November 30, 2021



What is Luciferase?

How a firefly enzyme that glows might herald the end of the world

By Emerald Robinson via CitizenFreePress

As most of my followers on social media and Substack must know by now, I have spent a considerable amount of time the last two years trying to discover the actual ingredients of the new COVID vaccines. The reason is simple: Big Pharma has gone to considerable trouble to hide them.

Do the Big Pharma companies want to submit the vaccines to independent analysis? They do not! Do the Big Pharma companies want to disclose all the ingredients? They do not! Do the Big Pharma companies have any liability for lying to the public about the proprietary ingredients in their vaccines? They do not.

We have a leaked copy of the legal agreement that Big Pharma companies (allegedly) have forced nation-states to sign in order to get the new COVID vaccines. These contracts include indemnification clauses that no sane human being would ever sign. This copy leaked from Albania:

One thing is certain: Big Pharma is not standing behind these products. They’re totally experimental and untested and so forth — so why are the world’s governments so hellbent on injecting their citizens with this stuff?

I received a tip regarding some of these ingredients, and so I did what nobody in American corporate journalism does anymore: I checked the primary sources.

Allow me to share my secret and very profound methodology:

1) I went to the MODERNA website.

2) I clicked to the PATENTS page.

3) I found PATENT US 10,703,789

4) I conducted a keyword search for something called: Luciferase.

Such are the complex technical skills which have been lost by corporate journalists. So what did I find there? Well, sitting on page 46 in table 4, you will see that I found something called Luciferase:

.. ..

What’s Luciferase?

Luciferase is an enzyme that can produce bioluminescence. (It can make things glow, basically.) That’s why Luciferase is commonly used in the biomedical industry. It’s used to tag very tiny things like cells or proteins so that you can track them.

It tags things so you can track them.

Was Luciferase listed as an ingredient in the COVID vaccines by Big Pharma? No it was not. (You can check here at the CDC website.) So the next question becomes: why would Big Pharma not disclose that Luciferase is an ingredient in the vaccines – since it’s clearly listed (in at least one patent from one company) as being used?

The reason is rather ominous: Big Pharma has big plans for Luciferase and Big Government has big plans for it too. The U.S. military’s technology arm DARPA is currently fighting with Moderna over the ownership of the COVID vaccine because DARPA has “funded an implantable biochip” that could be used “to deploy” it:

Despite this, however, one obstacle to the deployment of Moderna’s vaccine is the method of delivery. While Moderna is developing its own system, it’s unlikely to get Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval any time soon. Enter Profusa, which is developing a nanoscale biochip that can detect symptoms of an infection.

Profusa’s biochip is made using a technology called “hydrogels” that were a product of the “In Vivo Nanoplatforms” (IVN) program that DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office (BTO) launched in 2014 to develop implantable nanotechnologies.

These hydrogels are soft, flexible nanomachines that are injected beneath the skin to perform monitoring. This hydrogel includes a specially engineered molecule that sends a fluorescent signal outside the body when it begins to fight infection. This signal can then be detected by a sensor attached to the skin that can then be sent to an app or even to a doctor’s website.

Why is the U.S. military working with vaccine companies to create micro-chips (that’s “hydrogels” or “nanotech”!) that will send a “fluorescent signal” (that’s Luciferase!) detectable by an app on your smartphone? When did DARPA get involved in public health policy exactly? That strange question leads to other strange questions like: why did the Pentagon fund the Wuhan Lab of Virology to “study” weaponizing bat coronaviruses? Neither DARPA nor the Pentagon are well known for being leaders in health care, to say the very least.

In fact, Big Pharma and Big Government have big plans for future vaccine shots that have “dissolvable needles” and quantum dot tattoos along with other amazing technology like embedding vaccine records beneath the skin of your children with invisible ink. According to one article: “Along with the vaccine, a child would be injected with a bit of dye that is invisible to the naked eye but easily seen with a special cell-phone filter, combined with an app that shines near-infrared light onto the skin.” That article was written in 2019: that’s just before the COVID crisis. That leads me to another thought: COVID-19 seems to be a very convenient “accidental lab leak” from China for introducing new technology.

Under the cover of vaccinating people, we are really preparing to tag and track people. The once free nations of the West are testing a new authoritarian system of total control under the guise of public health. Just look at Australia or New Zealand or Canada or Italy to see how basic civil rights have been suspended indefinitely and a pseudo-medical tyranny has been installed. The Great Reset is being implemented with the lie that it’s all about “protecting your health.” Our military and intelligence agencies are not confronting China — they’re copying China. A totalitarian nightmare is being imported into free countries through surveillance technologies.

You don’t have to be a Christian to understand that such technology will be used to build a global surveillance state. The vaccine mandates have already led to vaccine passports. The vaccine passports are basically QR codes to track you by connecting to your smartphone. This will inevitably lead very soon to biometric ID embedded into your body. You won’t be able to enter restaurants or buy groceries or go to work without it. As the Bible says: no one will be able to buy or sell anything except those that have the mark. You will know the mark by its name, which is the name of the beast: the enemy of all mankind who, before he fell, was an angel of light named Lucifer. That’s why “Luciferase” should send a chill down your spine.

So I sent out the following tweet to my followers (with a video showing the Luciferase patent information) earlier this week:

This one tweet was sufficient, apparently, to get the word “Luciferase” trending on Twitter. (I didn’t notice at the time because I was busy covering the Glenn Youngkin victory on election night.) It was not until the next day that it became clear this one tweet had stirred up all the Big Pharma bots working remotely from Beijing.

The largest producer of misinformation in America, The Washington Post, ran a piece on my tweet where I was branded a “COVID conspiracy theorist.” The Daily Beast ran a piece and then ran a second piece. Something called The Hill ran a piece. The forgotten boomer finance magazine Forbes got involved. Vanity Fair, the perfume ad magazine, did a little column on it. Then it became an international thing with The Independent and The Daily Mail chiming in.

When corporate media outlets around the English-speaking world all start to scream in such coordinated fashion, you know you’ve hit a nerve. Why would they suddenly go crazy over the COVID vaccine ingredients?

It’s because Big Journalism is being paid by Big Pharma to not disclose the truth. In fact, Big Pharma is paying Big Journalism to actively hide the truth around the world. Why do you think the COVID journalist Alex Berenson got kicked off Twitter? Why did the corporate media unleash a hate campaign against feminist icon Naomi Wolf? Why isn’t ex-Pfizer chief scientist Dr. Michael Yeadon allowed to speak? How is it possible that the inventor of mRNA vaccines himself, Dr. Robert Malone, is not a household name around the world? You know the answer: they have all warned us about the dangers of the new COVID vaccines. They have been silenced by Big Tech and Big Pharma because they have all dared to tell the truth.

They are not alone. How many thousands have been banned or suspended already by Big Tech for questioning the COVID vaccines in our supposedly free nation? How many of your civil rights, your constitutional rights, can they trample before your very eyes? America is no longer a constitutional republic: it’s more like a corporate oligarchy where Big Pharma and Big Tech and Big Government tell you every day what you’re allowed to do on Zoom calls from the CDC with Dr. Fauci. They’re not even pretending anymore. This is something like Day 575 of “15 days to slow the spread.” Our so-called civil servants and elected officials are never going to give up their new “emergency powers” on their own. They mean to rule over us, and everybody knows it.

That’s why the COVID-19 pandemic is being used to force everyone to get the new vaccines. That’s why natural immunity doesn’t count to anyone in the medical community. That’s why religious exemptions have disappeared at your work, along with medical exemptions. That’s why Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (and every other therapeutic drug) were swiftly outlawed. That’s why your 5 year old child will be “encouraged” and then coerced and then forced to take the jab, just as you were “encouraged” and then coerced and then forced to take the jab. That’s why the global vaccination campaign never stops when the already vaccinated start to get sick with COVID, or young boys suddenly die from heart inflammation, or world famous soccer players collapse on TV in the middle of games. That’s why health data (whether from Israel or Sweden or Florida or your local hospital) is totally irrelevant. The vaccine is being forced on everyone because the vaccine and the vaccine passport are the essential tools of a global surveillance system that will end everyone’s basic human freedom.

You have been warned.

More at:


COVID vaccines cut the risk of transmitting Delta — but not for long

A person who was fully vaccinated and then had a ‘breakthrough’ Delta infection was almost twice as likely to pass on the virus as someone who was infected with Alpha

The first study to look directly at how well vaccines prevent the spread of the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 brings good news and bad.

The study shows that people who become infected with the Delta variant are less likely to pass the virus to their close contacts if they have already had a COVID-19 vaccine than if they haven’t1. But that protective effect is relatively small, and dwindles alarmingly at three months after the receipt of the second shot.

The findings add to scientists’ understanding of the vaccination’s effect on curbing Delta’s spread, but are “both more and less encouraging”, says Marm Kilpatrick, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Previous studies have found that people infected with Delta have roughly the same levels of viral genetic materials in their noses regardless of whether they’d previously been vaccinated, suggesting that vaccinated and unvaccinated people might be equally infectious2. But studies also suggest that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus if they subsequently catch Delta: their levels of nasal virus drop faster than do those of unvaccinated infected people, and their nasal swabs contain smaller amounts of infectious virus3,4.

The latest study examined the effect of vaccines on transmission more directly. It analysed testing data from 139,164 close contacts of 95,716 people infected with SARS-CoV-2 between January and August 2021 in the United Kingdom, when the Alpha and Delta variants were competing for dominance.

The authors found that although the vaccines did offer some protection against infection and onward transmission, Delta dampened that effect. A person who was fully vaccinated and then had a ‘breakthrough’ Delta infection was almost twice as likely to pass on the virus as someone who was infected with Alpha. And that was on top of the higher risk of having a breakthrough infection caused by Delta than one caused by Alpha.

Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus.

A reduction was also observed in people vaccinated with the jab made by US company Pfizer and German firm BioNTech. The risk of spreading the Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab was 42%, but increased to 58% with time.

Delta vaults ahead

“There’s a step-change with Alpha versus Delta, but then there’s also a change over time,” says co-author David Eyre, an epidemiologist at the University of Oxford, UK. The results “possibly explain why we’ve seen so much onward transmission of Delta despite widespread vaccination”.

But the results also offer the “intriguing possibility that if you do run a booster campaign because you want to protect individuals, it may also have this effect of reducing transmission,” says Eyre.

Booster campaigns raise a new uncertainty, says Stephen Riley, an infectious-diseases researcher at Imperial College London: “whether the same waning of protection from infectiousness will occur after the third dose”.

More at:


Pfizer data REVEAL – Where do the lipid nanoparticles of the mRNA vaccine collect in the human body?

Spike protein collects in ovaries and bone marrow according to Pfizer data from Japan. Clip from DarkHorse podcast. Discussion with Robert Malone, Steve Kirsch and Bret W.


Confirming CO2’S Non-Involvement In Global Warming

Published on September 23, 2021

Written by Roger Higgs

Global warming-cooling mimic solar variations (150-year delay), absolving CO2, portending 50 cooler years, confirming NASA-HadCRUT inflated 1980-2020 warming

Published high-resolution graphs of solar activity and Greenland temperatures (proxies; Wu, Vinther) of the last 9,000 years (9ky) strongly correlate visually, with clearly matching spikes and centennial-millennial trends (Slide 2).

(Contrast Marcott graph of global Holocene temperature, spikeless due to lower resolution and smoothing, Slide 2 inset). The correlation is even clearer after back-tilting (de-trending) the temperature graph to compensate for long-term cooling by Earth’s declining obliquity (Slide 2 inset).

Image: Herrera et al 2015

An obvious temperature delay of 100-200y (Slide 2) is attributable to oceanic thermal inertia (vast heat capacity, slow AMOC global circulation; cf. Abdussamatov 15-20y theoretical lag). The lag aligns, for example, the 8.2-kiloyear event cooling-warming couplet (nadir 6210BC) with an exceptional solar grand minimum-maximum couplet (nadir 6435BC); and aligns Modern Warming (from 1850; ongoing recovery from Sun-driven Little Ice Age) with the Sun’s 1695-1958AD surge,

Likewise the strongest in 9ky (Slide 2). Focusing on the last 1ky, solar output (Brehm) matches global temperature (PAGES2k); 150-200y lag aligns the Little Ice Age (1440-1920) and the Wolf-through-Maunder solar minima (1270-1720; Slide 3). Lastly, the NASA and HadCRUT near-identical global thermometer graphs mimic the smoothed 1700-2020 sunspot series; 140-160y lag aligns their respective modern surges and multi-decade downturns (e.g. 1795-1820 Dalton Minimum equates to 1945-75 cooling; Slide 4).

Exposing NASA-HadCRUT inaccuracy, the correlation predicts roughly equal warmth for the1930–50 (‘dustbowl’) and 2000–20 warm spells (based on equality of their corresponding solar ‘humps’; Slide 4), but NASA-HadCRUT claim 2000-2020 was far (~0.7C°) warmer (Slides 5, 6); this despite their own Arctic differential being less (~0.5C°; Slide 5), violating polar amplification.

The 2000-2020warm interval follows (and continues) 20yof land (surface-air) warming supposedly twice as fast as sea-surface temperature (SST; Slides 4, 6); inexplicably this began abruptly (1980; Slide 6).

Such land-sea decoupling is impossible because SST dictates average land-air temperature (Humlum; presumably by advection of sea air warmed [or cooled] by the sea), as evidenced also by their equality (within error) up until 1980 (Slide 6). This confirms NASA-HadCRUT inflated post-1980 land temperatures by improper urbanization adjustments (McKitrick, Richard, Heller, Connolly). In the entire 9ky, the only resemblance between CO2 and temperature is their simultaneous surge from ~1850 (Industrial Revolution onset) (Slide 7).

But CO2 is accelerating, unlike warming (except manipulated land graph, Slide 6); and CO2 does not express the 1880-1910 and 1945-75 coolings, or the 1998-2012 hiatus (Slide 7); nor does it express any of the pre-1850 warmings that rivaled Modern Warming’s rate (Slide 7). Thus our Sun drives climate (Denton); CO2’s theoretical greenhouse-warming potential, already (at 400pm) reduced “well into the saturation regime” (van Wijngaarden), must be cancelled by negative feedbacks (Higgs1, Higgs2). Knowing oceanic lag is ~150y enables temperature prediction.

Cooling in progress since the2016 warm peak (equates to 1870 peak of Sunspot Cycle 11, Slide 4) will last another 5-10y (Cycle 11 to 12 sharp decline). Relative coolness will ensue for 50-60y (weak Cycles 12-16). Subsequent warming (rise from Cycle 16) will climax ~2110 (~150y after Cycle 19 sunspot superpeak of 1958) or 2140 (Cycle 22 magnetic superpeak 1991), depending on which solar property drives climate (Svensmark).

Maximum temperatures will possibly exceed those of 6600-5600BC (Slide 2). Decades of cooling will follow (ongoing solar decline since 1958/1991; Slide 4).

See more here:


COVID-19 jabs are ‘not really vaccines’: Top infectious disease expert Christian Perrone

Robie Le Chat   September 3, 2021  4 min read

“If you are vaccinated with an efficient vaccine, you are protected. You should not have to wear a mask anymore; you should have a normal life.” 

PARIS, France (LifeSiteNews) – A prominent French scientist with extensive expertise in infectious diseases has called the COVID-19 vaccines “dangerous” and stated that they “are not really vaccines.”

In an interview he gave to British news organization UK Column, Professor Christian Perronne also called the international government-led vaccination campaign “a great mistake.”

Perronne is one of France’s foremost expert on infectious diseases. Until recently, he was the head of the Medical Department for Infectious Diseases at Raymond Point Carré hospital in Garches, a post he held from early 1994. Raymond Point Carré hospital is the teaching hospital for the University of Versailles-St Quentin near Paris. Perronne is also a fellow at Institut Pasteur, a world-renowned biomedical research center.  

But in spite of his many years of service in the French healthcare sector and his infectious diseases expertise, Perronne was dismissed as head of the Medical Department for Infectious Diseases at Raymond Pointcarré hospital following a number of statements he made in defense of hydroxychloroquine and for criticizing the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic. His critique included the vaccination campaign.  

Perronne has also been the victim of censure and censorship by the French media, who paint him as a conspiracy theorist. His reputation has been badly damaged by these attacks, and he has been ostracized and discredited by his former colleagues. The French medical elite are working hand in glove with pharmaceutical lobbies and have aligned themselves with the official policy of the French government on the management of the COVID-19 crisis.  

The danger of the vaccines 

Perronne began the interview by insisting that he is not against vaccines as such.  

“I am not anti-vaccine because I wrote the vaccination policy for France for a great many years,” he told UK Column’s chief editor Brian Gerrish.

“The problem is that the products they call ‘vaccines’ for Covid-19 are not really vaccines.” 

The worst part is that the first “vaccines” that we are offered are not vaccines, but gene therapy products. We will inject nucleic acids that will cause the production of parts of the virus by our own cells. We absolutely do not know the consequences of this injection, because it is a first in humans. What if the cells of some “vaccinees” made too many viral elements, causing uncontrollable reactions in our body? The first gene therapies will be with RNA, but there are projects with DNA. Normally, in our cells, the message is sent from DNA to RNA, but the reverse is possible in certain circumstances, especially since our human cells have since the dawn of time contain so-called “endogenous” retroviruses integrated into the body. The DNA of our chromosomes. These “domesticated” retroviruses that inhabit us are usually harmless (unlike HIV, AIDS retrovirus for example), but they can produce an enzyme, reverse transcriptase, capable of transcribing backwards, from RNA to DNA. . Thus an RNA foreign to our body and administered by injection could encode DNA, just as foreign, which can then integrate into our chromosomes. There is therefore a real risk of transforming our genes permanently.There is also the possibility, by modifying the nucleic acids of our eggs or sperm, to transmit these genetic modifications to our children. The people who promote these gene therapies, falsely called “vaccines” are sorcerer’s apprentices and take the French and more generally the citizens of the world, for guinea pigs . We do not want to become, like transgenic tomatoes or corn, GMOs (genetically modified organisms).A medical official from one of the manufacturing pharmaceutical companies said a few days ago that he hoped for an effect of personal protection, but that one should not hope too much for an impact on the transmission of the virus, therefore on the dynamics of the ‘epidemic. This is a disguised admission that it is not a vaccine. A shame.” – From: Open letter from Professor Christian Perronne

Perronne has studied in detail the various products now commonly referred to as “COVID vaccines;” he says they are better described as “genetic modifiers.” He explained that the process on which their supposed efficacy is based is dangerous, as it involves the uncontrolled production of proteins by the body.  

“When you inject messenger RNA to produce a huge amount of a spike protein, a fragment of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, you can’t control the process,” he stated.  

When asked why the vaccination campaign was permitted, the professor replied: “I think you should put this question to the politicians because in the history of infectious disease medicine,it has never happened that a state or politicians recommend systematic vaccinations for billions of people on the planet for a disease whose rate of mortality now is 0.05%.” 

In December 2020, the French professor expressed in an open letter his concerns regarding COVID “vaccines,” warning of their potential danger.

More at:


Japanese medical association chairman tells doctors to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID

Robie Le Chat   August 27, 2021  4 min read

Fri Aug 27, 2021 – 2:48 pm EDT

TOKYO (LifeSiteNews) – The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Haruo Ozaki, held a press conference this week announcing that the anti-parasite medicine Ivermectin seems to be effective at stopping COVID-19 and publicly recommending that all doctors in Japan immediately begin using Ivermectin to treat COVID.

Ivermectin has been a source of controversy amongst medical professionals regarding the possibility of therapeutic treatments for those diagnosed with COVID-19.

In an article about the suppression of Ivermectin by health authorities, Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote: “While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments.”

Multiple reports and studies have shown evidence that Ivermectin is effective in combatting illness associated with COVID-19, and in some countries, like India, it is recommended for use even though the World Health Organization does not recommend it.

Dr. Ozaki cited evidence from African nations that have utilized Ivermectin during the pandemic. He stated: “In Africa, if we compare countries distributing Ivermectin once a year with countries who do not give Ivermectin… they don’t give Ivermectin to prevent COVID but to prevent parasitic disease… if we look at COVID numbers in countries that give Ivermectin, the number of cases is 134.4/100,000 and the number of deaths is 2.2/100,000.”

In 2019, Japan’s death rate from influenza amounted to 2.9 death cases per 100,000 inhabitants.

The Tokyo Medical Association chairman compared statistics from African countries that did use Ivermectin yearly with those that did not: “Now African countries which do not distribute Ivermectin: 950.6 cases per 100,000 and 29.3 deaths per 100,000.”

In his opinion, he believes that this shows a clear difference between the illness and fatality rates amongst nations that use Ivermectin and those that do not: “I believe the difference is clear. Of course one cannot conclude that Ivermectin is effective only on the basis of these figures, but when we have all of these elements, we cannot say that Ivermectin is absolutely not effective, at least not me.”

He added that, given the situation, other studies can be done to “confirm its efficacy,” insinuating that it is worth using as a treatment, given that in his estimation, Japan is “in a crisis situation.”

He said, “I think we are in a situation where we can afford to give [patients] this treatment.”

Another prominent Japanese physician, Dr. Kazuhiro Nagao, appeared on Japanese television proposing that COVID-19 should be treated as a Class 5 illness as opposed to its current classification as a Class 2. In Japan, illnesses are categorized by a classification system; approaching COVID as a Class 5 illness would mean that it could be treated like a seasonal flu.

Dr. Nagao said he has used Ivermectin as an early treatment for over 500 COVID patients with practically a 100% success rate, and that it should be used nationwide.

About the effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating COVID patients, he said: “It starts being effective the very next day… My patients can reach me by message 24/7 and they tell me they feel better the next day.”

Nagao was asked by the TV anchor when patients should take Ivermectin if diagnosed with COVID-19. He replied: “The same day, I mean if you are infected today, you take it today… It is a medication that should be given for mildly ill patients. If you give it to hospital patients, it’s too late. This is also the case for the majority of drugs… So you have to give Ivermectin. I am asking our Prime Minister Suga to distribute this drug ‘made in Japan’ on a large scale in the country.”

He added that four pills should be distributed to everyone in the country, so that people can take them “as soon as you are infected.”

Ivermectin originates from a single microbe unearthed from soil in Japan, and in recent years has been called a “wonder” drug that continues to surprise and exceed expectations. It has shown “unexpected” potential as an antibacterial, antiviral and anti-cancer agent, according to a 2017 article from The Journal of Antibiotics.

The same article stated: “Ivermectin has also been demonstrated to be a potent broad-spectrum specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear transport and demonstrates antiviral activity against several RNA viruses by blocking the nuclear trafficking of viral proteins.”

Recently, pro-life activist Abby Johnson wrote about her experience with a COVID and her use of Ivermectin as an early treatment. She wrote that under the guidance of America’s Frontline Doctors, she took a combination of Ivermectin, Prednisone and Zithromax, and that she noticed results straight away, and by the fifth day felt fully cured.

More at:


The astonishing hubris of an experimental vaccine


It is an objective, indisputable fact: never in the history of the world has there been a global push to administer an experimental medicine to all of humanity, billions of us, at the same time.

I want you to stop and reflect on that. Imagine the hubris it required both to carry out this plan and to propagandize the world to carry it out.

“Hubris?” you ask. “What do you mean?”

The COVID vaccines are experimental. The FDA has not approved them. Most vaccines require years to test and approve, in no small part because we want to make sure they don’t have dangerous long-term side effects, which they can have; the CDC has published a list of problems with selected approved vaccines. Many experimental vaccines never make it out of the experimental phase. CNN made similar points back when Trump was, wrongheadedly (I thought so at the time) pushing for rapid approval of the COVID vaccines. Of course, the mercurial news organization hastened to forget all that when the Biden administration decided rapid vaccine deployment was a good idea. They shouldn’t have: for all the good they certainly have done, physicians warn us that vaccines can be dangerous for some, and experimental vaccines are, naturally, even more so.

It is an objective, indisputable fact: never in the history of the world has there been a global push to administer an experimental medicine to all of humanity, billions of us, at the same time.

Again, my point is simple and absolutely factual. Again:

  • experimental vaccine
  • billions of people (over two billion)
  • at the same time

You have to be willing to trust the welfare of billions of people not just to the honesty of our leaders and scientists — because things can go wrong for decent people. You must also trust their competence — and not just that, because competent people can make surprising, unforeseeable mistakes. You must also trust that we avoided the worst, that we dodged a bullet, and that they actually succeeded in making a more or less safe vaccine.

Of course, maybe they did. I sure hope so. But what if we discover some horrifically high incidence of catastrophic side-effects that do not show up for two or five or ten years? Scientists tell us that that is possible. It is unfortunately possible that more people will die from these experimental vaccines than would have died from a virus that kills fewer than 1% of those who contract it.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not claiming that is happening. I am not even saying that it is terribly likely. I am saying it is possible, because these are experimental vaccines.

More at:


Why forgetting things is the BEST way to improve your memory: Offbeat tips to boost your brainpower from top neuroscientist Lisa Genova

Robie Le Chat   August 23, 2021  6 min read

August 23, 2021

To understand what her grandmother was suffering when diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, neuroscientist LISA GENOVA researched the disease and then wrote an emotionally powerful book, Still Alice, about a woman living with the condition. It was turned into an Oscar-winning film starring Julianne Moore. Harvard-trained Genova has now published a fascinating book about how memories are made and how we retrieve them. 

Every day your brain performs myriad miracles: it sees, hears, tastes, smells, feels pain and processes a wide range of emotions. It plans things and solves problems. It keeps you from bumping into walls or falling down stairs. It comprehends and produces language. It mediates your desire for chocolate and sex, and your ability to empathise with the joy and suffering of others.

And it can remember.

Of all the complex and wondrous miracles that your brain executes, memory is king. Indeed, memory allows us to have a sense of who we are and who we’ve been. But for all its miraculous powers, memory is fallible.

Although forgetting is usually cast as the ‘bad guy’, it can actually be very good for you – being a perfectly normal way to adapt to the onslaught of information that you receive all day.

Our brains have evolved to remember what is meaningful. The brain isn’t designed to retain routine or predictable information. Forgetting allows us to get rid of any unnecessary, irrelevant, interfering or even painful memories that might distract us or make us miserable.

The ability to perform a previously learned skill – muscle memory – is different, being your unconscious memory for motor skills and procedures such as driving a car.

Ultimately, an optimally functioning memory involves a finely orchestrated balancing act between data storage and data disposal: remembering and forgetting.

Now, where did i put my glasses?

The most common reason for not remembering facts and information is not having paid attention. Attention is the first necessary ingredient in memory formation. So, if you don’t notice where you put your glasses, you can’t form a memory of where you placed them.

As we age, we also become less able to concentrate on more than one thing at a time. So, if two things are going on at once, we’ll be less likely to remember either of them, or possibly both.

But be reassured, all this is perfectly normal and not a sign of imminent dementia.

Keys do not belong in the fridge

There’s a very clear distinction between ‘normal’ forgetting and dementia.

If you eventually find your lost keys on the table or in your coat pocket, that moment of forgetfulness is probably normal. Frustrating, yes, but nothing to worry about. 

Most likely, you simply didn’t pay attention to where you put them.

However, if you find you’ve put your keys in the fridge, that’s more concerning.

More worrying still is if, when you find your keys, you wonder: ‘What are these for?’ 

This could be a symptom of dementia.

Oh, it’s on the tip of my tongue…

A very common memory failure is called ‘blocking’. You’re trying to fetch a word, most often a pronoun (a person’s name, film title, city), but even if it feels as though it’s on the tip of your tongue, you can’t produce it. But, rest assured, blocking on a word is a normal glitch in memory retrieval and no reason for concern.

Sometimes it helps to get a sneak peek of the forgotten word by way of the first letter or the number of syllables. The elusive word often eventually pops into consciousness, usually thanks to a ‘retrieval cue’ that’s strong enough to trigger its activation.

My advice? Look it up on the internet. No need to be a memory martyr. You don’t think twice about augmenting your vision with spectacles, so why not your memory?

Memory is scattered throughout the brain as neural activity that was stimulated when the original smell, sound, sight or emotion was experienced. So the process of remembering is a scavenger hunt around all these disparate, but connected, parts of the brain.

If you stimulate one aspect of the memory (a smell or an image), you can trigger activation of the linked memory circuit, which then brings forth the whole memory.

That’s why you might be unable to remember a single word of Abba’s Dancing Queen until someone else sings the first lyrics. Then you can belt out the entire song.

Now master the 3Rs – and ignore the pain

If you don’t revisit a memory, it’ll erode with the passage of time so, to retain it, you need to keep activating it with the 3Rs: reminiscence, rehearsal, repetition.

And if you want to forget a painful memory, don’t repeat the story of what happened, either with others or in your thoughts. If you discipline yourself to leave those memories alone, they’ll fade.

I know i came in here for something…

Often, you may find yourself having walked into a room but don’t know why you went in. 

Instead of standing there, trying to force the answer into your conscious brain, return to the previous room – either physically or in your mind’s eye – to revisit the context. 

It should graciously deliver the answer.

Much more from this fascinating article at:



September 1, 2021

How the Bayh-Dole Act Wrested Public Science From the People’s Hands

1979: Inventing Competitiveness

ON THE MORNING of June 6, 1979, Navy Adm. Hyman G. Rickover, the longest-serving officer in the history of the U.S. armed services, sat down before a Senate subcommittee on the Constitution. Famous as the father of the nuclear submarine program, Rickover had recently emerged as that rarest of Washington breeds: a top-brass crusader against waste and corruption in defense contracting. On this day, he deployed his reputation and characteristic bluntness to stop a bill called the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act.

At stake was the government’s long-standing proprietorship of patents on inventions resulting from the research it underwrote. The proposed legislation would hand patents over to the private contractors that conducted research at government expense, essentially gutting the government’s ownership stake and paving the way for monopolization. The bill’s supporters — those in favor of removing this block — included drug companies, venture capital firms, university patent offices, and the nascent biotech industry. Those opposed to this sweeping change in federal patent policy were led by a fading Democratic coalition committed to New Deal ideas about antitrust regulation, patents, and public science controlled in the public interest. Rickover was a lone but strong military voice for this coalition: a war hero with the authority of having overseen the construction of the first nuclear propulsion systems, one of the most complex government science programs since the Manhattan Project.

Speaking before the subcommittee, Rickover railed against the proposed policy changes. “Government contractors should not be given title to inventions developed at government expense,” he said. “These inventions are paid for by the public and therefore should be available for any citizen to use or not as he sees fit.”

This seemed self-evident to Rickover. After all, he noted, “companies generally claim title to the inventions of their employees on the basis that the company pays their wages.” It befuddled and angered him that the U.S. government would consider giving up its own shop rights to industries that would never do the same. In his decades managing the development of nuclear reactors, Rickover had witnessed the very contest between public interest and private greed so clearly anticipated by mid-century advocates for keeping public science under public control.

In the final months of the Carter administration, this position, advocated most forcefully during the wartime birth of today’s federal research establishment, was fading as a Democratic faith.

Since 1963, the contest to control government patent policy had centered on an executive order issued by President John F. Kennedy one month before his assassination. The order ended what had been a confusing, ad hoc approach toward patents underwritten with public money by directing agency chiefs to maintain a default policy of government patent ownership — especially on inventions related to public health.

If contractors could muster a strong case that they required the patent to bring an invention to market, the Kennedy policy allowed some wiggle room. But as a general rule, it disciplined federal agencies to be stingy in granting private monopolies on public science. And the stingiest agency of them all — to the postwar pharmaceutical industry’s displeasure — was the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, or HEW. (In 1979, it was split up into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services). For 16 years, the drug and patent lobbies had backed Republican bills to overturn the Kennedy policy. Not one had ever come close to passing.

In the summer of 1979, the latest such bill was entering its sixth month of hearings on the merits of pulling the Kennedy policy inside-out. Sponsored by Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., and Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., it would shift the burden onto government to prove that its ownership of a patent better served the public than a private monopoly, rather than the other way around. The bill was considered a long shot to get past the dens of liberal lions in the Senate and President Jimmy Carter, but it was gaining traction among Democrats.

As the bill’s chances of passage grew, Rickover stepped up his warnings to lawmakers not to fall for “the age-old arguments of the patent lobby” and pass legislation that “promotes greater concentration of economic power [and] impedes the development and dissemination of technology.”

f contractors could muster a strong case that they required the patent to bring an invention to market, the Kennedy policy allowed some wiggle room. But as a general rule, it disciplined federal agencies to be stingy in granting private monopolies on public science. And the stingiest agency of them all — to the postwar pharmaceutical industry’s displeasure — was the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, or HEW. (In 1979, it was split up into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services). For 16 years, the drug and patent lobbies had backed Republican bills to overturn the Kennedy policy. Not one had ever come close to passing.

In the summer of 1979, the latest such bill was entering its sixth month of hearings on the merits of pulling the Kennedy policy inside-out. Sponsored by Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., and Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., it would shift the burden onto government to prove that its ownership of a patent better served the public than a private monopoly, rather than the other way around. The bill was considered a long shot to get past the dens of liberal lions in the Senate and President Jimmy Carter, but it was gaining traction among Democrats.

As the bill’s chances of passage grew, Rickover stepped up his warnings to lawmakers not to fall for “the age-old arguments of the patent lobby” and pass legislation that “promotes greater concentration of economic power [and] impedes the development and dissemination of technology.”

BEGINNING IN THE early 1970s, the enemies of government patent ownership embraced a trendy new phrase in the nation’s political and economic lexicons: “global competitiveness.” To compete against Europe and Asia, the argument went, Washington had to incentivize innovation by relinquishing control of inventions made under government contract and hand them over to the private sector to handle them as they saw fit.

More at:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *