The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in all capitals, represents a fictitious corporation. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, corporation is a fictitious character.
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is located in the District of Columbia. What is the District of Columbia and what are the other Districts? (Vatican, City of London)
The Owners of the private corporation, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, are the City of London and the Vatican.
When we pay taxes we “voluntarily” submit our tax returns to Washington, D.C. yet pay our taxes to the UNITED STATES TREASURY; A private corporation registered in Puerto Rico!
Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner, and every treasury secretary since 1913 are appointed but not as cabinet members. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury is not sworn in and speaks no oath of loyalty or defense of the United States.
“free from taxes” The US Treasury Department has no jurisdiction; all future notices from the Internal Revenue Service will be disregarded; public notice of this is posted herewith at
Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act, with draconian measures suspending Puerto Rico’s governance, is not a brilliant future for Puerto Rico. Neither is the situation for the pensions that have invested in Puerto Rico’s bonds. The pensioners in the United States form another part of the coalition for the rule of law. The power transition model that came to the World Bank from the National War College is 90-95% accurate, and it is predicting that a coalition for the rule of law is more powerful than the Network of Global Corporate Control identified by Vitali, Glattfelder, and Battiston of ETH Zurich.
The Universal Postal Union is not enforcing the debt of the Network of Global Corporate Control to the Global Debt Facility: over 2 quadrillion dollars and accompanying liens on all the Federal Reserve Banks.
A peer-reviewed medical study shows two, common, over-the-counter supplements, combine to destroy the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. This article reprints the peer-reviewed study and tells you what supplements THEY used that wiped-out the spike protein. Maybe, people who took the “vaccines” can use this to wipe out the spike proteins inside themselves, that are making many of them sick, and killing many others?
In the interest of full disclosure, I do NOT sell any of the supplements mentioned here and earn NO MONEY from anyone, for passing along this information to you. I do this as a public service.
This peer-reviewed paper was published in March of 2021, but no one in the media bothered to tell the public. The only thing the media did was push the “vax.” Now, a lot of people are dead, dying, or very sick from the vax.
It seems that the messenger RNA in the vax, causes our human cells to “express a spike protein” like the one on the Coronavirus that causes COVID. Except human cells are not __supposed__ to “express a spike protein.”
Below, is the study which showed two over-the-counter food supplements, Bromelain and Acetylcysteine (NAC), when used together – not separately – cause the spike protein bindings to fall apart and dissolve into nothing. Images of the results are below!
The Combination of Bromelain and Acetylcysteine (BromAc) Synergistically Inactivates SARS-CoV-2
by
1
Department of Surgery, St. George Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2217, Australia
2
Mucpharm Pty Ltd., Sydney, NSW 2217, Australia
3
CIRI, Centre International de Recherche en Infectiologie, Team VirPatH, Univ Lyon, Inserm, U1111, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS, UMR5308, ENS de Lyon, F-69007 Lyon, France
4
Hospices Civils de Lyon, EMR 3738 (CICLY), Lyon 1 Université, F-69921 Lyon, France
5
St. George & Sutherland Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2217, Australia
6
Laboratoire de Virologie, Institut des Agents Infectieux (IAI), Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Nord, F-69004 Lyon, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
The recently emergent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which can range from asymptomatic to severe and lethal forms with a systemic inflammatory response syndrome. As of 21 February 2021, over 111 million confirmed cases have been reported, with an estimated overall mortality of 2.2% [1]. There are currently few therapeutic agents proven to be beneficial in reducing early- and late-stage disease progression [2]. While there are fortunately many vaccine candidates, their widespread availability for vaccination may not be immediate, the length of immune protection may be limited [3,4], and the efficacy of the vaccines may be reduced by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants. The continued exploration of effective treatments is therefore still needed.
Structurally, SARS-CoV-2 contains surface spike proteins, membrane proteins, and envelope proteins, as well as internal nucleoproteins that package the RNA. The spike protein is a homotrimer glycoprotein complex with different roles accomplished through dynamic conformational modifications, based in part on disulfide bonds [5]. It allows the infection of target cells by binding to the human angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE2) receptors, among others, which triggers proteolysis by transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), furin, and perhaps other proteases, leading to virion and host cell membrane fusion [6,7].
The entry of viruses into mammalian cells, or “virus internalization”, is a key mechanism of enveloped virus infection and is based on dynamic conformational changes of their surface glycoproteins, namely, as mediated by disulfide bond reduction and regulated by cell surface oxydoreductases and proteases [5,8,9,10,11]. SARS-CoV-2 entry into host cells has been shown to start with destabilization of the spike protein through allosteric mechanical transition, which induces a conformational change from the closed “down” state to open “up” state of the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein [12,13]. The conformational changes of RBD and virus binding are induced by TMPRSS2 or Cathepsin L, which trigger the transition from the pre-fusion to post-fusion state [5,12,13]. The energy liberated by disulfide bond reduction increases protein flexibility, which is maximal when the reduced state is complete [8], thus allowing the fusion of host–virus membranes, which is otherwise impossible due to the repulsive hydration forces present before reduction [5].
Bromelain is extracted mainly from the stem of the pineapple plant (Ananas comosus) and contains a number of enzymes that give it the ability to hydrolyze glycosidic bonds in complex carbohydrates [14]. Previous studies have indicated that Bromelain removes the spike and hemagglutinin proteins of Semliki Forest virus, Sindbis virus, mouse gastrointestinal coronavirus, hemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus, and H1N1 influenza viruses [15,16]. As a therapeutic molecule, it is used for debriding burns. Acetylcysteine is a powerful antioxidant that is commonly nebulized into the airways for mucus accumulation and is also used as a hepatoprotective agent in paracetamol overdose. Most importantly in the present context, Acetylcysteine reduces disulfide bonds [17]. Moreover, the association of the spike and envelope proteins by their respective triple cysteine motifs warrants the hypothesis of impacting virion stability following disulfide bridge disruption by the action of Acetylcysteine [18]. The combination of Bromelain and Acetylcysteine (BromAc) exhibits a synergistic mucolytic effect that is used in the treatment of mucinous tumors [19,20] and as a chemosensitizer of several anticancer drugs [21]. These different actions are due to the ability of BromAc to unfold the molecular structures of complex glycoproteins, thus allowing binding to occur because of the high affinity between RBD and ACE2.
Therefore, in the current study we set out to determine whether BromAc can disrupt the integrity of SARS-CoV-2 spike and envelope proteins and subsequently examine its inactivation potential against in vitro replication of two viral strains, including one with a spike mutant alteration of the novel S1/S2 cleavage site.
Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
Bromelain API was manufactured by Mucpharm Pty Ltd (Kogarah, Australia) as a sterile powder. Acetylcysteine was purchased from Link Pharma (Cat# AUST R 170803; Warriewood, Australia). The recombinant SARS-COV-2 spike protein was obtained from SinoBiological (Cat# 40589-V08B1; Beijing, China). The recombinant envelope protein was obtained from MyBioSource (Cat# MBS8309649; San Diego, CA, USA). All other reagents were from Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA).
2.2. Recombinant Spike and Envelope Gel Electrophoresis
The spike or envelope proteins were reconstituted in sterile distilled water according to the manufacturer’s instructions, and aliquots were frozen at −20 °C. Two and a half micrograms of spike or envelope protein were incubated with 50 or 100 µg/mL Bromelain, 20 mg/mL Acetylcysteine, or a combination of both in Milli-Q water. The control contained no drugs. The total reaction volume was 15 µL each. After 30 min incubation at 37 °C, 5 µL of sample buffer was added into each reaction. A total of 20 µL of each reaction was electrophoresed on an SDS-PAGE (Cat# 456-1095; Bio-Rad Hercules, CA, USA). The gels were stained using Coomassie blue.
2.3. UV Spectral Detection of Disulfide Bonds in Spike and Envelope Proteins
The method of Iyer and Klee for the measurement of the rate of reduction of disulfide bonds has been used to detect disulfide bonds in spike and envelope proteins [22]. The recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein at a concentration of 3.0 µg/mL in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) (pH 7.0) containing 1 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) was incubated with 0, 10, 20, 40, and 50 µL of Acetylcysteine (0.5 M), agitated at 37 °C for 30 min followed by equivalent addition of Dithiothreitol (DTT) (0.5 M), and agitated for a further 30 min at 37 °C. The spike protein was incubated in parallel only with DTT (0.5 M) as before without any Acetylcysteine and agitated at 37 °C for 30 min. The absorbance was then read at 310 nm. UV spectral detection of disulfide bonds in the envelope protein was performed in a similar manner.
2.4. SARS-CoV-2 Whole Virus Inactivation with BromAc
Fully respecting the World Health Organization (WHO) interim biosafety guidance related to the coronavirus disease, the SARS-CoV-2 whole virus inactivation tests were carried out with a wild-type (WT) strain representative of early circulating European viruses (GISAID accession number EPI_ISL_578176). A second SARS-CoV-2 strain (denoted as ∆S), reported through routine genomic surveillance in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region of France, was added to the inactivation tests due to a rare mutation in the spike S1/S2 cleavage site and its culture availability in the laboratory (GISAID accession number EPI_ISL_578177).
2.5. Replication Kinetics by Real-Time Cell Analysis
To compare the in vitro replication capacity of both WT and ∆S SARS-CoV-2 strains, replication kinetics were determined by measuring the electrode impedance of microelectronic cell sensors on the xCELLigence Real-Time Cell Analyzer (RTCA) DP Instrument (ACEA Biosciences, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). Vero cells were seeded at 20,000 cells per well on an E-Plate 16 (ACEA Biosciences, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) and incubated with the same media conditions as described previously at 36 °C with 5% CO2. After 24 h, SARS-CoV-2 culture isolates were inoculated in triplicate at a multiplicity of infection of 10−2. Mock infections were performed in quadruplicate. Electronic impedance data (cell index) were continuously collected at 15-min intervals for 6 days. Area under the curve analysis of normalized cell index, established at time of inoculation, was then calculated at 12-h intervals. At each interval, cell viability was determined by normalizing against the corresponding cell control. Tukey multiple comparison tests were used to compare each condition on GraphPad Prism (software version 9.0; San Diego, CA, USA).
Results
3.1. Alteration of SARS-CoV-2 Spike and Envelope Proteins
Treatment of the spike protein with Acetylcysteine alone did not show any alteration of the protein, whereas concentrations of Bromelain at 50 and 100 µg/mL and BromAc at 50 and 100 µg/20 mg/mL resulted in protein alteration (Figure 1A). Treatment with Acetylcysteine on the envelope protein did not alter the protein, whereas treatment with Bromelain at 50 and 100 µg/mL and BromAc at 50 and 100 µg/20 mg/mL also resulted in near complete and complete fragmentation, respectively (Figure 1A).
Figure 1. (A) Bromelain and Acetylcysteine present a synergistic effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) spike and envelope protein destabilization. SDS-PAGE of the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 + S2 subunits (150 kDa) and envelope protein (25 kDa). Proteins were treated with 20 mg/mL Acetylcysteine alone, 100 and 50 µg/mL Bromelain alone, and a combination of 100 and 50 µg/20 mg/mL BromAc. (B) Disulfide reduction of recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein by Acetylcysteine. The differential assay between Acetylcysteine (Ac) and Dithiothreitol (DTT) for the reduction of disulfide bonds found on the spike protein indicates that Acetylcysteine reduces 42% of the disulfide bonds before the addition of DTT. The remaining bonds are reduced by DTT to produce the chromogen detected at 310 nm. (C) Disulfide reduction of recombinant SARS-CoV-2 envelope protein by Acetylcysteine. The differential assay between Acetylcysteine (Ac) and Dithiothreitol (DTT) for the reduction of disulfide bonds found on the envelope protein indicates that Acetylcysteine reduces 40% of the bonds before the addition of DTT.
3.2. UV Spectral Detection Demonstrates the Alteration of Disulfide Bonds in Spike and Envelope Proteins
The comparative reduction of disulfide bonds on the spike protein between DTT alone and DTT with Acetylcysteine demonstrated a 42% difference (Figure 1B), based on the slope of the graphs [0.002599/0.006171 (100) = 42 %]. Acetylcysteine was thus able to reduce 58% of the disulfide linkages in the sample, after which the remaining disulfide bonds were reduced by DTT to produce the chromogen that was monitored in the spectra. Similarly, the differential assay between Acetylcysteine and DTT for the reduction of disulfide bonds found in the envelope protein [0.007866/0.01293 (100) = 60%] indicates that Acetylcysteine reduces 40% of the disulfide bonds before the addition of DTT (Figure 1C).
3.3. In Vitro SARS-CoV-2 Inactivating Potential of Bromelain, Acetylcysteine, and BromAc
For both SARS-CoV-2 strains tested, the untreated virus controls at 105.5 and 104.5 TCID50/mL yielded typical cytopathic effects (CPE), and no cytotoxicity was observed for any of the drug combinations on Vero cells. Optical CPE results were invariably confirmed by end-point Neutral Red cell staining. Overall, Bromelain and Acetylcysteine treatment alone showed no viral inhibition, all with CPE comparable to virus control wells, whereas BromAc combinations displayed virus inactivation in a concentration-dependent manner (Figure 2). Treatment on 104.5 TCID50/mL virus titers (Figure 2B,D) yielded more consistent inhibition of CPE for quadruplicates than on 105.5 TCID50/mL virus titers (Figure 2A,C).
Figure 2. Cell lysis assays demonstrated in vitro inactivation potential of Acetylcysteine and Bromelain combined (BromAc) against SARS-CoV-2. Cell viability was measured by cell staining with Neutral Red, where optical density (OD) is directly proportional to viable cells. Low OD would signify important cell lysis due to virus replication. The wild-type (WT) SARS-CoV-2 strain at 5.5 and 4.5 log10TCID50/mL titers (A and B, respectively) showed no inhibition of cytopathic effect (CPE) for single agent treatment, compared to the mock treatment virus control condition. BromAc combinations were able to inhibit CPE, compared to the mock infection cell controls. Treatment of a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variant (∆S) with a mutation at the S1/S2 junction at 5.5 and 4.5 log10TCID50/mL titers (C and D, respectively) showed similar results. Bars represent the average of each quadruplicate per condition, illustrated by white circles. Ordinary one-way ANOVA was performed, using the mock treatment virus control as the control condition (**** p < 0.0001, *** p < 0.0005, ** p < 0.003, and * p < 0.05).
Based on the virus inactivation guidelines established by the WHO, a robust and reliable process of inactivation will be able to reduce replication by at least 4 logs [Log10 reduction value (LRV) = (RT-PCR Ct treatment – RT-PCR Ct control)/3.3; as 1 log10 ≈ 3.3 Ct]. As such, RT-PCR was performed on the RNA extracts to directly measure virus replication. For the wild-type (WT) strain at 104.5 TCID50/mL, successful LRV > 4 were observed with 1 out of 4 wells, 2 out of 4 wells, 3 out of 4 wells, and 4 out of 4 wells for 25, 50, 100 and 250 µg/20 mg/mL BromAc, respectively (Figure 3). It is worth noting that at 105.5 TCID50/mL, LRV were slightly below the threshold at, on average, 3.3, with 3 out of 4 wells and 2 out of 4 wells for 100 and 250 µg/20 mg/mL BromAc, respectively (Table 1). For the spike protein mutant (∆S) at 104.5 TCID50/mL, no successful LRV > 4 was observed for 25 µg/20 mg/mL BromAc, but it was observed in 4 out of 4 wells for 50, 100, and 250 µg/20 mg/mL BromAc (Figure 3). Of note, at 105.5 TCID50/mL, LRV were slightly below the threshold at, on average, 3.2, with 1 out of 4 wells, 2 out of 4 wells, and 4 out of 4 wells for 50, 100, and 250 µg/20 mg/mL BromAc, respectively (Table 1). Overall, in vitro inactivation of both SARS-CoV-2 strains’ replication capacity was observed in a dose-dependent manner, most strongly demonstrated at 100 and 250 µg/20 mg/mL BromAc against 104.5 TCID50/mL of virus.
Figure 3. Threshold matrix of log10 reduction values (LRV) of in vitro virus replication 96 h after BromAc treatment on WT and ∆S SARS-CoV-2 strains at 5.5 and 4.5 log10TCID50/mL titers. LRV were calculated with the following formula: LRV = (RT-PCR Ct of treatment—RT-PCR Ct virus control)/3.3; as 1 log10 ≈ 3.3 Ct. The color gradient matrix displays the number of quadruplicates per condition yielding an LRV > 4, corresponding to a robust inactivation according to the WHO. WT = wild-type; ∆S = S1/S2 spike mutant.
Table 1. Log10 reduction values (LRV) of in vitro virus replication 96 h after BromAc treatment on WT and ∆S SARS-CoV-2 strains at 5.5 and 4.5 log10TCID50/mL titers. LRV were calculated with the following formula: LRV = (RT-PCR Ct of treatment – RT-PCR Ct virus control)/3.3; as 1 log10 ≈ 3.3 Ct. Each replicate is described. TCID50/mL = Median Tissue Culture Infectious Dose; WT = wild-type; ∆S = S1/S2 spike mutant.
Real-time cell analysis demonstrated comparable replication kinetics for both WT and ∆S SARS-CoV-2 strains (Figure 4). No significant difference in cell viability was observed between WT and ∆S at any time point. From 48 h post-infection, WT and ∆S cell viability were significantly different compared to the mock infection (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. SARS-CoV-2 replication capacity of WT and ∆S SARS-CoV-2 measured by Real-Time Cell Analysis. Data points correspond to area under the curve analysis of normalized cell index (electronic impedance of RTCA established at time of inoculation) at 12-h intervals. Cell viability was then determined by normalizing against the corresponding cell control. WT = wild-type; ∆S = S1/S2 spike mutant.
Discussion
The combination of Bromelain and Acetylcysteine, BromAc, synergistically inhibited the infectivity of two SARS-CoV-2 strains cultured on Vero cells. Protein confirmation and its molecular properties are dependent on its structural and geometric integrity, which are dependent on both the peptide linkages and disulfide bridges. Acetylcysteine, as a good reducing agent, tends to reduce the disulfide bridges and hence alter the molecular properties of most proteins. This property has been widely exploited in the development of several therapies (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, allergic airways diseases, cystic fibrosis, pseudomyxoma peritonei, etc.) [20,23,24,25,26,27]. More recently, Acetylcysteine has been used in the development of therapies for respiratory infections such as influenza and COVID-19 [28,29,30], where the integrity of the spike protein is vital for infection [12,13]. A hypothesized mechanism of action could be the unfolding of the spike glycoprotein and the reduction of its disulfide bonds.
The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is the cornerstone of virion binding to host cells and hence represents an ideal therapeutic target. A direct mechanical action against this spike protein is a different treatment strategy in comparison to most of the existing antiviral drugs, which prevents viral entry in host cells rather than targeting the replication machinery. BromAc acts as a biochemical agent to destroy complex glycoproteins. Bromelain’s multipotent enzymatic competencies, dominated by the ability to disrupt glycosidic linkages, usefully complement Acetylcysteine’s strong power to reduce disulfide bonds [17]. Amino acid sequence analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein identified several predetermined sites where BromAc could preferentially act, such as the S2’ site rich in disulfide bonds [31], together with three other disulfide bonds in RBD [32]. In parallel, the role of the glycosidic shield in covering the spike, which is prone to being removed by BromAc, has been highlighted as a stabilization element of RBD conformation transitions as well as a resistance mechanism to specific immune response [5,33,34].
Mammalian cells exhibit reductive functions at their surface that are capable of cleaving disulfide bonds, and the regulation of this thiol-disulfide balance has been proven to impact the internalization of different types of viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 [8,35,36,37,38]. Both ACE2 and spike proteins possess disulfide bonds. When all the spike protein RBD disulfide bonds were reduced to thiols, ACE2 receptor binding to spike protein became less favorable [8]. Interestingly, the reduction of ACE2 disulfide bonds also induced a decrease in binding [8]. Moreover, other reports suggested that Bromelain alone could inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection in VeroE6 cells through an action on disulfide links [39,40]. As such, the loss of SARS-CoV-2 infectivity observed after pre-treatment with BromAc could be correlated to the cumulative unfolding of the spike and envelope proteins, with a significant reduction of their disulfide bonds by Acetylcysteine, demonstrated in vitro.
Interestingly, a similar effect of BromAc was observed against both WT and ∆S SARS-CoV-2. The main difference in amino acid sequences between SARS-CoV-2 and previous SARS-CoV is the inclusion of a furin cleavage site between S1 and S2 domains [41]. This distinct site of the spike protein and its role in host spill-over and virus fitness is a topic of much debate [41,42,43,44]. Of note, ∆S, which harbors a mutation in this novel S1/S2 cleavage site and alters the cleavage motif, exhibits no apparent difference in replication capacity compared to the WT strain. The slightly increased sensitivity of ∆S to BromAc treatment is therefore not due to a basal replication bias, but the mutation could perhaps be involved in enhancing the mechanism of action of BromAc. These results would nevertheless suggest that, from a threshold dose, BromAc could potentially be effective on spike mutant strains. This may be a clear advantage for BromAc over specific immunologic mechanisms of a spike-specific vaccination [3,4].
To date, different treatment strategies have been tested, but no molecules have demonstrated a clear antiviral effect. In addition, given the heterogeneous disease outcome of COVID-19 patients, the treatment strategy should combine several mechanisms of action and be adapted to the stage of the disease. Thus, treatment repurposing remains an ideal strategy against COVID-19, whilst waiting for sufficient vaccination coverage worldwide [45,46]. In particular, the development of early nasal-directed treatment prone to decreasing a patient’s infectivity and preventing the progression towards severe pulmonary forms is supported by a strong rationale. Hou et al. demonstrated that the first site of infection is the nasopharyngeal mucosa, with secondary movement to the lungs by aspiration [47]. Indeed, the pattern of infectivity of respiratory tract cells followed ACE2 receptor expression, decreasing from the upper respiratory tract to the alveolar tissue. The ratio for ACE2 was five-fold greater in the nose than in the distal respiratory tract [40]. Other repurposing treatments as a nasal antiseptic have been tested in vitro, such as Povidone-Iodine, which has shown activity against SARS-CoV-2 [48]. In the present study, we showed the in vitro therapeutic potential of BromAc against SARS-CoV-2 with a threshold efficient dose at 100 µg/20 mg/mL. As animal airway safety models in two species to date have exhibited no toxicity (unpublished data), the aim is to test nasal administration of the drug in a phase I clinical trial (ACTRN12620000788976). Such treatment could help mitigate mild infections and prevent infection of persons regularly in contact with the virus, such as health-care workers.
Although our results are encouraging, there are a number of points to consider regarding this demonstration. Namely, the in vitro conditions are fixed and could be different from in vivo. Any enzymatic reaction is influenced by the pH of the environment, and even more so when it concerns redox reactions such as disulfide bond reduction [9]. The nasal mucosal pH is, in physiological terms, between 5.5 and 6.5 and increases in rhinitis to 7.2–8.3 [49]. Advanced age, often encountered in SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic infections, also induces a nasal mucosa pH increase [49]. Such a range of variation, depending on modifications typically induced by a viral infection, may challenge the efficacy of our treatment strategy. Further in vitro experiments to test various conditions of pH are ongoing, but ultimately, only clinical studies will be able to assess this point. Our experiments were led on a monkey kidney cell line known to be highly permissive to SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. With the above hypothesis of S protein lysis thiol-disulfide balance disruption, BromAc efficacy on SARS-CoV-2 should not be influenced by the membrane protease pattern. Reproducing this experimental protocol with the human pulmonary epithelial Calu-3 cell line (ATCC® HTB-55™) would allow these points to be addressed, as virus entry is TMPRSS2-dependent and pH-independent, as in airway epithelium, while virus entry in Vero cells is Cathepsin L-dependent, and thus pH-dependent [50].
Overall, results obtained from the present study in conjunction with complementary studies on BromAc properties and SARS-CoV-2 characterization reveal a strong indication that BromAc can be developed into an effective therapeutic agent against SARS-CoV-2.
Conclusions
There is currently no suitable therapeutic treatment for early SARS-CoV-2 aimed at preventing disease progression. BromAc is under clinical development by the authors for mucinous cancers due to its ability to alter complex glycoprotein structures. The potential of BromAc on SARS-CoV-2 spike and envelope proteins stabilized by disulfide bonds was examined and found to induce the unfolding of recombinant spike and envelope proteins by reducing disulfide stabilizer bridges. BromAc also showed an inhibitory effect on wild-type and spike mutant SARS-CoV-2 by inactivation of its replication capacity in vitro. Hence, BromAc may be an effective therapeutic agent for early SARS-CoV-2 infection, despite mutations, and even have potential as a prophylactic in people at high risk of infection.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, J.A., K.P., S.J.V., and D.L.M.; methodology, J.A., G.Q., K.P., S.B., and A.H.M.; validation, J.A., G.Q., K.P., V.K., S.B., and A.H.M.; investigation, J.A., G.Q., K.P., V.K., S.B., and A.H.M.; writing—original draft preparation, G.Q., K.P., V.K, A.H.M., E.F., and S.J.V.; supervision, D.L.M. and E.F.; project administration, S.J.V.; funding acquisition, S.J.V. and D.L.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research is partly funded by Mucpharm Pty Ltd., Australia.
Data Availability Statement
A preprint of this manuscript was archived on www.biorxiv.org (accessed on 31 January 2021) due to the emergency of COVID-19.
Conflicts of Interest
David L. Morris is the co-inventor and assignee of the Licence for this study and director of the spin-off sponsor company, Mucpharm Pty Ltd. Javed Akhter, Krishna Pillai, and Ahmed Mekkawy are employees of Mucpharm Pty Ltd. Sarah Valle is partly employed by Mucpharm for its cancer development and is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Vahan Kepenekian thanks the Foundation Nuovo Soldati for its fellowship and was partly sponsored for stipend by Mucpharm Pty Ltd.
References
John’s Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Centre. COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU). Available online: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html(accessed on 7 February 2021).
Song, Y.; Zhang, M.; Yin, L.; Wang, K.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, M.; Lu, Y. COVID-19 treatment: Close to a cure?–a rapid review of pharmacotherapies for the novel coronavirus. J. Antimicrob. Agents2020, 56, 106080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zhu, F.C.; Guan, X.H.; Li, Y.H.; Huang, J.Y.; Jiang, T.; Hou, L.H.; Li, J.X.; Yang, B.F.; Wang, L.; Wang, W.J.; et al. Immunogenicity and safety of a recombinant adenovirus type-5-vectored COVID-19 vaccine in healthy adults aged 18 years or older: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet2020, 396, 479–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Folegatti, P.M.; Ewer, K.J.; Aley, P.K.; Angus, B.; Becker, S.; Belij-Rammerstorfer, S.; Bellamy, D.; Bibi, S.; Bittaye, M.; Clutterbuck, E.A.; et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: A preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet2020, 396, 467–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Coutard, B.; Valle, C.; de Lamballerie, X.; Canard, B.; Seidah, N.G.; Decroly, E. The spike glycoprotein of the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV contains a furin-like cleavage site absent in CoV of the same clade. Antiviral Res.2020, 176, 104742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vankadari, N.; Wilce, J.A. Emerging WuHan (COVID-19) coronavirus: Glycan shield and structure prediction of spike glycoprotein and its interaction with human CD26. Microbes Infect.2020, 9, 601–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hati, S.; Bhattacharyya, S. Impact of Thiol-Disulfide Balance on the Binding of Covid-19 Spike Protein with Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 Receptor. ACS Omega2020, 5, 16292–16298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lavillette, D.; Barbouche, R.; Yao, Y.; Boson, B.; Cosset, F.L.; Jones, I.M.; Fenouillet, E. Significant redox insensitivity of the functions of the SARS-CoV spike glycoprotein: Comparison with HIV envelope. Biol. Chem.2006, 281, 9200–9204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Mathys, L.; Balzarini, J. The role of cellular oxidoreductases in viral entry and virus infection-associated oxidative stress: Potential therapeutic applications. Opin. Ther. Targets2016, 20, 123–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Wrapp, D.; Wang, N.; Corbett, K.S.; Goldsmith, J.A.; Hsieh, C.-L.; Abiona, O.; Graham, B.S.; McLellan, J.S. Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation. Science2020, 367, 1260–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Moreira, R.A.; Guzman, H.V.; Boopathi, S.; Baker, J.L.; Poma, A.B. Quantitative determination of mechanical stability in the novel coronavirus spike protein. Nanoscale2020, 12, 16409–16413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Moreira, R.A.; Guzman, H.V.; Boopathi, S.; Baker, J.L.; Poma, A.B. Characterization of Structural and Energetic Differences between Conformations of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein. Materials2020, 13, 5362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Amini, A.; Masoumi-Moghaddam, S.; Morris, D.L. Utility of Bromelain and N-Acetylcysteine in Treatment of Peritoneal Dissemination of Gastrointestinal Mucin-Producing Malignancies; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Schlegel, A.; Schaller, J.; Jentsch, P.; Kempf, C. Semliki Forest virus core protein fragmentation: Its possible role in nucleocapsid disassembly. Rep.1993, 13, 333–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Greig, A.S.; Bouillant, A.M. Binding effects of concanavalin A on a coronavirus. J. Comp. Med.1977, 41, 122–126. [Google Scholar]
Pillai, K.; Akhter, J.; Chua, T.C.; Morris, D.L. A formulation for in situ lysis of mucin secreted in pseudomyxoma peritonei. J. Cancer2014, 134, 478–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pillai, K.; Akhter, J.; Morris, D.L. Assessment of a novel mucolytic solution for dissolving mucus in pseudomyxoma peritonei: An ex vivo and in vitro study. Pleura Peritoneum2017, 2, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Valle, S.J.; Akhter, J.; Mekkawy, A.H.; Lodh, S.; Pillai, K.; Badar, S.; Glenn, D.; Power, M.; Liauw, W.; Morris, D.L. A novel treatment of bromelain and acetylcysteine (BromAc) in patients with peritoneal mucinous tumours: A phase I first in man study. J. Surg. Oncol.2021, 47, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pillai, K.; Mekkawy, A.H.; Akhter, J.; Badar, S.; Dong, L.; Liu, A.I.; Morris, D.L. Enhancing the potency of chemotherapeutic agents by combination with bromelain and N-acetylcysteine—An in vitro study with pancreatic and hepatic cancer cells. J. Transl. Res.2020, 12, 7404–7419. [Google Scholar]
Iyer, K.S.; Klee, W.A. Direct spectrophotometric measurement of the rate of reduction of disulfide bonds. The reactivity of the disulfide bonds of bovine -lactalbumin. Biol. Chem.1973, 248, 707–710. [Google Scholar]
Zhang, Q.; Ju, Y.; Ma, Y.; Wang, T. N-acetylcysteine improves oxidative stress and inflammatory response in patients with community acquired pneumonia: A randomized controlled trial. Medicine2018, 97, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Calzetta, L.; Rogliani, P.; Facciolo, F.; Rinaldi, B.; Cazzola, M.; Matera, M.G. N-Acetylcysteine protects human bronchi by modulating the release of neurokinin A in an ex vivo model of COPD exacerbation. Biomed Pharm.2018, 103, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cazzola, M.; Calzetta, L.; Facciolo, F.; Rogliani, P.; Matera, M.G. Pharmacological investigation on the anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory activity of N-acetylcysteine in an ex vivo model of COPD exacerbation. Res.2017, 18, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Suhail, S.; Zajac, J.; Fossum, C.; Lowater, H.; McCracken, C.; Severson, N.; Laatsch, B.; Narkiewicz-Jodko, A.; Johnson, B.; Liebau, J. Role of Oxidative Stress on SARS-CoV (SARS) and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection: A Review. Protein J.2020, 39, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
De Flora, S.; Balansky, R.; La Maestra, S. Rationale for the use of N-acetylcysteine in both prevention and adjuvant therapy of COVID-19. FASEB J.2020, 34, 13185–13193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Guerrero, C.A.; Acosta, O. Inflammatory and oxidative stress in rotavirus infection. World J. Virol.2016, 5, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Walls, A.C.; Park, Y.J.; Tortorici, M.A.; Wall, A.; McGuire, A.T.; Veesler, D. Structure, Function, and Antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein. Cell2020, 181, 281–292. e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Li, W.; Zhang, C.; Sui, J.; Kuhn, J.H.; Moore, M.J.; Luo, S.; Wong, S.K.; Huang, I.C.; Xu, K.; Vasilieva, N.; et al. Receptor and viral determinants of SARS-coronavirus adaptation to human ACE2. EMBO J.2005, 24, 1634–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
Watanabe, Y.; Allen, J.D.; Wrapp, D.; McLellan, J.S.; Crispin, M. Site-specific glycan analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike. Science2020, 369, 330–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Casalino, L.; Gaieb, Z.; Goldsmith, J.A.; Hjorth, C.K.; Dommer, A.C.; Harbison, A.M.; Fogarty, C.A.; Barros, E.P.; Taylor, B.C.; McLellan, J.S. Beyond shielding: The roles of glycans in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. ACS Cent. Sci.2020, 6, 1722–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ryser, H.; Levy, E.M.; Mandel, R.; DiSciullo, G.J. Inhibition of human immunodeficiency virus infection by agents that interfere with thiol-disulfide interchange upon virus-receptor interaction. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA1994, 91, 4559–4563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
Kennedy, S.I. The effect of enzymes on structural and biological properties of Semliki forest virus. Gen. Virol.1974, 23, 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schlegel, A.; Omar, A.; Jentsch, P.; Morell, A.; Kempf, C. Semliki Forest virus envelope proteins function as proton channels. Rep.1991, 11, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Compans, R.W. Location of the glycoprotein in the membrane of Sindbis virus. New Biol.1971, 229, 114–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Korber, B.; Fischer, W.M.; Gnanakaran, S.; Yoon, H.; Theiler, J.; Abfalterer, W.; Hengartner, N.; Giorgi, E.E.; Bhattacharya, T.; Foley, B. Tracking changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike: Evidence that D614G increases infectivity of the COVID-19 virus. Cell2020, 182, 812–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zhou, H.; Chen, X.; Hu, T.; Li, J.; Song, H.; Liu, Y.; Wang, P.; Liu, D.; Yang, J.; Holmes, E.C.; et al. A Novel Bat Coronavirus Closely Related to SARS-CoV-2 Contains Natural Insertions at the S1/S2 Cleavage Site of the Spike Protein. Biol.2020, 30, 2196–2203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jaimes, J.A.; Millet, J.K.; Whittaker, G.R. Proteolytic Cleavage of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein and the Role of the Novel S1/S2 Site. iScience2020, 23, 101212. [Google Scholar]
Lau, S.Y.; Wang, P.; Mok, B.W.; Zhang, A.J.; Chu, H.; Lee, A.C.; Deng, S.; Chen, P.; Chan, K.H.; Song, W.; et al. Attenuated SARS-CoV-2 variants with deletions at the S1/S2 junction. Emerg Microbes Infect2020, 9, 837–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hoffmann, M.; Kleine-Weber, H.; Pohlmann, S. A Multibasic Cleavage Site in the Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 Is Essential for Infection of Human Lung Cells. Cell2020, 78, 779–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Walsh, E.E.; Frenck, R.W., Jr.; Falsey, A.R.; Kitchin, N.; Absalon, J.; Gurtman, A.; Lockhart, S.; Neuzil, K.; Mulligan, M.J.; Bailey, R.; et al. Safety and Immunogenicity of Two RNA-Based Covid-19 Vaccine Candidates. Engl. J. Med.2020, 383, 2439–2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Andersen, P.I.; Ianevski, A.; Lysvand, H.; Vitkauskiene, A.; Oksenych, V.; Bjoras, M.; Telling, K.; Lutsar, I.; Dumpis, U.; Irie, Y.; et al. Discovery and development of safe-in-man broad-spectrum antiviral agents. J. Infect. Dis.2020, 93, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Akhter J, Quéromès G, Pillai K, Kepenekian V, Badar S, Mekkawy AH, Frobert E, Valle SJ, Morris DL. The Combination of Bromelain and Acetylcysteine (BromAc) Synergistically Inactivates SARS-CoV-2. Viruses. 2021; 13(3):425. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13030425
Chicago/Turabian Style
Akhter, Javed, Grégory Quéromès, Krishna Pillai, Vahan Kepenekian, Samina Badar, Ahmed H. Mekkawy, Emilie Frobert, Sarah J. Valle, and David L. Morris. 2021. “The Combination of Bromelain and Acetylcysteine (BromAc) Synergistically Inactivates SARS-CoV-2” Viruses 13, no. 3: 425. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13030425
A player for the Buffalo Bills football team, Damar Hamlin, made a routine tackle during a game against the Cincinnati Bengals, got up, then collapsed in Cardiac Arrest on the field last night. He was given CPR, his heartbeat was restored, and he was taken by ambulance to UC Medical Center where he is said to be in critical condition.
The game was being televised live to a national audience when the incident took place. Fans in the stadium were shocked at what they were seeing on the field. Here is video showing how the incident unfolded:
Many prayers needed for this player, Damar Hamlin, from Buffalo Bills who collapsed, after 9 Min of CPR was transported from the field to the hospital, in critical condition, game postponed, please Lord lift this young man in prayer to heal… pic.twitter.com/0ptbV0ODWN
“Damar Hamlin suffered a cardiac arrest following a hit in our game versus the Bengals. His heartbeat was restored on the field and he was transferred to the UC Medical Center for further testing and treatment,” the Bills said in a statement. “He is currently sedated and listed in critical condition.”
Medics at the game administered CPR for what is said to have been nine (9) minutes. An ambulance was brought onto the field and took him to the local hospital where he was reportedly intubated to breathe.
The 24 year old player is in prime health condition and there seems to be no reason for this to have taken place. The tackle he engaged in was not particularly rough, and he got right back up after it. As such, a LOT of people are wondering out loud, if this is yet another “vaxxident?” Did the COVID-19 vaccine cause this young man to drop?
A very significant number of people around the world have been suffering “sudden death” after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines, which are not actual “vaccines’ but instead are experimental mRNA genetic manipulation.
Blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, and a variety of other incidents have spiked since the vaccines were rolled-out. Given the tyrannical effort to silence and punish anyone who questioned the new technology, Doctors have taken to saying they are “baffled” whenever a vax death takes place.
“Baffled” then converts to an obituary which says the person “died suddenly.” In fact, it’s happening so often, people are even making memes about it:
No one ever points to the vaccine, when it seems clear as day it is actually the vaccines causing all this death and injury.
Of course the National Football League coerced players to get the brand new, experimental jabs, threatening to cut them out of professional football if they did not get the jabs.
Other employers did the same thing.
Thus, facing the loss of their jobs and their ability to earn a living, many of the coerced gave-in and took the shots. Now, a LOT of them are dying.
It is a wonder if those who FORCED people to take these shots, ever stop to consider that they were wrong? Did it ever occur to them that maybe they weren’t smarter than everyone else? Or was their ego so inflated that they actually thought THEY knew better than everyone else?
At some point, the general public is going to start to realize that the COVID-19 jabs are what is killing so many. When that day comes, the families of those killed may decide on their own, to stop-by and “thank” those who coerced their loved ones into doing something that killed them.
I suspect it will be a very bad day for those holier-than-thou corporate executives if families start coming for them and maybe beating them to death for what they’ve done.
UPDATE 7:47 AM EST —
Reports now coming in saying the federal government has set up some sort of command post facility near the hospital “in case the football player dies.” WTF?
🚨BREAKING: The US Government has set up outposts near the UC Medical Center where Damar Hamlin is currently in critical condition.
This is reportedly due to “issues that may arise following Damar’s possible passing.”
Maybe they don’t want people reacting badly to another – but widely publicized – vax death?
One casual observer to the situation wrote “This will all get special attention because too many people can see plainly it’s the vaccine (I believe he just got jabbed 8 days ago, the jig is up).”
Another commenter on a social media forum opined “They have been able to keep the pilots dying in-flight, out of the news. It’s hard to keep it out when players are going down on live television. They can’t take the chance of many more.”
Maybe they fear Black people will decide the vaccines targeted THEM for genocide?
Want proof of how widespread this is now becoming? The four minute video below shows how many young, healthy, athletes have dropped DEAD in 2022 as of November. THIS IS NOT NORMAL.
Now, many of you may be wondering “If this is so widespread, why isn’t the mass media reporting it?” Here’s why:
“Sponsored by . . . .” means big pharma is paying a ton of money to the mass media. If the mass media reports on what the vaccines are actually doing, their sponsor money dries up.
Japan has launched an official investigation into the unprecedented numbers of people dying after receiving the Covid-19 vaccination.
According to reports, Japanese researchers have been instructed to investgate the mechanisms by which experimental mRNA jabs could be causing deaths and severe adverse reactions.
Hiroshima University School of Medicine Prof. Masataka Nagao highlighted how the bodies of vaccinated persons he performed autopsies on were abnormally warm, with upwards of 100 degree F body temperatures.
Hiroshima University School of Medicine Prof. Masataka Nagao highlighted how the bodies of vaccinated persons he performed autopsies on were abnormally warm, with upwards of 100 degree F body temperatures.
“The first concern was that the body temperatures of the corpses were very high when the police performed the autopsy,” Nagao declared.
“The body temperatures were unusually high, such as 33 or 34 degrees celsius (91-93ºF).”
In other bodies, Nagao says “temperatures were very high at the time of death. Their body temperatures were above the normal temperature, more like over 40 degrees celsius (104ºF).”
Graphing the data, Nagao’s research team found there were significant changes to the genetic makeup of vaccinated autopsied patients’ immune systems.
The research has led Nagao to conclude the vaccine causes immune system abnormalities that prompt inflammation throughout the body, which is likely the cause of the high body temperatures at the time of autopsy.
“Based on the data and the circumstances alone, it is not possible to conclude that the vaccine was the cause of the deaths,” Prof. Nagao said, adding, “However, it is impossible to say that the vaccine was not the cause. We can only say that it is doubtful, but we believe that vaccination was sufficiently related to the immune abnormalities.”
In another report, dermatology expert Prof. Shigetoshi Sano of the Kochi University School of Medicine discussed discovering spike proteins at the site of skin lesions and other skin problems on patients who were vaccinated.
“The spike protein derived from the vaccine was found in the skin,” Sano explained, highlighting a slide showing a bright green region on a lesion made visible by a special dye.
2. and Prof Shigetoshi Sano from Kochi University School Of Medicine demonstrating mechanism of action of adverse reaction caused by vaccinationpic.twitter.com/fwkn9dSacS
Spike proteins are locally suppressing the immune system,” Sano told reporters. “As a result, the spike proteins facilitate in reactivation of the herpesvirus.”
The process of the spike proteins degrading in the immune system prompts inflammation throughout the body that also leads to blood clots, Sano concluded.
“The function of the spike proteins to produce adverse reactions is formation of blood clots,” Sano explained. “And even worse, spike proteins can also locally induce inflammation.”
Agreeing that a suppressed immune system makes someone more vulnerable to infection, Sano went on to say, “I don’t know if I should say this, but it has been found that vaccinated people are more likely to get coronavirus than unvaccinated people.”
“Sometimes, things that are not good are introduced into the human body. Vaccination may cause our overall immune system to fail to fight against such bad things,” he warned.
The doctors’ investigations come as Kyoto Univerisity Prof. Emeritus Dr. Masanori Fukushima slammed Japan’s Ministry of Health for refusing to halt its Covid vaccination program, citing data showing a number of adverse reactions and deaths stemming from the jab.
“People are already doing research all over the world,” Fukushima told health ministers during a conference earlier this month. “Japan’s prestige is at stake. You have vaccinated so many people. And yet, only 10% of the members of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, who are leading members of the vaccine campaign have been vaccinated. Is this a joke?”
In the brief video below, FDIC Brokers talk about ‘Bail-Ins’ to manage an approaching Business sector breakdown. They’re discussing monetary emergency and their absence of confidence in our financial framework and how to hold the general population back from going crazy.
Stunningly, one of the Brokers, talking about the general public, bluntly says they should not put out info because the public “does not have a professional need to know.”
Another says “I think you’d scare the public if you put this out.” He goes on to say that “You have to think about the unintended consequences of telling the public, which may have more faith in the banking system than people in this room do . . . .” and finishes by saying “I would be careful about the unintended consequences of starting to blast this out in the general public.”
Another says “It’s important for people to understand they can be “Bailed-In” but you don’t want a huge run on the institution, . . . and they’re going to be . . .”
Different people will come to different conclusions about this video and its context. But one thing no one can dispute is that the FDIC is now openly talking about “Bail-Ins” here in the United States, and in those talks, making clear they do not have full faith in the banking system.
For those unaware, a “Bail-in” is when a Bank goes belly-up and instead of you getting your money, you are given new SHARES in the bank that failed. You get an ownership interst in the (failed) bank that maybe, somehow, someday, you can sell those shares and maybe get some of your money back.
The fact that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is now openly talking about this, tells you most of what you need to know about the banks, where the system is heading, and what they plan to do TO YOU, when it gets there.
I wanted to comment on it. Steven Aftergood wrote, “Whenever disclosure of a new invention is deemed to be “detrimental to national security,” a secrecy order may be imposed on the patent application, preventing its public disclosure and blocking issuance of the patent.
PART I: WAS GALT DOE’S FIRST DETRIMENTAL TO NATIONAL SECURITY TARGET?
Globalists have feared American innovation for centuries. Globalist wanted serfs…not educated, innovative peers who might one day have the intellect to recognize they were being preyed upon by economic parasites. Rather than forge for food and shelter and a meager existence on earth, 20thcentury humanity dreamed of reaching up to the heavens. To accomplish this mankind requires advance energy technologies.
From the table above, the suppression of GALT (Geothermal Atmospheric Liquified Thorium) chemical reactors, was of paramount importance. Unfortunately, the Globalists recognized this was but another threat to the status quo of their secret dominion over humanity as a whole. GALT would not be permitted to go to commercialization until the day Globalists could directly benefit from it.
GALT arose out of WWII’s Manhattan Project in the mid-1940s along with Congress’s Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE) and the President’s Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Between the 1950s and 1960s, the knowledge of GALT was held back from the American public. It was deemed such a breakthrough in energy development, it would remain temporarily a national security secret to keep the Soviet Union from benefiting from it. In the early 1960s, with the inventor of GALT as President Kennedy’s scientific advisor, thorium and space exploration were being championed as America’s promising future. This all changed with the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
It took another decade for the Globalists to finally secured enough clout, in both Congress and the Presidency, to order the demolition of JCAE, the AECand the final solution to GALT. Similar to Nikola Tesla’s wireless electricity, from the early 1900s, GALT would be secretly entombed. All evidence of its existence erased from history. By bait and switch treasonous congressional legislation, thorium fuels were prohibited from further consideration. The American public had been hoodwinked again.
Foreign Globalists would only permit the inferior nuclear fuels under dangerous pressurized light water reactors (PLWR) to compete against their fossil fuel monopolies.
Why?
Without access to the GALT technology, the Globalists knew the nuclear industry would eventually self-implode and no longer be a threat to their petroleum monopoly. Nuclear power would be hated and vilified upon the first accident and world’s addiction to oil would resume for at least another century.
Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), in the 1982 Daniel Ford published the book titled, The Cult of the Atom. The book documented the arrogance of the government officials who refused to acknowledge the dangerous flaws of PLWR.
The minions of the Globalists not only refused to listen to the warnings of the nuclear design engineers, they threatened to prosecute and imprison anyone attempting to leak their fears to the American public. The nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima assured the world’s continued energy addiction to oil. Interestingly enough, GALT was so well hidden from Daniel Ford, the author never even came across the term, Thorium, to reference it in his book.
Thus, one of the greatest energy innovations of the 20th century would be buried behind a time vault. GALT would be re-discovered, twenty-five years later, padlocked behind a metal door, within a former secret government Manhattan Project laboratory overseen by Department of Energy (DOE) since 1975.
Now in 2018, eighteen years after the re-discovery of GALT, by NASA physicist, Kirk Sorenson, we are finally putting the puzzle pieces together. Like a suspenseful mystery novel, we have bribery, sex, blackmail, and betrayal of our great nation. We have even the murder and expulsion of powerful government officials including 20th century Presidents.
Through the centuries, Globalists use their vast wealth to erase their crimes against humanity from antiquity. This is why Globalists use their looted wealth to control the corporate media, the vast publishing industry, and what historians put to paper. This is why President Abraham Lincoln, from the 19th century remarked, “History is not history…until it’s the truth.”
Nikola Tesla, Dr. Jose Rizal and Charles Chiniquy were mighty foes of the Globalists in the 19th century. Bribed historians and publishing firms have been trying to write them out of American and world history ever since.
Fortunately, under President Trump and websites like American Intelligence Media, the American public is waking up to this deception. The American public must continue to explore alternative information resources including long neglected books published prior to the 1960s if they want a more accurate understanding of American and world history concerning wars against the Globalists.
The images to the right are from classified photographs taken at Oak Ridge National Laboratories back in the late 1960s. A GALT chemical reactor had successfully broken the 6,000 continuous hour of operation test. GALT was ready to be commercialized by the early 1970s. Like Tesla technologies, a century earlier, GALT would have ended the world’s addiction to oil and set humanity on a new path of growth and exploration.
Foreign state Globalists realized the only way to successfully eliminate any future threat involving thorium was by stealthily expanding their active war against the American people and the Constitution. In 1963 and 1974 Globalists removed two U.S. Presidents for challenging their authority. Since WWII, Globalists have dictated their minions to expend $25 trillion of America’s resources on wars around the world while transitioning government treasuries from a gold-based currency to a worthless fiat system.
HAD GALT CHEMICAL REACTORS GONE TO COMMERCIALIZATION IN THE EARLY 1970’S HUMANITY WOULD HAVE HAD UNLIMITED, INEXPENSIVE, CLEAN AND SAFE ENERGY FOR THE BALANCE OF MANKIND’S STAY ON THIS PLANET.
To the detriment of civilization, the Globalists, who stealthily controlled Congress through lobbying dollars, deemed GALT a national security threat. GALT must be suppressed. The nuclear industry had to be imploded with inferior and more expensive processes.
Why?
To permit the world’s addiction to the Globalists’ oil monopolies to continue. All this was finalized in a blink of an eye. Unbeknownst to the American public, we had been pummeled back to the petroleum age…all under the pretense of national security!
In 1973, Globalists ordered the firing of GALT’s inventor and the disbanding of hundreds of engineers under him. Globalists would indirectly oversee the dismantlement of the national government laboratory the GALT director had famously led for decades.
To cover up this treason, in 1974, these same foreign Globalists had to proceed with the abolishment of two U.S. government agencies created originally in 1946. These were the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE) and the Executive Atomic Energy Committee (AEC). The Globalist also had its minions pass 1974 legislation to prohibit any further GALT research. The Congressional minions who directed all this mayhem and sabotage to America’s future greatness were then ordered to resign from Congress by December 31, 1974.
A sanitized DOE arose in early 1975 to cover up the successful sabotage of American energy innovation. More detail is provided at the American Intelligence Media article titled: Thorium Energy Technology can free the world from nuclear poisons today. Why hadn’t America learned of the perfect crime committed against America until now? It is because our corporate controlled media has been the propaganda tool of the Globalists for centuries. The media’s role is for distraction as oppose to illumination.
GALT is but one of among over five thousand tragic stories. As you may be aware, the American Intelligence Media has also published articles concerning GEET and other energy technology threats to the oil cartels owned by the Globalists. The Globalists will only permit non-competitive technologies, such as wind and solar, which must be subsidized by the tax payer. If the “John Doe” inventor of GEET had not purposely lied and grossly “under-estimated” his invention’s energy efficiency, back in the 1980s, it too would have been another victim of the Secrecy Orders.
As it was, the inventor was imprisoned and tortured and eventually died before his time due to his refusal to sell away his patent back to the Globalists. To learn the full details of GEET and other inventor attacks, readers can click to this archive link : https://aim4truth.org/2017/04/24/the-real-energy-revolution-has-begun/.
Summary: Based on the GALT history alone I would rewrite the secrecy order to be defined as followings: “Whenever disclosure of a new invention is deemed to be “detrimental to Globalist corporate monopolies and Deep State agendas,” a secrecy order will be imposed on the patent application, preventing its public disclosure and blocking issuance of the patent until such time the inventor has been either bought off, blackmailed, imprisoned or suicided. Globalists will thereafter be permitted to continue the exploitation of their present monopoly until such time the monopoly’s value has been fully depleted. Thereafter, forty to fifty-years hence, Globalists will anoint one of their direct descendants as the inventor of the next monopoly they had previously suppressed from the past as their next wealth generator.
PART II: ANOTHER FAMOUS WOMAN EXPRESSING OUTRAGE OVER INVENTOR PATENT SUPPRESSION
Tyla, on November 4 you expressed your passion and personal outrage on the topic of patent suppression in the video found at link: https://youtu.be/N68KMn2XLPU . I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss another woman who experienced a similar outrage about Globalists suppressing and sabotaging American technology. She, too, published an article about it which came out eighty-one years ago. The author’s name is Ayn Rand, the author of Atlas Shrugged (1957).
Twenty-one years earlier, after publishing We the Living in 1936, this brilliant female author felt inspired to write Anthem, a novella concerning socialists’ continual attacks on capitalism and technological innovation in their quest to plunge humanity into the next Dark Age. The thirty-two-year old author had to be very careful how she attempted to expose this revelation to the public. The author was disappointed when American editors refused to print her new novel (only twelve chapters in length). Anthem was eventually published in the United Kingdom in 1938.
Between 1938 and December 1945, did Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, director of the Manhattan Project, read the author’s book during his global travels? In late December 1945, this incredibly busy Oppenheimer, suddenly reversed himself and agreed to a movie studio interview about the making of the atomic bomb with one condition. Oppenheimer wanted to be interviewed by the studio’s new screenwriter, Ayn Rand. What revelations found in Anthem, might have led to Oppenheimer wishing to meet the author in January of 1946?
The original twelve-chapter, Anthem, is now freely accessible on the internet at links such as https://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/anthem/complete.html. The Rand Society just released an Anthem Graphic Video Series (see image above).
Anthem is a dystopian fictionnovella which takes place at an unspecified future date when mankind has entered another Dark Age after a terrible world war. Technological advancement is now carefully planned and the concept of individuality has been eliminated. A young man known as Equality 7-2521 rebels by doing secret scientific research on many lost technologies, including electricity. When his activity is discovered, he flees into the wilderness with the girl he loves. Together they plan to establish a new society based on rediscovered individualism and unrepressed technology.
I believe Oppenheimer identified with Equality 7-2521. Like Equality 7-2521, he wanted to bring Rand into his circle of confidants. If you are not familiar with Anthem, I believe you will be intrigued by Episode 10. It is drawn from Chapter 7 of the book. Episode 10 epitomizes (and now visualizes) the epic battle being waged between patriots (the Equality 7-2521 inventors) and the foreign Globalists who refuse to allow humanity to escape from the Dark Ages and ascend to enlightenment of the heavens.
These graphic video episodes links are typically five to eight-minutes in length. The anticipated Episode 10 was just released October 18th. The 6:41 minute chapter is accessible at the following link: https://youtu.be/hEHS_jxqbBA .
Ripples over time from the Oppenheimer–Rand Interviews: Just too many coincidences?
It appears the studio initially intended to use a different screenwriter to pursue the “Top Secret” screenplay. The studio had just assigned Ayn Rand to a gangster screenplay a day or two earlier when Oppenheimer suddenly agreed to be interviewed. Rand initially told the studio she was not interested in the atomic bomb screenplay assignment when asked by the studio. The studio essentially had to beg Rand to accept the “Top Secret” screenplay assignment. The studio would bow to any of her demands. Rand finally accepted the assignment after her conditions were agreed to.
Oppenheimer and Rand had two private interviews on January 8th and January 15th, 1946. Did Oppenheimer become Rand’s “deep throat” on Globalist suppression and sabotage of present and future technology? Did Oppenheimer forewarn the author he believed her studio would betray her agreement? Did Oppenheimer warn Rand the studio would allow the “Top Secret” screenplay to be snatched out from under her for a lot of money? Did Oppenheimer disclose national security secrets to her concerning the future suppression and sabotage of GALT technology?
I can now speculate based on 20/20 hindsight. The “Top Secret” screenplay was indeed seized from her on March 16, two months after completing her second interview with Oppenheimer. The studio betrayed her for a lot of money. Rand was so furious she left the studio and began immediately refreshing Anthem. Rand got it published in the United States, in April, several weeks later. Anthem went on to eventually sell 3.5 million copies in the U.S.
After getting Anthem published, Rand began working on an epic 2.0 version of Anthemeventually titled Atlas Shrugged. She would spend over eleven years on the manuscript. It would be published in 1957. One of the epic novel’s main characters is John Galt, the inventor of some amazing energy technology which can generate electricity at atmospheric pressure. The inventor of this technology happens to have the identical biography of the inventor of GALT chemical reactors, namely Alvin Weinberg. This is but a few of many remarkable coincidences which tie Atlas Shrugged to many of the major characters associated with the Manhattan Project.
There is also the matter of an illegal act Ayn Rand committed around the time of her screenplay, Top Secret being seized out from under her despite all the studio initial verbal promises. What would not be discovered until 1996, fourteen years after Rand’s death. Physicist/author, David Harriman, found the illegal second copy of “Top Secret” in a cardboard box inside Ayn Rand’s cluttered garage. The original screenplay would eventually be found in the Truman archives. [1]
It appears Oppenheimer was the only key character who was “in the know” and could possibly warn Rand what was to happen in the foreseeable future. Back then, it took a lot of time to make a second, secret copy of a screenplay. This is but a taste of the intrigue around Oppenheimer and Rand back then.
Part III: Does America Finally Get Nikola Tesla’s Wireless Electricity After 100 Years or Have Globalists Modified and Weaponized Another Promising Technology Against Us?
It will take some time to determine if this is good news or not. Near the end of the twenty-two-minute video concerning the revived technology, we learn former military personnel are running much of the operations. Too many times in the past, military connections suggest Deep State control.
I thought the producers of the film did an excellent job of promoting the promise of Tesla technology but also in expressing a little apprehension concerning the military connection.
The video raised some questions around the death of Tesla and if the FBI was directly involved in the disappearance of much of his active research. I wanted to supplement this article with a little additional history.
While the FBI might not have snatched Tesla’s papers, it appears they did escort, President Trump’s uncle, Dr. John Trump, into Tesla’s apartment and storage facilities. Dr. John Trump was recognized as one of the top three U.S. government scientists, back in 1943. Vannevar Bush (no relation to the President Bush bloodline) was the top scientist in Washington D.C. and oversaw the work of both Dr. John Trump and Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer.
It was, in fact, Vannevar Bush who personally assigned Dr. John Trump to be escorted by the FBI into Tesla’s apartment and storage facilities immediately after his sudden death. Under “national security” John Trump was to ransack through all Tesla’s papers and X-series technologies found in the dead scientist’s possession and claim anything of value in behalf of the U.S. government (see X Series link: https://youtu.be/OpzmNSaF47Y ) .
These Tesla’s X-Series technologies was rumored to include: Anti-gravity, sonic death sound waves, time machines, free energy, etc.). Due to his ongoing involvement as the director of the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer would have had the highest clearances necessary to review Tesla’s X-series technology. The U.S. government would have wanted Oppenheimer to determine if any of Tesla’s research might benefit the ongoing secret Atomic Bomb program.
Nikola Tesla was 95. Due to his age his sudden death was listed as natural. Still, there are documents suggesting he was murdered by suffocation. Former Hitler bodyguard, later CIA agent and Israel secret agent, Otto Skorzeny, confessed he murdered Tesla via suffocation ( http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2015/12/nikola-tesla-deathbed-confessions.html ) back in 1943 after interrogating him with an associate.
It is believed Oppenheimer’s two lengthy interviews with Ayn Rand, in January of 1946, not only reinforced her earlier writings in the novel, Anthem, but helped lay the ground work for her future novel, Atlas Shrugged.
Oppenheimer would have explained how global elites had been successfully suppressing, sabotaging and stealing technologies from inventors since the last great ice age. If inventors’ technology threatens existing monopolies of the elite, the inventors were either bought off or murdered. Oppenheimer would have speculated Nikola Tesla was but another murdered inventor.
Tesla’s research and inventions counted in the hundreds. Tesla had unpublished papers in his possession concerning anti-gravity, sonic death ray, lasers, time travel, plus hundreds more. Elites would have Tesla, written out of history within a generation or two after his death. Oppenheimer was likely bitter that future promising technologies would also be suppressed. This included the likes of GALT, GEET, hydrogen fuels, any technology which would presently threaten fossil fuel monopolies.
Five years later, in late September 1951, upon completing the first 2/3s of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand and husband bought a new Cadillac and began driving from California to New York City. Along the way, it was reported they stopped at Ouray, Colorado, which might have contributed [been the model] for Galt’s Gulch (from Ayn Rand and the World She Made-Anne C. Heller, page 245). The author, Heller, also indicated they believe she made a stop to Nikola Tesla’s scientific laboratory which had stood on a mountaintop near Colorado Springs in the early 1900s.
This was another example for her novel of how it was possible for America to harness electricity from the atmosphere and transmitting it wirelessly through the earth to run motors on trains around the world.
Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and President Trump being in office, the American public might go into shock over the next six years as more revelations escape the Deep State.
[1] GREG MITCHELL, THE NATION, SEPTEMBER 1, 2011. SEE LINK: HTTP://WWW.THENATION.COM/BLOG/163092/REVEALED-AYN-RANDS-SCRIPT-HOLLYWOOD-MOVIE-GLORIFYING-ATOMIC-BOMB . THE FILM WAS TO BE TITLED TOP SECRET. AT THE TRUMAN LIBRARY, HE DISCOVERED A SIXTEEN-PAGE OUTLINE BY RAND FROM JANUARY 19, 1946. BY THE TIME THE PENTAGON AND THE WHITE HOUSE GOT THROUGH WITH THE MGM MOVIE, IS THIS THE BEGINNING OR THE END, THE MOVIE HAD TAKEN A 180-DEGREE TURN. PRESIDENT TRUMAN EVEN GOT THE ACTOR PLAYING HIM IN THE MOVIE FIRED AND REPLACED WITH ANOTHER ACTOR.
Dr. Lee has performed over 80,000 Lasik cases in the past 20 years. Since Dr. Lee founded Lasik Eye Center, he has not had a single LASIK claim, lawsuit, or settlement from his patients. No other Lasik surgeon in California claims to have performed this many consecutive cases without a single lawsuit, claim, or settlement. Dr. Lee’s excellent record is a combination of his education, experience, judgment, knowledge of his equipment and attention to detail.
I have proof that Dr. Fauci COVERED UP the BIGGEST MEDICAL MISTAKE IN HISTORY.
The COVID antibody has no path into the lung. When I disocovered this, I let Dr. Fauci know. I did run it by my mentor, the Director of Ophtho at Johns Hopkins.
1.2 I couldn’t believe the size of the mistake either and I mulled over it and talked to a lot of people. No one had an answer. Isn’t it ridiculous? The COVID antibody never enters the lung. Wasn’t that the whole point of the vaccine? To help the LUNG in an infection?
1.3 But, finally I wrote the page or two letter, and sent it to Dr. Fauci and several other directors and certified letters to every member in CONGRESS. When I had previously discussed it with my mentor, he listened quietly, and then told me I would be going to Stockholm.
1.4 I really thought that would end the COVID vaccine. This was about two years ago, so before the vaccine approval. But, no. I received a reply from Dr. Emily Erbelding, who thanked for sending the letter to the several directors, including Dr. Fauci.
1.5 But, a few weeks later, when Dr. Erbelding replied, what she generally seemed to say in her email was, well, sorry but our clinical results are awesome and here’s a 1985? paper that will give you more info.
1.6 I was shocked. Didn’t I just tell them that the COVID antibody will never go into the lung? I told my mentor and showed him the email. He was very disappointed and sad that they couldn’t keep an open mind. He said, all they had to do was throw a couple million $ into it
1.7 So, being me. And wordy. But precise and detail oriented. I wrote back a 73 page letter to Dr. Fauci. Explaining every aspect of this huge mistake. No reply. Of course, I sent him email after email. and even Dr. Francis Collins who happens to be the NIH director.
1.8 And Dr. Collins happened to be my genetic professor in medical school (U of M, ann arbor, go blue). No reply. Couldn’t believe it. Just couldn’t. By this time, I knew there was something horribly bad going down.
1.9 I then tried to contact the CDC. I must have emailed at least a couple dozen directors over and over. And I must have called at least half a dozen. The massive mistake is simple, isn’t it? The COVID antibody will never enter the lung.
2.0 The CDC directors, very curt and short and rude to me. Of course, not when I first call. I’m a lasik surgeon trying to give them some important info… and then, easy to explain to CDC M.D.s Blood lung barrier? can stop water? antibodies are huge??
2.1 And then, invariably, their rush to get off the phone, often just click. The coldest shoulders, I got from them. Now, I knew aargh. My highly educated double fellowshipped MIT friend kept telling me, you’ll never stop it.
2.2 This timeline isn’t expanded. I did tons in between every tweet. But, I’m going to fast forward now.
I send ALL my info to Pfizer. 73 pages, 12 pages , 3 pages. All the stuff I’ve been writing. I even explain that the PREP act gives them legal immunity, UNLESS…
2.3 Pfizer, UNLESS you’re involved in WILLFUL MISCONDUCT. How will you explain to mothers later? whose children had severe side effects? Dr. Lee INFORMED you of your HORRIBLE MISTAKE? and you continued to sell your vaccine??
2.4 Pfizer, CEO and directors, do you ALL want to ruin a huge company? For ONE vaccine? Why don’t you just do the right thing?
2.5 Fast forward again. about a week ago, I called Moderna and taped a 25 minute conversation. Explaining all this. that their antibody has no path into the lung, that we had another way of healing, ribonucleases, that there are a lot of questions.
2.6 I told Moderna I would release the tape on twitter. Fast forward. A couple of days ago, big news breaks and its huge on twitter, Pfizer admits did not test for viral transmission.
2.7 Now, current. the day i’m writing these tweets. this is for teaching purposes, purely speculation about different actions organizations or companies can take, from very ethical, to very unethical. it’s hard to know the truth. so, we have to examine every possibility.
2.8 speculation. Now, If I’m Moderna and they thought their vaccine saved the world, and this lasik doc calls up and tells them about this ridiculously HUGE mistake, write under their NOSE, and SO simple EVERYONE can see it, they should have panicked. And then, say.
2.9 speculation. moderna still. They should have said, this guy probably talked to PFizer too. more lawyers, more experienced lawyers. moderna thinks, we need to talk to them. we might be on the same side…. as Pfizer
3.0 again. speculation. but that’s what detectives do, play out different scenarios to find the bad guy, if there IS one. so, don’t SUE me for clearly labelling this SPECULATION. That’s to YOU BIG PHARMA
3.1 speculation. Now, Pfizer. What a bad version of Pfizer might have done. If moderna calls them again, this is a scenario. And moderna says, hey did this lasik doc talk to you guys too? what’s your plan? is this a real issue? Our antibody doesn’t go into the lung?
3.2 speculation again. Pfizer now KNOWS this news will break once the audiotape of the lasik doc and moderna conversation comes out. They need to get ahead of it. so, they KNOW they have to have LEGAL immunity. and KNOWING that they did something willful is the problem.
3.3 speculation STILL. If a bad version of Pfizer only wants to protect themselves, cuz for a year they have known about this HUGE mistake (that’s when the lasik doc told them) and now there is legal liability.
3.4 speculation, so, Then IF Pfizer comes out with this “never tested for viral transmission” which went huge on twitter, then they can say, we didn’t EVER plan to have no viral tranmission, so when this lasik doc says we are involved in willful misconduct…. (continued)
3.4 speculation still. if that doc says we were involved in bad deeds, we can say, we NEVER said the antibody was in the lung. or another way of saying that which they did say, we DID NOT TEST FOR VIRAL TRANSMISSION. So, now even if the Lasik DOC says, you’re doing something bad
3.5 speculation still.. we (PFizer, the bad version) can say, no. we made the vaccine to decrease severe morbidity and mortality. Then, the lasik doc’s claim that we were doing something wrong cuz the antibody isn’t in the lung, doesn’t matter.
3.6 speculation still. Pfizer still (bad version). If we weren’t trying to ever get the antibody into the lung, then when this lasik doc tells us and the world the antibody isn’t in the lung, it doesn’t matter legally for us.
3.7 speculation still. Pfizer (bad version, i’ll get to the good version, but that one is short) then can’t directly say, we never planned to get the antibody in the lung. But, what they CAN say is, “we never tested for viral transmission”. which is the same thing. but clever
3.8 speculation again, no need for lawsuits. detective work requires imagination.
So, NOW the world is upset because Pfizer ADMITS that they “never tested for preventing viral transmission”. BUt, Pfizer gets itself OFF the hook legally. NO ONE told them to test for that
3.9 spec. Pfizer would be off the hook because if I told them something that was a horrible mistake cuz their WHOLE goal was to get the antibody into the lung to protect the lung, but if they can say, that was NEVER our intention, then they didn’t do anyting intentionally wrong
4.0 Spec still. Now Pfizer has clever attorneys and a lot of them. So if this is why they did it, wow. Dirty. But again, i was speculating about the bad version.
So, continuing. Vaccines then. Are ALL vaccines ONLY to prevent SERIOUS issues with the patient only?
4.1 spec still. See, if vaccines are ONLY to prevent serious issues with vaccinated person and NOT to reduce viral transmission, then guess what? Pfizer, in this situation, ALL YOUR VACCINES other than COVID can NOT be mandated. Measles, mumps, rubella, you name it.
4.2 Spec still. Pfizer, if this is what you were thinking, pick and choose. You are playing around with the definition of vaccines so you can escape legal liability? Why did Dr. Emily Erbelding at the NIH responding for Dr. Fauci feel the need to defend antibody in lung?
4.1 But backing up and explaining the stupidity of the COVID vaccine hypothesis.
Our lung is basically a pocket of air. Our body, mostly water. If our lung couldn’t keep water out, we would have drowned in our own fluids. Our lung has this waterproof barrier..
4.2 this waterproof barrier can keep tiny little water molecules weighing only 18 daltons, OUT of our lung.
So, COVID enormous antibody molecules are made in the blood/lymph. to get into our lungs, they have only one option, to pass through our LUNG BARRIER.
4.3 These crazy big COVID antibody molecules weigh 145,000 daltons. If a water molecule looks like a diet coke, covid antibodies are the size of a mini-suv. so, the lung barrier can keep water molecules out and will never let in COVID antibodies into our lung.
4.4 There isn’t a single peer reviewed paper ON EARTH that describes an active transport system that can ferry these hcrazy gargantuan COVID antibodies across the very tight waterproof lung barrier, into the lung.
4.5 Even crazier, in 2020, NOT one person in the US who got COVID for the first time (or anyone else for that matter) had a SINGLE COVID antibody in their system. Millions got COVID and healed within a week to 10 days WITHOUT COVID antibodies.
4.6 To have helped anyone who recovered from COVID in 2020, the COVID antibody would have needed to actually BE there. It wasn’t. To have helped, it would have needed a TIME MACHINE. Per fauci, follow the science? or the science fiction?
4.7 So, the COVID antibody would have needed a time machine to have helped anyone in 2020…. and when the antibody FINALLY arrives late to the party, either naturally or via vaccine, IT CAN’T GET THROUGH THE LUNG BARRIER, or it can. WITH A TELEPORTER. science fauci fiction?
4.8. Very importantly, SOMETHING saved us in 2020, and it was NOT the COVID antibody. So, that SOMETHING, whatever it was, it’s important to KNOW. Because if we know what it WAS, we can FACILITATE IT.
4.9 That SOMETHING that saved us in 2020, I call it the LEE Enzyme (For fun). It’s the ribonuclease enzyme. Why wouldn’t this be it? IT was actually THERE in the year 2020. Not the COVID antibody. It was actually IN our lung cells, NOT the COVID antibody.
5.0. The FUNCTION of a ribonuclease enzyme is to DESTROY RNA, not just OUR RNA, COVID viral RNA TOO, very interestingly, COVID VACCINE RNA TOO. anyone wonder why the COVID mRNA vaccine was FROzen?? Cuz, this LEE ribonuclease.
5.1 Yeah, the mRNA vaccines were FROzen cuz, this “contamination” (what Pfizer and Moderna feel is a CONTAMINATION) chews through ANY RNA. Irony? Pfizer considers this enzyme CONTAMINATION and this enzyme is what SAVED HUMANITY. Scientists are so clueless sometimes.
5.2 So, see? can you trust anything someone says, when they call the REAL HERO a “contamination”? True. The solution to COVID WAS in their vials, it JUST WAS NOT THEIR VACCINE mRNA. You can’t write stuff this crazy. truth is stranger than fiction.
5.3 Now, this LEE enzyme that saved the world from COVID in 2020. Why would it STOP working in 2021 and 2022 and forever in the future? It probably IS the reason why we survived in 2021 and 2022. It probably was NOT the COVID antibody, EVER.
5.4 see how logically the COVID antibody wasn’t the hero? Fauci wanted it to be the hero. Maybe because the path from any VACCINE to MONEY had been vetted MANY times? Well, he should have checked the path from blood into LUNG for the antibody. Follow the Money Much Fauci?
5.5 “but the mrna vaccine clinial trials showed such good results”. ha. Can we clearly say it was NOT the antibody that can’t enter the lung? maybe.. it was the SIDE EFFECT of the vaccine, tricking the body into making chemokines and interferon, giving us muscle aches?
5.6 So, told money fauci, repeat the clinial trial. Compare the COVID mRNA vaccine to the FLU vaccine. What? why? flu vaccine doesn’t make a covid antibody. It DOES ALSO have the main similar side effects of muscle aches and tricking the body into making chemokines.
5.7 If the FLU vaccine ALSO works just as well as the COVID vaccine, against COVID… hmmm. just maybe the side effects of tricking the body into producing interferon (anti viral by the way), is what resulted in the good results??? (even tetanus shots protect againt COVID).
5.8. So then, the COVID vaccine works, very temporarily, AS A MEDICINE??? IT’s NOT then a VACCINE? Cuz the reason why it’s working is the induction of chemokines by the BODY? holy cow. Then, should you REALLY give people a Medicine when they don’t have the illness??? hmmmm.
5.9. I guess? you can’t mandate a “medicine” when you don’t have the illness? silly scientists. can’t keep their definitions straight. and .. once people start re-defining.. you know, they’re lying.
6.0 that was just a side trip for all the idiots who want to say “the vaccine works, who cares how it works”. yeah, well, in science, IT DOES MATTER HOW SOMETHING WORKS. THat is almost the DEFINiTION OF SCIENCE.
6.1 Back to what saved us in 2020. The ribonuclease. The SECRET and the CURE is HOW to activate this enzyme to destroy RNA. FASTING. Fasting activates this ribonuclease and ACTIVATES MORE of these ribonuclease enzymes. FASTING FOR TWO DAYS IS THE CURE.
6.2 In layman’s terms. Viruses do NOT grow on their own. They grow within OUR cells and when OUR cells are growing more slowly during fasting, guess what? the virus grows much more slowly and our cells are less sick, we cough out less virus and pandemic over.
6.3 Here is the biochemistry behind it. Fasting increases reactive oxygen species, which oxidizes 6 sulfhyrdryl groups on the ribonuclease inhibitor, that then releases the ribonuclease which is extremely efficient at destroying RNA.
6.4 The anti-vaxxers were right (of course, any time someone wants to poke the boundary between nonself and self, your skin, tell them to fuck off), their instincts were spot on. The pro vaxxers? their uppity logic, “any bit of good is good”, pure stupidity.
6.5 So, on a positive note (for now), your elderly relatives and at risk friends, can worry a LOT less. Stupid masks, STOP the virus from replicating AT the source. FASTING FOR TWO DAYS. Just know, when infected with COVID, next two days, FOOD CAN KILL YOU.
6.6 I’ve been cancelled everywhere online before. I really can’t believe I’m not cancelled yet on twitter. My comments wouldn’t show up on doximity. On FB, comments gone in a day. My lasik forums, cancelled me. LinkedIn, said I’m gone for life. So, can we do this fast?
Letter To Drs. Anthony F., Francis Collins, Emily Erbelding Gary Gibbons, Amy Wernimont and All other NIH, FDA, CDC directors and Various science journalists
RE: Potential fatal flaw in COVID vaccine “neutralizing antibody” paradigm (Whistleblower concerns) Version 1.0 (short summary).
The PREP act gives BIG PHARMA “legal immunity” for the vaccine, with an exception, severe side effects and “willful misconduct”. I have a LONG paper trail with Pfizer explaining the crazy error that their antibody has no path
@mentions
I even explained to Pfizer a YEAR ago. Hey pfizer, you think a jury will NOT conclude that you are involved in willful misconduct? I explain that YOU made a HUGE mistake and didn’t vet HOW the gargantuan antibody (145,000 daltons) crosses the lung barrier which can stop h20!
@mentions
Now, if YOUR antibody can’t cross the lung barrier to enter the lung air space, HOW can it neutralize the COVID virus before the virus infects a lung cell? and since I let you know don’t you want to STOP selling the vaccine, Pfizer?
THEN TAKE @leelasik UP ON HIS MILLION DOLLAR BET! … Unless… you can’t. … Unless… you’re not allowed. … Unless… you can’t find anything to DISPROVE HIM? https://t.co/q47EoUaG0s
Yes there will be class action lawsuits. Yes, I have a papertrail two years long, with almost all the top leaders on the vaccine side. Just the utter stupidity of these leaders is embarrassing. But, the leader in chief is an idiot, what do you expect.https://t.co/wD8xFZajIS
🧵 It appears that many remain unaware of the basic principles of medical ethics. So I’m writing this thread as Dr Hemmati’s Medical Ethics 101, Twitter Style, to educate people about what ought to be obvious. Note that I’m a professional pediatric Phase 3 clinical researcher…
1.1 Why mRNA technology is stupid not just for vaccine but for EVERYTHING or What Malone is not telling you.
I don't really want to do this one, cuz it's only peripherally related to the COVID vaccine issue. but, it DOES show how stupid they all are. so worthwhile.
What I am saying is: To Question IS SCIENCE. @leelasik has a theory. Why aren't they exploring that theory? It makes it look like they don't really want to end this covid bull. THESE TWEETS ARE ALL MY OPINION, and how I see the situation. I hope this helps. 1.14
1.1 It's a fucking war. You just don't see it as one. It's a war against our children. Didn't we ALL get MAD and EMOTIONAL and CUSS and LOSE it when the World trade centers went down? Did we say, "let's use polite words to the enemy. don't cuss at them."
The Jesuit Superior General, the Black Pope, not only controls his powerful Jesuit Order, but also controls the powerful Knights of Malta, top-level Knights of Columbus, and the top-levels of Freemasonry. Through his control of the top levels of Secret Societies (especially Knights of Malta and high-level Freemasons), he controls the top intelligence agencies of the world. A good example of this occurred in World War II: the top intelligence man in the OSS (later CIA) was Knight of Malta William “Wild Bill” Donovan; the top intelligence man in Nazi Germany on the eastern front was German Knight of Malta General Reinhard Gehlen; and the top intelligence man in the Soviet Union was Knight of Malta Prince Anton Turkul (who used Jesuit priests for his couriers). Thus, the Jesuit Order was in control of the major combatants, and able to ‘steer’ the war in the directions they wanted – and in the process to slaughter millions of their favorite targets.
My Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.