Total Pageviews

Friday, March 21, 7000

Permanent Top Post

Posted by at

Monday, October 26, 2026

Talking to Eight-Year-Old Me: The Victory Lap I Never Knew I Needed

Talking to Eight-Year-Old Me: The Victory Lap I Never Knew I Needed

Sometimes I think about the eight-year-old version of myself and wonder what he'd think if he could see the world today.

When I was eight years old, I was already a member of Citizens for UFO Secrecy. I was fascinated by UFOs, Bigfoot, and the mysteries of the world that most people seemed content to dismiss. I wanted answers. I wanted people to take these subjects seriously. And, if I'm being honest, I wanted to live long enough to see the day when the things I was interested in were no longer automatically treated as ridiculous.

I spent years researching these subjects, writing about them, making documentaries, and trying to get people to look at the evidence for themselves. I created blogs, accumulated information, and followed developments that most people around me had little interest in discussing.

Sometimes I was ridiculed. Sometimes I was dismissed before anyone seriously considered what I was saying. And sometimes I probably got carried away with a theory or gave too much weight to an interpretation that the evidence couldn't fully support.

I'm not claiming that every conclusion I reached was correct. I'm not claiming that every UFO report represents an extraterrestrial spacecraft, that Bigfoot has been conclusively established, or that every suspicious event has a nefarious explanation.

Those are different questions, and they deserve to be evaluated individually.

But something has changed.

The World My Younger Self Wanted to See

UFOs, once routinely relegated to the margins of public conversation, are now discussed in congressional hearings, investigated through official channels, and addressed by people who have held positions of responsibility.

NASA has conducted a scientific study of unidentified anomalous phenomena, publishing a report with recommendations for improving the collection and analysis of UAP data. That doesn't establish extraterrestrial origins, but it does demonstrate that these observations can be approached as legitimate subjects for scientific investigation.

Bigfoot and other cryptid subjects continue to attract media attention, documentaries, witnesses, researchers, and public interest. That attention doesn't prove every claim, but it does mean the subject hasn't simply disappeared into obscurity.

The broader point is that subjects I cared about as a child have become part of conversations that reach far beyond the circles in which they were once discussed.

And I have been part of that journey.

I've written about these subjects for years. I've assembled research, published articles, made videos, and tried to preserve information that I believed deserved consideration. I even put together a Bigfoot documentary using mainstream news reports about sightings, alleged evidence, and related developments, allowing the material to speak for itself without adding my own commentary.

I've never published a conventional UFO book, and I don't need to pretend that I accomplished everything I once imagined I would. But I did something with my interests. I followed them. I created things. I participated in the conversation.

If you'd like to explore some of that work, visit my UFO blog, Debunking UFOs. For a broader collection of research, ideas, and reflections, visit Mind Treasury.

And these days, I'm exploring some of those same big questions through music, too. You can find my work on TikTok at @Crashout.Royalty, where I bring together music, humor, unusual ideas, and creative experiments as part of the Crash Out Aristocrats collective.

The mediums have changed, but the curiosity that started all this is still there.

For a long time, I thought the victory would be having everyone acknowledge that I was right.

Now I'm beginning to understand that the victory is bigger than that.

I Want to Be Wrong About the Darkest Possibilities

There's something else I wish I could say.

I wish I could look back at some of the things I've spent years investigating and discover that I was wrong about the darker possibilities. I wish I could find explanations that put certain suspicions to rest, that showed the world was less corrupt, less deceptive, and less frightening than I sometimes believed it to be.

I would love to be able to say that I was right to ask questions, right to investigate, and right to demand evidence, but thank God my conclusions were wrong.

I can't honestly say that about everything. Some questions remain unanswered. Some things I still find difficult to explain. I can't manufacture certainty just because a definitive answer would be comforting.

But I can say something else: the world isn't as dark as I once thought it was.

I've come to recognize that, and I'm grateful for it.

I still want the truth. I still believe questions should be asked, evidence should be examined, and powerful institutions should be accountable for their actions. But I've also learned that questioning something doesn't mean you have to reach the darkest possible conclusion.

Uncertainty isn't proof of wrongdoing, just as an official explanation isn't automatically proof that everything is fine. A discrepancy can have several possible explanations, and the responsible thing is to investigate them rather than decide in advance which one must be true.

I want to believe that some of the things I've worried about will ultimately have ordinary explanations. I want to discover that some of my suspicions were mistaken. And where the evidence doesn't give me an answer, I can leave the question open and get on with living.

I don't have to abandon my curiosity to find some peace. I just have to stop making peace dependent on solving everything.

The World Is Better Than We Sometimes Realize

There's another reason I've been thinking about victory laps.

For years, it was easy to concentrate on everything that was wrong with the world. When you're researching corruption, controversial subjects, unexplained events, and the possibility that powerful people aren't telling the whole story, you can spend so much time looking at the darkness that you forget to look at anything else.

But take a step back and consider what humanity has accomplished.

Ordinary people today have access to food, conveniences, communications, entertainment, and medical care that even many wealthy people in earlier centuries couldn't obtain. We can speak with someone on the other side of the planet in seconds. We can access libraries of information from a device in our pockets. We can learn skills, create music, publish our ideas, and share our work with people we will never meet in person.

Consider the long-term decline in extreme poverty. According to Our World in Data's analysis of World Bank data, the share of the world's population living in extreme poverty fell substantially between 1990 and 2025, including when China is excluded from the comparison.

That doesn't mean poverty has disappeared. Progress has slowed, and billions of people still face hardship and insecurity. But the reduction in extreme poverty represents a major change in human living conditions.

We see a similar story in health. Our World in Data's historical life-expectancy research documents the enormous increase in global life expectancy over the last century. Its research on child mortality shows how dramatically the chances of surviving childhood have improved.

These improvements reflect many factors, including sanitation, nutrition, clean water, vaccination, medicine, education, and economic development.

We shouldn't pretend that every part of life has improved, or that history moves in a perfectly straight line. Wars still happen. People still suffer. Some hard-won freedoms are threatened, and progress can be reversed.

But we should also be honest about how far we've come.

Think About Medicine

Conditions that once meant almost certain death can now be treated, managed, or prevented. Infections that killed people before antibiotics can often be cured. Insulin transformed the treatment of diabetes. Modern anesthesia, vaccines, advanced imaging, organ transplantation, and emergency medicine have changed what it means to be sick or injured.

And we're still at the beginning of what may become possible.

Gene therapies are already treating certain diseases. For a concrete example of how far this field has advanced, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's list of approved cellular and gene therapy products includes treatments that use approaches such as gene modification and engineered cells.

Researchers are also exploring regenerative medicine, more personalized treatments, and ways to identify illnesses earlier and intervene more precisely. Artificial intelligence is opening new avenues for medical research and drug discovery.

We don't know how far these developments will take us. Some promising approaches will fail, and some current practices will eventually be replaced. But the potential is extraordinary.

I sometimes wonder what future generations will think of our medicine. We look back at bloodletting, the use of toxic substances as treatments, and medical procedures performed without adequate anesthesia or infection control, and we wonder how people could have accepted such things.

What practices that we consider normal today will future generations regard as unnecessarily crude, painful, or misguided?

We don't know. But the history of medicine gives us reason to believe that our understanding will continue to change.

And that is a remarkable thing about humanity: we can learn that we were wrong, improve our methods, and give the next generation a better starting point than the one we inherited.

Science Fiction Is Becoming Everyday Life

When I was growing up, many of the technologies we now use would have seemed like science fiction.

We can speak to artificial intelligence and receive answers in seconds. Machines can recognize speech, interpret images, translate languages, and help people perform tasks that once required specialized knowledge. Robots can explore other planets, assist with complex procedures, and operate in environments that are dangerous for human beings.

We're not living in a world of fully autonomous Star Wars droids that can do everything a human can do. But the distance between imagination and practical technology has narrowed in ways that would have seemed astonishing to earlier generations.

And the implications extend far beyond convenience.

Artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced manufacturing, and improvements in energy production could eventually reduce the amount of human labor required to provide the necessities of life.

Imagine a world where food production, housing construction, transportation, energy, and other essential services become so efficient that people no longer have to spend most of their lives working simply to survive.

Imagine being able to pursue music, art, scientific research, relationships, education, or personal interests without the constant threat of losing access to basic necessities.

That is the kind of future I want to see.

A resource-based economy is one possible way of thinking about that future: using technology, scientific planning, and available resources to meet human needs rather than making access to necessities depend entirely on purchasing power.

We haven't achieved that world. Technology alone won't guarantee it, either. We will have to address questions of ownership, distribution, environmental limits, infrastructure, and who benefits from automation.

The International Labour Organization's 2025 assessment of generative AI and employment illustrates the distinction. AI has the potential to affect many occupations, but the report emphasizes that many jobs are more likely to be transformed than eliminated outright.

A future in which work becomes optional for everyone would require much more than new technology. It would require economic and social changes that allow the benefits of increased productivity to be shared widely.

But the possibility deserves serious consideration.

For the first time in history, we may be approaching a point where our technological capabilities could allow us to rethink some of the assumptions that have governed human life for centuries.

We should be asking what kind of world we want those capabilities to create.

We Can Build Something Better

I don't believe we have to accept the worst aspects of human history as permanent features of human nature.

We've changed the way we treat diseases. We've expanded access to knowledge. We've developed technologies that make communication and cooperation possible on a scale previous generations could barely imagine. We've built institutions, movements, and systems that have improved countless lives, even when those systems remain imperfect.

We can do more.

We can work toward a world in which fewer people go hungry, fewer people die from preventable diseases, fewer conflicts are fought over resources, and more people have the freedom to pursue meaningful lives.

We can make technology serve human beings rather than treating human beings as expendable parts of an economic machine.

We can disagree without dehumanizing one another. We can investigate difficult questions without automatically assuming the worst about everyone involved. We can hold institutions accountable while still recognizing genuine accomplishments when they occur.

And we can contribute to that future in small ways, even if we never get to see the entire transformation.

For me, that means making music, creating videos, sharing ideas, and building a community where independent artists can support one another. It means spending less time trying to win every old argument and more time making things that other people can enjoy, learn from, or use as inspiration.

Through @Crashout.Royalty on TikTok, I'm putting that philosophy into practice: making the art I want to make, exploring ideas that interest me, and creating opportunities for independent artists to find and support one another.

We don't all have to think alike, sound alike, or agree about everything. We can still recognize something worthwhile in one another and help it reach an audience.

We don't have to spend our entire lives fighting against what we dislike. We can also build things we want to exist.

And perhaps that's where my own journey is taking me: away from feeling responsible for exposing every problem and toward helping create something better.

The Future Is Worth Protecting

But there's one more thing we need to remember.

All this progress depends on our ability to maintain the systems that make it possible. Our medical technology, food distribution, communications, scientific research, and increasingly automated world depend on infrastructure that we can sometimes take for granted.

Consider the electrical grid.

A prolonged, widespread loss of electricity could disrupt hospitals, water treatment, refrigeration, transportation, communications, and food distribution. The longer those systems remained unavailable, the harder it could become to restore normal life. The consequences could extend far beyond the initial outage.

We could lose access to technologies that represent centuries of human progress, not because the knowledge suddenly disappeared, but because we could no longer reliably operate the systems that put that knowledge to work.

A major grid disruption wouldn't automatically erase civilization or all our accumulated knowledge. But it could cause severe harm, and a sufficiently prolonged disruption could set back essential services and technological development.

That's why preparedness matters.

We should strengthen our infrastructure, improve its resilience, develop backup systems, and make sure communities can withstand disruptions. We should prepare for emergencies without living in fear of them. We should protect the progress we've made while continuing to create something better.

The goal isn't to convince ourselves that catastrophe is inevitable. It's to recognize that the future is valuable enough to protect.

We've spent generations learning how to improve the human condition. We have opportunities our ancestors could scarcely have imagined, and we may be standing at the beginning of another extraordinary period of discovery.

Let's not take that for granted.

Let's protect our power, our knowledge, our communities, and our ability to keep moving forward.

We've come too far to be careless with the future. Let's make sure the next generation inherits a better world, not a preventable setback.

What I Want to Tell Eight-Year-Old Me

If I could sit down with the eight-year-old version of myself today, I wouldn't tell him that every theory he ever entertained was correct. I wouldn't tell him that every mystery had been solved or that every institution had finally come clean.

I'd tell him that the world is more complicated than either the believers or the skeptics sometimes make it sound.

I'd tell him that some of the questions he cared about would eventually receive serious public attention, while others would remain unresolved. I'd tell him that learning to distinguish evidence from interpretation would be just as important as learning to question accepted explanations.

But I'd also tell him something he might not expect.

I'd tell him that the world isn't as dark as he sometimes feared it was.

I'd tell him that human beings have accomplished extraordinary things, that medical science has saved countless lives, that technology has opened doors previous generations couldn't imagine, and that the future still holds possibilities worth working toward.

I'd tell him that he didn't have to spend his entire life proving other people wrong to justify his curiosity.

I'd tell him that he would grow up, make music, write, create documentaries, meet people who mattered to him, and build a life that he could genuinely appreciate. That he would have difficult periods, make mistakes, change his mind about things, and discover that some of the most important victories weren't the ones he had imagined as a child.

I'd tell him that he was allowed to be curious without being consumed by every mystery.

And I'd tell him that he could take a victory lap without needing to declare himself the winner of every argument.

Because this victory lap isn't about proving that I was right about everything.

It's about recognizing that the questions I cared about as a child helped shape the person I became. They gave me reasons to research, write, create, investigate, and keep learning. They took me down paths I never could have predicted.

I didn't get every answer. I didn't get everything I wanted. I may have been wrong about some things, and I may never know the answers to others.

But I kept going.

I got to participate in conversations I once hoped to see. I got to make things out of the subjects that fascinated me. I got to experience a world that has changed in extraordinary ways, and I still have the opportunity to contribute something to what comes next.

So, to the eight-year-old kid who wanted to know what was really happening in the world, here's what I'd say:

Look how far we've come.

Look at all the things we've learned, all the things we've created, and all the possibilities still ahead of us.

We didn't figure everything out. We didn't get every answer. But we kept going, we made it through some difficult things, and we found reasons to believe in the future.

We don't have to carry every old battle forward. We don't have to solve every mystery before we're allowed to enjoy our lives. We can keep asking questions, keep learning, and keep making things that matter.

The world isn't perfect, but it isn't finished, either.

And maybe the greatest victory isn't proving that we were right about the darkness.

Maybe it's recognizing that there's still so much good to build, so much to discover, and so much to look forward to.

We didn't get every answer, and we didn't get everything we wanted. But we got to live this life. And there's still so much left to discover.

Sources and Further Reading

The links below provide evidence and context for several of the historical and scientific claims discussed in this article. They are starting points for further research, not endorsements of every interpretation presented here.

  1. NASA — Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: NASA's UAP Independent Study and final report.
  2. Our World in Data — Extreme Poverty: The global decline in extreme poverty, including trends outside China.
  3. Our World in Data — Life Expectancy: How life expectancy has changed across the world.
  4. Our World in Data — Child Mortality: Historical declines in child and infant mortality.
  5. Our World in Data — War and Peace: Historical patterns in conflict deaths and the limitations of long-term comparisons.
  6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration — Gene Therapy: Approved cellular and gene therapy products.
  7. International Labour Organization — AI and Employment: Generative AI and Jobs: A 2025 Update.

Explore My Work

The questions are worth exploring. The evidence matters. And the future is worth building.

Posted by at

Thursday, October 15, 2026

Welcome to Censorship Hell

An obviously shadow banned Interview I conducted a little while back. Please check it out and share it! 

Watch "Truth Teller's Radio: The #Globalist Plan to Collapse Everything ... #conspiracy #evidence #nwo " on YouTube




Posted by at

Sunday, October 11, 2026

Turning Lemons Into Lemonade: My Philosophy on Making Something Out of Everything

Turning Lemons Into Lemonade: My Philosophy on Making Something Out of Everything

OK, first off, check out my song in this subject! 😁 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPLh7WW7t/

Life doesn't always go according to plan. Sometimes you make mistakes, sometimes things fall apart, and sometimes the world hands you a situation you never asked for. But I've developed a philosophy that helps me keep moving forward: don't waste the mistake. Transform it.

I'm a firm believer in making lemonade out of all the lemons life hands you. And I mean that literally in the way I approach my creativity, my music, my writing, and just about everything else. Sometimes the things that seem like failures turn out to be the very things that lead you somewhere unexpected.

I've learned that a mistake doesn't have to be the end of something. It can be the beginning of something else. A problem with a song might inspire a new song. A failed project might teach me a skill I wouldn't have learned otherwise. Even the things that hurt, frustrate, or set me back can become material for something meaningful.

I call these happy mistakes. Not because every bad thing feels good, or because I'm pretending that pain doesn't exist, but because there's often an opportunity hiding inside the mess. You might not see it immediately. Sometimes you have to work through the frustration first. But the mistake doesn't have to be wasted.

This philosophy also changes how I look at my own work. Something I never intended to create might turn out better than the thing I originally planned. An unexpected detour might take me somewhere more interesting than the road I was following. If I insist that everything must happen exactly as I imagined it, I could miss the value of what actually happened.

I try to apply that same attitude to life itself. On the worst days, I can still fight for a better world. When something goes wrong, I can look for a lesson, a new direction, or a way to turn the experience into art that makes somebody feel something or think about something differently.

Maybe that's one way of finding purpose in difficult experiences: not necessarily by pretending everything happened for a reason, but by deciding that whatever happens, I'll try to make something worthwhile out of it.

You don't have to be happy about every lemon life throws at you. You don't have to call every setback a blessing. You just have to remember that the story doesn't necessarily end where things go wrong.

You don't win by never falling. You win by making something from the fall.

That's my philosophy. Don't waste the mistake. Don't let a dead end convince you that there's nowhere left to go. Take what you've learned, take whatever pieces you have left, and make something out of them.

Life gives you lemons. Sometimes you make lemonade. Sometimes you make a song, an article, a new skill, or an entirely different path you never would have discovered otherwise.

And sometimes the thing you create from the lemons turns out to be better than what you originally wanted.

That's the beauty of transformation. The lemons are only the beginning.

Posted by at

Stomp Like a Sasquatch: Bigfoot, Society, and the Deeper Questions in Life — A Song by Crashout Aristocrats

Stomp Like a Sasquatch: Bigfoot, Society, and the Deeper Questions in Life — A Song by Crashout Aristocrats

My song “Stomp Like a Sasquatch” uses one of the world's most enduring mysteries as a jumping-off point for exploring philosophical questions, societal problems, and the strange contradictions of the world we live in.

There's more going on here than footprints in the woods. It's about questioning assumptions, challenging conventional thinking, and looking beyond the surface of things.

Whether you're a Bigfoot believer, a skeptic, or somebody who's still undecided, there's plenty to think about.

Check out the song and see what you take away from it!

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPLhv1HvQ/
Posted by at

Friday, October 9, 2026

COVID Vaccines Are Gene Therapy, Contrary to Claims by Media ‘Fact-Checkers’


COVID Vaccines Are Gene Therapy, Contrary to Claims by Media ‘Fact-Checkers’

Mainstream “fact-checkers” continue to deny that COVID-19 mRNA shots are gene therapy, but the fact-checker denials contradict the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s own definition and Moderna’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
August 22, 2023
covid vaccine gene therapy fact check feature
5652 Pageviews
Add to Google
RSS
14 Comments

Story at a glance: 

  • Mainstream media continue to state that messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 shots “are distinct from gene therapy.”
  • But even their “fact-checking” is laughable, as it tries to use semantics to explain away the shots’ gene therapy connections.
  • In an article by “Reuters Fact Check,” it’s argued that mRNA COVID-19 shots are not gene therapy but instead are “genetic-based therapy.”
  • Media outlets also suggest COVID-19 shots aren’t gene therapy because they don’t change the body’s genetic makeup, but this is only part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) definition of gene therapy.
  • The FDA’s full definition also includes the words “or to alter the biological properties of living cells,” which is precisely what the COVID-19 shots do.

mRNA COVID-19 shots are still being called “vaccines,” even though they fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine. The fact that the jabs are gene therapy, yet were mandated on entire populations without adequate testing, adds another nefarious layer to the many atrocities that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mainstream media went along with the farce, spewing propaganda that mRNA COVID-19 shots “are distinct from gene therapy.” But even their “fact-checking” is laughable, as it tries to use semantics to explain away the shots’ gene therapy connections.

New Book Release - Tylenol and Autism: Evidence, Scientific Blunders, and Medicine Gone Wrong - ORDER NOW

Tylenol and Autism Book

Not gene therapy, but ‘genetic-based therapy’

In an article by “Reuters Fact Check,” it’s argued that mRNA COVID-19 shots are not gene therapy because they’re “rapidly degraded” by the body and don’t integrate into humans’ genomes or alter genetic makeup. But they admitted the shots are “genetic-based therapy.”

According to the article:

“Scientists told Reuters that while mRNA vaccines can be considered ‘genetic-based therapy’ because they use genetic code from COVID-19, they are not technically gene therapy.”

Dr. Adam Taylor, a virologist and research fellow at the Menzies Health Institute, Queensland, Griffith University, told Reuters:

“As mRNA is genetic material, mRNA vaccines can be looked at as a genetic-based therapy, but they are classified as vaccines and are not designed to alter your genes. Gene therapy, in the classical sense, involves making deliberate changes to a patient’s DNA in order to treat or cure them.

“mRNA vaccines will not enter a cell’s nucleus that houses your DNA genome. There is zero risk of these vaccines integrating into our own genome or altering our genetic makeup.”

But, writing in the International Journal of Molecular Science, independent researcher Helene Banoun explains:

“The mode of action of mRNA vaccines should classify them as gene therapy products (GTP). But mRNAs as vaccines against an infectious disease have been excluded from GTP regulation by U.S. and EU regulations. No specific regulations existed before the year 2020 for mRNA vaccines. …

“The wide and persistent biodistribution of mRNAs and their protein products, incompletely studied due to their classification as vaccines, raises safety issues. Post-marketing studies have shown that mRNA passes into breast milk and could have adverse effects on breast-fed babies.

“Long-term expression, integration into the genome, transmission to the germline, passage into sperm, embryo/fetal and perinatal toxicity, genotoxicity and tumorigenicity should be studied in light of the adverse events reported in pharmacovigilance databases. The potential horizontal transmission (i.e., shedding) should also have been assessed.”

Media lies about COVID-19 shots

Similar to Reuters, The Associated Press also published a “fact check” article titled “No, COVID-19 vaccines aren’t gene therapy.”

Both media outlets suggested COVID-19 shots aren’t gene therapy because they don’t change the body’s genetic makeup. But this is only part of the FDA’s definition of gene therapy:

“Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use.”

As you can see, the full definition also includes the words “or to alter the biological properties of living cells,” which is precisely what the COVID-19 shots do. The mRNA in the COVID-19 jab are molecules that contain genetic instructions for making various proteins.

mRNA COVID-19 shots deliver synthetic mRNA with a genetic code that instructs your cells to produce a modified form of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

In other words, they “alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use.”

Whether they modify your DNA is irrelevant. Note the word “or” in the FDA’s definition. It means it can be one OR the other. They don’t have to alter gene expression in order to still qualify as gene therapy, at least not per the FDA’s definition.

Further, mRNA are molecules that contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies.

Moderna described COVID-19 shots as gene therapy

COVID-19 vaccines are not conventional vaccines made with live or attenuated viruses. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are made with lipid nanoparticles that contain polyethylene glycol and mRNA.

mRNA are snippets of genetic code that carry instructions for cells to produce proteins. The definition of genetic is “relating to genes” and genes contain instructional code that tell the body what proteins to make. Therapy is the medical treatment of disease, so mRNA vaccines are very clearly gene therapy.

As noted by David Martin, Ph.D., Moderna’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings specify and stress that its technology is a “gene therapy technology,” originally intended for cancer treatment.

So, more specifically, it’s a chemotherapy gene therapy technology.

Its mechanism of action also confirms it to be gene therapy. The mRNA gene therapies turn your cells into bioreactors that churn out viral proteins to incite an immune response, and there’s no off-switch.

Additionally, Moderna’s SEC filings specifically state that “Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA,” as well.

They changed the definition of vaccine

By referring to COVID-19 vaccines as “vaccines” rather than gene therapies, the U.S. government is violating its 15 U.S. Code Section 41, which regulates deceptive practices in medical claims. Per this law, it is unlawful to advertise:

“That a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”

“Further, you cannot have a ‘vaccine’ that does not meet the definition of a vaccine. Until as recently as 2019, Merriam-Webster defined a vaccine as ‘a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.’”

Since COVID-19 “vaccines” did not meet the former definition of vaccine, Merriam-Webster’s vaccine definition was changed to include a description of the experimental COVID-19 gene therapies:

“1: a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious disease: such as

“a: an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated (see ATTENUATED sense 2) pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin) …

“b: a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein).”

In an example of attempts to alter the perception of reality in real time, a “vaccine” went from being something that produces protective immunity to simply stimulating an immune response. The keywords “to produce immunity” were eliminated from the equation.

This makes the COVID-19 shots fit the description, as they do not make you immune against COVID-19 and weren’t designed to prevent infection in the first place.

Further, internal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) correspondence obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests shows the reason for the change was simply to shut down arguments by “right-wing COVID-19 pandemic deniers” that “COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines per CDC’s own definition.”

Do COVID shots change DNA?

The media insists COVID-19 shots don’t alter DNA.

However, Martin has brought attention to a little-known grant from the National Science Foundation, known as Darwinian chemical systems, which involved research to incorporate mRNA into targeted genomes.

According to Martin:

“Moderna was started … on the back of a 10-year National Science Foundation grant. And that grant was called Darwinian chemical systems … the project that gave rise to the Moderna company itself was a project where they were specifically figuring out how to get mRNA to write itself into the genome of whatever target they were going after.

“That could be a single-celled organism, it could be a multi-celled organism or it could be a human. And the fact of the matter is Moderna was started on the back of having proven that mRNA can be transfected and write itself into the human genome.”

It is completely unknown what the short- or long-term effects of the spike protein analog that’s inside people who received COVID-19 injections will be.

But with respect to the alteration of the genome, Martin states that data show mRNA has the capacity to write into the DNA of humans, and “as such, the long-term effects are not going to merely be symptomatic. The long-term effects are going to be the human genome of injected individuals is going to be altered.”

Reuters’ statement that mRNA vaccines are rapidly degraded by the body is also misleading. Usually, if you were to inject RNA into your body, enzymes would immediately break it apart, but the COVID-19 shots are specifically designed so that doesn’t happen.

New Release - The Vaccine Mafia - Profit, Pwers, and the Pandemic Rollout-Inside the Global mRNA Vaccine Debacle: Order Now

The Vaccine Mafia Advertisement

Real risks of COVID shots covered up

While it was originally advertised that COVID-19 shots “stay in the arm,” Pfizer knew since at least November 2020 that the shots may influence the brain.

Pfizer contracted Acuitas Therapeutics to conduct animal studies, which found lipid nanoparticles from COVID-19 shots rapidly traveled to other areas, including the brain, eyes, heart, ovaries and other organs.

While a typical vaccine must undergo 10 to 12 years of trials before it’s released, during the pandemic, COVID-19 shots were made available to the public just 10 months after development, courtesy of an Emergency Use Authorization.

Even pregnant women were subjected to the shots, and in many cases were mandated to receive them.

Again, the long-term effects are unknown, but delayed menstruation has already been confirmed following COVID-19 shots, according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology — funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health.

And the European Union has recommended that “heavy menstrual bleeding” be added as a side effect to mRNA COVID-19 shots.

The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge felt the data were compelling enough in 2021 to withdraw the shots for vulnerable populations like pregnant women, but health officials chose, instead, to make them guinea pigs for an untested, experimental shot.

No randomized trial data is available for the use of the COVID-19 shot in pregnant women, and Pfizer cut its pregnancy trial short. It has yet to make the results it did find public.

Meanwhile, as the effectiveness of natural immunity became clear, people should have been informed of this and warned of potential risks from COVID-19 shots. This way, they could make an informed decision before consenting to an experimental injection that could have serious effects.

That hasn’t happened, however. Instead, as it stands, media continues to share “fact-checked” nonsense that COVID-19 shots are not technically gene therapy, but instead are considered a “genetic-based therapy.”

Originally published by Mercola. 

Add to Google
Suggest A Correction

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
Dr. Joseph Mercola

Dr. Joseph Mercola

Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder of Mercola.com.

Categories: COVID, Health Conditions

Posted by at

COVID type shots for cancer?


Comments from a researcher I respect very much. One of the smartest people I know...

It looks like the same problem with the other mRNA jabs.

The body is being trained to attack something that the mRNA produces in your cells. The problem is, in what cells?

The mRNA, thanks to the lipids, is circulated throughout your body – or at least chunks of it do. The cells being attacked can therefore be anywhere, such as in your heart.

It might be effective in training your immune system to mass attack particular cancer cells, but it should come with the same massive amount of problems, including crippling and killing the patient.  

Other doctors involved in treating Covid using Ivermectin and Fenbendazol, or rather vets treating animals with parasites, noted that their cancers also cleared up.

In the alt space the treatment for cancer came from the anti-parasite drugs, plus also Zinc, vitamin C and perhaps a few other things.

Remember that interview with Mel Gibson on Joe Rogan where he reported he knew of celebrity friends that were recovering from cancer using those treatments?

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)