The “Covid-19” and Air Pollution Connection

Since I state that there is no valid scientific evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2” nor any other “virus” running around causing disease, I am often asked “If it’s not a virus, then what is it making people sick?” To answer this, a few things must be understood first. For starters, not a single person is suffering any new symptoms of disease. Every symptom associated with “Covid-19” can be found on the same spectrum progressing from allergies on up to pneumonia. We have known of these ailments for centuries. This is not a new disease, only a new name given to the same set of symptoms. Did you really think that the flu just up and disappeared due to lockdowns, masks, and social distancing? These precautions were tried during the 1918 Spanish flu well over a hundred years ago. It didn’t stop the flu then, and it sure didn’t stop it now.

Secondly, there are many factors that can ultimately lead to illness. Disease does not need to be explained by only one single cause. If we are to look at the body as a gigantic waste removal system in a constant cycle of cleanse and repair, it is easy to understand that the more toxic waste we put into our body, the greater the effort will be to remove this material from the body. Symptoms of disease such as fever, coughing, sweating, congestion, vomiting, etc. are all varying ways for the body to expel the toxins it has accumulated over time. The severity of the symptoms signifies the stage of the toxic state found within as well as the effort required to cleanse the body back to normal.

It should go without saying then that what we put into our bodies, both physically and mentally, will have a profound effect on the environment within the body. Any of these factors individually could make us sick, but oftentimes, it is a combination of many acting in accordance to overtoxify the body into a state of self-repair. These disease-promoting factors include (but are not limited to):

1. Consuming non-organic, genetically modified, pesticide-laden foods
2. Drinking unclean, fluoridated, and chlorinated water
3. Living a sedentary lifestyle without regular exercise
4. Consuming alcohol and recreational drugs
5. Taking prescription medications and toxic vaccines
6. Interrupted or inconsistent sleep cycle
7. Lack of direct sunlight
8. Long-term exposure to EMF’s and other radiation
9. Overabundance of stress
10. Regular use of cleaning supplies and other chemicals

These are but a few of the ways in which the body encounters toxins on a regular basis. It is not an exhaustive list, but it should present a good idea as to how we accumulate a toxic state within the body leading to dis-ease.

Air Pollution: A Major Factor in Respiratory Disease

On purpose, I left off the list what I consider to be one of the major factors influencing the state of our health: air pollution. I did so as I want to focus more in depth on this seemingly ignored global problem. While air pollution may not be as “sexy” of a theory as “viruses” to explain our current ailments, you will find there is much better evidence relating air pollution to every single symptom associated with “Covid-19” as well as its contribution to respiratory disease.

To begin with, let’s take a look at a very recent update to the air quality guidelines provided by the WHO in October 2021, as explained by Dr Maria Neira:

“What is new, essentially, is that we need to lower the recommended levels of exposure to air pollutants in order to protect people’s health. So we know now that even exposure to a very low levels of certain pollutants that we are breathing every day will put us at risk. And that’s why, for six key pollutants, we are recommending lower levels that will be protecting your health. The important message of these guidelines is that if those recommendations of WHO are implemented, particularly for PM 2.5, which is one of the most dangerous for our health, we could save 80% of the total number of deaths that we have every year due to air pollution, and that number is 7 million premature deaths caused by exposure to air pollution.”

“Yes, they are six pollutants that are very much of concern for our health. One of them is the so-called PM so particulate matter 2.5. It’s such a small particle that can go very easily to your lungs and from our lungs will not stay there. It can go even to the bloodstream, and from there reach any organ in our in our body. Then we have PM10, which is a little bit bigger. And then other four pollutants that are coming essentially from traffic or from the combustion of fossil fuels.

And I’m sure that you hear about SO2 or NO2 or ozone or carbon monoxide. All of those six are the ones that we are targeting. And if we are successful in implementing those new recommendations and lowering the levels of those six pollutants, we can save many, many lives.”

“It’s clear that the bad quality of the air we breathe will be a major risk factor for acute and chronic respiratory diseases and cardiovascular diseases. In addition to that, if you are exposed to air pollution, you will develop certain diseases, underlying diseases that will give you a greater possibility of developing severe cases of COVID, if you are affected. So we see a clear relationship between air pollution and the burden of COVID-19 in places that were very polluted.

This is an additional reason why now on the recovery post COVID-19, we need to reimagine a greener world with clean sources of energy, a place where we can breathe air that is not killing us. Just to remind all of the people that are listening to us at the moment. 90% of the world population, nine zero percent of the world population, is breathing air that is not respecting the recommended standards by the World Health Organization, the ones that will be protecting our health.”

https://www.who.int/podcasts/series/science-in-5/episode–56—air-pollution—covid-19

Amazingly, as can be seen from the comments by the WHO’s Dr. Maria Neira, the new WHO evidence suggests that air pollution is a major concern to our health and wellness and is in dire need of cleaning up. How this information is somehow new is beyond me as the dangers of air pollution, particularly PM2.5, has been known for decades. They have known that these nano-sized particles invade the lungs, traveling throughout the body, disrupting our vital organs and health. As was stated, at least 7 million premature deaths are associated with exposure to air pollution. Even small amounts of exposure can have major implications to our state of health. The WHO does acknowledge that there is a clear relationship between air pollution exposure and the symptoms of disease now called “Covid-19.” However, without evidence, they still claim a “virus” is present that acts in combination with the air pollution in order to make matters worse. It is obviously ridiculous to assume a “virus” is present when one is not needed in order to explain the ill health effects caused by air pollution.

Establishing the Relationship Between Air Pollution and “Covid-19“

Since the WHO brought up the connection between “Covid-19” and air pollution, let’s see how much evidence there is establishing this clear relationship. We can find out quite a bit from this article by the Harvard T.H. Chan School for Public Health:

Coronavirus and Air Pollution

“We know that air pollution can cause health problems, like heart attacks, strokes, diabetes and high blood pressure, that have been identified as the pre-existing medical conditions that raise the chances of death from COVID-19 infection. Emerging research, including a study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, finds that breathing more polluted air over many years may itself worsen the effects of COVID-19.

The Harvard Chan study led by Xiao Wu and Rachel Nethery and senior author Francesca Dominici found an association between air pollution over many years with an 11% increase in mortality from COVID-19 infection for every 1 microgram/cubic meter increase in air pollution (for comparison, many Americans breathe air with 8 micrograms/cubic meter of particulate matter).

While the study does not show that air pollution directly affects an individual’s likelihood of dying from COVID-19 because individual-level COVID data is not yet publicly available, it does show an association between long term exposure to air pollution and higher COVID-19 mortality rates.”

Research on Air Pollution and Coronavirus

“The Harvard study is one of several that suggest air pollution is affecting COVID-19 mortality. Researchers analyzing 120 cities in China found a significant relationship between air pollution and COVID-19 infection, and of the coronavirus deaths across 66 regions in Italy, Spain, France and Germany, 78% of them occurred in five of the most polluted regions. There’s also evidence from previous outbreaks like SARS, which was also a coronavirus, as well as many other respiratory infections including influenza, that breathing more polluted air increased risks of death.

China

• Yang et al found that patients with severe Covid-19 infections requiring, for instance intensive care, were two times as likely to have had pre-existing diseases, especially heart disease, strokes, chronic lung diseases and diabetes—all of which are known to be caused by air pollution. (International Journal of Infectious Diseases, March 5, 2020)
• Zhu et al analyzed 120 cities in China and found a significant relationship between air pollution and COVID-19 infection after controlling for confounding factors. (Science of the Total Environment, July 20, 2020)
• Tian et al found that places with higher levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution (10 micrograms per cubic metre) in the five years before the pandemic had 22% more Covid-19 cases, while higher levels of small particle pollution saw a 15% rise in infection rates. (Beijing Normal University, PREPRINT posted April 24, 2020)
• Wang et al found that particulate matter pollution was positively associated with increased cases of COVID-19. (Lanzhou University, PREPRINT posted April 14, 2020)
• Yao et al found that air pollution was positively associated with higher fatality rates from COVID-19. (Environmental Research, October 2020)
• Yao et al found that NO2 concentration was positively associated with the transmission ability of COVID-19. (Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, January 15, 2021)

Europe

• The United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics found that without controlling for ethnicity, long-term exposure to fine particulate matter could increase the risk of contracting and dying from COVID-19 by up to 7%. (United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics, August 13, 2020)
• Cole et al found that in the Netherlands, a municipality with 1 μg/m3 more PM2.5 concentrations will have 9.4 more COVID-19 cases, 3 more hospital admissions, and 2.3 more deaths. (Environmental and Resource Economics, August 4, 2020)
• Ogen found that of the coronavirus deaths across 66 administrative regions in Italy, Spain, France and Germany, 78% of them occurred in just five regions, and these were the most polluted. (Science of the Total Environment, July 15, 2020)
• Conticini et al found high death rates seen in the north of Italy correlated with the highest levels of air pollution. (Environmental Pollution, June 2020)
• Travaglio et al found air pollution levels in England are associated with COVID-19 cases and deaths. (Environmental Pollution, January 1, 2021)
• Setti et al detected Coronavirus on particles of air pollution while investigating whether this could enable it to be carried over longer distances and increase the number of people infected. (Environmental Research, September 2020)
• Setti et al found that higher levels of particle pollution could explain higher rates of infection in parts of northern Italy before a lockdown was imposed. (University of Bologna, PREPRINT posted April 17, 2020)
• Coccia found that the rapid spread of COVID-19 in North Italy has been strongly associated with air pollution. (National Research Council of Italy, PREPRINT posted April 11, 2020)

United States

• Petroni et al found an increase in exposure to hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) is associated with a 9% increase in COVID-19 mortality. (Environmental Research Letters, September 11, 2020)
• Wu et al found an association between air pollution over many years with an 11% increase in mortality from COVID-19 infection for every 1 microgram/cubic meter increase in air pollution. (Science Advances, November 4, 2020)
• Liang et al found that people living in communities with more long-term exposure to tailpipe emissions were associated with higher rates of dying from COVID-19, with a 4.6ppb increase in NO2 exposure (which primarily comes from urban traffic) resulting in an 11% increase in the case fatality rate after controlling for other factors that may increase risk of dying from the disease. (The Innovation, September 21, 2020)
• Lipsitt et al found annual nitrogen dioxide exposure (a pollutant that comes from tailpipe emissions) to be associated with COVID-19 incidence and mortality in Los Angeles County neighborhoods while adjusting for numerous confounders, with an 8.7 ppb increase in NO2 to be associated with a 35–60% increase in mortality rate (Environment International, August 2021).
• Zhou et al found that there were nearly 20,000 extra coronavirus infections and 750 deaths associated with exposure to high levels of PM2.5 from 2020 wildfires in 92 western U.S. counties (Science Advances, August 13, 2021).

Previous Outbreaks

• Cui et al found that someone living in a highly polluted area of China was more than twice as likely to die from SARS than someone living in an area with cleaner air. (Environmental Health, November 20, 2003)
• During the SARS epidemic in 2003, Kan et al found that increases in particulate matter air pollution increased risks of dying from the disease. (Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, November 2019)
• Researchers have found that several viruses, including adenovirus and influenza virus, can be carried on air particles. Zhao et al found that particulate matter likely contributed to the spread of the 2015 avian influenza. (Scientific Reports, August 13, 2019)
• Chen et al found that air pollution can accelerate the spread of respiratory infections. (Environment International, January 2017)

Coronavirus and Air Pollution

It is very apparent that air pollution has a major impact on our health and well-being. The areas with the highest levels of air pollution had the worst cases of the symptoms of disease known as “Covid-19.” Numerous studies have clearly shown this connection, even as far back as the original “SARS” as well as with influenza. Keep in mind that a “virus” is not necessary to explain the symptoms of disease in these studies as air pollution is the defining factor and is linked to every single symptom as well. It is absolutely unnecessary and entirely foolish to throw an invisible “virus” in to the mix in an attempt to explain worsening disease when all that is necessary is long-term exposure and the accumulation of air pollution within the body.

“SARS-COV-2 ” RNA in Air Pollution?

What is interesting, as mentioned above, is a study by Setti et al. published in September 2020, which found that the exact same fragments of RNA said to belong to “SARS-COV-2” was found throughout the polluted air in Northern Italy. I have presented the abstract for the study here:

SARS-Cov-2RNA found on particulate matter of Bergamo in Northern Italy: First evidence

Abstract

Background

The burden of COVID-19 was extremely severe in Northern Italy, an area characterized by high concentrations of particulate matter (PM), which is known to negatively affect human health. Consistently with evidence already available for other viruses, we initially hypothesized the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 presence on PM, and we performed a first experiment specifically aimed at confirming or excluding this research hyphotesys.

Methods

We have collected 34 PM10 samples in Bergamo area (the epicenter of the Italian COVID-19 epidemic) by using two air samplers over a continuous 3-weeks period. Filters were properly stored and underwent RNA extraction and amplification according to WHO protocols in two parallel blind analyses performed by two different authorized laboratories. Up to three highly specific molecular marker genes (E, N, and RdRP) were used to test the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on particulate matter.

Results

The first test showed positive results for gene E in 15 out of 16 samples, simultaneously displaying positivity also for RdRP gene in 4 samples. The second blind test got 5 additional positive results for at least one of the three marker genes. Overall, we tested 34 RNA extractions for the E, N and RdRP genes, reporting 20 positive results for at least one of the three marker genes, with positivity separately confirmed for all the three markers. Control tests to exclude false positivities were successfully accomplished.

Conclusion

This is the first evidence that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be present on PM, thus suggesting a possible use as indicator of epidemic recurrence.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120306472

What the researchers claim here is that they found “SARS-COV-2” RNA on PM10 particulate matter. They did not find any “virus.” They captured air pollutant particles (not “viruses”), and three short RNA sequences wrongly assigned to a “virus” were detected amongst them. These small particles are known to get into the respiratory tract and affect health. When searching for “SARS-COV-2,” a giant Q-tip is shoved into a person’s nasal cavity digging around for the pollution particles residing there. If they find enough, a person “tests” positive. Again, there is no need to claim “virus” when the particulate matter contains the exact same sequences belonging to the invisible “virus.” However, a story is created around these findings that the much smaller “virus” (which is said not to be able to survive the harsh atmosphere for more than 5 minutes) floats along with the particulate matter until it finds an unsuspecting host. This is obviously a work of pure fiction.

Sources of Air Pollution

So, how does this health-damaging particulate matter get into and pollute our air? It can come from many sources. However, the most impactful are those that are man-made:

Where Does Air Pollution Come From?

“There are four main types of air pollution sources:

1. Mobile sources – such as cars, buses, planes, trucks, and
2. Trainsstationary sources – such as power plants, oil refineries, industrial facilities, and factories
3. Area sources – such as agricultural areas, cities, and wood burning fireplaces
4. Natural sources – such as wind-blown dust, wildfires, and volcanoes

Mobile sources account for more than half of all the air pollution in the United States and the primary mobile source of air pollution is the automobile, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Stationary sources, like power plants, emit large amounts of pollution from a single location, these are also known as point sources of pollution. Area sources are made up of lots of smaller pollution sources that aren’t a big deal by themselves but when considered as a group can be. Natural sources can sometimes be significant but do not usually create ongoing air pollution problems like the other source types can.”

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/sources.htm

“Covid” and Chemtrails

Of course, the automobile gets the majority of the blame, along with factories and power plants. These are obviously problematic and need to be addressed immediately. However, there is another source which, while briefly mentioned above, is often neglected to be associated with our air pollution crisis: airplanes. Specifically, I am referring to the lingering trails spread across our skies in various patterns, forming artificial clouds and blocking out much needed sunlight. Some call them persistent contrails while others refer to them as chemtrails. Whatever one wants to call these miles-long strips of haze, this is not a conspiracy theory as the MSM wants you to believe. These trails exist, they are created by planes (both marked and unmarked), and they contain harmful PM2.5 and other substances that pollute our air and damage our health on a daily basis.

In 2014, the government of Vermont put out a fact sheet comparing contrails versus chemtrails. In it, they admit that these trails produce PM2.5 particles and that they have a negative impact on the environment:

Contrails vs. Chemtrails – Fact Sheet

Contrails and Air Quality

“Burning aviation fuel releases atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H20), with smaller amounts of carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), carbon soot and trace metals. These emissions occur all along the aircraft flight path, but are most concentrated at ground level close to major airports. VOC and NOX contribute to the formation of ozone pollution; NOX, SOX and soot contribute to formation of fine particles (PM2.5); and older piston engine aircraft are a decreasing but significant source of airborne lead (Pb) emissions.”

Contrails and Climate Change

“The carbon dioxide, ozone (formed from VOCs and NOx), carbon soot, SOx and water vapor (sometimes in the form of contrails) emitted by aircraft can influence climate on regional and global scales. Contrails can spread out in the sky and become cirrus clouds, which can produce a cooling effect by reflecting incoming sunlight back into space. However, these high clouds also can trap heat energy re-emitted by the Earth’s surface that would otherwise escape the atmosphere to space. The current and projected future climate forcing effects of aircraft emissions in general and aircraft contrails in particular have been subjects of extensive research and analysis by the scientific community and remain active areas of ongoing scientific inquiry.”

Click to access ChemtrailsFact%20Sheet_062514.pdf

Meanwhile, the US EPA sent out this fact sheet, which, while they claim there are no health impacts stemming from these persistant trails, they can affect the climate, which in turn impacts human health. See how tricky they get?

“Aircraft engines emit water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), small amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur gases, and soot and metal particles formed by the high-temperature combustion of jet fuel during flight. Of these emittants, only water vapor is necessary for contrail formation. Sulfur gases are also of potential interest because they lead to the formation of small particles. Particles suitable for water droplet formation are necessary for contrail formation. Initial contrail particles, however, can either be already present in the atmosphere or formed in the exhaust gas. All other engine emissions are considered nonessential to contrail formation.”

“Persistent contrails are of interest to scientists because they increase the cloudiness of the atmosphere. The increase happens in two ways. First, persistent contrails are line-shaped clouds that would not have formed in the atmosphere without the passage of an aircraft. Secondly, persistent contrails often evolve and spread into extensive cirrus cloud cover that is indistinguishable from naturally occurring cloudiness (See Figure 3). At present, it is unknown how much of this more extensive cloudiness would have occurred without the passage of an aircraft. Not enough is known about how natural clouds form in the atmosphere to answer this question.

Changes in cloudiness are important because clouds help control the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. Changes in cloudiness resulting from human activities are important because they might contribute to long-term changes in the Earth’s climate. Many other human activities also have the potential of contributing to climate change. Our climate involves important parameters such as air temperature, weather patterns, and rainfall. Changes in climate may have important impacts on natural resources and human health. Contrails’ possible climate effects are one component of aviation’s expected overall climate effect.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/contrails.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiHye-0xOTsAhUgAZ0JHbiXB0AQFjACegQIERAC&usg=AOvVaw2LBrcVkBvAF36p8i8Kh_CR

We can gather from both the Vermont Government and the US EPA that these trails linger and form artificial clouds, contain chemicals and particulate matter harmful to human health, and can affect the climate which also impacts human health. However, both sources fall short of acknowledging the true harm of these persistent chem…ahem…CONtrails and their relation to human disease. Fortunately, the European Authority for Aviation Safety (EASA), an agency of the European Union (EU) with responsibility for civil aviation safety, was much more honest. From their aviation environmental impact report:

Air quality

“Air pollution has significant impacts on the health of the European population, particularly in urban areas [13]. The most significant pollutants in terms of harm to human health are particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and groundlevel ozone (O3).

Aviation and air pollution

Air quality in the vicinity of airports is not just influenced by the emissions from aircraft engines, but also from other sources such as ground operations, surface access road transport and airport on-site energy generation and heating [90]. The most significant emissions related to health impacts from aviation activities are particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Some of these primary pollutants undergo chemical and physical transformations in the atmosphere that in turn produce other pollutants such as secondary particulate matter and ground-level ozone.

Nitrogen oxides (NOX)

NOX emissions are primarily produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, especially at high temperatures such as those experienced in aircraft engine combustors. In the atmosphere, nitrogen monoxide (NO) is rapidly oxidised to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which is associated with adverse effects on human health such as lung inflammation. NO2 also plays a key role in the formation of secondary particles and ground-level ozone. Thus, nitrogen oxides have both a direct and an indirect impact on air quality.

Particulate matter (PM)

Particulate matter is a general term used to describe very small solid or liquid particles. Emissions from aviation related activities, in a similar manner to other sources using carbon-based fuels, contain PM10 and PM2.5 emissions²², as well as ultrafine particles (PM1, PM0.1) that have very small diameters [91]. Such small particles, irrespective of the combustion source, can deposit in the human lung, pass natural barriers in human cells and enter the bloodstream. Solid ultrafine particles can trigger inflammation and act as carriers for toxic substances that damage the genetic information in cells. The EU Ambient Air Quality Directives [14] contain regulatory limits for PM10 and PM2.5 in ambient air, but not for ultrafine particles. However, PM2.5 is considered to be a good indicator of general risk associated with exposure to particulate matter. As the mass of the ultrafine particle emissions is so low, measurements of aircraft engine emissions have also focused on the number of emitted particles.

Ozone

The presence of ozone in the high-altitude stratosphere provides an essential natural shield against harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. However, ground-level ozone can cause several respiratory problems, including reduced lung function, bronchitis, emphysema and asthma.

Evaluating the impact of aviation emissions

Most evaluations of air quality impacts from aviation have focused on the health impacts of PM2.5 formation attributable to aviation, with some others including the impact of ozone as well. Some studies [92], [93] have focused on landing and take-off emissions, as these happen at relatively low altitudes and therefore closest to local populations. A limited number of studies [94], [95] have also attempted to evaluate the impact of aviation emissions on human health at a global scale by including aircraft emissions at high altitude.”

https://www.easa.europa.eu/eaer/air-quality/aviation-environmental-impacts

Conspiracy No More

It is clear that these persistent contrails are a threat to our health as admitted by these government agencies. Whereas they used to only be seen occasionally, over time, the trails have become an almost daily occurrence. There is no debating the fact that what is happening in the skies is directly impacting our health in a negative way. So why is it that the talk of chemtrails is considered a conspiracy theory? The only part that could be remotely considered a conspiracy is the belief that the governments of the world are deliberately spraying its citizenry with toxic chemicals. While there may be no direct evidence of those in control outright admitting such a program exists (as if they ever would), is it really that far-fetched to believe that the government would intentionally spray its own citizens? If you think so, you’d be mistaken as it happened before in the form of Operation LAC:

“Operation LAC, which took its name from “Large Area Coverage,” was the largest test ever undertaken by the Chemical Corps. The test area covered the United States from the Rockies to the Atlantic, and from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. The tests proved the feasibility of covering large areas (thousands of square miles) of a country with BW agents. Many scientists and officers had believed this possible, but LAC provided the first proof.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233494/#ddd00091

Revealed: Army scientists secretly sprayed St Louis with ‘radioactive’ particles for YEARS to test chemical warfare technology

“The United States Military conducted top secret experiments on the citizens of St. Louis, Missouri, for years, exposing them to radioactive compounds, a researcher has claimed.

While it was known that the government sprayed ‘harmless’ zinc cadmium silfide particles over the general population in St Louis, Professor Lisa Martino-Taylor, a sociologist at St. Louis Community College, claims that a radioactive additive was also mixed with the compound.

She has accrued detailed descriptions as well as photographs of the spraying which exposed the unwitting public, predominantly in low-income and minority communities, to radioactive particles.”

“Through her research, she found photographs of how the particles were distributed from 1953-1954 and 1963-1965.

In Corpus Christi, the chemical was dropped from airplanes over large swathes of city.  In St Louis, the Army put chemical sprayers on buildings, like schools and public housing projects, and mounted them in station wagons for mobile use.

Despite the extent of the experiment, local politicians were not notified about the content of the testing. The people of St Louis were told that the Army was testing smoke screens to protect cities from a Russian attack.

‘It was pretty shocking. The level of duplicity and secrecy. Clearly they went to great lengths to deceive people,’ Professor Martino-Taylor said.

“In her findings, one of the compounds that was sprayed upon the public was called ‘FP2266’, according to the army’s documents, and was manufactured by US Radium. The compound, also known as Radium 226, was the same one that killed and sickened many of the US Radium workers.

The Army has admitted that it added a fluorescent substance to the ‘harmless’ compound, but whether or not the additive was radioactive remains classified.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210415/amp/Revealed-Army-scientists-secretly-sprayed-St-Louis-radioactive-particles-YEARS-test-chemical-warfare-technology.html

Operation LAC shows that the government is not above experimenting on and spraying its own citizens with toxic chemicals and/or compounds. It is still classified as to what exactly was in the material sprayed even though evidence was uncovered that it was radioactive. There is precedence for the government to spray its citizens in the name of research and protection against biological weapons and agents. However, if this operation wasn’t convincing enough to show that the idea of the government intentionally spraying its citizenry is not far-fetched, there was a law enacted in 1997 that seemingly allows for the government to test chemical and biological weapons on the public if they are given informed consent. This is known as public law 105-85:

SEC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR
TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.

• (a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)—
  1. any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
  2. any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.
• (b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
  1. Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
  2. Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
  3. Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.
• (c) INFORMED CONSENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.
• (d) PRIOR NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees.
• (e) BIOLOGICAL AGENT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘biological agent’’ means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing—
  1. death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
  2. deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
  3. deleterious alteration of the environment.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/105/public/85&ved=2ahUKEwi-5JePtdP1AhVdHzQIHeUwC3AQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2STo2SaOGMJS5EcDyq-jFg

The way the law is written seems to discourage such actions until you realize that this kind of testing is permitted for research purposes as well as for protection against toxic chemicals and biological weapons/agents if informed consent is given. As the law is available for all to see if they so choose, in essence, we have been informed. By remaining silent, we agree to the terms through the law of acquiescence, which is a type of consent:

“In law, acquiescence occurs when a person knowingly stands by without raising any objection to the infringement of their rights, while someone else unknowingly and without malice aforethought acts in a manner inconsistent with their rights.^[1] As a result of acquiescence, the person whose rights are infringed may lose the ability to make a legal claim against the infringer, or may be unable to obtain an injunction against continued infringement. The doctrine infers a form of “permission” that results from silence or passiveness over an extended period of time.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquiescence

Essentially, all the government needs is an excuse to spray our atmosphere in the guise of research and protection. In December 2019, they provided one:

The US government has approved funds for geoengineering research

“The US government has for the first time authorized funding to research geoengineering, the controversial idea that we could counteract climate change by reflecting heat away from the planet.

The $1.4 trillion spending bills that Congress passed this week included a little-noticed provision setting aside at least $4 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to conduct stratospheric monitoring and research efforts. The program includes assessments of “solar climate interventions,” including “proposals to inject material [into the stratosphere] to affect climate.”

“In a statement, McNerney asserted that the federal government should take the lead in this controversial field, noting that other research efforts are already moving forward.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2019/12/20/131449/the-us-government-will-begin-to-fund-geoengineering-research/amp/

In the end, whether the spraying is intentional or not is irrelevant. The fact is that they admit that the persistent trails left by planes produce harmful particulate matter that damages our health and our environment. Case closed.

Air Pollution Has Become Worse

I’m often asked, if air pollution is a cause of the symptoms associated with “Covid,” why hasn’t it been affecting people until now? We have had air pollution for years. Why is it only now taking a toll on the population? I first point out that respiratory diseases have become worse over the last few decades, so this is not a new issue. The only difference is the name given to the symptoms of disease and the “virus” presented as the culprit. And while it is true that air pollution is a known issue, it has only become worse, especially in the last 5+ years in large part due to numerous environmental and clean air protections rolled back by President Donald Trump starting in 2016. This is not an indictment on either political party as I honestly believe both are corrupt. While there are undoubtedly other factors that have influenced our poor air quality, these rollbacks contributed to this growing pollution problem directly prior to this “pandemic:”

Trump Administration Climate Rollbacks

Affordable Clean Energy Rule

“One of the Trump administration’s most significant anti-environment initiatives is the so-called “Affordable Clean Energy” rule, a regulatory effort that protects the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our climate, the environment, and public health. The rule replaced the Clean Power Plan, finalized by the Obama administration in 2015, which would have established the first nationwide and state-based limits on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants. Reductions in harmful air pollutants under the Clean Power Plan would have avoided at least 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children annually by 2030.

The Trump administration, however, ignored the health and climate benefits of reduced reliance on fossil fuels, finalizing a significantly watered-down replacement rule in June 2019. The replacement rule is based on an unlawfully restrictive application of the Clean Air Act which violates the agency’s obligation to reduce carbon emissions. Consequently, as a 23-state coalition of state attorneys general pointed out in comments objecting to the rule, the rollback will result in an increase of 100 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions and lead to an additional 1,630 premature deaths, 120,000 asthma attacks, 140,000 missed school days, and 48,000 lost work days in 2030 relative to the Clean Power Plan. Given the enormous stakes for public health and the environment, state attorneys general are challenging the final rule in court. 

Particulate Matter NAAQS

PM pollution is regulated under the Clean Air Act’s NAAQS program as a criteria air pollutant, and review of NAAQS is required every five years. Since the last review was completed in 2012, a wealth of new evidence supports more stringent standards for PM pollution in order to better protect human health and welfare. Despite the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about the reliability of this evidence, the Trump administration in April 2020 proposed not to strengthen NAAQS. In comments criticizing the proposed decision, state attorneys general highlighted the inadequacy of the EPA’s decision, particularly its conclusion that leaving the PM NAAQS unchanged will have no disproportionate impact on minority or other at-risk groups. Scientific evidence wholly contradicts this conclusion, and the EPA’s willingness to so egregiously disregard this and all the other evidence pointing to the need for more stringent NAAQS for PM is a threat to the health of millions of Americans.”

https://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/state-impact/projects-reports/projects/climate-and-health/trump-administration-climate-rollbacks

Obviously, cutting air quality protections will have an immediate impact on the air we breathe, and this was seen during the first few years of the Trump administration:

Air pollution is getting worse, and data show more people are dying

“Air pollution worsened in the United States in 2017 and 2018, new data shows, a reversal after years of sustained improvement with significant implications for public health.

In 2018 alone, eroding air quality was linked to nearly 10,000 additional deaths in the U.S. relative to the 2016 benchmark, the year in which small-particle pollution reached a two-decade low, according to researchers at Carnegie Mellon University.

The study focuses on fine-particle air pollution, known as PM2.5, which is of particular concern to regulators and public health experts because its microscopic size means it can be inhaled and absorbed into the bloodstream. Its ill effects are only now starting to be fully understood — the Environmental Protection Agency didn’t even have a regulatory standard for it until 1997.

Fine particles can damage a person’s respiratory system, accumulate in the brain and send people to the emergency room. The elderly appear to be especially susceptible to PM2.5, which has been linked to dementia and cognitive decline. And the data shows that many of the pollutant’s effects occur at levels well below current regulatory thresholds.

Overall, concentrations of the pollutant have risen about 5.5 percent since 2016, and the Carnegie Mellon researchers identified several reasons for this, including rising natural gas use and people doing more driving. The corresponding rise in emissions from those sources more than offsets the falling levels being realized by the decline in coal being burned by electricity-generating plants in the United States.”

“A final potential driver of rising pollution is the rollback of regulatory enforcement by the Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Air Act enforcement actions fell in the first two years of the Trump administration, although the researchers note that the trend toward lax enforcement started well before 2017.

Last year, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler disbanded the expert academic panel that reviewed and advised the agency on its standards for small-particle air pollution. In its place, the administration has hired consultants with links to the fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and tobacco industries. The disbanded academic panel convened independently this year and is calling on the agency to impose stricter regulations to combat the pollutants.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/23/air-pollution-is-getting-worse-data-show-more-people-are-dying/

In Summary:

• According to updated WHO guidelines for air pollution, what is new, essentially, is that we need to lower the recommended levels of exposure to air pollutants in order to protect people’s health (how is this new information?)
• It is known that even exposure to a very low levels of certain pollutants that we are breathing every day will put us at risk
• If the WHO air pollution guidelines are implemented, we could save 80% of the total number of deaths that we have every year due to air pollution, and that number is 7 million premature deaths caused by exposure to air pollution (other estimates put it at 9 million or higher)
• One of six pollutants that destroy our health is called particulate matter (PM) 2.5
• It’s such a small particle that can go very easily to the lungs and it will not stay there as it can go to the bloodstream and from there reach any organ in the body
• It’s clear that the bad quality of the air we breathe will be a major risk factor for acute and chronic respiratory diseases and cardiovascular diseases
• The WHO Dr. states that in addition to that, if you are exposed to air pollution, you will develop certain diseases, underlying diseases that will give you a greater possibility of developing severe cases of “COVID” if you are affected
• The WHO sees a clear relationship between air pollution and the burden of “COVID-19” in places that were very polluted
• 90% of the world population is breathing air that does not respect the recommended standards by the World Health Organization
• From an article by Harvard, it is stated that it is known that air pollution can cause health problems, like heart attacks, strokes, diabetes and high blood pressure, that have been identified as pre-existing medical conditions that raise the chances of death from “COVID-19” infection (again, a “virus” is not necessary to explain the disease)
• A recent Harvard study found an association between air pollution over many years with an 11% increase in mortality from “COVID-19” infection for every 1 microgram/cubic meter increase in air pollution
• For comparison, many Americans breathe air with 8 micrograms/cubic meters of particulate matter
• The Harvard study found that breathing more polluted air over many years may itself worsen the effects of “COVID-19” and is one of several that suggest air pollution is affecting “COVID-19” mortality
• Researchers analyzing 120 cities in China found a significant relationship between air pollution and “COVID-19” infection, and of the “coronavirus” deaths across 66 regions in Italy, Spain, France and Germany, 78% of them occurred in five of the most polluted regions
• There’s also evidence from previous outbreaks like “SARS,” which was also a “coronavirus,” as well as many other respiratory infections, including influenza, that breathing more polluted air increased risks of death
• A September 2020 study by Setti et al. stated that the burden of “COVID-19” was extremely severe in Northern Italy, an area characterized by high concentrations of particulate matter (PM), which is known to negatively affect human health
• They collected 34 PM10 samples in Bergamo area (the epicenter of the Italian “COVID-19” epidemic) by using two air samplers over a continuous 3-week period
• Up to three highly specific molecular marker genes (E, N, and RdRP) were used to test the presence of “SARS-CoV-2” RNA on particulate matter
• Overall, they tested 34 RNA extractions for the E, N and RdRP genes, reporting 20 positive results for at least one of the three marker genes, with positivity separately confirmed for all the three markers
• They concluded that this was the first evidence that “SARS-CoV-2” RNA can be present on PM, thus suggesting a possible use as an indicator of epidemic recurrence
• There are 4 main sources of air pollution:
  1. Mobile sources – such as cars, buses, planes, trucks, and
  2. Trainsstationary sources – such as power plants, oil refineries, industrial facilities, and factories
  3. Area sources – such as agricultural areas, cities, and wood burning fireplaces
  4. Natural sources – such as wind-blown dust, wildfires, and volcanoes
• According to the EPA, mobile sources account for more than half of all the air pollution in the United States, and the primary mobile source of air pollution is the automobile
• According to the Vermont Government, burning aviation fuel releases atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H20), with smaller amounts of carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), carbon soot and trace metals
• VOC and NOX contribute to the formation of ozone pollution
• NOX, SOX, and soot contribute to the formation of fine particles (PM2.5)
• Older piston engine aircraft are a decreasing but significant source of airborne lead (Pb) emissions
• The carbon dioxide, ozone (formed from VOCs and NOx), carbon soot, SOx, and water vapor (sometimes in the form of contrails) emitted by aircraft can influence climate on regional and global scales
• Contrails can spread out in the sky and become cirrus clouds, which can produce a cooling effect by reflecting incoming sunlight back into space
• According to the US EPA, aircraft engines emit water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), small amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur gases, and soot and metal particles formed by the high-temperature combustion of jet fuel during flight
• Persistent contrails are of interest to scientists because they increase the cloudiness of the atmosphere
• Persistent contrails are line-shaped clouds that would not have formed in the atmosphere without the passage of an aircraft
• Persistent contrails often evolve and spread into extensive cirrus cloud cover that is indistinguishable from naturally occurring cloudiness
• At present, it is unknown how much of this more extensive cloudiness would have occurred without the passage of an aircraft
• The EPA concluded that changes in climate (caused by the persistent contrails) may have important impacts on natural resources and human health
• According to the EASA, the most significant pollutants in terms of harm to human health are particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and groundlevel ozone (O3)
• The most significant emissions related to health impacts from aviation activities are particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
• Some of these primary pollutants undergo chemical and physical transformations in the atmosphere that, in turn, produce other pollutants such as secondary particulate matter and ground-level ozone
• In the atmosphere, nitrogen monoxide (NO) is rapidly oxidised to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which is associated with adverse effects on human health such as lung inflammation
• Emissions from aviation related activities, in a similar manner to other sources using carbon-based fuels, contain PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, as well as ultrafine particles (PM1, PM0.1) that have very small diameters
• Such small particles, irrespective of the combustion source, can deposit in the human lung, pass natural barriers in human cells, and enter the bloodstream
• Solid ultrafine particles can trigger inflammation and act as carriers for toxic substances that damage the genetic information in cells
• Ground-level ozone can cause several respiratory problems, including reduced lung function, bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma
• Most evaluations of air quality impacts from aviation have focused on the health impacts of PM2.5 formation attributable to aviation, with some others including the impact of ozone as well
• Only a limited number of studies have attempted to evaluate the impact of aviation emissions on human health at a global scale by including aircraft emissions at high altitudes
• In the 1950s and 60s, the US government undertook secretive spraying campaigns “simulating” biological warfare
• Operation LAC, which took its name from “Large Area Coverage,” was the largest test ever undertaken by the Chemical Corps
• The test area covered the United States from the Rockies to the Atlantic and from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico
• The tests proved the feasibility of covering large areas (thousands of square miles) of a country with biological warfare agents
• The United States Military conducted top secret experiments on the citizens of St. Louis, Missouri, for years, exposing them to radioactive compounds
• It was known that the government sprayed ‘harmless’ (their quotations, not mine) zinc cadmium silfide particles over the general population in St Louis
• The spraying exposed the unwitting public, predominantly in low-income and minority communities, to radioactive particles
• In Corpus Christi, the chemical was dropped from airplanes over large swathes of city
• In St Louis, the Army put chemical sprayers on buildings, like schools and public housing projects, and mounted them in station wagons for mobile use
• Despite the extent of the experiment, local politicians were not notified about the content of the testing
• “The level of duplicity and secrecy. Clearly, they went to great lengths to deceive people,’ Professor Martino-Taylor said
• The compound sprayed, also known as Radium 226, was the same one that killed and sickened many of the US radium workers
• The Army has admitted that it added a fluorescent substance to the ‘harmless’ compound, but whether or not the additive was radioactive remains classified
• In 1997, public law 105-85 was passed, which, while seemingly discouraging such spraying, allows for it in the guise of research and protection from biological weapons/agents
• In December 2019, the US government authorized $4 million funding to research geoengineering
• The program includes assessments of “solar climate interventions,” including “proposals to inject material [into the stratosphere] to affect climate”
• Congressman Jerry McNerney asserted that the federal government should take the lead in this controversial field, noting that other research efforts are already moving forward
• The air quality has declined since 2016 as the Trump administration made numerous cutbacks to environmental and air quality protections
• One of the Trump administration’s most significant anti-environment initiatives is the so-called “Affordable Clean Energy” rule, a regulatory effort that protects the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our climate, the environment, and public health
• The administration ignored the health and climate benefits of reduced reliance on fossil fuels and finalized a significantly watered-down replacement rule in June 2019
• The replacement rule is based on an unlawfully restrictive application of the Clean Air Act, which violates the agency’s obligation to reduce carbon emissions
• Consequently, as a 23-state coalition of state attorneys general pointed out in comments objecting to the rule, the rollback will result in an increase of 100 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions and lead to an additional 1,630 premature deaths, 120,000 asthma attacks, 140,000 missed school days, and 48,000 lost work days in 2030 relative to the Clean Power Plan
• Since the last review was completed in 2012, a wealth of new evidence supports more stringent standards for PM pollution in order to better protect human health and welfare
• Despite the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about the reliability of this evidence, the Trump administration in April 2020 proposed not to strengthen NAAQS
• Scientific evidence wholly contradicts this conclusion, and the EPA’s willingness to so egregiously disregard this and all the other evidence pointing to the need for more stringent NAAQS for PM is a threat to the health of millions of Americans
• Air pollution worsened in the United States in 2017 and 2018, new data shows, a reversal after years of sustained improvement with significant implications for public health
• In 2018 alone, eroding air quality was linked to nearly 10,000 additional deaths in the U.S. relative to the 2016 benchmark, the year in which small-particle pollution reached a two-decade low
• The study focuses on fine-particle air pollution, known as PM2.5, which is of particular concern to regulators and public health experts because its microscopic size means it can be inhaled and absorbed into the bloodstream
• Its ill effects are only now starting to be fully understood — the Environmental Protection Agency didn’t even have a regulatory standard for it until 1997
• Fine particles can damage a person’s respiratory system, accumulate in the brain and send people to the emergency room
• The elderly appear to be especially susceptible to PM2.5, which has been linked to dementia and cognitive decline
• The data shows that many of the pollutant’s effects occur at levels well below current regulatory thresholds
• A final potential driver of rising pollution is the rollback of regulatory enforcement by the Environmental Protection Agency
• Clean Air Act enforcement actions fell in the first two years of the Trump administration, although the researchers note that the trend toward lax enforcement started well before 2017
• EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler disbanded the expert academic panel that reviewed and advised the agency on its standards for small-particle air pollution and in its place, the administration hired consultants with links to the fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and tobacco industries
• The disbanded academic panel convened independently and called on the agency to impose stricter regulations to combat the pollutants

Occam’s Razor, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is “a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.”

The dangerous health effects related to air pollution, especially PM2.5, have been known for decades. It has been linked to total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, respiratory mortality, hypertension, lung cancer, influenza, and other adverse health outcomes. Every single symptom associated with “Covid-19” and any other respiratory disease is known to be caused by air pollution. Our clean air protections were eroded in the years proceeding this “pandemic.” Our air is polluted by refineries and factories lacking oversight by an increase in cars burning toxic glyphosate-laden ethanol fuel, and by planes streaking persistent CONtrails filled with harmful particulates into the sky. We can see the cause of respiratory disease with our own eyes.

There is absolutely no need to add a “virus” into the equation to explain the worsening severity of respiratory diseases when it is clear that the levels and exposure to air pollution has only become worse over the years. That is the simplest explanation based in terms of known quantities.

However, there is no profit to be gained from air pollution. There is no vaccine that can prevent illness caused by regular exposure. There is no drug that can be given to cure the effects when the cure is the symptoms themselves as the body cleanses itself. To combat pollution would require money they are unwilling to spend and infrastructure changes they are unwilling to implement. There is no control to be gained from cleaning our air, no fear that can be propagandized to benefit the pharmaceutical industry, and no tests to create, sell, and profit from. Solving our pollution crisis would require action from our “leaders” to fix. It is much easier to sell the public on a “virus” and to repeat this cycle of fear rather than spend the money to clean this mess up. They gain nothing from fixing our air pollution crisis and achieve everything by keeping us in a perpetual state of sickness and fear.

If we want this cycle to end, we must admit to the problem and demand action. It is time to inform them that we do not consent.