Lose Them Pounds

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

Excluding non-melanoma skin cancers, colon and rectal cancers are the third most common types of cancer diagnosed each year in the U.S.1 Scientists have identified several modifiable factors that increase your risk of colorectal cancer, and the most current link is sugar-sweetened drinks, which are very popular in the West.2

Colon and rectal cancers are the third leading cause of death from cancer in men and women, or the second leading cause if you combine the two.3 The American Cancer Society (ACS) estimates there will be 149,500 new cases of colorectal cancer diagnosed in 2021. Experts expect 52,982 to die in 2021 from colorectal cancer.

Although colorectal cancer numbers have been dropping in older adults for the past couple decades because of increased testing and lifestyle changes, scientists believe that this downward trend is masking a rising number of younger adults who are being diagnosed with it.4

In a paper published by the ACS in 2017,5 researchers looked at incident patterns from 1974 to 2013. They wrote that “nearly one-third of rectal cancer patients are younger than age 55 years,”6 which fueled headlines and recommendations that younger people should consider colon cancer screening.

However, it’s not clear whether increasing the number of screenings could reduce the number of people who are diagnosed, as it’s a mistake to equate screening with prevention. This is especially true since the ramifications of poor diet and sedentary behavior are catching up at an increasingly younger ages.

So, instead of signaling a need for more testing, the rising number of young adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer should be a wake-up call to reassess your lifestyle. In fact, data from the featured study demonstrate the impact one dietary choice can have on your risk of colorectal cancer.7

Sugary Drinks Increase Risk of Colon Cancer in Young Adults

In this study, a team of researchers from Washington University School of Medicine,8 used data from the national Nurses’ Health Study II to evaluate the relationship between sugar-sweetened beverages and the increasing number of individuals younger than 55 diagnosed with colorectal cancer.9

There were 95,464 women aged 25 to 42 who reported their beverage intake from 1991 to 2015.10 They also examined data from a subset of 41,272 nurses who used a validated high school food frequency questionnaire to report their beverage intake when they were aged 13 to 18.

During the 24-year prospective study, the researchers documented 109 early-onset colorectal cancers in the group. After analyzing the data, they found that individuals who drank two or more 8-ounce servings11 each week of a sugar-sweetened beverage more than doubled their risk of diagnosis as compared to people who drank less than one sugar-sweetened beverage each week.12

The results also appeared to show that the earlier individuals began drinking sugar-sweetened drinks, the higher the risk of early-onset colorectal cancer. In adults, with every additional 8-ounce beverage they drank each week, it increased their risk 16%. However, in the adolescent group, for every additional sugar-sweetened drink each week, their risk of developing the cancer before age 50 rose by 32%.13

The data also showed that when individuals replaced one sugar-sweetened drink with coffee, tea or artificially sweetened beverages, their risk reduced from 17% to 36%. However, as I discuss below, there are additional and dangerous health risks outside of colorectal cancer that are associated with artificial sweeteners.

Caroline H. Johnson is an epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health whose interest lies in the environmental risks associated with colorectal cancer. She was not involved in the study but spoke to a reporter from The New York Times about the results, saying,14 “I was really interested to see that the study was on women. The focus has mostly been on males. It will be interesting to see if it’s confirmed in men.”

Interestingly, the researchers did not find an association between drinking fruit juices and early-onset colorectal cancer. During the analysis, the scientists controlled for a variety of external factors that also affect risk, including hormonal use during menopause, smoking, alcohol, race and physical activity.15

One of the researchers commented that while weight gain is a known risk, their analysis controlled for obesity, suggesting the statistical association they found is outside the independent risk of obesity. Senior author Yin Cao, associate professor of surgery and medicine, commented on the results:16

“Despite the small number of cases, there is still a strong signal to suggest that sugar intake, especially in early life, is playing a role down the road in increasing adulthood colorectal cancer risk before age 50.

This study, combined with our past work linking obesity and metabolic conditions to a higher risk of early-onset colorectal cancer, suggests that metabolic problems, such as insulin resistance, may play an important role in the development of this cancer in younger adults.”

Artificial Sweeteners Also Carry Significant Risks

Although the featured study did not look for a link between artificial sweeteners and colorectal cancer, past research has confirmed that artificial sweeteners have a significantly negative effect on your health.

For example, one French study17 found people who drank just 6.26 ounces or more each day of sugar-sweetened soda had a higher risk of cardiovascular events over 6.6 years of follow-up18 — but people who drank 5.97 ounces of artificially sweetened beverages experienced a similar increase in cardiovascular disease.

Additionally, these sugar substitutes have a variety of metabolic effects, including a negative impact on your gut microbiome. One recent molecular research study19 from Angelia Ruskin University20 discovered that popular artificial sweeteners, including sucralose (Splenda), aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal and Sugar Twin) and saccharin (Sweet’n Low, Necta Sweet and Sweet Twin) have a pathogenic effect on two types of gut bacteria.

When E. coli and E. faecalis become pathogenic, they kill Caco-2 cells that line the wall of the intestines. Data from the study showed a concentration from two cans of diet soft drinks significantly increased the ability of E coli and E. faecalis to adhere to the Caco-2 cells and increase the development of bacterial biofilms.21

One animal study22 published in the journal Molecules analyzed six artificial sweeteners including saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-K. The data showed they all caused DNA damage in, and interfered with, the normal and healthy activity of gut bacteria.

Another study23 showed a link between artificially sweetened soft drinks and death from circulatory diseases and an association between sugar-sweetened soft drinks and death from digestive diseases.24 And, a study published in April 202125 confirmed earlier rodent studies that showed “aspartame is a chemical carcinogen” that can increase the risk of cancer in offspring that are exposed to it in utero.

This suggests that policies aimed at cutting or reducing sugar consumption may have disastrous consequences when manufacturers reformulate their products using artificial sweeteners.

Vitamin D Deficiency in Older Adults Linked With Colon Cancer

New evidence published in BMC Public Health26 revealed an aged dependent inverse link between exposure to ultraviolet B (UVB) light and the incidence of colorectal cancer. The data were gathered over 186 countries using UVB estimates and the incident rates of colorectal cancer.

The researchers made the association between UVB light and the manufacturer of vitamin D in the body since vitamin D has limited dietary sources. Inadequate vitamin D status has been identified as a risk factor in the development of colorectal cancer and has a potential protective action.

Past research demonstrates that taking at least 1,000 international units of vitamin D each day can reduce the risk of colorectal cancer by up to 50%.27 While analyzing the data, the researchers accounted for factors that may affect the results, such as smoking, skin pigmentation and age.28

The authors suggested that lower UVB exposure may lower an individual’s levels of vitamin D. Since deficiency has been associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer in the past, the researchers used UVB data to estimate vitamin D levels. Lack of exposure to UVB was correlated with higher rates of colorectal cancer in all age groups living in all countries that were included in the study.

However, the association between lower exposure and higher risk of cancer was more significant in those over age 45. Raphael Cuomo, Ph.D., is a public health scientist from the University of California, San Diego, and co-author of the current study. He commented in a press release:29

“Differences in UVB light accounted for a large amount of the variation we saw in colorectal cancer rates, especially for people over age 45. Although this is still preliminary evidence, it may be that older individuals, in particular, may reduce their risk of colorectal cancer by correcting deficiencies in vitamin D.”

Risks Associated With Screening Tests

The risk of colorectal cancer must be balanced against the risk of the testing procedures. Depending on the data source, the risk of death from a colonoscopy may be 1 out of every 16,318 procedures30 to 1 out of every 1,000 procedures.31 As of 2018, there were nearly 19 million colonoscopies being performed each year in the U.S.32

This means if you use the lower comparison of 1 in every 1,000, as many as 19,000 Americans may die as the result of a routine screening test. According to on paper, serious complications, injury or death from a colonoscopy is 0.5%, or about 95,000 per year.33

An alternate method of testing for colorectal cancer, virtual colonoscopy, appears to have minimal risk. However, the X-ray exposure from a virtual colonoscopy raises your lifetime risk of all forms of cancer by 20%.34 As noted by GutSense.org:35

“Virtual colonoscopies are now recommended every five years. By age 70 one’s risk of developing any other form of cancer grows to 100 percent. Killing you with another form of cancer before the colon gets affected is one hell of [a] way to ‘prevent’ colon cancer.”

Aside from the chance of death, other risks of colonoscopy include:36

Perforation of the colon, which occurs at a rate of 0.9 out of every 1,000 procedures.37 Research38 shows the risk of death after a perforation was 51.9 per 1,000 colonoscopy perforations and 64.5 per 1000 sigmoidoscopy perforations.
Dysbiosis and other gut imbalances, caused by the process of flushing out your intestinal tract before the procedure with harsh laxatives.39
Complications from the anesthesia.40 In addition to the expected complications from anesthesia, during a colonoscopy anesthesia increased the risk of complications by 13% within 30 days after the procedure and specifically was associated with an increased risk of perforation.
Infections caused by poorly disinfected scopes.41

Tips to Prevent Colorectal Cancer

Data show there are non-modifiable and modifiable risk factors for colorectal cancer.42 Some of the non-modifiable risk factors include race, sex, age, inflammatory bowel disease and abdominal radiation. Modifiable risk factors are those over which you have control and may reduce your risk of colorectal cancer.

These include obesity, physical activity, diet, smoking, alcohol and certain medications. People with diabetes and insulin resistance also have an increased risk related to the metabolic shift that promotes carcinogenic activity.43

Below are several diet and fitness suggestions that may significantly lower your risk of colorectal cancer, regardless of your age:

Eat more vegetables — Vegetables contain an array of antioxidants and other disease-fighting compounds that are very difficult to get anywhere else, such as magnesium. Results from one meta-analysis indicated that higher intakes of magnesium resulted in a lower risk of colorectal cancer.44

Eat more fiber — For optimal health, I recommend getting about 50 grams of fiber per 1,000 calories. If you follow the tip above and eat more vegetables, you’ll naturally be eating more fiber from the best possible source.

Optimize your vitamin D level — Vitamin D deficiency is a risk factor for colorectal cancer. Sensible ultraviolet exposure, ideally from the sun, and/or vitamin D3 supplementation can get your vitamin D levels into the optimal range of 45 to 60 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). You’ll need to monitor your level to be sure you stay within this target range.

Lower your protein intake and avoid processed meats entirely — Most Americans eat far more protein than they need, thereby raising their risk for cancer. A more ideal protein intake is likely around one-half gram of protein per pound of lean body mass. Avoid processed meats of all kinds.

Get regular exercise — There’s convincing evidence that regular exercise can significantly reduce your risk of colon cancer.45 For instance, one study46 showed physically active men and women have about a 30% to 40% reduction in the risk of developing colon cancer compared with inactive persons.

Maintain a healthy weight and control belly fat — Several studies have linked obesity to an increased risk for about a dozen different cancers, including colon cancer. Losing excess belly fat is particularly important, as belly fat is linked to an increased risk of colon cancer regardless of your body weight.47

Limit alcohol and quit smoking — Both excessive alcohol intake and smoking are associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer.

Eat more garlic — Research has shown those who consume high amounts of raw garlic have a lower risk of stomach and colorectal cancers.48

Drink soursop tea — Drinking tea made from soursop leaves may help reduce the risk of colon cancer. A PLOS One study49 notes that the leaves contain a compound named “annomuricin E,” which has apoptosis-inducing effects against colon cancer cell lines.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/12/sugary-drinks-linked-to-colon-tumor-growths.aspx

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

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

Early Outpatient Treatment Is Key for Positive Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early Treatment Guidelines Have Saved Millions of Lives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Global Collusion to Harm Patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Goal = Mass Vaccination

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

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

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

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

Our Next Task: Dispelling Vaccine Propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Were Standardized Safety Protocols Omitted?

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

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

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

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

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

A Crime Against Humanity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Can We Expect to Happen in the Future?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Term Risks Are Unknown

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

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

Given all the short-term risks, if there are any long-term risks, it is absolutely compounding this unknown. What I know based on the literature right now is there could be a risk given the narrow spectrum of immunologic coverage … There could be such a narrow immunity that more virulent strain could overwhelm it …

The most recent variant is the Delta variant. That’s the weakest of all the variants and the most easily treatable. But if someone, let’s say a nefarious entity created a more virulent virus, it could easily be designed to scoot past a very narrow immunity that hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, will be keyed to with narrow immunity.”

DNA Changes, Cancer and Chronic Illness Are Possible Effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impossible for Vaccination Program to Improve Disease Curve

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

Remember the COVID injection trials conflated absolute and relative risk. Pfizer claimed its mRNA shot was 95% effective, but that was the relative risk reduction — the absolute risk reduction was actually less than 1%.6 As noted by McCullough, healthy adults under 50, teens and children have a less than 1% chance of hospitalization and death from COVID-19, so they don’t have a medical need for it.

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

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

COVID Shot May Raise Your Risk of COVID Death

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

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

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

The Way Forward Demands We Just Say No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When we exceed a competence interval for risks above a certain risk limit, we call it, and that [competence interval was exceeded] on January 22, 2021. Yet here we are, five months later. This will go down in history as the biggest medical biological product safety catastrophe in human history, by far. There’s nothing close … You can imagine how many heads are going to roll when this thing ultimately comes to its finality.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/11/early-treatment-for-covid.aspx

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

Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT, has published a new book, “Toxic Legacy: How the Weedkiller Glyphosate Is Destroying Our Health and the Environment” — without doubt the best book ever written about glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and many other toxic herbicides.
In this book, which has been a labor of love for the past decade, Seneff explains how and why glyphosate poses an existential threat to humanity, and why it’s so important to avoid it if you care about your health and the health of your family.

“It’s been a decade of learning everything I could about glyphosate,” Seneff says. “When I first heard about it I basically dropped everything else I was doing because I was so confident that I had found the answer to the autism epidemic. That was the thing I was looking for. Back in 2012, I heard a two-hour lecture by Don Huber, and it changed my focus entirely.

I already understood the symptoms of autism, a very complex disease — lots of gut problems and mineral issues — and it all came together with his lecture. Overnight I just started poring over all the papers I could find.

Shortly after that I found Séralini’s paper,1 which had not yet been retracted at that time. It was later republished, the paper by Séralini, a French toxicologist who had shown that very low doses of glyphosate over the lifespan of a rat could cause a lot of damage.

He pointed out that after three months, everything looked good, so it’s a slow kill. This is one thing I emphasize in my book. Glyphosate is subtle, and that’s really a huge problem because people don’t [make the connection]. We have diabetes, obesity, autism, Alzheimer’s. It’s a long, long list, all the gut problems.

The microbes are being very much disturbed by the chronic poisoning with glyphosate, and then the gut becomes a central starting point for many diseases, including neurological diseases and arthritis. So, you see that disruption of the gut, and glyphosate can cause exactly the things that we’re seeing.”

Glyphosate Contamination in Common Products

Before delving into glyphosate, Seneff spent five years focusing on the potential toxicities of vaccines. She still believes vaccines can play a role in the chronic diseases we’re seeing, including autism.
However, glyphosate may actually play a more significant role. Seneff believes it contributes to and worsens damage caused by vaccines, in part because it binds very efficiently to aluminum used as an adjuvant in certain vaccines. It likely binds strongly to many other toxic metals as well.
The theory is that, by being wrapped up with glyphosate molecules, the metals can more easily penetrate various barriers in your body. This is because glyphosate causes these barriers, such as your intestinal barrier and your blood-brain-barrier, to become more porous. And, as leaky gut or leaky brain set in, the toxic metals are shuttled across, along with the glyphosate.
Interestingly, Anthony Samsel, a public health research scientist, and Zen Honeycutt, founder and director of Moms Across America, have independently found glyphosate contamination in live virus vaccines that do not contain aluminum adjuvant.
Seneff suspects glyphosate may be a contaminant in many drugs as well, particularly drugs produced by genetically engineering E. coli or yeast. They’ve also found glyphosate in tampons, which may then be absorbed through your uterine lining.
Seneff also hypothesizes that, since glyphosate is found in many vegetable-based fats, such as canola and soybean oil, studies comparing the health effects of fats may be compromised since they never consider the effects of glyphosate. Interestingly, while not fat-soluble, glyphosate can still enter fats (and is found in the vegetable oils just mentioned).
Samsel suspects glyphosate acts as a phosphate analog, because it has a phosphonate unit, and fats have phosphates (phospholipids). This is something he’s investigating right now, so eventually, we may learn more about that mechanism.
Glyphosate and the Rise in Celiac Disease

In her book, Seneff details the dramatic increase in glyphosate use since its introduction in the mid-‘70s. Estimates suggest that one pound of glyphosate is applied in the U.S. every year for every man, woman and child, in America, which is an astounding amount. It’s not even enough to buy non-GMO products, as many non-GMO items have been shown to have some of the highest levels of glyphosate.
There’s a strong correlation between the rise in celiac disease over time and the rise in glyphosate usage on wheat … which makes sense, because wheat is the source of celiac disease. ~ Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D.
Oats, wheat, barley and legumes like chickpeas and lentils tend to be very high in glyphosate because these crops are sprayed with glyphosate right before harvest as a desiccant to speed the drying process.

“I think that’s the reason for the epidemic in celiac disease,” Seneff says. “Samsel and I wrote a paper on that. We showed there’s a strong correlation between the rise in celiac disease over time and the rise in glyphosate usage on wheat, specifically on wheat. It matches much better to wheat than it does to the other crops, which makes sense, because wheat is the source of celiac disease.”

A case study of an American woman who tried to commit suicide by drinking glyphosate reveal some of the chemical’s effects. She developed a paralyzed gut, and this may well be what’s happening to many, on a low-grade scale. In essence, people’s guts are sort of semi-paralyzed by the glyphosate in the diet, which causes small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO).
Bacteria starts festering in the upper intestine because the peristalsis is not working properly, so food remnants get stuck. Glyphosate has also been shown to accumulate in the brain, and animal studies show it causes neuro excitotoxicity due to excess glutamate in the brain. This, in turn, “is absolutely connected to autism,” Seneff says.
In her book, Seneff also discusses the importance of sulfur for optimal health, how sulfate deficiency is connected to autism, and how glyphosate can cause sulfate deficiency.
How Glyphosate Affects Your Gut and Autoimmunity

Part of what makes glyphosate so toxic has to do with the fact that it’s a very efficient metal chelator. It binds metals and minerals really well. For example, glyphosate is a million times more effective at chelating aluminum than EDTA, a chelating agent used in heavy metal chelation treatment.
This, in turn, disrupts your gut microbes because it makes minerals unavailable to the microbes. Your gut microbes need minerals, as their enzymes depend on them for proper functioning. Glyphosate also disrupts the shikimate pathway, both in plants and microbes, and beneficial microbes are particularly sensitive to glyphosate.
When lactobacillus bacteria are killed off in your gut, your ability to digest gluten and casein (milk protein) is impaired, as this bacterium carries several enzymes your body does not have that specialize in breaking down proline, an amino acid found in gluten and casein. This, in turn, can eventually lead to autoimmune problems. Seneff explains:

“We have all these allergies to gluten and casein these days, all these different food sensitivities, and I think it’s because the lactobacillus are being killed off. They can’t support the digestion of those proteins anymore. Then the protein sticks around, the peptide sequence, and that’s what causes an immune reaction.

Then you can get an autoimmune attack through molecular mimicry — the antibody mis-recognizes a human protein because it looks like the piece of gluten that they become sensitive to, so they attack a human protein instead.”

Glyphosate Makes Harmful Fat Even More Hazardous
Interestingly, glyphosate may also contribute to the harm caused by the omega-6 fat linoleic acid (LA). LA is metabolized into arachidonic acid, which is metabolized into an endogenous cannabinoid that eases pain. The enzyme that accomplishes this conversion is cytochrome P450 enzyme, which is disrupted by glyphosate.
Seneff suspects arachidonic acid is getting redirected through enzymes that convert arachidonic acid into extremely immunogenic products instead, such as leukotrienes, which act as signaling molecules that turn on an inflammatory response. A generic term for these signaling molecules is eicosanoids. She explains:

“Leukotrienes are rightfully blamed for causing all the chronic pain we’re seeing — rheumatoid arthritis, joint and bone pain, and even, probably, problems with the brain, maybe headaches.

All the different kinds of pain we’re experiencing that are connected to inflammation could be a consequence of cytochrome P450 enzymes blocking the ability to convert arachidonic acid into the endogenous cannabinoid. Instead, it gets redirected towards these signaling molecules that cause all this damage.”

On top of that, LA, when oxidized, turns into highly toxic free radicals such as 4HNE, which cause direct oxidative stress damage to cell membranes, mitochondria, stem cells and DNA. In your mitochondria, a feedback loop then occurs that causes the shutdown of your energy metabolism system, resulting in an increase in adipose tissue. Translation: Excessive LA causes accumulation of belly fat.
Glyphosate Is a Biological Toxin

Its effect on the shikimate pathway is a key mechanism by which glyphosate causes biological harm in humans. The human body does not have this pathway — a fact used by Monsanto to argue for glyphosate’s safety. But the microbes in your body do have it. Research has shown over half the microbes, on average, in your gut have the shikimate pathway and can therefore be decimated by glyphosate.
These include lactobacillus and bifidobacteria, which use the shikimate pathway to produce the aromatic amino acids tryptophan, tyrosine and phenylalanine, crucial coding amino acids that go into all the proteins of your body. They’re absolutely essential for protein assembly, and your body must rely on your diet and gut microbes to produce adequate amounts of these amino acids, as your body cannot produce them any other way.
When your gut microbes are harmed, it can result in a deficiency of tryptophan, tyrosine and phenylalanine. These amino acids are also precursors to many other important biologically active molecules. For example, tryptophan is a precursor to melatonin and serotonin. Tyrosine is a precursor to thyroid hormone, dopamine and adrenaline.

“These are all really, really important hormones that control brain behavior and regulate behavior and mood,” Seneff says. “Serotonin deficiency is connected to depression, and we have an epidemic in depression. So, I think there’s a direct path there. Also, some of the B vitamins come out of the shikimate pathway, including thiamine (B1), riboflavin (B2) and niacin (B3) …

You need thiamine for augmenting your immune system. If you don’t have a lot of thiamine, you’re not going to be able to generate a healthy immune response. That’s why it’s a part of septic protocols. If you’re wrecking it with glyphosate exposure that’s disrupting the shikimate pathway in your gut microflora, you’ve got a huge problem.”

Glycine Can Help Counteract Adverse Effects of Glyphosate

One simple remedy that can help lower your glyphosate burden is to take a glycine supplement. As explained by Seneff, the way glyphosate disrupts the shikimate pathway is by affecting an enzyme called EPSP synthase. That enzyme bonds to a molecule called phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP). The “phospho” in that name stands for phosphate.
At the place where EPSB synthase binds to PEP, there’s a glycine molecule. It’s a highly-conserved glycine in the enzyme. If that glycine is swapped out for alanine, a very similar amino acid, the EPSB synthase enzyme becomes completely insensitive to glyphosate.

“So, it’s black and white — either there’s a glycine there, in which case it’s incredibly susceptible to glyphosate, or there’s alanine, in which case it’s completely insensitive,” Seneff says.

Incidentally, this is how agricultural scientists create glyphosate-resistant GMO crops. They turn the glycine molecule into alanine, thereby rendering the plant impervious to glyphosate.
When glyphosate enters your system, it can take the place of the glycine molecule. While similar, (the “gly” in glyphosate stands for glycine) it’s not identical and does not work the same way as glycine. Hence, this replacement causes all sorts of trouble.
By taking a glycine supplement, you can counteract this chain of events by making sure there’s enough glycine present to fill up those glycine slots. As noted by Seneff, “If there’s lots of glycine, you’re going to be much less likely to pick up glyphosate.” She continues:

“I had thought about glyphosate being glycine, and knowing that it’s a glycine analog and that it was affecting places where glycine binds. Glycine acts as a neural transmitter. Glyphosate messes that up. I thought, ‘I wonder if it can get into the protein in place of glycine?’

My book actually centers on this idea that glyphosate substitutes for glycine in certain proteins. There’s a specific algorithm for where it would happen, and you can show that those proteins are suppressed by glyphosate experimentally.”

Importantly, glyphosate suppresses glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD), a very important enzyme in red blood cells that maintains NADPH in its reduced form. If you have reduced levels of NADPH, you’re at increased risk for chronic disease, as your ability to recharge antioxidants is impaired. This is yet another mechanism by which glyphosate contributes to any number of disease states.
Glyphosate’s Impact on Collagen
Yet another protein that has a high glycine content is collagen, the primary protein for your connective tissue. It constitutes about one-quarter of your body’s proteins. Because of the presence of glycine, glyphosate has the ability to impair collagen as well.

“I feel confident that glyphosate is messing up collagen,” Seneff says. “Collagen has a beautiful triple helix structure, which gives it really special properties of tensile strength and flexibility to hold water. Collagen has long, long sequences called GXY, GXY, GXY, where every third amino acid is a glycine. Those glycines hook together to form that triple helix.

There are people who have mutations in those glycines that cause joint and bone diseases, and I think glyphosate is causing that. Ehlers-Danlos syndrome is associated with glycine mutations in collagen, and there’s an increase in the prevalence of that syndrome recently.

Of course, you have many more people getting hip replacement surgery, and people have back issues, back pain and shoulder surgery, knee and foot problems. All these different problems with the joints, I suspect, are being caused by misfolded collagen because of glyphosate messing it up.”

Glyphosate’s Impact on Your Vascular System
Another mechanism of action involves the suppression of nitric oxide (NO), primarily through the suppression of endothelial nitric oxide (eNOS), which is one of three ways your body makes NO. eNOS is a close relative to cytochrome 450 enzymes which, as mentioned, are decimated by glyphosate.

“The NO works together with sulfur dioxide to control the viscosity of your blood,” Seneff explains. “NO turns into nitrate … And sulfur dioxide turns into sulfate … Nitrate is a chaotrope, and sulfate is a kosmotrope. Kosmotropes are very interesting molecules that control the viscosity of blood. It’s all about water structuring, stuff that Gerald Pollack talks about.

Kosmotropes make the water structure more like gel and the chaotropes make it more like fluid, liquid. Those two work against each other to maintain the correct viscosity of the blood while other things are going on. If you put a bunch of lipid particles into the blood, it’s going to get more viscous, so you’ve got to make it less-viscous by adding NO.

So, there’s a back and forth between NO and sulfur dioxide that’s regulated by eNOS. This is a theory that I have, and it makes a lot of sense. I have continued to gather evidence that supports it.

If glyphosate messes up eNOS, then it messes up the blood’s ability to maintain its proper viscosity, which means your blood could be too fluid. You could end up with hemorrhaging. It could be too thick, it can’t circulate, so you end up with blood clots.”

More Information
One piece of good news is that Mexico is banning glyphosate and will phase it out entirely by 2024. There are fears Mexico may also start banning U.S. imports found to be contaminated with glyphosate, which would actually work in everyone’s favor by shining a bright light on the matter.
While the ultimate answer is to ban the use of glyphosate worldwide, in the meantime, a key strategy to protect your own health is to buy certified organic or biodynamic food. Glyphosate is not permitted in organic agriculture, and even if contamination occurs, the levels are going to be far lower than that of conventionally-grown foods.

Seneff also recommends eating a high-sulfur diet, as sulfur is crucial for the health of your metabolism and immune system. “Sulfur deficiency, I think, is a driver behind some of our health problems,” she says.
Also consider taking a glycine supplement to counteract and push out any glyphosate you might be exposed to. “Glycine is not very expensive and it is very safe, so it’s an easy thing to take as a supplement, which I think could definitely help,” Seneff says.
Other health-promoting habits include eating plenty of fermented foods and getting optimal amounts of vitamin D and K2. As noted by Seneff, your vitamin D conversion is also adversely affected by glyphosate.
As is typically the case when talking to Seneff, as she is phenomenally well-informed, we cover far more details in this interview than I’ve summarized here — including environmental effects and countermeasures to speed the cleanup of soil and water — so I encourage you to listen to the interview in its entirety.
Of course, to learn more about glyphosate, be sure to pick up a copy of “Toxic Legacy.” It’s by far the best book to date on this pernicious toxin that is robbing people everywhere of their health and quality of life.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/11/toxic-legacy-how-glyphosate-destroys-your-health.aspx

In the featured video, which aired June 22, 2021, independent reporter Stew Peters plays an audio recording1 made by a young woman who suddenly developed Guillain-Barre syndrome after her Moderna injection. Her neurologist believes her condition is the direct result of the COVID shot.

While the neurologist filed an adverse event report with the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), the woman decided to report it to Moderna as well. The Moderna rep does not appear the least surprised by the injury, and appears to admit he’s received similar reports before.

Everyone Who Gets the Jab Is Part of the Safety Trial

During that call, the Moderna representative reads her the following disclaimer:

“The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine has not been approved or licensed by the Food and Drug Administration, but it has been authorized for emergency use by the FDA under an emergency use authorization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019, for use in individuals 18 years of age and older.

There is no FDA-approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19. The EUA for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is in effect for the duration of the COVID-19 EUA declaration, justifying emergency use of the product unless that declaration is terminated or the authorization is revoked sooner.”

The rep also points out that all clinical trial phases are still ongoing, and that long-term protective efficacy against COVID-19 is unknown. When the patient asks whether everyone who gets the COVID shot — even if they did not specifically sign up to be a trial participant — is in fact part of the clinical trial, he replies, with a chuckle, “pretty much, yeah.”

So, in a nutshell, while vaccine makers, health authorities, mainstream media, social media platforms like Facebook and public advertisements tell you the vaccine has undergone rigorous testing, has been “approved” and is safe and effective, none of those claims are true.

The shots have received emergency use authorization only, which is completely different from regular FDA approval and licensing. They don’t know how effective the shot is, or how long the effects last, and they don’t know if it’s safe, because the trials have not been completed. In fact, the public vaccination campaign is a big part of those trials, whether people realize it or not.

Children Are Being Coerced into Medical Experimentation

This makes the push to inject children and teens all the more disturbing. Vaccine manufacturers have received EUA for children as young as 12,2 and parents are now being told their children “must” participate in what is a medical experiment.

People are being told it’s their social “duty” to participate in a medical experiment. People are told they have to participate in a medical experiment or lose their job or educational prospects. What’s happening here is no different than being told you “must” participate in a new cancer drug trial in order to keep your job or attend school. It’s completely absurd, unethical and illegal.3,4,5

When people do get the shot, they are not informed that they’re taking part in a medical experiment and they’re not asked to sign a consent form (as this particular requirement is waived under EUA rules). While consent forms are waived under an EUA, providing truthful information about potential side effects is not.

It’s really important to realize that coercing people to participate in medical experimentation violates long-established research ethics rules. If you wanted to perform a medical study and decided to lure participants with free ice cream or a free Playstation, the ethics committee would shut down your project.

The problem here is that the COVID-19 injection trials have no oversight boards. There’s no Data Safety Monitoring Board, no Clinical Event Committee and no Clinical Ethics Committee. This despite the fact that such oversight is standard practice for all human research. If such committees do exist, they’ve not been announced and no standard reports have been published.

Myocarditis Update

Peters also addresses an increasingly common side effect, namely myocarditis, i.e., heart inflammation. Animal research performed by Masonic Medical Research Institute researchers in collaboration with the Boston Children’s Hospital was posted on the preprint server bioRxiv, June 20, 2021.6

The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein subunit directly damages the heart and causes myocarditis by triggering an exaggerated immune response — a cytokine storm — in the heart cells.

The study, “Selectively Expressing SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein S1 Subunit in Cardiomyocytes Induces Cardiac Hypertrophy in Mice,”7 found that the spike protein itself (without the rest of the virus) “directly impairs endothelial function.” As it turns out, the S1 subunit of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein activates NF-kB, a protein that controls not only the transcription of DNA but also cellular survival, cytokine production and secondary inflammation.

This disease process does not involve the ACE2 receptor but rather the toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), which is responsible for the detection of pathogens and the initiation of innate immune responses. In summary, the research showed spike protein subunit “caused heart dysfunction, induced hypertrophic remodeling and elicited cardiac inflammation.”

“Since CoV-2-S does not interact with murine ACE2, our study presents a novel ACE2-independent pathological role of CoV-2-S [SARS-CoV-2], and suggests that the circulating CoV-2-S1 [CoV-2-spike protein subunit 1] is a TLR4-recognizable alarmin that may harm the CMs [cardiomyocytes, i.e., heart cells] by triggering their innate immune responses,” the authors state.8

In short, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein subunit directly damages the heart and causes myocarditis by triggering an exaggerated immune response — a cytokine storm — in the heart cells.

Importantly, hypertrophic remodeling means this is a permanent reshaping and damage of the heart, which refutes claims that the hundreds of myocarditis cases reported to VAERS are of little concern and that their hearts will eventually heal. I believe those assumptions will be found to be wrong, and that many of them may be left with permanently damaged hearts.

‘They Knew What They Were Doing’

As noted by Jane Ruby, Ph.D., on the Stew Peters Show, this research should have been done before these injections were put out into the public domain. Instead of conducting rigorous animal trials, vaccine makers are using the public as guinea pigs in one of the biggest experiments in human history, making tens of billions of dollars in profits while enjoying absolute immunity from any damage their experimental jabs cause.

By falsely labeling these gene modification tools as vaccines (because gene therapy does not qualify as a pandemic treatment that can be granted immunity against liability), they’ve been given the green light to conduct human experimentation without remuneration, informed consent or liability under the guise of a public health emergency.

There’s no way these gene therapies in any rational society would have been released to be tested on this many human subjects, including pregnant women and children, were it not for this sinister misrepresentation.

Here’s the most disturbing part, though: It appears these COVID injections may have been designed to cause this kind of cell damage on purpose. Why? Because the researchers also tested the natural spike protein subunit of another coronavirus called NL63.

This virus was chosen because it, like SARS-CoV-2, uses the ACE2 receptor for entry into the human cell. The NL63 spike protein did not, however, trigger this kind of heart damage. “They knew what they were doing when they engineered this mRNA to make this particular spike protein,” Ruby says.

Pfizer Injection Victim Speaks Out

In the video above, Peters interviews Stevie Thrasher, a previously healthy 29-year-old in Washington state who got her first Pfizer shot April 27, 2021. Since then, she’s been hospitalized nine times, and her doctor has confirmed her injuries are a direct result of the Pfizer mRNA injection. Her neurologist has told her not to get a second dose.

One of her first symptoms was severe menstrual bleeding. After that, she started experiencing severe body pains, muscle weakness and muscle failure, fatigue, dizziness and disorientation. Since her shot, she’s been in the hospital nine times, had three neurological evaluations and received referrals to rheumatologists and immunologists.

Remarkably, despite the severity of her symptoms, all tests, including imaging and blood work, appear normal, with the exception of an ANA blood test (a test that detects antinuclear antibodies that can attack your own tissues) indicating she might have an autoimmune condition, although it’s unclear which one.

Her doctors have thus far been unable to explain why her test results are all normal while she’s clearly experiencing symptoms of disease, and all she’s been diagnosed with so far is “adverse reaction to Pfizer COVID vaccine with myalgias.” As you can see in the video above, she has involuntary tremors. She says they come and go depending on circumstances. Triggers include sunlight, heat, elevation, stress and physical activity.

While Thrasher was warned of the possibility of blood clots and anaphylactic reactions, she was not informed there may be neurological and autoimmune side effects. “If I had known this was a possibility, I would have turned around and ran,” she tells Peters.

Unvaccinated Falsely Accused of Being ‘Disease Factories’

Adding insult to injury, mainstream media are now pushing the idea that those who refuse the COVID shot are to blame for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, even though a number of health experts have warned that it’s the complete opposite — that mass injections, causing a very narrow band of antibodies, are forcing more rapid mutations of the virus.9

It’s a general principle in biology, vaccinology and microbiology, that if you put living organisms like bacteria or viruses under pressure, via antibiotics or antibodies, for example, but don’t kill them off completely, you can inadvertently encourage their mutation into more virulent strains. Those that escape your immune system end up surviving and selecting mutations to ensure their further survival.

If an individual who does not have a narrow band of antibodies becomes infected, then, if mutation does occur, it’s far less likely to result in a more aggressive virus. So, while mutation can occur in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people, vaccinated individuals are actually far more likely to pressure the virus into a mutation that strengthens it and makes it more dangerous. Alas, according to CNN:10

“Unvaccinated people do more than merely risk their own health. They’re also a risk to everyone if they become infected with coronavirus, infectious disease specialists say. That’s because the only source of new coronavirus variants is the body of an infected person.

‘Unvaccinated people are potential variant factories,’ Dr. William Schaffner, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, told CNN … ‘The more unvaccinated people there are, the more opportunities for the virus to multiply,’ Schaffner said.”

What Schaffner and CNN fail to address is the confirmed fact that the COVID shot does not provide immune protection against a SARS-CoV-2 infection. So those who have gotten the injection can also become hosts to the virus, just like those who have haven’t been scammed into taking the COVID jab.

There’s absolutely no medical justification for singling out unvaccinated people as the sole disease vectors, or the sole vectors for mutation. Breakthrough cases in fully “vaccinated” people prove this point. Unfortunately, vaccinated individuals are not informed about the potential that they might experience antibody?dependent enhancement (ADE) or paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE), which may actually render them more susceptible to infection by variants.11

If that turns out to be the case, and there are already indicators suggesting this is happening,12,13,14,15,16,17 then vaccinating even more people is not the answer. Unvaccinated individuals cannot be held responsible for what happens to those who volunteered to take part in this mass experiment, or be asked to “save” those people by putting their own health at risk.

Control Groups Destroyed on Purpose

Disturbingly, all the evidence points to vaccine makers and health agencies not wanting to identify problems with these shots. Despite this being the largest medical experiment in human history, vaccine makers are purposely eliminating their control groups so that injuries will be far more difficult to ascertain, since they won’t have anything to compare the vaccine recipients against.

In a JAMA report,18 Rita Rubin, senior writer for JAMA medical news and perspectives, quotes the chief scientific adviser for Operation Warp Speed, Moncref Slaoui, Ph.D., saying he thinks “it’s very important that we unblind the trial at once and offer the placebo group vaccines” because trial participants “should be rewarded” for their participation.

Such statements violate the very basics of what a safety trial needs, which is a control group against which you can compare the effects of the drug in question over the long term. I find it inconceivable that unblinding was even considered, seeing how the core studies have not even concluded yet, and some standard safety studies have been bypassed entirely.

For example, Pfizer has not conducted any reproductive toxicology studies despite finding the mRNA and spike protein accumulates in the ovaries. The only purpose of this unblinding is to conceal the fact that these injections are unsafe. Safety evaluations have also been undermined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which chose not to require vaccine makers to implement robust post-injection data collection and follow-up on the general public.

What Is the Mass Injection Campaign Really All About?

It’s obvious the COVID injection manufacturers intentionally removed every safety monitoring control because they wanted to obfuscate the anticipated complications that were certain to occur. They wanted to prevent as many complications as possible from surfacing. Safety is clearly not something they are concerned about.

Think about it: If the vaccination campaign were about creating a high rate of immunity within the population, they would accept natural immunity to COVID as an alternative to the jab. But they don’t. Even if you can prove you have high levels of antibodies from natural infection, you still must get the COVID shot if you want to attend school or keep your job in some areas, and natural immunity does not count if you want a COVID immunity passport.

This means the injections are NOT about creating herd immunity. They want a needle in every arm for some other reason. What do you think that reason might be? Many who have pondered this question have reached the conclusion that whatever the reason might be, it’s a nefarious one.

At a minimum, this campaign is about getting a needle in every arm to maximize their profits. At its extreme worst, it could be part of a cleverly constructed depopulation strategy.

Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a life science researcher and former vice-president and chief scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer, has gone on record saying he believes the COVID-19 injections, and the upcoming boosters in particular, are a “serious attempt at mass depopulation.”19

In my view, there are still so many potential avenues of harm and so many uncertainties, I would encourage everyone to do your homework, keep reading and learning, weigh the potential pros and cons, and take your time when deciding whether to get any of these COVID-19 gene therapies. If you have already had one, think long and hard before getting any boosters.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/12/moderna-vaccine-experiment.aspx

We’re seeing the rapid emergence of two sets of people — those who are vaccinated against COVID-19 and those who are not. A distinction need not be made, as whether or not to receive medical procedures is a personal choice that should remain private if you so choose.

But increasingly, people are being required to prove that they’re vaccinated in order to go about their daily lives, while those who are unvaccinated are losing privileges.

While many countries have suggested that the COVID-19 vaccine will not be mandated, by giving special privileges to the vaccinated, such as the ability to travel, attend social events or even enter a workplace, it essentially amounts to the same thing and insinuates a “cleaner” class of people in those who have been vaccinated.

Make-A-Wish Grants Wishes Only to Vaccinated Children?

Make-A-Wish is a nonprofit organization that’s well-known for granting wishes, such as travel or meetings with celebrities, to children with critical illnesses. However, a widely circulated video featured Make-A-Wish Foundation CEO Richard Davis stating that certain wishes would only be granted to vaccinated children and families:1

“I’m excited to share that Make-A-Wish will resume granting air travel wishes within the United States and its territories, as well as granting wishes involving large gatherings, for vaccinated Wish families as soon as September 15, 2021.

All Wish participants, including your Wish kid and any siblings, will need to be two weeks past completion of either a one-dose or a two-dose vaccine.

While we won’t ask for proof of vaccination, we’ll ask for any adult participant to sign a letter of understanding that certifies that they, and any minors participating in the wish, are vaccinated and understand the risks of traveling at this time.”

Backlash quickly ensued, not only because of the discrimination against those who choose not to get vaccinated, but also because children under 12 cannot be vaccinated for COVID-19 at this time, and even those within the eligible age range may be too ill to be vaccinated. Celebrities such as actor Rob Schneider said that if Make-A-Wish wasn’t going to grant wishes to unvaccinated children, they would no longer support the organization.2

In response, Make-A-Wish backpedaled their statements, claiming that “misinformation and falsehoods on social media and in some media outlets” took the comments out of context and led to the confusion.3 In an updated statement Make-A-Wish clarified that all critically ill children are eligible, including those who are unvaccinated:4

“We understand that there are many families whose children aren’t eligible for the vaccine yet, and we also know that there are families who are choosing to not get the vaccine. We respect everyone’s freedom of choice. Make-A-Wish will continue to grant wishes for all eligible children. Make-A-Wish will not require anyone to get vaccinated to receive a wish.”

Dating Apps Give Premium Content to Vaccinated

In 2021, it’s not enough to divulge your likes and dislikes to get a date — you’ve also got to display personal medical data, like whether or not you’ve been vaccinated.

Dating app giants including Tinder, Hinge, OKCupid, BLK, Chispa, Plenty of Fish, Match, Bumble and Badoo now allow users to filter matches according to vaccination status and also announced that those who are vaccinated will get access to premium content such as “like boosts, super likes, and super swipes” — but only with proof of vaccination.5

The move comes via an unlikely partnership with the White House, which is targeting dating apps in an effort to increase COVID-19 vaccinations in the U.S.

“We believe that it’s particularly important to reach young people where they are in the effort to get them vaccinated,” a White House press release noted. They cited OKCupid, which reported that people who display their vaccination status are 14% more likely to get a match. Further, according to the White House:6

“Social distancing and dating were always a bit of a challenging combination. So today, dating sites like Bumble, Tinder, Hinge, Match, OkCupid, BLK, Chispa, Plenty of Fish, and Badoo are announcing a series of features to encourage vaccinations and help people meet people who have that universally attractive quality: They’ve been vaccinated against COVID-19.

These sites cater to over 50 million people in the U.S. and are some of the world’s biggest nongaming apps … We have finally found the one thing that makes us all more attractive: a vaccination.

These dating apps will now allow vaccinated people to display badges which show their vaccination status, filter specifically to see only people who are vaccinated, and offer premium content — details of which I cannot get into, but apparently, they include things like boosts and super swipes. The apps will also help people locate places to get vaccinated.”

Concerts, Travel Only for the Vaccinated

Unvaccinated people are also being excluded from certain concert venues, including S. James Theater in New York City, which recently featured Bruce Springsteen. Jujamcyn, which operates the theater, stated that guests must be “fully vaccinated with an FDA or WHO approved vaccine in order to attend SPRINGSTEEN ON BROADWAY and must show proof of vaccination at their time of entry into the theatre with their valid ticket.”7

Exceptions were only made for people under the age of 16 or “those who need reasonable accommodations due to a disability or sincerely held religious belief.” Protestors arrived to the show’s opening night, with signs stating “no vax passports” and “Bruce Springsteen is for segregation on Broadway.”8

Protestors also arrived outside a Foo Fighters concert at the Canyon Club in Agoura Hills, California, which was also closed to unvaccinated fans. In addition to calling the vaccination requirement a form of segregation, one protestor told KCAL news, “Those of us who have healthy immune systems should be able to enjoy these freedoms just like anybody else.”9

In other examples of loss of privileges for the unvaccinated, in Hawaii only those with proof of vaccination are allowed to travel between counties without pretravel testing and quarantine restrictions, while New York requires you to be vaccinated or have a recent negative COVID-19 test to enter certain sports arenas and large performance venues.

If you’re planning to travel on a cruise ship, there are also different requirements depending on vaccination status. Royal Caribbean recently announced that unvaccinated guests would need proof of COVID-19 related travel insurance to board and would also be banned from certain areas of ships. On the Freedom of the Seas, for instance, unvaccinated travelers would not be able to enter certain spas, casinos, parties, pools, bars and restaurants.10

A Florida law prohibits Royal Caribbean from asking if guests are vaccinated, so to get around this anyone who doesn’t show proof of vaccination will be considered unvaccinated. The segregation of vaccinated and unvaccinated guests will be obvious, as those who are vaccinated will receive a wristband while those who are not will have a hole punched in the card needed to access certain areas of the ship.11

In other cases, people have lost their jobs due to their vaccination choice, including at Houston Methodist hospital, where employees were forced to either resign or be fired if they chose not to get a COVID-19 vaccine.12

What About People With Natural Immunity?

A sizeable percentage of the population has made it clear that they have no intention of getting vaccinated with an experimental gene therapy. Everyone has their own reasons for this decision, including an unknown risk of side effects and death but, for some, their reasoning is that they’ve already had COVID-19 and therefore have natural immunity.

If protecting public health were really the ultimate goal in the pandemic response, people who have recovered from COVID-19 should be offered the same type of immunity “passports” and benefits being offered to those who have been vaccinated. In fact, they should be granted even more “access” since their immunity is likely superior to those with vaccine-induced immunity.

Evidence from Washington University School of Medicine shows long-lasting immunity to COVID-19 exists in those who’ve recovered from the natural infection.13 At both seven months and 11 months after infection, most of the participants had bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) that secreted antibodies specific for the spike protein encoded by SARS-CoV-2.

In addition, in 2020 it was reported that people who had recovered from SARS-CoV — a virus that is genetically closely related to SARS-CoV-2 and belongs to the same viral species — maintained significant levels of neutralizing antibodies as much as 17 years after initial infection.14 This also suggests that long-term immunity against SARS-CoV-2 should be expected,15 and natural protection is likely to continue “indefinitely.”16

This — natural immunity to COVID-19 that an unknown number of people have acquired — is completely ignored when it comes to official guidelines. Everyone is urged to get vaccinated with an experimental shot, regardless of their COVID-19 infection history and even if they’re as young as 12 years old — in some cases without parental consent.17

As Dr. Peter McCullough, vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center, has stated, “All roads lead to the vaccine,”18 and it’s possible the pandemic’s purpose was to fuel the global vaccination campaign that is now occurring. This would allow for the vaccinated population to be recorded in a vaccine database, essentially “marking” you, which could be used as a tool for population control via vaccine passports.

Vaccine Passports Will Open the Floodgates

Right now, we’re in a battle of freedom versus tyranny. Fortunately, a number of states have enacted laws that ban vaccine passport requirements in order to prevent the creation of a two-tier society based on vaccination status. It’s important to understand that the adoption of vaccine passports will only open the floodgates for further restrictions on your freedom.

The end goal here isn’t about tracking vaccination status only. Vaccine passports or any other type of tracking and tracing device or certification system are part of a much larger plan to implement a global social credit system based on 24/7 electronic surveillance to ensure compliance.

This will expand to include not just COVID-19 infection and vaccination status but also other medical data, basic identification records, financial data and just about anything else that can be digitized and tracked. There’s still time to take action to protect freedom as we know it today, and one of the best ways to do so is by speaking out via peaceful protest and civil disobedience.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/10/lack-of-privileges-for-the-unvaccinated.aspx

When it comes to the treatment of COVID-19, many Western nations have been hobbled by the politicization of medicine. Throughout 2020, media and many public health experts warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), despite the fact that many practicing doctors were praising its ability to save patients. Most have been silenced through online censorship. Some even lost their jobs for the “sin” of publicly sharing their successes with the drug.
Another decades-old antiparasitic drug that may be even more useful than HCQ is ivermectin. Like HCQ, ivermectin is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential drugs, but its benefits are also being ignored by public health officials and buried by mainstream media.
Ivermectin is a heartworm medication that has been shown to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro.1 In the U.S., the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has been calling for widespread adoption of Ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.2,3
In the video above, Dr. John Campbell interviews Dr. Tess Lawrie about the drug and its use against COVID-19. Lawrie is a medical doctor and Ph.D. researcher who has done a lot of work in South Africa.
She’s also the director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd.,4 which is based in the U.K., and she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel5 and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference, held April 24, 2021.
Ironically, as a consultant to the World Health Organization and many other public health organizations, her largest clients are the very ones who are now actively suppressing the use of this drug.
Ivermectin Useful in All Stages of COVID
What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as the inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary.
According to Dr. Surya Kant, a medical doctor in India who has written a white paper6 on ivermectin, the drug reduces replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by several thousand times.7 Kant’s paper led several Indian provinces to start using ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and as treatment for COVID-19 in the summer of 2020.8
In the video, Lawrie reviews the science behind her recommendation to use ivermectin. In summary:

• A scientific review by Dr. Andrew Hill at Liverpool University, funded by the WHO and UNITAID and published January 18, 2021, found ivermectin reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75%. It also increased viral clearance. This finding was based on a review of six randomized, controlled trials involving a total of 1,255 patients.
• Lawrie’s meta-analysis, published February 8, 2021, found a 68% reduction in deaths. Here, 13 studies were included in the analysis. This, she explains, is an underestimation of the beneficial effect, because they included a study in which the control arm was given HCQ.
Since HCQ is an active treatment that has also been shown to have a positive impact on outcomes, it’s not surprising that this particular study did not rate ivermectin as better than the control treatment (which was HCQ).
• Adding two new randomized controlled trials to her February analysis that included data on mortality, Lawrie published an updated analysis March 31, 2021, showing a 62% reduction in deaths.
When four studies with high risk of bias were removed during a subsequent sensitivity analysis, they ended up with a 72% reduction in deaths. Sensitivity analyses are done to double-check and verify results.

WHO Still Refuses to Recommend Ivermectin
Curiously, when the WHO finally updated its guidance on ivermectin at the end of March 2021,9,10 they gave it a thumbs-down, saying more data are needed. They only recommend it for patients who are enrolled in a clinical trial. Yet they based their negative recommendation on a review that included just five studies, which ended up showing a 72% reduction in deaths.
Lawrie points out discrepancies in this WHO analysis, such as two studies deemed by Lawrie to have a high risk of bias being listed by the WHO team to have a low risk of bias. (In the interview, she explains why she considers them to have a high risk of bias.)
What’s more, in the WHO’s summary of findings, they suddenly include data from seven studies, which combined show an 81% reduction in deaths. The confidence interval is also surprisingly high, with a 64% reduction in deaths on the low end, and 91% on the high end.
What’s more, their absolute effect estimate for standard of care is 70 deaths per 1,000, compared to just 14 deaths per 1,000 when treating with ivermectin. That’s a reduction in deaths of 56 per 1,000 when using ivermectin. The confidence interval is between 44 and 63 fewer deaths per 1,000.
Despite that, the WHO refuses to recommend this drug for COVID-19. Rabindra Abeyasinghe, a WHO representative to the Philippines, commented that using ivermectin without “strong” evidence is “harmful” because it can give “false confidence” to the public.11
As noted by Daniel Horowitz in an April 1, 2021, article in The Blaze,12 “That sure sounds a lot like telling people if they wear a mask indoors, they won’t get COVID. Tragically, when they invariably do get the virus, the global health elites have nothing to treat them with.”
Doctors Urge Acceptance of Ivermectin to Save Lives
As mentioned earlier, in the U.S., the FLCCC has also been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.13,14
FLCCC president Dr. Pierre Kory, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 2020,15 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel January 6, 2021.16 As noted by the FLCCC:17

“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.

Dr. Kory testified that Ivermectin is effectively a ‘miracle drug’ against COVID-19 and called upon the government’s medical authorities … to urgently review the latest data and then issue guidelines for physicians, nurse-practitioners, and physician assistants to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-1918 …

… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.

… data from 18 randomized controlled trials that included over 2,100 patients … demonstrated that Ivermectin produces faster viral clearance, faster time to hospital discharge, faster time to clinical recovery, and a 75% reduction in mortality rates.”19

A one-page summary20 of the clinical trial evidence for Ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website. A more comprehensive, 31-page review21 of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology.
At the time of this writing, the number of trials involving ivermectin has risen to 55, including 28 randomized controlled trials. A listing of all the Ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on c19Ivermectin.com.22 
The FLCCC’s COVID-19 protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+23 while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,24 due to the addition of ivermectin.
The two protocols25,26 are available for download on the FLCCC Alliance website in multiple languages. The clinical and scientific rationale for the I-MATH+ hospital protocol has also been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine27 in mid-December 2020. 
NIH Loosens Restrictions, FDA Warns Against Prophylactic Use

In mid-January 2021, the NIH did revise its guidelines on ivermectin, in large part thanks to the data presented by Kory and others. However, while the NIH no longer warns against its use, they also do not outright recommend it, and they did not grant ivermectin emergency use authorization.
As a result, many patients in the U.S. still struggle to access the drug, as many doctors are unwilling to prescribe it off-label against health officials’ recommendations.
At this fateful juncture, we must therefore choose, will we continue to be held ransom by corrupt organizations, health authorities, Big Pharma and billionaire sociopaths, or will we do our moral and professional duty to do no harm and always do the best for those in our care? The latter includes urgently reaching out to colleagues around the world to discuss which of our tried and tested, safe, older medicines can be used against COVID. ~ Dr. Tess Lawrie
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has adopted an even less favorable stance, March 9, 2021 actually issuing a consumer warning March 5, 2021, to not use ivermectin as a prophylactic.28 The FDA also has not approved ivermectin for prevention of or treatment for SARS-CoV-2.29
The International Ivermectin for COVID Conference
April 24 through 25, 2021, Lawrie hosted the first International Ivermectin for COVID Conference online.30 Twelve medical experts31 from around the world shared their knowledge during this conference, 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.org.32 In her closing address, Lawrie stated:33

“The story of Ivermectin has highlighted that we are at a remarkable juncture in medical history. The tools that we use to heal and our connection with our patients are being systematically undermined by relentless disinformation stemming from corporate greed.

The story of Ivermectin shows that we as a public have misplaced our trust in the authorities and have underestimated the extent to which money and power corrupts.

Had Ivermectin being employed in 2020 when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy, millions of lives could have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss brought to a rapid and timely end.

Since then, hundreds of millions of people have been involved in the largest medical experiment in human history. Mass vaccination was an unproven novel therapy. Hundreds of billions will be made by Big Pharma and paid for by the public.

With politicians and other nonmedical individuals dictating to us what we are allowed to prescribe to the ill, we as doctors, have been put in a position such that our ability to uphold the Hippocratic oath is under attack.

At this fateful juncture, we must therefore choose, will we continue to be held ransom by corrupt organizations, health authorities, Big Pharma, and billionaire sociopaths, or will we do our moral and professional duty to do no harm and always do the best for those in our care?

The latter includes urgently reaching out to colleagues around the world to discuss which of our tried and tested safe older medicines can be used against COVID.”

During the conference, Lawrie proposed that doctors around the world join together to form a new people-centered World Health Organization. “Never before has our role as doctors been so important because never before have we become complicit in causing so much harm,” she said.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/21/ivermectin-for-covid-19.aspx