Category: Recommended

Sulfur is in the top three abundant minerals found in the human body1 and the topic of the interview with Stephanie Seneff, senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in the video above. An epidemiological study from West Virginia University found glucosamine sulfate supplements may lower overall mortality as much as regular exercise.2 The underlying mechanism may be related to sulfur.
If you’ve ever smelled sulfur gas when it comes up from well water, you won’t forget the smell of rotten eggs. In fact, the natural gas industry adds mercaptan, a component of sulfur, to natural gas — which has no odor — to make it smell like rotten eggs so you can detect a natural gas leak.3
While stinky in gas form, sulfur is an important mineral in the optimal function of your body. Interestingly, you’ll get most of your sulfur from specific amino acids, including methionine, cysteine, cystine, homocysteine, homocysteine and taurine.4 Of these, the two most important are methionine and cysteine. Methionine is an essential amino acid, which means your body can’t synthesize it so it must be supplied through your diet.
Your body can make cysteine from methionine but not from inorganic forms of sulfur. Some individuals are allergic to sulfa drugs and may have concerns about eating sulfur-containing foods. However, since sulfur is an essential element to life, no one is allergic to sulfur. When a sulfonamide molecule from sulfa drugs is metabolized it can bind to a protein that serves as an allergen.5
The sulfonamide molecule in sulfa drugs does have sulfur, but it is embedded in a compound with the unique property of being able to form proteins that cause an allergic reaction in some people. Glucosamine, the subject of the featured publication, is an amino acid that is often combined with sulfate and not known to trigger allergic reactions from the sulfate.6
However, most glucosamine supplements are derived from shellfish and there is some concern of an allergic reaction in people who have an allergy to shellfish.7 There are several forms of glucosamine supplements that are not interchangeable.
They include glucosamine sulfate, glucosamine hydrochloride and n-acetyl glucosamine. Glucosamine sulfate is what is used to help painful arthritis and was the focus of this study.
Study: Glucosamine/Chondroitin Lowers All-Cause Mortality

In an epidemiological study released from West Virginia University, researchers found that individuals using glucosamine supplements had reduced overall mortality to the degree conferred by regular exercise.8 The first author, Dana King, is chair of the department of family medicine at West Virginia University.9
He and his partner, a data analyst, evaluated information from 16,686 adults who had participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The results were from 1999 to 2010 and the data was merged with 2015 mortality figures.
The researchers controlled for a variety of confounding factors, such as age, activity level and smoking status, and found those taking a glucosamine/chondroitin supplement each day for at least a year or longer had a 39% reduced potential of all-cause mortality and a 65% reduction in mortality from cardiovascular-related events.10
King shared that his interest in glucosamine and chondroitin began when he learned many of the cyclists he rode with on weekends used the supplement. King points out that the data are from an epidemiological study and not a clinical trial so it can’t conclusively demonstrate that death is less likely, but goes on to comment:11

“Does this mean that if you get off work at five o’clock one day, you should just skip the gym, take a glucosamine pill and go home instead? That’s not what we suggest. Keep exercising, but the thought that taking a pill would also be beneficial is intriguing.

Once we took everything into account, the impact was pretty significant. In my view, it’s important that people know about this, so they can discuss the findings with their doctor and make an informed choice. Glucosamine is over the counter, so it is readily available.”

The results of this study support previous research published in the BMJ in which researchers engaged 466,039 participants without cardiovascular disease to determine if there was an association between glucosamine use and a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease.12
After adjusting for confounding factors, such as age, body mass index, dietary intake, sex and drug use, researchers found there was a “significantly lower risk” of 9% to 22% of all outcome measures.
The outcome measures included cardiovascular disease events, coronary heart disease and stroke in people who used glucosamine supplements daily. The researchers found that their findings supported past studies that had demonstrated an inverse relationship between glucosamine supplementation and cardiovascular disease risk and mortality.
Interestingly, they also found those taking glucosamine and who were current smokers experienced reductions in cardiovascular disease greater than in those who were past smokers or never smokers. They theorized this was because smokers have a higher level of inflammation and glucosamine is associated with a reduction in C-reactive protein, a marker for systemic inflammation.
Sulfur Deficiency May Contribute to Multiple Conditions

An opinion piece that ran in the same publication points out that the sulfate in glucosamine sulfate supplements, which make up “most glucosamine products available on the market,”13 may have been a contributing factor as it satisfies a potential sulfur deficiency.14
One study analyzing how much sulfur is available in the diet concluded “a significant portion of the population that included disproportionately the aged, may not be receiving sufficient sulfur.”15 Scientists are aware that nutrient deficiencies can produce significant health problems.
In one paper in the Journal of the American Heart Association the writers said: “Micronutrients are necessary cofactors for normal cardiac metabolism, and deficiencies have been implicated in the development and progression of HF [heart failure].”16
Seneff and her team proposed the hypothesis that atherosclerosis is the result of a cholesterol sulfate deficiency.17 They proposed that atherosclerosis can be explained by the body using plaque to replenish cholesterol and sulfate to the microvasculature. They argue that insufficient sulfate may increase the risk of high blood pressure and blood clot formation.
Seneff calls sulfur an “unappreciated deficiency” since it is found in several foods and most assume that your diet meets your minimum daily requirements.18 Excellent food sources include eggs, garlic, onions and green leafy vegetables. Nuts, grass fed meat and seafood also contain sulfur.
However, a depletion in the soil creates a deficiency in your fruits and vegetables and may contribute, in part, to sulfur deficiency. She theorizes that a sulfur deficiency is related to rising obesity rates and is connected to glucose metabolism and cardiovascular disease.
In her research, she found people who experience muscle wasting from diseases such as cancer, HIV, sepsis, irritable bowel disease and athletic overtraining may be the result of a deficiency in cysteine and glutathione, two amino acids with sulfur molecules.
MSM Is a Powerful Sulfur Supplement

Sulfur can be found in your muscles, skin and bones. It helps with fat digestion, is needed to make bile acid and required to form collagen.19 The element plays important roles in hundreds of physiological processes. For example, sulfur bonds are needed for proteins to maintain their shape and they determine the biological activity of the protein.
Hair and nails are made of a tough protein called keratin, which is high in sulfur, whereas connective tissue and cartilage have protein with flexible sulfur bonds.20 In addition to proteins, sulfur is also required for the proper structure and biological activity of enzymes.
Methylsulfonylmethane (MSM) is a sulfur donor and contains 34% elemental sulfur by weight.21 Many of the benefits of supplementing with MSM are related to the compound’s ability to reduce inflammation, regulate the balance of reactive oxygen species and antioxidant enzymes,22 and modulate your immune response.23 It is widely used in the treatment of pain, especially pain associated with arthritis.
In one clinical trial, researchers found people with osteoarthritis of the knee who took three grams of MSM twice a day for 12 weeks experienced a significant reduction in pain and improvement in physical function, as compared to those who took the placebo.24
In another randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study,25 data showed participants with mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis experienced an analgesic and anti-inflammatory effect when given oral glucosamine and MSM, both individually and in combination.
In this study, the treatment groups received 500 milligrams (mg) of glucosamine and/or 500 mg of MSM three times a day for 12 weeks. According to the authors:

“Combination therapy showed better efficacy in reducing pain and swelling and in improving the functional ability of joints than the individual agents.

All the treatments were well tolerated. The onset of analgesic and anti-inflammatory activity was found to be more rapid with the combination than with glucosamine. It can be concluded that the combination of MSM with glucosamine provides better and more rapid improvement in patients with osteoarthritis.”

The Benefits of Bone Broth and Epsom Salts

In addition to food and MSM supplementation, you may also absorb sulfur from homemade bone broth or a relaxing soak in a warm Epsom salt bath. As I’ve written in the past, bone broth contains other valuable minerals that your body can easily absorb in use, including magnesium, phosphorus, calcium, silicon, sulfur chondroitin and glucosamine.26
Bone broth also helps attract and hold liquids in the digestive system and supports proper digestion. In one study, researchers found that chicken soup has medicinal qualities and significantly mitigated inflammation and infection.27,28 The amino acids in bone broth helps to fight inflammation and courtesy of chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine, it helps to reduce joint pain and inflammation.29
Bone broth is made from animal bones. It’s important to use homemade bone broth since the store-bought variety is produced by adding chemical-laden bouillon cubes, whereas traditional soups are made by cooking bones and meat for several hours. In its simplest form, it’s made by using bones, vinegar and spices, and simmering in a pot or slow cooker for as long as 24 to 72 hours.
Bone broth made over longer periods of time increases the release of gelatin, minerals and other nutrients from the bones, which are key to many of the benefits and restorative properties.
Epsom salt baths are a simple way of absorbing both magnesium and sulfate. Epsom salt is magnesium sulfate, which is easily absorbed through your skin. It is also a preferable way of absorbing magnesium and sulfate since it’s readily available to your body without having to be converted as it is when taken orally.
As a general recommendation, use 1 to 2 cups of Epsom salt in a tub of water. The warmer the water, the more the salt will dissolve and the more your body will be able to absorb it.
Some people may experience a negative reaction, such as irritability or hyperactivity. In this case, decrease the amount you use and incrementally raise it based on your tolerance. Alternatively, make a foot bath of one part Epsom salt to two parts water and soak your feet for about 30 minutes.

I’ve reviewed the science on mask wearing in several articles over the past nine months. So far, there’s not been a study showing a significant benefit. On the contrary, evidence is conspicuously piled on the side of the argument that they don’t protect the wearer or prevent the spread of infection in community settings.
Despite the lack of scientific basis, universal mask mandates continue to be pushed to ludicrous ends. Case in point: A family was recently booted off a United Airlines flight because the couple’s 2-year-old daughter refused to wear a face mask.1
Family Kicked Off Flight Over 2-Year-Old’s Mask Refusal

The father, Eliz Orban, spoke to Eyewitness News about the incident in their December 13, 2020, report. United Airlines issued a statement about the event, saying the company has “a multi-layered set of policies, including mandating that everyone onboard 2 and older wears a mask.”
United Airlines added that “These procedures are not only backed by guidance from the CDC and our partners at the Cleveland Clinic, but they’re also consistent across every major airline.” The Orban family were refunded for the flight, and contrary to the couple’s original video2 statement, they are not banned from future flights.
This is about as unreasonable as it can get. Not only do universal mask mandates have no scientific backing in general, but insisting that a 2-year-old wear a mask is also nonsensical for the fact that the only way to get what little benefit you can from a mask is by putting it on, wearing and removing properly.
Readers Digest published “11 Mistakes You’re Probably Making with Face Masks,”3 reviewing all the ways in which you might nullify the mask’s benefit. The idea that a young child would be able to comply with these detailed instructions is beyond unreasonable, seeing how a vast majority of adults cannot even follow them.
One key way by which you negate the benefit of a mask is by touching it. Yet people are constantly fiddling with their masks as they fall down or shift on their face as they talk or move around. A young child is even more likely to contaminate the mask beyond the point of it providing any benefit whatsoever.
Young Children Pose Extremely Low Risk to Others

Importantly though, young children are insignificant disease vectors,4, 5,6,7 meaning they rarely test positive or spread the infection. This makes kicking the family off the plane all the more egregious. In truth, the smartest person in this whole affair is the baby who refused to comply.
Interestingly enough, back in May 2020, United Airlines’ COVID-19 policy stressed the need to avoid confrontation. In a statement to CNN for a May 14, 2020, article on airline mask policies, United Airlines said:8

“If for some reason this policy causes a disturbance onboard, we’ve counseled our flight attendants to use their de-escalation skills, and they do have the flexibility to reseat customers on the aircraft as needed.”

Apparently, the flight attendant in this case disregarded such solutions and chose the most traumatic path in dealing with the Orbans instead. Incidentally, while the Orbans are apparently being allowed to fly United Airlines in the future, the company does have a policy that calls for the permanent suspension of noncompliant passengers, according to Forbes.9
Hundreds of Mask Refusers Placed on No-Fly List

The Orbans aren’t the first to be kicked off a flight over a mask dispute. According to Delta Airlines CEO Ed Bastian, nearly 700 people have been placed on the company’s no-fly list since May 2020 for refusing to wear a face mask.10 The Orbans also aren’t’ the first to be booted because of an uncompliant child.
September 14, 2020, CNN reported11 that Jodi Degyansky and her 2-year-old son were asked to de-board a Southwestern Airlines flight because her son had his mask pulled under his chin while eating some gummy bears. A flight attendant told Degyansky that families with small children shirk the company’s mask policy by eating throughout the entire flight.
Even though Degyansky’s son voluntarily put his mask back on, the plane taxied back to the gate and the pair were told to get off. “I feel horrible that my son had to endure that,” Degyansky told CNN.12 In August, Southwest Airlines also booted a passenger and her 3-year-old autistic son off a flight after the boy became upset by efforts to force a mask onto his face.13
Defund Forced Maskers

Forcing young children to wear masks for hours on end is ludicrous for all the reasons already mentioned. Even the idea that adults must wear them while flying flies in the face of scientific evidence. My sister recently took a flight during which she noted that first-class passengers were unmasked throughout the entire flight without repercussions. Meanwhile, flight attendants policed everyone else.
If we were really dealing with a lethal virus, wouldn’t first-class passengers be as prone to carry and contract it as those with cheaper tickets? And if masks really did work, wouldn’t first-class passengers be forced to wear them as well? Enforcement discrepancies alone point to the whole thing being part of a class war and little else.
So, what’s the answer? Probably the best strategy would be to “defund” companies that strictly enforce these unscientific rules. In short, don’t fly with airlines that boot children off for mask infractions.
What Risk Do Flights Pose?

Do flights pose an infection risk? Probably, yes, for the simple fact that you’re in a confined space with many individuals. At least two studies14,15 published in November 2020 have confirmed that infection can and does take place during flights.

Asymptomatic individuals — even if they test positive using a PCR test — are highly unlikely to be contagious.

Unfortunately, both looked at flights that took place in early March 2020, and neither specify whether passengers were wearing masks or not. Proximity to an infected person appears to be the key finding in these studies, which suggests that spacing out passengers and not filling flights to capacity is the right thing to do to limit transmission.
That said, experts who have looked at available flight data say your risk of catching COVID-19 during a flight is still pretty slim. According to an August 20, 2020, report by CNN:16

“If new scientific claims are borne out, the perceived heightened risk of boarding an airplane could be unfounded. In one case, about 328 passengers and crew members were tested for coronavirus after it was learned that a March 31 flight from the US to Taiwan had been carrying 12 passengers who were symptomatic at the time.
However, all the other passengers tested negative, as did the crew members. And while there have certainly been cases of infected passengers passing the virus on to an airplane’s crew or fellow travelers in recent months, the transmission rates are low …
[A] flight from the UK to Vietnam on March 2, in which one passenger seemingly spread the virus to around 14 other passengers, as well as a crew member, is so far believed to be the only known on-board transmission to multiple people.
One explanation for the apparently low risk level is that the air in modern aircraft cabins is replaced with new fresh air every two to three minutes, and most planes are fitted with air filters designed to trap 99.99% of particles …
Arnold Barnett, a professor of statistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management, tried to quantify the odds of becoming infected with the virus while on board a short flight in a recent study that looked at the benefits of the empty middle seat policy.
According to his findings, based on short haul flights in the US on aircraft configured with three seats on either side of the aisle … the risk of catching the virus on a full flight is just 1 in 4,300. Those odds fall to 1 in 7,700 if the middle seat is vacant.”

Barnett does include mask wearing as one of the factors in his risk calculation. I’m curious how he rated the effectiveness of the masks, seeing how he states that:

“Three things have to go wrong for you to get infected (on a flight). There has to be a COVID-19 patient on board and they have to be contagious. If there is such a person on your flight, assuming they are wearing a mask, it has to fail to prevent the transmission. They also have to be close enough …”

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 onboard, 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.17 So, really, a key prevention strategy for COVID-19 seems to be to stay home if you have symptoms. Clearly, forcing a healthy young child to wear a face mask is not going to make the flight any safer.
What Does the Science Say About Masks?

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.

As noted by Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., a former full professor of physics and researcher with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association in Canada, all of the well-designed studies that have been published so far have failed to find a statistically significant advantage to wearing a mask versus not wearing one.

Here’s a sampling of what 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 study18 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 study19 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:20

“After reviewing extensive expert evidence submitted … Arbitrator William Kaplan, in his September 6 decision,21 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 paper22 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:23

“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:24

“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.”

Vast majority of COVID-19 patients wore mask — According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention25,26,27 71% of COVID-19 patients reported “always” wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14% reported having worn a mask “often.”

Mask or no mask, same difference — A meta-analysis and scientific review28 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.

First COVID-specific mask study fails to show benefit — The first randomized controlled trial29,30 to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection specifically, was published November 18, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine.31 It 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% (42 participants) ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8% (40 people), which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.
Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% (22 participants) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% (53) of the controls. In conclusion, they found that masks may reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may increase your risk by 23%.

Statistics Show Mask Use Have 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,32 “These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing to Stop COVID,” 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’ article33 or Twitter thread.34 Here are just a select few to bring home the point:

Let’s Embrace Reality

Mask wearing, which clearly does little in terms of preventing the rate and risk of infectious spread of SARS-CoV-2, delays the inevitable, which is the acceptance that the disease known as COVID-19 is part of our future, just like the pandemic swine flu H1N1, all the influenza viruses that shift with each season, tuberculosis, Zika and a whole host of other viruses.
We simply cannot prevent any and all COVID-19 deaths any more than we can prevent death from any other cause. All we can do is understand what makes us vulnerable, and take steps to address those underlying weaknesses. In the case of COVID-19, that includes addressing metabolic health, insulin resistance, obesity, and nutritional deficiencies such as vitamin D, magnesium and zinc.
By doing that, you make yourself more resistant to infection and complications thereof. For nine months, the focus has been on masking, social distancing, shutting down businesses and getting a vaccine. Time and again, the goal post has shifted, such that now we’re told that even with a vaccine, all of the other measures will still be required well into 2022.
There’s a reason why none of it makes sense, and that is because the measures have nothing to do with preventing infection. They’re tools used to implement a new economic and social system, as explained in “What You Need to Know About the Great Reset,” “Who Pressed the Great Reset Button?” and “Technocracy and the Great Reset.”
We need to start presenting a united front against those who seek to destroy society as we know it and steal our assets and resources. One of the first steps toward that end is taking a firm stand against nonsensical and scientifically unjustifiable rules such as universal mask wearing, be it on planes, in stores or outdoors.
While it may not always be possible, consider not frequenting or buying from businesses that kick people out for not wearing a mask. Remember that collectively we have financial clout and, typically, hitting businesses in the pocketbook is the most effective way to demand change.

1 How does the normalization of cultured, fake meat fit into the Great Reset agenda?
It has nothing to do with the Great Reset
It helps protect the environment, which is a primary goal of the Great Reset
It’s a strategy to take control the part of the food supply that is not already patented
The normalization of fake meat is an attempt to gain control over the part of the food supply that is not already patented. By controlling the food supply in its entirety, the technocrats who promote the Great Reset will control the world’s population. Learn more.
None of the above, because the Great Reset is a fictional conspiracy theory

2 SARS-CoV-2 has been found on:
Shrimp and salmon
Beef, chicken and pork
Air pollution particles
All of the above
SARS-CoV-2 has been detected on shrimp from Saudi Arabia, fish from India, beef and chicken from Brazil, pork from Germany, salmon from Norway and shrimp from Ecuador. SARS-CoV-2 has also been found on particles of air pollution. Learn more.

3 Imitation meats, such as plant-based and laboratory-grown cell-based meats, are:
A type of ultraprocessed food, which has been linked to obesity, ill health and early death
The fake meat industry poses tremendous risks to global health as ultraprocessed foods have been robustly linked to obesity, ill health and early death. It also threatens global food security through the patenting of food. Learn more.
A healthy alternative to conventional meats
A less expensive and more environmentally friendly alternative to conventional ranching
Impossible to produce

4 During and after the loss of a loved one, the following increases symptoms of prolonged grief disorder:
Frequent phone calls from family and friends
Disruptions to traditional grief rituals, such as saying goodbye, and lack of physical social support
Disruptions to traditional grief rituals, including the ability to say goodbye and viewing and burial of the body, are known to increase symptoms of prolonged grief disorder. Cases also rise when physical social support is absent. Learn more.
Having the responsibility of preparing a funeral
Not receiving adequate bereavement leave

5 How many of those who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive, according to data collected from nearly 9.9 million Chinese tested for SARS-CoV-2?
100%
More than half
Fewer than 25%
None
Recent data from 9,899,828 Chinese who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection found that not a single one of those who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual tested positive for COVID-19. Learn more.

6 The high-pitched screaming with arching of the back or inconsolable crying that many parents of vaccine-injured children describe following vaccination are signs of:
Food allergy
Fatigue
Brain inflammation
However, high-pitched screaming with arching of the back or inconsolable crying are signs of brain inflammation. Learn more.
Pain from the injection site

7 Which of the following, when consumed in excess, can cause you to become insulin resistant?
Sugar only
Fructose, specifically
Unprocessed grains, specifically
Processed sugar and grains, and omega-6 linoleic acid
Excessive linoleic acid in your diet can produce a negative feedback loop that causes you to become insulin resistant. So, insulin resistance is not restricted to excessive intake of processed sugars and grains. Learn more.

 

Open, scientific discussion is pivotal to progress in the medical field, but it’s something that remains elusive when it comes to vaccinations. Rather than address questions, concerns and inconsistencies head on via public debate and research, vaccine advocates often resort to name-calling, intimidation and threats against those who question the federal once-size-fits-all vaccine policy.
Pediatricians may also belittle parents who ask questions about vaccine side effects, with many refusing to see patients who choose not to vaccinate or choose an alternate vaccine schedule.
This is why the above video from “When Opinions Collide” is so refreshing — and so necessary in today’s climate when children receive an unprecedented 69 doses of 16 vaccines by the time they’re 18 years old, with 50 doses of 14 vaccines given before the age of 6.1
In the video, Dr. Bethany Rife, a pediatrician in Alabama, and Robyn Sharon, a biologist and attorney who has worked with the Human Genome Project at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, discuss their point of view about vaccinations, which at times are conflicting.
Yet, they manage to educate each other and listeners in a positive way, one that’s ultimately neither “pro” nor “anti” vaccine, but rather focused on doing what’s best to protect public health.
Childhood Vaccine Injury Triggers Lifelong Search for Answers

Sharon starts out by detailing her son’s experience with childhood vaccinations. Many parents of vaccine-injured children describe a similar series of events following vaccination, including excessive sleepiness and inconsolable, high-pitched crying, unlike any cry the parents have heard before.
This was the case for Sharon’s son, who fell into an unusual deep sleep following a round of several childhood vaccinations when he was 2 months old. When he woke up, she said, he was crying a high-pitched, shrill scream. “It was an absolute nightmare,” she said. She called the doctor’s office, which said the reaction was normal, and her son eventually calmed down.
However, high-pitched screaming with arching of the back or inconsolable crying are signs of brain inflammation, one of the most serious vaccine complications.2 In 1993, The New York Times even published a letter to the editor titled “Look for Danger Signs When Baby Gets Shots,” which reads, in part:3

“To parents taking any child in for the first set of shots, I would say to look for a very high fever (over 101 degrees); evidence of a seizure, which in infants shows up as stiffening of the limbs, rapid or other unusual blinking; limpness; paralysis;
… turning pale or blue; unresponsiveness or unconsciousness; prolonged sleeping, with difficulty in awakening or arousing; arrested or difficult breathing, which may indicate an allergic reaction; high-pitched and unusual screaming; persistent, inconsolable crying, and any bulge in the soft spot in the head. Watch for these signs for a few days after the shots.”

In the weeks and months that followed, Sharon’s son developed eczema and food allergies, including a life-threatening peanut allergy, which she believes is related to his childhood vaccines.
Sharon’s story isn’t unique. “So many moms have gone through what I’ve gone through,” she said, noting that the experience turned her into who she is today and sent her on a quest to learn about vaccinations and anaphylactic food allergies.
Health Officials, Fauci Deny Vaccine Injuries

Meanwhile, public health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), continue to downplay or flat-out deny that vaccines can and do cause injuries and death, as he did in an interview with CBS News in January 2019.4 The news outlet had featured parents who are concerned about vaccination risks, including one woman whose middle child suffered from severe reactions to vaccinations.
Understandably, Eckhart then refused to vaccinate her youngest son and stated, “If I could go back, I wouldn’t have vaccinated any of my kids.” When asked what to say to such parents, who have experienced adverse vaccine reactions among their own children and are hesitant to have the same procedure performed on another child, Fauci graciously said they shouldn’t be denigrated but that they must be told vaccines are “very safe.”
“[T]he lack of safety and the adverse events, things like autism … that issue is based purely on fabrication and that’s been proven … there is no association whatsoever between the measles vaccine and autism,” he said. When the reporter said that Eckhart believes that perhaps the right studies weren’t being done to show the harm vaccines can cause, Fauci vehemently denied there was any truth in the claim.
“That’s not true … that’s just not true, period,” Fauci said, refusing to even entertain the notion that vaccines may cause adverse reactions in some people, and that parents of vaccine-injured children may be justified in their hesitation to vaccinate their other children.
Vaccinating Against Measles Because It’s so Contagious?

When asked about the once common childhood illnesses that are now the subject of vaccinations, Rife acknowledged that in most cases, those who get measles and especially chicken pox “do just fine.”
The reason why measles is considered to be such a danger, she said, is because it’s so contagious, adding that, “If you are not vaccinated for measles and you’re in a room near, or even after, a person with measles left, maybe two hours ago … your chances of catching measles with exposure is 90%.”
The fact comes from a 1964 study5 titled “Survival of Measles Virus in Air,” which is often cited by the CDC. “In a closed setting,” the CDC noted, “the measles virus has been reported to have been transmitted by airborne or droplet exposure up to two hours after the measles case occupied the area.”6 Sharon goes on to explain what actually took place during the study, which involved a tiny closet in a laboratory.

Researchers sprayed measles virus in the air then collected petri dishes to find out if they contained the virus. There’s no mention of what an infectious dose of the virus may be, but what is noted, she said, is that the humidity in the closet was only 15%.

Increasing research is highlighting the importance of humidity levels in the spread of infectious diseases like influenza and COVID-19. Not only does dry air impair the built-in defenses in your respiratory tract,7 but studies on the survival of influenza virus also show a humidity connection, with one suggesting that aerosolized influenza survived the longest when the relative humidity was below 36%.8

Humidity levels in the 40% to 60% range appear to be ideal in lowering your risk of infection, a level you may achieve by placing a humidifier in your bedroom. Some experts suggest public spaces should also maintain minimum humidity levels to protect public health.
The point is, the study that the CDC uses to support measles’ contagiousness does not translate to real-world conditions, which are rarely that dry. According to Sharon, when humidity levels were increased, “measles fell to the floor and died.”
Even 100% Vaccination Rate Not Enough for Herd Immunity

The media, as well as public health organizations, typically blame pockets of unvaccinated individuals for measles outbreaks in the U.S., but the percentage of people vaccinated with the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine is actually very high.

In the 2013-2014 school year, almost 95% of U.S. children entering kindergarten had received two doses of MMR vaccine,9 as had 91.8% of school children ages 13 to 17 years.10 That high rate of vaccination for MMR among U.S. school children continues today.11 This high MMR vaccination rate should theoretically ensure “herd immunity,” but cases of both measles and mumps keep occurring, which hints at vaccine failure.

Sharon mentioned an article published by New York Daily News in May 2019, written by Dr. Daniel Berman,12 which again blamed measles outbreaks in parts of New York on unvaccinated communities. Fauci was quoted, stating:13

“Coverage in a given community, when it falls below a certain critical level, you get the kinds of outbreaks that we’re seeing, particularly in places like New York City and the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn … his is a relatively closed community, a Hasidic Jewish community in that area — that are not vaccinating their children at a rate that would provide that broad umbrella of protection that we call herd immunity…
When you drop down to the 80s or even the 70s or even lower, where it is now in that community, that’s exactly the explanation of why we’re seeing the outbreaks that we’re seeing.”

The statement is misleading, according to Berman, who noted that the measles vaccination rate among Jewish school-age children in Brooklyn, New York, is 96%, which is above the 95% threshold said to be required to achieve herd immunity.
Population density, social mixing patterns and other factors all affect viral transmission, and there’s also the glaring fact that immunity from the MMR vaccine likely declines in the years following the last booster.14
Unfortunately, with the waning effectiveness of MMR vaccine, protection is not lifelong the way it is following natural infection, leaving older adults potentially vulnerable. As pregnant women no longer have natural immunity to pass on to their newborns, very young infants are also more susceptible to the disease.
Authors of one study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases reported that when measles infection is delayed, negative outcomes are 4.5 times worse “than would be expected in a prevaccine era in which the average age at infection would have been lower.”15 Meanwhile, in the majority of cases, measles infection resolves on its own without complications
Is Forced Vaccination Coming?
In a question from viewers of the “When Opinions Collide” video, someone asked whether forced vaccination is on the horizon. Rife said she doesn’t think the public will stand for forced vaccination, but others, like Alan Dershowitz, a lawyer and legal scholar, believe otherwise. According to Alan Dershowitz’s interpretation of Constitutional law:

“You have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease. Even if you disagree, you have no right not to be vaccinated. You have no right not to wear a mask. You have no right to open up your business. And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to, literally, take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”

As the basis and justification for his legal orientation on this issue, Dershowitz relies on a 1905 Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which involved the smallpox vaccine.

Jacobson had been injured by a previous vaccine and took the case to the Supreme Court in an effort to avoid the smallpox vaccine. He lost and paid a $5 fine for refusing the vaccine.

Dershowitz agreed that the 1905 ruling “is not binding on the issue of whether or not you can compel someone to get the vaccine,” but that “the logic of the opinion … strongly suggests that the courts today would allow some form of compulsion if the conditions that we talked about were met: [the vaccines are] safe, effective, [and] exemptions [given] in appropriate cases.”

It remains to be seen what the future holds with mandatory vaccination, particularly in light of COVID-19, but one thing is clear: Public health depends not on the compulsory use of vaccines but on the ability for leading minds to openly debate, research and brainstorm solutions to the chronic and acute diseases plaguing the world — solutions that may include vaccinations but must not ignore their potential for harm.

Throughout the holiday season, from Thanksgiving through Christmas, cranberries are a popular dietary item. However, based on their health benefits that range from antibacterial to prebiotic, they may be a fruit you’ll want to include in your menu planning year-round.
Cranberries are a superfruit based on their high antioxidant and nutrient content. The plants are native to North America so, under the right conditions, it is possible to grow your own. They are perennial vines that flourish when grown in water or on dry land and send out runners measuring up to 6 feet long.1
Short vertical branches develop from the runners and from these the berries form. Commercial plants are grown in bogs, but home gardeners can plant cranberries in well-draining soil with a pH of less than 5. The next consideration is irrigation since alkaline water will affect the pH of the soil. The plants need cold weather for about three months of the year to trigger a dormant phase.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture recognizes the North American cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) as the standard in the U.S.2 The European variety is grown in parts of central Europe and produces smaller fruit with a different acid profile. The major producing states in the U.S. are Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Wisconsin and Washington.
Each day you make small choices that affect your overall health. Before reaching for a protein bar or carrot sticks to snack on, think about a tart bowl of cranberries. They are loaded with vitamin C, fiber and phytonutrients that offer protection from several health conditions.
Cranberries Help Protect Your Urinary Tract

The fruit is probably best known for the role it plays in preventing urinary tract infections (UTIs). However, it takes a large concentration of proanthocyanins to affect the biofilm of certain bacteria in the urinary tract walls.3 This means cranberry juice is not the form you want to use since it’s nearly impossible to get the concentration you need without overdosing on sugar.
Researchers are continuing to identify the compounds responsible for the benefits you get from eating cranberries. Pectic oligosaccharides and xyloglucan are two classes of biologically active compounds that have been newly recognized in cranberries.4
The oligosaccharides have demonstrated activity similar to other dietary oligosaccharides. This includes the effect it has on microbial growth and bacterial biofilm formation. Researchers theorize this may be one of the beneficial contributing factors to your urinary tract.
Soluble oligosaccharides are found in high concentrations in cranberries but the difficulty in detecting these compounds may have led to the contributions they make remaining largely unrecognized. A paper published in 2019 also analyzed the beneficial effects cranberries may have in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD).5
Many of the complications that arise from CKD are also linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality, including gut dysbiosis, inflammation and oxidative stress. Data suggest that cranberries may have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects.
This has caused researchers to call for a better understanding of this mechanism to ascertain if supplementation could target these complications found in people with CKD. Although the mechanism of action to date has been poorly understood, one review showed health care professionals commonly recommend cranberries for women who are prone to recurrent UTIs.6
A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial in a long-term care facility, where urinary tract infections can have dangerous consequences, demonstrated that cranberry capsules reduce the incidence of UTIs.7 When capsule supplementation was compared against juice, it was apparent the extract reduced the rate of UTI by 50% but the juice did not offer the same benefit.8
High Polyphenol Content Helps Protect Your Heart

Polyphenols are a category of naturally occurring plant chemicals that are thought to play a role in the regulation of metabolism, chronic disease, cell proliferation and weight maintenance. Over 8,000 have been identified and a variety of studies demonstrated the anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties may have a therapeutic effect against several prevalent health conditions.9
However, while highly effective when consumed in food, it is necessary to use caution when consuming isolated compounds as overconsumption can lead to harmful effects. Although a deficiency in polyphenols does not cause classical symptoms of deficiency, they have been called “lifespan essentials,” since your body requires them to protect against a range of chronic diseases.10
For example, a systematic review of studies published through June 2018 identified randomized control trials that analyzed the effect of cranberry supplementation on cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors. The researchers found the results demonstrated a reduction in body mass index and systolic blood pressure.11
After further analysis, the data showed that a reduction in systolic blood pressure was more statistically significant when participants’ mean age was 50 or older. Another subgroup analysis suggested an increase in HDL cholesterol in studies where the mean age of participants was less than 50.
The researchers concluded that supplementation “may be effective in managing systolic blood pressure, body mass index and high-density lipoprotein in younger adults.”12 A small Interventional study of 78 participants who were overweight or obese with abdominal adiposity demonstrated that using a high polyphenol cranberry extract beverage for eight weeks had significant health effects on the individuals.13
Compared to a placebo, a single dose at the beginning of the study elevated the participants’ nitric oxide and reduced-to-oxidized glutathione ratio. After eight weeks of intervention, the researchers measured lower fasting C-reactive protein levels, serum insulin and an increase in HDL. They concluded:14

“An acute dose of low calorie, high polyphenol cranberry beverage improved antioxidant status, while 8 week daily consumption reduced cardiovascular disease risk factors by improving glucoregulation, downregulating inflammatory biomarkers, and increasing HDL cholesterol.”

Chemoprotective Properties of Cranberries

As discussed, cranberries are rich in bioactive compounds. Researchers have found in lab studies that these compounds may target the inhibition of cancer cell proliferation against 17 different cancers.15
In one study published in early 2020, researchers built on their previous study that had demonstrated whole cranberry supplementation had a chemoprotective effect against colon cancer in an animal model.16 They then sought to determine what effects secondary metabolites of cranberry could have on inhibiting colon cancer.
They used cranberry ethyl acetate extract and polyphenol extract to determine the free radical activities. After administration in an animal model, they found these substances significantly suppressed colon cancer cell proliferation without any noticeable adverse effects.17 Laboratory studies demonstrated the mechanism of cancer inhibition included:18

Cellular apoptosis, necrosis and autophagy
Alterations in reactive oxygen species
Modification of signal transduction and cytokine pathways

The researchers found the data in their literature review strongly supported:19

“… the anti-proliferative and pro-death capacities of cranberries in a multitude of cancer cell lines and select in vivo models including xenograft and chemically induced cancer models.

The precise cancer inhibitory mechanisms associated with cranberries in specific targets are still be[ing] elucidated, but preclinical studies utilizing cranberry proanthocyanidins show inactivation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways and modulation of MAPK signaling in esophageal, neuroblastoma, ovarian and prostate cancer cells and in esophageal xenografts.”

Cranberries Enhance Oral Health

In similar action that cranberries take against biofilm in the urinary tract wall, researchers have found compounds in cranberries have antibacterial and antiviral biofilm activity in the oral cavity.
Using a selected cranberry extract rich in polyphenols, researchers evaluated the minimum inhibitory concentration and minimum bactericidal concentration against six bacterial pathogenic biofilms commonly found in the oral cavity.20
The activity of the extract was measured in the lab, and data showed there was significant inhibition against Streptococcus oralis, Actinomyces naeslundii and Veillonella parvula. Additionally, compounds in the cranberry extract interfered with periodontal pathogenic biofilms in the first six hours of development.
The human mouth has a complex oral microbial community with more than 700 different species. Disturbing the equilibrium in a complex ecosystem can shift the balance to over-representation of pathogenic species. Streptococcus mutans is a dominant species found in supragingival plaque, which subjects the teeth to high concentrations of metabolites and ultimately results in dental disease.21
Bacteria in the biofilm are metabolically active, which triggers changes in pH and increases the loss of minerals from teeth. Another study evaluated the biological properties of cranberry juice against S. mutans biofilms in the mouth.22
They found topical application with one-minute exposure two times a day could reduce the biomass and glucan content of the biofilm. The researchers concluded the data “holds promise as a natural product to prevent biofilm-related oral diseases.”
Protect Your Gut Health With This Tasty Prebiotic

Your gut health plays a powerful role in your immune system, cardiovascular health and mood. People with a healthy gut microbiome are better able to fight off infectious agents like bacteria, fungus and viruses. Your gut and brain also communicate through nerves and hormones, helping to maintain general health and mood.23
Bacteria in your gut produce neurochemicals used to regulate physiological processes and about 95% of your serotonin, which has an influence over your gastrointestinal activity and your mood.24
Additionally, your gut bacteria have an effect on common risk factors for heart disease, including obesity, Type 2 diabetes and blood pressure. Each of these factors raise your risk of heart disease.25 Suffice it to say, when you take care of your gut microbiome, they are primed and ready to take care of you.
One way you can influence the balance of bacteria is through the food you eat. Some foods you eat have complex carbohydrates that microorganisms in your gut require for nutrition. These are called prebiotics as they are the food source that feed the healthy bacteria. Prebiotic complex carbohydrates include pectin, inulin and resistant starches.26
These are molecules that humans cannot digest but are necessary for healthy microbial growth. One study published by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst discovered that some beneficial bacteria in the gut thrive on the carbohydrates found in cranberries.27
Researchers were excited by the potential impact to health this may have. Nutritional microbiologist David Sela from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst participated in the study and explained:28

“With probiotics, we are taking extra doses of beneficial bacteria that may or may not help our gut health. But with prebiotics, we already know that we have the beneficial guys in our guts, so let’s feed them! Let’s give them more nutrients and things that they like.

They make molecules and compounds that help us, or they make it to help some of the hundreds of other kinds of beneficial members of the community. They are consuming things we can’t digest, or they are helping other beneficial microbes that we find it hard to introduce as probiotics, or their presence can help keep pathogens away.”

If you’d like to include cranberries in your diet, consider adding them to your salad, pop some in your smoothie and add them to chutneys, relishes or salsas. The tart flavor goes well with grain-free pancakes or try tossing with spinach and chicken salad. If you slice them before adding to your food, they’re easier to chew.29

According to a November 16, 2020, report by Food Safety News,1 a Chinese investigation has revealed SARS-CoV-2 is present on many imported food products and packaging, and it’s far from a solitary incidence.

“Recent reports include detection of coronavirus on packages of shrimp from Saudi Arabia, fish from India, beef from Brazil and Argentina, and pork from Germany,” Food Safety News writes, adding:2
“The National Service of Agri-Food Health and Quality (SENASA) in Argentina said it was the first time there had been such an incident in products from the country since the pandemic began and it was investigating.
The shipment had entered through the port of Shanghai. On Nov. 9, part of it was transferred to a cold store in Nanjing City, the capital of Jiangsu. On Nov. 10, prior to release to the market, Nanjing authorities tested the product and detected nucleic acid on the outer packaging.”

Norwegian salmon, Brazilian chicken and Ecuadorian shrimp — either the food or its packaging — have also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. At least nine Chinese provinces have reported finding SARS-CoV-2 RNA in frozen imported food since July 2020.
While the contamination has raised concerns, the International Commission for Microbiological Specifications of Foods (ICMSF) has stated the virus is unlikely to pose a food safety risk, noting that “the mere presence of an infectious agent in a food does not necessarily translate into human infection.”3
SARS-CoV-2 May Hitch Ride on Air Pollution

SARS-CoV-2 has also been found on particles of air pollution. According to The Guardian,4 scientists are investigating to determine whether the virus might be able to spread over long distances this way. It’s still unknown whether the virus can remain viable if hitching a ride on particles of pollution, or whether this route would distribute sufficient quantities to actually make someone sick if they inhaled it. According to The Guardian:5

“Italian scientists used standard techniques to collect outdoor air pollution samples at one urban and one industrial site in Bergamo province and identified a gene highly specific to COVID-19 in multiple samples. The detection was confirmed by blind testing at an independent laboratory …
A statistical analysis6,7 by Setti’s team suggests higher levels of particle pollution could explain higher rates of infection in parts of northern Italy before a lockdown was imposed, an idea supported by another preliminary analysis.8 The region is one of the most polluted in Europe.
The potential role of air pollution particles is linked to the broader question of how the coronavirus is transmitted. Large virus-laden droplets from infected people’s coughs and sneezes fall to the ground within a meter or two. But much smaller droplets, less than 5 microns in diameter, can remain in the air for minutes to hours and travel further …
Researchers say the importance of potential airborne transmission, and the possible boosting role of pollution particles, mean it must not be ruled out without evidence.”
SARS-CoV-2 Can Spread Far Outdoors

Indeed, bacteria, which are much larger than viruses, have no problem traveling through the air, so there’s little reason to doubt that viruses would do so as well.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s October 5, 2020, scientific brief9,10 on SARS-CoV-2 points out the virus can spread either through large respiratory droplets (which is the only potential benefit of wearing a mask) or through small airborne particles that “can remain suspended for many minutes to hours and travel far from the source on air currents.”
In 2019, researchers discovered bacteria can be carried thousands of miles through the air,11 which complicates the containment of bacterial outbreaks. Other studies have demonstrated that antibiotic-resistant bacteria can scatter long distances by piggybacking on feedlot dust.12
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. ~ The Great Barrington Declaration
An article13 by BGR, published in April 2020, found walkers, runners and cyclists may need to maintain a distance of up to 66 feet in order to avoid exposure when exercising outdoors. BGR writes:14

“The research,15 which was conducted by an international team including scientists in Belgium and the Netherlands, studied the impacts of current social distancing mandates when applied to outdoor exercise …
Outdoor trails present a unique challenge, as individuals are breathing heavily and potentially even coughing or sneezing along the way. If a second person is following behind, even at what would be considered a ‘safe’ distance for indoor interaction, they would quickly come into contact with particles in the air that could contain the virus …
Based on the simulations and data, the team suggests that individuals who are walking outdoors should maintain a minimum of four meters (13 feet) of separation.
Runners and casual bikers should try to stay at least 10 meters apart (33 feet), and fast cyclists should attempt to remain at least 20 meters (66 feet) from others using the same trails. The researchers also note that avoiding the direct path of the person in front of you is vital, even when maintaining these distances.”

Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide

The irony here is that the authors make it sound as though you can somehow avoid the virus provided you follow certain rules, like staying a certain distance away and avoiding having another person directly in front of you. Logic would tell you that once the virus is in the air, it’s going to move with the air in whatever direction the air is moving.
Can you hide from wind? Can you hide from air? If these studies tell us anything, it’s that we cannot hide from this virus. We cannot separate ourselves from others far enough to where transmission risk is eliminated.
And, as detailed by Denis Rancourt in our July 2020 interview, the research clearly shows that masks cannot prevent the spread of airborne viruses, so you hiding behind a mask won’t do you much good either. If air can flow through the mask, the virus can flow through as well. All a mask can do is limit the spread of large contaminated respiratory droplets.
The failure of masks is also evident in recent CDC data16,17,18 showing that 71% of COVID-19 patients reported “always” wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14% reported having worn a mask “often.” In all, 85% of COVID-19 patients had been diligent about mask use, yet this did not protect them from the virus.
Health Experts Call for Herd Immunity Approach

Considering we cannot hide from the virus, the least destructive path forward would be to implement the advice given by the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for “focused protection”:19

“We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all — including the vulnerable — falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity — i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable — and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.”

As of November 19, 2020, it had been signed by 35,236 medical practitioners (including yours truly), 12,115 medical and public health scientists, and 638,921 concerned citizens.20 If you would like life to return to some semblance of normal any time soon, you may consider signing the declaration. The greater the number of people pushing back against continued lockdowns, the more likely we are to influence our decision makers.
Consider Peaceful Civil Disobedience

Clearly, most people are being bombarded with mainstream media propaganda that seeks to convince you that masks are necessary to prevent the spread of COVID-19. So, it is entirely understandable that you would want everyone to wear masks because you believe they will save lives.
However, if you carefully evaluate the evidence, independent of the mainstream narrative, it is likely you will conclude that this recommendation has nothing to do with decreasing the spread of the virus but more to indoctrinate you into submission.
In my interview with financial analyst Patrick Wood, he provides compelling evidence that this has been a carefully crafted technocratic strategy that has been in place for the last 50 years or so. By submitting to unconstitutional orders such as mask wearing, self-isolation and lockdowns, we are likely setting the stage for mandatory vaccinations, tracking and tracing. It’s all part of the Great Reset plan.
With COVID-19 fatality rates21,22,23 as low as they are, mandatory mask wearing, social distancing, lockdowns and business shut-downs are not only ineffective and unnecessary, but these measures are also causing a global economic collapse. It appears the only justification for this strategy is to increase fear, tyranny and transfer of wealth to the technocratic elite.
Remember back in March 2020 when they said we just need to “flatten the curve” and slow down the rate of infection to avoid overcrowding hospitals? How did we go from that to now having to wear masks everywhere until every trace of the virus has been eliminated, even though a vast majority remain asymptomatic and don’t even know they have the virus unless they get tested?

Now, so-called “health passports” are being rolled out, and it’s only a matter of time before COVID-19 vaccination will be required for travel. For months, many have been saying “It’s just a mask. What’s the big deal? Wear it so we can end this pandemic.” Soon, that will be replaced with “It’s just a vaccine. What’s the big deal? Take it so we can all go back to normal.”

Alas, there will be no going back to normal unless we make a fuss. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the Great Reset is anything but the promise of utopia. What they’re trying to get us to accept is a dystopian nightmare of an existence where there is neither privacy nor freedom to speak of.

Getting us to don our masks is nothing more than a soft indoctrination. It’s teaching us to obey without question — a perfect example of which is when Dr. Anthony Fauci recently stated that it’s time for Americans to abandon their independent spirit and “do what you’re told.”24

Overall, it seems the best way to avoid a much more harrowing fight down the road is to engage in civil disobedience now, because once the Great Reset has been fully implemented, dissent will no longer be possible. For practical strategies on how you can respond in light of all the tyrannical interventions that have been imposed on us, check out James Corbett’s interview with Howard Lichtman below.

With COVID-19 still dominating headlines, influenza (flu) has been conspicuous in its absence, especially during what is typically peak flu season. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks influenza (flu) and pneumonia deaths weekly through the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Mortality Reporting System.
It also creates a preliminary estimate of the burden of seasonal flu, based on crude rates of lab-confirmed flu hospitalizations. Such estimates are intended to give an idea of how many people have been sick from or died from the flu in any given season — that is, except for 2020.
“April 4, 2020, was the last week in-season preliminary burden estimates were provided,” the CDC wrote on its 2019-2020 U.S. flu season webpage.1 The reason the estimates stopped in April is because flu cases plummeted so low that they’re hardly worth tracking. In an update posted December 3, 2020, the CDC stated:2

“The model used to generate influenza in-season preliminary burden estimates uses current season flu hospitalization data. Reported flu hospitalizations are too low at this time to generate an estimate.”

They also added, “The number of hospitalizations estimated so far this season is lower than end-of-season total hospitalization estimates for any season since CDC began making these estimates.”3
Flu Deaths Plummet While COVID Cases Rise

In late summer 2020, warnings surfaced that there might soon be a “twin-demic” of flu and COVID-19 that would decimate the globe.4 So far, this hasn’t panned out. In the U.S., the CDC reported that the percentage of respiratory specimens submitted for influenza testing that test positive decreased from greater than 20% to 2.3% since the start of the pandemic.
As of September 18, 2020, they noted that positive influenza tests have “remained at historically low interseasonal levels (0.2% versus 1 to 2%).”5 Further, from September 29, 2019-February 29, 2020 to March 1-May 16, 2020, the CDC noted a 98% decrease in influenza activity.6
Similar drops have been observed worldwide, including in the Southern Hemisphere countries of Australia, Chile and Southern Africa, which often serve as sentinels for influenza activity in the U.S.
All three areas had very low influenza activity during June to August 2020, which is their peak flu season. From April to July 2020, only 33 influenza positive test results were detected in Australia; 12 in Chile; and six in South Africa, for a total of 51 positive tests. For comparison, during April to July in 2017 to 2019, 24,512 specimens tested positive for influenza.7
It was initially thought that the steep drops in influenza activity were due to decreased testing, since people with respiratory symptoms likely received COVID-19 tests instead. However, according to the CDC, public health officials have made a concerted effort to test for flu, and even though “adequate numbers” have been tested, little to no flu virus has been detected.
In Australia, meanwhile, they tested “markedly more specimens for influenza” this season than usual, yet still detected very few cases of flu.8 So what happened to the flu?
CDC Tracking Combines COVID, Flu and Pneumonia Deaths
The “COVID” deaths the CDC has been reporting are actually a combination of pneumonia, flu and COVID-deaths, under a new category listed as “PIC” (pneumonia, Influenza, COVID).
Their COVIDView webpage, which provides a weekly surveillance summary of U.S. COVID-19 activity, states that levels of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and “associated illnesses” have been increasing since September 2020, while the percentage of deaths due to pneumonia, flu and COVID-19 has been on the rise since October.9
As noted by professor William M. Briggs, a statistical consultant and policy adviser at the Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank, in the video above, “CDC, up until about July 2020, counted flu and pneumonia deaths separately, been doing this forever, then just mysteriously stopped … It’s become very difficult to tell the difference between these,” referring to the combined tracking of deaths from “PIC.” They’re even using PIC to state that cases are above the epidemic threshold:10

“Based on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to PIC for week 49 was 14.3% and remains above the epidemic threshold.

The weekly percentages of deaths due to PIC increased for seven weeks from early October through mid-November and are expected to increase for the most recent weeks as additional data are reported. Hospitalization rates for the most recent week are also expected to increase as additional data are reported.”

Did Masks and Lockdowns Stop the Spread of Flu?

It could appear that flu hasn’t just vanished into thin air but rather cases could be being mistaken for COVID-19 — or even intentionally mislabeled as such. Another theory centers on viral interference, which is the phenomenon in which a cell infected by a virus becomes resistant to other viruses;11 basically, cells are rarely infected with more than one virus, so COVID-19 could be winning out over influenza.
However, with COVID-19 being such a novel virus, with reportedly only a minority of the population having been exposed, there should still be plenty of room for influenza to spread.12
According to the CDC, however, flu cases began to decline in response to “widespread adoption of community mitigation measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2.” In other words, they believe that flu cases have plummeted because of the widespread adoption of mask wearing, social distancing and lockdowns.
In their MMWR weekly report released September 18, 2020, they state, “In the United States, influenza virus circulation declined sharply within 2 weeks of the COVID-19 emergency declaration and widespread implementation of community mitigation measures, including school closures, social distancing and mask wearing, although the exact timing varied by location.”13
But here again this leaves many unanswered questions, the primary one being why, if the COVID-19 mitigation efforts are so effective against the spread of flu, are COVID cases still rising? The two viruses are spread basically the same way. As Irish science journalist Peter Andrews put it in RT:14

“The scientific establishment is quickly forming ranks behind the theory that the flu has gone away because of Covid restrictions — especially masks, social distancing and lockdowns.

They ‘overwhelmingly agree’ that this is so; their certainty is remarkable at this early stage. But why would these measures have worked so unintentionally well for flu, which has been with us for millennia, but Covid cases are still skyrocketing? Do masks let one particle through and stop another?

The proponents of this theory have an explanation. They claim that people with Covid are more contagious than those with flu. It has a longer ‘incubation period’ than flu does, and its ‘R rate’ is three times higher than that of flu. But even if all of these estimates were right, there is still the unanswered question of why flu would have been eradicated so completely.”

Problems With Lockdowns

When asked whether he believes lockdowns were responsible for getting rid of the flu, Briggs said in the video, “No, absolutely not. Lockdowns only help spread the flu … Locking down the healthy, quarantining the healthy, is asinine.” Briggs believes that lockdowns would only increase flu infection because the virus spreads more easily when people spend more time indoors, in close quarters with others, in dry, indoor air.
He also pointed to lockdown failures, like the one that occurred in New York City. The mortality rate from COVID-19 reached beyond 50 deaths per million per day in April 2020, despite a full lockdown being implemented in March. The state ordered nursing homes to accept COVID-19 positive patients from hospitals until May 10, when the order was reversed, but by then the virus was already ravaging nursing homes’ elderly residents — the most vulnerable.
“By facilitating the transmission of the virus from hospitals to nursing homes, the rate of spread within the elderly population was maximized, and any possible benefit from lockdown of the young and healthy population was rendered moot,” Dr. Gilbert Berdine, an associate professor of medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, explained.15
Social Distancing and Masks to Stay to Fight Flu?

The CDC is already using the mysteriously low number of flu cases this season as an impetus to suggest that masks, school closures and social distancing could become the new normal every fall to combat the upcoming flu season:

“If extensive community mitigation measures continue throughout the fall, influenza activity in the United States might remain low and the season might be blunted or delayed. In the future, some of these community mitigation measures could be implemented during influenza epidemics to reduce transmission, particularly in populations at highest risk for developing severe disease or complications.”16

Meanwhile, even while stating that flu cases are next to nonexistent this season, and that the COVID-19 mitigation measures already in place are likely effective at curbing its spread — they still want you to get your flu shot, “especially this season”:17

“Given the novelty of the COVID-19 pandemic and the uncertainty of continued community mitigation measures, it is important to plan for seasonal influenza circulation in the United States this fall and winter. Influenza vaccination of all persons aged ?6 months remains the best method for influenza prevention and is especially important this season when SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus might cocirculate.”

If you want to be proactive, it’s worth remembering that flu shots are controversial, and your chances of getting influenza after vaccination are still greater than 50/50 in any given year.
According to CDC data, for example, the 2017-2018 seasonal influenza vaccine’s effectiveness against “influenza A and influenza B virus infection associated with medically attended acute respiratory illness” was just 36%.18 Meanwhile, we already know that vitamin D optimization is a good idea, not only for COVID-19 but also for influenza.

The constant barrage of media headlines about COVID-19 deaths serve as triggers for fear and justification for perpetuating lockdowns, mask wearing, social distancing and, ultimately, increased tracking and tracing; never mind that the total mortality rate in 2020 is normal and on par with other non-pandemic years.1,2
What’s not normal, though, is the way people are dying in 2020. No matter the cause, people who enter hospitals are forced to go alone, leaving their family members behind, sometimes for the last time. Unable to comfort and be near loved ones in their final moments, the pain for survivors continues long after their loved ones’ deaths, as the rituals of mourning are also interrupted and experienced, again, largely in isolation.
Traditionally, Americans mark losses by gathering together to share their grief with others, holding vigils, giving hugs and reminiscing about better times. “By contrast, in bedside farewells via FaceTime, drive-by burials as under-attended as Jay Gatsby’s, and digital funerals on Zoom,” a STAT news article noted, “we’ve been forced to mourn the victims of the novel coronavirus in a numbing new way: more or less alone.”3
Worldwide Rise in Prolonged Grief Disorder Expected

Prolonged grief disorder (PGD) was added to the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases in 2018.4 It describes a persistent and pervasive longing for the deceased person, or a preoccupation with them, that persists for more than six months. The longing is accompanied by intense emotional pain, such as sadness, guilt or anger, as well as:

Difficulty accepting the death

Feeling you’ve lost a part of yourself

Emotional numbness

Difficulty engaging in social or other activities

Such feelings are normal during bereavement, and the push to “medicalize” grief is controversial. In this case, the distinction that moves “normal bereavement” into the category of a mental health problem is that the intense grief continues for a long period of time and also causes disturbances in your ability to function socially and professionally.5
Disruptions to traditional grief rituals, including the ability to say goodbye and viewing and burial of the body, are known to increase symptoms of prolonged grief disorder.
Cases also rise when physical social support is absent — something that is being made out as the new normal during the pandemic. Writing in the journal Psychiatry Research, researchers from the Netherlands suggested, “[I]n the development and aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, we anticipate that, worldwide, PGD will become a major public health concern.”6
Further, “due to government policy targeting the pandemic, the same potential risk factors could also increase grief severity of people whose family members died through other causes than COVID-19.”7
Psychiatric Pandemic Looming

The loss of a loved one is one of the most difficult events in a person’s life. Being forced to go through the loss and grieving process in social isolation and without the comfort of long-held bereavement rituals is a “recipe for a psychiatric pandemic,” according to experts from the Iran University of Medical Sciences.8
They’re among many sounding an alarm that COVID-19 social distancing and quarantine polices are increasing the likelihood of PGD, making an already difficult life event even harder to process. They stated:9

“Millions of people around the world have experienced the loss of a loved one due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
Given the restrictive lockdown regulations and stay-at-home orders, most of these individuals did not get a chance to say goodbye to their loved ones, properly to have a funeral/ceremony for their loss or to bury them. As a result, millions of individuals have not experienced a regular grief cycle that enables individuals to rapidly adjust to the situation and recover themselves.”

Humans are social creatures, but government policies are demanding that people “show their love” by staying away from others, which is contrary to human nature and human need, especially during times of crisis.
There’s nothing “normal” about holding up a sign outside a hospital window while a loved one lies dying inside, but this is a scenario that happens daily during the pandemic. One man recounted the details to STAT News of losing his 83-year-old father during the pandemic; his father spent three weeks in the hospital, alone:10

“Eventually, his father’s nurses disconnected the elder Smith’s oxygen just long enough for him to be propped up near a window, where he could see the family standing on a small knoll outside the hospital, holding signs saying, ‘We Love You,’ and ‘Fight As Hard as You Can.’ He died two days later.”

Pandemic Restrictions Affect All Stages of Grief

It’s often said that there are five stages of grief — denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. You may or may not experience every one of them, and people vary widely in their experiences of each. Some people skip several stages, may experience them in a different order or may revert back to stages that have already been “completed.”
What’s apparent, however, is that lockdowns, social distancing and other pandemic requirements are interfering with every one of these stages, making it nearly impossible for people to work through their intense feelings:11

Denial — Accompanying the body of the deceased helps loved ones to move past denial of their death, while taking away this step allows denial to linger.

Anger — Feelings of anger are intensified when loved ones are unable to accompany the patient during the last days of their life. The inability to hold a ceremony can also intensify feelings of anger and guilt.

Bargaining — Family members may blame themselves for their loved one’s death and run over scenarios they feel they could have done differently to protect them. “This can cause negative thoughts and emotions, which complicates this period,” the Iran University of Medical Sciences researchers explained.12

Depression — Government-imposed lack of social support and inability to hold conventional funeral ceremonies can intensify depression.

Acceptance — Under normal circumstances, most people take six weeks to several months to accept the loss, but this, too, will take longer without social support.

Experts are predicting that these profound disruptions are going to lead to a wave of unresolved bereavement, depression and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as humans are robbed of their ability to participate in age-old bereavement rituals.13
Grief Reactions More Severe During the Pandemic

In the first empirical comparison of grief before the COVID-19 pandemic and during it, researchers questioned 1,600 bereaved adults, including those who had experienced a loss before the pandemic and those who suffered a loss during the pandemic, within the last five months.
Those who lost a loved one during the pandemic experienced more severe grief compared to those who experienced a loss before it, which suggests the loss was more difficult during the pandemic. The results suggested the pandemic “has a small but robust negative effect on psychological adjustment after non-COVID-19-related deaths during the pandemic.”14
Different types of grief are also likely, including anticipatory grief, as loved ones are forced to watch an intensifying medical situation for their loved one from afar. Disenfranchised grief, which is grief unacknowledged by society or social norms, is also likely, especially in the absence of rituals like funerals.15
Again, researchers urged palliative care professionals, grief counselors and policy makers to prepare for heightened levels of grief in people bereaved during the pandemic.16
Losses in Many Areas of Life Lead to ‘Bereavement Overload’

During the pandemic, individuals may be faced with mounting losses in addition to losing a loved one. Loss of freedom is among them, as lockdowns become a new way of life for many. This triggers secondary losses of relationships, recreation and social support.
What’s more, Yusen Zhai and Xue Du from Pennsylvania State University argued that such multiple losses will prove to be detrimental to mental and physical health, putting civilians and first responders “in peril of bereavement overload:”17

“Social distancing minimizes emotional and physical intimacy, which results in dissolution of intimate relationships involving partners, family, and friends. Moreover, over 16 million U.S. population filed for unemployment within three weeks in March 2020 during the pandemic.
Job loss, as a primary loss, brings losses of financial security, independence, healthcare, and sense of future … Civilians experience losses of relationship, freedom, and employment within a constricted time period.”

Already, Americans’ mental health is suffering, and those with existing mental health conditions may not come out unscathed. In a survey of U.S. young adults, those with a mental health diagnosis were far more likely to be struggling mentally during the pandemic than those without a diagnosis — by more than sixfold for depression and four- to sixfold for anxiety and PTSD.18
Higher levels of COVID-19-related worry and grief, poorer sleep, and poorer reported health-related quality of life were also noted among people with a suspected or reported mental health condition. It’s also likely that the pandemic is pushing people on the brink of mental illness over the edge. The Psychiatry Research study reported:19

“The high rates of mental health symptoms above the clinical threshold found among those with no pre-existing diagnosis was striking with one out of five of these young adults scoring in the clinical range for depression (18.3%) and anxiety (20.4%), and one out of eight reporting clinical levels of PTSD (13.8%).”

EFT for Grieving and Holiday Stress

If you’re struggling with grief, it’s important to seek out activities and people that will help lift your spirits. Now is not the time to isolate yourself but to embrace human contact and emotional support. It’s unfortunate that “pandemic shaming” has become a U.S. pastime, and people may be vilified for seeking to spend time with their loved ones, even when their mental health is at stake.20
There is reason to believe that the COVID-19 pandemic is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public,” according to Dr. Roger Hodkinson, one of Canada’s top pathologists and an expert in virology, yet people are being told to stay away from their families, during what could turn out to be the last days or weeks of their time together.
It’s not humans who are to blame for desiring essential connections with others, but the impossible mandates being placed upon them that are making such connections seem criminal. That being said, if you’re alone with your grief, you can most certainly record your thoughts in a journal, as both talking and journaling can help you work through intense feelings.
In the video above, Julie Schiffman demonstrates how to use the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) for grief. EFT is an energy psychology method designed to help you process emotions and reprogram your body’s reactions related to them. Even if you have never used EFT before, take a few minutes to learn the technique and then use it whenever grief surfaces.
Because feelings of grief and loss tend to be intensified during the holidays, I’ve also included the video below on tapping for holiday stress. During this particularly challenging time for grieving, be gentle with yourself and your feelings, and be open to experiencing them fully — a necessary prerequisite to healing.

My Personal Deep Grieving Resolution

I lost both of my parents unexpectedly a few years ago within a year of each other. My mom was six years younger than my dad, but she passed away first quite unexpectedly of natural causes. It was the most profound grief experience I have ever gone through and allows me to better understand the pain that many of you have or still continue to struggle with.
These unnecessary COVID restrictions only contribute to the grief as you are unable to socialize with other family members and friends, which certainly helps when you need someone to lean on. I am very grateful they both passed before this dystopian nightmare we are currently cruising through, as I would have had loads more of forgiveness to go through.
Anyway, what I found to be an incredibly valuable resource was the book “Letting Go: The Pathway of Surrender” by Dr. David Hawkins. Hawkins was one of the most brilliant medical minds of our time and I regret never having had the opportunity to interview him. The book was published in 2014 and it was the last one he wrote before he passed.
He provides simple explanations and approaches to be with the pain, which ultimately catalyzes its release. I was miserable, grief stricken and depressed for two weeks prior to reading it but the pain quickly resolved after applying his techniques. If any of you are struggling with grief I highly recommend this book.

In the days before Thanksgiving, public health spokespeople like Dr. Anthony Fauci urged Americans to gather virtually instead of in person to avoid potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2.1 The same calls for abstinence from friends and family were heard in Canada just before its October 12 Thanksgiving holiday.2
December 7, 2020, Fauci warned that the COVID-19 surge caused by families gathering for Thanksgiving was still ahead of us. “The blip from Thanksgiving isn’t even here yet. So, we’re getting those staggering numbers of new cases and hospitalizations before we even feel the full brunt of the Thanksgiving holiday,” he said.3
Fauci suspects an upsurge of positive tests in the days leading up to Christmas and Hanukkah, stating that January 2021 “could be a really dark time.” Back in mid-November, Fauci stated that a successful mass vaccination campaign may be needed in order for Americans to be able to gather freely for the holidays — next year!4
Unelected COVID-19 czar Bill Gates, meanwhile, has gone on record saying self-isolation, business shutdowns and other restrictions will likely need to continue into 2022, even with a successful vaccine.5
UK Christmas Rules

In the U.K., a special set of restrictions have been issued for the five-day window of December 23 through December 27, 2020. Residents of Northern Ireland get one additional day on either side of these dates for travel.
The three-tier system of COVID restrictions6 rolled out at the end of November 2020 will be temporarily loosened to allow greater numbers of people to gather indoors in high-restriction areas.
Up to three households, including your own, will be allowed to gather indoors. “You shouldn’t mix with lots of different people every day. You need to pick your favorites and only see them during this period,” BBC health correspondent Laura Foster says in her Christmas rules video (above), adding that:

“The best thing to do to make sure you’re not infecting anyone else is to self-isolate for 14 full days [before Christmas eve], and then go directly to the people you want to spend the festive season with.”

Scotland specifies only eight people, at most, will be allowed at any given gathering, not counting children under the age of 12. Depending on the tier your area is in, you may or may not be allowed to gather with additional people outdoors. The video below sums up the ridiculousness of these kinds of micromanaging nanny-state rules quite nicely.

Is It Worth the Risk?

Even with restrictions on group sizes and various rules on mask wearing and sanitation requirements, we’re being urged to consider whether getting together with your loved ones is really worth the risk this year.
By insisting on human contact, you may inadvertently kill someone you love, the warning goes. This is particularly true for elderly grandparents, who are at higher risk for complications from the infection. What’s missing from this conversation is a key piece of logic, which is that every day of your life involves the risk of death.
We are now told that COVID-19 poses such an incredibly high risk that nothing is worth it. The problem with that is that the actual risk posed by SARS-CoV-2 — for the vast majority of people — is no greater than any other risk they’ve taken on any given day in their life thus far.
There are no guarantees that any one of us will see the sun rise tomorrow. In the past, most of us have braved the wild unknown to see our loved ones, knowing in the back of our minds, if only subconsciously, that we might die in a car accident on the way, or that the plane might crash. We also accepted that we might come down with the flu at some point during the winter.
Yet rarely if ever did such concerns stop us. Barring certain mental health conditions, we all accepted not knowing what was to come, and went about our daily business with what now is viewed as reckless abandon.
We are now told that COVID-19 poses such an incredibly high risk that nothing is worth it. The problem with that is that the actual risk posed by SARS-CoV-2 — for the vast majority of people — is no greater than any other risk they’ve taken on any given day in their life thus far.

What Does the Data Say About Your Risk?
Research7 shows that the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio for COVID-19 is 0.26%. Those under the age of 40 have an infection fatality ratio of 0.01%, while people over 60 have an infection fatality ratio of 1.71%.
The estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza cited in this paper is 0.8%. In other words, most people have a lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than they have of dying from the flu.
How many times in your life have you canceled plans for fear you might contract influenza? Even more importantly, how many times have you feared you might spread influenza to an elderly relative when you have no symptoms of a cold or influenza?
The issue of asymptomatic spread has lingered for months, but recent data8 from 9,899,828 residents of Wuhan city who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection found that not a single one of the 1,174 people who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual tested positive. Further testing of asymptomatic patients showed that 63.3% of them had antibodies.
This means that even though they never developed symptoms, they did at some point have a productive infection that resulted in the production of antibodies. Still, none of their contacts had been infected.
In other words, even in cases where asymptomatics were (or had been) carriers of apparently live virus, they still did not transmit it to others. Reasons for this appears to be because asymptomatics have very low viral loads and shed the virus for a very short period of time. These findings seem to support studies9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 suggesting that immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection is far more widespread than anyone imagined.
Other data17,18 show the overall all-cause mortality has remained steady during 2020 and doesn’t veer from the norm. In other words, COVID-19 has not killed off more of the population than would have died in any given year anyway.
Where Did Seasonal Flu Go?

Seasonal influenza, by the way, is also nonexistent this year. According to the World Health Organization, there has not been a single reported case of influenza since week 17 of 2020 anywhere in the world.19 That alone should tell us something about the real COVID-19 numbers.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also reports20 that reported flu hospitalizations are too low to generate an estimate of the influenza burden for the 2020 season. That said, it still estimates that up to 740,000 Americans were hospitalized for influenza and as many as 62,000 died from influenza between October 1, 2019, through April 4, 2020.
Statistics21 released by the CDC August 26, 2020, also show that only 6% of the total COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate.
As of December 15, 2020, the CDC reported 300,032 Americans had died with COVID-19.22 Using the 6% sole-cause calculation, we can extrapolate that 18,002 Americans have died from COVID-19 alone, and not some other underlying condition or accidental cause.
When looking at these numbers, doesn’t it strike you as odd that one type of death is considered so much worse than another? Why is it worth shutting down businesses and shunning social interactions for COVID-19 but not for influenza, which clearly is just as lethal? Why is it more unacceptable to die from COVID-19 than the flu, or heart disease, or cancer?

Why are some deaths acceptable while COVID-19 deaths are to be avoided at all cost? Why are healthy people told they must cease all semblance of life to protect the vulnerable while no one has ever had to quit living to prevent any other kind of death, including accidents that could be avoided by banning certain everyday activities.
Are You Sacrificing That Which Matters Most?

Of course, I’m not telling anyone what to do. I would encourage you, though, to ponder what matters. Most people will agree that the most valuable moments in life are those spent with family and friends, especially elderly relatives whose days are already numbered. Those very moments that make life worth living are now being stolen — if we let them.
The question is, what value do we place on family, versus the risk of illness? As mentioned, Gates predicts social restrictions will need to stay in place for the next two years. Are you willing to give up three years of life for an illness that poses no greater threat to life than a bad flu season?
How about five years? Ten? In all likelihood, the SARS-CoV-2 virus is here to stay, just like the pandemic swine flu, which is now one of the many viruses we encounter in any given flu season. In 2009, the swine flu pandemic was touted as a grave threat, yet no panic has ensued in the years since, even though it’s still in circulation. Why is that? Why should SARS-CoV-2 be any different?
As noted by A.J. Kay in a recent Medium article,23 “If safety requires us to indefinitely forfeit the most valuable parts of our lives, what exactly are we trying to save?”
According to a report24,25 by the AARP and United Health Foundation, social distancing measures have led to an epidemic of loneliness, and this too has significant risks that should be included in the risk-benefit calculation as it increases mortality from every cause.26 Public health researcher Kassandra Alcaraz recently told the American Psychological Association:27

“Our research really shows that the magnitude of risk presented by social isolation is very similar in magnitude to that of obesity, smoking, lack of access to care and physical inactivity.”

Pandemic Measures Sabotage Health

I believe the real threat right now is what we’re doing to sabotage the mental, emotional and physical health of people, especially our children, whose development is dependent on social interactions, physical contact and facial expressions. Between mask wearing and social distancing, I fear the impact on children in particular may be long-term, if not permanent.
But it’s clearly taking a cruel toll on the elderly as well. If you knew your days were numbered, how would you want to spend them? Would your main concern be to prevent an infection that might speed up the inevitable, or would you want to spend whatever time you have left surrounded by those you love?
These are significant questions that will guide your choices and thus the course of your life, and they’re more pressing now than ever. So, choose wisely this holiday season, because whatever you choose, you’ll have to live with your choices.
Stop Believing in Unscientific Lockdowns

It’s high time to start questioning what is credulous and what is not. A powerful essay28 in the American Institute for Economic Research does just that. It specifically questions whether lockdowns really are the best way to minimize casualties in this pandemic.

Using historical examples beginning with Voltaire’s words, “those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities,” the author reasons that lockdowns are not going to save the world from COVID-19, if for no other reason than whenever lockdowns are eased, infections naturally start to creep back up.

However, the vast majority of those who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic and pose no real risk. A rising “case” load also does not mean people are actually getting sick and dying. As you can see in the graph below, positive tests (aka “cases”) in blue do not correlate with COVID-19 deaths in red.29

Santa Reveals How COVID-19 Hurt His Business 

To close on a slightly lighter note, in a December 16, 2020, interview with Patrick Bet-David, Tim Connaghan, a national Santa, the official Santa for Los Angeles Christmas Parade, and founder of the International University of Santa Claus, reveals how COVID-19 has impacted the Santa business.

Like everyone else, Santa’s around the world have had to adjust to a number of restrictions. While many are still working the malls, social distancing procedures are being observed, which means no children on Santa’s lap, for example. They also wear masks or clear face shields. Other Santa’s have joined the virtual landscape.

If you’re curious about how to become a professional Santa Claus, listen to Connaghan, who has an interesting story about how he ended up teaching this unusual job.

“Oh, the weather outside is frightful …” or at least that’s how it’s depicted in song in the weeks before Christmas when many envision sitting before a roaring fire with a cup of eggnog.
In the U.S., the traditional drink is passed around from October through December, when sales of the store-bought variety fall precipitously after Christmas.1 In the last 50 years, sales in grocery stores have quadrupled. Although it’s impossible to measure the popularity of the homemade version, it’s estimated people in the U.S. drink more than 135 million pounds of it annually.2
While most eggnog is consumed over a short two months of the year around Thanksgiving and Christmas, retailers have noticed that the colder it is outside, the more eggnog they sell. Sales in the Midwest and Northeast U.S. outstrip the Southern states, but even in areas that are normally cold, when the temperature goes up, sales go down.
Despite fluctuations in sales around cold weather, culinary historian Andrew Smith reports that eggnog was traditionally a Southern drink when, in the early days of the U.S., alcohol consumption at Christmas was frowned upon.3
The Original Nog Was Made With Wine or Beer

The original eggnog made its first appearance around the 13th century in England.4 Only the wealthy could afford eggnog as it was made with liquors, eggs and milk that were rare foods for commoners. Large estates had farms and there was no refrigeration that would allow the ingredients to stay fresh.5
Most believe the first iteration of eggnog was the British “posset.” This was a hot milk drink that included ale. Posset may have been used to treat colds and flu when the drink was mixed with ale and spices.6 The upper-class mixed it with sherry or brandy instead of beer.
Since milk, eggs and sherry were foods only the wealthy could afford, eggnog became associated with toasting for prosperity.7 It wasn’t until the 1700s when the drink was brought to the Americas that it became tied to the holidays.
Since many of the colonies had farms that were full of chickens and cows, eggnog made the jump from the aristocracy to the rest of society. However, sherry was still expensive in the Americas because of heavy taxing, so cheaper rum from the Caribbean was added instead.8
Eggnog first made an appearance in written prose in a comic poem by Jonathan Boucher in 1775. But the earliest connection with Christmas came in the Virginia Chronicle in 1793 when it was reported:9

“On last Christmas Eve several gentlemen met at Northampton court-house, and spent the evening in mirth and festivity, when EGG-NOG was the principal Liquor used by the company. After they had indulged pretty freely in this beverage, a gentleman in company offered a bet that not one of the party could write four verses, extempore, which should be rhyme and sense …”

The drink has become a tradition across the world, with a few alterations depending on the country. In Mexico, it’s known as rompope, which was a drink created in a convent in Puebla.10 The basic recipe adds cinnamon and rum or grain alcohol. In Peru, it’s called biblia con pisco and made with Peruvian pomace brandy.
The Germans call their drink Biersuppe and it’s made with beer. And, in Iceland, they have a soup resembling eggnog that’s served as a hot dessert without alcohol. People who love the drink say the store-bought variety doesn’t come close to the taste and texture of what you can make at home.
What’s in a Name?

The drink is still sometimes called “egg flip” in Britain, referring to how it was made. Some in Australia also call it an “eggflip,” made with vanilla, milk, raw egg, sugar and grated nutmeg. Kidspot.au writes it “is a healthy, nutritious meal in a glass. Just don’t tell the kids that there is an egg in it and they will never know.”11
It is a mystery how the word “nog” came to be associated with eggnog. There are several theories, none of which have been proven. One says the word nog was the name of a strong beer made in East Anglia, England, that had a higher alcoholic content than other types of beer or ale.12 When eggs were added, the drink became eggnog.13
Another says the word comes from the word “noggin,” which today means a person’s head, but in Middle English meant a carved wooden mug in which people drank alcohol. Another theory says it came from the word “nug,” which is a type of ale drunk in Scotland that is warmed by a fire poker.
And finally, a theory that isn’t as plausible says the drink was named only after arriving in the colonies, coming from the term “grog” that refers to the rum early Americans used in their eggnog.14 The term grog morphed into nog and became eggnog. Wherever the term originated, it started showing up in the early 19th century in England and America.
Is There a Raw Egg in Your Nog?

Traditionally, homemade eggnog is made with a raw egg or two, depending on how much you’re making. However, if you’re getting the store-bought variety, you’ll find the FDA limits the amount of raw egg to 1% egg yolk, which is barely enough to say that there is an egg in the drink.15
Along with the minuscule portion of an egg are several other ingredients you may not be able to pronounce, as well as pasteurized milk products, sweeteners and artificial flavors.16 If you choose to make your own healthy recipe at home, I highly advise only using eggs from certified organic and true pasture-raised chickens from a trustworthy local farmer.
Eggs from conventionally farmed hens can increase your risk of infections and diseases like salmonella, as bacteria proliferate in livestock raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where conditions are cramped and unsanitary.
Local farmers that grow their hens in certified organic and true pasture-raised environments use stainable methods, including clean and spacious coops with adequate access to sunlight and room for the hens to forage for their natural food.
This is why salmonella contamination is rare in these animals. You can see the difference in the yolk of eggs harvested from CAFOs or pasture-raised chickens. Egg yolks from CAFOs are a light-yellow anemic color, while egg yolks from pasture-raised chickens are a rich orange color.
The same is true for raw milk. Many believe that pasteurized milk is safer than raw milk from grass fed cows, but this simply isn’t true, provided the raw milk is from a high-quality source. Pasteurization is necessary for commercial milk since the cows are exposed to contamination and disease and loaded with antibiotics that proliferate antibiotic-resistant infections.
The pasteurization kills the bacteria but leaves the protein shell in the milk. Raw milk from grass fed, pastured cows that are raised in clean and healthy conditions do not present these dangers. Instead the milk is teaming with nutrients, beneficial bacteria and probiotics, which are benefits you simply cannot get from CAFO milk.
Fun Facts About the Traditional Holiday Drink

Whether you are a fan of the rich egg/milk mixture or think it’s a drink best relegated to long-past traditions,17 eggnog has an interesting history. According to the Old Farmer’s Almanac, the first U.S. president enjoyed eggnog during the Christmas season. His recipe had an unhealthy amount of alcohol and sugar and didn’t specify the number of eggs needed. Printed in his words, Washington wrote:18

“One quart cream, one quart milk, one dozen tablespoons sugar, one pint brandy, ½ pint rye whiskey, ½ pint Jamaica rum, ¼ pint sherry — mix liquor first, then separate yolks and whites of eggs, add sugar to beaten yolks, mix well. Add milk and cream, slowly beating. Beat whites of eggs until stiff and fold slowly into mixture. Let set in cool place for several days. Taste frequently.”

Dwight Eisenhower loved to destress by cooking and concocted his own eggnog recipe that called for “one dozen egg yolks, 1 pound of granulated sugar, 1 quart of bourbon, 1 quart of coffee cream (half & half), and 1 quart of whipping cream.”
The tradition of drinking eggnog laced with alcohol during the Christmas season was brought to a halt at West Point Academy in 1826. Earlier in the year, Col. Sylvanus Thayer, who was known as the “father of West Point,” forbade alcohol on campus. What followed became known as the Eggnog Riot.19
It began when some cadets smuggled liquor on campus for a holiday party and proceeded to get inebriated. By the end of the night, there were smashed windows, broken furniture and gunshots. No one was hurt, but one month later 19 students had been court-martialed and 11 were ultimately expelled from the school.20
In 1920 a British journalist, Pierce Egan, invented an eggnog drink made with rum and brandy. He called it the “Tom and Jerry.” Some believe the Tom and Jerry cartoon was named after the drink.21
Delicious and Healthy Holiday Treat

Whether you enjoy it each year or are considering trying it this year for the first time, using a homemade eggnog recipe is your best choice for appreciating the real flavor of the drink and avoiding unnecessary ingredients from the store-bought variety.
It’s important to remember that when alcohol is consumed in excessive amounts it can wreak havoc on your liver and overall health. The good news is that you can enjoy a healthy and delicious eggnog drink without alcohol. Judy Peacock, a Mercola.com reader, shared her personal healthy eggnog recipe that is delicious, alcohol-free and perfect for all ages. Consider trying it this season.

Healthy Holiday Eggnog Recipe
Serving Size: 1

Ingredients

• 2 or 3 raw pastured eggs

• Your milk of choice, such as grass fed cow’s milk or coconut milk, enough to fill your glass or mug

• A dash of nutmeg or vanilla

• Raw honey to taste

• One scoop of whey protein powder (optional)

Procedure

Put the eggs, milk, honey and whey protein powder (if using) in a mug or glass. Add a dash of vanilla or nutmeg.

Use a hand blender to blend the mixture until frothy.

Consume immediately.