Lose Them Pounds

We’ve known from the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic that children were at exceptionally low risk for hospitalization and death from this infection. Despite that, massive efforts are underway to get a needle in the arm of every child.

At present, COVID-19 injections are authorized for emergency use in children as young as 12 in the U.S.,1 and vaccine makers are moving forward with plans to get authorization for children as young as 6 months.

Fortunately, there are glimmers of hope, here and there. In the U.K., children will not be eligible to receive a COVID shot unless they have underlying conditions that make them more vulnerable to infection or live with a high-risk person. As reported by The Guardian, July 19, 2021:2

“The opinion of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) expands the eligibility for children, after a previous decision that vulnerable 16- and 17-year-olds could get vaccinated … [T]he advisory body said:

‘The health benefits in this population are small, and the benefits to the wider population are highly uncertain. At this time, JCVI is of the view that the health benefits of universal vaccination in children and young people below the age of 18 years do not outweigh the potential risks.’”

Vulnerabilities that would make children over the age of 12 eligible for COVID injection include severe neuro-disabilities, Down’s syndrome, immunosuppression and multiple or severe learning disabilities.

If you ask me, this is a rather curious list, seeing how neurodevelopmental problems are unlikely to make you more prone to viral infection. We already know the high-risk factors for COVID-19 are things like obesity and multiple chronic diseases — not neurological problems and intellectual deficiencies.

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, this list is uncomfortably similar to that of Hitler’s T4 program. This was an involuntary euthanasia campaign where the incurably sick, physically and mentally handicapped, psychologically ill and elderly were selectively murdered by the medical establishment.

COVID-19 Deaths in Children Extremely Rare

Overall, the risk of COVID-19 to children of all ages is so small as to be inconsequential, learning disabilities and chromosomal irregularities or not. A study3 posted July 7, 2021, which looked at deaths occurring in children in the U.K. during the first 12 months of the pandemic, found 99.995% of children diagnosed with COVID-19 survived.

In all, between March 2020 and February 2021, only 25 children under the age of 18 died directly as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection. (An additional 61 children had positive test results when they died, but their death was attributed to other causes.) This gives us an absolute mortality rate for children of 2 per 1 million. As noted by the authors:4

“SARS-CoV-2 is very rarely fatal in CYP [children and young people], even among those with underlying comorbidities. These findings are important to guide families, clinicians and policy makers about future shielding and vaccination.”

Childhood Vaccination Push Built on Flimsy Evidence

In the United States, a total of 335 children under 18 have died with a COVID-19 diagnosis on their death certificate.5 The CDC estimates the infection fatality rate from COVID-19 among children zero to 17 years old is 20 per 1 million.6 This is likely a significant overestimation, however.

In the British study above, they specifically differentiated between those who actually died from COVID-19, meaning there was no other underlying condition that contributed to their death, and those who simply tested positive at the time of death but died from other causes.

This has not been done in the U.S., so we don’t know how many of those 335 children had underlying conditions that contributed or directly caused their death. As noted by Marty Makary in a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece dated July 19, 2021:7

“Without these data, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP] decided in May that the benefits of two-dose vaccination outweigh the risks for all kids 12 to 15.

I’ve written hundreds of peer-reviewed medical studies, and I can think of no journal editor who would accept the claim that 335 deaths resulted from a virus without data to indicate if the virus was incidental or causal, and without an analysis of relevant risk factors such as obesity.”

To remedy this shortcoming, Makary and colleagues at Johns Hopkins teamed up with the nonprofit FAIR Health to analyze the health insurance data of approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with COVID-19 between April and August 2020.

As it turns out, none of the children who died were free of preexisting medical conditions such as cancer. “If that trend holds, it has significant implications for healthy kids and whether they need two vaccine doses,” Makary says.8

Overall, children appear naturally immune against COVID-199 and are not significant vectors of transmission either.10 So, there’s really no need to place draconian COVID restrictions on children out of fear for their own safety or anyone else’s.

Death Statistics Were Illegally Inflated From the Start

Makary also points out that we’ve already established that COVID-19 mortality statistics have been vastly overinflated in the U.S.11 In early June 2021, Alameda County in California lowered its reported death toll from COVID-19 by 25%, after state health officials insisted that deaths only be attributed to COVID-19 if SARS-CoV-2 infection was a direct or contributing factor.12

As detailed in “CDC Violated Law to Inflate COVID Cases and Fatalities,” investigation has revealed the CDC inflated fatalities by as much as 96%. They did this by illegally altering the way deaths are reported. Had the old guidelines remained in place, the COVID-19 death toll as of August 23, 2020, in the U.S. would have been 9,684.

As you may recall, in late August 2020, the CDC admitted that only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths.13 As of August 23, 2020, the CDC reported 161,392 COVID-related fatalities. Multiplied by 6%, you get an actual death toll of 9,684.

It’s hard to believe anyone would be willing to shut down commerce in an entire state over such a number. It’s also hard to believe people would line up to take an unproved and dangerous experimental gene modification injection based on a mortality risk this low.

Unfortunately, we’ve been lied to for so long, many are still effectively brainwashed with the continuous propaganda from mainstream news and public health officials that have long since abandoned their commitment to integrity.

Parents Clamor to Enroll Their Children in COVID Trials

Mainstream media have since the very beginning ignored and hidden data showing COVID-19 isn’t as bad as initially feared. And now they’re ignoring and hiding data showing the COVID shots are worse than suspected. Wired Magazine, for example, blames parents’ apprehension to have their children injected with experimental gene therapy on right-wing politics rather than actual data.14

Wired also reports that more parents have volunteered their children for clinical COVID-19 trials than trial sites have spaces for which, to me, suggests many are still clueless about the risks of these injections, as well as the risk posed by SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Fauci Blasted for Latest Mask Recommendation

In related news, Dr. Anthony Fauci recently faced backlash after saying children aged 2 and older should continue to wear masks.15 During an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Fauci said:

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

It’s tiring, all of these outrageous and health damaging lies — no doubt about that. Another thing there’s no doubt about is that Fauci has changed his mind on the usefulness of masks more times than some of us have actually donned said masks.

In response to Fauci’s declaration that children need to be forced to wear masks to protect adults, New York Post columnist Karol Markowicz tweeted, “I can’t believe it’s July 2021 and this man is still spouting nonsense on our televisions without any serious follow-up questions. What an embarrassment.”16

Children Are Not at Risk

Getting back to the issue of COVID jabs, all available data suggest COVID-19 is of no significant concern for children. Their risk of being hospitalized or dying from COVID-19 is actually lower than their risk of being hospitalized or dying from the flu.17

For comparison, more than 2,000 American children and teens died in car crashes in 2019,18 and accidental drowning claims the lives of nearly 1,000 children each year.19 Even unintentional drug overdoses claim more lives than COVID-19 in this age group. In 2016, unintentional drug poisoning killed 761 children.20

Why isn’t there a national outrage about these drug-related deaths, seeing how the 2016 statistics show that more than TWICE the number of children most likely have died from overdoses during the pandemic than supposedly died from COVID-19?

There’s also no solid evidence to assume children pose a transmission risk to adults. Besides, 90% of American seniors have now received their COVID shots,21 so by the logic of the official narrative, the most vulnerable adults now have the best herd immunity available and are individually protected with the best modern medicine supposedly has to offer.

Importantly, since children’s risk is so minuscule, there’s really no legal framework for an emergency use authorization of COVID injections for children. Still, the Food and Drug Administration and vaccine makers push forward with that exact plan. Hopefully, they’ll be stopped.

The FDA can only authorize the use of a medical product in a given population if the benefit outweighs the risk in that same population. This means that even if adults were to benefit, the COVID shots cannot be authorized for children unless children will actually benefit from it themselves.

July 19, 2021, America’s Frontline Doctors filed a motion to stop the emergency use authorization of COVID injections for children under 18, anyone with natural immunity and anyone who has not been given proper informed consent.22,23

In their motion, the group points out that the prerequisite health emergency no longer exists, that COVID shots do not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection, that adequate treatment alternatives exist, and that the known risks of COVID gene modifying injections outweigh any potential benefit for these groups.

They also include a sworn statement by a CDC whistleblower, a computer programmer, who claims the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) under-reports deaths by a factor of five or more. The whistleblower estimates the number of deaths actually may have been around 45,000 as of July 9, 2021.

Vaccinating Children to Benefit Adults Is Unethical

An opinion piece in The BMJ24 by Peter Doshi, Elia Abi-Jaoude and Claudina Michal-Teitelbaum also highlights why we must not force children to take the COVID shot simply because it might help vulnerable adults. They write:25

“While there is wide recognition that children’s risk of severe covid-19 is low, many believe that mass vaccination of children may … also prevent onward transmission, indirectly protecting vulnerable adults and helping end the pandemic. However, there are multiple assumptions that need to be examined when judging calls to vaccinate children against covid-19 …

Even if one assumes protection against severe covid-19, given its very low incidence in children, an extremely high number would need to be vaccinated in order to prevent one severe case. Meanwhile, a large number of children with very low risk for severe disease would be exposed to vaccine risks, known and unknown.

Thus far, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine has been judged by Israel’s government as likely linked to symptomatic myocarditis, with an estimated incidence between 1 in 3000 to 1 in 6000 in men ages 16 to 24. Furthermore, the long term effects of gene-based vaccines, which involve novel vaccine platforms, remain essentially unknown …

Given all these considerations, the assertion that vaccinating children against SARS-CoV-2 will protect adults remains hypothetical.

Even if we were to assume this protection does exist, the number of children that would need to be vaccinated to protect just one adult from a bout of severe covid-19 — considering the low transmission rates, the high proportion of children already being post-covid, and most adults being vaccinated or post-covid — would be extraordinarily high.

Moreover, this number would likely compare unfavorably to the number of children that would be harmed, including for rare serious events. A separate, but crucial question is one of ethics. Should society be considering vaccinating children, subjecting them to any risk, not for the purpose of benefiting them but in order to protect adults? We believe the onus is on adults to protect themselves.”

Doshi was even more blunt in his June 10, 2021, public comment26 to the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. There, he pointed out that the FDA can only authorize the use of a medical product in a given population if the benefit outweighs the risk in that same population.

This means that even if adults were to benefit, the COVID shots cannot be authorized for children unless children will actually benefit from it themselves. Since when, in the history of public health, have children been sacrificed to protect the sick and elderly? Public health authorities have completely reversed the conventional risk/reward analysis.

In the case of COVID-19 injections, children cannot benefit, seeing how they only have a 0.005% risk of death in the first place. Meanwhile, healthy children have died shortly after the jabs, dozens of cases of heart inflammation have been reported, and Pfizer’s biodistribution study27,28 raises serious questions about the shot’s potential to cause infertility.

Since demonstrated risks far outweigh demonstrated benefits in children, the vaccines also fail to meet the biologics license application required for ultimate market approval. Last but not least, since there’s no “unmet need,” there’s no need to rush the approval of these injections for children.

CDC Is Deliberating Lowering the COVID Injection Death Toll

While the exact number of deaths from these COVID shots remains uncertain — VAERS reports 12,313 deaths29 as of July 13, 2021, and the CDC whistleblower estimates the death toll at 45,000 or higher — we can unequivocally state that the number is record-breaking high. There’s no vaccine in modern medical history that even comes close. The risk is extraordinary, which is precisely why we must protect our children from it.

Speaking of the CDC, I just discovered it slashed the number of deaths reported to VAERS from 12,313 as of July 13, 2021, to 6,079. In what appears to be a deliberate attempt at deception, the CDC “rolled back” its July 19, 2021, adverse events report to statistics from the previous week. I’ll explain. Take note of the specific dates and death totals in each of the following excerpts. The July 13 report reads as follows:30

“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 12, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,079 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”

The original July 19 report (saved on Wayback) initially read as follows:31

“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 338 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 12,313 reports of death (0.0036%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Please note, the death toll more than doubled in a single week. That original July 19 report was then changed to this. The date on the report is still July 19:32

“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 13, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,079 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”

At a time when accuracy and transparency is of such critical importance for informed consent, it’s beyond shocking to see the CDC engage in this kind of deception. Parents everywhere need to realize that the CDC and other agencies and their officials are deliberately downplaying and hiding the enormity of the danger their children will face if they take this injection.

I implore you. Please spend ample time looking at all the evidence before you allow your child to participate in this heinous experiment. I understand that the inclination to trust our “gold standard” health agencies is great, but trust must be continuously earned. It’s not a one-time done deal.

At this point, having a skeptical eye and double-checking every claim is of paramount importance. Your child’s health and life may depend on you not being gullible.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/29/covid-19-in-children.aspx

Every totalitarian system in history has used the power of visual propaganda to generate a new “reality,” one that reifies its official ideology, remaking the world in its own paranoid image. New Normal totalitarianism is no exception. For example, take a look at this panel copied from the landing page of The Guardian — one of the global-capitalist ruling classes’ primary propaganda organs — on July 17, 2021 …

This isn’t just “biased” or “sensationalist” journalism. It is systematic official propaganda, no different than that disseminated by every other totalitarian system throughout history. Here’s the one from the following day …

Forget about the content of the articles for a moment and just take in the cumulative visual effect. Official propaganda isn’t just information, misinformation, and disinformation.
It is actually less about getting us to believe things than it is about creating an official reality, and imposing it on society by force. When you’re setting out to conjure up a new “reality,” images are extremely powerful tools, just as powerful, if not more powerful, than words. Here are a few more that you might recall …

Again, the goal of this type of propaganda is not simply to deceive or terrorize the public. That is part of it, of course, but the more important part is forcing people to look at these images, over and over, hour after hour, day after day, at home, at work, on the streets, on television, on the Internet, everywhere.
This is how we create “reality.” We represent our beliefs and values to ourselves, and to each other, with images, words, rituals, and other symbols and social behaviors. Essentially, we conjure our “reality” into being like actors rehearsing and performing a play … the more we all believe it, the more convincing it is.
This is also why mandatory masks have been essential to the roll-out of the New Normal ideology. Forcing the masses to wear medical-looking masks in public was a propaganda masterstroke.
Simply put, if you can force people to dress up like they’re going to work in the infectious disease ward of a hospital every day for 17 months … presto! You’ve got yourself a new “reality” … a new, pathologized-totalitarian “reality,” a paranoid-psychotic, cult-like “reality” in which formerly semi-rational people have been reduced to nonsense-babbling lackeys who are afraid to go outside without permission from “the authorities,” and are injecting their children with experimental “vaccines.”
The sheer power of the visual image of those masks, and being forced to repeat the ritual behavior of putting them on, has been nearly irresistible. Yes, I know that you have been resisting. So have I. But we are the minority. Denying the power of what we are up against might make you feel better, but it will get us nowhere, or, in any event, nowhere good.
The fact is, the vast majority of the public — except for people in Sweden, Florida, and assorted other officially non-existent places — have been robotically performing this theatrical ritual, and harassing those who refuse to do so, and thus collectively simulating an “apocalyptic plague.”
The New Normals — i.e., those still wearing masks outdoors, shrieking over meaningless “cases,” bullying everyone to get “vaccinated,” and collaborating with the segregation of the “Unvaccinated” — are not behaving the way they’re behaving because they are stupid.
They are behaving that way because they’re living in a new “reality” that has been created for them over the course of the last 17 months by a massive official propaganda campaign, the most extensive and effective in the history of propaganda.
In other words, to put it bluntly, we are in a propaganda war, and we’re losing. We can’t match the propaganda power of the corporate media and New Normal governments, but that doesn’t mean we can’t fight back. We can, and must, at every opportunity. Recently, readers have been asking me how to do that. So, OK, here are a few simple suggestions.
The vast majority of obedient New Normals are not fanatical totalitarians. They’re scared, and weak, so they are following orders, adjusting their minds to the new official “reality.”
Most of them do not perceive themselves as adherents of a totalitarian system or as segregationists, although that is what they are. They perceive themselves as “responsible” people following sensible “health directives” to “protect” themselves and others from the virus, and its ever-multiplying mutant “variants.” They perceive the “Unvaccinated” as a minority of dangerous, irrational “conspiracy theorist” extremists, who want to kill them and their families.
When we tell them that we simply want our constitutional rights back, and to not be forced into being “vaccinated,” and censored and persecuted for expressing our views, they do not believe us. They think we’re lying. They perceive us as threats, as aggressors, as monsters, as strangers among them, who need to be dealt with … which is exactly how the authorities want them to perceive us.
We need to try to change this perception, not by complying or being “polite” to them. On the contrary, we need to become more confrontational. No, not violent. Confrontational. There is actually a difference, though the “woke” will deny it.
To begin with, we need to call things what they are. The “vaccination pass” system is a segregation system. It is segregationism. Call it what it is. Those cooperating with it are segregationists. They’re not “helping” or “protecting” anybody from anything. They are segregationists, pure and simple. Refer to them as “segregationists.” Don’t let them hide behind their terminology. Confront them with the fact of what they are.
Same goes for the rest of CovidSpeak. COVID “cases,” “deaths,” and “vaccines” get scare quotes. Healthy people are not medical cases. If COVID didn’t kill someone, they are not a COVID death, period. “Vaccines” that do not behave like vaccines, and that are killing and crippling tens of thousands of people, and that have not been adequately tested for safety, and that are being indiscriminately forced on everyone, do not get to be called vaccines.
OK, here comes the big idea, which will only work if enough people do it. You probably won’t like it, but what the hell, here goes …

This is the red inverted triangle the Nazis used in the concentration camps to designate their political opponents and members of the anti-Nazi resistance. Make one. Make it out of fabric, paper, or whatever material you have at hand. Put a big, black “U” in the center of it to signify “Unvaccinated.” Wear it in public, conspicuously.
When people ask you what it means and why you are wearing it in public, tell them. Encourage them to do the same, assuming they’re not New Normal segregationists, in which case … well, that will be a different conversation, but go ahead and tell them too.
That’s it. That’s the whole big idea. That, and whatever else you are already doing. The triangle is not meant to replace that. It’s just one simple way for people to express their opposition to the totalitarian, pseudo-medical segregation system that is currently being implemented … despite all that other stuff you’ve been doing, and that I have been doing, for 17 months.
All right, I can already feel your disappointment. You thought I was going to propose a frontal assault on Klaus Schwab’s secret castle, or a guerilla naval attack on Bill Gates’ yacht. Cathartic as either of those endeavors might be, they would be (a) futile, and (b) suicidal. Frustrating as it has been for all of us, this is still a battle for hearts and minds. Essentially, it is a War on Reality (or between two “realities” if you prefer). It is being fought in people’s heads, not in the streets.
So, let me try to sell you on this red triangle thing. The point of a visual protest like this is to force the New Normals to confront a different representation of what they, and we, are. A representation that accurately reflects reality.
No, of course we are not in concentration camps — so, please, spare me the irate literalist emails — but we are being segregated, scapegoated, censored, humiliated, and otherwise abused, not for any legitimate public health reasons, but because of our political dissent, because we refuse to mindlessly follow orders and conform to their new official ideology.
The New Normals need to be forced to perceive their beliefs and actions in that context, even if only for a few fleeting moments at the mall, or in the grocery store, or wherever.
Think of it this way … as I explained above, they are basically performing a theatrical event, conjuring up a “pandemic reality” with words, actions, and pseudo-medical stage props. What we need to become is that asshole in the audience who destroys the suspension of disbelief and reminds everyone that they’re sitting in a theater, and not in 15th Century Denmark, by loudly taking a call on his phone right in the middle of Hamlet’s soliloquy.
Seriously, we need to become that asshole as conspicuously as possible, as often as possible, to disrupt the show the New Normals are performing … and to remind them what they are actually doing, and who they are actually doing it to.

Look at the white people in the tweet above tormenting that girl who is just trying to go to school like any other student. The New Normals do not want to perceive themselves that way, as a pack of fanatical, hate-drunk segregationists, but that is what they are, because it is what they are doing … but it is not what most of them are by nature.
Yes, some people are congenitally sociopathic, but no one is inherently totalitarian. We are not born fascists or segregationists. We have to be programmed to be that way. That’s what the propaganda is for, not to mention all the other authoritarian conditioning we are subjected to from the time we are children.
Or that’s the gamble, or the leap of faith, behind the inverted red triangle thing. It is a basic non-violent civil-disobedience tactic, which works on people who still have a conscience and haven’t gone full totalitarian yet.
Granted, it might not work this time — we are already at the stage where they are going to imprison restaurant owners for serving the “Unvaccinated” — but it might, and what have we got to lose?

About the Author
C.J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volumes I and II of his Consent Factory Essays are published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/29/propaganda-war-and-how-to-fight-it.aspx

The use of statin cholesterol-lowering medications has been on the rise for decades1 and they are among the most widely used drugs in the world. In the U.S., close to 50% of U.S. adults over 75 years old take a statin2 to lower their cholesterol in the misguided hope of preventing heart disease, heart attacks and stroke.

Not only is there strong evidence suggesting that statins are a colossal waste of money, but their use may also harm your brain health — more than doubling your risk of dementia in some cases.3

The benefit must clearly outweigh the risk when it comes to any drug treatment, but this is rarely the case with statins, which do not protect against cardiovascular disease and are linked to a number of health conditions4,5 including dementia, diabetes6 and even increased risk of death from COVID-19.7

Statins Doubled Risk of Developing Dementia

Statins’ effects on cognitive performance have previously been called into question, since lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol are linked to a higher risk of dementia.8 The featured study, published in The Journal of Nuclear Medicine,9 involved people with mild cognitive impairment and looked into the effects of two types of statins: hydrophilic and lipophilic.

Hydrophilic statins, which include pravastatin (Pravachol) and rosuvastatin (Crestor), dissolve more readily in water, while lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin (Lipitor), simvastatin (Zocor), Fluvastatin (Lescol), and lovastatin (Altoprev), dissolve more readily in fats.10 Lipophilic statins can easily enter cells11 and be distributed throughout your body, whereas hydrophilic statins focus on the liver.12

According to study author Prasanna Padmanabham of the University of California, Los Angeles, “There have been many conflicting studies on the effects of statin drugs on cognition. While some claim that statins protect users against dementia, others assert that they accelerate the development of dementia. Our study aimed to clarify the relationship between statin use and subject’s long-term cognitive trajectory.”13

Subjects were divided into groups based on cognitive status, cholesterol levels and type of statin used, and followed for eight years. Those with early mild cognitive impairment and low to moderate cholesterol levels at the start of the study who used lipophilic statins had more than double the risk of dementia compared to those who did not use statins.14

Further, this group also had significant decline in metabolism of the brain’s posterior cingulate cortex, which is the brain region that declines most significantly in early Alzheimer’s disease.15

Your Brain Needs Cholesterol

About 25% to 30% of your body’s total cholesterol is found in your brain, where it is an essential part of neurons. In your brain, cholesterol helps develop and maintain the plasticity and function of your neurons,16 and data from the Shanghai Aging Study revealed that high levels of LDL cholesterol are inversely associated with dementia in those aged 50 years and over.

“High level of LDL-C may be considered as a potential protective factor against cognition decline,” the researchers noted.17 They compiled a number of mechanisms on why lower cholesterol may be damaging for brain health, including the fact that lower cholesterol is linked with higher mortality in the elderly and may occur alongside malnutrition and chronic diseases, including cancer. As it specifically relates to brain health, however, they suggested:18

Decreasing cholesterol levels in the elderly may be associated with cerebral atrophy, which occurs with dementia
High LDL cholesterol may be beneficial by reducing neurons’ impairments or helping repair injured neurons
Acceleration of neurodegeneration has occurred when neurons were short on cellular cholesterol or cholesterol supply
Cholesterol plays an important role in the synthesis, transportation and metabolism of steroid hormones and lipid-soluble vitamins, and both of these are important to synaptic integrity and neurotransmission

Lower cholesterol levels were also associated with worse cognitive function among South Korean study participants aged 65 and over, and were considered to be a “state marker for AD [Alzheimer’s disease].”19

A U.S. study of more than 4,300 Medicare recipients aged 65 and over also revealed that higher levels of total cholesterol were associated with a decreased risk of Alzheimer’s disease, even after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and other related variables.20

Statins Increase Death Risk From COVID-19

The risks to brain health are only one red flag tied to statins. A concerning link was also uncovered among statins, diabetes and an increased risk of severe disease from COVID-19.21 Among patients with Type 2 diabetes admitted to a hospital for COVID-19, those taking statins had significantly higher mortality rates from COVID-19 within seven days and 28 days compared to those not taking the drugs.

The researchers acknowledged those taking statins were older, more frequently male and often had more comorbidities, including high blood pressure, heart failure and complications of diabetes. However, despite the limitations, the researchers found enough evidence in the over 2,400 participants to conclude:22

“… our present results do not support the hypothesis of a protective role of routine statin use against COVID-19, at least not in hospitalized patients with T2DM (Type 2 diabetes mellitus).

Indeed, the potentially deleterious effects of routine statin treatment on COVID-19-related mortality demands further investigation and, as recently highlighted, only appropriately designed and powered randomized controlled trials will be able to properly address this important issue.”

Statins Double — or Triple — Diabetes Risk

A connection already exists between statins and diabetes, to the extent that people who take statins are more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with diabetes than those who do not, and those who take the drugs for longer than two years have more than triple the risk.23,24

“The fact that increased duration of statin use was associated with an increased risk of diabetes — something we call a dose-dependent relationship — makes us think that this is likely a causal relationship,” study author Victoria Zigmont, a graduate researcher in public health at The Ohio State University in Columbus, said in a news release.25

The data also indicated that individuals taking statin medications had a 6.5% increased risk of high blood sugar as measured by hemoglobin A1c value,26 which is an average level of blood sugar measuring the past 60 to 90 days.

Researchers with the Erasmus Medical Center in The Netherlands also analyzed data from more than 9,500 patients, finding those who had ever used statins had a 38% higher risk of Type 2 diabetes, with the risk being higher in those with impaired glucose homeostasis and those who were overweight or obese.27

The researchers concluded, “Individuals using statins may be at higher risk for hyperglycemia, insulin resistance and eventually Type 2 diabetes. Rigorous preventive strategies such as glucose control and weight reduction in patients when initiating statin therapy might help minimize the risk of diabetes.”

But a far better strategy may be preventing insulin resistance in the first place, by avoiding statin drugs and eating a healthy diet. According to Dr. Aseem Malhotra, an interventional cardiologist consultant in London, U.K. — who has been attacked for being a “statin denier” after calling out the drugs’ side effects28 — and a colleague:29

“In young adults, preventing insulin resistance could prevent 42% of myocardial infarctions, a larger reduction than correcting hypertension (36 %), low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (31 %), body mass index (BMI) (21 %) or LDL-C (16 %).30

It is plausible that the small benefits of statins in the prevention of CVD come from pleiotropic effects which are independent of LDL-lowering. The focus in primary prevention should therefore be on foods and food groups that have a proven benefit in reducing hard endpoints and mortality.”

The Statin Scam

Even as saturated fats and cholesterol have been vilified, and statin drugs have become among the most widely prescribed medications worldwide, heart disease remains a top killer.31 Today, statin drugs to reduce cholesterol levels are recommended for four broad patient populations:32

Those who have already had a cardiovascular event
Adults with diabetes
Individuals with LDL cholesterol levels ?190?mg/dL
Individuals with an estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk ?7.5% (based on an algorithm that uses your age, gender, blood pressure, total cholesterol, high density lipoproteins (HDL), race and history of diabetes to predict the likelihood you’ll experience a heart attack in the coming 10 years)

Despite statins being prescribed for these sizable groups, and “target” cholesterol levels being achieved, a systematic review of 35 randomized, controlled trials found that no additional benefits were gained. According to an analysis in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine:33

“Recommending cholesterol lowering treatment based on estimated cardiovascular risk fails to identify many high-risk patients and may lead to unnecessary treatment of low-risk individuals. The negative results of numerous cholesterol lowering randomized controlled trials call into question the validity of using low density lipoprotein cholesterol as a surrogate target for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.”

Even in the case of recurrent cardiovascular events, despite the increase in statin use from 1999 to 2013, researchers writing in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders noted, “there was only a small decrease in the incidence of recurrent CVD, and this occurred mainly in older patients without statins prescribed.”34

Statins Won’t Protect Your Heart Health

Statins are effective at lowering cholesterol, but whether this is the panacea for helping you avoid heart disease and extend your lifespan is a topic of heated debate. Again in 2018, a scientific review presented substantial evidence that high LDL and total cholesterol are not an indication of heart disease risk, and that statin treatment is of doubtful benefit as a form of primary prevention for this reason.35

In short, these drugs have done nothing to derail the rising trend of heart disease, while putting users at increased risk of health conditions like diabetes, dementia and others, such as:

Cancer36
Cataracts37
Triple risk of coronary artery and aortic artery calcification38
Musculoskeletal disorders, including myalgia, muscle weakness, muscle cramps, rhabdomyolysis and autoimmune muscle disease39
Depression40

In the event you’re taking statins, be aware that they deplete your body of coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) and inhibit the synthesis of vitamin K2. The risks of CoQ10 depletion can be somewhat offset by taking a Coenzyme Q10 supplement or, if you’re over 40, its reduced form ubiquinol. But ultimately, if you’re looking to protect both your brain and heart health, avoiding statin drugs and instead optimizing your diet may be the answer.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/28/statins-double-risk-of-dementia.aspx

Omega-3 fats are essential polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). Your body uses these fats for a variety of functions, such as blood clotting, brain and eye health, digestion and muscle activity.1,2,3
Humans evolved on a diet of omega-6 to omega 3 fats in a ratio of close to 1-to-1.4 However, in the past several decades, the ratio in the stand Western diet measured between 15-to-1 and 16.7-to-1 in 20065 and 10 years later measured at 20-to-1 or greater.6 This shift began during the Industrial Revolution when people began eating foods rich in vegetable oils and cereal grains were fed to livestock, raising the levels of omega-6 fats in meat.7
Omega-3 fats can be broken down into three main categories — alpha linoleic acid (ALA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).8 ALA is a precursor to EPA and DHA, but it can only be converted in amounts less than 5%.9 DHA and EPA are long-chain omega-3 fats.
You must get each form of omega-3 fat from foods or dietary supplements. ALA is plant-based and found mostly in flaxseed, walnuts, chia seeds and hemp seeds.10 Bioavailable DHA and EPA are found in fish and other marine-based foods.11
There is mounting research that drives home the importance of animal-based omega-3 fats for heart health.12 Deficiency can leave you vulnerable to chronic disease and may increase your risk of poor outcomes in COVID-19.
As I mentioned, the objective is to bring your ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids as close to 1-to-1 as possible. Many foods have omega-3 fats, but the ratio of omega-6 to omega 3 is high, so foods other than marine-based fish cannot effectively raise your omega-3 levels.
Omega 3-to-6 Levels in Conventional Eggs Have Plummeted
Farmers used to harvest their eggs from chickens that were free ranging and allowed to forage for their food. For the most part, consumers today have the option of buying four different types of eggs at the grocery store.13,14 They are:

Conventional — These eggs are produced by cage-raised or cage-free chickens that are grain-fed. Cage-free means the chickens are not in cages, but still are packed into a large room with little space.

Organic — Hens that produce certified organic eggs receive organic feed and are not treated with hormones. The certification does not necessarily mean they are allowed to forage.
Pastured or free-range — Hens have some access to the outdoors where they may also have access to their natural food such as plants and insects. The pasture-raised claim15 can be made if there is just a small, bare dirt area, and the free-range claim16 can be made if there is a door that the farm could at some point open. This designation does not indicate what the hens are fed.
Omega-3 enriched — The hens are raised like conventional chickens and the feed is supplemented with an omega-3 source like flax seeds.

Analysis and comparison of fatty acid composition in conventionally raised and outdoor chickens allowed to forage for insects and plants is vastly different.17 One study published by Cambridge University18 analyzed the difference in the eggs of hens allowed to forage for insects and plants against those fed a commercial diet and kept in cages.
The researchers controlled for the differences in chicken breeds by using sister hens and splitting them into groups. The hens were fed over six weeks before the eggs were analyzed. The researchers split the hens allowed to forage into three groups where one group had access to alfalfa, the second to red-and-white clover and the third to a mix of cool-season grasses.
At the end of the study, they found the concentrations of fatty acids and vitamin A did not differ in the three pastured groups, but those that foraged on grass had 23% more vitamin E then those that foraged on clover.
When they compared the eggs from the caged hens against the pastured eggs they found the hens allowed to forage had “twice as much vitamin E and long-chain omega-3 fats, 2.5-fold more total omega-3 fatty acids, and less than half the ratio of omega-6:omega-3 fatty acids.”19
A later study20 also demonstrated that hens allowed to forage outdoors laid eggs with vitamin D content that was up to four times higher than those who were kept indoors. They compared vitamin D content from the hens exposed to sunlight against free-range eggs purchased at the supermarket and found those from the grocer had relatively low vitamin D content.
Consequences of the Dramatic Shift in Omega Fats
Scientific evidence shows that there have been significant consequences as humans began to eat a diet rich in omega-6 fats and low in omega-3s. The majority of omega-6 fats used to come from nuts and seeds. However current intake comes from processed foods and oxidized vegetable oils.21
This imbalance in omega fats is one route to inflammatory disease, including heart disease, diabetes and cancer. One primary source of omega-6 fats in the American diet is soybean oil, which accounts for 60% of all vegetable oils found in processed foods, salad dressings, snacks and margarine.22
Researchers have linked diets high in soybean oil with Type 2 diabetes and obesity.23 Both of these health conditions are associated with heart disease, impaired cognition, neuropathy and early death.
In recent years it has become increasingly clear that one of the most damaging components in the modern diet is processed vegetable oils, including soybean oil. The biological damage they cause may be even worse than that triggered by refined sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, researchers say.24
The reason is because the oils trigger mitochondrial dysfunction that drives disease processes and several studies25,26,27 have provided scientific evidence of this. The good news is that replacing dangerous oils with healthy saturated fats can go a long way towards boosting your health and reducing your risk of chronic disease.
Unfortunately, many health authority authorities insist that omega-6 rich oils like soybean, corn and canola oil are healthier than saturated animal fats such as pasture-raised butter and lard. This myth has been a tough one to dismantle, despite the evidence against it. To learn more about how processed vegetable oils can harm your health see, “The Case Against Processed Vegetable Oils.”
Many Benefits of Balancing Omega-3 and Omega-6 Ratio
There are significant benefits to balancing your omega-6 and omega-3 ratio. For example, research28 published in 2018 confirmed omega-3 fat can reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality. Participants with an omega-3 index in the highest quintile had a total mortality 34% lower than those in the lowest quintile, and a 39% lower risk for cardiovascular disease.
As detailed in “More Data Support Heart Healthy Benefits of Omega-3s,” research has found fish oil consumption lowered the risk of all-cause mortality by 13% and cardiovascular mortality by 16%.
DHA is crucial for your brain health. Without enough, your nerve cells become stiff and more prone to inflammation as omega-3 fats are substituted with omega-6. Nerve cells that are rigid and inflamed have lower levels of proper neurotransmission and cells become compromised.29
Low levels of DHA have been linked to memory loss and Alzheimer’s disease,30 and some studies suggest degenerative brain diseases may potentially be reversible with sufficient DHA.31,32 Other health benefits include:

Reducing inflammation — This can be helpful for those suffering with rheumatoid arthritis by reducing stiffness and pain.33 Women who suffer from menstrual pain may also experience milder symptoms.34,35

Optimizing muscle building and bone strength — Omega-3 fats help your body build healthy muscle mass, including people suffering from cancer who may experience cachexia.36 Omega-3 fats can also help improve your bone strength by improving the utilization of calcium in your body. This may lead to a reduction in the development of osteoporosis.37,38

Improving metabolic syndrome39 and insulin resistance.40

Improving mental health and behavior — Demonstrated benefits have been shown for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), including reduced aggression, hyperactivity,41 impulsivity,42 oppositional behavior43 and restlessness.44 Omega-3 is associated with lowered risk for other neurological/cognitive dysfunction as well, including: memory loss, brain aging, learning disorders and ADHD,45 autism and dyslexia.46

Protecting your vision — DHA is a major structural element in your eye and brain.47 Low levels of DHA may increase your risk for age related macular degeneration.48

Reducing your risk of kidney disease49 and colon cancer.50

Importance of Omega-3 Testing
Like with most other biomarkers, it’s impossible to know your omega-3 fatty acid index without testing. The omega-3 index provides the most accurate measurement in the body and should ideally be above 8%.51 The test measures the amount of omega-3 in the red blood cells as a reflection of how much is found in the rest of the body.
Basically, the test measures the average of your intake based on the lifespan of a red blood cell over 120 days. This means it is not influenced by recent meals, but rather an average of the past months. Researchers have used it as an index to analyze data, including that of the Framingham study52 and the Women’s Health Initiative.53
Maintaining a level in the range that is associated with low risk can reduce your potential chance of heart disease. An index below 4% has a high risk of heart disease, those with an index from 4% to 8% have an intermediate risk and those with an index greater than 8% have the lowest risk for coronary heart disease.54
Another study55 used randomized control trial results to assess the effects of supplementation on telomere length and oxidative stress. The data suggested that telomere length increases with a decreasing ratio of omega-6 to omega-3. The researchers concluded that even over a short time, a change in the ratio has an impact on cell aging, inflammation and oxidative stress.
Safely Raise Your Omega-3 Intake
If you discover you need more omega-3 after getting tested, consider the different ways you can raise your level without adding toxins. Strategies include reducing or eliminating processed foods as they are high in omega-6 fats and switching to foods that have a lower ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats, such as locally raised, outdoor eggs. These are also great sources of omega-3:

• Fish — Small, cold-water fatty fish such as mackerel, anchovies and sardines are excellent sources that have a low risk of hazardous contamination. Wild-caught Alaskan salmon is also low in mercury and other environmental toxins.

Unfortunately, much of the fish supply is heavily polluted with industrial waste, so it is extremely important to be selective, choosing fish high in healthy fats and low in contaminants, such as those mentioned above.

• Krill oil — Krill oil is my preferred choice as a supplement because it has the indispensable animal-based DHA and EPA your body needs, and in a form that’s less prone to oxidation.

With the help of phospholipids, the nutrients in krill oil are carried directly to your cell membranes where they are more readily absorbed. Additionally, they may cross your blood-brain barrier to reach important brain structures.
While the following sources may be tempting because they are readily available and cost less than the ones mentioned above, I strongly advise avoiding:

• Farmed salmon — It contains about half the omega-3 levels of wild salmon, is often given antibiotics to treat bacterial infections, and fed a genetically engineered diet of corn and soy products and feed that also may contain or contaminated with pesticides and chicken feathers, poultry litter, genetically modified yeast, chicken fat and dyes.56

• Large carnivorous fish — Marlin, swordfish and tuna (including canned tuna), for example, tend to contain some of the highest concentrations of mercury,57 a known neurotoxin.58

• Fish oil — While fish oil may appear to be a convenient and relatively inexpensive way to increase your intake of omega-3 fats, it typically delivers insufficient antioxidant support. It is also highly prone to oxidation,59 leading to the formation of harmful free radicals.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/28/how-eggs-have-become-a-disaster.aspx

A recurring theme being broadcast by public health officials and the media is that vaccine-induced immunity is superior to that of natural immunity, but preliminary data from Israel — a country with more than 60% of its population vaccinated against COVID-191 — is showing otherwise.

Data presented to the Israeli Health Ministry July 13, 2021,2 revealed that, of the more than 7,700 COVID-19 cases reported since May 2021, only 72 occurred in people who had previously had COVID-19 — a rate of less than 1%. In contrast, more than 3,000 cases — or approximately 40% — occurred in people who had received a COVID-19 vaccine. As reported by Israeli National News:

“With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.

By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.”

In other words, those who were vaccinated were nearly 700% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those who had natural immunity from a prior infection — and this is largely in response to the Delta variant, which has led to increasing infections in Israel.3

Rate of COVID Reinfection: 0.27%

It’s extremely rare to get reinfected by COVID-19 after you’ve already had the disease and recovered. How rare? Researchers from Ireland conducted a systematic review including 615,777 people who had recovered from COVID-19, with a maximum duration of follow-up of more than 10 months.4

“Reinfection was an uncommon event,” they noted, “… with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time.” The absolute reinfection rate ranged from 0% to 1.1%, while the median reinfection rate was just 0.27%.5,6,7

Another study revealed similarly reassuring results. It followed 43,044 SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positive people for up to 35 weeks, and only 0.7% were reinfected. When genome sequencing was applied to estimate population-level risk of reinfection, the risk was estimated at 0.1%.8Again, there was no indication of waning immunity over seven months of follow-up, with the researchers concluding, “Reinfection is rare. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy >90% for at least seven months.”9

Another study from Israel also had researchers questioning “the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals,” after their analysis showed similar risks of reinfection among those with vaccine-induced or natural immunity. Specifically, vaccination had an overall estimated efficacy of preventing reinfection of 92.8%, compared to 94.8% for natural immunity acquired via prior infection.10

Why Natural Immunity Is Superior

Speaking with journalist Daniel Horowitz, pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole explained that natural immunity produces broad immunity that can’t be matched by vaccination:11

“A natural infection induces hundreds upon hundreds of antibodies against all proteins of the virus, including the envelope, the membrane, the nucleocapsid, and the spike. Dozens upon dozens of these antibodies neutralize the virus when encountered again.

Additionally, because of the immune system exposure to these numerous proteins (epitomes), our T cells mount a robust memory, as well. Our T cells are the ‘marines’ of the immune system and the first line of defense against pathogens. T cell memory to those infected with SARSCOV1 is at 17 years and running still.”

In 2020 it was reported that people who had recovered from SARS-CoV — a virus that is genetically closely related to SARS-CoV-2 and belongs to the same viral species — maintained significant levels of neutralizing antibodies at least 17 years after initial infection.12 This also suggests that long-term natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 should be expected.13

With vaccination, however, Israeli14 data suggest that those who were vaccinated early on, in January 2021, are becoming susceptible to the virus, suggesting its efficacy may wane after about six months.

This sentiment was echoed by Pfizer’s head of medical research and development, Mikael Dolsten, who said “after six months, there may be risk of infection with the expected decline of antibodies.” Pfizer is seeking emergency use authorization for a third booster dose of its COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S.15

According to Cole, part of the reason for waning vaccine-induced immunity is because “we mount an antibody response to only the spike and its constituent proteins” and “as the virus preferentially mutates at the spike, these proteins are shaped differently and antibodies can no longer ‘lock and key’ bind to these new shapes.”16

Natural COVID Immunity May Last a Lifetime

It was initially suggested that natural COVID-19 immunity may be short-lived. This was based on early data on SARS-CoV-2, which found that antibody titers declined rapidly in the first months after recovery from COVID-19. According to a team of researchers from the Washington University School of Medicine, however, if you’ve had COVID-19 — even a mild case — you’re likely to be immune for life, as is the case with recovery from many infectious agents.17

According to senior author of the study Ali Ellebedy, Ph.D., an associate professor of pathology and immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, “It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau.”18

The researchers found a biphasic pattern of antibody concentrations against SARS-CoV-2, in which high antibody concentrations were found in the acute immune response that occurred at the time of initial infection. The antibodies declined in the first months after infection, as should be expected, then leveled off to about 10% to 20% of the maximum concentration detected.

When a new infection occurs, cells called plasmablasts provide antibodies, but when the virus is cleared, longer lasting memory B cells move in to monitor blood for signs of reinfection.19 Bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) also exist in bones, acting as “persistent and essential sources of protective antibodies.”20 Ellebedy even said the protection provided by naturally acquired immunity is likely to continue “indefinitely”:21

“These [BMPC] cells are not dividing. They are quiescent, just sitting in the bone marrow and secreting antibodies. They have been doing that ever since the infection resolved, and they will continue doing that indefinitely.”

In another explanation of why antibody levels drop after initial infection — but it’s not an indication of waning immunity — Cole told Horowitz:22

“Yes, our antibody levels drop over time, however, scientifically, the memory B cells that make antibodies have been proven to be present in our lymph nodes and bone marrow. They are primed and ready to produce a broad array of antibodies upon viral pre-exposure.

It would be physiologically, energetically impossible to maintain high antibody levels to all the pathogens we are constantly exposed to, and we would look like the ‘swollen Stay-Puft marshmallow man’ of lymph nodes, constantly, if the immune system were required to do that.”

Why Are Natural Immunity, Early Treatment Protocols Censored?

Dr. Peter McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist and full professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas. He also has a master’s degree in public health and is known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the U.S. and is the editor of two medical journals.

In our recent interview, he discussed the importance of early treatment for COVID-19, and the potential motivations behind the suppression of safe and effective treatments. He also told Horowitz, “[T]here has never been a confirmed second [COVID-19] infection beyond 90 days with similar or worse cardinal symptoms and confirmed PCR/Antigen/Sequencing test.”23

In August 2020, McCullough’s landmark paper “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection” was published online in the American Journal of Medicine.24 The follow-up paper, titled “Multifaceted Highly Targeted Sequential Multidrug Treatment of Early Ambulatory High-Risk SARS-CoV-2 Infection (COVID-19),” was published in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine in December 2020.25

While early treatment options were available when the pandemic began, patients were simply told to stay home and do nothing, until the infection had progressed to the point where they were having trouble breathing. Once at the hospital, COVID patients were routinely placed on mechanical ventilation — a practice that was quickly discovered to be lethal.

But McCullough has been an outspoken advocate for early treatment for COVID, as have other pioneering doctors like those behind the MATH+ protocol. He believes the end goal in suppressing early treatment was to secure the rollout of a mass vaccination campaign.

Indeed, effective treatments like ivermectin — a broad-spectrum antiparasitic that also has anti-inflammatory activity — have shown remarkable success in preventing and treating COVID-19,26 but they continue to be ignored in favor of more expensive, and less effective, treatments and mass experimental vaccination.27

At this point, however, with effective treatments available, the documented high survival rate of COVID-1928 and knowledge that if you’ve had COVID-19, you’re already likely immune to further infection, the rationale for getting vaccinated is faltering. Even the Delta variant has a very low 0.2% case fatality rate in the U.K., which drops to 0.03% in those under 50.29

Natural Infection Will ‘Burn Out All Variants’

If you choose to get a COVID-19 vaccine, you’re participating in an unprecedented experiment with an unapproved gene therapy, of which the benefits may not outweigh the risks, especially if you’ve already had COVID-19 and are already likely immune.

As noted by Horowitz, “Natural infection is the only phenomena that will ultimately burn out all variants, and the entire focus should be on getting seniors and other vulnerable people early treatment the minute they feel symptoms and even a prophylactic regimen of ivermectin … when appropriate.”30

Meanwhile, McCullough pointed out that by getting vaccinated, you’re setting yourself up for a very narrow immunity — much unlike the broad naturally acquired immunity — that could be easily overwhelmed by a more virulent virus. As he said in our interview that I previously mentioned:

“What I know based on the literature right now is there could be a risk given the narrow spectrum of immunologic coverage … There could be such a narrow immunity that more virulent strain could overwhelm it …

The most recent variant is the Delta variant. That’s the weakest of all the variants and the most easily treatable. But if someone, let’s say a nefarious entity created a more virulent virus, it could easily be designed to scoot past a very narrow immunity that hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, will be keyed to with narrow immunity.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/27/covid-19-delta-variant-natural-immunity.aspx

In recent weeks, a number of signs have emerged indicating the COVID-19 injections cannot put an end to COVID-19 outbreaks. In the July 15, 2021, video report above, Dr. John Campbell reviews data coming out of the U.K. On a side note, I do not agree with everything Campbell says in this video, such as promoting mask wearing, for example. It’s his data review that is of interest here.

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

Meanwhile, the daily average of new symptomatic cases among unvaccinated is 17,588, down 22% from the week before. This suggests the wave among unvaccinated has peaked and that natural herd immunity has set in, while “vaccinated” individuals are becoming more prone to infection.

U.K. hospitals are confirming double-injected patients are part of the patient population being treated for active COVID infection, and two cities have issued public warnings to their residents, letting them know they may end up in the hospital even if they’ve been double-injected against COVID-19.

“There are currently 15 patients in hospital with COVID across the Trust; last month there were none,” The Yorkshire Post reported1 July 9, 2021. An undisclosed number of them had received two doses of COVID “vaccine.”

“The message I would like to share with you all is that some of their patients are double vaccinated,” Heather McNair, chief nurse at York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals, told the Post.2

“This is a disease that can still affect you and still make you poorly when you are double vaccinated. We have got a ward at the moment full of COVID patients in our hospital and that is not going away anytime soon.”

While the number of hospitalized COVID patients doubled in a single week, the total number was still well below the number reported in January 2021 — a statistic Amanda Bloor, accountable officer for the NHS North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group, takes as proof that the injection program is “having the anticipated impact around reducing the risk of death and reducing serious illness.”

COVID Surges in Countries with Highest Injection Rates

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume lower hospitalization rates in the middle of summer are a sign that the injections are having a positive impact. We also have data3 showing that countries with the highest COVID injection rates are also experiencing the greatest upsurges in cases, while countries with the lowest injection rates have the lowest caseloads. This trend “is worrying me quite a bit,” Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, said in a July 16, 2021, Tweet.4

You can view more data in this thread, posted by Corona Realism.5 Cyprus, where more than 51% of residents have received the jab, now has the highest case count in the world. Interestingly, the outbreak on the British Navy ships — which I’ll cover further below — occurred shortly after a stopover in Cyprus.6

Bhutan offers an interesting glimpse into the effects of mass COVID “vaccination”. They managed to get 64% of residents injected in just one week, starting March 27, 2021, and almost immediately, there was a rapid uptick in cases.

In the first graph below, you see the extraordinarily rapid injection rate in Bhutan, going from zero to 64% in a matter of days. In the second graph, you can see the effect on cases in the weeks that followed. They went from near-zero cases at the outset of the injection campaign, to a high of more than 400 cases per million in the weeks following.

Case Counts Lowest in Low-‘Vaxxed’ Nations

On the flipside, we see the lowest number of positive COVID tests congregated in nations that also have the lowest rates of COVID “vaccine” uptake. While it’s not a 100% clear-cut correlation, it is a trend, and we also have to remember that the PCR tests have issues that complicate any attempt at data analysis.

The main problem is that if you run the PCR test at too-high a cycle threshold (CT), you end up with an inordinate number of false positives.7,8,9 The CT refers to the point in the test where a positive result is obtained. A CT of 35 or higher will give you a 97% false positive rate.10

For maximum accuracy, you’d have to use a CT of 17.11 It’s unclear what all these countries are using, but it’s unlikely they’re using a CT below 20 as a matter of routine. This means most case counts around the world will be falsely elevated.

This is particularly true for unvaccinated individuals in the U.S., as their tests are recommended to be run at a CT of 40, whereas patients that have received a COVID injection will have their COVID tests run at a CT below 28. This makes it appear as though the case rate is higher among the unvaccinated, when in reality it’s just an artifact from highly biased testing and few of these falsely positive “cases” are actually sick.

Looking at the hospitalization rate for confirmed COVID-19 in the U.S.,12 we see that the number of people sick enough to require medical attention is nowhere near what it was during the winter months of 2021, and since only 5.9% of American adults had been injected with two doses as of February 21, 2021,13 we can conclude that the injections did not cause this rapid decline in hospitalizations.

The best explanation for the decline in both cases and hospitalizations after the rollout of COVID shots is the emergence of natural herd immunity from previous infections.

In a July 12, 2021, STAT News article,14 Robert M. Kaplan, Professor Emeritus at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, calculated that by April 2021, the natural immunity rate was above 55% in 10 U.S. states, and in most of those same states, new infections were in rapid decline as early as the end of 2020, at a time when only a tiny fraction of the population had received their shots.

CDC Doesn’t Track All Breakthrough Cases

We must also remember that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are artificially driving down case rates, hospitalization rates and death rates for “vaccinated” Americans by selectively tracking breakthrough cases. They only track and report breakthrough cases where the patient is hospitalized or dies.15 They do not count mild cases, even if they have a positive test result.

A number of media outlets have expressed concerns about this biased tracking and reporting. As noted in Harvard Health,16 the CDC’s strategy prevents us from ascertaining whether one injection is more or less effective than another. It can also hide manufacturing problems and prevent us from determining whether timing of the second dose might have a bearing on effectiveness, as well as a number of other things.

Business Insider17 pointed out that not tracking all breakthrough cases makes it more difficult to determine how dangerous the Delta variant really is. NPR expresses a similar view, stating that “Critics argue the strategy could miss important information that could leave the U.S. vulnerable, including early signs of new variants that are better at outsmarting the vaccines.”18

Even Complete ‘Vaccine’ Coverage Won’t Stop Infections

July 14, 2021, BBC News reported19 100 fully injected crewmembers had tested positive onboard the British Defense aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. It’s unclear whether any of them actually have symptoms. According to British defense secretary Ben Wallace, mitigation efforts include mask wearing, social distancing and a track and trace system. He made no mention of actual treatment for acute infection.

Other warships are also reporting onboard outbreaks, although Wallace did not offer any details about them. The fleet is currently in the Indian Ocean and plans to continue the 28-week deployment, with Japan as their destination. BBC News said the queen and prime minister had been onboard the flagship shortly before it sailed.

This case offers a sobering view into the effectiveness of these gene modifying shots, as the HMS Queen Elizabeth now has a case rate of 1 in 1620 — the highest case rate recorded so far, that I know of. Yet 100% of the crew has been double-injected. This tells you that the vaccine-induced herd immunity narrative is a fairytale. These injections apparently cannot prevent COVID-19 even if 100% of a given population gets them!

Israeli Data Indicate Pfizer ‘Vaccine’ Failure

Data from Israel also offer a dismal view of COVID-19 injections. Israel used Pfizer’s mRNA injection exclusively, so this gives us a good idea of its effectiveness. Overall, it looks like an abysmal failure, as a majority of serious cases and deaths are now occurring among those injected with two doses. The following is a screenshot of graphs posted on Twitter.21

The red is unvaccinated, yellow refers to partially “vaccinated” and green fully “vaccinated” with two doses. The charts speak for themselves.

Overall, it doesn’t appear as though COVID-19 gene modification injections have the ability to effectively eliminate COVID-19 outbreaks, and this makes sense, seeing how it’s mathematically impossible for them to do so.

The four available COVID shots in the U.S. provide an absolute risk reduction between just 0.7% and 1.3%.22,23 (Efficacy rates of 67% to 95% all refer to the relative risk reduction.) Meanwhile, the noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio across age groups is a mere 0.26%.24 Since the absolute risk that needs to be overcome is lower than the absolute risk reduction these injections can provide, mass vaccination simply cannot have a favorable impact.

CDC Tries to Hide COVID Jab Death Toll

They can, however, cause unnecessary deaths among otherwise healthy individuals. Tragically, the CDC is doing everything it can to hide just how great that death toll is. In what appears to be a deliberate attempt at deception, the CDC “rolled back” its July 19, 2021, adverse events report to statistics from the previous week. I’ll explain. Take note of the specific dates and death totals in each of the following excerpts. The July 13 report reads as follows:25

“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 12, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,079 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”

The original July 19 report (saved on Wayback) initially read as follows:26

“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 338 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 12,313 reports of death (0.0036%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Please note, the death toll more than doubled in a single week. That original July 19 report was then changed to this. The date on the report is still July 19:27

“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 13, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,079 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”

At a time when accuracy and transparency is of such critical importance for informed consent, it’s beyond shocking to see the CDC engage in this kind of deception. Yet here we are. We’re now living in a world where crucial public health data is being manipulated at every turn. For this reason, looking at larger trends such as those reviewed above may offer a more dependable picture of what the real-world consequences of these shots are.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/27/covid-vaccine-failure.aspx

1 Which of the following types of vaccines are currently in the pipeline?

Reverse transcriptase vaccines designed to permanently alter DNA of animals that harbor pathogens that can mutate and threaten human health
Transmissible vaccines for humans
mRNA influenza vaccines for humans and transmissible vaccines for animals

Several different mRNA seasonal influenza vaccines have already entered into human trials. Researchers are also working on transmissible vaccines to control viral reservoirs in animals. Learn more.

Plant-based vaccines for animals and humans

2 What drives and speeds up mutations in viruses?

Being unvaccinated
Having no previous immunity
Nothing can affect the natural mutations of viruses
Evolutionary pressure in the form of vaccines

Just as antibiotics breed resistance in bacteria, vaccines put evolutionary pressure on viruses to speed up mutations and create more virulent and dangerous variants. Learn more.

3 Using antibiotics unnecessarily could harm your immune system via your:

Mitochondria, which are off-site targets of certain antibiotics and play a role in antibacterial and antiviral immune responses

Your mitochondria are responsible for cellular energy production and also play a role in antibacterial and antiviral immune responses — and they’re an off-site target of certain antibiotics, which are known to inhibit mitochondrial activity, DNA synthesis and biogenesis. Learn more.

Blood-brain barrier
Mucosal membranes
Skin cells

4 If Silicon Valley gets its way, the future of medicine will be based on:

Mind-body-spirit connections
Transhumanism, gene editing and artificial intelligence

Silicon Valley has been pushing to transform the health care system into a system based on telemedicine and personalized care through the use of artificial intelligence (AI). Google is heavily involved in this movement. Learn more.

Bioelectric medicine akin to acupuncture
Food as medicine

5 Which of the following statements is true?

The CDC does not hold any patents
The CDC holds patents relating to life-saving medications only, as they must be price-controlled
Dr. Anthony Fauci funded research at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to create an infectious replication-defective coronavirus specifically targeted for human lung cells

Hundreds of patents show SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus that has been tinkered with for decades. Much of the research was funded by NIAID under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci. In 1999, Fauci funded research at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to create “an infectious replication-defective coronavirus” specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. This appears to be the virus that became known as SARS. Learn more.

Dr. Anthony Fauci is the director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

6 What is the leading cause of death among child-bearing women worldwide?

Childbirth
COVID-19
Lack of vaccinations
HIV/AIDS

The leading cause of death among child-bearing women in the world is HIV/AIDS. Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), which primarily affects women, is basically AIDS without the HIV. It’s an immune dysfunction, and can be traced back to contaminated vaccines and blood products that have been used for decades. Learn more.

 
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/26/week-192-health-quiz.aspx

In a July 16, 2021, White House press briefing,1 press secretary Jen Psaki admitted the Biden Administration is violating the First Amendment by alerting social media companies to posts and accounts it believes is peddling “misinformation” about COVID injections. When asked by a reporter to expound on how this flagging works, Psaki said:

“Well, I would say first, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that we’re in regular touch with social media platforms — just like we’re in regular touch with all of you and your media outlets — about areas where we have concern, information that might be useful, information that may or may not be interesting to your viewers …

So we are regularly making sure social media platforms are aware of the latest narratives dangerous to public health that we and many other Americans seeing … And we work to engage with them to better understand the enforcement of social media platform policies.

So let me give you an example, just to illustrate it a little bit. The false narrative that remains active out there about COVID-19 vaccines causing infertility … which has been disproven time and time again.

This is troubling, but a persistent narrative that we and many have seen, and we want to know that the social media platforms are taking steps to address it. That is inaccurate, false information … And that is an example of the kind of information that we are flagging or raising …

So a couple of the steps that … could be constructive for the public health of the country are providing for Facebook or other platforms to measure and publicly share the impact of misinformation on their platform and the audience it’s reaching … with all of you to create robust enforcement strategies that bridge their properties and provide transparency about rules.

You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others if you — for providing misinformation out there.”

In her July 15, 2021, press briefing,2 Psaki cited “The Disinformation Dozen” report3 by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which claims 65% of anti-vaccine content on Facebook and Twitter comes from 12 individuals, including yours truly.

According to Facebook, they have removed 18 million posts with “COVID misinformation,” and connected more than 2 billion users to “reliable information,” meaning state-sanctioned information. The Biden administration is not satisfied with these already staggering numbers and thinks more must be done. Specifically, as Psaki mentions, they want the “disinformation dozen” banned from all available social media platforms.

Psaki Disinforms Public About Vaccine Approval Status

In that same July 16 press briefing, Psaki also referred to the COVID shots as “approved,” and having “gone through the gold standard of the FDA approval process.”4 She said:

“The public has a right to know … And we’re dealing with a life-or-death issue here, and so everybody has a role to play in making sure there’s accurate information … It’s clear there are more [steps] that can be taken …

On the foreign government piece … the State Department’s Global Engagement Center has found that Russia and China have promoted their own vaccines through messaging that undermines Western origin vaccine development programs. So, you know, that is more than just competition about vaccines.

The risk and impact there is that this type of information magnifies, you know, the risk of potential side effects associated with Western vaccines. This is what they’re — what the information — some of this misinformation is doing — and misleads the public by falsely alleging that mRNA vaccines are untested and, thus, risky, even though many of them are approved and have gone through the gold standard of the FDA approval process.”

This is verifiably false. All currently available COVID injections are authorized for emergency use only. They are not licensed or approved. At present, the emergency use authorization applies to adults and children as young as 12.5 Those two terms, “authorized for emergency use” and “approved for use,” are not interchangeable.

Biden Administration Launches Illegal Attack on Free Speech

One wonders whether the admission that they’re flagging posts and accounts they don’t like so that social media companies can remove them is an attempt at normalizing illegal government overreach. It comes across that way.

But let’s be clear. This kind of corporate-government collusion to censor free speech violates the U.S. Constitution and is illegal. As noted by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in an April 5, 2021, ruling6 in which he weighed in on the ability of social media giants to control free speech:

“The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly … Under this doctrine, plaintiffs might have colorable claims against a digital platform if it took adverse action against them in response to government threats.”

Even if the Biden administration is not threatening social media companies with adverse action if they refuse to censor at the government’s whim, the government cannot use private companies to do something on its behalf that it is not legally allowed to do on its own.

Put another way, it is illegal for government officials to pressure private companies into censoring free speech on their behalf or at their request, since they as government officials do not themselves have the right to infringe on free speech.

The same goes for attorneys general that have publicly called for social media companies to ban posts and deplatform accounts,7 as well as the surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, who recently stated that an “epidemic of misinformation and disinformation” is putting people’s lives at risk.8,9 He too has illegally called for “technology and social media companies to address the way misinformation and disinformation spread on their platforms.”

To that end, he even released his own 22-page report,10 which advises addressing “misinformation super-spreaders” and using educational institutions, from elementary school settings through college, as well as private funders, to “monitor and address” false and misleading information. The Rockefeller Foundation wasted no time in responding by announcing $13.5 million in new funding to help with the effort.

Again, these government officials have the right to their own opinion. But they do not have the right to censor other people’s opinion and/or information, least of all published research. And since they do not have the Constitutional right to censor Americans, they also cannot ask private companies to do it for them.

Government officials are also breaking several laws by incentivizing Americans into participating in medical experimentation, and collaborating with private companies to require personnel to participate in medical experimentation. It’s truly remarkable what’s happening, and the fact that so many laws are blatantly broken in an effort to get a needle in every arm suggests something other than public health interest is at play.

Why Is Truth About Natural Immunity Banned?

I’m still on Twitter, and in recent times, the only post deleted was one in which I indicated that naturally-infected people developed robust and long-lasting immunity, and that health officials need to be honest and admit that this immunity is very powerful.11

To my post, I had attached a paper12 published in the peer-review journal Nature. However, Twitter does censor me in a different sort of way by posting a detailed warning to users who click on any links to Mercola.com that I post on Twitter that visiting my site “may be unsafe” — which is completely false.

Recovered COVID patients have robust immunity even if their symptoms were mild and subsequent antibody count is low, because latent antibody-producing cells called memory B cells for SARS-CoV-2 still exist in their bone marrow. This was shown in another Nature study.13,14 When they encounter the SARS-CoV-2 virus again, those memory cells start churning out new antibodies, which will raise the level again to eliminate the virus.

The National Institutes of Health’s website15 even declares that recovery from COVID-19 provides “lasting immunity,” and that the immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had “at least 3 out of 5 immune-system components that could recognize SARS-CoV-2 up to eight months post-infection.” This research was funded in part by the NIAID, and published in the journal Science.16

Clearly, the naturally-acquired immunity narrative poses a significant threat to the mass injection campaign. The information poses no threat to public health. Quite the contrary. The more people know about this, the less fearful they will feel. If they are the ones who recovered, they will know they now have good protection. If the former COVID patient is a family member or friend, they can be at ease with those people, knowing they pose no infection risk.

If it were really about keeping people safe from infection, natural immunity would be accepted and people would be encouraged to look at studies showing most places on earth have already achieved natural immunity. But when it comes to SARS-CoV-2, they insist even those who already have natural immunity should get a COVID shot. Why? They’re already immune! And there’s no added benefit to getting a COVID injection if you have antibodies.

Researchers at Cleveland Clinic looked at this issue, concluding that people who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at least 42 days prior to vaccination reaped no additional protection from the jabs, over and above their natural immunity.17,18

Zero Benefit and All Risk for Recovered COVID Patients

Meanwhile, the COVID injection may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus, putting them at significantly increased risk of injury and death.19 As explained by Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate:20

“Viral antigens persist in the tissues of the naturally infected for months. When the vaccine is used too early after a natural infection, or worse during an active infection, the vaccine force activates a powerful immune response that attacks the tissues where the natural viral antigens are persisting. This, I suggest, is the cause of the high level of adverse events and, likely deaths, we are seeing in the recently infected following vaccination.”

In early March 2021, researchers at King’s College confirmed the validity of Noorchashm’s concerns. They found people who have already had COVID-19 are three times more likely to experience vaccine side effects than those who have not been exposed to the virus, and this appears true for both mRNA and DNA versions of the vaccine.21

Using data from the Kings College ZOE app, which has logged more than 700,000 vaccinations, 35.7% of those given the Pfizer injection who had previously been infected reported side effects, compared to just 12.2% of those not previously infected.

Looking at the AstraZeneca vaccine, 52.7% of previously infected had side effects, compared to 31.9% of those who had not been previously infected. Despite these documented risks, the FDA continues to recommend the COVID shot for those with natural immunity.

Vaccination Versus Natural Immunity

Public Health England has published data showing only 44 of 6,614 previously infected persons tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection a second time.22 Of those 44, only 15 developed symptoms, so it’s quite possible the remainder were simply false positives.

Either way, the risk of reinfection after recovering from a bout of COVID-19 seems rare, and the risk of reinfection is far lower than the risk of infection faced by those who are fully “vaccinated.” As reported by Israel National News, July 13, 2021:23

“Coronavirus patients who recovered from the virus were far less likely to become infected during the latest wave of the pandemic than people who were vaccinated against COVID …

Health Ministry data on the wave of COVID outbreaks which began this May show that Israelis with immunity from natural infection were far less likely to become infected again in comparison to Israelis who only had immunity via vaccination.

More than 7,700 new cases of the virus have been detected during the most recent wave starting in May, but just 72 of the confirmed cases were reported in people who were known to have been infected previously — that is, less than 1% of the new cases. Roughly 40% of new cases — or more than 3,000 patients — involved people who had been infected despite being vaccinated.

With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.

By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.”

Impossible for COVID Jabs to Have Favorable Impact

In a world of differing opinions and eternally evolving science, who can claim rights to the truth? The White House press secretary seems to think the Biden administration should have dibs on the truth, while in the same breath disinforming the public by referring to the COVID shots as FDA approved with “gold standard” safety studies behind them.

Health agencies and their officials also disinform the public every time they claim vaccine-induced immunity is better than natural immunity, as this runs counter to everything we’ve ever learned about virology. It may be accurate for some diseases, but it certainly cannot be said for COVID-19. There’s far more data suggesting the COVID jab is an unnecessary risk that provides negligible benefit.

The overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio is a mere 0.26%. Below 40 years of age, it’s 0.01%. What’s more, data shows the absolute risk reduction for all four COVID injections is between 0.7% and 1.3%. Since the absolute risk that needs to be overcome is lower than the benefit that these injections can provide, mass vaccination simply cannot have a favorable impact on the population. It’s mathematically impossible.

Remember, healthy adults under 50, teens and children have a less than 1% chance of hospitalization and death from COVID-19, so they don’t have a medical need for this experimental injection. The overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio is a mere 0.26%. Below 40 years of age, it’s 0.01%.24 Those odds simply do not make a strong argument for mass injection with an experimental gene modification tool.

What’s more, data show the absolute risk reduction for all four COVID injections is between 0.7% and 1.3%.25,26 (Efficacy rates of 67% to 95% all refer to the relative risk reduction.) Since the absolute risk that needs to be overcome is lower than the benefit that these injections can provide, mass vaccination simply cannot have a favorable impact on the population. It’s mathematically impossible.

So, while government, public health leadership and pro-vaccine advocates insist we must follow the science, they themselves are doing anything but. For a year and a half, they’ve insisted pandemic measures like lockdowns, mask wearing and gene modification injections are the only way forward, despite mountains of evidence against each and every one of those strategies.

So, it’s not about science. If it were, they’d produce studies that overwhelmingly refute the counternarrative and prove demonstrable benefits. But they don’t. Instead, they unleash personal attacks and smear campaigns to discourage people from listening to anything that doesn’t come out of their propaganda machine.

Biden Administration Wants to Monitor Your Private Texts

The Biden Administration has now gone so far as to propose SMS carriers fact check private text messages to make sure Americans don’t share inconvenient facts to friends and family.

Ironically, White House spokesperson Kevin Munoz told Politico that this move was part of the administration’s “steadfast commitment to keep politics out of the vaccination efforts.”27 Backlash was swift, from legislators and private individuals alike, but time will tell whether it was enough to make the White House reconsider.28

It’s also not about public health, because if it were, they’d accept natural immunity, and they wouldn’t be breaking the law at every turn. No, it’s all about getting a needle in every arm — science, logic and common sense be damned. The question is why.

Many of my articles over the past year have detailed evidence pointing to this mass injection campaign being a tool to usher in a new world order of surveillance, worldwide poverty and the complete removal of medical and personal freedoms.

The Biden administration’s call to censor — through public utilities and private companies — anyone who shares information about risks and the lack of benefit of these COVID injections is clearly part of that agenda, and must be rejected on ethical, legal and Constitutional grounds.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/26/biden-demands-mercola-be-banned-from-social-media.aspx

Recent research1 has shown that fermented foods not only can improve gut microbiome diversity, but lower the inflammatory response in your body that affects conditions like rheumatoid arthritis (RA). While I was still in active practice, I was passionate about treating people with RA.

In fact, I treated over 3,000 people with this disease, 80% to 85% of whom experienced significant recovery, if not remission. One of the hallmark symptoms of RA is pain in the proximal joints of the hands or feet.

These are the joints that are closer to the palm of your hand as opposed to joints further out in your fingers. RA is also often symmetrical, which means it affects the same joints in both hands or both feet. The condition is far less common than osteoarthritis.

In joints that are affected by RA, the lining becomes inflamed from an autoimmune and inflammatory response that literally causes your body’s own immune system to attack itself.2 This can trigger chronic pain, loss of balance and deformities.
Unlike osteoarthritis, which damages the cartilage between the bones in your joints,3 RA can also affect other tissues outside of the joints, such as the eyes, heart and lungs.4 Many people with RA experience fatigue, low-grade fever and symptoms that vary from day to day.

In a search of health care claim databases5 from 2004 to 2014, researchers found the prevalence of RA in the U.S. population ranged from 0.41 to 0.54%. This varied substantially in each year and by gender and age. However, the data also revealed that the rate appeared to increase during that period, which affected a conservative estimate of up to 1.36 million adults by 2014.

A later study in 20196 indicated there has been a global rise in prevalence and incidence of RA. At the regional level, it appeared to be highest in the high-income areas of North America, the Caribbean and Western Europe.

The lowest rates were found in Western sub-Saharan Africa, southeast Asia and Oceania. The most recent, 2021 study7 offers an insight into reducing the inflammatory response and, potentially, the damage caused by RA.

Fermented Foods Lower Levels of Inflammatory Proteins

Researchers from Stanford Medicine published their data in the journal Cell,8 in which they evaluated 19 inflammatory protein biomarkers from 36 healthy adults who were randomly assigned to eating either fermented or high-fiber foods over a 10-week intervention period.9 Both diets have shown an ability to impact gut microbiome in past scientific study.

In this clinical trial, researchers sought to evaluate how two microbiota-targeted diet interventions could modulate the gut microbiome.10 They found the gut microbiome and immune system effects on the participants were different.11 The scientists measured stool and blood samples collected during a three-week period before the intervention diet started, during the intervention and during a four-week period after the diet ended.

The data revealed that eating foods like kefir, fermented cottage cheese, vegetable brine drinks, kombucha tea and kimchi in other fermented vegetables increase the overall microbial diversity in a dose-dependent manner.12 The primary outcome of the study was a cytokine response score, which remained unchanged.13

However, the data also showed that a high fermented food diet increased microbial community diversity and decreased inflammatory markers,14 particularly interleukin-615 that has been linked to conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, chronic stress and Type 2 diabetes.16

In contrast to the reduction of inflammatory markers in a group eating fermented foods, those eating a high-fiber diet that consisted of legumes, seeds, whole grains, fruits, nuts and vegetables showed no change in inflammatory markers or microbial diversity. Erica Sonnenburg Ph.D., was on the research team and said in a press release:17

“We expected high fiber to have a more universally beneficial effect and increase microbiota diversity. The data suggest that increased fiber intake alone over a short time period is insufficient to increase microbiota diversity.

It is possible that a longer intervention would have allowed for the microbiota to adequately adapt to the increase in fiber consumption. Alternatively, the deliberate introduction of fiber-consuming microbes may be required to increase the microbiota’s capacity to break down the carbohydrates.”

The researchers concluded that fermented foods could be a valuable strategy to counteract a decreasing microbial diversity and increasing inflammatory response that is ubiquitous in Western Society.18

Additionally, another of the researchers postulated that other means of targeting the gut microbiome may include probiotics, prebiotics and dietary interventions that could affect bacterial health, and therefore your immune health.19

Fermentation Creates Healthy Bioavailable End Products

Historically, the primary reason for fermenting foods was to preserve it. Over time, many cultures incorporated these foods into their daily diet and were shared with the world. For example, Japanese natto, Korean kimchi and German sauerkraut are popular in many areas outside the respective places of origin.20

The process is controlled by microorganisms and the type of food being fermented. There’s a growing consensus that the fermentation process has nutritional benefits by transforming the food and forming bioavailable end products, including an increase in density of vitamins.21,22

When you consumer fermented foods, live cultures give you the primary benefits. Unfortunately, fermented foods in the grocery store don’t usually contain live cultures. Instead, before packaging, they may be baked, pasteurized, filtered or smoked. During the fermentation process, biologically active peptides are formed. In one paper published in Nutrients, the authors wrote:23

“Fermentation was found to increase antioxidant activity of milks, cereals, fruit and vegetables, meat and fish. Anti-hypertensive peptides are detected in fermented milk and cereals. Changes in vitamin content are mainly observed in fermented milk and fruits.

Fermented milk and fruit juice were found to have probiotic activity. Other effects such as anti-diabetic properties, FODMAP [fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols] reduction, and changes in fatty acid profile are peculiar of specific food categories.”

According to authors of a paper published in Clinical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition,24 the bacteria in fermented foods produce peptides have multiple health benefits. The authors say:

“Among these peptides, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which have shown the ability to lower blood pressure, exopolysaccharides exhibit prebiotic properties, bacteriocins show anti-microbial effects, sphingolipids have anti-carcinogenic and anti-microbial properties, and bioactive peptides exhibit anti-oxidant, anti-microbial, opioid antagonist, anti-allergenic, and blood pressure lowering effects …

As a result, fermented foods provide many health benefits such as antioxidant, anti-microbial, anti-fungal, anti-inflammatory, anti-diabetic and anti-atherosclerotic activity.”

Gut Bacteria Affect Mental Health and Depression

Scientific evidence has demonstrated that your gut microbiome plays a leading role in your mental health. Researchers have found there is a bidirectional communication between your gut microbiome and your central nervous system.25 It’s called the gut-brain axis and mounting evidence has demonstrated that dysbiosis is associated with triggering mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression.

Some have coined the term “psychobiome” to describe the crucial connection between your gut bacteria and how you think, feel and act.26 A small start-up lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is researching human stool samples with a focus on brain drugs.

As Science Magazine reports, the small company hopes to capitalize on the mounting scientific evidence from animal studies and epidemiological studies that your gut microbiome is linked to health conditions such as anxiety, Alzheimer’s disease and autism.

As of 2020, the company had developed “one of the world’s largest collections of human gut microbes” over a short five years. When talking to reporters from Science, the company CEO said the initial targets were depression, insomnia and visceral pain conditions that are typical of irritable bowel syndrome.27

Two types of gut bacteria, in particular Coprococcus and Dialister bacteria, have been shown to be “consistently depleted” in individuals diagnosed with clinical depression. According to the authors of a study published in the April 2019 issue of Nature Microbiology:28

“Surveying a large microbiome population cohort (Flemish Gut Flora Project, n = 1,054) with validation in independent data sets, we studied how microbiome features correlate with host quality of life and depression.

Butyrate-producing Faecalibacterium and Coprococcus bacteria were consistently associated with higher quality of life indicators. Together with Dialister, Coprococcus spp. were also depleted in depression, even after correcting for the confounding effects of antidepressants.”

Other studies have also identified microbial profiles associated with better or worse mental health conditions. For example, a 2016 research study29 found the relative abundance of Actinobacteria was higher and Bacteroidetes was lower in depressed individuals compared to healthy controls.

Another study30 in 2015 found patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder had higher amounts of Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria, and lower amounts of Firmicutes than healthy controls.

Kimchi Is a Fermented Food That Can Help You Get Vitamin K2

One of the benefits from the fermenting process is that it can improve the nutritional value of a particular food. For example, kimchi has antioxidant properties associated with lipid-lowering cardiovascular benefits, antimicrobial action, immune system activity and anti-atherogenic activity.31

Fermented plants also provide high concentrations of vitamin K2.32 Vitamin K is a fat-soluble vitamin that is an important element for your heart health. In fact, results from the Rotterdam study33 published in 2004 looked at causes of diseases in the elderly, and determined that those who had consumed the highest amount of vitamin K2 were less likely to experience severe calcification in their arteries and die from heart disease.

K2 is also important for bone health and osteoporosis prevention. However, vitamin K doesn’t store well in your body, so it’s depleted quickly if you don’t get it regularly from your food. But what kinds of foods are the best ones to get the vitamin K2 you need? One thing the Rotterdam study made clear was there is a difference between vitamin K1 and K2 content in foods.

While K1 was found to be present in high amounts in green leafy vegetables such as spinach, kale, broccoli and cabbage, K2 was only present in high amounts in fermented foods. K2, or menaquinone, is produced by bacteria in your gut and can be found in some animal products, a few plants34 such as spinach, radish leaves and spring onions, and fermented foods, particularly kimchi and cheeses.

Although natto is a soy product that is also high in K2, I don’t promote soy products because most of the soy sold and eaten in the West is genetically modified and grown with highly toxic herbicides.

Tips to Making Fermented Food at Home

If you have RA or other chronic ailments that are rooted in inflammation, your diet is an important first step to facilitate healing. In “Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Implicated in Death of Popular Musician — How Natural Treatment Options May Help You Avoid the Same Fate,” I outline many of the recommendations that I used for patients who had RA when I was in practice. Among those recommendations is eating fermented foods.

It’s becoming more popular to eat fermented foods at home, yet preparing them has largely become a lost art. Probiotic rich foods, like fermented vegetables and homemade yogurt, will boost the population of beneficial bacteria, which then reduces potentially pathogenic colonies.

Since many of the yogurts sold in grocery store shelves are fruit flavored and sweetened with sugar, they don’t help promote an overall healthy gut flora. To make yogurt at home you only need a high-quality starter culture and raw, grass-fed milk. You’ll find simple step-by-step instructions in “Benefits of Homemade Yogurt Versus Commercial.”

One of the few soy products that I recommend is natto, if you can obtain the soybeans organically grown. Natto is a fermented soy you can easily make at home. The fermentation process removes the disadvantages of eating raw or cooked soy, so you’re left with a dish that’s filled with probiotics and nutrients. If you haven’t tried natto before, I urge you to give this “Fresh, Homemade Natto Recipe” a try.

You can also experiment with fermenting just about any vegetable. Some of the more popular are cucumbers (pickles) and cabbage (sauerkraut). Once you have the basic method down it’s not difficult. In the video below, Julie and I review how to do this. As I discuss in “Tips for Fermenting at Home,” there are several steps that you can do to make the whole process a little easier.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/26/fermented-foods-can-help-with-arthritis.aspx

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

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

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

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

Selling Out Public Health for Profit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too Much Power in Too Few Hands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SARS-CoV-2 Is a Cloned Monkey Virus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SARS-CoV-2 Was Spread by Injection

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

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

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

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

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

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

How the COVID Shots Produce Variants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Is the Hidden Agenda?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Profiling COVID-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ending Plague

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

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

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

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

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

We’re not just saying things are terrible. We are talking about how to bring about change. That’s why it’s so important that people buy these books because, I hate to say it, sales are power for people like Judy, Frank and me, to continue our message.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/25/plague-of-corruption.aspx