Connect with us

Environmental

NASA Says Antarctica Is Gaining More Ice Than It’s Losing & Here’s Why It’s Confusing

Avatar

Published

on

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

According to a new study that was recently published by NASA, Antarctica is actually gaining more ice than it has lost. NASA made the announcement after their satellites examined the heights of the region’s ice sheet, and the findings are contradicting the claim (with more than decades of research behind it) that Antarctica has been losing ice and that this loss is and has contributed to a rising global sea level.

advertisement - learn more

 The paper is titled “Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses,” and was published in the Journal of Glaciology last Friday. (source)

--> Our Journalism Is Moving - Our investigative journalism and reporting is moving to our new brand called The Pulse. Click here to stay informed.

The authors of the study, from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland and Sigma Space Corporation, analyzed satellite data showing that Antarctica has actually gained 112 billion tons of ice annually from 1992 to 2001 and it’s been increasing ever since.

Again, these findings are completely contradicting previous research that’s been conducted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which suggests that Antarctica’s ice sheets are melting and causing the sea level rise, thus contributing to global climate change.

According to Jay Zwally, lead author of the paper and NASA glaciologist:

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away…But this is also bad news…if the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”  (source)

advertisement - learn more

Many scientists (not all) believe that certain parts of Antarctica, like the peninsula and parts of Western Antarctica are losing ice, and that the rate of ice lost is increasing. On the eastern part of the continent, however, there have been ice gains, and that includes part of the interior as well. Scientists are now pointing to the fact that these gains are far greater than the losses we’ve been seeing in the rest of the region. As a result, the net gain  would, again, mean that Antarctica is actually not contributing to see level rise, which begs the question in the quote above, where else could it be coming from? This means that scientists are underestimating the impact from other sources of sea level rise, like the heating of the oceans or the melting that’s occurring in Greenland perhaps?

With that being said, Zwally also mentioned that:

“If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years—I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.” (source)

The paper did mention some limitations, for example, the difficulties associated with measuring the height of ice in Antarctica, new technology is needed to perform the task better. According to RT news, the US space agency is currently developing a new satellite that’s more capable of accurately measuring long-term changes in ice in Antarctica.

It’s also interesting to note that Arctic ice extent (we are constantly hearing about the melting of ice in the Arctic) makes up only 10 percent of the world’s total ice extent. When it comes to the ice extent of Antarctica (ice examined in this study), this makes up for 90 percent of the world’s ice extent. Three years ago, Data from the university of Illinois Polar Research Group showed that Antarctic sea ice extent reached an all time high. It was the second largest extent logged at any time dating back to 1979, when record keeping first began.  (source)(source)(source)

Possible explanations for the rise in ice extent include what’s known as the Polar Vortex. A study published in the Journal of Climate by Jinlun Zhang, a University of Washington scientist reports that:

“The polar vortex that swirls around the South Pole is not just stronger than it was when satellite records began in the 1970s, it has more convergence, meaning it shoves the sea ice together to cause ridging. Stronger winds also drive ice faster, which leads to still more deformation and ridging. This creates thicker, longer-lasting ice, while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth.” (source)

Other explanations include that the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer may be slowing and delaying Antarctic warming and ice melt. Studies out of NASA have suggested that the oceans are warming and that this is melting the ice from underneath, therefore we can’t see it yet. Several possible explanations have been hypothesized but no one has really figured out why this is happening.

Other Factors To Consider About Climate Change

Climate change is indeed happening, and in my opinion there is absolutely no doubt about that. Sure, human impact has destroyed our environment at a rapid pace, and our actions have no doubt influenced our ecosystem, atmosphere and beyond in harmful ways that we are probably not even aware of yet. Given that, it’s important to remember that we know very little about Earth’s climate. We have to look beyond human impact and factor in natural cycles, and other factors when we are pondering the catalysts for climate change. With that being said, the time for us to move on from our archaic ways of generating energy for example are long overdue. These, and several other factors, are indeed contributing to the destruction of our planet.

One of these factors is the sun:

“The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts earth’s global temperature, which becomes slightly hotter during solar maximums and cooler during solar minimums” – Thomas Woods, University of Colorado in Boulder (source)

Scientists have learned that about 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth’s outermost atmosphere during the sun’s quietest periods. But when the sun is active, 1.3 watts per square meter more energy reaches Earth. This measurement is extremely important to climate models that are trying to access Earth based forces on climate change.

Massive bodies flying in and around our solar system also have an effect on the whether of all the planets in our solar system. It’s well documented that solar activity has a direct effect on weather here on Earth, and that comet activity has a direct effect on solar weather. (source)(source)(source)

Research results presented at the 2012 Fall American Geophysical Union illustrated that comets help highlight the intensely dynamic environment of the sun’s atmosphere. As a result they have a direct effect on the weather of all the planets in our solar system, and the Earth’s own magnetic field. (source)

Union Of Concerned Scientists  outlines that over the time-scale of millions of years the change in solar intensity is a critical influence on climate, however:

“Changes in solar heating rate over the last century cannot account for the magnitude and distribution of the rise in global mean temperature during that time period and there is no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output.” (source)

Who Is Suggesting That Humans Are Not Contributing To Climate Change?

The past few years have been quite controversial when it comes to the topic of climate change. Although it’s rare to find those who say climate change isn’t happening, it’s not rare to find credible scientists suggesting that the human impact on global climate change isn’t as big as it’s ‘marketed’ to be. The climate is changing, no doubt about that, but is human impact really the leading cause of global climate change? And with the study highlighted in this article, it just adds more confusion to the topic.

Hundreds of world renowned scientists believe there is some shady business going on. For example, Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climatologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction, and four of the world’s top climate scientists recently had their research rejected for suggesting that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC.

According to him:

“The problem we have now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist. It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. I am worried about the gradual influence of political views on science. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the computer models.” (source)

Bengtsson is one of many examples. Not long ago, NASA was blasted by approximately 50 of their own personnel regarding their global warming stance. (source)(source)

There is also more interesting research like the fairly recent report by Principia Scientific International’s (PSI) Martin Mlynczak alongside NASA tracked infrared emissions from the Earth’s upper atmosphere during and following a solar storm last March. They found that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this coronal mass ejection was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into Earth’s lower atmosphere.  The result of this was an overall cooling effect because carbon dioxide and nitric oxide (greenhouse gases) were reflecting heat energy rather than absorbing it. This study suggests carbon dioxide is in fact cooling the atmosphere.(source)

There is also what’s known as the Vostok data, this refers to an ice core sample that was obtained by drilling down into the ice above Lake Vostok to a depth of 3623m. The graph built from the Vostok ice core data shows us the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. The Vostok data showed that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases by about 800 years. According to this study, CO2 may not the cause of our current increased temperatures.

All of the science on both sides has led to a ‘people bashing people’ campaign. One in which those who say the human impact on climate change is not as big as we thought are conspiracy theorists, and those who say human impact is the number one cause of climate change are also conspiracy theorists, one being false and used to promote a specific agenda.

International Business Times points out that the effects of climate change are irreversible. Sea levels have been rising at a greater rate year after year, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates they could rise by another meter or more by the end of this century. As National Geographicshowed us in 2013, sea levels would rise by 216 feet if all the land ice on the planet were to melt. This would dramatically reshape the continents and drown many of the world’s major cities.

Here is a video they published showing what the earth would look like if all the ice melted.

Personally, after looking at all of the data I’ve looked at, it’s clear to me that we are going through, and have been going through drastic climate change, and there is a lot of data that shows without a doubt that the climate change is real. As far as the level of impact humans have had on it, and whether greenhouse gases do contribute to climate change as much as the mainstream thinks they do, I’m still confused, and my next point just adds to my confusion.

I’d like to make it clear, again, that I am not denying climate change, and the way we are doing things here on our planet is clearly destroying our environment and our atmosphere, which does (I believe) have an effect on climate. How large that affect is, again, I’m not so sure, but as far as destroying our environment and polluting our world (which also contributes to climate change), it’s time to implement the solutions we’ve had for years and go above and beyond all the Red Tape that prevents us from implementing them.

Why Has Everybody Been Talking About Climate Change Without Mentioning This?

If all of this research has been evaluating human impact on global climate change, why is nobody creating awareness about factory farming? Did you know that in 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report stating that the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined? Did you know that 51 percent (or more) of global greenhouse-gas emissions are caused by animal agriculture? (source) (source)(source)(source)

You can find out more about this from an article we titled “Disturbing Aerial Photos Show What Killing Billions of Animals For Meat Is Doing To The Environment.”

If you’re concerned about the climate, focusing on your eating habits is one of the biggest ways you can help.

Credit: Thanks to Deborah Zabarenko from Reuters for the picture.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Environmental

3 Million Masks a Minute: The Next Plastic Problem?

Avatar

Published

on

By

4 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Studies estimate worldwide humans are using 129 billion face masks each month. Most masks are disposable, made from plastic microfibers that are not biodegradable and may fragment into smaller plastic particles polluting ecosystems.

  • Reflect On:

    What's the solution to the words plastic pollution problems? Why do we even use it when there are so many other biodegradable substances we can use? Why has plastic not been banned worldwide?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The high demand for face masks since the coronavirus pandemic began has resulted in the production of billions of disposable masks — with no way to properly dispose of them.

Masks are littering cities, clogging sewage channels and turning up in bodies of water, prompting researchers to warn of the potential for masks to become the next “plastic problem.”

Recent studies estimate that worldwide, humans are using 129 billion face masks each month — about 3 million a minute. Most of them are disposable face masks made from plastic, non-biodegradable microfibers that break down into smaller plastic particles — micro- and nanoplastics — that become widespread in ecosystems.

The World Health Organization says an estimated 89 million medical masks are required for the COVID response each month, a trend likely to persist for some time.

At the start of the outbreak, U.S. officials estimated the country would need 300 million face masks to cope with the pandemic in 2020. U.S. manufacturer 3M made 550 million masks in 2019 and plans to produce 2 billion this year as long as the pandemic lasts.

“The enormous production of disposable masks is on a similar scale as plastic bottles, which is estimated to be 43 billion per month,”said environmental toxicologist Elvis Genbo Xu from the University of Southern Denmark, and professor Zhiyong Jason Ren, an expert in civil and environmental engineering at Princeton University. “But unlike plastic bottles, there is no way to recycle face masks, making them more likely to be disposed of in inappropriate ways.”

Common surgical masks have three layers: an outer layer with non-absorbent fibrous material (like polyester) that protects against liquid splashes, a middle layer with non-woven fabrics (like polypropylene and polystyrene) created using a meltblown process which prevents droplets and aerosols via an electrostatic effect, and an inner layer made of absorbent material like cotton to absorb vapor.

Masks contain many polymers, including fabric polypropylene. Polypropylene is one of the most commonly produced plastics and does not easily break down. Weathering from solar radiation and heat cause polypropylene to generate a large number of micro-sized polypropylene particles and nanoplastics.

Disposable face masks are made directly from microsized plastic fibers, which release plastic particles easier and faster than bulk plastics like plastic bags. A newer generation of masks, called nanomasks, releases even smaller particles creating a new source of nanoplastic pollution, according to the University of Southern Denmark.

Like other plastic debris, “disposable masks may accumulate and release harmful chemical and biological substances, such as bisphenol Aheavy metals and pathogenic microorganisms,” according to Xu and Ren. Some of the toxic chemicals released during degradation of plastic polymers include phthalatesorganotinnonylphenolpolybrominated biphenyl ether and triclosan.

The impacts of plastic as a solid waste and microplastics contamination in the environment have been investigated, validated and demonstrated by different researchers in various publications, according to a study in Marine Pollution Bulletin.

Face masks get into the environment when disposed in landfills and dumpsites or littered in public spaces. They then make their way into lakes, rivers and oceans, breaking down into plastic particles within a few weeks.

In the years prior to the pandemic, environmentalists warned about skyrocketing plastic pollution and its threat to oceans and marine life. As much as 13 million tons of plastic ends up in our oceans every year, according to a 2018 estimate by UN Environment.

According to a report by OceanAsia, roughly 52 billion face masks were manufactured in 2020 to meet the demand of the coronavirus pandemic and 1.56 billion were estimated to have entered the ocean, resulting in 4,680 to 6,240 metric tonnes of face masks. These masks take as long as 450 years to completely break down –– slowly turning into microplastics that negatively affect marine wildlife and ecosystems.

The environmental research community needs to move faster to understand and mitigate these risks, said researchers Xu and Ren. They proposed the following for dealing with the problem:

  • Set up mask-only trash cans for collection and disposal. Do not put masks in the recycling.
  • Consider standardization, guidelines and strict implementation of waste management for mask wastes.
  • Replace disposable masks with reusable face masks like cotton masks.
  • Develop biodegradable disposal masks with materials that are safe.

Article written by Megan Redshaw, a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Environmental

Zimbabwe Man Invents An Electric System That Charges Itself

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 9 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Sangulani (Maxwell) Chikumbutso has invented an electric system that runs off a battery. The unique thing is the battery charges itself with electromagnetic radiation that's present naturally in the environment. It can run forever.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do these technologies never see the light of day? Why are they usually ridiculed and brushed off as fake? What would the implications be if this technology was released to the world?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

A few years ago multiple media outlets began to report a new development designed by a man from Zimbabwe named Sangulani (Maxwell) Chikumbutso, who claimed to have successfully created an electric powered vehicle and system which runs on a battery that has the ability to charge itself, making it the first ever electric vehicle that never needs charging.

According to Maxwell’s claims, the energy to power the battery is taken from electromagnetic waves that exist all around us and are naturally present in our environment. The vehicle had 5 normal gel batteries which were sufficient enough to start the vehicle and charge the batteries, and from there on in, the batteries are constantly charging.

His story and developments began to make noise. For example, SABC News, a major news station owned by the South African Broadcasting Corporation picked up the story and relayed it to their viewers.

According to the Zambian Observer,

“The United States government has given Zimbabwe’s prolific inventor Maxwell Chikumbutso a new home in its populous state of California. Chikumbutso is the founder of Saith Holdings Inc. under which he made headlines for his serial innovations which include the world’s first ever green power generator which can produce electricity using radio frequencies, an electric powered car which doesn’t consume fuel, a fuelled helicopter and many more.”

When this story broke, a number of “fact-checkers” simply labelled it as false without any investigation. When I first saw this I thought to myself, why would multiple media outlets cover the story, film it and present it to the entire country if it was fake? And why did fact checkers simply label the story as false from the armchairs of their offices without providing any evidence showing that it was?

Despite fact-checkers labelling this information as false without any investigation, new energy enthusiasts and makers of one of the most viewed documentaries in human history, THRIVE: What on Earth Will It Take, Foster Gamble and Kimberly Carter Gamble decided to actually go to Zimbabwe and vet the technology for themselves. Since Foster has been looking into and studying new energy technologies for more than 30 years, this was both an exciting moment but one filled with careful consideration, as the vast majority of claims like this are in fact false.

The Thrive team met Maxwell when they landed, and quickly sensed that Maxwell was a good hearted soul who has the desire the change the world. But did his technology truly work? The next morning, Maxwell took them to see a device, which uses the same technology behind the electric car mentioned above. The unit shown in the video clip below is ample enough to power 300 homes, continuously, forever. Likely with maintenance of course. Think about the implications of that…

The full story and more is covered in their new film, Thrive II: This Is What It Takes.  You can see a brief clip from THRIVE II below and Foster and Kimberly’s interaction with Maxwell.

In the film, Chikumbutso explains:

One of the painful realities I have seen in energy is this is a very dangerous game all together. Yeah, especially free energy, because you know they can try to kill it – using professional people and that has happened to me…I went through a lot, poisons, like I’m saying right now, I’m fighting it. They come to you then they say, No, you mustn’t do this.” When they see you’re not giving up, then they can just frame you, then they can so no, you’ve done ABC.” My prayer is this thing must see the light of day.

As far as those “fact checkers” go. As I mentioned above they simply labelled this development as false. For example, PolitiFact explained that “Three years ago, a man at a one-day event touted “inventions,” including a car that defies the laws of physics. Since 2015, his story has only found a home on false news blogs and conspiracy sites.”

Snopes did the same, also mentioning our article that was publishing covering the story:

On 25 April 2018, the conspiracy oriented, reality-adjacent website Collective Evolution picked up the story once again, this time citing the aforementioned Zambian Observer story and the 2015 video of that same event from South African television. As is often the case with Collective Evolution articles, the claims made there have been cloned and regurgitated ad infinitum by other dubious clickbait sites.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence or investigation by these fact checkers to vet the technology, and the common theme used to try and debunk Chikumbutso is that his invention breaks the laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics to be exact, because it produces more energy than is put into the device. They also use ridicule to support their narrative.

We here at Collective Evolution would argue that the device does not at all break the laws of physics, and that the law is not well understood, or needs to be revised. Furthermore, if there’s one thing constant about physics it’s change.

Take, for example, prominent physicist Lord Kelvin, who stated in the year 1900 that, “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” 

It wasn’t long after this statement when Einstein published his paper on special relativity. Einstein’s theories challenged the accepted framework of knowledge at the time, and forced the scientific community to open up to an alternate view of reality.

It serves as a great example of how concepts that are taken to be absolute truth are susceptible to change. It’s also important to mention that if these fact-checkers actually did some investigation into this case, they would have a different opinion. How come fact checkers have the ability to label something as false without any actual investigation?

That’s why people like Foster and Kimberly are so important.

In fact, there are multiple inventions out there that appear to break the second law of thermodynamics which have received absolutely no attention. For example, renowned inventor and engineer Paramahamsa Tewari developed an electrical generator that put out more power than it takes in, achieving over-unity efficiency. He published a paper in Physics Essays titled “Structural relation between the vacuum space and the electron” in 2018 before he passed. The paper explains the concepts behind the make-up of what we perceive to be our physical material world, the concepts in there explain the the thoughts behind his generator. You can view a video of the generator here, and read more about it in an article I dive deeper about it, here.

Concluding Remarks: The fact that these technologies, and similar technologies that can provide “free energy” to the planet exist is very exciting. We here at Collective Evolution have also had the privilege of seeing some of these technologies with our own eyes, and it’s quite unfortunate that they always come under such a harsh resistance. What does that tell you about our world and the underlying stories that navigate our current thinking? The fact is, new energy technologies like the one mentioned in this article have the ability to completely collapse the biggest energy companies in the world. Just because this is true, does not mean we should not approach the conversation and determine how we can implement them and perhaps create further adjustments in our society along the way.

I started to examine the breakthrough solutions, and much to my surprise, these concepts have been proven in hundreds of laboratories throughout the world, and yet they have not really seen the light of day. If the new energy technologies were to be set free worldwide, the change be profound, it would affect everybody, it would be applicable everywhere. These technologies are absolutely the most important thing that’s happened in the history of the world.  – Dr Brian O’Leary, Former NASA Astronaut and Princeton Physics Professor

Professor Emeritus at the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space at the University of New Hampshire. He outlined the importance of these concepts in his paper titled Space and Terrestrial Transportation and Energy Technologies For The 21st Century.

There is significant evidence that scientists since Tesla have known about this energy, but that its existence and potential use has been discouraged and indeed suppressed over the past half century or more.  – Dr. Theodor C. Loder, III (source)

Imagine a planet where we live in transparency and all developments are made public. Why does something that threatens power have to be kept a secret? Why is the excuse always to protect “national security.” Why is our planet like this, and why are we accepting and choosing to live the way we do when we have the potential to do so much better?

Of course, energy is a huge part of our existing economy, and thus it’s easy to see how disrupting energy is disrupting the entire economy. We would lose jobs, industries etc. Our progress as a species is held back by our love affair with our current ways of thinking and economy, even when it creates a world that is slowly destroying itself. So what’s the solution then? Transparent discussion ad a new conversation. We must begin realizing what it is that truly holds back these technologies, and it isn’t as simple as saying ‘the elite’ or ‘the deep state.’ It’s our ways of thinking and being, our collective story.

We talk about this in great detail in an interview with someone who has been working in the ‘new energy’ space for many years. Dive into this important conversation on CETV here.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Environmental

Half a Million Sharks Could Be Killed to Make COVID-19 Vaccine

Avatar

Published

on

By

2 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Drug maker GlaxoSmithKline may need to slaughter half a million sharks to harvest squalene, an oil made in shark livers, to make a new line of COVID jabs. Glaxo mixes squalene with a witches’ brew of proprietary surfactants to produce its controversial AS03 vaccine adjuvant. Adjuvants are compounds that amplify immune response to hyperstimulate the immune system. They are associated with a variety of autoimmune diseases.

Scientific studies have linked squalene adjuvants to Gulf War syndrome and to a wave of debilitating neurological disorders including epidemics of narcolepsy caused by Glaxo’s H1N1 Pandemrix vaccine during the 2009 swine flu “pandemic.” One study showed a 13-fold increased risk of narcolepsy in children who received Pandemrix.

The devastating cascade of brain injuries to children and health care workers forced the termination of that Glaxo vaccine after European governments used only a small fraction of the jabs they had purchased from Glaxo. A recent study links squalene to carcinomas. In a bizarre and reckless twist, Glaxo has revived the dangerous adjuvant as its hall pass to the COVID-19 money orgy.

The company said it would manufacture a billion doses of this adjuvant for potential use in coronavirus vaccines. Around 3,000 sharks are needed to extract one ton of squalene.

Shark Allies, a California-based group, said Glaxo will kill around 250,000 sharks to make enough AS03 for the world’s population to receive one dose of its COVID-19 vaccine. If, as expected, two doses are needed, half a million sharks must die.

Glaxo declared that it would be producing 1 billion doses of AS03 “to support the development of multiple adjuvanted COVID-19 vaccine candidates.”

Glaxo has developed partnerships with multiple companies, including its behemoth rival Sanofi, China’s Clover Biopharmaceuticals and Innovax Biotech in the city of Xiamen. Glaxo has also agreed to make the technology available to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations for COVID vaccines in Australia and elsewhere. Glaxo said it is focusing on what it considers a “proven technology” that will give the company “several shots on goal.”

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is implementing many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Join us on Telegram

We post important content to Telegram daily so we don't have to rely on Facebook.

You have Successfully Subscribed!