Lose Them Pounds

Over the past year and a half, I’ve written many articles detailing the evidence supporting the claim that the COVID pandemic is a ruse to usher in a new system of global centralized governance by unelected leaders, the so-called Great Reset. While the World Economic Forum (WEF) may not necessarily be the very top of this pyramid of technocratic elitists, it certainly appears to be a central power player.

Its founder and executive chairman, Klaus Schwab, has emerged as the front man of the Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which has an unmistakable transhumanist component, or merging of biological or physical technologies in the human body,1 through his speeches and books on these topics, which include “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” (2016), “Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution” (2018) and “COVID-19: The Great Reset”2 (2020).

In the featured Corbett Report, “Meet the World Economic Forum,”3 independent journalist James Corbett takes a deep-dive into the WEF’s history and “the nightmarish future it is seeking to bring about.” Corbett also offers suggestions for how we can use this knowledge to derail this enslavement agenda.

New World Order Rebranded

As noted by Corbett, the Great Reset is nothing but a rebranding of what in the last decade became known as the New World Order. Of course, the creation of a New World Order was considered a conspiracy theory believed only by tinfoil hat-wearing kooks with too much time to surf the internet and too active an imagination.

Today, we can see that the New World Order was in fact real, and that the name-calling was simply a way to make sure the cat didn’t leap from the bag too soon. In June 2020, Schwab publicly announced the Great Reset,4 so there’s no way to dismiss it now. It’s happening.

As noted in a July 21, 2020, World Economic Forum article,5 the economic devastation caused by COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns “has the potential to hobble global prosperity for generations to come.” The answer is to come up with stimulus measures, such as infrastructure development, that can allow countries to move forward.

But while at it, countries are urged to make sure the economic system is “built back better.” Make no mistake, this catchy slogan is part and parcel of the Great Reset plan and cannot be separated from it, no matter how altruistic it may sound.

Part of the “building back better” is to shift the financial system over to an all-digital centrally controlled currency system, which in turn is part of the system of social control, as it can easily be used to incentivize desired behaviors and discourage undesired ones.

While Bitcoin is decentralized and a rational strategy to preserve your personal financial freedom and opt out of the existing central bank controlled system, the central bank digital currency (CBDC) will be centralized and completely controlled by the central banks and will have smart contracts that allow the banks to surveil and control your life.

You’ll Own Nothing

There’s even talk of programming the currency such that they can control how you spend your money. The money may even have expiration dates, so you lose what you don’t spend within a certain time frame. One of the WEF’s promises is that by 2030, you will own nothing,6 and needless to say, if the central bank can control how and when you spend your money, they can eliminate your ability to save up for large purchases, such as, say, a house or a car.

The idea is that we will have to rent everything. Corbett shows a video clip from a lecture where the presenter explains that the direction we’re going in is “from products to services.” “Every product is a service waiting to happen,” she says.

What she means is that instead of buying something once and owning for as long as you please, eventually, you won’t have the option to buy anything outright. Your only option will be to lease the product you want, which means paying a fee every month for as long as you keep it.

And who owns all the items that we the public rent? “They” do. But who are “they”? Identifying the actual individuals who are pulling the strings and laying down these long-term plans is extremely difficult.

We can, however, identify organizations that play important roles, based on their ideologies and actions, and from there, specific people within those organizations who seem to wield a great deal of influence. We can also tell that the Great Reset is a technocratic agenda, so it stands to reason that those involved are referred to as technocrats. The WEF is undoubtedly part of this agenda, and Schwab is undoubtedly a technocrat of the highest order.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution — A Technocratic Agenda

Aside from the slogan “Build Back Better,”7 the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”8 is yet another term that goes hand in hand with the Great Reset. This refers to the merging of digital, physical and biological systems, and the reliance on technological surveillance rather than the rule of law to maintain public order.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution will transform not only how we live and interact but who we are as a human species. Man will ultimately be merged with machine. The COVID shots may well be the very first step into this transhumanist mass transformation.

Just like the Great Reset is a rebranding of the New World Order, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is nothing but a rebranding of technocracy, melded with the transhumanist movement. While many are still blind to this, the transhumanist agenda is being rolled out worldwide through COVID-19 gene modification injections. Seemingly without much thinking, about half the U.S. population has already signed up to become first generation transhumans.

As noted by Schwab in a video clip in the featured report, the Fourth Industrial Revolution will transform not only how we live and interact but who we are as a human species. Man will ultimately be merged with machine. The COVID shots may well be the very first step into this transhumanist mass transformation.

In this paradigm, your body is viewed as a combination of hardware and software, your genes being “the software of life,” which can be updated through a simple injection of mRNA.

Ultimately, everything, including our physical bodies, will be incorporated into an “ecosystem driven by big data,” Schwab explains (which is what 5G and 6G are ultimately for). What he does not mention is how this will eliminate human rights and personal freedoms. That these will be taken from you, however, is clear for anyone with eyes to see.

What Is the World Economic Forum?

Schwab founded the WEF in 1971, and the organization is clearly a family affair and a family legacy. Its regulations state that Schwab, as the founder, is the ex officio member of the board of trustees and only he, or an immediate family member, can designate his successor. In other words, the only people who will always have a seat at the table and cannot be kicked out are Schwab’s heirs.

Members and stakeholders of the WEF include world government leaders, corporate leaders, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), journalists, activists, cultural leaders and artists, all of whom collaborate to push the WEF’s technocratic, transhumanist missions forward. And, as noted by Corbett, there’s hardly a single topic currently being discussed in the media that isn’t pushed and promoted by the WEF or someone with direct ties to the WEF.

Examples of areas the WEF is spearheading and pulling strings on include global cyber security problems and solutions, the reengineering of the global food system, the rewriting of a social contract.

This has never existed in the first place and appears to be part and parcel of the plan to control populations through social engineering and a social credit score, the education of our children, the resetting of the global monetary system, reimagining health care using nanotechnology and synthetic biology and much more.

It’s quite clear that the WEF serves as a central hub for the implementation of this new global social order through its public-private partnerships. The fact that people don’t announce their connections to the WEF makes it appear as though the technocratic, transhumanist movement is somehow organic, popping up here, there and everywhere, more or less organically.

In reality, however, there is nothing organic about it at all. It’s well-coordinated propaganda. Here’s how Corbett explains the WEF’s role in the future governance of world affairs:9

“The World Economic Forum has always sought to be, and is increasingly becoming, that organization that situates itself at the nexus of the public-private cooperation that will be governed by the ESGs [Environmental, Social and Governance.

This is an umbrella term for ‘sustainable investing’’] and other sorts of frameworks that the World Economic Forum is spearheading, by which they are going to tell the world exactly what they can and cannot, should or should not be doing in their individual business efforts to be part of this stakeholder capitalism.

Because you don’t own what you own. No, the society at large owns it and we all have to listen to society’s interests in these things. But you can’t talk to society, so you might as well talk to the World Economic Forum, who will tell you what society thinks.”

International Man of Mystery

So, who is this “international man of mystery,” Klaus Schwab? As noted by Corbett, Schwab’s online history has been thoroughly sanitized to leave few traces and threads to unravel. One of the more revealing investigations into Schwab’s past is Johnny Vedmore’s Unlimited Hangout report, “Schwab Family Values.”10

In it, he reveals Schwab as “the son of a Nazi collaborator who used slave labor and aided Nazi efforts to obtain the first atomic bomb.” The Schwab family was also involved in South Africa’s illegal nuclear program, Vedmore claims, as well as the European eugenics movement. He writes:11

“Especially revealing is the history of Klaus’ father, Eugen Schwab, who led the Nazi-supported German branch of a Swiss engineering firm into the war as a prominent military contractor. That company, Escher-Wyss, would use slave labor to produce machinery critical to the Nazi war effort as well as the Nazi’s effort to produce heavy water for its nuclear program.

Years later, at the same company, a young Klaus Schwab served on the board of directors when the decision was made to furnish the racist apartheid regime of South Africa with the necessary equipment to further its quest to become a nuclear power.

With the World Economic Forum now a prominent advocate for nuclear non-proliferation and “clean” nuclear energy, Klaus Schwab’s past makes him a poor spokesperson for his professed agenda for the present and the future.

Yet, digging even deeper into his activities, it becomes clear that Schwab’s real role has long been to ‘shape global, regional and industry agendas’ of the present in order to ensure the continuity of larger, much older agendas that came into disrepute after World War II, not just nuclear technology, but also eugenics-influenced population control policies.

… through the World Economic Forum, Schwab has helped to rehabilitate eugenics-influenced population control policies during the post-World War II era, a time when the revelations of Nazi atrocities quickly brought the pseudo-science into great disrepute.

Is there any reason to believe that Klaus Schwab, as he exists today, has changed in any way? Or is he still the public face of a decades-long effort to ensure the survival of a very old agenda?”

The Green Agenda Was Invented to Justify Depopulation Agenda

Aside from the WEF, there are many other organizations that work toward technocratic goals. These include the Club of Rome, the Aspen Institute, the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Institute, the Brookings Institute and other think tanks. According to Vedmore, the Club of Rome actually inspired the creation of the WEF and its annual symposium that takes place in Davos, Switzerland.

The Club of Rome is a scientific think tank that, like the WEF, promotes “a global governance model led by a technocratic elite.” It was founded only three years before the WEF, during a private meeting between Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scottish chemist Alexander King at a Rockefeller family residence in Italy. Vedmore writes:12

“Among its first accomplishments was a 1972 book entitled ‘The Limits to Growth’ that largely focused on global overpopulation, warning that ‘if the world’s consumption patterns and population growth continued at the same high rates of the time, the earth would strike its limits within a century’ …

[In 1973], the Club of Rome would publish a report detailing an ‘adaptive’ model for global governance that would divide the world into ten, inter-connected economic/political regions. The Club of Rome was long controversial for its obsession with reducing the global population and many of its earlier policies, which critics described as influenced by eugenics …

However, in the Club’s infamous 1991 Book, ‘The First Global Revolution,’ it was argued that such policies could gain popular support if the masses were able to link them with an existential fight against a common enemy.”

The common enemy the Club came up with was mankind itself. An excerpt from “The First Global Revolution” reads, “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.”13

It may be quite chilling for some to realize that the climate change threat narrative was cooked up in the late 1980s for the sole purpose of being able to implement a global depopulation agenda without stirring up excessive resistance. As noted by Corbett, depopulation and eugenics are “always at the heart of what they do,” referring to the WEF and any number of other organizations, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

As disturbing as all of this might be, it’s important not to stick our heads in the sand and pretend it’s not happening. It is happening. The COVID pandemic was used to roll out a clearly transhumanist, technocratic agenda, and the WEF is driving the rollout.

In closing, the sleuths among you can start tying the threads of this web together by making use of the WEF’s website, www.weforum.org. Corbett provides the following example in his report. Simply look up any company currently in the news, and see if they have any ties to the WEF.

For example, the world’s largest meat supplier, JBS, claimed it was hit by a cyberattack in June 2021, forcing it to shut down its distribution.14 Looking at the WEF’s partner list, you’ll find JBS is in fact one of its partners. As noted by SilView Media, “JBS, a WEF member, coincidentally fulfills Klaus Schwab’s Cyber Polygon 2020 fantasies, ahead of Cyber Polygon 2021.”15

What has Schwab been predicting? Cyberattacks that threaten global transportation, distribution systems and the food supply. What are we seeing more and more of right now? Cyberattacks on transportation, distribution systems and the food supply. Coincidence? Or predictive programming? You decide.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/16/klaus-schwab-world-economic-forum.aspx

Mandating children to wear facemasks for long periods of time while at school and participating in other activities is an unprecedented move, one that was put into place despite no research showing the practice is safe. It’s not simply a case of “something is better than nothing,” because the act of mask wearing comes with a risk of adverse effects.

Now that the pandemic is more than a year behind us, evidence is starting to accumulate showing that the use of face masks in children may cause more harm than good. One of the latest studies noted that the evidence base for making face masks compulsory in schoolchildren is “weak,” and looked into their effects on carbon dioxide in inhaled air.1

Masks Increase Carbon Dioxide Inhalation

Your body produces carbon dioxide (CO2) as a byproduct of cellular function.2 This odorless, colorless gas is then transported via your blood to your lungs, where it is exhaled from your body. Normally, the CO2 then dissipates into the air around you before you take another breath. In the open air, carbon dioxide typically exists at about 400 parts per million (ppm), or 0.04% by volume.

The German Federal Environmental Office set a limit of CO2 for closed rooms of 2,000 ppm, or 0.2% by volume. If you’re wearing a facemask, the CO2 cannot escape as it usually does and instead becomes trapped in the mask. In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, researchers analyzed the CO2 content of inhaled air among children wearing two types of masks, as well as wearing no mask.3

Children in the study ranged in age from 6 to 17 years, with a mean age of 10.7. While no significant difference in CO2 was found between the two types of masks, there was a significant elevation when wearing masks compared to not wearing them.

CO2 in inhaled air under surgical and filtering facepiece masks came in between 13,120 ppm and 13,910 ppm, “which is higher than what is already deemed unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office by a factor of 6,” the researchers noted.4 Also important, this level was reached after only three minutes, while children wear masks at school for a mean of 270 minutes at a time.

Even the child who had the lowest measured CO2 level had a measurement threefold greater than the closed room CO2 limit of 0.2%. However, younger children appeared to have the highest CO2 values; a level of 25,000 ppm was measured from a 7-year-old wearing a facemask.5

The study attracted criticism and calls for retraction by those questioning mask risks to children, but in a thoughtful synopsis by Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, it’s noted that there are both benefits and risks to forcing children to wear masks.6

While large, empirical studies could answer the question of whether masks help or harm children, “we did literally zero of them,” Prasad said, and the CO2 study is attempting to add some clarity. He added:7

“Here is the real answer to the question of whether it’s worth it to mask kids: No one has any clue. During the last year and half, the scientific community has failed to answer these questions. Failed entirely.

We have no idea if masks work for 2-year-olds and above, 5 and above, 12 and above. No idea if they only work for some period of time. No idea if this is linked to community rates. No idea if the concerns over language loss offset the gains in reduced viral transmission, and if so, for what ages.”

Children’s Mask Complaints Could Be Caused by Elevated CO2

A German study using data from 25,930 children showed that 68% reported adverse effects from wearing facemasks.8 Among them, 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play.9

Hundreds more experienced “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.” Additional symptoms were also reported among the children, who wore facemasks for an average of 270 minutes a day:10

Irritability (60%)
Headaches (53%)

Difficulty concentrating (50%)
Less happiness (49%)

Reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%)
Malaise (42%)

Impaired learning (38%)
Drowsiness or fatigue (37%)

Signs of mild to moderate hypercapnia, which is a buildup of CO2 in your bloodstream, include shortness of breath, daytime sluggishness, headache, daytime sleepiness and anxiety.11

Hypercapnia is often associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which makes it harder for you to breathe, but it can also be caused by activities that limit you from breathing fresh air, such as scuba diving or being on a ventilator.12,13 The researchers of the featured study believe, however, that the use of facemasks could lead to “impairments attributable to hypercapnia,” adding:14

“Most of the complaints reported by children can be understood as consequences of elevated carbon dioxide levels in inhaled air. This is because of the dead-space volume of the masks, which collects exhaled carbon dioxide quickly after a short time.

This carbon dioxide mixes with fresh air and elevates the carbon dioxide content of inhaled air under the mask, and this was more pronounced in this study for younger children … We suggest that decision-makers weigh the hard evidence produced by these experimental measurements accordingly, which suggest that children should not be forced to wear face masks.”

Nanoparticles, Pollutants Detected in Facemasks

Disposable plastic facemasks pose another risk in terms of the pollution they contain. A study by Swansea University researchers noted that 200 million disposable plastic facemasks are produced in China daily, and “improper and unregulated disposals” have led to a significant plastic pollution problem.15

The researchers submerged seven disposable facemask brands in water to simulate what happens with littering, when masks end up in waterways. Micro- and nanoscale fibers and particles and heavy metals, including lead, antimony and copper, were detected, raising significant environmental and public health concerns. According to a university news release:16

“The findings reveal significant levels of pollutants in all the masks tested — with micro/nano particles and heavy metals released into the water during all tests.

Researchers conclude this will have a substantial environmental impact and, in addition, raise the question of the potential damage to public health — warning that repeated exposure could be hazardous as the substances found have known links to cell death, genotoxicity and cancer formation.”

Not only are masks not being recycled, but their materials make them likely to persist and accumulate in the environment. Most disposable face masks contain three layers — a polyester outer layer, a polypropylene or polystyrene middle layer and an inner layer made of absorbent material such as cotton.

Polypropylene is already one of the most problematic plastics, as it’s widely produced and responsible for large waste accumulation in the environment. Leading researchers from the University of Southern Denmark and Princeton University also warned that masks could quickly become “the next plastic problem.”17

A performance study published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials18 also highlighted the little talked about fact that wearing masks poses a risk of microplastic inhalation, and reusing masks increases the risk.

The Link Between Masks and Advanced Stage Lung Cancer

A National Institutes of Health study19 published in February 2021 confirmed that when you wear a mask, most of the water vapor you would normally exhale remains in the mask, becomes condensed and is re-inhaled.20 They went so far as to suggest that wearing a moist mask and inhaling the humid air of your own breath was a good thing, because it would hydrate your respiratory tract.

But researchers from New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine revealed that when oral commensals — microbes that live in your mouth — are “enriched” in the lungs, it’s associated with cancer.21

Specifically, in a study of 83 adults with lung cancer, those with advanced-stage cancer had more oral commensals in their lungs than those with early-stage cancer. Those with an enrichment of oral commensals in their lungs also had decreased survival and worsened tumor progression.

While the study didn’t look into how mask usage could affect oral commensals in your lungs, they did note, “The lower airway microbiota, whether in health or disease state, are mostly affected by aspiration of oral secretions, and the lower airway microbial products are in constant interaction with the host immune system.”22

It seems highly likely that wearing a mask would accelerate the accumulation of oral microbes in your lungs, thereby raising the question of whether mask usage could be linked to advanced stage lung cancer.

Masks Developed That Test for COVID-19

Adding further support that masking leads to an accumulation of breath droplets, which you can then re-inhale, engineers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University developed a face mask that tests such droplets for the presence of COVID-19.23

The facemasks contain tiny, freeze-dried sensors surrounded by water. When the wearer pushes a button, the water is released, hydrating the sensor, which then begins the test.

Reportedly, the mask can diagnose COVID-19 within 90 minutes and is “as sensitive as the gold standard, highly sensitive PCR tests,”24 which have been fraught with trouble since the beginning of the pandemic.

CDC Study Finds Masks in Schools Had Little Effect on COVID

If children are risking inhalation of excessive levels of CO2 to wear masks at school, what benefit are they receiving in exchange? Very little, if any, according to a CDC study that compared the incidence of COVID-19 in Georgia kindergarten through grade 5 schools that were open for in-person learning in fall 2020 with various recommended prevention strategies, such as mandatory masks and improvements to ventilation.25

The study revealed that COVID-19 incidence was 37% lower in schools that required teachers and staff members to use masks and 39% lower in schools that improved ventilation, compared to schools that did not use these strategies.26

Because the COVID-19 incidence at the schools was extremely low to begin with, even with a 37% reduction in incidence from staff members wearing masks, that only reduced COVID-19 incidence by about one case in the entire school. When students were masked, it also made virtually no difference. Further, ventilation led to better outcomes, reducing incidence by 39%.

Dilution methods, which work by diluting the number of airborne particles, include opening windows and doors or using fans. This led to a 35% lower incidence of COVID-19, while methods to filter airborne particles, such as using HEPA filtration systems with or without ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, led to a 48% lower incidence.

More States Ban Mask Mandates in Schools

While the CDC continues to recommend “universal and correct use of masks and physical distancing” in kindergarten through grade 12 schools,27 a number of states, including Texas, Iowa, South Carolina and Arkansas, are defying the CDC’s nonsensical advice and proceeding to ban mask mandates in public schools or at least make mask usage optional.28

In addition to the physical risks, experts have warned that masks are likely to be causing psychological harm to children and interfering with their development.29 All of these risks come at little benefit to children, as, one expert report noted, “Figures illustrate that the risk of death from this disease for this age group is negligible … To introduce these [compulsory face covering measures] without detailed, thorough and meticulous risk assessment, is potentially reckless.”30

Mass, peaceful protests are often effective at compelling change, so if you’re unhappy with the facemask policies at your child’s school, contact your local district and let them know.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/16/negative-effects-of-wearing-masks-on-children.aspx

Cash has long been king, but an increasing number of people have ditched cash in favor of credit cards and other contactless, digital payment options. The drive toward a cashless society has been in progress for some time, but the COVID-19 pandemic has been used as a pretext to accelerate the process.

With infectious disease at the top of everyone’s mind, bills and coins suddenly seemed especially filthy, even though they haven’t been linked to disease transmission, while electronic payment was clean, convenient and fast.

But, in the DW documentary “Cash or Card — Will COVID-19 Kill Cash?”1 producer Kersten Schüssler asks some important questions, like what’s at stake if society truly goes cashless? The answer is both your privacy and your freedom.

You Pay for Cashless Payments With Your Privacy

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has been vocal about its agenda of moving away from cash and to a digital currency, including in the U.S., for years.2 But in the last year, the pandemic has led to a drastic acceleration. In Germany, where people have been famously reluctant to embrace payment by card or app, the number of people paying by card increased by 26% since the start of the pandemic.3

Cash is still being widely used there and is even the only currency accepted in many markets and bakeries. This isn’t the case in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, however, where cash has practically become a thing of the past. You won’t find ATMs very often and if you go to a convenience store, you’re likely to be told you have to pay by card.

In Sweden, your cash may be no good at a bakery, and shop employees view this as a good thing. One young bakery clerk interviewed in the film said it’s much safer to not have any cash at the store because it cuts down on robberies.

Till Grune-Yanoff, a professor of philosophy at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, also states that payment apps let him monitor exactly what his two children are buying. And this is a key tenet of the cashless system. While cash is anonymous, paying by card or app leaves a digital trail.

Already in Sweden, most banks no longer give out cash because it’s too much of a hassle, and payment using cellphone apps is booming. You can transfer money from one cellphone to another as easily and quickly as you can send a text message.

“Here, money has become merely digital information,” Schüssler said. But there’s a downside for the convenience. “This also means that Swedish electronic payment systems can track most people’s financial transactions. Big Brother is watching you.”

Is This the End of Cash?

The film questions whether Sweden is the shape of things to come, “a future in which cash is a thing of the past — and every payment for everything we buy can be traced and tracked.”4 Marion Laboure, a Harvard lecturer and research analyst at Deutsche Bank, has stated that COVID-19 could be the catalyst to bring digital payments into the mainstream.5 She told Schüssler:6

“It’s not the end of cash yet. But what we have noticed since the beginning of this year, and especially since the start of the corona crisis, the amount of cash in circulation has definitely increased because it’s considered as safe in terms of holding its value.

However, if we consider cash as a means of payment, it has definitely decreased. Fewer and fewer people are paying by cash. In December, 30% of people made contactless payments in Germany. And today, it’s almost 50%.”

Laboure described even more striking advances in other countries, such as South Korea and China, which quarantined and destroyed bank notes. In the U.S., “the Fed decided to quarantine banknotes coming from Asia to make sure they were safe,” she said. When asked whether this was a reasonable response to the pandemic, Laboure said, “The risk is very low. But they felt it was necessary.”7

Disease, Tax Evasion Used as Impetus to Destroy Cash

Throughout the pandemic, it’s been implied that contactless, cashless payments are the preferred “safer” choice, allowing you to keep your distance and eliminating the need to pass “dirty” cash back and forth. But are you really at greater risk of catching COVID if you pay with cash?

Johannes Beermann, an executive board member of Bundesbank in Berlin, doesn’t think so, and he also doesn’t believe cash will be replaced by apps or cards anytime soon. “I would say that’s been sufficiently disproven,” he said. “If you look at the bank notes, like the five-euro or 10-euro bills here — which are in particularly heavy circulation — they have a special coating. We know from research that bills and coins don’t play any role in the spread of infections.”8

Corruption and money laundering concerns were also cited when banks stopped issuing 500-euro bills in 2019, while the Better Than Cash Alliance, an initiative with 77 members, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Visa and Mastercard,9 that is “committed to digitizing payments,” has also called for cash to be abolished due to “slush funds, dirty money, money laundering and big sums not declared to tax authorities or the state.”10

“Of course, we have to combat money laundering, tax evasion and the financing of terrorism, and I think cash has to be monitored, as should other payment methods,” Beermann said. “We have to ensure that. But I don’t think that this [digitized payments] will vanquish the underground economy.”

Leaving a Digital Footprint With Every Payment

The digital footprints or financial data trails that you leave every time you pay by card or mobile app are being watched closely. Sarah Spiekermann, professor for information systems and society at Vienna’s University of Economics and Business, researches how this data is observed and analyzed, and states that credit card information and electronic payment data are feeding an industry of data brokers:11

“We know that credit card companies pass on this data. In the meantime, they can observe everyone in real time via all the digital media that they use to create large-scale profiles. It’s almost become normal to have 30,000 to 40,000 pieces of data on each person. And with this high-resolution history, they know what you do, the routes you take, what you buy, what you pay for, where you go on vacation, how much you pay. They know it all.”

Information like how much alcohol you drink or how much you spend on vacation can all be tracked and “sold to the highest bidder.” We’re at a point where once fledgling startups have morphed into immense information empires, in control of our information and our privacy is in their hands.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made it clear how valuable digital technologies are in acting as a safety net to allow many activities to continue, but because governments haven’t dealt with fundamental issues to protect privacy and digital rights, these information empires continue to own and operate the Internet and global means of communication.

These monopolies lead to uncontrolled power that, in turn, leads people to be even more constrained and living in a society based increasingly on surveillance, and digital payments are a necessary part of this plan and further surveillance capitalism. Spiekermann explained:12

“We’ve analyzed, for example, how Oracle Blue Kai has described collecting 30,000 user attributes from 200 data vendors, which would allow them to create the profiles of 700 million people. That’s probably the entire western world.

And if we look to see who’s providing that data: Visa, Mastercard or Acxiom, Google, Facebook, Twitter interfaces. That’s surveillance capitalism. Surveillance capitalism involves hundreds and thousands of companies with data exchange agreements working together behind the scenes.”

As a result of this data, you and your neighbor might end up paying different prices for things like flights and hotels, or you might be refused insurance or be passed over for a job offer. You might think these things are just bad luck or fate, she said, “when in reality, it’s the result of databases making some sort of prediction about them. And people behind the scenes are earning money to create these profiles of people. It’s disgraceful.”13

There are no laws in place to curtail this brand-new type of surveillance capitalism, and the only reason it has been able to flourish over the past 20 years is because there’s been an absence of laws against it, primarily because it has never previously existed. Surveillance has become the biggest for-profit industry on the planet, and your entire existence is now being targeted for profit.

Payment Technologies Are Rapidly Developing

You’ve probably used one or more types of contactless, digital payments, but this is only the beginning of the payment technologies to come. In China, Chinese and U.S. companies are testing “smile to pay” facial recognition technology, which ties your ability to pay for goods and services with your smile.

But it doesn’t end there. Ultimately, the plan is to use facial scans when you enter a store, which employ artificial intelligence to recognize the person and their credit rating. AI also detects emotions, social affiliations and whether you’re under stress or getting sick.

All of this personal information is the cost of relying on this digitized system, and it could have significant ramifications for both psychology and security. Spiekermann, who wants cash to be retained, said in the film:14

“If I pay with a smile and I start to connect smiling to economic transactions, then this habit will also leave its imprint in my real world. I don’t think we really want those kinds of associations to develop. Our society and social interactions would become subtly commercialized … [also] power can be rapidly knocked out, as can IT systems. It’s a matter of security. We need a concrete backup. We still need cash — for security reasons.”

While all-digital mobile banks are already up and running, alternative options are also emerging. Berlin company Barzahlen.de offers a modern digital-analogue hybrid payment system that uses encrypted barcodes to get money or make a payment.

The barcode stipulates how much is paid in or out. No transfer of account or credit card data is needed, and each transaction gets a new barcode, allowing you to use cash in a digital context but without leaving behind data trails.

In addition, while U.S. federal law does not require businesses to accept cash as payment, cities and states can enact local laws to do so. At least 21 cities and states, including Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey, have passed or are considering laws that prohibit retailers from refusing cash payments.

It’s unclear how strictly such laws are being enforced, but in New York City, for example, businesses can face steep fines for refusing cash or charging higher prices to customers paying cash.15

Former Interpol President Opposes Cash-Free Society

Bjorn Eriksson, former Interpol president, was also interviewed for the film. He’s familiar with cyberattacks and money laundering, and states that cash should be available as an option for people, including those who aren’t tech savvy — a population he estimates to be about 1 million people in Sweden alone.

“They are looked on as unprofitable. Just leave them,” he said. “I don’t like that type of society.” Security is another major concern to leaving cash behind. “What happens if the Russians, Putin or somebody, switches off the system? We have no defense. How do you then defend yourself if you just have this card that doesn’t function? Cash is a perfect option.”16

The interference with your freedom and privacy, however, is what he believes will drive young people to push for cash to be preserved:17

“[What] … attracts a lot of young people is what they see in China and some other nations where you use these to control your citizens. Because if you have a system with card, you’ll have a technology with cameras, you have a technology with artificial intelligence, you’re really going to be checked. Young people don’t like that.”

He also believes the pandemic is being used as pretext to switch to a cashless society even though “there is no proof whatsoever that cash is carrying that type of threat from corona.”

The push to eliminate cash is going to continue, especially since electronic payments are extremely lucrative for banks and payment service providers, while the data broker industry is also making huge revenues, Schüssler said.18 Still, cash represents a form of freedom, one that should be passed on to the next generation to preserve as much autonomy and privacy as possible.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/15/will-covid-19-kill-cash.aspx

A recent study1 of U.S. military personnel who had accepted the COVID-19 jab show there was a higher-than-expected rate of myocarditis.2 The data were published in the JAMA Cardiology by physicians from the Navy, Army and Air Force.3

The Myocarditis Foundation4 reports the condition is usually classified as a rare disease. Yet, 3.1 million cases were diagnosed in 2017, which offers enough data to estimate the number of individuals who may develop myocarditis in a given population.

The condition causes an inflammatory response in the heart muscle, which may weaken the heart, create scar tissue and force the muscle to work harder. Although most heart disease is associated with the elderly population, myocarditis often affects young adults who are otherwise healthy. The highest risk populations are males from puberty to their early 30s.5

The condition is the third leading cause of sudden death in children and young adults. Mild cases are generally self-limited, but some can develop temporary or permanent cardiac dysfunction, including severe arrhythmias or acute cardiomyopathy.6 The natural history is varied, and the condition is sometimes misdiagnosed as a heart attack, aka myocardial infarction.7

The National Organization for Rare Disorders8 reports the symptoms are similar to those for other common heart conditions. These include a sensation of tightness or squeezing in the chest and chest pain that may improve when you lean forward and worsen when you lie down. The condition may also trigger a slower heart rate, fatigue, lightheadedness and even a loss of consciousness.

Although most improve with standard medical care, in a minority of cases the condition can become recurrent. The current data from the U.S. military confirms what others have reported recently — the rate of myocarditis reported after receiving a COVID-19 shot is much higher than is expected in the general population.9

Increased Risk of Myocarditis After COVID Shot

In June 2021, STAT News10 reported that U.S. health officials were seeing a higher number than expected cases of heart inflammation after people received the COVID-19 shot. Although the numbers were higher than would be found in the general population, experts were still trying to establish if there was an association with the shot.

Despite 366,316,945 million doses of the vaccine being distributed by June 1, 2021,11 officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration both said there was not enough data12 to establish a rate at which experts could predict how frequently myocarditis would occur after the vaccine.

STAT News13 reported that an immunization safety expert from the CDC said there were 573 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in individuals who received their second dose of mRNA, and 216 after their first dose. Pericarditis is an inflammation of the membrane that surrounds the heart.

However, STAT News14 also reported that based on the baseline frequency of these conditions, you would expect from two to 19 cases out of 2.3 million doses in a group of 16- to 17-year-olds. Instead, there were 79 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

In the 18- to 24-year-old range, the expected rate would be eight to 83 cases and the actual number reported was 196 cases. The high rate of men diagnosed with myocarditis after the COVID-19 shot was confirmed in a study of 436,000 U.S. military personnel15 and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.16

The data showed there were 23 healthy men whose average age was 25, who were diagnosed with myocarditis within four days of receiving the shot17 in the absence of other identifiable causes.18

The shots were made either by Pfizer, BioNTech or Moderna. The data has been significant, which triggered a health warning added to the literature that the mRNA vaccine may cause heart inflammation in young men.19 Experts estimated there should have been eight or less cases of myocarditis in the same number of people.

Of the 23 patients who had myocarditis in the military, symptoms resolved in 16, but seven men had continued to have symptoms of myocarditis when the paper was published.20 The researchers concluded:21

“Potential for rare vaccine-related adverse events must be considered in the context of the well-established risk of morbidity, including cardiac injury, following COVID-19 infection.”

Children Dying After the COVID Vaccine

According to the VAERS through June 25, 2021, there were 6,985 deaths recorded after the COVID-19 shot.22 Newsweek reports the CDC is investigating the death of a 13-year-old who died just days after receiving the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. The public affairs officer for the CDC COVID-19 vaccine task force communicated with Newsweek to say that “it is premature to assign a specific cause of death.”23

She continued with “While some reported adverse events may be caused by vaccination, others are not and may have occurred coincidentally.” The implication from the statement is that the death of 13-year-old Jacob Clynick, who died in his sleep two days after receiving the second dose, was coincidental.

The Detroit Free Press24 reports that the young man was healthy with no known underlying medical conditions. A family member told a journalist from the paper the parents had received preliminary autopsy findings that showed Jacob’s heart was enlarged with fluid around the heart.

The Saginaw County medical examiner’s office would not confirm the claim for the Detroit Free Press. Yahoo! News25 also reports a 16-year-old boy from Singapore had a cardiac arrest while exercising after receiving his first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. The Ministry of Health reports they are investigating the incident.

The young man had been treated in the emergency department and then transferred to the National University Hospital where he was in critical condition as of July 5, 2021. Just before his collapse, he was weightlifting, which the Ministry of Health said it “understands that he trains with very heavy weights which were above his body weight,”26 implying that heavy weightlifting may have been the source of the 16-year-old’s heart attack.

A committee from the Ministry of Health in Singapore now recommends anyone who receives an mRNA vaccine avoid all exercise or any strenuous physical activity for at least one week after getting the shot.27 While tragic, these are just two of the children and families who have been irreparably damaged by this genetic therapy vaccine.

The VAERS published reports through June 25, 2021, have recorded deaths in children and teens younger than 18. However, as I have reported in the past, only a small percentage of vaccine adverse reactions or deaths have historically been reported to the system. Here are more examples of how the vaccine has devastated families.

March 17, 2020, a mother received her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Within 24 hours, her 5-month-old breastfed infant was inconsolable. The baby was hospitalized and died with a diagnosis of elevated hepatic enzymes and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.28
A 16-year-old girl presented at the hospital four weeks after her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine with chest pain. She had pericardial effusion, decompensated and died after a prolonged hospitalization.29
A 15-year-old young man received his Pfizer vaccine on April 18, 2021. Two days later he died from cardiac failure.30
A 17-year-old female received her first Pfizer vaccine. She had a headache that was severe and lasted a week, delaying the administration of the second vaccine. After the headache resolved, she got her second vaccine. She presented in the hospital with a massive acute intracranial hemorrhage. Her brain swelled and she experienced multiple infarctions. Doctors were unable to control the intracranial pressure and parents agreed to a do not resuscitate status.31

There are multiple reasons why children should not receive the COVID shot which I discussed in “Why Children Should Not Receive the COVID Shot.” The benefits of the vaccine in children are rare, the side effects are common and the long-term effects are completely unknown.

Despite the minimal incidence of infection in children, Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, insists that children are vaccinated “because of the known risks of COVID-19, including multisystem inflammatory syndrome.”32

Yet, a paper in JAMA calls the condition rare, happening in no more than 10 cases in 1-million-person months.33 In response, Offit comments on myocarditis and the added financial and emotional burden to families:34

“This issue of a transient myocarditis associated with a vaccine is at the moment a theoretical and unproven risk. So I think that in the world of trying to weigh relative risks, the disease is a greater risk.”

Pseudo Vaccine Demonstrates Dangers of Spike Protein

A team of researchers, including scientists from the University of California San Diego, created a pseudo virus, or a cell surrounded by spike proteins that did not contain a virus.35 Using an animal model, they administered the pseudo virus into lung tissue and found the virus was not necessary to create damage.

The results of the animal model and lab studies demonstrated that the spike protein could induce endothelial cell inflammation and endotheliitis. The protein also reportedly decreased ACE2 levels and impaired nitric oxide availability.

The predominant pathophysiology of COVID-19 includes endothelial damage and microvascular injury, stimulation of hyperinflammation and hypercoagulability.36 A recent review in Physiological Reports37 examined how the capillary damage and inflammation from endotheliitis triggered by COVID-19 could contribute to the persistent symptoms by interfering with tissue oxygenation.

The combined effects of capillary damage in multiple key organs may accelerate hypoxia-related inflammation and lead to what are known as long-haul symptoms. The symptoms include brain fog, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, chest pain, fatigue and joint and muscle pain.38

Myocarditis is only one of the adverse events caused by the COVID-19 gene therapy jab, which the FDA had been warned could be dangerous by the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology, Dr. Robert Malone.

Malone was recently interviewed by podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., an evolutionary biologist. During the interview, which you can see in “Inventor of mRNA Interviewed About Injection Dangers,” Malone explains he warned the FDA the vaccine could be dangerous. He reports that they dismissed his concerns, saying that they did not believe the spike protein in the vaccine was biologically active.

But, as recent data have demonstrated, the spike proteins are what caused most of the damage to the body outside the lungs. The FDA also was assured that vaccine makers had designed the injections so the spike proteins would stick to the area where the injection was made and not float freely about the body.

The FDA has been proven wrong on both counts. For more in-depth information about how the spike protein causes these problems, please see my interview with Stephanie Seneff Ph.D. and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D.

Swine Flu Vaccine Pulled After Far Fewer Deaths

In 1976, then CDC director Dr. David Sencer wrote a memo to the administration saying, “The administration can tolerate unnecessary health expenditures better than unnecessary deaths and illness.”39 Later, a presidential aide recalled that, “There was no way to go back on Sencer’s memo. If we tried to do that, it would leak. That memo’s a gun to our head.”40

From there, the president announced support of a mass immunization program for a pandemic that never materialized. As the president assured the public they may experience “a few sore arms,” the press reported three senior citizens had died of a heart attack shortly after getting the swine flu vaccine.41

Interestingly, the vaccines were given at the same Pittsburgh clinic and all three died shortly after receiving their jab, and yet the investigation determined the heart attacks were coincidental and there was no connection between the deaths and the vaccine.

Later, Sencer pointed out in an interview with the World Health Organization that if the pandemic had happened, the rare cases of Guillain-Barre, serious adverse events and deaths would have been a “blip on the screen.”42

The blip on the screen that Sencer referred to from the $137 million program was the more than 500 people who developed Guillain-Barre after receiving the vaccine and 25 who died in the 10 weeks the swine flu vaccine was given before it was pulled for the mounting number of adverse events.43 As you’ll see below, these numbers are far less than are being reported from the COVID shot.

VAERS Poorly Prepared for Onslaught of Reports

During the interview, Malone pointed out that in the most current version of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that governs the administration of COVID-19 shots, he discovered the FDA had opted not to require stringent post-vaccination data collection and evaluation.

Without data capture, there is no way to evaluate the safety of the products being released to the public. Additionally, the only current means of capturing data is the VAERS. Yet, as was discussed in the interview, there is evidence that data is being manipulated since reports that were filed are now missing.

As of the writing of this article, data on the VAERS is dated June 25, 2021, which is a far cry from current, especially considering the rate at which adverse events are being recorded and reported. As you see the jump in reported events below from June 18 to June 25, a mere seven days, consider the fact that these numbers are likely not an accurate representation of reality.

I recently interviewed Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, who has treated COVID patients quite successfully, and we discussed the very distinct possibility that everyone who receives the COVID jab may die from complications in the next two to three years. He personally knows of 28 COVID jab deaths that were not accepted by VAERS. Zelenko suspects the number of deaths may already exceed 100,000.

Yet, even if the numbers on the VAERS are somewhat close to accurate, they are frightening and overwhelming. The jump in the number of reported deaths and injuries over seven days makes you wonder how much death and destruction health authorities are willing to endure to ensure an agenda is followed that vaccinates each and every person in the U.S.?

Reported Injury
June 18, 2021
June 25, 2021

Death
6,136
6,985

Hospitalized
21,806
23,257

Urgent Care Visit
51,575
54,606

Life threatening reactions
6,450
6,899

Heart attack
2,483
2,757

Myocarditis or pericarditis
1,644
1,930

Low platelet count
1,776
1,908

Miscarriage
720
775

Severe allergic reactions
17,408
18,270

Disabled
5,194
5,852

Tinnitus (ringing in the ear)
4,447
4,869

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/15/heart-inflammation-tied-to-covid-vaccine.aspx

Salmon is often used as an example of a health-conscious food choice, but the health value depends greatly on the source. While wild salmon is nutritious, there are significant problems with farm-raised salmon. One of these is the high rate of infection on salmon farms.1

Data released in May 2021 support the theory that piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) spread from fish farms to wild Pacific salmon in 1989, which may have endangered several salmon species to the point of near extinction.2

PRV is known to cause Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation (HSMI) in salmon. The disease is causing substantial losses to the Norwegian farming industry, where it is spreading from farmed salmon to wild salmon. In one study3 it was detected in 95% of farmed Atlantic salmon and up to 45% of wild salmon that were exposed to the salmon farms.

Even in regions farthest from salmon farms, researchers detected PRV in 5% of the wild salmon. The virus was discovered in 2010 and, according to researchers, “is now considered ubiquitous in marine farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Norway and British Columbia (BC), Canada.”4

Farmed Salmon ‘Likely’ Transmitting Virus to Wild Salmon

Farmed salmon are kept in large, netted enclosures where water is freely exchanged with the surrounding ocean. Researchers have long suspected that PRV was transferred from farmed salmon to wild Pacific salmon. They also believed the infection rates in aquacultures were influencing rates in wild salmon and posing a significant risk to wild salmon survival and reproduction.5

A study published in Science Advances6 in May 2021 used genomic sequencing from strains isolated between 1988 to 2018. Based on their analysis they estimated that at least one strain of PRV was introduced into the Pacific in 1989. This introduction was potentially from the importation of eggs from an Icelandic farm.

Many of the Atlantic salmon farms in the northeast Pacific are along salmon migration routes, increasing the risk that wild salmon are near farmed salmon. However, the risk is not only from proximity to farms, but also from farmed salmon that escape into the wild.7

In fact, farmed salmon that escape from ocean net pens are so common that more than one-third of “wild-caught” salmon from the Faroe Islands, tucked between Iceland and Norway in the North Atlantic Ocean, are escaped farmed fish.8

Back in the Pacific, one research team analyzed the prevalence of PRV after the escape of 253,000 Atlantic salmon from a farm in Washington state,9 finding it was close to 100%. Not only that, the PRV strain was “very similar to the PRV strain reported in farmed Atlantic salmon from the source hatchery in Iceland that was used to stock commercial aquaculture sites in Washington state.”

Other studies have found PRV is nearly ubiquitous in salmon farmed in British Columbia, Canada.10 Espen Rimstad, a fish virologist from Norwegian University of Life Sciences, spoke with a reporter from The Scientist. He was not part of the study, but commented that the study is:11

“… describing something which has … been suspected before: that PRV on the west coast of Canada and the United States [comes from] Atlantic salmon farming, and it arrived there approximately in the 1980s.”

Virus in Pacific Salmon May Contribute to Declining Population

The population of Pacific salmon has been declining for nearly 30 years. Researchers have sought to identify the potential reasons in the hope that the population could be reestablished. According to The Scientist,12 likely triggers have included overfishing, habitat destruction and climate change.

How much diseases, including PRV, have played a role in this has not yet been established. Gideon Mordecai from the University of British Columbia and lead researcher in the current study, spoke with The Scientist, saying:13

“There are all sorts of reasons why there’ve been declines in salmon populations over the last few decades. I’m not saying viruses rule the world and do everything. But it’s one thing which we are in control of since we’re the ones doing the farming.”

The number and diversity of salmon in Northern British Columbia have declined nearly 70% over the past 100 years. Data from a recent study14 published in the Journal of Applied Ecology compared current wild adult sockeye salmon scales against 100-year-old scales. Using modern genetic tools, they reconstructed historical diversity and number for comparison. Michael Price, lead author, said in a press release:15

“Our study provides a rare example of the extent of erosion of within-species biodiversity over the last century of human influence. That loss in abundance and diversity from wild populations has weakened the adaptive potential for salmon to survive and thrive in an increasingly variable environment influenced by climate change.”

Another research study16 looked at the decline in body size of Pacific salmon based on 60 years of measurements and 12.5 million fish across Alaska. Declining size is associated with climate change and competition. Salmon that matured before 1990 were substantially larger than salmon that matured after 2010.

However, as a reporter from The Seattle Times17 points out, the environmental impact of declining wild salmon is not just about fish. David Montgomery, geomorphologist at the University of Washington, notes that “fully one-third of the nitrogen” supply to old growth trees in Washington were supplied by the fish that swam up the river or were dragged onto the forest floor by bears and eagles.

Historically, adult salmon runs numbered between 10 and 16 million fish each year in the Northwest. Currently it is less than 5% of historic populations and 15 species of salmon and steelhead stock are listed as endangered species. This has led to a domino effect in the ecosystem since more than 135 other fish and wildlife benefit from wild salmon and steelhead.

Health Challenges With Farmed Salmon

A growing interest in eating healthier food has driven up consumer demand for fish, including salmon. In fact, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),18 fish have become so popular that global demand jumped 122% from 1990 to 2018.

In 2017, the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) reported that seafood consumption in the U.S. was trending upward with salmon hitting the No. 2 spot, recording 2.18 pounds consumed annually per person.19 By 2021 the same report found consumption of salmon had risen.20 It was again in the No. 2 spot, just behind shrimp, with 3.1 pounds consumed annually per person.

As mentioned, salmon’s human health value depends greatly on its source. Wild-caught Alaskan salmon is a great source of omega-3 fats. But farmed salmon has more in common with junk food than with healthy food21 — and, unfortunately, farm-raised salmon makes up more than 90% of salmon sold in U.S. supermarkets and served in restaurants.22
Not only that, testing showed that 43% of the salmon sold as wild-caught in your grocer or in restaurants was mislabeled23 — often meaning the salmon was farm-raised and not wild-caught.

A key part of the problem lies with the diet of farmed salmon. In the wild, salmon eat marine life, including zooplankton, algae and other fish, which makes their meat rich with natural, omega-3 fats. Farmed salmon, on the other hand, eat a fish version of processed food pellets they wouldn’t ordinarily eat in the wild, composed of plants, fishmeal and grain products like soybeans, with plant-derived oils partially replacing the natural omega-3s.24

Sometimes, the pellets might even contain chicken feathers, poultry litter, genetically modified yeast, chicken fat and dyes.25 The dyes are to help the farmed salmon look more like their wild, pink cousins, as the pellets the farmed salmon eat are gray, which makes them gray, too, without the dyes.

In Nicolas Daniel’s documentary “Fillet-Oh-Fish,” he visits fish farms and factories around the world. You can watch the documentary at “Why Farmed Salmon Are a Toxic ‘Junk Food’.” On the farm, aquaculturists have attempted to simulate salmon’s wild diet by putting eel and other fatty fish from the Baltic Sea in their pellets.

The problem is the Baltic is highly polluted and Sweden’s food industry is required to warn consumers about the potential toxicity of eating fish from the Baltic.26 Another problem with fish food is the manufacturing process. When fatty fish are prepared and cooked to produce fish pellets, the protein meal and oil are separated. The oil has high levels of dioxins and PCBs.

According to the documentary, ethoxyquin is added to the protein powder as an antioxidant, which is one of the best-kept secrets in the fish food industry, and maybe one of the most toxic. Ethoxyquin was developed as a pesticide by Monsanto in the 1950s.27

Farmed salmon also have higher levels of contaminants than fish living in the wild,28 as many toxins readily accumulate in fat. While some salmon farms may claim that farmed salmon contain fewer toxins that oily wild fish because of the special feed they get these days,29 research shows that pollutants tested in salmon feed have included dioxins, PCBs, chlorinated pesticides and other drugs and chemicals.

One study30 tested 700 salmon samples collected from around the world and PCB concentrations in farmed salmon are, on average, eight times higher than in wild salmon.

When the Environmental Working Group31 tested farmed salmon purchased at U.S. grocery stores, they found it had on average 16 times more PCBs than wild salmon, four times more PCBs and beef and 3.4 times more PCBs than other types of seafood.

Omega-3 Fats Are Important to Good Health

The nutritional content in farmed salmon is also seriously different from wild caught salmon. The farmed variety of fish has 52% more fat and 38% more calories than wild-caught salmon.32 Additionally, farmed salmon have radically skewed ratios of omega-3 to omega-6 fats.

One-half a fillet of wild Atlantic salmon33 has approximately 3,996 milligrams (mg) of omega-3 and 341 mg of omega-6. However, one-half a fillet of farmed salmon34 in the Atlantic contains 4,961 mg of omega-3 and an astounding 1,944 mg of omega 6, which is over 5.5 times more than the omega-6 in wild salmon.

Omega-3 fats are important for many reasons. Humans evolved on a diet of a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats of close to 1-to-1.35 However, most western diets have a ratio 15-to-1 to 16.7-to-1.36 The shift in fat ratio began during the industrial revolution when people began eating more omega-6 fats driven by the introduction of vegetable oils and cereal grains.

One study37 published in January 2021 evaluated 100 individuals’ omega-3 index and compared that against their COVID-19 outcomes. They found the risk of death from COVID in people who had lower levels of omega-3 fatty acids was at least as predictive as being 10 years older.

In addition, maintaining your omega-3 index within optimal levels can reduce your potential risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease, according to data published in 2018.38 A second study39 in 2020 explored the hypothesis that omega-3 fats in fish oil had a protective effect on cardiovascular health.

The researchers found that fish oil reduced the risk of all-cause mortality by 13% and the risk of cardiovascular disease mortality by 16%. A lesser-known benefit is in Type 1 diabetes.

One study40 published in 2020 showed adults who tested positive for a marker for Type 1 diabetes could significantly reduce their risk of onset by eating omega-3 rich fatty fish. For a further discussion of the benefits of omega-3, see “Lower Omega-3 Levels Correspond to COVID Deaths.”

Choose Wild-Caught Over Farm-Raised Salmon

Martin Krkosek, an ecologist at the University of Toronto, was not involved in the featured study analyzing the evolution of PRV in wild salmon. But, he believes other pathogens have taken the same route between farmed salmon and wild salmon. He told The Scientist:41

“PRV is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s one of dozens, if not hundreds, of species of viral and bacterial pathogens that we think are being passed back and forth [between farmed and wild salmon.]”

There are many reasons to avoid eating farmed fish. As I discussed in “The High Cost of Salmon Farming,” toxic drugs and chemicals used in fish farming pollute the water and the fish, there is a significant environmental impact on wild fish and the marketing claims used by multinational farm companies are false and misleading.

I only recommend eating safer seafood choices such as wild-caught Alaskan salmon, sardines, mackerel, anchovies and herring. These species have a low risk of contamination and yet are high in healthy omega-3 fats without the problems posed by fish farming.

You’ll want to seek out sustainably harvested wild caught fish as well. Look for the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) logo that features the letters MSC and a blue check mark in the shape of a fish. The logo ensures the seafood came from a responsible fishery that used sustainable fishing practices to minimize environmental impact.42
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/14/piscine-orthoreovirus-in-salmon.aspx

Homeownership has long been considered an important tool for building financial security and wealth, but it’s becoming more difficult for Americans to achieve. Younger generations are less likely to own a home than those from older generations, with millennials’ homeownership rate 8% lower than that of generation X and baby boomers at the same age.1

If the rate had remained steady, about 3.4 million more people would own homes in the U.S. today but, instead, younger adults are increasingly choosing to either rent or live with their parents. There are a number of reasons why homeownership has become less attainable than it was decades ago, from rising debt in younger generations to increased cost of living.

A report by the Urban Institute found half those aged 18 to 34 were spending upward of 30% of their income on rent, making them “rent-burdened.”2 Meanwhile, median housing prices increased 28% in the last two years,3 pricing some out of the market. However, the shift is not all happenstance.

In the first quarter of 2021, 15% of U.S. homes sold were purchased by corporate investors4 — not families looking to achieve their American dream. While they’re competing with middle-class Americans for the homes, the average American has virtually no chance of winning a home over an investment firm, which may pay 20% to 50% over asking price,5 in cash, sometimes scooping up entire neighborhoods at once so they can turn them into rentals.6

BlackRock Is Buying Up US Houses

BlackRock is one of a number of companies mentioned by The Wall Street Journal in a recent exposé. “Yield-chasing investors are snapping up single-family homes, competing with ordinary Americans and driving up prices,” they warned.7 The question is, why would institutional investors and BlackRock, which manages assets worth $5.7 trillion,8 be interested in overpaying for modest, single family homes?

To understand the answer, you must look at BlackRock’s partners, which include the World Economic Forum (WEF),9 and their extreme political and financial clout. In a Twitter thread posted by user Culturalhusbandry, it’s noted:10

“Black Rock, Vanguard, and State Street control 20 trillion dollars worth of assets. Blackrock alone has a 10 billion a year surplus. That means with 5-20% down they can get mortgages on 130-170k homes every year. Or they can outright buy 30k homes per year. Just Blackrock.

… Now imagine every major institute doing this, because they are. It can be such a fast sweeping action that 30yrs may be overshooting it. They may accomplish feudalism in 15 years.”

If the average American is pushed out of the housing market, and most of the available housing is owned by investment groups and corporations, you become beholden to them as your landlord. This fulfills part of the Great Reset’s “new normal” dictum — the part where you will own nothing and be happy. This isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s part of WEF’s 2030 agenda.11

The unstated implication is that the world’s resources will be owned and controlled by the technocratic elite, and you’ll have to pay for the temporary use of absolutely everything. Nothing will actually belong to you, including your home. All items and resources are to be used by the collective, while actual ownership is restricted to an upper stratum of social class. The wealth transfer has already begun.

BlackRock’s Unrivaled Control

The New York Times and a majority of other legacy media are largely owned by BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world, which also control Big Pharma. And it doesn’t end there.

BlackRock and Vanguard are at the top of a pyramid that controls basically everything, but you don’t hear about their terrifying monopoly because they also own the media. You can watch all the details about BlackRock’s monopoly in this video, but Humans Are Free summed it up this way:12

“The power of these two companies is beyond your imagination. Not only do they own a large part of the stocks of nearly all big companies but also the stocks of the investors in those companies. This gives them a complete monopoly. A Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028, together will have investments in the amount of 20 trillion dollars. That means that they will own almost everything.

Bloomberg calls BlackRock ‘The fourth branch of government,’ because it’s the only private agency that closely works with the central banks. BlackRock lends money to the central bank but it’s also the advisor. It also develops the software the central bank uses.

… BlackRock, itself is also owned by shareholders … The biggest shareholder is Vanguard … The elite who own Vanguard apparently do not like being in the spotlight but of course they cannot hide from who is willing to dig. Reports from Oxfam and Bloomberg say that 1% of the world, together owns more money than the other 99%.

Even worse, Oxfam says that 82% of all earned money in 2017 went to this 1%. In other words, these two investment companies, Vanguard and BlackRock hold a monopoly in all industries in the world and they, in turn are owned by the richest families in the world, some of whom are royalty and who have been very rich since before the Industrial Revolution.”

BlackRock May Control the World’s Economic Future

To put this into perspective, BlackRock, an investment firm, has more power than most governments on Earth, and it also controls the Federal Reserve, Wall Street mega-banks like Goldman Sachs and the WEF’s Great Reset, according to F. William Engdahl, a strategic risk consultant and lecturer who holds a degree in politics from Princeton University.13

Engdahl believes that, left unchecked, BlackRock will soon control the economic future of the world, and states, “BlackRock is the epitome of what Mussolini called Corporatism, where an unelected corporate elite dictates top down to the population.”14 For instance, three influential economic appointees of the current administration come from BlackRock.

“There is a definite pattern and suggests that the role of BlackRock in Washington is far larger than we are being told,” Engdahl says.15 The Campaign for Accountability also released a report in 2019 detailing how BlackRock “implemented a strategy of lobbying, campaign contributions, and revolving door hires to fight off government regulation and establish itself as one of the most powerful financial companies in the world.”16,17

BlackRock founder and CEO Larry Fink also has close ties to WEF’s head Klaus Schwab, and joined WEF’s board in 2019. According to Engdahl:

“Fink … now stands positioned to use the huge weight of BlackRock to create what is potentially, if it doesn’t collapse before, the world’s largest Ponzi scam, ESG [Environment, Social values and Governance] corporate investing. Fink with $9 trillion to leverage is pushing the greatest shift of capital in history into a scam known as ESG Investing.

 The UN ‘sustainable economy’ agenda is being realized quietly by the very same global banks which have created the financial crises in 2008. This time they are preparing the Klaus Schwab WEF Great Reset by steering hundreds of billions and soon trillions in investment to their hand-picked ‘woke’ companies, and away from the ‘not woke’ such as oil and gas companies or coal.

… Oil companies like ExxonMobil or coal companies no matter how clear are doomed as Fink and friends now promote their financial Great Reset or Green New Deal … And we can expect that the New York Times will cheer BlackRock on as it destroys the world financial structures.”

Blackstone Is the Largest Landlord in the US

Another giant private equity firm, Blackstone, is also deeply entrenched in U.S. real estate. Blackstone is the largest landlord in the U.S. as well as the largest real estate company worldwide, with a portfolio worth $325 billion.18 In June 2021, Blackstone agreed to buy Home Partners of America, a company that rents single-family houses, and its 17,000 houses, for $6 billion.

Blackstone and BlackRock sound alike for a reason. Blackstone’s co-founder, billionaire Steve Schwarzman, said during an interview on Squawk Box that he and Fink “started in business together. We put up the initial capital.” BlackRock used to be called Blackstone Financial, but Fink went off on his own. Schwarzman said, “Larry and I were sitting down and he said, ‘What do you think sort of about having a family name with ‘black’ in it,'”19 and BlackRock was born.

Blackstone became notorious for swooping in after the housing bubble burst and buying tens of thousands of homes at deeply discounted prices. They then turned them into single-family rentals, taking advantage of the recession. In 2017, Bloomberg reported:20

“Blackstone built its rental-home business with an advantage few if any other buyers could match: billions of dollars in credit from large banks. Its Invitation Homes subsidiary quickly became the largest single-family home landlord in the U.S., with 50,000 properties. Altogether, hedge funds, private-equity firms and real estate investment trusts have raised about $20 billion to purchase as many as 200,000 homes to rent.”

Now, with many struggling due to yearlong business shutdowns and lockdowns, and home prices rising, many Americans are having difficulty finding affordable single-family homes to buy.21

BlackRock Owns Your House, Gates Owns Your Farmland

Both BlackRock CEO Fink and Bill Gates are pushing for “net zero” carbon emissions.22 But as BlackRock is busy buying up houses, Gates is hard at work amassing farmland and is now the largest owner of farmland in the U.S.23

By 2030, Gates is pushing for drastic, fundamental changes, including widespread consumption of fake meat, adoption of next generation nuclear energy and growth of a fungus as a new type of nutritional protein.24 The deadline Gates has given to reach net zero emissions is 2050,25 likely because he wants to realize his global vision during his lifetime.

But according to Vandana Shiva, in order to force the world to accept this new food and agricultural system, new conditionalities are being created through net zero “nature-based” solutions. Navdanya’s report, “Earth Democracy: Connecting Rights of Mother Earth to Human Rights and Well-Being of All,” explains:26

“If ‘feeding the world’ through chemicals and dwarf varieties bred for chemicals was the false narrative created to impose the Green Revolution, the new false narrative is ‘sustainability’ and ‘saving the planet.’ In the new ‘net zero’ world, farmers will not be respected and rewarded as custodians of the land and caregivers, as Annadatas, the providers of our food and health.

… ‘Net Zero’ is a new strategy to get rid of small farmers in first through ‘digital farming’ and ‘farming without farmers’ and then through the burden of fake carbon accounting.

Carbon offsets and the new accounting trick of ‘net zero’ does not mean zero emissions. It means the rich polluters will continue to pollute and also grab the land and resources of those who have not polluted — indigenous people and small farmers — for carbon offsets.”

A New Wave of Colonization

Ultimately, we’re heading for a new wave of colonization in the name of sustainability and net zero carbon emissions. The solutions are complex. Some have suggested that one solution is to make building homes less expensive, so that new construction homes become less expensive. This, in turn, would drive down the cost of existing homes.27

The video at the top of this article goes into detail about another solution: ending the Federal Reserve to stop the central planning of our money supply and interest rates, which are artificially suppressed in a way that is most taken advantage of by the top 1%, contributing to growing wealth inequality.28

This engineered pandemic has catalyzed the transfer of wealth to the rich and, while the major players pushing for the Great Reset are still emerging, BlackRock and Blackstone are names to keep your eye on.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/14/blackrock-buying-houses.aspx

Stanford University recently announced work on a “groundbreaking ‘superhero’ vaccine inspired by the DNA code of Olympic athletes.”1 Euan Ashley is a professor of medicine and genetics at Stanford University, and the genetic scientist behind this attempt to use science to adjust your DNA, with unknown short-term and long-term consequences.

Science has been manipulating plant DNA for decades, culminating recently in the development of fake meat. Bill Gates and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are pushing for all people in Western nations to swap traditional, whole foods for mass-produced fake food grown in a laboratory.

Sadly, this is not how your body is designed to thrive, yet it is being pushed as a green and sustainable alternative to animal food. The fake meat industry is well-established, which consulting firm Kearney predicts will reach $450 billion by 2040. At that time, it would represent up to 25% of the meat market.2

The COVID-19 vaccine is another example of manipulating genetic material with poorly researched outcomes. The mRNA vaccine being pushed throughout the world is designed to trick your body into making spike protein inside your cells using genetic coding.3

The spike protein covers the COVID-19 virus and does not mutate as rapidly as the virus. This is supposed to trigger an immune response in your body, so you recognize the virus when you are exposed. The vaccine was released under emergency use authorization, long before scientists established that the vaccine held greater danger than they had potentially anticipated.

As the number of people injured and disabled from the vaccine continues to mount, some researchers have discovered it is the spike protein — used by the vaccine to trigger your immune system — that is causing widespread endothelial damage linked to many of the long-haul symptoms4 and likely responsible for developing blood clots, stroke and organ damage.

As the growing number of deaths and destruction of human lives from the COVID vaccine are revealed, Stanford University announced5 yet another DNA-driven “vaccine” designed to rewrite your genetic code to prevent diseases, many of which are preventable through lifestyle choices.

Scientists Take Aim at a Genetic Frankenstein Vaccine

The Stanford team of scientists believe the vaccine may be available in the not-so-distant future. Ashley said that his vaccine would use genetic traits from people such as Olympic athletes as a blueprint to repair cells.
He believes the vaccine could potentially protect people from some of the leading causes of death, including heart disease, liver disease and Alzheimer’s disease. He hopes that clinical trials of individual components would begin as early as 2026 and combination vaccines would then be available within the next 15 years.6

In a communication with the Daily Mail,7 Ashley told the reporter that his idea came while studying specific populations of people who appear to be more resilient to certain types of diseases. His idea is to study the genetics of people who are resilient to disease in order to create therapies, including gene editing, to make others more resilient, saying:8

“At the moment, these “resilience” genes have been identified for heart disease, for Alzheimer’s disease, and for liver disease. But in the future we might discover people resistant to a whole host of human diseases.”

Study Finds describes the shot as a treatment that delivers an “instruction manual” to help the body “repair, tweak and improve” its own versions. A single dose could lead to a “bodywide genetic upgrade” that would cut the risk of premature death in some adults by as much as 50 percent.”9

Ashley believes the vaccine would first be administered to adults with serious clinical conditions before being released to the general population. While this genetic experiment has all the earmarks of Frankenstein medicine, Ashley takes it to the next step as he anticipates the “superhero” vaccine will also be given to children.

Ashley anticipates the timeline for release may be as early as 10 years if breakthroughs in technology continue at the same rapid pace. He is quoted in British online news media Wales Online, saying:10

“Genomic medicine has been promised for decades, but thanks to advances in the field we are now reaching the stage where that promise is set to become reality, ushering in a bold new era of medical treatments. We will soon have the genetic engineering tools to repair, tweak and improve DNA associated with a host of life-limiting diseases, to make us all less prone to developing these illnesses across our lifetimes.

This isn’t, of course, to say that we can make people live forever, and we can’t guarantee life expectancy will increase, but it is likely premature deaths could be avoided in many cases. Advances in DNA modification mean the number of people with ‘superhuman’ genes — those who are more disease resistant — is no longer science fiction but, in the coming years, absolute science fact.

Potentially millions of people could be impacted by this technology – a superhero jab, for want of a better description. This has the potential to greatly reduce the burden of diseases with a genetic component such as Alzheimer’s disease, liver disease, coronary heart disease and associated conditions such as strokes, and vascular dementia.

It is not only possible, but probable, that such a jab will become available in the next 10 to 15 years, with the benefits of that treatment becoming apparent within the next two to three decades. If we modelled on fatal heart attacks alone then the new treatment could lead to as much as a 50 per cent reduction in incidence.”

Most Disease Is Not Controlled by a Single Gene

Ashley believes a single shot can alter an individual’s DNA enough to prevent heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease or liver disease. Yet, what the Human Genome Project was able to show us was that the causes of these chronic diseases are complex and that there are few that are caused by a mutation of a single gene.11

Most chronic diseases are influenced by a combination of mutations, each of which have a small effect and are themselves influenced by environmental factors. The microbial DNA from your gut microbiome also plays a role.12 Experts estimate that gene therapy for rare single-gene diseases, such as Huntington’s disease, may succeed. However, these must be tailored to the individual condition and their genetic makeup.

There were advances that came from the Human Genome Project and it had an impact on nearly every area of biological research. However, these advances have not led to a dramatic improvement in treatments, only a more accurate understanding of single gene conditions.

The Human Genome Project has also transformed technology and analytical tools, helping to merge the expertise of computer scientists and mathematicians with biologists and geneticists.13 The approach increased data sharing and established the foundation of sharing data across specialties.

Work on a CRISPR edit for heart disease was announced in 2018 by researchers from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.14 Their idea was to edit a genetic mutation that might lower an individual’s risk of heart attack by altering their cholesterol levels, namely low-density lipoproteins.

William Lagor is a molecular biologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. He believes the approach is feasible from a technological standpoint. However, he recognizes there is a philosophical question of whether you treat an individual who has not yet acquired the disease.15

Karel Moons, clinical epidemiologist at the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands, has a grasp on how a shot that promises to alter your DNA may in fact alter your outlook on life. He is concerned that gene therapy would hinder a person’s effort to help themselves, increasing the risk that people turn over their responsibility for health and wellness even further. He warns:16

“Changing lifestyle may be much more effective for a population than focusing on high-cost interventions. It is the way the human mind works. Take a pill and we think we are protected.”

Was COVID the Turning Point for Genetic Vaccines?

Has the acceptance of genetic manipulation using mRNA COVID vaccines created a turning point for genetic vaccines to treat chronic illness and disease? Governments have used fear to control and manipulate their citizens, especially during COVID-19. Fear is a strong motivational force that may trigger people to make decisions they would ordinarily not consider.

Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B), a subcommittee that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) in the U.K., admit governments are using fear. And they should know. They advocated for it, and now say it was a regrettable mistake. As reported by The Telegraph, May 14, 2021:17

“Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behavior during the COVID pandemic have admitted its work was ‘unethical’ and ‘totalitarian.’ Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s COVID-19 response.

SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase ‘the perceived level of personal threat’ from COVID-19 because ‘a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened.’

Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: ‘Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government. By nature I am an optimistic person, but all this has given me a more pessimistic view of people.’”

For nearly a year and a half, governments around the world, with few exceptions, have fed their citizens a steady diet of frightening news. Even when it became clear that people weren’t dying in excessive numbers, the mainstream media continued to publish updates on the growing number of “cases,” without ever putting the numerical figures into context or explaining that the vast majority were false positives.

To read more about how governments have been using fear, see “Fear Is Contagious and Used to Control You.” As you think about the decisions that have been made by vast numbers of people in the past 18 months, consider whether these decisions would have been logical if there weren’t an overwhelming atmosphere of fear over a virus that demonstrably has not lived up to the number of deaths predicted.

Has this fear, and the subsequent acceptance of genetic therapy experts insist on calling a “vaccine,” been the driving force behind large numbers of people who have taken the shot without question? What are the consequences of this decision in the coming years? Some experts believe there will be mass numbers of people who die prematurely from conditions triggered by the vaccine.

Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ Came to Her in a Nightmare

The concept behind “superhero” vaccine research is reminiscent of Frankenstein medicine. The story of “Frankenstein” was written by Mary Shelley after a particularly vivid nightmare during a dark and stormy night.18 Shelly was 18 when she wrote “Frankenstein,” which some believe is the “first major work in the science fiction genre.”19

The story has captured the imagination of generations of readers and one which medical schools have used as a framework for examining ethics, science and technology. Anesthesiologist Dr. Audrey Shafer writes in Stanford Medicine:20

“But, as the frontiers are pushed further and further, the unintended consequences of how science and technology are used could affect who we are as humans, the viability of our planet and how society evolves.”

No doubt, the push for discovery has revealed scientific secrets that have helped lengthen human life. But without moral and ethical oversight these discoveries cause great harm and suffering.

Shafer warns that caution is needed in fields that are fascinating, such as “genetic engineering, tissue engineering, transplantation, transfusion, artificial intelligence, robotics, bioelectronics, virtual reality, cryonics, synthetic biology and neural networks.”

Two hundred years have passed since Shelley penned “Frankenstein,” which has since become a ubiquitous figure and featured regularly as a symbol of the danger of tampering with nature. As Julian Koplin and John Massie point out in a paper written in The BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics,21 the scientist Victor Frankenstein wasn’t just arrogant, but he also failed to take responsibility for what he created.

Frankenstein’s obsession was achieving a breakthrough, but he did not consider the repercussions of what he brought to life. Shelley aptly described a scientific community bent on discovery while neglecting the moral obligations attached to that discovery. In their paper, Koplin and Massie discuss the unprecedented powers that scientists have recently gained to develop life and create chimeras. They wrote:

“These strands of research bear some resemblance to Frankenstein’s own. In each case, scientists are creating entirely new forms of life … And in some cases, scientists are confronting these questions in the absence of robust regulatory oversight; many of the novel entities described above do not fit neatly within existing regulatory frameworks.”

Health authorities used the recent outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 to create an environment of fear, which in turn has driven acceptance of genetic jabs without pharmaceutical liability and a growing evidence of human damage. You can read more in “COVID Vaccine Deaths and Injuries Are Secretly Buried.”

Scientists Want to Replace Healthy Decisions With a Shot

Approximately 655,000 people in the U.S. die each year from cardiovascular disease.22 In 2013, the CDC estimated that at least 200,000 of those deaths, or a about a third, were preventable by making changes in your health habits.23 By 2016, federal health officials bumped that statistic, saying 80% of all heart attacks and strokes could be prevented by making lifestyle changes.24

According to Ashley, the most they could hope for from a genetic therapy “superhero” shot is a 50% reduction in cardiovascular disease.25 In real numbers, if 655,000 people die each year from heart disease, then the shot may save 327,500 people who would then potentially be open to a host of side effects, diseases and premature death from the vaccine.

On the other hand, health authorities say that there could be 524,000 fewer deaths each year if people stop smoking, eat healthy, exercise and sleep well. But the benefits of making those changes do not stop with having fewer deaths from cardiovascular disease.

Those same lifestyle changes also reduce your risk of several other chronic illnesses, including obesity, Type 2 diabetes and some cancers. In other words, the benefits of one expensive shot do not outweigh the risks or the benefits of lifestyle changes that could improve millions of lives, reduce the risk of a host of chronic diseases and lower health care costs across the board.

Scientists are excited by new technology and the potential it may have to improve life. However, as Mary Shelley so aptly illustrated, science is about more than experiments, technology and pushing the boundaries. It must also be balanced by moral and ethical standards that hold human life precious and take care to consider the ramifications of discovery.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/13/superhero-vaccine.aspx

This past year, we have seen many lawmakers in the U.S. and other countries vote to eliminate or severely restrict civil liberties in the name of the public health.1,2,3 One of the most outrageous legislative actions violating parental and human rights took place in Washington, D.C., in November 2020 when city council officials gave doctors the power to vaccinate children as young as 11 years old and hide what they did from parents.4,5,6,7,8

The D.C. mayor refused to veto the bill9,10 and, in January 2021, the U.S. Congress sat on its hands11,12 and gave tacit approval to enactment of the most dangerous child vaccination law in America.

In a breathtaking violation of medical ethics and several federal laws, the new vaccine concealment law in Washington, D.C., allows doctors to extract “informed consent” from young children too immature to know what informed consent13 means or what a vaccine reaction looks and feels like.14,15,16

The D.C. city council majority, with only three members dissenting, cruelly disempowered parents by voting to make it illegal for a doctor, insurance company or school administrator to divulge a child’s vaccination history in records that can be seen by the child’s mother or father.17

Parents Won’t Have Information to Protect Child From Injury

An 11-year-old child does not know or understand his or her personal health history but most parent do. If a child has experienced previous vaccine reactions, has severe allergies or other health conditions that could increase vaccine risks,18,19 parents kept in the dark will not have a way to protect their child from further harm.

Parents who don’t know which vaccines their children have been given will not be able to monitor them for signs of a potentially life-threatening vaccine reaction that requires immediate medical treatment.20 If the child is injured or dies after vaccination, parents will not know they must apply to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) before the filing deadline expires.21
Parents will not know their insurance company has been billed for vaccines. Parents will not know that a school the child attends is in possession of their child’s secret vaccination records even when there is a vaccine exemption for religious belief reasons on file with the school.
This blatant violation of a parent’s moral right and legal responsibility to make medical risk decisions on behalf of a minor child was endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics22 and pushed through by the D.C. city council, while the mayor and the US Congress looked the other way.

Washington, DC, Vaccine Concealment Law Violates Federal Laws

First, D.C.’s vaccine concealment law violates vaccine safety provisions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a federal law that confirmed vaccine injuries and deaths are real and made preventing vaccine reactions a national priority.

Parents of DPT vaccine-injured children secured vaccine safety provisions in the 1986 Act, which directs doctors and other medical workers to give parents written vaccine benefit and risk information BEFORE a child is vaccinated23 and also mandates that vaccine providers record which vaccines the child is given in a record the parents can access.

Specifically, the 1986 Act mandates that “health care providers who administer a vaccine” must give a child’s legal representative “a copy of the information materials” developed by the Centers for Disease Control “prior to the administration” of a vaccine.24,25

The 1986 law also requires each person administering a vaccine to “ensure that there is recorded in such person’s permanent medical record or in a permanent office log or file to which a legal representative shall have access upon request” certain information:

No. 1: the date of administration of the vaccine; No. 2: the vaccine manufacturer and lot number of the vaccine; and No. 3: the name and address and, if appropriate, the title of the health care provider administering the vaccine.”26

These informing and recording vaccine safety provisions were included in the 1986 Act specifically to provide parents with information they need to make well informed vaccine decisions for their minor children; to help parents recognize and prevent vaccine reactions; and to ensure a vaccine reaction is reported to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).27,28

If a doctor can secretly inject a young child with one or more vaccines and hide the vaccination records, how will parents know what is happening when a vaccine reaction occurs? They won’t have the information they need to take their child to an emergency room or be able to make the connection between the vaccinations and a child’s regression into poor health.

This lack of critical information about their child’s medical history also means parents will likely miss the deadline for filing a claim in the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which has awarded more than $4.5 billion to the vaccine injured over the past three decades.29

D.C.’s vaccine concealment law violates the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, known as FERPA, which guarantees parents the legal right to have access to their children’s education records, including health and vaccine records, at the primary and secondary school level.30

Vaccine Concealment Law Violates Informed Consent Rights

D.C.’s vaccine concealment law also violates the long standing ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk taking,31 which has governed the ethical practice of human research and medical practice since the Nuremberg Code was published in 1947 after the Doctors’ Trial.32,33

Informed consent is exercised on behalf of minor children by parents, who are morally and legally responsible for the well-being and financial support for their children until they are old enough to live independently.34,35,36

Child development specialists have documented how young children and teenagers lack the critical thinking skills and emotional maturity to exercise good judgment when assessing risks.37,38,39,40, Preadolescents are more susceptible to pressure from peers and authority figures.41,42,43,44

Vaccine Administrators Have No Liability for Injuries, Deaths

Doctors are the ultimate authority figures in our society today, and many are serving as authoritarian implementers of one-size-fits-all federal vaccine policies and state vaccine mandates.45,46

Like vaccine manufacturers, doctors and other persons who administer vaccines cannot be held liable in civil court when a child dies or is injured.47 Congress passed special legislation in 2020 to make sure that doctors or anyone else who administers a Covid-19 vaccine cannot be sued.48

When the risks of vaccination turn out to be 100 percent for a child, it is the mother and father raising that child on a day-to-day basis who will be left with the lifelong consequences — not the doctor who has been given the power to secretly persuade the child to take vaccines, and not the politician who voted to give doctors that power.

The D.C. council sponsor of the bill entitled the “Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act” originally wanted doctors to be able to vaccinate children of any age — no matter how young — without the knowledge or consent of their parents. She argued that minors of any age can get an abortion in Washington, D.C., and get treated for a sexually transmitted disease or substance abuse without the knowledge or consent of their parents.49

She told Medscape Medical News that parents with “anti-science” beliefs were not vaccinating their children based on a “disproven belief” that vaccines may cause harm, which puts other people at “extreme risk” for disease.50

A dissenting D.C. city council member countered with “Medical professionals and schools should not be permitted to coerce impressionable minors into procedures capable of causing injury or death behind their parents’ back.”51

Vaccine Concealment Law a Profound Betrayal of Public Trust

The Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights states that:52

“The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society;” and “For persons who are not capable of exercising autonomy, special measures are to be taken to protect their rights and interests;” and “Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.”

It is a profound betrayal of public trust for any city, state or federal government to strip parents of their God-given right to protect their children from harm by allowing a doctor to give a child a pharmaceutical product without getting a parent’s permission.

Science is not perfect, doctors are not infallible, and pharmaceutical products like vaccines come with risks that can be greater for some individuals than others,53,54,55 which is why parents must retain the human right to exercise informed consent to medical risk taking on behalf of their minor children. Will the vaccine concealment bill that is now law in Washington, D.C., be exported to your state next?

Take Action Today to Protect Parental Rights

If you want to protect parental and informed consent rights, register for the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal today and stay up to date on vaccine laws being proposed in your state so you can contact your legislators and take positive action.

Never be the one who has to say you did not do today what you could have done to change tomorrow. It’s your health. Your family. Your choice. And our mission continues: No forced vaccination. Not in America.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/13/dc-minor-consent-to-vaccination.aspx

1 Which of the following has resulted in the greatest number of severe injuries and deaths over the past three decades?

MMR vaccine
COVID-19 gene therapy injections

The reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years. The COVID shots are also five times more dangerous than the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which had a 25-per-million severe side effect rate. Learn more.

Diabecon (an herbal antidiabetic)
Seasonal influenza vaccine

2 June 16, 2021, the Wikipedia page for mRNA vaccines was updated in which of the following ways?

Information about hazards were deleted
An FDA warning that children should not receive the COVID jabs was wiped
The name of the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, Dr. Robert Malone, was erased from the history section

June 11, 2021, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, Dr. Robert Malone, spoke out on the DarkHorse podcast about the potential dangers of COVID-19 gene therapy injections. The podcast was quickly erased from YouTube. Five days later, his scientific contributions were scrubbed from Wikipedia’s mRNA vaccine page. Learn more.

Details on how to file an adverse events report were scrubbed

3 Which of the following science journals has promoted the natural origin theory for SARS-CoV-2, and protected the theory by refusing to publish counter arguments and/or publishing scientific statements by individuals with serious conflicts of interest?

Science Magazine
Bulletin of the Chemical Society
Helvetica Chimica Acta
The Lancet

The Lancet and Nature have promoted the natural origin theory for SARS-CoV-2, and protected the theory by refusing to publish counter arguments and/or publishing scientific statements by individuals with serious conflicts of interest. Learn more.

4 It’s becoming increasingly clear that use of vitamin D in patients with COVID-19:

Significantly reduces ICU admission and death

Again, vitamin D was a clear winner, with use in COVID-19 patients significantly associated with reduced ICU admission and mortality, along with a reduced risk of adverse outcomes, particularly when given after COVID-19 diagnosis. Learn more.

Is too expensive to justify on a large scale
Leads to longer hospital stays
Is not feasible due to vitamin D’s scarcity

5 Moderna and NIAID’s transfer of information related to their mRNA coronavirus vaccines to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in December 2019 is alarming because:

The researchers didn’t send them to more universities
It occurred before there was a known COVID-19 pandemic

Baric, who signed the material transfer agreement to investigate the mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate before there was a known COVID-19 pandemic, pioneered techniques for genetically manipulating coronaviruses, according to Peter Gøtzsche with the Institute for Scientific Freedom, and these became a major focus for WIV. Learn more.

The information should have remained confidential
The vaccine candidates weren’t effective

6 Which of the following is the gold standard of scientific evidence for or against a given medical product?

Randomized controlled trials
Cohort studies
Meta-analyses

Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials are the gold standard of scientific evidence. The reason for this is because any given trial can be skewed by any number of protocol factors. When you do a meta-analysis of several trials, even if those trials are small, you have the best chance of detecting signals of danger or benefit because it corrects for flaws in the various protocols. Learn more.

Case-control studies

7 Which of the following is the most important when you develop symptoms of COVID-19?

Get an mRNA COVID injection
Get a viral vector DNA COVID shot
Stay home and get plenty of bedrest
Start treatment at home

Early treatment is key for positive COVID outcomes, so start treatment at home, and do it early. An estimated 85% of COVID deaths could have been prevented had early treatment protocols been widely implemented rather than censored. Learn more.

 
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/12/week-190-health-quiz.aspx

DarkHorse host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., has conducted a couple of long and really valuable interviews in recent weeks. One was with a lung and ICU specialist, Dr. Pierre Kory, who is also the president and chief medical officer1 of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of ivermectin:

I-MASK+2 — a prevention and early at-home treatment protocol
I-MATH+3 — an in-hospital treatment protocol. The clinical and scientific rationale for this protocol has been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine4 in mid-December 2020
I-RECOVER5 — a long-term management protocol for long-haul syndrome

In another episode, Weinstein interviewed Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine technology.6 In both instances, YouTube deleted the videos. Why? Because they discussed science showing ivermectin works against COVID-19 and the hazards of COVID gene therapies. Never mind the fact that Kory and Malone are the widely recognized leading experts in their fields.

In the wake of this targeted takedown, podcast host Joe Rogan invited Weinstein and Kory in for an “emergency podcast” about the censorship of ivermectin. As noted by Weinstein in a June 23, 2021, tweet, “The censorship campaign obscuring Ivermectin (as prophylactic against SARS-CoV2 and as treatment for COVID-19) kills.”7

Indeed, we now know that early treatment is crucial to prevent complications, hospitalizations, death and/or long-haul syndrome, so censoring this information is inexcusable, and has without doubt resulted in needless deaths.

What Is Misinformation?

As Weinstein explains, there are several things in dire need of discussion. For starters, there’s the issue of YouTube’s community guidelines and posting rules, which are so vague that it’s impossible to determine beforehand if something is going to be deemed in violation.

Violations, in turn, threaten the ability of people like Weinstein to make a living. His entire family depends on the income generated through his YouTube channel. He now has two strikes against him, where YouTube claims he’s been posting “spam” and “medical misinformation.” One more, and the entire channel will be demonetized.

A central problem here is, who determines what misinformation is? YouTube has taken the stance that anything that goes against what the World Health Organization says is medical misinformation. However, the WHO doesn’t always agree with other public health agencies.

For example, the WHO does not recommend the drug remdesivir, but the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does, and virtually all U.S. hospitals routinely use the drug on COVID-19 patients.

Another example where the WHO and the CDC are in disagreement is how the virus can be transmitted. While the CDC admits SARS-CoV-2 is an airborne virus that transmits through the air, the WHO does not list air as a form of transmission. So, is the CDC putting out medical misinformation?

Censorship Is a Disinformation Tool

As Weinstein rightly points out, if the WHO (or virtually every federal regulatory agency for that matter) has been captured and is being influenced by industry, in this case Big Pharma, and is itself putting out information that goes against medical science, then this is something that must be discussed and exposed. That is precisely what he did in the two episodes that YouTube wiped.

If an organization is putting out medical misinformation, and talking about this is censored, the end result is going to be devastating to public health. Overall, we’re in an untenable situation, Weinstein says, as people are losing their livelihoods simply for discussing the science and laying out the evidence. Licensed, practicing doctors are prevented from sharing practical knowledge that can save lives.

The fact that YouTube is making up the rules as they go is clear. One of Weinstein’s interviews was deemed to be “spam.” How can a discussion between highly respected and well-credentialed scientists and medical professionals be spam? YouTube obviously couldn’t determine what was incorrect about it so they simply made up an excuse to take the video down.

Or more likely, they knew exactly what they were doing and removed it because it countered what appears to be their primary agenda, which is to promote the COVID jab.

As noted in the featured interview, censorship is actually a form of disinformation, which is defined as “information given to hide the actual truth.” A perfect example of this is the suppression of the lab-leak theory. For a year and a half, no one was allowed to discuss the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a Wuhan lab. There’s no telling how many tens of thousands of people lost their social media accounts, including yours truly, because they violated this rule.

The lab-leak theory was “debunked,” according to all the industry-backed fact checkers. Now, all of a sudden, the evidence has somehow taken root and everyone is talking about it. Mainstream media pundits are squirming in their seats, trying to explain why they overlooked the obvious and roundly dismissed the evidence for so long. What was “misinformation” yesterday is now “fact.”

Who decided this? Big Tech censored verifiable facts for a year and a half, and there’s every reason to assume they censored it on behalf of someone. They grossly misinformed — nay, disinformed — the public, yet they’re not held accountable for any of it.

The Manufacturing of Medical and Scientific Consensus

As noted by Weinstein, the idea that medical and scientific consensus can be established seemingly from one day to another in the middle of a pandemic involving a novel virus is simply not believable. It cannot happen, because scientific and medical consensus arises over time, as experts challenge each other’s theories.

A hypothesis may sound good, but will break apart once another piece of evidence is added. So, it changes over time. What happened here, however, over the last year and a half, is that a consensus was declared early on, and subsequent evidence was simply discarded as misinformation.

The examples of this are numerous. Take vitamin D, for example. We’ve long known vitamin D influences your immune system. Yet the manufactured consensus declared vitamin D irrelevant in the case of COVID-19, and this stance remains to this day, even though dozens of studies have now demonstrated that vitamin D plays a crucial role in COVID-19 outcomes specifically.

The lab leak theory is another example. Manufactured consensus declared it bunk, and that was it. Face masks were declared effective without any evidence, and anyone pointing out the discrepancy between this recommendation and what the scientific literature was showing was simply declared to be violating some vaguely defined “community standards.”

Manufactured consensus declared hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin dangerous and/or useless, saying we can’t possibly risk using these drugs unless they’re proven safe and effective in large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). As noted by Weinstein, they willingly roll the dice when it comes to the novel COVID shots, yet apply ridiculously high standards of safety and effectiveness when it comes to off-patent drugs that have decades of safe use.

There’s something very unnatural and unscientific about all of this, and that raises serious questions about intent. What is the intent behind these manufactured consensuses that by any reasonable standard have been proven flawed or incorrect?

For all the talk about preventing dangerous misinformation being spread by the average person, governments, Big Pharma, Big Tech and nongovernmental organizations that have a great deal of influence over nations, have in fact engaged in the biggest disinformation campaign in human history. The question is why?

As noted by Kory, over time, he has developed a deep cynicism about many of the agencies and organizations that are supposed to protect public health, because their recommendations and conclusions do not comport with good science. And, if we trust them exclusively, we can get into real trouble.

The thing is, there must be a reason for why they don’t follow the science, and that, most likely, is because they’re beholden to financial interests. If the science doesn’t support those financial interests, it’s disregarded.

This is why, by and large, there’s a very clear dividing line between those who promote the ideas of the WHO, the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and those who don’t.

Those who disagree with the manufactured consensus are almost exclusively independent, meaning they’re not financially dependent on an organization, company or agency to which the facts are inconvenient.

“Heretics” also tend promote products that they cannot make a profit from, such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, two drugs that have been used for so long they’re off-patent. Alternatively, they recommend natural products like vitamin D, which is virtually free, especially if you get it from optimal sun exposure.

Gold Standard Evidence Supports Ivermectin

As noted by Kory, while the WHO insists large RCTs must be completed before ivermectin (or hydroxychloroquine) can be recommended, RCTs actually are not the gold standard in terms of scientific evidence. Meta-analyses are.

The reason for this is because any given trial can be skewed by any number of protocol factors. When you do a meta-analysis of several trials, even if those trials are small, you have the best chance of detecting signals of danger or benefit because it corrects for flaws in the various protocols.

In the case of ivermectin, FLCCC recently conducted a meta-analysis8 of 24 RCTs, which clearly demonstrates that ivermectin produces “large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.”

They also found that when used as a preventive, ivermectin “significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19.” In one study, of those given a dose of 0.4 mg per kilo on Day 1 and a second dose on Day 7, only 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 10% of controls who did not get the drug.

In another, family members of patients who had tested positive were given two doses of 0.25 mg/kg, 72 hours apart. At follow up two weeks later, only 7.4% of the exposed family members who took ivermectin tested positive, compared to 58.4% of those who did not take ivermectin.

Ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality, which indicate that ivermectin is effective in all phases of COVID-19.

In a third, which unfortunately was unblended, the difference between the two groups was even greater. Only 6.7% of the ivermectin group tested positive compared to 73.3% of controls. Still, according to the FLCCC, “the difference between the two groups was so large and similar to the other prophylaxis trial results that confounders alone are unlikely to explain such a result.”

The FLCCC also points out that ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality,” which indicate that ivermectin is “effective in all phases of COVID-19.” For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed ivermectin to its residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark.

In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%. Importantly, ivermectin’s effectiveness also appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world.

Kory also points out that once you can see from clinical evidence that something really is working, then conducting RCTs becomes unethical, as you know you’re condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death. This is, in fact, the same argument vaccine makers now use to justify the elimination of control groups by giving everyone the vaccine.

All of that said, RCT evidence for ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial,9 which began June 23, 2021. Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date.

How Ivermectin Works

While ivermectin is best known for its antiparasitic properties, it also has both antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. With regard to how it can help against SARS-CoV-2 infection, studies10 have shown ivermectin lowers your viral load by inhibiting replication.

In “COVID-19: Antiparasitic Offers Treatment Hope,” I review data showing a single dose of ivermectin killed 99.8% of SARS-CoV-2 in 48 hours. A recent meta-analysis11 by Dr. Tess Lawrie found the drug reduced COVID-19 infection by an average of 86% when used preventatively.

An observational study12 from Bangladesh, which looked at ivermectin as a preexposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 among health care workers, found only four of the 58 volunteers who took 12 mg of ivermectin once per month for four months developed mild COVID-19 symptoms between May and August 2020, compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who had declined the medication.

Ivermectin has also been shown to speed recovery, in part by inhibiting inflammation through several pathways and protecting against organ damage. This, of course, also lowers your risk of hospitalization and death, which has been confirmed in several studies.

Meta-analyses have shown average reductions in mortality ranging from 75%13 to 83%14,15 The drug has also been shown to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure. When you add all of these benefits together, it seems fairly clear that ivermectin use could vaporize this pandemic.

Where You Can Learn More

While ivermectin certainly appears to be a useful strategy, which is why I am covering it, it is not my primary recommendation. In terms of prevention, I believe your best bet is to optimize your vitamin D level, as your body needs vitamin D for a wide variety of functions, including a healthy immune response.

As for early treatment, I recommend nebulized hydrogen peroxide treatment,16,17 which is inexpensive, highly effective and completely harmless when you’re using the low (0.04% to 0.1%) peroxide concentration recommended.

All of that said, ivermectin and several other remedies certainly have a place, and it’s good to know they exist and work well. On the whole, there’s really no reason to remain panicked about COVID-19. If you want to learn more about ivermectin, there are several places where you can do that, including the following:

• April 24 through 25, 2021, Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd.,18 hosted the first International Ivermectin for COVID Conference online19
Twelve medical experts20 from around the world — including Kory — shared their knowledge, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org21

• An easy-to-read and print one-page summary of the clinical trial evidence for ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website22

• A more comprehensive, 31-page review of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology23

• The FLCCC website also has a helpful FAQ section where Kory and Dr. Paul Marik, also of the FLCCC, answer common questions about the drug and its recommended use24

• A listing of all ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on c19Ivermectin.com25

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/10/the-deadly-censorship-of-ivermectin.aspx