THE THIN LINE: GENETICS & EUGENICS
There is s thin line between Genetics and Eugenics that should be bolder, thicker, better defined. The Hippocratic oath demands it: “First do no harm’.
Eugenics is the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits. It aims to reduce human suffering by “breeding out” disease, disabilities and so-called undesirable characteristics from the human population. Early supporters of eugenics believed people inherited mental illness, criminal tendencies and even poverty, and that these conditions could be bred out of the gene pool.
Historically, eugenics encouraged people of so-called healthy, superior stock to reproduce and discouraged reproduction of the mentally challenged or anyone who fell outside the social norm. Eugenics was popular in America during much of the first half of the twentieth century, yet it earned its negative association mainly from Adolf Hitler’s obsessive attempts to create a superior Aryan race.
Modern eugenics, more often called human genetic engineering, has come a long way—scientifically and ethically—and offers hope for treating many devastating genetic illnesses. Even so, it remains controversial.
Eugenics literally means “good creation.” The ancient Greek philosopher Plato may have been the first person to promote the idea, although the term “eugenics” didn’t come on the scene until British scholar Sir Francis Galton coined it in 1883 in his book, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development.
In one of Plato’s best-known literary works, The Republic, he wrote about creating a superior society by procreating high-class people together and discouraging coupling between the lower classes. He also suggested a variety of mating rules to help create an optimal society.
Eugenics in America
In the late 19th century, Galton—whose cousin was Charles Darwin—hoped to better humankind through the propagation of the British elite. His plan never really took hold in his own country, but in America it was more widely embraced.
Eugenics made its first official appearance in American history through marriage laws. In 1896, Connecticut made it illegal for people with epilepsy or who were “feeble-minded” to marry. In 1903, the American Breeder’s Association was created to study eugenics.
John Harvey Kellogg, of Kellogg cereal fame, organized the Race Betterment Foundation in 1911 and established a “pedigree registry.” The foundation hosted national conferences on eugenics in 1914, 1915 and 1928.
As the concept of eugenics took hold, prominent citizens, scientists and socialists championed the cause and established the Eugenics Record Office. The office tracked families and their genetic traits, claiming most people considered unfit were immigrants, minorities or poor.
It is obvious that the eugenicists were and are quacks and sociopaths. Bill Gates’ father is William H. Gates Sr. who was a dedicated eugenicist and globalist like his great friends and accomplices the Rockefellers. In the era before Roe v. Wade, Gates Sr. sat on the board of Margret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood. Why is that important? The Roe v. Wade case legalized abortion, but almost no body knows that legal abortion was a law formed by eugenicists, to “genetically improve” the population, by “reducing” the population.
In his book, ‘Vaccine-Nation: Poisoning the Population, One Shot at a Time’, Andreas Moritz, documented the very real eugenics connection between the Rockefeller Foundation (and family) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (and family). In it, He write this about them… “While launching the initiative called the Global Fund for Children’s Vaccines, Bill Gates had said in 2000, “It seems like every new corner we turn, the Rockefellers are already there. And in some cases, they have been there for a long, long time.”
Gates made that speech while announcing that his foundation was pledging $555 million to health programs across the globe.
I say ironic because the Rockefellers have been notorious in their funding of controversial research, dubbed by some as “genocidal”. This research concerns depopulation programs, communist and socialist programs, ‘mind control’ or behavioural modification experiments and the notoriously controversial experiments of Alfred Kinsey.
But the Gates and Rockefellers are old friends and partners in the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI). The alliance, which controls major international vaccine programs, has the following as members: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations, UNISEF, World Bank, WHO, and many national governments.
In vaccine research, it doesn’t get bigger than this. I am detailing this to show just how incestuous the vaccine (and medical) world is. It also illustrates that power is concentrated in just a handful of [unelected] entities.” https://books.google.ca/books?
Chimeric RNA, sometimes referred to as a fusion transcript, is composed of exons from two or more different genes that have the potential to encode novel proteins.These mRNAs are different from those produced by conventional splicing as they are produced by two or more gene loci.
DNA encodes the genetic information required for an organism to carry out its life cycle. In effect, DNA serves as the “hard drive” which stores genetic data. DNA is replicated and serves as its own template for replication. DNA forms a double helix structure and is a composed of a sugar-phosphate backbone and nitrogenous bases; this can be thought of as a ladder structure where the sides of the ladder are constructed of deoxyribose sugar and phosphate while the rungs of the ladder are composed of paired nitrogenous bases. There are four bases in a DNA molecule: adenine (A), cytosine (C), thymine (T), and guanine (G). Nucleotides are a structural component of DNA and RNA, being made of a molecule of sugar and a molecule of phosphoric acid. The double helix structure of DNA is composed of two antiparallel strands which are oriented in opposite directions. DNA is composed of base pairs in which adenine pairs with thymine and guanine pairs with cytosine. While DNA serves as template for production of ribonucleic acid (RNA), RNA is usually responsible for making protein. The process of making RNA from DNA is called transcription. RNA uses a similar set of bases except that thymine is replaced with uracil. A group of enzymes called RNA polymerases (isolated by biochemists Jerard Hurwitz and Samuel B. Weiss) function in the presence of DNA. These enzymes produce RNA using segments of chromosomal DNA as a template. Unlike replication, where a complete copy of DNA is made, transcription copies only the gene that is to be expressed as a protein.
Initially, it was thought that RNA served as a structural template for protein synthesis, essentially ordering amino acids by a series of cavities shaped specifically so that only specific amino acids would fit. Crick was not satisfied with this hypothesis given that the four bases of RNA are hydrophilic and that many amino acids prefer interactions with hydrophobic groups. Additionally, some amino acids are very structurally similar and Crick felt that accurate discrimination would not be possible given the similarities. Crick then proposed that prior to incorporation into proteins, amino acids are first attached to adapter molecules which have unique surface features that can bind to specific bases on the RNA templates. These adapter molecules are called transfer RNA (tRNA).
Through a series of experiments involving E. coli and the T4 phage in 1960, it was shown that messenger RNA (mRNA) carriers information from DNA to the ribosomal sites of protein synthesis. The tRNA-amino acid precursors are brought into position by ribosomes where they can read the information provided mRNA templates to synthesize protein.
Creating a protein consists of two main steps: transcription of DNA into RNA and translation of RNA into protein. After DNA is transcribed into RNA, the molecule is known as pre-messenger RNA (mRNA) and it consists of exons and introns that can be split apart and rearranged in many different ways. Historically, exons are considered the coding sequence and introns are considered the “junk” DNA. Although this has been shown to be false, it is true that exons are often merged. Depending on the needs of the cell, regulatory mechanisms choose which exons, and sometimes introns, to join together. This process of removing pieces of a pre- mRNA transcript and combining them with other pieces is called splicing. The human genome encodes approximately 25,000 genes but there are significantly more proteins produced. This is accomplished through RNA splicing. The exons of these 25,000 genes can be spliced in many different ways to create countless combinations of RNA transcripts and ultimately countless proteins. Normally, exons from the same pre-mRNA transcript are spliced together. However, occasionally gene products or pre-mRNA transcripts are spliced together so that exons from different transcripts are mixed together in a fusion product known as chimeric RNA. Chimeric RNA often incorporates exons from highly expressed genes, but the chimeric transcript itself is usually expressed at low levels.
This chimeric RNA can then be translated into a fusion protein. Fusion proteins are very tissue-specific  and they are frequently associated with cancers such as colorectal, prostate, and mesotheliomas. They significantly exploit signal peptides and transmembrane proteins which can alter the localization of proteins, possibly contributing to the disease phenotype.
Discovery of Chimeric RNA
One of the first studies to investigate the generation of chimeric RNA examined the fusion of the first three exons of a gene known as JAZF1 to the last 15 exons of a gene known as JJAZ1. This exact transcript, and the resulting protein, was found specifically in endometrial tissue. While often found in endometrial cancers, these transcripts are expressed in normal tissue as well. Originally thought to be the result of chromosomal fusions, one group investigated whether this was accurate. Using Southern blotting and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) on the genome, the researchers found no evidence of DNA rearrangement. They decided to investigate further by combining human endometrial cells with rhesus fibroblasts and found chimeric products containing sequences from both species. These data suggested that chimeric RNA is generated by splicing parts of genes together rather than chromosomal re-arrangements. They also performed mass spectrometry on the translated protein to verify that the chimeric RNA is translated into protein.
Recently, advances in next-generation sequencing have decreased the cost of sequencing significantly, allowing more RNAseq projects to be conducted. These RNAseq projects are able to detect novel RNA transcripts instead of the traditional microarray in which only known transcripts can be detected. Deep sequencing enables detection of transcripts even at very low levels. This has allowed researchers to detect many more chimeric RNAs and fusion proteins and has facilitated understanding their role in health and disease.
Chimeric protein products
Numerous putative chimeric transcripts have been identified among the expressed sequence tags using high throughput RNA sequencing technology. In humans, chimeric transcripts can be generated in several ways such as trans-splicing of pre-mRNAs, RNA transcription runoff, from other errors in RNA transcription or they can also be the result of gene fusion following inter-chromosomal translocations or rearrangements. Among the few corresponding protein products that have been characterized so far, most result from chromosomal translocations and are associated with cancer. For instance, gene fusion in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) leads to an mRNA transcript that encompasses the 5′ end of the breakpoint cluster region protein (BCR) gene and the 3′ end of the Abelson murine leukemia viral oncogene homolog 1 (ABL) gene. Translation of this transcript results in a chimeric BCR–ABL protein that possesses increased tyrosine kinase activity. Chimeric transcripts characterize specific cellular phenotypes and are suspected to function not only in cancer, but also in normal cells. One example of a chimera in normal human cells is generated by trans-splicing of the 5′ exons of the JAZF1 gene on chromosome 7p15 and the 3′ exons of JJAZ1 (SUZ12) on chromosome 17q1. This chimeric RNA is translated in endometrial stroma cells and encodes an anti-apoptotic protein. Notable examples of chimeric genes in cancer are the fused BCR-ABL, FUS–ERG, MLL-AF6, and MOZ-CBP genes expressed in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and the TMPRSS2-ETS chimera associated with overexpression of the oncogene in prostate cancer.
Characteristics of chimeric proteins
Frenkel-Morgenstern et al. have defined two main features of chimeric proteins. They have reported that chimeras exploit signal peptides and transmembrane domains to alter the cellular localization of the associated activities. Second, chimeras incorporate parental genes that are expressed at a high level. A survey of all the functional domains in proteins encoded by chimeric transcripts demonstrated that chimeras contain complete protein domains significantly more often than in random data sets. 0-==0
Databases of chimeric transcripts
Several databases have been constructed to incorporate chimeric transcripts from different resources using a variety of computational procedures:
- ChimerDB 2.0
If you are familiar with Greek mythology, you may recall the story of the chimera. It was a beast with the heads of both a lion and a goat, and a serpent in the place of its tail.
The genetic meaning of “chimera” was inspired by this creature. A chimera is a person (or other plant or animal) who is made up of cells from two different individuals. Since those cells came from different sources, their DNA is also different.
Normally, your cells have your DNA, and only your DNA. This is one of the key rules of genetics. Your body is made up of many different kinds of cells, but they are all built using the same instruction manual. They are all contain the exact same set of DNA.
But in chimeras, this rule is broken. Chimeras have two different sets of cells, with two different sets of DNA.
Which parts of you are chimeric might vary. For example, if you have blood chimerism, some or all of your blood cells will have a different set of DNA from the rest of you! But it does not mean your brain cells will also be chimeric. You might have only one set of brain cells, which would have only your DNA. MAYBE….
If you are a chimera, where do the cells with a different set of DNA come from? To find out, let’s take a closer look at how chimerism can happen in humans. We’ll keep using blood chimerism as an example.
What could possibly go wrong?
Well, let us recall how this article begins with the eugenicists and their agenda.
Thomas Huxley’s Revolution – Fabian Socialism and Globalism
The members of the London-centered oligarchy to which Wells had devoted himself at an early age had found themselves stuck in a rut by the turn of the 19th century. These inbred families and retainers who managed the dying British Empire had long been encrusted by the vices of decadence by the time a young man of low breeding and high talent arose amidst the London-ghettos treating syphilis patients as a surgeon’s assistant. This young surgeon’s name was Thomas Huxley.
Huxley possessed a sardonic wit, a deep misanthropy, and an intelligence that were soon discovered by powerful patrons, and by his mid-20’s, this young man found himself a rising star in Britain’s Royal Academy of Science. Here he quickly became a leading creative force, shaping Britain’s powerful X Club, serving as Darwin’s bulldog promoting popular debates featuring himself against literalist members of the clergy. In these debates he argued for Darwin’s chaos-bound interpretation of evolution. He also founded Nature magazine as a propaganda instrument which has been used to enforce scientific consensus favorable to a world empire to this very day.
Huxley chose his opponents carefully, ensuring that he could easily and publicly obliterate the arguments of simple-minded Anglican clergy, and thus convince all onlookers that the only choice they had to account for the evolution of new species was either literal Biblical creationism or his brand of Darwinian evolution. The many alternative scientific theories of the 19th century (such as those found in the works of Karl Ernst von Baer, Georges Cuvier, Lamarck and James D. Dana) which accounted for both the evolution of species, and the harmonics of all parts to a whole, as well as creative leaps were forgotten amidst this false dichotomy which this author unpacked in a recent interview
WELLS PICKS UP HUXLEY’S TORCH
During his later years, Huxley mentored a young H.G. Wells, together with a whole generation of new imperial practitioners of the arts of social engineering (and social Darwinism). This social engineering soon took the form of Galton’s eugenics quickly becoming an accepted science practiced across the western world.
Wells was himself the son of a lowly gardener, but, like Huxley, exhibited a strong misanthropic wit, passion and creativity lacking in the high nobility, and he was thus raised from the lower ranks of society into the order of oligarchical management by the 1890s. During this moment of vast potential- and – it cannot be restated enough- the oligarchical order that had grown overconfident during the 200+ years of hegemony were petrified to see the nations of the earth rapidly breaking free from this hegemony thanks to the under the international spread of Lincoln’s American System across Germany, Russia, Japan, South America, France, Canada and even China with Sun Yat-sen’s 1911 republican revolution.
The science of population control advanced by Huxley, Galton, Wells, Mackinder, Milner and Bertrand Russell was the basis for a new scientific priesthood and “world government” that would put a stop to the startling disequilibrium unleashed by the electric spread of sovereign nation states, protectionism and commitment to scientific and technological progress.
FABIANS, ROUND TABLERS AND COEFFICIENTS: NEW THINK TANKS EMERGE
H.G Wells, Russell and other early social engineers of this new priesthood organized themselves in several interconnected think tanks known as 1) the Fabian Society of Sidney and Beatrice Webb which operated through the London School of Economics, 2) the Round Table Movement begun by the fortunes left to posterity by the racist diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes which also gave rise to the Rhodes Trust, and Rhodes Scholarship programs established to indoctrinate young talent in the halls of Oxford, and finally 3) the Co-Efficients Club of London. As noted by Georgetown Professor Carol Quigley, in his 1981 The Anglo-American Establishment, membership in all three organizations was virtually interchangeable.
THE BATTLE FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT
A decade after its founding, the League was less successful than Wells and his co-thinkers would have liked, with nationalists from around the world recognizing the evil hand of empire lurking behind the apparent language of “liberal values and world peace”. Sun Yat-sen, among many others was among the anti-Wellsian voices and warned his fellow Chinese in 1924 not to fall into this trap saying:
“The nations which are employing imperialism to conquer others and which are trying to maintain their own favored positions as sovereign lords of the whole world are advocating cosmopolitanism [aka: global governance/globalization -ed] and want the world to join them… Nationalism is that precious possession by which humanity maintains its existence. If nationalism decays, then when cosmopolitanism flourishes we will be unable to survive and will be eliminated”.
In response to this patriotic resistance across the world, a new strategy had to be concocted. This took the form of H.G. Welles’ 1928 The Open Conspiracy: Blueprint for a World Revolution. This little-known book served as a guiding blueprint for the next century of imperial grand strategy calling for a new world religion and social order. According to Wells:
“The old faiths have become unconvincing, unsubstantial and insincere, and though there are clear intimations of a new faith in the world, it still awaits embodiment in formulae and organizations that will bring it into effective reaction upon human affairs as a whole.”
In his book, Welles outlines the need for a new scientific gospel to supersede the Judeo-Christian faiths of the western world. This new gospel consisted of a series of tomes which he and his colleague Julian Huxley composed, entitled: 1) The Outline of History (1920) where Wells re-wrote all of history wishing this analysis to replace the book of Genesis, 2)The Science of Life (1930), co-written with Sir Julian Huxley (Thomas Huxley’s Grandson who continued the family tradition along with Aldous), and 3) The Work, Wealth and Happiness of Mankind (1932).
THE WORLD BRAIN
By the time World War II began, Wells’ ideas had evolved new insidious components that later gave rise to such mechanisms as Wikipedia and Twitter in the form of “The World Brain” (19937) where Wells calls for reducing the English language to a “basic English” of 850 accepted words which would make up a world language. In this book, Wells states that “thinkers of the forward-looking type whose ideas we are now considering, are beginning to realize that the most hopeful line for the development of our racial intelligence lies rather in the direction of creating a new world organ for the collection, indexing, summarizing and release of knowledge, than in any further tinkering with the highly conservative and resistant university system, local, national and traditional in texture, which already exits. These innovators, who may be dreamers today, but who hope to become very active organizers tomorrow, project a unified, if not centralized, world organ to pull the mind of the world together.”
By 1940, Wells wrote the The New World Order which again amplified his message. In writing this, he coordinated his efforts with the many Fabians and Rhodes Scholars who had infiltrated western foreign policy establishments in order to shape the the war, but more importantly, the post-war global structure. These were the networks that hated Franklin Roosevelt, Vice-President Henry Wallace, Harry Hopkins and other genuine “New Dealers” who wanted nothing more than to destroy colonialism once and for all in the wake of the war.
Although the bodies of Wells, Russell and Huxley have long since rotted away, their rotten ideas continue to animate their disciples like Sir Henry Kissinger, George Soros, Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Lord Malloch-Brown (whose disturbing celebration of the Coronavirus as a golden opportunity to finally restructure civilization) should concern any thinking citizen. The idea of a “Great Reset” expounded by these modern mouthpieces of history’s bad ideas signals nothing more than a new Dark Age which should turn the stomach of any moral being.
It is here useful to hold the words of Kissinger in mind who had channeled the spectre of Wells telling a group of technocrats in Evian, France in 1992:
“Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”
John Kerry reveals Biden’s devotion to radical ‘Great Reset’ movement
This isn’t the first time Kerry has thrown his weight behind the Great Reset. At a June World Economic Forum virtual event, Kerry said the coronavirus pandemic was “a big moment” that opened the door for the Great Reset and that, “The World Economic Forum – the CEO capacity of the Forum – is really going to have to play a front and center role in refining the Great Reset to deal with climate change and inequity — all of which is being laid bare as a consequence of COVID-19.”
The evidence is now crystal clear about Biden’s connection to the Great Reset. He, John Kerry and the rest of the Biden administration are planning to bring the Great Reset to the United States. And if they are successful, the country will never be the same.“
The Great Reset of the World Economic Forum is a two pronged agenda based on the memes of global warming and a world wide pandemic, now extant as the Covid 19 pandemic. Again this is an agenda by technocrats to impose a global government ruled by them, as the history of this movement has made crystal clear.
On March 11, 2020 a ‘pandemic’ was declared after the confirmed death of only 15 people. It was claimed that these people had died from a new SARS2/Corona Virus. This virus was claimed to have originated in a meat market in Wuhan China, and that the bats on sale were infected with this virus, which had jumped the species barrier naturally. However it was discovered that the people who had died of this strange new virus had all worked at the biological laboratory in Wuhan.
As time went on further revelations developed concerning “Gain of Function” research that has been going on in the Wuhan biological lab, and that this research is actually funded by DARPA, The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is a research and development agency of the United States Department of Defense responsible for the development of emerging technologies for use by the military.
Fast Forward to the present >>
A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products
Jessica Rose PhD, MSc, BSc , Peter A. McCullough MD, MP
Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge, Public Health Policy Initiative (PHPI) Texas A & M College of Medicine, Baylor Dallas Campus, Dallas TX USA * Correspondence: email@example.com (Dr. Jessica Rose) Abstract Following the global rollout and administration of the Pfizer Inc./BioNTech BNT162b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccines on December 17, 2020, in the United States, and of the Janssen Ad26.COV2.S product on April 1st, 2021, in an unprecedented manner, hundreds of thousands of individuals have reported adverse events (AEs) using the Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS). We used VAERS data to examine cardiac AEs, primarily myocarditis, reported following injection of the first or second dose of the COVID-19 injectable products. Myocarditis rates reported in VAERS were significantly higher in youths between the ages of 13 to 23 (p<0.0001) with ~80% occurring in males. Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group. In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent to dose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males. A total of 67% of all cases occurred with BNT162b2. Of the total myocarditis AE reports, 6 individuals died (1.1%) and of these, 2 were under 20 years of age – 1 was 13. These findings suggest a markedly higher risk for myocarditis subsequent to COVID-19 injectable product use than for other known vaccines, and this is well above known background rates for myocarditis. COVID-19 injectable products are novel and have a genetic, pathogenic mechanism of action causing uncontrolled expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein within human cells. When you combine this fact with the temporal relationship of AE occurrence and reporting, biological plausibility of cause and effect, and the fact that these data are internally and externally consistent with emerging sources of clinical data, it supports a conclusion that the COVID-19 biological products are deterministic for the myocarditis cases observed after injection.
Myocarditis is inflammation of the myocardium or ‘musculature’ of the heart. [1,2,3,4] The myocardium is made up of many cell types however the greatest mass of tissue is accounted for by cardiomyocytes. [4,5,6] Cardiomyocytes are the principal contractile cells and are supported by specialized conduction and stromal cell types. [4,5,6,7,8] Both systole and diastole are active processes that expend energetic resources of cardiomyocytes which are organized into myofibrils. [8,9,10]
Myocarditis can manifest as sudden death, chest pain or heart failure. The symptoms of heart failure from myocarditis include effort intolerance, dyspnea, fatigue, and ankle swelling. [1,2,3,4,6,11,12,13]
The cause is an inflammation of the heart muscle, often following a viral infection, but not exclusively so.
The damaged muscle is prone to lethal cardiac arrythmias as well as having the potential to develop both right and left ventricular dysfunction (cardiomyopathy). [3,4,12,13]
Myocarditis is a major risk for cardiac death among the young.  The high-risk age population for myocarditis is from puberty through early 30s, and it is the third leading cause of sudden cardiac death in children and young adults. 1 per 100,000 children per year are affected by myocarditis and it has been reported that 0.05% of all pediatric hospitalizations are for myocarditis. Between 0.5 and 3.5% of heart failure hospitalizations are due to myocarditis. Most cases of myocarditis are identified in young adults with males affected more often than females. [12,13,14, 15,16]
In the context of COVID-19 respiratory illness, there are a significant number of patients who are otherwise healthy experiencing heart-related complications, including myocarditis, but the majority of clinical reports and diagnoses claim cardiac injury based on ICU-related-related injury to the heart.[17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]
- This is relevant in terms of contextualizing the potential risk of myocarditis
from the COVID-19 products against COVID-19 itself and establishing a background rate of myocarditis in specific contexts. Cardiac injuries associated with COVID-19 respiratory illness reveal a set of parameters based on a combination of measurements of troponin levels, electrocardiogram (ECG/EKG).
Scanning & Transmission Electron Microscopy Reveals Graphene Oxide in CoV-19 Vaccines
Author: Robert O Young CPC, MSc, DSc, PhD, Naturopathic Practitioner
An absolute bombshell and major reveals on what is in the vaccines, with use of electron and other kinds of microscopy from original research by Dr. Robert Young and his team, confirming what the La Quinta Columna researchers found—toxic nanometallic content with cytotoxic and genotoxic effects as well as an identified parasite. This is major revelation: please stay tuned for a major article reporting this at ECC, meanwhile please share this video widely!
Phase Contrast, Dark Field, Bright Field Microscopy, Transmission and Scanning Electron Microscopy and Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Reveal the Ingredients in the CoV-19 Vaccines!
[Figure 1 is a Micrograph of a Carbon Cluster of Reduced Graphene Oxide (rGO) Viewed in the Live Unstained Human Blood with pHase Contrast Microscopy at 1500x. Note that the Red Blood Cells are Clotting in and Around the rGO Crystal in a Condition Known as Rouleau! A French Word Which Means to Chain. Dr. Robert O. Young, Profiles in Medical Microscopy, Hikari OmniPublishing, 1987 – 2021]
[Figure 1a Micrograph under Phase Contrast Microscopy reveals the normal healthy state of the red blood cells which are even in color, even in shape and even in size. Red Blood cells in their healthy state measure anatomically 7 microns in diameter. Dr. Robert O. Young, Profiles in Medical Microscopy, Hikari Omni Publishing, 1987-2021]
[Figure 1b Micrograph taken under Phase Contrast Microscopy reveals the live blood 24 hours after the mRNA Vaccine now containing crystallized red blood cells, biological transformations of red and white blood cells, large symplasts of graphene oxide crystals center and Orotic acid crystals in the upper right hand corner of the micrograph. Dr. Robert O. Young, Hikari Omni Publishing, September, 2021]
[Figure 1c Viewed Under pHase Contrast Microscopy a Nanotube of Graphene Oxide in Coagulated Red Blood Cells or a Blood Clot. Dr. Robert O. Young, Hikari Omni Publishing, 2021
[Figure 1d Viewed Under pHase Contrast Microscopy a Nanotube of Graphene Oxide in Coagulated Red Blood Cells or Blood Clots. Dr. Robert O. Young, Hikari Omni Publishing, 2021]
[[Figure 1e Viewed Under Bright Field Microscopy a Nanotube and Microtubes of Graphene Oxide in the Dried Coagulated Blood Cells or a Blood Clot in Addition to Parasite Bulges Expressed in the Cross-linked Fibrin Monomers Indicating a Systemic Parasitical Infection. Dr. Robert O. Young, Hikari Omni Publishing, 2021]
[Figure 1f Viewed Under Bright Field Microscopy a Nanotube , Microtube and Cluster Bomb of Graphene Oxide in the Dried Coagulated Blood Cells or Blood Clot in Addition to Parasite Bulges Expressed in the Cross-linked Fibrin Monomers Indicating a Systemic Parasitical Infection. Dr. Robert O. Young, Hikari Omni Publishing, 2021]
[Figure 1g Shows Normal Blood Clotting on the Right and Abnormal Blood Clotting on the Left. Please Note that the Normal Blood Clot Contains NO Graphene or Iron Oxide, No Parasites and No Polymerized Protein Pools (White Circles Indicating Cellular Degeneration as Seen in the Blood Clot on the Left. Dr. Robert O. Young, Hikari Omni Publishing, 2021.]
Figure 2b is a 0.5ml aqueous fraction image from Pfizer vaccine sample viewed under pHase contrast microscopy at 1000x, showing a symplast of graphene oxide (upper left) and an unidentified parasite (lower right). Dr. Robert O. Young, Hikari Omni Publishing, September 11th, 2021
Figure 2c is a 0.5ml aqueous fraction image from Pfizer vaccine sample viewed under pHase contrast microscopy at 1000x, showing a graphene oxide ribbon. Dr. Robert O. Young, Hikari Omni Publishing, September 11th, 2021
[Figure 3 – Aqueous fraction images containing reduced graphene oxide from Pfizer vaccine sample (left) and sonicated reduced graphene oxide (rGO) standard (right) (Sigma-777684). Optical pHase contrast microscopy, 600X magnification. In addition, the Muestra RD1, La Quinta Columna Report, June 28, 2021; Graphene Oxide Detection in Aqueous Suspension; Delgado Martin, Campra Madrid confirms our findings.
[Figure 4 shows the liposome Capsid containing rGO that Pfizer uses for its product to vehiculate the graphene oxide by attaching the Liposome capsid to specific mRNA molecules for driving the Liposome contents of fGO to specific organs, glands and tissues, namely the ovaries and testes, bone marrow, heart and brain. The image was obtained by a SEM-Cryo preparation.]
[Figure 4b Reveals X ray Diffraction Pattern of the Graphene Particles. Matéria (Rio J.) 23 (1) , 2018. Characterization of graphene nanosheets obtained by a modified Hummer’s method. Renata Hack et al.]
[Figure 5 shows a cluster of graphene nanoparticles in a Pfizer vaccine. They appear to be aggregated.]
[Figure 6 shows a TEM microscopy observation where particles of reduced graphene oxide in a Pfizer “vaccine” are present. The X-ray diffractometry reveals their nature of crystalline Carbon-based nanoparticles of rGO. This evidence was intitially found by Muestra RD1, and published in the La Quinta Columna Report, June 28, 2021; Graphene Oxide Detection in Aqueous Suspension; Delgado Martin, Campra Madrid and . ]
[The micrograph above is showing the graphene oxide (GO) and the poisoning and destruction of the neutrophils (NET – which make up over 60 percent of all white blood cells) which are designed to pick up and eliminate foreign toxic chemical waste and biologicals. The Scientists at Karlinska Institute, the University of Manchester, Chalmers University of Technology and the Scientific Team of Dr. Robert O. Young have shown that the human immune system handles graphene oxide in the same manner as bacteria, yeast or mold.]
[Figure 7 shows a spectrum of a Pfizer “vaccine” under an ESEM microscopy coupled with an EDS x-ray microprobe (X axis =KeV, Y axis = Counts) identifying Carbon, Oxygen, Sodium and Chloride. ]
[Figure 7a shows he spectrum of a Pfizer “vaccine” nanoparticulates of graphene oxide, magnesium, aluminum, silicon, chloride and calcium identified under an ESEM microscope coupled with an EDS x-ray microprobe. (X axis =KeV, Y axis = Counts)]
[Figure 8 – UV spectrum of aqueous fraction of Pfizer vaccine sample.]
[Figure 9 – UV absorption and fluorescence spectra were obtained with Cytation 5 Cell Imaging Multi-Mode Reader Spectrophotometer (BioteK). UV absorbance spectrum confirmed a maximum peak at 270 nm, compatible with presence of rGO. UV fluorescence maximum at 340 nm also suggests presence of significant amounts of rGO in the sample (Bano et al, 2019).]
[Figure 10 – The spectroscopy UV analysis showed an adsorption due to the presence of reduced graphene oxide, which is confirmed by observation under ultraviolet visible microscopy.]
[Figure 11 shows sharp micron debris of 20 um in length identified in the Pfizer so-called “vaccine” containing Carbon, Oxygen Chromium, Sulphur, Aluminum, Chloride, Nitrogen.]
[Figure 12 shows a 20 micron in length particulate identified in the so-called Pfizer “vaccine”. It is composed of carbon, oxygen, chromium, sulphur, aluminum, chloride and nitrogen.]
[Figure 13 shows a Trypanosoma Parasite approximately 50 microns in length found in the so-called Pfizer “vaccine”. It is composed of carbon, oxygen chromium, sulphur, aluminum, chloride and nitrogen.]
[Figure 13a shows a Live Blood pHase Contrast Microscopy Micrograph of Trypanosoma cruzi Parasite. ]
[Figure 14 Identifies a Composite of Nano particulates]
Although all of the mRNA products from Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson, etc. deny that any of these things are in their products. And they and the WHO, and other regulatory agencies claim these products are safe, and have no adverse effects on the health of the person getting these shots. This is obviously not true as per the evidence given in the document.
Researchers world wide have been reporting similar results when testing the so-called ‘vaccines’ by microscopy.
Since 1999, Dr. Martin has been actively tracking patent applications and approvals for the purpose of identifying suspicious activity. In the 94-minute video shown below, he shares the findings from his research regarding the laboratory development of a pathogenic coronavirus that started in 1999 and was released initially upon human populations in the SARS CoV-1 in 2002-2003, then again in MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome in 2012, and then again in SARS CoV-2 which was renamed COVID-19, as shown below with evidence from the primary development lab in Wuhan China.
In my opinion, the evidence presented below along with additional evidence presented in the video proves that all of these pathogenic variants of the coronavirus were laboratory developed, man-made bioweapons. And they’ve all been funded by the NIAID under the direction of a self-proclaimed Jesuit, Dr. Anthony Fauci.
The following quotes from Dr. Martin were transcribed from the video.
“Historically, coronaviruses have not been associated with significant illnesses in humans. So how is it that suddenly in 2002 going into 2003 that we have this magical alteration in beta coronaviruses that suddenly makes them lethal?
And that question is the fundamental question that is behind an inquiry that we’ve been on since 1999 and Ralph Baric and NIAID’s (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) first efforts to figure out a way to increase the pathogenicity of beta coronaviruses.
In 1999, there was a grant given to Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and in that grant there was an effort to figure out how to amplify certain pathogenicities of what was called recombinant technology around coronavirus. Baric had a decade plus history in working with coronaviruses generally. He had done a lot of work in veterinary science around cardiac conditions for rabbits. There was a huge amount of research around cardiomyopathy in rabbits that had something to do with coronavirus. But in 1999, NIAID funded a project in which we first saw the amplification of pathogenic components of the beta coronavirus. (Note: Anthony Fauci has been Director of NIAID since 1984.)
And it’s very important to understand that happened in 1999 and the work that was done between 1999 and then published in 2002 and 2003 actually started suggesting that there were parts of the coronavirus that could be modified, specifically the Ace-2 receptor and the S-1 spike protein, that could be modified to increase the degree to which the coronavirus could represent a health threat to humans.
Let that just settle in for a moment. Three years before we have the first SARS outbreak (in 2002-2003, called SARS1) we have researchers who are working on amplifying the pathogenicity of the things that make coronavirus extremely harmful to the human system. Now, that feels like that should invoke in at least one or two people a set of questions, which is, how is it that we went for allegedly whatever our evolutionary time frame is where we were coexisting with coronaviruses and suddenly we started manipulating them with recombinant technology in 1999, 2000, 2001, and suddenly nature figures out a way to make these things also highly pathogenetic, in 2002 and 2003, using the exact same mechanism that we’ve done in the lab. Possible? Yes. Plausible? Not a chance.
What makes it even less a chance is if we look at what was actually being patented at the time because we’re actually looking specifically at the sections of coronavirus that are those sections that are specifically modified in the laboratory which happen to also be the things that allegedly become modified by nature. Suspicious? Yes. Possible? Of course. Nature and humans could have been following this exact same trajectory. Plausible? Not so much.
And what makes it less plausible is that we start seeing that the coronavirus in its alleged zoonotic and alleged, you know, kind of natural pathogenicity enhancement happens to be happening at the exact same place that researchers are doing the same work. That seems to be a highly implausible story regardless of who is telling it.
But, what we saw in the wake of 2003 was that the Department of Health and Human Services, remember they’re the umbrella organization that controls the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the National Institute of Health, NIAID, and the funding mechanisms that ultimately go to laboratories across this country and around the world, what we saw was an increased amount of funding going into coronavirus research and the research was specifically focused on, not only the detection of but also the amplification of the pathogenicity of SARS coronavirus.
Now, a number of people have not paid attention to the evolution of this, but what you have in the written record, in the published record from Ralph Baric’s lab, in the public record from a number of other laboratories, you see from 2003 right up until 2012, a proliferation of work around the amplification of attributes of coronavirus that are specifically targeting tissue that is going to be highly susceptible in the lungs and potentially susceptible in the kidneys because the Ace-2 receptor seems to be something that has an enormous amount of attraction in terms of the research.
But we see all this research being done and we’ve been told that the Department of Health and Human Services was doing it because they were very interested in making sure that they could control a response to a potential outbreak somewhere down the road, but during that entire period, there was no vaccine, there was no treatment and there was no diagnostic developed. And that is because the Center for Disease Control also filed patents on the detection of coronavirus and on the treatment for coronavirus. In other words, they built a patent thicket around beta coronavirus stimulating SARS and they built a thicket through which independent inquiry could not happen outside of the important exception, which is people who would play their game.
We’re in a situation where you control the actual thing to test. You control the means of its detection. And you control the mechanism that actually involves the treatment of that the patents held by Ralph Baric, the patents held by the Center for Disease Control, ultimately the 5,111 patents that were issued from the period across from 2003 right up until 2019, the 5,111 patents were all issued within this interesting funding and research and inter-related directorates and inter-related corporate private public partnership kinds of relationships, all of those patents issued around the core platform that said that the CDC was going to adjudicate who could or could not make an independent inquiry.
And so the known regions of alteration have been targets of research funded by NIAID since 2012 and so this idea that somehow or another a magical new strain appeared which has no similarity to anything we’ve seen before is actually patently false.
Since 1999, humans have been manipulating properties of the beta coronavirus model and they have manipulated them such that they become more pathogenic to humans. We saw that emerge in the 2002-2003 outbreak. We saw it kind of resurface in the MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) outbreak in 2012 going into 2013 and we saw it again in 2019. And the very specific things that allegedly have altered in the genome of the beta coronavirus model called SARS CoV, whether it’s SARS CoV1 or MERS or SARS CoV2, those things that have allegedly altered are things that have equally been altered in laboratories, the amplification of the spike protein, the amplification of the Ace-2 receptor, those are all things that were anticipated and done in synthetic exercises in laboratories and we are told that they are the same things that nature figured out at the same time.
We know that Anthony Fauci has been pouring a lot of money into this. Since he took over NIAID, the public record indicates that he has had about $191 billion that has flowed through NIAID. And that money has come not only from the National Institutes of Health appropriations but it has also come from the Department of Defense and the bioweapons and bio-terror programs that were instituted after 2001. So there has been a lot of money going through NIAID… and an enormous amount of it has gone into coronavirus and other pathogens.
What we found interesting was that in 2016 (published online March 15, 2016) there was a publication that came out involving (the same) people who are very intimately involved with the current situation, which in fact stated that a SARS-like Wuhan Institute of Virology 1 CoV (WIV1-CoV) poised for human emergence. Just sit with this for a minute. On March 15, 2016, we actually have a publication in which we are told that there is a Wuhan Institute of Virology pathogen poised for human emergence. So do you think it was any surprise to a person who has been monitoring this since 1999 that when I heard in December of 2019 that there was allegedly a novel pneumonia strain happening in Wuhan?
Do you think it was a surprise that I actually thought, “Hmm, nature, yeah, nature must have done that,” when I actually have not only the article that states that the Wuhan Institute of Virology coronavirus was poised for human emergence but I actually see that the individuals associated with that are individuals that since 2012 have been working in collaboration with DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Agency) and the US AMRID and other agencies and have been funded significantly by a number of foundations to work on development of vaccine templates and platforms and treatment templates and platforms for, are you ready for this, SARS coronavirus outbreaks. And they have gone as far as to make statements about the accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen.”