Category: Recommended

Poor posture has become the norm rather than the exception in the 21st century — the outcome of sedentary lifestyles, office work and excessive screen time. Neck humps, also known as a buffalo hump, dowager’s hump or, clinically, as kyphosis or rounding of the back, can be caused by osteoporosis, arthritis and spinal fractures,1 but most commonly are due to poor posture.2
Leaning forward, slouching or hunching over in front of a computer, cellphone or tablet puts extra strain on your back and can lead to an abnormal curve in the upper vertebrae along with a mass of tissue that forms at the base of the neck.
According to Dr. Fredrick Wilson of Cleveland Clinic’s Center for Spine Health, a neck hump may show up around middle-age because it’s caused by a long-term weakening of the thoracic extensor muscles, although it can also occur in adolescence:3

“Bad posture is the most common cause of a dowager’s hump. You have an increased curve in the upper neck so you have to lift the head, so it protrudes forward … That forward curve is bad for disks and increases the risk of disk problems and neck fatigue. Our muscles aren’t made for that kind of curve. It can cause upper and lower back pain and even some difficulty with tightness in the legs.”

The good news is that neck humps can be prevented with proper posture and, often, treated with appropriate exercises.
Three Exercises to Correct a Neck Hump

In the video above, Jasper Hulscher, clinic director at Milton and Fornham Chiropractic Clinics, shares three exercises that help to correct a neck hump.

1. YWTL Exercise — This exercise works by stretching your thoracic spine from the top to the bottom. First, raise your arms in the air with your palms facing forward — this is the “Y” position. Then pull your arms backward and hold for about 30 seconds. From there, move your arms down to the “W” position, still pulling your arms back and with your elbows pointing down. Hold this for another 30 seconds.
Next, spread your arms, with your palms still facing forward, into a “T” position, pulling your arms as far back as you can and holding for 30 seconds. The final step is moving your arms into the “L” position with your elbows at your sides. Really pull your forearms back and hold them for 30 seconds.
2. Pull Arm/Tilt Head — Place your hands behind your back and grab your wrist. Then straighten your elbows and pull your arms back while squeezing your shoulder blades together. Tilt your head back and hold the position for about 30 seconds. Breathe out while you’re leaning back.
3. Arm Up/Turn and Tilt — Stand facing a wall. Slide your right arm up the wall, then turn your head to the right and tilt your head backward. Hold for about 15 seconds, then repeat the sequence three times. Be careful not to get dizzy. Next, do the same sequence on your left side.

How Cellphones Are Wrecking Your Posture

The widespread usage of cellphones, tablets and other screens is a recent phenomenon as far as your musculoskeletal system is concerned, yet it’s led to drastic changes in daily body movements and posture. In 2016, researchers with Daegu University in the Republic of Korea evaluated changes in posture and respiratory functions among people using cellphones for prolonged durations.4
“Faulty posture,” including holding your neck forward, slouching and rounding your shoulders, is common when using a cellphone for longer periods. Further, past research has shown cellphone users have more neck, shoulder and thumb pain, with severity increasing the longer they spend using a cellphone.5
Forward neck posture is extremely problematic and can cause injuries to ligaments and the cervical and lumbar spine, while neck pain due to faulty posture can also affect your breathing patterns.
In 2014, in fact, Dr. Kenneth Hansraj with New York Spine Surgery & Rehabilitation Medicine calculated the weight felt by the spine as your neck is flexed at varying degrees. When your head is upright at zero degrees, you’re in a neutral position and your head’s weight is 10 to 12 pounds.
However, as you begin to tilt your head forward to look at a cellphone, it places additional forces on your neck and makes your head feel much heavier. For instance, at a 15-degree tilt, your head feels like 27 pounds, while at a 45-degree tilt, it’s more like 49 pounds.6 This can easily lead to excess wear and tear and degeneration to your spine.
The Daegu University study involved 50 young adults who were divided into two groups: those who used a cellphone less than four hours a day and those who used them for more than four hours daily. Forward head posture (FHP) was assessed using craniovertebral angle (CVA); a lower CVA is associated with greater forward head posture. According to the researchers:7

“FHP is one of the most common cervical abnormalities that predisposes individuals to pathological conditions, such as headache, neck pain, temporomandibular disorders, vertebral body disorders, alterations in the length and strength of soft-tissue, and scapula and shoulder dyskinesia. Many studies proved that prolonged computer users tended to have a higher ratio of FHP.”

The study revealed that those who used a cellphone for longer durations had worse FHP and more rounded shoulders, along with partly impaired respiratory function, compared to those who used a cellphone for shorter periods.
It’s likely that the small size of a cellphone screen only worsens the problem, as the researchers noted, “If people concentrate on watching the relatively small screen, they tend to bend their neck more to look at the screen. This may be the reason for the development of more severe problems.”8
iPad Neck Is a Growing Problem

Another study of 412 university students suggested that the use of iPads and other tablets are creating a condition known as “tablet neck” or “iPad” neck in young adults.9 The neck and shoulder pain occurs most often when using the device without back support, such as sitting on the floor, or slumping over the device while it’s in your lap. Using a table while lying on your side or back was also linked to pain.10
Overall, 67.9% of those who used a tablet in a school setting reported musculoskeletal symptoms, with neck symptoms occurring most often, including stiffness, soreness and aching. Pain in the upper back/shoulder, arms/hands and head was also reported.
“Such high prevalence of neck and shoulder symptoms, especially among the younger populations, presents a substantial burden to society,” the study’s lead author Szu-Ping Lee, a physical therapy professor with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said in a news release.11
While he noted that, theoretically, neck and shoulder pain increase the longer you spend bent over a tablet, their study revealed that gender and specific postures were greater predictors of pain than duration of use.
Women were 2.059 times more likely to have musculoskeletal symptoms during tablet use than men, and the postures listed above (no back support, device in lap or lying on your side/back) were associated with more pain. Sitting in a chair with the device flat on a desk was also linked to pain.12 However, of all the postural factors, using a tablet without back support was the one most likely to cause pain.13
According to Lee, sitting in a chair with back support is one of the most important factors to preventing iPad neck.14 “And perhaps that’s something for building planners to think about: Installing benches or other chairs without back support invites people to crunch down with iPads in their laps, contributing to posture-related pain problems,” he said. Other tips include:15

Use a wearable device known as a “posture trainer,” which clips to your clothing and beeps to remind you to straighten up if you’re slouching
Place your tablet on a stand instead of a flat surface
Attach a keyboard to your tablet for typing, which promotes a more upright posture
Strengthen your neck and shoulder muscles via exercise

How to Prevent a Neck Hump or ‘iPad Hump’

Chest up, chin back posture is useful for significantly reducing your risk of developing a neck hump. A forward slumped posture tends to be related to chronic improper posturing that worsens over time, eventually leading to the development of rigid intractable calcifications.
The beginning of the progression of a neck hump is typically the loss of thoracic extension. According to chiropractor Eric Goodman, creator of Foundation Training:

“I think the lack of movement and stagnation in bone leads to calcification and typical degenerative changes. Degenerative changes along with spine make it less mobile … It supports it because the muscles aren’t, the discs aren’t. It puts very rigid support structures in place.

Now, can you imagine 20, 50 years from now, when it’s 60 or 70 years after cellphones and iPads came around, the dowager’s humps, we can start calling them the iPad hump … The younger you are, the more capacity you have to be plastic, to engage your body’s natural tendency to respond to stimulus in such a fashion that will get better and better at doing the thing you’re asking it to do.

If you’re often asking it to look down at your phone, please often ask it to lift your chest up, to pull your chin back and to just stand very firm on the ground. Just look at your phone while keeping your chin back and chest up.”

Even if you’ve already started to develop a slight hump, chances are you’ll be able to significantly improve your alignment using the proper exercises and posture, provided your spine has not yet calcified. The Gokhale Method, which helps retrain your body back to its “primal posture” by correcting the habits that may be causing pain is one solution that can help.
A physical therapist or chiropractor can also provide exercises that target a neck hump, but strengthening your upper back muscles will be helpful. Wilson also recommends:16

Doing chin tucks, in which you pull your chin down into your neck. This helps strengthen neck muscles.
Performing scapular squeezes, in which you squeeze your shoulder blades together, which targets your upper back muscles.
Doing pushups while standing up, using the corner of a room or a doorway. This allows your shoulders to move past your hands.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/12/neck-hump.aspx

For several months, experts have highlighted the true cause behind the COVID-19 pandemic, namely the incorrect use of PCR tests set at a ridiculously high cycle count (CT), which falsely labels healthy people as “COVID-19 cases.” In reality, the PCR test is not a proper diagnostic test, although it has been promoted as such.
An important question that demands an answer is whether the experts at our federal health agencies and the World Health Organization were really too ignorant to understand the implications of using this test at excessive CT, or whether it was done on purpose to create the illusion of a dangerous, out-of-control pandemic.
Regardless, those in charge need to be held accountable, which is precisely what the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss,1 or ACU),2,3 intends to do.
They’re in the process of launching an international class-action lawsuit against those responsible for using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic in order to implement economically devastating lockdowns around the world. I wrote about this in “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun” and “German Lawyers Initiate Class-Action Coronavirus Litigation.”
FDA Demands Higher False Positives

An interesting case detailed in a January 21, 2021, Buzzfeed article4 that raises those same questions in regard to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is its recent spat with Curative, a California testing company that got its start in January 2020. It has since risen to become one of the largest COVID-19 test providers in the U.S.
Curative’s most popular PCR test differs from other providers in that it uses spit swabbed from the patient’s tongue, cheek and mouth rather than from the back of the nasal cavity.
In April 2020, the FDA issued an accelerated emergency use authorization5 for the Curative spit test, but only for patients who had been symptomatic within the two weeks prior to taking the test, as the data available at that time showed it failed to catch asymptomatic “cases.”
However, the test was subsequently used off-label on individuals without symptoms anyway, and the company has been urging the FDA to expand its authorization to include asymptomatic individuals based on newer data.
In December 2020, Curative submitted that data,6 showing its oral spit test accurately identified about 90% of positive cases when compared against a nasopharyngeal PCR test set to 35 CT.7
The FDA objected, saying that Curative was comparing its test against a PCR that had a CT that was too low, and would therefore produce too many false negatives.8 According to the FDA, the bar Curative had chosen was “not appropriate and arbitrary,” Buzzfeed reports.9
This is a curious statement coming from the FDA, considering the scientific consensus on PCR tests is that anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable.10,11,12
From the start, the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended running PCR tests at a CT of 40.13 This was already high enough to produce an inordinate number of false positives, thereby labeling healthy people as “COVID-19 cases,” but when it comes to Curative’s spit test, the FDA is demanding they compare it against PCR processed at a CT of 45, which is even more likely to produce false positives.
Medically speaking, a “case” refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness.
The FDA’s concern is that Curative’s test is missing infections and giving infectious people a clean bill of health. However, in reality, it’s far more likely that the test is accurately weeding out people who indeed are not infectious at all and rightly should be given a clean bill of health. It seems the FDA is merely pushing for a process that will ensure a higher “caseload” to keep the illusion of widespread infection going.
When Are You Actually Infectious?

A persistent sticking point with the PCR test is that it picks up dead viral debris, and by excessively magnifying those particles with CTs in the 40s, noninfectious individuals are labeled as infectious and told to self-isolate. In short, media and public health officials have conflated “cases” — positive tests — with the actual illness.

Medically speaking, a “case” refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness. Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, “case,” has been arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of noninfectious viral RNA.
The research is unequivocal when it comes to who’s infectious and who’s not. You cannot infect another person unless you carry live virus, and you typically will not develop symptoms unless your viral load is high enough.
As it pertains to PCR testing, when excessively high CTs are used, even a minute viral load that is too low to cause symptoms can register as positive. And, since the test cannot distinguish between live virus and dead viral debris, you may not even be carrying live virus at all.
These significant drawbacks are why PCR testing really only should be done on symptomatic patients, and why a positive test should be weighed as just one factor of diagnosis. Symptoms must also be taken into account. If you have no symptoms, your chances of being infectious and spreading the infection to others is basically nil, as data14 from 9,899,828 individuals have shown.
Of these, not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive. This study even confirmed that even in cases where asymptomatic individuals had had an active infection, and had been carriers of live virus, the viral load had been too low for transmission. As noted by the authors:15

“Compared with symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding, which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2.
In the present study, virus culture was carried out on samples from asymptomatic positive cases, and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus. All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.”

PCR Picks Up Dead Virus for Weeks After Infection Has Cleared

Because the PCR test cannot discern between live virus and dead, noninfectious viral debris, the timing of the test ends up being important. One example of this was presented in a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine,16 in which the author describes an investigation done on hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Seoul, South Korea.
Whereas the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance confirmed by cultured samples was just seven days, with the longest time frame being 12 days, the PCR test continued to pick up SARS-CoV-2 for a median of 34 days. The shortest time between symptom onset to a negative PCR test was 24 days.
In other words, there was no detectable live virus in patients after about seven days from onset of symptoms (at most 12 days). The PCR test, however, continued to register them as “positive” for SARS-CoV-2 for about 34 days. The reason this matters is because if you have no live virus in your body, you are not infectious and pose no risk to others.
This then means that testing patients beyond, say, Day 12 to be safe, after symptom onset is pointless, as any positive result is likely to be false. But there’s more. As noted in that New England Journal of Medicine article:17

“Viable virus was identified until 3 days after the resolution in fever … Viral culture was positive only in samples with a cycle-threshold value of 28.4 or less. The incidence of culture positivity decreased with an increasing time from symptom onset and with an increasing cycle-threshold value.”

This suggests symptomology is a really important piece of the puzzle. If no viable virus is detectable beyond Day 3 after your fever ends, it’s probably unnecessary to retest beyond that point. A positive result beyond Day 3 after your fever breaks is, again, likely to be a false positive, as you have to have live virus in order to be infectious.
Even more important, these results reconfirm that CTs above 30 are inadvisable as they’re highly likely to be wrong. Here, they found the CT had to be below 28.4 in order for the positive test to correspond with live virus. As noted by the authors:18

“Our findings may be useful in guiding isolation periods for patients with Covid-19 and in estimating the risk of secondary transmission among close contacts in contract tracing.”

Testing for Dead Viruses Will Ensure Everlasting Lockdowns

To circle back to the Curative PCR test, the company argues that the test is accurate when it comes to detecting active infection, and as CEO Fred Turner told Buzzfeed:19

“If you’re screening for a return to work and you’re picking up everyone who had COVID two months ago, no one’s going to return to work. If you want to detect active COVID, what the ‘early’ study shows is that Curative is highly effective at doing that.”

Again, this has to do with the fact that the Curative spit test has a sensitivity resembling that of a nasopharyngeal PCR set at a CT of 30. The lower CT count narrows the pool of positive results to include primarily those with higher viral loads and those who are more likely to actually carry live virus. This is a good thing. What the FDA wants Curative to do is to widen that net so that more noninfectious individuals can be labeled as a “case.”
In an email to Buzzfeed, Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, stated that using a CT of 45 is “absolutely insane,” because at that magnification, you may be looking at a single RNA molecule, whereas “when people are sick and are contagious, they literally can have 1,000,000,000,000x that number.”20
Mina added that such a sensitive PCR test “would potentially detect someone 35 days post-infection who is fully recovered and cause that person to have to enter isolation. That’s crazy and it’s not science-based, it’s not medicine-based and it’s not public health-oriented.”21
While the FDA has issued a warning not to use the Curative spit test on asymptomatic people, Florida has dismissed the warning and will continue to use the test on symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals alike. Only Miami-Dade County is reconsidering how it is using the test, although a definitive decision has yet to be announced.22
The Lower the CT, the Greater the Accuracy

While the FDA claims high sensitivity (meaning higher CT) is required to ensure we don’t end up with asymptomatic spreaders in our communities, as reviewed above, this risk is exceedingly small. We really need to stop panicking about the possibility of healthy people killing others. It’s not a sane trend, as detailed in “The World Is Suffering from Mass Delusional Psychosis.”
According to an April 2020 study23 in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, to get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at just 17 cycles. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically.

By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero.
Similarly, a December 3, 2020, systematic review24 published in the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases, which assessed the findings of 29 different studies, found that “CT values were significantly lower … in specimens producing live virus culture.” In other words, the higher the CT, the lower the chance of a positive test actually being due to the presence of live (and infectious) virus.

“Two studies reported the odds of live virus culture reduced by approximately 33% for every one unit increase in CT,” the authors noted. Importantly, five of the studies included were unable to identify any live viruses in cases where a positive PCR test had used a CT above 24.
In cases where a CT above 35 was used, the patient had to be symptomatic in order to obtain a live virus culture. This again confirms that PCR with a CT over 35 really shouldn’t be used on asymptomatic people, as any positive result is likely to be meaningless and simply force them into isolation for no reason.
PCR Testing Based on Erroneous Paper

In closing, the whole premise of PCR testing to diagnose COVID-19 is in serious question, as the practice appears to be based on an erroneous paper that didn’t even undergo peer-review before being implemented worldwide.
November 30, 2020, a team of 22 international scientists published a review25 challenging the scientific paper26 on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 written by Christian Drosten, Ph.D., and Victor Corman (the so-called “Corman-Drosten paper”).
According to Reiner Fuellmich,27 founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned at the beginning of this article, Drosten is a key culprit in the COVID-19 pandemic hoax.
The scientists demand the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted due to “fatal errors,”28 one of which is the fact that it was written, and the test itself developed, before any viral isolate was available. The test is simply based on a partial genetic sequence published online by Chinese scientists in January 2020. In an Undercover DC interview, Kevin Corbett, Ph.D., one of the 22 scientists who are now demanding the paper’s retraction, stated:29

“Every scientific rationale for the development of that test has been totally destroyed by this paper … When Drosten developed the test, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate.
They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology … the bits of the virus sequence that weren’t there they made up. They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks …
There are 10 fatal errors in this Drosten test paper … But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it ‘donut ring science.’ There is nothing at the center of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality …
There have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July … where they said: ‘Here’s the viral isolate.’ Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who’d been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had [COVID-19] to begin with. So, it’s all full of holes, the whole thing.”

The critique against PCR testing is further strengthened by the November 20, 2020, study30 in Nature Communications, which found no viable virus in any PCR-positive cases. I referenced this study earlier, noting that not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive.
But that’s not all. After evaluating PCR testing data from 9,899,828 people, and conducting additional live cultures to check for active infections in those who tested positive, using a CT of 37 or lower, they were unable to detect live virus in any of them, which is a rather astonishing finding.
On the whole, it seems clear that mass testing using PCR is inappropriate, and does very little if anything to keep the population safe. Its primary result is simply the perpetuation of the false idea that healthy, noninfectious people can pose a mortal threat to others, and that we must avoid social interactions. It’s a delusional idea that is wreaking havoc on the global psyche, and it’s time to put an end to this unhealthy, unscientific way of life.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/19/covid-pcr-test-fraud.aspx

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro made the news when he began promoting Carvativir, an oral solution made from extracts of thyme and oregano, for the treatment of COVID-19.1 Long before placebo-controlled, randomized studies were the gold standard for clinical trials, people relied on results from small groups of people.
If a traditional medicine had positive results in a community, it was used. Without statistical analysis or comparing p-values, people had to rely on the proximate results. This meant a traditional medicine that was only nominally better than doing nothing may not have been adopted by indigenous people as the effects would not have been as obvious.
Through testing and experimentation, this served communities well in treating infections and other health conditions where treatment success could be measured quickly, such as using ginger for an upset stomach. One such traditional medicine is wild thyme (Thymus serpyllum), long used in the treatment of respiratory and digestive issues.2
Many of the benefits of thyme are from the essential oils made from Thymus vulgaris,3 which include potent compounds like thymol, camphene, linalool, and carvacrol. Thymol is the most active constituent of thyme essential oil. Levels can vary depending on the climate, extraction method and production practice, ranging from 3% to 80%.4
While thyme has a long history in traditional medicine, more recent scientific analysis and clinical studies have demonstrated another powerful effect the essential oil has on health.
Venezuela Reports Encouraging Results Using Carvativir

Reuters wrote that Maduro “is promoting a “miracle” medication derived from thyme called Carvativir that he said neutralizes COVID-19 with no side effects, although some doctors say it is not backed by science.”5 According to the report, Maduro said the solution was tested on people who were being treated at emergency medical facilities and at a Caracas hospital.
During a televised broadcast, he claimed Carvativir had been through nine months of study and clinical application on people who had been “very sick” and “intubated,” yet had subsequently recovered.
In another statement, Venezuela’s National Academy of Medicine confirmed the solution has therapeutic potential against coronavirus, but cautions it may be prudent to “wait for more data from the Carvativir tests … to consider it a candidate for an anti-COVID-19 medication.”6
While doctors have also acknowledged that thyme essential oils have been used for centuries on infections but have not been established against COVID-19, Venezuelan scientists, including Hector Rangel, a virologist who led studies on COVID-19 vaccines, assured the media that Carvativir has demonstrated activity against cells infected with SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.7
Maduro has promised studies will be published demonstrating Carvativir’s effectiveness. Due to the “tremendous controversy” generated over his initial comments, he now calls the medication “complementary” in the treatment against COVID-19.8
Headlines and Media Outlets May Not Tell the Whole Story

It becomes difficult to isolate evidence and data when headlines and articles are not impartial, such as “A Traditional Herb Created By Catholic Holy Doctors Criticized By World Health Experts”9 and “Doctors Skeptical As Venezuela’s Maduro Touts Coronavirus ‘Miracle’ Drug.”10 Instead of preparing arguments based on data, the media appear to be crafting their own narrative.
This has recent historical precedent when the fight over using hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19 was highly politicized and covered by the media, in a role that can be likened to genocide.
It’s impossible to estimate how many lives may have been saved had journalists done their due diligence and reported on the science truthfully as opposed to taking their lead from businesses that spend the most on advertising, namely drug companies.
Carvativir may or may not be effective or complementary in the treatment of COVID-19, yet before the data can be released, the drug is labeled as quackery. As most in the holistic field have been aware, there is an undercurrent of censorship used to mislead people that ultimately lines the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many conventional doctors have also gotten a taste of what it’s like to have potentially life-saving treatments censored. July 23, 2020,11 Dr. Harvey A. Risch, professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, published an op-ed in Newsweek in which he expressed his dismay and frustration on this topic as it pertains to hydroxychloroquine.12

“I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals.

I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines.

As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily … I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine.

When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk.

I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.”

Thyme Has Demonstrated Antiviral Activity

The Venezuelan Minister for Science and Technology, Gabriela Jiménez, confirmed that the active ingredient in Carvativir is isothymol isolated from oregano and thyme.13 While the essential oils from thyme have not been scientifically proven against COVID-19, there is scientific evidence they have antiviral and antibacterial properties.
Historically, thyme has been used to help control cough associated with upper respiratory infection. One tested combination14 used with upper respiratory infections is thyme and primrose in combination with thymol, which was shown to alleviate cough and shortness of breath and to shorten the length of the infection.
Evidence has also shown thyme is active against herpes15 and other viruses, likely by interfering with the protein envelope that surrounds virulent viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2. One study16 published in 2017 showed thymol was highly selective and a promising candidate against herpes infections.
Research from the University of Ahvaz17 showed extracts from thyme provided protection against the Newcastle virus that causes illness and death in birds and is transmissible to humans. Another analysis18 showed essential oil from Thymus transcaspicus, a variety of thyme, had moderate antimicrobial and antiviral activity.
Thyme has also been evaluated against the influenza virus as antiviral resistant strains continue to emerge. Essential oils have been tested in experimental conditions, but one study19 tested essential oils from eucalyptus, Citrus bergamia and Thymus vulgaris in vapor form.
Vaporized essential oils from thyme, among others, displayed 100% inhibitory activity without adverse effects on the epithelial layers, suggesting they could be “potentially useful in influenza therapy.”20
Officials Push Vaccine Over Prevention and Treatment

Carvativir is not the first cost-effective potential treatment to be ridiculed in the media in favor of sitting and waiting until an unproven genetic experiment can be unleashed on the public under the guise of Operation Warp Speed and a COVID-19 vaccine.
While the results on Carvativir are not yet published as of this writing, there are other effective and long-standing preventive measures and treatments for this virus. Although the recently released shot is being called a vaccine, by medical definition it’s more accurately an experimental gene therapy that could prematurely kill many people.
As I discussed in “How COVID ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions,” the way in which the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines are produced may increase the risk of anaphylaxis. Additionally, free mRNA can fuel chronic, long-term inflammatory diseases.
As I also wrote in the article linked above, equally shocking are the personal videos sharing the severe side effects people are experiencing — videos which are quickly removed by social media platforms, ostensibly for violating some term of service. It’s hard to fathom how a personal experience can be considered “false information.”
Whether you choose to take the vaccine or not, it is important to remember that it does not stop you from getting COVID-19 and may not be effective against the virus as it naturally mutates in the environment. It is essential you take steps to protect your overall health and be aware of the strategies you can use to prevent infection and be treated early at home to reduce your risk of severe disease.
Recently, doctors have returned to basic supportive care and treatments and have experienced better survival rates and patient outcomes. As the pandemic has progressed, doctors have also recognized the need for early outpatient treatment in order to halt the progression and lower the risk of severe disease.
Consider These Steps to Reduce Your Risk

One of those outpatient treatments that has been maligned in the media is a combination of hydroxychloroquine and zinc. Hydroxychloroquine acts as a zinc ionophore, helping to move zinc into the cells. Zinc helps prevent the replication of viruses inside the cell, which is why it has had such good results in shortening the common cold.
Evidence has also suggested that people admitted to the hospital with low zinc levels have a higher likelihood of dying from COVID-19.21 Low levels of vitamin D have also been associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease. Vitamin D optimization may help prevent infection and reduce the risk of severe symptoms.
In June 2020, I launched an information campaign about vitamin D that included a downloadable scientific report detailing the science behind vitamin D. A randomized double-blind study, published December 2020,22 demonstrated that giving critically ill patients with COVID-19 high doses of vitamin D could significantly reduce the number of days they spend in intensive care and reduce their need for ventilation.
A mathematical reanalysis of data from an earlier trial concluded there’s a “strong role for vitamin D in reducing ICU admission of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.”23 Ivermectin is another drug that’s been found to be useful in all stages of the infection. However, the real strength appears to be as a preventive.
As I reported in “Can Ivermectin Help Prevent COVID-19 Deaths?,” two states in India with high population rates are reporting24 the lowest and second-lowest fatality rates in all of India after having added ivermectin to their treatment protocols.
As reported in Trial Site News, health officials in India had recognized urgency in treating and preventing the illness, but, “Such urgency is in short supply in the U.S., where the single-minded focus is on vaccination.”25
Two other treatments for COVID-19 that have shown significant positive results are vitamin C and the MATH+ protocol. As reported in Nutrients, “Vitamin C’s antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulating effects make it a potential therapeutic candidate, both for the prevention and amelioration of COVID-19 infection, and as an adjunctive therapy in the critical care of COVID-19.”26
In response to this landmark review the Alliance for Natural Health launched an international vitamin C campaign.27 Founder and scientific director Rob Verkerk, Ph.D., noted there are several reasons to take supplemental vitamin C:28

Your body cannot make it.
Most people do not get enough from their diet.
Your body’s requirement for vitamin C can increase 10-fold during an infection, disease or physical trauma.

Vitamin C is also a part of the MATH+ protocol developed by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC). You can read more about this protocol, which has been successfully used to treat COVID-19, in “Quercetin and Vitamin C: Synergistic Therapy for COVID-19.”
Consider These Steps to Take Control of Your Health

My personal choice for treating upper respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19, is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. In the video above I demonstrate how the solution should be mixed and administered for the best results.
It’s a home remedy I recommend everyone familiarize themselves with, as in many cases it can improve symptoms in mere hours. You can also use it as a preventive strategy if you know you’ve been exposed to someone who is ill.
The recent events over the past year have aptly demonstrated how crucial it is for you to take control of your health. In the past year there have been a rising number of suicides,29 drug overdoses30 and mental health conditions,31 many of which may have stemmed from fear. It is important to remember you do not have to be afraid and that fear is what is being used to manipulate your behavior.
Take the time to gather the necessary tools you’ll need to protect your health, reduce your risk of infection and hasten healing if you are infected. Then take a few minutes to share this important information with your friends and family members.
Many of the effective preventive and at-home treatment strategies are not shared by the media, as most are advocating you wait with bated breath for a vaccine. You can improve your health and make a difference in others’ lives.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/15/thyme-extract-helps-treat-covid-19.aspx

Researchers from the University of Nottingham revealed an experimental cancer drug showed promising lab results against viral infections, and specifically against COVID-19.1
News about how to control or combat the SARS-CoV-2 virus has overtaken media outlets and public debate, to the detriment of addressing other public health issues. For example, during 2020 the rates of suicides,2 especially among young people, and drug overdoses3 have risen dramatically.
Recently, one focus is on debunking potential treatments that are not developed or manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry and encouraging the public to keep their eye squarely on the COVID-19 vaccine. News stories abound about where to get the vaccine, when and where the drug is being shipped and assurances that the side effects are minimal.
Recent research published in Viruses,4 however, revealed the drug thapsigargin may have broad-spectrum antiviral activity, including against coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2.
Experimental Cancer Pill Shows Antiviral Activity

In a press release,5 the researchers stressed the significance of improving the clinical management of a variety of viruses since clinical presentation is often indistinguishable.
The lab results demonstrated thapsigargin was highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 as well as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza A and the common cold coronavirus OC43. During the study, the researchers found that thapsigargin’s “performance was significantly better than remdesivir and ribavirin in their respective inhibition of OC43 and RSV.”6
In the same study, researchers tested thapsigargin in mice against a lethal influenza strain. It appeared to protect the animals during the challenge and had the ability to inhibit “different viruses before or during active infection.”7 The researchers concluded thapsigargin or its derivatives are a promising inhibitor of the viruses tested.
Thapsigargin is derived from the “deadly carrot” thapsia plant,8 also known as villous deadly carrot.9 The drug has previously been tested against prostate cancer and the scientists found that in small doses it had antiviral properties.
In the press release,10 the researcher listed some of the key features from other cell and animal studies they believe make thapsigargin a promising antiviral option. This included effectiveness when it was used preventively or during an active infection, stability in an acidic pH so it could be administered orally and greater effectiveness than current antiviral pharmaceutical options.
Another of the benefits the researchers believe thapsigargin has compared to other antiviral medications is that the viruses tested didn’t appear to develop a resistance to the compound’s actions.
Thapsigargin appeared to trigger an effective immune response in the body as opposed to fighting the virus directly. These responses help disrupt viral replication and mean the drug is potentially valuable against mutant strains since effectiveness is not dependent on direct interaction with the virus. Kin-Chow Chang, Ph.D., a scientist on the research team, is quoted in the Daily Mail saying:11

“Given that future pandemics are likely to be of animal origin, where animal to human (zoonotic) and reverse zoonotic (human to animal) spread take place, a new generation of antivirals, such as thapsigargin, could play a key role in the control and treatment of important viral infections in both humans and animals.”

When considering the financial end of it, the Daily Mail12 reports that thapsigargin could be expensive, as it costs $104 per 1 milligram (mg) dose when used in experimental research. However, the cost may be reduced if it were brought into full production, which would be necessary for the drug to have wide application, as it was estimated doses may range from 200 mg to 800 mg as a flu antiviral.
Early Administration of Zinc Reduces Viral Replication

Your immune system is the first line of defense against all disease, especially infectious diseases. One nutrient that plays an important role is zinc, which has been shown to reduce the severity and duration of infections caused by viruses such as those that cause the common cold.13 Data have suggested that those with low levels of zinc are more likely to die from COVID-19 than those who have higher levels.14
Zinc appears to be the key ingredient in treatment protocols using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a known zinc ionophore.15,16 This means that HCQ helps your cells absorb more zinc and, once inside, zinc prevents viral replication.
This is also why treatment with zinc and zinc ionophores works best when taken early in the illness or as a prophylactic. Other zinc ionophores include quercetin and epigallocatechin-gallate (EGCG), which is found in tea.17
Support for the use of quercetin against COVID-19 has also been reported by the Green Stars Project.18 Using a supercomputer, researchers looked for molecules capable of inhibiting the COVID-19 spike protein from interacting with human cells. Quercetin is fifth on the list.19
Physicians, such as French prize-winning microbiologist and infectious disease expert Didier Raoult, report using hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. Raoult reports a combination of HCQ and azithromycin in the early months of the pandemic led to the recovery and nondetection of SARS-CoV-2 in 91.7% of 1,061 patients within 10 days.20
A now infamous study published in The Lancet in May 2020,21 which has since been retracted, sought to smear the use of the cost-effective and time-tested drug HCQ. They declared that HCQ used alone or with a macrolide antibiotic like azithromycin was associated with a reduction in survival and an increase in ventricular arrhythmias.
But, when scientists took a closer look at the results, they discovered the integrity of the data collection was suspect, for example, the study included administering doses of the drug that were 100 times higher than FDA recommendations.22
Financial Incentives Driving Treatment Protocols

As doctors began speaking out about using hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc and azithromycin in their practice, state medical licensing boards and congressional representatives began issuing threats.23 Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a New York physician who successfully treated his patients with the hydroxychloroquine trio, characterized the fiasco in an interview with Del Bigtree from The Highwire, saying:24

“My personal opinion … anyone who got in the way of access to care, who got in the way of access to medication, committed crimes against humanity and are guilty of mass murder.”

One of the most obvious reasons why certain individuals and companies might want to prevent the use of an inexpensive generic drug such as HCQ is because it might eliminate the need for a vaccine or the development of antiviral medication.25 Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested, and drug companies were, and still are, counting on a massive payday.
A paper recently published in The American Journal of Medicine by a team of scientists illustrated the pathophysiological basis and rationale for using HCQ and zinc.26 It is important to remember that while HCQ may have been politically vilified, the drug has been in use since the mid-1940s with a known side-effect history including nausea, vomiting, cramps or diarrhea27 that may happen in the first few days and disappear.
Less commonly, people may get tired, feel weak or have a headache, which again typically disappears with use. The CDC published a short list of the expected side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine including local pain, swelling and redness and flu symptoms such as chills, tiredness and headache.28
However, as I’ve recently written in “Side Effects and Data Gaps Raise Questions on COVID Vaccine,” it has also triggered anaphylactic reactions, chronic seizures and sudden death within hours or days (although health authorities deny there is any causal connection between the vaccine and the deaths).
The CDC reported that by December 18, 2020, of the 112,807 who had received the first dose, 3,150 had suffered one or more “health impact events,” defined as being “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional.”29 This definition likely does not include local pain and swelling or chills and headache.
These Strategies Help Reduce Your Risk of Viral Infection

While new antivirals like thapsigargin continue to be studied, you have several options to help protect yourself from viruses and treat them if you should get infected. Consider the following strategies you can implement at home.

Supplement with vitamin D — Data from patients with confirmed COVID-19 infections have shown those with low levels of vitamin D have an increased risk of getting infected30 and experiencing a severe disease.31
In December 2020, a randomized, double-blind study32 demonstrated when critically ill patients with confirmed COVID-19 were given high doses of vitamin D it could significantly lower the number of days they spent in the intensive care unit and could reduce the need for ventilation.
A team of researchers did a mathematical reanalysis of raw data from an earlier trial and concluded there is a “strong role for vitamin D in reducing ICU admission of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.”33
Past research has also demonstrated that “vitamin D supplementation can help protect against acute respiratory infections.”34 In the study,35 the investigators found that while all participants benefited from supplementation, those with a significant deficiency gained the most.

Support your overall immune function — Vitamin D also plays a significant role in supporting your overall immune system. Additional strategies you can use include getting enough quality sleep, staying hydrated, reducing stress levels, eating whole food and optimizing your gut microbiome.

Get adequate vitamin C — As reported in a landmark review published in Nutrients, “Vitamin C’s antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulating effects make it a potential therapeutic candidate, both for the prevention and amelioration of COVID-19 infection, and as an adjunctive therapy in the critical care of COVID-19.”36
Yet as Dr. Andrew Saul, editor-in-chief of the Orthomolecular Medicine news service, presented at the Japanese Society for Orthomolecular Medicine,37 the importance of using vitamin C for disease treatment, including COVID-19, is being widely silenced using organized censorship.
Many health authorities and mainstream media have ignored, if not outright opposed, the use of vitamin C and other supplements in the treatment of COVID-19. However, the review published in Nutrients supports the use of vitamin C. As the scientists noted, vitamin C has anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antiviral and antithrombotic properties.
In response to this review the Alliance for Natural Health launched an international vitamin C campaign. Founder and scientific director Rob Verkerk, Ph.D., noted there are several reasons to take supplemental vitamin C:38

Your body cannot make it.
Most people do not get enough from their diet.
Your body’s requirement for vitamin C can increase 10-fold during an infection, disease or physical trauma.

Take hydroxychloroquine, if your doctor will prescribe it, and zinc — This is another low-cost treatment that’s been maligned in the media but has proven effective in physician practices and studies. Hydroxychloroquine acts as a zinc ionophore,39 helping to move zinc into the cells where it can prevent the replication of viruses.
This is why it has such good results in shortening the common cold. As mentioned above, data from Raoult showed the combination with azithromycin led to the recovery of 91.7% of his patients within 10 days.40 Similar preventive and treatment benefits are available at home using quercetin and zinc, which you can read more about in “How to Improve Zinc Uptake with Quercetin.”

Ivermectin — As I discussed in “Can Ivermectin Help Prevent COVID-19 Deaths?” two states in India with high population rates are reporting41 the lowest and second-lowest fatality rates in all of India after having added ivermectin to their treatment protocols.
Clinical trials42 are underway to investigate the effectiveness demonstrated by the reduction in illness in India. One in-vitro study published in Antiviral Research43 showed a single treatment produced a 5,000-fold reduction in viral load measured at 48 hours in cell culture.

Nebulized hydrogen peroxide — My personal choice for treating upper respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19, is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. It’s a home remedy I recommend everyone familiarize themselves with, as in many cases it can improve symptoms in mere hours.
You can also use it as a preventive strategy if you know you’ve been exposed to someone who is ill. The recent events over the past year have aptly demonstrated how crucial it is for you to take control of your health. To read more about nebulized hydrogen peroxide and watch an interview with Dr. David Brownstein, see “How Nebulized Peroxide Helps Against Respiratory Infections.”

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/18/this-deadly-carrot-has-major-antiviral-treatment-potential.aspx

A number of mental health experts have expressed concern over the blatant fear and panic mongering during the COVID-19 pandemic, warning about potential — and let’s face it, likely — psychiatric effects. In a December 22, 2020, article1 in Evie Magazine, S.G. Cheah discusses what may in fact be the real problem at hand: mass insanity caused by “delusional fear of COVID-19.”
Cheah refers to lectures and articles by psychiatrist and medical legal expert Dr. Mark McDonald,2 who believes “the true public health crisis lies in the widespread fear which morphed and evolved into a form of mass delusional psychosis.”

“Even when the statistics point to the extremely low fatality rate among children and young adults (measuring 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at 25), the young and the healthy are still terrorized by the chokehold of irrational fear when faced with the coronavirus,” Cheah writes.

Infectious Hysteria

Cheah goes on to review a number of irrational behaviors that have become all too commonplace, such as parents being kicked off planes because their young children refuse to wear a mask during the flight, or people having hysterical meltdowns when they see a person not wearing a mask.
The science3 is quite clear about the risk posed by asymptomatic individuals, meaning anyone who feels perfectly healthy yet may have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a PCR test set to an excessively high cycle threshold. They pose an exceptionally low risk to others, if any risk at all. Science is even clearer on healthy individuals who test negative for SARS-CoV-2. You simply cannot spread a virus you do not have.
The bulk of published science4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 also shows that masks do not prevent the spread of viral infections, and this is particularly true if you’re wearing cloth masks,12 surgical masks or masks with vents.
Despite all of that, many still enter a state of hysteria when they see an unmasked person, even if they look perfectly healthy and clearly are not suffering from any kind of respiratory issue. This is a highly irrational state that has no basis in reality.

Indeed, according to McDonald, these people are suffering from delusional psychosis,13 and there are a lot of them. He goes so far as to refer to the outside of his home or office as the “outdoor insane asylum,” where he must assume “that any person that I run into is insane” unless they prove otherwise.14
As explained by Cheah:15

“Instead of facing reality, the delusional person would rather live in their world of make-believe. But in order to keep faking reality, they’ll have to make sure that everyone else around them also pretends to live in their imaginary world.
In simpler words, the delusional person rejects reality. And in this rejection of reality, others have to play along with how they view the world, otherwise, their world will not make sense to them. It’s why the delusional person will get angry when they face someone who doesn’t conform to their world view …
It’s one of the reasons why you’re seeing so many people who’d happily approve the silencing of any medical experts whose views contradict the WHO or CDC guidelines. ‘Obey the rules!’ becomes more important than questioning if the rules were legitimate to begin with.”

In his interview with Jesse Lee Peterson (video above), McDonald explains his diagnosis this way:

“There was never a medical crisis. There were always enough resources to deal with the people who were sick … Many resources were in fact turned away … The question then, for me, became, ‘What’s the real crisis? What are people really suffering from?’
It became clear to me, very quickly, within the first two or three weeks in March [2020], that it was fear. Since then … the fear … has morphed and evolved, not just into a ‘I’m worried, I’m scared so I need to stay home,’ but an actual belief that is against reality — because the definition of delusion is something you believe that doesn’t conform with reality.
They believe that they are going to die — no matter what age, no matter what state of health they’re in — if they don’t leave their house with a mask and gloves on every day and run from [other] human beings. That’s delusional psychosis. It’s false, it’s wrong, it’s not backed up by evidence. And many, many Americans are living that and believing that.”

While there’s no data to back this up, McDonald says it appears women tend to be more prone to delusional psychosis than men. Part of it, he suggests, may be because when women get scared, they tend to become more hyperprotective than men do under the same circumstances, likely because women — speaking in pure generalizing terms, of course — tend to be more emotionally driven.
Mass Delusional Psychosis Traumatizes Children

McDonald is particularly concerned with the lasting effects this widespread insanity will have on children as they grow up. As a psychiatrist specializing in the treatment of children and adolescents, he should know. Since the lockdowns began in the first quarter of 2020, he’s seen a massive increase in patients, and their mental states are far worse than what he’s used to seeing in these age groups.
One of the worst traumas children suffer as a result of all this fearmongering is the idea that they may kill their parents or grandparents simply by being around them. As noted by Cheah, they’re also being taught to feel guilty about behaviors that would normally be completely, well, normal.
As just one example, hysterical adults calling a toddler who refuses to wear a mask a “brat,” when in fact resisting having a restrictive mask put across your face is perfectly normal at that age.
“It’s not normal for children to grow up thinking that everyone is a danger to everyone else,” Cheah says, and rightly so. It’s not normal at all, and hysterical adults are mindlessly inflicting severe emotional trauma on an entire generation.
As noted by McDonald in his interview with Peterson above, a primary cause of depression, especially among youngsters, is disconnection from others. We need face-to-face contact, we need physical contact as well as emotional intimacy. We need these things to feel safe around others and within our own selves. Digital interactions simply cannot replace these most basic human needs, and are inherently separating rather than connective.
McDonald cites recent CDC statistics showing there’s been a 400% increase in adolescent depression compared to one year ago, and in 25% of cases, they’ve contemplated suicide. These are unheard of statistics, he says. Never before have so many teenagers considered committing suicide.
“This is a mass-casualty event,” McDonald says, and parents — adults — are to blame, because they are the ones scaring them to the point they don’t feel life is worth living anymore.
This is also why just treating the children is not going to be effective enough. We have to address the psychosis of the adult population. “It’s up to us adults to fix this,” McDonald says, “because children are not going to be able to fix this themselves.”
Delusional People Ultimately Require Controlled Environments

We must also address the mass delusion for another reason, and that is because it’s driving us all, sane and insane alike, toward a society devoid of all previous freedoms and civil liberties, and the corrupt individuals in charge will not voluntarily relinquish power once we’ve given it to them.
A totalitarian society, McDonald believes, is the ultimate end of this societal psychosis unless we do something about it and realize that “we’re fine, we’re perfectly safe.” Indeed, we’re in no more danger now than we were pre-COVID. We must not allow our freedoms to be taken from us due to delusional fears. As noted by Cheah in her article:16

“It’s not unthinkable that the final outcome would be total societal control on every aspect of your life. Consider this — the endpoint of a mentally ill person is for them to be put under a controlled environment (institutionalized like an asylum) where all freedoms are restricted. And it’s looking more and more like that’s the endpoint of where this mass psychosis is heading.”

A December 18, 2020, Tweet by political commentator Candace Owens also sums up how irrational fear and panic have figuratively lobotomized a significant portion of the public:

McDonald points out that many of our leaders obviously do not suffer these same delusional fears. They issue stay-at-home orders from their vacation homes in the Caribbean and repeatedly break their own mask and lockdown mandates. They ride their bikes, stroll through the park, have family gatherings and dine out without a care. They know COVID-19 isn’t the deadly plague it’s been made out to be, but they’re playing the game because it benefits them.
Fear Is Never Virtuous

The video above features a short lecture McDonald gave during America’s Frontline Doctors’ White Coat Summit 217 in mid-October 2020, titled “The Way Forward: Overcoming Fear.”
In it, he points out that not only has fear morphed into a delusional belief that masks, gloves and physical separation is required to stay alive, but fear has also been turned into a virtue, which is doubly tragic and wrong.
Wearing a mask has become a way to demonstrate that you’re a “good person,” someone who obviously cares about others, whereas not wearing a mask brands you as an inconsiderate lout, if not a prospective mass murderer, simply by breathing.
Healthy people should never wear masks, social distance or self-isolate. Not only are these strategies unhealthy from a physical standpoint, they also perpetuate the delusional psychosis gripping the nation and therefore must end.
By encouraging us to remain in fear, to burrow and settle into it and allow it to control and constrain our lives, the fear has become so entrenched that anyone who says we need to be fearless and fight for our freedoms is attacked for being not only stupid but also dangerous. “I would argue that it’s the opposite,” McDonald says.
The problem we now face is that the delusion has taken such hold that even if the mask mandates ended nationwide today, many would refuse to give up their masks, and they would not stop chastising those who don’t wear them, either. What’s more, we now have private companies pushing these freedom-robbing edicts, refusing services to those who don’t wear masks.
Soon, you won’t be allowed into certain venues if you don’t have the COVID-19 vaccine as well, and private corporations are the ones instigating those unconstitutional rules. If you understand the technocratic agenda, then you know why that is. It’s because many private companies are part of the global technocratic alliance that is trying to eliminate our freedoms in order to enrich themselves.

“We started out with fear and hysteria. We moved to delusional psychosis, and now we have group control,” McDonald says. “Now we don’t have police officers and government coming after us. What we have more of is our fellow citizens now castigating us, legally limiting us from getting into vehicles [such as Uber or plane], going into businesses [and] getting jobs.”

Restoring Sanity as We Move Forward
Essentially, citizens are now acting as a de facto “police force” to suppress other people’s freedom, and this has a terribly harmful effect on society. So, how do we get out of the proverbial insane asylum? How do we restore sanity to our society while still helping those who are at greatest risk for complications and death from COVID-19? McDonald offers the following suggestions in his lecture and the featured interview:

• We must firmly reject masks as a virtue signal; the idea that action taken out of fear — such as donning a mask — is virtuous. Fear is not helpful and never virtuous.
• We should protect those at greatest risk — meaning elderly, frail individuals with comorbidities and those who are in poor health — using simple, inexpensive and readily available prophylactics, including vitamin D, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin and zinc.
• Healthy people should never wear masks, social distance or self-isolate. Not only are these strategies unhealthy from a physical standpoint, they also perpetuate the delusional psychosis gripping the nation and therefore must end.
• We must embrace courage, truth, honesty and freedom, not just in our thoughts and words but also in our actions. As noted by McDonald in the featured interview, people cannot think logically when in a state of delusional psychosis, hence sharing information, facts, data and evidence tends to be ineffective except in cases where the person was acting out of peer pressure rather than a delusional belief.

Typically, the best you can do is stand firm and act in alignment with truth and objective reality, much like you would if you were a first responder faced with an accident victim who is responding hysterically to what you know is only a minor injury.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/18/the-psychological-state-of-america.aspx

Your immune system is designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent. Upon recovery, you’re typically immune to that infectious agent. In the case of COVID-19, however, public health officials have been reluctant to suggest that those who have recovered are now immune — and therefore have no need for a COVID-19 vaccine.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., is among those who had COVID-19 and recovered. As a scientist, he looked into whether he should still get a COVID-19 vaccine, uncovering research that showed vaccination offered no benefit to those who have previously been infected. “The controversy began,” according to Sharyl Attkisson’s Full Measure report, “when Massie noticed the CDC was claiming the exact opposite.”1
CDC Report ‘Wrong’ About Vaccine’s Effectiveness

In a high-profile report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 15 scientists stated that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.2
But according to Massie, “That sentence is wrong. There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either.”3 In France, the health body la Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) does not recommend routinely vaccinating those who have already recovered from COVID-19, stating:4

“At this stage, there is no need to systematically vaccinate people who have already developed a symptomatic form of Covid-19 unless they wish to do so following a decision shared with the doctor and within a minimum period of time. 3 months from the onset of symptoms.”

Yet, the CDC suggests everyone who’s had COVID-19 should still get vaccinated: “Due to the severe health risks associated with COVID-19 and the fact that reinfection with COVID-19 is possible, vaccine should be offered to you regardless of whether you already had COVID-19 infection.”5
CDC Notified of Error, Doesn’t Fix It

When Massie realized that vaccination didn’t change the risk of infection among people who’ve had COVID-19, he was alarmed and contacted the CDC directly, recording his calls. “It [the CDC report] says the exact opposite of what the data says. They’re giving people the impression that this vaccine will save your life, or save you from suffering, even if you’ve already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or the Moderna trial.”6
Massie first spoke with Dr. Amanda Cohn, the lead for the vaccine planning unit of the CDC’s COVID-19 response.7 On December 16, she told Massie, “People who have had disease, given that there’s limited doses right now, we’re, we are suggesting that those people wait.”8
Cohn also thanked Massie for bringing it to her attention that their claim that vaccines are effective in people who’ve previously had COVID-19 is a mistake, and implied that it would be fixed. Cohn said:9

“I think we read that thing so many times that when, you know, we just skipped right over it. We know we can’t be perfect, we know we’re gonna miss things. You will forever after be known in our office as ‘Eagle-Eyed Man.’”

Two days later, however, Cohn told medical professionals in an online session that people with prior infection are likely to benefit from vaccination. A month after that, the false information remained on the CDC’s website, Massie, said, prompting another call.
This time, Massie spoke with the CDC’s Washington, D.C., director Anstice Brand, who talked in circles. “So I called them up on Tuesday, as soon as I could, to ask them why it hadn’t been fixed,” Massie told Attkisson. “And it was like, I was starting all over with the same people. And instead of fixing it, they proposed repeating it and just phrasing their mistake differently.”10
Massie also spoke with CDC scientist Dr. Sara Oliver, who was part of the online session that gave out misinformation to medical professionals and is also an author of the flawed CDC report. He said, “There was an error and I noticed you are an author on it and I wondered if I could get your help in getting this error corrected. You can’t say it’s efficacious for people with prior infection. That’s an absolutely untrue sentence.”
Oliver responded, “Yeah, I mean, we’re — we’re still recommending that individuals who have prior infection receive the vaccine.” When he pushed further, she said, “Okay. I — I can, um, I can talk with MMWR, and with Dr. Cohn and see, if, if we can tweak that language a little bit.”11
CDC ‘Lying About the Efficacy of the Vaccine’

It wasn’t until Massie’s final call with the CDC, to deputy director Anne Schuchat, that it was acknowledged that a correction was necessary. “As you note correctly, there is not sufficient analysis to show that in the subset of only the people with prior infection, there’s efficacy. So, you’re correct that that sentence is wrong and that we need to make a correction of it. I apologize for the delay,” Schuchat said. January 29, 2021, the CDC did finally issue a correction, which reads:12

“Consistent high efficacy (?92%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Efficacy was similarly high in a secondary analysis including participants both with or without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Instead of fixing the error, Massie believes the wording still misleadingly suggests vaccination is effective for those previously infected.
He told Attkisson, “[I]nstead of fixing it, they proposed repeating it and just phrasing their mistake differently. So, at that point, right now I consider it a lie. I think the CDC is lying about the efficacy of the vaccine based on the Pfizer trials, for those who have already had the coronavirus.” Full Measure asked Oliver, Cohn and the CDC for interviews, but they declined the request.13
More Intense Reactions, Single Doses Suggested

Additional research into vaccination of individuals who already had COVID-19 revealed that the antibody response to the first vaccine dose is equal to or exceeds titers from those who were not previously infected but received two doses.
“Changing the policy to give these individuals only one dose of vaccine would not negatively impact on their antibody titers, spare them from unnecessary pain and free up many urgently needed vaccine doses,” researchers wrote in a preprint study.14 Side effects, including fatigue, headaches, fever, muscle and joint pain and chills, were also more common among those who had been infected before.15
A second study also suggested that the antibody response to a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine among health care workers previously infected was comparable to that among people who hadn’t been previously infected and received two doses.16 They concluded that those who have already had COVID-19 are not a “priority” for vaccination:

“In times of vaccine shortage, and until correlates of protection are identified, our findings preliminarily suggest the following strategy as more evidence-based: a) a single dose of vaccine for patients already having had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19; and b) patients who have had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 can be placed lower on the vaccination priority list.”

Does Recovery From COVID-19 Provide Immunity?

If you’ve had COVID-19, you have some level of immunity against the virus. It’s unknown how long it lasts, just as it’s unknown how long protection from the vaccine lasts. According to the Public Health Agency of Sweden:17

“If you have had COVID-19, you have some protection against reinfection. This means that you are less likely to become infected and seriously ill, and less likely to infect others if you are exposed to the virus again.

Over time, the protection that you get after an infection wanes and there is an increased risk of getting infected again. At present, we estimate that the protection after having had COVID-19 lasts at least six months from the time of infection.”

As for the vaccine, Dr. Meryl Nass suggests the protection it provides will be inferior to that acquired via natural infection:

“No one knows how long immunity lasts, if in fact the vaccines do provide some degree of immunity. (Should it be called immunity if you can still catch and spread the virus?)

For every known vaccine, the immunity it provides is less robust and long-lasting than the immunity obtained from having had the infection. People who have had COVID really have no business getting vaccinated — they get all the risk and none of the benefit. It is said that Israelis who had COVID are not being vaccinated.”18

WHO Changed Definition of Herd Immunity
Many have wondered if vaccination would even be necessary if widespread herd immunity were achieved naturally. Your immune system isn’t designed to get vaccines. It’s designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent. But apparently, according to WHO, that’s no longer the case.
In June 2020, WHO’s definition of herd immunity, posted on one of their COVID-19 Q&A pages, was in line with the widely accepted concept that has been the standard for infectious diseases for decades. Here’s what it originally said, courtesy of the Internet Archive’s Wayback machine:19

“Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”

In October 2020, here’s their updated definition of herd immunity, which is now “a concept used for vaccination”:20

“‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.

Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but — crucially — vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing it on, breaking any chains of transmission.”

This perversion of science implies that the only way to achieve herd immunity is via vaccination, which is blatantly untrue. The startling implications for society, however, is that by putting out this false information, they’re attempting to change your perception of what’s true and not true, leaving people believing that they must artificially manipulate their immune systems as the only way to stay safe from infectious disease.
The fact is the COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine in the medical definition of a vaccine. It’s more accurately an experimental gene therapy, of which the effectiveness and safety are far from proven.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/16/health-officials-make-crucial-error-in-vaccine-recommendation.aspx

Dr. Mercola Interviews the Experts
This article is part of a weekly series in which Dr. Mercola interviews various experts on a variety of health issues. To see more expert interviews, click here.

In April 2020, I interviewed Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., about the potential role played by human gammaretroviruses in COVID-19. Mikovits is a molecular biologist1 and researcher, and was the founding research director of the Whittemore Peterson Institute in Nevada.
Her book, “Plague of Corruption,” ended up being a No. 1 best seller on the lists of The New York Times, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal in 2020. Her new book, “Ending Plague: A Scholar’s Obligation in an Age of Corruption,” will hopefully do just as well. It’s available for preorder on Amazon.

She may be one of the most censored researchers on the planet at this point, thanks in no small part to her participation in the documentary “Plandemic,” which went viral in a big way (plandemicseries.com).
Case in point: YouTube suspended our account for one week as soon as we uploaded today’s interview — even though the video was UNLISTED and not available for public viewing yet. Even worse, Mikovits’ third and most recent book, “The Case Against Masks: Ten Reasons Why Mask Use Should Be Limited,” is so heavily censored, no one can buy it.

“I don’t even have a copy,” she says. “I’m sitting here with two copies of the other books but I can’t even buy it. What the book sellers did, like Amazon, is they bought them all up from Skyhorse, the publisher, and now they won’t ship them out of the warehouse.”

Clearly, Mikovits is considered a serious threat to the technocratic status quo, and once you hear what she has to say about COVID-19 vaccines — which as you’ll see is a complete misnomer — you may start to understand why.
COVID-19 Vaccines Aren’t Real Vaccines

The COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine in the medical definition of a vaccine. It does not improve your immune response to the infection, nor does not limit you from getting the infection. It’s really an experimental gene therapy that could prematurely kill large amounts of the population and disable exponentially more.

“I’m just beside myself with anger over this synthetic gene therapy, this chemical poison, and what they’re doing worldwide,” Mikovits says. “We’re already seeing deaths from this shot. It’s illegal. It shouldn’t be done. It should be stopped right now. It should have never been allowed to happen, yet we see it being forced on the most vulnerable populations.”

Indeed, news and social media reports suggest recipients are starting to drop like flies. Many die of unknown causes within days, sometimes hours of getting the first or second shot.
Baseball legend Hank Aaron passed away two weeks after receiving the vaccine, yet this was not ever mentioned in his New York Times obituary. Surely, had he tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, he would have been declared a COVID-19 fatality, whether the virus actually had anything to do with it or not.
But when it comes to the vaccine, even eyebrow-raising timing is dismissed as coincidental and irrelevant. Now all of a sudden, old people dying shortly after vaccination are shrugged off with the excuse that they’re old and could have died any day anyway. Old people dying with SARS-CoV-2, however, must be stopped at any cost. Funny how that works.
The Problem With Synthetic RNA

The messenger RNA (mRNA) used in many COVID-19 vaccines are not natural. They’re synthetic. Since naturally produced mRNA rapidly degrades, it must be complexed with lipids or polymers to prevent this from happening. COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, and PEG is known to cause anaphylaxis.2 Lipid nanoparticles may also cause other problems.
In 2017, Stat News discussed Moderna’s challenges in developing an mRNA-based drug for Crigler-Najjar, a condition that can lead to jaundice, muscle degeneration and brain damage:3

“In order to protect mRNA molecules from the body’s natural defenses, drug developers must wrap them in a protective casing. For Moderna, that meant putting its Crigler-Najjar therapy in nanoparticles made of lipids.
And for its chemists, those nanoparticles created a daunting challenge: Dose too little, and you don’t get enough enzyme to affect the disease; dose too much, and the drug is too toxic for patients.
From the start, Moderna’s scientists knew that using mRNA to spur protein production would be a tough task, so they scoured the medical literature for diseases that might be treated with just small amounts of additional protein.
‘And that list of diseases is very, very short,’ said the former employee … Crigler-Najjar was the lowest-hanging fruit. Yet Moderna could not make its therapy work … The safe dose was too weak, and repeat injections of a dose strong enough to be effective had troubling effects on the liver in animal studies.”

However, if they call their drugs vaccines, they can bypass the safety studies. All of a sudden, they expect us to believe that all of these safety issues have been resolved? Another problem is related to how long the mRNA remains stable in your system. It’s encased in nanolipid to prevent it from degrading too rapidly, but what happens if the mRNA degrades too slowly, or not at all?

The idea behind mRNA vaccines is that by tricking your body into creating the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, your immune system will produce antibodies in response. But what happens when you turn your body into a viral protein factory, thus keeping antibody production activated on a continual basis with no ability to shut down?

In addition, your body sees these synthetic particles as non-self and much of the perpetual antibody response will be autoantibodies attacking your own tissues.
Mikovits explains:

“Normally, messenger RNA is not free in your body because it’s a danger signal. As a molecular biologist, the central dogma of molecular biology is that our genetic code, DNA, is transcribed, written, into the messenger RNA. That messenger RNA is translated into protein, or used in a regulatory capacity … to regulate gene expression in cells.
So, taking a synthetic messenger RNA and making it thermostable — making it not break down — [is problematic]. We have lots of enzymes (RNAses and DNAses) that degrade free RNA and DNA because, again, those are danger signals to your immune system. They literally drive inflammatory diseases.
Now you’ve got PEG, PEGylated and polyethylene glycol, and a lipid nanoparticle that will allow it to enter every cell of the body and change the regulation of our own genes with this synthetic RNA, part of which actually is the message for the gene syncytin …
Syncytin is the endogenous gammaretrovirus envelope that’s encoded in the human genome … We know that if syncytin … is expressed aberrantly in the body, for instance in the brain, which these lipid nanoparticles will go into, then you’ve got multiple sclerosis.
The expression of that gene alone enrages microglia, literally inflames and dysregulates the communication between the brain microglia, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain and the communication with astrocytes.
It dysregulates not only the immune system, but also the endocannabinoid system, which is the dimmer switch on inflammation. We’ve already seen multiple sclerosis as an adverse event in the clinical trials, and we’re being lied to: ‘Oh, those people had that [already].’ No, they didn’t.
We also see myalgic encephalomyelitis. Inflammation of the brain and the spinal cord, which is [associated with] exogenous gammaretroviruses, the XMRVs.”

These High-Risk Groups Should Avoid COVID-19 Vaccine

According to Mikovits, research shows 4% to 6% of Americans have already been infected with XMRV gammaretroviruses via contaminated vaccines and blood supply for more than three decades, which is driving a number of chronic health conditions. Now, these synthetic gene therapies (the so-called COVID-19 vaccines) will further add to the chronic disease burden by triggering myalgic encephalomyelitis.
Anyone with an inflammatory disease like rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, chronic Lyme disease, anybody with an acquired immune deficiency from any pathogens and environmental toxins, those are the people who will be killed, murdered, by this vaccine. ~ Judy A. Mikovits, Ph.D.
Making matters worse, the synthetic mRNA also has an HIV envelope expressed in it, which can cause immune dysregulation. “This is a nightmare,” Mikovits says. “I’m angry, as this should never be allowed.”
As we discussed in previous interviews, SARS-CoV-2 has been engineered in the lab with gain-of-function research that included introducing the HIV envelope into the spike protein.
Mikovits’ hypothesis is that those who are most susceptible to severe neurological side effects and death from the COVID-19 vaccines are those who have previously been injected with XMRVs, borrelia, babesia, mycoplasma, through contaminated vaccines, resulting in chronic disease. (Her book, “Plague of Corruption,” details the science and history of XMRVs, which is a fascinating read.)

“Yes, absolutely,” she says. “That’s one of our hypotheses. But also, anyone with an inflammatory disease like rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, chronic Lyme disease, anybody with an acquired immune deficiency from any pathogens and environmental toxins.
Those are the people who will be killed, murdered, by this vaccine, and Anthony Fauci knows it … I can’t even sleep [because of] how evil this is. This is so deadly, I can’t scream it loud enough from the rooftops.”

The chart below lists 35 diseases associated with XMRV infection. If you have any of these, you may want to think long and hard before you line up for an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, as your chances of severe side effects or death are likely far higher than someone who does not have any of these diseases.

This is not a complete list. There may be many other conditions that can put you into a high-risk category. One example is idiopathic thrombocytopenia (ITP), a deadly bleeding disorder. According to Mikovits, her work shows 30% of all ITP are associated with XMRVs.
Interestingly, one example is the 58-year-old Florida doctor who recently got the COVID-19 vaccine and died from sudden onset of ITP two weeks later. Dr. Jerry L. Spivak, an expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins University, told The New York Times “it is a medical certainty” that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine caused the man’s death.4,5 Pfizer, of course, denies any connection.
Genetic Alterations May Last for Life

So, just how long will the synthetic RNA in COVID-19 vaccines be maintained within your body, causing your cells to produce this aberrant protein? Mikovits believes it will escape degradation for months, years, maybe even for life in some cases.
All of this is eerily reminiscent of previous attempts to create a coronavirus vaccine, all of which failed due to the vaccines causing paradoxical immune reactions, or antibody-dependent immune enhancement. While the animals appeared to have antibodies against the virus, and should theoretically have been protected, when they were exposed to wild coronavirus, they got severely ill and most died.

Such failures may be why so many vaccine makers decided to use mRNA rather than following conventional vaccine development strategies, but the end result is likely going to be the same or worse.

“I have a 41-year-old daughter-in-law with a very aggressive colon cancer. We’re seeing an explosion of chronic disease and these patients are not being discouraged from getting the vaccine. In fact, they’re being scared by physicians into getting it.
How do we wake people up? Is it going to take millions of Americans and people worldwide dying? Will Hank Aaron dying help the Black community? … We know the mechanisms. We know that Blacks and Hispanics can’t degrade RNA viruses as rapidly as Caucasians. We know that from studies all the way back to MMR. The MMR vaccine is associated with ITP. It says it right there on the package insert.
If you have a single nucleotide polymorphism in one of those RNases called RNase-L, you are more likely to get aggressive breast cancers, prostate cancers and other cancers from an XMRV infection (So why inject mRNA of syncytin, a gamma retrovirus envelope?).”

Breakthrough Genomics Could Save Millions of Lives

According to Mikovits, one solution is to use functional genomics technologies like Breakthrough Genomics, a company which uses machine learning to look at full genome sequences to determine which single nucleotide polymorphisms in ACE2 receptors, antiviral pathways like RNASEL and Interferons can make a person most susceptible to harm from these gene therapy “vaccines.”

“We have the technology to see who’s susceptible to severe effects. It will be a huge part of the population,” Mikovits says.

While one size clearly doesn’t fit all in any vaccine strategy, forcing a gene therapy on an entire population when it can be predicted that millions will die and develop deadly diseases like ITP is simply unconscionable. Yet anyone who dares speak about this, as Mikovits knows, risks having their careers and lives destroyed.
Symptoms of COVID-19 Vaccine Damage

Many of the symptoms now being reported are suggestive of neurological damage. They have severe dyskinesia (impairment of voluntary movement), ataxia (lack of muscle control) and intermittent or chronic seizures. Many cases detailed in personal videos on social media are quite shocking.
Equally shocking is that these videos are quickly removed by the social media platforms, ostensibly for violating some term of service. It’s hard to fathom how a personal experience can be considered “false information.”

“What is causing this is the neuroinflammation,” Mikovits says. “It’s the brain on fire. You’re going to see tics, you’re going to see Parkinsonian disease, you’re going to see ALS, you’re going to see things like this developing at extremely rapid rates, and it’s inflammation of the brain.”

Side effects are also suggestive of a dysregulated innate immune response and a disrupted endocannabinoid system, which acts as a dimmer switch on your immune system.

“We see mast cell activation syndromes (MCAS). The clinical symptoms are going to be the inflammatory diseases. We hear everybody calling it ‘long haul COVID’ — the extreme, profound, crippling fatigue, the inability to produce energy from your mitochondria.
It’s not long haul COVID. It’s exactly what it always was — myalgic encephalomyelitis, inflammation of the brain and the spinal cord. What they’re intentionally doing is killing off [certain] populations, which they previously injured.”

Another common side effect from the vaccine we’re seeing is allergic reactions, including anaphylactic shock. A likely culprit in this is PEG, which an estimated 70% of Americans are allergic to. “These instantaneous effects are almost certainly the PEG and that lipid nano particle, the toxic particle that’s being injected,” Mikovits says.
In the longer term, she suspects we’ll see a significant uptick in migraines, tics, Parkinson’s disease, microvascular disorders, different cancers, including prostate cancer, severe pain syndromes like fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, bladder problems, kidney disease, psychosis, neurodegenerative diseases such as Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) and sleep disorders, including narcolepsy. In young children, autism-like symptoms are likely to develop as well, she thinks.
We’ll End Up Killing the Most Susceptible

Aside from the chronic diseases listed earlier, others who are at high risk from these COVID-19 gene therapies include those who have gotten seasonal influenza vaccines, Blacks and Hispanics. Blacks and Hispanics are particularly at risk for antibody-dependent immune enhancement, in particular, due to genetics. Tragically, these vaccines are given to the most susceptible under the guise of racial and social justice.

“Johns Hopkins laid out that plan a few months ago to vaccinate ethnic minorities and the mentally challenged first. If your brain is already on fire, if you already have a neural inflammatory disease, why in the world would you inject this neural inflammatory toxin? You’re killing the people who are the most susceptible.”

Women of childbearing age may also be at risk for infertility, as syncytin (the gammaretrovirus envelope encoded in the human genome the expression of which can be dysregulated by the synthetic syncytin RNA in the vaccine) is required for proper fusion of the placenta in the uterus and implantation of the egg. Indeed, the World Health Organization is now saying pregnant women should not get the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines due to reports of late-term miscarriages.6

What to Do if You Got the Vaccine and Are Having Problems
The primary reason why I wanted to interview Mikovits was to find out her recommendations for those who chose to get the vaccine and now regret it. Interestingly, what I learned is you use the same strategies that you would use to treat the actual SARS-CoV-2 infection.
I’ve written many articles over the past year detailing simple strategies to improve your immune system, and with a healthy immune system, you’ll get through it without incident even if you end up getting sick. Below, I’ll summarize some of the strategies you can use both to prevent COVID-19 and address any side effects you may encounter from the vaccine.
First of all, you’ll want to eat a “clean,” ideally organic diet. Avoid processed foods of all kinds, as they are loaded with damaging omega-6 linoleic acid that wrecks your mitochondrial function. Also consider nutritional ketosis and time-restricted eating, both of which will help you optimize your metabolic machinery and mitochondrial function. As noted by Mikovits:

“We have to think about detoxing metal, we have to think about glyphosate … We have to prevent inflammation in all tissue sites and we have to keep our immune system healthy … You’re going to want to be burning ketones instead [of sugar] for the neuroinflammation, so you’re going to want to get into ketosis and take the stress off the mTOR pathway.”

With regard to glyphosate, a simple way to block glyphosate uptake is to take glycine. Approximately 3 grams, about half a teaspoon, a few times a day should be sufficient, along with an organic diet, so that you’re not adding more glyphosate with each meal. 
To improve detoxification, I recommend activating your natural glutathione production with molecular hydrogen tablets. All of these strategies should help improve your resilience against SARS-CoV-2, and may even help your body detoxify if you’ve made the mistake of getting this experimental gene therapy.
Another helpful strategy is to maintain a neutral pH. You want your pH to be right around 7, which you can measure with an inexpensive urine strip. The lower your pH, the more acidic you are.
A simple way to raise your pH if it’s too acidic (and most people are) is to take one-fourth teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) or potassium bicarbonate in water a few times a day. Improving your pH will improve the resiliency of your immune system and reduce the mineral loss from your bones, thereby reducing your risk of osteoporosis.
Helpful Supplements

Nutritional supplementation can also be helpful. Among the most important are:

Vitamin D — Vitamin D supplements are readily available and one of the least expensive supplements on the market. All things considered, vitamin D optimization is likely the easiest and most beneficial strategy that anyone can do to minimize their risk of COVID-19 and other infections, and can strengthen your immune system in a matter of a few weeks.

N-acetylcysteine (NAC) — NAC is a precursor to reduced glutathione, which appears to play a crucial role in COVID-19. According to one literature analysis,7 glutathione deficiency may actually be associated with COVID-19 severity, leading the author to conclude that NAC may be useful both for its prevention and treatment.

Zinc — Zinc plays a very important role in your immune system’s ability to ward off viral infections. Like vitamin D, zinc helps regulate your immune function8 — and a combination of zinc with a zinc ionophore, like hydroxychloroquine or quercetin, was in 2010 shown to inhibit SARS coronavirus in vitro. In cell culture, it also blocked viral replication within minutes.9 Importantly, zinc deficiency has been shown to impair immune function.10

Melatonin — Boosts immune function in a variety of ways and helps quell inflammation. Melatonin may also prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection by recharging glutathione11 and enhancing vitamin D synthesis, among other things.

Vitamin C — A number of studies have shown vitamin C can be very helpful in the treatment of viral illnesses, sepsis and ARDS,12 all of which are applicable to COVID-19. Its basic properties include anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, antioxidant, antithrombotic and antiviral activities. At high doses, it actually acts as an antiviral drug, actively inactivating viruses. Vitamin C also works synergistically with quercetin.13

Quercetin — A powerful immune booster and broad-spectrum antiviral, quercetin was initially found to provide broad-spectrum protection against SARS coronavirus in the aftermath of the 2003 SARS epidemic,14,15,16 and evidence suggests it may be useful for the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 as well.

B vitamins — B vitamins can also influence several COVID-19-specific disease processes, including17 viral replication and invasion, cytokine storm induction, adaptive immunity and hypercoagulability.

Mikovits also recommends Type 1 interferons.

“The type 1 [interferon] — the primary source of interferon, alpha and beta — is the plasmacytoid dendritic cell. We know that’s dysregulated in people with HIV, with XMRVs, with aberrant retroviral expression. Those people can’t make interferon.
Type 1 interferons can be provided in a spray that you can spray directly into your throat, your nose, and that will give you the protection you need so that the virus doesn’t [replicate]. It degrades it right away … Should you feel cough or fever, headache, immediately up your Type 1 interferon. Take a couple of sprays of that per day prophylactically as well, and that will keep the viral load down.
We know [SARS-CoV-2] isn’t a natural virus, we know this is lab-created, but it’ll calm the expression, it’ll degrade the RNA for those who can’t degrade the RNA, and that’s the job of Type 1 interferon — to have your macrophages be these little Pac-Men that simply degrade the viral mRNA.”

Nebulized Peroxide — My Favorite Treatment Choice

My personal choice for the treatment of COVID-19 symptoms is nebulized peroxide. It’s a home remedy I recommend everyone familiarize themselves with, as in many cases it can improve symptoms in mere hours. You can also use it as a preventive strategy if you know you’ve been exposed to someone who is ill.

Nebulizing hydrogen peroxide into your sinuses, throat and lungs is a simple, straightforward way to augment your body’s natural expression of hydrogen peroxide to combat infections and can be used both prophylactically after known exposure to COVID-19 and as a treatment for mild, moderate and even severe illness.

Dr. David Brownstein, who has successfully treated over 100 COVID-19 patients with nebulized peroxide, published a case paper18 about this treatment in the July 2020 issue of Science, Public Health Policy and The Law. He also reviews its benefits in “How Nebulized Peroxide Helps Against Respiratory Infections.”

Nebulized hydrogen peroxide is extremely safe, and all you need is a desktop nebulizer and food-grade hydrogen peroxide, which you’ll need to dilute with saline to 0.1% strength. I recommend buying these items beforehand so that you have everything you need and can begin treatment at home at the first signs of a respiratory infection.

In the video above, I go over the basics of this treatment. Be sure to buy a nebulizer that plugs into an electrical outlet, as battery-driven ones are too low-powered to be truly effective. Also make sure your nebulizer comes with a face mask, not just a mouth piece. If it doesn’t come with a face mask, you can pick one up separately. Just search Amazon for “nebulizer face mask for adults.”
More Information
Hopefully, we’ve provided enough information to make you reconsider the COVID-19 gene therapy “vaccine.” At bare minimum, do more research before you make your decision. The simple truth is you don’t need it, so it’s an unnecessary risk.
To learn more, be sure to preorder a copy of “Ending Plague: A Scholar’s Obligation in an Age of Corruption.” We’re in a crisis in far more ways than one, and getting educated — and then educating others — is absolutely crucial. The lives of millions of people are at stake. So please, take the time to digest this information, understand it, and share it with those you love.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/14/covid-19-vaccine-gene-therapy.aspx

In breathless tones, NBC News recently reported1 the existence of a business where mask wearing isn’t enforced. In the Naples, Florida, grocery store, hardly anyone wears a mask. The store’s owner, who the news station claimed “is known for his conservative and often controversial viewpoints,” told a reporter he’s never worn a mask in his life and never will.
The store does have a mask policy posted, but video shows that many customers are fine with not wearing one. There is a mask mandate in Naples, but Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has issued a ruling that makes enforcement of the rule difficult, NBC said.

The irony of the whole thing is that while the media claims mask mandates are based on science and will “save lives,” this simply isn’t true. Science is actually being ignored wholesale and recommendations are primarily pushed based on emotional justifications and triggers. If science were actually followed, universal mask wearing by healthy people would not — indeed could not — be recommended.
A Timeline of Unscientific Extremes
From the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, health experts have been unable to unify around a cohesive message about face masks. In February 2020, Surgeon General Jerome Adams sent out a tweet urging Americans to stop buying masks, saying they are “NOT effective.”2 (He has since deleted that tweet.) Adams also warned that if worn or handled improperly, face masks can increase your risk of infection.3
Similarly, in March 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci stated4 that “people should not be walking around with masks” because “it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.” Logically, 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.
By June 2020, universal mask mandates became the norm and we were told we had to wear them because there may be asymptomatic super-spreaders among us. Interestingly enough, that same month, the World Health Organization admitted that asymptomatic transmission was “very rare.” If that’s true, then why should healthy, asymptomatic people mask up?
By July 2020, Fauci claimed his initial dismissal of face masks had been in error and that he’d downplayed their importance simply to ensure there would be a sufficient supply for health care workers, who need them most.5
Fast-forward a few weeks, and by the end of July 2020, Fauci went to the next extreme, flouting the recommendation to wear 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.6
This despite the fact that a March 31, 2020, report7 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. If you wear goggles or a face shield, you may actually be more prone to touch your eyes to rub away sweat, condensation and/or scratch an itch.
Toward the end of November 2020, the asymptomatic spread narrative was effectively destroyed by the publication of a Chinese study8 involving nearly 9.9 million individuals. It revealed not a single case of COVID-19 could be traced to an asymptomatic individual who had tested positive.
The logical reason for all this flip-flopping is because actual science is NOT being taken into account. From the start, the available research has been rather consistent: Mask wearing does not reduce the prevalence of viral illness and asymptomatic spread is exceedingly rare, if not nonexistent.
Around December 2020, recommendations for double-masking emerged,9 and this trend gained momentum through extensive media coverage as we moved into the first weeks of 2021.10 Undeterred by scientific evidence and logic alike, by the end of January 2021, “experts” started promoting the use of three11,12 or even four13 masks, whether you’re symptomatic or not.
These recommendations quickly sparked a mild backlash, with other experts encouraging the return to common sense, as wearing three or more masks may impair airflow, which can worsen any number of health conditions.
True to form, while promoting the concept of double-masking as recently as January 29, 2021,14 by February 1, Fauci conceded “There is no data that indicates double-masking is effective,” but that “There are many people who feel … if you really want to have an extra little bit of protection, ‘maybe I should put two masks on.'”15 In other words, the suggestion is based on emotion, not actual science.

The Singular Truth Behind Mixed Messaging About Masks

The logical reason for all this flip-flopping is because actual science is NOT being taken into account. From the start, the available research has been rather consistent: Mask wearing does not reduce the prevalence of viral illness and asymptomatic spread is exceedingly rare, if not nonexistent.
Both of these scientific consensuses negate the rationale for universal mask wearing by healthy (asymptomatic) people. The only time mask wearing makes sense is in a hospital setting and if you are actually symptomatic and need to be around others, and even then, you need to be aware that it provides only limited protection.
The reason for this is because the virus is aerosolized and spreads through the air. Aerosolized viruses — especially SARS-CoV-2, which is about half the size of influenza viruses — cannot be blocked by a mask, as explained in my interview with Denis Rancourt, who has conducted a thorough review of the published science on masks and viral transmission.
According to Rancourt, “NONE of these well-designed studies that are intended to remove observational bias found a statistically significant advantage of wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask.”
COVID-19 Specific Mask Trial Failed to Prove Benefit
While most mask studies have looked at influenza, the first COVID-19-specific randomized controlled surgical mask trial, published November 18, 2020, confirmed previous findings, showing that:16,17

a. Masks may reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may actually increase your risk by 23%
b. The vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free

The study included 3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study. Based on the adherence scores reported, 46% of participants always wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended and 7% failed to follow recommendations.
Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no significant 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. So, essentially, we’re destroying economies and lives around the world to protect a tiny minority from getting a positive PCR test result which, as detailed in “Asymptomatic ‘Casedemic’ Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear,” means little to nothing.
CDC Relies on Anecdotal Data to Promote Mask Use
If you want additional proof that health authorities are not concerned with following the best available science, look no further than the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.18 What do they rely on as the primary piece of “evidence” to back up its mask recommendation?
A wholly anecdotal story about two symptomatic hair stylists who interacted with 139 clients during eight days is all they offer. Sixty-seven of the clients agreed to be interviewed and tested. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
The fact that the stylists and all clients “universally wore masks in the salon” is therefore seen as evidence that the masks prevented the spread of infection. The Danish study reviewed above didn’t even make it onto the CDC’s list of studies.

The CDC’s own data19,20,21 also show 70.6% of COVID-19 patients reported “always” wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14.4% reported having worn a mask “often.” So, a total of 85% of people who came down with COVID-19 had “often” or “always” worn a mask.

This too contradicts the idea that mask wearing will protect against the infection, and is probably a slightly more reliable indicator of effectiveness than the anecdotal hairdresser story.

Another recent investigation22 revealed the same trend, showing that states with mask mandates had an average of 27 positive SARS-CoV-2 “cases” per 100,000 people, whereas states with no mask mandates had just 17 cases per 100,000. I reviewed these and other findings in my December 31, 2020, article, “Mask Mandates Are Absolutely Useless.”
Masks Don’t Protect Against Smoke
The CDC also contradicts its own conclusions that masks protect against viral spread by specifying that wearing a cloth face mask will NOT protect you against wildfire smoke, because “they do not catch small, harmful particles in smoke that can harm your health.”23 To get any protection from harmful smoke particles, you’d have to use an N95 respirator.
The particulate matter in wildfire smoke can range from 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller in smoke and haze, to 10 micrometers in wind-blown dust.24 SARS-CoV-2, meanwhile, has a diameter between 0.06 and 0.14 micrometers, far tinier than the particulate found in smoke.
SARS-CoV-2 is also about half the size of most viruses, which tend to measure between 0.02 microns to 0.3 microns.25 Meanwhile, virus-laden saliva or respiratory droplets expelled when talking or coughing measure between 5 and 10 micrometers.26

N95 masks can filter particles as small as 0.3 microns,27 so they may prevent a majority of respiratory droplets from escaping, but not aerosolized viruses. Influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2 are small enough to float in the air column, so as long as you can still breathe, they can flow in and out of your respiratory tract.

The following video offers a simple demonstration of how masks “work.” Or rather, don’t, as the vapor flows in and out, all around the mask — even if you’re wearing two of them.

@chadroyvermont Psychrometric’s Visualized we show you what Science has missed . Take a deeper look into this Science it will help stop Covid!#science #school #fyp ? original sound – user579705

More Science
If you’re still on the fence about whether masks are a necessity that must be forced on everyone, including young children, I urge you to take the time to actually read through some of the studies that have been published. In addition to the research reviewed above, here’s a sampling of what else you’ll find when you start searching for data on face masks as a strategy to prevent viral infection:

Surgical masks and N95 masks perform about the same — A 2009 study28 published in JAMA compared the effectiveness of surgical masks and N95 respirators to prevent seasonal influenza in a hospital setting; 24% of the nurses in the surgical mask group still got the flu, as did 23% of those who wore N95 respirators.

Cloth masks perform far worse than medical masks — A study29 published in 2015 found health care workers who wore cloth masks had the highest rates of influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections, when compared to those wearing medical masks or controls (who used standard practices that included occasional medical mask wearing).

Compared to controls and the medical mask group, those wearing cloth masks had a 72% higher rate of lab-confirmed viral infections. According to the authors:

“Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks … Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”

“No evidence” masks prevent transmission of flu in hospital setting — In September 2018, the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) won its second of two grievances filed against the Toronto Academic Health Science Network’s (TAHSN) “vaccinate or mask” policy. As reported by the ONA:30

“After reviewing extensive expert evidence submitted … Arbitrator William Kaplan, in his September 6 decision,31 found that St. Michael’s VOM policy is ‘illogical and makes no sense’ …
In 2015, Arbitrator James Hayes struck down the same type of policy in an arbitration that included other Ontario hospitals across the province … Hayes found there was ‘scant evidence’ that forcing nurses to use masks reduced the transmission of influenza to patients …
ONA’s well-regarded expert witnesses, including Toronto infection control expert Dr. Michael Gardam, Quebec epidemiologist Dr. Gaston De Serres, and Dr. Lisa Brosseau, an American expert on masks, testified that there was … no evidence that forcing healthy nurses to wear masks during the influenza season did anything to prevent transmission of influenza in hospitals.
They further testified that nurses who have no symptoms are unlikely to be a real source of transmission and that it was not logical to force healthy unvaccinated nurses to mask.”

No significant reduction in flu transmission when used in community setting — A policy review paper32 published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in May 2020, which reviewed “the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures … in non-healthcare settings” concluded, based on 10 randomized controlled trials, that there was “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks …”

Risk reduction may be due to chance — In 2019, a review of interventions for flu epidemics published by the World Health Organization concluded the evidence for face masks was slim, and may be due to chance:33

“Ten relevant RCTs were identified for this review and meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of community-based use of face masks …
In the pooled analysis, although the point estimates suggested a relative risk reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza of 22% in the face mask group, and a reduction of 8% in the face mask group regardless of whether or not hand hygiene was also enhanced, the evidence was insufficient to exclude chance as an explanation for the reduced risk of transmission.”

“No evidence” that universal masking prevents COVID-19 — A 2020 guidance memo by the World Health Organization pointed out that:34

“Meta-analyses in systematic literature reviews have reported that the use of N95 respirators compared with the use of medical masks is not associated with any statistically significant lower risk of the clinical respiratory illness outcomes or laboratory-confirmed influenza or viral infections …
At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

Mask or no mask, same difference — A meta-analysis and scientific review35 led by respected researcher Thomas Jefferson, cofounder of the Cochrane Collaboration, posted on the prepublication server medRxiv in April 2020, found that, compared to no mask, mask wearing in the general population or among health care workers did not reduce influenza-like illness cases or influenza.
In one study, which looked at quarantined workers, it actually increased the risk of contracting influenza, but lowered the risk of influenza-like illness. They also found there was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators.

Statistics Show Mask Use Has No Impact on Infection Rates
Another way to shed light on whether masks work or not is to compare infection rates (read: positive test rates) before and after the implementation of universal mask mandates. In his article,36 “These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing to Stop COVID,” bioengineer Yinon Weiss does just that.
He points out that “No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time.” To see all of the graphs, check out Weiss’ article37 or Twitter thread.38 Here are just a select few to bring home the point:

To Pose a Risk, You Need To Be Symptomatic
Studies have repeatedly shown that masks do not significantly reduce transmission of viruses, so it’s safe to assume that a mask will in fact fail in this regard. That leaves two key factors: There must be a contagious person around, and they must be sufficiently close for transmission to occur.
We now know that asymptomatic individuals — even if they test positive using a PCR test — are highly unlikely to be contagious.39 So, really, a key prevention strategy for COVID-19 seems to be to stay home if you have symptoms. As for masking up when you’re healthy, let alone double, triple or quadruple masking, there’s simply no scientific consensus for that strategy.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/17/mask-mandate-for-all.aspx

If you’re relying on Google and YouTube for your daily dose of news and health information, you’re missing out. Big Tech’s censorship is in full effect, which means they’re choosing what you get to see — and what you don’t.
Following are some of my top videos that have been banned by Google and YouTube — many of them featuring interviews with health experts sharing their medical or scientific expertise. What is it that they don’t want you to see? You can watch them — fully uncensored — for yourself and find out — then make up your own mind about where to turn to seek the truth.

Download Interview Transcript

How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions

Download Interview Transcript

How Nebulized Peroxide Helps Against Respiratory Infections

Download Interview Transcript

Don’t Relinquish Civil Liberties for False Sense of Security

Download Interview Transcript

Judy Mikovits Suggests Retroviruses Play a Role in COVID-19

Could Hydrogen Peroxide Treat Coronavirus?

Can You Trust Bill Gates and the WHO With COVID-19 Pandemic Response?

Download Interview Transcript

Ozone Therapy for Coronavirus

Download Interview Transcript

Nutrition and Natural Strategies Offer Hope Against COVID-19

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/12/google-banned-mercola-videos.aspx

In this interview, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT, reviews the health impacts of glyphosate. She has just finished writing a book about glyphosate called “Toxic Legacy: How the Weedkiller Glyphosate is Destroying Our Health and the Environment,” which is expected to be published in June 2021.
For years, glyphosate was assumed safe and claims of toxicity were vehemently denied. But in recent years, studies on glyphosate have been demonstrating toxicity even at very low levels. Seneff also believes glyphosate exposure may be a key player in cases of severe COVID-19, which we’ll unravel in this interview.
Glyphosate’s Mechanism of Action The “gly” in glyphosate actually stands for the amino acid glycine. The glycine amino acid in glyphosate has a methylphosphonate group attached to its nitrogen atom, which is responsible for its effects and toxicity.
After studying the research literature on glyphosate, Seneff has reached the conclusion that your body sometimes substitutes glyphosate for the amino acid glycine when it is constructing proteins, and this can have devastating consequences in some cases. The proteins created with glyphosate instead of glycine simply don’t work because glyphosate is much larger than glycine and also negatively charged, and as a result this alters important physical characteristics.
Monsanto’s own research, dating back to the late 1980s, shows that glyphosate accumulates in various tissues, even though they claim it doesn’t.1 The Monsanto researchers proposed that it was “incorporated into” the proteins in the tissues. This is not widely appreciated, even in the natural health community.
Now, if you have a distorted analog of glycine (in the form of glyphosate), the protein constructed from it is not going to work like it’s supposed to. In her book, Seneff details the amino acids in proteins that are most susceptible to damage because of what she calls a “glyphosate susceptible motif.”

“It’s really fascinating biology and so terrifying when you think of the potential consequences, if I’m right,” she says. “It matches so well with all the diseases that are going up dramatically in our society that I really think I’m onto something huge here.”

An aromatic amino acid called EPSP synthase is a critical enzyme that almost surely gets disrupted by glyphosate through this mechanism of substituting for glycine. This gets a bit technical, but it is important. The plant version of EPSP synthase binds a phosphate group in its substrate phosphoenolpyruvate at a site where there is a highly-conserved glycine residue (highly conserved usually means that it is critical for proper function). 
It has been shown experimentally that, if you change the DNA code so that the glycine is substituted by an amino acid called alanine (one extra methyl group), the enzyme becomes completely insensitive to glyphosate at any concentration. It also takes a hit on phosphate binding because of the extra methyl group, but you can tweak another amino acid nearby to fix this problem, while still keeping its insensitivity to glyphosate. 
Researchers from Dow-Dupont did exactly this to a maize version of EPSP synthase using CRISPR technology and were able to create synthetically a version of the maize’s own EPSP synthase that was completely resistant to glyphosate. The title of this paper is: “Desensitizing Plant EPSP Synthase to Glyphosate: Optimized Global Sequence Context Accommodates a Glycine-to-Alanine Change in the Active Site.”2
The shikimate pathway is the pathway that produces aromatic amino acids, which are essential to humans as we cannot create these amino acids in our body. The argument is we’re not susceptible to glyphosate because our cells don’t have EPSP synthase — in fact, they don’t have the entire shikimate pathway.
However, our gut microbes do have that pathway, and they use it to make essential amino acids for the host. So, our gut microbes are indeed affected by glyphosate, and when they’re damaged, our health can suffer in any number of ways.
But what might be an even more devastating problem with glyphosate is the way it probably messes up a large number of proteins that bind phosphate at a site where there is at least one, and often three, highly conserved glycine residues. Glyphosate slips its methylphosphonate group into the spot that is supposed to be where phosphate from the substrate fits snugly. Phosphate can’t bind because glyphosate is in the way. 
The arguments for why glyphosate specifically disrupts proteins that depend on glycine for phosphate binding are described more fully in a paper Seneff published together with colleagues arguing that glyphosate is a major factor in kidney failure among young agricultural workers in Central America.3
The Importance of Deuterium Laszlo Boros is a professor of pediatrics at UCLA and an expert on deutenomics, “the science of autonomic deuterium discrimination in nature.”4 After reading one of Seneff’s papers, he contacted her, suggesting she look into deuterium.

“I was blown away, and I immediately saw the connection to glyphosate,” she says. “This was a year ago in December, and I’ve just been reading everything I can on deuterium since then and hooking it to glyphosate. It’s just astonishing what I found, even, ultimately, [linking it] to COVID-19.
It’s been quite a year for me in terms of major breakthroughs in my understanding of how metabolism works and how it’s getting messed up by glyphosate, and then how that’s causing us to not be able to effectively deal with COVID-19.”

In normal physiology, your cells, specifically the mitochondria, function to help deplete your body of deuterium. Deuterium is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen. If you didn’t already know, deuterium is also known as heavy hydrogen, because it has a neutron in addition to the proton and electron in the hydrogen atom.
Provided your cell is healthy, it has deuterium-depleting enzymes and organelles that help remove deuterium from your cells. If your mitochondria are damaged by glyphosate, they’re not going to be able to eliminate the deuterium properly.
Deuterium is like iron in the way that it’s both essential in the right amounts and toxic in excess. Hydrogen is the smallest atom and by far the most common atom in your body. Deuterium, being a heavy hydrogen, has one extra neutron, in addition to the normal proton and electron that regular hydrogen has.
Now, your cells are surrounded by structured water, which is negatively charged and contributes to your body’s energy production by supplying deuterium-depleted hydrogen to lysosomes and mitochondria. The structured water is maintained by sulfates, which makes sulfate extremely important for health. Sulfate is made dysfunctional by glyphosate, which in turn destroys structured water, resulting in impaired energy production in the cell.5

“The mitochondria have [a] membrane, which has a part inside the membrane that’s really, really important,” Seneff says. “That’s where you have those protons, and you really don’t want it to be deuterons. This is what Laszlo brought home to me.”

How Your Body Creates Deuterium-Depleted Water
Endothelial NOS (eNOS) makes nitric oxide (NO), and for every molecule of NO that it makes, it produces two molecules of water, which are deuterium depleted. Stephanie believes the NO created by eNOS may act as a signal that deuterium-depleted water has been created. Interestingly enough, deuterium-depleted water is also created during the inflammatory process.

“The inflammation is there for a good reason, and the reason is to produce deuterium-depleted water,” Seneff says. “It’s all because the mitochondria are failing in their task of producing their own deuterium-depleted water, which they get in part through the structured water from the sulfate [and] through enzymes that are highly skilled at choosing hydrogen over deuterium …
NADH and NADPH are also fascinating. I’ve been chasing them through all the proteins. They are interesting because they are the carriers of that wonderful hydrogen that’s not deuterium. When you trace what’s doing what, where, you realize that the cytoplasm is producing NADH and handing it over to the mitochondria.
The mitochondria then take that H [hydrogen atom] off and throw it into the intermembrane space. So, the whole process ends up with the intermembrane space being assured that this is H [hydrogen] and not D [deuterium].
This is crucial because then those protons, once they build up, come back through the ATPase [ATP synthase] pump. If they are deuterons, they are going to wreck the pump … You release reactive oxygen species [that] break it, and of course, then you can’t make ATP.”

For clarification, the ATP synthase pump works like a mini-motor. When a hydrogen atom with one proton goes through it, it works flawlessly and generates ATP. If deuterium enters it, which has one neutron and one proton, making it twice the weight of hydrogen, it breaks that motor.
Interestingly, deuterium is everywhere, naturally, but your body has developed an intricate way to make it harmless by trapping it in the structured water, where it’s beneficial, as it actually supports the creation of structured water.
Problems arise when you cannot make enough structured water to sequester it all. Then, the deuterium gets loose, causing mitochondrial dysfunction, impairing energy production and contributing to chronic disease.
Glyphosate Damages Health in Many Ways

As noted by Seneff, glyphosate harms your health in a number of ways. For example, she cites a recent paper showing it causes endocrine disruption, which can lead to breast cancer, reproductive issues, obesity and thyroid problems.6

Another paper shows glyphosate sensitizes cells to be more receptive to cancer after exposure to other chemicals.7 “Glyphosate makes everything else more toxic than it would otherwise be,” Seneff says. “It disrupts your defense system against toxic chemicals.” Other research shows epigenetic and generational effects, even when no apparent problems can be found in the first generation exposed.8
I think [COVID-19] is mostly about glyphosate. If you’ve accumulated a lot of glyphosate in your tissues, you’re not going to do well with COVID-19, and that’s because [your body] is trying to repair the mitochondria in the immune cells so that the immune cells can actually clear the virus. If they can’t make ATP, they can’t do their job, and the virus flourishes. ~ Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D.

Glyphosate also impairs flavoproteins — proteins that bind flavins. Many of these proteins play a crucial role in transferring hydrogen from NADH or NADPH to other molecules, essentially supporting the delivery of pure hydrogen to the mitochondria. Flavoproteins have a characteristic GxGxxG motif at the site where they bind phosphate in the flavins. The ‘G’ stands for glycine and the ‘x’ is a wildcard — any amino acid, including glycine.

This means they have at least three susceptible glycines at this critical region of the protein. Flavoproteins are molecules that facilitate the transfer of protons and electrons, and know how to avoid deuterium, by exploiting a special feature of hydrogen called proton tunneling.

All of them can be expected to be disrupted by glyphosate. A critical flavoprotein is succinate dehydrogenase, and several papers have shown it is adversely affected by glyphosate, Seneff says. It is the only enzyme that plays a role in both oxidative phosphorylation and the citric acid cycle in the mitochondria.

In addition to aromatic amino acids, the shikimate pathway is essential for riboflavin synthesis, and riboflavin, a B vitamin, is the main precursor to flavins. This means that riboflavin deficiency can be triggered from glyphosate exposure as well.
Glyphosate also causes damage by:

Increasing calcium uptake in cells, which causes toxicity to neurons
Interfering with the ability to take glutamate out of your synapses
Making manganese unavailable — This in turn disrupts and prevents glutamate from being turned into nontoxic glutamine after it’s removed from your synapses. The enzyme responsible for the conversion is also highly dependent on glycine, which could be replaced by glyphosate

Deuterium-Depleted Water May Be Central to Metabolism According to Seneff, it appears deuterium-depleted water plays a central, hitherto unappreciated role in metabolism, as your body has so many ways to create it. For example, deuterium-depleted water is created through:

• Fatty acid synthesis and metabolism — The enzymes that synthesize fatty acids incorporate hydrogen that is carried by NADPH. This hydrogen atom has been carefully selected to be assured not to be deuterium. Interestingly, lipoxygenase is a protein expressed during conditions of stress, and according to Seneff, it has the greatest ability to select protons over deuterons of any protein.

It is highly upregulated in severe COVID-19 infection. It appears the virus triggers an increase in lipoxygenase because the virus captures linoleic acid (LA) in pockets in the viral membrane. However, lipoxygenase is not a flavoprotein, and it also doesn’t bind heme — this makes it resistant to damage from glyphosate. So, its activation becomes an alternative pathway to fix the mitochondrial deuterium problem.

SARS-CoV-2 picks up the omega-6 LA as it crosses the cellular membrane, and the LA then triggers the production of lipoxygenase that modifies the LA into leukotrienes — signaling molecules that bring in damaging macrophages.
But deuterium-depleted water is also produced in this process, by yanking two hydrogen atoms out of the fat and combining them with oxygen to make water. Note that this is just yet another way that excess LA damages your body, but with an ulterior motive that we often fail to appreciate.
• Sterol synthesis and metabolism — including cholesterol, vitamin D, cortisol, and sex hormones.

• Aromatic amino acid derivatives — including melatonin and neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin, as well as thyroid hormone.

“All these molecules that go through these complicated steps are all focused on delivering deuterium-depleted water to the mitochondria,” Seneff says. “I mean, it’s an absolute obsession that the cell has.” She goes on to review how processes that may appear to have nothing but harmful effects are actually an effort to heal the body. This, for example, seems to be the case in COVID-19:

“I believe that whatever biology is doing, it’s doing it for a good reason. There may be damage, but there’s a good reason why you need that damage in order to survive long term. It’s trying to fix a problem that’s very serious, and that’s what I think is happening with [SARS-CoV-2].
Not only does it induce this lipoxygenase, which produces deuterium-depleted water, it then creates this inflammatory environment, which brings in the platelets and the macrophages, the immune cells and the stem cells. All these are having a big party in there in all this fluid that’s building up inside the lungs.
Meanwhile, it also increases the production of hyaluronic acid. Hyaluronic acid is able to trap deuterium-depleted water. It makes structured water. So, you get structured water inside the alveoli of the lungs, and then you get fluid water in the interstitial spaces.
The blood vessels are leaky, the capillaries are leaky. Everything’s coming out of the capillaries into this interstitial space where there’s this fluid water, and you’ve got this lipoxygenase making deuterium-depleted water.
So, you’re producing this environment of deuterium-depleted water, inviting the macrophages to come in, and the platelets release their mitochondria … the stem cells also come in and release their mitochondria, and then macrophages sweep up the mitochondria — and all this is happening in the interstitial space in the lungs where the fluid is. This is why you cannot breathe. You’re drowning.
Maybe one of the most important things platelets do is hang on to mitochondria that they can deliver to the macrophages under conditions of stress. So, what happens is all these mitochondria get released in that interstitial space, and the macrophages induce this macropinocytosis, where they actually sweep up the water and everything that’s in it and bring it inside the macrophage, including the mitochondria.
It’s actually been shown that platelets can release mitochondria into the environment, and macrophages can take them up and use them as perfectly functioning mitochondria. It’s astonishing. So, what they’re doing is restoring the mitochondrial health to the immune cells.”

Glyphosate Damage May Be a Factor in Severe COVID-19

As explained by Seneff, your immune cells are impaired by glyphosate, so the older you are, the more likely you’ve been exposed to glyphosate for decades and therefore have poorly functioning immune cells. Interestingly, Seneff points out that the comorbidities of COVID-19 — obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure — are also diseases whose prevalence is going up dramatically over time, exactly in step with glyphosate usage on core crops.

“So, I think it’s mostly about glyphosate,” she says. “If you’ve accumulated a lot of glyphosate in your tissues, you’re not going to do well with COVID-19, and that’s because [your body] is trying to repair the mitochondria in the immune cells so that the immune cells can actually clear the virus. If they can’t make ATP, they can’t do their job, and the virus flourishes.”

The key take-home message here is that this is yet another reason to clean up your diet to make sure you’re not exposed to glyphosate. It basically wrecks your immune cells, and the cascading damage that takes place in severe cases of COVID-19 appears to be your body’s response to salvage or repair those poorly functioning immune cells.
Dietary Recommendations The answer to this problem is, first of all, to eat certified organic foods whenever possible. “We won’t buy it if we can’t find certified organic, and we’ve really seen health improvements since we’ve started doing that,” Seneff says. “I really swear by it, and I try to get all my friends to do the same. I think if you can eliminate glyphosate, you can really see great improvements in your health no matter what your problems are.” Other dietary recommendations include eating/drinking more:

Sulfur-containing foods such as organic eggs and seafood

Organic grass fed milk and butter. Butter is one of the lowest deuterium foods available

Glacier water, which is naturally low in deuterium

Animal fats, which are also low in deuterium

Molecular hydrogen

Probiotics foods such as sauerkraut and apple cider vinegar

To help “push” glyphosate out of your body and mitigate its toxicity, you can take an inexpensive glycine supplement. I take between 5 and 10 grams a day. It has a light, sweet taste, so you can actually use it as a sweetener.

“It makes sense because it’s basically going to outnumber the glyphosate molecules,” Seneff says. “Remember, glyphosate’s going to compete with glycine in building the protein. If there’s a lot of glycine around, then it’s much less likely that glyphosate will get in there.”

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/14/stephanie-seneff-glyphosate.aspx