The Limits of Science

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:53 pm

.
DrEvil » Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:58 pm wrote:
p.s. how did nanoparticles ever escape from the lab in the first place?


They didn't. They're all around you and always have been. Nanoparticle just means "any particle small enough to be measured in nanometers", including natural things like the thousands of tons of interplanetary dust hitting the planet every year. You're probably breathing nanoparticles right now.

Edit: if you meant man-made nanoparticles: we put them in all kinds of stuff, like paint.

Extra edit: if you meant tiny computers/machines used for possibly nefarious purposes (which would be nanotech, not nanoparticles), they're not real beyond primitive prototypes.



Apparently 'nanoparticles' and 'nanotech' are used relatively interchangeably, at least in certain articles on the topic.

See the following examples:

https://www.cas.org/resource/blog/under ... 9-vaccines

Understanding the nanotechnology in COVID-19 vaccines

Lipid nanoparticles are a vital component of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, playing a key role in protecting and transporting the mRNA effectively to the right place in cells. They are next generation liposomes that use nanotechnology and are well suited to stable and efficient delivery of various therapeutics.

Although mRNA vaccines have received much global interest as they are a new type of drug, lipid nanoparticles have held a recognised position in the mainstream of drug delivery systems (DDS) since the discovery of liposomes in the 1960s. Let us take a closer look at what liposomes are, their evolution and potential for use in other industries.

...


And:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/01/how ... ines-work/

How nanotechnology helps mRNA Covid-19 vaccines work

While the first two Covid-19 vaccines relying on messenger RNA technology speed toward regulatory approval in the U.S., it’s worth remembering the vehicle that gets them where they need to go in the body.

Lipid nanoparticles are the fatty molecular envelopes that help strands of mRNA — the genetic messenger for making DNA code into proteins — evade the body’s biological gatekeepers and reach their target cell without being degraded. They are enabling some of the most advanced technologies being used in vaccines and drugs.

...

Nanomedicine is crucial to delivering mRNA vaccines, but it is also key in reformulating existing drugs and formulating new ones to treat Covid-19 patients, the new report explains. Before Covid-19 spread around the globe, mRNA vaccines were in the early stages of development in biotech companies, and nanotechnology was central to their efforts.


And:

Image
https://reports.statnews.com/products/n ... 3260367975


And this piece here will surely inspire cyberpunk nerds to climax in their plaid shorts:

The truth about nano robots and why they are not in our vaccines — yet

In a paper published in the journal Nature Materials, researchers from The Ohio State University – led by former engineering doctoral student Chao-Min Huang – unveiled new software they call MagicDNA.

The software helps researchers design ways to take tiny strands of DNA and combine them into complex structures with parts like rotors and hinges that can move and complete a variety of tasks, including drug delivery.

....


Here's the paper referenced in the above snippet:

Published: 19 April 2021

Integrated computer-aided engineering and design for DNA assemblies

Abstract

Recently, DNA has been used to make nanodevices for a myriad of applications across fields including medicine, nanomanufacturing, synthetic biology, biosensing and biophysics. However, current DNA nanodevices rely primarily on geometric design, and it remains challenging to rationally design functional properties such as force-response or actuation behaviour. Here we report an iterative design pipeline for DNA assemblies that integrates computer-aided engineering based on coarse-grained molecular dynamics with a versatile computer-aided design approach that combines top-down automation with bottom-up control over geometry. This intuitive framework allows for rapid construction of large, multicomponent assemblies from three-dimensional models with finer control over the geometrical, mechanical and dynamical properties of the DNA structures in an automated manner. This approach expands the scope of structural complexity and enhances mechanical and dynamic design of DNA assemblies.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-021-00978-5

Wonder if there's any black budget advancements not referenced here? We won't know.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby DrEvil » Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:09 pm

conniption » Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:42 am wrote:^^^ I see...thx for that. More research is needed on my part.
Maybe the question would be, Who thought it would be a good idea to put them in vaccinations?


It's a matter of size. Viruses are tiny, some of them measured in nanometers, so you need to operate at the same scale to manipulate them.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Sep 02, 2021 7:28 pm

[Virus particles measured in nanometers]...one of the reasons most masks used out in the wild are essentially useless (other than as a conditioning mechanism or virtue signal device) -- though they may well cause harm after extended daily wear.

Add it to the list of absurd measures currently accepted by many as part of the trance-like submission to The Science, which often involves very little actual science.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby DrEvil » Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:46 pm

But viruses aren't exhaled as pure, viral particles, they're embedded in much larger droplets.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby conniption » Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:02 am

nomorefakenews

Dangerous nano-particles contaminating many vaccines: groundbreaking study

by Jon Rappoport
June 3, 2020


“The Lung,” Second Edition, 2014: “Nanoparticles [are] comparable in size to subcellular structures…enabling their ready incorporation into biological systems.”

A 2017 study of 44 types of 15 traditional vaccines, manufactured by leading global companies, has uncovered a very troubling and previously unreported fact:

The vaccines are heavily contaminated with a variety of nanoparticles.

Many of the particles are metals.

We’re talking about traditional vaccines, such as HPV, flu, Swine Flu, Hepatitis B, MMR, DPT, tetanus, etc.

To begin to understand some of the destructive effects of contaminating nanoparticles in vaccines, here is the groundbreaking 2017 study:

International Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination
Volume 4 Issue 1
January 23 2017
New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines:
Micro- and Nanocontamination
Antonietta M Gatti and Stefano Montanari

https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/new-qua ... ines-micro–and-nanocontamination.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20200604111 ... ines-micro–and-nanocontamination.html

“The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case. This new investigation represents a new quality control that can be adopted to assess the safety of a vaccine. Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines…”

Are the study authors leaving the door open to the possibility that the contamination is intentional?

“The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity…they induce an inflammatory reaction.”

“After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas…But they can also be carried by the blood circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination…As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect…due to a nano-bio-interaction…can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way…It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA…”

“In some cases, e.g. as occurs with Iron and some Iron alloys, they can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues…”

“Given the contaminations we observed in all samples of human-use vaccines, adverse effects after the injection of those vaccines are possible and credible and have the character of randomness, since they depend on where the contaminants are carried by the blood circulation. It is only obvious that similar quantities of these foreign bodies can have a more serious impact on very small organisms like those of children. Their presence in the muscles…could heavily impair the muscle functionality…”

“We come across particles with chemical compositions, similar to those found in the vaccines we analyzed, when we study cases of environmental contamination caused by different pollution sources. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt. In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants.”

This 2017 study opens up a whole new field: the investigation of nanoparticles in vaccines where none were expected.

Such particles are not medicine in any sense of the word.

Many legal and scientific “experts” assert the State has a right to mandate vaccines and force them on the population. But these contaminating nanoparticles are not vaccines or medicines. Only a lunatic would defend the right of the State to inject them.

Here is another section from the 2017 study. Trade names of vaccines, and compositions of the nanoparticle contaminants are indicated. Take a deep breath and buckle up:

“…further presence of micro-, sub-micro- and nanosized, inorganic, foreign bodies (ranging from 100nm to about ten microns) was identified in all cases [all 44 vaccines], whose presence was not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product…”

“…single particles, cluster of micro- and nanoparticles (less than 100nm) and aggregates…debris of Aluminum, Silicon, Magnesium and Titanium; of Iron, Chromium, Silicon and Calcium particles…arranged in a cluster, and Aluminum-Copper debris…in an aggregate.”

“…the particles are surrounded and embedded in a biological substrate. In all the samples analyzed, we identified particles containing: Lead (Typhym, Cervarix, Agrippal S1, Meningitec, Gardasil) or stainless steel (Mencevax, Infarix Hexa, Cervarix. Anatetall, Focetria, Agrippal S1, Menveo, Prevenar 13, Meningitec, Vaxigrip, Stamaril Pasteur, Repevax and MMRvaxPro).”

“…particles of Tungsten identified in drops of Prevenar and Infarix (Aluminum, Tungsten, Calcium chloride).”

“…singular debris found in Repevax (Silicon, Gold, Silver) and Gardasil (Zirconium).”

“Some metallic particles made of Tungsten or stainless steel were also identified. Other particles containing Zirconium, Hafnium, Strontium and Aluminum (Vivotif, Meningetec); Tungsten, Nickel, Iron (Priorix, Meningetec); Antimony (Menjugate kit); Chromium (Meningetec); Gold or Gold, Zinc (Infarix Hexa, Repevax), or Platinum, Silver, Bismuth, Iron, Chromium (MMRvaxPro) or Lead,Bismuth (Gardasil) or Cerium (Agrippal S1) were also found. The only Tungsten appears in 8/44 vaccines, while Chromium (alone or in alloy with Iron and Nickel) in 25/44. The investigations revealed that some particles are embedded in a biological substrate, probably proteins, endo-toxins and residues of bacteria. As soon as a particle comes in contact with proteic fluids, a nano-bio-interaction…occurs and a ‘protein corona’ is formed…The nano-bio-interaction generates a bigger-sized compound that is not biodegradable and can induce adverse effects, since it is not recognized as self by the body.”

“…examples of these nano-bio-interactions. Aggregates can be seen (stable composite entities) containing particles of Lead in Meningitec… of stainless steel (Iron, Chromium and Nickel…) and of Copper, Zinc and Lead in Cervarix…Similar aggregates, though in different situations (patients suffering from leukemia or cryoglobulinemia), have already been described in literature.”

I’m sure you’ve read official assurances that vaccine-manufacturing problems are “rare.” You can file those pronouncements along with other medical lies.

“I’d like the heavy metal sandwich on rye, please. And instead of serving it on a plate, can you inject it?”

Several vital questions demanding answers spring from the findings of this 2017 study:

Are some of these nanoparticles intentionally placed in vaccines?

Does the standard manufacturing process for traditional vaccines INEVITABLY lead to dangerous and destructive nano-contamination?

New nano-technology is already being employed to create several vaccines—supposedly “improving effectiveness.” In fact, the coming COVID-19 vaccine may be a nano-type. Does this manufacturing process carry with it the unavoidable effect of unleashing a hurricane of nanoparticle contaminants?

How many cases of childhood brain damage and autism can be laid at the door of nanoparticle contamination?

And finally, where are these contaminated vaccines manufactured? The above study did not attempt to discover this. It was outside the scope of the research. It’s common knowledge that, for example, in the case of the US, vaccines or their components, are, in many instances, not produced domestically. Where does this put control of safety? In, say, China, where there have been numerous pharmaceutical scandals connected to contamination of products?

The vaccine establishment does not show the slightest interest in answering any of these questions. They are busy pretending the questions don’t exist.

Trusting the establishment would be suicidal.
_______
Jon Rappoport
The Matrix Revealed
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/06 ... -vaccines/
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:26 am

DrEvil » Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:46 pm wrote:But viruses aren't exhaled as pure, viral particles, they're embedded in much larger droplets.


It's already been acknowledged some time ago that the virus largely spreads via aerosol transmission, rendering mask use moot, particularly if one simply maintains a decent distance, or otherwise covers their mouth (as we've mostly done prior to 2020) when sneezing, coughing, etc.
The weight of droplets prevent them from traveling very far. And once again -- something i mentioned a year ago now -- it's also about viral loads. Droplets alone often don't contain the viral loads necessary to trigger infection.

Dose amount + duration of exposure is typically how virus transmission leads to infection.

It's been a charade from the onset.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby conniption » Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:22 am

AIER
(many links)

Masking Children: Tragic, Unscientific, and Damaging
Paul E. Alexander
– March 10, 2021
Reading Time: 9 minutes

Summary: Children do not readily acquire SARS-CoV-2 (very low risk), spread it to other children or teachers, or endanger parents or others at home. This is the settled science. In the rare cases where a child contracts Covid virus it is very unusual for the child to get severely ill or die. Masking can do positive harm to children – as it can to some adults. But the cost benefit analysis is entirely different for adults and children – particularly younger children. Whatever arguments there may be for consenting adults – children should not be required to wear masks to prevent the spread of Covid-19. Of course, zero risk is not attainable – with or without masks, vaccines, therapeutics, distancing or anything else medicine may develop or government agencies may impose.

How did this blue surgical mask and white cloth mask come to dominate our daily lives? Well, indeed, the surgical masks and white cloth (often homemade) masks have become the most contentious and quarrelsome symbol and reminder of our battle with SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, Covid-19. The mask has become so politicized that it prevents rational consideration of the evidence (even across political lines) and drives levels of acrimony, invidious actions, disdain, and villainy among wearers to each other who feel threatened by the individual who will not or cannot wear a mask.

But how dangerous is this virus? Based on studies done by Professor John PA Ioannidis of Stanford University, we know that we are dealing with a virus that has an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.05 in persons 70 years old and under (range: 0.00% to 0.57% with a median of 0.05% across the different global locations; with a corrected median of 0.04%). This compares quite well to the IFR of most influenza viruses (and even lower), and yet the draconian and massive reactions to SARS- CoV-2 have never been employed during influenza season.

Given this knowledge it is more than perplexing as to why our governments, at the behest of their public health advisors, have accepted as a fait accompli what we refer to as a ‘great deception’ or lie, convincing us of inevitable and severe consequences if anyone is infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Yes, the public was lied to and deceived from day one by governments and their medical advisors and the media medical cabal with its incessant messaging that we were all at equal risk of severe illness or death if infected, young and old. They subverted science. This caused irrational fear and hysteria and it has held on. This type of deception and the resulting unfounded fear has been driven by the media despite “a thousandfold difference in risk between old and young.”

We suggest that this has always been known, and yet this disinformation and related falsehoods were spread seemingly both willfully and knowingly by our leaders and the media. Such conflation of the risks between the young and the elderly population with comorbidities and at risk is wrong-headed and creates unnecessary fear for all. It is well known that there is a distinct stratified risk (strongly associated with increasing age and comorbidities).

Additionally, data now suggests (even though still nascent) that children not only have extremely low risk as mentioned above but also that they naturally have the capability of evading the SARS-CoV-2 virus due to the lack of the ACE-2 receptors in their nostrils. It escapes us as to why this deceit continues to be served to the public and has not been stopped forthwith.

What does the evidence show? Well, evidence is accumulating about the potential harms of mask use (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). For example, the CDC’s own February 2021 double-mask study reported that masking may impede breathing – which can trigger a variety of other problems including acute anxiety attacks in susceptible individuals. These harms are even more likely to occur to children, particularly smaller children.

The scientific evidence in total also suggests masks (surgical and cloth masks) as currently used are ineffective in reducing transmission (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25). Even if we tried to tease out ‘minimal help’ and say ‘they may help a little,’ these Covid-19 masks are largely ineffective. In many reports, conclusively so. As an example, a very recent publication stated that face masks become nonconsequential and do not function after 20 minutes due to saturation. “Those masks are only effective so long as they are dry,” said Professor Yvonne Cossart of the Department of Infectious Diseases at the University of Sydney.” As soon as they become saturated with the moisture in your breath, they stop doing their job and pass on the droplets.” In a similar light, there are indications that wearing a mask that has already been used, which is very common, is riskier than if one wore no mask at all. The evidence on mask mandates is also clear in that they are ineffective and do not work (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses like SARS-CoV-2.

We don’t have a wealth of scientific evidence on exactly when it is safe or not safe for children to be masked, but here’s a good rule of thumb. If you wouldn’t put a child in the front seat of your Prius without disabling the airbag – think twice before requiring an otherwise healthy child to wear a mask – or even forcing them to social distance in school.

On the dangers of masks generally, a recent mini-review reported “There are insufficient data to quantify all of the adverse effects that might reduce the acceptability, adherence and effectiveness of face masks.” We agree that the adequate primary type comparative effectiveness research is still not available but we do have strong anecdotal, reported, and real-world information as indicated above, along with some primary evidence, which we have judged appropriate to inform the discussion sufficiently.

During April to October 2020 in the US, emergency room visits linked to mental health problems (e.g. anxiety) for children aged 5-11 increased by nearly 25% and increased by 31% for those aged 12-17 years old as compared to the same period in 2019. During the month of June 2020, 25% of persons aged 18 to 24 in the US reported suicidal ideation. While some of this may be related to the pandemic, we suspect that it is largely a function of our response to the pandemic.

One of the most starkly revealing and troubling observations come from Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson MD, PhD, who is one of Europe’s leading neurologists and neurophysiologists focused on neurotoxicology, environmental medicine, neuro-regeneration and neuroplasticity. She has gone on record stating: “The rebreathing of our exhaled air will without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and a flooding of carbon dioxide. We know that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen deprivation.” There are neurons, for example in the hippocampus that cannot survive more than 3 minutes without an adequate supply of oxygen. Given that such cells are so sensitive to oxygen deprivation, their functionality must be affected by low oxygen levels.

Oxygen deprivation can cause metabolic changes and the metabolic changes that happen in neuronal cells are vitally important for cognitive functioning and brain plasticity and it is known that when drastic metabolic shifts occur in the brain, there are consequent changes of oxidative stress (cellular oxidative state) and these have a significant role in managing neuron functioning (we do not claim that masking would produce complete absence of oxygen of course).

The acute warning symptoms are headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, reduced ability to concentrate and reductions in cognitive function. Given that the development of neurodegenerative diseases can take years to develop, then what are the potentially deleterious effects of the use of masks, especially in children, when masks are used over the majority of their day? We and particularly parents, must consider this and weigh the benefits versus the harms. Are there benefits enough to warrant use relative to the potential harms? If the harms outweigh the benefits, then we cannot in good conscience advocate for mask use. Moreover, the continual and stressful impacts of masking (and school closures) will also have a known and deleterious impact on the immune systems in children (and adults).

Other medical harms relate to the notion that children and adolescents have an extremely active and adaptive immune system, a system that must be challenged in order to retain functionality. Yet by severely restricting children’s activities because of lockdowns and masking (physical activity/fitness exercises are almost impossible whilst wearing a mask), we are probably hobbling their immune systems. Evidence indicates that regular physical activity and frequent exercise enhance immune competency and regulation.

A child unexposed to nature has little defense against a minor illness, which can become overwhelming due to the lack of a primed ‘tuned-up’ and ‘taxed’ immune system. A robust immune system shortens an illness as a consequence of the presence of preprogrammed anamnestic immunity. Preventing children from such interactions with nature and germs can and does lead to overwhelming infections and serious consequences to the health and life of a child. We might be setting up our children for future disaster when they emerge from societal restrictions fully and with no masks, to then be at the mercy of normally benign opportunistic infections with a now weakened immune system. This cannot be disregarded as we consider the consequences of our actions today in this pandemic and the questionable lockdowns, school closures, and mask policies.

A German-wide registry (not the optimal highest-quality study) used by 20,353 parents who reported on data from almost 26,000 children, found that the “average wearing time of the mask was 270 minutes per day. Impairments caused by wearing the mask were reported by 68% of the parents. These included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%) impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).”

Concerns are being raised regarding psychological damage and why a mask is not ‘just a mask.’ There is tremendous psychological damage to infants and children, with potential catastrophic impacts on the cognitive development of children. This is even more critical in relation to children with special needs or those within the autism spectrum who need to be able to recognize facial expressions as part of their ongoing development. The accumulating evidence also suggests that prolonged mask use in children or adults can cause harms, so much so that Dr. Blaylock states “the bottom line is that [if] you are not sick, you should not wear a mask.” Furthermore, Dr. Blaylock writes, “By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.”

In sum, as mentioned, the optimal comparative research on harms has not sufficiently accumulated but what has been reported is sufficient to inform and guide us in our debate on the potential harms of mask use (surgical and cloth), especially in children. But we do have real-world evidence. While additional evidence will help clarify the extent of risk, the existing details are sobering enough and of tremendous utility as we consider the benefits versus the harms of mask use. Even the potential of minimal harm is enough to prevent justification of such use.

Remember, even Dr. Fauci told us in 2020 that masks are not needed and not effective as you may think it is (March 2020 with Jon LaPook, 60 Minutes). Para ‘no need to walk around with one.’ Dr. Fauci was indeed telling you the science then, and the science has not changed. His statement “it is not providing the perfect protection that people think…” may have changed, but the science remains crystal clear on effectiveness, or lack of.

We call on parents to consider this and to carefully weigh the benefits versus the downsides/harms of masks to their children. This really is not an issue of the ‘science’ as kids do not spread the virus readily to kids, to adults, to teachers, or to the home. They do not get severely ill or die from this. Moreover, teachers are at very low risk of severe illness or death and the school setting remains one of the safest, lowest risk environments.

The science is clear and thus the question becomes, what is the benefit of masks for children? Is masking of children really more about seeming to be doing something even if it is ineffective or possibly harmful? If the possible harms outweigh the negligible and questionable benefit in such a low-risk group, then why must they wear masks indoors and outdoors at school? Masks in children with such near zero risk of transmission and illness from Covid is not necessary and illogical and irrational. This is similar to the need for vaccination of children, especially young children. Children were not part of the vaccine research and also the very low risk to children raises very troubling questions of why. A move to vaccinate children based on the existing risk evidence has no basis in science and there is no net benefit.

Why then did Dr. Fauci call for this? What is the benefit? Is this similar to when Dr. Fauci initially called for double masking, only to then retract the statement? An ‘assumption’ or ‘speculation’ or ‘supposition’ it may work is not science! Is a ‘children vaccine’ retraction coming from Dr. Fauci? Absolutely, children need vaccinations for measles, mumps, rubella etc. but not for Covid. Similar for masks, there is no benefit we can see.

To close, masking children is as absurd, illogical, nonsensical, and potentially dangerous as trying to stop ‘every case of Covid’ or ‘stopping Covid at all costs.’ Masks are not needed for children based on near zero risk in children. The risk of dying from Covid-19 is “almost zero” for young people. The issue of masks in children is really a risk management question for parents and any decision-maker. The science is settled.

https://www.aier.org/article/masking-ch ... -damaging/
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby DrEvil » Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:54 pm

conniption » Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:02 am wrote:
nomorefakenews

Dangerous nano-particles contaminating many vaccines: groundbreaking study

by Jon Rappoport
June 3, 2020


“The Lung,” Second Edition, 2014: “Nanoparticles [are] comparable in size to subcellular structures…enabling their ready incorporation into biological systems.”

A 2017 study of 44 types of 15 traditional vaccines, manufactured by leading global companies, has uncovered a very troubling and previously unreported fact:

The vaccines are heavily contaminated with a variety of nanoparticles.

Many of the particles are metals.

We’re talking about traditional vaccines, such as HPV, flu, Swine Flu, Hepatitis B, MMR, DPT, tetanus, etc.

To begin to understand some of the destructive effects of contaminating nanoparticles in vaccines, here is the groundbreaking 2017 study:

International Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination
Volume 4 Issue 1
January 23 2017
New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines:
Micro- and Nanocontamination
Antonietta M Gatti and Stefano Montanari

https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/new-qua ... ines-micro–and-nanocontamination.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20200604111 ... ines-micro–and-nanocontamination.html

“The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case. This new investigation represents a new quality control that can be adopted to assess the safety of a vaccine. Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines…”

Are the study authors leaving the door open to the possibility that the contamination is intentional?

“The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity…they induce an inflammatory reaction.”

“After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas…But they can also be carried by the blood circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination…As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect…due to a nano-bio-interaction…can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way…It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA…”

“In some cases, e.g. as occurs with Iron and some Iron alloys, they can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues…”

“Given the contaminations we observed in all samples of human-use vaccines, adverse effects after the injection of those vaccines are possible and credible and have the character of randomness, since they depend on where the contaminants are carried by the blood circulation. It is only obvious that similar quantities of these foreign bodies can have a more serious impact on very small organisms like those of children. Their presence in the muscles…could heavily impair the muscle functionality…”

“We come across particles with chemical compositions, similar to those found in the vaccines we analyzed, when we study cases of environmental contamination caused by different pollution sources. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt. In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants.”

This 2017 study opens up a whole new field: the investigation of nanoparticles in vaccines where none were expected.

Such particles are not medicine in any sense of the word.

Many legal and scientific “experts” assert the State has a right to mandate vaccines and force them on the population. But these contaminating nanoparticles are not vaccines or medicines. Only a lunatic would defend the right of the State to inject them.

Here is another section from the 2017 study. Trade names of vaccines, and compositions of the nanoparticle contaminants are indicated. Take a deep breath and buckle up:

“…further presence of micro-, sub-micro- and nanosized, inorganic, foreign bodies (ranging from 100nm to about ten microns) was identified in all cases [all 44 vaccines], whose presence was not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product…”

“…single particles, cluster of micro- and nanoparticles (less than 100nm) and aggregates…debris of Aluminum, Silicon, Magnesium and Titanium; of Iron, Chromium, Silicon and Calcium particles…arranged in a cluster, and Aluminum-Copper debris…in an aggregate.”

“…the particles are surrounded and embedded in a biological substrate. In all the samples analyzed, we identified particles containing: Lead (Typhym, Cervarix, Agrippal S1, Meningitec, Gardasil) or stainless steel (Mencevax, Infarix Hexa, Cervarix. Anatetall, Focetria, Agrippal S1, Menveo, Prevenar 13, Meningitec, Vaxigrip, Stamaril Pasteur, Repevax and MMRvaxPro).”

“…particles of Tungsten identified in drops of Prevenar and Infarix (Aluminum, Tungsten, Calcium chloride).”

“…singular debris found in Repevax (Silicon, Gold, Silver) and Gardasil (Zirconium).”

“Some metallic particles made of Tungsten or stainless steel were also identified. Other particles containing Zirconium, Hafnium, Strontium and Aluminum (Vivotif, Meningetec); Tungsten, Nickel, Iron (Priorix, Meningetec); Antimony (Menjugate kit); Chromium (Meningetec); Gold or Gold, Zinc (Infarix Hexa, Repevax), or Platinum, Silver, Bismuth, Iron, Chromium (MMRvaxPro) or Lead,Bismuth (Gardasil) or Cerium (Agrippal S1) were also found. The only Tungsten appears in 8/44 vaccines, while Chromium (alone or in alloy with Iron and Nickel) in 25/44. The investigations revealed that some particles are embedded in a biological substrate, probably proteins, endo-toxins and residues of bacteria. As soon as a particle comes in contact with proteic fluids, a nano-bio-interaction…occurs and a ‘protein corona’ is formed…The nano-bio-interaction generates a bigger-sized compound that is not biodegradable and can induce adverse effects, since it is not recognized as self by the body.”

“…examples of these nano-bio-interactions. Aggregates can be seen (stable composite entities) containing particles of Lead in Meningitec… of stainless steel (Iron, Chromium and Nickel…) and of Copper, Zinc and Lead in Cervarix…Similar aggregates, though in different situations (patients suffering from leukemia or cryoglobulinemia), have already been described in literature.”

I’m sure you’ve read official assurances that vaccine-manufacturing problems are “rare.” You can file those pronouncements along with other medical lies.

“I’d like the heavy metal sandwich on rye, please. And instead of serving it on a plate, can you inject it?”

Several vital questions demanding answers spring from the findings of this 2017 study:

Are some of these nanoparticles intentionally placed in vaccines?

Does the standard manufacturing process for traditional vaccines INEVITABLY lead to dangerous and destructive nano-contamination?

New nano-technology is already being employed to create several vaccines—supposedly “improving effectiveness.” In fact, the coming COVID-19 vaccine may be a nano-type. Does this manufacturing process carry with it the unavoidable effect of unleashing a hurricane of nanoparticle contaminants?

How many cases of childhood brain damage and autism can be laid at the door of nanoparticle contamination?

And finally, where are these contaminated vaccines manufactured? The above study did not attempt to discover this. It was outside the scope of the research. It’s common knowledge that, for example, in the case of the US, vaccines or their components, are, in many instances, not produced domestically. Where does this put control of safety? In, say, China, where there have been numerous pharmaceutical scandals connected to contamination of products?

The vaccine establishment does not show the slightest interest in answering any of these questions. They are busy pretending the questions don’t exist.

Trusting the establishment would be suicidal.
_______
Jon Rappoport
The Matrix Revealed
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/06 ... -vaccines/


- The study was published in a predatory journal with piss-poor peer review.
- The study had no control group.
- The amount of contaminants found were so small as to be irrelevant (but no mercury, thank god!).
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby conniption » Mon Sep 06, 2021 1:27 am

DrEvil wrote:- The study was published in a predatory journal with piss-poor peer review.
- The study had no control group.
- The amount of contaminants found were so small as to be irrelevant (but no mercury, thank god!).


The links to the studies didn't work for me...
You don't like Jon Rappoport?

Anyway, near the bottom of the previous page are some videos from Lanka and assorted articles (like this one: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/55667 ) on the topic of nanoparticles which are apparently toxic to the body... like mercury, but you already saw that.

~~~

Speaking of masking children...

off-guardian

This Week in the New Normal #5

Sep 5, 2021

Our successor to This Week in the Guardian, This Week in the New Normal is our weekly chart of the progress of autocracy, authoritarianism and economic restructuring around the world.

1. Mandatory vaccines for NHS workers?

The UK’s health secretary Sajid Javid is said to be considering mandatory Covid “vaccines” for all NHS employees. Such a move could be disastrous, and likely intentionally so.

The UK already has mandatory vaccinations for carehome workers, a policy which is predicted to cause 10,000s of posts to be emptied. Almost every care facility and old person’s home in the country already has a sign out front almost begging for staff.

The same policy in the NHS would see the same results…but worse. The NHS is the biggest single employer in Europe, with over 1.3 million full-time staff. A mass exodus of even 1-5% of them would mean tens of thousands of newly unemployed. Not to mention the effect on logistics and standard of care.

To enforce this policy in the autumn, just before the winter flu surge which cripples the NHS every single year, would be an intentionally destructive act. As staff leave rather than face forced injections, patient care will suffer, people will die…and the deaths will be blamed on Covid, and the unvaccinated, despite being the predictable result of bureaucratic mismanagement.

If it goes forward, this will not be incompetence, but deliberate sabotage.

2. The Two Faces of Jennifer

Jennifer Rubin is a warmonger who writes for the Washington Post, but I repeat myself. Her out put, from Syria to Ukraine to vaccines to Trump is exactly what you’d expect from the CIA’s paper of choice.

She’s also got a beautiful example of media “liberal” doublethink for us this week.
continues: https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/05/thi ... -normal-5/
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby DrEvil » Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:25 pm

conniption » Mon Sep 06, 2021 7:27 am wrote:
DrEvil wrote:- The study was published in a predatory journal with piss-poor peer review.
- The study had no control group.
- The amount of contaminants found were so small as to be irrelevant (but no mercury, thank god!).


The links to the studies didn't work for me...
You don't like Jon Rappoport?

Anyway, near the bottom of the previous page are some videos from Lanka and assorted articles (like this one: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/55667 ) on the topic of nanoparticles which are apparently toxic to the body... like mercury, but you already saw that.

~~~

.....



Nope, not a fan of Rappoport, or Lanka for that matter. I will admit I haven't watched any of the videos, but I did read up on him a while ago when someone else brought him up.

One thing I've been wondering is: if viruses don't exist, how does he explain something like measles? It has very specific symptoms, and it behaves exactly like a highly contagious virus would, so how does that happen if there isn't a virus there? Or just contact tracing for that matter? Are people passing along "bad vibes" that just happen to behave exactly like a virus would?

Here's the study btw (pdf):
https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-00072.pdf
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby conniption » Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:46 am

DrEvil wrote:One thing I've been wondering is: if viruses don't exist, how does he explain something like measles?

Here's a video (11:00 min.) where he discusses his findings with a reporter. He's getting ready to go back into court. The reporter does ask Lanka that question. iirc
DR. STEFAN LANKA (COURT CASE): 'MEASLES VIRUS WAS NEVER PROVEN TO EXIST'
Watch: https://www.bitchute.com/video/5GINdlpUSW8E/

There is much information in the description below this video at the link. ^
~~~

Back to topic...
https://www.aier.org/article/attacks-on-dissenting-voices-set-back-scientific-progress/
Attacks on Dissenting Voices Set Back Scientific Progress
Barry Brownstein
– November 4, 2020

Image

Oxford professor Sunetra Gupta, one of the principal signers of the Great Barrington Declaration, is a renaissance woman. Besides being a leading epidemiologist, she is an acclaimed novelist and translator of the poetry of Rabindranath Tagore.

Like all good literature, her novels in English and Bengali provide insights into the human condition. Yet, the vicious reaction to her role in creating the Declaration stunned Gupta. Of course, she writes, “I expected debate and disagreement about our ideas… But I was utterly unprepared for the onslaught of insults, personal criticism, intimidation and threats that met our proposal.”

Gupta explains her politics are left wing. She is motivated to mitigate “enormous damage” especially to the “working class and younger members of society.” For daring to question the Covid-19 medical orthodoxy, she has received “vitriol and hostility, not just from members of the public online but from journalists and academics.”

Insults, such as “fringe” and “dangerous,” stated as conclusions, are used to stifle debate. Gupta counters,

“But ‘fringe’ is a ridiculous word, implying that only mainstream science matters. If that were the case, science would stagnate. And dismissing us as ‘dangerous’ is equally unhelpful, not least because it is an inflammatory, emotional term charged with implications of irresponsibility. When it is hurled around by people with influence, it becomes toxic.”


Gupta cautions, “To shut down the discussion with abuse and smears — that is truly dangerous.” ...

>snip<

Concludes:

In his book Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Karl Popper wrote, “The history of science, like the history of all human ideas, is a history of irresponsible dreams, of obstinacy, and of error.” Popper continued, “But science is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected.” Scientific progress, Popper explained, depends on learning from mistakes. Learning depends on open inquiry. Thoughtful, informed people know that something is terribly wrong with the Covid-19 orthodoxy. Others have “nagging suspicions.” If dissenting voices continue to be attacked by those in positions of power, there is little doubt that decades from now historians will ask, How could they have been so blind?

https://www.aier.org/article/attacks-on ... -progress/
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby conniption » Sat Sep 11, 2021 10:24 am

Back to Peter Breggin - who had Peter A. McCullough MD, MPH on his radio show last Wed. Sept. 8.
Link to radio show: https://drpeterbregginshow.podbean.com/ ... 93-090821/

Peter McCullough has been making the rounds and seems to be a major spokesperson for the various groups of renegade doctors speaking out against Covid narratives, protocols, vaccines and such because he is... idk, so qualified and can speak with authority on the matter?
Anyway, near the end of the show, Dr. McCullough lists their recommended treatment for Covid (starting around 40+ min.) and recites a long list of drugs/vitamins, supplements and dosages, of which I know very little about, and then at about 47 min. he says, for patients over 50 he recommends a full dose of aspirin (325 mg.) per day for 3 weeks following the illness.

What that bit of information said to me was that both sides of the dispute on how to treat Covid are dangerous to our health.

I have a Home Study Course (51 lessons) in Vita-Therapy by Dr. Edward L Swick, S.T.-S.P. from 1939 and was reading through the chapter on colds and influenza where he talked about the disastrous results of the use of aspirin during the 1918 pandemic. Unable to find Dr. Swick's work online I'll leave you with an alternative selection which confirms much of what he was stating. For the more natural modes of health and wellness, aspirin would never be considered as a remedy.

And this is something I just don't understand...How can they mandate a treatment when there are so many different ways of looking at life and living and wellness and such? The news is so focused on anti-vaxers, and they show these big burly biker looking dudes busting through barricades at various protests claiming those are the anti-vaxers...because they are a violent group, evidently...and they must be put down like all the other Q-Anon scum infesting our post-Trumpian era of peace and understanding. I happened to be listening to C-span, Washington Journal the other morning and it's a call-in show where the topic was the vaccine mandate Biden had announced, and you should have heard all the angry and enraged people accusing this group for their miserable lockdowns and such. It's frightening. It really is. The signal to noise ratio these days makes getting to the truth of the matter practically impregnable.


Killer Flu or Killer Aspirin?
Posted October 1, 2019
Tedd Koren, D.C.


1918 flu: again?

At various times people are scared into getting a flu shot. Why? Because the 1918 flu, often called the 1918 “Spanish flu,” could come back. Remember, that wasn’t just an epidemic, it was a worldwide pandemic: millions died! We are warned that it could happen again and a flu shot will protect you and your loved ones. People are told, “If you don’t vaccinate you could get very sick and die,” and these scare tactics work.

For example. these tactics scared millions of people into getting a flu shot when the H1N1 flu was coming because (so they were told) it looked like the 1918 flu virus.

But, why was the 1918 flu such a killer? Why was the death rate (mortality) so high? The answer can be given in one word: philosophy.

1918 flu: philosophy

Regular MDs follow the philosophy of healing known as mechanism. Mechanistic healers, for example, believe that symptoms are bad and must be suppressed, usually with drugs.

There is, however, an alternative philosophy of healing known as vitalism. In 1918 practitioners of vitalistic healing arts were osteopaths, chiropractors and homeopathic MDs. Vitalistic healers, for example, believe that symptoms are what the body uses to heal and therefore serve a necessary purpose and are to be respected – and generally are not to be suppressed.

An old/new battle

This dichotomy in healthcare is nothing new. For over 2,500 years these two competing philosophies of health have been battling over the hearts, minds and pocketbooks of the public and the powers-that-be.

As mentioned earlier, mechanists reduce or eliminate (suppress) symptoms. However, when suppressing symptoms with drugs there is a down-side. The fever, inflammation, rash, aches, pains and other uncomfortable symptoms may appear to go away but they do not disappear. They are instead driven deeper into the body, into more critical organs.

Additionally, the cause(s) of the symptoms, such as body malfunction, toxicity and stress remains. It has long been observed that when symptoms are suppressed, the disease goes deeper. As a result, internal organs, as opposed to superficial organs, are affected.

What does this have to do with the Spanish Flu pandemic?

The so-called Spanish Flu of 1918-1919 was little different from other flu epidemics that came and went year after year without much mortality. So why was Spanish Flu such a killer? The answer can be given in one word: aspirin.

Aspirin & Spanish flu

Aspirin was a relatively new drug in 1918. MDs did not fully understand how to use it safely and its potential dangers. When the flu hit, patients’ families demanded their medical doctor “do something.” In response, he reached for the latest wonder drug that lowered fever and reduced aches and pains.

But the MD overreached. Aspirin was a new drug and its effects were not known. Aspirin can be poisonous. Remember why “childproof” aspirin bottles were designed? It was because kids would swallow the little white tablets, thinking they were candy. Aspirin became the leading cause of child deaths from poisoning.

Years later it became a cliché that MDs told patients, “Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.” But in 1918 MDs told patients to take aspirin by the handsful. In addition to aspirin poisoning, the patient’s body couldn’t generate a fever. Why is that so important?

The benefits of fever

Fever is a powerful health-restoring mechanism; its many benefits include:

Stimulating the white blood cells and other “fighter” cells to fight and destroy viri and cancer cells.
Promoting detoxification.
Reducing the growth of or killing pathogens.
Increasing the production of interferon, a chemical that inhibits viral reproduction.

continues.... https://korenwellness.com/blog/1918-flu ... r-aspirin/


~~~

Image
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/534531-biden-m ... civil-war/
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby stickdog99 » Mon Sep 20, 2021 5:45 pm

51/49 with James Li - Commentary on business, politics, and the other things (from an independent perspective)



What Happens When Everything is for Sale?

Has America become a real life Nascar race suit, owned entirely by corporations?

This week on 51/49, James discusses the implications for a society where everything, the government, institutions, academia, media, is for sale.

0:00 Introduction
0:24 JUUL Buys Out Entire Issue of Scientific Journal
2:45 The History of FDA Funding
4:34 America For Sale
6:32 Conclusion
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6303
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby stickdog99 » Mon Sep 20, 2021 5:46 pm

Russell Brand's take on the same issue.



The FDA is funded by the same Big Pharma & Corporations it regulates. What are the issues of the potential conflict of interests within this current system?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6303
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Limits of Science

Postby conniption » Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:22 pm

Latest Lanka interview:

MEASLES TRIAL, CONTROL EXPERIMENTS AND THE FINAL EXPOSURE OF CORONA"VIRUS" FARCE - Stefan Lanka

Odysee video >>> https://odysee.com/@FwapUK:1/lanka:0
(58:29 min.)
The Worldwide Psychological Operation
September 22nd, 2021
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests