The Cur­rent Year is 6265

It’s not the job of this site to get big num­bers in order to get the infor­ma­tion out to the public.

That’s your job!

Dan­ger­ous nano-​particles con­t­a­m­i­nated in many vac­cines: ground­break­ing study
(To read about Jon’s mega-​collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
“The Lung,” Sec­ond Edi­tion, 2014: “Nanopar­ti­cles [are] com­pa­ra­ble in size to sub­cel­lu­lar structures…enabling their ready incor­po­ra­tion into bio­log­i­cal sys­tems.“

A 2017 study of 44 types of 15 tra­di­tional vac­cines, man­u­fac­tured by lead­ing global com­pa­nies, has uncov­ered a very trou­bling and pre­vi­ously unre­ported fact:

The vac­cines are heav­ily con­t­a­m­i­nated with a vari­ety of nanopar­ti­cles.

Many of the par­ti­cles are metals.

We’re talk­ing about tra­di­tional vac­cines, such as HPV, flu, Swine Flu, Hepati­tis B, MMR, DPT, tetanus, etc.

To begin to under­stand some of the destruc­tive effects of con­t­a­m­i­nat­ing nanopar­ti­cles in vac­cines, here is the ground­break­ing 2017 study:

Inter­na­tional Jour­nal of Vac­cines & Vac­ci­na­tion
Vol­ume 4 Issue 1
Jan­u­ary 23 2017
New Quality-​Control Inves­ti­ga­tions on Vac­cines:
Micro– and Nanocon­t­a­m­i­na­tion
Antoni­etta M Gatti and Ste­fano Mon­ta­nari

“The analy­ses car­ried out show that in all sam­ples checked vac­cines con­tain non bio­com­pat­i­ble and bio-​persistent for­eign bod­ies which are not declared by the Pro­duc­ers, against which the body reacts in any case. This new inves­ti­ga­tion rep­re­sents a new qual­ity con­trol that can be adopted to assess the safety of a vac­cine. Our hypoth­e­sis is that this con­t­a­m­i­na­tion is unin­ten­tional, since it is prob­a­bly due to pol­luted com­po­nents or pro­ce­dures of indus­trial processes (e.g. fil­tra­tions) used to pro­duce vac­cines…“

Are the study authors leav­ing the door open to the pos­si­bil­ity that the con­t­a­m­i­na­tion is inten­tional?

“The quan­tity of for­eign bod­ies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chem­i­cal com­po­si­tions baf­fled us. The inor­ganic par­ti­cles iden­ti­fied are nei­ther bio­com­pat­i­ble nor biodegrad­able, that means that they are biop­er­sis­tent and can induce effects that can become evi­dent either imme­di­ately close to injec­tion time or after a cer­tain time from admin­is­tra­tion. It is impor­tant to remem­ber that par­ti­cles (crys­tals and not mol­e­cules) are bod­ies for­eign to the organ­ism and they behave as such. More in par­tic­u­lar, their tox­i­c­ity is in some respects dif­fer­ent from that of the chem­i­cal ele­ments com­pos­ing them, adding to that toxicity…they induce an inflam­ma­tory reac­tion.”

“After being injected, those micropar­ti­cles, nanopar­ti­cles and aggre­gates can stay around the injec­tion site form­ing swellings and granulomas…But they can also be car­ried by the blood cir­cu­la­tion, escap­ing any attempt to guess what will be their final destination…As hap­pens with all for­eign bod­ies, par­tic­u­larly that small, they induce an inflam­ma­tory reac­tion that is chronic because most of those par­ti­cles can­not be degraded. Fur­ther­more, the protein-​corona effect…due to a nano-bio-interaction…can pro­duce organic/​inorganic com­pos­ite par­ti­cles capa­ble of stim­u­lat­ing the immune sys­tem in an unde­sir­able way…It is impos­si­ble not to add that par­ti­cles the size often observed in vac­cines can enter cell nuclei and inter­act with the DNA…”

“In some cases, e.g. as occurs with Iron and some Iron alloys, they can cor­rode and the cor­ro­sion prod­ucts exert a tox­i­c­ity affect­ing the tis­sues…”

“Given the con­t­a­m­i­na­tions we observed in all sam­ples of human-​use vac­cines, adverse effects after the injec­tion of those vac­cines are pos­si­ble and cred­i­ble and have the char­ac­ter of ran­dom­ness, since they depend on where the con­t­a­m­i­nants are car­ried by the blood cir­cu­la­tion. It is only obvi­ous that sim­i­lar quan­ti­ties of these for­eign bod­ies can have a more seri­ous impact on very small organ­isms like those of chil­dren. Their pres­ence in the muscles…could heav­ily impair the mus­cle func­tion­al­ity…”

“We come across par­ti­cles with chem­i­cal com­po­si­tions, sim­i­lar to those found in the vac­cines we ana­lyzed, when we study cases of envi­ron­men­tal con­t­a­m­i­na­tion caused by dif­fer­ent pol­lu­tion sources. In most cir­cum­stances, the com­bi­na­tions detected are very odd as they have no tech­ni­cal use, can­not be found in any mate­r­ial hand­book and look like the result of the ran­dom for­ma­tion occur­ring, for exam­ple, when waste is burnt. In any case, what­ever their ori­gin, they should not be present in any injectable medica­ment, let alone in vac­cines, more in par­tic­u­lar those meant for infants.“

This 2017 study opens up a whole new field: the inves­ti­ga­tion of nanopar­ti­cles in vac­cines where none were expected.

Such par­ti­cles are not med­i­cine in any sense of the word.

Many legal and sci­en­tific “experts” assert the State has a right to man­date vac­cines and force them on the pop­u­la­tion. (Web­mas­ter Note: The State DOSE NOT have the right to enject you, and if so where did they that right from? You must have volen­teered because, I don’t believe they got the word from god or some rea­son­able fact that they could enject you with an assort­ment of nanopar­ti­cles! How­ever, the State does have the abilty to enject you, via kid­nap­ping and force or your con­cent know­ingly or unknow­ingly!) Like many con­cented to wear­ing mask, social dis­tanc­ing and cur­fues) But these con­t­a­m­i­nat­ing nanopar­ti­cles are not vac­cines or med­i­cines. Only a lunatic would defend the right of the State to inject them.

Here is another sec­tion from the 2017 study. Trade names of vac­cines, and com­po­si­tions of the nanopar­ti­cle con­t­a­m­i­nants are indi­cated. Take a deep breath and buckle up:

”…fur­ther pres­ence of micro-​, sub-​micro– and nano­sized, inor­ganic, for­eign bod­ies (rang­ing from 100nm to about ten microns) was iden­ti­fied in all cases [all 44 vac­cines], whose pres­ence was not declared in the leaflets deliv­ered in the pack­age of the prod­uct…”

”…sin­gle par­ti­cles, clus­ter of micro– and nanopar­ti­cles (less than 100nm) and aggregates…debris of Alu­minum, Sil­i­con, Mag­ne­sium and Tita­nium; of Iron, Chromium, Sil­i­con and Cal­cium particles…arranged in a clus­ter, and Aluminum-​Copper debris…in an aggre­gate.”

”…the par­ti­cles are sur­rounded and embed­ded in a bio­log­i­cal sub­strate. In all the sam­ples ana­lyzed, we iden­ti­fied par­ti­cles con­tain­ing: Lead (Typhym, Cer­varix, Agrip­pal S1, Menin­gitec, Gar­dasil) or stain­less steel (Mence­vax, Infarix Hexa, Cer­varix. Anate­tall, Foce­tria, Agrip­pal S1, Men­veo, Pre­ve­nar 13, Menin­gitec, Vax­i­grip, Sta­maril Pas­teur, Repe­vax and MMR­vax­Pro).”

”…par­ti­cles of Tung­sten iden­ti­fied in drops of Pre­ve­nar and Infarix (Alu­minum, Tung­sten, Cal­cium chlo­ride).”

”…sin­gu­lar debris found in Repe­vax (Sil­i­con, Gold, Sil­ver) and Gar­dasil (Zir­co­nium).”

“Some metal­lic par­ti­cles made of Tung­sten or stain­less steel were also iden­ti­fied. Other par­ti­cles con­tain­ing Zir­co­nium, Hafnium, Stron­tium and Alu­minum (Viv­o­tif, Meningetec); Tung­sten, Nickel, Iron (Pri­orix, Meningetec); Anti­mony (Men­ju­gate kit); Chromium (Meningetec); Gold or Gold, Zinc (Infarix Hexa, Repe­vax), or Plat­inum, Sil­ver, Bis­muth, Iron, Chromium (MMR­vax­Pro) or Lead,Bismuth (Gar­dasil) or Cerium (Agrip­pal S1) were also found. The only Tung­sten appears in 844 vac­cines, while Chromium (alone or in alloy with Iron and Nickel) in 2544. The inves­ti­ga­tions revealed that some par­ti­cles are embed­ded in a bio­log­i­cal sub­strate, prob­a­bly pro­teins, endo-​toxins and residues of bac­te­ria. As soon as a par­ti­cle comes in con­tact with pro­teic flu­ids, a nano-bio-interaction…occurs and a ‘pro­tein corona’ is formed…The nano-​bio-​interaction gen­er­ates a bigger-​sized com­pound that is not biodegrad­able and can induce adverse effects, since it is not rec­og­nized as self by the body.”

”…exam­ples of these nano-​bio-​interactions. Aggre­gates can be seen (sta­ble com­pos­ite enti­ties) con­tain­ing par­ti­cles of Lead in Menin­gitec… of stain­less steel (Iron, Chromium and Nickel…) and of Cop­per, Zinc and Lead in Cervarix…Similar aggre­gates, though in dif­fer­ent sit­u­a­tions (patients suf­fer­ing from leukemia or cryo­glob­u­line­mia), have already been described in lit­er­a­ture.“

I’m sure you’ve read offi­cial assur­ances that vaccine-​manufacturing prob­lems are “rare.” You can file those pro­nounce­ments along with other med­ical lies.

“I’d like the heavy metal sand­wich on rye, please. And instead of serv­ing it on a plate, can you inject it?“

Sev­eral vital ques­tions demand­ing answers spring from the find­ings of this 2017 study:

Are some of these nanopar­ti­cles inten­tion­ally placed in vac­cines?

Does the stan­dard man­u­fac­tur­ing process for tra­di­tional vac­cines INEVITABLY lead to dan­ger­ous and destruc­tive nano-​contamination?

New nano-​technology is already being employed to cre­ate sev­eral vac­cines — sup­pos­edly “improv­ing effec­tive­ness.” In fact, the com­ing COVID-​19 vac­cine may be a nano-​type. Does this man­u­fac­tur­ing process carry with it the unavoid­able effect of unleash­ing a hur­ri­cane of nanopar­ti­cle con­t­a­m­i­nants?

How many cases of child­hood brain dam­age and autism can be laid at the door of nanopar­ti­cle con­t­a­m­i­na­tion?

And finally, where are these con­t­a­m­i­nated vac­cines man­u­fac­tured? The above study did not attempt to dis­cover this. It was out­side the scope of the research. It’s com­mon knowl­edge that, for exam­ple, in the case of the US, vac­cines or their com­po­nents, are, in many instances, not pro­duced domes­ti­cally. Where does this put con­trol of safety? In, say, China, where there have been numer­ous phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal scan­dals con­nected to con­t­a­m­i­na­tion of prod­ucts?

The vac­cine estab­lish­ment does not show the slight­est inter­est in answer­ing any of these ques­tions. They are busy pre­tend­ing the ques­tions don’t exist.

Trust­ing these peo­ple would be sui­ci­dal.
Use this link to order Jon’s Matrix Col­lec­tions.
Jon Rap­poport

The author of three explo­sive col­lec­tions, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUT­SIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a can­di­date for a US Con­gres­sional seat in the 29th Dis­trict of Cal­i­for­nia. He main­tains a con­sult­ing prac­tice for pri­vate clients, the pur­pose of which is the expan­sion of per­sonal cre­ative power. Nom­i­nated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an inves­tiga­tive reporter for 30 years, writ­ing arti­cles on pol­i­tics, med­i­cine, and health for CBS Health­watch, LA Weekly, Spin Mag­a­zine, Stern, and other news­pa­pers and mag­a­zines in the US and Europe. Jon has deliv­ered lec­tures and sem­i­nars on global pol­i­tics, health, logic, and cre­ative power to audi­ences around the world.
You can find this arti­cle and more at NoMore​Fak​e​News​.com

Just because one (TheS­tate) has the abil­ity dose not mean they have the right!


Let’s fact-​check Reuters: they say DNA vac­cines don’t change your genetic makeup — true or false?
As my read­ers know, I’ve been report­ing on new types of tech­nol­ogy that could be used in a com­ing COVID-​19 vac­cine — and warn­ing about the con­se­quences.

One such tech­nol­ogy is: DNA vac­cines. They would alter recip­i­ents’ genetic makeup per­ma­nently.

But Reuters has seen fit to claim: “A future COVID-​19 [DNA] vac­cine will not genet­i­cally mod­ify humans.” This comes from their “fact-​check team” — May 18, 2020: “False claim: A COVID-​19 vac­cine will genet­i­cally mod­ify humans.“

To reach this con­clu­sion, Reuters cites two peo­ple: “Mark Lynas, a vis­it­ing fel­low at Cor­nell University’s Alliance for Sci­ence group”, and “Dr. Paul McCray, Pro­fes­sor of Pedi­atrics, Micro­bi­ol­ogy, and Inter­nal Med­i­cine at the Uni­ver­sity of Iowa.“

I have cited the New York Times, March 10, 2015, “Pro­tec­tion With­out a Vac­cine.” Here are quotes from the Times arti­cle:

“By deliv­er­ing syn­thetic genes into the mus­cles of the [exper­i­men­tal] mon­keys, the sci­en­tists are essen­tially re-​engineering the ani­mals to resist dis­ease.”

“‘The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immu­nol­o­gist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strat­egy — called immuno­pro­phy­laxis by gene trans­fer, or I.G.T. — is under­way, and sev­eral new ones are planned.” [That was five years ago.]

“I.G.T. is alto­gether dif­fer­ent from tra­di­tional vac­ci­na­tion. It is instead a form of gene ther­apy. Sci­en­tists iso­late the genes that pro­duce pow­er­ful anti­bod­ies against cer­tain dis­eases and then syn­the­size arti­fi­cial ver­sions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tis­sue, usu­ally mus­cle.“

[Here is the punch line] “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA pay­loads, and the syn­thetic gene is incor­po­rated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin man­u­fac­tur­ing pow­er­ful anti­bod­ies.“

The Times arti­cle taps Dr. David Bal­ti­more for an opin­ion:

“Still, Dr. Bal­ti­more says that he envi­sions that some peo­ple might be leery of a vac­ci­na­tion strat­egy that means alter­ing their own DNA, even if it pre­vents a poten­tially fatal dis­ease.“

So it’s a bat­tle of the experts. The two men Reuters cited, ver­sus the Times’ David Bal­ti­more.

I don’t hold up the sci­en­tific work of any of these men for great acclaim. I’m only inter­ested in which man knows whether a DNA vac­cine would per­ma­nently alter the genetic makeup of every recipient’s DNA.

David Bal­ti­more is a Nobel Lau­re­ate (1975, in Physiology/​Medicine), and the past pres­i­dent of the Amer­i­can Asso­ci­a­tion for the Advance­ment of Sci­ence (19972006). He’s one of the most famous sci­en­tists in the world.

I’m bet­ting Reuters would hap­pily trade their unknown experts for Bal­ti­more, if he would side with their claim. Per­haps they’ll now approach him, and per­haps he’ll change his mind. But the NY Times has him on the record, in 2015, admit­ting that DNA vac­cines do alter genetic makeup.

World famous main­stream experts don’t read­ily admit this sort of thing out in the open, unless they’re stat­ing the obvi­ous.

The ver­dict on the Reuters fact-​check team? Fact-​checkers checked the wrong box.

Final point for the moment: Researchers are fond of say­ing their genetic tech­nolo­gies are quite safe. This a bald-​faced lie. Claim­ing, for exam­ple, that a DNA COVID vac­cine would alter humans’ genetic makeup in entirely pre­dictable and harm­less ways is like say­ing a car with­out brakes, doing a hun­dred miles an hour, set loose on a high­way dur­ing rush hour, would cre­ate no dam­age what­so­ever.




Use this link to order Jon’s Matrix Collections.


What’s In Your Water?

Scared Yet

What’s Next, Soy­lent Green Farms

Who Dat ?

We have 226 guests and no mem­bers online


World Con­trol

Wise Words