lane, NCBA vice president of government affairs, said in a press release:8

“It is outrageous that the Department of Defense is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to feed our heroes like lab rats … American troops deserve to be served that same wholesome, natural meat and not ultraprocessed, lab-grown protein that is cooked up in a chemical-filled bioreactor.

This misguided research project is a giant slap in the face to everyone that has served our country. Our veterans and active-duty troops deserve so much better than this.”

Former U.S. Special Forces member Martin Bailey further told the Daily Mail:9

“I think the government should focus on letting the military protect our nation from enemies, foreign and domestic, sometimes, but you know, that’s what the military is there for. They’re not there to be experimental lab rats … why doesn’t the government feed experimental meat product that, you don’t even know what it is, why don’t they feed that to, let’s say, homeless people?

Well, there’s a reason they don’t, because that would be completely unethical. So why is it ethical to stick it down the throat of our military service members?”

Keep reading

Prof. Angus Dalgleish: The use of mRNA injections is criminal negligence

Well well well, two of the most senior oncologists in the world this week shared their alarming findings with the experimental covid gene therapies. First, we have Prof. Fukushima, and now Prof Angus Dalgleish has reiterated his call to ban all mRNA vaccinations immediately in a forum with Senator Ron Johnson on 26 April 2024.

Throw Professor Gabriel Oon in there too, Singapore’s most senior oncologist and founding President of Singapore’s Society of Oncology, who has been warning about the dangers of mRNA tech for some time now.

Could it be that these eminent oncologists from different parts of the world suddenly stopped supporting experimental vaccines and together started saying no to mRNA gene therapy as if they planned it? Let’s get to the heart of it: what these three vocal critics have in common is that they’re retired. This means they don’t have to worry about losing their jobs or money for speaking up. But there are many others still working who keep quiet because they’re afraid of risking their jobs.

So, here comes Prof. Angus Dalgleish. He’s not just any doctor making noise online; he’s a major player in the health field, the genius behind the discovery of the CD4 receptor, and now the head of The Institute of Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy. Discovering the CD4 receptor is a massive deal because it’s like finding the secret entrance that the HIV virus uses to invade the body’s cells, causing AIDS. Prof. Dalgleish’s discovery has led to breakthroughs in medicine, allowing us to create treatments that lock this entrance and keep the virus out. Because of his work, we’ve been able to give people fighting HIV a fighting chance. That’s why Prof Dalgleish is such a big name in the battle against HIV/AIDS.

Regarding the mRNA gene therapy, Prof. Dalgleish didn’t just talk about the bad stuff linked to spike proteins, like blood clotting and the scary Guillain-Barre syndrome. He went even further, sharing stories about his patients. These were people who had been doing well in their fight against cancer, but after getting the booster shot, they faced big setbacks. Their cancer came back worse than before. “I started to see in my melanoma clinic patients who’d been stable for years, who suddenly came in, relapsed. Sometimes the relapse was quite vicious. I mean, they had very bad disease. We had to treat them all over again,” he said. This shows how tough things got for them after the booster.

On top of that, Prof Angus Dalgleish watched three of his friends get the booster shot because they wanted to travel after being trapped at home for two to three years. Tragically, all three of them saw their cancer come back. Even worse, two of them died because the cancer didn’t respond to the treatments that usually work. This heartbreaking experience is why Dalgleish has started to speak out so strongly. He calls the use of mRNA platform in infectious disease “a gross medical negligence… really, this criminal negligence now, knowing what we do.” If that’s not a mic drop moment, I don’t know what is.

Keep reading