Author: Social Poster

In this interview, Ivor Cummins shares his insights about the ineffectiveness of COVID countermeasures, and how to stay healthy in this time of COVID-19. While he does not have formal medical training, he’s well-trained in the scientific method and has a very analytical and logical mind. As common sense has become all too uncommon, we need people like Cummins to remind us what the obvious common-sense conclusions are, and how to logically interpret data.

He has a biochemical engineering degree, and has spent the last eight or nine years researching metabolic health. In March 2020, his wife became concerned about SARS-CoV-2, which led him start analyzing the data surrounding COVID-19.

“I did a quick check and found the Diamond Princess data,” Cummins says. “So, I put a ceiling on the infection fatality rate, maybe around 0.2%, massively stacked towards people who were elderly and infirm, and I told her, ‘No, this has nothing to do with us effectively. It’s going to be the equivalent of a bad flu, or severe flu season.’

And then I watched the lockdowns come in, which came straight from China. I watched as the seasonal problem in Europe collapsed as expected in April. And they didn’t want to take the lockdowns out.

Then they wanted more restrictions, and then they starting whooping about a vaccine … They then brought in masks in Northern Europe in the summer, and that’s when I knew we were in serious trouble because in Northern Europe, there was nothing going on.

The hospitals were empty. The ICUs were empty. We were in the seasonal kind of trough. Yet they brought in mandatory masks and everyone started wearing them. I stayed on it after that.”

What’s Behind the COVID Jab Narrative?

Cummins’ primary concern with the COVID-19 injections is that the benefit is basically nonexistent for healthy people under the age of 60. He cites data from Israel, where the vast majority of the population has been injected with the Pfizer mRNA concoction, that unvaccinated and “vaccinated” have the same infection rate, regardless of age. Empirical data from other countries also reveal the injections have no effect on transmission.

“The pharma companies did acknowledge it may not affect transmission,” he says. “Mechanistically, it shouldn’t really affect transmission. And the real-world data say it doesn’t. So, the push to vaccinate is not based on any science, really, at all. It’s just based on a desire. And you’ve got to question that desire.

What is the obsession with trying to get everyone vaccinated? I feel that part of it has to do with profiteering and pharma influence, obviously. Part of it has to do with justifying a vaccine passport or permits.

And part of it, I think, is that there’s a fear that having a substantial control group, say 20%, 30% of people who are not vaccinated, will clearly show that the unvaccinated, unless they’ve got particular medical conditions, really are no worse off and are not causing transmission. So, I think there is a desire now to eliminate the control group.

A control group shows that your medication or your lockdown isn’t so hot. So, I think that’s another driver. A bit of desperation is coming in to get rid of the control group and just get everyone vaccinated, and then you can’t see the signal anymore.”

Official Control Groups Have Been Eliminated

This is in fact precisely what Moderna and Pfizer have done: Both have eliminated the original control groups in their initial COVID injection trials by giving controls the real mRNA shot. This was done even though the trials are officially ongoing for another two years. So, they have already eliminated the control groups in the trials against which to assess the effectiveness and safety of these injections. Cummins comments:

“The whole thing is kind of a sham, and you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to say it’s a sham. Basically, elementary science has been inverted, turned upside down, macerated, flushed down the urinal. And that’s without even getting into complicated stuff. It’s crazy.

I mean, most people don’t even realize it’s under emergency use authorization (EUA). A guy in Ireland went to seven pharmacies and asked them the question, ‘What’s the risk to my 20-year-old daughter from COVID? And what’s the risk of side effects from the medication?’ And they couldn’t really answer.

Pretty much all of them said emphatically, ‘This is fully tested.’ He showed them the documentation, that it’s emergency use only. It’s not fully [approved]. And they were kind of surprised. So even all the people administering [the COVID injections] are just not aware of any of the facts, it appears.

The pharmacists in question thought side effects were 1 in hundreds of thousands. But the Johnson & Johnson leaflet that this guy brought in showed up to 1 in 10,000 chance of a serious clot in brain, lymph or spleen, et cetera.

So, they weren’t even really aware of the contents of the leaflet … So, there’s no informed consent because the person administering [the injection] doesn’t understand the [risks], and certainly the person getting it doesn’t.”

Side Effects and Deaths Are Vastly Underreported

Unfortunately, many countries simply aren’t reporting side effects, so it’s very difficult to get a grasp on the real-world magnitude of the risks involved with these injections. As noted by Cummins:

“In Ireland, I have people on the inside of the medical system, and overwhelmingly, nothing’s getting recorded. When people have a reaction, they send them to the emergency room. The emergency room just deals with it. No one picks up a pencil or a pen. I mean, that’s just across the board. So, I’ve heard the estimate that on average, the recorded issues, you might be able to multiply by 5 to 10 to get the actual number.”

July 19, 2021, America’s Frontline Doctors filed a motion to stop the emergency use authorization of COVID injections for children under 18, anyone with natural immunity and anyone who has not been given proper informed consent.1,2,3

In their motion, the group included a sworn statement by a CDC whistleblower, a computer programmer with expertise in health care data analytics who has access to Medicare and Medicaid data maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Over the last 20 years, she has developed more than 100 health care fraud detection algorithms for use in the public and private sectors.

According to this whistleblower, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) indeed under-reports deaths by a factor of five or more. In her sworn testimony, she claims 45,000 Americans had died within three days of their COVID shots as of July 9, 2021. The numbers get even higher when looking at deaths occurring within a week or two of the injections.

According to the official narrative, there’s no solid evidence to prove the COVID shots actually caused these deaths, but as noted by Cummins, the data does show clear correlation, as reactions are occurring primarily in the first week or two after the injection. After that, reports of reactions drop significantly. This is evidence of association, as otherwise, you’d see a flat curve of reactions over four or six weeks.

Brainwashing Effort Without Equal

As noted by Cummins, studies have revealed that it only takes a couple of months to brainwash people, at which point their reasoning ability has been effectively destroyed. “They just can’t see reason after that because their brain has been [re]formed,” he says. We’ve now been under a constant 24/7 barrage of misleading propaganda for a year and a half.

“I compare it to 1930s Germany,” Cummins says, “and I’m very specific. Some people get very angry about referring back to that period. But I’m not referring to the Holocaust. I’m not referring to the ‘40s. I refer back to 1930s Germany, when Goebbels and the rest of them, they put a radio in every house, free of charge, I believe.

They knew, ‘Once we’ve got a conduit, or a channel into every house, and we feed them what we want to feed them, we’ve got them.’ I think there was a quote from one of the Nazi party [who said], ‘Give me control of the media, and I will turn any nation into a nation of pigs.’ They had contempt for the people. But they were very smart, and they pulled off, obviously, an absolute horror.

People get really angry if you compare it to that period but it’s a perfect analogy. Take over the media, mass propaganda for sustained periods, and then you can almost do what you want. I mean, the nonsense that they’ve come out with, so many times in the last year, people should just laugh at it. It should be a farce, a comedy.

But people are not laughing. They’ve just gotten used to being fed umbilically from the media and the professors and experts. And no matter what nonsense they say, they just take it on board.”

In the 80 years since then, there’s been an exponential increase in technology, which correspondingly exponentially increases the ability and effectiveness of propaganda. People are more effectively brainwashed these days, and there’s no doubt this has been the most effective propaganda campaign in the history of the world.

It’s not about science. It was never about science. It’s about economics, profiteering, control, getting in ID cards. Probably, digital currency will be coming in. They want the ID card to get everyone’s metrics locked in for access. All of these bad things, they’re all ideologies. None of them are scientific. ~ Ivor Cummins

Medicine has been turned on its head, as has science. Many are seemingly bereft of logic and capacity to reason. So, no doubt, the propagandists have succeeded. They’ve won. At this point, it seems almost hopeless to convince anyone that the official narrative is incorrect or false. It doesn’t matter what data you show them.

People aren’t even swayed by family members dying within days of getting their COVID shots. They still insist it’s the best way forward and agree that everyone ought to get the injections, including themselves, and off they rush to get their booster.

How to Improve Your Immune System

Anyone familiar with natural health will probably agree that having a robust immune system is your best bet against any and all infections. Cummins’ specialty is metabolic flexibility, which is also a foundational component of immune function. He explains:

“Metabolic health is the center of everything, and immune health is inextricably linked to it. I interviewed Dr. Ron Rosedale … April 4, 2020 … when the [COVID pandemic] was starting. Leptin is a cytokine. It’s intimately involved in the immune system response.

If you are leptin or insulin resistant, then your immune system will overreact in one sense, [causing a] cytokine storm, and you will under-react in other parts of the immune system.

He made the point, and I agreed with him, that if you knew SARS-CoV-2 was coming, you don’t need to spend four or five months getting fit. You don’t need to lose all the weight. Within days, your insulin and leptin levels will collapse if you just suddenly switch to meat, fish and eggs, no processed food, [plus] vitamins and minerals.

Literally within the first day your leptin and insulin will be falling fast, and in a few weeks, you’re going to be utterly more capable of changing a serious illness into a mild course of illness, or even of changing a death into just a nasty round.

And that was in early April 2020. I honestly thought this would be an opportunity to show people this. But of course, the thing got so insane, no one cared about the virus except vaccines. Propaganda took over. And it’s almost poignant now to have those lectures. Back in April, we were bang on the money.

If you drop your insulin and leptin, and you raise your vitamin D — which will rise anyway as you lower insulin resistance, automatically — if you do all the stuff that we’ve talked about for years about cholesterol, insulin, fat, keto, low carb, all the stuff for longevity and health, you just apply essentially the same stuff rapidly, you’re going to collapse your risk from this virus.

But no one was allowed to see that. In fact, the FDA last summer put in an injunction against a natural health website that was just talking about vitamin D importance. They told them, ‘You’re not allowed to do that. It’s not approved.’”

I was one of the sites the FDA issued that warning to. Like others, I was told I could not state that vitamin D’s ability to improve health and immune function might have any influence on getting SARS-CoV-2 infection or surviving the infection.

“I know it’s associational,” Cummins says. “I did three short talks with slides, again in early April, on the emerging data from Philippines and elsewhere. It was clear as day that people [with vitamin D levels] over 40 ng/mL, or 100 nmol/L, who are metabolically healthy had massively lower chance of severe illness or mortality, even when correcting for age.

So, it was clear as day that if you eat nutrient-dense food, drop your insulin and leptin, get healthy sun exposure, and maybe supplements, and you get your vitamin D status up, you’re going to go into that group that has vastly lower risk, and even sub-flu risk.”

Why Avoid Processed Seed Oils?

If you’re doing keto, be aware that not all fats are made equal. I suspect omega-6 linoleic acid (LA) may actually be more harmful to your metabolism and overall health than processed carbs. When asked to opine on this topic, Cummins responds:

“It’s a tricky one because I’m finding it hard to come to a definite answer. Refined carbs and processed carbs are really bad. We know that from all the science. We know from huge amounts of science that seed oils are a major problem … All the stuff associated with excessive LA, a massive body of knowledge, was suppressed.

There were studies in the ‘90s showing mammary cancers in rats, a whole load of animal studies. Then they stopped being done, and the reason was because they were saying these were heart-healthy vegetable oils. The system didn’t want people finding problems. So, I’d agree there’s a huge amount of data to say don’t touch them. They’re a serious problem.

There’s obesity studies in mice and rats that are dramatic in terms of adipogenesis, or fat creation … I often say the Devil’s triad is refined carbohydrates, sugars and seed oils. And those three make up most ultra-processed food. So, you have to hit the triad.

If a person gives up the seed oils but eats loads of refined carbs and drinks Coca-Cola for 30 years, they’re going to end up in trouble probably. If they have seed oils at a few percent of diet, not huge, and they eliminate the refined carbs, I wonder how badly would they end up? It’s a tricky one.”

I’ve taken a more hardcore position against seed oils and LA, as pre-1850, when industrialized food processing first began, the amount of LA found in human fat tissue was around 1% to 2%. Today, it’s between 20% and 30%.

I believe anything above 2% is excessive and radically increases oxidative stress that can decimate your cell membranes, mitochondria, protein, stem cells and DNA. And it takes up to seven years to eliminate the LA buildup from your body as it is stored in your cell membranes.

I also now believe that once you’re metabolically flexible, excluding healthy carbohydrates (not processed ones, of course) can be detrimental. I’m metabolically flexible and will personally not go lower than 50 grams of healthy carbs a day, largely because I exercise three to four hours a day. On many days, I eat 150 to 200 grams of carbs, typically from fruit. Despite that, I’m still in ketosis and have very low visceral body fat.

When I tried going low-carb, under 50 grams, for extended period of times, my health declined. So, provided you’re metabolically flexible, I believe carbs are healthy. This is why I believe LA is far more dangerous than carbs. You also don’t need to detox from excess carbs. Just stop eating them and your insulin resistance will immediately drop.

Ideology, Not Science, Rules the Day

While governments lean on the precautionary principle to justify lockdowns and mask mandates, the precautionary principle is not followed when it comes to the COVID injections.

“It just shows that this is an ideology,” Cummins says. “It’s not about science. It was never about science. It’s about economics, profiteering, control, getting in ID cards. Probably, digital currency will be coming in. They want the ID card to get everyone’s metrics locked in for access. All of these bad things, they’re all ideologies. None of them are scientific.

Now they’re coming after the kids. I mean, you don’t have to be anti-vax, you just have to be rational, to look at the impact of SARS-CoV-2, look at the vaccine data and the real-world empirical data of the country comparisons that show the vaccine’s not doing much. And then look at what they’re actually trying to do — vaccinate all the children — and you just know it’s completely perverse…

But we have to accept reality. I often say to people who are getting despondent … you have to be stoical. I fight the misinformation seven days a week. But if it turns out that the bad guys are getting dreadful things implemented, I refuse to let myself become despondent, or miserable, or give up.

I just hardened myself that I will not be brought down by this, no matter how bad it gets. Even if they get ID cards and you’re jabbed, and tracked, and traced, you’ve still got to be the resistance. You’ve still got to live. And you’ve still got to oppose it and stay healthy. Stay around to oppose it.

Look at the French resistance in World War II. Dreadful conditions. Dreadful. They had to sleep with the enemy, literally. If they were caught, they were tortured and murdered. For around a year or two, things looked absolutely grim, that they were not going to win. But they kept at it.”

More Information

To keep up on Cummins’ data analyses, follow him on Twitter, YouTube, Odysee, Bitchute, Apple podcasts, or subscribe to his blog on TheFatEmperor.com.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/08/08/truth-about-covid-countermeasures.aspx

In this interview, Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., Frank Ruscetti, Ph.D., and Kent Heckenlively, a lawyer and science teacher, discuss “Ending Plague: A Scholar’s Obligation in an Age of Corruption,” which they co-wrote.

This is the third book in a trilogy that began with “Plague: One Scientist’s Intrepid Search for the Truth About Human Retroviruses and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), Autism, and Other Diseases” and “Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science.”

The first two were co-written by Mikovits and Heckenlively. The inspiration for the third book came from Ruscetti, who has been Mikovits’ mentor and professional collaborator for 38 years. As indicated in the subtitle, we won’t be able to end these plagues of scientific and academic corruption unless or until scholars and scientists honor their professional obligations and responsibilities.

“That’s the point of the book, and we wouldn’t have this mess if people like Tony [Anthony] Fauci and Bob [Robert] Gallo didn’t get away with this thin playbook for things like Ebola, Zika and the autism epidemic, all the way back to HIV/AIDS,” Mikovits says.

Selling Out Public Health for Profit

“Plague” and “Plague of Corruption” detail the scientific discoveries made by Mikovits and Ruscetti, which include the scandalous findings that the blood supply and vaccines are tainted with disease-causing retroviruses, and the U.S. government has been hiding it for decades. The books read like fast-paced thrillers and offer a view into the halls of scientific inquiry, to which few people ever are privy.

Book No. 3, “Ending Plague,” is primarily Ruscetti’s story. By 1983, when Ruscetti hired Mikovits as a lab tech at Fort Detrick, he’d recently discovered T cell growth factor, later renamed interleukin 2. He’d also discovered the first disease-causing human retrovirus, called human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV-11) or human T cell leukemia virus, back in 1980. The book starts with Ruscetti’s story and perspective.

“The motivation for writing the book is not something new,” Ruscetti says, “and unless we change the fortunes of every man, it’s just going to get worse. [During] the AIDS epidemic, we were at an impasse. What most people don’t realize is that it shouldn’t have been at an impasse then, because if you look at the rest of the world, the No. 1 cause of death among women of child bearing age is HIV.2”

That’s a rather extraordinary statement. The leading cause of death among child-bearing women in the world is HIV/AIDS, but do you ever hear anything about that?3 If not, why do you think that is? In short, health agencies have done a terrible job over the last several decades, selling out public health for profit. As noted by Heckenlively:

“Public health has not been serving us well for the past 40 or 50 years. What I think is really extraordinary about Frank’s story is he really details how science has gone wrong. We like to think of science as this democracy of experts: top people in their field discussing how the science should move forward. But public health is not like that.

Starting in the 1970s with Nixon’s war on cancer, which accelerated under Reagan, these ‘czars’ of science were created. Tony Fauci is one of them. And then they demoted the other scientists to be like serfs. We don’t really have that many ‘government scientists.’ We have a lot of scientists under contract with the federal government, and this has really set up a system where people like Tony Fauci essentially control public health.

I think if people understood that the system itself is set up so that relatively few people are in charge, then all of this makes more sense. So, when they talk about in the media ‘science is deciding this,’ ‘science is deciding that,’ it’s really not.

It’s just a relatively small handful of people, almost like a holy bureau of science, and that’s what we’re attacking. What we’re trying to do is, we’re trying to move science back to its original roots in which everybody who is qualified has a voice and can contribute to the discussion.”

Too Much Power in Too Few Hands

Fauci has been the head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984. In the 37 years since, he’s been responsible for doling out research funding that amounts to nearly $1 trillion. Who has received those taxpayer dollars? Primarily those who are aligned with the drug industry. It’s become an incestuous relationship that revolves around the creation of profit, while the public receives virtually no benefit.

In fact, in many cases, public health has suffered tremendously, and people have no concept of what has happened, or how their ill health is the outgrowth of corrupted policies and conflicts of interest. Heckenlively says:

“The comparison I make is that Fauci has been head of National Institute for Allergy and infectious Diseases longer than J. Edgar Hoover was head of the FBI. [Editor’s note: Actually, Hoover was head of the FBI for 48 years, from 1924 to 19724] Whether you’re right, left or middle, nobody believes that anybody should hold that kind of power for that long.

In fact, having that kind of power in and of itself is a really bad idea. I think [Fauci] really is a terrible person because not only has he been in charge of this system, he helped design this system. We need to get rid of Fauci and keep the next Fauci from taking power.”

Importantly, Fauci and Big Pharma not only control the funding of research, they also control what gets published and what’s buried. Fauci is the reason you’ve not heard about HIV/AIDS being a leading cause of death among women of childbearing age, worldwide. This statistic is censored, just like facts about COVID-19 treatment and COVID shots are censored.

As explained by Mikovits, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), which primarily affects women, is basically AIDS without the HIV. It’s an immune dysfunction, and it can be traced back to contaminated vaccines, biologics and blood supply that have been used for decades.

As detailed in “Plague,” Fauci was a key figure in covering up the true cause of AIDS, which was incorrectly blamed on homosexuals and drug addicts. By fraudulently changing the definition of the disease and denying the presence of exogenous viruses, so-called xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related viruses or XMRVs, they prevented women from getting correct care. Mikovits explains:

“The definition was ‘Only HIV can cause AIDS,’ and we’re looking at the same thing right now. There never was a SARS-CoV-2 monkey virus in hundreds of millions of people. They’re being transmitted through the [COVID] vaccine, and through recombinants it can happen in only two weeks.”

SARS-CoV-2 Is a Cloned Monkey Virus

New York-based physician Dr. Andy Kaufman claims the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been identified. According to Mikovits, he is dead-wrong. SARS-CoV-2 is a cloned monkey virus, manufactured in the Vero monkey kidney cell line and isolated only from that cell line, not from humans with COVID, she says.

The original bat coronavirus was grown in a Vero monkey kidney cell line known to be contaminated with retroviruses and coronaviruses that easily recombine every time the vaccines are manufactured in 100-liter productions.

Mikovits conducted experiments on bat tissue Ebola cultures in the same line of cells in the mid ‘90s, trying to understand how these viruses cause disease. What she discovered was that it’s not the infection that kills. It’s the inflammatory side effects and the dysregulation of the innate immune response that end up being lethal, and the virus causes this in part by shutting down the interferon pathways. Heckenlively explains:

“What Judy is saying is that when you mix these viruses in different cultures, you will get genetic sequences from the culture cells. The thing that our books really talk about is how dangerous this common practice is — taking, for example, a human virus that you isolate, and then grow it in animal cultures.

What a lot of people don’t realize is that viruses are not like other living organisms. They’re very promiscuous in their swapping of genetic codes. In April or May of 2020, [people said] ‘This bat virus seems to have some HIV spike proteins and sequence.’ How is it that you got monkey sequences in a bat virus?

Our contention is that this common practice of growing viruses in different animal cultures, including human cultures, is creating these Frankenstein viruses which will have genetic sequences from the mediums in which they’re grown …

The belief in the ‘80s was that the HIV virus is hiding out in the T cells, which made absolutely no sense. It is true that as the disease progresses, the T cells would absolutely be taken out. That was an indicator of the infection, but what Judy and Frank were saying is that the HIV virus can’t be hiding out in the T cells, especially because you got the development of AIDS dementia, and the T cells, are not [found] in the brain.

Judy’s seminal work with Frank was finding the actual reservoir in which the HIV virus lived, which was the mono site macrophages. If I understand Andy Kaufman’s claims, I think he’s throwing out the baby with the bath water. Judy is showing how the virus cause damage and how the establishment is wrong, and how some of these alternative people are missing part of the argument as well.”

SARS-CoV-2 Was Spread by Injection

Mikovits makes a number of shocking assertions in this interview. Among them, that SARS-CoV-2 was spread through the regular use of vaccines that had been contaminated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus because of manufacturing practices.

The monkey kidney cell lines that were used to manufacture many vaccines were contaminated with bat coronavirus and shipped around the world. Those vaccines were then injected into humans, called transfection. Their cells then began replicating what we now understand as the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

“They absolutely isolated a SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Mikovits says. “But there is not definitive-anything showing [that it] satisfies either Koch’s postulates or Hill criteria, which we did with the XMRVs, meaning the virus, in my opinion, is still a monkey virus that was spread via injection.”

In other words, while there is a virus named SARS-CoV-2, no one has proven that this viral isolate actually ever transmitted between humans or causes COVID-19. Her assertion is that SARS-CoV-2 is a monkey virus that is an artifact of culturing a bat coronavirus in Vero monkey kidney cell cultures that, for years, have been contaminated with XMRVs.

To prove SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19, you have to extract the virus from a person who has COVID-19, and infect another person with that virus. If the exposed individual gets COVID-19, then the virus would be the causative factor.

We know most individuals have been exposed to people with COVID-19, yet they do not develop COVID-19. This suggests that SARS-Co-V-2 is not the sole causative factor.

How the COVID Shots Produce Variants

Mikovits also believes the COVID jabs add to the pandemic by producing variants through a process called transfection. When a clone of an infectious viral sequence is injected in a synthetic viral particle called a lipid nanoparticle, it is not an infectious transmissible virus particle. Instead, the host cells’ machinery starts replicating the inoculated sequences or expressing the spike proteins.

In the case of the COVID jabs, your cells are producing the spike protein of the virus only, which is actually the pathogenic part of the virus. The spike protein is what’s causing the disease. Put another way, COVID-19 is not a viral infection. It’s caused by a metabolic toxin, namely the spike protein. This viral particle, in and of itself, functions like a synthetic virus.

The spike protein is synthetic because the mRNA injected has been genetically modified. The mRNA is not infectious or transmissible, but when injected, your body starts to make this synthetic spike protein that operates like a virus, and can be transmitted to other people. Heckenlively explains:

“Virologists say you need a complete virus to do harm. What Judy has [found] is that defective viruses can cause harm as well. If you think of a virus as a code, like a computer program, if you have a couple bad lines of code, that can still cause problems in your computer as well.

What Judy is saying is that viruses are dangerous in ways that are not fully appreciated by science. You don’t have to have a complete virus in order to do harm. You can do sequences of the virus that they would call defective or garbage pieces, and it can still cause enormous harm, because those parts of the virus, such as the envelope, are affecting the function of your immune system.”

According to Mikovits, 8% of the human genome consists of endogenous viruses that include retroviral envelopes that are critical to the regulation of our innate immune responses, our critical type 1 interferon. Some perform very important functions, including regulatory roles.

However, you cannot express animal or other human endogenous viruses without risking recombinants and new viruses. Hence, when vaccines are contaminated with animal retroviruses, you risk creating brand new viruses that can cause all sorts of harm.

What Is the Hidden Agenda?

In summary, Mikovits and Ruscetti’s work demonstrates an important principle, which is that viruses do not travel alone. They travel in groups, and while one may affect one part of the immune system, another type will produce other immune responses. The end result is what we diagnose as the acquired immune dysfunction or deficiency.

For example, HIV alone does not cause AIDS. To develop AIDS, you need multiple environmental toxins like glyphosate, aluminum or a coinfection of HIV and XMRVs. Again, XMRVs are found in vaccines that have been grown in animal tissue.

The XMRVs cripple your innate immune system, including your natural killer (NK) cells. This then allows the HIV to take out your adaptive immune system, the T and B cells, resulting in disease progression and if left untreated, death. In CFS, the primary coinfection is that of XMRVs and herpes viruses.

Mikovits believes those who are most susceptible to dying from the COVID shots are those who are already coinfected with XMRV, HIV, Borrelia, Babesia and other pathogens commonly acquired from contaminated vaccines.

Mikovits is convinced that what is now being called “long-haul COVID” is the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein activating and recombining with XMRVs — introduced via vaccinations — and the HIV virus. She also believes those who are most susceptible to dying from the COVID shots are those who are already coinfected with XMRV, HIV, Borrelia, Babesia and other pathogens commonly acquired from contaminated vaccines.

What this all means, then, is that in order to protect yourself against the disease, you cannot focus on protecting yourself against a single virus. The answer is to make sure your immune system is strong enough to take on whatever it encounters. Absolutely never get another inoculation of any vaccines until all of the appropriate testing is done and the contaminants removed, as they should have been decades ago.

That’s why the pandemic measures have been so detrimental. Mask wearing, sheltering indoors and staying in a state of perpetual fear all dampen your immune function. The question is, why did those in charge make sure they did everything to lower our immune defenses?

“For me personally, it is the best evidence that this was not simply a series of mistakes by those in charge,” Heckenlively says. “There had to be some other agenda. I’m trained as an attorney. I have people lie to me all the time. I’m always questioning people and I look at what’s done. Can I prove it? No, but it seems like an amazing pattern of mistakes to just be the result of stupidity or politics.”

Profiling COVID-19

What do we know about the people who have died from COVID-19? We know they’re elderly. We know that they have 2.6 comorbidities. What Mikovits, Ruscetti and Heckenlively are saying is that for the past 60 years, we’ve been injecting animal viruses into human beings, and the assertion made in “Plague of Corruption” is that this practice has caused many of these chronic diseases in people.

This reality has been covered up, however, which is why many are now hearing about this for the very first time. Along comes SARS-CoV-2, triggering terrible immune system reactions in those who are already infected with these animal viruses.

The coinfections are ultimately what’s killing them. Essentially, SARS-CoV-2 is acting like the executioner of people who are already sick with chronic diseases caused by animal retroviruses, other pathogens and toxins introduced through vaccinations.

Add to this the COVID shots. These injections make your cells produce a synthetic spike protein (a synthetic virus envelope) that has pathological effects. The reason why the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is so dangerous is because it contains the envelope proteins of three of the most harmful viruses: the HIV family, the XMRV family and the SARS family of viruses.

All of them are now rolled into one, and the instructions to produce this synthetic pathogen are now being injected into hundreds of millions of people. What can go wrong? As explained by Mikovits, the XMRVs and HIV were incorporated by growing the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the Vero E6 cell line.

Related to HIV is the simian immune deficiency virus (SIV), and it too is found in the Vero monkey cell line, part of the endogenous viral genome of monkeys. SIV and HIV have overlapping envelope proteins, so they produce the same inflammatory immune response.

Ending Plague

“Ending Plague” goes deep into the history of all this and provides a framework for understanding how something so devastating and disruptive could happen now, in 2021. The basis of this has a lot to do with the actions of Fauci and Robert Gallo, Ph.D. Fauci, for example, was responsible for discrediting all AIDS treatments other than AZT — the drug that he sponsored.

He kept insisting that more randomized controlled trials were needed, yet he held the purse strings and refused to fund the very studies he claimed were required to prove these other treatments. AZT meanwhile, cost $5 to make and was sold for $10,000 per dose. AZT wound up killing some 330,000 people due to its toxicity.

The very same pattern is playing out today with COVID-19, and Fauci is again playing a lead role. Is that really a coincidence? He’s been warning against the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and he’s downplayed the importance of vitamin D sufficiency and any number of other things. According to Fauci, the COVID “vaccine” is the only way forward, and now we’re seeing thousands of people around the world dying within weeks of their injections.

In “Ending Plague,” the three coauthors review how we can reform public health to get us out of this mess, once and for all. “I think that the scholar’s obligation in an age of corruption is to tell the truth and make the world a better place,” Heckenlively says, adding:

“These books that I helped Judy, Frank and others put together, these are really stories of defectors from science. In them we see the destruction of the old order and the creation of something new and wonderful.

We’re not just saying things are terrible. We are talking about how to bring about change. That’s why it’s so important that people buy these books because, I hate to say it, sales are power for people like Judy, Frank and me, to continue our message.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/08/08/plague-of-corruption.aspx

When Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,1 spoke out about the risks of COVID-19 gene therapy vaccines in June 2021, he was surprised that the three-hour interview went viral. “It showed there was a huge thirst for information from people all over the world,” he said, speaking with Aga Wilson with Newsvoice.2

The podcast was erased from YouTube, and Malone quickly realized that his message, which he felt morally obliged to share, would not be heard via mainstream media.

“When it became clear to me that I would not be able to speak through mainstream media, I, together with my wife … made a conscious decision to reach out through alternative media and new media, and I’ve learned, from many, many podcasts and podcasters like yourself about the value of this new medium of podcasting,” he told Wilson.3

Experimental Vaccine Violates Bioethics Laws

With Malone’s impressive credentials, his grave concerns about COVID-19 vaccines have made many stop and listen, and people started writing to him about their own problems with censorship and the spectrum of adverse events with the vaccine. It all started, Malone said, with a long conversation with a physician in Canada, who poured his heart out about what he was experiencing in Canada treating patients with COVID-19 and adverse events after vaccination.

He reported them to authorities but was dismissed and told they weren’t related to the injection even though, in his clinical opinion, they were. With the mass vaccination campaign in full effect, Malone was also disturbed that it is considered OK by the government to entice children to get vaccinated by offering them free ice cream or doughnuts, and even allowing children to get vaccinated without their parents’ consent.

He soon ventured into the bioethics of the emergency use authorization (EUA) granted to COVID-19 vaccines. Experimentation without proper informed consent violates the Nuremberg Code,4 which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation.

This set of principles was developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again, but in the current climate of extreme censorship, people are not being informed about the full risks of the vaccines — which are only beginning to be uncovered.

Further, due to the EUA, adults aren’t required to sign informed consent documents and, at the same time, aren’t being given a full disclosure of the risks that would normally be given during a clinical trial5 — and, at this point, anyone who receives the vaccine is participating as a research subject.

FDA Dismissed Malone’s Vaccine Warning

Through his professional career, Malone has worked closely with the U.S. government for many years. As such, he has kept an open dialogue with colleagues at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, with whom he discussed concerns about adverse events and the spike protein used in COVID-19 vaccines.

In its native form in SARS-CoV-2, the spike protein is responsible for the pathologies of the viral infection, and in its wild form it’s known to open the blood-brain barrier, cause cell damage (cytotoxicity) and, Malone said, “is active in manipulating the biology of the cells that coat the inside of your blood vessels — vascular endothelial cells, in part through its interaction with ACE2, which controls contraction in the blood vessels, blood pressure and other things.”6

Malone is well aware of the actions of spike protein, as he worked to identify an effective drug that worked by blocking the action of the COX-2 enzyme, which is a key inflammatory enzyme. In one of his papers, he laid out how the spike protein and another protein in the virus directly turn on COX-2 promoter in infected cells.

This awareness of the spike protein as a biologically active protein made him alert the FDA about the associated risks last fall. His FDA colleagues transferred his concerns to the FDA’s review branch, which dismissed his concerns, saying they did not believe the spike protein was biologically active and there wasn’t enough documentation otherwise. As history now reveals, they proceeded with the EUA.

It’s since been revealed that the spike protein on its own is enough to cause inflammation and damage to the vascular system, even independent of a virus.7

Plato’s Noble Lie: Three False ‘Truths’ Being Circulated

The concept of the noble lie was first described by Socrates and Plato.8 It refers to the notion that, in the case of high-status individuals or designated public leaders, it’s acceptable to lie if the lie is made in the interest of the common good.

But in the modern day, in the midst of an unprecedented global pandemic in which government, Big Pharma, media and Big Tech have become integrated, we’re now seeing the noble lie “play out in a way that Plato could never have imagined,” Malone said.

Take Dr. Anthony Fauci — whose expertise has been held as indisputable by mainstream media since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. He’s been caught lying to both the public and the U.S. Senate on a number of issues, but nothing has been done about it.

Malone outlined three main logic elements — each false — that are being propagated as part of the grander noble lie. Any discussion that challenges or goes against these three elements is censored:9

1. Mitigating death and disease from COVID requires herd immunity — This is not true, as it’s possible to reduce death and disease from COVID-19 using medications like ivermectin and many others, including anti-inflammatories.

2. The only way to reach herd immunity is through universal vaccination — This is another lie. As Malone says, “Herd immunity is most often reached through natural infection.” Further, there’s no solid data on whether COVID injections reduce transmissibility, which changes depending on the variant anyway. So the idea that we must reach a certain percentage of herd immunity in the population to end the pandemic “fails the logic test.”

Even the World Health Organization advises people who are vaccinated to continue wearing masks due to the delta variant because “vaccine alone won’t stop community transmission.”10 “Vaccines will not get us to herd immunity,” Malone said.11

3. The vaccines are completely safe — This is another lie, as it’s well known that the vaccines are not completely safe. Malone listed several adverse events that are already raising red flags. Another important point: Censorship prevents full comprehension of these risks.

Cardiotoxicity
Coagulation problems

Female reproductive health concerns
Miscarriage in the first and second trimesters (this has not yet been confirmed), Thrombocytopenia (dropping blood platelets)

Brain and nervous system disorders
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)

Data Do Not Support Vaccination of Children

Malone believes that children and young adults up to age 30 or 35 should not be vaccinated, noting that the total number of COVID-19 deaths for birth- to 18-year-olds during the entire pandemic is 386.12 Children reap little benefit from this vaccine, not only because they’re at very low risk from COVID-19, but also because, according to Peter Doshi, Ph.D., a significant portion of U.S. children are already immune and aren’t at risk of infection to begin with.

Doshi cited Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data showing an estimated 23% of children under the age of 4 and 42% of those ages 5 through 17 have already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection and now have robust and long-lasting immunity.

The rationale has been that children should be vaccinated in order to protect the elderly, but this only has merit if the vaccine has no toxicity, which isn’t the case with COVID-19 injections, so the justification fails miserably. “We need to carefully think about who gets the benefit from vaccination, and focus vaccination on them,” Malone said.

For people who aren’t at high risk, it’s hard to justify exposing them to risk from a COVID-19 injection. Doshi similarly pointed out that the FDA has no basis on which to grant COVID-19 vaccines emergency use authorization for children in the first place, as COVID-19 is not an emergency in children. The threat this infection poses to children is negligible and no more serious than that of the common cold or flu.

The Power of Podcasts

Malone has been speaking out about the problems of censorship and the fact that physicians and scientists who raise concerns that go against the official narrative can be damaged professionally. He even heard an unsubstantiated report in Spain that a physician who advocates for alternative treatment strategies can be declared mentally incompetent and institutionalized.

“This is profoundly worrying,” he said, “but we’re seeing it all over the world … It’s extremely difficult to speak against this narrative.”13 Malone would know. Just five days after he publicly shared his concerns about the dangers of COVID-19 injections, his name and scientific credentials, including those relating to mRNA vaccines, were removed from Wikipedia.

Through his remaining contacts with the government, Malone is still trying to share this powerful insider information and data with those in positions of power who will listen. He comes from a place of caring and empathy and believes this, not fighting the opposition, is key.

He’s also speaking out via podcasts, which he believes are “extremely valuable” and “represent a threat to the narrative.” Instead of worrying about being deleted from social media or speaking to a reporter who may “cut and splice my words to fit some narrative that they want to impose … podcasts work. They get out to people.”

Malone is privy to the opposition he’s up against, but as a highly ethical physician committed to integrity — and preeminently qualified to speak on this topic — he feels it’s his duty to share the truth. It will take this and many others like him speaking out to counter the false narrative being forced upon us as the truth.

If we give up, we’ll continue down this rabbit hole in which misinformation becomes fact and believing it is the only choice to remain a part of society. This isn’t an option, which is why sharing data and information as Malone is doing is a heroic action that we can all take part in.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/08/07/spike-protein-covid-vaccine.aspx

The Telegraph1 disclosed that leaked data from the U.K. showed 56% of the patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 were not admitted because of COVID-19 but, rather, only tested positive after admission during routine testing done on all patients.

The tests identified individuals who may have had a false positive PCR or had symptoms so minor they were not recognized. This is a far cry from the “remorseless logic of exponential growth” in the number of COVID-19 patients predicted by U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson in June 2021, when Johnson warned the country that hospital admissions were rising by 50% each week.2

More than a month later, hospitals were reporting the number of infections is manageable, and the numbers have not come close to those recorded during a peak in January 2021. Additionally, the data show that patients have shorter stays than during the January peak, which The Telegraph article attributes to England’s COVID-19 injection program.3

The justification for the COVID-19 injections has been to reduce the number of individuals who become infected. However, as data collection has demonstrated, experts are not making it easy to evaluate raw numbers of real data.

Leaked Data Show UK Inflated Hospital Numbers

The Telegraph4 had access to leaked data from the NHS, which showed only 44% of patients classified as COVID-19 patients had a positive test at admission. The remaining 56% did not test positive until they underwent a standard test during hospitalization.

The pattern in the leaked data analyzed by The Telegraph showed the majority of patients were likely treated for other conditions and some were not tested for COVID-19 until weeks after hospitalization. Dr. Carl Heneghan, director of the center for evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, was appalled by this revelation and is quoted in The Telegraph saying:5

“This data is incredibly important, and should be published on an ongoing basis. When people hear about hospitalisations with Covid, they will assume that Covid is the likely cause, but this data shows something quite different — this is about Covid being detected after tests were looking for it.”

Heneghan urged government officials to make clear data available, adding that what is currently published could lead people “towards false conclusions.” Several other health experts in the U.K. were equally as disturbed the government had been hiding data. Sir Graham Brady, British politician and member of Parliament, told a reporter from The Telegraph:6

“Nearly 18 months into the Covid crisis, it is absurd that data breaking down hospital admissions still isn’t publicly available on a regular basis. Counting all patients who test positive as Covid hospitalisations is inevitably misleading and gives a false picture of the continuing health impact of the virus.”

Greg Clark, chairman of Commons science and technology select committee, said he would be asking for a breakdown of hospitalizations on a regular basis after The Telegraph published the leaked data. He told a reporter from The Telegraph:7

“If hospitalisations from Covid are a key determinant of how concerned we should be, and how quickly restrictions should be lifted, it’s important that the data is not presented in a way that could lead to the wrong conclusions being drawn.

While some of these people may be being admitted due to Covid, we currently do not know how many. And for those who are not, there is a big distinction between people who are admitted because of Covid and those are in for something else but have Covid in such a mild form that it was not the cause of their hospitalisation.”

Clear Data Can Be Difficult to Find

The data were leaked from an NHS daily situation report that is collected from all the hospital trusts in England. One NHS data expert suggested that the data distort the true picture, saying:8

“It creates an impression that all these people are going into hospital with Covid, and that simply is not the case. People are worried and scared and not really understanding the true picture — that is what I find despicable.”

Interestingly, in June 2021, the NHS trusts were also asked to analyze their data and determine how many patients were admitted for treatment of COVID-19 and how many were in the hospital for other reasons, and yet were still classified as COVID-19 patients. As of July 26, 2021, this data had not been released.9

On the flip side, there is mounting evidence that COVID-19 injections can have tragic results, as demonstrated by the ever-increasing death toll attributed to the shot. The vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS)10 tracks deaths, hospitalizations, urgent care visits, specific health conditions and symptoms in a searchable database.

However, since data from an investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found the VAERS catches a mere 1% of vaccine injuries,11,12 these numbers are not close to the full story. This is likely because the system is primarily because a passive process and reports are filed voluntarily.

Cases and Actual Infection Are Not the Same

Many of the reported COVID hospitalizations were likely reported “cases” and not actual infections as Heneghan, Brady and Clark were quoted above. In early 2021, hospitalization rates13 with COVID-19 dropped from 132,474 Americans on January 6, 2021, to 71,497 on February 12, 2021.

This drop was predicted since the recommended cycle threshold on the PCR tests was lowered in January 2021. The PCR swab collects RNA that is then reverse transcribed into DNA. Because of the tiny size, it must be amplified to become discernible.

Every round of amplification is called a cycle, and the number of amplification cycles used is called the cycle threshold. The higher the cycle threshold, the greater the risk that insignificant sequences of viral DNA are magnified to the point that the test reads positive even when the viral load is extremely low, or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else.

Many doctors and scientists, including Dr. Anthony Fauci,14 director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have noted any cycle threshold over 35 cycles is scientifically indefensible.15,16 One study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases17 in September 2020 revealed that a PCR test at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher dropped the accuracy to 3%.

In other words, a PCR test with a cycle threshold of over 35 results in a 97% false positive rate. Yet, during the peak of the pandemic, the World Health Organization recommended that cycle thresholds should be set to 45 cycles18,19,20 and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended PCR tests at a cycle threshold of 40.21

Since the consensus is that cycle thresholds over 35 render the test useless, it begs the question why health agencies would continue to recommend testing that was almost guaranteed to render a false positive. Indeed, it seems clear at this time that we are not dealing with a lethal pandemic in any real sense.

Mortality statistics further prove this is the case since these statistics have remained stable in 2020 and in line with previous years.22,23,24 In other words, people are dying from COVID-19, but the illness is not killing an excess number of people. Data released by the CDC August 26, 2020,25 showed only 6% of so-called COVID-19 deaths had COVID-19 as the sole cause on the death certificate.

“For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death,” the CDC wrote, and any one of those comorbidities could have killed those people even if COVID-19 was nonexistent.

Signs Are Mounting COVID Injections Are Failing

In recent weeks, the data has also demonstrated that the COVID-19 injections will not put an end to the infection even if 100% of the population was vaccinated. For example, 100 fully vaccinated crew members on the warship HMS Queen Elizabeth tested positive for COVID-19 while they were out to sea.26

This demonstrates that the vaccine-induced herd immunity narrative is not possible. In a video report,27 Dr. John Campbell reviewed the data from the U.K. I don’t agree with everything Campbell says, such as promoting mask-wearing. However, the data review is of interest.

As of July 29, 2021, nearly 90% of the adult population in the U.K. had received one dose of COVID-19 injection28 and 70% had received two. Yet symptomatic cases among partially and fully “vaccinated” are now suddenly on the rise, with an average of 15,537 new infections a day29 being detected in this group, a 40% increase from early July.

Meanwhile, the daily average of new symptomatic cases among unvaccinated is 17,581, down 22% from the week before. This suggests the wave among unvaccinated has peaked and that natural herd immunity has set in, while “vaccinated” individuals are becoming more prone to infection.

In a recent CNBC news report, they revealed the CDC has stated COVID injection breakthrough infections are more severe in people who are elderly or who have serious medical conditions.30 In other words, the very people the injection is supposed to protect are the ones who are getting the sickest.

It is also important not to assume lower hospitalization rates in the middle of summer are a sign that the injections are having a positive impact. We have data31 showing that countries with the highest COVID injection rates are also experiencing the greatest upsurges in cases, while countries with the lowest injection rates have the lowest caseloads.

This trend “is worrying me quite a bit,” Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, said in a July 16, 2021, tweet.32 By July 17, 2021, Massachusetts had reported 5,166 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 following the injection, including 80 deaths.33

The week before, there were 4,450 cases and 79 deaths in fully vaccinated individuals. This represents a jump of 716 fully vaccinated people who had a breakthrough COVID infection in just one week.

Counties in the US Find Inflated Reporting of COVID Deaths

Discrepancies in reporting data have been found in the U.S. as well. In the early months of 2020, many in the mainstream news media laughingly called concerns that there were more deaths reported from COVID-19 than could be attributed to the disease, a “death toll conspiracy.”34 Yet, less than one year later that is exactly what county officials in California have discovered.35

In other words, the number of people who died “from” COVID-19 was far lower than those who died “with” COVID-19. As I’ve written, the high reported rate of individuals with the disease was in considerable part due to the high cycle threshold in PCR testing. In reality, the PCR test is not a diagnostic tool.

After analyzing data, Santa Clara and Alameda counties in California discovered they had a significant discrepancy in the number of people who actually died FROM COVID-19.36 The data did not change. The number of actual deaths did not change. But authorities found that 22% of the deaths recorded from COVID could not be attributed to the virus.

Santa Clara County reported the new numbers were generated by counting only those whose cause of death was from the virus and not counting people who tested positive at the time of death. The month before, in June 2021, Alameda County also recounted deaths attributed to COVID-19 and registered a death toll drop of about 25%.

University of California San Francisco professor of medicine and infectious disease expert Dr. Monica Gandhi believes the CDC may soon ask all counties to recount their deaths from COVID-19 and the entire nation could see a drop in the death toll.

Yet, as I have reported, financial incentives offered to hospitals to alter the death certificates as well as PCR testing that inaccurately labeled people as infected with a virus, might be two significant contributing factors that continue to alter an accurate representation of the number of people who died from the virus.

In my most recent interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, we discussed some of the acute, subacute and long-term risks for those who have accepted the COVID injection. Additionally, he outlines the strategic plan to help protect your health if you or someone you know got the shot and now has serious regrets. You can see the interview and the strategies in “Might Covid Injections Reduce Lifespan?”

For those who are still deciding, it’s important to do your own risk benefit analysis based on your individual situation before making up your mind. If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying is 0.01%.37 This means you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. Since the mRNA shots are not designed to prevent infection, but only to reduce the severity of symptoms, it begs the question — what is being protected?

I won’t tell anyone what to do, but I do urge you to take the time to review the science and weigh the potential risks and benefits before making a decision that may have permanent repercussions for the rest of your life.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/08/07/half-of-covid-hospital-admissions-tested-positive.aspx

Photo by Bertrand Borie via Unsplash

This article was originally published here.

As I am typing this, we are on the receiving end of a top-down war on everything that’s natural, be it natural free expression, natural immunity, or natural ability at large.

Different aspects of today’s bizarre reality are connected like pieces of a puzzle. The trendy political correctness, for example, draws from the same logical root as vaccinating people with natural immunity.

How so? Well, political correctness exists to ensure that conversational spaces are safe spaces — and the need to make them safe is based on the premise that human beings are not capable of navigating unregulated conversational spaces without being harmed. Those who are capable of doing so should act as if they are not.

The assumption here is that the natural ability to deal with unregulated conversations does not exist, is not necessary to develop, and mentioning the need for it is cruel. Similarly, forcing the famous medical product on those with natural immunity is based on the premise that artificial immunity is superior to natural immunity.

Furthermore, the strong push for the product, combined with an attack on anyone who even squeaks about comparable benefits of anything natural — be it a healthy life style or actual natural immunity — presumes that artificial tools and mechanisms should be used to replace the natural ability of the body to stand up to pathogens.

And similarly, both an expectation of natural immunity in anyone and a refusal to supersede or replace one’s natural immunity with an artificial one are framed as cruel. I posit that in logical and commercial terms, this war on the natural world, natural immunity — and natural ability at large — can be explained with clarity in terms of what is known as the “blue ocean strategy,” with an infusion of transhumanist ideology of human body as a [product] platform.

The blue ocean strategy is a business strategy that proposes creating a brand new market out of thin air and dominating it (a blue ocean) — as opposed to trying to compete in an existing market (an ocean red with blood).

Here’s how it applies to natural immunity. A healthy person with a natural immunity might be a happy person — but to a 2021 biotech entrepreneur, who views the human body as a market to dominate, he is a sheer insult. From the standpoint of that entrepreneur, replacing the default natural immunity of the past millions years with a fully artificial tool that requires a “subscription” throughout one’s entire lifetime (see “variants” and “boosters”) is desirable.

Replacing the default natural immunity with an artificial tool is a very successful case of creating a brand new market (“artificial immunity market”) out of air. A life-long subscription to artificial immunity, with an ever-expanding range of necessary “upgrades,” is a lot more profitable than some rookie traditional shop selling vitamins. Even better, if artificial immunity destroys the natural immunity, customer loyalty is guaranteed. See how elegant?

Somewhat similarly, the notion that people can say what they think, and everyone officially survives unscarred, does not help sell censorship or behavioral modification as a means of “protecting others.”

If, on the other hand, people are officially deemed as lacking the ability to talk over differences or to process information and make reasonable sense of it — or if people’s natural ability to communicate with others in a healthy way is artificially impaired through social distancing, face wearables, and political correctness — lots of new needs are generated right then and there.

Among other things, it opens new market opportunities for mass scale “mental health management systems” and the behavioral modification tools, including behavioral modification software, known as “digital vaccines.” Now, let’s look at the other side of it. Let’s look at the economy at large from the psychological perspective of an extremely wealthy person, trillionaire-level wealthy.

A question: Who are we, regular citizens, to the people with near-unlimited financial and political power? Who are we to those who can invest into their vision almost infinitely, and thus shape our society and perception?

It seems like to the people with the most financial and political resources, we are four things: One, we are clay from which they like to mold their play reality, creating worlds and wars, experimenting, and testing out hypotheses. Two, we are the labor, producers of goods and services.

Three, we are the consumers, buying stuff that their production facilities have produced and contributing to the semblance of a functioning market, even though they make most of their money on extraction and speculation. And four, we are a natural resource, like land or water.

Historically, during the times of feudalism, we were mostly one and two. Then, when the industrial revolution happened, number three was added to the list due to the sudden drop in production costs and an increase in the amount of stuff that could be made on the conveyor.

And now, we are approaching the phrase where number four becomes very interesting to the most powerful people of our planet. Robotics is mighty, fewer people are needed to make things — and what to do with all the useless eaters?

Well, see, in an artificial world, everything is possible, and useless eaters are not so useless in a fully controlled environment, as long as they are viewed as data bundles, also known as digital twins. As long as they have “needs” (as defined by the people seeking to profit), the “improvement” of their condition can be plugged into various impact investment models, and then our useless eaters they become very useful!

Here is how this economic system works: Let’s say, the “government” — in quotes, because in the 4IR model, the government could be theoretically a software program — generates currency as needed.

Our useless eaters, of course, get universal basic income on the condition of doing what they are told. But their most valuable asset to the economy is their “needs.” I don’t mean their actual human needs — but “needs,” as defined by some kind of World Economic Forum-like set of formal parameters.

Perhaps they are prone to getting infected with a virus and need v-s? Or maybe their mental health does not meet the numerically defined markers? Or else they could possibly be in need of behavioral modification, such as getting treated for meat addiction, because climate change? So many markets! So many opportunities! And who then steps in to improve their condition?

The most nepotistic corporations, of course, through public-public partnerships. So first, the “government,” working with NGOs, funded by the very corporations seeking to profit, announces an important public “need.”

The most nepotistic corporations then receive piles of currency from the “government” to solve those “needs,” from developing housing projects to developing patented artificial foods to creating gene therapies and behavioral modification programs. Those things are then dumped onto the useless eaters, regardless of what they think of it.

And so the useless eaters get stuff “for free” but they cannot choose, and their bodies are part-owned by corporations. Which, if it really goes this way, puts us back into the Soviet Union with a dystopian twist (and that has nothing to do with isms).

And since human beings are not designed to live like mechanical soldiers or remote-controlled meatbags, and this will lead to a very bleak society if we let it happen, we better wake up to the anatomy of how the New Normal really works, and soon. The end.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/08/06/war-on-natural-immunity.aspx

“Misinformation is much more destructive when it emanates from a monopolistic ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Hannah Cox, content manager for Foundation for Economic Education, writes in a July 25, 2021, article.1

“[Anthony] Fauci can’t get his own facts straight, yet the government wants to decide what’s ‘misinformation’ on social media,” she adds, pointing to National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Fauci’s testimony during a recent Congressional committee hearing in which Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., questioned him about his funding of gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. Cox writes:2

“In his opening statement, Paul referenced an academic paper3 that further calls into question the origins of the COVID-19 variant that upended the world.

‘We hypothesize that the direct progenitor of SARS-CoV may have originated after sequential recombination events between the precursors of these SARSr-CoVs,’ stated the numerous scientists and doctors who authored the research.

The data is the latest in a long line of evidence that has emerged indicating the viability of the theory that the disease not only came from a lab, but that the NIH actually funded the laboratory and research that may have produced it.

But in a May hearing, when originally pressed on it by Dr. Paul, Fauci denied that his agency funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Those statements were brought into doubt. The NIH did fund research at WIV that analyzed bat specimens collected from caves in China to study their potential for infecting humans. The grant was made in a roundabout way through a nonprofit called EcoHealth.”

When pressed, Fauci insisted he has never lied before Congress, and would not retract his May 11, 2021, statement in which he claimed the NIH has “never funded gain-of-function research.” According to Fauci, the PLOS Pathogens paper4 Paul introduced as evidence has been “judged by qualified staff, up and down the chain, as not being gain-of-function.”

“It appears that instead of arguing the actual data, Fauci is now resorting to semantics around the definition of ‘gain-of-function,’” Cox writes,5 “but even to a scientific layman it is becoming increasingly clear that Fauci misled the American public for some time on this matter. He knew he authorized the funding and was not forthcoming on that fact — even when asked by a sitting Senator.”

Paul Highlights Verbatim Admission

Paul appears none too impressed with the semantics defense and has publicly called Fauci out as a liar. In a July 20, 2021, tweet, Paul said,6 “Yes, Dr. Fauci’s NIH did fund the Wuhan Virology Lab. Here’s the verbatim admission from their chief scientist Dr. Shi Zhengli.”

In a follow-up tweet on that same day, Paul stated:7

“MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt reviewed this paper that was published with financial assistance from Dr. Fauci’s NIH/NIAID and concluded ‘certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function.’”

July 20, 2021, Paul went on the Hannity program,8 announcing he “will be sending a letter to Department of Justice asking for a criminal referral because he [Fauci] has lied to Congress,” a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, adding “We have scientists that were lined up by the dozens to say that the research he was funding was gain-of-function.” A month earlier, May 12, 2021, Paul made the same argument, telling Fox News:9

“What Dr. Fauci said yesterday was verifiably false. He said no NIH money went to the Wuhan Institute for gain of function. Well, the main doctor there, the one they call … the bat woman … wrote a paper that MIT scientists have looked at that they said was gain of function — meaning juicing up these viruses to make them very potent and infect humans.

She wrote this paper and, in the paper, acknowledged her funding came from Dr. Fauci’s group, the NIAID, which is part of NIH. So, he is verifiably telling you something that is not true. In the grant application … it says it is for gain of function … So, Dr. Fauci came to Congress yesterday and lied.”

WIV Deleted US Research Partners from Website

Before March 2021, NIAID collaboration and funding of research at the WIV could easily be verified simply by visiting the WIV’s website where it listed its research partners. However, shortly after Fauci testified in a Senate hearing in March 2021,10 the WIV suddenly deleted mentions of its collaboration with the NIAID/NIH and several other American research partners.

As of March 21, 2021, the lab’s website listed the following U.S.-based research partners: University of Alabama, University of North Texas, EcoHealth Alliance, Harvard University, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States, and the National Wildlife Federation.11

The next day, only two remained: EcoHealth Alliance and the University of Alabama.12 At the same time, the WIV also deleted studies with hallmark descriptions of gain-of-function research on the SARS virus.13

According to investigative journalist Ben Swann,14 the NIH/NIAID has funded gain-of-function research to the tune of at least $41.7 million. Up until 2014, this research was conducted by Dr. Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina (UNC). In 2014, the U.S. government issued a moratorium on federal gain-of-function research funding due to safety, ethical and moral concerns raised within the scientific community.

At that point, NIAID funding for this kind of research started being funneled through the EcoHealth Alliance to the WIV. Swann reviews documents he believes prove that Fauci lied to Congress, including a paper15 titled “SARS-Like WIV1-CoV Poised for Human Emergence,” submitted to PNAS in 2015 and subsequently published in 2016. In this paper, the authors state that:

“Overall, the results from these studies highlight the utility of a platform that leverages metagenomics findings and reverse genetics to identify prepandemic threats.

For SARS-like WIV1-CoV, the data can inform surveillance programs, improve diagnostic reagents, and facilitate effective treatments to mitigate future emergence events. However, building new and chimeric reagents must be carefully weighed against potential gain-of-function (GoF) concerns.”

At the end of that paper, the authors thank “Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology for access to bat CoV sequences and plasmid of WIV1-CoV spike protein.” They also specify that the research was supported by the NIAID under the grant awards U19AI109761 and U19AI107810, which together total $41.7 million.

Grant Letter Dispels Semantics Defense

A letter16,17 from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to the director of proposals at UNC Chapel Hill, discussing grant U19AI107810, also puts a kink in Fauci’s attempt to change the definition of gain-of-function, and stands in direct challenge to his claim that the NIAID has never funded gain-of-function research, and that Baric’s research never involved gain-of-function. The October 21, 2014, letter states, in part:

“NIAID has determined that the above referenced grant may include Gain of Function (GoF) research that is subject to the recently-announced U.S. Government funding pause …

The following specific aims appear to involve research covered under the pause: Project 1: Role of Uncharacterized Genes in High Pathogenic Human Coronavirus Infect — Ralph S. Baric, PhD — Project Leader. Specific Aim 1. Novel Functions in virus replication in vitro. Specific Aim 3. Novel functions in virus pathogenesis in vivo.”

‘Fauci Found It Appropriate to Lie’

“This would certainly not be the first time Fauci has been caught giving the American people false information,” Cox writes.18 “From the very beginning of the crisis, Fauci found it appropriate to lie to the people and control valuable information around the pandemic.”

She goes on to highlight Fauci’s ever-changing opinion about mask wearing. Scientific evidence shows face masks do not prevent viral illnesses.19 This includes COVID-19-specific research20,21 from Denmark, which found that mask wearing may either reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or increase your risk by 23%. Either way, the vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free.

Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed those who did not adhere to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no difference. Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls.

Back in March 2020, Fauci was on the right track, publicly stating that masks cannot prevent viral infection. The video above features one such appearance. At the time, Fauci stated22 that “people should not be walking around with masks” because “it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.” Only symptomatic individuals and health care workers were urged to wear them.

Fauci even pointed out that mask wearing has “unintended consequences” as “people keep fiddling with their mask and they keep touching their face,” which may actually increase the risk of contracting and/or spreading the virus.

In February 2020, Surgeon General Jerome Adams also sent out a tweet urging Americans to stop buying masks, saying they are “NOT effective.”23 (He has since deleted that tweet.) Adams also warned that if worn or handled improperly, face masks can increase your risk of infection.24

Fauci Admits Issuing Intentional Misinformation

By July 2020, Fauci admitted his initial dismissal of face masks was an intentional fib, as there was a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) at the time and he wanted to ensure there would be enough for frontline workers.25 “If we listen to Fauci’s account, he essentially believed it was alright to prioritize some lives over others and lie to people in the process,” Cox writes.26

This is a classic illustration of the use of what Plato calls the Nobel Lie. It is fine to lie as long as it is for the greater good. Fast-forward a few weeks, and by the end of July 2020, Fauci suggested adding goggles and full face shields, in addition to a mask, ostensibly because the mucous membranes of your eyes could potentially serve as entryways for viruses as well.27

Interestingly enough, a March 31, 2020, report28 in JAMA Ophthalmology found SARS-CoV-2-positive conjunctival specimens (i.e., specimens taken from the eye) in just 5.2% of confirmed COVID-19 patients (two out of 28). What’s more, contamination of the eyes is likely primarily the result of touching your eyes with contaminated fingers, and if you wear goggles or a face shield, you may be more prone to touch your eyes to rub away sweat, condensation and/or scratch an itch.

Fauci’s disastrous track record of misinformation, laid bare throughout his many rounds with Rand Paul, shows why the government has no business trying to be a monolithic source and arbiter of truth. ~ Hannah Cox, Foundation for Economic Education

Around December 2020, recommendations for double-masking emerged,29 gaining momentum through extensive media coverage as we moved into the first weeks of 2021,30 at which time Fauci agreed that wearing two masks instead of just one was “common sense” as it would likely provide greater protection.31

By early May 2021, Fauci introduced the suggestion that we might also start wearing face masks during influenza season after the COVID-19 pandemic recedes “to help avoid spreading or contracting respiratory illnesses like the flu.” Mid-July 2021, Fauci also insisted parents should continue to mask children aged 2 and older, saying:32

“Unvaccinated children of a certain age greater than 2 years old should be wearing masks. No doubt about that. That’s the way to protect them from getting infected, because if they do, they can then spread the infection to someone else.”

No new scientific evidence to support masking against respiratory viruses has been presented, however. Cox also points out that Fauci recommended nationwide school closures even though published science showed children are largely immune33,34 to SARS-CoV-2 infection and are not significant vectors for spread.35 More recent research36 shows children, when infected, also have a survival rate of 99.995%.

Government Nominates Itself as Ministry of Truth

“To add insult to injury, the government has nominated itself as the sole arbiter of truth when it comes to information on the coronavirus,” Cox writes, adding:37

“The Biden Administration has claimed misinformation on social media platforms is ‘killing people’ and has openly been pressuring Facebook to remove posts that do not align with their narrative … This is concerning for multiple reasons.

First and foremost, it is a violation of free speech and the free market for the government to tell any private business how to run its operations. Plain and simple.

Additionally, the government has no business being in a position of determining what the truth is or is not. They’ve been caught lying more times than we can count and are likely to continue, given how misleading the public often serves to increase their own power.

The government’s track record of inaccuracy by no means begins with COVID, but has certainly grown with it. This is the last entity we should trust with a monopoly over information.

Fauci’s disastrous track record of misinformation, laid bare throughout his many rounds with Rand Paul, shows why the government has no business trying to be a monolithic source and arbiter of truth.”

Senator Introduces Bill to Force Online Censorship

July 22, 2021, The Wall Street Journal38 reported Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has introduced a bill “that would strip online platforms such as Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. of their liability protections if their technologies spread misinformation related to public-health emergencies, such as the Covid-19 pandemic.”

Section 230 protects internet platforms from lawsuits arising from content generated by users and third parties. Klobuchar’s bill would create an exception to this law, the Health and Human Services department (HHS) would be responsible for dictating what health information is true and what is misinformation.

Internet platforms would then be required to censor accordingly or face potential litigation. Time will tell if this bill will pass and stand up to legal scrutiny.

As noted by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in an April 5, 2021, ruling39 in which he weighed in on the ability of social media giants to control free speech, “The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”

After Censorship, Will Social Credit System Be Far Behind?

If government censorship becomes law, will a social credit system based on government narrative adherence be far behind? “We need to act now to block Britain’s social credit system,” columnist Ross Clark writes in a July 24, 2021, Spectator article.40

While Clark, just 12 days earlier, had estimated it might take two to five years for a British COVID vaccination passport scheme to transition into a full-blown social credit system like that of China, in reality, it’s already being rolled out.

“This morning it was reported that the government is planning to introduce a health app in January which will monitor our shopping, our exercise levels, or intake of fruit and vegetables — and reward us with virtue points which we can exchange for discounts, free tickets … and other goodies,” Clark writes.41

Considering the whole world is acting in lockstep — as described and recommended in the Rockefeller Foundation’s 2010 “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” report42 — it’s probably only a matter of time before the same kind of social credit score “carrot” gets dangled in front of our faces here in the United States.

First Comes the Carrot, Then the Stick

Looking back, it’s easy to see how the carrot and the stick have been intermittently used to herd the population toward a desired goal. While getting everyone injected with SARS-CoV-2 spike producing mRNA is clearly one goal, it’s not the only one.

As indicated by Clark, a social credit system that grants outside agencies complete control over your life is also being introduced, one small step at a time. And, like with the COVID jabs, carrots to get people to voluntarily embrace this social credit system are deployed first. The stick will come out later, as it has with the COVID shots.

ABC News panelist Margaret Hoover recently told George Stephanopoulos she thinks government ought to make life “almost impossible” for people who reject the COVID shot.43

To that end, she suggests making COVID injectables a requirement for government-provided health and financial services, such as VA treatment, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security payments, “because … we are going to have to take care of you on the back end.” 

PayPal to Block Certain Financial Transactions

Those relying on Social Security aren’t the only ones who might begin to feel the sting of the stick. More than 150 health care workers were recently fired from Houston Methodist for refusing the experimental COVID jab,44 and many other professions face the same “jab or job” dilemma.

PayPal is also using the stick against the self-employed and small businesses that aren’t toeing the desired line. It recently partnered with the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism “to investigate how extremist and hate movements in the United States take advantage of financial platforms to fund their criminal activities,” Reuters reported, July 26, 2021,45 with the aim of “disrupting” such transactions.

The headline, “PayPal to Research Transactions That Fund Hate Groups, Extremists,” had originally included the word “Blocking.” Perhaps announcing that PayPal will actually block the financial transactions of those suspected of harboring anti-government sentiments was too great a truth bomb for the average Reuters audience?

Targeted entities include individuals and companies suspected of supporting white supremacy and anti-government narratives, and anyone spreading information and/or profiting from antisemitism, islamophobia, racism, anti-immigrant, anti-Black, anti-Hispanic and anti-Asian bigotry.

The information collected will be shared with other financial institutions, law enforcement and policymakers. It doesn’t take a genius to deduce where this might end up, considering intelligence agencies are already deploying sophisticated cyberwarfare tools against civilians.46,47,48 As reported by independent investigative journalist Whitney Webb in an article for Unlimited Hangout:49

“British and American state intelligence agencies are ‘weaponizing truth’ … in a recently announced ‘cyber war’ to be commanded by AI-powered arbiters of truth against information sources that challenge official narratives.”

While it can cause discomfort, the best defense is a peaceful offense. If you don’t like where things are headed, peaceful disobedience is likely to be the most effective way to push back, be it against mask mandates, forced vaccinations, a two-tier society of vaccinated/unvaccinated with unequal rights and privileges, mandatory vaccine passports, a social credit system, or all of the above.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/08/06/government-censorship.aspx

COVID-19 vaccines were supposed to set you free and bring life back to what it looked like in 2019 — no masks, no lockdowns and freedom for everyone, regardless of vaccination status.

Along those lines, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated their guidelines May 13, 2021, to state that vaccinated individuals no longer needed to wear a mask outdoors and in most spaces indoors1 but, July 27, 2021, they changed the guidance to once again recommend masks for vaccinated people while indoors in areas with “high” or “substantial” COVID-19 transmission.2

This time, the about-face about masks — even for the vaccinated — was blamed on the Delta variant of the virus.
At this point, however, with effective treatments like ivermectin available, the documented high survival rate of COVID-193 and knowledge that if you’ve had COVID-19, you’re already likely immune to further infection, the rationale for further restrictions is questionable — and even more so when you consider the Delta variant has a very low 0.27% case fatality rate (CFR) in the U.K., which drops to 0.03% in those under 50.4

Generally speaking, as a virus becomes more transmissible, it becomes less virulent, as a virus that is highly deadly will kill off its hosts before it can spread. In an op-ed published by The Blaze, Daniel Horowitz cited data showing the Delta variant has a 0.1% CFR, which is the same rate as the flu, and has shown a pattern similar to most other respiratory viruses:5

“This is exactly what every respiratory pandemic has done through history: morphed into more transmissible and less virulent form that forces the other mutations out since you get that one. Nothing about masks, lockdowns, or experimental shots did this.

To the extent this really is more transmissible, it’s going to be less deadly, as is the case with the common cold. To the extent that there are areas below the herd immunity threshold (for example, in Scotland and the northwestern parts of the U.K.) they will likely get the Delta variant (until something else supplants it), but fatalities will continue to go down.”

The public, increasingly fed up with the contradictory guidelines and mandates, is speaking out against the draconian measures that are being reinstated, often due to Delta — a powerful move, since mass, peaceful protests can lead to significant change.

Nationwide Protests in France, Italy Over Vaccine Passports

In July 2021, more than 160,000 people, including 11,000 in Paris, protested in France against the “health pass,” the country’s version of a vaccine passport. Police released tear gas and water cannons against some of the protestors.6 France’s parliament approved a law that requires a health pass to enter restaurants, trains, planes and certain other public venues.

The health pass will be mandatory for adults and, starting September 30, 2021, children 12 and older as well.7 In order to get a health pass, individuals must prove they are fully vaccinated against COVID-19, have recently tested negative or have recently recovered from the virus.8

Protestors raised concerns that “freedom is being trampled on”9 and called for liberty and “no to the pass of shame.”10 The law requiring the health pass also mandated vaccinations for all workers in the health care sector, who will be required to be vaccinated by September 15, 2021, or risk being suspended.11

In Italy, a similar pass called the “Green Pass”12 will be required as of August 6, 2021, to enter gyms, swimming pools, sports stadiums, museums, spas, casinos, cinemas and indoor restaurants. It’s already required to travel within the European Union or enter care homes or large wedding receptions in Italy.

Demonstrations against the Green Pass have popped up in Rome, Naples and Turin, with people calling for freedom and chanting “down with the dictatorship.”13 As with France’s health pass, the Green Pass serves as proof that an individual has been vaccinated, recently tested negative for COVID-19 or recovered from a previous infection.

People Rebel Against Australian, UK Lockdowns, Tracing

Thousands of protestors also turned up to rebel against extended lockdown orders in Australia.14 Stay-at-home orders were extended until at least August 28, 2021, in Sydney, which NPR said could prompt a second recession of the economy in two years.

With residents growing increasingly weary and protesting the lockdowns, police were being called in for enforcement and government officials called on individuals to report people who weren’t obeying social distancing rules.

Outside of Sydney, about half of Australia’s residents were in lockdown as of July 24, 2021, but protestors were increasingly taking to city centers to call for freedom and the truth. At one protest in Melbourne, a banner read, “This is not about a virus it’s about total government control of the people.”15 Multiple arrests were made at the Sydney protests, with police stating that crowds “broke through barriers and threw plastic bottles and plants.”16

In New South Wales, law enforcement stated that while they supported free speech and peaceful assembly, “the protest was a breach of public health orders.”17 Meanwhile in England, most COVID restrictions were recently lifted, but protests are increasing over the NHS COVID app, which notifies you if you’ve been in close contact (defined as within 6 feet for 15 minutes or more) with someone who tested positive for COVID.

During the week of July 14, 2021, 618,903 alerts were sent to people using the app, which means, if you’re unvaccinated, you’re supposed to self-isolate for 10 days since the last contact with the positive person. If you don’t self-isolate after being notified, you can be fined £1,000 ($1,390) or more.18 About 5,000 people also demonstrated against COVID measures in Athens, with banners stating, “Don’t touch our children.”19

Freedom Rally in India Protests COVID Restrictions

In India, hundreds of people joined a Freedom Rally to protest COVID lockdowns and mandatory masks, vaccination and COVID testing, with slogans reading:20

“Mandatory vaccination is tyranny”
“No more lockdowns. It has brought poverty and hunger”
“Vaccinating cannot guarantee safety of one’s life”
“WHO says masks are not for healthy people”

The peaceful protests were part of the Awaken India Movement (AIM), which aims to protect freedom of choice and basic human rights, which are rapidly eroding, and prevent mandatory vaccination, masks, social distancing and testing. It’s also working to stop lockdowns, GMO foods, 5G and tech censorship. According to AIM:21

“We are particularly concerned about health, financial and ecological crisis that humanity is facing, facilitated by misplaced and false narratives that are propagated as its cause. Our collective journey began by revealing the truth behind the ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’ and communicating with the public about the new norms, global agendas and authoritarian tactics that are unfolding to this end.”

Vaccine, Mask Mandates Under Fire in US

In the U.S., more than 100 people protested outside the Iowa State Capitol against COVID-19 vaccine mandates, including those issued by some hospitals in the state. The rally was organized by Informed Choice Iowa, a nonprofit in support of medical freedom and informed consent.22

Speaking with the Des Moines Register, Brei Johnson with Informed Choice Iowa said, “You can take off a mask but you can’t undo a vaccine. That’s a slippery slope to what comes next.”23 Republican state Rep. Jeff Shipley also spoke at the rally, referring to vaccine mandates as “a crime against humanity.”24

Advocacy groups Let Them Breathe and Reopen California Schools took a different approach in California, where they filed a lawsuit against Gov. Gavin Newsom and other health officials to challenge COVID restrictions in kindergarten through grade 12 schools — specifically mask mandates, asymptomatic testing and quarantine guidance for close contacts.25 Jonathan Zachreson, founder of Reopen California Schools, stated:26

“It’s clear that CDPH [California Department of Public Health] has chosen to ignore the overwhelming evidence that show[s] children are at a very low risk from being infected with COVID-19, transmitting it to others, or becoming seriously ill from COVID-19.

A return to a normal school year is crucial to the mental and physical health recovery for all students across California who have endured months of isolation and a majority of who spent last school year entirely in distance learning.”

Sharon McKeeman, founder of Let Them Breathe, added that health officials’ claims that face masks don’t interfere with education “is faulty in that facial cues, social skills, and comfort are just a few of the essential components of education that masking excludes.”27

Learning to Live With COVID

As noted by Horowitz in The Blaze, “Natural infection is the only phenomena that will ultimately burn out all variants, and the entire focus should be on getting seniors and other vulnerable people early treatment the minute they feel symptoms and even a prophylactic regimen of ivermectin … when appropriate.”28

Instead of locking down society, which is taking an extreme toll on the economy and individual lives, why isn’t COVID-19 being treated the way other viruses like influenza are, with symptomatic people staying home to recover while the rest of society goes on?

As I talked about in an earlier article, data compiled by Pandemics ~ Data & Analytics (PANDA) found no relationship between lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths per million people. The disease followed a trajectory of linear decline regardless of whether or not lockdowns were imposed. Yet, this type of information has been censored from the beginning.

The lack of exposure to everyday dirt and germs that is missed when people stay home, socially distanced and sanitized also cannot be ignored. “Our immune system needs a job,” Dr. Meg Lemon, a Denver dermatologist, told The New York Times in a 2019 article on the science of the immune system. “We evolved over millions of years to have our immune systems under constant assault. Now they don’t have anything to do.”29

What is perhaps most disturbing is that this comment was made prior to the pandemic. Now, it’s exponentially worse, and your immune system is likely missing out on interactions with bacteria and other microorganisms that teach it, train it how to respond and keep it primed throughout your life.

If you don’t agree with COVID-19 restrictions in your area, now is the time to speak out in peaceful protest in order to compel positive changes in support of health and overall freedom.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/08/05/protests-against-covid-restrictions-worldwide.aspx

A July 25, 2021, article1 by Joel Hirschhorn on Trial Site News highlights what he refers to as a “missed public health opportunity.” Hirschhorn is a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, and a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.

Even though we’ve known for well over a year that obesity is one of the most common and most significant risk factors for COVID-19 (aside from age, which you have no control over), public health authorities have ignored the issue and failed to provide guidance on how to reduce excess weight.

“Would not fighting obesity qualify as a valid prevention approach to curbing the ill effects of the COVID pandemic?” Hirschhorn asks. “Could the reason for government’s lack of aggressively pursuing an anti-obesity campaign be a bias for promoting vaccines? It seems a likely explanation.”

He points out that studies suggest vaccines tend to be less effective in obese individuals,2 and if that holds true for injected gene therapeutics against COVID, then the shots may turn out disappointing results, seeing how 42.4% of Americans are obese.3 This, Hirschhorn says, would be all the “more reason to have the public health system deal more directly with obesity to curb serious impacts of COVID.”

Charting the Obesity-COVID Connection

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while slow to put some of this information out, has in fact detailed the connection between COVID-19 severity and obesity. On its “Obesity and COVID-19” page,4 the CDC frankly admits that obesity is associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The agency also lists obesity and excess weight as a risk factor for severe COVID-19 infection on its medical conditions known to worsen COVID outcomes page.5

Its March 12, 2021, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report6 (MMWR) also addresses obesity and the risk for hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation and death.

In summary, obesity increases your risk of severe illness and triples your risk of hospitalization. It impairs your immune function, decreases your lung capacity and increases your risk of ending up on invasive mechanical ventilation — a treatment strategy shown to kill more than half of all patients. Obesity is also associated with chronic inflammation that can disrupt thrombogenic responses to pathogens.

According to the CDC, modeling suggests 30.2% of all American adults hospitalized for COVID-19 up until November 18, 2020, could be attributed to obesity,7 and the greater your body mass index (BMI) the higher your risks for a poor outcome gets. The connection between obesity and COVID-19 is particularly strong in people younger than 65.8

In its March 12, 2021, MMWR,9 the CDC reports that the risk for hospitalization, ICU admission and death were lowest among patients with BMIs of 24.2 kg/m2, 25.9 kg/m2 and 23.7 kg/m2 respectively, increasing sharply with higher BMIs. (Overweight is defined as having a BMI of 25 kg/m2 or greater, while obesity is defined as a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or greater.) The risk for invasive mechanical ventilation increased in tandem with BMI, starting at 15 kg/m2.

Although BMI is the classic research tool to assess obesity, it has limited clinical value as it can be seriously off, especially if one has loads of muscle mass, as it will be incorrectly interpreted as body fat. An accurate body fat assessment is likely a far better tool to use. The key, however, is accuracy, as many inexpensive bioimpedance devices that determine body fat are not that accurate.

Why Has CDC Not Issued a Public Health Anti-Obesity Plan?

Based on the available data, the CDC could issue detailed guidance on how to not become a statistic, but has not yet done so. As noted by Hirschhorn:10

“How does CDC address the question of what can be done to address the obesity-COVID connection? Mostly with generalities and platitudes with the emphasis on what individuals can do. Consider this statement where the words government and public health or pandemic management do not appear:

‘This will take action at the policy and systems level to ensure that obesity prevention and management starts early, and that everyone has access to good nutrition and safe places to be physically active. Policy makers and community leaders must work to ensure that their communities, environments, and systems support a healthy, active lifestyle for all.’

There is no hint of how the government is going to address the pandemic with a major commitment to use public health efforts to reduce the negative impacts of obesity.”

Similarly, in the March 12, 2021, MMWR, the CDC notes that “These findings highlight clinical and public health implications of higher BMIs, including the need for … continued vaccine prioritization and masking, and policies to support healthy behaviors.”11

Could the reason for government’s lack of aggressively pursuing an anti-obesity campaign be a bias for promoting vaccines? It seems a likely explanation. ~ Joel Hirschhorn

At the time this report was published, the injectable COVID gene therapeutics had only been out for about three months and safety data were still sorely lacking. Yet the CDC opted to prioritize vaccination while providing no public health plan whatsoever on how to address obesity.

“What is clear is that CDC thinking is mostly about considering obesity in the medical management of pandemic victims, not preventing COVID serious infections in the first place by curbing obesity at the population level,” Hirschhorn writes.12

Recent Research Strengthens Obesity-COVID Link

Studies showing the association between obesity and poor COVID-19 outcomes date back to the earlier days of the pandemic. As reported by The New York Times in mid-April 2020:13

“Obesity may be one of the most important predictors of severe coronavirus illness, new studies say. It’s an alarming finding for the United States, which has one of the highest obesity rates in the world.”

A study published April 9, 2020, reported that obesity doubled the risk of hospitalization in patients under the age of 60,14 even if the individual had no other obesity-related health problems. Since then, many more studies have been published showing the same trend.

One of the most recent ones was published in June 1, 2021, issue of The Lancet.15 This was a prospective community-based cohort study looking at the associations between BMI and COVID-19 severity in 6.9 million British adults over the age of 20. According to the authors:16

“Among 6,910,695 eligible individuals … 13,503 (0.20%) were admitted to hospital, 1,601 (0.02%) to an ICU, and 5,479 (0.08%) died after a positive test for SARS-CoV-2.

We found J-shaped associations between BMI and admission to hospital due to COVID-19 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] per kg/m2 from the nadir at BMI of 23 kg/m2 … and a linear association across the whole BMI range with ICU admission …)

We found a significant interaction between BMI and age and ethnicity, with higher HR per kg/m2 above BMI 23 kg/m2 for younger people … in 20–39 years age group vs 80–100 years group …

The risk of admission to hospital and ICU due to COVID-19 associated with unit increase in BMI was slightly lower in people with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease than in those without these morbidities.”

In their interpretation, the authors note that, starting at a BMI above 23 kg/m2, there’s a linear increase in the risk of severe COVID-19 leading to hospital admission and death. There’s also a linear increase in ICU admission across the entire BMI range that “is not attributable to excess risks of related diseases.”

In other words, it’s not related to other chronic diseases commonly associated with obesity; rather, it appears to be directly related to obesity. They also point out that “The relative risk due to increasing BMI is particularly notable people younger than 40 years and of Black ethnicity.”

Few Obese Britons Have Been Referred for Weight Management

Despite clear association between obesity and COVID severity, government action in the U.K. was found lacking.

“[S]ince most other obesity-related risks are improved with weight loss, weight-loss interventions might reduce COVID-19 disease severity,” The Lancet authors state.17

“Although we originally planned to investigate this hypothesis in our protocol, we were unable to because the number of participants reported to have been offered referrals to weight management programmes was low and weight change was poorly recorded … In the longer term, our findings highlight the need to work towards a healthy weight at a population level.”

Other Studies Showing Obesity-COVID Link

In a Canadian paper18 published July 19, 2021, that discusses treatment approaches for obese individuals, Diana Duong writes:

“There is no doubt that people with higher body mass index (BMI) suffer worse outcomes from COVID-19. One meta-analysis that pooled data on more than 399 000 people with COVID-19 found that those with obesity were 113% more likely to be hospitalized, 74% more likely to need intensive care and 48% more likely to die than those with lower BMIs.”

Similarly, an April 2021 review article19 from The Netherlands published in the journal Cells pointed out that:

“A large number of patients severely ill with COVID-19 arriving at the ICU are overweight or suffer from obesity. Obesity is associated with chronic inflammation, resulting from immune cell activity in dysfunctional (visceral) adipose tissue.

Of the eleven studies investigating the association between BMI and mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, ten studies observed an increased mortality rate in patients that were overweight (BMI ? 25 to <30), or suffering from obesity (BMI ? 30), or severe obesity (BMI ? 35).” While the authors acknowledge “the importance of a healthy lifestyle to positively influence the course of COVID-19 disease,” and recommend “a non-processed nutrient-rich diet, limited excessive or overly energy-rich food, sufficient and intensive exercise, sufficient sleep and avoiding chronic psycho-emotional stress,” no specific government program is referenced. What’s the Mechanism? Alright, so what are the mechanisms? I’ve already mentioned a couple. Immune function can be impaired by chronic inflammation, which tends to be more prevalent when you’re overweight.20,21,22,23,24,25 Chronic inflammation can also disrupt thrombogenic (blood clotting) responses to pathogens. Fat cells also release a number of inflammatory compounds that can increase your risk of a cytokine storm. A 2008 paper in Diabetes Metabolism explains:26 “White adipose tissue was believed to be just an energy-storage organ, but it is now recognized to be an active participant in energy homoeostasis and physiological functions such as immunity and inflammation. Macrophages are components of adipose tissue and actively participate in its activities. Adipose tissue is known to express and secrete a variety of products known as 'adipokines', including leptin, adiponectin, resistin and visfatin, as well as cytokines and chemokines such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin-6 and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1. The release of adipokines by either adipocytes or adipose tissue-infiltrated macrophages leads to a chronic subinflammatory state …” Interleukin-6 (IL-6) plays an important role in your immune response,27 and tends to be significantly elevated in patients with severe COVID-19. A number of studies have stressed that lowering Interleukin-6 (IL-6) can be helpful for “cooling the inflammatory soup” seen in SARS-CoV-2 infection, to quote the headline of a New England Journal of Medicine editorial.28 Leptin receptors are also expressed throughout your immune system, and leptin, typically associated with hunger signals, helps regulate both your innate and adaptive immune responses.29 Fat cells also release components of your renin-angiotensin system (RAS), which also influence your immune function, as well as your brain and metabolism.30 Obesity is also frequently associated with insulin resistance, and higher blood glucose levels play a role in viral replication and the development of cytokine storms.31,32,33 Why No Public Health Policy? While most studies at least touch on the basics of what makes for a healthy lifestyle and how to most effectively lose weight, what’s missing is public policy. No country, to my knowledge, has implemented a public health policy aimed at reducing obesity as a way to lower the national COVID-19 burden. Hirschhorn comments on the state of affairs:34 “The U.S. public health system has failed to explicitly address the high fraction of obese American shown to have very high COVID risks. They place a burden on the health care system and suffer large health impacts. There is every reason to question whether COVID vaccines work effectively for this group. There is a need for focused and explicit public policies and government actions to address the population of obese people, other than placing the burden on them to eliminate their obesity through life style changes. Clearly, this ‘solution’ has not worked for most obese people, especially among children and black and brown ethnic groups … In 2020 CDC said that obesity was increasing. But the closest it got to public policy was saying there was a need to ‘remove barriers to healthy living and ensure that communities support a healthy, active lifestyle for all.’ Hardly a call for action by the public health system during the pandemic and the obesity epidemic … Even the scourge of the pandemic has not motivated this by the government and public health system. Considering the vast numbers of overweight and obese American, several billion dollars should be aimed at public health agencies to create new programs to reduce both health conditions. If following the science is truly embraced by the government in this pandemic. This makes more sense than depending on vaccines which have many safety issues. Especially when you acknowledge that overweight and obese individuals are very likely to be at greater risk from health impacts of COVID experimental vaccines.” Take Control of Your Health, Starting Today In closing, whether you’re concerned about COVID-19 or not, losing excess weight can have a positive impact on your health. Tried and true strategies include fasting, time-restricted eating, avoiding food at least three hours before bed, and cutting out added sugars and refined carbs from your diet. Great resources for more information include an editorial35 published in the journal Open Heart by noted research scientist James DiNicolantonio, PharmD., and Dr. Jason Fung’s book,36 "The Complete Guide to Fasting: Heal Your Body Through Intermittent, Alternate-Day, and Extended Fasting.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/08/05/obesity-and-covid-19.aspx

In the July 22, 2021, article,1 “Did Scientists Stifle the Lab-Leak Theory,” foreign reporter and columnist for Unherd, Ian Birrell, analyzes the circumstances that led to a near-complete blackout of questions about SARS-CoV-2’s origin.

In September 2019, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board issued a warning that a new infectious disease was poised to spread around the world, and that nations were ill prepared for such an event.

The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board is a joint arm of the World Health Organization and the World Bank — two technocratic entities that aren’t always working in the best interest of humanity as a whole.

On the 15-person Board are Sir Jeremy Farrar (director of the Wellcome Trust), Dr. Anthony Fauci (director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID) and George Fu Gao, director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Technocrat-Led Board Predicted Manmade Pandemic

As noted by Birrell, the board’s warning was “astonishingly prescient,” as SARS-CoV-2 emerged in December 2020. Importantly, the board did not necessarily focus its prediction on the emergence of natural zoonotic diseases but, rather, warned of technological and scientific advances that “allow for disease-creating micro-organisms to be engineered or recreated in laboratories.”

According to the board, accidental release of such manmade organisms could actually be far more devastating than a natural outbreak. “Accidental or deliberate events caused by high-impact respiratory pathogens pose global catastrophic biological risks,” the board stated in its September 2019 report, titled “A World At Risk.”2 In passing, the report also mentioned the need to control the flow of information:

“A deliberate release would complicate outbreak response; in addition to the need to decide how to counter the pathogen, security measures would come into play limiting information-sharing and fomenting social divisions.”

Same Board Members Denied Possibility of Manmade Pandemic

Despite the Board’s recognition that manmade pathogens pose a significant threat, some of its board members — Fauci and Farrar in particular — have played central roles in roundly dismissing the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a lab. As reported by Birrell:3

“Farrar was a central figure behind two landmark documents published by influential science journals that played a key role in shutting down discussion of the lab leak hypothesis by branding it conspiracy theory.

These statements, signed and promoted by leading figures in the scientific establishment, pushed an idea that the pandemic was a natural occurrence by arguing against the plausibility of ‘any type of laboratory-based scenario.’ Critics say this ‘false narrative’ set back understanding of the disease for more than a year.”

In his book, “Spike: The Virus vs. The People — the Inside Story,” Farrar praises China for its pandemic response at the outset of the pandemic. This despite the fact that the Communist dictatorship is known to have silenced doctors who wanted to warn the public, and allowed the annual Chinese New Year’s celebration to proceed, thereby ensuring massive spread as people from all parts of China and across the world gathered.

Did Fauci and Farrar Collude to Suppress Lab-Leak Theory?

Birrell goes on to detail how Farrar and Fauci reacted to early reports suggesting the virus had telltale signs of gain-of-function. Emails4 obtained via freedom of information act (FOIA) requests reveal Fauci received a Science magazine article detailing the work of Peter Daszak (EcoHealth Alliance) and Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

“The article discussed controversies over risky ‘gain of function’ experiments, including mention of a 2015 paper by Shi and a U.S. expert on modification of a Sars-like bat virus to boost infectivity to humans,” Birrell writes.5

“Emails released through freedom of information requests show Fauci instantly circulated the article to U.S. officials and contacted Farrar saying it was ‘of interest to the current discussion’ …

[Scripps virologist Kristian] Andersen, when sent the Science article at the end of January, admitted a close look at the genetic sequences of Sars-CoV-2 showed that ‘some of the features (potentially) look engineered’ and that other experts agreed the genome was ‘inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory’ …

The Wellcome boss then set up a conference call for the pair of them with 11 other experts from around the world, warning their discussions were ‘in total confidence’ and information ‘not to be shared’ without prior agreement.

Farrar also sent Fauci a link to an article on ZeroHedge … that tied a Wuhan researcher to the virus outbreak. The site was banned the next day from Twitter …”

While we don’t know the full details of what was discussed during that February 1, 2020, phone call, Birrell points out what we do know. For example, we know they discussed contacting the WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, and that two days later, Ghebreyesus made a public call for censorship of misinformation.

Five days after that call, Daszak also circulated the first draft of a scientific consensus statement6 that eventually got published in The Lancet, and thereafter was used by mainstream media and fact checkers everywhere to “debunk” any and all evidence of a lab leak.

The dam is breaking. And with the surging floodwaters, comes a stunning realization: Almost across the board, our elite institutions got the most important question about COVID wrong. ~ James Meigs

The statement, signed by 27 experts, including Farrar, condemned “conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin.” A FOIA request revealed Daszak was the mastermind behind that Lancet statement7 — which, by the way, presented no actual evidence of natural origin — and that he wanted to make sure it could not be identified as being from a single individual or organization.

Six weeks after Farrar’s group call, four of the participants on the call — including Andersen — also published a commentary in Nature Medicine, titled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,”8 in which they stated they “do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”

“This statement in a world-renowned journal, which has been accessed 5.5 million times, further depressed debate of alternative theories on the origins, despite being challenged by a few brave voices in the scientific community,” Birrell writes.9

Unanswered Questions

In his book, “Spike,” which was published July 22, 2021, Farrar admits he had deep concerns about the “huge coincidence” of SARS-CoV-2 emerging in a city with a biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory that just so happens to specialize in collection, storage and research of bat coronaviruses. Birrell writes:

“The new coronavirus ‘might not even be that novel at all,’ he thought. ‘It might have been engineered years ago, put in a freezer, and then taken out more recently by someone who decided to work on it again. And then, maybe, there was … an accident?’

He was so concerned that he confided in Eliza Manningham-Buller, then the Wellcome Trust chair and a former head of the MI5 intelligence service, who told him to start taking precautions such as avoiding putting things in emails and using a burner phone for key conversations.

So what changed his mind so firmly he started signing letters and tweeting about alleged conspiracy theories? When I asked Farrar to share the evidence that set his mind at rest, he pointed to the Nature Medicine article. Yet his office told me later he helped ‘convene’ these five authors.

They also insist that ‘the weight of available data and scientific evidence continues to point towards zoonotic origins.’

But scientists have found no hard evidence on the pandemic origins, despite testing 80,000 samples on animals to find a natural link, while China has made increasingly ludicrous claims over the origins as well as covering up the outbreak, lying over the date of first cases and taking offline Wuhan’s key database of samples and viral sequences.”

In his book, Farrar also discusses specific concerns brought forth by Andersen in January 2020. Recall, in April 2020, Andersen published “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” with four other co-authors. But in January, three things alarmed him about the virus:

The receptor binding domain, which is like a perfect key for entering human cells
The furin cleavage site, which is not found in other bat coronaviruses and would be expected “if someone had set out to adapt an animal coronavirus to humans by taking a specific suit of genetic material from elsewhere and inserting it”
A scientific paper describing the use of that very technique to modify the original SARS virus. Andersen allegedly thought it “looked like a how-to manual for building the Wuhan coronavirus in a laboratory”

Evidence of Collusion

Before Farrar’s February 1, 2020, call, Andersen was “60 to 70%” convinced SARS-CoV-2 was a lab creation, according to Farrar’s account. Yet Andersen also told Farrar he did not want to be a front man for the lab leak theory. Birrell writes:10

“Anderson told [Farrar] that he suddenly realized he might be the person who proved the new virus came from a lab. ’I didn’t necessarily want to be that person,’ he said.

‘When you make big claims like that you had better be sure that you can conclude something is based on evidence and not on speculation.’ So according to Farrar, then five experts wrestled with the evidence and, the following month, they declared in Nature Medicine that Sars-CoV-2 was ‘not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus’ …

They offered the circumstantial evidence that RaTG13, the closest known coronavirus to Sars-CoV-2, had different binding mechanisms — yet similar ones were found on pangolins, so ‘the ingredients … were out in the wild. They did not need to have escaped, or been unleashed, from a containment lab.’”

The problem with this argument is that they have no firm evidence of natural emergence. What’s more, while Andersen and co-authors claim they spent many sleepless nights carefully analyzing and evaluating the lab leak theory before finally dismissing it, in a May 2021 interview,11 co-author Robert Garry admitted the first draft of the Nature Medicine paper was finished February 1, 2020 — the day of Farrar’s conference call, which included four of the five co-authors.

Fauci’s email trove also reveals Farrar sent Fauci a rough draft of the Nature Medicine paper three days after that conference call, urging him to keep it confidential. That same day, Andersen also told another group of experts that the data “conclusively show” there was no engineering involved. “So far from having ‘many sleepless nights,’ these scientists seem to have changed their minds amazingly fast and reached fresh conclusions,” Birrell writes.

Elite Institutions Have Subverted the Truth

Another article addressing the subversion of truth by some of our most trusted scientific institutions is James Meigs’ Commentary piece, “The Lab-Leak-Theory Cover-Up.”12

“The dam is breaking,” Meigs writes. “And with the surging floodwaters, comes a stunning realization: Almost across the board, our elite institutions got the most important question about COVID wrong.

Worse, they worked furiously to discourage anyone else from getting it right. The leading scientific experts turned out to be spinning the truth. Our public-health officials put their political agenda ahead of any scientific mandate.

And the press and social-media giants eagerly played along, enforcing strict rules about which COVID topics were acceptable and which had to be banished from the national conversation.

During the Trump years, we heard a lot of hand-wringing about the public’s unwarranted ‘distrust’ of our society’s designated experts and leaders. But to be trusted, people and institutions have to be trustworthy.

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed a profound corruption at the heart of our expert class. The impact of that revelation will reverberate for years to come.”

As noted by Meigs, leading institutions not only declared the lab-leak theory incorrect, but also “dangerous and malicious,” and went to extraordinary lengths to “protect” the population from hearing anything that might infect their minds with such wrongthink.

In the end, all such efforts failed. Despite the ridicule, personal attacks and censorship, common sense and logic have managed to break through and, today, the failures of our most prestigious science institutions are laid bare.

Government Only Pays Lip Service to the Truth

The lab-leak question has also revealed corruption within other cherished institutions, such as the U.S. intelligence community. Two separate teams, one in the State Department and another under direction of the National Security Council, have been tasked with investigating the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

In Commentary, Meigs points out that both teams report facing intense internal pushback, according to Vanity Fair reporter Katherine Eban. Their own institutions urged them “not to open a ‘Pandora’s Box,’” which suggests the State Department and the NSC aren’t particularly interested in the truth. Of particular concern was the role the U.S. government may have played by funding gain-of-funding research on bat coronaviruses at the WIV.

While the ramifications of the truth might be extremely uncomfortable for some, if we allow individuals to shirk responsibility, the ramifications of that course of action could ultimately turn out to be lethal for mankind.

If U.S. institutions such as the NIAID funded gain-of-function research that resulted in a pandemic, we need to know, so we can close loopholes and implement better safeguards. I’ve argued that gain-of-function research that makes pathogens more dangerous to humans ought to be banned altogether, to prevent the creation of a truly lethal pandemic.

But even if we don’t ban it, we need to know what government agencies have been doing with our tax dollars, and decide whether they’ve been put to good use or not. In my opinion, creating pathogens capable of killing us is hardly a good use of our taxes, and should be stopped.

Origin Story Shows Importance of Independence

Most people want to trust government, academic and scientific institutions, and the media. Unfortunately, if the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that these institutions aren’t worthy of unequivocal trust.

They say they’re trustworthy, and they insist we must trust them, but their actions tell a different story. The pandemic has also shown us just how important it is for investigators, researchers and reporters to be truly independent. As noted by Meigs:13

“The story of why the line of inquiry survived is not an account of leading scientists and health organizations dutifully parsing the evidence.

Instead, it is largely the story of little-known researchers — many working outside the bounds of elite institutions — who didn’t let the political implications of their findings derail their efforts.

Much of what we know today about the Wuhan Institute’s risky research is thanks to these independent skeptics who challenged the institutional consensus. Some risked their careers to do so.”

One key group of self-organized researchers is the Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19 (DRASTIC). They’ve made a number of important discoveries that have kept the lab-leak theory alive.

Massive Collusion to Suppress Inquisitiveness

“Throughout the pandemic we’ve often heard admonitions to ‘follow the science.’ Looking back we can see that few scientists — and even fewer journalists — really did,” Meigs notes. Among the few journalists who did tackle the elephant in the room were former New York Times reporters Nicholas Wade and Donald McNeil Jr.

“Notice the irony here: While two refugees from the New York Times were publishing deep, well-reported articles on an alternative outlet, the Times itself was still mostly ignoring the Wuhan-lab story,” Meigs writes.14

“One of its current pandemic specialists, Apoorva Mandavilli, was on Twitter urging everyone to ‘stop talking about the lab leak’ … When the pandemic hit last year, we were all urged to fall in line and listen to the authorities. Scientists and bureaucrats were elevated to near-divine status.

‘Let us pray, now, for science,’ Times tech columnist Farhad Manjoo wrote last February. ‘Pray for reason, rigor and expertise … Pray for the N.I.H. and the C.D.C. Pray for the W.H.O.’ Now the public is waking up to the fact that, prayers notwithstanding, those institutions largely failed us.

The WHO kowtowed to China’s deceptions. Anthony Fauci trimmed his public statements to fit the prevailing political winds. Some of the nation’s top virologists didn’t just dismiss the lab-leak possibility, they appeared to be covering up their own involvement with Wuhan gain-of-function research.

Journalists and social-media companies conspired to suppress legitimate questions about a disease that was killing thousands of Americans each day.”

Establishment Needs a Deep Clean

While we certainly need expertise, as Meigs points out, we must also be able to trust our experts, and the only way for trust to rebuild, experts must act from a strong ethical foundation, and be held responsible for dangerous failures.

“If the public concludes that COVID-19 was, in effect, an inside job, the political fallout could last a generation,” Meigs writes.15 “I don’t mean people will believe the virus was deliberately released … but that they will see the disease as a product of an elite power structure that behaves recklessly and evades responsibility.”

What makes the situation so problematic is that it’s not just one type of institution that is behaving recklessly and shirking responsibility. It’s not just the legacy media, or academia, or government, or public health, the intelligence apparatus, Big Tech, Big Pharma or the medical journal system. It’s all of them.

The Medical Journal System Has Failed Us Too

Continuing along that same line of reasoning, a July 27, 2021, Spectator article16 by Stuart Ritchie reviews the unhealthy relationship between The Lancet and China, and its role in thwarting scientific investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Ritchie points out how The Lancet’s editor-in-chief, Richard Horton, has routinely defended China’s actions:

“It’s not just the scientists and health workers of China that the Lancet has praised. In May last year, Horton appeared on the state-owned broadcaster China Central Television to praise how ‘tremendously decisively’ the Chinese Communist party had handled the pandemic. He also penned multiple editorials about China, including one entitled ‘Covid-19 and the Dangers of Sinophobia.’”

Ritchie also stresses that “some of the most famous stories of scientific fraud have originated at The Lancet during Horton’s tenure as editor,” including, most recently, fraudulent papers proclaiming to show that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous when used in COVID-19 patients, and Daszak’s “scientific statement” condemning the lab leak theory as wild conspiracy theory.

“The purpose of the Lancet, back in 1823, was to slice away the immorality and complacency of the medical establishment … [Lancet founder Thomas] Wakley would have been stunned to see that his journal now exemplifies that establishment,” Ritchie writes.17 “It embodies an unaccountable or only partially accountable elite that does often make progress, but fails abjectly to face up to its many faults.

In 2021, we might find that the best rejoinder to our establishment isn’t a new Wakley-style journal, but an entirely new way to think about science and how it’s published: a way that doesn’t hand over all our trust to editors and reviewers, but that emphasizes openness and transparency right from the start.

There are several proposals for how it could happen. The next rotten thing that needs to be cut away could be the journal system — and the Lancet itself.”

The censorship rolled out during the COVID pandemic has revealed a disconcerting truth, namely that corruption and collusion are rampant everywhere. By the looks of it, we need to do a clean sweep across the board, and that will require time, effort, and most of all, open public discussion.

Laws Have Been Broken. Who Will Hold Them Accountable?

In closing, I strongly recommend listening to Dr. David Martin’s explanation of antitrust law in the video below, and how, in the case of a criminal conspiracy, liability shielding evaporates.

In his view, having reviewed the evidence, there’s no doubt that the NIH/NIAID, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, ATI, Moderna and Pfizer are guilty of criminal conspiracy (the legal definition thereof) and premeditative antitrust violations.

Without that criminal conspiracy and their premeditative acts, we would not be in the situation we’re in now, where censorship and pandemic measures and rules are putting the public health, well-being and sanity at risk. Unfortunately, while there is, theoretically, a legal way out of this pandemic, deep cracks in our justice system has also been exposed over the past year and a half.

Martin is currently struggling to find a state attorney general willing to pursue these violations so that we can bring this faux pandemic to a close. Hopefully, once enough people understand the illegality of the situation, someone will have the courage to step up to the plate.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/08/04/how-scientists-stifled-the-lab-leak-theory.aspx

Vaccine makers have nothing to lose by marketing their experimental COVID-19 shots, even if they cause serious injury and death, as they enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from COVID-19 vaccines or any other pandemic vaccine under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, passed in the U.S. in 2005.

The full extent of their COVID-19 vaccine indemnification agreements with countries, however, is a closely guarded secret, one that has remained highly confidential — until now. A leaked document broken down by Twitter user Ehden reveals the shocking terms of Pfizer’s international COVID-19 vaccine agreements.1

“These agreements are confidential, but luckily one country did not protect the contract document well enough, so I managed to get a hold of a copy,” he wrote. “As you are about to see, there is a good reason why Pfizer was fighting to hide the details of these contracts.”2

An Ironclad Agreement, All on Pfizer’s Terms

The alleged indemnification agreement, reportedly between Pfizer and Albania, was originally posted in snippets on Twitter, but Twitter now has them marked as “unavailable.” Copies of the tweets are available on Threadreader,3 however.

The Albania agreement4 appears very similar to another contract, published online, between Pfizer and the Dominican Republic.5 It covers not only COVID-19 vaccines, but any product that enhances the use or effects of such vaccines.

Countries that purchase Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot must acknowledge that “Pfizer’s efforts to develop and manufacture the Product” are “subject to significant risks and uncertainties.”6

And in the event that a drug or other treatment comes out that can prevent, treat or cure COVID-19, the agreement stands, and the country must follow through with their order. Ivermectin, for instance, is not only safe, inexpensive and widely available but has been found to reduce COVID-19 mortality by 81%.7 Yet, it continues to be ignored in favor of more expensive, and less effective, treatments and mass experimental vaccination.

“If you were wondering why #Ivermectin was suppressed,” Ehden wrote, “well, it is because the agreement that countries had with Pfizer does not allow them to escape their contract, which states that even if a drug will be found to treat COVID19 the contract cannot be voided.”8

Even if Pfizer fails to deliver vaccine doses within their estimated delivery period, the purchaser may not cancel the order. Further, Pfizer can make adjustments to the number of contracted doses and their delivery schedule, “based on principles to be determined by Pfizer,” and the country buying the vaccines must “agree to any revision.”9

It doesn’t matter if the vaccines are delivered severely late, even at a point when they’re no longer needed, as it’s made clear that “Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties.”10 As you might suspect, the contract also forbids returns “under any circumstances.”

The Big Secret: Pfizer Charged US More Than Other Countries

While COVID-19 vaccines are “free” to receive in the U.S., they’re being paid for by taxpayer dollars at a rate of $19.5011 per dose. Albania, the leaked contract revealed, paid $12 per dose,12 while the EU paid $14.70 per shot.13 While charging different prices to different purchases is common in the drug industry, it’s often frowned upon.

In the case of the price disparity between the U.S. and the EU, Pfizer is said to have given a price break to the EU because it financially supported the development of their COVID-19 vaccine.14 Still, Ehden noted, “U.S. taxpayers got screwed by Pfizer, probably also Israel.”15 Also, Pfizer makes a point to note that countries have no right to withhold payment to the company for any reason.16

Apparently, this includes in the case of receiving damaged goods. Purchasers of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines are not entitled to reject them “based on service complaints,” unless they do not conform to specifications or the FDA’s Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) regulations.17 And, Ehden adds, “This agreement is above any local law of the state.”18

While the purchaser has virtually no way of canceling the contract, Pfizer can terminate the agreement in the event of a “material breach” of any term in their contract.

Safety and Efficacy ‘Not Currently Known’

The purchaser of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine must also acknowledge two facts that have largely been brushed under the rug: Both their efficacy and risks are unknown. According to section 5.5 of the contract:19

“Purchaser acknowledges that the Vaccine and materials related to the Vaccine, and their components and constituent materials are being rapidly developed due to the emergency circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be studied after provision of the Vaccine to Purchaser under this Agreement.

Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.”

Indemnification by the purchaser is also explicitly required by the contract, which states, under section 8.1:20

“Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer, BioNTech, each of their Affiliates, contractors, sub-contractors, licensors, licensees, sub-licensees, distributors, contract manufacturers, services providers, clinical trial researchers, third parties to whom Pfizer or BioNTech or any of their respective Affiliates may directly or indirectly owe an indemnity based on the research …

from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses of an investigation or litigation … arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the Vaccine …”

Meanwhile, the purchaser must also keep the terms of the contract confidential for a period 10 years.21

Purchasers Must Protect and Defend Pfizer

Not only does Pfizer have total indemnification, but there’s also a section in the contract titled, “Assumption of Defense by Purchaser,” which states that in the event Pfizer suffers losses for which it is seeking indemnification, the purchaser “shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of the Indemnitee with counsel acceptable to Indemnitee(s), whether or not the Indemnified Claim is rightfully brought.” Ehden notes:22

“Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything: ‘Costs and expenses, including … fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser.’”

Buried in the March 17, 2020, Federal Register — the daily journal of the U.S. government — in a document titled, “Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19,”23 is language that establishes a new COVID-19 vaccine court — similar to the federal vaccine court that already exists.

In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from this or any other pandemic vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured by a COVID vaccine (or a select group of other vaccines designated under the act), you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP),24 which is funded by U.S. taxpayers via Congressional appropriation to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

While similar to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which applies to nonpandemic vaccines, the CICP is even less generous when it comes to compensation. As reported by Dr. Meryl Nass,25 the maximum payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person; however, you’d have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP gives you a dime.

The CICP also has a one-year statute of limitations, so you have to act quickly, which is also difficult since it’s unknown if long-term effects could occur more than a year later.

Pfizer Accused of Abuse of Power

As is apparent in Pfizer’s confidential contract with Albania, the drug giant wants governments to guarantee the company will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it. Pfizer has also demanded that countries put up sovereign assets, including bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings, as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation.26

New Delhi-based World Is One News (WION) reported in February 2021 that Brazil rejected Pfizer’s demands, calling them “abusive.” The demands included that Brazil:27

“Waives sovereignty of its assets abroad in favor of Pfizer”
Not apply its domestic laws to the company
Not penalize Pfizer for vaccine delivery delays
Exempt Pfizer from all civil liability for side effects

STAT News also referred to concerns by legal experts, who also suggested Pfizer’s demands were an abuse of power. Mark Eccleston-Turner, a lecturer in global health law at Keele University in England, told STAT:28

“[Pfizer] is trying to eke out as much profit and minimize its risk at every juncture with this vaccine development then this vaccine rollout. Now, the vaccine development has been heavily subsidized already. So there’s very minimal risk for the manufacturer involved there.”

Signs of COVID Vaccine Failure, Adverse Effects Rise

Pfizer continues to sign lucrative secret vaccine deals across the globe. In June 2021, they signed one of their biggest contracts to date — with the Philippine government for 40 million doses.29

Meanwhile, COVID-19 “breakthrough cases,” which used to be called vaccine failures, are on the rise. According to the U.S. CDC, as of July 19, 2021, 5,914 people who had been fully vaccinated for COVID-19 were hospitalized or died from COVID-19.30

In the U.K., as of July 15, 87.5% of the adult population had received one dose31 of COVID-19 vaccine and 67.1% had received two. Yet, symptomatic cases among partially and fully vaccinated are on the rise, with an average of 15,537 new infections a day being detected, a 40% increase from the week before.32

In a July 19 report from the CDC, the agency also reported that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had received 12,313 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine33 — more than doubling from the 6,079 reports of death from the week before.

Soon after the report, however, they reverted the number to the 6,079 from the week before, indicating by default that no deaths from the vaccine had occurred that week,34 raising serious questions about transparency and vaccine safety.

Many other adverse events are also appearing, ranging from risks from the biologically active SARS-CoV-2 spike protein used in the vaccine to blood clots, reproductive toxicity35 and myocarditis (heart inflammation).36 As you can see in the confidential indemnification agreements, however, even if the vaccine turns out to be a dismal failure — and a risk to short- and long-term health — countries have no recourse, nor does anyone who received the experimental shots.

One question that we should all be asking is this: If the COVID-19 vaccines are, in fact, as safe and effective as the manufacturers claim, why do they require this level of indemnification?
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/08/03/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-indemnification-agreement.aspx