DON’T BE A DARE-DEVIL
Playing "Russian Roulette" is unhealthy.
Swiss Airlines is experiencing a huge number of flight cancellations due to crew being unfit to fly due to being ill, despite having taken the vaccination as required by Swiss. Pilots, but also cabin crew, often tend to fly anyway, even when they are not feeling too well. Organizations are warning that flight safety is at risk. Some serious incidents have come to light, including one in which Capt. Bob Snow suffered a heart attack just after landing. His incident is being put down to the injection he took under pressure, which is possible given the endless daily reports of heart health following the "vaccination". But, there are also other possible reasons, which in combination create a huge risk for anyone, but especially for aircrew.
Notice the Elephant in the Room
The airline industry will most likely have quite a problem in the future thanks to the vaccination campaign. For example, Swiss is experiencing a huge number of flight cancellations due to (vaccinated) crew being unfit to fly because they have come down with illhealth, but they are not willing to re-/employ unvaccinated personnel, even though many of them want to work. Although much is swept under the carpet, some serious incidents have come to light.
Capt. Bob Snow’s heart attack just after landing went through the press recently and still is. Many same or similar cases are not reported in public due to fear of retribution. Pilot organizations warn that flight safety is at risk.
In the latest issue of ZLW-"Zeitschrift für Luft-und Weltraumrecht" (02.06.2022), an interesting essay has been published with the title: "Zur Impfpflicht für Piloten im Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Flugsicherheit und operationellen Bedürfnissen der Fluggesellschaften". (About how pilots have to get vaccinated by law and how flight safety and airlines' operational needs are at odds with each other.)
In it, reference is made to the statements of the manufacturers BioNTech and Moderna, in coordination with the European Medicines Agency and the Paul Ehrlich Institute... "that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks."
This means in other words: it is clear that there are risks, and vaccinated pilots are "not to be regarded as fit to fly" with immediate effect.
As mentioned in my previous articles, part of the health dangers pilots are exposed to, which we have been advocating for decades now, is the inhalation of toxic fumes. No, I don’t intend to weigh one against the other. On the contrary, there’s a possibility that there are similarities between the contents of the fumes and the content of the mRNA substances and in the symptoms they call forth. In short, for some pilots and cabin crew, yes, even passengers, it could be a "double whammy."
Low-level exposure to chemicals inhaled over time and the dose will accumulate which could have long-term effects. This might not hurt right away, but repeated low-level exposures can greatly increase the risk of long-term problems.
The signs and symptoms depend on the type of chemicals and whether they are breathed in, put on the skin, or swallowed.
Chronic toxicity, like acute toxicity, has dose-dependent effects.
Poisoning signs can be seen by others, for example vomiting, sweating, or pinpoint pupils. Symptoms are any changes in normal function that a person who has been poisoned can describe themselves: including nausea, headache, muscle weakness, dizziness, trouble breathing, coughing, slurred speech, trouble concentrating, disorientation, tunnel vision and more.
The signs and symptoms can be different for each person, and their severity can depend on the length of exposure, the type of exposure (gas, particles, skin contact, or ingestion), and the amount of the substance that is causing the symptoms.
One type of chemical that aircrew is exposed to is insecticides (permethrin/pyrethroids). From another “chemical family”: organophosphates, which are found in flame retardants and aircraft engine oils. Both affect people by blocking acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme that is very important for the nervous system to work well. When this key enzyme (acetylcholinesterase - AChE) is “inhibited”, actions and reactions within the nervous system are slowed down: in the brain, the blood and the nervous system.
A third threat is manufactured nanoparticles. They are toxic and can become more so when interacting with proteins and enzymes. There is a growing body of evidence linking nanoparticle exposure to many adverse health effects, including the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase.
Surprising or not, we have learned that (lipid) nanoparticles are used to deliver the mRNA substances to where they are supposed to go - or not?
Toxicity is the capacity or property of a substance to cause adverse effects.
A toxic dose is a certain amount of a substance that, under certain conditions, is likely to hurt a living being. (Section 6.5 )
Any combustion process produces nanoparticles in vast numbers from the condensation of gases. Initially only about 10 nm in diameter, these rapidly coalesce to produce somewhat larger aggregates of up to about 100 nm, which may remain in the air for days or weeks.
A large amount of data, including in vitro cell studies, in vivo studies in animals and humans, epidemiological studies, and occupational health studies, report on nanoparticle toxicity. There is a growing body of evidence linking nanoparticle exposure to many adverse health effects, such as cardiovascular diseases, arteriosclerosis, high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, arrhythmia, heart disease, heart attack; respiratory diseases such as lung cancer; neurodegenerative diseases such as dementia, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's diseases; and reproductive system toxicity.
Another potential route is via the olfactory nerves by inhalation of nanoparticles. Nanoparticles can cross the mucous membranes inside the nose from where they have direct access to the brain - they are so tiny they can cross the protective blood-brain barrier (BBB).
All of this means that there is a multitude of factors that have to be taken into consideration when we evaluate pilots’ and cabin crews' health and the question "are they safe and fit to fly?"
Possible health problems from long-term low-level exposure to fumes in the cockpit, which is still being swept under the rug, plus insecticide applications in the aircraft on certain flights and for hygiene reasons, which are being called "low risk-or no risk," plus the injection, which has "some risk," plus nanoparticles, which scientists say are toxic: “Materials that aren't very dangerous on their own could become hazardous when they are inhaled as nanoparticles”.
The health dangers to flight crew cannot be put down to one substance alone (i.e. TCP – tri cresyl phosphate) or one type of gas (i.e. carbon monoxide), but to a whole collection of substances, VOCs and particles which produce a "toxic soup". This mixture can even increase the overall toxicity. It may not be possible to know for sure unless the combined toxicity is looked at by independent researchers and scientific experts such as forensic toxicologists, specialised neurologists and similar experts.
Avoiding adding another chemical product which is still running through trial phases is, from my point of view, the most sensible thing to do. There are way too many cases coming to light on a daily basis which show that this pharmaceutical product should have been removed from the market long ago until they have run it through all the required trial phases correctly.
Fact: No medicine on the market doesn't have any side effects. This one seems to have a low overall effect and way too many side effects, while many of them are bad enough to cause lasting damage.
Pilots have been diagnosed with myocarditis and have been having heart attacks and strokes while in charge of a plane for decades. This has been linked to breathing in toxic bleed-air fumes accumulating the toxic body burden until its defence system tilts (toxin-induced loss of tolerance =TILT) over time, according to recent post-mortems. It does not seem to be a good idea to add more fuel to the fire, does it?
Believe me, you don't want to end up like so many of us have: unable to fly for medical reasons. This is an occupational hazard that needs to be fixed, and it looks like there's another one that also needs to be fixed.
There have been and still are countless flight crew who have become “Aviation’s Wounded Canaries”. Until all of the above IS fixed, I am never again going to set foot on an airplane.
Have a great weekend!
Bee
Library/ References
Health Effects Nanoparticles
https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/en/nanotechnologies/l-2/6-health-effects-nanoparticles.htmhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081026410000281?via%3Dihub
Adsorption and inhibition of acetylcholinesterase by different nanoparticles
Carbon nanotubes
Materials that by themselves are not very harmful could be toxic if they are inhaled in the form of nanoparticles.
Based on the systematic study by the Institute of Occupational Medicine for the UK Health and Safety Executive it may be assumed that there are a few main industrial activities in which exposure to nanoparticles may occur (HSE 2004).
INCLUDING:
„Oil mists, aircraft engine emissions,“ (view Table 2. The potential risks following occupational exposure to nanoparticles)
Symptoms of inhalation-poisoning, any substances
Poisoning in general, symptoms
Find all information you need regarding the bleed air /toxic fumes event problem at UNFILTERED