Lose Them Pounds

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

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

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

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

Shortly after that I found Séralini’s paper,1 which had not yet been retracted at that time.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

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

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

Glyphosate Contamination in Common Products

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glycine Can Help Counteract Adverse Effects of Glyphosate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everyone Who Gets the Jab Is Part of the Safety Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

Children Are Being Coerced into Medical Experimentation

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

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

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

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

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

Myocarditis Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘They Knew What They Were Doing’

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

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

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

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

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

Pfizer Injection Victim Speaks Out

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

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

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

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

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

Unvaccinated Falsely Accused of Being ‘Disease Factories’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Control Groups Destroyed on Purpose

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

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

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

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

What Is the Mass Injection Campaign Really All About?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dating Apps Give Premium Content to Vaccinated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerts, Travel Only for the Vaccinated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What About People With Natural Immunity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vaccine Passports Will Open the Floodgates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much has happened over the past year that it may be hard to remember what life was like pre-COVID. But let’s flash back to December 2019, when the idea of social distancing, compulsory masking and lockdowns would have been met with disbelief and outrage by most Americans.

At that time, most were blissfully unaware of the pandemic that would change the world in the next few months. It wasn’t until December 31, 2019, that the COVID-19 outbreak was first reported from Wuhan, China,1 and at this point it was only referred to as cases of viral pneumonia, not a novel coronavirus.2 I say “most” because it seems some people may have been aware of something lurking much earlier than it appeared.

In confidential documents3 revealed by the U.K.’s Daily Expose, Moderna, together with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), sent mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill December 12, 2019 — raising significant red flags. As The Daily Expose reported:4

“What did Moderna [and NIAID] know that we didn’t? In 2019 there was not any singular coronavirus posing a threat to humanity which would warrant a vaccine, and evidence suggests there hasn’t been a singular coronavirus posing a threat to humanity throughout 2020 and 2021 either.”

COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate Was Released Prior to Pandemic

The confidential disclosure agreement relays a material transfer agreement between the providers — Moderna, NIAID and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The providers agreed to transfer “mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna” to the university’s investigator.5

“The material transfer agreement was signed the December 12th 2019 by Ralph Baric, PhD, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and then signed by Jacqueline Quay, Director of Licensing and Innovation Support at the University of North Carolina on December 16th 2019,” Daily Expose noted.

At this point, some backstory information is more than relevant. We know with great certainty that researchers at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) had access to and were doing gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, and manipulating them to become more infectious and to more easily infect humans. We also know that they collaborated with scientists in the U.S. and received funding from the National Institutes of Health for such research.

Baric, who signed the material transfer agreement to investigate the mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate before there was a known COVID-19 pandemic, pioneered techniques for genetically manipulating coronaviruses, according to Peter Gøtzsche with the Institute for Scientific Freedom,6 and these became a major focus for WIV.

Baric worked closely with Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., the director of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, also known as “bat woman,” on research using genetic engineering to create a “new bat SARS-like virus … that can jump directly from its bat hosts to humans.” According to Gøtzsche:7

“Their work focused on enhancing the ability of bat viruses to attack humans so as to ‘examine the emergence potential.’ In 2015, they created a novel virus by taking the backbone of the SARS virus replacing its spike protein with one from another bat virus known as SHC014-CoV. This manufactured virus was able to infect a lab culture of cells from the human airways.

They wrote that scientific review panels might deem their research too risky to pursue but argued that it had the potential to prepare for and mitigate future outbreaks. However, the value of gain-of-function studies in preventing the COVID-19 pandemic was negative, as this research highly likely created the pandemic.”

Moderna Gets Emergency Use Approval for COVID Vaccines

The rest of the story, as the saying goes, is history. December 12, 2019, Amy Petrick, Ph.D., NIAID’s technology transfer specialist, signed the agreement, along with Dr. Barney Graham, an investigator for NIAID, whose signature is undated.8 May 12, 2020, just months later, Moderna was granted a fast-track designation for its mRNA-1273 vaccine by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. According to Moderna’s news release:9

“mRNA-1273 is an mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 encoding for a prefusion stabilized form of the Spike (S) protein, which was selected by Moderna in collaboration with investigators from Vaccine Research Center (VRC) at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a part of the NIH.”

December 18, 2020 — about one year after the material transfer agreement was signed — the FDA issued emergency use authorization for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for use in individuals 18 years of age and older.10 June 10, 2021, Moderna also filed for emergency use authorization for its COVID-19 shot to be used in U.S. adolescents aged 12 to 17 years.11 Yet, we still have no answers to some glaring questions:12

“It was not until January 9th 2020 that the WHO reported13 Chinese authorities had determined the outbreak was due to a novel coronavirus which later became known as SARS-CoV-2 with the alleged resultant disease dubbed COVID-19. So why was an mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate developed by Moderna being transferred to the University of North Carolina on December 12th 2019?

… Perhaps Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would like to explain themselves in a court of law?”

SARS-CoV-2 Appears To Be Uniquely Able to Infect Humans

Nikolai Petrovsky, professor of endocrinology at Flinders University College of Medicine in Adelaide, Australia, is among those who has stated SARS-CoV-2 appears to be optimally designed to infect humans.14

His team sought to identify a way by which animals might have comingled to give rise to SARS-CoV-2, but concluded that it could not be a naturally occurring virus. Petrovsky has previously stated it appears far more likely that the virus was created in a laboratory without the use of genetic engineering, by growing it in different kinds of animal cells.15

To adapt the virus to humans, it would have been grown in cells that have the human ACE2 receptor. Over time, the virus would then adapt and eventually gain the ability to bind to the human receptor. U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) pointed out that the issue of binding sites is an important one, as the distinctive binding sites of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein “confer ‘near-optimal’ binding and entry of the virus into human cells.”16

Scientists have argued that SARS-CoV-2’s unique binding sites may be the result of either natural spillover in the wild or deliberate recombination of an unidentified viral ancestor. Baric and others, including Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance president, to which he is closely tied, were quick to dismiss the lab-leak hypothesis, which suggests that SARS-CoV-2 accidently leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. Yet, according to Gøtzsche:17

“On 9 December 2019, just before the outbreak of the pandemic, Daszak gave an interview in which he talked in glowing terms of how his researchers at the Wuhan Institute had created over 100 new SARS- related coronaviruses, some of which could get into human cells and could cause untreatable SARS disease in humanized mice … ”

Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance funded controversial GOF research at WIV; NIAID gave funding to the EcoHealth Alliance, which then funneled it to WIV.18 Daszak, despite working closely with WIV, was part of the World Health Organization’s investigative team charged with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Not surprisingly, the team dismissed the lab-accident theory.

Baric’s SARS-Like Virus Wasn’t Made Public Until May 2020

Regarding the novel SARS-like virus that Shi and Baric created in 2015, this research was conducted using a grant from EcoHealth Alliance.

While the information relating to the virus’ DNA and RNA sequences was supposed to have been submitted to a national biotechnology information database when the research was published, this wasn’t done until years later, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported by Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director for the Organic Consumers Association:19

“The work, ‘A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence,’20 published in Nature in 2015 during the NIH’s moratorium21 on gain-of-function research, was grandfathered in because it was initiated before the moratorium … and because the request by Shi and Baric to continue their research during the moratorium was approved by the NIH.

As a condition of publication, Nature, like most scientific journals, requires22 authors to submit new DNA and RNA sequences to GenBank, the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information Database. Yet the new SARS-like virus Shi and Baric created wasn’t deposited23 in GenBank until May 2020.”

Meanwhile, both Baric24 and Daszak were involved in organizing the publication of a scientific statement, published in The Lancet and signed by 26 additional scientists, condemning inquiries into the lab-leak hypothesis as “conspiracy theory.”25

Daszak was also made a commissioner of the Lancet Commission on COVID-19, but now that his extreme conflict of interest has been made public, he was recused from the commission.26

Baric, Daszak Downplay Lab-Leak Theory

At the time The Lancet statement was released in February 2020, Daszak had advised Baric against adding his signature because he wanted to “put it out in a way that doesn’t link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice.”27 The authors also declared no competing interests.

In an update published June 21, 2021, The Lancet stated, “Some readers have questioned the validity of this disclosure, particularly as it relates to one of the authors, Peter Daszak.”28 The journal invited the authors to “re-evaluate their competing interests,” and Daszak suddenly had much more to say. His updated disclosure statement reads, in part:29

“EcoHealth Alliance’s work in China includes collaboration with a range of universities and governmental health and environmental science organizations, all of which are listed in prior publications, three of which received funding from US federal agencies as part of EcoHealth Alliance grants or cooperative agreements, as publicly reported by NIH.

… EcoHealth Alliance’s work in China involves assessing the risk of viral spillover across the wildlife–livestock–human interface, and includes behavioral and serological surveys of people, and ecological and virological analyses of animals.

This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines.

It also includes the production of a small number of recombinant bat coronaviruses to analyze cell entry and other characteristics of bat coronaviruses for which only the genetic sequences are available.”

Also of note, a special review board, the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (P3CO) committee, was created within the Department of Health and Human Services to evaluate whether grants involving dangerous pathogens are worth the risks.

Baden-Mayer explained, “This committee was set up as a condition for lifting the 2014-2017 moratorium on gain-of-function research. The P3CO committee operates in secret. Not even a membership list has been released.”30

Daszak stated in his updated disclosure, “NIH reviewed the planned recombinant virus work and deemed it does not meet the criteria that would warrant further specific review by its Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight (P3CO) committee.”31

However, according to Rutgers University professor Richard Ebright, an NIH grant for research involving the modification of bat coronaviruses at the WIV was sneaked through because the NIAID didn’t flag it for review.32 In other words, the WIV received federal funding from the NIAID without the research first receiving a green-light from the HHS review board.

The NIAID apparently used a convenient loophole in the review framework. As it turns out, it’s the funding agency’s responsibility to flag potential GOF research for review. If it doesn’t, the review board has no knowledge of it. According to Ebright, the NIAID and NIH have “systemically thwarted — indeed systematically nullified — the HHS P3CO Framework by declining to flag and forward proposals for review.”33

Who Knew What, and When?

We now have proof that Moderna and NIAID sent their mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates to Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in mid-December 2019. Were they aware that COVID-19 was circulating at that time, or did they have knowledge far before that such a vaccine would soon be in demand? The red flags, and cover-ups, continue to mount, but ultimately the truth will prevail.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/09/niaid-moderna-covid-vaccine-candidate.aspx

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