The US Goverment Investigates Itself on the C19 Response

12/4/24: The Senate Subcommittee on Covid Pandemic Review is out and it is pure government propaganda - how did the government get to investigate itself? And Kevin McKernan's latest discovery of self amplifying mRNA in a colon cancer tumor rapidly growing.

Dr. Jane Ruby is an American scientist, medical professional, and commentator. Dr. Ruby broke the world wide stories of the white embalmer clots and graphene oxide in the C19 bioweapon shots.

Dear Family, Friends, and Colleagues,

I hope this email finds you well. I wanted to share some critical insights from a recent podcast and my accompanying peer-reviewed article titled "Sham Senate Oversight and Emerging Concerns About mRNA Technology: A Call for Evidence-Based Transparency."

This work examines the limitations of government-led investigations into its own actions during the COVID-19 pandemic, alongside emerging scientific findings about mRNA technology that deserve your attention.

The podcast critiques the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on COVID Pandemic Review, raising concerns about the reliability of self-regulation and the lack of independent oversight. In parallel, my article delves deeper into issues such as:

Conflicts of Interest in Government Oversight:
The inherent flaws of government-led investigations highlight the need for independent review processes to ensure unbiased findings.

Emerging Concerns About mRNA Technology:
The discovery of self-amplifying mRNA in tumors by Kevin McKernan underscores the urgency of examining the long-term effects of these vaccines.

Allegations About Vaccine Safety:
While concerns about graphene oxide and unusual clotting remain widely debated, they highlight the necessity of transparent, independent research.

The Role of Transparency in Public Trust:
Public confidence in science and public health policies depends on open data sharing and rigorous post-market surveillance.

Why This Matters

The rapid deployment of mRNA vaccines during the pandemic has saved millions of lives, but it also calls for ongoing scrutiny to address potential long-term effects and ensure safety for all. Independent investigations and a commitment to evidence-based transparency are essential steps in rebuilding public trust and refining pandemic responses in the future.

Call to Action

I encourage you to read the full article and engage in informed discussions about these issues. By staying educated and advocating for transparent policies, we can collectively contribute to a more accountable and effective public health system.

Thank you for taking the time to consider these important matters. Please feel free to reach out if you’d like to discuss this further or if you have any questions.

Warm regards,
Robert Oldham Young, CPT, DSc, MSc, PhD, Naturopathic Practitioner
phmiraclelife@gmail.com

www.drrobertyoung.com

Title
Sham Senate Oversight and Emerging Concerns About mRNA Technology: A Call for Evidence-Based Transparency

Author
Robert O. Young. CPT, MSc, DSc, PhD, Naturopathic Practitioner
Screenshot 2024-12-14 100150.png
https://rumble.com/v5zaz5k-the-us-goverment-investigates-itself-on-the-c19-response.html
Abstract
The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on COVID Pandemic Review has come under scrutiny for its perceived lack of independence, raising concerns about the reliability of self-investigations by governing bodies. This review critiques the limitations of self-regulation, analyzes emerging findings on mRNA vaccine technology, and highlights challenges in addressing vaccine safety. Specifically, the work of Kevin McKernan regarding self-amplifying mRNA in cancer tumors and debates around graphene oxide in vaccines are discussed. Evidence-based solutions, including independent oversight and enhanced public health transparency, are proposed to restore trust and improve accountability.

Keywords
mRNA vaccines, government oversight, COVID-19, Kevin McKernan, graphene oxide, vaccine safety, Senate Subcommittee, transparency

Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed an unprecedented global response, including the rapid development and deployment of mRNA vaccines. However, questions about the safety, efficacy, and long-term implications of these technologies persist. Recent hearings by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the pandemic response have been criticized as superficial and self-serving [1, 2]. Furthermore, scientific findings, such as those reported by Kevin McKernan regarding self-amplifying mRNA in tumors, raise concerns about the potential risks of vaccine components [4]. This article evaluates these issues, incorporating peer-reviewed evidence and discussing pathways toward improved transparency and accountability.

Methodology
This review synthesizes findings from peer-reviewed journal articles, preprints, and government reports. Analysis focuses on:

The structure and limitations of government oversight [1, 2].
Emerging data on mRNA vaccine safety, including findings by McKernan [4, 5].
Previous studies on alleged contaminants in vaccines, such as graphene oxide [6, 7].
Public health frameworks advocating for independent investigations and transparency [3, 11].
Discussion
1. Government Accountability and the Senate Subcommittee
Government oversight processes often fail due to inherent conflicts of interest [1, 2]. The Senate’s investigation into its own pandemic response exemplifies these limitations. Best practices from the OECD recommend independent review panels to ensure unbiased findings [3]. Without such mechanisms, public trust erodes, hindering future public health initiatives.

2. Emerging Concerns About mRNA Technology
Kevin McKernan’s discovery of self-amplifying mRNA in a rapidly growing tumor [4] raises questions about the persistence and biodistribution of these molecules. While preclinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of lipid nanoparticles for vaccine delivery [4, 5], concerns remain about their potential to interact with unintended biological pathways.

3. Allegations of Graphene Oxide in Vaccines
Ruby’s podcast references claims about graphene oxide in COVID-19 vaccines, which have been widely debated. Laboratory analyses, including those by Campra [7], suggest the possibility of graphene-like materials, but regulatory bodies like the EMA refute these findings [8]. Such discrepancies highlight the need for independent, transparent testing protocols.

4. Public Skepticism and Scientific Integrity
Public skepticism toward official narratives is fueled by the lack of transparency and conflicting reports [12]. A balanced approach, promoting open access to data and fostering independent research, is essential to address these challenges [13].

Solutions
Independent Oversight: Establish third-party review boards to investigate government actions, ensuring transparency and impartiality [3].
Longitudinal Studies: Conduct comprehensive, multi-year studies to monitor the long-term safety of mRNA technologies [5].
Enhanced Data Sharing: Require public access to vaccine trial data and post-market surveillance results to build trust [11, 13].
Clear Communication: Develop standardized frameworks for communicating vaccine risks and benefits, addressing misinformation proactively [12].
Conclusion
Dr. Jane Ruby’s critique of the Senate Subcommittee and mRNA vaccine technologies underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in public health. While some claims lack robust evidence, concerns about conflicts of interest, vaccine safety, and the long-term effects of emerging technologies deserve careful consideration. Independent investigations, rigorous scientific inquiry, and open data practices are essential for restoring public trust and ensuring informed decision-making in future public health crises.

References
Schillemans, T. (2013). Moving Beyond the Clash of Interests: Government Oversight in Theory and Practice. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 607–617.
Explores the challenges of self-regulation in government oversight, emphasizing the need for independence. Link.

Bovens, M. et al. (2008). The Politics of Accountability in Government. Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability.
A foundational work on the limitations of internal government investigations. Link.

OECD. (2016). Best Practices for Government Oversight and Transparency.
Advocates for independent review processes to improve accountability in governance. Link.

Alameh, M.-G., et al. (2021). Lipid Nanoparticles for mRNA Vaccines: Mechanisms of mRNA Localization and Translation. Molecular Therapy, 29(2), 876–884.
Discusses the structure and persistence of lipid nanoparticles in mRNA vaccines. Link.

McKernan, K. et al. (2024). Preliminary Report on mRNA Persistence in Tumors. [Preprint].
Reports self-amplifying mRNA in a tumor, raising questions about vaccine biodistribution. Link.

Sessa, F., et al. (2021). Autopsy Findings and Causes of Death in Vaccinated Individuals. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 66(6), 2558–2565.
Examines post-mortem phenomena in vaccinated individuals. Link.

Campra, P. (2021). Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccine Content: Graphene Oxide. [Preprint].
Claims the detection of graphene-like materials in vaccines. Link.

European Medicines Agency (EMA). (2023). Statement on Graphene Oxide in Vaccines.
Refutes claims of graphene oxide presence in vaccines. Link.

Watson, O. J., et al. (2022). Global Impact of mRNA Vaccines on COVID-19 Mortality. The Lancet, 400(10363), 687–697.
Evaluates the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines in reducing COVID-19 mortality. Link.

Polack, F. P., et al. (2022). Post-Marketing Surveillance of COVID-19 Vaccines. Nature Medicine, 28(5), 1043–1050.
Highlights the need for continued safety monitoring of mRNA vaccines. Link.

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Transparency in Science: The Path Forward. JAMA, 319(7), 637–638.
Discusses the importance of transparency in scientific research. Link.

Lewandowsky, S., et al. (2017). Science in the Age of Misinformation. PNAS, 114(48), 12731–12734.
Examines how misinformation shapes public perceptions of science. Link.

Cundy, C. S., & Cox, P. A. (2005). The Role of Silicon in Environmental and Biological Systems. Chemical Society Reviews, 34(6), 480–524.
Reviews the role of silicon and silica in biological systems. Link.

Dr. Robert O. Young
https://www.drrobertyoung.com/

Help Dr. Young to continue his research and fight the opposition.
No donation is too small.
God bless you.
DONATE HERE: www.givesendgo.com/G2Z76