☕️ HOLOPHARMAKON ☙ Saturday, May 27, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

I expose one of two new studies as a limited hangout, a psyop intended to distract us from the dreadful implications of the other study. But both studies move us the right way: to accountability.

As this Substack has been predicting, all forms of coverups will be used to gaslight and distract the slowly awakening masses from the mounting incontrovertible evidence that the DEATHVAX™ causes VAIDS, turbo cancers, SADS, prion-based diseases etc. & etc.

The below article establishes one of the strategies that will be used to confuse a scientifically illiterate populace that is starting to increasingly suspect “Trust the Science” and “Safe and Effective.”

---

by Jeff Childers

Two new studies published this week on the same day. The Biochimie study described three separate, complex systems by which the covid proteins could promote cancer growth. The Cureus study described massive excess deaths in Germany in 2021-22, and suggested an astounding possible reason for them.

Both studies are peer-reviewed. Both studies are lengthy and highly-footnoted. Both studies were very carefully written. Both are remarkable.

But one of the studies is a limited hangout, a psyop that gives us a little bit of new, truthful information, information intended to distract us from the horrifying implications of the other study.

Today’s roundup dives deep into both remarkable studies, so we can nip this new narrative psyop right in the bud light.

🗞💬 *COVID NEWS AND COMMENTARY* 💬🗞

💉 A peer-reviewed, pre-released article intended for publication in the journal Biochimie became available online this week, titled “Possible cancer-causing capacity of COVID-19: Is SARS-CoV-2 an oncogenic agent?”

In this paper we learn about a category of diseases called “oncogenic viruses.” Oncogenic means tending to cause cancer. Notably, HIV is considered an oncogenic virus, as are herpes, leukemia virus, and hepatitis B and C.

In the article’s “highlights” section, this sensational sentence leapt off the page:

Cancer-related effects of SARS-CoV-2 proposed in this article are based on the ability of the virus and its proteins to cause cancer.

Take note of that word, “proteins.” Which proteins? Let’s see if we can find out. (Hint: it won’t be easy.)

The authors begin by noting that SARS-CoV-1 — the virus’ prior version from ten years ago — was never linked to cancer. It doesn’t promote cancer growth. So all the pro-cancer features described in the article are brand new to SARS-CoV-2. Nature was super busy working on this one! The authors say it’s too soon to connect covid-19 to cancer, because we haven’t had a decade of study yet.

Their point was that covid — coincidentally — shares certain unique features with other oncogenic viruses like HIV and hepatitis, suggesting there WILL be a link between covid and cancer:

Follow-up studies on long-term symptoms of SARS-CoV-1 have not reported cancers associated with this virus. SARS-CoV-2, due to its characteristics and inflammatory features, which will be discussed in the following parts, seems to act like oncogenic viruses but there is no direct evidence or observation over time to support this hypothesis as yet.

The article is very dense and still needs some editing for clarity. It seems like the author’s first language is not English. A note from the editors at the top of the article recognizes these problems, but says that due to the importance of the subject matter, they wanted to get it out even while they’re still editing. Peer-review is already done.

The editors didn’t say WHY it was so dang important to rush it to print before it was ready. But that will become clear in a moment.

To save you from having to struggle through, I boiled down the three different mechanisms the researchers identified in covid-19 that are oncogenic, or that promote growth of cancer.

I used the authors’ own text to avoid confusion; my edits are in brackets. Here are the three oncogenic mechanisms of covid:

[1: RAAS Dysregulation.] In SARS-CoV-2 infection, the virus binds to ACE2 and … downregulates AT1R, which leads to dysregulation of the RAAS* system[, which] leads to inflammation, vasoconstriction, fibrosis, oxidation, and capillary permeability which can all be a factor in triggering cancer progression and development[.]

(* RAAS, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system)

[2: Viral Mutagenicity.] Oncogenic viruses are recognized as inducing mutations and cell transformation pursuant to viral infection due to modulation of the cell cycle. Infection by SARS-CoV-2 is likely to block the cell cycle leading to activation of apoptotic [*cell death] mechanisms [and oncogenic mutations.]

[3: Chronic Inflammation.] SARS-CoV-2 can induce a plethora of pro-inflammatory cytokines … [this] association of chronic inflammation with autoimmune diseases and cancer has been recently [recognized in other articles].

Next, take a look at the following chart from the article, which is mostly indecipherable for those of us without advanced degrees in microbiology. I’m not trying to make you feel dumb — the chart is useful for understanding that covid-19’s “proteins” don’t just have ONE pro-cancer pathway, which would have been remarkable, but there are at least THREE.

In other words, covid’s mystery “protein” is a witches’ brew of features found in other oncogenic viruses:

Figure 1.Interactions between oncogenic factors induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection.

For completeness, explanations for all those acronyms can be found in this footnote.

¹

Anyway, looking at the chart and its shape should give you the idea. Whoever designed the virus — nature, Chinese bioweapons engineers, or Fauci and that guy from North Carolina — TRIPLED the ways that covid could encourage cancer cells to grow and flourish in the body.

Next, the researchers enumerated organ systems that are under particular risk. Again, I’ll summarize the discussion. First, the lungs:

[1: Lung Cancers.] SARS-CoV-2 triggers pulmonary interstitial fibrosis and inflammatory changes, which are known risk factors for lung cancer. Patients exposed to SARS-CoV-2, experience inflammatory changes of trachea, bronchus and alveoli. Continuous damage to alveolar epithelium leads to hyperplasia, metaplasia and fibrosis which stimulates the incidence of lung cancer.

GGO (ground glass opacity), a characteristic feature of several lung pathologies with a high-risk of developing cancer is seen in computerized tomography (CT) scans of patients with COVID-19.

The colon:

[2: Colorectal Cancer.] Intestinal dysbiosis means an imbalance of [] gut microbiota[, putting the gut] in a pathogenic state including an association with cancer in distal organs. Metagenomic sequencing (MGS) analysis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 indicates a reduced microbial diversity, loss of beneficial intestinal bacteria as well as an increase in opportunistic pathogens[,] and mortality [is] higher in elderly patients with less diverse intestinal microbiota.

SARS-CoV-2 infection may alter the regulation of the [gut microbiota], inflammation, gut permeability and thereby increase the risk of carcinogenesis and the progression of [colo-rectal cancer].

The pancreas:

[3: Pancreatic Cancers.] The early stages of pancreatic cancer are asymptomatic … until the disease has reached a critical stage[.] An in-silico study predicted that pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the most likely cancer to occur following infection with SARS-CoV-2[.] It has been hypothesized that after an infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the expression of some genes related to the pancreatic adenocarcinoma are increased.

The breasts:

[4: Breast Cancer.] The hyperglycosylated S protein of the SAR-CoV-2 gamma variant can downregulate [certain proteins] and upregulate [others, reducing the body’s natural cancer-suppressing activity.] In another study the correlation between inhibiting the SARS-CoV-2 receptor, ACE2, and breast cancer has been illustrated. [And] covid-19 treatment strategies which target ACE2 contribute to a dysregulated immune system which favors cancer progression. This … can cause metastasis of breast cancers.

Mouth and throat:

[5: Oral Cancer.] ACE2 is overexpressed in the oral cavity and covid-19 infection decreases ACE2 availability in patients, [which] can promote pro-tumoral activity.

We haven’t really seen a comprehensive breakdown of how the “covid proteins” can promote cancer growth.

Why did the editors rush this article out so quickly as a pre-release? Why did it survive peer review?

The researchers’ conclusion is the first time they used the term “malignant neoplasms,” which means cancerous tumors:

> One of the most worrying long-term effects of infection is the potential to induce malignant neoplasms, which will be a major health concern over the coming decades.

💉 You know who closely follows malignant neoplasms? Ethical Skeptic. He’s been reporting on the latest neoplasm figures every couple weeks for years. Ethical consistently reports a steady increase in neoplasms since a few months following the rollout of the jabs — except for a few types of cancer that have helpfully remained flat, allowing us to rule out “deferred treatment” as the cause for the types of increasing cancers.

In other words, if the cause was deferred screenings, then we’d expect to see ALL types of cancer increasing. Not just certain types.

One of Ethical’s most compelling charts exposes the rapid increase in spending on medical treatments for “neoplasms” (cancer) since the jabs were introduced to the population:

A few days ago, at the Third Annual European Union International COVID Summit, Dr. Cole reported (again) on all the anecdotal clinical evidence showing skyrocketing rates of “unexpected” neoplasms. At one point he asked the medical attendees to raise their hands if they were experiencing unparalleled rates of new cancer diagnoses in their practices. Dr. Cole said half the audience raised their hands.

Dr. Cole also referenced Ethical Skeptic’s findings:

https://twitter.com/ChrisGreece48/status/1659829360134615040

If anything, Ethical’s neoplasms chart seems to understate the case, perhaps because reliable data is so hard to get these days.

Next, confirming both Dr. Cole and Ethical Skeptic, there have been a raft of headlines about cancer drug shortages published just within the last few months. Here’s one from ten days ago in the New York Times:

I bet you never heard about this alarming problem. Here’s another article, from NBC just yesterday:

NBC said the shortages were record-setting:

According to a March report from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, drug shortages are at record highs.

It’s not just one company, or one drug. It’s across the board, and all at the same time:

As of Wednesday, the Food and Drug Administration listed 14 cancer drugs in shortage… “I don’t know of a time that’s worse than this,” said Dr. Julie Gralow, the chief medical officer and executive vice president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “What’s different about this shortage is, I think, it’s just the broad applicability of these drugs, how important they are[.]”

NBC tried to blame the problem on greedy drug companies and underpriced drugs. A silly suggestion. It’s obviously increased demand. What would cause increased demand for cancer drugs? Remember Ethical Skeptic’s chart on cancer drug expenditures, which confirms increased usage as well as increased purchases of the more expensive branded options after generics run out.

That’s three sources all confirming unprecedented rates of cancers. But the point isn’t that cancers — especially turbo cancers — are exploding. We already knew that.

The point is: the data is getting undeniable. They can’t keep denying it’s happening and they won’t be able to ignore it much longer.

Also remember the Biochimie study referenced some generic covid “proteins?” It never got around to saying WHICH covid protein has all the oncogenic properties. What do you want to bet the “protein” is Spike?

That’s my bet. And I’ll explain why they probably obscured that fact in a minute.

The German Excess Deaths Study

💉 Also last week, a different peer-reviewed article published in the journal Cureus, titled “Estimation of Excess Mortality in Germany During 2020-2022.”

This peer-reviewed article is hard to ignore, and you’ll be shocked when you see what the researchers suggested was the possible mechanism to explain the unprecedented levels of mortality. The researchers were surprised to find NO excess death in 2020 — the most intense year of the pandemic — but to find 100,000 extra people unexpectedly died in 2021 and 2022.

A hundred thousand is a lot of folks, especially in a country about the size of Montana with only 83 million citizens.

Here’s how the researchers teased readers in their conclusion, which appears early in the study, right after the introduction:

Something happened. Something! Something in Spring 2021. That sentence tantalizes; why don’t they just say it? Actually, despite our frustration, we don’t expect them to say it. At this point, we’re used to disappointment. You know the drill. Baffled scientists. Loony theories like deferred cancer screenings. Bizarre, untestable new illnesses like Long Covid Syndrome. Meanwhile people keep keeling over.

But … this PEER-REVIEWED article turned out to be different, even though it wasn’t immediately obvious. It’s a long study. It has lots of sleep-inducing math in it. But then, late in the study, something appeared, an eye-popping sentence that finally, finally said it:

This started a nearly unbelievable section about the temporal (time-based) correlations between the vaccines and the excess deaths in Germany. The researchers even included a helpful chart:

By this point, I was tapping the keyboard in frustration. They already let the mRNA cat out of the drug sack. Why not just come right out and say it? And then, remarkably, they pretty much said it: “During period when many persons were vaccinated, excess mortality seems to have increased.”

Don’t overlook the first sentence, “the obvious hypothesis of a decrease in excess mortality with an increasing number of vaccinated persons is not correct.” What they’re saying is, the data shows that the jabs DON’T WORK. We already know the jabs don’t stop infections, nobody is even arguing about that debunked lie now. What they’re saying is that the data doesn’t show that the jabs even reduced deaths.

The covidians have argued, and will keep arguing, that the highly-massaged data shows the vaccines slightly reduced deaths … from covid. But the German researchers are rightly pointing out that the vaccines appear to have increased all-cause mortality.

A vaccine that lowers your risk of dying from covid a little, but increases your risk of dying from cancer a lot, isn’t any kind of vaccine that anybody should be taking.

So, it’s encouraging and deeply-satisfying that we finally have a peer-reviewed journal article drawing the completely conspicuous conclusion, a conclusion obvious to untrained eyes and to minds of medium intelligence.

Now let’s tie it all together. What’s the new narrative they’re pushing?

The Newest Narrative

The German excess deaths study shows us that excess mortality is finally becoming impossible to ignore: it’s been elevated for two consecutive years now, two years during which the miraculous jabs had their chance to do their work but failed, and the link to the vaccines is looking a lot like an obvious candidate for the deaths, as the German researchers properly noticed.

So here is where the narrative makers are trying to pull a quick psyop on us. They need a way to blame the excess deaths on something besides the jabs. It needs to be compelling. It needs to be airtight. It needs to be distracting. So they’ll probably have to use something true.

The hastily approved, quickly peer-reviewed Biochimie study on covid’s oncogenic properties offers covidians a handy-dandy explanation for both the excess deaths and the timing problems. If they can show covid causes cancer — and I believe it can — then they can attribute the excess deaths to the virus. And the lag making the excess deaths LOOK attributable to the vaccines can also be attributed to the lag time required for cancer to develop and be diagnosed — and remember, the hospitals were deferring cancer screenings.

It all makes sense.

But the giveaway is that the Biochimie study never once mentioned the spike protein, instead generically referring to “covid proteins.”

Why obscure the role of spike? It’s literally unbelievable that a highly-accurate, peer-reviewed article like this one, which goes into mind-numbing detail about all the specific genes and microscopic components of the oncogenic EFFECTS of the covid proteins, never actually gets around to any particular specificity about which genetic parts of the “covid proteins” are oncogenic.

It’s like they’re not even curious.

Why not mention the spike? There’s a good reason. BECAUSE THE JABS PRODUCE BILLIONS MORE SPIKE THAN THE VIRUS. Maybe trillions. If the spike protein IS oncogenic, then jabbed people are far more at risk of cancer than are naturally infected people. In an infected person, spike hangs out in the body for around eight days. In a jabbed person, spike is being steadily produced for at least four months, and maybe much longer, especially if people keep getting boosted.

In other words, any elevated cancer risk caused by covid infections only lasts a few days. But elevated cancer risk from the jabs will last for months or even years.

The bottom line is, they can’t talk about spike without hauling the jabs into the discussion.

So the new narrative that we’re supposed to believe is that covid INFECTION causes cancer and the jabs help prevent that from happening. Don’t buy it. Covid might cause cancer, but if it does, it does to at fractional rates compared to the jabs.

The vaccine trials only observed participants for a couple weeks, and then the drugmakers “unblinded” the studies, making it impossible to compare jabbed versus unjabbed after that.

Assuming the Biochimie study is right, and I think it is, the most charitable view is they were criminally negligent, taking a never-seen-before protein — from what they themselves hysterically labeled a “novel” coronavirus — without knowing what the spike did or what the long-term consequences of having it hanging around in the body would be, and then injected it right into most of the population including pregnant women and children.

And don’t forget the public health establishment’s role in suppressing any dissenting voices and constantly lying to everyone about the beneficial effects of the magic snake oil. That was also criminally negligent, at best.

The less charitable views include crimes against humanity, international prosecutions, and capital punishment after trial.

Spikes and Limited Hangouts

I think the best way to look at the Biochimie study is as a limited hangout. In addition to hiding the role of spike, the researchers also failed to discuss the other unmistakable implication of covid’s brand-new, three-way oncogenic mechanisms.

These three mechanisms provide strong evidence that covid is a designer bioweapon. OF COURSE it is. I suppose we should at least give the authors credit for not gaslighting us by marveling at nature’s inventiveness in accidentally adding three different ways to promote cancerous growth — during the handful of years between SARS-1 and SARS-2, which is barely the twinkling of an eye in evolutionary time.

Three different oncogenic pathways, three pathways that had each appeared before in other malign viruses like HIV and Hepatitis, and so were handily available to genetic engineers, if they’d wanted them, that is.

By disclosing in great detail exactly how covid promotes neoplasmic growth, they are trying to stitch together a coverup blanket, a new narrative to throw over the explosion in turbo cancers and blame the excess deaths on the virus.

After all, you can’t sue or or even criminally accuse a virus, unlike public health officials and military bioweapons designers.

In other words, the Biochimie study looks like a limited hangout. They kept this oncogenic information under wraps, preventing it from reaching the journals, because it really condemns the jabs and provides even more evidence of covid’s bioengineered origins.

But now they need this information to distract us from what can no longer be denied.

I’ll wrap up by reminding you of the final part of Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address, which looms large in highlighting the somber duty that we, the living, owe to those Americans who sacrificed their lives when asked by their government to take the military-designed shot, in order to “protect others.”

Lincoln’s words are as significant now as they were in 1863:

“It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

We will not allow the deaths of our brothers and sisters, who mistakenly trusted public health, to be in vain. Their deaths will fuel, if not demand, a long overdue final accounting.

It’s coming. There is no way to stop it. There WILL be an accounting for this iatrogenic Holopharmakon. It is a moral imperative.

Have a wonderful weekend. I’ll see you back here on Monday for an uplifting roundup to kick your week off the right way.

---

Iatrogenic democide indeed.

Luckily, we know that compounds like Ivermectin can help soak up the deadly spike proteins, and attenuate much of the slow kill bioweapon damage.

Do NOT comply.