Lose Them Pounds

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recently unanimously voted 14-0 to coadminister the COVID-19 and flu vaccine to adults and children.1 The proposed policy for the 2021-2022 influenza season was made to implement changes that coincide with the timing of children returning to school in fall 2021, and to align with the CDC’s guidelines allowing COVID-19 vaccines to be coadministered with other vaccines.

This also will be the first influenza season2 where nearly all available flu vaccines are quadrivalent,3 rather than trivalent. This means flu shots will contain four vaccine strain influenza viruses — two influenza A viruses and two influenza B viruses.

The ACIP vaccine policy recommendations also included explicit information about when influenza vaccines should be given to children and adults.4 For example, the recommendations direct vaccine providers to give non-pregnant adults flu shots after August because of concerns about waning vaccine-acquired artificial immunity.

Vaccine providers are directed to give children flu shots by the end of October, with the dog kidney (MDCK) cell-based Flucelvax quadrivalent vaccine now being recommended for children starting at age 2 and older.

The policy also calls for precautions in giving a vaccine to anyone with a moderate or severe acute illness, history of Guillain-Barré syndrome within six weeks of receiving an influenza vaccine, or a history of severe allergic reactions to any other dose of flu vaccine.5

Unanimous Vote: CDC Approved One Flu and COVID Vaccine

In addition to approving the coadministration of flu and COVID-19 vaccines, ACIP warns that providers should be aware their patients may exhibit increased reactogenicity. This is a term health authorities use to describe expected adverse reactions to pharmaceutical products, especially hyper-inflammatory immunological responses to vaccination.

The literature6 calls it a “physical manifestation of the inflammatory response to vaccination” and “symptoms may include pain, redness, swelling or induration for injected vaccines, and systemic symptoms, such as fever, myalgia, headache or rash.”

In other words, the CDC expects more people to experience side effects/adverse reactions when influenza and COVID-19 vaccines are administered concurrently. ACIP member Dr. Matthew Daly believes that this year “Most adolescents will be vaccinated [against] COVID-19 in the summer and have their flu vaccination in the fall.”7

But coadministration of the two vaccines next year could increase the number of children receiving COVID-19 vaccine together with influenza vaccine and, subsequently, potentially increase reactogenicity. In the same meeting, the committee also voted unanimously to recommend a shorter rabies vaccination series for children traveling to areas where the potential risk is high.

Lastly, ACIP recommended the dengue vaccine for children ages 9 to 16 who live in areas where the virus is endemic. According to the CDC,8 the dengue virus spreads through the bite of a mosquito, infecting up to 400 million people each year. Each year, nearly 100 million will get sick and 22,000 will die from dengue.

No Evidence to Suggest Concurrent Vaccination Policy Is Safe

Despite the unanimous vote by CDC health experts charged with protecting the health of U.S. citizens, there is no evidence to suggest that giving children or adults influenza and COVID-19 vaccines simultaneously on the same day is safe. Some ACIP members noted the lack of data proving that concurrent vaccination policy is safe.
However, Medpage9 reports that CDC staff countered by citing one preprint study10 — published just days before the ACIP meeting — that examined the safety issues and efficacy of coadministering flu vaccine with the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine.

With this study, CDC staff noted there were “no changes in antibody titers for influenza vaccine and no safety issues” when give in combination, although participants did have greater tenderness or pain at the injection site, and higher levels of fatigue and muscle pain.
It’s also crucial to note that the information on which they based this decision was gathered from a sub-study of just 217 participants who had fewer comorbid conditions and were younger than those in their vaccine’s main study.11

Also important to note is that the experimental Novavax COVID-19 vaccine is a subunit protein,12 which is different from the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. This means that information from the Novavax study cannot be extrapolated to the experimental mRNA vaccines now being administered under an EUA.13

Unlike the messenger RNA vaccines, which use genetic material to trigger the body to make parts of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the Novavax vaccine’s protein adjuvant contains the spike protein as a nanoparticle.14 The manufacturer proposes that it stimulates the immune system to recognize the virus and resist infection.

Additionally, none of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines being distributed under an EUA has been tested for safety and efficacy when coadministered with influenza vaccine. In other words, the CDC made a recommendation that the two vaccines can be given simultaneously to children and adults without providing data conclusively demonstrating safety or efficacy.

Could Flu Vaccines Increase Risk of COVID-19?

Over the years, data have demonstrated that the flu vaccine has kept missing the mark when it comes to effectiveness. In the 2004-2005 season, the vaccine’s overall effectiveness was only 10%,15 which means 90% of the time it failed. During the 2012-2013 flu season it was 49% effective overall and in 2014-2015 it was only 19% effective overall.

The abysmal success rate of the seasonal influenza vaccines is related to how the vaccine is developed each year.16 Because influenza viruses are constantly mutating, the vaccine must be reviewed and updated to include those the scientists estimate will be circulating in the coming flu season.

Each year, 100 centers in over 100 countries conduct surveillance, which includes testing thousands of influenza virus samples from patients. Twice a year these results are analyzed, and the World Health Organization recommends the specific viruses that should be included in the coming year’s influenza vaccine. In America, the FDA makes the final decision.

In other words, scientists must guess based on past data which influenza viruses will be circulating in the upcoming season. There is also evidence from Canadian studies17 that with repeated vaccinations, flu vaccine effectiveness wanes. This type of study will not be done in the U.S. for the simple reason that U.S. authorities recommend everyone get vaccinated every year. As noted by STAT news:18

“Given that policy, it would be unethical for researchers here to randomly assign some people to forgo vaccinations in some years. But experts elsewhere, including in Hong Kong, where influenza circulates year-round, are trying to put together the funding for what would have to be a large, multiyear study.”

The SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 also mutates and is expected to continue to mutate in the environment, resulting in new strain variants. Additionally, a study published in January 2020 in the journal Vaccine19 found that people who had received influenza vaccines during the 2017-2018 flu season were more likely to get some form of coronavirus infection.

When compared to unvaccinated individuals, those who had gotten the seasonal flu shot were 36% more likely to contract an unspecified coronavirus infection and 51% more likely to contract human metapneumovirus, which has respiratory symptoms similar to COVID-19.

In October 2020,20 another positive association was found between COVID-19 deaths and flu vaccination rates in the elderly. This means coadministration of these vaccines may have potentially serious side effects.

An analysis of data21 from 39 countries with more than one-half million inhabitants showed that those over 65 years old who had gotten a flu shot had an increased risk of death from COVID-19. An analysis published in May 202022 looked at European countries with the highest COVID-19 death rates and found those countries also had the highest rate of influenza vaccinations among the elderly.

Why COVID-19 Vaccine for Children Is Very Risky

There is no evidence that coadministration of influenza vaccine and COVID vaccine is safe, but there is evidence that giving the COVID-19 vaccine to children is extremely risky. A video entitled “Why Children Should Not Receive the COVID Shot,” features comments that Peter Doshi, Ph.D., made during a June 10, 2021, meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

Doshi is the senior editor of The BMJ and associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. In a paper published in The BMJ, he points out that Pfizer’s claim the vaccine is 95% effective refers to relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction is actually less than 1%.23

In addition, the primary endpoint measured is a reduction in severity and not the vaccine’s ability to prevent infection or save lives. The decision to vaccinate should be made on a risk-benefit analysis, where the benefit far outweighs the potential risks involved.

However, as I discussed in the linked article above, the benefits are rare, the side effects are common, and the long-term effects are completely unknown. For example, Pfizer boasts a 100% efficacy rate in the 12-to-15 age group. In the video, Doshi explains this was based on less than 2% of the placebo group getting COVID-19, while none in the fully vaccinated group got sick.

As reported in The Defender,24 many of the side effects have been short-lived but, by June 11, 2021, there were 6,332 total adverse events in 12- to 17-year-olds, seven deaths and 271 events rated “serious.”

According to OpenVAERS25 one week later, data through June 18, 2021, showed 11,584 adverse events and nine deaths in the same age group. In one week, there were two more deaths and 5,252 more adverse events reported to OpenVAERS.

One of the reasons health experts give for vaccinating children, many of whom Doshi explains have natural immunity from a COVID-19 infection, is to benefit adults. This practice is sometimes called “cocooning” and has never been proven to be effective.

The authors of an editorial in The BMJ26 stressed that giving children COVID-19 vaccine is “hard to justify right now” since children experience mild disease symptoms and transmission is limited, while the potential for unintended consequences from the vaccine is high. They go on to write:

“Should childhood infection (and re-exposures in adults) continue to be typically mild, childhood vaccination will not be necessary to halt the pandemic. The marginal benefits should therefore be considered in the context of local healthcare resources, equitable distribution of vaccines globally, and a more nuanced understanding of the differences between vaccine and infection induced immunity.

Once most adults are vaccinated, circulation of SARS-CoV-2 may in fact be desirable, as it is likely to lead to primary infection early in life when disease is mild, followed by booster re-exposures throughout adulthood as transmission blocking immunity wanes but disease blocking immunity remains high. This would keep reinfections mild and immunity up to date.”

How to Report a Vaccine Reaction

The number of vaccines recommended by health authorities for children has grown significantly in the past decades.27 The CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule recommends all children receive 69 doses of 16 vaccines with 50 doses of 14 vaccines given between the day of birth and age 18. The majority of children in the U.S. today receive three times as many vaccinations as children received in 1983.

If you or your child gets a COVID-19 vaccine and your health deteriorates within hours, days or weeks of being vaccinated, the medical professional who gave you the shot is required to file a report with the federal vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS).28

Despite the VAERS having been established in 199029 and used for over 30 years, Dr. Anne Schuchat from the CDC said in an interview with ABC News30 that one of the reasons for pausing the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine was to teach vaccine providers how to report adverse events to VAERS.

Since the experimental COVID-19 vaccines currently are being distributed under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) granted to vaccine manufacturers by the FDA) there is a great need to report vaccine reactions, especially injuries and deaths. If your health care provider refuses to file an injury report with VAERS, the system allows you to do it yourself.

As of June 18, 2021, the system shows there have been 6,136 deaths, 21,806 people hospitalized and 51,575 people seen in urgent care after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. Additionally, the system highlights these injuries:31

Reported Injury
Number

Life threatening reactions
6,450

Heart attack
2,483

Myocarditis or pericarditis
1,644

Low platelet count
1,776

Miscarriage
720

Severe allergic reactions
17,408

Disabled
5,194

Tinnitus (ringing in the ear)
4,447

You can report a adverse reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine, or to any other vaccine, to the VAERS system.32,33 There are two ways to make a report — online or through a writable PDF form that can be uploaded to the system. If you have any questions call 1-800-822-7967.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/09/vaccine-coadministration-on-children.aspx

Do you know your vitamin D level? If not, getting your blood tested — and optimizing your levels — is one of the simplest and most straightforward steps you can take to improve your health, including in relation to COVID-19. Vitamin D, as an immunomodulator, is a perfect candidate for countering the immune dysregulation that’s common with COVID-19.1

As early as November 2020, it was known that there were striking differences in vitamin D status among people who had asymptomatic COVID-19 and those who became severely ill and required ICU admission. In one study, 32.96% of those with asymptomatic cases were vitamin D deficient, compared to 96.82% of those who were admitted to the ICU for a severe case.2

COVID-19 patients who were deficient in this inexpensive and widely available vitamin had a higher inflammatory response and a greater fatality rate. The Indian study authors recommended “mass administration of vitamin D supplements to populations at risk for COVID-19,”3 but this hasn’t happened, at least not in the U.S.

As of April 21, 2021, the date the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) last updated their COVID-19 treatment guidelines/vitamin D page, they stated, “There are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.”4 As you’ll see in the paragraphs that follow, however, the evidence for its use is beyond overwhelming.

Vitamin D Therapy Reduces COVID’s Inflammatory Storm

Vitamin D has multiple actions on the immune system, including enhancing the production of antimicrobial peptides by immune cells, reducing damaging proinflammatory cytokines and promoting the expression of anti-inflammatory cytokines.5 Cytokines are a group of proteins that your body uses to control inflammation.

If you have an infection, your body will release cytokines to help combat inflammation, but sometimes it releases more than it should. If the cytokine release spirals out of control, the resulting “cytokine storm” becomes dangerous and is closely tied to sepsis, which may be an important contributor to the death of COVID-19 patients.6

Many COVID-19 therapeutics are focused on viral elimination instead of modulating the hyperinflammation often seen in the disease. In fact, uncontrolled immune response has been suggested as a factor in disease severity, making immunomodulation “an attractive potential treatment strategy.”7

In one example, researchers investigated the effects of Pulse D therapy — daily high-dose supplementation (60,000 IUs) of vitamin D — for eight to 10 days, in addition to standard therapy, for COVID-19 patients deficient in vitamin D.8 Vitamin D levels increased significantly in the vitamin D group — from 16 ng/ml to 89 ng/ml — while inflammatory markers significantly decreased, without any side effects.

“Vit.D acts as a smart switch to decrease the Th1 response and pro inflammatory cytokines while enhancing the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines in cases of immune dysregulation. It is pertinent to note that SARS-CoV-2 virus activates Th1 response and suppresses Th2 response,” researchers wrote in the journal Scientific Reports.9

They concluded that Pulse D therapy could be safely added to COVID-19 treatment protocols for improved outcomes.

Vitamin D3 Reduces COVID-19 Deaths and ICU Admissions

Another group of researchers in Spain gave vitamin D3 (calcifediol) to patients admitted to the COVID-19 wards of Barcelona’s Hospital del Mar.10 About half the patients received vitamin D3 in the amount of 21,280 IU on day one plus 10,640 IU on Days 3, 7, 15 and 30. Those that received vitamin D fared significantly better, with only 4.5% requiring ICU admission compared to 21% in the no-vitamin D group.

Vitamin D treatment also significantly reduced mortality, with 4.7% of the vitamin D group dying at admission compared to 15.9% in the no-vitamin D group. “In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, calcifediol treatment significantly reduced ICU admission and mortality,” according to the researchers.11 In response to the findings, British MP David Davis tweeted:12

“This is a very important study on vitamin D and Covid-19. Its findings are incredibly clear. An 80% reduction in need for ICU and a 60% reduction in deaths, simply by giving a very cheap and very safe therapy – calcifediol, or activated vitamin D … The findings of this large and well conducted study should result in this therapy being administered to every COVID patient in every hospital in the temperate latitudes.”

At one point, the U.K.’s National Health Service was offering free vitamin D supplements to people at high risk from COVID-19,13 but they also state, like the U.S., “there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat COVID-19.”14

While their guidance does urge Britons to take a vitamin D supplement between October and March “to keep your bones and muscles healthy,” it only recommends a dose of 400 IUs a day, which is easily 20 times lower than what most people require for general health and optimal immune function.

Dose matters when it comes to COVID-19 recovery. Researchers compared daily supplementation with either 5,000 IUs or 1,000 IUs oral vitamin D3 among patients with suboptimal vitamin D levels hospitalized for mild to moderate COVID-19.15 Those in the 5,000 IUs group had a significantly shorter time to recovery for cough and loss of the sense of taste compared to the 1,000 IUs group.

According to the researchers, “The use of 5000 IU vitamin D3 as an adjuvant therapy for COVID-19 patients with suboptimal vitamin D status, even for a short duration, is recommended.”16

If You’re Hospitalized With COVID-19, Ask for Vitamin D

The evidence continues to grow that treatment with vitamin D leads to significantly better outcomes for people hospitalized with COVID-19. In another example, hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received vitamin D3 had a mortality rate of 5%, compared to 20% for those who did not. The researchers explained:17

“… [T]he protective effect of calcifediol remained significant after adjustment for multiple confounder factors related to severity disease even after selecting those subjects who were older (?65 years) and had worse oxygen saturation levels at admission (<96%)." Similarly, 76 consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at Reina Sofia University Hospital in Córdoba,18 Spain, were randomized to receive either standard care or standard care plus vitamin D3 to rapidly increase vitamin D levels. Of 50 treated with vitamin D, only one person was admitted to the ICU. Of 26 who were not treated with vitamin D, 13 (50%) required admission to the hospital. Researchers noted, "Calcifediol seems to be able to reduce severity of the disease."19 Further: "Of the patients treated with calcifediol, none died, and all were discharged, without complications. The 13 patients not treated with calcifediol, who were not admitted to the ICU, were discharged. Of the 13 patients admitted to the ICU, two died and the remaining 11 were discharged." In a previous review,20 the researchers explained that vitamin D has favorable effects during both the early viraemic phase of COVID-19 as well as the later hyperinflammatory phase,21 including for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a lung condition that's common in severe COVID-19 cases, which causes low blood oxygen and fluid buildup in the lungs. "Based on many preclinical studies and observational data in humans, ARDS may be aggravated by vitamin D deficiency and tapered down by activation of the vitamin D receptor," they said22 … "Based on a pilot study, oral calcifediol may be the most promising approach." Even regular "booster" doses of vitamin D, regardless of baseline vitamin D levels, appear to be effective in reducing the risk of mortality in people admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, particularly for the elderly.23,24 Those researchers noted, "This inexpensive and widely available treatment could have positive implications for the management of COVID-19 worldwide, particularly in developing nations."25 Lower Vitamin D Levels May Increase Death Risk Researchers in Indonesia, who looked at data from 780 COVID-19 patients, found those with a vitamin D level between 21 ng/mL (52.5 nmol/L) and 29 ng/mL (72.5 nmol/L) had a 12.55 times higher risk of death than those with a level above 30 ng/mL.26 Having a level below 20 ng/mL was associated with a 19.12 times higher risk of death. A "majority of the COVID-19 cases with insufficient and deficient Vitamin D status died," they added,27 suggesting that research is needed to look into the role of vitamin D supplementation on COVID-19 outcomes. One such study, a systematic review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation,28 included 13 studies involving 2,933 COVID-19 patients. 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. When it comes to data to support the use of vitamin D for COVID-19, 87 studies have been performed by 784 scientists. The results show:29 53% improvement in 28 treatment trials 56% improvement in 59 sufficiency studies 63% improvement in 16 treatment mortality results A number of clinical trials are also underway looking further into the use of vitamin D for COVID-19,30 including one by Harvard Medical School researchers looking into whether taking daily vitamin D reduces COVID-19 disease severity in those newly diagnosed as well as reduces risk of infection in household contacts.31 'A Simple and Inexpensive Measure' Some positive advances have already occurred that could make this potentially lifesaving strategy more widely used. The French National Academy of Medicine released a press release in May 2020, referring to the use of vitamin D as a "simple and inexpensive measure that is reimbursed by the French National Health Insurance" and detailing the importance of vitamin D for COVID-19.32 For COVID-19 patients over 60, they recommend vitamin D testing and if deficiency is found, a bolus dose of 50,000 to 100,000 IU. For anyone under the age of 60 who receives a positive COVID-19 test, they advise taking 800 IUs to 1,000 IUs of vitamin D per day. A vitamin D review paper published in the journal33 Nutrients in April 2020 recommends higher amounts, however, stating: "To reduce the risk of infection, it is recommended that people at risk of influenza and/or COVID-19 consider taking 10,000 IU/d of vitamin D3 for a few weeks to rapidly raise 25(OH)D concentrations, followed by 5000 IU/d. The goal should be to raise 25(OH)D concentrations above 40-60 ng/mL (100-150 nmol/L). For treatment of people who become infected with COVID-19, higher vitamin D3 doses might be useful." The best way to know how much vitamin D you need is to have your levels tested. Data from GrassrootsHealth's D*Action studies suggest the optimal level for health and disease prevention is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL, while the cutoff for sufficiency appears to be around 40 ng/mL. In Europe, the measurements you're looking for are 150 to 200 nmol/L and 100 nmol/L respectively.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/08/vitamin-d-and-covid-19.aspx

Lobbyists are professional advocates whose job it is to influence political decisions. According to the law, a lobbyist cannot pay a politician directly to secure a vote. However, the industry has found several ways of working around this restriction. One way is to organize a fundraiser for the candidate they want to influence.1

The fundraiser helps support the candidate’s reelection and term in office and the lobbyist can talk with a candidate about their legislative concerns. Lobbyists can spend big money to influence decisions that ultimately yield much more money.

For example, one yearlong analysis by the Sunlight Foundation2 found that for every dollar spent influencing politicians, corporations received $760 from the government. This is a 76,000% return on their investment. The Sunlight Foundation examined 14 million records to reach this result. According to the Foundation, in 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that political donors do not receive anything in return for their donations.3

In the landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the justices wrote that corporate money spent on federal elections “do[es] not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”4 STAT analyzed data gathered in 2020 and discovered many health care decisions are in the hands of pharmaceutical companies that are making big bucks.

Your Health Care Decision in the Hands of Big Pharma

In a series titled “Prescription Politics,” STAT5 analyzed lobbyist expenditures in the 2020 elections at the state and federal levels. The data showed that the top pharmaceutical lobbyist in 2020 was Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). They earned this spot having spent $25.9 million on lobbying efforts.6

Going back for a minute to the research from the Sunlight Foundation, if their estimation holds true and you do the math, the $25.9 million investment by PhRMA may ultimately net the industry $19.6 billion. One area where many states have fought the pharmaceutical industry is over the high price of drugs.

Lawmakers in Oregon have tried several strategies to lower drug prices and nearly every proposal has failed. When STAT looked at campaign contributions, they found two-thirds of the state legislature in Oregon had cashed at least one contribution check from the drug industry.

An analysis of other states found more dramatic results in Louisiana, California and Illinois. Documentation showed 84.4% of lawmakers in Louisiana, 81.7% in California and 76.3% in Illinois had accepted and cashed a check from the pharmaceutical industry.7

During the 2020 election campaign, the pharmaceutical industry wrote 10,000 checks that totaled more than $9 million. The STAT analysis found in 2019 and 2020, 2,467 state legislators nationwide had used Big Pharma cash to support their campaigns.

While many of the state campaign contributions were relatively small, other state and federal lawmakers cashed much larger checks as the industry focused on donating to legislators in key positions:8,9

Chad Mayes — Mayes is the vice chair on the Committee on Health for the California State Assembly10 and he accepted $79,600.
Tim Knopp — Vice chair of the Oregon Senate health care committee, Knopp accepted $25,000. This was the largest contribution from a single trade group, PhRMA.
Richard Hudson — U.S. Rep. Hudson, R-N.C., holds a seat on the Energy and Health subcommittee,11 which oversees health care legislation. He accepted $139,500. According to Open Secrets,12 his donations from pharmaceutical and health industries totaled $275,980.
Thom Tillis — U.S. Sen. Tillis, R-N.C., holds a seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee13 that oversees intellectual property law. He wrote a bill to expand the industry’s patent protection. He accepted $471,489 in pharmaceutical and health industry contributions.14
Anna Eshoo — Rep. Eshoo, D-Calif., chairs the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and has taken more money over her career than any other member of the House in California, totaling more than $1.6 million.15

These are just a few of the state and federal legislators who are taking money from the drug industry to fund their campaigns, which gives the industry a front row seat to influence the lawmaker. Constance Bagley, consultant and former Yale professor, spoke with STAT about campaign contributions, saying:16

“A campaign contribution gets you access. Legislators will say, ‘Well, that doesn’t mean I’m being bribed.’ But frankly, my view is that if you get immediate access if you give a contribution, and you don’t get immediate access if you don’t, it’s hard to say that it’s not getting you something.”

Bipartisan Big Pharma Support Funded Congressional Campaigns

The analysis of the state and federal campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry shows the industry takes a bipartisan approach to influencing legislators. In other words, it is not an ideology the industry supports, but rather their own bottom line.

In 2020, $4.5 million was donated to Democrats on the state level and $4.4 million to Republicans.17 Although the industry appears to have an interest in preventing the Democratic Party from controlling the White House and Congress, during 2020 $7.1 million was spent on Republican candidates and $6.6 million was spent on Democratic candidates.18

In the federal elections, STAT found that taking drug money increased the potential the candidates would be elected.19 Once elected, the drug industry and lobbyists continue to extend perks to the legislators by offering them lucrative jobs once they leave office, which has become known as the “revolving door.”

This encourages the lawmakers to protect the best interest of their future employers, the lobbyists who are representing the pharmaceutical industry. Former lobbyist and author Jack Abramoff was convicted on felony charges for fraud and conspiracy as a lobbyist and “became a symbol of the excesses of Washington influence peddling.”20

When interviewed by Lesley Stahl in 2011, he characterized lobbyists’ relationships with lawmakers this way:21

“When we would become friendly with an office and they were important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say or my staff would say to him or her at some point, ‘You know, when you’re done working on the Hill, we’d very much like you to consider coming to work for us.’

Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to ’em, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they’re gonna do. And not only that, they’re gonna think of things we can’t think of to do.”

State campaign finance laws differ across the U.S. In some cases, corporations can donate directly to lawmakers and in other states there are no contribution limits. Maribeth Guarino, a health care advocate for the nonprofit Oregon State Public Interest Research Group, talked about the fight in Oregon to lower prescription prices, saying:22

“Pharma is fighting us hard in any way that they can: By campaign contributions, by lobbying, whatever angle they can get to gain a foothold. Oregon has no contribution limits for campaigns. Pharmaceutical companies can spend as much as they think it’ll take to win.”

Political Action Committees Exploit a Legal Loophole

In some states it is illegal for industries, businesses and corporations to donate directly to candidates. However, that has not stopped the industry from finding a legal loophole that allows them to continue to influence candidates. Companies form political action committees (PACs) to raise and spend money that influences elections.

A PAC can give up to $5,000 to a single candidate committee or up to $15,000 each year to a national party committee.23 A PAC can also give $5,000 annually to any other PAC and receive up to $5,000 from any individual, PAC or party committee annually.

According to STAT, these PACs are often funded by contributions from industry executive and corporate leadership. In their analysis of the data, they found that legislators could directly receive campaign contributions from a PAC, and they could also be funneled through the legislators’ separate PAC campaign group.

This allows the industry to donate twice to the legislature — individually and through their PAC. While legislators may create their own PAC, others, like the Blue Dog PAC,24 are affiliated with a group of legislators and are not directly linked to an individual member of Congress.

STAT found that the Pfizer drug company used its PAC to write 1,048 checks in 43 states to lawmakers and candidates.25 A spokesperson from Pfizer said in a statement that the donations are:26

“… part of our overall efforts to advance public policies that support the health needs of the patients we serve. Even during our important work for the development of a safe and effective Covid-19 vaccine, we remained laser-focused on advocating for state laws that support scientific innovation and lower out-of-pocket costs.”

PhRMA wrote fewer checks but spent more money than any other drug industry group, totaling $1.58 million.27 A spokesperson for PhRMA talked about the breadth and depth of the group’s involvement in state and federal legislatures in a statement, commenting they were monitoring 220 bills in Washington and 200 state proposals in 44 states. Each of these bills had an impact on biopharma companies.

In early 2019, the pharmaceutical industry was faced with criticism over drug prices and lobbyists were fighting a wave of bills that sought to cap prices or add transparency requirements.

This changed in 2020 when major drug makers developed a COVID-19 vaccine in record time for which they are not held responsible for related adverse effects or death.28 Guarino commented on the orchestrated reversal in public opinion:29

“They’ve become very popular in the last year because of their efforts to create and develop and deliver vaccines. But when it comes to cost, the public is still frustrated, still paying out of pocket, still hurting.”

Big Pharma Profiting From Pandemic Response

One example of the high drug prices during the pandemic is remdesivir. This antiviral drug was initially evaluated in 2014 for the Ebola outbreak.30 It cost taxpayers $70.5 million, and that number may be higher.31 After disappointing results for Ebola, it was brought out again in the early months of 2020 for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite initial estimates showing the cost to produce a finished product was $10,32 drugmaker Gilead charges the government $2,340 and private insurers $3,120.33 The estimate to produce remdesivir was made by The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER).34

ICER revised this cost range to between $10 and $600 for a 10-day course after three producers in Bangladesh and India reported developing the drug in a price range of $590 to $710 for a 10-day course. You’ll find more about Remdesivir and the pricing model in “Remdesivir Is a Scam Like Tamiflu.”

As I wrote in “Just How Powerful Is Big Pharma?” the Wellcome Trust has been a major player in the COVID-19 pandemic and is part of the technocratic globalist network. Wellcome is the largest charity in the U.K. that funds “innovative biomedical research.”35

The director, Jeremy Farrar, holds a position in the U.K. Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and a board seat with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which gave $1 billion to COVID-19 vaccine development.

Wellcome is heavily invested in companies manufacturing the vaccine and reported gains of $4.5 billion from investments in 2020, which the BMJ notes36 is “three times more money than the trust gave away in charity.”

The cost of the vaccine to the government has also been called into question. Thus far, the price has been set by government contracts since only governments have been purchasing the COVID-19 vaccine. However, as has been pointed out, different countries pay different prices.37

For example, South Africa paid more than twice the price per dose paid by the European Union and the EU is paying less for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine than the U.S.

Drug companies are playing a long game, looking beyond the current pandemic response and anticipating the vaccine will be as routine as the flu vaccination. A journalist from Managed Healthcare Executive reports Pfizer’s CFO Frank D’Amelio spoke at an earnings call in February 2021, saying:38

“Now let’s go beyond a pandemic-pricing environment, the environment we’re currently in. Obviously, we’re going to get more on price.

And clearly, to your point, the more volume we put through our factories, the lower unit cost will become. So clearly, there’s a significant opportunity for those margins to improve once we get beyond the pandemic environment that we’re in.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/08/pharma-funded-lawmakers-campaigns-in-2020.aspx

More than a year ago, in February 2020, a group of 27 scientists wrote a letter published in The Lancet condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”1

Although The Lancet — like other medical journals — requires contributors to disclose financial or personal interests that might be viewed as possible conflicts of interests with their submissions, the 27 authors declared they had “no competing interests.”

June 21, 2021, The Lancet published an addendum admitting that “some readers have questioned the validity of this disclosure, particularly as it relates to one of the authors, Peter Daszak.”2

As a result, The Lancet asked the 27 signers to “re-evaluate” their competing interests and to declare any “financial and nonfinancial relationships that may be relevant to interpreting the content of their manuscript.” So far, Daszak has updated his previous claim of having no competing interests to include a 416-word disclosure statement clarifying that, indeed, he had several conflicts of interest.

First, he is the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization that receives funding from a “range of U.S. Government funding agencies and non-governmental sources.”

Second — and most importantly — Daszak also explained that, although its work with China is currently unfunded, he and the Alliance have collaborated with various universities and organizations on research in China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Specifically, this work includes studies of bats and viruses, including “the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines.”

The Lancet Accused of Kowtowing to China

The COVID pandemic has brought attention to any number of problems within the academic arena. Disturbingly, we’ve discovered that scientific journals held in high regard for many decades — The Lancet has been around for 198 years — are colluding to censor important facts and stifle scientific debate. The Lancet statement deriding the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory to be ignored is a prime example. As reported by the Daily Mail, June 26, 2021:3

“The Lancet letter, signed by 27 experts, played a key part in silencing scientific, political and media discussion of any idea that this pandemic might have begun with a lab incident rather than spilling over naturally from animals.

It was even reportedly used by Facebook to flag articles exploring the lab leak hypothesis as ‘false information’ … Yet it emerged later that The Lancet statement was covertly drafted by British scientist Peter Daszak — a long-term collaborator with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was carrying out high-risk research on bat coronaviruses and had known safety issues …

Four months later, The Lancet set up a ‘Covid-19 Commission’ to assist governments and scrutinize the origins. It was led by Jeffrey Sachs … Incredibly, he backed Daszak to lead his commission’s 12-person taskforce investigating Covid’s origins — joined by five fellow signatories to The Lancet statement …

Last week The Lancet finally ‘recused’ him from its commission and published an ‘addendum’ to its statement detailing some of his Chinese links. Yet critics say the journal has still failed to admit that six more signatories to that February statement have ties to Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance as directors or partners.

‘It would have been better for The Lancet to have stated that Daszak’s and other signers’ previous declarations were untruthful and to have attached an editorial expression of concern,’ said Richard Ebright, a bio-security expert and professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

Now The Mail on Sunday has learned that The Lancet is set to publish a second statement by these signatories that presses the case that Covid probably emerged through natural ‘zoonotic’ transmission from animals to humans.”

Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet is now being criticized for his long defense and support of the Chinese regime, and is accused of using The Lancet to pursue political causes and stifle scientific debate.4

In January 2021, 14 global experts submitted a letter to The Lancet in which they argued that “the natural origin is not supported by conclusive arguments and that a lab origin cannot be formally discarded.” Horton rejected the submission, stating it was “not a priority” for the journal.5

The Lancet also published an entirely made up study claiming hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. This fraudulent paper made the media rounds and led to countries banning the drug’s use against COVID-19.

Any medical journal worthy of a good reputation needs to be an open platform for wide-ranging debate. Horton’s refusal to publish the other side of the origins argument has without a doubt damaged the credibility and reputation of the journal. Tory MP Bob Seely told the Daily Mail:6

“The claims of a cover-up over the most important scientific issue of our time grow stronger by the day. It is vital we get to the truth over what appears to have been a cover-up on the pandemic origins with the collusion of journals such as The Lancet.”

Let’s also remember that The Lancet published an entirely fake study claiming hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. This paper using completely fabricated data made the media rounds and led to countries banning the drug’s use against COVID-19.

This too raises serious questions about the journal’s credibility. How was this fraud not discovered during the peer review process? Could it be that The Lancet allowed it because it would help protect the roll-out of profitable new COVID drugs and “vaccines”?

What’s Behind Science Journals’ Censorship?

What could possibly be behind science journals’ decision to silence debate in what appears to be a concerted effort to protect Chinese interests? In a June 18, 2021, article,7 Matt Ridley suggests it might have to do with the fact that “scientific papers have become increasingly dependent on the fees that Chinese scientists pay to publish in them, plus advertisements from Chinese firms and subscriptions from Chinese institutions.”

The Lancet is not alone in its less than objective stance on China. In 2017, the Nature journal admitted it censors articles containing words like “Taiwan,” “Tibet” and “cultural revolution” in its Chinese editions at the request of the Chinese government.8 “In April 2020 Nature ran an editorial apologizing for its ‘error’ in ‘associating the virus with Wuhan’ in its news coverage,” Ridley writes.9

Nature also attached an editorial note to several old articles, saying they were being misused “as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered,” and that “there is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.”

One of those articles, published in 2015, was titled “Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research.” The research being questioned was done by WIV researchers.

Gaslighting Alert: Abusers Now Play the Victim Card

For the past year and a half, scientists, doctors, reporters and anyone else who dared point out blatant discrepancies in the natural origins narrative have been attacked and painted as quacks and dangerous conspiracy theorists. They’ve been censored, deplatformed and publicly defamed and shamed. Many a fine career has been ruined or seriously tarnished by baseless personal attacks.

Now that undeniable evidence is finally reaching critical mass, natural origin defenders are playing the victim card. For example, Amy Maxmen, Ph.D., a journalist for Nature for the past 13 years, has been covering the SARS-CoV-2 origin debate. In a May 26, 2021, tweet, she stated the “debate over a lab-leak has become toxic and risky.”10

Angela Rasmussen, Ph.D., a natural origin proponent, responded saying that “the origins debate has become a toxic milieu dominated by opportunists, dilettantes, racist/misogynist assholes, and trolls.”11 Rasmussen claims she’s been personally attacked and abused for trying to explain the natural origin theory.

The irony is that the same people who abused others for talking about the lab leak theory are now getting a taste of their own medicine, and they don’t like it. They’re the ones who have been peddling misinformation all along, and as the masses are catching on to the deceit, they’re catching heat.

To deflect and finger-point yet again, abusers are now playing the victim. Another tactic is to claim that attacks on them are attacks on science itself. Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, has stated this on more than one occasion already.12,13 In a June 2021 MSNBC interview, Fauci said criticizing him was “very dangerous,” and that:14,15

“A lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science because all of the things I have spoken about from the very beginning have been fundamentally based on science … If you are trying to get at me as a public health official and scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you are attacking science.”

His comments didn’t go over well, based on social media responses.16 Reporter Glenn Greenwald’s Tweet will suffice to summarize the general consensus:17

“Beyond the dangerous arrogance and pomposity of proclaiming ‘anyone who criticizes me is attacking Science’ — thus placing himself off-limits from questioning — he *admitted* he purposely issued false, anti-science, politicized claims … Once you *admit* that you made false statements in violation of The Science:tm:, you don’t then get to equate yourself to The Science:tm: such that attacks on you are attacks on it.”

Another example is that of Dr. Peter Hotez, one of the most shockingly hateful people in the medical field who has publicly stated he wants to “snuff out” vaccine skeptics and has called for cyberwarfare measures to be deployed against me and others who share vaccine safety information. Coincidentally, this public plea was published in the journal Nature.18

This man, who has spewed all sorts of vile language at parents of vaccine-injured children and called for physical harm and imprisonment of people who don’t agree with the one-size-fits-all vaccine agenda is now complaining about getting bombarded with “anti-vaxx hate speech.”19

Billions of Dollars at Stake

To circle back to the question of why prominent and previously respected science journals are publishing propaganda and suppressing open discussion, the most likely reason — aside from their dependence on Chinese publishing fees and advertising dollars — is the fact that if SARS-CoV-2 is proven to be a manmade virus that escaped from a lab (regardless of its location), billions of dollars in funding for gain-of-function research and even vaccine research could evaporate.

As a publisher of research, it makes sense that journals would be willing to protect the research industry as a whole, and provide a platform for chosen spokespeople — such as Hotez — who shamelessly promote the official narrative, no matter how tenuous or unscientific it might be, or how clear the conflicts of interest.

Here’s another case in point: June 28, 2021, Bloomberg tweeted out a short video featuring Danielle Anderson, an Australian WIV virologist who left Wuhan shortly before the pandemic broke out. Anderson says she “does not believe” the virus is manmade. In response, Hotez tweeted:20

“And we’re in agreement: SARS-2 coronavirus has natural origins, was not produced through GOF [gain-of-function] research, and probably has nothing to do with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Coincidentally, Anderson is also on The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission,21 the same Commission that Daszak was on. Her Lancet Commission bio22 says nothing about her work at the WIV, only that she is a senior research fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Why is that? Is Anderson’s link to the WIV yet another “random coincidence” that has no bearing on her message? Or is it part of a pattern?

I believe the engineering of viruses and other pathogens is one of the greatest threats to life on earth at this point. We lucked out with SARS-CoV-2, as it turned out to be far less lethal than initially predicted. The next time we might not be so lucky.

As reported in July 2020, China has plans to erect high-security biolabs in all of its 23 provinces, despite concerns about leakage risks.23 Worldwide, there are hundreds of laboratories where this kind of research is taking place on a daily basis. Considering the history of lab leaks, it’s only a matter of time before something truly nasty gets out.

This is why we must get to the bottom of where SARS-CoV-2 came from. We must know if it was manmade because, if so, we need to ban gain-of-function research aimed at making pathogens more dangerous to humans.

Yes, there are harmless gain-of-function experiments, and that’s not what we’re talking about here, although, harmless experiments can, of course, be steps in a process that ultimately results in a dangerous bioweapon. Overall, I think we need to seriously reconsider the need and value of genetic manipulation of viruses and the creation of synthetic ones.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/07/science-journals-disinformation-campaign.aspx

June 11, 2021, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology,1 Dr. Robert Malone, spoke out on the DarkHorse podcast about the potential dangers of COVID-19 gene therapy injections, hosted by Bret Weinstein, Ph.D. The podcast was quickly erased from YouTube and Weinstein was issued a warning.

To censor a scientific discussion with the actual inventor of the technology used to manufacture these COVID-19 shots is beyond shocking. But the censorship of Malone goes even further than that. As reported in the video above, Malone’s scientific accomplishments are also being scrubbed.

Wikipedia Scrubs Malone’s Scientific Contributions

As recently as June 14, 2021, Malone’s contributions were extensively included in the historical section on RNA vaccines’ Wikipedia page. He was listed as having co-developed a “high-efficiency in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection system using cationic liposomes” in 1989.

In 1990, he demonstrated that “in-vitro transcribed mRNA could deliver genetic information into the cell to produce proteins within living cell tissue.” Malone was also part of the team that conducted the first mRNA vaccine experiments. In short, his scientific knowledge of mRNA vaccines is unquestionable.

Two days later, June 16, 2021, just five days after Malone’s appearance on the DarkHorse podcast, his name was removed from the Wikipedia entry. Now, all of a sudden, the discovery of mRNA drug delivery is accredited to nameless researchers at the Salk Institute and the University of California, and his 1990 research confirming that injected mRNA can produce proteins in cell tissue is accredited to nameless scientists at the University of Wisconsin.

Hungarian biochemist Katalin Kariko is now suddenly praised by mainstream media as the inventor of mRNA vaccines.2 It’s a convenient choice, considering Kariko is the senior vice president of BioNTech, the creator of Pfizer’s COVID injection. Kariko’s unofficial biography also includes being a communist-era police informant.

As noted in the featured video, this goes beyond censoring. It’s revisionism — a “1984”-style rewriting of history to fit the official narrative of the day. The danger of this trend is incalculable.

What Did Malone Say About mRNA Vaccines?

Watch the latest video at foxnews.com

The take-home messages Malone delivered on Weinstein’s podcast were that government is not being transparent about the risks, that no one should be forced to take these experimental injections, that the risks outweigh the benefits in children, teens and young adults, and that those who have recovered from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection should not get the injection. In a June 24, 2021, interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News (above), Malone said:3

“I am of the opinion that people have the right to decide whether to accept vaccines or not, especially since these are experimental vaccines … My concern is I know there are risks but we don’t have access to the data … We don’t really have the information we need to make a reasonable decision.”

A significant part of why we don’t have adequate data is because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration purposely decided not to require stringent post-vaccination data collection and evaluation. This too was revealed in Malone’s DarkHorse interview.

Why did the FDA opt for lax data capture on a brand-new, never before used technology slated for mass distribution? Clearly, without post-injection data capture, there’s no way to evaluate the safety of these products. You cannot identify danger signals if you don’t have a process for capturing effects data and evaluating all of it.

First Risk-Benefit Analysis of COVID Shots

Malone also points out that risk-benefit analyses have not been done, and that’s another objection he has. What data we do have, however, indicate these COVID-19 injections could be the most dangerous medical product we’ve ever seen.

For example, the reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots now exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,4 which historically has been the most hazardous. The COVID shots are also seven times more dangerous than the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which had a 25-per-million severe side effect rate.5

Coincidentally, a peer-reviewed risk-benefit analysis6 was in fact published in the medical journal Vaccines the same day Malone spoke to Carlson. It revealed that the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent one COVID-19 death using the Pfizer injection is between 9,000 and 50,000, and that for every three COVID-19 deaths prevented, two are killed by the injection. According to the authors, “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”

The Spike Protein Is a Bioactive Cytotoxin

In his DarkHorse interview, Malone noted that he had warned the FDA that the spike protein — which the COVID-19 shots instruct your cells to make — could pose a health risk.

The FDA dismissed his concerns, saying they did not believe the spike protein was biologically active. Besides, the vaccine makers specifically designed the injections so that the spike protein would stick and not float about freely. As it turns out, they were wrong on both accounts.

The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries. Despite that, Pfizer opted not to perform standard reproductive toxicology studies.

It’s since been established that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein does not stay near the injection site,7 and that it is biologically active. It is responsible for the most severe effects seen in COVID-19, such as bleeding disorders, blood clots throughout the body, heart problems and neurological damage.

These are the same problems we now see in a staggering number of people having received one or two shots of COVID-19 gene therapy. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein also has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries.8,9,10

Despite that, Pfizer opted not to perform standard reproductive toxicology studies. For more in-depth information about how the spike protein can wreck your health, see my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D.

COVID Jab Campaign Violates Bioethics Laws

In his interviews with Weinstein and Carlson, Malone stressed that there are bioethical principles and bioethics laws in place to prevent undue risks in medical experimentation, and that those laws are currently being violated. He went into far more detail on this in a May 30, 2021, essay:11

“… the adult public are basically research subjects that are not being required to sign informed consent due to EUA waiver. But that does not mean that they do not deserve the full disclosure of risks that one would normally require in an informed consent document for a clinical trial.

And now some national authorities are calling on the deployment of EUA vaccines to adolescents and the young, which by definition are not able to directly provide informed consent to participate in clinical research — written or otherwise.

The key point here is that what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research. This goes back to the Geneva convention and the Helsinki declaration.12 There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects.”

Experimentation without proper informed consent also violates the Nuremberg Code,13 which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation. This set of principles were developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again.

In the U.S., we also have the Belmont report,14 cited in Malone’s essay, which spells out the ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research, covered under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46 (subpart A). The Belmont report describes informed consent as follows:

“Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.

While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that the consent process can be analyzed as containing three elements: information, comprehension and voluntariness.”

Americans, indeed the people of the entire planet, are being prevented from freely accessing and sharing information about these gene therapies. Worse, we are misled by fact checkers and Big Tech platforms that ban or put misinformation labels on anyone and anything discussing them in a critical or questioning way. The same censorship also prevents comprehension of risk.

Lastly, government and any number of vaccine stakeholders are encouraging companies and schools to make these experimental injections mandatory, which violates the rule of voluntariness. Government and private businesses are also creating massive incentives to participate in this experiment, including million-dollar lotteries and full college scholarships. None of this is ethical or even legal. As noted by Malone in his essay:15

“… as these vaccines are not yet market authorized (licensed), coercion of human subjects to participate in medical experimentation is specifically forbidden. Therefore, public health policies which meet generally accepted criteria for coercion to participate in clinical research are forbidden.

For example, if I were to propose a clinical trial involving children and entice participation by giving out ice cream to those willing to participate, any institutional human subjects safety board (IRB) in the United States would reject that protocol.

If I were to propose a clinical research protocol wherein the population of a geographic region would lose personal liberties unless 70% of the population participated in my study, once again, that protocol would be rejected by any US IRB based on coercion of subject participation. No coercion to participate in the study is allowed.

In human subject clinical research, in most countries of the world this is considered a bright line that cannot be crossed. So, now we are told to waive that requirement without even so much as open public discussion being allowed? In conclusion, I hope that you will join me; stop to take a moment and consider for yourself what is going on. The logic seems clear to me.

1) An unlicensed medical product deployed under emergency use authorization (EUA) remains an experimental product under clinical research development.

2) EUA authorized by national authorities basically grants a short-term right to administer the research product to human subjects without written informed consent.

3) The Geneva Convention, the Helsinki declaration, and the entire structure which supports ethical human subjects research requires that research subjects be fully informed of risks and must consent to participation without coercion.”

Clearly, Malone is preeminently qualified to speak on the topic of COVID gene therapy: Not only is he a highly ethical physician committed to integrity, but he actually invented the very technology and performed the first mRNA vaccine studies. The fact that he is now censored by Big Tech and outright being erased from scientific history is a crime in and of itself, and something that should worry just about everyone.

This egregious example of censorship vividly demonstrates just how degenerated the media has become. The only possible explanation is that anyone or any piece of information that interferes with as many people getting the COVID jab is removed. Nothing that counters this narrative is tolerated despite every bit of information is making it clear that these COVID jabs are the biggest crime against mankind in the history of humanity.

If Malone can be erased, what chance do the rest of us have to not encounter the same fate? The parallels between everyday reality and the fictional but uncannily prophetic book “1984” are mounting by the day. Where it will take us is obvious. We’ll end up in a world where faithful adherence to the lies of the day is the only choice. To prevent such a fate, we have to get engaged and expose the lies by sharing facts, data and truth in every which way we can.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/06/mrna-vaccine-inventor-erased-from-history-books.aspx

In the early months of 2019, the pharmaceutical industry was under fire from legislators and the media about the exorbitant prices being charged in the U.S. for drugs. According to one poll reported by Ars Technica,1 58% of people in the U.S. held a negative view of the industry.

The price hike on one life-saving medication — EpiPen — rose from $50 in 2007 for a single autoinjector to $600 in 2018 for a pack of two.2 One reason the price rose so dramatically was that the maker, Mylan, began selling the injectors in two packs only — leaving the door open to charge whatever they felt like for that double-dose package.3

The move subsequently led to a class action lawsuit alleging “the two-pack sale of EpiPens is a pretense for charging unconscionable prices” and that Mylan is “misstating the science of EpiPen dosage in order to purportedly justify its price gouging,’ in violation of various state deceptive and unfair trade practice and consumer protection laws,” according to MarketWatch.

Profits for the drug company rose to $1.1 billion each year for the drug since it is next to impossible for people with severe allergic reactions to go without an EpiPen. But just when it looked like governmental agencies and legislators were considering looking at pricing policies, the pharmaceutical industry used the 2020 pandemic to reverse their public image when they were called upon to develop a vaccine for a viral infection at “Warp Speed.”4

Now, despite the fact the industry holds no responsibility for adverse events associated with the vaccine,5 including death, 2020 gave Big Pharma the needed impetus to overcome their lowest reputation score since public opinion of the industry began being measured in 2001.6

During 2020, Big Pharma as a whole worked hard to portray itself as a benevolent industry that poured billions of dollars into the creation of drugs and vaccines with the intent of protecting public health. As part of that group, biotech giant Gilead Sciences is no different.

The company manufactures remdesivir,7 which is the antiviral drug favored by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the chief medical adviser to the president. However, while the chief medical officer of the U.S. promotes remdesivir, scientific evidence demonstrates the drug has a dark side, and it is not effective.

Fauci’s Favored Drug Has a Dark Secret

The FDA fully approved remdesivir October 22, 2020, for use in adults and children in the treatment of COVID-19.8 This came after the emergency use authorization was issued May 1, 2020, for remdesivir in patients who had “suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19.”

Remdesivir is an antiviral drug that is a nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor. It was tested in primates as a treatment for Ebola and found to have some effectiveness against the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2002 and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak in 2012.9

Before this, Gilead had produced a remarkably similar drug called tenofovir for HIV.10 Remdesivir is nearly a copy of Gilead’s HIV drug and is also a reverse transcriptase inhibitor. According to a paper published in Molecules, “Reverse transcriptase is an enzyme in the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and many retroviruses that convert the RNA template to DNA.”11

The enzyme helps to synthesize a strand of DNA that complements the RNA template. Several nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors are anti-HIV agents.12 This may support the hypothesis that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a chimera.

The term chimera comes from mythology and describes an organism or individual in which the body has cells from genetically distinct organisms. In Greek mythology,13 a chimera was a fire-breathing monster that had the face of a lion, the tail of a snake and the wings of a dragon. In a review of the use of remdesivir for COVID-19, one research team wrote:14

“Other clinically approved nucleoside/nucleotide analogues, such as the hepatitis C drug sofosbuvir and HIV drugs alovudine and zidovudine, have also been shown to be active against the SARS RdRp [RNA dependent RNA polymerase] in in vitro biochemical assays and might have the potential to be repurposed against COVID-19.”

The Mountain View Voice15 reports Fauci believes the remdesivir trials were reminiscent of research that had been conducted nearly 34 years ago when he and his colleagues were analyzing the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

The relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and human retroviruses is complex. To date, there are three retroviruses that scientists have identified that infect humans. Retroviruses are RNA genetic material that changes the host DNA. In 2019, the three known retroviruses that may cause human illness were HIV and types 1 and 2 human T-cell lymphotropic viruses.16

In “The Many Ways in Which COVID Vaccines May Harm Your Health,” you can watch my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., where we discuss one of the more dangerous parts of SARS-CoV-2 — the spike protein envelope, common in retroviruses, that causes many of the disease challenges doctors are fighting from COVID-19.

Despite Negative Trial Results FDA Approved Remdesivir

Pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences was given at least $70.5 million in taxpayer money to develop remdesivir, and that number may be higher.17 The recommended treatment dose for remdesivir spans five to 10 days, all of which must be administered in the hospital.18

Gilead Sciences charges the government $2,340 and private insurance $3,120,19 which is well above the drug maker’s estimated cost for production, which is between $10 and $600 for a 10-day course.20

But the price tag does not reflect the effectiveness of the drug. There were several negative trial results, and yet the FDA approved the drug anyway. A few trials were stopped early when participants experienced significant side effects. Some scientists believed the data suggested the drug could shorten recovery time.21

However, the drug has not produced adequate results or proved to reduce the potential for death in those with severe disease. Worse yet, the treatment comes with an added price tag of potential kidney damage.22

While Fauci called the results of studies that had not been peer-reviewed from a pharmaceutical-sponsored clinical trial “highly significant” and referred to remdesivir as the “new standard of care,”23 the World Health Organization had a different recommendation. Based on evidence from the SOLIDARITY trial, the WHO conditionally recommended against using remdesivir in hospitalized patients.24

Fauci’s support of an antiviral drug that hasn’t lived up to the hype helped support the company’s falling revenues. During the first quarter of 2021, remdesivir grossed $1.5 billion in sales, helping boost Gilead’s total bottom line of $6.4 billion in revenue during that same quarter — a 16% increase over the first quarter of 2020. But when revenue for remdesivir was excluded, revenue actually plummeted 11%, at a disappointing $4.9 billion.25

Remdesivir Not Backed by Results

The data from science trials for remdesivir have been disappointing. One study published in The New England Journal of Medicine26 concluded that the drug worked better than a placebo and so was stopped early for benefit. However, as Peter Gotzsche from The Institute for Scientific Freedom wrote, this benefit was not a reduction in mortality from COVID-19, but rather shortened hospital days.27

The placebo-controlled study demonstrated the drug could reduce hospital stays from 15 days to 11 days. Yet, other physicians were finding the drug was keeping people in the hospital longer. Although Dr. George Ralls with Orlando Health reported they saw positive benefits with the drug, he also attributed it to longer hospital stays in order to complete the course of treatment.28

As I reported in “The New COVID-19 Medication Isn’t Backed by Results,” in the middle of the study (April 20, 2020), the researchers changed the primary outcome measures so patients only had to meet three of an original eight categories,29 and none of the three included measurement of mortality.
In the last update to Clinical Trials30 before publication, the researchers had one primary outcome measurement — time to recovery. The idea for the drug was to keep people from dying, but the researchers stopped measuring that important outcome.

In another study published in The Lancet,31 researchers evaluated remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint measurement was how long it took for clinical improvement. The drug was stopped early because 12% of the patients experienced adverse events and researchers found there were no statistically significant clinical benefits.

Just before the release of the studies in The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, Bloomberg32 reported the WHO accidentally posted results of a third study. The summary was removed, but details showed “the drug wasn’t associated with patients getting better more quickly; and 13.9% of patients getting the drug died, versus 12.8% getting standard care.”

Ivermectin Is Effective but Intentionally Suppressed

While researchers using remdesivir struggle to identify and prove the drug is effective against COVID-19, data clearly show ivermectin can prevent it and when used early can keep people from progressing to the hyper inflammatory phase of the disease.

In fact, ivermectin can even be used late in the disease to help critically ill patients recover. The drug has a long history of use as an antiparasitic33 and has a known safety profile as compared to remdesivir, which has a short history of use.

In the early months of COVID-19, a group of physicians formed the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC).34 The collaboration of the five founding physicians in the group resulted in a protocol that can be used in the hospital and another that can be used as an outpatient. Each of the five founding members has treated critical illness for decades.

The two protocols are available for download on the FLCCC alliance website in multiple languages.35,36 Ivermectin was added to the outpatient and inpatient protocols. Although many of the drugs used in the protocols are now accepted standards of care in many places, the same is not true of ivermectin.

It is important to remember that as others clamor for randomized controlled trials to demonstrate that ivermectin is effective, these become more or less unethical when you can see from clinical evidence that something is working, and you know you’re condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death.

In fact, this is the same argument vaccine makers are using now to justify the elimination of control groups by giving everyone the vaccine.
While the WHO recommended that remdesivir not be used in hospitalized patients based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of pooled data from four randomized trials, the evidence37 they used to recommend that ivermectin not be used in patients with COVID-19 except in clinical trials is based on what they admit is a “high degree of uncertainty.”38

You can read more about the benefits of using ivermectin and how this information is being purposefully suppressed in “COVID, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century.” In the article is a video from DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., in which he interviews Dr. Pierre Kory about the importance of early treatment of COVID-19 and the shameful censoring of information about ivermectin.

It’s no small irony, then, that YouTube deleted this interview, which is why I embedded a Bitchute version. How this interview could possibly be labeled as misinformation is a mystery, considering the entire conversation is about published research and they are both credentialed medical science experts.

Steps to Help Reduce the Severity of the Disease

As I’ve discussed, fear is contagious and is being used to control your behavior. One strategy initially used to funnel the public into vaccination programs revolved around using PCR testing to demonstrate a rising number of cases. However, as I’ve written several times, PCR testing does not accurately diagnose an active infection.

During lockdown, many people put on pandemic pounds that contribute to increasing your risk of getting sick. Instead of depending on drugs and vaccines, I recommend you proactively work to support your immune system using strategies that evidence demonstrates reduces your risk of severe disease.

It has become evident that optimizing your vitamin D level may be the least expensive, easiest and most beneficial strategy to minimize your risk. Making simple lifestyle changes to normalize your blood sugar levels can also help reduce your risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and viral infections such as COVID-19 and flu.

Comorbid conditions that are related to severe disease with COVID-19 include cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes. In “Nearly Half of American Adults Have Cardiovascular Disease,” I summarize strategies that improve the microcirculation in your heart as well as mitochondrial function and insulin resistance, which are related to strong heart health.

It is difficult to control Type 2 diabetes when you rely strictly on medication and do not change the underlying lifestyle factors that have caused the problem. If properly addressed, Type 2 diabetes can be entirely reversible in most people. In “Diabetes Can Increase the Complications of COVID-19,” I discuss some of those dietary and lifestyle choices and offer suggestions for change.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/07/remdesivir-for-covid-19.aspx

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health partnered with Google and Apple to create a smartphone app called MassNotify, which tracks and traces people, advising users of others’ COVID-19 status.

For a tool that claims to have been developed “with a focus on privacy,”1 imagine Massachusetts residents’ surprise when the app suddenly appeared on their Android phones out of nowhere. In a review on the Google Play Store, one shocked parent said:2

“This installed silently on my daughter’s phone without consent or notification. She cannot have installed it herself since we use Family Link and we have to approve all app installs.

I have no idea how they pulled this off, but it had to involve either Google, or Samsung, or both. Normal apps can’t just install themselves. I’m not sure what’s going on here, but this doesn’t count as ‘voluntary.’ We need information, and we need it now, folks.”

The official MassNotify site, operated by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, makes no mention that the app will automatically show up on residents’ phones without consent, stating only that MassNotify is a “new tool that works through smartphones, with a focus on privacy, to alert users who may have been exposed to COVID-19.”3

Reportedly, the feature must be enabled by the user for it to function, but it’s extremely disconcerting that the tool has been automatically added to people’s phones, whether they intend to use it or not.

Residents Alarmed Over ‘Spyware,’ ‘Government Overreach’

Android phone users were understandably alarmed when MassNotify appeared on their devices. The tool “doesn’t have an app icon,” one person reported on Google Play, “you have to go through settings and view all apps. This is a huge privacy and security overstep by [Gov. Charlie Baker] & Google.”4

Other people also described it as “spyware,” while a user on Hacker News wrote, “It’s pure madness that Play Services comes with this sort of backdoor. This is clearly what I would consider a deliberate … vulnerability.”5

In China, COVID-19 tracking apps have been used as surveillance tools in collaboration with its social credit system, raising red flags that this force-installed app could be tracking residents’ movements and contacts without their knowledge and consent. Reviews on the Google Play Store poured in from alarmed citizens worried about privacy violations, with comments such as:6

• “Automatically installed without consent. It has no icon, no way to open this and see what it even does, which is a huge red flag … I think it’s spyware, phishing as the DPH (Department of Public Health).”
• “Force-installed with no authorization or approval. App is hidden on the device to prevent uninstallation. Government overreach and corporate complicity should never be tolerated.”
• “Unethical breach of privacy and a forceful misappropriation of personal property … The degree to which my data is collected or distributed through it has not been disclosed neither in active nor inactive form … I can only conclude and caution others that it is disclosing your whereabouts and social contacts without permission.”

MassNotify ‘Built Into Device Settings,’ Difficult to Remove

When pressed for comment, Google released a statement to the media, but did not address the glaring issue of how or why the system was force-installed without users’ consent. Instead, they only stated:7

“We have been working with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to allow users to activate the Exposure Notifications System directly from their Android phone settings.

This functionality is built into the device settings and is automatically distributed by the Google Play Store, so users don’t have to download a separate app. COVID-19 Exposure Notifications are enabled only if a user proactively turns it on. Users decide whether to enable this functionality and whether to share information through the system to help warn others of possible exposure.”

The MassNotify app was released June 15, 2021, marking the 29th state to launch an app using Google and Apple’s Bluetooth-based Exposure Notifications Express program.

The software framework was first released in April 2020,8 with the goal of allowing users who test positive for COVID-19 to report their results, which then sends out an alert to anyone whose phone crossed paths with the positive case and may have been exposed. The Exposure Notifications Express program acts as a blueprint from which states can implement their own tracking systems without having to develop their own individual apps.

While other states have required users to download an app to use the system, MassNotify was integrated directly into the operating system of Android phones.9 “The contact-tracing feature does not work unless a user manually activates it, but you also can’t get rid of the software,” the Boston Globe reported. “(Meanwhile, Apple added the feature to iPhones months ago, with iOS 13.).”10

Massachusetts Urges Residents to Enable MassNotify

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health is urging residents to enable MassNotify on their cellphones, with Dr. Catherine Brown, state epidemiologist, stating that they’re hoping at least 15% of the state’s population, or more than 1 million people, will opt-in and noting that it could be most useful for those frequenting large workplaces or university campuses.11

Once you opt-in, anonymous codes are shared with other MassNotify users via your phone’s Bluetooth. If within 14 days, you come in close contact — within 6 feet for at least 15 minutes12 — with someone who tests positive, you’ll be notified. If you test positive, you’re expected to “easily and anonymously notify others to stop the spread of COVID-19.”13

The system is working in connection with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which will send a text message with a verification link to those who test positive for COVID-19. The link allows users to share their test result and notify other MassNotify users of their exposure. For those who haven’t opted in to the tool, the link also serves as a tool “to help you enable MassNotify on your phone for future use.”14

Unprecedented, Broad Privacy Risks Uncovered

It’s ironic that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health states that MassNotify is not a contract tracing app,15 yet it’s based on technology developed by Apple and Google that was previously known as the “Privacy-Preserving Contact Tracing Project”16 and is now referred to as the Exposure Notifications API (application programming interface).

In a May 2020 Forbes article by Simon Chandler, he points out that while contact tracing apps “may be cryptographically secure,” they still “threaten our privacy in broader and more insidious ways”:17

“On the one hand, cybersecurity researchers have already argued18 that suitably determined and malevolent bad actors could correlate infected people with other personal info using the API. On the other, the Google-Apple API and any app based on it carry two much more general and dangerous privacy risks.”

First the apps only work if you keep your cellphone with you at all times, with Bluetooth enabled. “Straight away, this is a massive privacy loss,” Chandler notes. “As shown by numerous studies and investigations, smartphones and many of the apps on them track your locations, aside from recording — and sharing — whatever data you enter into them.”19

The other risk is that it’s one more way of “normalizing” something that’s entirely abnormal — the constant use of technology to dictate your freedoms and behavior. “… [W]hile we’re used to ads attempting to prod our consumer behavior, contact-tracing apps will normalize the concept of apps themselves directing and managing at scale how millions of people live and behave,” Chandler pointed out.20

Remember, if you receive a notification that you’ve been in close contact with someone who tested positive, you’ll be expected to quarantine. Many will undoubtedly be doing so unnecessarily, as they won’t end up sick, which means they’ve just given up 14 days of freedom for no reason.

And what happens if you finish quarantining only to go out in public and be notified of an exposure again? Another 14 days in isolation? Further, this seemingly innocent invasion has nefarious consequences. As Chandler put it:21

“Users will get used to the idea of an app telling them when to stay at home and when to go out. Basically, they’ll become more habituated to delegating judgement over how they should behave to apps and digital technology.”

Google’s Manipulation Techniques Are Well Known

Google has been called a dictator with unprecedented power because it relies on techniques of manipulation that have never existed before in human history, according to Robert Epstein, a Harvard trained psychologist who is now a senior research psychologist for the American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology, where for the last decade he has helped expose Google’s manipulative and deceptive practices.

They’re not only a surveillance agency — think about products like Google Wallet, Google Docs, Google Drive and YouTube — but also a censoring agency with the ability to restrict or block access to websites across the internet, thus deciding what you can and cannot see.

Google has also infiltrated education with its Google classrooms, usage of which has skyrocketed during the pandemic, but many aren’t aware that even their children are being tracked. The attorney general of New Mexico filed a suit against Google for its educational tools in its classroom suite, helping to “break through the fog,” Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff said:22

“[The suit is] identifying the huge amounts of data that they’re taking about kids, how they track them across the internet are they integrate it with all the other Google streams of information and have it as a foundation for tracking those children all the way through their adulthood.”

Google also backs Profusa,23 which has developed an injectable biosensor that allows a person’s physiology to be examined at a distance via smartphone connectivity. On a larger scale, Google, Amazon, Twitter and other major tech companies are also tied to the “military-industrial-intelligence-media complex,” to quote Edward Curtin from Off-Guardian.24

All provide invaluable surveillance and censorship functions, and without them the totalitarian control system we now find ourselves caught in wouldn’t be possible.

Mass Protests Can End Privacy Invasions

As we’ve seen in the case of vaccine passports, peaceful protests work to protect personal privacy and freedom. The Pentagon also pulled the plug on Lifelog — a database project aimed at tracking the minutiae of people’s entire existence for national security surveillance purposes25 — February 4, 2004, in response to backlash over privacy concerns.26 (Although that same day, Facebook was launched.27)

If you’re a Massachusetts resident and are unhappy that surveillance software was added to your cellphone without your consent, now’s the time to speak out. The end goal here isn’t about tracking COVID-19 cases in your hometown. Vaccine passports or any other type of tracking and tracking 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.

It could mean the beginning of the end for freedom as we know it, unless everyone, everywhere recognizes the danger and takes action. Peaceful protest and civil disobedience — simply not complying with tracking apps, mask mandates, social distancing, lockdowns, vaccination or anything else — can be a key part of the solution.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/06/massnotify-covid-app.aspx

If there were any reasonable safety standard in place, the COVID injection campaign would have been halted in early January 2021. The reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots now exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,1 which historically has been the most hazardous.

The COVID shots are also five times more dangerous than the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which had a 25-per-million severe side effect rate.2,3 In a June 24, 2021, peer-reviewed article4 in the medical journal Vaccines, titled, “The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination — We Should Rethink the Policy,” an international team of scientists warns that we’re killing nearly as many with the shots as would die from COVID-19 itself.UPDATE: This peer reviewed article was retracted. Please see twitter thread for details.

For Every Three COVID Deaths Spared, Two Die From the Jabs

To compare the risks and benefits, they calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent one COVID-19 death. The data came from a large Israeli field study and two adverse drug reactions databases, one with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and one with the Dutch National Register.

To prevent one case of COVID-19 using the mRNA shot by Pfizer, the NNTV is between 200 and 700. The NNTV to prevent one death is between 9,000 and 50,000, with 16,000 as a point estimate.

For every three COVID-19 deaths prevented by COVID gene therapy injections, two die from the shots.

Meanwhile, the number of people reporting adverse reactions from the shots is 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. For serious side effects, there are 16 reports per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is 4.11 per 100,000 vaccinations.

The final calculation suggests that for every three COVID-19 deaths prevented, two die from the shots. “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy,” the authors state in conclusion.

Understand that doesn’t even factor in the anticipated far greater death toll from the COVID jab in the fall, as a result of paradoxical immune enhancement. These numbers will escalate to shocking ratios as the deaths start to increase in the fall.

Toxicologist Calls for End to COVID Vaccination Program

Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., a prominent toxicologist and molecular biologist who works with M.D. Anderson Cancer Center-Houston, says the current COVID-19 injection campaign is a “massive clinical trial” using the general population as subjects, and is calling for the program to end.

Lindsay, described by investigative journalist Jennifer Margulis as having “extensive experience in analyzing the molecular profile of pharmacologic responses,”5 told the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) that Pfizer’s and Moderna’s gene therapy injections have multiple safety concerns and should not be given to children or women of childbearing age.

You can hear her comment in the video above. A transcript of her three-minute comment can be found on Algora.com.6

She pointed out “there is a credible reason to believe that the COVID vaccines will cross-react with the syncytin and reproductive proteins in sperm, ova and placenta, leading to impaired fertility and impaired reproductive and gestational outcomes,” and that there are enough pregnancy losses reported thus far to warrant stopping the vaccines. Lindsay should know, seeing how she worked on a vaccine back in the ‘90s that unexpectedly ended up causing permanent sterility.

Margulis contacted Lindsay after the meeting to see what additional information she had that she was not allowed to present due to the three-minute time restriction. In a written response, Lindsay said:7

“There is strong evidence for immune escape and that inoculation under pandemic pressure with these leaky vaccines is driving the creation of more lethal mutants that are both newly infecting a younger age demographic, and causing more COVID-related deaths across the population than would have occurred without intervention. That is, there is evidence that the vaccines are making the pandemic worse.”

Spike Protein Linked to Heart Inflammation and Much More

The podcast, A Shot in the Dark, also interviewed Lindsay for nearly an hour about her concerns, June 24, 2021, which you can listen to above.8 Importantly, she points out that regulatory agencies and vaccine makers feigning surprise that the COVID shots are causing heart inflammation is completely absurd, as there are “hundreds of studies” linking coronavirus spike proteins to this effect.

She also dismisses the claim that heart inflammation is somehow only affecting younger people. Heart attacks in adults are also a clear sign of this effect, she says. Additionally, clinical evidence given to her by health care professionals who are treating patients injured by these shots suggest the spike protein your body produces in response to them have toxic effects on your bone marrow.

Disturbingly, like many others, Lindsay says there’s evidence that the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is deleting reports of side effects, especially deaths, post-COVID injection. So, not only does VAERS generally capture only 1%9,10 to 10%11 of side effects, but they also appear to be manually wiping reports.

Brain Tumors Have Developed Post-COVID Jab

In related news, a peer-reviewed case report12 published June 15, 2021, reviews two neurosurgical cases in which patients developed new onset of neurological symptoms shortly after their COVID shots. The two patients were found to have two different types of brain tumors.

The authors point out that even though these processes are considered “unrelated to vaccination,” their hypothesis is that the COVID shots “may induce an inflammatory cascade with the ability to uncover underlying sinister pathology.”

For this reason, they strongly recommend “careful evaluation in the setting of new-onset neurologic symptoms after COVID-19 vaccination.” Of course, by then, it’s going to be too late, so in my view, people need to carefully consider these risks before they submit to these shots.

The first case was a 58-year-old woman who eight years previously had surgically removed melanoma on her right arm. Within two weeks of her second dose of a COVID-19 injection, she developed slurred speech, facial droop on the left side and left arm and leg weakness. Computed tomography (CT) of the head revealed a 3.4 centimeter intraparenchymal hemorrhage in her right lobe, causing a 3-millimeter shift in the midline of the two lobes.

No overt abnormalities were found in her bloodwork. Contrast-enhanced MRI of the woman’s brain further revealed a large hemorrhagic cavity in the right frontal lobe and a hemorrhagic mass. Surgical biopsy diagnosed it as a metastatic malignant melanoma.

The second case was a 52-year-old woman with a history of hypothyroidism and breast cancer. About four days after her first dose of COVID “vaccine,” she developed a severe headache, neck stiffness and intermittent high-grade fevers.

CT imaging and contrast-enhanced MRI of her head revealed a 5.8 cm mass in her corpus callosum. No obvious problems were detected in her blood work. Biopsy revealed the mass to be an IDH-wildtype Grade IV glioblastoma. According to the authors:13

“Administration of these vaccines was unrelated to the oncologic diagnoses themselves. However, these two independent processes both came to the clinical forefront following vaccination. We hypothesize that the inflammatory response to the COVID vaccine may have played a role in increasing clinical symptoms in these patients, potentially in relation to the COVID-19 spike protein …

Although the precise mechanism of post-vaccination inflammation is unknown, it is known that spike proteins can initiate inflammatory cascades and cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in COVID-19 infections.

It is possible that encoded spike proteins post-vaccination therefore cross the BBB and enhance inflammatory responses to nascent pathology within the brain following vaccine administration.

We believe that an augmented inflammatory response following vaccination called attention to these neuro-oncologic diseases by exacerbating peritumoral edema and worsening clinical symptoms.”

CDC Is Hiding Breakthrough COVID Infections

VAERS is not the only place where data are being manipulated to hide problems associated with the COVID shots. The CDC is also manipulating its data collection and reporting of breakthrough cases, meaning people who contract COVID-19 after being partially or fully “vaccinated,” to make the shots appear more effective than they really are. In a June 24, 2021, Trial Site News article, Joel Hirschhorn writes:14

“How well does the artificial immunity provided by experimental COVID vaccines really work to protect people from getting infected? The answer is revealed by how many ‘breakthrough’ infections develop two weeks or more after full vaccination. But can we trust the federal government to collect comprehensive data on them? Now, the answer is NO.”

Originally, the CDC recommended labs use a PCR cycle threshold (CT) of 4015 when testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection. This, despite CTs above 35 were known to create a false positive rate of 97% or more.16 By using an exaggerated CT, healthy people were deemed to have COVID-19. The pandemic fraud was further propped up by falsely claiming that asymptomatic carriers were responsible for a large portion of the spread.

Now, in what appears to be a clear effort to hide COVID-19 breakthrough cases, the CDC has lowered the CT considerably — from 40 to 28 or lower17 — when testing “vaccinated” individuals. So, as vaccinated individuals are contracting the illness, they’re now far less likely to register as positive cases.

But that’s not all. To boost the appearance of vaccine efficacy even further, the CDC also will no longer record mild or asymptomatic infections in vaccinated individuals as “COVID cases.”

The only cases that now count as COVID cases — if the patient has been vaccinated against COVID-19 — are those that result in hospitalization or death.18 Meanwhile, if you’re unvaccinated and come down with a mild case, or if you test positive at a higher CT and have no symptoms, you still count as a COVID case.

As of April 30, 2021, the CDC had received a total of 10,262 reports of vaccine breakthrough infections,19 which it admitted was a “substantial undercount,” as they’re using a passive surveillance system that relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments.20 May 17, 2021, that number was slashed to 1,949, as the new guidance took effect.

Alas, breakthrough cases continue to rapidly accumulate, even with the laxer reporting rules. By June 21, 2021, the CDC reported 4,115 breakthrough cases resulting in hospitalization and/or death.21

COVID Shot Increases Your Susceptibility to COVID Death

As noted by Hirschhorn,22 several doctors are now reporting that the majority of COVID-19 cases they see are fully vaccinated individuals. Dr. Harvey Risch of Yale, for example, claims the fully vaccinated account for 60% of his COVID caseload.23 This clinical observation stands in stark contrast to what you’ll read in the mainstream news. Lately, a slew of articles has been published declaring that most COVID deaths are now occurring in unvaccinated people.

U.K. data also show vaccinated people are at significantly increased risk of dying from the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 than unvaccinated ones, which suggests antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) might be at play.

A June 11, 2021, report24 by Public Health England shows that as a hospital patient, you are nearly six times more likely to die of the COVID Delta variant if you are fully vaccinated, than if you got no COVID shots at all. The information shows up in Table 6 on page 15, which lists emergency care and deaths by vaccination status and confirmed Delta cases from February 1, 2021, to June 7, 2021.

Of 33,206 Delta variant cases admitted to the hospital, 19,573 were not vaccinated. Of those, 23 (0.1175%) died. But, of the 13,633 patients who were vaccinated with either one or two doses, 19 (0.1393%) died, which is an 18.6% higher death rate than for the unvaccinated patients.

Seven of the 5,393 patients who had received one dose 21 days or more before admission died (0.1297%). Of the 1,785 patients who had both vaccine doses 14 days or more before admission, 12 (0.6722%) died. This death rate is 5.72 times higher than that for unvaccinated patients. To put this into perspective, if all 33,206 patients had been fully vaccinated, there would have been 223 deaths instead of 42.

COVID Shots Are Clearly Far Riskier Than Advertised

As noted in a June 22, 2021, Wall Street Journal article,25 while VAERS cannot tell us whether the shots were causative in any given side effect report, when you see clusters of reports that form a trend, it’s time to investigate.

Four serious adverse effects that are currently trending are thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), noninfectious myocarditis (heart inflammation), especially in those under 30, deep-vein thrombosis and death.26

For such effects to be tolerable, even if rare, the vaccine (or drug) would need to be absolutely crucial for survival. That is not the case for COVID-19 however, which has a lethality rate on par with the seasonal flu for all but the elderly and those most frail. The vaccine would also need to be an actual vaccine — something that provides immunity. COVID-19 gene therapy injections don’t do that either.

Overall, it’s clear that deaths and injuries from these shots are being swept under the rug, and we cannot allow that to continue. We must keep pushing for transparency, honesty and accountability.

If you missed my interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, I encourage you to listen to it now. In it, we review protocols you can use to protect yourself, your family or those that you love who now regret getting the COVID jab.

If you’ve gotten the shot and are suffering side effects, please report it to VAERS. In the video below, National Vaccine Information Center cofounder Barbara Loe Fisher discusses the importance of filing a report if your doctor won’t, and the information you’ll need to provide.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/05/covid-shots.aspx

After years of investigation about the dangers of artificial sweeteners, I wrote my book, “Sweet Deception: Why Splenda, NutraSweet, and the FDA May Be Hazardous to Your Health,” and published it in 2006. Since then I’ve been warning about the ever-growing evidence that artificial sweeteners can damage your health in many ways. Now, new research finds that gut microbiome damage from artificial sweeteners is even greater than was previously thought.

Scientists have found that three of the most 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.1

Specifically, research using lab data was published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences,2 which demonstrated these common sweeteners can trigger beneficial bacteria to become pathogenic and potentially increase your risk of serious health conditions. This is the first study that demonstrated how two types of beneficial bacteria can become diseased and invade the gut wall.

The bacteria studied were Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis). As early as 2008,3 researchers found that sucralose lowered your gut bacteria count by at least 47.4% and increased the pH level of your intestines. Another study found that sucralose had a metabolic effect on bacteria and could inhibit the growth of certain species.4

Just 2 Cans of Diet Soda Can Alter Beneficial Bacteria

The current molecular research from Angelia Ruskin University5 found that when E. coli and E. faecalis became pathogenic, they killed Caco-2 cells that line the wall of the intestines. Much of the past research demonstrating a change in gut bacteria had used sucralose.

However, data from this study6 showed that a concentration from two cans of diet soft drinks, using any of the three artificial sweeteners, could significantly increase the ability of E. coli and E. faecalis to adhere to the Caco-2 cells and increase the development of bacterial biofilms.

When bacteria create a biofilm, it promotes the invasion of the intestinal cell wall. Biofilms make bacteria less sensitive to treatment and more likely to express virulence that causes disease. Each of the three sweeteners tested also triggered the bacteria to invade the Caco-2 cells, with one exception.

The researchers found that saccharin did not have a significant effect on E. coli invading the Caco-2 cells. Havovi Chichger, Ph.D., lead author and senior lecturer in Biomedical Science at Anglia Ruskin University, spoke about the results of the study in a press release:7

“There is a lot of concern about the consumption of artificial sweeteners, with some studies showing that sweeteners can affect the layer of bacteria which support the gut, known as the gut microbiota.

Our study is the first to show that some of the sweeteners most commonly found in food and drink — saccharin, sucralose and aspartame — can make normal and ‘healthy’ gut bacteria become pathogenic. These pathogenic changes include greater formation of biofilms and increased adhesion and invasion of bacteria into human gut cells.

These changes could lead to our own gut bacteria invading and causing damage to our intestine, which can be linked to infection, sepsis and multiple-organ failure.”

Artificial Sweeteners Can Sabotage Your Diet Goals

Unfortunately, for many people, their sweet tooth has become an addiction, fueled by a food industry that continues to develop highly palatable, inexpensive and ultraprocessed foods loaded with sugar as well as artificial sweeteners. As such, the diet industry has become a cash-cow market for lab-created, low-calorie foods manufacturers promote for weight loss.

One study8 from George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health in 20179 found there was a 54% jump in adults who used low-calorie sweeteners from 1999 to 2012. This represented 41.4% of all adults in the U.S. at that time, or 129.5 million people.10 By 2020, the number had jumped to 141.18 million,11 which represented 42.6% of the population.12

It appears that the jump in adults using low-calorie sweeteners that occurred from 1999 to 2012 has remained steady through 2020. This may be due in part to the growing evidence that low-calorie sweeteners, such as Splenda, are a large contributor to the growing number of individuals who are overweight and obese.13

As the incidence of obesity14 and obesity-related health conditions15 continues to skyrocket, manufacturers seek out “perfectly engineered food”16 to drive sales and consumption.

Consequently, the obesity epidemic is one of the most important global public health challenges today, associated with 4.7 million premature deaths worldwide in 2017.17 Recent research suggests artificial sweeteners may contribute to a greater range of health conditions than we have thus far identified.18

Metabolic Effects of Zero Calorie Sweeteners

It is important to recognize that even though artificial sweeteners have very few or no calories, they are still metabolically active.19 The New York Times20 reported that the FDA announced it was banning saccharin in foods and beverages in 1977 because it was linked to the development of malignant bladder tumors in laboratory animals. However, saccharin is now approved for use by the FDA, which says:21

“In the early 1970s, saccharin was linked with the development of bladder cancer in laboratory rats, which led Congress to mandate additional studies of saccharin and the presence of a warning label on saccharin-containing products until such warning could be shown to be unnecessary.
Since then, more than 30 human studies demonstrated that the results found in rats were not relevant to humans, and that saccharin is safe for human consumption.”

But just because the FDA has approved something doesn’t mean it’s good for you. Scientists have explained that many studies have linked artificial sweeteners to an increased risk for obesity, insulin resistance, Type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. A paper published in Physiology and Behavior22 presented three mechanisms by which artificial sweeteners promote metabolic dysfunction:

They interfere with learned responses that contribute to glucose control and energy homeostasis
They destroy gut microbiota and induce glucose intolerance
They interact with sweet-taste receptors expressed throughout the digestive system that play a role in glucose absorption and trigger insulin secretion

As past and recent research has demonstrated, artificial sweeteners have a significantly different effect on your gut microbiome than sugar. Sugar is detrimental because it tends to feed harmful microbes, yet the effects of artificial sweeteners may be worse, as they are downright toxic to gut bacteria.

One animal study23 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.

Diet Drinks Increase the Risk of an Early Death

One 20-year, population-based study24 of 451,743 people from 10 European countries discovered there was also an association between artificially sweetened drinks and mortality. The researchers excluded participants who had previously had cancer, stroke or diabetes.

At the final tally, 71.1% of the participants in the study were women. The results showed that there was a higher all-cause mortality in people who drank two or more glasses each day of soft drinks, whether they were sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened.25

The researchers measured one glass as equivalent to 250 milliliters (8.4 ounces),26 which is less than the standard 330 milliliters (11.3 ounces) per can sold in Europe.27 In other words, the results of the study were based on less than two cans of soda each day.

The researchers found 43.2% of deaths were from cancers, 21.8% from circulatory disease and 2.9% from digestive disorders.28 Compared to those who drank fewer soft drinks (less than one per month) those drinking two or more per day were more likely to be young, smokers and physically active.

The data showed there was 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.29 This suggests that policies aimed at cutting or reducing sugar consumption may have disastrous consequences when manufacturers reformulate their products using artificial sweeteners.

More Health Damage Associated With Artificial Sweeteners

This same study also found a link between drinking soft drinks and Parkinson’s Disease30 “with positive nonsignificant associations found for sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soft drinks.”

Aspartame is another artificial sweetener that has been studied in the past decades. In one study,31 researchers asked healthy adults to consume a high aspartame diet for eight days, followed by a two-week washout and then a low aspartame diet for eight days.

During the high aspartame period, individuals suffered from depression, headache and poor mood. They performed worse on spatial orientation tests, which indicated aspartame had a significant effect on neurobehavioral health.

A second study32 evaluated whether people with diagnosed mood disorders were more vulnerable to the effects of aspartame. Researchers included 40 individuals with unipolar depression and those without any history of psychiatric disorder. The study was stopped after 13 completed the intervention because of the severity of the reactions.

Mice fed aspartame-laced drinking water developed symptoms of metabolic syndrome33 and another animal study34 found that aspartame had a negative effect on insulin tolerance and influenced gut microbial composition.

A further animal study35 determined that sucralose affected animal liver, “indicating toxic effects on regular ingestion.” The finding suggests “sucralose should be taken with caution to avoid hepatic damage.”36

Scientists have found a long list of symptoms associated with consuming sucralose. These have included migraine headaches,37 raised risk of Type 2 diabetes38 and enlargement of the liver and kidneys.39,40

Sugar Alternative Has a Unique Action on Blood Sugar

There are several plant-based sugar substitutes, including Stevia, Lo Han Kuo and allulose. Stevia is a sweet herb from the South American stevia plant. It’s sold as a supplement and can be used to sweeten the most dishes and drinks.

Lo Han Kuo is similar to Stevia but a bit more expensive. Another natural option is allulose. Although the market in Japan is significant,41 it is relatively unknown in the West. Allulose is found in small quantities in some fruits and was given a generally regarded as safe (GRAS) food designation by the FDA.42

Researchers have said the compound has an energy value of “effectively zero,”43 which suggests this rare sugar may be useful as a sweetener for obese people to aid in weight reduction.

In addition to contributing little to no calories, allulose elicits a physiological response that may help to lower blood glucose, reduce abdominal fat and reduce fat accumulation around the liver. Read more about this natural compound in “Can This Natural Sweetener Lower Blood Sugar?”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/05/how-artificial-sweeteners-destroy-your-gut.aspx

1 Which of the following play important roles in obscuring the true agenda of the pandemic virus industrial complex?

Independent scientists and investigative journalists
Regulatory agencies and international courts
Academics and philanthropic organizations

The pandemic virus industrial complex — a term invented by Jonathan Latham, Ph.D. — is an interlocking set of corporations and other institutions who feed off and support each other with goods and services in a self-reinforcing way. It includes philanthropic organizations that act as string-pullers and profit centers, the Defense Department, which is both a cash cow and a provocateur, academics, who provide public relations, and academic nonprofits that act as money launderers. Learn more.

Doctors and health care personnel

2 While Pfizer claims a 100% efficacy rate in 12- to 15-year-olds, this conclusion is a statistical trick. Which of the following is actually correct?

Efficacy in this age group is between 80% and 95%
Only half of fully vaccinated children avoided COVID-19, so efficacy is 50%
None of the unvaccinated children got COVID-19, so efficacy could be said to be 0%
Fewer than 2% of fully vaccinated children avoided COVID-19; 98% of them would not have gotten COVID anyway

While Pfizer boasted a 100% efficacy rate in 12- to 15-year-olds, this conclusion is a statistical trick. Fewer than 2% of fully vaccinated children avoided COVID-19; 98% of them would not have gotten COVID anyway. So, the benefit is small. Learn more.

3 Which of the following is the most likely reason why safe and effective COVID-19 treatments have been censored and vilified?

To protect the COVID “vaccine” program, as emergency use authorization can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives available

While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. This appears to have been done to protect the COVID “vaccine” program, as emergency use authorization can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives available. Learn more.

There are no safe and effective COVID-19 treatments
Vaccine makers who profit from vaccines are still human, and want to save as many lives as possible by preventing people from using unsafe remedies
The World Health Organization is incompetent

4 Which of the following statements is accurate?

Adverse events from COVID-19 vaccines are so rare, they’re of no concern
The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received more than 358,300 adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including more than 5,990 deaths and nearly 29,900 serious injuries

Reports of deaths and serious injuries from the COVID-19 jabs mount by the day. As of June 11, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) had posted 358,379 adverse events, including 5,993 deaths and 29,871 serious injuries. Before you make the decision to participate in this unprecedented health experiment, it may be wise to assess your personal insurance and financial ability to handle a serious injury, as pandemic vaccine manufacturers are indemnified against lawsuits. Learn more.

VAERS has received only a handful of reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination
VAERS data suggesting COVID shots might be harmful are likely incorrect, as the European Union and the U.K. have very few reports of adverse effects

5 If you’ve had COVID-19, recent research suggests you now likely have:

Even more reason to get a COVID-19 vaccine
A higher risk of becoming ill from another COVID-19 infection
Long-lasting natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2

“Overall, our data provide strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans robustly establishes the two arms of humoral immune memory: long-lived BMPCs and memory B cells,” the researchers noted. This is perhaps the best available evidence of long-lasting immunity. Learn more.

Temporary immunity that’s likely to disappear

6 A landmark study was recently published showing that exposure to very low levels of fluoride during pregnancy:

Protects babies’ teeth
Is essential for dental health
Is not enough to prevent cavities
Impairs the brain development of the child

Grandjean and colleagues just published a landmark study showing that exposure to very low levels of fluoride during pregnancy impairs the brain development of the child. Learn more.

7 If you have received the COVID shot, you:

Should consider yourself at high risk for COVID-19 and implement proactive prevention measures

If you’ve gotten the COVID shot, consider yourself high risk for COVID and implement a daily prophylaxis protocol. This means optimizing your vitamin D, and taking vitamin C, zinc and a zinc ionophore on a daily basis, at least throughout cold and flu season. Learn more.

Have a significantly lower risk of COVID-19
Have the same risk of COVID-19 as unvaccinated individuals
Are immune to COVID-19

 
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/05/week-189-health-quiz.aspx