Allah clearly warns in Quran to not call any associates against Him, do not hijack His divine attributes, and associate those attributes with Gods and Godesses, the ancient pagan mystery religions were doing the same, their temples were not only reserved for the worship of false deities and Gods, rather they were political head quarters to carry out and practice tyranny and authoritarianism in it’s most crude framework and schema.
From the point of view of proletariat he was worshiping tyrants in disguise due to the fact of his wilful ignorance of commonsense and giving up his freedom in the process inch by inch to the point accepting tyranny willingly. Just like calling clear poison as healing water at face value!
From the point of view of the tyrants (Gods/Godesses) they were allowed to do so because to them God intended it and they must complete the Incomplete task that God left to them, how blasphemous and blatant lie to place on Allah!
The old religion order never disappeared it still is in practice to this day only that it changed it’s wrapper one can’t state that its not there you have to be conscious and have to break free from the system, matrix and magic carved by these Magi.
Else stay like an ignorant foolish farmer, who doesn’t cares who’s grazing his pastures. Do not make yourself count among the arrogant disbelievers ! THE PUNISHMENT IN HEREAFTER IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION. Your support and willful ignorance make them arrogant!
Along with our allies we have spent the last four years dismantling every aspect of the virus model whether it concerns “isolation”, antibodies, genomics, PCR, proteomics, electron microscopy, or animal and human studies. In 2022, I published A Farewell to Virology, to date one of the only treatises that outlines a formal refutation of the entire virus model. This was inspired by The Perth Group’s 2017 epic HIV – a virus like no other, the most comprehensive document refuting the existence of ‘HIV’ specifically.
In my recent webinars with Dr Tom Cowan we have been discussing the scientific method, along with the concepts of independent variables and controlled experiments. Clearly the virologists have resorted to anti-scientific practices to make their various claims including the foundational claim of virus existence.
It motivated me to write an essay specifically addressing the apical logical fallacy in the cell culture technique – something that has been noticed previously but perhaps not formally expressed. The virologists have claimed they perform control experiments and sometimes describe these as ‘mock-infected’ cultures. In recent months we have also been contacted by people in the ‘no virus’ community asking whether John Enders inadvertently performed a control experiment in his 1954 measles paper. Dr Stefan Lanka exposed the lack of a control experiment in this paper in the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court in 2016 and I make some further comments expanding on this in note 20.
The pivotal issue is that the virologists do not have an independent variable and their experiments cannot make a hypothetical particle real. The ‘gold standard’ technique for “isolation” cannot possibly determine the presence (or existence) of viruses no matter how they attempt to control it. The paradigm that was created in the 1940s to keep virology alive was dead on arrival because the technique relies on a reification fallacy and logical errors that disqualify the entire process from being scientific.
We have had some feedback that although fairly brief, this paper is difficult to follow in some parts. (It helps to read all the endnotes.) If you have not already seen it, I would recommend watching Kate Sugak’s excellent presentation at the XXII Russian Scientific Conference: “The scientific vacuum: The scientific method and its absence in virology“. Kate covers the crucial scientific considerations articulated in my paper in an easy to follow format and shows that the virologists have nowhere left to hide.
This article was originally published in the Winter 2023 issue of Wise Traditions.
Over the past few years, there have been a lot of requests for us to say something about Lyme disease, so I decided it was time to dedicate an article (and a video) to the topic. In this case, the alleged bacterial pathogen is introduced into the body by a tick, and the claim that ticks cause this disease through bites is considered under the germ theory umbrella. But what does the scientific evidence actually reveal? Have the bacteria been shown to cause sickness, and is Lyme disease even a legitimate entity?
The truth is more shocking than many would imagine. It is also a timely topic, as a new fear campaign has been launched in the form of the alleged deadly Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever poised to come to the United Kingdom, also said to be spread by ticks. Additionally, a tick “bioweapon” gaslighting campaign supposedly implicating the Pentagon was also playing on corporate media platforms in July 2019.
As my husband, Dr. Mark Bailey, summarizes:
“The introduction of the term ‘Lyme disease’ in the 1970s was a win for establishment medicine but a grave loss for the public. A label was attached to a nonspecific range of symptoms and signs and the bug hunters then falsely accused Borrelia, a bystander bacterial species. If a doctor says you have Lyme disease, they do not know what they are talking about— get out of there before they run non-diagnostic tests or worse, try to ‘treat’ you.”
United States versus New Zealand paradox
Part of the reason we have taken this long to publish something about Lyme disease is that it is said not to exist in our home country of New Zealand. In fact, the Ministry of Health states: “Ticks have the potential to pose public health and biosecurity risks because they can carry and transmit human and animal diseases. However, the Ministry is not aware of any cases of people catching a disease from a tick bite in New Zealand. The main diseases of concern in some other countries are not currently present in New Zealand.” This is an interesting situation, because if we have ticks and humans coming and going, then on these officials’ own terms, why would we not have Lyme disease?
They give an explanation that states, “The ticks present in New Zealand have shown the ability to transmit pathogens, such as bacteria and viruses. Fortunately, the pathogens are rare in New Zealand and damage is mainly isolated to economic loss caused by heavy infestations.” This is all rather wishy-washy. They are claiming that there are ticks that can transmit pathogens and that the pathogens are present, albeit rare, yet there is no Lyme disease. As expected, the New Zealand Ministry, which is notorious for churning out health disinformation, provides no scientific references on its webpage, and the article has been authored anonymously.
Over to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Lyme disease page, which claims: “Lyme disease is the most common vector-borne disease in the United States. Lyme disease is caused by the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi and rarely, Borrelia mayonii. It is transmitted to humans through the bite of infected blacklegged ticks.” There are no citations provided, simply a note at the end of the page that cites the “content source” as the CDC’s “National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases,” but that link doesn’t provide specific citations either.
What about erythema migrans, the famous rash said to be specific to Lyme disease? Once again, this is not a specific type of rash, and the CDC even has a page called “The Many Forms of Lyme Disease Rashes.” This page suggests that the rash can be faint, could be crusted and can appear in different shapes and colors, whereas other indistinguishable rashes can be dismissed as not erythema migrans because they are classified as “allergic reactions” to insults such as insect bites and drugs. At this point, we are likely to get some practitioners protesting that they know Lyme disease when they see it. But what exactly are they referring to? They would have to be making up their own diagnostic criteria as well.
“Lyme disease was first recognized in 1976 when a cluster of cases of juvenile arthritis was recognized in Old Lyme, CT. Many of these patients also reported cutaneous skin lesions that were similar to those reported in Europe that were previously associated with tick bites. There was a strong suspicion that an infectious agent was the underlying cause of both cases in Old Lyme, CT and in Europe, but it was not until 1982 that a spirochete found in Ixodes ticks was suggested to be the cause (Burgdorfer et al., 1982). The role of this bacterium, named Borrelia burgdorferi, as the causative agent of Lyme disease was quickly established as the bacterium was recovered from patients as well as from reservoir hosts, such as the white-footed mouse.”
The single listed citation by Burgdorfer et al. is the 1982 paper with the title “Lyme Disease—A Tick-Borne Spirochetosis?” (Note the question mark at the end of the title.) The paper describes how the researchers collected one hundred twenty-six ticks from Shelter Island, New York in 1981 and found that 61 percent of them had spirochetes (a type of bacterium) in their gut. On this basis, the authors unwarrantedly concluded, “The degree of infection varied; some ticks contained only a few spirochetes, others contained large numbers.”
Finding bacteria in a gut system is not evidence of an infection. We have trillions of microbes in our gut and, like all animals, the microbes are required for our life processes. In any case, it is nonsense to claim that microbes found in tick guts are the smoking gun for the cause of Lyme disease. To make the case for bitten transmission even weaker, the paper’s authors admitted, “No other tissues, including the salivary glands, contained spirochetes.”
In the same paper, Burgdorfer and his coauthors proceeded to describe a study where they allowed about three hundred ticks to feed on eight New Zealand White rabbits. This was an uncontrolled experiment—simply an observational study—rather than an experimental one capable of testing their hypothesis with an independent variable. If they were suggesting that Borrelia caused Lyme disease, then some of the rabbits should have been bitten by ticks “infected” with the bacteria and other rabbits bitten by ticks not carrying the bacteria. Unsurprisingly, the biting onslaught by almost forty ticks per rabbit, attached to their shaved abdomens in metal capsules, caused some of them to develop rashes. However, despite testing the rabbits’ blood daily and taking skin biopsies, they found Borrelia bacteria in exactly zero. The reality was that they failed to demonstrate transmission, let alone any ability of the bacteria to cause disease.
“Antibodies” and more pseudoscience
We can pause at this moment to emphasize the fact that there is precisely no evidence that Borrelia species cause Lyme disease, and yet this 1982 paper is supposed to be one of the studies—if not the foundational paper—for the case. It is an example of the germ theorists’ desperation to make nature fit their model when the science does not back it up; in fact, we can see that they refuted themselves. So, how on earth is this foundational paper accepted as “evidence” to this day?
Due to the patent failure of their experiments, the researchers resorted to an antibody study. The antibodies were created by using an assay that reacted to an antigen contained in a tick specimen mixture. They reported that the antibody was present in all rabbits that had been exposed to ticks, although keep in mind, they are talking about a titer or concentration here—the protein could have been present in the rabbits not exposed to ticks as well, but they set the cut-off for a “positive” at a one in twenty dilution. Then they tested blood from nine patients clinically “diagnosed” with Lyme disease—which leads us straight back to the problem of, what does this even mean? In any case, they reported that the antibody was found in higher levels in these people than in people not diagnosed with Lyme disease.
It is beyond the scope of this article to dive into the deeper problems with antibodies, such as their specificity and the relevance of their detection in a complex organism. You can watch my video series, “The Yin & Yang of HIV” or read Virus Mania to learn about the scandalous claims that the medical establishment has made with regard to these dubious laboratory assays. Suffice to say, they do not constitute evidence for a pathogen, and all we can say is that the apparent presence of proteins termed “antibodies” in higher amounts may be an indication of tissue inflammation and damage (or healing attempts).
It has been an ongoing offense committed by the germ theorists to claim antibodies relate to “pathogen” exposure or “immunity.” They resort to this trick because they cannot fulfill Koch’s postulates or provide the required foundational evidence through the scientific method. To be fair, the authors of the 1982 paper did use the word “may” when stating that their “observations suggest that the treponema-like organism. . . may be involved in the etiology of Lyme disease.” But this is the paper that the seven hundred fifty-page tome on Lyme disease provides as the evidence that Borrelia bacteria cause Lyme disease—and almost everyone in the medical industry parrots the fraudulent claim.
Koch’s Postulates fail
In Lyme Disease and Relapsing Fever Spirochetes, Chapter 24 (“Lyme Disease in Humans”) ventures to state, “Lyme disease is the prototype of an emerging infectious disease”—apparently “emerging” out of the germ theorists’ minds only, not out of nature. The authors claim, “The isolation of its etiologic agent, Borrelia burgdorferi, from humans in 1983, capped an intensive hunt for a pathogen that just a short time before had been cultured from a black legged (deer) tick.” Here, they cite another pivotal paper with the title, “Spirochetes isolated from the blood of two patients with Lyme disease,” published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1983. The headline sounds impressive until you read that they “isolated spirochetes from the blood of 2 of 36 patients in Long Island and Westchester County, New York, who had signs and symptoms suggestive of Lyme disease.” Two out of thirty-six patients “thought to have Lyme disease” means that thirty-four out of thirtysix did not have any detectable bacteria! The logical gymnastics in the paper are incredible; they even suggested that this result “provides the most direct evidence to date of their [spirochetes’] etiologic role in this disease.”
And how did they reconcile their abysmal statistical findings with germ theory? By claiming, without any evidence whatsoever, that “Because of the low frequency of isolations (2 of 36 patients), the spirochetemia is probably transient and of low density in this condition.” Here, they are one step away from the virologists who claim that despite the microbes wreaking havoc in the body, the microbes can’t be found anywhere. The icing on the cake comes when the authors of the 1983 paper bizarrely assert that their paper means that “three of the four Koch’s postulates for establishing the role of the spirochete as the causative agent of Lyme disease have been largely satisfied.” Utter nonsense—not one of Koch’s postulates was satisfied, as analysis of these foundational papers reveals.
Moving on from allopathic medicine
The last aspect to address is the mainstream claim that antibiotics are useful for treating the disease. If this were true, it cannot be due to any antimicrobial action because, as we have just seen, there is no evidence that any of this is caused by bacteria. However, even mainstream practitioners admit that they don’t have sound evidence that antibiotics are effective. If we consult the article titled “Diagnosis and Management of Lyme Disease” in American Family Physician, it states that “doxycycline is effective for the treatment of early Lyme disease” but then lists the evidence rating as a lowly “C,” which equates to “consensus, disease-oriented evidence, usual practice, expert opinion, or case series”—in other words, not established through the scientific method.
Having worked in the system for two decades, I know that doctors hope that one of their prescription medicines will be the magic bullet. Unfortunately, this hope stems from the chronically ingrained and misplaced belief in germ theory and pharmaceuticals. There are other factors as well; a recent video about “medical self-delusion” by Roman Bystrianyk, the co-author ofDissolving Illusions, summarizes the phenomenon.
We have a conundrum here because the term “Lyme disease” is so well known, it seems to most people that it must be real. However, the term should be relegated to the archives of pseudoscience. And, as “terrain” proponents, we should be careful about being drawn into discussions along the lines of, “What causes Lyme disease, if not bacterial infection through tick bites?” It is not something that can be diagnosed because the signs and symptoms are non-specific, the microbiology is non-specific and the so-called “tests” (blood antibodies) are non-specific. I have heard Dr. Tom Cowan say that labelling a patient with “Lyme disease” is completely unhelpful, and I would wholeheartedly agree, as that is what the scientific literature reveals. Symptoms and signs may be real, but the fictional concoction known as “Lyme disease” is an allopathic germ theory cover story. We need to reject the label and attend to each individual’s situation. Focusing on whether they may have been bitten by a tick in the past few months is probably not going to provide the answer to restoring health.
Every case will be different, and the various symptoms and signs are manifestations of the body’s attempts to heal itself. The answers are found in addressing factors such as environmental toxins and dietary errors. And, it should be pointed out, we do not have pharmaceutical deficiencies, so that will not be the answer either.
Some time ago, I moved away from the medical model involving alleged specific disease entities with the realization that the body simply has various conditions. The condition of the body should be perfect, and this can be achieved through ignoring fear narratives and focusing on right living and right thinking. These principles are covered in detail in the book Terrain Therapy, as well as in my weekly content and through the Weston A. Price Foundation
Once again Dr. Sam blew it! Amazing lady there, God Bless the Baileys! Cheers!
This article was originally published on The Secular Heretic on February 16, 2022.
Why is it considered “settled science” among epidemiologists, virologists and the general public that certain diseases like Influenza and COVID-19 are transmitted through human contact, when in fact it has never been proven that diseases spread this way? For more than a century Germ Theory has had the dominance and authority of religious orthodoxy, yet a far more plausible explanation for how and why we get “infected” with certain illnesses is Terrain Theory, which illustrates that a multitude of environmental and genetic components combine to determine the incidence of disease in a population or individual. In the following essay, Torsten Engelbrecht, Dr. Claus Köhnlein, MD and Dr. Samantha Bailey, MD draw on material gathered in their extraordinary book Virus Mania to reveal the explanatory power of terrain theory.
For about 120 years in particular, people have been very susceptible to the idea that certain microbes act like predators, stalking our communities for victims and causing the most serious illnesses named COVID-19, AIDS, hepatitis C, avian flu etc. But such an idea is thoroughly simple, too simple. Unfortunately, as psychology and social science have discovered, humans have a propensity for simplistic solutions, particularly in a world that seems to be growing increasingly complicated. But medical and biological realities, like social ones, are just not that simple. Renowned immunology and biology professor Edward Golub’s rule of thumb is that, “if you can fit the solution to a complex problem on a bumper sticker, it is wrong! I tried to condense my book The Limits of Medicine: How Science Shapes Our Hope for the Cure to fit onto a bumper sticker and couldn’t.” [1]
By focusing on microbes and accusing them of being the primary and lone triggers of disease, we overlook how various factors causing illness are linked together, such as environmental toxins, the side effects of medications, psychological issues like depression and anxiety, and poor nutrition. If over a longer period of time, for instance, you eat far too little fresh fruits and vegetables, and instead consume far too much fast food, sweets, coffee, soft drinks, or alcohol (and along with them, all sorts of toxins such as pesticides or preservatives), and maybe smoke a lot or even take drugs like cocaine or heroin, your health will eventually be ruined. Drug-addicted and malnourished junkies aren’t the only members of society who make this point clear to us.
For billions of years, nature has functioned as a whole with unsurpassed precision. Microbes, just like humans, are a part of this cosmological and ecological system. If humanity wants to live in harmony with technology and nature, we must be committed to understanding the supporting evolutionary principles ever better and to applying them properly to our own lives. Whenever we don’t do this, we create ostensibly insolvable environmental and health-related problems.
“The doctor should never forget to interpret the patient as a whole being.”
Dr. Rudolf Virchow
These are thoughts which Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902), a well-known doctor from Berlin, had when he required in 1875 that “the doctor should never forget to interpret the patient as a whole being.”[2] The doctor will hardly understand the patient, then, if he or she does not see that person in the context of a larger environment. Without the appearance of bacteria, human life would be inconceivable, as bacteria were right at the beginning of the development towards human life.
Bacteria could very well exist without humans; humans, however, could not live without bacteria! It is, therefore, unreasonable to conclude that these mini-creatures, whose life-purpose and task throughout biological history has been to build up life, are, in fact, the greatest, singular causes of disease and death. Yet, the prevailing allopathic medical dogma of one disease, one cause, one miracle pill has dominated our thinking since the late 19th century, when Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch became heroes.
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) is considered the “father of germ theory.” He believed the healthy human body was sterile and got sick only when invaded by tiny bacteria too small for any microscope in his time to see. Robert Koch (1843-1910), one of the founders of modern bacteriology, expanded on Pasteur’s germ theory and developed his Koch’s Postulates, long considered the gold standard for linking specific microorganisms to specific diseases.
Prior to that, we had a very different mindset, and even today, there are still traces everywhere of this different consciousness. “Since the time of the ancient Greeks, people did not ‘catch’ a disease, they slipped into it. To catch something meant that there was something to catch, and until the germ theory of disease became accepted, there was nothing to catch,” writes Edward Golub in his work. Hippocrates, who is said to have lived around 400 B.C., and Galen (one of the most significant physicians of his day; born in 130 A.D.), represented the view that an individual was, for the most part, in the driver’s seat in terms of maintaining health with appropriate behavior and lifestyle choices. “Most disease [according to ancient philosophy] was due to deviation from a good life,” says Golub. “[And when diseases occur] they could most often be set aright by changes in diet—[which] shows dramatically how 1,500 years after Hippocrates and 950 years after Galen, the concepts of health and disease, and the medicines of Europe, had not changed”[3] far into the 19th century. The German Max von Pettenkofer (1818-1901), once appointed rector of the University of Munich, jeered: “Bacteriologists are people who don’t look further than their steam boilers, incubators and microscopes.”[4]
Just a few hours after birth, all of a newborn baby’s mucous membrane has already been colonized by bacteria, which perform important protective functions. Without these colonies of billions of germs, the infant, just like the adult, could not survive. What’s more, only a small part of our body’s bacteria have been discovered.[5] “The majority of cells in the human body are anything but human: foreign bacteria have long had the upper hand,” reported a research team from Imperial College in London under the leadership of Jeremy Nicholson in the journal Nature Biotechnology in 2004.[6] In the human digestive tract alone, researchers came upon around 100 trillion microorganisms, which together have a weight of up to one kilogram. “This means that the 1,000-plus known species of symbionts probably contain more than 100 times as many genes as exist in the host,” as Nicholson states. It makes you wonder how much of the human body is “human” and how much is “foreign.”
Nicholson calls us “human super-organisms”—as our own ecosystems are ruled by microorganisms. “It is widely accepted,” writes the Professor of Biochemistry, “that most major disease classes have significant environmental and genetic components and that the incidence of disease in a population or individual is a complex product of the conditional probabilities of certain gene components interacting with a diverse range of environmental triggers.”[7] Above all, nutrition has a significant influence on many diseases, in that it modulates complex communication between the 100 trillion microorganisms in the intestines!
“Alone the production of a large part of the food that lands on our plates is dependent on bacterial activity.”
Dr. René Dubos
How easily this bacterial balance can be decisively influenced can be seen with babies: If they are nursed with mother’s milk, their intestinal flora almost exclusively contains a certain bacterium (Lactobacillus bifidus), which is very different from the bacterium most prevalent when they are fed a diet including cow’s milk. “The bacterium lactobacillus bifidus lends the breast-fed child a much stronger resistance to intestinal infections,” writes microbiologist René Dubos. This is just one of countless examples of the positive interaction between bacteria and humans. “But unfortunately, the knowledge that microorganisms can also do a lot of good for humans never enjoyed much popularity.” As Dubos points out:
Humanity has made it a rule to take better care of the dangers that threaten life than to take interest in the biological powers upon which human existence is so decisively dependent. The history of war has always fascinated people more than descriptions of peaceful coexistence. And so it comes that no one has ever created a successful story out of the useful role that bacteria play in stomach and intestines. Alone the production of a large part of the food that lands on our plates is dependent on bacterial activity.[8]
The term mysophobia (fear of germs) was first coined by William A. Hammond in 1879 to describe a case of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in a person repeatedly washing one’s hands. Irrational fear of germs has been aggressively exploited by Big Pharma, allowing bells on the industry’s cash registers to ring in perpetuity. Image credit: Merlijn Hoek
In this context, it should not be forgotten that a gigantic industry has been built up around the fear of microbes, earning multi-billion dollar profits from the sale of drugs and vaccines, whereas no one earns nearly as much money from advising folk to eat healthier, exercise more, breathe more fresh and clean air, or do more for one’s emotional well-being.
One may ask, But haven’t antibiotics helped or saved the lives of many people? Without a doubt. But, we must note that it was only as recently as 12 February 1941, that the first patient was treated with an antibiotic, specifically penicillin. Therefore, antibiotics have nothing to do with the increase in life expectancy, which really took hold in the middle of the 19th century (in industrialized countries), almost a century before the development of antibiotics; and plenty of substances—including innumerable bacteria essential to life—are destroyed through the administration of antibiotics, which directly translated from the Greek, means, “against life.” Further, nowadays millions of antibiotics are unnecessarily administered, and in fact antibiotics are held responsible for nearly one fifth of the more than 100,000 annual deaths that are traced back to medication side effects in the United States alone.
Indeed, the ledger for vaccinations of any kind reads poorly because there is no solid, placebo-controlled study demonstrating that vaccination—usually an intervention on a healthy body—is better than doing nothing. Meanwhile, there are placebo-controlled studies showing that vaccination is worse than doing nothing—as well as dozens of studies showing that the unvaccinated are better off than the vaccinated.[9]
Furthermore, “It is well known that deaths from common infectious diseases declined dramatically before the advent of most vaccines due to improved environmental conditions—even diseases for which there were no vaccines,” as Anthony R. Mawson, professor of epidemiology and biostatistics, pointed out in 2018.[10] This is exemplified by measles. The measles vaccination was introduced in West Germany in the mid-1970s (see the syringe in the graphic below), at a time when the “measles scare” was essentially over.
Measles vaccination was introduced in West Germany in the mid-1970s (where the syringe is shown in the graphic), at a time when the “measles scare” was essentially over. The arrow (early 1990s) indicates the combined data from reunited Germany. Source: Buchwald, Gerhard, Impfen: Das Geschäft mit der Angst (in English: Vaccination: a Business Based on Fear), Knaur, 1997, p. 133.
If we ask bacteriologists which comes first: the terrain or the bacteria, the answer is always that it is the environment (the terrain) that allows the microbes to thrive. The germs, then, do not directly produce the disease. So, it is evident that the crisis produced by the body causes the bacteria to multiply by creating the proper conditions for actually harmless bacteria to become poisonous, pus-producing microorganisms. This explains why the dominant medical thought pattern can’t comprehend that so many different microorganisms can co-exist in our bodies (among them such “highly dangerous” ones as the tuberculosis bacillus, the Streptococcus or the Staphylococcus bacterium) without bringing about any recognizable damage. They only become harmful when they have enough of the right kind of food. Depending on the type of bacterium, this food could be toxins, metabolic end products, improperly digested food and much more.
Pasteur finally became aware of all of this, quoting Bernard’s dictum —“the microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything”—on his deathbed. But Paul Ehrlich (1854-1915), known as the father of chemotherapy, adhered to the interpretation that Robert Koch preached: i.e. that microbes were the actual causes of disease. For this reason, Ehrlich, who his competitors called “Dr. Fantasy,“ dreamed of “chemically aiming” at bacteria, and decisively contributed to helping the “magic bullets” doctrine become accepted, by treating very specific illnesses successfully with very specific chemo-pharmaceutical preparations. This doctrine was a gold rush for the rising pharmaceutical industry with their wonder-pill production. “But the promise of the magic bullet has never been fulfilled,” writes Allan Brandt, a medical historian at Harvard Medical School.[11]
Viruses measure only 20-450 nanometers (billionths of a meter) . . . so tiny, that one can only see them under an electron microscope.
This distorted understanding of bacteria and fungi and their functions in abnormal processes shaped attitudes toward viruses. At the end of the 19th century, as microbe theory rose to become the definitive medical teaching, no one could actually detect viruses, which measure only 20-450 nanometers (billionths of a meter) across and are thus very much smaller than bacteria or fungi—so tiny, that one can only see them under an electron microscope. And the first electron microscope was not built until 1931. Bacteria and fungi, in contrast, can be observed through a simple light microscope.
“Pasteurians” were already using the expression “virus” in the 19th century, but this is ascribed to the Latin term “virus” (which just means poison) to describe organic structures that could not be classified as bacteria. It was a perfect fit with the concept of the enemy: if no bacteria can be found, then some other single cause must be responsible for the disease. Readers may wonder how it can be continually claimed that this or that virus exists and has potential to trigger diseases through contagion. An important aspect in this context is that some time ago, mainstream virus-science left the road of direct observation of nature, and decided instead to go with so-called indirect “proof” with procedures such as antibody and PCR tests, despite the fact that these methods lead to results which have little to no meaning.
According to Dr. Samantha Bailey in her video “The Truth About PCR Tests,” the PCR-test is not a legitimate clinical diagnostic tool and thus unable to actually determine if you’ve been infected with a virus. In fact, the inventor of the test, Dr. Kary Mullis, has warned that the PCR-test “doesn’t tell you that you are sick. These tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all.
A virus with indeterminate characteristics cannot be proven by PCR any more than it can be determined by a little antibody test. And even if scientists assume that the genetic sequences discovered in the laboratory belong to the viruses mentioned, this is a long way from proving that the viruses are the causes of the diseases in question, particularly when the patients or animals that have been tested are not even sick, which often enough is the case.
Another important question must be raised: even when a supposed virus does kill cells in the test-tube (in vitro), or results in embryos in a chicken egg culture dying, we cannot safely conclude that these findings can be carried over to a complete living organism (in vivo)! For example, the particles termed viruses stem from cell cultures (in vitro) whose particles could be genetically degenerate because they have been bombarded with chemical additives like growth factors or strongly oxidizing substances. These effects were demonstrated with antibiotic use in a 2017 study.[12]
In 1995, the German news magazine Der Spiegel delved into this problem (something that is worth noting, when one considers that this news magazine usually runs only orthodox virus coverage), quoting researcher Martin Markowitz from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York:
The scientist [Markovitz] mauls his virus-infected cell cultures with these poisons in all conceivable combinations to test which of them kill the virus off most effectively. “Of course, we don’t know how far these cross-checks in a test-tube will bring us,” says Markowitz. “What ultimately counts is the patient.” His clinical experience has taught him the difference between test-tube and sick bed.[13]
“Unfortunately, the decade is characterized by climbing death rates, caused by lung cancer, heart disease, traffic accidents and the indirect consequences of alcoholism and drug addiction,” wrote Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine, in his 1971 book Genes, Dreams, and Realities. “The real challenge of the present day is to find remedies for these diseases of civilization. But nothing that comes out of the labs seems to be significant in this context; laboratory research’s contribution has practically come to an end. For someone who is well on the way to a career as a lab researcher in infectious disease and immunology, these are not comforting words.”[14]
To biomedical scientists and the readers of their papers, Burnet continued, it may be exciting to hold forth on “the detail of a chemical structure from a phage’s [viruses from simple organisms; see below] RNA, or the production of antibody tests, which are typical of today’s biological research. But modern fundamental research in medicine hardly has a direct significance to the prevention of disease or the improvement of medical precautions.”[15]
Medical teaching is entrenched in Pasteur and Koch’s reality-distorting focus on one enemy, and has neglected also to pursue the thought that the body’s cells could produce a virus on its own accord, for instance as a reaction to stress factors. The experts discovered this a long time ago, and speak of “endogenous viruses”—particles that form inside the body’s cells themselves.
In this context, the research work of geneticist Barbara McClintock is a milestone. In her Nobel Prize paper from 1983, she reports that the genetic material of living beings can constantly alter, by being hit by “shocks.”[16] These shocks can be toxins, but can also be from other materials that produced stress in the test-tube. This in turn can lead to the formation of new genetic sequences, which were unverifiable (in vivo and in vitro) before.
Torsten Engelbrecht works as an investigative journalist in Hamburg and is an author of the heretical and still unchallenged book Virus Mania (co-authored by Dr. Claus Köhnlein, MD, Dr. Samantha Bailey, MD, and Dr. Stefano Scoglio, BSc). In 2009, he received the Alternative Media Award for his article “The Amalgam Controversy.” He was trained at the renowned magazine for professional journalists Message and was a full-time editor at the Financial Times Deutschland, among others. As a freelance journalist, he has written articles for publications such as OffGuardian, The Ecologist, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, Rubikon, Freitag, Geo Saison, and Greenpeace Magazine. In 2010, his book Die Zukunft der Krebsmedizin (The Future of Cancer Medicine) was published, with Dr. Claus Köhnlein, MD, and two other doctors as co-authors. For more details see www.torstenengelbrecht.com.
Dr. Claus Köhnlein, MD, is a medical specialist of internal diseases. He completed his residency in the Oncology Department at the University of Kiel. Since 1993, he has worked in his own medical practice, treating both Hepatitis C and AIDS patients who are skeptical of antiviral medications. Köhnlein is one of the world’s most experienced experts when it comes to alleged viral epidemics. In April 2020, he was mentioned in the OffGuardian article “8 MORE Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic.” An interview with him by Russia Today editor Margarita Bityutskikh, published on Youtube in September 2020 on the topic of “fatal COVID-19 over-therapy,” garnered 1.4 million views within a short time.
Dr. Samantha Bailey, MD, is a research physician in New Zealand. She completed her Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degree at Otago University in 2005. She has worked in general practice, telehealth and in clinical trials for over 12 years with a particular interest in novel tests and treatments for medical diseases. She has the largest Youtube health channel in New Zealand, and creates educational health videos based on questions from her audience. For her full, uncensored repertoire, visit her website.
Footnotes
Golub, Edward. The Limits of Medicine: How Science Shapes Our Hope for the Cure. The University of Chicago Press, 1997: xiii.
Langbein, Kurt and Bert Ehgartner. Das Medizinkartell: Die sieben Todsünden der Gesundheitsindustrie. Piper, 2003: 37.
Golub, Edward. The Limits of Medicine: How Science Shapes Our Hope for the Cure. The University of Chicago Press, 1997: 37-40.
Langbein, Kurt and Bert Ehgartner. Das Medizinkartell: Die sieben Todsünden der Gesundheitsindustrie. Piper, 2003: 51.
Blech, Jörg. Leben auf dem Menschen: die Gesundheitserreger. S. Fischer Verlage. Frankfurt am Main, 2014. (see www.aegis.at)
Nicholson, Jeremy K., Elaine Holmes, John C. Lindon, and Ian D. Wilson. “The challenges of modeling mammalian biocomplexity.” Nature Biotechnology, 22. 2004: 1268-1274. (see https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt1015)
Nicholson, Jeremy K., Elaine Holmes, John C. Lindon, and Ian D. Wilson. “The challenges of modeling mammalian biocomplexity.” Nature Biotechnology, 22. 2004: 1268-1274. (see https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt1015)
Dubos, René. Mirage of Health: Utopias, Progress, and Biological Change. Harper & Brothers, 1959: 69.
Engelbrecht, Torsten, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey, Stefano Scoglio. Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense, 3rd English Edition. Books on Demand, 2021: 348-357.
Brandt, Allan. No Magic Bullet: A Social History of Venereal Disease in the United States Since 1880. Oxford University Press, 1985: 161.
Buzás, Edit I. et al. “Antibiotic-induced release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA.” Scientific Reports, 15 August 2017.
Grolle, Johann. “Siege, aber kein Sieg.” Der Spiegel, 29, 1995.
Burnet, Sir Frank Macfarlane. Genes, Dreams and Realities. Medical and Technical Publishing, 1971: 217-218.
Burnet, Sir Frank Macfarlane. Genes, Dreams and Realities. Medical and Technical Publishing, 1971: 217-218.
McClintock, Barbara. “The Significance of Responses of the Genome to Challenge.” Nobel speech, 8 December 1983.
For the last couple of weeks I was severely ill due to an adverse reaction of a medication, which was a stupid move initially by myself,,, but later it was multiplied exponentially by foolishness of mainstream doctors,,, although long ago once a brilliant teacher taught me to not visit these bastards but only in extreme emergency,,, he was right!!! He too was a medical doctor a very learned human-being,,, Apart from all the hustle and bustle of my medications and current health condition I am feeling much better than before,,, I am grateful to Almighty Allah S.W.T that I wasn’t hospitalized!!! Alhumdulilah,,, and I have no intentions whatsoever in future for the remaining portion of my lifetime and my family’s lifetime,,, I am extremely cautious of the way the western medicine works,,, that is why I’d suggest the same to all of my readers,,, focus on your lifestyle and nutrition and overall health,,, one can say that I have been given life once again by Allah S.W.T provided the medical emergency of health was extremely vulnerable,,, anyhow most of it is gone,,, the remaining too shall pass and I will be fit once again soon In sha Allah with the grace of Almighty,,, for those who are interested to know what happened to me exactly was the poisoning due to multiple western medicines with doctors being extremely ignorant of what exactly was running inside my gut which led to extreme case of piles for over a week I was put on heavy medication of Diclofenac Sodium twice a day which resulted in what got worse with my gut as one of it’s extreme adverse events/reactions/effects,,, little to anyone’s knowledge once it all got potentially out of control only then I was able to know,,, the mistake on my part was over dose of black coffee on empty stomach but even if it’s the case those in the know the so called experts should’ve told me that what was coming ahead…
Thanks once again to Almighty that I reverted back to Homoeopathic and herbal treatment by which most of my ailment has disappeared!!!
The Covid-19 vaccines have been at the centre of a heated debate since their introduction, with many questions and concerns raised about their safety and effectiveness.
Speculation has also been rife that the Covid-19 injections may contain traces of Graphene Oxide, a highly toxic and conductive substance.
Medicine regulators, with the support of the Mainstream Media, have repeatedly denied these claims.
But they were lying to you.
Because recent evidence has emerged that confirms the presence of Graphene Oxide, a highly toxic and conductive substance, in the Pfizer vaccine. And it has come from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which has been forced to publish the confidential Pfizer documents by order of the Federal Court in the USA.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored newsin your inbox…
Type your email…
The FDA had initially attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years, despite approving the injection after only 108 days of a safety review on December 11th, 2020.
However, a group of scientists and medical researchers sued the FDA under FOIA to force the release of hundreds of thousands of documents related to the licensing of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine.
In early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered the FDA to release 55,000 pages per month, and since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website as they have been published.
One of the most recent documents published by the FDA saved as 125742_S1_M4_4.2.1 vr vtr 10741.pdf, confirms the use of Graphene Oxide in the manufacturing process of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.
The document is a description of a study carried out by Pfizer between April 7th 2020 and 19th August 2020, with the objective being “to express and characterize the vaccine antigen encoded by BNT162b2.”
In layman’s terms, the study was conducted to determine how the vaccine works. The study found that the vaccine used mRNA to instruct your cells to produce a protein (called P2 S), which is the Spike protein of the alleged Covd-19 virus.
The millions of spike proteins then bind to a receptor called ACE2 on the surface of your cells, inducing an immune system response.
But what is most interesting about the study is that it confirms on page 7 that reduced Graphene Oxide is required to manufacture the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine because it is needed as a base for the lipid nanoparticles.
Pfizer states on page 7 of the study in section 3.4 the following –
This is most peculiar because medicine regulators with the help of the Mainstream Media, have denied for months on end that Graphene Oxide is an ingredient of the Covid-19 vaccine. They’ve been able to say this because those who’ve proven and speculated Graphene Oxide is in the Pfizer Covid19 injection have been asking the wrong question.
What everyone should have been asking is, ‘is Graphene Oxide used in the manufacturing process of the Pfizer Covid vaccine?’
Because as this document, which the FDA attempted to keep confidential and sealed the 75 years, shows, Graphene Oxide is indeed used in the manufacturing process of the vaccine because it is vital in helping to make the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles stable.
Therefore, trace amounts or large amounts, depending on the batch, of reduced Graphene Oxide inevitably make their way into the Pfizer Covid-19 injections.
What are Lipid Nanoparticles?
The Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine uses tiny particles called lipid nanoparticles to deliver the vaccine’s genetic material (called messenger RNA, or mRNA) into cells in the body. These lipid nanoparticles are like tiny “bubbles” made up of fats and other molecules that can surround and protect the mRNA until it reaches its destination inside the cells.
The mRNA in the vaccine provides instructions to the cells to produce a protein (called spike protein) that is found on the surface of the Covid-19 virus. When the immune system detects this spike protein, it can recognize it as foreign and mount an immune response against it,
Furthermore, it has been discovered that two of the lipids in Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines are ALC-0159 and ALC-315, as confirmed by the assessment report of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine published by the European Medicines Agency.
Graphene Oxide is a tiny particle that is made up of carbon and oxygen atoms. It’s really small – so small that you can’t see it with your eyes. But even though it’s small, it can be dangerous.
It is known to be toxic to some cells, and research has shown that it can cause inflammation and damage to the lungs when inhaled.
In addition, Graphene Oxide is able to cross the blood-brain barrier, which is a protective barrier that prevents harmful substances from entering the brain. This could potentially lead to neurological problems.
Graphene Oxide is detected in the immune system as if it were a pathogen. Once injected it has an affinity for the central nervous system, potentially causing paralysis, strokes and alteration of the nervous system.
Furthermore, the long-term effects of Graphene Oxide exposure are not yet known. There is very little research on the long-term effects of Graphene Oxide exposure in humans, which means we don’t know what the potential risks are.
But thanks to the administration of the Pfizer COVID vaccine to millions of people, numerous times, we are finding out as the days pass. And sadly, both the short-term and long-term effects do not look good.
Further Evidence, Other Undeclared Substances & Deadly Consequences
Graphene Oxide is not the only toxic substance that the public should be concerned about. Because scientists have found Nanotech alongside Graphene Oxide when they have previously examined samples of Covid-19 injections.
Nanoscience and nanotechnology involve the ability to see and control individual atoms and molecules. Everything on Earth is made up of atoms—the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the buildings and houses we live in, and our own bodies.
But something as small as an atom is impossible to see with the naked eye. In fact, it’s impossible to see with the microscopes typically used in high school science classes. The microscopes needed to see things at the nanoscale were invented in the early 1980s.
Once scientists had the right tools, such as the scanning tunnelling microscope (STM) and the atomic force microscope (AFM), the age of nanotechnology was born.
And scientists from Spain, have declared that nanotechnology, which has the ability to control atoms in your body, has been found in all of the Covid-19 injections alongside Graphene Oxide. https://odysee.com/$/embed/@StopTheCrime:d/Breaking-News-SHOCKING—Here-is-What-Really-is-in-the-Vaccines:d?r=7w5QuSaWFRbu1bEVToV9pb1Zdn8mheAq
According to the Spanish scientists who examined the Covid-19 injections, Graphene Oxide has the potential to cause strange blood clots. This may explain why it has been proven that Covid-19 injections increase the risk of suffering thrombosis with thrombocytopenia.
But it is not just scientists from Spain making these claims. Numerous scientists around the world have published findings where they allege they have discovered both nanotechnology and Graphene Oxide in the Covid-19 injections.
After reviewing electron microscope images of elements contained in the Covid Pfizer and Moderna injections, Dr Daniel Nagase, a Canadian emergency room doctor, revealed that, strangely, the contents of the Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines” show no signs of biological material, including mRNA or DNA. (Read more here).
Dr Nagase’s research group looked at Moderna and Pfizer samples under a regular microscope. Although there were a lot of very interesting images, they were unable to be conclusive about what exactly they were seeing. So, they used an electron microscope to determine what elements the “vaccines” contained.
Here are some of the images of what they found –
Found in a Moderna Covid “vaccine” sample
Dr Nagase examined a “ball with the legs growing out of it” found inside a Moderna sample and had this to say –
“This shape, this ball with the legs growing out of it, for some reason has aluminium in it. And I can say with certainty that this isn’t a mould spore or some other type of biological contamination, because the only thing in it is carbon, oxygen, and no signs of nitrogen, no signs of phosphorus, which would indicate something biological of origin. So, this thing that’s growing is non-biological.”
Dr Nagase and the researchers also discovered an unusual element from the lanthanide series – thulium – in a fibre-like structure found in a Pfizer sample –
Found in a Pfizer Covid “vaccine” sample
Dr. Nagase and the researchers found a variety of shapes and structures inside the “vaccine” samples they tested – crystals, chips, strands, bulbs, spheres, fibres and balls with legs growing out of them – “we have polymorphic, which is many different forms,” he said.
“They all seem to be made predominantly out of carbon and oxygen and they were in both the Moderna and Pfizer samples, and they seem to be in fibre forms. In the Moderna sample, the carbon-oxygen structures seem to be taking nanosphere forms and crystalline forms. And in the Pfizer sample … seem to only be forming fibres and crystals.
In a presentation to the Chilean radio station El Mirador del Gallo, Argentine doctor Martín Monteverde presented the analyses carried out by Corona2Inspect researchers on the microtechnology found in the Pfizer Covid-19 mRNA vaccine.
Argentina’s Dr Monteverde and other researchers carried out microscopic analyses of a vial of the Pfizer vaccine alongside four other Covid-19 “vaccine” types. He then sent these images to Corona2Inspect for further analysis. Corona2Inspect returned the images with their comments identifying what objects the images were showing.
You can watch a video of Dr Monteverde’s teams findings below – https://www.bitchute.com/embed/rp5ZyrmMLJQv/
Argentina’s Dr Patricia Aprea, Director of Evaluation and Control of the ANMAT, also accidentally admitted AstraZeneca’s Viral Vector Covid-19 injection also contains Graphene during a legal case regarding a death post-Covid injection.
You can read the document where ANMAT recognised that Covid-19 vaccines contain Graphene Oxide HERE in (Spanish) or below, translated into English using Google –
Dr Philippe van Welbergen, Medical Director of Biomedical Clinics, was one of the first to warn the public of the damage being caused to people’s blood by Covid injections by releasing images of blood samples under the microscope.
In a set of slides of blood samples taken from both “vaccinated” and unvaccinated people, Dr Philippe van Welbergen demonstrated that the Graphene Oxide, contained in the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines being injected into people by amateurs and volunteers with no adequate training, is organising and growing into larger fibres and structures, gaining magnetic properties or an electrical charge and the fibres are showing indications of more complex structures with striations.
At the beginning of July 2021, Dr Philippe, was interviewed and he explained that when his patients started complaining about chronic fatigue, dizziness, memory loss, and even sometimes paralysis and late onset of heavy menstruation (women in their 60s upwards), he took blood samples.
Their blood had unusual tube-like structures, some particles which lit up and many damaged cells.
Few healthy cells were visible. Until three months earlier, he had never seen these formations in blood.
We now know these tube-like structures are Graphene Oxide.
He also demonstrated that “shards” of Graphene Oxide are being transmitted from the Covid-19 vaccinated to vaccine-free or unvaccinated people, sadly destroying their red blood cells and causing blood clots. (Read more here).
Below is an image of typical healthy red blood cells as seen with a microscope, what blood should look like. There is no coagulation or foreign objects in it.
Sadly fibres of this size are capable of blocking capillaries.
You can also see that the Graphene fibres are hollow and have swallowed up some red blood cells.
In December 2021, a British medical practitioner offered to assist in an investigation to ascertain whether the results discovered by Dr. Andreas Noack, a German chemist, and Dr. Pablo Campra, of the University of Almeria in Spain, could be replicated in the UK and also to examine the Covid-19 injection vials for toxins or unexpected contents.
The medical practitioner seized an injection vial from the fridge housed in the surgery where she works and handed it to an independent investigator.
A UK laboratory analysed the sample using Raman Spectroscopy and found Graphene, SP3 carbon, iron oxide, carbon derivatives and glass shards.
The first sample that was evaluated was the Moderna 01 which was examined by Raman spectroscopy. The investigation clearly showed that all the inclusions within the vaccine have a strong carbon signal with confirmed graphene compositions of some representative forms.
Two clear signals were obtained from two objects. The flat ribbon-like inclusions exhibited clear Graphene spectra integrated with the spectrum of glycol and other minor compounds. The other clear signal was obtained from a calcite microcrystalline form and Carbon composite forms also had a clear Graphene signal.
You can read a copy of the document encompassing a case briefing, the UNIT report and a summary of the toxicity of Graphene nanoparticles on UK Citizen 2021’s website HERE.
The 48-page UNIT report, ‘Qualitative Evaluation of Inclusions in Moderna, AstraZeneca and Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines’, begins on page 12 of the document.
An Open Access review highlighting the toxicity of the graphene family nanoparticles can be viewed here.
Nanotechnology and Graphene have also been found in Pfizer’s Comirnaty “vaccines” by scientists in New Zealand. (Read more here).
At the end of January 2022, Sue Grey, co-leader of the Outdoors and Freedom Party, and Dr Matt Shelton from New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science (“NZDSOS”) put the Health Select Committee on notice that serious contamination of the Pfizer vaccine has been uncovered and they needed to act immediately to stop the injection campaign.
Dr Shelton came forward to disclose the discovery of formations of nano-particles found by New Zealand scientists using specialised microscopic techniques.
None of the experts consulted had ever seen anything like this before, and none of these contaminants are listed as approved ingredients.
You can read the full account, with additional images and videos, HERE. But below is a snapshot of what one New Zealand scientist found.
The image below was taken from one drop of New Zealand’s Pfizer Cominarty “vaccine” under a cover slip, after it was inadvertently heated lightly, and viewed the same day through dark field microscopy at low magnification, projected onto a TV monitor.
The following images were taken after a new computer with improved graphics was purchased alongside new software for the camera –
They lied to you
Despite repeated assurances from authorities and mainstream media that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, evidence has emerged time and time again that proves they have not been telling the whole truth.
The use of Graphene Oxide in the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine has been a source of controversy and concern from the outset, with many individuals claiming that regulators and media outlets were deliberately misleading the public about its inclusion.
Despite initial denials, the documents released by the FDA, which they were forced to publish by order of the Federal Court in the USA. have confirmed the use of Graphene Oxide in the manufacturing process of the Pfizer vaccine, raising questions about who we can trust.
This revelation should cause widespread alarm and will likely fuel suspicion about the true intentions of those in charge of public health.
When I discovered this study several years ago and wrote the following extensive piece on it, the study was a bolt from the blue, a complete devastating shocker.
It still is.
It is more than enough to topple the whole vaccine empire.
Honoring the work of the study co-author, Dr. Antonietta Gatti, Catherine Austin Fitts wrote, “Not long after the publication of this revolutionary study, tax authorities raided and investigated Dr. Gatti’s and [her husband] Dr. Montanari’s laboratory and private home—an all too usual method of intimidation.”
THAT was the “scientific follow-up.”
In a nutshell, Dr. Gatti’s 2017 study showed an incredible amount of contamination, in a whole host of traditional vaccines. The contamination was in the form of tiny nanoparticles, mostly metallic, and obviously highly harmful and dangerous.
Before reading my summary and analysis of that study—here is an updated communication from Dr. Gatti I received a few days ago. It describes, in a stark and disturbing fashion, what has been happening to her, her work, and her laboratory. This is chilling:
“At the end of last year, our laboratory no longer had the financial capacity to continue its research. The proceeds from the few analyzes requested by private individuals yielded enormously less than what the research cost us. Then, there were two possibilities: close everything or set up a foundation by giving away everything that belonged to us, hoping to find some sponsors. After all, all initiatives, even the most bizarre, find someone willing to contribute financially. Why not a foundation that does fundamental research on health? So, we opted for the latter choice, and the Nanodiagnostics Foundation was born.”
“But, after almost a year, not a cent has arrived. In short, no company, no private citizen, no institution is willing to contribute.”
“Many people continue to demand results and ask questions to which they have no answers from the institutions or their doctors, but, if it is a question of parting from some money, the silence is absolute.”
“It is clear that our work is a threat to billion-dollar businesses that are not exactly clear, at least for most people. For this reason, the most absurd and incredible slanders are invented to our detriment.
Not being able to dispute our scientific results, there are those who publish, usually anonymously, that we earn enormous sums of money, even giving the impression that the Foundation belongs to us, when it should be known that foundations do not belong to anyone, and no one can profit from them. And this is when we have donated everything that belonged to us, and we work for free.”
“Another tactic is trying to isolate and discredit us with lies. What the University of Bologna did a few days ago, the university where I graduated, then specialized and taught, is a small example.”
“A few months ago, that university asked us if we were willing to accept [a] student… who would prepare her graduation thesis with us. We agreed and agreed with the student on how to proceed. A few months passed, then, a couple of weeks ago, when the University authorities realized that the student would work with us, they sent us a message of a few lines in which they informed us that what we do (and which I had taught at that university) was of no interest to them (which, in a way, is true, although very far from the mission of the University). Needless to say, my letter to the Rector asking for explanations remained unanswered.”
“And it is also useless to say how difficult it is to publish the results that we continue to obtain, and which are not liked by those who financially maintain the medical journals, on whose scientific nature I prefer not to comment. For twice the Editor after the publication of an article (on vaccines and on SIDS) asked to retreat [sic] them. Only the work of the Robert Kennedy Jr lawyers stopped the request.”
“[Paper:] Novel chemical-physical autopsy investigation in sudden infant death and sudden intrauterine unexplained death syndromes” (click here)
“Just for your information, in spite of all difficulties, we are now dealing with very critical topics: spontaneously aborted babies, analysis of the brains of infants who died in cots (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, aka SIDS), analysis of what falls from the sky (e.g., recently hail never seen before), food, etc. All this can only be fought with personal discredit.”
“We haven’t had any visits from the regime for a long time. For them it is enough to monitor our computers and phones. The rest is done by ‘volunteers’. As for other scientists, no one deals with our topics in full. It must be realized that doing so represents a risk that is obviously preferable not to take.”
“As long as we can manage, we will continue to work. If, however, no sponsor materializes (idle chatter and empty promises are not only useless: they are a waste of time,) we will have no other option than to declare defeat, a defeat that belongs to the whole world and, above all, to the children who do not deserve the fate they are suffering.”
“…I give some details of our Foundation Nanodiagnostics (click here)…”
IF YOU CAN, PLEASE DONATE TO Dr. Gatti’s vital work at the above website.
Here is my original article on Dr. Gatti’s vaccine-contamination study:
Dangerous nano-particles contaminating many vaccines: groundbreaking study
“The Lung,” Second Edition: “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 (Paper archived here and here)
“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 RNA COVID-19 vaccine are 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.
Ivermectin Cell & DNA Toxicity Study By Zhang Et Al
In a study called ‘Ivermectin Confers Its Cytotoxic Effects by Inducing AMPK/mTOR-mediated Autophagy and DNA2 Damage’ Zhang Et Al (full report here)
“Ivermectin has significant ability to induce DNA oxidative damage and enhance autophagy in HeLa cells”
“The accumulation of IVM in animal tissues and the excretion of urine and feces in the environment is the major source of potential toxicity… Human consumption of meat or milk contaminated with livestock can result in exposure to high levels of IVM exposure.”
“As expected, we found that IVM can induce oxidative double-stranded damage in HeLa cells, indicating that IVM has potential genotoxicity to human health. In addition, we observed the formation of LC3-B in HeLa cells, the accumulation of Beclin1, the degradation of p62 and the activation of the AMPK/mTOR signal transduction pathway.”
“We conclude that IVM produces genotoxicity and cytotoxicity by inducing DNA damage and AMPK/mTOR-mediated autophagy, thereby posing a potential risk to human health.”
“As shown in Fig. 1A, the cell clone formation rate decreased gradually with the increase of IVM concentration after 6 h of drug administration.”
Ivermectin Genotoxicity And Carcinogenicity Observed With Fruit Flies
In a study called ‘Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of ivermectin and amoxicillin in vivo systems’ by Aparecida de Sousa et al (full report here),
“The results revealed that IVM increased the frequency of epithelial tumor in D. melanogaster considering all evaluated concentrations”
“Findings showed an increase in the frequency of micronuclei in T. pallida treated with 11.42, 22.84 and 45.68 x 10 −5 mM of IVM. We conclude that chronic exposure to IVM is directly associated with events resulting from genetic instability (genotoxicity and carcinogenicity).”
Ivermectin appears to drastically reduce survival rate of fly progenies as the dose is increased:
Frequency Of Tumor Clones By IVM Treatment Dosage:
“It was observed a dose-dependence in the frequency of MN in T. pallida considering the highest concentrations (11.42, 22.84 and 45.68 × 10−5 mM) differing statistically (p ≤ 0.05) from the negative control, evidencing a genotoxic effect of IVM”
“The results observed in D. melanogaster and T. pallida showed that IVM can increase the damage in the genetic material, leading to genetic instability.”
Why fruit flies? The authors explain:
“In D. melanogaster, the test for the detection of epithelial tumor (ETT) represents one of the most promising alternatives to evaluate and identify possible carcinogens (Nepomuceno, 2015) … This test has also been used to verify carcinogenic events of different substances (Orsolin et al., 2012; Morais et al., 2018; Naves et al., 2018).”
Ivermectin Mutagenicity In Swiss Albino Mice
In a study titled ‘The mutagenic effects of ivermectin in germinal cells and serum protein of the mouse’ by Sweify et al
“Ivermectin… is extremely toxic to fish and aquatic life. Some animals showed reduction in the fertility, the number of variable fetuses and sperm count following treatment with (IVM).”
“Analysis of the treated samples revealed significant increase in meiotic aberrations, 33.83% vs 5.8% for the control (P < 0.001)… These findings supports the mutagenicity of IVM”
“Effects of ivermectin on spermatocyte chromosomes: … spermatocytes of the treated samples revealed significant increase in chromosome aberrations over the control values”
“The present observations pointed to the mutagenic effects of IVM. The frequency of translocation is significantly higher than that found in the control samples”
Ivermectin Vs Human Neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y Study
In a study called ‘Ivermectin-Induced Apoptotic Cell Death in Human SH-SY5Y Cells Involves the Activation of Oxidative Stress and Mitochondrial Pathway and Akt/mTOR-Pathway-Mediated Autophagy’ by Zhange et al
“The results show that IVM treatment (2.5–15 μM) for 24 h could induce dose-dependent cell death in SH-SY5Y cells. Compared to the control, IVM treatment significantly promoted the production of ROS, mitochondrial dysfunction, and cell apoptosis. IVM treatment also promoted mitophagy and autophagy, which were charactered by the decreased expression of phosphorylation (p)-Akt and p-mTOR proteins, increased expression of LC3II, Beclin1, ATG5, PINK, and Pakin1 proteins and autophagosome formation… our results reveal that IVM could induce autophagy and apoptotic cell death in SH-SY5Y cells”
“IVM-induced cytotoxicity is dose- and time-dependent. At 6 h and 12 h, IVM treatment at 15 μM significantly decreased the cell viabilities to 44.3% and 35.6% (both p < 0.01), respectively; at 24 h, IVM treatment at 0.625, 1.25, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, and 15 μM decreased the cell activities to 98.5%, 92.4%, 81.9% (p < 0.01), 70.2% (p < 0.01), 51.3% (p < 0.01 ), 37.6% (p < 0.01), and 23.8% (p < 0.01) (Figure 1), respectively. Correspondingly, marked cell morphology changes, including a spindle-like cell body, shrinkage, and dendrite fragmentation in high concentrations of IVM (at 7.5, 10, and 15 μM for 24 h, respectively) were also detected”
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3921/11/5/908
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3921/11/5/908
Ivermectin Vs Buffalo Peripheral Lymphocyte Cells
In a paper called ‘Antimutagenic Activity of Some Natural supplements on Ivermectin genotoxicity in Lymphocytes of Buffalo’ by El-makawy et al,
Cell Abnormalities
# Per 10,000 Cells Examined, Blue line = Control Levels
Structural Chromosomal Aberrations Observed:
“Ivermectin induced dose dependent significantly increase in the number of binucleated lymphocytes with micronuclei and also the frequencies of total chromosomal aberrations”
“In addition, the numbers of binucleated lymphocytes showed dose dependent decrease than control. These results revealed that the drug has a cytotoxic effect on the number of cell divisions. As the micronuclei are small chromatin-containing bodies arising from chromosome fragmentation by breaks or deletion, the results of MN formation confirmed our results of chromosomal aberrations indicating the clastogenic effects of ivermectin.”
In Vivo Ivermectin Vs Mice Bone Marrow Study
In a study called ‘The cytogenetic potential of ivermectin on bone marrow cells of mice in vivo’ from Sweify et al:
“IVM induced high level of chromosome aberrations in somatic cells, as it is ascertained by chromosome aberration assay and micronuclei production in bone marrow cells. This study revealed high clastogenic and genotoxic potential of IVM on mice”
Experiment 1: Single Injection Of Ivermectin
“The Table contains also the different types of chromosomal aberrations recorded in the examined cells. A single i.p. injection of ivermectin resulted in a significant (P≤0.001) increase in percentage of aberrant cells”
Here are the different chromosomal aberrations that were tracked after the invermectin injection. The transparent horizontal lines are the control levels:
Experiment 2: Two Injections Of Ivermectin
“It is clear from the Table (II) that injection with ivermectin induced high significant increase in the frequency of the damaged cells allover the examined periods (P≤0.001).”
Here are the different chromosomal aberrations that were tracked after the second invermectin injection. The transparent horizontal lines are the control levels:
Study of Genotoxic and Cytotoxic Effects Of Ivermectin In Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells In Vitro
In a study called ‘In vitro genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of ivermectin… on Chinese hamster ovary (CHO K1 ) cells’ by Molinari et all, they found that Ivermectin caused DNA-strand breaks in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO(KI)) cells. (Full article)
Here’s a chart of mitotic index (MI) and mitotic index factor (f) for each of the lesser doses before the “complete cellular death” seen in doses 50µm/ml. The transparent horizontal lines are the control group baseline
Decrease in mitotic index typically indicates genotoxicity. (Sweify, 2019)
“IVM exerted a cytotoxic effect of CHO cells within the 25.0–250.0 μg/ml concentration-range”
“Highest [IVM] concentrations (50.0–250.0 μg/ml) resulted in cellular cytotoxicity clearly revealed by delaying the cell-cycle progression, decreasing the mitotic activity, and inhibiting cell-growth. It is worth mentioning that both chemicals induced DNA-strand breaks revealed by the comet assay”
“A brief 80 min pulse-treatment of 5.0–50.0 μg/ml of IVM or 25.0 and 50.0 μg/ml of ivomec® , resulted in a manifest level of single DNA-strand break induction.”
O’Conner Ivermectin Rat Carcinogenicity Study
In an article called ‘Increased Pathology Incidence in the Forestomach of Rats Maintained on a Diet Containing Ivermectin and Given a Single Dose of N-Methyl-N1-Nitro-N-Nitrosoguanidine’ by O’Conner et al, they observed additional cancers in mice with a small amount (2 ppm) of ivermectin in their diet given a dose of a carcinogen called N-Methyl-N1-Nitro-N-Nitrosoguanidine. From the abstract:
“No tumors or pathological lesions were observed in the forestomach of the control animals or those given ivermectin alone. However, compared to animals receiving MNNG alone, rats maintained on a diet containing ivermectin (2 ppm) and given MNNG… showed an increased number of neoplasms (9/26 vs 3/18; p = 0.30) and a statistically significant fourfold increase in the number of pathological lesions (18/26 vs 3/18; p = 0.002), which include preneoplasia in the forestomach. In all cases, the pathological lesions were more severe in the animals receiving ivermectin and MNNG, compared to those receiving MNNG alone.”
Study of Genotoxic and Cytotoxic Effects Of Ivermectin In Mosquito Cells In Vivo
In a study called ‘Genotoxic and cytotoxic in vitro evaluation of ivermectin… on Aedes albopictus larvae (CCL-126™) cells’ (Full paper):
“IVM… induced DNA-strand breaks enhancing both slightly damaged and damaged cells at 25–50 μg/ml IVM”
“Cytotoxicity was observed at concentrations higher than 25 μg/ml IVM… [Ivermectin] exerted a delay in CCP and a reduction in PRI when 25.0 μg/ml was employed whereas cytotoxicity was observed at higher concentration than 50.0 μg/ml.”
“A marked reduction of about 98% … of MI [mitotic index] compared to controls was noted with 25 μg/ml of IVM”
“NR and MTT assays revealed that [IVM] induced a cell growth inhibition within the 1–250 μg/ml concentration range”
“Data indicated that IVM exerts both genotoxicity and cytotoxicity in insect cells [A. albopictus larvae CCL-126 cells] in vitro”
This chart shows the percentage of undamaged, slightly damaged & damaged cells with the addition of Ivermectin (measured in μg/ml). The transparent horizontal lines are the control levels.
Decrease in mitotic index typically indicates genotoxicity. (Sweify, 2019)
Why insect cells? The authors’ address this:
“It was demonstrated that among insects, mosquito cells cultures provide a useful in vitro system for studying deleterious effects induced by xenobiotics (Mukherjee et al. 1986; Bolza ́n et al. 1998, 2000). Investigations demonstrated that DNA damage induced by different chemicals was found to be less extensive and repaired more efficiently in Aedes albopictus larvae cell lines compared to Chinese hamster ovary (CHO-K1) cells”
Ivermectin In Cebu Brahman Cows
In a paper called ‘Comet assay to determine genetic damage by the use of ivermectin in zebu cows’
“The values of classification of comets indicate cells with high levels of damage (grade 3: cells with high damage). The rate of DNA damage of the treatment to 1% to 3.15% was significant… The results obtained in this study demonstrate the likely genotoxic potential of the use of IVM in cattle.”
“Regardless of the IVM concentration, the presence of nuclei with DNA migration (Figure 1a and b) was observed at a percentage greater than 75% in all cells observed per plaque, demonstrating the ability of the IVM compound to produce simple chain breaks in the DNA molecule.”
The Comet classification describes how. All of the control group (no treatment) measure 0 on the comet scale. Here are the Results for the IVM treated cows:
Grade 3 = cells with high damage
“The results found in the present study constitute concrete evidence for the induction of genomic damage as exerted by IVM, using the comet assay methodology”
“Ivermectin (20 pg/mL) decreased glucose utilization in IB-RS-2 cells in 11, 30, and 31%, respectively, after 24,48 and 72 h”
Ivermectin Vs Tadpole DNA
In a study called ‘Genotoxicity of Three Avermectins on Polypedates megacephalus Tadpoles Using the Comet Assay’ by Geng et al, some very concerning findings were noted in relation to Ivermectin’s “genotoxic effects at relatively low concentrations” in Tadpoles.
The first chart shows a dose-dependent decline in cell viability as IVM dosing increases:
“Our results showed clearly that avermectins caused dose dependent DNA damage on amphibian tadpoles… The three avermectins increased the DNA damage observed in the tadpoles in a dose-responsive manner. There were strong linear correlations between the DNA damages and the concentrations of the three test substances (Figure 2). The cellular distributions of DNA damages in tadpoles are shown in Figure 3. Of the tadpoles treated with increasing concentrations of the three test substances, higher proportions of cells had greater amount of DNA damage than those of the negative control”
This chart shows a dose-dependent increase in DNA damage as IVM dosing increases:
“According to these results above and our finding that avermectins can cause DNA damage in tadpoles at the concentrations below the recommended applied levels (Xu et al., 2010), we consider it possible that avermectins are carcinogenic, and confirm it has the negative impact on the development of tadpoles”
Ivermectin And Pig Kidney Cells
In a study entitled ‘Toxicity Assessment of the Antiparasitic Ivermectin’ by Rodrigues et al, the researchers exposed pig kidney cells to ivermectin at different levels and measured the rates of cell death (Full article)
“Our data show that ivermectin inhibited cell growth (Fig. 1). This effect was time and dose dependent, and ranged from 38 to 84% after 72 h in cells treated with 2-20 pg/mL; at the dosage of 40 pg/mL, cell death occurred within 24 h.”
“Ivermectin (20 pg/mL) decreased protein synthesis and glucose utilization.”
“Protein synthesis is inhibited in a continuous way in the cells exposed to ivermectin (20 pg/mL). When compared to the control cultures, the protein of treated cells is 13,24, and 28% less, respectively, after 24, 48, and 72 h.”
