Is Mr. G a superhero or a villain — or both, or somewhere in between? If he is a friend, then to whom? If he is a foe, then what could be his goals?
This is not a survey, nor a yay or nay poll. If readers would like to offer a response or take a specific stance, please do your best to substantiate your insights with evidence (preferably primary sources, such as scientific literature, industry white papers, or news releases from academia).
I am interested if POM readers have viewed this press conference. If not, I suggest watching the conference in its entirety (it begins shortly after the 9-minute time stamp), or reviewing excerpts transcribed in the links above.
For more detailed information (including professionally produced interviews) on the group of individuals who testified at the June 28 press conference, please review their web site called C19 Vax Reactions, ostensibly created by Ken Ruettgers. You can also see a more personalized story about one of the individuals (Maddie de Garay), as expressed by her father (Patrick de Garay) on his Facebook profile here.
I dedicate this exploratory essay to my friends and family who received a COVID injection (without proper informed consent); and to all the individuals way back in the cheap seats, who may not be able to hear what I am saying, due to the drowned-out noise of Gain-of-Function (GOF) research, lab leaks, and e-mail leaks.
SPOILER ALERT: When I refer to a “spike protein” herein, it is NOT because I support the notion that a protein arose from a virus, nor do I think it “sheds” or operates in the way that has been postulated by individuals referenced below (all of whom maintain that there is a SARS-CoV-2 virus).
There has been much recent drama (and rightly so) centered around the spike protein of the purported SARS-CoV-2 virus, and more specifically, what is being described as the expression of the synthetic spike protein as a result of COVID injections.
It seems that Dr. Byram Bridle, Dr. Joseph Mercola (see here and here), Judy Mikovits, Stephanie Seneff, Dr. Russell Blaylock, and Dr. Sherri Tenpenny all agree that the spike protein — at the very least, the one that is being produced for/by the injections — is a toxin (see Endnote 1). The general consensus among them is that it is a bioweapon. Indeed, Tenpenny emphasized (interview linked above) that the spike protein is the bioweapon (not “the virus”), based on a study of a “harmless pseudovirus” that was conjugated with spike proteins, yet caused pulmonary arterial damage.
I am content knowing we can all move forward in agreeing this may be a lab-created bioweapon; however, why do so many still have tunnel vision, remaining fixated on GOF research? Could there be other labs doing related research — perhaps protein R&D, or even more precisely, “spike protein” R&D (sans virus)? And how do synchrotrons factor in to all of this? As you read further, I offer a plot twist in this regard, so I hope you can stay tuned as I set up the prelude . . .
Raise your hand if you have a bottle of Febreze air freshening or fabric spray in your house. Okay, you can put your hands down. Actually, I have a feeling not too many POM readers have Febreze laying around the house.
I have never used Febreze products, so I do not have any anecdotal evidence pointing to their efficacy. However, the manufacturer, Proctor & Gamble (P&G), purports that it is the first company to develop technology that literally eliminates odors. As asserted by the company: “Back in 1994, a P&G research & development scientist discovered that a fancy little starch molecule used in dryer sheets (AKA cyclodextrin) could actually be used to clean away bad odors from fabrics—without throwing them into the wash. With an obsessive determination over the course of four years, he perfected that technology into a simple, water-based sprayable formula… and in 1998, Febreze Fabric Refresher made its debut.” Essentially, cyclodextrins used in the laundry product trap odor molecules so that they do not reach the scent receptors in your nose. This is curious in light of my previous POM post on chemosignaling and the significance of scents, as well as the phenomenon of anosmia purported to be a common symptom of COVID.
But that is not the full story . . . In its infancy, Febreze was not a marketing success. In fact, as reported in 2016 by Anand Damani, of Behavioural Design, it was a major flop, and P&G desired to promote their product more effectively. Apparently, as Damani elucidated, P&G hired behavioral experts to create a “craving” for the product, by instilling the habitual use of Febreze. In 2012, Charles Duhigg, Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, who has a special interest in the science of habits (particularly, the militarized application of the science of habit formation) presented an interesting back story on the creation of the “Febreze habit loop.” He described that P&G had kept an extensive (and proprietary) library of videos of homemakers cleaning their houses, from which they studied their cleaning rituals. From their observations, the company’s R&D specialists had determined that a new marketing campaign needed to focus on the Febreze product being the final touch ritual after a cleaning session, emphasizing that the area cleaned would smell as good as it looked. But there was no reward there, because the product destroyedscents. Duhigg explained that the researchers went back to the lab, and P&G “spent another 3 million dollars inventing a perfume that was strong enoughto withstand the chemicals of Febreze, so that they could pour it into the bottles.” Febreze sales skyrocketed, and it became a billion dollar a year product — chemically designed to “kill bad scents.”
My aim in this short essay is to clear the air on this “fancy little starch molecule” — cyclodextrin, and 2-hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin (HPBCD), in particular. So bear with me, as I geek out a bit on the science. I think, by the end, you will see why I took a vested interest.
Part 9 of the Series, “Of Monkeys, Mice and Men: From Natural Bodies to Digitized Bots”
My maternal instinct leads me to sense a relatively new feature has been added to the dystopian, anti-life, nature-defeating and dangerous game afoot . . . Given the abundance of anecdotal reports from women (both injected and non-injected with medical devices pertaining to COVID) exhibiting menstrual irregularities, and pregnant women enduring unexplained miscarriages, I have been occupied with ascertaining knowledge about the potential method of transmission. What I have uncovered, within the context of engineered nanoparticles (ENPs), may be applicable to plausible concerns that have surfaced in the past month.
Accordingly, multiple researchers have been questioning, speculating, and even debating amongst themselves with respect to the mode of passage from one jabbed person to another, who is unjabbed. These bright minds are also attempting to hone in on precisely what is being transmitted. Please read here (Makia Freeman posits that re-wiring genetic code may be affecting physical and energetic fields), and watch here (from the 28 to 37 minute timestamps, Dr. Carrie Madej suggests injected people may be acting as wireless antennae), here (David Icke hypothesizes the jabbed may be broadcasting a frequency), and here (five prominent physicians emphasize this is an undetermined form of transmission, but not viral shedding) in this regard.
The central question I would like to address is as follows: If ENPs are present in these new, experimental injections — purportedly addressing a new condition called COVID — are they able to be transmitted to non-injected individuals; and if so, by what mechanism?
Following are two conversations I heard today that I feel are vital, and among the most enlightening and enriching I have absorbed since the beginning of the pandemic narrative. Hint: the one common denominator is Dr. Tom Cowan.
If (like me) you have listened to nearly all of Tom’s interviews during the past year, in reference to viruses and vaccines, there are still new intellectually stimulating, health-supporting, heart-stirring, and life-affirming nuggets to glean from these two April 2021 chats.
Part 8 the Series, “Of Monkeys, Mice and Men: From Natural Bodies to Digitized Bots”
I will keep this comparatively short and sweet . . .
I consider myself a honey enthusiast. I am not a beekeeper, although I purchase local raw honey from reputable beekeepers. When I say “reputable,” I do not imply that I have verified through some meticulous process that their honey is 100 percent pesticide-free, or superior in flavor and consistency than another. I simply seek out, and consume, honey using my intuition and asking basic questions about the purveyors’ source and methodology. In any case, I indulge in the consumption of raw honey nearly every day for culinary purposes — in my herbal teas, on my fresh fruit, on gluten-free toast, and sometimes by the spoonful sprinkled with cinnamon and cardamom. As I said, I am a honey enthusiast.
Recently, instead of a local store purchase, I ordered New Zealand-produced Manuka honey online. Though I can buy it in nearby stores, it is produced exclusively in Australia and New Zealand. I have been enjoying raw Manuka honey for the last five years, for its potentially therapeutic properties, including internal healing, such as aiding in digestion and anti-inflammation. I always keep some on hand in the event of external wounds as well. It is an expensive item, so I use it sparingly. If you are not familiar with Manuka honey and its individualized “grading system” called Unique Manuka Factor (UMF), please read here.
Due to its purported medicinal value, and its UMF ranking (in addition to other rating systems), Manuka honey production is recognized for its strict enforcement. This also follows because as one of the most expensive honey products, the adulteration and “counterfeiting” of Manuka honey is reportedly rampant. Hence, it should not have been a surprise when I saw that this particular Manuka honey brand had a scannable Quick Response (QR) code on the jar lid, to verify its traceability, and therefore, its authenticity. I had not noticed that when ordering.
Who needs the World Wide Web, when you can have the 3D version?
Part 7 of the Series, “Of Monkeys, Mice and Men: From Natural Bodies to Digitized Bots”
Spring has officially sprung on our humble homestead. We are actively planting our first round of organic seeds in fertile soil. Our gardens should soon be flowing abundantly with arugula, Parris Island romaine lettuce, French Breakfast radishes, Cherry Belle radishes, Bloomsdale spinach, Cascadia snap peas, Touchstone gold beets, and Early Wonder Tall Top beets. Patience is required as the seeds germinate and their roots take hold in the warming ground.
The techno-lords have also exercised patience over the past century. But no more. Their cravings seem to consume them, as they rush to achieve their end goals. They explain away the appearance of sudden change through two of their favorite concepts — Moore’s Law (computing power doubles roughly every 24 months) and its newer and speedier (albeit obscure) sibling, Koomey’s Law (computing power doubles roughly every 18 months). Additionally, as referenced in Part 1 of my series, they attribute the current expediency to a convenient pandemic scenario, which is referred to by foresight professionals as a black swan or wild card event. They brazenly desire to hijack Nature by utilizing her brilliant blueprint as a backbone, yet overlaying it with their environmentally and biologically embedded mechanical sensors, computerized circuits, and global positioning systems so as to create wind-up toy human automatons. Is this what we want for our children and grandchildren?
Two animal “totems” seem apropos to conceptualize for this essay — the serpent and the spider. Moving forward, it may help to imagine these two creatures within the context of cyber-physical transformation, each capable of inducing fear in people, yet, paradoxically, also exhibiting seductive qualities. I envision a crypto-crazed serpent shedding its blockchain skin, as it slithers its way through global industry and commerce(think container ships in canals; also see here on global container shipping and spatial networks), sector by sector, synergistically colluding with a cyber-savvy spider that is fervently occupied, weaving its strands of technological silk from one node to the next. The humans involved in the emergence of this cyber-biological ecosystem openly present their plans — mixing just enough “cautionary” sentiments, with a heavy dose of positivism, injected with a few sci-fi references for humorous allure. Just a reminder, the plan is for our physical bodies to be nodes in this automated and programmable cyber-physical convergence (referred to by the National Science Foundation and the National Nanotechnology Initiative, in 2017, as Nano-Bio-Info-Cognitive Convergence, or NBIC), littered with stealth “smart contracts” and pervasive “smart environments.” Have you given your consent to this engineered consummation?
“We’ll have nanobots that . . . connect our neocortex to a synthetic neocortex in the cloud . . . Our thinking will be a . . . biological and non-biological hybrid.”
~ Ray Kurzweil, TED 2014
Part 6 of the Series, “Of Monkeys, Mice and Men: From Natural Bodies to Digitized Bots”
Influenza and Zika and COVID, oh my!
Not to worry . . . the pandemic panopticon-obsessed problem-reaction solutionaries are here to save us! So they say . . .
In November 2020, I had an “aha” moment, when reading Hacking Matter: Levitating Chairs, Quantum Mirages, and the Infinite Weirdness of Programmable Atoms. The author, Wil McCarthy, who holds a patent in the sector of quantum dot technology, asserted, “At the nanoscale, where we find very tiny, very simple objects . . . the behavior of particles is governed by quantum mechanics . . . your ‘gut feel’ about how a particle should behave is virtually useless for predicting what it will actually do. This is because on the nanoscale, what we call ‘particles’ are really ‘probability waves’ . . . Probability waves can do ‘impossible’ things like leaping across an impenetrable barrier, or existing in many places at the same time, or apparently predicting the future, or being influenced by distant events much faster than the speed of light should allow.” McCarthy continued, “Objects much smaller than a micron in size start to behave in some very non-Newtonian ways . . .”
Essentially, at the nanoscale, quantum effects begin to dominate the behavior of matter. Let’s just say it gets more spooky.
I have a sense that when top scientists discovered the bio-nano realm with their atomic force microscopes, they saw a land of opportunity for profit (i.e., in the field of bio-nanomedicine), but I also think they saw a land of plenty — intriguing depths of additional space with which to harness control. The nano space, similar to secret societies, has been highly occulted, as unsuspecting human beings are not equipped with atomic force microscopes with which to peer into our bodies, and the bodies of neighboring plants and animals. There is an entire world inside all of us much smaller than the micro level. When heading way down to the bottom of life’s existence, life has a meaning and function that literallydisobeys the laws of gravity.