Lose Them Pounds

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

In this interview, Dr. Peter McCullough discusses the importance of early treatment for COVID-19, and the potential motivations behind the suppression of safe and effective treatments.

McCullough has impeccable academic credentials. He’s an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, a 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 United States and is the editor of two medical journals.

Early Outpatient Treatment Is Key for Positive Outcomes

McCullough has been an outspoken advocate for early treatment for COVID. In August 2020, McCullough’s landmark paper “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection”1 was published online in the American Journal of Medicine.

The follow-up paper is titled “Multifaceted Highly Targeted Sequential Multidrug Treatment of Early Ambulatory High-Risk SARS-CoV-2 Infection (COVID-19)”2 and was published in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine in December 2020.

Perhaps one of the greatest crimes in this whole pandemic is the refusal by reigning heath authorities to issue early treatment guidance. Instead, they’ve done everything possible to suppress remedies shown to work, whether it be corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with zinc, ivermectin, vitamin D or NAC.

Patients were simply told to stay home and do nothing. Once the infection had worsened to the point of near-death, patients were told to go to the hospital where most were routinely placed on mechanical ventilation — a practice that was quickly discovered to be lethal. Many doctors also seemingly panicked and refused to see patients with COVID symptoms.

“I’m glad that I personally always treated all my patients,” he says. “I wasn’t going to have the virus slaughter one of my senior citizens. And it is, I think, terrible that none of our major academic institutions innovated with a single protocol. To my knowledge, not a single major academic medical center, as an institution, attempted even to treat patients with COVID-19.

But I did use my publication power, and my editorial authority, and my position in internal medicine and some specialty medicine to publish the breakthrough paper called ‘The Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Ambulatory Treatment of COVID-19′ in the American Journal of Medicine.

It was an international effort, both community physicians and academic physicians. And to this day, that is the most frequently downloaded paper in the American Journal of Medicine.”

Early Treatment Guidelines Have Saved Millions of Lives

In December 2020, McCullough published an updated protocol, co-written with 56 other authors who also had extensive experience with treating COVID-19 outpatients. The article, “Multifaceted Highly Targeted Sequential Multidrug Treatment of Early Ambulatory High-Risk SARS-CoV-2 Infection,”3 was published in the journal Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, of which McCullough is the editor-in-chief.

“That paper, today … is the most frequently downloaded paper from BET Journal,” McCullough says. “It also is the basis for the American Association of Physician and Surgeons COVID early treatment guide.4

We have evidence that the treatment guide has been downloaded and utilized millions of times. And it was part of the early huge kick that we had in ambulatory treatment at home towards the end of December into January, which basically crushed the U.S. curve.

We were on schedule to have 1.7 to 2.1 million fatalities in the United States, as estimated by the CDC and others. We cut it off at about 600,000. That still is a tragedy. I’ve testified that 85% of that 600,000 could have been saved if we would have had … the protocols in place from the start.

But suffice it to say, the early treatment heroes, and you’re part of that team Dr. Mercola, has really made the biggest impact. We have saved millions of lives, spared millions and millions of hospitalizations, and in a sense, have brought the pandemic now to a winnowing close.”

While the World Health Organization and national health agencies have all rejected treatments suggested by doctors for lack of large-scale randomized controlled studies, McCullough and other doctors working the frontlines took an empiric approach. They looked for signals of benefit in the literature.

“We didn’t demand large randomized trials because we knew they weren’t going to be available for years in the future,” McCullough says. “We didn’t wait for a guidelines body to tell us what to do or some medical society, because we know they work in slow motion. We knew we had to take care of patients now.”

A Global Collusion to Harm Patients

When you look at how comprehensive and intense the censoring and suppression of early treatments were, it’s hard to come to any other conclusion than this was a strategy aimed at securing emergency use authorization (EUA) for COVID gene therapies.

To get an EUA, there cannot be any safe and effective alternatives, and since the COVID shots are using a brand-new, never before used technology, making sure there were no effective treatments available was crucial for the success of the roll-out of these shots. Prestigious medical journals like The Lancet were even caught colluding with the drug industry, publishing a completely fabricated study on HCQ, showing it was dangerous. As noted by McCullough:

“What’s so interesting is how airtight the collusion was. It was extraordinary. Look at The Lancet paper [on HCQ]. You had a doctor from Harvard, a company called Surgisphere that had data, you had the reviewers at Lancet, the associate editor and the editor at Lancet. How could they all collude together to publish a falsified paper?

When that paper came out, we looked at it. I was checking the literature very carefully. [As editor-in-chief of two medical journals] I’ve reviewed more papers and analyzed more data, I think, than anybody in the game. And I can tell you, I looked at that paper and in two seconds, I knew it was fake. I mean, I do this every day.

I’m also the senior associate editor for the American Journal of Cardiology. That’s the most venerated journal in our entire field. And I can tell you that a paper like that would never get past my editorial desk because it was so obviously fake. It was a huge sample size that we knew was not possible at that time. And it was people in their 40s hospitalized with astronomical mortality rates.

It was just no way that was legit. And The Lancet let that hang up there for two weeks, scaring the entire world against hydroxychloroquine — which turns out to be one of the safest and most effective widely utilized in people with COVID-19. And when they took it down, it was unapologetic.

My interpretation of this is that was very intentional. What happened with ivermectin’s use in the ICU was also very intentional and a collusion … Dr. J.J Rashtak had used it in hundreds and hundreds of patients in Florida and published in CHEST, one of the best pulmonary journals, that ivermectin reduced mortality.

Yet to this day, hospitals across the United States flat out refuse to use ivermectin. Desperate patients and families have to get court orders to order these doctors to use ivermectin. So, there’s a mass mentality of almost intentionally harming patients.

There’s absolutely no grounds for doctors and administrators … to deny patients ivermectin. There is a global collusion, specifically in U.S. hospitals, to cause as much harm and death as conceivable. It’s beyond belief … These cases where the families had to get court orders to force the doctors and administrators to administer a simple generic drug, these are going to be case studies in medical ethics for decades to come.”

The Goal = Mass Vaccination

As for why patient harm was a desirable thing, McCullough believes the end goal was to secure the rollout of a mass vaccination campaign. All the propaganda we’ve been fed over this past year and a half points in that direction.

“Propaganda is the dissemination of false or misleading information by people of authority in a collusional manner. And that’s exactly what’s going on. We have a propagandized campaign for mass vaccination. There’s no doubt about it. It’s actually very overt … And believe me, there are hundreds of millions of people under the propagandized spell that the COVID-19 vaccine is going to deliver us from this crisis.”

What we do not know for sure is why the World Health Organization and governments around the world want a needle in every arm. Why are they so eager, so relentless in their push to inject everyone with this novel gene therapy that turns your body into a toxic spike protein factory?

The intent to vaccinate everyone is such that health authorities are not even acknowledging the fact that staggering numbers of injuries and deaths are occurring shortly after these injections. They’re even letting children die from these shots without any hint of slowing down the rate of injections. Why?

Our Next Task: Dispelling Vaccine Propaganda

While we’ve made great strides in circumventing censorship and getting the information out about early treatment, we still face a tremendous challenge, and that is dispelling the misinformation and confusion that surrounds the COVID shots.

Very clearly, there’s massive collusion to suppress the truth about these gene therapies as well. Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccines, recently spoke out about his concerns, and not only did YouTube ban the interview, but Wikipedia also erased his name from the historical section of the mRNA vaccine.

They clearly want everyone to believe that these shots are similar to, and even superior to, conventional vaccines. They absolutely do not want you to think of them as gene therapy, which is what they are. Even Malone himself has made this distinction.

Malone is more than a little concerned about the coercion going on to get people to take these injections. He’s also pointed out that there’s no comprehensive system in place to prospectively capture side effects, despite the fact that the manufacturers bypassed at least 10 to 15 years’ worth of safety studies, including toxicological studies. This too appears entirely intentional. Again, the question is why?

“They had no system to catch the complications, but even worse, they had no plans for safety. They had none of the traditional mechanisms for risk mitigation … [such as] critical event committees, Data and Safety Monitoring Boards, IRBs or Human Ethics Committees.

The public should know these are the structures that we have in place in biomedical research. I’ve led two dozen Data Safety Monitoring Boards. The co-sponsors of the U.S. vaccine program are the FDA and the CDC.

It’s their obligation to have in place, from the very beginning, a Clinical Event Committee, Data Safety Monitoring Board, and a Human Ethics Committee [and provide] regular updates, because these committees are supposed to be identifying signals of harm, and then make recommendations to the sponsors about how to make the program safer.

This was the fiduciary responsibility of the FDA and the NIH. Again, this is going to go down in regulatory history as one of the most colossal blunders of all time. How can you do the largest clinical investigation in the history of medicine and have no safeguards? You have no mechanisms to protect Americans from what could happen with the vaccine program?”

Why Were Standardized Safety Protocols Omitted?

As for the motivation or reason for ignoring virtually all standardized safety measures, McCullough says:

“There has been such a suppression of early treatment … and a complete propagandized campaign for social distancing, wearing masks, promoting fear, suffering, hospitalization and death. And to prepare the population for mass vaccination, the last thing they wanted to do is have anything that could potentially restrict the population that would be taking the vaccine.

And so, I don’t think they actually wanted any safety safeguards. I thought their goal, from the very beginning, was to try to railroad every single individual with two legs [into getting the shot]. The most important moniker was a needle in every arm.

When those billboards went up in every city in the United States, the stakeholders — which are the CDC, the NIH, the FDA, and then Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson outside the United States, and AstraZeneca — they meant business.

When they say needle in every arm, that’s not a joke. It’s not a needle in every arm for whom it’s appropriate, or a needle in every arm for medically indicated. No, it’s a needle in every arm of every human being. They mean it, and I think Americans should be frightened.”

A Crime Against Humanity

What we’re experiencing is really a crime against humanity, and hopefully the responsible individuals will ultimately be held accountable and found guilty of such a charge. As noted by McCullough:

“How could one possibly have a large clinical investigation, ask individuals to sign consent, and then provide no safety mechanisms, really provide nothing with respect to safety of individuals? Everything about the vaccine is about safety. The reports that have accrued are so voluminous that if the stakeholders wanted to make the case that the vaccines are safe, they should make it with data.

They don’t, they simply say the vaccines are safe. And the medical societies are just as complicit. If you go to the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, they say the same thing, “The vaccine is safe.” Within those organizations also, there’s a large swathe of individuals who are going to have to answer [for their actions].”

The Spike Protein Is Not a Cure; It’s a Disease Agent

As of June 18, 2021, we have 387,087 adverse event reports filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), including 6,113 deaths, a large portion of which occurred within days of injection, and 6,435 life threatening reactions.5

We also have very good evidence to suggest this is a gross undercount, in part due to general underreporting, and in part due to VAERS refusing to accept reports — particularly those involving deaths — and scrubbing reports that have already been filed. So, these already alarming numbers likely only represent the tip of the iceberg.

“We have red hot problems, like children and young adults developing myocarditis, inflammation of the heart. I just saw such a patient yesterday,” McCullough says. “These are proven cases. This is not make believe. This is for real.

So, you may ask the question, how in the world could this happen? Well, the first element of this happening is the vaccines as they exist today, either messenger RNA, or adenoviral DNA, the mechanism of action is not safe. The mechanism of action poses a biologic danger.

These vaccines all trick the body into making the spike protein of the virus. The spike protein itself is pathogenic. It’s actually what makes the virus dangerous. It was the object of gain-of-function research. So, it has a dangerous mechanism of action. Why? Because the spike protein is produced in an uncontrolled fashion. It’s not like a tetanus shot where there’s only a certain amount of protein that’s injected.

This is an uncontrolled quantity of spike protein. Probably each person is different, so may have [lower] production of it. They have very little symptoms after the vaccine, they’re fine.

Hopefully that’s the majority of individuals, but there are unfortunate individuals that must have massive amount of spike protein, and that spike protein ravages the body wherever the spike protein is locally made, and we do know the messenger RNA and the adenoviral DNA gets distributed in all the organs.

So if messenger RNA is up in the brain and we start producing spike protein in the brain, we cause local brain injury. There are now well-described neurologic injury cases with the vaccine. Many of them. In the heart, it causes myocarditis and cardiac injury. In the liver, it causes liver injury, in the lung, lung injury, in the kidney, kidney injury.

And very importantly, the spike protein damages endothelial cells and causes blood clotting. So, blood clotting, the dreaded complication of the infection itself, is now caused by the vaccine. Everything we’ve found out about the vaccine since its release has been bad.”

What Can We Expect to Happen in the Future?

Beyond the acute injury phase, there’s the very real possibility of long term health hazards. If you make it past the first couple of months without significant problems, you’re still not out of the woods. My main concern is the possibility of paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE), also known as pathogenic priming, or antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), which essentially results in a cascade of immunological overreactions that wind up killing you.

[The COVID vaccination campaign] will go down in history as the biggest medical biological product safety catastrophe in human history, by far. There’s nothing close … You can imagine how many heads are going to roll when this thing ultimately comes to its finality. ~ Dr. Peter McCullough

The autumn and winter of 2021 will be our first “trial by fire.” We’ll just have to wait and see how many fully “vaccinated” people end up succumbing to the seasonal flu and other infections. That’ll give us a benchmark for how prevalent PIE might be. When asked what he predicts for the future, McCullough says:

“We’re so busy with the acute toxicity to the vaccine. We’re just absolutely overwhelmed, so, it’s hard to imagine in three to six months where we will be … There are hints right now that the messenger RNA doesn’t break down in a few days, that the natural disposal systems that we have for the messenger RNA doesn’t work [for the synthetic mRNA].

Now, we don’t know about the adenoviral DNA. I have a more favorable view of the adenoviral DNA products in the sense that maybe the body … can fight that off and dispose of it. The Johnson & Johnson, per number of injections, has the fewest complications. And most Americans think just the opposite because of that misdirection activity.

I think the vaccine stakeholders intentionally picked on Johnson & Johnson in order to distract attention away from the terrible safety events we’ve seen with Pfizer and Moderna. The vast majority of all the devastation we’ve seen is with Pfizer and Moderna …

When you generate a really strong antibody response, it’s actually more pathogenic. The belief is it’s more pathogenic than the natural infection, because we’re seeing syndromes in vaccine victims that are way worse than getting COVID-19 itself. I mean, the syndromes are actually horrendous.

I have seen neurologic blindness, cervical myelitis, cerebellar syndrome. It’s absolutely awful. It’s depends where the messenger RNA goes … and everything I can put together biologically, and what I see clinically, is that vaccines aren’t going to work but for a few months …

After the first shot of mRNA, one is actually more susceptible to COVID-19. This has been shown time and time again. My first rash of patients with post-vaccination COVID-19 in my practice was always after the first injection. The theory here is that the body has been hit with the messenger RNA, the spike protein is generated, it’s damaging some endothelial cells, and there’s an immature library of antibodies that are being formed.

And those antibodies, instead of protecting against the next exposure to COVID-19, they actually facilitate entry. That’s called antibody-dependent enhancement, and I think there is evidence for that … As for what we can expect long-term, that’s anyone’s guess.”

Long Term Risks Are Unknown

Before COVID came along, the FDA required vaccine makers to provide 24 months’ worth of data before they’d allow it. This was truncated down to two months for the COVID shots. So, anyone who says the shots are safe long term is lying because no such data exists to prove this.

“The consent form says, ‘We don’t know if this is going to work, we don’t know if it’s going to last, and we don’t know if it’s going to be safe.’ They say that. So, anybody who takes the vaccine is going to have to think about this and understand that we don’t know anything beyond two months.

Given all the short-term risks, if there are any long-term risks, it is absolutely compounding this unknown. 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.”

DNA Changes, Cancer and Chronic Illness Are Possible Effects

McCullough also discusses the risk that these mRNA injections might become permanently incorporated into your DNA by way of reverse transcriptase.

“There now have been enough studies to suggest there is some reverse transcription — that in fact the RNA creates DNA and then DNA gets permanently put into the human genome,” he explains.

“We know this from the natural infection. The T-Detect test actually checks the T-cells when it tracks the DNA. This is a commercial test you can get if you had COVID-19, and it looks for minor chromosomal re-arrangements that code for cell surface receptors on T-cells.”

The question is, if the synthetic mRNA or adenoviral DNAs in fact create permanent changes to the genome, what effects will that have? Could it promote cancer, for example? McCullough cites a recent paper indicating the spike protein might in fact affect two important cancer suppressor genes.

“This is disturbing because we’re using novel genetic material and it’s possible that they’re oncogenic. We know some other viruses are oncogenic, including Epstein-Barr virus. So, when that paper hit, we said, ‘Oh no, are we setting up people for cancer risk of solid organ cancers, like breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, et cetera.

It is a sick feeling what we’ve learned there. We do understand now that there must be cell damage that’s occurring with this spike protein inside cells. And that if it’s not turned off, that that spike protein generation could end up with some type of chronic disease.

There are elements of the spike protein that are similar to prions that occur in neurologic disease, for instance. There may be intracellular changes as the body keeps cranking the spike protein which you’re not supposed to crank, that causes other problems in cells …

Future development of heart failure comes to mind, gastrointestinal illnesses, pulmonary fibrosis, neurodegenerative diseases. We could be on to the start of a whole new genre of chronic disease in America due to this mass experimentation of genetic products in the human body.”

Impossible for Vaccination Program to Improve Disease Curve

In a sane and rational world not laboring under some hidden agenda to kill off a portion of the population, these shots would have only been rolled out to the highest-risk individuals. The rest of the population would have been excluded from the experiment.

Remember the COVID injection trials conflated absolute and relative risk. Pfizer claimed its mRNA shot was 95% effective, but that was the relative risk reduction — the absolute risk reduction was actually less than 1%.6 As noted by McCullough, 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 it.

“You can’t make less than 1% smaller and have it be clinically meaningful. That’s the reason why the vaccine program will never have an impact on the epidemiologic curves. Dr. [Ronald] Brown from Canada has done the analysis. It’s impossible.

Someone sent me an email the other day [saying], ‘Dr. McCullough, don’t you think that the pandemic is being favorably impacted by the vaccination program?’ The answer is no. We look at the clinical trials. There’s less than 1% absolute risk reduction. It means that, mathematically, it’s impossible for mass vaccination to have a favorable impact on the population.”

COVID Shot May Raise Your Risk of COVID Death

What’s worse, McCullough cites data showing that those who have gotten the shot and end up with COVID-19 anyway have far higher rates of hospitalization and death.

“The CDC was so overwhelmed [with adverse reports], they gave up. God knows how many tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans got vaccinated and got COVID-19 anyway. It looks just like regular COVID. In the data they had, it was a 9% risk of hospitalization and then a 3% risk of death.”

What this means is that, by taking the injection, you trade in a 0.26%7 risk of death, should you contract COVID-19, for a 3% risk of death if you get infected. If you’re younger than 40, you’re trading a 0.01%8 risk of death for a 3% risk.

The Way Forward Demands We Just Say No

If you want to hear more of what McCullough has to say, you can find his podcast, The McCullough Report, on America Out Loud. Every week, he talks to medical experts from different countries to get a range of perspectives and innovative approaches. In closing, he notes:

“My personal view is that I think the vaccine program has been a disaster. We should have just treated COVID-19 as an illness. We should never have shut down the schools or anything else. None of this wearing masks. We should have just treated the acute problem, and we would have gotten ourselves out of the pandemic.”

As for how we move forward, first of all, we need to stop the acute injury, and that means we need to stop taking these COVID shots. Beyond that, we’ll need to experiment to determine the best ways to block the damage done by the spike protein, for however long that is produced and stays in circulation.

“If there’s any mother who’s concerned about their child developing myocarditis, the way to avoid it is just don’t bring your child to a vaccination center,” McCullough says.

“Everyone is just going to have to learn to say no. We cannot be harmed by the vaccine if we just decline it. And the vaccine is completely elective. The CDC, the NIH, FDA, they’ve all said it’s elective. You don’t have to take it. Those agencies, by the way, they’re not taking it.

So, nobody has to take it. And everyone who is in a school or a university, or a workplace where they’re saying you have to take it, or say you have to take it for travel, the answer is no you don’t. You do not have to take it for travel. And yes, you can show up to work without the vaccine. And yes, you can show up to school without the vaccine.

These are forms of intimidation and almost every one of these institutions actually hasn’t written a policy. And if they don’t have a policy that’s been vetted with fair exemptions, that’s just intimidation. That’s like saying you can’t show up to work with a blue tie. If I want to wear a blue tie, I’m going to show up to work in a blue tie.

I think Americans are going to have to have that type of backbone in order to break this wave of propaganda, [this] ill intent that’s levered on the American people. I know so many people who are cowering … The fear is extraordinary …

If we had a Data Safety Monitoring Report in place, they would have been having emergency meetings at the end of January 2021, and said, ‘You know what? What we’re seeing is not good.’ We can actually calculate what’s called the competence interval.

When we exceed a competence interval for risks above a certain risk limit, we call it, and that [competence interval was exceeded] on January 22, 2021. Yet here we are, five months later. This will go down in history as the biggest medical biological product safety catastrophe in human history, by far. There’s nothing close … You can imagine how many heads are going to roll when this thing ultimately comes to its finality.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/25/early-treatment-for-covid.aspx

A significant portion of Americans have some type of vitamin deficiency, one of which is vitamin B12.1 Vitamin B12 (cobalamin) is a water-soluble vitamin, which is vital for optimal health. Unfortunately, many of the symptoms of deficiency mimic other health conditions and so it is often considered last in a variety of health issues.

There are four known forms of the vitamin2 including methylcobalamin and 5-deoxyadenosylcobalamin, which are metabolically active. Two other forms, hydroxocobalamin and cyanocobalamin, become biologically active after they are converted.

Vitamin B12 is an essential vitamin, which means your body cannot make it. Instead, you must consume an average of 2.4 micrograms each day from food or supplements.3 While it’s found in a wide variety of animal foods,4 some experts estimate that 3.2% of people over age 50 are deficient in vitamin B12, and another possible 20% have a borderline deficiency5 and others estimate that up to 43% of older adults may be deficient.6

Although it affects a significant number of people, particularly the elderly and those in developing countries, it is one of the most overlooked conditions.7 Vitamin B12 plays a vital role in many functions throughout your body. For example, it is important to create blood cells and keep nerve cells healthy.

Vitamin B12 also helps prevent megaloblastic anemia.8 The vitamin is necessary for cardiovascular and cognitive health, and it helps to produce hemoglobin, improve nerve strength and regulate homocysteine levels.9,10,11

Homocysteine is an amino acid produced by the body, which in large amounts can increase the risk of heart attack and stroke. One function of vitamin B12 is to help break down homocysteine in your blood.12 What symptoms might be a warning that you or a loved one may have a vitamin B12 deficiency?

Symptoms of Vitamin B12 Deficiency Are Not Diagnostic

The most common cause of megaloblastic anemia is a deficiency in vitamin B12.13 In this condition the bone marrow produces large and immature red blood cells, which leads to fatigue, lightheadedness and skin pallor. Other symptoms of vitamin B12 deficiency include:14,15,16,17

Shortness of breath
Dizziness
Difficulty breathing

Loss of appetite
Tingling or numbness in the hands or feet
Balance or gait problems

Loss of vision
Mental confusion
Memory loss

Depression
Insomnia
Panic attacks

Weight loss
Infertility
Dementia

Mouth or tongue soreness
Swollen or inflamed tongue
Difficulty reasoning

Joint pain
Paranoia and delusions
Incontinence

Constipation
Headache
Heart palpitations (Feeling like your heart is pounding or racing)

Infants who are deficient present with failure to thrive, megaloblastic anemia and delayed development.18 Permanent damage to the nervous system can occur, so identifying deficiency in people who don’t first present with megaloblastic anemia is crucial, so it is treated as soon as possible.

Although an experienced health care provider may recognize symptoms and theorize that you have a deficiency, testing is required to confirm the condition. Certain groups of people are at greater risk of developing a vitamin B12 deficiency than others. These groups of people have difficulty absorbing vitamin B12 from the food they eat, or they don’t get enough in their diet.19

To absorb the vitamin your body goes through a two-step process. First, hydrochloric acid in your stomach separates the vitamin from protein in the food source. Next, vitamin B12 attaches with a protein your stomach makes — called intrinsic factor — so it can be absorbed into the body.

In certain conditions, even people taking supplements cannot absorb the vitamin since they don’t make enough intrinsic factor to bind with the vitamin so it can be absorbed. You may have a higher risk of developing a vitamin B12 deficiency if you are/have:20,21

An older adult — Age increases the potential you don’t make enough hydrochloric acid.

A regular coffee drinker — One study22 found those who drank four or more cups of coffee daily had lower plasma concentrations of circulating vitamin B concentrations.

A regular alcohol drinker — The effect of regular alcohol consumption was measured in healthy, well-nourished, postmenopausal women,23 which demonstrated lower levels of vitamin B12, potentially since vitamin B12 is stored in the liver.

On certain medications — Experts recommend “Special attention should also be given to patients on medications such as PPIs, H2-receptor antagonists, antacids, metformin, colchicine, cholestyramine, and patients chronically on anticonvulsants or antibiotics.”24

An autoimmune disease called atrophic gastritis — This condition decreases both the amount of hydrochloric acid and intrinsic factor needed to process and absorb the vitamin.

Pernicious anemia — People with this type of anemia do not make intrinsic factor. This means they cannot absorb the vitamin from supplements or their food and require vitamin B12 shots for treatment.

Stomach or intestinal surgery — For example, weight loss surgery may remove a large part of the stomach, and thus reduce the amount of hydrochloric acid and intrinsic factor to absorb vitamin B12.

Disorders of the stomach or small intestines — This includes celiac disease, Crohn’s disease, tropical sprue or bacterial overgrowth.

Vegetarian or vegan — Vitamin B12 is only found naturally in animal foods such as meat, fish, dairy and eggs. Additionally, women who are strict vegetarians who are pregnant, or nursing do not give enough vitamin B12 to their babies.

Low Levels of B12 May Be Missed

Unless you have recognizable signs of vitamin B12 deficiency, your physician may not think to test your level. Yet, even when tested, serum norms in the U.S. may be suboptimal. Additionally, individual requirements can vary, so you may have symptoms of deficiency even when your serum levels appear to be in the normal range.25

Serum levels can also be altered by the presence or absence of binding proteins. Some serum tests identify inactive forms of cobalamin, which masks deficiencies of the active form of the vitamin.

Instead, researchers recommended evaluating deficiency through the measurement of metabolites, including homocysteine, or levels of cobalamin bound to holo-transcobalamin, which more accurately represents the active form of the vitamin.

Evidence suggests that relying on serum levels of vitamin B12 can significantly underestimate tissue deficiency by as much as 50%. Serum levels may be maintained as vitamin B12 is pulled from the tissue. This means that a value above the normal cut off point does not necessarily mean you have adequate levels of vitamin B12 for your body to use.

Researchers from this study and other experts26 suggest several other ways of more accurately predicting potential deficiency. One method is to look at the spectrum of metabolic abnormalities and clinical symptoms as compared against homocysteine and MMA levels.27

B12 Deficiency May Be an Underestimated Cause of Dementia

Some of the symptoms of vitamin B12 deficiency are mental health disorders, including depression. One study28 of 89 children and adolescents with depression found those who are depressed had “clearly low” levels of vitamin B12 and vitamin D and their homocysteine levels were “remarkably high.”

Another study29 engaged 199 depressed adults who received vitamin B12 supplementation with antidepressants and exhibited significantly improved symptoms. In addition to depression, low levels of vitamin B12 have been associated with minimal cognitive impairment and dementia and may be an option to improve patient outcomes.30

One study31 characterized the cognitive pattern of elderly adults who had vitamin B12 deficiency and compared it against those who had Alzheimer’s disease. Their results suggested a distinctly different pattern in both diseases.

The researchers found that of the 19 individuals who had low levels of vitamin B12, 12 improved with treatment and seven continued to deteriorate. The researchers went on to analyze the initial neuropsychological evaluation of the two groups of patients and found there was a different profile in those who had a form of dementia that responded to vitamin B12 supplementation and those who did not.

In the group who responded to B12 supplementation there were initially more psychotic problems and a greater number of deficits in executive functioning and concentration. In the group who did not respond to supplementation there were greater problems with language and apraxia.

The scientists discovered memory pattern challenges were also different, leading them to believe that vitamin B12 deficiency may be differentiated from Alzheimer’s disease with a thorough psychological evaluation.32

Scientists recognize that the hematological and neuropsychiatric effects of vitamin B12 deficiency may not occur systematically. The true incidence of neuropsychiatric symptoms is unknown. However, depending on the population being studied and the definition of vitamin B12 deficiency used by the researchers, the rate can vary between 4% and 50%.33

Testing for Vitamin B12 Deficiency With Cognitive Decline

As early as 2009, Dr. Ronald Devere, then-director of the taste and smell disorders clinic and Alzheimer’s disease and memory disorders center in Austin, Texas, recommended guidelines for evaluating vitamin B12, folate, MMA and homocysteine blood levels to discern those who may respond to vitamin B12 or folate supplementation to reduce cognitive impairment.34

He recommended continuing to use vitamin B12 and folate serum levels in those who present with changes in cognitive functioning. In addition, he set limits for measuring MMA and homocysteine to determine if serum vitamin B12 was an accurate reflection of the vitamin level.

In one paper35 published in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry, the scientists recognized only one-third of individuals with low levels of vitamin B12 receive adequate supplementation. The researchers warned that in the early phases of replacement therapy in patients who have megaloblastic anemia, clinicians should watch for falling potassium levels that may result in early death.

Administering folate in conjunction with vitamin B12 supplementation may help partially correct megaloblastic anemia. On the other hand, they suggest it could aggravate encephalopathy that may be present with vitamin B12 deficiency.

The doctors suggest that the devastating impact of dementia on the individual and their family warrants testing for vitamin B12 deficiency and potentially supplementation, since deficiency in the elderly is a common condition and modern diagnostic tools in addition to neurophysiological parameters may help improve cognitive performance.

B Vitamins May Help Prevent the Worst COVID Outcomes

Vitamin B12 belongs to a complex of B vitamins which researchers’ postulate may significantly improve COVID-19 outcomes. One cohort study36,37 of 43 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 admitted to the Singapore General Hospital in early 2020 analyzed the oral administration of vitamin D3, magnesium and vitamin B12, collectively called DMB, against a control group who did not receive DMB therapy.

The researchers found that only 17.6% required oxygen therapy during hospitalization as compared to 61.5% of those in the control group. Of the patients who required oxygen in the DMB group, two were admitted to ICU and one was not. Of the control group that required supplemental oxygen, all were admitted to the ICU.

The B vitamins play a significant role in a healthy functioning immune system. Additionally, the same group of vitamins play a role in reducing the severe effects of COVID-19,38 including roles in viral replication, cytokines storm induction, adaptive immunity and hypercoagulability.

In one paper39 published in the journal Maturitas, scientists detailed the various routes that each of the B vitamin may affect in the management of COVID-19 symptoms. Specifically for vitamin B12, a deficiency can increase an inflammatory response and raise homocysteine levels.

These actions may trigger endothelial dysfunction and activate a platelet and coagulation cascade that can potentially lead to blood clots. For further explanation see “B Vitamins Might Help Prevent Worst COVID-19 Outcomes.”

Vitamin B12 is found almost exclusively in animal tissue. This includes foods like beef, lamb, venison, poultry, eggs and dairy products. Nutritional yeast is high in B12 and recommended for vegetarians and vegans. Two tablespoons provide 7.8 micrograms.40

A sublingual under the tongue fine mist spray or vitamin B12 injections are also effective as they allow the large molecule to be absorbed directly into your bloodstream and bypasses the need for hydrochloric acid and intrinsic factor.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/24/vitamin-b12-deficiency-symptoms.aspx

In a January 2021 lecture, Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., introduced the term “the pandemic virus industrial complex,” to describe the academic, military and commercial complexes that are driving the pandemic agenda and obscuring facts that indicate SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus.

In the video above, David E. Martin, Ph.D., introduces shocking evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is indeed a manmade bioweapon, and has been in the works for decades. Much of this research was funded by none other than the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Pandemic virus industrial complex indeed! You do not want to miss this bombshell interview, conducted by Reiner Fuellmich,1 founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee2,3 (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss or ACU4). A transcript5 is available if you prefer to read it.

SARS-CoV-2 Is Not a Novel Coronavirus at All

Martin has been in the business of tracking patent applications and approvals since 1998. His company, M-Cam International Innovation Risk Management, is the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries. M-Cam has also monitored biological and chemical weapons treaty violations on behalf of the U.S. government, following the anthrax scare in September 2001.

According to Martin, there are more than 4,000 patents relating to the SARS coronavirus. His company has also done a comprehensive review of the financing of research involving the manipulation of coronaviruses that gave rise to SARS as a subclade of the beta coronavirus family.

In his testimony to ACU, he reviews some of the most pertinent patents, showing SARS-CoV-2 is not a novel coronavirus at all but, rather, a manmade virus that has been in the works for decades.

And what we found … are over 120 patented pieces of evidence, to suggest that the declaration of a ‘novel coronavirus’ was actually entirely a fallacy. There was no novel coronavirus … it’s not been novel for over two decades. ~ David Martin, Ph.D.

A comprehensive list of 120 patents relating to SARS-CoV-2-associated features can be found here.6 The features patented are referenced in two key scientific papers, “A Novel Bat Coronavirus Reveals Natural Insertions at the S1/S2 2 Cleavage Site of the Spike Protein and a Possible Recombinant 3 Origin of HCoV-19,” and “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.”

On that list, we see numerous patents detailing manipulation of the polybasic cleavage site for SARS-CoV, the spike protein, as well as ACE2 binding, all three of which are supposed to be unique features of SARS-CoV-2. As explained by Martin:

“We took the reported gene sequence, which was reportedly isolated as a novel virus, indicated as such by the ICTV, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses of the World Health Organization. We took the actual genetic sequences that were reportedly novel and reviewed those against the patent records that were available as of the spring of 2020.

And what we found, as you’ll see in this report, are over 120 patented pieces of evidence, to suggest that the declaration of a ‘novel coronavirus’ was actually entirely a fallacy.

There was no novel coronavirus. There are countless, very subtle modifications of coronavirus sequences that have been uploaded, but there was no single identified ‘novel coronavirus’ at all.

As a matter of fact, we found records in the patent records, of sequences attributed to novelty, going to patents that were sought as early as 1999. So not only was this not a novel anything … it’s not been novel for over two decades.”

Spike Protein Vaccine for Coronavirus Patented 22 Years Ago

Up until 1999, coronavirus patents were all in the veterinary sciences. The first coronavirus vaccine to use the S spike protein was patented by Pfizer in January 2000 (Patent No. 6372224). It was a spike protein virus vaccine for canine coronavirus. You can look up the actual patents for yourself on the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s website,7 if you like.

“Ralph Baric’s work on … rabbit cardiomyopathy … and then canine coronavirus in Pfizer’s work, to identify how to develop S spike protein vaccine target candidates, [give] rise to the obvious evidence that …

… neither the coronavirus concept of a vaccine, nor the principle of the coronavirus itself, as a pathogen of interest with respect to the spike proteins behavior, is anything novel at all. As a matter of fact, it’s 22 years old based on patent filings,” Martin says.

From HIV Vaccine Development to COVID-19

According to Martin, Fauci and the NIAID “found the malleability of coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines,” and in 1999, Fauci funded research at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (where Baric has a lab) to create “an infectious replication-defective coronavirus” specifically targeted for human lung epithelium.

The patent for that replication-defective coronavirus that attacks human lung cells was filed April 19, 2002 (Patent No. 7279327). “In other words, we made SARS,” Martin says. Or perhaps more accurately, Fauci and UNC did. Several months after that patent filing, the SARS outbreak in Asia occurred.

“That patent, issued as U.S. Patent 7279327 … clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing, the fact that we knew that the ACE receptor, the ACE2 binding domain, the S-1 spike protein, and other elements of what we have come to know as this scourge pathogen, was not only engineered, but could be synthetically modified in the laboratory using nothing more than gene sequencing technologies.

Taking computer code and turning it into a pathogen, or an intermediate of the pathogen, and that technology was funded exclusively, in the early days, as a means by which we could harness coronavirus as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine.”

Coronavirus — A Biological Weapon Candidate Since 2001?

As mentioned, Martin has monitored biological and chemical treaty violations since 2001, following the anthrax attacks. Throughout the fall of 2001, an “enormous number” of bacterial and viral pathogens were patented through the National Institutes of Health, the NIAID, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and their international collaborators.

“Our concern was that coronavirus was being seen as not only a potential manipulatable agent for potential use as a vaccine vector, but it was also very clearly being considered as a biological weapon candidate,” Martin says.

Before the SARS outbreak in China, Martin reported these concerns publicly. “So, you can imagine how disappointed I am to be sitting here … having 20 years earlier pointed that there was a problem looming on the horizon with respect to coronavirus,” he says.

CDC Holds Patents on SARS Coronavirus

In April 2003, after the SARS outbreak in China had occurred, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tried to file a patent for the entire gene sequence for the SARS coronavirus (Patent No. 7220852). This is a violation of 35 U.S. Code Section 101, which states you cannot patent a naturally-occurring substance.

That CDC patent also had several derivative patents associated with it, including U.S. patent 46592703P and U.S. patent 7776521. These two patents cover the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus and the means for detecting it using RT PCR testing.

Together, these patents are highly problematic, because if you own both, then “you have a cunning advantage to being able to control 100% of the provenance of not only the virus itself, but also its detection, meaning you have entire scientific and message control,” Martin explains.

The CDC tried to justify the patent by saying they were being sought in order to ensure that everyone would be free to research coronaviruses. However, that is a lie, Martin says. The U.S. patent office rejected the patent on the gene sequence as unpatentable because it was 99.9% identical to a coronavirus that was already in the public domain.

The CDC paid an appeal fine in 2006 and again in 2007. They also paid an additional fee to keep the application private. In the end, the CDC overrode the patent examiner’s rejection and secured the patent in 2007.

“Last time I checked, if you’re trying to make information available for the public research, you would not pay a fee to keep the information private,” Martin says. According to Martin, the gene sequence filed by the CDC in 2003, 2005 and 2006 is 89% to 99% identical to the sequence identified as SARS-CoV-2.

Sequoia Pharmaceuticals

April 28, 2003 — three days after the CDC filed its patent for the SARS coronavirus — Sequoia Pharmaceuticals filed a patent on an antiviral agent for the treatment and control of infectious coronavirus (Patent No. 7151163). So, the CDC files a patent on SARS coronavirus, and three days later there’s a treatment?

This strongly suggests there was a working relationship behind the scenes. Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, founded in 2002, develops antiviral therapeutics with a special focus on drug-resistant viruses.8 Its lead investors include the Wellcome Trust.

But there’s yet another problem with Sequoia’s 2003 filing for an antiviral agent. It was actually issued and published before the CDC patent on SARS coronavirus had been granted, which didn’t happen until 2007, and the CDC had paid to keep the application private.

“So, the degree to which the information could have been known by any means other than insider information between those parties is zero,” Martin says. “It is not physically possible for you to patent a thing that treats a thing that had not been published, because CDC had paid to keep it secret.

This, my friends, is the definition of criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion. This is not a theory, this is evidence. You cannot have information in the future, and form a treatment for a thing that did not exist. It is a RICO case …

And the RICO pattern, which was established in April of 2003 for the first coronavirus, was played out to exactly the same schedule when we see SARS COV-2 show up, when we have Moderna getting the spike protein sequence by phone from the vaccine research center at NIAID, prior to the definition of the novel subclade. How do you treat a thing, before you actually have the thing?”

Sanofi Holds Patents to Novel Feature of SARS-CoV-2

The next bombshell revelation occurred on June 5, 2008, when Ablynx, now a part of Sanofi, filed a series of patents detailing what we’ve been told are novel features of SARS-CoV-2, namely the polybasic cleavage site, the spike protein and the ACE2 receptor binding domain. The first of those patents, U.S. Patent No. 9193780, was issued November 24, 2015.

Between 2016 and 2019, a series of patents were issued to Ablynx and Sanofi covering the RNA strands and the subcomponents of the gene strands.

Between 2008 and 2017, a series of patents were also filed by a long list of players, including Crucell, Rubeus Therapeutics, Children’s Medical Corporation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in München, Protein Science Corporation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, University of Iowa, University of Hong Kong and the Chinese National Human Genome Center in Shanghai.

This series of patents detail ever single attribute that is supposed to be unique to SARS-CoV-2, according to the paper, “A Novel Bat Coronavirus Reveals Natural Insertions at the S1/S2 2 Cleavage Site of the Spike Protein and a Possible Recombinant 3 Origin of HCoV-19.”

This paper has routinely been used to identify the so-called novel coronavirus that is SARS-CoV-2. Yet there are 73 patents, issued between 2008 and 2019, that describe the very elements that are said to be unique to SARS-CoV-2. Patents have been filed for SARS-CoV-2’s polybasic cleavage site, the ACE2 receptor binding domain, and the spike protein.

“So, there was no ‘outbreak’ of SARS, because we had engineered all of the elements of that,” Martin says. And by 2016, when Baric published a paper warning that SARS coronavirus was “poised for human emergence,” the virus in question had already been patented for commercial exploitation 73 times!

The Pandemic Virus Industrial Complex Is Swimming in Profit

Baric is one of the few people who has profited significantly from this pandemic, which he appears to have been part of creating. Another is Fauci. The same drug companies that hold patents on not-so-novel SARS-CoV-2 features are also raking in profits from their COVID shots.

In 2015, Dr. Peter Daszak, head of the EcoHealth Alliance that funneled research dollars from the NIAID to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for coronavirus research, who has promoted the official narrative that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin, stated:9

“We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage, to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”

Sounds an awful lot like what we’re facing right now, doesn’t it? At the end of the day, this pandemic has primarily been about profit and the shifting of wealth, from the lower- and middle-classes to the already ultra-wealthy. This is a war on the public, waged using biological weapons and information warfare, with the ultimate goal of “resetting” life and commerce as we know it.

Intentional Weaponization of Spike Protein

Martin says:

“There wasn’t a lab leak. This was an intentional bio-weaponization of spike proteins to inject into people, to get them addicted to a pan-coronavirus vaccine. This has nothing to do with a pathogen that was released, and every study that’s ever been launched to try to verify a lab leak, is a red herring.

[There are] 73 patents on everything clinically novel — 73, all issued before 2019. And I’m going to give you the biggest bombshell of all to prove that this was actually not a release of anything, because Patent No. 7279327, the patent on the recombinant nature of that ‘lung-targeting’ coronavirus, was transferred mysteriously from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to the National Institutes of Health in 2018.

Now, here’s the problem with that. Under the Bayh-Dole Act, the U.S. government already has what’s called a march-in right provision. That means if the U.S. government has paid for research, they are entitled to benefit from that research at their demand or at their whim.

So, explain why, in 2017 and 2018, suddenly the National Institutes of Health have to take ownership of the patent that they already had rights to, held by the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. And how did they need to file a Certificate of Correction to make sure that it was legally enforceable, because there was a typographical error in the grant reference in the first filing?

They needed to make sure that not only did they get it right, but they needed to make sure every typographical error that was contained in the patent was correct on THE SINGLE PATENT REQUIRED, to develop the Vaccine Research Institute’s mandate, which was shared between the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and Moderna in November of 2019, when UNC Chapel Hill, NIAID and Moderna began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine — a month before an outbreak ever happened.”

‘New Normal’ Coined by Merck at 2004 Bioterrorism Conference

The more we learn, the grimmer it gets. Clearly, plans for our current-day predicament were laid well over a decade ago. According to Martin, the slogan “The New Normal” was coined by Merck during a January 6, 2004, conference called “SARS and Bioterrorism, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Antimicrobial Therapeutics, and Immune Modulators.”

This term has now become a branded campaign adopted by the World Health Organization, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board and the rest of the pandemic virus industrial complex.

Incidentally, Fauci is on the board of directors of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, as is Dr. Chris Elias, president of the Global Development Program at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and George Fu Gao, Ph.D., director-general of the Chinese CDC and a Chinese communist party member.10

It’s a long interview, but it does not disappoint. I urge you to take the time to listen to it, as Martin really lays out the timeline of when and how this pandemic virus came to be. He’s also published a 205-page paper11 detailing Fauci’s involvement that you can download from archive.org.

It now seems clearer than ever that everything we’re experiencing was planned and executed with a profit motive in mind. Armed with this new knowledge, I urge you once again to reclaim your life, your freedom and independence, and resist this manufactured notion of a “new normal.” A new normal will surely be established if we persist, but it will be the converse of what the pandemic virus industrial complex is hoping for.

We will resurrect medicine and science from the induced coma these fields are currently in, and usher in a new era of medical freedom, personal liberty, responsible and transparent government, fiscal stability and health care that actually promotes health rather than slow death. It may take a while, but together, we can do it. To get there, keep sharing information such as that provided by Martin in this mind-blowing interview in any way you can. In the end, truth will prevail. Believe it.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/24/patents-prove-sars-cov-2-is-a-manufactured-virus.aspx

A screenshot of illienglobal.com, linked in the image

>>>>> Click Here <<<<< This story is about happytalism. Due to the vast amount of information, this is part one of the series. “Happytalism” is a very tricky word that hasn’t gotten much attention yet — but we may start hearing about it shortly. It’s a branding term that sweetly refers to the same transhumanist framework of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Great Reset (where real estate ownership is concentrated, where living beings are reduced to “digital twins” managed through the blockchain, and where we “own nothing” and eat bugs). “Happytalism” is a piece of marketing language that lives together with “green and sustainable development,” “racial equity,” “inclusivity,” “climate justice,” “building back better,” and so on. Speaking of bugs, I can’t resist. >>>>> Click Here <<<<< For context, please keep in mind that in 2019, the United Nations signed a broad and unpublicized agreement with the World Economic Forum on strategic cooperation on a number of issues, and 4IR is listed as one of the areas of said cooperation. On a tangent, I would also like to point out a detail that is easy to miss. Where the agreement talks about health, it mentions cooperation on antimicrobial resistance. It so happens that according to the World Economic Forum, they expect antimicrobial resistance to become a major threat that will greatly exceed the dangers of the coronavirus. It is also notable that the entire western health response to the coronavirus has strongly pushed for measures that reduce natural immunity, discourage the use of vitamins, and promote overuse of sanitizers, which is thought to lead to antimicrobial resistance (you can check the thread below). >>>>> Click Here <<<<< Before we get to happytalism proper, please take a look at this mind-boggling United Nation article and video. For starters, here’s this bit where indigenous children sing about, I am sorry, the “new world order.” This song is also a part of the official United Nations video below. (The comments on the video are disabled.) [While you are at it, please check out the sweet, sincere message by the well-known altruist and environmentalist, Prince Charles, who does not at all own any framework for a new economic system (at around 2:24). And if you have the heart for it, check out the WTF skit on potty training for the unwashed heathen (at 39:41).] Notably, the story and the video were originally posted on the subdomain of the United Nations website that has to do with the SDGs (“sustainable development goals”), a program that is ears-deep in the World Economic Forum’s agenda toward the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Great Reset). Okay, so the children sang a strange song about the coronavirus and the “new world order,” the latter known of course to be a funny phrase, whispered by crazy people as they go about “the elites” and adjust the tinfoil hats on their heads. I personally don’t use this phrase because you can’t get very far with it, even though ... oh never mind. But my good manners do not change the fact that the phrase was coined and popularized not by crazy tinfoil hat wearers but by some of the most influential people of the western world (the proverbial “elites”), such as, for example, Henry Kissinger, and that’s just in the recent era. A bit of a philosophical thought process: Are there elites? Are we all on the same level when it comes to being able to control national and global cashflows, wars, the media and the politicians? How insane is it to presume that those in power might have selfish ideas about the world, and what it should be, and where it should go? Is it insane to posit that in their heads, they might not relate to the rest of us as much as we would like, and might possess less respect for our opinions and interests than we may hope? Is it insane to speculate that powerful people might be talking to each other privately to promote their shared interests (while also competing with each other on their level)? Has it never happened? Never-ever? Not even an oil war? Not even a crusade or a secret treaty? Not even an American corporation profiting from the Nazi concentration camps? Not even an alphabet agency protecting Nazi researchers and secretly shipping them to the U.S. to continue unethical experiments? Not even a drug manufacturer doing experiments on disadvantaged children in New York? Is it insane to think that the special interests of today’s, um, elites, seemingly include converging biological life and digital artifacts (and I don’t care if this is their own insane idea or an insane idea suggested by their highly paid advisors — but the notion of it is officially official and featured on government websites in Canada and in the UK — while still undeniably insane.) And is it crazy to think that someone out there seems very interested in establishing a, hopefully, all-planetary system of control and management of every living thing and every mineral on Earth, a system controlled by a few hundred or thousand particularly ambitious and wealthy individuals, and managed by AI? Aren’t they themselves promoting this idea through the media and NGOs? Here is also very lavishly funded — and allegedly very miserable in real life — Ray Kurzweil — and his crazy singularity. >>>>> Click Here <<<<< And what structures are there in place to ensure that modern western citizens are immune from being eventually — or soon — treated by the super wealthy the way the indigenous were treated by various European missionaries and their royal masters? What if digital colonialism is really a thing in the heads of the “elites,” just like traditional colonialism was a thing that drove the rulers of the past? On a side note, please google the 1974 Kissinger report that, among other things, brags about incentivizing Indian men to get a vasectomy). That’s that about tinfoil hats. Life is complex and multi-faceted but people do conspire, and they do it all the time, so the notion that they could be conspiring today is not that crazy. Also, please see the SoftBank founder talking about his 300-year plan. Speaking of “long-range plans made in secret,” here is a wonderful article by Steven Newcomb, titled, “On Conspiracy.” (I owe the “long-range plans made in secret” phrase to him as well.) Steven looks at it from an indigenous perspective. It turns out that back in the day, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Our settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi. The former is certainly the termination of their history most happy for themselves.” A screenshot from happytalism.world, linked in the image >>>>> Click Here <<<<< A screenshot from happytalism.world, linked in the image >>>>> Click Here <<<<< And now, please meet actual “happytalism,” Jayme Illien, and "Happiness for All,” an initiative that claims the participation of the United Nations and aims to install literally a “New World Order” based on “happiness.” Before I say anything else, I want to first say that Jayme Illien seems like a very opportunistic man with deep ties to the alphabets and a possible a broken childhood, and that his direct association with the UN in the context of that specific project is officially disputed. The United Nations has officially denied their relationship to his project, while at the same time promoting similar initiatives. That said, opportunistic folks play a significant role in human history, and he seems to be hustling really hard while having powerful connections. Here is an archived version of the now deleted Wikipedia article about him. Here is an archived version of a Business Insider story about Illien that has since been deleted. It gives a lot of insight into his line of work. It talks about him being a United Nations representative for Economists for Peace and Security, and also about this: >>>>> Click Here <<<<< >>>>> Click Here <<<<< “In 2011, Illien Global Public Benefit Corporation launched a multi-year campaign to move happiness to the top of the international policy agenda forever. In 2012, Illien Global approached the United Nations about creating the new global day, the International Day of Happiness, now celebrated worldwide every March 20. With the support and leadership of ambassadors from all over the world – including the Kingdom of Bhutan, which measures Gross National Happiness instead of GDP – Illien Global was able to gain the endorsement of the President of the General Assembly and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to bring a new UN resolution to the General Assembly that would create the new global day, the International Day of Happiness.” (source) When it comes to Jayme Illien, he has A LOT of websites, some are well-developed and presentable, some are completely raw and full of placeholder images and text, and some keep interestingly changing over time. In fact, in one of his interviews, Jayme Illien has changed his name as well. His Facebook has not been updated since 2018. If you look at illienglobal.com, it’s all digital ecosystems, smart cities, and blockchain, all the favorite things of the 4IR dreamers, wrapped in “green and sustainable” language for the busy and the gullible. In his own words, “For 35 years, Illien Global:tm: has been dedicated to working with governments, intergovernmental organizations, global financial institutions, the technology sector, global leaders, academia, civil society, and the broader private sector to advance the human condition, invest in the future, and promote Happiness for All:tm:.” (source). Also in own words, “In 2011, Illien Global launched the Happiness for All:tm: Initiative at the United Nations, leading Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon to call for a new economic paradigm based on ‘Gross Global Happiness.’” (Gross Global Happiness is its own thing. It looks like in part, the people promoting it really believe that they are doing something good; however, it was also true of various missionaries of the past who created suffering in the name of their ideology.) >>>>> Click Here <<<<< Here is more on the International Day of Happiness: >>>>> Click Here <<<<< Illien’s “United Nations New World Order” website has been scrubbed. But the archived version says, “The United Nations New World Order Project is a global, high-level initiative founded in 2008 to advance a new economic paradigm, a new political order, and more broadly, a new world order for humankind, which achieves the UN’s Global Goals for Sustainable Development by 2030, and the happiness, well-being, and freedom of all life on Earth by 2050.” The United Nations has denied their affiliation with this website. The webpage where they said it seems to be gone, but here is the archived version. “And just to note that over the weekend, I’ve been receiving a lot of questions from different journalists about a website for a something called the United Nations New World Order project. I just want to state and say this very clearly that this project and website is in no way sanctioned by the United Nations.” (from the May 27, 2020 daily briefing by Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesman for the Secretary-General). And then, there is Luis Gallardo who also claims to be a founder of Happytalism. Gallardo’s web presence is far more polished than Illien’s. In his own words, he is the Founder & President of the World Happiness Foundation and World Happiness Fest (the original link is not available), the author of “Happytalism and The Exponentials of Happiness,” and the Director of the Gross Global Happiness program at the United Nations University for Peace. He is also associated with the World Happiness Academy. All the projects are very fuzzy and look like there is good money behind them. Here is a video of both of them talking about Happytalism. To make it more interesting, in this online meeting, Jayme Illien goes by “Jayme Lilienthal.” And finally, remember the notorious World Economic Forum’s proposition that went, “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy”? Well, well, well … here is another guy who wrote a book called, “Happytalism,” and guess what, buried among various sweet words, there’s de-prioritizing income as a value, which seems to me like a very nice and elusive way to say that after all, “you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.” Add to that the trend toward very lucrative impact investment programs for “mental health,” and also money arbitrarily generated by the government (because they can) and then given to private entities to “solve problems,” and we have a robust feudal economy where the majority own nothing and play the role of unhappy bodies need to be made happy through government-funded impact investment programs, implemented by private companies. Nice, right? (By the way, here’s from Happytalism.world in 2018, “Taking on Mental Illness Is Fiscally Sound and Morally Necessary”). And yes, the author of the book could be a mere opportunist who chose to write a trendy book, much like the opportunists in the Soviet Union pontificated ad nauseam about non-existent communist ideals. But … I don’t know … am I being silly not trusting these people with my happiness? There’s lots more to say about the act of hijacking “good” language to sell whatever one wants to sell, but the article is getting too long. So I would like to end this story with the interview with Mary Otto-Chang, in case you missed it earlier. She is wonderful. About the Author To find more of Tessa Lena's work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/23/happytalism.aspx

A “new” proposal by the Biden administration to create a health-focused federal agency modeled after DARPA is not what it appears to be. Promoted as a way to “end cancer,” this resuscitated “health DARPA” conceals a dangerous agenda.

[April 28, 2020], President Biden was widely praised in mainstream and health-care–focused media for his call to create a “new biomedical research agency” modeled after the U.S. military’s “high-risk, high-reward” Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA. As touted by the president, the agency would seek to develop “innovative” and “breakthrough” treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes, with a call to “end cancer as we know it.”

Far from “ending cancer” in the way most Americans might envision it, the proposed agency would merge “national security” with “health security” in such a way as to use both physical and mental health “warning signs” to prevent outbreaks of disease or violence before they occur. Such a system is a recipe for a technocratic “pre-crime” organization with the potential to criminalize both mental and physical illness as well as “wrongthink.”

The Biden administration has asked Congress for $6.5 billion to fund the agency, which would be largely guided by Biden’s recently confirmed top science adviser, Eric Lander.

Lander, formerly the head of the Silicon Valley-dominated Broad Institute, has been controversial for his ties to eugenicist and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his relatively recent praise for James Watson, an overtly racist eugenicist. Despite that, Lander is set to be confirmed by the Senate and Congress and is reportedly significantly enthusiastic about the proposed new “health DARPA.”

This new agency, set to be called ARPA-H or HARPA, would be housed within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and would raise the NIH budget to over $51 billion. Unlike other agencies at NIH, ARPA-H would differ in that the projects it funds would not be peer reviewed prior to approval; instead, hand-picked program managers would make all funding decisions. Funding would also take the form of milestone-driven payments instead of the more traditional multiyear grants.

ARPA-H will likely heavily fund and promote mRNA vaccines as one of the “breakthroughs” that will cure cancer. Some of the mRNA vaccine manufacturers that have produced some of the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines, such as the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, stated just last month that “cancer is the next problem to tackle with mRNA tech” post-COVID.

BioNTech has been developing mRNA gene therapies for cancer for years and is collaborating with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to create mRNA-based treatments for tuberculosis and HIV. Other “innovative” technologies that will be a focus of this agency are less well known to the public and arguably more concerning.

The Long Road to ARPA-H

ARPA-H is not a new and exclusive Biden administration idea; there was a previous attempt to create a “health DARPA” during the Trump administration in late 2019. Biden began to promote the idea during his presidential campaign as early as June 2019, albeit using a very different justification for the agency than what had been pitched by its advocates to Trump.

In 2019, the same foundation and individuals currently backing Biden’s ARPA-H had urged then-President Trump to create “HARPA,” not for the main purpose of researching treatments for cancer and Alzheimer’s, but to stop mass shootings before they happen through the monitoring of Americans for “neuropsychiatric” warning signs.

Still from HARPA’s video “The Patients Are Waiting: How HARPA Will Change Lives Now”, Source: harpa.org

For the last few years, one man has been the driving force behind HARPA — former vice chair of General Electric and former president of NBCUniversal, Robert Wright. Through the Suzanne Wright Foundation (named for his late wife), Wright has spent years lobbying for an agency that “would develop biomedical capabilities — detection tools, treatments, medical devices, cures, etc. — for the millions of Americans who are not benefiting from the current system.”

While he, like Biden, has cloaked the agency’s actual purpose by claiming it will be mainly focused on treating cancer, Wright’s 2019 proposal to his personal friend Donald Trump revealed its underlying ambitions.

As first proposed by Wright in 2019, the flagship program of HARPA would be SAFE HOME, short for Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes.

SAFE HOME would suck up masses of private data from “Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo, and Google Home” and other consumer electronic devices, as well as information from health care providers to determine if an individual might be likely to commit a crime. The data would be analyzed by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms “for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence.”

The Department of Justice’s pre-crime approach known as DEEP was activated just months before Trump left office; it was also justified as a way to “stop mass shootings before they happen.” Soon after Biden’s inauguration, the new administration began using information from social media to make pre-crime arrests as part of its approach toward combating “domestic terror.”

Given the history of Silicon Valley companies collaborating with the government on matters of warrantless surveillance, it appears that aspects of SAFE HOME may already be covertly active under Biden, only waiting for the formalization of ARPA-H/HARPA to be legitimized as public policy.

The national-security applications of Robert Wright’s HARPA are also illustrated by the man who was its lead scientific adviser — former head of DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office Geoffrey Ling. Not only is Ling the main scientific adviser of HARPA, but the original proposal by Wright would have Ling both personally design HARPA and lead it once it was established.

A Plan to Merge Biology, Engineering and Computer Science

Ling’s work at DARPA can be summarized by BTO’s stated mission, which is to work toward merging “biology, engineering and computer science to harness the power of natural systems for national security.” BTO-favored technologies are also poised to be the mainstays of HARPA, which plans to specifically use “advancements in biotechnology, supercomputing, big data and artificial intelligence” to accomplish its goals.

The direct DARPA connection to HARPA underscores that the agenda behind this coming agency dates back to the failed Bio-Surveillance project of DARPA’s Total Information Awareness program, which was launched after the events of September 11, 2001.

TIA’s Bio-Surveillance project sought to develop the “necessary information technologies and resulting prototype capable of detecting the covert release of a biological pathogen automatically, and significantly earlier than traditional approaches,” accomplishing this “by monitoring nontraditional data sources” including “prediagnostic medical data” and “behavioral indicators.”

While nominally focused on “bioterrorist attacks,” TIA’s Bio-Surveillance project also sought to acquire early detection capabilities for “normal” disease outbreaks. Bio-Surveillance and related DARPA projects at the time, such as LifeLog, sought to harvest data through the mass use of some sort of wearable or handheld technology.

These DARPA programs were ultimately shut down due to the controversy over claims they would be used to profile domestic dissidents and eliminate privacy for all Americans in the US.

That DARPA’s past total surveillance dragnet is coming back to life under a supposedly separate health-focused agency, and one that emulates its organizational model no less, confirms that many TIA-related programs were merely distanced from the Department of Defense when officially shut down.

By separating the military from the public image of such technologies and programs, it made them more palatable to the masses, despite the military remaining heavily involved behind the scenes.

As Unlimited Hangout has recently reported, major aspects of TIA were merely privatized, giving rise to companies such as Facebook and Palantir, which resulted in such DARPA projects being widely used and accepted. Now, under the guise of the proposed ARPA-H, DARPA’s original TIA would essentially be making a comeback for all intents and purposes as its own spin-off.

Silicon Valley, the Military and the Wearable ‘Revolution’

This most recent effort to create ARPA-H/HARPA combines well with the coordinated push of Silicon Valley companies into the field of health care, specifically Silicon Valley companies that double as contractors to U.S. intelligence and/or the military (e.g., Microsoft, Google and Amazon).

During the COVID-19 crisis, this trend toward Silicon Valley dominance of the health-care sector has accelerated considerably due to a top-down push toward digitalization with telemedicine, remote monitoring and the like.

One interesting example is Amazon, which launched a wearable last year that purports to not only use biometrics to monitor people’s physical health and fitness, but to track their emotional state as well. The previous year, Amazon acquired the online pharmacy PillPack, and it is not hard to imagine a scenario in which data from Amazon’s Halo wellness band is used to offer treatment recommendations that are then supplied by Amazon-owned PillPack.

Companies such as Amazon, Palantir and Google are set to be intimately involved in ARPA-H’s activities. In particular, Google, which launched numerous health-tech initiatives in 2020, is set to have a major role in this new agency due to its long-standing ties to the Obama administration when Biden was vice president and to President Biden’s top science adviser, Eric Lander.

As mentioned, Lander is poised to play a major role in ARPA-H/HARPA if and when it materializes. Before becoming the top scientist in the country, Lander was president and founding director of the Broad Institute.

While advertised as a partnership between MIT and Harvard, the Broad Institute is heavily influenced by Silicon Valley, with two former Google executives on its board, a partner of Silicon Valley venture capital firm Greylock Partners, and the former CEO of IBM, as well as some of its top endowments coming from prominent tech executives.

The Broad Institute, Source: www.broadinstitute.org

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who was intimately involved with Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign and who is close to the Democratic Party in general, chairs the Broad Institute as of this April [2021]. In March 2021, Schmidt gave the institute $150 million to “connect biology and machine learning for understanding programs of life.”

During his time on the Broad Institute board, Schmidt also chaired the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, a group of mostly Silicon Valley, intelligence and military operatives who have now charted the direction of the U.S. government’s policies on emerging tech and AI. Schmidt was also pitched as potential head of a tech-industry task force by the Biden administration.

Government and Public and Private Agencies Team Up

Earlier, in January [2021], the Broad Institute announced that its health-research platform, Terra, which was built with Google subsidiary Verily, would partner with Microsoft. As a result, Terra now allows Google and Microsoft to access a vast trove of genomic data that is poured into the platform by academics and research institutions from around the world.

In addition, last September [2020], Google teamed up with the Department of Defense as part of a new AI-driven “predictive health” program that also has links to the US intelligence community. While initially focused on predicting cancer cases, this initiative clearly plans to expand to predicting the onset of other diseases before symptoms appear, including COVID-19.

As noted by Unlimited Hangout at the time, one of the ulterior motives for the program, from Google’s perspective, was for Google to gain access to “the largest repository of disease- and cancer-related medical data in the world,” which is held by the Defense Health Agency. Having exclusive access to this data is a huge boon for Google in its effort to develop and expand its growing suite of AI health-care products.

The military is currently being used to pilot COVID-19-related biometric wearables for “returning to work safely.” Last December [2020], it was announced that Hill Air Force Base in Utah would make biometric wearables a mandatory part of the uniform for some squadrons. For example, the airmen of the Air Force’s 649th Munitions Squadron must now wear a smart watch made by Garmin and a smart ring made by Oura as part of their uniform.

According to the Air Force, these devices detect biometric indicators that are then analyzed for 165 different biomarkers by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency/Philips Healthcare AI algorithm that “attempts to recognize an infection or virus around 48 hours before the onset of symptoms.”

The development of that algorithm began well before the COVID-19 crisis and is a recent iteration of a series of military research projects that appear to have begun under the 2007 DARPA Predicting Health and Disease (PHD) project.

While of interest to the military, these wearables are primarily intended for mass use — a big step toward the infrastructure needed for the resurrection of a biosurveillance program to be run by the national-security state.

Starting first with the military makes sense from the national-security apparatus’s perspective, as the ability to monitor biometric data, including emotions, has obvious appeal for those managing the recently expanded “insider threat” programs in the military and the Department of Homeland Security.

One indicator of the push for mass use is that the same Oura smart ring being used by the Air Force was also recently utilized by the NBA to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks among basketball players.

Prior to COVID-19, it was promoted for consumer use by members of the British Royal family and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for improving sleep. As recently as last Monday [April 26, 2021], Oura’s CEO, Harpeet Rai, said that the entire future of wearable health tech will soon be “proactive rather than reactive” because it will focus on predicting disease based on biometric data obtained from wearables in real time.

Another wearable tied to the military that is creeping into mass use is the BioButton and its predecessor the BioSticker. Produced by the company BioIntelliSense, the sleek new BioButton is advertised as a wearable system that is “a scalable and cost-effective solution for COVID-19 symptom monitoring at school, home and work.” BioIntelliSense received $2.8 million from the Pentagon last December to develop the BioButton and BioSticker wearables for COVID-19.

BioIntelliSense CEO James Mault poses with the company’s BioSticker wearable. Source: biointellisense.com

BioIntelliSense, cofounded and led by former Microsoft HealthVault developer James Mault, now has its wearable sensors being rolled out for widespread use on some college campuses and at some U.S. hospitals. In some of those instances, the company’s wearables are being used to specifically monitor the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine as opposed to symptoms of COVID-19 itself.

BioIntelliSense is currently running a study, partnered with Philips Healthcare and the University of Colorado, on the use of its wearables for early COVID-19 detection, which is entirely funded by the US military.

While the use of these wearables is currently “encouraged but optional” at these pilot locations, could there come a time when they are mandated in a workplace or by a government? It would not be unheard of, as several countries have already required foreign arrivals to be monitored through use of a wearable during a mandatory quarantine period. Saint Lucia is currently using BioButton for this purpose.

Singapore, which seeks to be among the first “smart nations” in the world, has given every single one of its residents a wearable called a “TraceTogether token” for its contact-tracing program. Either the wearable token or the TraceTogether smartphone app is mandatory for all workplaces, shopping malls, hotels, schools, health care facilities, grocery stores and hair salons. Those without access to a smartphone are expected to use the “free” government-issued wearable token.

The Era of Digital Dictatorships Is Nearly Here

Making mandatory wearables the new normal not just for COVID-19 prevention, but for monitoring health in general, would institutionalize quarantining people who have no symptoms of an illness but only an opaque algorithm’s determination that vital signs indicate “abnormal” activity.

Given that no AI is 100% accurate and that AI is only as good as the data it is trained on, such a system would be guaranteed to make regular errors: The question is how many.

One AI algorithm being used to “predict COVID-19 outbreaks” in Israel and some U.S. states is marketed by Diagnostic Robotics; the (likely inflated) accuracy rate the company provides for its product is only 73 percent. That means, by the company’s own admission, their AI is wrong 27 percent of the time. Probably, it is even less accurate, as the 73 percent figure has never been independently verified.

Adoption of these technologies has benefited from the COVID-19 crisis, as supporters are seizing the opportunity to accelerate their introduction. As a result, their use will soon become ubiquitous if this advancing agenda continues unimpeded.

Though this push for wearables is obvious now, signs of this agenda were visible several years ago. In 2018, for instance, insurer John Hancock announced that it would replace its life insurance offerings with “interactive policies” that involve individuals having their health monitored by commercial health wearables.

Insurance Companies Push for ‘Fitness’ Wearables

Prior to that announcement, John Hancock and other insurers such as Aetna, Cigna, and UnitedHealthcare offered various rewards for policyholders who wore a fitness wearable and shared that data with their insurance company.

In another pre-COVID example, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article in August 2019 that claimed that wearables “encourage healthy behaviors and empower individuals to participate in their health.” The authors of the article, who are affiliated with Harvard, further claimed that “incentivizing use of these devices [wearables] by integrating them in insurance policies” may be an “attractive” policy approach.

The use of wearables for policyholders has since been heavily promoted by the insurance industry, both prior to and after COVID-19, and some speculate that health insurers could soon mandate their use in certain cases or as a broader policy.

These biometric “fitness” devices — such as Amazon’s Halo — can monitor more than your physical vital signs, however, as they can also monitor your emotional state. ARPA-H/HARPA’s flagship SAFE HOME program reveals that the ability to monitor thoughts and feelings is an already existing goal of those seeking to establish this new agency.

According to World Economic Forum luminary and historian Yuval Noah Harari, the transition to “digital dictatorships” will have a “big watershed” moment once governments “start monitoring and surveying what is happening inside your body and inside your brain.”

He says that the mass adoption of such technology would make human beings “hackable animals,” while those who abstain from having this technology on or in their bodies would become part of a new “useless” class. Harari has also asserted that biometric wearables will someday be used by governments to target individuals who have the “wrong” emotional reactions to government leaders.

Unsurprisingly, one of Harari’s biggest fans, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, has recently led his company into the development of a comprehensive biometric and “neural” wearable based on technology from a “neural interface” start-up that Facebook acquired in 2019.

Per Facebook, the wearable “will integrate with AR [augmented reality], VR [virtual reality], and human neural signals” and is set to become commercially available soon. Facebook also notably owns the VR company Oculus Rift, whose founder, Palmer Luckey, now runs the U.S. military AI contractor Anduril.

As recently reported, Facebook was shaped in its early days to be a private-sector replacement for DARPA’s controversial LifeLog program, which sought to both “humanize” AI and build profiles on domestic dissidents and terror suspects. LifeLog was also promoted by DARPA as “supporting medical research and the early detection of an emerging pandemic.”

It appears that current trends and events show that DARPA’s decadeslong effort to merge “health security” and “national security” have now advanced further than ever before.

This may partially be because Bill Gates, who has wielded significant influence over health policy globally in the last year, is a long-time advocate of fusing health security and national security to thwart both pandemics and “bioterrorists” before they can strike, as can be heard in his 2017 speech delivered at that year’s Munich Security Conference.

That same year, Gates also publicly urged the U.S. military to “focus more training on preparing to fight a global pandemic or bioterror attack.”

In the merging of “national security” and “health security,” any decision or mandate promulgated as a public health measure could be justified as necessary for “national security,” much in the same way that the mass abuses and war crimes that occurred during the post-9/11 “war on terror” were similarly justified by “national security” with little to no oversight.

Yet, in this case, instead of only losing our civil liberties and control over our external lives, we stand to lose sovereignty over our individual bodies.

The NIH, which would house this new ARPA-H/HARPA, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars experimenting with the use of wearables since 2015, not only for detecting disease symptoms but also for monitoring individuals’ diets and illegal drug consumption.

Biden played a key part in that project, known as the Precision Medicine initiative, and separately highlighted the use of wearables in cancer patients as part of the Obama administration’s related Cancer Moonshot program.

A Plan to Record, Mark and Manipulate Your Brain

The third Obama-era health research project was the NIH’s BRAIN initiative, which was launched, among other things, to “develop tools to record, mark and manipulate precisely defined neurons in the living brain” that are determined to be linked to an “abnormal” function or a neurological disease.

These initiatives took place at a time when Eric Lander was the cochair of Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology while still leading the Broad Institute. It is hardly a coincidence that Eric Lander is now Biden’s top science adviser, elevated to a new cabinet-level position and set to guide the course of ARPA-H/HARPA.

Thus, Biden’s newly announced agency, if approved by Congress, would integrate those past Obama-era initiatives with Orwellian applications under one roof, but with even less oversight than before. It would also seek to expand and mainstream the uses of these technologies and potentially move toward developing policies that would mandate their use.

If ARPA-H/HARPA is approved by Congress and ultimately established, it will be used to resurrect dangerous and long-standing agendas of the national-security state and its Silicon Valley contractors, creating a “digital dictatorship” that threatens human freedom, human society and potentially the very definition of what it means to be human.

To find more of Webb’s work, be sure to check out her website, unlimitedhangout.com. You can also find her videos by searching Bitchute, and she has her own podcast channel called Unlimited Hangout on Rokfin.com. Warp Speed reporting can also be found on thelastamericanvagabond.com. At present, Webb is also still on Twitter @_whitneywebb.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/23/this-biden-proposal-could-make-the-us-a-digital-dictatorship.aspx

Every year, 1.6 million to 3.8 million cases of mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) related to sports are estimated to occur in the U.S.1 Concussions are one example of an MTBI. They occur when a bump, blow or jolt to the head or body causes the head and brain to move back and forth rapidly. The jarring movement can stretch and damage brain cells while also leading to chemical changes in the brain.2

The National Football League is well-acquainted with concussions, as it’s estimated that 0.41 of them occur during every NFL game.3 For those not involved in competitive sports, concussions may occur due to falls,4 car accidents or other injuries.

As the dangers of concussions, especially repeated ones, have become well-known, research into their causes and effects has increased, with one study showing that most concussions and repetitive head impact exposures among college football players occur not during games but during preseason training and football practices.5

This has prompted calls for prevention strategies and education, as concussions have serious implications for long-term neurological health. Jay Cutler, a former quarterback who played in the NFL for 12 seasons with the Bears, Broncos and Dolphins, is now facing the repercussions of repeated concussions; he’s sharing the natural options he’s turning to for hope of recovery.6

Repeated Concussions Can Lead to Brain Disease

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a progressive brain disease that was once believed to affect primarily boxers but is now known to occur in all types of contact sports and the military7 — any activity that leads to repeated concussions puts you at risk. According to the Concussion Legacy Foundation:8

“In CTE, a protein called tau misfolds and malfunctions, causes other proteins to misfold, and sets off a chain reaction where this malfunctioning tau slowly spreads throughout the brain, killing brain cells. CTE has been seen in people as young as 17, but symptoms do not generally begin appearing until years after the onset of head impacts.”

Early symptoms, which may begin as early as the patient’s 20s, include mood and behavior changes, progressing to:9

Problems with impulse control
Aggression
Mood swings

Depression
Paranoia
Anxiety

Problems with sleep
Short-term memory loss
Confusion

Impaired judgment
Dementia

CTE doesn’t typically occur after one or two concussions. Most individuals affected have had hundreds or thousands of blows to the head, including not only concussions but also many lesser impacts that don’t cause “full-blown” concussions, but which often are the biggest factor.10 Cutler fits the description of those most at risk of CTE and has stated, “CTE, it’s coming at some point.”11

“I’ve damaged enough things and brain parts and heart and everything in my life, if I make it to 80, or anything after that, I’ll be happy,” he said … “I would say definitely my memory isn’t the same as it was five years ago.

The amount of concussions I’ve had are probably in the double digits. It’s gonna catch up to me at some point. I’m just trying to delay it as much as possible.”

Omega-3s and Low Sugar for Brain Health

Knowing his risk of brain disease is high, Cutler is being proactive in doing all he can to protect his brain health. “Trying to cut sugar. Heavy amounts of fish oil have been tied to health in the brain,” Cutler said.12 Indeed, daily sugar consumption impairs spatial memory and inhibits neurogenesis in the hippocampus, a brain area involved in learning and memory processes.13

Animal studies have also shown that a high-sugar diet tends to alter inhibitory neurons in the prefrontal cortex,14 where decision-making and impulse control are centered. Aside from impaired impulse control and the inability to delay gratification, this alteration may also increase the risk of mental health problems.15

So, cutting down on sugar is a wise move on Cutler’s part. Even if you’re otherwise healthy, without Type 2 diabetes or glucose tolerance, consuming too much sugar, and the related higher blood sugar levels it causes, has a negative effect on cognition, possibly by causing structural changes in areas of the brain associated with learning.16

Adding in omega-3 fats is also wise, as omega-3 fats are vital to your brain. A study in the journal Neurology found “older women with the highest levels of omega-3 fats … had better preservation of their brain as they aged than those with the lowest levels, which might mean they would maintain better brain function for an extra year or two.”17

In addition, older adults with memory complaints who consumed docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), alone or in combination with eicosatetraenoic acid (EPA), had improved memory.18 EPA and DHA are two types of omega-3 fatty acids. Low DHA levels have been linked to memory loss and Alzheimer’s disease, and some studies suggest degenerative brain diseases may potentially be reversible with sufficient DHA.19,20

In terms of brain trauma, specifically, DHA may help the brain resist oxidative stress while preserving membrane homeostasis and function after injury. University of California at Los Angeles researchers suggested that dietary DHA may “counteract broad and fundamental aspects of TBI [traumatic brain injury] pathology that may translate into preserved cognitive capacity.”21 In addition, omega-3 fats may be beneficial for concussions by:22

Reducing biological markers of brain injury and cellular apoptosis
Protecting against reduced plasticity of neurons and impaired learning when used prior to a concussion
Maintaining genomic stability and cellular homeostasis

While Cutler mentioned fish oil, the ideal sources for EPA and DHA include cold-water fatty fish, like wild-caught Alaskan salmon, sardines, herring and anchovies. If you do not eat these fish on a regular basis, consider taking a krill oil supplement. You can learn more about why krill oil is preferable to fish oil in the infographic below.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<< Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide (NAD) for Brain Injury Cutler is also using nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) to help preserve his brain health — another solid option. NAD is a vital signaling molecule23 that’s also believed to play an important role in longevity. This is partly due to its role as an essential substrate for sirtuins,24 which are enzymes related to healthy aging, as well as its role in DNA repair. NAD modulates energy production and many enzymes and in so doing controls hundreds of processes in your body including the survival of cells and energy metabolism. NAD is influenced on a daily basis by what you eat, exercise levels and more, and also declines with age, leading to changes in metabolism and an increased risk of disease.25 NAD depletion is common in cases of neurodegeneration and concussions.26 In a mouse study, intracortical administration of nicotinamide riboside (NR), a precursor to NAD, helped protect against central brain injury.27 Cutler said:28 “I’m doing nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) therapy. I’m doing it through IVs now. NAD is in all the cells in your body, the mitochondria, the energy that pushes each cell to function. As you get older, you lose NAD. So I’m doing NAD therapy, which, at a core level, helps everything in your body. I’ve noticed that that’s definitely helped me. Anything I can do these days, I’m trying to get involved in.” A study is underway in college football players to determine if NR supplementation (750 milligrams a day for 12 weeks) affects the levels of NAD in the brain.29 If the results are favorable, it could pave the way for NR to be used as a preventive tool for managing sports-related concussion and TBI.30 Concussions Shouldn’t Be Ignored Even if you’re not a professional athlete, the repercussions of a concussion can be significant. Many people do not seek medical attention after falls or other blows to the head, but it’s important to be on the lookout for concussion symptoms, which can last for days to months:31 Unable to recall events prior to or after a hit or fall Appears dazed or stunned Forgets an instruction, is confused about an assignment or position, or is unsure of the game, score, or opponent Moves clumsily Answers questions slowly Loses consciousness (even briefly) Shows mood, behavior, or personality changes Headache or “pressure” in head Nausea or vomiting Balance problems or dizziness, or double or blurry vision Bothered by light or noise Feeling sluggish, hazy, foggy, or groggy Confusion, or concentration or memory problem Feeling off or “not right” Since additional head injuries after a concussion can lead to significant injury, avoid activities that may further injure your brain. Children and teens, for instance, should not return to sports until the concussion is fully healed. Be sure to get adequate sleep in the aftermath and avoid strenuous physical or mental activity. You may need to take more frequent breaks during work or schooling.32 More Natural Strategies for Concussions If you’ve had a concussion or know someone who does, “The Concussion Repair Manual: A Practical Guide to Recovering From Traumatic Brain Injuries” by Dr. Dan Engle, board-certified in psychiatry and neurology, may help. Among his top strategies for repairing neurological function in case of injury like a concussion are: Flotation therapy, which induces sensory deprivation; without environmental stimuli, your brain has more energy to put toward recuperation Omega-3 fats Vitamin D Melatonin, particularly if you’re having issues with sleep Photobiomodulation Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy Transcranial direct current stimulation Neurofeedback Hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT), which involves exposure to high-pressure oxygen at different concentrations inside a pressure chamber, has also shown promise for improving brain injury33 and other neurological conditions.34 Traumatic brain injury is one of only 15 conditions for which U.S. insurance companies will pay for HBOT.35 If your concussion symptoms are severe or persistent, you should seek medical assistance, and keep in mind that your brain may still be recovering for months or even years following a concussion.36 Because of this, strategies to optimize your brain health in both the short and long term will be beneficial.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/22/jay-cutler-concussion-recovery.aspx

In the video above, German attorney and co-founder of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss1),2,3 Dr. Reiner Fuellmich,4 interviews Whitney Webb, an independent investigative reporter, about who’s really behind YouTube’s censorship of medical researchers and their published works.

He recounts how a medical doctor who after a great deal of trouble managed to get a risk-benefit analysis of mask mandates published in the Journal of Pediatrics. He created a short video about his findings, and within minutes of posting it to YouTube, the video was removed. What is actually going on here? Who is behind the censoring of peer-reviewed science? Who is trying to influence what?

Google Is Invested in the COVID ‘Vaccine’

As noted by Webb, YouTube’s parent company, Google, is directly invested in the AstraZeneca/Oxford COVID “vaccine.” While the AstraZeneca jab has been framed as a not-for-profit product, this is far from true. The developers of this gene modification tool are Adrian Hill and Sarah Gilbert with the Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research.

While the Jenner Institute is the official developer of the shot, the actual patents and royalty rights for the AstraZeneca shot are held by a private company called Vaccitech, which was founded by Hill and Gilbert. Vaccitech’s investors include:5,6,7,8

Google Ventures
The Wellcome Trust, which has longstanding links to the eugenics movement
The British government
BRAAVOS, a capital investment company set up by a Deutsche Bank executive. BRAAVO’s investment is partially hidden, as BRAAVO is the main shareholder of Oxford Science Innovation, which in turn is invested in Vaccitech
Chinese interests, including a Chinese bank branch and a drug company called Fosun Pharma

All of these investors stand to profit from this “vaccine” at some point in the near future, and Vaccitech has been quite open about the future profit potential with its shareholders, noting that the COVID-19 shot will most likely become an annual vaccine that is updated each season much like the seasonal flu vaccine.

Sure, AstraZeneca promised it would not make any profit from this COVID-19 vaccine, but there’s a time limit on this pledge. The not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself can decide when that is.

Google Is Protecting Its Financial Stakes

Since Google has a direct financial interest in AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 “vaccine,” is it any wonder that its subsidiaries, like YouTube, are censoring information that threatens the future profitability of these products? I would think not.

More broadly, Silicon Valley has been pushing to transform the health care system as a whole into a system based on telemedicine and artificial intelligence (AI). Essentially, they’re looking to replace doctors with AI-driven apps and the like.

“They’ve started to sort of reimagine health care as a way of taking control over people’s lives, telling them it’s for the benefit of the public, the collective, and also their personal health, whereas it’s really a way to implement these transhumanist or technocratic technologies under the guise of that being a health-related venture,” Webb says.

Google, of course, is intimately involved in all of this. They’re also partnered directly with the U.S. military. “So, the fact that they’re censoring stuff that goes against the narrative that they want to put forth on matters relating to public health … really shouldn’t surprise anyone,” Webb says.

Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson’s COVID shot, meanwhile, is manufactured by an American company called Emergent BioSolutions, which was previously called BioPort. According to Webb, BioPort was created as a spinoff of the British biodefence facility at Porton Down.

In her April 2020 article, “A Killer Enterprise: How One of Big Pharma’s Most Corrupt Companies Plans to Corner the COVID-19 Cure Market,”9 Webb details the scandal-ridden history of BioPort and its role in the 2001 anthrax attacks and the opioid crisis. The company was rebranded as Emergent BioSolutions in 2004. In the featured video, she says:

“They were intimately involved in what happened with the 2001 anthrax attacks, because it was basically the only way they were going to manage to save their mandatory — for U.S. military personnel — anthrax vaccine program,” she says.

“They’ve been involved in scandals really ever since then … but were chosen to manufacture [the Johnson & Johnson COVID shot] despite that, and the person they put in charge of quality control at this facility that was manufacturing these Johnson & Johnson vaccines has no experience in that at all, or really in the field of any sort of pharmaceutical development or chemistry.

His background is being head of military intelligence teams for the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. [He] is also an expert on Iran and North Korea …

More recently, the scandal that’s developed in the U.S. with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is that these batches were ‘ruined,’ they say basically unusable, and who knows what would have happened to people if that had been widely used …

Of course, they gave Johnson & Johnson a pass on that, and the blame has been placed on Emergent BioSolutions, but of course, nothing has really been done to them as a company. They’re intimately connected to the U.S. military and also to the CIA and a military contractor in Ohio, Battelle, which has a lot of ties to the anthrax attacks as well.”

Many Unanswered Questions

One of several deep concerns raised in this interview is whether there are any independent controls or reviews of the contents of these COVID jabs. What’s really in them? Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, German physician and epidemiologist, asks. They’re all used under emergency use authorization (EUA), which allows many standard controls to be bypassed.

Wodarg wonders whether the drug industry may simply be using the EUA to learn more about how the mRNA technology actually works, using the public as guinea pigs.

Normally, there are very strict rules and regulations surrounding the use of gene modification technology in humans. It’s only because they’re calling them “vaccines” that they were able to get the EUA that allows a lot of standard safety regulations to be bypassed. DARPA is heavily invested in transhumanist technologies for the use in soldiers, including brain-machine interfaces and other even more extreme ideas. They recently teamed up with the Wellcome Trust to create something called ‘Wellcome Leap,’ a rather unsettling movement to usher in transhumanism.

So, who controls what goes into these shots? Wodarg points out that some injections have been found to be nothing but saline, which suggests some people are actually getting a placebo injection, even though they’re being told they’re getting the real thing and they’ve not signed up for a formal trial.

Are “undercover” studies being performed that we’ve not been told about? There are many unanswered questions about what’s really going on with this COVID “vaccine” rollout. Webb comments:

“There definitely needs to be more attention given to the manufacturers of the vaccine because the developers ostensibly just develop the formula, which is then given to the manufacturers who actually produce and create the vaccine that is injected into people.

In the case of the U.S., the main manufacturer, not just for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, [but also] a few others, is that same company, Emergent BioSolutions, which has an awful track record. The Pentagon lost a lawsuit in 2004 where they were accused of using U.S. military personnel as lab rats in an experimental off-label use of that particular anthrax vaccine they were producing …

BioPort, now Emergent BioSolutions, have a lot of interlocking ties with the U.S. military, and also with the department of health and human services. In terms of the mRNA technology, I definitely agree that they seized on this opportunity to use it more widely. So, the hidden hand, I would argue, with the mRNA vaccine, is the U.S. military.

If you look at both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA technology, those both really started with a significant investment in 2013, to both companies, from DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], which is the advanced research branch of the U.S. military …”

Google’s ‘DARPA’ Program

DARPA, Webb says, is also heavily invested in transhumanist technologies for the use in soldiers, including brain-machine interfaces and other even more extreme ideas. They recently teamed up with the Wellcome Trust to create something called “Wellcome Leap,” a rather unsettling movement to usher in transhumanism.

As mentioned, the Wellcome Trust has deep roots in the eugenics movement, making the collaboration doubly disturbing. For more on this, read Webb’s investigative report “A ‘Leap’ Toward Humanity’s Destruction.”10

Now, the CEO of Wellcome Leap, Regina Dugan,11 worked at DARPA. She began working there in 1996 and between 2009 and 2012 served as its first female director. She was the one who greenlighted the 2013 DARPA funding to Pfizer and Moderna. In 2012, she left DARPA to create a DARPA equivalent for Google called Advanced Technology and Projects (ATAP).

She later took on a similar project at Facebook, called Building 8. Wellcome Leap is basically slated to be a “global health DARPA,” Webb says, with all the transhumanist connotations that brings.

Getting back to the issue of undercover experiments taking place in an unsuspecting public, Wodarg is very concerned that COVID-19 “vaccine” makers may be experimenting with various amounts of lipid nanoparticles, which could help explain some of the acutely lethal effects, and perhaps even the transfer phenomenon that appears to be occurring between vaccinated individuals and unvaccinated ones.

Of course, we don’t know if secret comparison trials are being done without our knowledge. What we do know is that Moderna has been working on mRNA vaccine technology for many years, and had been unable to solve the nanolipid toxicity problem. When the dosage was too low, the mRNA didn’t stick around long enough for the drug to work, and when too high, it became toxic.

Despite years of work, they were never able to determine an effective nontoxic dose of mRNA in nanolipid. At least they never announced success. Now we’re supposed to take their word that they got it all figured out in less than a year? No, most likely, they never did figure it out and are using the cover of the pandemic to release an untested vaccine on the public under the guise of emergency use authorization.

Effective nontoxic dosing is probably what the public COVID vaccination campaign is going to help them determine, so that knowledge can then be applied to other gene modification drugs and vaccines. It’s convenient in the extreme, seeing how they are not accountable for any of the damage and death their products are causing, and their unremunerated human test subjects now number in the billions.

What Is the Vaccination Campaign Really About?

According to Fuellmich, all the evidence currently suggests we’re not actually dealing with a medical emergency that would warrant the use of these gene modification tools, so the question is, why are they being pushed in such an unprecedented manner? There must be a reason for it, and if it’s not to address a medical emergency then what is it? Webb weighs in, saying:

“The Silicon Valley push to remake health care, a key part of that is what they call precision medicine … They describe it as medications and vaccines and gene therapies targeted to the individual, i.e., targeted to an individual’s own genome. This is why we’re seeing this increase, under the guise of COVID-19 testing, of this huge effort to amass genetic data of people across the world.

Of course, a lot of this is actually being held by the same Silicon Valley companies. In the case of the Western [part of] the U.S., a lot of COVID-19 testing has been done by Verily, which is a Google subsidiary, which at the same time is trying to make their AI health care based on this genetic data.

A lot of those same technologies for precision medicine also come from the U.S., military [and] involve predictive diagnoses where they say, based on an AI algorithm, you are likely to have this disease, whether it’s COVID or cancer or anything else, before you actually show symptoms of it.

That’s being co-developed right now by Google in a part of the military called the Defense Innovation Unit. There are lots of other examples of this going on. And so, I would argue that the wide-ranging use of these RNA vaccines, and treating them as regular vaccines instead of … gene therapy, is a way to normalize the same type of Silicon Valley-based precision medicine that they want to be the new normal in healthcare around the world.”

As you begin to unravel the interconnected web of players involved in this global vaccination campaign, you keep coming back to two key movements: the transhumanist movement and the eugenics movement, which in the mid-1950s actually began to merge. As noted by Fuellmich, it appears we’re observing “the coming out of a very long-running strategy” to reduce the population and alter those who are left.

“Yes, absolutely,” Webb says. “If you look back to someone like Julian Huxley, the [founding] director general of UNESCO and former president of the British Eugenics Society, which still exists today. It’s called the Galton Institute. They didn’t rename until 1989.

Adrian Hill of the AstraZeneca vaccine spoke at their 100-year anniversary, celebrating 100 years of … eugenics. The Wellcome Trust houses their archive, which they think is a great use to medicine in general.

Going back to Julian Huxley, in 1946 he said we should make the unthinkable thinkable again. Roughly 10 years later, he coined the term transhumanism and said that gene editing as a eugenics science needed to be applied along with … efforts to merge humans with machines as a way to create a new human being or human being 2.0 …

Recently, one of their board members … [published] a book that was actually positively reviewed and the UK press about eugenics in the 21st century. Front and center are these gene editing ‘medicines’ … I think it’s about control, and, ultimately … about eugenics.”

Webb goes on to discuss the January 2020 meeting of technocratic elites in Davos, Switzerland, at which an Israeli keynote speaker, Yuval Harari, warned we are entering an age of digital dictatorship where humans “are no longer mysterious souls — we are now hackable animals,”12 through the use of genetic engineering and advances in brain machine interface and technology. Needless to say, he urged the World Economic Forum members to make wise use of this technology.

Fruitful Dissent

It’s a very interesting discussion so, if you have the time, please do listen to the whole interview. In closing, Webb suggests that probably the best, most effective form or resistance is counter-economics. To joint together with others to produce what you need to survive, independent of the centralized systems and corporations that seek to control us.

“The most powerful protest at this point is going to be an economic protest,” Webb says. “Governments around the world are just waiting for more violent protest or riots. They have lots of tools and plans to deal with those. For example, in the U.S., they’re launching a war on domestic terror that is obviously going to target dissidence, from the way it is written …

That is the type of response that they’re expecting, whereas a passive nonviolent protest of economic resistance and counter-economics, just becoming independent of these people trying to build these systems [of control], I think is the most effective way to really counter it at this point.

And I think a broader counter-economics movement, in addition to a larger movement of people not consenting and just not engaging with the system, is something they fear a lot more, [which] I think could be really powerful.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/22/google-censorship-due-to-vaccine-investment.aspx

An animal study1 published in July 2021 demonstrated one mechanism through which resveratrol positively affected skin wound healing. This is significant since chronic wounds are a considerable health challenge and affect more people, with a far greater financial health burden, than has been appreciated in the past.

One study2 published in 2018 aimed to determine the cost of chronic wound care for individuals who receive Medicare benefits. They used a retrospective analysis of the data to estimate that Medicare spends from $28.1 billion to $96.8 billion on wound care, including infection costs, in just one year.

The most expensive appeared to be surgical wounds, followed closely by diabetic foot ulcers. The researchers concluded that expenditures for wound care were “far greater than previously recognized.”3 The data revealed there were approximately 8.2 million people who “had at least one type of wound or infection.”

One paper4 published in 2019 evaluated the results of 28 studies and found analyses aligned with past research, identifying the vast majority of wounds as chronic leg ulcers, a common complication of Type 2 diabetes. Some of the identified factors that affect wound healing include hydration, blood circulation, obesity, smoking, nutrition and diabetes.5,6

As discussed below, resveratrol addresses several of the factors that have a negative impact on wound healing and may potentially reduce the number of chronic wounds and positively impact wound closure. Data from the most recent study7 are encouraging.

Resveratrol May Promote Wound Healing

Researchers have been investigating skin healing properties of resveratrol for years. The focus of study has moved from demonstrating that resveratrol has a positive impact on wound healing to trying to identify the specific mechanisms through which the positive effects occur.

Resveratrol has demonstrated the ability to increase granulation and wound healing in animal studies,8 and has demonstrated improvement in cutaneous healing, scarring and photoaging in a review of 41 studies.9

In 2020, a lab study10 demonstrated that resveratrol increased mesenchymal stem cell secretion of growth factors that improved impaired wound healing in a dose-dependent manner. In the same year, authors of another paper proposed that after reviewing the benefits of resveratrol on the skin, they believed the:11

“Evidence suggests that topical resveratrol could be a valuable alternative not only for daily skin care, but also for the prevention and treatment of various cutaneous disorders.”

Topical administration of resveratrol in mice with Type 2 diabetes improved chemical responses that correlated with higher blood vessel density, which suggested that resveratrol could promote endothelial cell proliferation in those with diabetes.12

The 2021 study13 published in Laboratory Investigation, sought to analyze one pathway that resveratrol uses to regulate skin repair. They used both a lab model and an animal wound healing model, through which they evaluated cell viability and apoptosis. The aim was to measure the correlation between microRNA-212 (miR-212) and caspase 8 (CASP8).

CASP8 are cysteine protein cases that are involved in apoptosis and cytokine processing.14 miR-212 are single strand, noncoding RNA molecules that play a role in regulating gene expression.15

The researchers measured the wound area to determine the effectiveness of resveratrol on healing. They also found that it promoted cell proliferation and migration by increasing miR-212. When used to treat miR-212 knockdown mice, the wound healing was reduced. The researchers found this suggested that resveratrol:16

“… facilitates cell proliferation and migration in LPS-treated HaCaT cells and promotes skin wound-healing in a mouse model by regulating the miR-212/CASP8 axis.”

Neuroprotective Effects Support Brain Health

The compound resveratrol is found naturally in the skin of grapes, blue and purple berries and dark chocolate.17 Evidence suggests it can cross the blood-brain barrier.18 This is a natural barrier your body uses to protect the brain from substances that may have a toxic effect on the central nervous system.

Since resveratrol can cross the blood-brain barrier it may help regulate brain inflammation, which is a significant factor in the development of many neurodegenerative diseases.19 According to a report from Georgetown University Medical Center,20 giving resveratrol to individuals with Alzheimer’s helps restore the blood-brain barrier integrity and reduces the ability of harmful immune molecules to infiltrate the brain tissue.

By slowing the inflammation of the brain cells, it slowed the cognitive decline of individuals, as compared to a matched group of placebo-treated patients with Alzheimer’s. Another animal study involving resveratrol had interesting effects, including increased aerobic activity and running time, protection against diet-induced obesity and insulin resistance, regulated metabolic function and stable health.21

Improvements in aerobic activity and reduction in insulin resistance and obesity are also neuroprotective. Resveratrol was found to suppress inflammatory effects in certain brain cells by inhibiting different proinflammatory cytokines and key signaling molecules.22 Later, another group of scientists confirmed the anti-inflammatory properties have neuroprotective effects.23

There’s also solid data that it helps to clear out the plaque in your brain that leads to Alzheimer’s disease. One study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry found resveratrol to exert “potent anti-amyloidogenic activity.”24

A Chinese animal study25 also found that resveratrol can lower the risk for vascular dementia, the second most common form of dementia after Alzheimer’s.26 Unlike Alzheimer’s, vascular dementia results from impaired blood flow. One study27 in 2010 found the single dose may improve blood flow to the brain, following scientists’ findings in 2017:28

“… resveratrol suppresses vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation, promotes autophagy, and has been investigated in the context of vascular senescence.

Pre-clinical models unambiguously demonstrated numerous vasculoprotective effects of resveratrol. In clinical trials, resveratrol moderately diminished systolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients, as well as blood glucose in patients with diabetes mellitus.”

Other studies29 showed it also activates autophagy and inhibits neuronal apoptosis, working to improve cognitive function.30 A human study in 2020 showed that:31

“… regular consumption of resveratrol can enhance cognitive and cerebrovascular functions in postmenopausal women, with the potential to slow cognitive decline due to ageing and menopause.”

Resveratrol Improves Bone Density, Blood Sugar and Immunity

Evidence suggests resveratrol has many other health benefits. Studies have demonstrated it has anti-inflammatory, cardioprotective, antioxidant, antiaging and chemoprotective properties.32 Additional blood flow to the brain has demonstrated it can improve learning,33 mood and memory.34

One 2019 study35 published in the journal Nutrients also finds it helps prevent chronic diseases or progression of chronic diseases through several immune pathways. The researchers wrote:36

“… resveratrol regulates immunity by interfering with immune cell regulation, proinflammatory cytokines’ synthesis, and gene expression … it targets sirtuin, adenosine monophosphate kinase, nuclear factor- ?B, inflammatory cytokines, antioxidant enzymes along with … gluconeogenesis, lipid metabolism, mitochondrial biogenesis, angiogenesis, and apoptosis.

Resveratrol can suppress the toll-like receptor (TLR) and pro-inflammatory genes’ expression. The antioxidant activity of resveratrol and the ability to inhibit enzymes involved in the production of eicosanoids contribute to its anti-inflammation properties.”

The immune-boosting potential has spawned an outgrowth of research into the possible effect it may have on cancers.37 Researchers wrote some of the mechanisms resveratrol uses that may alter the immune system include reducing the effects of mitochondrial damage, diminishing abnormal T-cell activation and boosting natural killer cells.38

Resveratrol also has an effect on your bone density and quality of bone. In postmenopausal women, osteoporosis is a widespread and serious condition. As bones become more fragile and porous, they are at greater risk of fracture. Of all people over age 50, approximately 50% of women and 25% of men may suffer a fracture in the years to come.39

One study40 from the University of Newcastle in New South Wales found improvements in bone density in postmenopausal women who were given resveratrol. The participants took 75 milligrams (mg) twice daily or a placebo for 12 months. Bone density was measured with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans, commonly called DEXA scans.

One author in the study said the modest increase at the femoral neck resulted in improvements and “a reduction in the 10-year probability of major fracture risk.”41 Doctors prescribe replacement hormones and bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis but, as mentioned in a study in Nutrients,42 their side effects can be so dangerous that they may outweigh the benefits.

The compound has also been found to improve blood sugar in those with Type 2 diabetes.43 After just eight weeks of supplementation, fasting blood sugar declined, high-density lipoproteins increased, and insulin levels improved.

The study was done on 71 overweight patients with Type 2 diabetes and a body mass index between 25 and 30. The participants received either 1,000 mg per day of trans-resveratrol or methylcellulose (placebo) for eight weeks. A second study with 56 participants who had Type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease found similarly encouraging results. The researchers concluded:44

“Resveratrol reduced fasting glucose, insulin and insulin resistance and significantly increased insulin sensitivity when compared with the placebo. Resveratrol also significantly increased HDL-cholesterol levels and significantly decreased the total-/HDL-cholesterol ratio when compared with the placebo.”

Seek a Healthy Source of Resveratrol

Resveratrol is a polyphenol designed to increase the lifespan of the plant by helping it resist disease and stressors related to changes in the climate, such as too much ultraviolet light. However, while grapes are a source of resveratrol, you’ll not get the neuroprotective and antiaging benefits by drinking red wine.

Gregorio Valdez, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute. He explained that the resveratrol in wine is in such small amounts that you can’t drink enough of it to get the benefits.45 Additionally, as I’ve written before, alcohol has several significant negative effects on your health, including sleep, brain aging and damage to your DNA.

One way to access the benefits of resveratrol is by eating muscadine grapes, which contain the highest concentration among foods, especially in the skin. Mulberries and blueberries are other good sources.

Limit your intake to one-half cup per day, however, because fruit also contains fructose. A whole food resveratrol supplement containing bits of muscadine grape skin is another option.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/21/resveratrol-can-help-repair-skin-damage.aspx

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been declared one of the top 10 global public health threats to humanity,1 and it didn’t disappear once the COVID-19 pandemic appeared. Instead, it’s gotten worse, as infection control measures and hand hygiene using antimicrobial gels have become ubiquitous.

AMR causes about 700,000 deaths globally every year, but researchers estimated in mid-2020 that an additional 130,000 AMR deaths would occur in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The number of AMR deaths will likely surpass the number of COVID-19 deaths by at least threefold — annually — by 2050,3 with some estimates suggesting AMR deaths may reach as high as 10 million deaths per year.4

Prior to the pandemic, antimicrobial stewardship programs5 had been set up worldwide to help stop the inappropriate use of antimicrobials in hospitals, long-term care facilities and other settings, but a review by scientists with Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Iran, published in Frontiers in Microbiology, predicts that an overuse of antibiotics, biocides and disinfectants to fight COVID-19 may “raise disastrous effects.”6 Further, the overuse of antibiotics may also be directly harming immune response.

Antibiotics Given to COVID-19 Patients ‘Just in Case’

Now remember that COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which means antibiotics are useless against it. Despite this, antibiotics have been used prophylactically throughout the pandemic for COVID-19 patients, typically using the logic that it could prevent bacterial co-infections.

However, the rate of secondary bacterial co-infections has generally been low, while the use of antibiotics has remained high. This isn’t a case of antibiotics being used strategically for patients who develop bacterial infections, but rather using them “just in case.”7 In a study of 38 Michigan hospitals, 56.6% of patients with COVID-19 were given antibiotics early in their stay, but only 3.5% of them turned out to have a bacterial infection.8

“For every patient who eventually tested positive for both SARS-Cov2 and a co-occurring bacterial infection that was present on their arrival, 20 other patients received antibiotics but turned out not to need them,” Dr. Valerie Vaughn, the study’s lead author, said.9 Other studies have revealed similar signs of rampant antibiotic overuse.

In a study of 99 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China, 71% received antibiotic treatment, but only 1% had bacterial co-infections.10 Overall, it’s estimated that 1% to 10% of patients with COVID-19 contract a bacterial co-infection,11 yet antibiotics remained a mainstay of treatment for the majority of cases.

Antibiotics Considered ‘Routine’ Part of COVID-19 Treatment

Despite decades of efforts to reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics, one of the largest studies of antibiotic use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients revealed that such drugs are being used indiscriminately and inappropriately for COVID-19. More than half (52%) of the approximately 5,000 patients included in the study received antibiotics, and in 36% of cases, more than one antibiotic was given.12

Most of the time, in 96% of cases, the antibiotics were given before a bacterial infection was confirmed, either at admission or within the first 48 hours of hospitalization. As it turned out, only 20% ended up actually having a suspected or confirmed bacterial infection for which the antibiotics would be indicated. The rest received them unnecessarily. The Frontiers in Microbiology researchers explained:13

“It is noteworthy to be highlighted that the inappropriate use of antibiotics could considerably and silently lead to AMR development during this global outbreak. Unfortunately, recent studies reveal that, in several countries, common and extensive use of antibiotic treatment for COVID-19 hospitalized patients is considered as a part of the routine treatment package.”

Even the World Health Organization made it clear that countries were at risk of the accelerated spread of AMR due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They cited data showing antibiotic use increased throughout the pandemic. About 79% to 96% of people who reported taking antibiotics didn’t have COVID-19 but were taking them in the hopes of preventing infection, even though antibiotics don’t work against viral infections.14

Antimicrobial Overuse Could Damage Immunity

Antibiotics can cause a number of serious adverse effects, a little-known one being damage to your mitochondria, which are genetically closely linked to bacteria.15 Your mitochondria are responsible for most of your cellular energy production and also play a role in antibacterial and antiviral immune responses — and they’re an off-site target of certain antibiotics,16 which are known to inhibit mitochondrial activity, DNA synthesis and biogenesis.

“Thus, antibiotic therapy could be an important and not well appreciated cause of mitochondrial dysfunction. This in turn may weaken your immune response against the COVID-19 infection,” according to the featured review.17 In April 2020, scientists called for “urgent thinking out of the box” when it comes to antibiotics against COVID-19, as they noted:18

“ … mitochondria are vulnerable to antibacterial treatments, interrupting their physiology. Inhibition of these processes by antibiotics might render the immune system less capable of fighting acute COVID-19 viral infections.”

Concerning Overuse of Biocides and Disinfectants

The COVID-19 pandemic is poised to send antimicrobial-resistant disease sky high, as along with antibiotics overuse came the excessive and liberal use of antimicrobial products like household and industrial disinfectants, hand sanitizers and other cleaners.

The ramifications are immense and only beginning to be understood. There are potential adverse effects to human health from inhaling disinfectants, as such chemicals are known to accumulate in the lungs, liver, kidneys, stomach, brain and blood.19 Exposures were certainly elevated during the pandemic for many people, who were exposed to disinfectants by inhalation and oral routes, as well as via the skin and eyes.

There are also significant environmental concerns due to the “unusual release and dissemination of higher concentrations of biocide-based products into the surface and underground waters and also wastewater treatment systems” during the pandemic.20 When disinfectants and biocides enter the environment, they can wipe out beneficial bacterial species that are keeping drug-resistant microorganisms in check.

“[I]f the biocide concentrations reach the sub-minimum inhibitory concentration (sub-MIC), this event may augment the selective pressure, boost the horizontal gene transfer (HGT), and drive the evolution of AMR,” scientists warn.21

A team from the University of Plymouth in England also conducted a risk assessment to determine the potential environmental impact of prescribing COVID-19 patients antibiotics, which revealed, “The data for amoxicillin indicate a potential environmental concern for selection of AMR … ”22 The team urged such assessments be carried out in the future to keep tabs on the potentially disastrous effects of pandemic prescribing habits on AMR.23

Gut Microbiome Influences Immune Response to COVID

Antibiotics disturb your gut microbiome, which has far-reaching effects on your overall health, including your immune system’s ability to fight COVID-19 — marking yet another way that indiscriminate antibiotics usage is counterproductive.

When researchers with The Chinese University of Hong Kong analyzed gut microbiome compositions from 100 patients with COVID-19, they found gut commensals known to modulate the immune system were low compared to people without the infection.24 The makeup of patients’ gut bacteria — including both the volume and variety — affected the severity of COVID-19 infection as well as the immune response.25

Imbalanced gut microbiome could also contribute to the inflammatory symptoms associated with “long COVID,” in which symptoms persist for months after infection. According to the study:26

“In light of reports that a subset of recovered patients with COVID-19 experience persistent symptoms such as fatigue, dyspnea and joint pains, some over 80 days after initial onset of symptoms, we posit that the dysbiotic gut microbiome could contribute to immune-related health problems post-COVID-19.”

In the study, 50% to 75% of patients received antibiotics, while less than 7% had bacterial infections. While the researchers found no difference in outcomes with or without antibiotics, the drugs were not linked to improved patient outcome and, they noted, “it is still possible that a higher prevalence of antibiotic administration in severe and critical patients could worsen inflammation.”27

Isolation Disturbs Your Immune Response

Of all the negative effects of social isolation endured during the pandemic, those experienced by your immune system may be the last that come to mind, despite being among the most significant for your future health. What does staying home have to do with your immune system?

It alters your 24-hour light/dark cycle, on which your body is built to respond. With more time spent indoors, you have less sunlight exposure and less opportunity to produce vitamin D, which activates macrophages in your lungs that act as a first line defense against respiratory infections, among other immune activities.28

It’s true that taking vitamin D supplements can somewhat compensate for this, provided your levels are optimized, but other ill effects of lockdown are less easily remedied. Take exercise, another crucial component of a well-oiled immune response, that can reduce stress levels and diseases like heart disease and Type 2 diabetes, which are linked to worsened outcomes from COVID-19.

But even beyond that, staying indoors means you lose out on regular exposures to the natural world, which come with their own set of immune benefits. Trees release phytoncides, which people inhale and are known to alter natural killer cells.29 This is why, in Japan, shinrin-yoku, or forest bathing, is said to enhance immune function30 — but it’s difficult to spend much time immersed in the forest if you’re locked down at home.

The other factor that cannot be ignored is the lack of exposure to everyday dirt and germs that is missed when people stay home, socially distanced and sanitized. “Our immune system needs a job,” Dr. Meg Lemon, a Denver dermatologist, told The New York Times. “We evolved over millions of years to have our immune systems under constant assault. Now they don’t have anything to do.”31

What is perhaps most disturbing is that this comment was made in March 2019 — prior to the pandemic. Now, it’s exponentially worse, and your immune system is likely missing out on interactions with bacteria and other microorganisms that teach it, train it how to respond and keep it primed throughout your life.

Without proper “training” at regular intervals, your immune system can overreact when triggered by ordinarily harmless substances, leading to allergies and inflammation. Might a generation of children, kept isolated and masked, have immune repercussions when exposed to ordinarily routine childhood viruses post-pandemic?

Already, cases of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which normally circulates in the winter, have popped up in the summer months, suggesting possibly increased immunological susceptibility.32

New Antibiotics Are Unlikely to Save Us

There are 43 antibiotics in clinical development, but none of them shows much promise for solving rapidly rising AMR, as innovation is stagnant — most “new” antibiotics brought to the market are variations of drug classes that have been around since the 1980s. Further, according to WHO’s annual Antibacterial Pipeline Report, antibiotics currently in development are insufficient to tackle AMR:33

“The 2020 report reveals a near static pipeline with only few antibiotics being approved by regulatory agencies in recent years. Most of these agents in development offer limited clinical benefit over existing treatments, with 82% of the recently approved antibiotics being derivatives of existing antibiotic classes with well-established drug-resistance. Therefore, rapid emergence of drug-resistance to these new agents is expected.”

Also at issue, hospital reimbursement systems discourage the use of expensive new antibiotics, because they are only reimbursed up to a point. This means patients may be given older drugs that won’t work as well to protect the hospital from financial losses.

Legislation to reform this — the Developing an Innovative Strategy for Antimicrobial Resistant Microorganisms Act — has been introduced to help open up the use of new targeted antibiotics for superbug infections.34 Preserving the efficacy of existing antibiotics is also important, and agricultural antibiotics overuse cannot be ignored in this equation.

Worldwide, most antibiotics are used not for human illness or companion pets, but for livestock.35 Writing in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, researchers stated, “the ongoing pandemic is stretching the limits of optimal antibiotic stewardship”36 and called for an end to unnecessary use of antimicrobial agents.37

So, be sure you always avoid antibiotics unless they are absolutely necessary. Additionally, choosing organic foods, including grass fed meats and dairy products, can help you avoid exposure to antibiotic residues in the food supply, while also supporting food growers who are not contributing to AMR.

You’ll also want to be careful in your use of disinfectants and sanitizers, using them sparingly and only when truly necessary, which — if you’re outside of a hospital — will be hardly at all.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/21/covid-19-antibiotics-overuse.aspx

In the early months of 2020, many mainstream news media laughingly called concerns that there were more deaths reported from COVID than could be attributed to the disease a “death toll conspiracy”1 they said was led by conservative Republicans and “anti-vaxxers.”2 Yet, a few short months later, data confirm what many already knew: The number of people who died “from” COVID-19 were not the same as those who died “with” COVID-19.

In late 2020, I reported on several deaths3 that were originally counted as COVID-19, but were later retracted, for example, two deaths from gunshot wounds in Grand County, Colorado, and a motorcycle accident in Orlando, Florida. At the same time, the Freedom Foundation4 accused Washington State’s Department of Health of inflating the number of COVID deaths by up to 13%.

Although the governor denied the allegation, internal emails revealed in May 2020 that the Department of Health was counting deaths in their official COVID numbers that were not directly due to the virus.5 The high death count with COVID-19 was supported by the shameless way in which experts manipulated the PCR test they used to confirm the presence of the virus.

As I reported in 2020 and 2021, the high false positive rate with PCR test was due in considerable part to the recommended exorbitant cycle threshold. The cycle threshold refers to the maximum number of times doubling is allowed during the test. The higher the threshold, the greater the risk that a false positive will label healthy people as a “COVID-19 case.”

In reality, PCR testing is not a proper diagnostic tool even though it has been promoted as such. A rising number of COVID-19 cases from inaccurate PCR testing helped to support the death toll recorded from the virus. Recently, two counties in California have revised their numbers based on a reevaluation of the data.

Two California Counties Recount COVID Deaths

After an analysis of the data, Santa Clara and Alameda counties in California discovered there was a significant discrepancy in the number of people who died from COVID-19. The data didn’t change. The number of actual deaths didn’t change. But what authorities found was that 22% of the deaths recorded from COVID could not be attributed to the virus.6

Santa Clara County reported July 2, 2021, that the new numbers were generated by counting only those whose cause of death was from the virus and not counting people who had tested positive at the time of death. The county officials used this approach to determine the true impact COVID-19 had on their community.

The month before, in June 2021, Alameda County had also recounted deaths attributed to COVID-19 and registered a death toll drop by about 25%. University of California San Francisco professor of medicine and infectious disease expert Dr. Monica Gandhi believes that the CDC may soon ask all counties to recount their deaths from COVID-19 and the entire nation could see a drop in the death toll.7

Initially, California recorded anyone who died and who had tested positive for COVID-19 as having died from COVID-19. The newest count lists only those who have the virus as cause of death on the death certificate, as determined by the medical examiner.

Yet, despite this recount, based on the financial incentives to alter the death certificates and PCR testing that inaccurately labeled people as infected with the virus, the numbers may still not be an accurate representation of the number of people who died from the virus.

Financial Incentives Likely Inflated COVID Death Numbers

In April 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci brushed off questions that COVID-19 death counts were padded, claiming it was another “conspiracy theory” and should be ignored. A host of mainstream media also reported that suspicions that hospitals were over reporting in order to charge more money were pure conspiracy theories lacking a basis in reality.

Yet, firsthand testimony, including that of nurse Erin Olszewski, showed financial incentives were at the heart of overdiagnosis and mistreatment at a public Hospital in Queens, New York. I reported her shocking story in “Nurse on the Frontlines of COVID-19 Shares Her Experience.”

According to Olszewski, patients who tested negative were routinely listed as positive and quickly placed on ventilators, a largely inappropriate treatment that ended up killing virtually all of them. By August 2020,8 CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield admitted financial policies may have artificially inflated hospitalization rates and death toll statistics.

As reported in the Washington Examiner,9 hospitals have had a financial incentive to inflate coronavirus death, just as they do with deaths in other diseases. In response to a question before a House panel committee asked by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., about potential “perverse incentives” that hospitals might have to alter death certificates, Redfield said:10

“I think you’re correct in that we’ve seen this in other disease processes, too. Really, in the HIV epidemic, somebody may have a heart attack but also have HIV — the hospital would prefer the [classification] for HIV because there’s greater reimbursement.”

The Washington Examiner11 also reported that in August 2020 more than 3,000 people were removed from the death count in Texas after it was revealed they did not test positive but were only considered a probable case.

Are Experts Counting Actual Deaths Due to COVID?

The media also participated in a misrepresentation of reality, by equating a positive test result with being infected with the disease. The fact that a person tests positive does not equate to having COVID-19. The clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 is for someone who exhibits severe respiratory illness that is characterized by fever, coughing and shortness of breath.

If you are asymptomatic, you do not have COVID-19. The worst that can be said is that you’re infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. If you’re not actually ill, you don’t have the disease. This is one factor that differentiates a person who died from the illness compared to someone who died with a positive test result, meaning the cause of death was completely different, such as heart disease, automobile accident or a gunshot wound.

Past studies have also demonstrated a similar event in people who test positive for influenza but do not present with symptoms. One study published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine12 in 2014 evaluated five successive cohort years in England using strain-specific serology. The researchers found the influenza virus infected 18% of persons who were not vaccinated each winter.

They concluded the 2009 pandemic strain of influenza and seasonal influenza had a similarly high rate of asymptomatic infection. The author of an accompanying editorial wrote:13

“The findings reaffirm earlier reports that there are high rates of serological evidence of influenza infection without corresponding disease.

Hayward and colleagues report that roughly 20% of the community shows serological evidence of influenza infection each season, but that most infections (about 75%) are asymptomatic or at least so mild that they are not identified through weekly active surveillance for respiratory illness.”

Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., is a past vice president and chief scientific adviser of Pfizer. In an interview he talked about the number of deaths falsely attributed to COVID-19 in the U.K., saying “I’m calling out the statistics, and even the claim that there is an ongoing pandemic, as false,” noting that the definition of a “coronavirus death” in the U.K. is anyone who dies, from any cause, within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test.

Were Total Deaths in 2020 Excessive?

In the U.S., it’s a similar story. December 30, 2020, I reported that as of December 22, 2020, the provisional total death count from all causes, according to the CDC, was 2,835,533. For comparison, the total number of deaths from all causes in 2018 was 2,839,20514 while in 2019 it was 2,854,838.15

By mid-2021, the total number of deaths recorded in 2020 was 3,389,991.16 While the number of deaths in 2020 was 535,133 more than the year before, they likely cannot all be attributed to COVID. For example, drug overdose deaths rose dramatically during 2020, and if those were erroneously counted as COVID like the motorcycle accidents and gunshot wounds, then they would inflate the COVID numbers dramatically.

While the rates have not yet been tabulated, the estimated percent of increase in drug deaths in the first eight months of 2020 as compared to the same period in 2019 ranged from less than 10% to greater than 60% depending on the state.17 Additionally, according to Yeadon and an article in The Guardian,18 some of the increased number of deaths in the U.K. in people aged 45 to 65 were mainly from heart disease, stroke and cancer.

These types of deaths suggest there was the higher number could be due to inaccessibility to routine medical care when people were either afraid of or discouraged from going to the hospital.

Conversely, COVID Vaccine Adverse Events Likely Underreported

As I wrote in “COVID Vaccine Deaths and Injuries Are Secretly Buried,” the reports of death and serious injuries from the COVID-19 shot have been mounting with breakneck rapidity. Those familiar with the historical vaccine injury rate agree we’ve never seen anything like it, anywhere in the world.

In the linked article, I reported that as of June 11, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), had posted 358,379 adverse events. That number jumped to 438,440 events through July 7, 2021.19 This includes 9,048 deaths, 985 miscarriages, 3,324 heart attacks and 7,463 people disabled.

In the European Union’s database of adverse drug reactions from COVID shots, called EudraVigilance, there were 1,509,266 reported injuries, including 15,472 deaths as of June 19, 2021.20 EudraVigilance only accepts reports from EU members, so it covers only 27 of the 50 European countries.

Reports have poured in from around the world of people who died shortly after receiving the COVID-19 shot. In January 2021, Norway had already recorded 29 senior citizen deaths in the wake of their vaccine program21 and in Australia, two people died from blood clots after taking AstraZeneca’s COVID shot while only one has died from the disease this year.22

As I discussed in “CDC Caught Cooking the Books on COVID Vaccines,” the rising number of vaccine adverse events aren’t the only things being manipulated. To boost the appearance that the vaccine is effective, the CDC is using several strategies.
First, the cycle threshold has been significantly lowered from 4023 to 28,24,25 which will hide any breakthrough cases in those who have had the COVID shot. Next, the CDC no longer records a mild or asymptomatic infection in any person who has been vaccinated as a COVID case.

Now, the only cases that count in people who have had the shot are those that result in hospitalization or death.26 However, if you’re not vaccinated and have a mild case or test positive at a higher cycle threshold, you still count as a COVID case.27 As an example of how changing the analysis affects the statistics, as of April 30, 2021, the CDC had received a total of 10,262 reports of vaccine breakthrough infections.28

At the time they called this a “substantial undercount” since they were using a passive surveillance system that relies on voluntary reporting. However, 67 days later on July 6, 2021, the number of breakthrough cases was slashed to 5,186.29 This was done under the new guidelines that take only hospitalizations and deaths into account for vaccine breakthrough.

Do Your Own Risk-Benefit Analysis Before Deciding

In my most recent interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, we discuss the acute, subacute and long-term risks for those who have accepted the COVID shot. Additionally, he outlines a strategic plan you can use to help protect your health if you or someone you know got the COVID shot and now have serious regrets.

You can see the interview and the strategies to help protect your health in “Might COVID Injections Reduce Lifespan?” For those who are still deciding, it’s important to do your own risk-benefit analysis based on your individual situation before making up your mind.

You can track the rate at which the total number of vaccine adverse events are being reported to the VAERS system on their website.30 They also publish the number of deaths, hospitalizations, Bell’s Palsy, heart attacks and life-threatening side effects being reported in the system in an easy-to-read graphic.

Additionally, it’s important to remember that the lethality of COVID-19 is actually surprisingly low. Data analysis has shown that for community-based people younger than 60, it is lower than the lethality of flu for those over 65.31

And, if you’re under the age of 40 your risk of dying is 0.01%. This means you have a 99.99 percent chance of surviving the infection. Since the mRNA vaccines are not designed to prevent infection and only reduce the severity of the symptoms, it begs the question — what is being protected?

I won’t tell anyone what to do, but I do urge you to take the time to review the science and weigh the potential risks and benefits before making a decision that may have permanent repercussions for the rest of your life.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/20/inflated-reporting-of-covid-deaths.aspx