Autism and autism disorders are beyond an epidemic. But because they are not caused by an infection they cannot be classified as such. But autism disorders ARE at severe epidemic levels, and next to nothing is being done by the medical authorities to address this. Yet we are all suffering the effects of a questionable virus at the moment which only affects 0.3% of people, mostly the elderly with pre-existing chronic conditions.

In 2003, 30,400 Australians had autism.

In 2009, 64,600 Australians had autism.

In 2012, 115,400 Australians had autism.

In just 9 years, the incidence rate has almost quadrupled. Some official US statistics say autism disorders now affect 1 in 27 children (Australian Autism and ADHD Foundation, 2014), and some much worse than that. Some sources even claim about 1 in 10 boys are affected (AMA, 2016).

The sheer number of incidences or diagnoses of autism disorders is not possible to have been caused through genetic inheritance alone. Genetically inherited health issues are usually only found in 5-10% of cases in many health conditions. That means 90-95% of the causes are environmental - factors in your environment that have an interaction with or impact on your body (Australian Autism and ADHD Foundation, 2014). The same with autism disorders.

There are many factors known to cause autism, such as nutrient deficiencies in the mother during pregnancy or in childhood, a reduced ability to detoxify environmental toxins, maternal exposure to toxins when pregnant, infections during pregnancy, gut infections in childhood, dysbiosis, vaccinations, and more.

A new meta-analysis study (a published study which looks at the results of other studies as a whole) was published in September 2020 (Jafari Mohammadabadi, Rahmatian, Sayehmiri & Rafiei, 2020), found high levels of minerals and heavy metals in the blood, hair and nails of those with autism, especially of copper, lead, and mercury. Lead and mercury are particularly dangerous heavy metals as they are neurotoxic - they damage the nerves, nervous system and brain, to affect brain and body functions. The study found associations with copper and autism, and significant associations of lead and mercury in the development of autism.

In a major study published in 2017 (which I wrote about at the time), aluminium was also found in the brains of up to 67% of those with severe autism disorders. Aluminium is also a neurotoxin.

You have to wonder where all these heavy metals are coming from...

If your child has autism or shows symptoms of similar conditions, you can investigate whether these heavy metals are causing or contributing to their developmental issues, mood issues, or other symptoms with a simple and non-invasive hair test.

A Hair Tissue Mineral Analysis, or HTMA, test can give you a detailed report on the nutrients found in the body through the hair, as a picture of nutritional status, as well as the toxic heavy metals such as mercury, lead, arsenic, aluminium and others. If these are found on the HTMA test, a treatment plan can be started, to help slowly remove these toxic heavy metals, which will help to reduce symptoms.
​
If you would like to find out more, please contact me, and I have the HTMA test kits available to send to you.
 
References:
Australian Autism and ADHD Foundation. (2020). Why the increase in Autism (ASD), ADHD and Neurodevelopmental Disorders? Retrieved 12th October 2020 from https://aaaf.wildapricot.org/autism_prevalence/

Australian Medical Association (AMA). (2016). Autism Spectrum Disorder - 2016. Retrieved 12th October 2020 from https://ama.com.au/position-statement/autism-spectrum-disorder-2016

Jafari Mohammadabadi, H., Rahmatian, A., Sayehmiri, F., & Rafiei, M. (2020). The Relationship Between the Level of Copper, Lead, Mercury and Autism Disorders: A Meta-Analysis. Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics, 11, 369—378. DOI: 10.2147/PHMT.S210042

Mold, M., Umar, D., King, A., & Exley, C. (2017). Aluminium in brain tissue in autism. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, 46, 76-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtemb.2017.11.012

On 19th August 2020 the Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, announced that the government had a deal with pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca and would supply 25 million doses of their new Oxford COVID-19 vaccine, and it would be free and mandatory to all Australians (Prime Minister of Australia, 2020).

Social media channels and groups went crazy... accusing the PM of making illegal or unconstitutional decisions, or not taking into account personal choice or medical or other reasons why some people cannot or should not get this vaccination.

Then 2 interesting developments happened later that same day:

1. The PM backflipped on his decision to make the new COVID vaccine mandatory, saying in a later interview that people would be "encouraged" to get the vaccine, but it wouldn't be made mandatory

2. Representatives of AstraZeneca gave their own press release to say that they did not actually have an agreement with the Australian government to supply so many vaccines, or when (or if) that might happen, or where the vaccines would be made. 

The government will "encourage" people to get the COVID vaccine will no doubt be done with major coercion tactics, which is still highly unconstitutional and illegal. Much like the new rule (note, NOT a law) in NSW schools, that any student displaying ANY symptoms of COVID, will be excluded from the school immediately, and will not be able to return until having been tested for COVID and returning a negative test result. What if a kid sneezes from dust, or has hayfever (spring is coming very soon, being hayfever season), or coughs just ONCE from a dry throat? There goes their schooling for week or so EACH time this happens?

Meanwhile in Wuhan, China, being the centre of the outbreak, people were attending parties and a water park in their thousands, and with no social distancing or masks, or a vaccine in sight...

Some of my thoughts on the PM's decision:

1. The PM's announcement was extremely premature, as the AZ/Oxford vaccine is only in Phase 3 trials, with no guarantee at all that it will a) work, or b) be safe, or c) not cause more infections or side effects than the actual infection (as other vaccines do)
2. Vaccine development and testing normally takes 7-10 years. The Oxford vaccine has been only several months in development and fast-tracked testing. This doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about their product
3. Speaking of testing, the Oxford vaccine has not been done properly so far - they have not used an inert placebo in their clinical trials! They used a completely different vaccine as the "control" or placebo group, being the dangerous Meningitis vaccine (Folegatti et al. 2020). This ploy is done deliberately by the manufacturer to hide the side effects and reactions to make the vaccine appear "safer" than if it were actually tested against a true inert placebo such as saline
4. Will COVID be the excuse to bring in the new "No jab, no social security benefits", "no jab, no travel", "no jab, no work", "no jab, no money" or "no jab, no food" plan for control of the adult population in Australia? Many have predicted this earlier in the plandemic, and it is seemingly coming true. Is this ok with you?
5. Why didn't the PM support one of the several Australian companies performing vaccine trials?!
6. Why do we even need a vaccine at all, when the virus only causes issues in those who already have chronic health issues? For example, there are no child, teen, adolescent or young adult deaths in Australia at all. In fact no women under the age of 50 have died from COVID! NONE! Those who have sadly died all had one or more chronic health conditions
7. Why do 100% of the population need such a vaccine when 99.9% of people who allegedly have it, SURVIVE and without any vaccine?!
8. Why is a vaccine needed when incidence rates and death rates all over the world are at their lowest levels after just a few months? The SARS and MERS coronavirus pandemics died out on their own, similarly after a few months, and without any vaccine
9. If masks are allegedly effective, then why do we need a vaccine?
10. If there is a risk from taking a vaccine, then it cannot be made mandatory, and must not be done via coercion. As all vaccines have a risk of side effects or adverse events, any vaccine cannot and must not be mandated. Accepting side effects or even death from a vaccine (which DOES happen) for "the greater good of others", is a BS concept, and is not acceptable
11. Since there is a risk with every vaccine, but more so with a fast-tracked vaccine (ie, less safety testing being done), why are the vaccine manufacturers granted indemnity to lawsuits where their product may injure, maim or kill someone? Is this a risk you are willing to take?
12. Why should everything in the future be linked to getting the COVID vaccine? As I wrote about months ago, there are many future plans being implemented that the coronavirus is simply the excuse to enable them. More people started to see this when the PM made his recent ridiculous announcement.

People who have expressed opinions or concerns in social media groups, or in public against the PM's decision are not "anti-vaxers". They are simply concerned about a questionable vaccine that still doesn't exist, and all future plans of their lives being controlled and linked to an exaggerated virus epidemic and being forced to have an untested and (at this point) unsafe and unnecessary vaccine, for an infection that is no worse than the flu, based on a dodgy PCR test and manipulated statistics of incidences and deaths, where people are allegedly dying in droves from a virus, but really dying of one or more chronic health conditions instead.

People are becoming more awake to the fact that we cannot trust the media, and cannot trust their elected representatives in government, to actually tell the truth. This whole plandemic is a farce, with an attempt to bring in mandatory vaccinations, control over your lives in every way. Don't let this happen.

We should all be questioning every government minister's decision, to keep them honest and knowing that they represent us and are supposed to make positive decisions FOR us, and not what their corporate masters or globalists want. Write and complain to your local and federal member, to express your concerns, and tell them what you will do with your vote in the next state or federal election. You MUST tell your representatives, or they will get away with this, and your life, and that of your kids will never be the same again.

Stay healthy, and question everything.
 
References:
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., Dold, C., Faust, S.N., Finn, A., Flaxman, A.L., Hallis, B., Heath, P., Jenkin, D., Lazarus, R., Makinson, R., Minassian, A.M., Pollock, K.M., Ramasamy, M., Robinson, H., Snape, M., Tarrant, R., Voysey, M., Green, C., Douglas, A.D., Hill, A.V.S., Lambe, T., Gilbert, S.C., Pollard, A.J. (2020). 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. The Lancet, 396 (10249), 467-478. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31604-4
​
Prime Minister of Australia. (2020) . Media Release: COVID-19 vaccine for all Australians. Retrieved 20th August 2020 from https://www.pm.gov.au/media/new-deal-secures-potential-covid-19-vaccine-every-australian

I've been checking on the vitamin D pathology results of clients through winter, and have yet to see ANYONE with sufficient vitamin D needed for good health, which is not at all ideal.

A quick recap - vitamin D is made in your body from direct sun exposure on your skin. There are many factors needed for this to occur, such as sufficient cholesterol levels, good liver and kidney function and more.

Vitamin D production is also dependent on your location, or distance from the equator. The further you are from the equator, especially in winter, the more time you need to spend in the sun to make sufficient vitamin D. In summer, the amount of time you need to spend in the sun in most capital cities in Australia to make the same amount of vitamin D is similar (at 6-9 mins daily, as shown in the attached table). In winter, however, the differences between the capital cities are very different. Much more time is needed in winter to make the same amount of vitamin D, at 9-12 minutes for northern cities, or up to 52 minutes daily in southern cities such as Melbourne (Diamond et al., 2005). Spending an hour outside in Melbourne in shorts and t-shirt every day in winter isn't going to happen!

Those at high risk of vitamin D deficiency include the elderly, who we have seen in the coronavirus pandemic have had the greatest loss of life, those in aged care and hospital, shift workers, mothers with breastfed infants, and those with darker skin who need 3-4 times this sun exposure to get the same vitamin D levels (Diamond et al., 2005).

Vitamin D acts as an anti-inflammatory hormone in your body, to reduce inflammation, as well as being a massive immune system booster (Prietl, Treiber, Pieber & Amrein, 2013) and prevention of most respiratory infections such as the common cold, flu (Fagbo et al. 2017), and even the new coronavirus (Grant et al., 2020). Normally, your vitamin D levels should be high through summer from the warmer weather and sun exposure, and high enough to keep your levels sufficient through the colder months. But sun-safe programs of avoiding the sun and wearing sunscreens reduce or even prevent the production of vitamin D, which explains why most people do not have enough of the preventative benefits of vitamin D. It is well known in published studies that a low vitamin D level in winter increases your risk of any respiratory infection.

I was not surprised when the coronavirus outbreak and pandemic occurred in the northern hemisphere during and immediately after their winter, being their highest risk period of low vitamin D levels. Southern hemisphere countries, such as here in Australia, were mostly protected as we were coming out of summer and when vitamin D levels are highest.

But now, being in the period of lowest vitamin D levels in Australia, this is the time of highest risk, but also the most critical time to prevent and reduce incidences of flu and the coronavirus, by addressing the major cause of respiratory infections and a low immune system function - by checking and improving your vitamin D levels.

You can get your vitamin D levels checked with a quick blood test. This can be requested through your GP, or even through me! Vitamin D testing is a paid-for test, at about $30 (ex GST) to the lab at the time of the test.

What result should you look for? In Australia, optimal vitamin D levels need to be at a minimum of 100 nmol/L. Other countries use different units of measurement, so your result may need to be converted.

If you are supplementing with vitamin D through winter or as a preventative for the coronavirus, GREAT! The dose is important too, more so if you have low levels. Therapeutic doses require a minimum of 3000-5000IU per day for adults for at least 6 weeks (Diamond et al., 2005), in order to increase your levels and get health benefits.

There are other factors which can reduce your vitamin D levels, which may need to be investigated and treated, in order to improve your results.

If you are in winter and further from the equator (NB, especially those in Victoria!) get onto the above high dose vitamin D supplementation to reduce your risks of the coronavirus, reduce incidences and mortality, and be able to get back to your free lives again!
 
References:
Diamond, T.H., Eisman, J.A., Mason, R.S., Nowson, C.A., Pasco, J.A., Sambrook, P.N., & Wark, J.D. (2005). Vitamin D and adult bone health in Australia and New Zealand: a position statement. Medical Journal of Australia, 182 (6), 281-285. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06701.x

Fagbo, S.F., Garbati, M.A., Hasan, R., AlShahrani, D., Al-Shehri, M., AlFawaz, T., Hakawi, A., Wani, T.A., Skakni, L. (2017). Acute viral respiratory infections among children in MERS-endemic Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2012-2013. Journal of Medical Virology, 89 (2):195-201. doi: 10.1002/jmv.24632

Grant, W.B., Lahore, H., McDonnell, S.L., Baggerly, C.A., French, C.B., Aliano, J.L., & Bhattoa, H.P. (2020). Evidence that Vitamin D Supplementation Could Reduce Risk of Influenza and COVID-19 Infections and Deaths. Nutrients, 12 (4), 988.  Doi: 10.3390/nu12040988
​
Prietl, B., Treiber, G., Pieber, T.R., & Amrein, K. (2013). Vitamin D and Immune Function. Nutrients, 5 (7): 2502–2521. doi: 10.3390/nu5072502

What are the facts on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)?
HCQ is a medication which has come under intense scrutiny in the early days of the coronavirus outbreak, but much more recently after a group of doctors in the USA came out in public and the media to say how good it is at reducing deaths of those in hospital and infected with this virus. These doctors, and many others, have said that they have treated hundreds of people with HCQ (together with other prescriptions) and their patients recovered quickly and they had no deaths. 
​
Since then the social media censors have gone into overdrive and have removed all mentions of the doctors' media interviews, posts and articles. These platforms have banned or silenced many high profile accounts of people who shared the videos of these doctors, including President Trump! Some of the doctors who took part in the recent video have since been fired for speaking out about the benefits of using HCQ.

What is hydroxychloroquine used for?
HCQ is mainly used to treat malaria, a parasitic infection which is very common in many parts of the world. Malaria causes symptoms of fevers, chills, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms - similar to COVID. HCQ has also been prescribed for Rheumatoid Arthritis and Lupus (SLE). This drug has been used for 65 years, but recent speculation for using it against COVID-19 threatens its availability for those taking it for valid conditions. Its precise method of action is "unknown", according to the product's manufacturer! (Sanofi-Aventis, 2020).

What do the studies say about hydroxychloroquine?
HCQ was suggested as a possible coronavirus prevention and treatment as a result of a similar drug, chloroquine, was researched as a treatment after the 2002/3 SARS pandemic. A key study found that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on the SARS coronavirus by preventing the virus binding to the ACE-2 receptors (which the new coronavirus also uses to infect cells), in monkey cell cultures (Vincent et al., 2005). But HCQ and chloroquine are different drugs, with similar chemical structures. Both are used for similar conditions, such as malaria, and have similar actions and side effects too. But this study on chloroquine in 2005 doesn't prove that HCQ would work on the new coronavirus, hence why new studies were needed. Note that studies on cell cultures often do not reflect reality of how cells (or medications) work in the WHOLE body! Similarly, animal studies also aren't always reflective of how effective a medication will be in humans. Many further studies over a long period of time are required to determine if a drug will be effective in humans, but overall the incidence rates around the world are decreasing while studies are ongoing for HCQ.

The SARS coronavirus, and the MERS coronavirus pandemic in 2012/3 both died out on their own, without any widespread use of HCQ or chloroquine, and no vaccine has been able to be produced since then.

In April 2020, The Qld Government and University of Queensland announced a clinical trial of HCQ for people with a COVID-19 infection. Due to very low numbers in Qld, finding suitable candidates for the study has proven difficult. In the meantime, the Qld government made it illegal for doctors to prescribe HCQ, with a $13,000 fine if they did (Queensland Times, 2020). Similarly, other state governments (such as Victoria) also banned prescribing of HCQ, as did the federal government's medicine regulator, the TGA. In June 2020, the WHO and UK discontinued using HCQ in trials for its effectiveness against the coronavirus, as no benefit was found for people severely affected with the virus, as well as its many risks (WHO, 2020). Why is time and money being wasted on yet another study on HCQ, when there have been many other such tests around the world?! There are over 140 other trials investigating the use of HCQ in coronavirus cases, which is a huge waste of effort and money (ABC News, 2020).

Will HCQ benefit everyone? (Side effects, contraindications and cautions)
HCQ is not for everyone, especially not for children under 6 years, and those with some specific health conditions. The medication should not be used in those with severe gastrointestinal, neurological or blood conditions, as explained on the drug's Product Information insert, but not detailing what these conditions actually are. If you are using this medication, periodic blood tests are recommended, so that any issues from taking it can be seen, and the medication stopped if so. The medication may exacerbate some conditions, such as with psoriasis. Caution is advised in those with liver and kidney conditions (Sanofi-Aventis, 2020).

There are many side effects of taking HCQ, so it is not an entirely safe medication, but then again no medications are. The most serious concerns are with it causing chronic heart toxicity and death. The drug also has other side effects affecting the heart, if one has pre-existing heart conditions such as heart disease, arrhythmic conditions, or low potassium or magnesium levels. The medication can cause severe low blood sugar levels and loss of consciousness that can be life threatening, especially in those on diabetic medications. Irreversible eye damage and vision disturbances can occur in some people on long term or high dose HCQ therapy, which can also cause kidney damage.  Many people have experienced skin rashes and lesions, itching and dryness, and increased pigmentation. Other side effects include low white cell counts (and therefore reduced immune system function), muscle weakness, gastrointestinal disturbances (nausea, low appetite, cramps, vomiting), vertigo, tinnitus, deafness, headache, nervousness, mania, vivid dreams, and suicidal behaviour. There are many more side effects available on the Product Information insert (Sanofi-Aventis, 2020).

HCQ has many interactions with other medications. Check with your Doctor or Pharmacist before taking this medication. The drug has NOT been tested for its effects on fertility, nor in pregnancy. However the drug does cross the placenta, and hence should be avoided in pregnancy. HCQ is also secreted in breast milk, and as infants are very sensitive to this medication, together with no safety data in infants, this medication should also be avoided if breastfeeding.

People taking this medication also need to be aware of it causing visual disturbances when driving or operating heavy machinery.

So do you still want to take this medication?!

HCQ is also known in studies to cause gene mutations and chromosomal and DNA breaks, which can lead to cancers.

More recent studies on HCQ
In April 2020, a study was published in The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal, on the use of HCQ on COVID-19 patients. The study looked at medical data of 96,000 coronavirus-affected patients, and claimed that those who were treated with HCQ or chloroquine had a higher risk of death and heart rhythm problems than those who did not receive these drugs. The authors concluded that they were unable to confirm a benefit of using HCQ to improve survival rates from the virus (Mehra, Desai, Ruschitzka & Patel, 2020). The study had a huge impact, with the WHO and other scientists stopping their trials of HCQ for COVID-19 patients. Intense scrutiny of the study started, and shortly afterwards, claims of many discrepancies and accusations of the data being falsified to reach its conclusions. An independent investigation started, and the company that provided the data for the research failed to prove that the data was accurate, and as a result, the authors of the study retracted it (Mehra, Ruschitzka & Patel, 2020).

One of the problems with this study and many others on HCQ that show little or no benefit is that the research studies were only looking at using this drug as a monotherapy, or on its own. This is a very reductionist approach to research, and one of the major problems with researching medications, and medicine in general. There is never just one cause of a disease or infection, and similarly there is never just one solution for any treatment. The doctors in the USA who came out in public promoting HCQ were also prescribing zinc and azithromycin, an antibiotic, TOGETHER, to get their alleged good outcomes.

The trouble with some scientific research is that scientists are not always trying to prove something works, but many studies are deliberately designed to show that something does NOT work, even though other studies show it does work. This corruption of science is based on bias and competition for money for research funding or profits has been happening for many decades. Good quality scientific studies are hard to find these days, and just because a study has been published doesn't mean that it is good, or that you can believe the conclusions. Hence why there are some studies showing the benefits of HCQ, and some that don't because of bad study design, incorrect dosing (too little to have any effect, or too high a dose to cause increased side effects), or just using the drug on its own.

There are many published studies on HCQ being used on its own, with some showing benefits, and others highlighting the risks of its use or showing no benefit. There are fewer studies showing the use of HCQ together with azithromycin, and less again on the triple therapy of HCQ, azithromycin and zinc. A pre-published study found that the addition of zinc sulphate to the HCQ and azithromycin combination reduced mortality by about 50% compared to the double therapy (Carlucci, Ahuja, Petrilli, Rajagopalan, Jones & Rahimian, 2020).

Alternatives to HCQ
Studies show that HCQ appears to work by increasing the uptake of zinc and increases the effects of chloroquine against virus infected cells (Xue et al., 2014). Zinc is a major mineral that is needed for the immune system, so a deficiency in zinc will increase your risks of contracting the virus (or a cold or flu). Zinc also has anti-viral actions against coronaviruses, anti-inflammatory activity and many other benefits (te Velthuis et al., 2010). Eating zinc-rich foods or supplementing with zinc (together with other nutrients) can be done without taking a drug which has a long list of interactions, cautions and side effects.

Again, zinc shouldn't be taken alone, similar to taking HCQ alone. I have written before on using natural, safer and more effective methods, such as zinc, vitamin C, vitamin D, herbal remedies and others, before the TGA banned such recommendations and advice. Since then, there have been a lot of studies showing the effectiveness of these natural supplements against the coronavirus to reduce risks of getting the infection and severity of symptoms because they improve your immune system function. The dosing of these supplements is very important to getting the best benefits from them.

Conclusion
Some doctors have said HCQ is a safe and effective "cure" for the coronavirus. It's not. It cannot or should not be used as a monotherapy, as it needs other treatments to work effectively. And it's not suitable for everyone either...  So we should not be relying on this medication alone, or even at all, at this time. There are justified reasons why HCQ should not be freely available, and it should only be prescribed for its intended uses and conditions for which it has more thorough testing and research.

Luckily there are many other better and safer natural preventatives and treatments which can help your immune system to better protect you against the coronavirus. But sadly, I've not seen any government health department or doctor recommend these simple and effective preventatives or treatments.

Don't wait for your health departments or regulators to change their rules on HCQ to save you, because that won't happen quickly enough. Don't wait for the vaccine either, as previous coronavirus vaccines have never been able to be made or were effective. But you CAN reduce your risks and severity of this infection in other better ways.
 
References:
ABC News. (2020). How did The Lancet's now-retracted study on hydroxychloroquine make it through peer review? Retrieved 30th July 2020 from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-05/hydroxychloroquine-study-the-lancet-peer-review-coronavirus/12324118

Carlucci, P., Ahuja, T., Petrilli, C.M., Rajagopalan, H., Jones, S., & Rahimian, J. (2020). Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc vs hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone: outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. medRxiv, 20080036; doi: 10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036

Mehra, M.R., Desai, S.S., Ruschitzka, F., & Patel, A.N. (2020). Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. The Lancet, Published online May 22, 2020 from https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6

Mehra, M.R., Ruschitzka, F., & Patel, A.N. (2020). Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. The Lancet. Published online June 5, 2020 from https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext

Queensland Times. (2020). Queensland to join trial of virus drugs but state needs more patients. Retrieved 30th July 2020 from https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/queensland-to-join-trial-of-virus-drugs-but-state-needs-more-patients-20200421-p54lsu.html

Sanofi-Aventis. (2020). Australian Product Information - Plaquenil (Hydroxychloroquine Sulphate). Retrieved 30th July 2020 from https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/pdf?OpenAgent&id=CP-2010-PI-05655-3

te Velthuis, A.J.W., van den Worm, S.H.E., Sims, A.C., Baric, R.S., Snijder, E.J., & van Hemert, M.J. (2010). Zn(2+) inhibits coronavirus and arterivirus RNA polymerase activity in vitro and zinc ionophores block the replication of these viruses in cell culture. PLoS Pathogens, 6 (11):e1001176. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1001176

Vincent, M.J., Bergeron, E., Benjannet, S., Erickson, B.R., Rollin, P.E., Ksiazek, T.G., Seidah, N.G., &  Nichol, S.T. (2005). Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. Virology Journal, 2, 69. doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-2-69

World Health Organisation (WHO). (2020). WHO discontinues hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir treatment arms for COVID-19. Retrieved 1st August 2020 from https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19?fbclid=IwAR1b2TQqt03QpQO0e-UmjsnsAss8gapc9SlfGxqspoG8mYDbFuXZkSfqrbQ

Xue, J., Moyer, A., Peng, B., Wu, J., Hannafon, B.N., & Ding, W-Q. (2014). Chloroquine Is a Zinc Ionophore. PLoS One, 9 (10): e109180. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109180

There is a growing push in these times of the coronavirus, bizarrely many months into the plandemic, to wear a mask for alleged prevention of the virus. So what is the truth of wearing a mask - can a mask prevent a coronavirus infection or reduce your risks? We'll see...

The push to wear a mask for coronavirus prevention and protection seems to be much more in the USA than other countries, possibly due to the highest incidence rates of the virus, combined with a media industry which borders on propaganda more than facts, and vulnerable people who believe the media scare campaigns. Sadly, the mask-wearing people have taken that propaganda and turned against those who are not wearing a mask in public, with verbal abuse, beatings, and preventing people from shopping for groceries or travelling to work. The abusers seem to have lost their brains, that if you are wearing a mask and you believe it will protect you, then it is of no concern of yours what other people do, or not do such as not wearing a mask if they choose to! This is ironically similar to the vaccine issue, but that's a whoooole other topic for another day!

Being in Australia as I am, next to no-one is wearing a mask when going out in public to the shops etc. You would be lucky to see one person in a thousand wearing a mask!

Here are some facts regarding the use of masks for coronavirus protection or prevention:

1. Look at the boxes of sterile medical masks and note what the box says. It will usually have statements such as "resistance to penetration by synthetic blood", "single use only", "Re-use or extended use, beyond ONE HOUR may lead to infection or cross-contamination", "store in a cool, dry place. Avoid excessive heat (40C or 104F) (but in hot weather or a fever and on your face, this is a problem!), "this mask should not be used in any surgical setting or where significant exposure to liquid, bodily or other hazardous fluids may be expected", "should not be used in a clinical setting where the infection risk levels through inhalation exposure is high" or "Wearing an ear loop mask (ie, a "surgical mask") does not reduce the risk of contracting any disease or infection" or "<company name> makes no warranties, either express or implied, that the mask prevents infection or the transmission of viruses or diseases", or more specifically for the coronavirus with one box of masks quoting "this product will not provide any protection against COVID-19 (coronavirus) or other viruses or contaminants". Seems like a pretty accurate assessment of their own product...
2. The standard "ear loop" surgical masks are not meant to be worn for long, and appear to only offer minimal protection from larger splashes of body fluids like blood or mucus from coughing or sneezing (FDA, 2020), but are not designed to filter or stop tiny viruses! In addition, these masks are loose fitting and often have gaping holes in the sides, top, or bottom, hence only very minimal protection.
3. The N95 respirator masks (also known as P2 masks in Australia) that sold out within days of the coronavirus outbreak, may offer more protection in that they are more fitting to the face and less gaps around the edges. These are for the protection from airborne particles and liquid contamination to the face (FDA, 2020). These are named as they filter out 95% of airborne particles (CDC, 2020a). These should be discarded after each patient encounter.
4. The Centers of Disease Control (CDC) in the US does NOT recommend that the public wear N95 respirators to protect themselves from respiratory diseases including coronavirus (COVID-19). But these N95 respirators must be reserved for health care workers (FDA, 2020).
5. But instead, the CDC recommends that the general public use simple cloth face coverings when in public to slow the spread of the virus! (FDA, 2020).
6. People with chronic respiratory, cardiac, or other medical conditions that make breathing difficult should check with their doctor before using N95 masks, as they can make it more difficult to breathe! (FDA, 2020).  N95 respirators are also labelled as "single-use" or disposable devices.
7. N95 masks are not designed for children or those with facial hair, as a proper fit cannot be achieved (FDA, 2020).
8. Some N95 masks come with a valve, to make breathing easier. But these valves permit droplet release from the mask, thus putting others at risk! As such, these masks may protect the wearer only, but not those around them who are more at risk of a viral infection (Healthline, 2020).
9. If the medical-grade masks or respirators have the above warnings on them, do you think your wearing of these masks for more than an hour, or even wearing your fancy home--made masks made from spare fabric are going to give you any better protection?! Nope.

So what does the science say? Here goes:

1. A very recent article published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (Klompas et al., 2020) quoted "wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection", and "The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic", no doubt from media scare campaigns and politicians who know nothing about health.
2. The same NEJM article suggested that masks are symbols that "may help increase health care workers' perceived sense of safety" in their workplaces. And a similar symbolic benefit could also apply to the general public who might wear a mask, so if you wear one but someone around you doesn't, you are protected right?! No need to abuse that person for exercising their right to not wearing one. Perhaps they have a medical condition that precludes them from wearing one on advice from their doctor - it's none of your business!
3. A recent study (MacIntyre & Chughtai, 2020) investigated the results of multiple trials on the use of masks and respirators in the community and healthcare settings. Trials in healthcare workers found that respirators (ie the N95/P2 type mentioned above) were effective if worn continually in a shift, but not effective if worn intermittently. Surgical masks were not effective, and cloth masks were even less effective and can even increase the risk of infection.
4. An RCT study on using cloth masks in a hospital situation for 4 weeks found an increased risk of respiratory illnesses in people who wore them. The study also found that these masks allowed 97% penetration of infectious airborne particles compared to other medical masks at 44% (MacIntyre et al., 2015).
5. The CDC recommends some people should NOT wear a mask - children younger than 2 years old, anyone who has trouble breathing, or anyone who is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance (CDC, 2020b).
6. The CDC also recognise that masks may not be possible in every situation or for some people. Wearing a mask may exacerbate a physical or mental health condition, lead to an emergency or cause other safety concerns (CDC, 2020b). Under privacy laws, someone does NOT have the right to ask why you are not wearing a mask! It's illegal to ask, so you don't have to tell them.
7. The CDC recommends that masks not be worn while engaged in activities that may cause the mask to become wet such as swimming or if the mask causes difficulty breathing, such as when exercising, or in hot and humid weather (CDC, 2020b). There have been reports of runners, cyclists, and even drivers suffering heat-related illnesses or breathing difficulties, or fainting and having accidents from wearing masks. Use common sense if you must wear a mask!

Our bodies are constantly in contact with microbes of many types, with most being benign or harmless or even beneficial to us! Only a few can cause infections. We cannot prevent contact with all of these microbes, hence it is best to focus instead on strengthening your immune system!

One possible benefit for wearing masks, however, is that those people participating in the recent BLM riots in the US and elsewhere were not likely to be able to be identified on CCTV cameras and therefore get away with their crimes. Perhaps similarly, those wearing masks might be able to evade the increasing number of facial recognition cameras and tracking systems that are being rolled out at the moment.
 
Some final questions to ponder:

1. If the 1.5m social distancing recommendation works, then why do we now need masks 4 months into the plandemic?
2. If masks work, then why do we still need to social distance ourselves?
3. If both social distancing and masks work, then why do we still need the lockdowns?

The use of masks to prevent contracting a respiratory infection like the coronavirus or others, appears questionable based on evidence from published studies. Since both social distancing and masks don't work, the government recommendations to follow these instructions are all about compliance, and not for your protection or health.
 
 
References:
 Centers of Disease Control (CDC). (2020a). Understanding the difference: surgical mask vs N95 respirator. Retrieved 1st July 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pdfs/UnderstandDifferenceInfographic-508.pdf

Centers of Disease Control (CDC). (2020b). Considerations for Wearing Cloth Face Coverings. Retrieved 4th July 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2020). N95 Respirators, Surgical Masks, and Face Masks. Retrieved 1st July 2020 from https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-surgical-masks-and-face-masks

Healthline. (2020). A Certain Type of N95 Mask May Do More Harm Than Good. Retrieved 1st July 2020 from https://www.healthline.com/health-news/certain-type-n95-mask-harm-covid19-spread

Klompas, M., Morris, C.A., Sinclair, J., Pearson, M., & Shenoy, E.S. (2020). Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era. New England Journal of Medicine, 382: e63. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372

MacIntyre, C.R., Seale, H., Dung, T.C., Hien, N.T., Nga, P.T., Chughtai, A.A., Rahman, B., Dwyer, D.E., Wang. Q. (2015). A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open, 5 (4): e006577. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577

MacIntyre, C.R. & Chughtai, A.A. (2020). A rapid systematic review of the efficacy of face masks and respirators against coronaviruses and other respiratory transmissible viruses for the community, healthcare workers and sick patients. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 108: 103629. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103629

Introduction to the Gardasil vaccine
The Gardasil vaccine has been considered to be a breakthrough vaccine for women and women's health, marketed incorrectly and somewhat ironically as "the cervical cancer vaccine", allegedly for the prevention of cervical cancer. But does it really do this? No!
The Gardasil vaccine is not going to prevent cervical cancer, as it is an HPV vaccine - a vaccine against the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), a viral infection that is mostly, but not completely, a sexually-transmitted disease. With over 100 HPV viruses in the wild, can this vaccine really prevent an HPV infection or even cervical cancer? Again, no!

In 2007, the first Gardasil vaccine became available for public use, containing 4 strains of HPV - 2 which can cause genital warts, and 2 that may cause cervical cancer. Hence this version is now known as Gardasil 4. In 2018 a new Gardasil vaccine became available, with 9 strains of HPV viruses - still a long way short of the 100 possibles (WHO, 2019). The Gardasil vaccine was initially given only to girls of pre-teen or teenage years. In more recent times, teen boys are now recommended to get this vaccine too, as while they do not have a cervix, they too can carry the HPV vaccine and infect their sexual partners.

This article will look at what you are not being told about this vaccine, why it is one of the most dangerous vaccines to ever come onto the market, and why you need to read this and confirm this information, BEFORE you inject your children with it... This is called "informed consent" - the right to know what you and your children are being injected with in this medical procedure, of the risks vs benefits, side effects and possible adverse outcomes of which there are many, so that you can make up your own minds as to whether you wish to submit your children to this almost untested vaccine, and the right to decline based on being given this information. Yes Gardasil is "almost untested" is actually true - it wasn't tested in a true scientific way, as explained in these referenced facts below.

In this article and the following facts, I will refer to the original Gardasil vaccine as "Gardasil 4" to differentiate it from information from the new 2018 version of "Gardasil 9".

The following is a summary of key points in the history, testing, and use of the Gardasil vaccines, including side effects and severe adverse reactions:

1. The original Gardasil 4 vaccine was fast-tracked by US drug regulators, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after only a 6-month clinical test. Normally, new vaccines take many years to a decade or longer to undergo testing before approval is granted. This lack of testing will be explained further below, and is why it has many health effects.
2. There are over 100 types of the Human Papillomavirus (WHO, 2019), yet the original Gardasil vaccine only contained virus particles to 4 of them (FDA, 2018). The new Gardasil 9 still only contains 9 types of HPV particles.
3. In scientific testing of pharmaceuticals and vaccines, the manufacturer must compare the results of the test group (those receiving the drug or vaccine) against a control group (those receiving a placebo) - people who do not actually get the drug or vaccine. The placebo generally must be an inert substance, or one which does NOT have any effect, such as a sugar pill or a saline (salt) injection. Tests are normally done "blinded", meaning that the test subjects are not aware that they are getting the actual product being tested or the placebo, or "double-blinded", so the test subjects AND the researchers don't know who is getting what - to reduce any possible bias or manipulation of the data. In Gardasil 4, the manufacturer did NOT use an inert placebo, but one containing "Amorphous Aluminium Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate" (Seqirus, 2019), being the adjuvant (immune system stimulating) product used in the real vaccine! The same adjuvant was used in the vaccine AND in the control group. This was a deliberate attempt at manipulating the test results to show that the vaccine caused no more side effects than the placebo, and thus be deemed "safe". Despite the fact that the vaccine (and the placebo) both caused many side effects, and the manipulation of the scientific method used in the tests of this product, it was approved by the authorities. Read more below about the issues with this aluminium adjuvant.
4. Gardasil 4 contains 225 micrograms of aluminium as an adjuvant. Gardasil 9 has over DOUBLE this amount of neurotoxic aluminium at 500 micrograms (Sequiris, 2019).
5. The Gardasil vaccine protocol requires a series of 3 vaccinations. This is because the seroconversion, or development of HPV antibodies, is very low or non-existent in many recipients after the first shot. Hence a second and third shot are needed, to try and stimulate the immune system into producing HPV antibodies. Even after 3 Gardasil vaccinations, some recipients may not have developed any antibodies, and are therefore not immune to the virus.
6. Gardasil was tested by the manufacturer on females from 16 to 45 years old, and males from 16 to 26 years old. Yet the age group which the vaccine is given to is much younger - usually 12-15 years (Sequiris, 2019). In effect, those in this age group are given a vaccine which is UNTESTED for this population.
7. Even in the manufacturer's own testing of the vaccine, people still contracted HPV and some even developed cervical cancer to CIN III stage, which was serious enough to require surgery. Yet the manufacturer still claimed 100% efficacy for protection against the 4 HPV types (Seqirus, 2019).
8. Even the FDA (Food and Drug Administration, the US medicines regulator) says on their website that "Most people don't have any signs (of HPV infection). HPV may go away on its own-- without causing any health problems"! So why do we need this dangerous vaccine?! (FDA, 2018)
9. The manufacturer noted in their product information for Gardasil 4 that testing showed "Subjects who were already infected with one or more vaccine-related HPV types prior to vaccination were protected from clinical disease caused by the remaining vaccine HPV types" (Seqirus, 2019). This is your natural immune system doing its job! So actually contracting the HPV naturally actually stimulates immune protection against the other types! So again, why do we need this vaccine?
10. The manufacturer also noted that test subjects who already had HPV at the time of testing the vaccine "did not show a statistically significant reduction of CIN or AIS (cervical cancer) compared to placebo". They also said "GARDASIL has not been shown to protect against the diseases caused by every HPV type, and will not treat existing disease" (Seqirus, 2019).
11. People who are sensitive to any of the ingredients of Gardasil must not receive the vaccine. Those who develop symptoms of hypersensitivity after receiving a dose of Gardasil should not receive further doses (Seqirus, 2019).
12. Gardasil 4 was not been tested for whether or not it, or its ingredients, may cause cancer. It was also not tested for whether it may cause gene damage which can precede or subsequently cause cancer (Seqirus, 2019).
13. Gardasil 4 was tested for possible effects on fertility, in rats, without any effects. Gardasil 4 was also tested for fertility effects in women (Sequiris, 2019).
14. Gardasil 4 was not tested in pregnant women, and is not recommended for pregnant women. Despite scientific protocols banning pregnant women from being used as medical test subjects, Gardasil 4 was tested on pregnant women, which resulted in spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, late foetal death, and birth defects in those who received either the Gardasil 4 vaccine or the (aluminium-laced) placebo in 22-27% of cases known. Yet despite these results, the manufacturer claims, "there is no evidence to suggest that administration of GARDASIL adversely affects fertility, pregnancy, or infant outcomes" (Seqirus, 2019).
15. Gardasil 4 was not tested in humans for effects on lactation (breastfeeding). Studies in rats showed HPV antibodies in the offspring, so the vaccine does get transferred via breast milk (Seqirus, 2019).
16. Side effects of Gardasil 4 were only recorded within 15 days of the vaccination, and include pain and swelling around the injection site, headache, fever, nausea, dizziness and pain in extremities, difficulty breathing, joint pains, migraines.
17. Other Gardasil side effects and reactions include seizures, systemic pain, headaches, muscle pain and weakness, joint pain, paralysis, fatigue, numbness, low blood pressure, high heart rate, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, respiratory difficulties, asthma, menstrual disorders, psychological issues, hallucinations, cognitive impairments, memory difficulties, poor concentration, sleep disorders, and many more (Beppu et al., 2017).
18. Due to the number of adverse reactions and complaints about Gardasil, some countries (such as Japan) have stopped the Gardasil vaccination program (Beppu et al., 2017). Considering that other countries are having exactly the same adverse reactions and deaths, why haven't our health departments or drug regulators done the same?
19. Because Gardasil contains aluminium as an adjuvant, and aluminium having neurotoxic effects - being toxic and damaging to nerves, the nervous system and brain, Gardasil can cause nerve damage that results in chronic, severe and long-term side effects (Shaw & Petrik, 2009; Alleva, Rankin & Santucci, 1998; Shaw, Li & Tomljenovic, 2014).
20. Side effects to Gardasil can be varied and difficult to trace back to the one of the 3 shots needed.
21. The HPV virus is responsible for 70% of cervical cancers, so a vaccine against this virus isn't going to prevent all possible cases (New Scientist, 2006).
22. Ten people died from the original manufacturer's testing of the 2 Gardasil vaccines, 5 in each study. Many hundreds more have died from the Gardasil vaccination since it has been on the market. Death shortly after being vaccinated with Gardasil is a very real outcome. Hence why it is so important to be informed of this information, and having a right to decline this vaccine. Where there is a risk, there must be a choice. And an informed choice, which you have not been given, until now.
23. Before Gardasil 4 was introduced, rates of cervical cancer were already falling and were at their lowest levels ever recorded. This reduction of incidences of cervical cancer were due to increased sex education, promotion of condoms and other initiatives.
24. When Gardasil 4 was released in 2007, the rates of cervical cancer have INCREASED in Australia, the UK and other countries every year since. Gardasil has NOT reduced rates of cervical cancer at all! (Cancer Research UK, 2019)
25. Cancer Research UK announced an alarming 54% rise in cervical cancer among 24-29-year-olds, the first generation to receive the HPV jabs (Cancer Research UK, 2019). See the graph above, which shows 3 blue lines rising since 2007 for increased incidences in all these age groups...
26. Gardasil is known to cause several autoimmune conditions, including SLE (ie, lupus), ASIA syndrome (Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants), Multiple Sclerosis, Transverse Myelitis (an autoimmune neurological condition, similar to Multiple Sclerosis or paralysis), and others, in many cases very shortly after the vaccination (Vadalà, Poddighe, Laurino & Palmieri, 2017; Hu, 2019). The manufacturer's own product insert states that 2.2% of Gardasil 9 recipients and 3.3% of Gardasil 4 recipients developed NEW autoimmune medical conditions after the vaccine (Merck, 2020). See this statement taken from the USA product insert in the above image. Note that this statement does NOT appear in the Australian product information insert for Gardasil 9.
27. Gardasil can cause a little-mentioned adverse event condition called "ovarian failure", or in another word, "sterility" in females (Vadalà, Poddighe, Laurino & Palmieri, 2017). Affected girls and women won't be able to have children, as a direct result of the Gardasil vaccine. Hence if you (as a parent) are looking for more balanced and informed advice on Gardasil, and if you would like grandchildren, perhaps you should not recommend this vaccine to your children.
28. Vaccinations only give at best a temporary immunity to an HPV infection, of approximately 4 years (WebMD, 2020). After this time, when many adolescents are beginning to have sex, they may no longer be immune to HPV.
29. As Gardasil doesn't protect people from other sexually-transmitted infections, condoms and/or other contraceptives are still required. Condoms can reduce the risks of contracting HPV, genital warts and also cervical cancer, even without the vaccine (CDC, 2019).
30. In Australia there is a class action legal action taking place, for victims of the Gardasil vaccine who had severe adverse reactions. They have a Facebook page called "Gardasil Class Action Australia" if you would like to join and find out more.

 
Risk factors for contracting HPV and development of cervical cancer
Studies have shown that cervical cancer isn't only caused by the HPV virus. In fact, other causative factors must also occur for the development and progression of cervical cancer, especially:

1. an imbalance in the female hormones oestrogen and progesterone, and male hormone testosterone (Roura et al., 2016),
2. and an immune system dysfunction.

​
Other factors which can increase the risks of HPV and cervical cancer include (Burd, 2003):

• Stress - very common around teenage and adolescent years, as stress causes a hormone imbalance, nutrient deficiencies and lowers immune system function
• Nutrient deficiencies - for nutrients needed for immune system function, hormone production, growth and tissue repair
• Lifestyle factors - drinking, smoking, drugs, insufficient sleep quantity or quality, low exercise
• Medications - anti-inflammatories, NSAIDs, corticosteroids, and immuno-suppressives
• Other infections - Cytomegalovirus, human herpesvirus 6 and 7 and others
• Oral contraceptives - long term use of these can be a significant factor in some studies.

If a female has any PMS symptoms, irregular periods, pain, cramping, sore breasts and other period symptoms, this indicates a hormone imbalance which should be assessed by a health practitioner (Nutritionist/Naturopath) as these symptoms can be cleared to reduce the risks of HPV and cervical cancer.

If these risk factors are identified and minimised, the risks of contracting HPV and it causing cervical cancer can be greatly reduced. All without a dangerous vaccine.
 
Independent investigation into Gardasil 9
In 2019, an independent team of Italian scientists from a group called Corvelva, started investigations into many common vaccines and their ingredients. They reviewed the Gardasil 9 vaccine ingredients from several batches, looking at the genetics of the RNA and DNA of the pathogens and other ingredients in the vaccine. They found the following (Corvelva, 2019):

1. The Gardasil 9 vaccine should contain antigens from 9 HPV viruses, but only 7 were actually found!
2. One of the missing HPV viruses (type 11) is commonly associated with cervical lesions, and another (type 58) is frequently associated with cervical cancer, hence no protection will be present for these 2 HPV strains.
3. There were 338 chemical contaminants detected which should not have been in the vaccine.
4. Various bacteria and yeasts from laboratory contamination were found in the Gardasil vaccine. In fact 54% of the DNA in this vaccine was from over 2 dozen other bacteria, parasite and yeast microbes which shouldn't be there!
5. Human and mouse DNA. This can increase the risk of autoimmune conditions by causing immune system dysfunction.
6. HPV virus DNA fragments - which are not intended parts of the vaccine per se. These are more contaminants which may be able to be integrated into your DNA and cause autoimmune reactions.
7. Molluscum contagiosum virus - a type of pox virus which causes skin blemishes and rashes, now quite common but not so much in the past. Now you know why there's more of it around...
8. Other retroviruses - which can become integrated into your DNA, can cause genetic mutations and cancers. This includes Human endogenous retrovirus K, L-BC virus, narnavirus, infectious equine anaemia virus, all which were found in this vaccine.
9. Mouse leukaemia virus - which causes a white blood cell cancer.

 
Clinical Observations
In my clinical practice, I have seen many female patients who have presented with very strange symptoms that no doctor was able to find the cause of, or diagnose, or be able to treat to reduce their symptoms. My detailed questioning in my initial consultations picked up on the onset of their symptoms, which was around the start of their teen years. On intuition initially and lately from experience, I asked what may have happened at that time, or whether they had the Gardasil vaccine. In many cases, they said the symptoms appeared shortly after this vaccine. Sure this is what is known as “anecdotal evidence” but the published evidence referenced here, and from many more studies since the Gardasil vaccine became available, confirms that these side effects and adverse reactions are from the vaccine and are very real. Because doctors don't try to trace the root causes of health conditions, they don't know that Gardasil has these reactions. This can lead to the patient suffering for years to a decade or longer before being diagnosed, if at all.

A very common ongoing adverse reaction I have seen in practice is a combination of chronic digestive complaints together with heart symptoms. The heart symptoms often present as a racing heart (tachycardia) which the person may or may not feel, or slow pulse (bradycardia), or arrhythmias (irregular heart beat), or having all of these - a fast heart beat becoming slow then racing again in quick succession. Heart rate testing can show a very wide range of beats, often a difference of 20+ beats per minute from low to high and low again when rested. Orthostatic testing of heart activity, of testing blood pressure and pulse when laying down, and immediately on standing, can show a steady BP but an even higher pulse rate on standing, and an overall difference in pulse of 30-40+ beats per minute. In teens who have these symptoms, many cannot tolerate any exercise, and some athletic teens have had to give up on their sports because of a sudden reduced performance after their Gardasil vaccination.

Other related symptoms from the heart dysfunction include frequent fainting and dizziness, headaches, weakness and fatigue, chest pain, shortness of breath, poor thinking or low memory and concentration (NHS, 2019).

Together with the irregular heart function, the same patients also have chronic digestive complaints, of pains, cramps, IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome), Ulcerative Colitis, hypochlorhydria (low stomach acid), chronic nausea, and other digestive complaints.

The digestive system is affected together with the cardiovascular system, as both systems are controlled by nerves, or more particularly, branches of the autonomic nervous system. The dysfunction of these systems can suggest a diagnosis of Dysautonomia, or "dysfunctional autonomic nervous system". The particular dysautonomia diagnosis I have found as a direct result of the Gardasil vaccination is Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome or POTS. In my investigations of many patients with Gardasil reactions, I have diagnosed POTS from their symptoms, history, and orthostatic testing of their blood pressure and heart rate. I have referred patients to their GP for a formal testing and diagnosis, only to be told that they don't know what POTS is or who to refer to.

Luckily, POTS can be diagnosed, treated and reversed, but not with medical interventions. It can be treated with nutritional medicine, lifestyle improvements, and herbal medicines.

I have also seen cases of cervical cancer being diagnosed in women who tested negative for HPV, but some had the Gardasil vaccine (which is known to cause cervical cancer). They also had hormone imbalances, and other factors like stress and nutrient deficiencies.
 
Conclusions
This document is a summary of many published studies into the Gardasil vaccine, information from the manufacturer, official government statistics, information from drug regulators, and from my own clinical experience with patients who have had many side affects, adverse reactions and chronic health conditions resulting from the Gardasil vaccine.

The Gardasil vaccine was not thoroughly tested, and not tested to accepted scientific protocols before being approved for use. Testing did not include using an inert placebo in the control group, which enabled the manufacturer to claim very little difference in side effects between the vaccine and an active placebo. This is an unconscionable act which was done deliberately to hide side effects in order to gain a fast approval. It also shows a lack of thoroughness of the drug regulators to not see this deliberate ploy of deception, prior to the vaccine being approved.

The Gardasil vaccine does not do what it claims to do - to reduce incidences of cervical cancer in women. In many countries, including in Australia, cervical cancer incidences have increased every year since Gardasil was introduced. And any protection from antibodies has only a short lasting effect of 4 years. After this time, there is no immunity to HPV. Gardasil has been shown in studies to actually cause cervical cancer. Gardasil simply does not work.

Gardasil causes many side effects, long-term health effects, and causes many deaths. One of its key reasons for this is the use of an aluminium adjuvant, used to heighten the immune response to producing antibodies, and many recipients still do not develop antibodies to HPV. Aluminium in the body is a neurotoxin - it damages nerves of the autonomic nervous system, to cause a great many symptoms and health issues, such as heart conditions and digestive conditions.

HPV alone is not the only cause of cervical cancer - an imbalance in male and female hormones and a dysfunctional immune system are also required factors for the development and progression of cervical cancer. Improve the immune system function and improve the hormone imbalance and cervical cancer can be prevented or reversed, without needing the dangerous Gardasil vaccine.

All parents of teenage children must be given full informed consent of all the risks of the Gardasil vaccine, including the chronic health conditions and reactions it can cause, including death. I do not see this information being given to parents or teens. Where there is a risk with a vaccine, and there are many with Gardasil, parents and teens must be fully informed and also allowed the right to decline this medical procedure. Luckily there are other options available to reduce the risks of this infection and to also reduce the risks of cervical cancer. 

Schools around the country (and in other countries too) are the target for government-funded mass vaccination programs for the Gardasil vaccine. All Year 7s in Australia are rounded up and taken somewhere in the school for this shot. Often, letters or forms by concerned parents to not get this vaccine are ignored by teachers and the health department staff who simply assume that all children will get the vaccine. It is best to inform your children of the dangers to this vaccine, and keep them home on the allocated day, or to avoid it by hiding during the time it is being done. 


(The full article and references list is avaiable as a PDF download at the bottom of this page)

References:
 
Alleva, E., Rankin, J., & Santucci, D. (1998). Neurobehavioral Alteration in Rodents Following Developmental Exposure to Aluminum. Toxicology and Industrial Health, 14 (1-2): 209-21. doi: 10.1177/074823379801400113.

Beppu, H., Minaguchi, M., Uchide, K., Kumamoto, K., Sekiguchi, M., & Yaju, Y. (2017). Lessons learnt in Japan from adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine: a medical ethics perspective. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 11 (2). Doi: 10.20529/IJME.2017.021

Burd, E.M. (2003). Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Cancer. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 16 (1): 1–17. doi: 10.1128/CMR.16.1.1-17.2003

Centre of Disease Control (CDC). (2020). Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel. Retrieved 15th June 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.html#:~:text=Consistent%20and%20correct%20use%20of%20latex%20condoms%20reduces%20the%20risk,genital%20warts%20and%20cervical%20cancer).

Corvelva. (2019). Initial results on Gardasil 9 chemical composition. Retrieved 15th January 2019 from https://www.corvelva.it/en/speciale-corvelva/vaccinegate-en/initial-results-on-gardasil-9-chemical-composition.html

Hu, Y. (2018). Multiple Sclerosis Development in Two Teens After HPV Vaccination. Retrieved 15th June 2020 from https://www.neurologyadvisor.com/conference-highlights/actrims-2018/multiple-sclerosis-development-in-two-teens-after-hpv-vaccination/

Merck. (2020). Gardasil 9 product insert. Retrieved 15th June 2020 from https://www.fda.gov/media/90064/download

National Health Service (NHS). (2019). Postural tachycardia syndrome (PoTS). Retrieved 15th June 2020 from https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/postural-tachycardia-syndrome/

New Scientist. (2006). First cervical cancer vaccine is approved. Retrieved 15th June 2020 from https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9305-first-cervical-cancer-vaccine-is-approved/#:~:text=The%20first%20vaccine%20against%20cervical,month%20fast%2Dtrack%20clinical%20test.

Roura, E., Travier, N., Waterboer, T., de Sanjosé, S., Bosch, F.X., Pawlita, M., Pala, V., Weiderpass, E., Margall, N. Dillner, J., Gram, I.T., Tjønneland, A., Munk, C., Palli, D., Khaw, K., Overvad, K., Clavel-Chapelon, F., Mesrine, S., Fournier, A., Fortner, R.T., Ose, J.,Steffen, A., Trichopoulou, A., Lagiou, P., Orfanos, P., Masala, G., Tumino, R., Sacerdote, C., Polidoro, S., Mattiello, A., Lund, E., Peeters, P.H., Bueno-de-Mesquita, B., Quirós, J.R., Sánchez, M-J., Navarro, C., Barricarte, A., Larrañaga, N., Ekström, J., Lindquist,D., Idahl, A., Travis, R.C., Merritt, M.A., Gunter, M.J., Rinaldi, S., Tommasino, M., Franceschi, S., Riboli, E.,& Castellsagué, X. (2016). The Influence of Hormonal Factors on the Risk of Developing Cervical Cancer and Pre-Cancer: Results from the EPIC Cohort. PLoS One, 11 (1): e0147029. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147029

Sequiris. (2019). Australian Product Information – GARDASIL® 9. Retrieved 15th June 2020 from https://labeling.seqirus.com/PI/AU/Gardasil/EN/Gardasil-9-Product-Information.pdf

Shaw, C.A., & Petrik, M.S. (2009). Aluminum Hydroxide Injections Lead to Motor Deficits and Motor Neuron Degeneration. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, 103 (11); 1555-1562. doi: 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2009.05.019.

Shaw, C.A., Li, D. & Tomljenovic, L. (2014). Are There Negative CNS Impacts of Aluminum Adjuvants Used in Vaccines and Immunotherapy? Immunotherapy, 6 (10):1055-71. doi: 10.2217/imt.14.81.

Vadalà, M., Poddighe, D., Laurino, C., & Palmieri, B. (2017). Vaccination and autoimmune diseases: is prevention of adverse health effects on the horizon? European Association for Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine (EPMA), 8:295–311. Doi:10.1007/s13167-017-0101-y

WebMD. (2020). HPV, Cervical Cancer Vaccine: 15 Facts. Retrieved 15th June 2020 from https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/features/hpv-cervical-cancer-vaccine-15-facts#2
​
World Health Organisation (WHO). (2019). Human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer. Retrieved 15th June 2020 from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-papillomavirus-(hpv)-and-cervical-cancer#:~:text=There%20are%20more%20than%20100,the%20onset%20of%20sexual%20activity.

Just in case you arrived on earth from a distant planet in the last few weeks, you might notice that things are have been a little weird, crazy, or absolutely dumbfoundingly stupid of late. We have had a little issue with a little bug called the "coronavirus", or "SARS-CoV-2" (aka "SARS version 2") which causes an infection called "COVID-19" which you are statistically unlikely to get, suffer from (directly at least), or die from. Yet the entire planet is suffering from a "we're all gonna die" media campaign.
​
Here is a summary of observations and learnings from the coronavirus pandemic thus far:

1. The virus is man-made, as shown from multiple studies of the genetic code of the virus
2. Studies have not found an animal host source of the virus, and other studies have found no close relative to the coronavirus, based on genetic analysis and comparison to similar strains
3. Scientists in various biowarfare labs around the world (China, USA, UK, Australia and perhaps more countries) are complicit in the development of the genetically-modified man-made coronavirus at the centre of this pandemic, through years of repeated genetic manipulation of other coronavirus types to increase their ability to infect human cells. The main lab responsible for much of the genetic modification of the coronavirus, based on their published studies of their work, was based in Wuhan, China
4. The initial statistics of incidences and mortality rates from the country of origin, China, cannot and should not have been believed, being a communist country with a secretive government with a history of suppressing the media and inaccurate information being told
5. The PCR testing of the coronavirus, used to determine incidences of infection, is inaccurate
6. Statistics of coronavirus incidences therefore are inaccurate and should be ignored
7. The WHO have directed countries (and their medical systems) to classify deaths (by "falsifying" death records) as being from COVID-19 based on an inaccurate test, and/or assumptions of infection without testing, or deaths from chronic diseases, suicides, shootings, flu and pneumonia and other respiratory conditions, and other deaths as being from the virus
8. Statistics of coronavirus mortality rates therefore are inaccurate and should be ignored
9. The media are experts in manipulating the inaccurate statistics to create an environment of fear throughout the world during this alleged pandemic
10. The fear from the media has caused major divisions in families, workplaces, friends and communities, between those who believe the media scare campaigns and those who have done their own research or who have personal experience, or who are "free thinkers"
11. Governments and authorities have recommended people to "report" those who do not appear to be believing or following the recommended guidelines, thus further dividing communities in a time they keep broadcasting "we are all in this together"
12. Governments and their health authorities and even the WHO have not recommended simple, cheap, effective and proven ways to prevent or treat people from the coronavirus. They have deliberately withheld information, lied about effectiveness (or non-effectiveness) of preventative strategies and treatments, and instead promoting hygiene and isolation until medications or a vaccine are available (for which there are still none available)
13. Governments and their health authorities and even the WHO, have ignored the many natural preventions and treatments that have past evidence of effectiveness against other viruses, thus contributing to more infections and deaths
14. There is plenty of quality published evidence of the effectiveness of natural therapies such as therapeutic doses of vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, selenium, to support or improve one's immune system function against any infections, as well as lifestyle improvements of regular exercise, reducing stress, improving sleep, and eating a nutritious diet and low processed food to reduce blood sugar levels. However this advice and recommendations have not been suggested by the WHO or government health authorities - why?
15. The WHO, governments and health regulators, such as Australia's TGA, have effectively banned and gagged all health practitioners (both medical and complementary/alternative) from making any recommendations to prevent or treat the coronavirus, and have actively prosecuted companies and individuals who have spoken out against the government or defied these regulatory guidelines
16. It is well known in many published studies of the seasonal nature of respiratory infections around the world, for the common cold, flu, pneumonia, and even asthma. Such respiratory infections occur at much higher rates in the colder months of the year, in this case the northern hemisphere countries being far more affected being their winter and autumn during the early months of the pandemic
17. The seasonal effect of all respiratory infections occurs when the sun is further away from one hemisphere of the earth, which receives less solar radiation, resulting in low sun exposure and low vitamin D levels. Vitamin D is a potent anti-inflammatory compound, and immune system strengthening hormone. A vitamin D deficiency is a key causative factor in respiratory infections as shown in many published studies. Yet the government health authorities have not mentioned preventative advice to get safe sun exposure or vitamin D supplementation to reduce incidences or mortality rates
18. The media and government health authorities have focussed on the virus itself - to try and avoid the virus through unproven mass isolations, lockdowns and shutdowns, and hygiene practices, still being based on old 1800s "germ theory" practices that an exposure to a germ will mean an infection with the virus
19. The "germ theory" of old has been disproved, as not everyone who is exposed to an infective pathogen will actually "catch" the infection or show symptoms. Whether someone exposed to a virus will develop symptoms, and how quickly (or not) they get over the infection is due to the effectiveness and strength of their immune system, NOT the effectiveness and strength of the virus
20. Humans cannot avoid a virus or other pathogens, but we can improve our immune system effectiveness and strength to find and deal with infections such as the coronavirus
21. Some countries such as Sweden, Taiwan, Japan and others did not implement nationwide lockdowns, business shutdowns or "preventative" isolations for their populations. They did, however, recommend voluntary isolation of those at risk, with chronic health conditions, respiratory and cardiac conditions or the aged. The rest of the population could carry on as usual. If they were exposed to or become infected with the coronavirus, they would then develop a personal immunity and community herd immunity to the virus into the future
22. Herd immunity is a theory that if a certain percentage of a population are immune from an infection, they can "protect" or reduce incidences amongst those who are not immune, and the infection can die out in time. However herd immunity is only possible through a reasonable percentage of the population actually contracting the infection and developing antibodies to it. Antibodies produced from a natural infection last a lifetime. Unlike from vaccines which simulate a forced infection - antibodies may not be produced at all, hence why multiple boosters are required, or if they are produced, only last a few months to a few years at most. Hence herd immunity cannot occur even in 100% vaccinated populations. Mandating a flu vaccine or coronavirus vaccine (if it can ever be produced) will not allow a herd immunity to occur
23. The WHO is open to corruption through large private donations of alleged philanthropy, but in reality being for influence of the world's health organisation. The Gates Foundation are the second largest donor to the WHO, behind the USA, which suggests a huge conflict of interest especially given the foundation's many other investments in this pandemic. Such influence over the WHO must stop
24. The Gates Foundation are major investors in every part of this pandemic - from funding biowarfare labs who perform genetic modification of coronaviruses, to funding many pharmaceutical companies to develop untested fast-tracked vaccines or medications, to funding the reuse of existing medications that have no proven evidence of effectiveness against this virus, to developing virus test kits, to pretending to being an alleged health advocate or expert on this virus pandemic, to funding a company developing RFID tracking chips being injected at the same time of the vaccine, funding a worldwide technology platform to track people using their implanted ID chips in real time, and many other conflicts of interest with other companies
25. The UN have aligned with a UK cyber security firm to produce an electronic COVID-19 identification and health status passport called COVI-PASS. Plans have been made to record the coronavirus pathology testing results, virus immunity status, and vaccination status, and more, to be recorded and needing to be held by every person. Intentions are for this system to be used for other tracking and identification purposes for travel, workplaces, and many other locations, and potential restrictions imposed on those who do not meet certain eligibility criteria
26. Deeper investigations of mortality rates and published studies suggest a mortality rate from COVID-19 at just 0.1%, being on par with a severe seasonal influenza (Fauci, 2020)
27. With such a small mortality rate, based on corrected and proven statistics resulting in a survival rate of 99.9%, the massive worldwide disruptions were completely unnecessary
28. A mandated worldwide vaccine, as frequently being promoted by Bill Gates and many governments, based on these corrected mortality rates, is completely unnecessary given a 99.9% survival rate in those who have the coronavirus infection
29. The worldwide shutdowns, lockdowns, isolations, and their resulting effects on families, businesses, companies, stock markets, investments, and the economy, were completely unnecessary
30. Educated and expert scientists and medical/health commentators on social media platforms have provided a more balanced and even more accurate source of information during the pandemic, and those working in hospitals giving their first-hand personal and proven accounts of their experiences which are the opposite of the government information being given
31. Social media platforms have increased censorship of many aspects of the pandemic, to suppress sharing of information and even deleting entire accounts from knowledgeable experts, scientists, doctors, virologists, and more, because their expert scientific opinion differs from the approved government narrative or the opinion of the platform owners and their advisors. Luckily Trump has very recently banned social media platforms from censoring personal opinions and even expert advice that didn't fit the beliefs of the platform owners - freedom of speech is to reign again!

Recommendations that are needed in the aftermath of this plandemic:

1. There needs to be an independent investigation of the recommendations by the WHO to all governments on how to classify COVID-19 deaths, and investigations into every classified death and adjustments to statistics made accordingly to make them accurate
2. Investigations by the media authorities in all countries, to improve the accuracy of news information, as much of it has been a fear-based scare campaign, highlighted by opinionated and biased TV hosts who do not have a clue of what is really going on in this plandemic
3. The genetic modification of dangerous pathogens, to increase their ability to infect human cells, or any other "gain of function" testing or manipulation MUST be banned worldwide from now and forever
4. The WHO need to be completely disbanded and a new and independent government-only funded health organisation created, for the benefit of every person. There should be no corporate or private sponsorships or funding allowed, no conflicts of interest allowed, and equal opportunities being given for proven natural therapies to be recommended for prevention and treatment options, along with safe and effective medical treatments as needed
5. Many more people of the world have awoken to the massive manipulation of them during this plandemic. People are now aware of the corruption and conflicts of interest in the WHO, state and federal governments, and the media, to lie, to cause fear, to divide communities, and implement new laws to restrict movements, interactions, and lifestyle choices. Any further restrictions or mandates related to this plandemic, because of the abovementioned manipulations of incidence and death rates, corruption and conflicts of interest, are unnecessary and will not be tolerated by the people.

​Keep aware. Keep disbelieving. Keep researching. Keep informed. And keep healthy.

(References provided in previous posts on this topic on this page)

In the very early days of the coronavirus making the news (late January 2020), a study was pre-published (awaiting official publishing and peer-review) which suggested that the coronavirus may be man-made (Pradhan et al. 2020). The authors of the study performed an analysis of the genome of the virus, and found it was mostly based on the 2002 SARS virus, but also allegedly found to have 4x insertions of the HIV virus in its genetic code. Such genetic differences could not have happened naturally. This caused a major stir at the time, and the scientists were criticised as perhaps mocking the seriousness of the new epidemic (as a pandemic hadn't been announced at that time), and the authors of the study withdrew it from publishing due to pressure from the scientific community. The authors intended to revise the study and perhaps republish it.

Many rumours and debates have persisted as to the origins of the virus - did it come from bats or another animal, how did it cross over into humans, and was this a natural process or man-made?

A few months have passed and more studies have been published on many aspects of the coronavirus. The official line from the WHO and our governments is that the coronavirus was a natural development or mutation, from a still-unknown animal source, and some studies have published these findings.

But governments and their agencies lie. They all do. All the time.

I've not believed a lot of the scary information in the media since day 1 of this infection. I've looked into the statistics of it and why they do not make any sense and cannot be believed. The testing of the virus is questionable and inaccurate, and the classification of deaths is a rort - a process recommended by the WHO to falsely inflate death rates, which has so many people unnecessarily scared of this virus, leading to politicians making disruptive and damaging policy changes which have affected us all. For what intents and purposes we still do not fully understand, but a lot of things in this pandemic stink of untruths. Especially on the issue of whether the virus is man-made or not.

A pivotal new study was published in the prestigious Nature Medicine journal (Andersen et al., 2020). The authors investigated the genetic code of a key part of the coronavirus and compared this to other known coronaviruses, to come to a conclusion that the new coronavirus was a natural mutation from one of several possible animal sources, of which still has not been identified. Their conclusion was pretty definitive. Except their conclusion and theories were not supported by their own results, but it helped negate many "conspiracy-theory" social media posts and instead supported the narrative of the media and governments and their health departments.

The figure (shown above) from the Andersen study clearly shows the genetic code differences between the different animal coronavirus types and the 2002 SARS coronavirus too. The marked and different coloured areas show the genetic differences. A major problem with the scientists' conclusions is the INSERTION of a 12-nucleotide section in the "Human-SARS-CoV-2" coronavirus sequence (notes with a star in the figure) which is COMPLETELY MISSING from every other coronavirus type known. Such a large genetic difference cannot happen randomly or naturally. It's not even in the alleged bat coronavirus as the source of this pandemic. The coronavirus didn't come from bats. Such an insertion can only come from a lab.

The scientists claim the impact of this inserted sequence is unknown but that it appears to enhance infection in human cells. But they still claim that the virus is of natural origin!

The details of one study is not be enough proof to make an assertion that the coronavirus is man-made...

In a another recent pre-published study (Wu et al., 2020), the scientists compared the genetic code of the new coronavirus with the earlier SARS and MERS pandemic viruses, and a bat coronavirus too. They also looked at the equivalent of the genetic family tree of the coronavirus, with respect to a major component of the virus - its spike protein that is used to attach to and infect a cell. It was found that the coronavirus was closest to the 2002 SARS virus and the bat coronavirus, with some major differences. Some minor mutations were found to exist between the current coronavirus and SARS coronavirus, and the virus binds more strongly to ACE-2 receptors (and other receptors) on human cells than SARS, hence why it can infect more people. See the phylogenic tree diagram above.

The phylogenic tree diagram (a genetic evolutionary family tree) for the coronaviruses starts in the 12 o'clock position and is progresses clockwise to newer generations of coronaviruses. Notice that the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is more recent. Early coronaviruses are highlighted in pink, as containing a particular location or sequence, called a "furin cleavage site", in its spike protein. The furin cleavage site disappeared several generations ago in the coronavirus family tree, but somehow magically reappears again in this new coronavirus genetic code. The ACE-2 and furin binding sites on cells throughout the body (not just in the lungs) increases the infection of this virus throughout the body to affect more organs as has been seen. This study also noted the addition of the same 12-nucleotide section of genetic code noted in the previous study that was missing from other coronavirus strains. This insertion is thought to be a reason why this virus is stronger than SARS. The study also found and recommended many medications, nutrients and herbals which would be effective against the furin site of the virus - including 4 HIV medications which is significant given the earlier finding of the alleged HIV insertions in the coronavirus genetic code. The WHO have announced trials of HIV drugs to determine their effectiveness against this virus (Kupferschmidt & Cohen, 2020).

The above finding of the coronavirus specifically using the ACE-2 receptors on cell walls to infect cells is very important. Several studies have been published in recent years by scientists performing genetic modification on the SARS coronavirus and others, and even creating a chimera virus - containing genes from multiple viruses, even from different animals. In one such study by Menachery et al. (2015), genes from a bat coronavirus spike protein were added to a mouse coronavirus genome and tested for its ability to infect human airway cells through their ACE-2 receptors. The man-made virus was tested in mice AND HUMANS with significant infections occurring. The study concluded that there was "a significant risk of a SARS coronavirus re-emergence". The fact that scientists are deliberately manipulating (ie, "playing with") the genetics of deadly viruses, and testing them for their ability to cause human disease, is a major concern.

This study included a Chinese Virologist, Shi Zhengli (or Zheng-Li Shi), who just happens to be the team leader of the researchers in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a BSL-4 biowarfare lab where this study was conducted, just a few miles from the alleged epicentre of the pandemic in the Wuhan seafood market... And the study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a US government agency.

The Chinese virologist and world expert on bat coronaviruses, Shi Zhengli, has been a part of several other published studies on coronavirus research. In another study published in 2008, Shi Zhengli and colleagues created new chimera coronavirus by "inserting different genetic sequences of the SARS coronavirus into different animal coronaviruses", to investigate how well the man-made virus could infect the ACE-2 receptors of human and animal cells (Ren et al., 2008). They found that the chimeric virus initially didn't infect human cells, so the scientists then combined a human HIV virus with it, which then DID enable it to infect human cells. Their work was to deliberately get the genetically modified virus to infect human cells. The authors wrote that this was the first time that a virus was proven to cross over from animals into humans - but was only done through deliberate genetic modification in a lab (in Wuhan).

The above studies compared a bat coronavirus to the new virus, and found a high genetic similarity of up to 96% (Xiao and Xiao, 2020), but more importantly are the differences. The bat coronavirus lacks the furin binding site, and lacks the huge gene insertion that is responsible for its infective ability in humans. According to testimonies by local Wuhan residents and those who frequented the seafood market, the bats which were found to host the bat coronavirus lived 900 kilometres away in caves, and bat was NOT traded or ever a food source in the Wuhan market (Xiao and Xiao, 2020).

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) have an online tool called BLAST (NIH, 2020) for logging, comparing and researching the genetic code of organisms. After my earlier research articles on the coronavirus topic when I questioned the government and media narrative, a follower sent me details on how to use the BLAST tool to check on the genetic code of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus for similarities with the genetic code of other viruses. Using the BLAST tool, it reported 4 similar gene sequences in the coronavirus that matched other viruses - or more accurately, 4 matching gene sequences from 1 other virus. The Human Immunodeficiency Virus, HIV type 1.

See the BLAST results in the figure above.

Two of the 4 HIV sequences in the SARS-CoV-2 virus code matched 100%, one matched at 94%, and another at 79%, still being very significant. See screenshot for results. This finding does seem to confirm the finding in the original study by Pradhan and colleagues (2020), and confirm the study by Ren, Shi Zhengli and colleagues that they inserted HIV genes into a genetically-modified SARS virus to increase its ability to infect human cells. Somehow, somewhere and by someone, accidently or deliberately we cannot determine at this time, this genetically-modified lab-made chimeric virus escaped into the wild to infect humans. It is almost beyond any possibility that the current coronavirus was a natural mutation and animal crossover event.

Is there evidence of knowledge and technology for scientists to CREATE a virus - YES.

Is there evidence of the SARS and other animal coronaviruses being genetically modified - YES.

Is there evidence of deliberate experimentation of coronaviruses to increase their ability to infect human cells - YES.

Is there evidence of the HIV virus being used in coronavirus experiments and being found in people infected with coronavirus - YES.

Is there evidence that the coronavirus was the result of a natural mutation and crossover into humans - based on these studies and evidence, it is highly unlikely at best. I'd say NO.

Based on the evidence here, this would lead to an uncomfortable conclusion that the coronavirus is not a natural mutation of any known coronavirus strain, but in fact a man-made strain. And if it is indeed man-made, as it appears, then more uncomfortable questions need to be asked - was it released accidentally or deliberately, by whom, and for what purposes?

There have been a lot of theories labelled as "conspiracies" in this pandemic. As more evidence is found, more of those conspiracies are becoming fact.
If the virus is man-made, then anything which comes afterwards, in the form of new laws, restrictions, recommendations and mandates, must seriously be questioned and stopped.

An independent worldwide and open investigation MUST be conducted NOW to find out who is responsible for this pandemic - how the man-made coronavirus escaped from a lab, why, and for what or whose benefit. This cannot be conducted by the WHO, UN, CDC, FDA or other government or world health agencies as they are already suspiciously involved in this pandemic or involved in the suppression of scientific studies or educated voices who have questioned their actions (or lack thereof) in recent times.
Also, the genetic modification of all infective viruses and bacteria MUST STOP NOW. These dangerous practices cannot be allowed to happen again.
​
(Full PDF document with graphics and references is available from the link below. Feel free to download and share this!)

References:
Andersen, K.G., Rambaut, A., Lipkin, W.I., Holmes, E.C., & Garry, R.F. (2020). The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nature Medicine, 26, 450–452. Doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9

Kupferschmidt, K., & Cohen, J. (2020). WHO launches global megatrial of the four most promising coronavirus treatments. Science Magazine. Retrieved 14th May 2020 from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/who-launches-global-megatrial-four-most-promising-coronavirus-treatments

Menachery, V.D., Yount, B.L Jr, Debbink, K., Agnihothram, S., Gralinski, L.E., Plante, J.A., Graham, R.L., Scobey, T., Ge, X-Y., Donaldson, E.F., Randell, S.H., Lanzavecchia, A., Marasco, W.A., Shi, Z-L., & Baric, R.S. (2015). A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence. Nature Medicine, 21, 1508–1513. Doi: 10.1038/nm.3985

National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2020).

Pradhan, P., Pandey, A.K., Mishra, A., Gupta, P., Tripathi, P.K., Menon, M.B., Gomes, J., Vivekanandan, P., & Kundu, B. (2020). Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag. BioRxiv (preprint). Doi: 10.1101/2020.01.30.927871

Ren, W., Qu, X., Li, W., Han, Z., Yu, M., Zhou, P., Zhang, S-Y., Wang, L-F., Deng, H., & Shi, Z. (2008). Difference in Receptor Usage between Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Coronavirus and SARS-Like Coronavirus of Bat Origin. Journal of Virology, 82 (4), 1899-1907: doi:10.1128/JVI.01085-07
Wu, C., Yang, Y., Liu, Y., Zhang, P., Wang, Y., Wang, Q., Xu, Y., Li, M., Zheng, M., Chen, L.,  & Li, H. (2020). Furin, a potential therapeutic target for COVID-19. Retrieved 14th May 2020 from http://chinaxiv.org/user/download.htm?id=30223

Xiao, B., & Xiao, L. (2020). The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus. Retrieved 14th May 2020 from https://web.archive.org/web/20200214144447/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339070128_The_possible_origins_of_2019-nCoV_coronavirus