THE MURDER OF SECRETARY GENERAL DAG HAMMARSKJOLD AND THE PERPS BEHIND IT. 2023-04-25. EDITOR, ANALYST JORMA JYRKKANEN

https://jyrkkanenepigeneticsnews.wordpress.com/2023/04/25/dag-hammarskjolds-death/ We Deliberately Spread AIDS in Africa [for Population Control]. Apartheid Intelligence Officer Confession. Story Baffour Ankomah 2023-04-24/ Analyst Jorma Jyrkkanen Reviewer Dag Hammarskjolds Death What Really Happened to Dag Hammarskjold’s Plane More than 60 years after the deaths of the U.N. chief and his team, the victims’ families believe the answer may lie in Washington’s and London’s archives. February 15, 2022, 11:25 AM PARTIES INVCOLVED IN THE PLOT.

THE SCENE OF THE CRASH AFTER BOMB IN WHEELWELL PLANTED BY SAIMR MERCENARIES FAIILED TO EXPLODE BUT THE PLANE WAS SHOT DOWN NEAR NDOLA AIRPORT RHODESIA

DAGS BODY WITH ACE OF SPADES CARD IN COLLAR, CALLING CARD OF THE CIA

THE RAF PILOT WORKING AS A BELIAN MERCENARY ACTING ON ORDERS FROM UK AND CIA INTELLIGENCE

By Colum Lynch The wreckage of Dag Hammarskjold’s plane The wreckage of Dag Hammarskjold’s plane The wreckage of Dag Hammarskjold’s plane, which mysteriously crashed near the town of Ndola in Northern Rhodesia, now Zambia, in 1961. AFP via Getty Images Last September, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres marked the 60th anniversary of the death of his predecessor Dag Hammarskjold, who was killed in a mysterious plane crash in Northern Rhodesia, now Zambia, on Sept. 18, 1961, by laying a wreath alongside the names of other fallen U.N. staffers. But in his tribute—which hailed the late Swedish diplomat as a “noble servant of peace”—Guterres neglected to mention any of the 15 other U.N. advisors, bodyguards, and crew members who also perished aboard Hammarskjold’s Douglas DC-6 airliner, named the Albertina, or later due to their injuries. The omission rankled many descendants of the crash victims, who took it as the latest sign that the United Nations has been conducting a listless investigation into one of diplomacy’s most extraordinary cold cases of the 20th century. But the inquiries—which examined new evidence suggesting that Hammarskjold’s plane may have been targeted for attack—have been ultimately stymied by the refusal of powers such as the United States, Britain, and South Africa to fully open their intelligence archives from the period to U.N. investigators. Dags Body Head Shot, THE CARD IN HIS COLLAR WAS AN ACE OF SPADES THE CALLING CARD OF THE CIA “It did not go unnoticed that in your comments marking the 60th anniversary of the crash you paid tribute to former Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld without making any mention of those accompanying him,” Hynrich Wieschhoff wrote to the U.N. chief last December, in a letter that was signed by more than 100 other relatives of the victims. “They too were United Nations civil servants or working on behalf of the United Nations. And, they too lost their lives in service to the United Nations.” Fingered for Shooting Down Dags Plane After Bomb Planted in Wheel Well by SAIMR MERCENARY Operatives failed to Detonate on Takeoff On Orders from UK and CIA Bosses. RAF Pilot Jan Van Risseghem acting as Belgian Mercenary. “Disappointed as we are, we are not surprised,” added Wieschhoff, whose father, Heinrich Wieschhoff, was an anthropologist who served as one of Hammarskjold’s political advisors. “As we perceive it, your failure to honor the service and sacrifice of our loved ones is consistent with the indifference that the United Nations has shown to uncovering the truth about the cause of the crash.” The vast majority of the descendants of the victims of the crash believe that the plane was brought down by foul play, most likely attacked by a European mercenary group employed by a Belgian mining company in support of a secessionist rebellion in the mineral-rich Congolese state of Katanga, according to two family members. Hammarskjold was on his way to mediate an end to the secession and civil war in the breakaway state when he was killed in the crash. They fear they are running out of time to get to the bottom of what happened. Key witnesses from the time period are dying off, and the U.N. inquiry, led by former Tanzanian Chief Justice Mohamed Chande Othman, is set to conclude in September without having established conclusively the circumstances of how the plane crashed. Othman has been investigating the case on and off for the U.N. since March 2015. Sven Goran Hallonquist was 10 when his father, Per Hallonquist, piloted Hammarskjold’s plane on its final flight. Through most of his life, he said, he has been unable to say with certainty whether the crash that killed his father was an accident or if the plane was brought down by hostile forces. That all changed about six or seven years ago, when the son of the plane owner’s chief engineer provided him with a copy of the original Rhodesian technical report, which indicated that the plane made an erratic maneuver shortly before it crashed, suggesting it was evading a potential threat. “I think that is the most probable thing—that it was shot down by another plane,” Hallonquist said, noting that the vast majority of victims’ families believe so, too. Hallonquist said he and other relatives of the victims want the U.N. to pursue the case more vigorously and the U.N. chief to take a more personal role in seeing the case through. “We think we need to put pressure on him to try to pressure the United States and Britain and South Africa for more resources to search their archives,” he said. Read More U.N. to Probe Whether Iconic Secretary-General Was Assassinated Newly­ discovered documents revive claim that Dag Hammarskjold may have been killed by South African agents backed by the CIA. Exclusive | Colum Lynch How Race Hampered the Investigation Into Dag Hammarskjold’s Death Testimony of African eyewitnesses to the U.N. secretary-general’s death was dismissed because of their lack of education and perceived susceptibility to political manipulation. Document | Colum Lynch Liberty, Equality, Police Brutality French cops have gotten more heavy-handed than anywhere else in Europe. Report | Michele Barbero Over the years, Othman has amassed a “significant amount of evidence,” including the testimony of African eyewitnesses suggesting foul play was largely ignored by early investigations in the 1960s. That goes against claims by British colonial authorities in Northern Rhodesia at the time that Hammarskjold’s death was an accident. Othman has explored a theory that a mysterious aircraft may have either fired on Hammarskjold’s plane or harassed the pilot, causing it to crash, or even that the plane may have been sabotaged by South African mercenaries, allegedly with the aid of the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies. The CIA has previously denied involvement in the alleged Operation Celeste. Othman said in his two previous reports, issued in 2017 and 2019, that the “burden of proof” was on member states to demonstrate that they have conducted a thorough review of their records and archives, particularly from their intelligence agencies. “[T]he continued non-disclosure of potentially relevant new information in the intelligence, security and defence archives of Member States constitutes the biggest barrier to understanding the full truth on the event,” Othman wrote in his 2017 report. The governments of Zimbabwe, Zambia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have appointed high-ranking figures, including Sydney Sekeramayi, a former Zimbabwean defense minister, to oversee the search for documents and have provided full access to their archives. Belgium, France, and Sweden have also granted extensive access to their security files. But the United States and Britain have been less forthcoming, appointing relatively low-level officials to manage the search for relevant evidence and releasing the occasional confirmation of evidence brought to them by the U.N. Two men lay a wreath on the monument marking the site where Hammarskjold and fifteen others died in a plane crash near Ndola in Northern Rhodesia in September 1963. Two men lay a wreath on the monument marking the site where Hammarskjold and fifteen others died in a plane crash near Ndola in Northern Rhodesia in September 1963. Two men lay a wreath on the monument marking the site where Hammarskjold and 14 others died in a plane crash near Ndola in September 1963. The only person to survive the crash, security officer Harold Julien, died nearly a week later from his injuries. Daily Express, Hulton Archive/Getty Images The air tragedy unfolded against the background of a bloody civil war that followed Congo’s independence from Belgium. The war pitted Congolese nationalists against a secessionist rebellion in the mineral-rich state of Katanga, which had the backing of Belgium, Western mining companies, European mercenaries, and the CIA. Hammarskjold was en route to Ndola in Northern Rhodesia to negotiate a cease-fire with secessionist leader Moise Tshombe. The United Nations sent peacekeepers into Congo, where they ultimately found themselves at war with Katangan separatists and European mercenaries, who were backed by Western mining interests. A Rhodesian commission of inquiry found that the pilot had miscalculated the height of the tree line and plowed into the forest canopy. A subsequent U.N. inquiry could not establish the cause of the crash, leaving open the possibility that Hammarskjold could have died either as a result of an accident or foul play. Eyewitnesses in the area recall seeing a small plane approach the Albertina before there was a bright flash in the sky and then watching the flaming aircraft plunge into the forest, instantly killing everyone on board except the delegation’s acting chief security officer, Harold Julien, who died from his injuries nearly a week later. Before his death, Julien, a former U.S. Marine, “suggested a threat or attack as the plane approached Ndola, possibly involving a sudden explosion,” according to Othman’s reports. “This evidence was augmented in 2018/19 by information from Zimbabwe that showed that Northern Rhodesian authorities had tried to stifle those statements of Julien from being made public,” Othman wrote in his 2019 report. Othman has cited documents indicating that British officials had intervened behind closed doors to persuade the U.N. to alter the conclusions of the report to rule sabotage or an external attack. The case remained unsolved for decades, fueling conspiracy theories and inspiring generations of journalists, scholars, and other researchers. In 1992, two of Hammarskjold’s top advisors, Conor Cruise O’Brien and George Ivan Smith, wrote in the Guardian that they had evidence that their boss’s plane had been shot down by accident by mercenaries in the employ of Belgian, American, and British mining interests, which feared Hammarskjold’s peacemaking would jeopardize their business interests. Goran Bjorkdahl, a Swedish national whose father worked in the region, began researching the U.N. chief’s death and conducting interviews with local charcoal-makers who had witnessed the Albertina’s final descent. Rhodesian and U.N. investigators at the time largely dismissed the testimony of local Black African eyewitnesses. The case received a boost when Susan Williams, a British scholar who grew up in Zambia, revisited the crime, unearthing previously unseen documents from the archived papers of Lord Cuthbert Alport—who was the British high commissioner to Rhodesia in 1961 and who was at the Ndola airport on the night of the crash—including a secret report by Neil Ritchie, an MI6 agent who organized the planned meeting between Hammarskjold and Tshombe. Williams’s 2011 book, Who Killed Hammarskjöld? The UN, the Cold War and White Supremacy in Africa, helped spur the establishment a year later of the Hammarskjold Commission, a voluntary body of international jurists and lawyers chaired by a British judge, Stephen Sedley. Williams has since fed documents to the U.N. investigators. “The responses of the U.S. and the U.K. to Judge Othman have been appalling and arrogant,” Williams told Foreign Policy in an email. “But they are entirely consistent with the behavior of those states at the time of the crash, when Britain was the colonial and racist ruler of Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) and the U.S. was interfering in the process of decolonization in Africa.” “Both the U.K. and the U.S. stated that all relevant information had already been made available,” she added. “But this was not true in either case.” The Hammarskjold Commission concluded in its final 2013 report that “[t]here is persuasive evidence that the aircraft was subjected to some form of attack or threat as it circled to land at Ndola.” It also concluded that it “is highly likely that the entirety of the local and regional Ndola radio traffic on the night of 17-­18 September 1961 was tracked and recorded by the NSA [the U.S. National Security Agency], and possibly also by the CIA.” These findings prompted the U.N. General Assembly in 2015 to adopt a resolution calling on then-U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to create a panel of experts to examine the case and determine whether there was enough evidence to merit further investigation. Ban appointed Othman, who is expected to conclude his work in September. Demonstrators with signs saying the USSR is responsible for the crash that killed Hammarskjold in front of the UN building in New York on Sept. 21, 1961. Demonstrators with signs saying the USSR is responsible for the crash that killed Hammarskjold in front of the UN building in New York on Sept. 21, 1961. Demonstrators hold signs claiming the Soviet Union was responsible for the crash that killed Hammarskjold in front of the U.N. headquarters in New York on Sept. 21, 1961. Gamma-Keystone/via Getty Images At the time of Hammarskjold’s death, the United States and Britain had extensive intelligence assets in the region, including CIA agents and NSA surveillance capabilities. But much of what the U.N. has learned about U.S. activities in the region has come from independent researchers, private archives, or other governments. Othman has asked the United States to provide access to intercepts or other evidence of communications from Hammarskjold’s plane or other U.S. aircraft in the area at the time of the crash. On the night of the crash, there were at least three U.S. planes, including U.S. Army and Navy attaches’ aircraft, equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance equipment at the airport in Ndola. One U.S. intelligence official, Charles Southall, recalled in interviews having overheard intercepts of a known European mercenary pilot, nicknamed the “Lone Ranger,” shooting Hammarskjold’s plane. The U.S. ambassador to Congo, Edmund A. Gullion, sent a report to Washington on the day Hammarskjold was killed stating that the plane “may have been shot down.” “The historical record strongly suggests that Governments, including the United States, which had a presence in and around the Congo region at the time, may hold such evidence,” Othman wrote in an annex to his 2019 report. But the United States has provided limited confirmation. For years, Washington denied that Paul Abram—a former U.S. Air Force Security Service officer who also overheard transmissions of an attack the night of the crash—worked for the United States, only acknowledging his links to U.S. intelligence after he furnished American officials with his government identification. A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department said the United States takes Othman’s inquiries “seriously” and “shares his interests in understanding the circumstances of the death of Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold.” “Over the years, the United States has shared over a thousand pages of previously classified documents [with the U.N. investigator],” the spokesperson said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the official added, “conducted yet another exhaustive search for U.S. intelligence archives and did not find any additional information that would shed light on the circumstances of Secretary-General Hammarskjold’s death.” British and Rhodesian colonial intelligence officials were also intercepting communications, suggesting they may have pertinent clues buried in their own archives. Othman is seeking access to documents describing the activities of Ritchie, the MI6 agent, and other British officials who were tasked with organizing the meeting between Hammarskjold and Tshombe. Othman also sought information about a Belgian mercenary pilot, Jan Van Risseghem, who had served in the British Royal Air Force during World War II and is alleged by a colleague to have admitted to flying the plane that brought down Hammarskjold’s aircraft. Pierre Coppens, a colleague of the Belgian pilot, asserted in the documentary Cold Case Hammarskjöld that Van Risseghem was known as the Lone Ranger. In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for the British Foreign Office wrote by email: “The UK Government has conducted a thorough review of all the relevant files held by our Defence, Diplomatic and Intelligence organisations and is confident all relevant information has already been shared with the [U.N.] Inquiry team.” Before his death, Southall, who was an NSA officer based at a listening post in Cyprus in 1961, claimed he had picked up a radio intercept of what he believed was the cockpit transmission of a fighter pilot opening fire on Hammarskjold’s plane. “You could hear the gun cannon firing—rat tat tat. And he said, ‘I’ve hit it,’” Southall recalled in an interview for the same documentary. “‘There are flames coming out of it,’ and quite quickly he said, ‘It’s crashed.’ And that was the end of the recording, and we processed this recording and sent it off to Washington.” Othman is also seeking information from the South African government about an alleged plot by a paramilitary group, known as the South African Institute for Maritime Research, to assassinate Hammarskjold by placing a bomb in his plane before it left the airfield in Leopoldville—now the Congolese capital of Kinshasa—en route to Ndola. In a March 2019 letter to South Africa, Othman said he understood that the South African government had located documents detailing the plan, dubbed Operation Celeste, but that those documents have never been shared with the United Nations. The South African government did not respond in time to Foreign Policy’s request for comment. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres lays a wreath on Hammarskjold’s grave on April 22, 2018.FREDRIK SANDBERG/AFP via Getty Images Wieschhoff and other relatives of the crash victims are hoping that the U.N. will step up pressure on the United States, Britain, and South Africa to open their archives. “The UN’s effort, such as it is, creeps along and now enters its ninth exasperating year,” Wieschhoff wrote in the joint letter to Guterres. “From the outset, the search for answers has, in our view, been underfunded and understaffed.” Othman, he added, took on this formidable investigation “lacking a sufficient mandate and the Secretariat lacking a genuine commitment.” “We also would have thought that by now you would have insisted that each of those governments present you or Chief Justice Othman with an action plan designed to promptly survey its archives and release all records bearing on the crash,” he added. Guterres wrote back to the families: “I fully understand your grievances and will take them seriously into account for the future.” “I wish to confirm to you my personal commitment to pursue the full truth of what happened on that fateful night in 1961,” he wrote. “We owe this to those who perished, and to you, the relatives.” Guterres also said he was “encouraged by the progress” Othman has made over the years and would continue to do everything to help him carry out his work. But he made no pledge to personally press key governments, including the United States and Britain, to release all relevant documents in their archives. Colum Lynch was a staff writer at Foreign Policy between 2010 and 2022. Twitter: @columlynch Share this: TwitterFacebook Related We Deliberately Spread AIDS in Africa [for Population Control]. Apartheid Intelligence Officer Confession. Story Baffour Ankomah 2023-04-24/ Analyst Jorma Jyrkkanen Reviewer April 24, 2023 In "Africa depopulation" Pulp Mills and Cancer Association March 3, 2010 In "British Columbia" BREAKING NEWS: The FDA was involved in the development of Covid-19 as an offensive biological warfare weapon at UNCBSL3. The Pentagon bought and paid for the toxic mRNA shots and helped create Covid-19. All are guilty of Nuremberg crimes, murder and conspiracy to commit murder. 2023-04-17. April 17, 2023 In "bioterrorism" Tags: DAG HAMMARSKJOLD, MURDER

THE AIDS PLANDEMIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, AN APARTHEID, UK AND CIA CONTRIVANCE. 2023-04-24. ANALYST JORMA JYRKKANEN

THE ACTORS

Environment Gene Interactions Just another WordPress.com weblog « Crossing the Species Divide with a Little Help. HIV AIDS. 2023-04-18. Researcher Jorma Jyrkkanen Reviews the Science. We Deliberately Spread AIDS in Africa [for Population Control]. Apartheid Intelligence Officer Confession. Story Baffour Ankomah 2023-04-24/ Analyst Jorma Jyrkkanen Reviewer “We deliberately spread AIDS in South Africa” Head of SAIMR, South Africa Institute of Marine Research, a White Covert Supremacist Subversive Guerilla Army “We deliberately spread AIDS in South Africa” Written by Baffour Ankomah PublishedMarch 13, 2019 Share In a shocking confession, made on camera in a new documentary released last month, a former member of South Africa’s Apartheid-era intelligence service says that the Aids virus, and other diseases, were deliberately spread among the population in an effort to kill off as many blacks as possible. His confession, considered just the tip of the iceberg, has reignited the simmering debate about the whole phenomenon of Aids in Africa. Report by Baffour Ankomah. In a shocking confession, made on camera in a new documentary – Cold Case Hammarskjöld – a former member of South Africa’s Apartheid-era intelligence service says that the Aids virus, and other diseases, were deliberately spread among the population in an effort to kill off as many blacks as possible. His confession, considered just the tip of the iceberg, has reignited the simmering debate about the whole phenomenon of Aids in Africa. Until February 2019, most Africans did not know about the Sundance Film Festival, a programme of the Sundance Institute, which takes place annually in Park City, Utah in America. Now they know because something controversial happened at the Festival this year that will live with Africans for a long time to come. Having had 224,900 attendees in 2018, Sundance is the largest independent film festival in the US. This year it took place between 24 January and 3 February – the attendance figure is not yet out. What is out is controversy – a damning confession by a former Apartheid-era operative who admitted on camera, in one of the films shown, that he and his colleagues at the South African Institute for Maritime Research (SAIMR), which masterminded coups and other forms of violence across Africa in the 1970s and 80s, deliberately spread the HIV virus in the Southern African region to wipe out black people. Alexander Jones, who says he “spent years as an intelligence officer” with SAIMR 30 years ago, became the centre of attraction on the third day of the Sundance Festival when the Danish/Swedish-made documentary, Cold Case Hammarskjöld, was screened. Sources in South Africa say SAIMR was linked to the country’s notorious chemical and biological warfare (CBW) programme headed by Dr Wouter Basson, a programme which Apartheid racists used as a cover to kill black people in South Africa and beyond or do them serious harm. The racists’ ‘operational area’ was what used to be called the ‘Frontline States’ (now known simply as the SADC region). We covered Dr Basson’s operations in detail in our 2001 November Edition. South Africa’s CBW programme also had links with Rhodesia’s, and the pair did a lot of harm to black Africans, including spreading cholera and other dangerous diseases in the region, and topping it up with HIV/Aids experimentation. Worse, when independence was approaching in Zimbabwe, there are suggestions that Ian Smith’s Rhodesian government, with tacit support from South Africa, rushed to remove the evidence by killing a lot of black people who were subjects of the CBW experiments. Digging out the truth Cold Case Hammarskjöld MOVIE was made by Mads Brügger (Danish) and Göran Björkdahl (Swedish). The documentary investigates the case of the former UN secretary-general, Dag Hammarskjöld, who died in a mysterious plane crash near Ndola, Zambia, in 1961. We were at war. Black people in South Africa were the enemy… During the hearings of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1998, letters with SAIMR’s official letterhead were found suggesting that the CIA and British intelligence had agreed that “Hammarskjöld should be removed”. But London and Washington denied involvement in Hammarskjöld’s assassination. In the course of making the new film, Brügger and Björkdahl’s investigations led them to Alexander Jones, who told them on camera that SAIMR (which had operated with the support of the CIA and British intelligence), used bogus vaccinations to spread the HIV virus in the SADC region. “We were at war. Black people in South Africa were the enemy,” Jones told the filmmakers. SADC Region of South Africa Where AIDS was spread by Poisoned Vaccines He confessed that he and his SAIMR colleagues “spread the virus” in the 1980s and 90s under the command of their leader Keith Maxwell, who wanted a white majority country, saying “the excesses of the 1960s, 70s and 80s have no place in the post-Aids world ”. “What easier way to get a guinea pig than you live in an Apartheid system?” Jones says in the film. “Black people have got no rights, they need medical treatment. There is a white ‘philanthropist’ coming in and saying, ‘You know, I will open up these clinics and I will treat you.’ And meantime [he is] actually the wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Maxwell died in 2006. People who knew him say he had no medical qualifications but operated clinics in the poor black neighbourhoods of Johannesburg. His headquarters was at Putfontein where his signpost, with his name ‘Dokotela Maxwell’, still hangs in front of the building where he operated. One local shopkeeper said Maxwell had given “false injections”. But Claude Newbury, an anti-abortion doctor, told the filmmakers: “He was against genocide and he was trying to discover a cure for HIV.” Jones, however, insists that Maxwell used the cover of a doctor to do “sinister experimentation”. His claim was backed up by Ibrahim Karolia, whose shop was across the road from where Maxwell operated. He told the filmmakers that Maxwell had provided “false injections” and “strange treatments”, and also put patients through “tubes” which he said allowed him to see inside their bodies. Jones also disclosed that SAIMR operated outside South Africa. “We were involved in Mozambique, spreading the Aids virus through medical conditions,” he says in the film, revealing that he did visit a research facility in the 1990s that was used “for sinister experimentation” and that the intent was “to eradicate black people”. “What easier way to get a guinea pig than you live in an Apartheid system?” Jones says in the film. “Black people have got no rights, they need medical treatment. There is a white ‘philanthropist’ coming in and saying, ‘You know, I will open up these clinics and I will treat you.’ And meantime [he is] actually the wolf in sheep’s clothing.” South Africa’s Josef Mengele Documents discovered by Brügger and Björkdahl show Maxwell held extremely disturbing views. “[South Africa] may well have one man, one vote with a white majority by the year 2000,” Maxwell wrote. “Religion in its conservative, traditional form will return. Abortion on demand, abuse of drugs, and the other excesses of the 1960s, 70s and 80s will have no place in the post-Aids world,” he added. According to the Observer South Africa, which broke the story, “The [Maxwell] documents read like the fever dream of a man who aspired to be South Africa’s Josef Mengele. [Joseph ‘Angel of Death’ Mengele was the senior SS officer who carried out inhuman experiments on Jewish prisoners at Auschwitz during World War II – Ed.] There are detailed, if sometimes garbled, accounts of how he thought the HIV virus could be isolated, propagated and used to target black Africans.” One SAIMR recruit, Dagmar Feil, a marine biologist, was murdered outside her home in Johannesburg in 1990 for fear she would expose SAIMR’s dark deeds. We all know how Aids is transmitted from person to person; there is no confusion there. The question is whether or not another agency played an active part in starting or accelerating the chain-reaction in some places. Jones says it did and that the agency was the dreaded SAIMR. Her brother, Karl Feil, told Brügger and Björkdahl: “My sister came to me and said she needed to confide in me. She sat with me and said she thought they were going to kill her. She said that three or four others in her team had already been murdered, but when I asked what team, she said she couldn’t tell me. “The topic of Aids research came up several times, quite loosely in conversations, I never put two and two together. Instead, she asked me to go with her to church, so she could make right with God. Weeks later she was dead.” But while the revelations in the documentary have stunned the world, the blowback has already started. The New York Times has dismissed Alexander Jones’ revelations as a “conspiracy theory”. Reporting his story on 27 January, the paper asked the question: “But is this true?” “The notion that HIV is a man-made virus introduced as population control has been floating around for decades,” The New York Times says. “Before the conspiracy theory took hold in Africa, it appeared as part of disinformation campaigns from the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” So now it is the fault of the Soviet Union! But it is the usual trick the Western establishment media employs to defend Western interests. “Scientists immediately cast doubt on [ Jones’] claim, which they called medically dubious. ‘The probability that they were able to do this is close to zero,’” The New York Times goes on to say, quoting Dr Salim Abdool Karim, the director of Caprisa, an AIDS research centre in South Africa. The paper says Dr Karim cited “the immense resources that would be required to conduct such a far-fetched attempt at genocide. Notwithstanding the technological limitations of the 1990s, including [the need for] facilities to rival that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US, in addition to millions of dollars in funding, HIV is extraordinarily difficult to isolate, transport and grow in a laboratory environment, let alone distribute en masse in a clandestine operation,” Dr Karim was said to have explained. Yet, apart from wheeling out just one African (Dr Karim) to dismiss Jones’ account, The New York Times named no more scientists in its story to justify the assertion that “scientists immediately cast doubt on the claim”, apart from quoting Rebecca Hodes, director of the AIDS and Society Research Unit at the University of Cape Town, as having said: “Such mistruths can cause very real problems. One dangerous consequence of these allegations is that they have the potential to sow mistrust and suspicion of doctors and the medical establishment, and that they may confuse people about how HIV is transmitted.” The truth will out Not so. We all know how Aids is transmitted from person to person; there is no confusion there. The question is whether or not another agency played an active part in starting or accelerating the chain-reaction in some places. Jones says it did and that the agency was the dreaded SAIMR. He also spells out the motivation behind it – “to eradicate black people” – so that the whites could continue their dominance in South Africa. “We were at war”, he adds, implying that all is fair in love and war. This has nothing to do with the often excellent work that doctors and the medical establishment, faced with HIV/ Aids, did to stem the tide of the disease. They were, and are still in some cases, firefighting and deserve all the credit they get. The question remains, who started the fire in the first place? Jones’ confession is a bombshell. It confirms what many suspected at the time but were unable or indisposed to pursue further. It also helps explain many inconsistencies in the story of the development of Aids in Southern Africa. But this is clearly just the tip of the iceberg – underneath lurks perhaps one of the most terrifying stories of modern times, how the Apartheid regime deliberately set out to commit genocide and how close it came to achieving its ends. The confession might bring a sense of closure for some of the millions of Aids victims and their families or it may spark fresh anger. Of equal significance, it will finally lay to rest the oft-cited trope that Africans brought the curse of Aids on themselves due to their ‘unbridled sexuality’. Why did Jones confess after such a long time? We cannot know for sure but there is such a thing as living with a guilty conscience and it will not be the first time that someone approaching the end of their lives feels compelled to confess to sins in order to lift the heavy burden they have carried on their souls for so long. The truth, as they say, will out – no matter how long it takes to do so. NA Read more articles by Baffour Ankomah Keywords: ColonialismForeign InterferenceHealthMarch 2019South AfricaSouthern Africa Written By Baffour Ankomah Baffour Ankomah is New African’s current Editor at Large. He has spent much of his 39 years of journalism at the magazine, having served as its Assistant Editor for 6 years, Deputy Editor for 5 years, and Editor for 15 years, retiring from active service in 2014. In 39 years of his journalism career – Africa and his many causes have been his passion. His personal column, Baffour’s Beefs, which has been running continuously in New African since 1987, is a big hit and a must-read for the magazine’s worldwide readers. He is now based in Zimbabwe, where he and his wife Elizabeth run their own media consultancy and fashion house called “African Interest” which trades under the trademark “I am African”. This expose’ helps to explain the 336 Biolabs America maintains around the world, the 46 in Ukraine and the epidemics like covid, MERS, avian influenza and EBola among others. I think Dag H was murdered because he found out about the AIDS plot and because he pissed off huge colonial economic interests in want Africa primarily for Africans.

For more see by bibliography. https://jormajyrkkanen.wordpress.com/2023/01/13/jorma-antero-jyrkkanens-bibliography-2022/

Baric Did It. Review. How SARS body created from DNA Code had SHC014 Coronavirus Spike Attached. 023-04-18. Journalist Jorma Jyrkkanen, Researching Origins.

BARIC DID IT MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-function-risky-bat-virus-engineering-links-america-to-wuhan In 2013, the American virologist Ralph Baric approached Zhengli Shi at a meeting.

Baric was a top expert in coronaviruses, with hundreds of papers to his credit, and Shi, along with her team at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, had been discovering them by the fistful in bat caves. In one sample of bat guano, Shi had detected the genome of a new virus, called SHC014, that was one of the two closest relatives to the original SARS virus, but her team had not been able to culture it in the lab. Baric had developed a way around that problem—a technique for “reverse genetics” in coronaviruses. Not only did it allow him to bring an actual virus to life from its genetic code, but he could mix and match parts of multiple viruses. He wanted to take the “spike” gene from SHC014 and move it into a genetic copy of the SARS virus he already had in his lab. The spike molecule is what lets a coronavirus open a cell and get inside it. The resulting chimera would demonstrate whether the spike of SHC014 would attach to human cells. If it could, then it could help him with his long-term project of developing universal drugs and vaccines against the full spectrum of SARS-like viruses that he increasingly considered sources of potential pandemics. A SARS vaccine had been developed, but it wasn’t expected to be very effective against related coronaviruses, just as flu shots rarely work against new strains. To develop a universal vaccine that will elicit an antibody response against a gamut of SARS-like viruses, you need to show the immune system a cocktail of spikes. SHC014 could be one of them. If you study a hundred different bat viruses, your luck may run out. - Ralph Baric, University of North Carolina. Baric asked Shi if he could have the genetic data for SHC014. “She was gracious enough to send us those sequences almost immediately,” he says. His team introduced the virus modified with that code into mice and into a petri dish of human airway cells. Sure enough, the chimera exhibited “robust replication” in the human cells—evidence that nature was full of coronaviruses ready to leap directly to people. While Baric’s study was in progress, the National Institutes of Health announced that it would temporarily halt funding for “gain of function” research—experiments that make already dangerous viruses more virulent or transmissible—on SARS, MERS (which is also caused by a coronavirus), and influenza until the safety of such research could be assessed. The announcement brought Baric’s work to a standstill. Related Story No one can find the animal that gave people covid-19 Here’s your guide to the WHO-China search for the origins of the coronavirus. Baric was a legend in the field, but no matter how many safety precautions are taken, there is always a chance that a never-before-seen virus can escape and trigger an outbreak. Baric felt that the extreme measures he took in the lab minimized the risk, and in fact made his work categorically different from the high-risk influenza work the NIH had been targeting. He also felt that his research was urgent: new cases of MERS, spread by camels, were even then popping up in the Middle East. Eventually the NIH agreed, waving him forward. His 2015 paper, “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence,” was a tour de force, utilizing bleeding-edge genetic technology to alert the civilized world to a looming danger on its periphery. It also revived concerns about gain-of-function experiments, which Baric had known it would. In the paper, he spelled out the extra precautions he’d taken and held up the research as a test case. “The potential to prepare for and mitigate future outbreaks must be weighed against the risk of creating more dangerous pathogens,” he wrote. “Scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue.” The NIH decided the risk was worth it. In a potentially fateful decision, it funded work similar to Baric’s at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which soon used its own reverse-genetics technology to make numerous coronavirus chimeras. Unnoticed by most, however, was a key difference that significantly shifted the risk calculation. The Chinese work was carried out at biosafety level 2 (BSL-2), a much lower tier than Baric’s BSL-3+. What caused the covid-19 pandemic remains uncertain, and Shi says her lab never encountered the SARS-CoV-2 virus before the Wuhan outbreak. But now that US officials have said the possibility of a lab accident needs to be investigated, the spotlight has fallen on American funding of the Wuhan lab’s less safe research. Todaya chorus of scientists, including Baric, are coming forward to say this was a misstep. Even if there is no link to covid-19, allowing work on potentially dangerous bat viruses at BSL-2 is “an actual scandal,” says Michael Lin, a bioengineer at Stanford University. The simmering concern that the US funded risky research in China burst into the national discussion on May 11, when Senator Rand Paul accused Anthony Fauci, the longtime director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, of funding “supervirus” research in the US and “making a huge mistake” by trading the know-how to China. Paul repeatedly confronted Fauci and demanded to know if he had funded gain-of-function research in that country. Fauci denied the accusation, stating categorically: “The NIH has not ever, and does not now, fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” During a hearing on May 11, 2021, Senator Rand Paul confronted Anthony Fauci over funding of bat-virus research by the National Institutes of Health.

The denial rests on the NIH’s specific definition of what was covered by the moratorium: work that would have deliberately enhanced SARS-like viruses, MERS, or flu by—for example—making them easier to spread through the air. The Chinese research did not have the specific goal of making the viruses more deadly, and rather than SARS itself, it used SARS’s close cousins, whose real-world risk to humans was unknown—in fact, determining the risk was the point of the research. Just as when you trade in part of a poker hand for fresh cards, there was no way of knowing whether the final chimeras would be stronger or weaker. The NIH has still not fully explained its decision-making and did not reply to questions. Citing a pending investigation, it has declined to release copies of the grant that sent the Wuhan institute about $600,000 between 2014 and 2019. It has also revealed little about its new system for assessing gain-of-function risks, which is carried out by an anonymous review panel whose deliberations are not made public. Until there’s more sunlight, the agency will be fighting speculation, from Paul and others, that what occurred is a scenario Fauci himself had outlined in a 2012 commentary discussing research on pandemic germs. “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk." Richard Ebright, Rutgers University “Consider this hypothetical scenario,” Fauci wrote. “An important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” A wake-up call Paul’s grilling of Fauci brought new scrutiny to the relationship between Ralph Baric’s lab at UNC and Zhengli Shi’s at WIV, with some narratives painting Baric as the Sith master of SARS and Shi as his ascendant apprentice. They did share resources—for example, Baric sent the transgenic mice with human lung receptors to Wuhan. But after their initial collaboration, the two centers were more like competitors. They were in a race to identify dangerous coronaviruses, assess the potential threat, and develop countermeasures like vaccines. Top researchers are calling for a real investigation into the origin of covid-19 A group of prominent biologists say there needs to be a “safe space” for asking whether the coronavirus came out of a lab. For Baric, that research started in the late 1990s. Coronaviruses were then considered low risk, but Baric’s studies on the genetics that allowed viruses to enter human cells convinced him that some might be just a few mutations away from jumping the species barrier. That hunch was confirmed in 2002–’03, when SARS broke out in southern China, infecting 8,000 people. As bad as that was, Baric says, we dodged a bullet with SARS. The disease didn’t spread from one person to another until about a day after severe symptoms began to appear, making it easier to corral through quarantines and contact tracing. Only 774 people died in that outbreak, but if it had been transmitted as easily as SARS-CoV-2, “we would have had a pandemic with a 10% mortality rate,” Baric says. “That’s how close humanity came.” As tempting as it was to write off SARS as a one-time event, in 2012 MERS emerged and began infecting people in the Middle East. “For me personally, that was a wake-up call that the animal reservoirs must have many, many more strains that are poised for cross-species movement,” says Baric. By then, examples of such dangers were already being discovered by Shi’s team, which had spent years sampling bats in southern China to locate the origin of SARS. The project was part of a global viral surveillance effort spearheaded by the US nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance. The nonprofit—which has an annual income of over $16 million, more than 90% from government grants—has its office in New York but partners with local research groups in other countries to do field and lab work. The WIV was its crown jewel, and Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, has been a coauthor with Shi on most of her key papers. By taking thousands of samples from guano, fecal swabs, and bat tissue, and searching those samples for genetic sequences similar to SARS, Shi’s team began to discover many closely related viruses. In a cave in Yunnan Province in 2011 or 2012, they discovered the two closest, which they named WIV1 and SHC014. Shi managed to culture WIV1 in her lab from a fecal sample and show that it could directly infect human cells, proving that SARS-like viruses ready to leap straight from bats to humans already lurked in the natural world. This showed, Daszak and Shi argued, that bat coronaviruses were a “substantial global threat.” Scientists, they said, needed to find them, and study them, before they found us. Many of the other viruses couldn’t be grown, but Baric’s system provided a way to rapidly test their spikes by engineering them into similar viruses. When the chimera he made using SHC014 proved able to infect human cells in a dish, Daszak told the press that these revelations should “move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger.” To others, it was the perfect example of the unnecessary dangers of gain-of-function science. “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk,” the Rutgers microbiologist Richard Ebright, a longtime critic of such research, told Nature. To Baric, the situation was more nuanced. Although his creation might be more dangerous than the original mouse-adapted virus he’d used as a backbone, it was still wimpy compared with SARS—certainly not the supervirus Senator Paul would later suggest. In the end, the NIH clampdown never had teeth. It included a clause granting exceptions “if head of funding agency determines research is urgently necessary to protect public health or national security.” Not only were Baric’s studies allowed to move forward, but so were all studies that applied for exemptions. The funding restrictions were lifted in 2017 and replaced with a more lenient system. Tyvek suits and respirators If the NIH was looking for a scientist to make regulators comfortable with gain-of-function research, Baric was the obvious choice. For years he’d insisted on extra safety steps, and he took pains to point these out in his 2015 paper, as if modeling the way forward. The CDC recognizes four levels of biosafety and recommends which pathogens should be studied at which level. Biosafety level 1 is for nonhazardous organisms and requires virtually no precautions: wear a lab coat and gloves as needed. BSL-2 is for moderately hazardous pathogens that are already endemic in the area, and relatively mild interventions are indicated: close the door, wear eye protection, dispose of waste materials in an autoclave. BSL-3 is where things get serious. It’s for pathogens that can cause serious disease through respiratory transmission, such as influenza and SARS, and the associated protocols include multiple barriers to escape. Labs are walled off by two sets of self-closing, locking doors; air is filtered; personnel use full PPE and N95 masks and are under medical surveillance. BSL-4 is for the baddest of the baddies, such as Ebola and Marburg: full moon suits and dedicated air systems are added to the arsenal. “There are no enforceable standards of what you should and shouldn’t do. It’s up to the individual countries, institutions, and scientists.” Filippa Lentzos, King’s College London In Baric’s lab, the chimeras were studied at BSL-3, enhanced with additional steps like Tyvek suits, double gloves, and powered-air respirators for all workers. Local first-responder teams participated in regular drills to increase their familiarity with the lab. All workers were monitored for infections, and local hospitals had procedures in place to handle incoming scientists. It was probably one of the safest BSL-3 facilities in the world. That still wasn’t enough to prevent a handful of errors over the years: some scientists were even bitten by virus-carrying mice. But no infections resulted. Brand-new pathogens In 2014, the NIH awarded a five-year, $3.75 million grant to EcoHealth Alliance to study the risk that more bat-borne coronaviruses would emerge in China, using the same kind of techniques Baric had pioneered. Some of that work was to be subcontracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Related Story They called it a conspiracy theory. But Alina Chan tweeted life into the idea that the virus came from a lab. The whistleblowing scientist who advanced the lab-leak theory plans to change her name and disappear, but only after a book deal.

In 2016 Daszak and Shi published a paper reporting how the Chinese lab had engineered different versions of WIV1 and tested their infectiousness in human cells. The paper announced that the WIV had developed its own reverse-genetics system, following the Americans’ lead. It also included a troubling detail: the work, which was funded in part by the NIH grant, had been done in a BSL-2 lab. That meant the same viruses that Daszak was holding up as a clear and present danger to the world were being studied under conditions that, according to Richard Ebright, matched “the biosafety level of a US dentist’s office.” Ebright believes one factor at play was the cost and inconvenience of working in high-containment conditions. The Chinese lab’s decision to work at BSL-2, he says, would have “effectively increas[ed] rates of progress, all else being equal, by a factor of 10 to 20”—a huge edge. Work at the WIV was indeed progressing quickly. In 2017, Daszak and Shi followed with another study, also at BSL-2, that one-upped Baric’s work in North Carolina. The WIV had continued to unearth dozens of new SARS-like coronaviruses in bat caves, and it reported making chimeras with eight of them by fusing the spikes of the new viruses to the chassis of WIV1. Two of them replicated well in human cells. They were, for all intents and purposes, brand-new pathogens. The revelation that the WIV was working with SARS-like viruses in subpar safety conditions has led some people to reassess the chance that SARS-CoV-2 could have emerged from some type of laboratory incident. “That’s screwed up,” the Columbia University virologist Ian Lipkin, who coauthored the seminal paper arguing that covid must have had a natural origin, told the journalist Donald McNeil Jr. “It shouldn’t have happened. People should not be looking at bat viruses in BSL-2 labs. My view has changed.” But the WIV was not breaking any rules by working at BSL-2, says Filippa Lentzos, a biosecurity expert at King’s College London “There are no enforceable standards of what you should and shouldn’t do. It’s up to the individual countries, institutions, and scientists.” And in China, she says, the vertiginous rise of high-tech biological research has not been accompanied by an equivalent increase in oversight. In an email, Zhengli Shi said she followed Chinese rules that are similar to those in the US. Safety requirements are based on what virus you are studying. Since bat viruses like WIV1 haven’t been confirmed to cause disease in human beings, her biosafety committee recommended BSL-2 for engineering them and testing them and BSL-3 for any animal experiments. In response to questions about the decision to do the research in BSL-2 conditions, Peter Daszak forwarded a statement from EcoHealth Alliance stating that the organization “must follow the local laws of the countries in which we work” and that the NIH had determined the research was “not gain-of-function.” Questioning China There is no law against using tighter lab security, however, and according to Baric, these viruses deserve it. “I would never argue that WIV1 or SHC014 should be studied at BSL-2, because they can grow in primary human cells,” he says. “There’s some risk associated with those viruses. We have no idea whether they could actually cause severe disease in a human, but you want to err on the side of caution ... If you study a hundred different bat viruses, your luck may run out.” Since the pandemic began, Baric has not said much about the possible origins of the virus or about his Chinese counterparts. On several occasions, however, he has quietly pointed to safety concerns at the WIV. In May 2020, when few scientists were willing to consider a lab leak in public, he published a paper acknowledging that “speculation about accidental laboratory escape will likely persist, given the large collections of bat virome samples stored in labs in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the facility’s proximity to the early outbreak, and the operating procedures at the facility.” He flagged Daszak and Shi’s BSL-2 paper, in case anyone didn’t understand what he was saying. Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina specializes in the genetic engineering of coronaviruses as part of vaccine and drug research. The National Institutes of Health has also revisited its ties to the Wuhan lab. In April of 2020, the NIH terminated its grant to EcoHealth Alliance for bat virus research. In a follow-up letter to Daszak on July 8, it offered to reinstate the grant, but only if EcoHealth Alliance could allay its concerns, noting reports that the WIV “has been conducting research at its facilities in China that pose serious bio-safety concerns” for other countries. It added, “We have concerns that WIV has not satisfied safety requirements under the award, and that EcoHealth Alliance has not satisfied its obligations to monitor the activities of its subrecipient.” The genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 does not resemble that of any virus the WIV was known to be culturing in its lab, such as WIV1, and Baric says he still believes a natural spillover is the most likely cause. But he also knows the intricate risks of the work well enough to see a possible path to trouble. That is why, in May of this year, he joined 17 other scientists in a letter in the journal Science calling for a thorough investigation of his onetime collaborator’s lab and its practices. He wants to know what barriers were in place to keep a pathogen from slipping out into Wuhan’s population of 13 million, and possibly to the world. “Let’s face it: there are going to be unknown viruses in guano, or oral swabs, which are oftentimes pooled. And if you’re attempting to culture a virus, you’re going to have novel strains being dropped onto culture cells,” Baric says. “Some will grow. You could get recombinants that are unique. And if that was being done at BSL-2, then there are questions you want to ask.” Author Rowan Jacobsen

For more see my bibliography. https://jormajyrkkanen.wordpress.com/2023/01/13/jorma-antero-jyrkkanens-bibliography-2022/

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) Flips from Not Good (June 2021) to Good it Works with Azithromycin(April 2023). 2023-04-09. Jorma Jyrkkanen

During early Pandemic nature scientific reports articles Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Open Access Published: 07 June 2021 Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Bahman Amani, Ahmad Khanijahani & Behnam Amani Scientific Reports volume 11, Article number: 11974 (2021) Cite this article 4674 Accesses 12 Citations 41 Altmetric Metrics details Abstract The efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: − 1.06, 95% CI − 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: − 0.64, 95% CI − 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: − 0.17, 95% CI − 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events. Today 2023-04-09

Summary Conclusion

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) Good or Bad (June 2021). The Jury May Have Just Changed its Mind (April 2023).

The Effects of Antibiotics and Pesticides on Plants and Covid mRNA Vaccine on Microbia 2023-04-01 Jorma Jyrkkanen, BSc, PDP

The Effects of Antibiotics and Pesticides on Plants and and Covid mRNA Vaccine on Microbia 2023-04-01 Jorma Jyrkkanen, BSc, PDP

ANTIBIOTICS ON PLANTS

PESTICIDES ON PLANTS

mRNA on MICROBIOTA

I SUSPECT A LOT OF THESE EFFECTS ARE DUE TO DAMAGE TO THE MITOCHONDRIA THEREBY HARMING THE IMMUNE HEALTH, METABOLISM, AND REPRODUCTION OF THESE ORGANISMS AND AM INVESTIGATING THAT POSSIBILITY. MY RESEARCH PREDICTED THESE RESULTS FOR OTHER SPECIES WITH MITOCHONDRIA. SEE