WOW this is some great research and content. You need to save this it surely could come in handy. Thanks so much for sharing this letter to Whole Foods. I stopped buying at Whole Foods after Amazon bought them out.
6. September 12, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy.” This executive order makes biotechnology a national priority across agencies and branches of government. In late March 2023, Biden expanded on this premise in a “Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing” report. According to this plan, the food industry is now to be led by biotech, and the “improvements” we can look forward to are more lab-grown meats and bioengineered plant foods. Two cell-based lab-grown meat companies have now received the green light to produce and sell fake chicken in the U.S. Per the Biden order: "The Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary, shall submit a report assessing how to use biotechnology and biomanufacturing for food and agriculture innovation, including by improving sustainability and land conservation; increasing food quality and nutrition; increasing and protecting agricultural yields; protecting against plant and animal pests and diseases; and cultivating alternative food sources."
5. As reported by Food Dive:
"While advocates and some companies have been working to reduce methane emissions from food, cut down on food waste, increase capacity for producing alternative proteins and use bioengineering to make healthier and hardier crops and animals, goals like these have never before come from the White House …The federal government is providing more evidence that it intends to do more than just talk about big goals. A day before the report came out, FDA gave its second tacit approval to a company using biotechnology to grow meat from cells in bioreactors. While neither … is creating meat for consumers yet, this action shows that the federal government is moving toward making cultivated meat a reality."
Among the many problems with this plan is the fact that taxpayers will now be paying for government's funding of private corporations involved in the fake food industry. The end result is predictable. What we'll have is a repeat of what happened with farm subsidies. Rather than subsidizing the most nutritious foods, government farm subsidies go almost exclusively to large monoculture farms growing genetically engineered corn, soy and other basic ingredients used in processed foods. As a result, the processed food industry has grown on our dime while public health has deteriorated. The same thing could well happen here. Instead of investing in regenerative agriculture, which is what could really solve our problems, government is backing a whole new industry of fake foods, from lab-grown meats to large-scale insect production. At present, two cell-based lab-grown meat companies have received the green light to produce and sell fake chicken in the U.S. The first, Upside Foods (previously Memphis Meats), received FDA approval for its cell-based lab-grown chicken in November 2022. According to the FDA's November 14, 2022, memo: "We have no questions at this time about UPSIDE's conclusion that foods comprised of or containing cultured chicken cell material resulting from the production process … are as safe as comparable foods produced by other methods." Dr. Uma Valeti, CEO and founder of Upside Foods, called the approval "a watershed moment in the history of food" and a "major step toward a new era in meat production." The company has a 53,000-square-foot facility in the San Francisco Bay Area capable of producing 400,000 pounds of fake meat per year. In March 2023, Eat Just — which has been selling its lab-grown chicken in Singapore since 2020 — also received FDA approval. The company is currently building a commercial-scale facility in the U.S. that will house 10 250,000-liter bioreactors.The problem with us consumers? Safety data is sorely lacking. While the U.S. government is moving full speed ahead with approvals for lab-grown meats, a Food Hazards Identification report by the British Food standards Agency (FSA) and Food Standards Scotland, published in March 2023, warns there are "considerable gaps in knowledge" when it comes to cell-based meat production. As reported by Food Safety News March 24, 2023: "The purpose of the report was to identify hazards in the cultivated meat production process to help inform the FSA risk assessment process for authorization. It was also important that products do not pose any microbiological or chemical concerns. The research was based on a review of scientific literature in 2020. There was little or no data on the final analytical composition of products, key toxicology data, nutrition profiles, product stability, allergy risk, and any recorded adverse effects when consumed by animals or humans … The FSA report found there are several stages of development for producing cultured meat and at each one, different chemicals, biologics, media formulations, additives, and supplements are used. The contamination risk of each input needs to be assessed, as any undesirable components that remain in the final product need to be at an acceptable exposure level or be food-grade and safe."
Potential problem areas identified by the FSA (see links above) include:
Contaminated reagents, air or water baths Poorly cleaned or maintained equipment
Failing to follow cleaning protocols when culturing cells Failing to follow good laboratory practices (GLP) and/or good manufacturing practices (GMP)
Use of antibiotics, fungicides and/or chemicals that are toxic to humans in the production Consumption of viruses used in the manufacturing process
Cross-contamination of one cell line into another due to concomitant use of multiple cell lines Other cross-contamination risks, such as "poor maintenance of equipment, poor cleaning regimes, incorrect storage of cells, working with multiple cell lines in one area, using the wrong cells and incorrect labeling"
New diseases and/or allergic reactions to new proteins due to using cell lines of animals not common in the local diet Nutritional deficiencies, "as the nutrition profile could be different from what it is replacing"
As noted in the report:
"There are many stages of development for producing cultured meat … from taking a cell line from a small vial or biopsy and increasing the culture volume stepwise in stages (proliferation), until a commercial sized bioreactor can be seeded, to differentiating the cells to final desired cell type. Then [they are] maturing them, usually on a scaffold, to increase the protein content, and then detaching/grinding the cells with/from their scaffold to produce a final product that can be used to make meat like cells. At each stage, different chemicals, biologics, media formulations, additives and supplements are used to ensure a successful culture." Contamination can occur at any of these steps. Each additive also poses potential risks, both known and unknown, as various byproducts are created in the process. In the video above, I review some of the many potential dangers associated with fake meats. Considering the multistep processing cultivated meats undergo, it's simply not possible for it to be as safe as conventional meat, where the primary contamination risks are limited to slaughter, processing, packaging, distribution and storage. With fake meats, hazardous contamination can occur at any point during manufacturing, in addition to these conventional "weak points."
1. Here are links you can view – e.g., from the White House, from the Journal of American Medicine, the FDA, the British Medical Journal etc., to verify that these concerns about meat are not something “nutty”: White House Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology September 12, 2022; Bold Goals for US Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing March 2023; Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023; Food Dive March 23, 2023; Food Dive November 16, 2022; FDA Memo November 14, 2022; 9 Food Dive March 21, 2023; Food standards Agency Hazards Identification Report November 2022; Food Safety News March 24, 2023; Food standards Agency Hazards Identification Report November 2022, Page 8; Friends of the Earth, From Lab to Fork, June 2018 (PDF); Cell Metabolism, 2019; doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008; JAMA Internal Medicine February 11, 2019;179(4):490-498; BMJ February 14, 2018; 360; JAMA 2017;317(9):912-924; BMJ, 2019;365:I1451; BMJ, 2019;365:l1949; Journal of Cleaner Production September 25, 2022; 368: 133155; HR 2657 PRIME Act
2. As noted above, vaccines being in our meat is certainly of concern enough for the state of Missouri tendered Missouri House Bill No. 1169, the Informed Consent Bill, which you can read here.
3. The issue of vaccines in our meat, milk and even vegetables – without our informed consent, is a LEGAL issue for us. Fake news? Hardly. Dr. Peter McCullough, who just happens to be the most heavily published doctor in history in his area of cardiology, tweeted April 7, 2023 at https://twitter.com/P_McCulloughMD/status/1644358357346549761?t=JH1xrq2P4noczTmjK61Y9w&s=19 that the “Chinese successfully loaded cow's milk with mRNA and it was absorbed in the GI tract of recipients.” Another report on successful loading cow’s milk with mRNA, is by Peter Dr. McCullough, who has warned that the “surreptitious insertion of mRNA into food are valid” McCullough is THE most widely published cardiologist in history in his field of cardiology, and a former editor of two major medical journals. If people choose this, that is their choice. But for the rest of us, we do NOT tender our consent for this, and certainly not uninformed consent. Relative to this, the Nuremberg Code, which is a set of ethical research principles for human experimentation created by the court in U.S. v Brandt (Dr. Karl Brandt was one of Hitler’s lead doctors) says that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior orm of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.” You can read the code at the National Institute of Health website here: https://history.nih.gov/display/history/Nuremberg%2BCode. Dr. McCullough also flat out said in mid May 2023 that we are being lied to about the mRNA in our food – story here.
4. We already know that The very first RNA-based livestock vaccine, a swine influenza (H3N2) RNA shot licensed in 2012, was developed by Harrisvaccines. The company followed up with an avian influenza mRNA shot in 2015. Harrisvaccines was acquired by Merck Animal Health later that year, that CureVac developed an mRNA-based rabies shot for pigs in 2016; The swine vaccine platform Sequivity, introduced in 2018, was developed by Merck in partnership with Moderna. Sequivity can produce endlessly customized “vaccines,” none of which undergo safety testing; it appears that we already have been eating pork treated with gene therapy for nearly five years already, and perhaps even more of our meat supply is about to get the same treatment. mRNA-lipid nanoparticle shots for avian influenza are in the works, as are mRNA shots for cows, which we are writing about. And note that Merck’s Sequivity platform for pork, elucidated here, has done nothing, with sow mortality rates increasing from 11.1% in 2017 to 12.6% in 2021. Suffice to say, the mRNA platform has not fixed the problems in the pork industry and may even hasten the destruction of pork populations long term, as the animals’ immune systems become (weakened) dependent on the programming of the mRNA from season to season. But as noted above in Missouri, lobbyists for the Cattlemen’s Association recently confirmed they intend to use mRNA “vaccines” in cattle, which might affect both dairy and beef. Here is where the National Cattlemen’s Association says there is no mRNA in our cows at present, ncba.org/ncba-news/news, Twitter tweet by lawyer Tom Renz here. If so, this is good, and your answer should be easy – though we would like to know if you will inform us if this changes in the future. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association lobbyist Shannon Cooper, as reported here in Missouri Times, before the Missouri House. told the House members he had recently "double-vaccinated" his herd with "vaccinations that have this mRNA." According to Cooper, the mRNA "vaccine" given was for bovine respiratory disease (. Was he confused? Is the National Cattlemen's Beef Association incorrect in stating there are no approved mRNA vaccines for cattle in the U.S.? Or, are experimental mRNA shots being used without approval? Who knows at this point? (We do know the Veterinary Microbiology and Preventive Medicine Department at Iowa State University tested out an mRNA vaccine system on cows fall of 2021.) And whether there's any mRNA left in the animal at the time of slaughter is important. At present, we have no way of knowing this. We don't even know exactly how long the synthetic lipid-enveloped mRNA stays in the body. Nor do we know know how long the antigen produced by the animal's cells in response to a customized mRNA shot sticks around, and whether ingesting that antigen might have repercussions for human health. Stanford researchers found the spike protein produced in response to the COVID shot remains in the human body for at least 60 days – see this article in the peer reviewed journal Cell and the spike protein is what's causing most of the health problems associated with the jab. Could the same be true for mRNA jabs used in animals? Hogs can be killed anywhere from the age of 6 weeks to 10 months, which doesn't allow a whole lot of time for the mRNA and/or antigen to get flushed out. Dr. Kevin Folta, a Univ. of Florida horticulture prof, insists the mRNA is harmless, as it is unstable and temporary. But of course, we know from the Lund University, Sweden, study that in the case of the Covid shot, in vivo at least, the shot contents stay around for at least two months. But the problem with Folta’s argument is that The mRNA in the shots is synthetic and does NOT break down the way normal mRNA does.
5. And New South Wales, the most populous state in Australia, already has cattle herds injected with mRNA. The NSW government’s reason for the animal vaccination drive is to protect them not just from the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) but also from foot and mouth disease (FMD) and lumpy skin disease. As per Deputy Premier and Minister for Regional NSW Paul Toole, this move is an important milestone toward securing the vaccine technology that will protect Australia’s $28.7 billion livestock industry. “The NSW Nationals in Government are taking the threat of FMD and Lumpy Skin Disease extremely seriously, and this milestone is another step forward in preparing for a potential outbreak,” Toole said. He added that he has already written to the vaccine manufacturer to take his challenge to develop vaccines ready for use and manufacture in NSW by August 1 next year. In other words, there’s no science involved in the recent mRNA vaccination drive on cattle herds. Minister for Agriculture Dugald Saunders said U.S. biotechnology company Tiba Biotech has been given free rein to churn out as many mRNA injections as possible to supposedly protect Australia’s multi-billion livestock industry. He said it is critical to developing mRNA vaccines for FMD and lumpy skin as quickly as possible. If they want to do this, fine… but customer informed consent, per the Nuremberg Code is the law.
And monoglycerides and diglycerides contain trans fat, but because they’re classified as emulsifiers rather than lipids they get a free pass? And this product is a byproducts from the processing of grapeseed oil, where the monoacylglycerides are loaded with polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs), including the highly problematic linoleic acid. In sum our healthy fruits and vegetables are now a source of harmful emulsifiers that increase your risk of heart disease, heart attack and stroke.
But again, the main question is single-fold: will we have informed consent? And why is our food supply being turned over to the biotech industry? Most of your shoppers shop at your store to get away from this.
And in Canada, Health Canada has approved Midicago’s Covifenz, who’s website directly says “COVIFENZ® COVID-19 Vaccine (plant-based virus-like particles [VLP], recombinant, adjuvanted) Click here to see the COVIFENZ product monograph. This product monograph is intended for use by healthcare professionals in Canada.” They have since gone out of business after parent Mitsubishi Chemicals stopped their work, but the point remains: this is possible, and my concern is not “conspiracy theory”; rather, it is actual, existing science.
FiercePharma also adds “Medicago’s recombinant COVID-19 vaccine, now dubbed Covifenz, has snagged a green light in Canada, the company’s home country. The shot uses a plant-based virus-like particles technology to mimic the coronavirus’ spike protein and is combined with GSK’s pandemic adjuvant.”
Similarly, Dr. Peter McCullough, who is the most heavily published cardiologist in history in his cardiology field, published Data on miRNA Transfer from Food into Human Body are Inconclusive. One study he cites said “Mar-Aguilar et al, reviewed the literature on experiments that attempted to get miRNA into food, ingested, and be absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract into mammals. In short, the studies were conflicting largely because miRNA was difficult to measure in vivo at the time the studies were performed. As you can see selected studies from the evidence table are not conclusive, however, some were able to show absorption.” But here is the thing: what if it ends up that absorption is taking place, and it is damaging? Some may want to take that risk, but I do not – and certainly not without my legal right of informed consent. McCullough also in his April 16, 2023 article Novel Vaccine Technologies in Veterinary Medicine: A Herald to Human Medicine Vaccines discusses the sa,e issue, noting “The mRNA and adenoviral DNA COVID-19 vaccine debacle in humans has set populations on edge, distrustful of poorly conceived genetic technology. Meanwhile the field has advanced considerably in veterinary medicine. While these shots may protect animals from pathogens over the short term, what are the implications for our food supply? Any of the genetic material transmissible to humans through consumption? Raw or cooked? These and other questions are coming up as more information is being brought forward….Aida and colleagues have graphically summarized the genetic technologies in use as of 2021 in veterinary medicine. In the consumer meat category at present, only swine are of concern given the use of plasmid DNA, replication incompetent viral vector, and RNA replicon products. Do these technologies cause noninfectious diseases in the animals? Can any of the genetic material survive denaturing during curing and cooking? How about pork intestines harvested for the production of heparin widely used in human medicine? It is conceivable that genetic incorporation of foreign RNA or DNA into humans and production of antigens for example, porcine endemic diarrhea or influenza A, could have untoward effects including autoimmunity similar to that with the COVID-19 vaccines?” Here is McCullough interviewed live on the subject. It is thus that it is not unreasonable to simply ask for verification of something you supposedly aren’t doing anyways! There are already studies showing cows milk can be used to immunize mice, as on this pre-print server article at bioRxiv, An oral vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 RBD mRNA-bovine milk-derived exosomes induces a neutralizing antibody response in vivo. Again, my point being that the concern about our food being genetically manipulated is hardly fake news, and has a basis in peer-reviewed, published literature.
And is this following substack true? American Farmers To Begin Injecting Livestock With mRNA Shots This Month I simply don’t know, and am asking for clarification on this. Certainly, even NPR has reported on the possibility, such as here: Researchers Look To Cattle For Treatment For COVID-19 - NPR. The famed feminist icon Dr. Naomi Wolf discussed with attorney Tom Renz here. Is it “conspiracy theory” to take with sincerity something lawyers, PhDs and even the Missouri house thinks is an issue? And Missouri is not alone. In fact, there are at least five staties considering legislation to restrict the use of mRNA technology in livestock. See also news article on the five states here.) Sid Miller, Texas Agriculture Commissioner, said about this issue “I aim to ensure that Texas agriculture remains safe, trusted, healthy and wholly uninfected by dangerous or unproven technology.” Cited from Epoch Times, April 26, 2023 edition, p.1. Note there is a second article in Epoch Times, April 26 – May 2, 2023, p. A3, Controversial mRNA Technology Now Targeting Livestock. In fact, this article cites FIVE states introducing legislation to restrict mRNA in meat: ND, TN, AZ, ID and MO. Idaho House Bill 154 makes it an offense for anyone to provide or administer mRNA “for use in any individual or any other mammal in this state,” while AZ Bill 2762 requires conspicuous labelling, and TN bill 0099 also would require conspicuous labelling and ND bill SB2384 bans mRNA even to humans; Missouri’s House bill HB1169, detailed here, led by Holly Jones also demands labelling on all gene therapy products. Jones has said mRNA for livestock is “in the works,” and as noted elsewhere, Australia already is working to get a LSD mRNA shot for their cattle. See here. (Note that Animal Health Inst. says, per Epoch Times, that mRNA shots for livestock are 5 -10 years away; if so, then your answer should be easy!) And Here is an article published in the NIH (you know – by our government) talking about foods ‘under application’ to be genetically modified to become edible vaccines – from 2013.” Global Research has an article on the same subject here. The fact that food can be altered to act as a vaccine is not disputable; question is: is it being done?
The “ask” here is simply what the Missouri congress has in its bill:
a. That there is labeling and disclosure of any product that has any gene therapy qualities.
b. That if you have a product on the market that has gene therapy qualities, that anyone can call the company and say, ‘Hey, how does this spread? Does it shed? Is it spread through contact – through sexual contact? Or is there a way that this can spread?’ And they have to disclose it.”
c. That we have legal, informed consent. And informed consent includes serious events or adverse events of special interest. … that we have informed consent before you be given anything with the gene therapy or medicinal property.
d. In 2016, Congress removed the labelling law on country of origin for meat. Will we be told if meat from another country has had mRNA technology?
Again, the ask here is single-fold and straight-forward: are mRNA vaccines being used in meat being sold at your store, and if so, is it labelled? If they are, why won’t anyone tell us? And even further, if these vaxes in meat injures people – as the Covid shot has, which we know from the official VAERS reports at the Dept of Health and Human Services, here https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html (people can debate exact number all they want; the fact is that the number is clearly greater than one! For example see peer reviewed journal Frontiers in Pharmacology’s article Profiling COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Events by Statistical and Ontological Analysis of VAERS Case Reports) – if this content is true, then then experimenting without my consent via my foods is violation my Constitutional rights. Isn’t it my body, my choice? The request is not that you stop this, but rather simply labelling and disclosure of any gene therapy qualities (Moderna specifically calls this “gene therapy” in their documents), that you disclose how the contents of the gene therapy put into meat or vegetables or products you sell can spread to another (shedding? Spread through contact? If so, what kind?) and that we have informed consent (i.e., adverse events of special interest) if there is something like this added. And does “natural” in your descriptions include vaccines? In other words, no antibiotics are given, say, to your chicken… but mRNA vaccines – of which the human Pfizer Covid shot is still, as of this writing – in Phase IV trials – is allowed? And has anyone there considered the market advantage – i.e, profit – by advertising that fact that “natural” means really natural, viz. no vaccines in the meat?
In 2020, the FDA made a low-risk determination for products made from “Slick-Haired Cattle,” which are gene-edited to have coats that increase the animals’ resilience to higher temperature. And if using the more precise CRISPR-Cas9, a “molecular scissors,” for precise DNA editing (removal, addition or altering of sections of a DNA sequence), two recent studies (see also here or here) warn the gene editing process can trigger cancer. Specifically, when the two double helix strands of the DNA are cut, the injury appears to trigger the cell to activate a gene called p53 — a “biochemical first-aid kit” that either mends the DNA break or signals the cell to self-destruct; so, either the genome edit is mended or the cell dies. Science Focus also discussed the use of this in its May 18th 2023 article The new science of CRISPR: How gene-editing tech is about to change food, children and vaccines forever. This article is very pro-CRISPR, and shows that this is something already being used.
In instances where the cell survives and accepts the edit, it does so because it has dysfunctional p53, and p53 dysfunction has been shown to significantly increase your risk of cancer.
The highly regarded Children’s Health Defense also had an article on our foods being hijacked by the biotech industry in its May 22, 2023 article Are Foods Being Turned Into Bioweapons? At the risk of being redundant, I am not saying this proves my concern; rather, it simply shows that a massive number of politicians, news outlets, health organizations, etc. have the same concern I am writing about. Hardly tin foil hate stuff!
If you read nothing else, my request is simple: Can you legally verify that no mRNA-based vaccines or agents are in the meat or fish you sell? In turn, this will be disseminated to a wide range of readers I have. AP – which as already shown itself to be misinformed as above – tells us “are no animal vaccines currently licensed in the U.S. against any disease that use the same mRNA approach as humans’ COVID-19 vaccines.” So, if this is true, the task is simple: Verify that we are not being fed mRNA in our meat or vegetables, and if we ever are, we will have informed consent. If this is true that there is no mRNA vaccines in our food, should be a 10 minute project for you.
I understand that you may well consider this to be “tin foil hat” type of concerns. To that end, I am citing studies from universities like UCLA, statements from President Biden, and more, illustrating that this issue is a valid, scientific concern. The information will be quite lengthy, with the sole purpose of proving that this is anything but “fake news.” You need not read all of this, but is there for reference. Lawyers such as Tom Renz also feel unwitting vaccinated meat being pushed onto customers without their consent or knowledge is a valid concern. See his tweet on the subject here, or his substack here. Here’s the point: the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association is 100% opposed to #Missouri #HB1169, which bars mRNA vaccines in meat. Here is their statement at uscattlemen.org. If they aren’t putting gene altering drugs in cows, or at least thinking of doing so in future, why do they oppose the bill? While the association does say “Currently, there are no mRNA vaccines licensed for beef cattle in the U.S. Since little is known about the technology, our organization will be forming a task force to develop a fact- and science-based assessment of the issue,” the fact is that they may well want to in the future. And given the word-smithing many do today, can we infer that “not licensed” means “not given?” If this is so, your answer to this letter should be easy and simple: No. And given the massive amount of disinformation coming from the likes of Monsanto, Pfizer, etc., many of us do not trust Big Ag, nor Big Pharma. And if this is introduced in the future, again, the answer is simple: just as you do with rBST in dairy, you can label it one way or the other. Heck, you can even mark the price up!
And vaccines in our veggies “fake news?” Turns out that, for example, Univ. of California Riverside scientists, collaboration with UC San Diego and Carnegie Mellon Univ are studying whether they can turn edible plants like lettuce into mRNA vaccine factories, per SciTech Daily here, where they incorporate mRNA into lettuces, tomatoes and other vegetables; similarly in News-Medical Life Sciences, in an article from two years ago, Researchers aim to develop edible plant-based mRNA vaccines, here, we are also told that plant based vaccines are in development. See also Edible vaccines by William HR Langridge at UCLA. Scientists are creating transgenic, chimeric plants that have DNA that is combined with DNA from viruses and animals. These scientists are pushing mRNA in vegetables, thanks to a $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, a funding apparatus of the NIH. As you know APEEL and Edipeel can be found in several large grocery chains in the U.S., including Walmart, Costco, Kroger, Trader Joe’s, Harps Food and many others. Alliance for Natural Health, here, says “Edipeel utilizes an emulsifier known as E471 composed of purified monoglycerides and diglycerides, which is widely used in highly processed baked goods, ice creams and infant formulas to stop oil and water from separating and extend the shelf-life of products (primary components of Edipeel are 2,3-dihydroxypropyl palmitate (PA-1G) and 1,3 dihydroxypropan-2-yl palmitate (PA-2G). Unfortunately no new science has been required to evaluate the product or test produce coated with the product to see if it not only keeps it fresh on the outside but also protects the nutritional integrity of treated products. Mono- and diglycerides are produced from plant oils, which have already gone through an extraction process, using a procedure involving high temperatures and chemicals. Residues of ethyl acetate, heptane, palladium, arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury from the production process are to be found in the mono- and diglycerides used in the product.
Remarkably there appears to be no published research investigating the effects of emulsifiers containing mono- and digylcerides on our gut microbiota and researchers are now calling for further investigations into the potential adverse effects on metabolic and gut health.” I understand the primary component is a mixture of monoacylglycerides derived from grapeseed, and per an earlier GRAS Notice, found on the FDA site here, filed in April 2016, further again specifies that the two primary components of Apeel is 2,3-dihydroxypropyl palmitate and 1,3-dihydroxypropan-2-yl palmitate. According to the 2016 GRAS Notice No. 648:
“Monoacylglycerol derivatives are components of dietary fats commonly found in food and are also endogenously formed in the human body ... It is well established and recognized that monoacylglycerides, the subject of the present GRAS assessment, are formed in the gastrointestinal tract from the generally accepted metabolic pathway for the breakdown of triglycerides (i.e., lipolysis). The hydrolysis of triglycerides by lipases proceeds through the formation of monoacylglycerides (i.e., monoglycerides). The free fatty acids released can be further used for triglyceride synthesis. Given the metabolic sequel described above, and by applying scientific procedures, it can be concluded that a mixture of monoacylglycerides would not pose any health hazards different from commonly consumed dietary oils derived from plants or animals.”
But here’s the point: all natural does not necessarily equal safe. In Part 3 of the 2019 GRAS notice, under Maximum Limit of Residues, we find that the grape seed oil that makes up the basis of this product contains residues of ethyl acetate, heptane and palladium, which are processing aids, as well as the heavy metals arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury. According to Apeel, the levels of these toxic residues are either below levels deemed safe by the FDA, the EU and/or the Joint FAO/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). All well and fine – but here’s the issue: while levels are low, why have the exposure when it is unnecessary? Is this just adding more to the toxic burdens we all have (and why we shop with you)? And can this penetrate the peel, given that it cannot be washed off. According to Apeel Sciences, the coating is “not expected” to penetrate beyond the peel into the fruit. Not expected? That means they have no idea. Do you want to get on an airplane, with the pilot saying that is “not expected” that everyone will die when it lands?
Mercola notes “In Apeel Sciences’ 2019 GRAS notice, they referenced a 2017 EFSA review of E471 (mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids) but didn’t mention that this review warned about the possible presence of epichlorohydrin,a carcinogen, in E471 manufactured using glycerol or glycidol as a starting material. Apeel uses monoglycerides of glycerol. According to this review, “The panel considered that the presence of epichlorohydrin and/or glycidol in mono- and di-glycerides of fatty acids (E 471) would need further assessment as their presence could raise a safety concern.” Palladium, cadmium and arsenic are also carcinogenic, so there are at least four different carcinogenic contaminants in this coating. What’s more, a 2021 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) re-review of monoacylglycerides found that “the potential exposure to toxic elements resulting from the consumption of E 471 could be substantial.” As a result, the review panel suggests it may be necessary to lower existing limits for arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury.”
Here is my letter to Whole Foods. I also sent a registered letter, so they can't say they didn't get it. In a couple parts, as it is so long. Importantly, the NEVER answered my question, but instead, in typical assinine corporate speak, sent a form letter saying they didn't use antibiotics, etc. I explicitly said my ONLY question was about mRNA in the meats and vegs. THEY REFUSED TO ANSWER.
A number of your customers are concerned about mRNA vaccines being put into the meat we consume from your store. We spend many thousands of dollars per year in your store, and do not wish to have these vaccines, or mRNA agents, in either our meat, or our vegetables (as you know, Medicago has been working on growing plants that can vaccinate people against COVID – from their website is a: “Canadian biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of virus-like particles using plants as bioreactors to produce proteins, candidate vaccines, and medications), without our legal, informed consent, which is the law – laws dating back to the Nuremberg trials, including the subsequent lesser known “Doctors’ Trials” in 1946, Nuremberg, Germany. Yes, I am aware that there is no mandate to vaccinate livestock, per this AP article, https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-mrna-vaccine-livestock-mandate-covid-564035224253 No, farmers aren’t required to vaccinate livestock with mRNA vaccines, but that, of course, is not the question as AP disingenuously reports; rather, the question is, is this being done anyway? Do you do it with your products, and if so, are we consumers being notified? (Basically, as far as I’m concerned, AP article outright lies, writing that mRNA is “typically gone within days of receipt”; as a matter of fact, we know a fact that the mRNA from the Covid shot remains at least 60 days, if not longer – much longer To wit: Per Dr. Peter McCullough in his March 17, 2023 article, Critical Role of Pseudouridine in Synthetic mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines “Fertig et al found lipid nanoparticles with mRNA were measurable in plasma for—15 days. Recently, Castruita et al demonstrated mRNA in blood out to 28 days. Roltgen et al have found mRNA in lymph nodes 60 days after injection. None of these studies demonstrated complete clearance of mRNA from a group of patients. This is worrisome since injections are recommended in some populations just a few months apart implying there will be stacking of long-lasting mRNA in the body without adequate opportunity for clearance and elimination.” McCullough repeated his concern in his Wellness Company article here May 15, 2023. Also, in PubMed, the Annual Revue of Animal Bioscience has the 2017 article Veterinary Replicon Vaccines. Former science editor for the NY Times Alex Berenson wrote, wrote about a little-noticed report in the highly respected, peer-reviewed journal Cell reveals that mRNA materials from the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines remain in lymph nodes for at least 60 days, while “free-floating spike proteins circulate at high levels in the blood after vaccination.’ That’s not what the info-gatekeepers have been telling us. The famed journal Cell, itself, writes in Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition, and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination genetic materials actually remain in the body for up to two months; here, in the Journal of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, the mRNA lasts for at least a month. The man who invented the mRNA platform, Dr. Robert Malone, says “When a vaccine is injected into a patient’s arm, the RNA from the vaccine, which is a modified RNA, is supposed to last for only a couple of hours, but a study from Stanford University shows that “the RNA sticks around for at least 60 days.” Malone also says using needle biopsies, these have shown RNA persists in axillar lymph nodes for at least 60 days. They didn't test any longer than that, so it could be far longer. Japanese doctors reported summer, 2022 that mRNA-induced spike proteins from Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” do persist in the body for at least several months post-injection. See Persistent varicella zoster virus infection following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was associated with the presence of encoded spike protein in the lesion in the Journal of Cutaneous Immunology and Allergy.by Mayuko Yamamoto MD, PhD and Shigetoshi Sano, MD, PhD, out of Kochi Medical School, Kochi University, Japan.
The AP article quotes U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesperson Marissa Perry: “There is no requirement or mandate that producers vaccinate their livestock for any disease. It is a personal and business decision left up to the producer and will remain that way,” and quotes Jason Menke, a National Pork Board spokesperson, that the “decision to use vaccines and other medical treatments to protect animal health and well-being are made by the farmer under the direction of the herd veterinarian.” Again, this is subterfuge and typical government legalese/waffle-ese. I repeat: Are we, the consumers, being notified with legal informed consent if our food is “vaccinated?” NOT “it might be”; not “it is the at the producer’s discretion”; not “the decision is made under the direction of a vet (but we ain’t gonna tell you, poor unwashed rubes in flyover country”; simply are you complying with the law of informed consent, yes or no.” The AP article does quote Suresh Kuchipudi, a veterinary scientist and chair of emerging infectious diseases at Penn State University, saying animals get immunizations do not rely on mRNA technology. Fine. What types do they get? Where do we find this simple information? It seems there’s a database now for almost every mosquito found on earth – certainly this list can’t be that hard to come up with, can it? And speaking of pork, we do know that the FDA has authorized, at least on an investigational basis, gene edited pigs for human consumption, per work led by Jon Oately, professor in the School of Molecular Biosciences in Washington State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine. Acceligen, has a gene-edited animal which received FDA ok to enter the food supply. See Washington State University article on this here, or CHD article here. Natural Health – which is why we shop with you, and what you advertise as supporting! – writes that the CRISPR work on pigs “…eliminates a pig’s NANOS2 male fertility gene, replacing it with a separate male pig’s stem cells that generate more desirable sperm. However, such genetic modification alters pig DNA to the point that it might not be safe for human consumption, especially if consumed regularly for years or decades.” Fauci himself at one point warned 20 years ago about the possibility of vaccine effects not being seen for many years.
This is related and I must share. United Airlines sent me a virtue signaling link featuring Oscar the Grouch/Sesame Street. It is one of no doubt more to come, touting United's green agenda. To avoid my flight info, this link is direct from united.com:
Well you surely won't find me flying United. The real goals is to dramatically reduce air travel. Heck if the can fly a plane using trash why not automobiles. Again, the war is against all forms of mobility.
I'm really bothered by flight crews and air traffic controllers mandated to get c19 vaxx. Almost daily there is some emergency. Recently there were 6 near-misses in the air. FDA piles on, loosening pilots' minimum health markers. The airlines?--I call them "scarelines". I borrow a tagline: Real not rare. How more real does it get with hundreds of people on the airplane?
Is it safe to say that Robert Malone is a member of the prestigious group known as Controlled Opposition? That guy knows a lot of evil shit about a lot of things that are top secret yet he comes across as a converted scientist who's just like the rest of us except much wealthier.
My personal view (based on research and common sense) for a long time is that Malone is controlled opposition. Not sure if anyone is pulling his strings but I do believe he knows a helluva a lot more than he is saying and I believe he has a lot more involvement and knowledge in this mass genocide than he is willing to admit because his career means more to him than risking sharing what he knows with the public. During his one and only interview with Stew Peters he clearly states that there are some things he cannot say because of his career.....needless to say Peters chewed Malone a new butt and Malone has never appeared on Peters again but has made several nasty comments about Peters because Peters has not let up on Malone and what he said during that interview. I believe Malone showed his hand to Peters and Peters laid it out on the table and Malone doesn't take kindly to people exposing the truth about him. IE George Webb, Dr. Ruby, Dr. Alexander and others. I expressed my concerns about Malone a long time ago and was attacked by several subscribers but I stuck to my guns about him and thankfully more and more information is coming out about Malone and his past affiliations and the massive amount of grant money he has secured through the years. My feeling from the start has been that you do not swim in the swamp for 30 years without being one of the swamp creatures. They do not allow anyone that does not go along to get along in their swamp. I believe he is now tagging on to RFK Jr. hoping, if he wins, for an big assignment in the HHS, NIH, FDA, CDC.
Yep, I concur with your response. Dr. Steve Kirsch could be added to the list of those swimming in the swamp for many years and is also positioning himself into a big assignment within RFK Jr's cabinet should he win the presidency. The swamp monsters seem to never perish but morph into regular looking folks that tow the line for the Evil Globalists.
NWO Globalist UN USSA Coup Gov. "Green" Insanity, One of Many of Their/Them Insanities.
Which Begs the Question, Does Agreeing with Such ... in turn Certify a Person as Insane???
and Does Allowing Such Insanity also Indicate at Least Mental Feeble Mindness???
Are You/Me/We too Similar to "Falling Down" Joey B. than We care to Admit???
But, "The Pen is Mightier than the Sword" neglects that Neither Object is Nothing without Spiritual Guidance, and No Where is the Defense against Homicide, let alone Genocide Forbidden.
I Pray that my Heart be Free of Regret, and that My Aim be True.
If that Prayer is Too Fringy, perhaps a reading of the Entire Speech of Patrick Henry is in order:
only requiring the substitution of your favorite tyrannical state and Obvious to Most Feral DC Gov. to update it from 1775. So Now, Choose Your Legacy or Your Submission and What inevitably follows.......
There's more, and the hyperlinks don't paste, but you get the drift
WOW this is some great research and content. You need to save this it surely could come in handy. Thanks so much for sharing this letter to Whole Foods. I stopped buying at Whole Foods after Amazon bought them out.
I can sent the whole letter in toto, if you want to use it, in full or in part.
PART 5
6. September 12, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy.” This executive order makes biotechnology a national priority across agencies and branches of government. In late March 2023, Biden expanded on this premise in a “Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing” report. According to this plan, the food industry is now to be led by biotech, and the “improvements” we can look forward to are more lab-grown meats and bioengineered plant foods. Two cell-based lab-grown meat companies have now received the green light to produce and sell fake chicken in the U.S. Per the Biden order: "The Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary, shall submit a report assessing how to use biotechnology and biomanufacturing for food and agriculture innovation, including by improving sustainability and land conservation; increasing food quality and nutrition; increasing and protecting agricultural yields; protecting against plant and animal pests and diseases; and cultivating alternative food sources."
5. As reported by Food Dive:
"While advocates and some companies have been working to reduce methane emissions from food, cut down on food waste, increase capacity for producing alternative proteins and use bioengineering to make healthier and hardier crops and animals, goals like these have never before come from the White House …The federal government is providing more evidence that it intends to do more than just talk about big goals. A day before the report came out, FDA gave its second tacit approval to a company using biotechnology to grow meat from cells in bioreactors. While neither … is creating meat for consumers yet, this action shows that the federal government is moving toward making cultivated meat a reality."
Among the many problems with this plan is the fact that taxpayers will now be paying for government's funding of private corporations involved in the fake food industry. The end result is predictable. What we'll have is a repeat of what happened with farm subsidies. Rather than subsidizing the most nutritious foods, government farm subsidies go almost exclusively to large monoculture farms growing genetically engineered corn, soy and other basic ingredients used in processed foods. As a result, the processed food industry has grown on our dime while public health has deteriorated. The same thing could well happen here. Instead of investing in regenerative agriculture, which is what could really solve our problems, government is backing a whole new industry of fake foods, from lab-grown meats to large-scale insect production. At present, two cell-based lab-grown meat companies have received the green light to produce and sell fake chicken in the U.S. The first, Upside Foods (previously Memphis Meats), received FDA approval for its cell-based lab-grown chicken in November 2022. According to the FDA's November 14, 2022, memo: "We have no questions at this time about UPSIDE's conclusion that foods comprised of or containing cultured chicken cell material resulting from the production process … are as safe as comparable foods produced by other methods." Dr. Uma Valeti, CEO and founder of Upside Foods, called the approval "a watershed moment in the history of food" and a "major step toward a new era in meat production." The company has a 53,000-square-foot facility in the San Francisco Bay Area capable of producing 400,000 pounds of fake meat per year. In March 2023, Eat Just — which has been selling its lab-grown chicken in Singapore since 2020 — also received FDA approval. The company is currently building a commercial-scale facility in the U.S. that will house 10 250,000-liter bioreactors.The problem with us consumers? Safety data is sorely lacking. While the U.S. government is moving full speed ahead with approvals for lab-grown meats, a Food Hazards Identification report by the British Food standards Agency (FSA) and Food Standards Scotland, published in March 2023, warns there are "considerable gaps in knowledge" when it comes to cell-based meat production. As reported by Food Safety News March 24, 2023: "The purpose of the report was to identify hazards in the cultivated meat production process to help inform the FSA risk assessment process for authorization. It was also important that products do not pose any microbiological or chemical concerns. The research was based on a review of scientific literature in 2020. There was little or no data on the final analytical composition of products, key toxicology data, nutrition profiles, product stability, allergy risk, and any recorded adverse effects when consumed by animals or humans … The FSA report found there are several stages of development for producing cultured meat and at each one, different chemicals, biologics, media formulations, additives, and supplements are used. The contamination risk of each input needs to be assessed, as any undesirable components that remain in the final product need to be at an acceptable exposure level or be food-grade and safe."
Potential problem areas identified by the FSA (see links above) include:
Contaminated reagents, air or water baths Poorly cleaned or maintained equipment
Failing to follow cleaning protocols when culturing cells Failing to follow good laboratory practices (GLP) and/or good manufacturing practices (GMP)
Use of antibiotics, fungicides and/or chemicals that are toxic to humans in the production Consumption of viruses used in the manufacturing process
Cross-contamination of one cell line into another due to concomitant use of multiple cell lines Other cross-contamination risks, such as "poor maintenance of equipment, poor cleaning regimes, incorrect storage of cells, working with multiple cell lines in one area, using the wrong cells and incorrect labeling"
New diseases and/or allergic reactions to new proteins due to using cell lines of animals not common in the local diet Nutritional deficiencies, "as the nutrition profile could be different from what it is replacing"
As noted in the report:
"There are many stages of development for producing cultured meat … from taking a cell line from a small vial or biopsy and increasing the culture volume stepwise in stages (proliferation), until a commercial sized bioreactor can be seeded, to differentiating the cells to final desired cell type. Then [they are] maturing them, usually on a scaffold, to increase the protein content, and then detaching/grinding the cells with/from their scaffold to produce a final product that can be used to make meat like cells. At each stage, different chemicals, biologics, media formulations, additives and supplements are used to ensure a successful culture." Contamination can occur at any of these steps. Each additive also poses potential risks, both known and unknown, as various byproducts are created in the process. In the video above, I review some of the many potential dangers associated with fake meats. Considering the multistep processing cultivated meats undergo, it's simply not possible for it to be as safe as conventional meat, where the primary contamination risks are limited to slaughter, processing, packaging, distribution and storage. With fake meats, hazardous contamination can occur at any point during manufacturing, in addition to these conventional "weak points."
PART 4
1. Here are links you can view – e.g., from the White House, from the Journal of American Medicine, the FDA, the British Medical Journal etc., to verify that these concerns about meat are not something “nutty”: White House Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology September 12, 2022; Bold Goals for US Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing March 2023; Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023; Food Dive March 23, 2023; Food Dive November 16, 2022; FDA Memo November 14, 2022; 9 Food Dive March 21, 2023; Food standards Agency Hazards Identification Report November 2022; Food Safety News March 24, 2023; Food standards Agency Hazards Identification Report November 2022, Page 8; Friends of the Earth, From Lab to Fork, June 2018 (PDF); Cell Metabolism, 2019; doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008; JAMA Internal Medicine February 11, 2019;179(4):490-498; BMJ February 14, 2018; 360; JAMA 2017;317(9):912-924; BMJ, 2019;365:I1451; BMJ, 2019;365:l1949; Journal of Cleaner Production September 25, 2022; 368: 133155; HR 2657 PRIME Act
2. As noted above, vaccines being in our meat is certainly of concern enough for the state of Missouri tendered Missouri House Bill No. 1169, the Informed Consent Bill, which you can read here.
3. The issue of vaccines in our meat, milk and even vegetables – without our informed consent, is a LEGAL issue for us. Fake news? Hardly. Dr. Peter McCullough, who just happens to be the most heavily published doctor in history in his area of cardiology, tweeted April 7, 2023 at https://twitter.com/P_McCulloughMD/status/1644358357346549761?t=JH1xrq2P4noczTmjK61Y9w&s=19 that the “Chinese successfully loaded cow's milk with mRNA and it was absorbed in the GI tract of recipients.” Another report on successful loading cow’s milk with mRNA, is by Peter Dr. McCullough, who has warned that the “surreptitious insertion of mRNA into food are valid” McCullough is THE most widely published cardiologist in history in his field of cardiology, and a former editor of two major medical journals. If people choose this, that is their choice. But for the rest of us, we do NOT tender our consent for this, and certainly not uninformed consent. Relative to this, the Nuremberg Code, which is a set of ethical research principles for human experimentation created by the court in U.S. v Brandt (Dr. Karl Brandt was one of Hitler’s lead doctors) says that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior orm of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.” You can read the code at the National Institute of Health website here: https://history.nih.gov/display/history/Nuremberg%2BCode. Dr. McCullough also flat out said in mid May 2023 that we are being lied to about the mRNA in our food – story here.
4. We already know that The very first RNA-based livestock vaccine, a swine influenza (H3N2) RNA shot licensed in 2012, was developed by Harrisvaccines. The company followed up with an avian influenza mRNA shot in 2015. Harrisvaccines was acquired by Merck Animal Health later that year, that CureVac developed an mRNA-based rabies shot for pigs in 2016; The swine vaccine platform Sequivity, introduced in 2018, was developed by Merck in partnership with Moderna. Sequivity can produce endlessly customized “vaccines,” none of which undergo safety testing; it appears that we already have been eating pork treated with gene therapy for nearly five years already, and perhaps even more of our meat supply is about to get the same treatment. mRNA-lipid nanoparticle shots for avian influenza are in the works, as are mRNA shots for cows, which we are writing about. And note that Merck’s Sequivity platform for pork, elucidated here, has done nothing, with sow mortality rates increasing from 11.1% in 2017 to 12.6% in 2021. Suffice to say, the mRNA platform has not fixed the problems in the pork industry and may even hasten the destruction of pork populations long term, as the animals’ immune systems become (weakened) dependent on the programming of the mRNA from season to season. But as noted above in Missouri, lobbyists for the Cattlemen’s Association recently confirmed they intend to use mRNA “vaccines” in cattle, which might affect both dairy and beef. Here is where the National Cattlemen’s Association says there is no mRNA in our cows at present, ncba.org/ncba-news/news, Twitter tweet by lawyer Tom Renz here. If so, this is good, and your answer should be easy – though we would like to know if you will inform us if this changes in the future. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association lobbyist Shannon Cooper, as reported here in Missouri Times, before the Missouri House. told the House members he had recently "double-vaccinated" his herd with "vaccinations that have this mRNA." According to Cooper, the mRNA "vaccine" given was for bovine respiratory disease (. Was he confused? Is the National Cattlemen's Beef Association incorrect in stating there are no approved mRNA vaccines for cattle in the U.S.? Or, are experimental mRNA shots being used without approval? Who knows at this point? (We do know the Veterinary Microbiology and Preventive Medicine Department at Iowa State University tested out an mRNA vaccine system on cows fall of 2021.) And whether there's any mRNA left in the animal at the time of slaughter is important. At present, we have no way of knowing this. We don't even know exactly how long the synthetic lipid-enveloped mRNA stays in the body. Nor do we know know how long the antigen produced by the animal's cells in response to a customized mRNA shot sticks around, and whether ingesting that antigen might have repercussions for human health. Stanford researchers found the spike protein produced in response to the COVID shot remains in the human body for at least 60 days – see this article in the peer reviewed journal Cell and the spike protein is what's causing most of the health problems associated with the jab. Could the same be true for mRNA jabs used in animals? Hogs can be killed anywhere from the age of 6 weeks to 10 months, which doesn't allow a whole lot of time for the mRNA and/or antigen to get flushed out. Dr. Kevin Folta, a Univ. of Florida horticulture prof, insists the mRNA is harmless, as it is unstable and temporary. But of course, we know from the Lund University, Sweden, study that in the case of the Covid shot, in vivo at least, the shot contents stay around for at least two months. But the problem with Folta’s argument is that The mRNA in the shots is synthetic and does NOT break down the way normal mRNA does.
5. And New South Wales, the most populous state in Australia, already has cattle herds injected with mRNA. The NSW government’s reason for the animal vaccination drive is to protect them not just from the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) but also from foot and mouth disease (FMD) and lumpy skin disease. As per Deputy Premier and Minister for Regional NSW Paul Toole, this move is an important milestone toward securing the vaccine technology that will protect Australia’s $28.7 billion livestock industry. “The NSW Nationals in Government are taking the threat of FMD and Lumpy Skin Disease extremely seriously, and this milestone is another step forward in preparing for a potential outbreak,” Toole said. He added that he has already written to the vaccine manufacturer to take his challenge to develop vaccines ready for use and manufacture in NSW by August 1 next year. In other words, there’s no science involved in the recent mRNA vaccination drive on cattle herds. Minister for Agriculture Dugald Saunders said U.S. biotechnology company Tiba Biotech has been given free rein to churn out as many mRNA injections as possible to supposedly protect Australia’s multi-billion livestock industry. He said it is critical to developing mRNA vaccines for FMD and lumpy skin as quickly as possible. If they want to do this, fine… but customer informed consent, per the Nuremberg Code is the law.
PART 3
And monoglycerides and diglycerides contain trans fat, but because they’re classified as emulsifiers rather than lipids they get a free pass? And this product is a byproducts from the processing of grapeseed oil, where the monoacylglycerides are loaded with polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs), including the highly problematic linoleic acid. In sum our healthy fruits and vegetables are now a source of harmful emulsifiers that increase your risk of heart disease, heart attack and stroke.
But again, the main question is single-fold: will we have informed consent? And why is our food supply being turned over to the biotech industry? Most of your shoppers shop at your store to get away from this.
And in Canada, Health Canada has approved Midicago’s Covifenz, who’s website directly says “COVIFENZ® COVID-19 Vaccine (plant-based virus-like particles [VLP], recombinant, adjuvanted) Click here to see the COVIFENZ product monograph. This product monograph is intended for use by healthcare professionals in Canada.” They have since gone out of business after parent Mitsubishi Chemicals stopped their work, but the point remains: this is possible, and my concern is not “conspiracy theory”; rather, it is actual, existing science.
FiercePharma also adds “Medicago’s recombinant COVID-19 vaccine, now dubbed Covifenz, has snagged a green light in Canada, the company’s home country. The shot uses a plant-based virus-like particles technology to mimic the coronavirus’ spike protein and is combined with GSK’s pandemic adjuvant.”
Similarly, Dr. Peter McCullough, who is the most heavily published cardiologist in history in his cardiology field, published Data on miRNA Transfer from Food into Human Body are Inconclusive. One study he cites said “Mar-Aguilar et al, reviewed the literature on experiments that attempted to get miRNA into food, ingested, and be absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract into mammals. In short, the studies were conflicting largely because miRNA was difficult to measure in vivo at the time the studies were performed. As you can see selected studies from the evidence table are not conclusive, however, some were able to show absorption.” But here is the thing: what if it ends up that absorption is taking place, and it is damaging? Some may want to take that risk, but I do not – and certainly not without my legal right of informed consent. McCullough also in his April 16, 2023 article Novel Vaccine Technologies in Veterinary Medicine: A Herald to Human Medicine Vaccines discusses the sa,e issue, noting “The mRNA and adenoviral DNA COVID-19 vaccine debacle in humans has set populations on edge, distrustful of poorly conceived genetic technology. Meanwhile the field has advanced considerably in veterinary medicine. While these shots may protect animals from pathogens over the short term, what are the implications for our food supply? Any of the genetic material transmissible to humans through consumption? Raw or cooked? These and other questions are coming up as more information is being brought forward….Aida and colleagues have graphically summarized the genetic technologies in use as of 2021 in veterinary medicine. In the consumer meat category at present, only swine are of concern given the use of plasmid DNA, replication incompetent viral vector, and RNA replicon products. Do these technologies cause noninfectious diseases in the animals? Can any of the genetic material survive denaturing during curing and cooking? How about pork intestines harvested for the production of heparin widely used in human medicine? It is conceivable that genetic incorporation of foreign RNA or DNA into humans and production of antigens for example, porcine endemic diarrhea or influenza A, could have untoward effects including autoimmunity similar to that with the COVID-19 vaccines?” Here is McCullough interviewed live on the subject. It is thus that it is not unreasonable to simply ask for verification of something you supposedly aren’t doing anyways! There are already studies showing cows milk can be used to immunize mice, as on this pre-print server article at bioRxiv, An oral vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 RBD mRNA-bovine milk-derived exosomes induces a neutralizing antibody response in vivo. Again, my point being that the concern about our food being genetically manipulated is hardly fake news, and has a basis in peer-reviewed, published literature.
And is this following substack true? American Farmers To Begin Injecting Livestock With mRNA Shots This Month I simply don’t know, and am asking for clarification on this. Certainly, even NPR has reported on the possibility, such as here: Researchers Look To Cattle For Treatment For COVID-19 - NPR. The famed feminist icon Dr. Naomi Wolf discussed with attorney Tom Renz here. Is it “conspiracy theory” to take with sincerity something lawyers, PhDs and even the Missouri house thinks is an issue? And Missouri is not alone. In fact, there are at least five staties considering legislation to restrict the use of mRNA technology in livestock. See also news article on the five states here.) Sid Miller, Texas Agriculture Commissioner, said about this issue “I aim to ensure that Texas agriculture remains safe, trusted, healthy and wholly uninfected by dangerous or unproven technology.” Cited from Epoch Times, April 26, 2023 edition, p.1. Note there is a second article in Epoch Times, April 26 – May 2, 2023, p. A3, Controversial mRNA Technology Now Targeting Livestock. In fact, this article cites FIVE states introducing legislation to restrict mRNA in meat: ND, TN, AZ, ID and MO. Idaho House Bill 154 makes it an offense for anyone to provide or administer mRNA “for use in any individual or any other mammal in this state,” while AZ Bill 2762 requires conspicuous labelling, and TN bill 0099 also would require conspicuous labelling and ND bill SB2384 bans mRNA even to humans; Missouri’s House bill HB1169, detailed here, led by Holly Jones also demands labelling on all gene therapy products. Jones has said mRNA for livestock is “in the works,” and as noted elsewhere, Australia already is working to get a LSD mRNA shot for their cattle. See here. (Note that Animal Health Inst. says, per Epoch Times, that mRNA shots for livestock are 5 -10 years away; if so, then your answer should be easy!) And Here is an article published in the NIH (you know – by our government) talking about foods ‘under application’ to be genetically modified to become edible vaccines – from 2013.” Global Research has an article on the same subject here. The fact that food can be altered to act as a vaccine is not disputable; question is: is it being done?
The “ask” here is simply what the Missouri congress has in its bill:
a. That there is labeling and disclosure of any product that has any gene therapy qualities.
b. That if you have a product on the market that has gene therapy qualities, that anyone can call the company and say, ‘Hey, how does this spread? Does it shed? Is it spread through contact – through sexual contact? Or is there a way that this can spread?’ And they have to disclose it.”
c. That we have legal, informed consent. And informed consent includes serious events or adverse events of special interest. … that we have informed consent before you be given anything with the gene therapy or medicinal property.
d. In 2016, Congress removed the labelling law on country of origin for meat. Will we be told if meat from another country has had mRNA technology?
Again, the ask here is single-fold and straight-forward: are mRNA vaccines being used in meat being sold at your store, and if so, is it labelled? If they are, why won’t anyone tell us? And even further, if these vaxes in meat injures people – as the Covid shot has, which we know from the official VAERS reports at the Dept of Health and Human Services, here https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html (people can debate exact number all they want; the fact is that the number is clearly greater than one! For example see peer reviewed journal Frontiers in Pharmacology’s article Profiling COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Events by Statistical and Ontological Analysis of VAERS Case Reports) – if this content is true, then then experimenting without my consent via my foods is violation my Constitutional rights. Isn’t it my body, my choice? The request is not that you stop this, but rather simply labelling and disclosure of any gene therapy qualities (Moderna specifically calls this “gene therapy” in their documents), that you disclose how the contents of the gene therapy put into meat or vegetables or products you sell can spread to another (shedding? Spread through contact? If so, what kind?) and that we have informed consent (i.e., adverse events of special interest) if there is something like this added. And does “natural” in your descriptions include vaccines? In other words, no antibiotics are given, say, to your chicken… but mRNA vaccines – of which the human Pfizer Covid shot is still, as of this writing – in Phase IV trials – is allowed? And has anyone there considered the market advantage – i.e, profit – by advertising that fact that “natural” means really natural, viz. no vaccines in the meat?
PART 2
In 2020, the FDA made a low-risk determination for products made from “Slick-Haired Cattle,” which are gene-edited to have coats that increase the animals’ resilience to higher temperature. And if using the more precise CRISPR-Cas9, a “molecular scissors,” for precise DNA editing (removal, addition or altering of sections of a DNA sequence), two recent studies (see also here or here) warn the gene editing process can trigger cancer. Specifically, when the two double helix strands of the DNA are cut, the injury appears to trigger the cell to activate a gene called p53 — a “biochemical first-aid kit” that either mends the DNA break or signals the cell to self-destruct; so, either the genome edit is mended or the cell dies. Science Focus also discussed the use of this in its May 18th 2023 article The new science of CRISPR: How gene-editing tech is about to change food, children and vaccines forever. This article is very pro-CRISPR, and shows that this is something already being used.
In instances where the cell survives and accepts the edit, it does so because it has dysfunctional p53, and p53 dysfunction has been shown to significantly increase your risk of cancer.
The highly regarded Children’s Health Defense also had an article on our foods being hijacked by the biotech industry in its May 22, 2023 article Are Foods Being Turned Into Bioweapons? At the risk of being redundant, I am not saying this proves my concern; rather, it simply shows that a massive number of politicians, news outlets, health organizations, etc. have the same concern I am writing about. Hardly tin foil hate stuff!
If you read nothing else, my request is simple: Can you legally verify that no mRNA-based vaccines or agents are in the meat or fish you sell? In turn, this will be disseminated to a wide range of readers I have. AP – which as already shown itself to be misinformed as above – tells us “are no animal vaccines currently licensed in the U.S. against any disease that use the same mRNA approach as humans’ COVID-19 vaccines.” So, if this is true, the task is simple: Verify that we are not being fed mRNA in our meat or vegetables, and if we ever are, we will have informed consent. If this is true that there is no mRNA vaccines in our food, should be a 10 minute project for you.
I understand that you may well consider this to be “tin foil hat” type of concerns. To that end, I am citing studies from universities like UCLA, statements from President Biden, and more, illustrating that this issue is a valid, scientific concern. The information will be quite lengthy, with the sole purpose of proving that this is anything but “fake news.” You need not read all of this, but is there for reference. Lawyers such as Tom Renz also feel unwitting vaccinated meat being pushed onto customers without their consent or knowledge is a valid concern. See his tweet on the subject here, or his substack here. Here’s the point: the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association is 100% opposed to #Missouri #HB1169, which bars mRNA vaccines in meat. Here is their statement at uscattlemen.org. If they aren’t putting gene altering drugs in cows, or at least thinking of doing so in future, why do they oppose the bill? While the association does say “Currently, there are no mRNA vaccines licensed for beef cattle in the U.S. Since little is known about the technology, our organization will be forming a task force to develop a fact- and science-based assessment of the issue,” the fact is that they may well want to in the future. And given the word-smithing many do today, can we infer that “not licensed” means “not given?” If this is so, your answer to this letter should be easy and simple: No. And given the massive amount of disinformation coming from the likes of Monsanto, Pfizer, etc., many of us do not trust Big Ag, nor Big Pharma. And if this is introduced in the future, again, the answer is simple: just as you do with rBST in dairy, you can label it one way or the other. Heck, you can even mark the price up!
And vaccines in our veggies “fake news?” Turns out that, for example, Univ. of California Riverside scientists, collaboration with UC San Diego and Carnegie Mellon Univ are studying whether they can turn edible plants like lettuce into mRNA vaccine factories, per SciTech Daily here, where they incorporate mRNA into lettuces, tomatoes and other vegetables; similarly in News-Medical Life Sciences, in an article from two years ago, Researchers aim to develop edible plant-based mRNA vaccines, here, we are also told that plant based vaccines are in development. See also Edible vaccines by William HR Langridge at UCLA. Scientists are creating transgenic, chimeric plants that have DNA that is combined with DNA from viruses and animals. These scientists are pushing mRNA in vegetables, thanks to a $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, a funding apparatus of the NIH. As you know APEEL and Edipeel can be found in several large grocery chains in the U.S., including Walmart, Costco, Kroger, Trader Joe’s, Harps Food and many others. Alliance for Natural Health, here, says “Edipeel utilizes an emulsifier known as E471 composed of purified monoglycerides and diglycerides, which is widely used in highly processed baked goods, ice creams and infant formulas to stop oil and water from separating and extend the shelf-life of products (primary components of Edipeel are 2,3-dihydroxypropyl palmitate (PA-1G) and 1,3 dihydroxypropan-2-yl palmitate (PA-2G). Unfortunately no new science has been required to evaluate the product or test produce coated with the product to see if it not only keeps it fresh on the outside but also protects the nutritional integrity of treated products. Mono- and diglycerides are produced from plant oils, which have already gone through an extraction process, using a procedure involving high temperatures and chemicals. Residues of ethyl acetate, heptane, palladium, arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury from the production process are to be found in the mono- and diglycerides used in the product.
Remarkably there appears to be no published research investigating the effects of emulsifiers containing mono- and digylcerides on our gut microbiota and researchers are now calling for further investigations into the potential adverse effects on metabolic and gut health.” I understand the primary component is a mixture of monoacylglycerides derived from grapeseed, and per an earlier GRAS Notice, found on the FDA site here, filed in April 2016, further again specifies that the two primary components of Apeel is 2,3-dihydroxypropyl palmitate and 1,3-dihydroxypropan-2-yl palmitate. According to the 2016 GRAS Notice No. 648:
“Monoacylglycerol derivatives are components of dietary fats commonly found in food and are also endogenously formed in the human body ... It is well established and recognized that monoacylglycerides, the subject of the present GRAS assessment, are formed in the gastrointestinal tract from the generally accepted metabolic pathway for the breakdown of triglycerides (i.e., lipolysis). The hydrolysis of triglycerides by lipases proceeds through the formation of monoacylglycerides (i.e., monoglycerides). The free fatty acids released can be further used for triglyceride synthesis. Given the metabolic sequel described above, and by applying scientific procedures, it can be concluded that a mixture of monoacylglycerides would not pose any health hazards different from commonly consumed dietary oils derived from plants or animals.”
But here’s the point: all natural does not necessarily equal safe. In Part 3 of the 2019 GRAS notice, under Maximum Limit of Residues, we find that the grape seed oil that makes up the basis of this product contains residues of ethyl acetate, heptane and palladium, which are processing aids, as well as the heavy metals arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury. According to Apeel, the levels of these toxic residues are either below levels deemed safe by the FDA, the EU and/or the Joint FAO/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). All well and fine – but here’s the issue: while levels are low, why have the exposure when it is unnecessary? Is this just adding more to the toxic burdens we all have (and why we shop with you)? And can this penetrate the peel, given that it cannot be washed off. According to Apeel Sciences, the coating is “not expected” to penetrate beyond the peel into the fruit. Not expected? That means they have no idea. Do you want to get on an airplane, with the pilot saying that is “not expected” that everyone will die when it lands?
Mercola notes “In Apeel Sciences’ 2019 GRAS notice, they referenced a 2017 EFSA review of E471 (mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids) but didn’t mention that this review warned about the possible presence of epichlorohydrin,a carcinogen, in E471 manufactured using glycerol or glycidol as a starting material. Apeel uses monoglycerides of glycerol. According to this review, “The panel considered that the presence of epichlorohydrin and/or glycidol in mono- and di-glycerides of fatty acids (E 471) would need further assessment as their presence could raise a safety concern.” Palladium, cadmium and arsenic are also carcinogenic, so there are at least four different carcinogenic contaminants in this coating. What’s more, a 2021 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) re-review of monoacylglycerides found that “the potential exposure to toxic elements resulting from the consumption of E 471 could be substantial.” As a result, the review panel suggests it may be necessary to lower existing limits for arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury.”
Here is my letter to Whole Foods. I also sent a registered letter, so they can't say they didn't get it. In a couple parts, as it is so long. Importantly, the NEVER answered my question, but instead, in typical assinine corporate speak, sent a form letter saying they didn't use antibiotics, etc. I explicitly said my ONLY question was about mRNA in the meats and vegs. THEY REFUSED TO ANSWER.
Chief Executive, Whole Foods
Jason Buechel, CEO
550 Bowie Street
Austin, TX 78703-4644
(512) 542-0215
Jason.Buechel@wholefoods.com, customer.questions@wholefoods.com
A number of your customers are concerned about mRNA vaccines being put into the meat we consume from your store. We spend many thousands of dollars per year in your store, and do not wish to have these vaccines, or mRNA agents, in either our meat, or our vegetables (as you know, Medicago has been working on growing plants that can vaccinate people against COVID – from their website is a: “Canadian biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of virus-like particles using plants as bioreactors to produce proteins, candidate vaccines, and medications), without our legal, informed consent, which is the law – laws dating back to the Nuremberg trials, including the subsequent lesser known “Doctors’ Trials” in 1946, Nuremberg, Germany. Yes, I am aware that there is no mandate to vaccinate livestock, per this AP article, https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-mrna-vaccine-livestock-mandate-covid-564035224253 No, farmers aren’t required to vaccinate livestock with mRNA vaccines, but that, of course, is not the question as AP disingenuously reports; rather, the question is, is this being done anyway? Do you do it with your products, and if so, are we consumers being notified? (Basically, as far as I’m concerned, AP article outright lies, writing that mRNA is “typically gone within days of receipt”; as a matter of fact, we know a fact that the mRNA from the Covid shot remains at least 60 days, if not longer – much longer To wit: Per Dr. Peter McCullough in his March 17, 2023 article, Critical Role of Pseudouridine in Synthetic mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines “Fertig et al found lipid nanoparticles with mRNA were measurable in plasma for—15 days. Recently, Castruita et al demonstrated mRNA in blood out to 28 days. Roltgen et al have found mRNA in lymph nodes 60 days after injection. None of these studies demonstrated complete clearance of mRNA from a group of patients. This is worrisome since injections are recommended in some populations just a few months apart implying there will be stacking of long-lasting mRNA in the body without adequate opportunity for clearance and elimination.” McCullough repeated his concern in his Wellness Company article here May 15, 2023. Also, in PubMed, the Annual Revue of Animal Bioscience has the 2017 article Veterinary Replicon Vaccines. Former science editor for the NY Times Alex Berenson wrote, wrote about a little-noticed report in the highly respected, peer-reviewed journal Cell reveals that mRNA materials from the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines remain in lymph nodes for at least 60 days, while “free-floating spike proteins circulate at high levels in the blood after vaccination.’ That’s not what the info-gatekeepers have been telling us. The famed journal Cell, itself, writes in Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition, and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination genetic materials actually remain in the body for up to two months; here, in the Journal of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, the mRNA lasts for at least a month. The man who invented the mRNA platform, Dr. Robert Malone, says “When a vaccine is injected into a patient’s arm, the RNA from the vaccine, which is a modified RNA, is supposed to last for only a couple of hours, but a study from Stanford University shows that “the RNA sticks around for at least 60 days.” Malone also says using needle biopsies, these have shown RNA persists in axillar lymph nodes for at least 60 days. They didn't test any longer than that, so it could be far longer. Japanese doctors reported summer, 2022 that mRNA-induced spike proteins from Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” do persist in the body for at least several months post-injection. See Persistent varicella zoster virus infection following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was associated with the presence of encoded spike protein in the lesion in the Journal of Cutaneous Immunology and Allergy.by Mayuko Yamamoto MD, PhD and Shigetoshi Sano, MD, PhD, out of Kochi Medical School, Kochi University, Japan.
The AP article quotes U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesperson Marissa Perry: “There is no requirement or mandate that producers vaccinate their livestock for any disease. It is a personal and business decision left up to the producer and will remain that way,” and quotes Jason Menke, a National Pork Board spokesperson, that the “decision to use vaccines and other medical treatments to protect animal health and well-being are made by the farmer under the direction of the herd veterinarian.” Again, this is subterfuge and typical government legalese/waffle-ese. I repeat: Are we, the consumers, being notified with legal informed consent if our food is “vaccinated?” NOT “it might be”; not “it is the at the producer’s discretion”; not “the decision is made under the direction of a vet (but we ain’t gonna tell you, poor unwashed rubes in flyover country”; simply are you complying with the law of informed consent, yes or no.” The AP article does quote Suresh Kuchipudi, a veterinary scientist and chair of emerging infectious diseases at Penn State University, saying animals get immunizations do not rely on mRNA technology. Fine. What types do they get? Where do we find this simple information? It seems there’s a database now for almost every mosquito found on earth – certainly this list can’t be that hard to come up with, can it? And speaking of pork, we do know that the FDA has authorized, at least on an investigational basis, gene edited pigs for human consumption, per work led by Jon Oately, professor in the School of Molecular Biosciences in Washington State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine. Acceligen, has a gene-edited animal which received FDA ok to enter the food supply. See Washington State University article on this here, or CHD article here. Natural Health – which is why we shop with you, and what you advertise as supporting! – writes that the CRISPR work on pigs “…eliminates a pig’s NANOS2 male fertility gene, replacing it with a separate male pig’s stem cells that generate more desirable sperm. However, such genetic modification alters pig DNA to the point that it might not be safe for human consumption, especially if consumed regularly for years or decades.” Fauci himself at one point warned 20 years ago about the possibility of vaccine effects not being seen for many years.
This is related and I must share. United Airlines sent me a virtue signaling link featuring Oscar the Grouch/Sesame Street. It is one of no doubt more to come, touting United's green agenda. To avoid my flight info, this link is direct from united.com:
https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/company/responsibility/chief-trash-officer.html?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TRG_UADL_24976_SAFFlights_C000024976&utm_source=Airline_Marketing_Operational&utm_content=_ET03&launch_date=20230604&icid=80055073
UNBELIEVABLE.
Well you surely won't find me flying United. The real goals is to dramatically reduce air travel. Heck if the can fly a plane using trash why not automobiles. Again, the war is against all forms of mobility.
I'm really bothered by flight crews and air traffic controllers mandated to get c19 vaxx. Almost daily there is some emergency. Recently there were 6 near-misses in the air. FDA piles on, loosening pilots' minimum health markers. The airlines?--I call them "scarelines". I borrow a tagline: Real not rare. How more real does it get with hundreds of people on the airplane?
👍
Is it safe to say that Robert Malone is a member of the prestigious group known as Controlled Opposition? That guy knows a lot of evil shit about a lot of things that are top secret yet he comes across as a converted scientist who's just like the rest of us except much wealthier.
My personal view (based on research and common sense) for a long time is that Malone is controlled opposition. Not sure if anyone is pulling his strings but I do believe he knows a helluva a lot more than he is saying and I believe he has a lot more involvement and knowledge in this mass genocide than he is willing to admit because his career means more to him than risking sharing what he knows with the public. During his one and only interview with Stew Peters he clearly states that there are some things he cannot say because of his career.....needless to say Peters chewed Malone a new butt and Malone has never appeared on Peters again but has made several nasty comments about Peters because Peters has not let up on Malone and what he said during that interview. I believe Malone showed his hand to Peters and Peters laid it out on the table and Malone doesn't take kindly to people exposing the truth about him. IE George Webb, Dr. Ruby, Dr. Alexander and others. I expressed my concerns about Malone a long time ago and was attacked by several subscribers but I stuck to my guns about him and thankfully more and more information is coming out about Malone and his past affiliations and the massive amount of grant money he has secured through the years. My feeling from the start has been that you do not swim in the swamp for 30 years without being one of the swamp creatures. They do not allow anyone that does not go along to get along in their swamp. I believe he is now tagging on to RFK Jr. hoping, if he wins, for an big assignment in the HHS, NIH, FDA, CDC.
Yep, I concur with your response. Dr. Steve Kirsch could be added to the list of those swimming in the swamp for many years and is also positioning himself into a big assignment within RFK Jr's cabinet should he win the presidency. The swamp monsters seem to never perish but morph into regular looking folks that tow the line for the Evil Globalists.
Absolutely. Kirsch is another money hungry fraud. But don't flatter him by the title of doctor. He does not have a doctorate or PhD.
NWO Globalist UN USSA Coup Gov. "Green" Insanity, One of Many of Their/Them Insanities.
Which Begs the Question, Does Agreeing with Such ... in turn Certify a Person as Insane???
and Does Allowing Such Insanity also Indicate at Least Mental Feeble Mindness???
Are You/Me/We too Similar to "Falling Down" Joey B. than We care to Admit???
But, "The Pen is Mightier than the Sword" neglects that Neither Object is Nothing without Spiritual Guidance, and No Where is the Defense against Homicide, let alone Genocide Forbidden.
I Pray that my Heart be Free of Regret, and that My Aim be True.
If that Prayer is Too Fringy, perhaps a reading of the Entire Speech of Patrick Henry is in order:
https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/learn/deep-dives/give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death/
only requiring the substitution of your favorite tyrannical state and Obvious to Most Feral DC Gov. to update it from 1775. So Now, Choose Your Legacy or Your Submission and What inevitably follows.......