The news about anything to do with Corona is overwhelming - if one is on Twitter and Facebook alone it is already too much, add to that all the messages on Messenger, WhatsApp and other channels can make ones head explode.
Lately, I tried to make sense out of some of this, and somehow, a pattern emerged by putting it all in order.
I published a long blog on the Hive Blockchain, and I won't just copy it all over on this one,
but simply link to it (it is publicly available everywhere):
click for the whole story
Just for the fun of it, I include some insane memes I found on Facebook, which are not part of the Hive blog. If anyone feel 'outed' or embarrassed about it, they should not have posted them.
A search on Facebook on thetopic of Corona would keep one occupied until the end of times.
Some serious, some funny, but most of it insanely dumb, particularly the comments.
First off, maybe check who David E. Martin, PhD is - lets visit the website of his company M.CAM:
I am not going to write a long intro, because whatever I could say could not do justice of what is being discussed in these videos.
The first video I was made aware of by a Canadian friend, and it discussed issues about the Corona Virus from a Canadian perspective. It was uploaded to BitChute by Vaccine Choice Canada:
After watching this, I started searching and found the info about his company (see above), but additional videos, and one of them from the Stiftung Corona Ausschuss, conducted in Berlin, Germany, but all in English
This is a multiple-warhead bombshell: Intelligence analyst David E. Martin has been checking the patent files concerning SARS-CoV2 and found out ... damn, listen to the guy yourself. If this turns out to be true there can be no more doubt about what the hell is going on.
The German Corona Inquiry Committee has been formed in July 2020 and heard almost 150 scientists, experts, researchers, witnesses and victims in 60 five-hour sessions.
This video is a collection of the English-only sections of the hearing. The hearing with David E. Martin can be watched completely at: Dr. David E. Martin | Sitzung 60: Die Zeit ist kein flacher Kreis
You might want to watch either of these two videos at the origin sites BitChute and YouTube, since some of the comments would also be interesting. The video on the Corona Ausschuss website is a little longer than the one on YouTube.
I have been gathering a number of resources about these vaccines that are currently on the market. I am rather cautious and not given to conspiracy theories, so I select my resources carefully. What concerns me at this time is that adverse reactions to these vaccines, all of which are only under a temporary emergency use authorization, are alarmingly mounting, but news about it had been being suppressed.
But more of it is being reported now, and not just by "conspiracy theorists", but reputable news and government sources, it can no longer be ignored. I present a selection of items which I shared on Twitter.
But first, for the sake of being thorough and fair, here is a video by the FDA explaining the Drug Approval Process:
The process is similar in Europe and other places in the world. Check out how the WHO explains it:
WHO lists additional COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use and issues interim policy recommendations
A interesting read would be this, and perhaps read it first before continuing here - the link opens in a separate window:
What does full FDA approval of a vaccine do if it’s already authorized for emergency use?
Apropos FDA, you might want to check out and follow the link on this tweet:
here are some select tweets i posted or shared lately:
Now I like to present something that some may consider controversial - videos such as these are often banned on social media sites and YouTube. A shame really, because a exchange of ideas is often impossible and only one side, the officially sanctioned opinion, is presented. But like I mentioned above, more of it is also appearing now in the main stream media.
A PATHOLOGIST SUMMARY OF WHAT THESE JABS DO TO
Bravo. Merci de rappeler à nos sénateurs qu'il existe encore un peuple en France, dont ils sont les serviteurs. Aidons le dictateur Castex à retrouver ses lunettes pour voir le peuple. Aidons le tyran Macron à choisir entre la banque Rotschild dont il est la marionnette et la France. J'ai envoyé cette vidéo à un grand nombre de sénateurs. Voici la réponse que j’ai reçue de Vincent Delahaye, Vice président du sénat : « Je partage votre souhait de sortir au plus vite de cette dictature sanitaire et de retrouver la liberté d’aller et venir. Je n’ai pas voté les prorogations de l’état d’urgence et ne voterai pas la prochaine. J’espère être suivi par des collègues sénateurs de plus en plus nombreux. Mais ce n’est pas gagné. Bien cordialement. ». Si nous étions des centaines à écrire à nos parlementaires, peut-être verraient-ils le peuple, sous leurs fenêtres ? Faudra-t-il organiser des flashmobs devant chaque permanence de chaque député LREM ou autre qui ont voté l'état d'urgence pour qu'ils voient le peuple ?
Well done. Thank you for reminding our senators that there is still a people in France, of which they are the servants. Let's help dictator Castex find his glasses to see the people. Let us help the tyrant Macron to choose between the Rotschild bank of which he is the puppet and France. I have sent this video to a large number of senators. Here is the response I received from Vincent Delahaye, Vice President of the Senate: "I share your wish to get out of this health dictatorship as quickly as possible and to regain the freedom to come and go. I did not vote on the state of emergency extensions and will not vote on the next one. I hope to be followed by more and more fellow senators. But it is not won. Best regards. ". If there were hundreds of us writing to our parliamentarians, perhaps they would see the people under their windows? Will it be necessary to organize flashmobs in front of each office of each LREM deputy or other who voted for the state of emergency so that they can see the people?
Bruxelles veut danser encore. Still Standing for Culture. Flashmob 1/5/2021 gare Bruxelles Central
Flashmob "Danser Encore", München 01.05.2021
"Danser encore" FLASHMOB Bologna (Danzare ancora - Italian Version) - 25 Aprile 2021
Wieder tanzen gehn - Flashmob Berlin 17.04.20021 - Danser encore
Flashmob "Danser Encore" en España -- Madrid,
3 de mayo de 2021 -- Seguir Bailando!!
Freedom Danser Encore Flash Mob - 5 May 2021
Dance again Flashmob Zürich Switzerland (Zéphyr Combo & Friends) - 12. April 202
FLASHMOB ~ Barcelona 23.4.2021 ~ Danser encore ~ Versió catalana
It's the New World anthem! That of fraternity, of conscience, of the joy of dancing life together!
Will the end of the COVID-19 pandemic usher in a second Roaring ’20s?Agnes Arnold-Forster, McGill University
While some places remain mired in the third wave of the pandemic, others are taking their first tentative steps towards normality. Since April 21, Denmark has allowed indoor service at restaurants and cafes, and football fans are returning to the stands. In countries that have forged ahead with the rollout of vaccines, there is a palpable sense of optimism.
And yet, with all this looking forward, there is plenty of uncertainty over what the future holds. Articles on what the world will look like post-pandemic have proliferated and nations worldwide are considering how to recover financially from this year-long economic disaster.
Almost exactly a hundred years ago, similar conversations and preparations were taking place. In 1918, an influenza pandemic swept the globe. It infected an estimated 500 million people — around a third of the world’s population at the time — in four successive waves. While the end of that pandemic was protracted and uneven, it was eventually followed by a period of dramatic social and economic change.
The Roaring ‘20s — or “années folles” (“crazy years”) in France — was a period of economic prosperity, cultural flourishing and social change in North America and Europe. The decade witnessed a rapid acceleration in the development and use of cars, planes, telephones and films. In many democratic nations, some women won the right to vote and their ability to participate in the public sphere and labour market expanded.
Parallels and differences
As a historian of health care, I see some striking similarities between then and now, and as we enter our very own '20s it is tempting to use this history as a way of predicting the future.
Vaccine rollouts have raised hope for an end to the COVID-19 pandemic. But they’ve also raised questions about how the world might bounce back, and whether this tragic period could be the start of something new and exciting. Much like in the 1920s, this disease could prompt us to reconsider how we work, run governments and have fun.
However, there are some crucial differences between the two pandemics that could alter the trajectory of the upcoming decade. For one, the age-profile of the victims of the influenza pandemic was unlike that of COVID-19.
The 1918 flu — also called the Spanish flu — predominantly affected the young, whereas COVID-19 has mostly killed older people. As a result, fear probably refracted through the two societies in different ways.
Young people have certainly been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: the virus has posed a threat to those with underlying health conditions or disabilities of all ages, and some of the variants have been more likely to affect younger people. A year of lockdowns and shelter-in-place orders has had a damaging effect on mental and emotional health, and young people have experienced increased anxiety.
However, the relief of surviving the COVID-19 pandemic might not feel quite the same as that experienced by those who made it through the 1918 influenza pandemic, which posed an immediate risk of death to those in their 20s and 30s.
1918 vs. 2020
Crucially, the 1918 flu came immediately after the First World War, which produced its own radical reconstitution of the social order. Despite the drama and tragedy of 2020, the changes we are living through now might be insufficient to produce the kind of social transformation witnessed in the 1920s. One of the key features of the Roaring '20s was an upending of traditional values, a shift in gender dynamics and the flourishing of gay culture.
While the prospect of similar things happening in the 2020s might seem promising, the pandemic has reinforced, rather than challenged, traditional gender roles. There is evidence for this all over the world, but in the United States research suggests that the risk of mothers leaving the labour force to take up caring responsibilities at home amounts to around US$64.5 billion per year in lost wages and economic activity.
When most people think of the Roaring '20s they probably call to mind images of nightclubs, jazz performers and flappers — people having fun. But fun costs money. No doubt, there will be plenty of celebration and relief when things return to a version of normality, but hedonism will probably be out of reach for most.
Young people in particular have been hard hit by the financial pressures of COVID-19. Workers aged 16-24 face high unemployment and an uncertain future. While some have managed to weather the economic storm of this past year, the gap between rich and poor has widened.
Inequality and isolationism
Of course, the 1920s was not a period of unadulterated joy for everyone. Economic inequality was a problem then just as it is now. And while society became more liberal in some ways, governments also enacted harsher and more punitive policies, particularly when it came to immigration — specifically from Asian countries.
The Immigration Act of 1924 limited immigration to the U.S. and targeted Asians. Australia and New Zealand also restricted or ended Asian immigration and in Canada, the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923 imposed similar limitations.
There are troubling signs that this might be the main point of similarity between then and now. Anti-Asian sentiment has increased and many countries are using COVID-19 as a way of justifying harsh border restrictions and isolationist policies.
In our optimism for the future, we must remain alert to all the different kinds of damage the pandemic could cause. Just as disease can be a mechanism for positive social change, it can also entrench inequalities and further divide nations and communities.
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg erklärt den Zusammenhang zwischen der Impfung und den Thrombosen, Schlaganfällen und Lungenembolien.
+++Astrazeneca heißt jetzt auch Vaxzevria.+++
Note: the video originally embedded here disappeared also, here is the same one embedded from another source. Should this again malfunction, I have a copy of it saved as well.
(Forum Deutsches Ärzteblatt):
Verzicht auf Aspiration bei i.m. Injektion?
Aspirieren, d. h. die Spritze in der Position halten und den Spritzenstempel leicht zurück ziehen, um einen Gefäßanstich auszuschließen. Kommt Blut, Injektion sofort stoppen, Kanüle entfernen, Einstichstelle abdrücken.
"But your body also produces antibodies as a response to vaccination. That’s the way it can recognise SARS-CoV-2, the next time it meets it, to protect you from severe COVID. So as COVID vaccines are rolled out, and people develop a vaccine-induced antibody response, it may become difficult to differentiate between someone who has had COVID in the past and someone who was vaccinated a month ago."
Will the COVID vaccine make me test positive for the coronavirus? 5 questions about vaccines and COVID testing answeredMeru Sheel, Australian National University; Charlee J Law, Australian National University, and Cyra Patel, Australian National University
Do the vaccines give you COVID, or make you test positive for COVID? Does the vaccine affect other tests? Do we still need to get COVID tested if we have symptoms, even after getting the shot? And will we still need COVID testing once more of the population gets vaccinated?
We look at the evidence to answer five common questions about the impact of COVID vaccines on testing.
1. Will the vaccine give me COVID?
The short answer is “no”. That’s because the vaccines approved for use so far in Australia and elsewhere don’t contain live COVID virus.
The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine contains an artificially generated portion of viral mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid). This carries the specific genetic instructions for your body to make the coronavirus’s “spike protein”, against which your body mounts a protective immune response.
The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a different technology. It packages viral DNA into a viral vector “carrier” based on a chimpanzee adenovirus. When this is delivered into your arm, the DNA prompts your body to produce the spike protein, again stimulating an immune response.
Any vaccine side-effects, such as fever or feeling fatigued, are usually mild and temporary. These are signs the vaccines are working to boost your immune system, rather than signs of COVID itself. These symptoms are also common after routine vaccines.
2. Will the COVID vaccine make me test positive?
No, a COVID vaccine will not affect the results of a diagnostic COVID test.
The current gold-standard diagnostic test is known as nucleic acid PCR testing. This looks for the mRNA (genetic material) of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. This is a marker of current infection.
This is the test the vast majority of people have when they line up at a drive-through testing clinic, or attend a COVID clinic at their local hospital.
Yes, the Pfizer vaccine contains mRNA. But the mRNA it uses is only a small part of the entire viral RNA. It also cannot make copies of itself, which would be needed for it to be in sufficient quantity to be detected. So it cannot be detected by a PCR test.
The AstraZeneca vaccine also only contains part of the DNA but is inserted in an adenovirus carrier that cannot replicate so cannot give you infection or a positive PCR test.
3. How about antibody testing?
While PCR testing is used to look for current infection, antibody testing — also known as serology testing — picks up past infections.
Laboratories look to see if your immune system has raised antibodies against the coronavirus, a sign your body has been exposed to it. As it takes time for antibodies to develop, testing positive with an antibody test may indicate you were infected weeks or months ago.
But your body also produces antibodies as a response to vaccination. That’s the way it can recognise SARS-CoV-2, the next time it meets it, to protect you from severe COVID.
So as COVID vaccines are rolled out, and people develop a vaccine-induced antibody response, it may become difficult to differentiate between someone who has had COVID in the past and someone who was vaccinated a month ago. But this will depend on the serology test used.
The good news is that antibody testing is not nearly as common as PCR testing. And it’s only ordered under limited and rare circumstances.
For instance, when someone tests positive with PCR, but they are a false positive due to the characteristics of the test, or have fragments of virus lingering in the respiratory tract from an old infection, public health experts might request an antibody test to see whether that person was infected in the past. They might also order an antibody test during contact tracing of cases with an unknown source of infection.
4. If I get vaccinated, do I still need a COVID test if I have symptoms?
Yes, we will continue to test for COVID as long as the virus is circulating anywhere in the world.
Even though the COVID vaccines are looking promising in preventing people from getting seriously sick or dying, they won’t provide 100% protection.
Real-world data suggests some vaccinated people can still catch the virus, but they usually only get mild disease. We are unsure whether vaccinated people will be able to potentially pass it to others, even if they don’t have any symptoms. So it’s important people continue to get tested.
Furthermore, not everyone will be eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. For instance, in Australia, current guidelines exclude people under 16 years of age, and those who are allergic to ingredients in the vaccine. And although pregnant women are not ruled out from receiving the vaccine, it is not routinely recommended. This means a proportion of the population will remain susceptible to catching the virus.
We also are unsure about how effective vaccines will be against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. So we will continue to test to ensure people are not infected with these strains.
We know testing, detecting new cases early and contact tracing are the core components of the public health response to COVID, and will continue to be a priority from a public health perspective.
Minimum numbers of daily COVID tests are also needed so we can be confident the virus is not circulating in the community. As an example, New South Wales aims for 8,000 or more tests a day to maintain this peace of mind.
Continued vigilance and high rates of testing for COVID will also be important as we enter the flu season. That’s because the only way to differentiate between COVID and influenza (or any other respiratory infection) is via testing.
5. Will testing for COVID stop as time goes on?
It is unlikely our approach to COVID testing will change in the immediate future. However, as COVID vaccines are rolled out and since COVID is likely to become endemic and stay with us for a long time, the acute response phase to the pandemic will end.
So COVID testing may become part of managing other infectious diseases and part of how we respond to other ongoing health priorities.
Meru Sheel, Epidemiologist | Senior Research Fellow, Australian National University; Charlee J Law, Epidemiologist | Research Associate, Australian National University, and Cyra Patel, PhD candidate, Australian National University
What impact does the inhalation of fine particles have on our Immune system
Fine particle air pollution is a public health emergency hiding in plain sightDoug Brugge, Tufts University and Kevin James Lane, Boston University
Ambient air pollution is the largest environmental health problem in the United States and in the world more generally. Fine particulate matter smaller than 2.5 millionths of a meter, known as PM2.5, was the fifth-leading cause of death in the world in 2015, factoring in approximately 4.1 million global deaths annually. In the United States, PM2.5 contributed to about 88,000 deaths in 2015 – more than diabetes, influenza, kidney disease or suicide.
Current evidence suggests that PM2.5 alone causes more deaths and illnesses than all other environmental exposures combined. For that reason, one of us (Douglas Brugge) recently wrote a book to try to spread the word to the broader public.
Developed countries have made progress in reducing particulate air pollution in recent decades, but much remains to be done to further reduce this hazard. And the situation has gotten dramatically worse in many developing countries – most notably, China and India, which have industrialized faster and on vaster scales than ever seen before. According to the World Health Organization, more than 90 percent of the world’s children breathe air so polluted it threatens their health and development.
As environmental health specialists, we believe the problem of fine particulate air pollution deserves much more attention, including in the United States. New research is connecting PM2.5 exposure to an alarming array of health effects. At the same time, the Trump administration’s efforts to support the fossil fuel industry could increase these emissions when the goal should be further reducing them.
Where there’s smoke …
Particulate matter is produced mainly by burning things. In the United States, the majority of PM2.5 emissions come from industrial activities, motor vehicles, cooking and fuel combustion, often including wood. There is a similar suite of sources in developing countries, but often with more industrial production and more burning of solid fuels in homes.
Wildfires are also an important and growing source, and winds can transport wildfire emissions hundreds of miles from fire regions. In August 2018, environmental regulators in Michigan reported that fine particles from wildfires burning in California were impacting their state’s air quality.
Most deaths and many illnesses caused by particulate air pollution are cardiovascular – mainly heart attacks and strokes. Obviously, air pollution affects the lungs because it enters them as we breathe. But once PM enters the lungs, it causes an inflammatory response that sends signals throughout the body, much as a bacterial infection would. Additionally, the smallest particles and fragments of larger particles can leave the lungs and travel through the blood.
Emerging research continues to expand the boundaries of health impacts from PM2.5 exposure. To us, the most notable new concern is that it appears to affect brain development and has adverse cognitive impacts. The smallest particles can even travel directly from the nose into the brain via the olfactory nerve.
There is growing evidence that PM2.5, as well as even smaller particles called ultrafine particles, affect children’s central nervous systems. They also can accelerate the pace of cognitive decline in adults and increase the risk in susceptible adults of developing Alzheimer’s disease.
PM2.5 has received much of the research and policy attention in recent years, but other types of particles also raise concerns. Ultrafines are less studied than PM2.5 and are not yet considered in risk estimates or air pollution regulations. Coarse PM, which is larger and typically comes from physical processes like tire and brake wear, may also pose health risks.
Regulatory push and pull
The progress that developed countries have made in addressing air pollution, especially PM, demonstrates that regulation works. Before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was established in 1970, air quality in Los Angeles, New York and other major U.S. cities bore a striking resemblance to Beijing and Delhi today. Increasingly stringent air pollution regulations enacted since then have protected public health and undoubtedly saved millions of lives.
But it wasn’t easy. The first regulatory limits on PM2.5 were proposed in the 1990s, after two important studies showed that it had major health impacts. But industry pushback was fierce, and included accusations that the science behind the studies was flawed or even fraudulent. Ultimately federal regulations were enacted, and follow-up studies and reanalysis confirmed the original findings.
Now the Trump administration is working to reduce the role of science in shaping air pollution policy and reverse regulatory decisions by the Obama administration. One new appointee to the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, Robert Phalen, a professor of medicine at the University of California, Irvine, is known for asserting that modern air is actually too clean for optimal health, even though the empirical evidence does not support this argument.
On Oct. 11, 2018, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler disbanded a critical air pollution science advisory group that dealt specifically with PM regulation. Critics called this an effort to limit the role that current scientific evidence plays in establishing national air quality standards that will protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, as required under the Clean Air Act.
Opponents of regulating PM2.5 in the 1990s at least acknowledged that science had a role to play, although they tried to discredit studies that supported the case for regulation. The new approach seems to be to try to cut scientific evidence out of the process entirely.
No time for complacency
In late October 2018, the World Health Organization convened a special conference on global air pollution and health. The agency’s heightened interest appears to be motivated by risk estimates that show air pollution to be a concern of similar magnitude to more traditional public health targets, such as diet and physical activity.
Conferees endorsed a goal of reducing global deaths from air pollution by two-thirds by 2030. This is a highly aspirational target, but it may focus renewed attention on strategies such as reducing economic barriers that make it hard to deploy pollution control technologies in developing countries.
In any case, past and current research clearly show that now is not the time to move away from regulating air pollution that arises largely from burning fossil fuels, in the United States or abroad.
For additional information, please check my blog from last year
A VIRAL LANDSCAPE
This is from the USA Conversation, and I am posting from Austria!!!!!
There are no Kangaroos in Austria, you Zuckerberg Morons!
In response to Australian government legislation, Facebook restricts the posting of news links and all posts from news Pages in Australia. Globally, the posting and sharing of news links from Australian publications is restricted.
Subsequently, I shared this on Facebook from my Twitter Feed:
How the media may be making the COVID-19 mental health epidemic worse
This happened to me yesterday already when I tried to share a UK Conversation Article, but yesterday there was no warning, just a error message, and subsequently I posted a question on Facebook which caused a lot of head scratching, until he mystery got solved today.
Eventually, I resorted to the same "trick" of posting my Twitter feed.
From trippy drugs to therapeutic aids – how psychedelics got their groove back
Both of these articles are highly recommended to read, they deal directly, and the second one indirectly, with Corona Virus issues, so please follow the links.
Art Of The Mystic
Art Of Where
De Es Schwertberger
Dreams & Divitities
Ernst Fuchs Museum
Fantastic Art Shop
Fine Art America
Garden Of Fernal Delights
Grand Salon 2017
Grand Salon 2018
Henry David Thoreau
International Surrealism Now
Isabella Bogner Bader
Liba W Stambollion
Minerva Art Gallery
One Art Space
Phantastik In Der Box
Prof. Dr. Hendrik Streeck
Rue Morgue Magazin
Society For Art Of Imagination
The Painted Word
University Of Lethbridge
Vienna Academy Of Visionary Art
Vienna School Of Fantastic Realism