Lose Them Pounds

Despite a lack of evidence that plastic shields would reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission and documentation that children are at a much lower risk for COVID than adults, officials recommended masks and plastic boxes to separate and socially distance children.1

Not long after China announced the novel coronavirus, researchers began collecting data. Within months many scientists realized that COVID-19 does not affect children at the same rate that it affects adults. There have been many theories as to why this is the case.2 For one thing, children do not have the same types of comorbidities that increase the risk for adults and older adults. Their immune systems are also different.

Experts postulated that another difference was the expression of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) 2 receptor that is necessary for the virus to infect cells. Some suggested that other viruses common to the mucosa and airways in young children may limit the growth of the virus, which reduced the rate of severe illness.

Available data3 in the early months from the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed a cohort of 44,672 confirmed cases of COVID-19 indicated 2.1% of patients were aged zero to 19 years. As more data were collected throughout 2020, researchers continued to report that children have a much lower risk of severe disease and mortality from COVID-19 than do adults.4

According to the CDC,5 since children are hospitalized significantly less often than adults, it suggests that children may have less severe illness. They also attribute the lack of transmission in children to school closures in the spring and early summer of 2020, keeping children at home. And yet, children were still exposed to adults in their home who were symptomatic for the viral illness.

The lack of severe symptoms in children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is in stark contrast to the history of significant symptoms with other respiratory viruses in children.6

No Evidence Portable School Desk Shields Are Effective

>>>>> Click Here <<<<< In this 44-second clip, a masked President Biden is visiting a school where the children are all wearing masks behind plastic shields. It’s a disturbing sight that the mainstream media appears to take in stride as they try to convince you that this is the way we should live. Mid-March 2021, the CDC released new guidelines, which reduced the social distance in schools to 3 feet and removed the recommendations for barriers between school desks. Greta Massetti leads the CDC's community interventions task force and said about the plastic shields, “We don't have a lot of evidence of their effectiveness” in preventing transmission.7 The new recommendations triggered a variety of responses in teachers and parents, some of whom are not comfortable sending their children to school where they may be allowed within 3 feet of another child or teacher.8 If you haven’t seen the plastic boxes being purchased in bulk by school systems for students at each of their desks, try imagining a three-sided transparent plexiglass shield that measures about 22 inches high9 and surrounds the front and two sides of the student’s desk. Some school systems are excited by the prospect of adding another layer of distance between people. One school in Hawaii recently purchased 460 shields for students and teachers. Principal James Denight said, “Our focus is the health and safety of students and staff. We’re going to keep them in their bubble.”10 Mainstream media outlets covering the story are calling face masks and plastic shields “the new normal.”11 In one school in Ohio, students and staff spend the day wearing a mask and carry a foldable plastic shield they set up on their desks. Unfortunately, the vast fortune the school systems and retail businesses are spending on plastic is not supported by scientific evidence. In the early months, health authorities told the public that the virus was spread by large droplets. Yet, scientists and researchers like Joseph Allen from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, protested, saying the virus could travel farther, making plastic shields ineffective.12 Nearly one year after the novel coronavirus began infecting people, the World Health Organization and the U.S. CDC finally accepted what researchers had been arguing — the virus can spread through the air.13 A recently released study14 by the CDC of COVID-19 transmission in elementary schools in Georgia demonstrated that plastic barriers on desks or tables were not effective. Building scientist Marwa Zaatari spoke with a reporter from Bloomberg about plastic desk shields, saying they create15 “a false sense of security. Especially when we use it in offices or in schools specifically, plexiglass does not help. If you have plexiglass, you’re still breathing the same shared air of another person.” Air Flow Restriction May Raise Risk of Transmission One study published in the journal Science16 has suggested desk shields used in multiple school systems across the U.S. “are associated with lower risk reductions (or even risk increases).” A preprint paper17 released from Japan investigated the effect plastic shields would have in areas with poor ventilation. They found the plexiglass blocked the air flow and may increase the risk for infection. The CDC study concluded that the results:18 “… highlighted the importance of masking and ventilation for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in elementary schools and revealed important opportunities for increasing their use among schools.” Yet, the published data do not support their statement supporting masking. It's important to note that the incidence of COVID-19 in the schools evaluated was extremely low. Among students and staff members, there were only 3.08 COVID-19 cases per 500 enrolled students during the study period. The analysis of the numbers showed the incidence of COVID was 37% lower in schools where teachers and staff used masks and 39% lower where ventilation was improved, as compared to schools that did not use these strategies. However, in absolute numbers, a 37% reduction is only about one case in the school — hardly a supportive statistic for requiring schoolchildren to wear masks all day long. Especially interesting is that the statistic was for teachers and staff and not for students. When the researchers looked at masking students they found, “The 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional.”19 The data suggest that masks are not as effective as government health experts would like you to believe, even though viral experts have been outspoken about the dangers of wearing face masks. Virus expert Judy Mikovits is one of those who have posted on social media. According to Weblyf.com, Mikovits wrote:20 "Do you not know how unhealthy it is to keep inhaling your carbon dioxide and restricting proper oxygen flow? ... The body requires AMPLE amounts of oxygen for optimal immune health. Proper oxygenation of your cells and blood is ESSENTIAL for the body to function as it needs to in order to fight off any illness. Masks will hamper oxygen intake.” Mikovits is joined by Dr. Jenny Harries, England's deputy chief medical officer. According to News-Medical.Net, she warned the public against wearing face masks "as the virus can get trapped in the material and cause infection when the wearer breathes in."21 Nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock also believes face masks may cause serious harm:22 "Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention, are there dangers to wearing a face mask, especially for long periods? Several studies have indeed found significant problems with wearing such a mask. This can vary from headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications ... By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain." Where Will All the Plastic Go? Interestingly, the sale of plexiglass has roughly tripled since the beginning of 2020, rising to roughly $750 million in the U.S.23 Sales were fueled by offices, restaurants and retail stores that scrambled to put up plastic shields after being told it would reduce the spread of the virus. Tufts Medical Center epidemiologist Shira Doron supports the use of plastic shields but acknowledges “there’s no research” to support plexiglass barriers against coronavirus spread. She spoke with a reporter from Bloomberg, saying: “We don’t know a lot.” However, she believes that it comes down to, “If it might help, and it makes sense, and it doesn’t hurt, then do it.”24 Unfortunately, it doesn’t make sense and, ultimately, it may trigger mental health issues for children and adds to the growing plastic problem. Zaatari and Allen believe that plastic shields may make sense in certain settings, such as in front of cashiers if it doesn't impede airflow. However, money would have been better spent on improving ventilation and air filtration in the school systems. Craig Saunders, president of the International Association of Plastics Distribution, spoke with a reporter from Bloomberg about the future of those plexiglass shields when they are no longer used. He said, “It’s 100% recyclable thermoplastic. [It] just comes down to the logistics.”25 Yet, the logistics of recycling plastic are not a societal strong suit as has been demonstrated in the past 30 years. This begs the question of whether the additional plastic garbage from discarded plexiglass shields will join the trillions of pieces of plastic that litter the oceans and beaches.26 The planet is also facing a new plastic crisis brought on by discarded face masks. Each month there's an estimated 129 billion face masks being used,27 most of which are disposable, made from plastic microfibers. Before wearing a mask became a daily habit, more than 300 million tons of plastic were already produced globally each year. Most of it has ended up as waste, which led researchers from the University of Southern Denmark and Princeton University to warn that masks could quickly become “the next plastic problem.”28 Bottled water containers have been a leading source of environmental plastic pollution, but will likely be outpaced by disposable masks. While about 25% of plastic bottles are recycled, “there is no official guidance on mask recycle, making it more likely to be disposed of as solid waste,”29 the researchers stated. “With increasing reports on inappropriate disposal of masks, it is urgent to recognize this potential environmental threat.”30 No matter what the ultimate goal was in pushing the COVID-19 pandemic, it appears that ensuring the safety of the Earth on which we live was not a priority. It is essential we protect the ecosystem, and therefore our food supply. Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Ineffective and Harmful The evidence that masks do not work to prevent the spread of viruses has been demonstrated using influenza and COVID-19. The first COVID-19 specific randomized controlled surgical mask trial was published in November 2020,31 and it confirmed previous, conflicting32 findings showing that: Masks may reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may increase your risk by 23% The vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn't wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection-free Despite scientific evidence, the CDC has relied on anecdotal stories about hair stylists and retrospective reports to prop up their recommendation for universal mask-wearing to prevent the spread of infection.33 In addition to this, their own data34,35,36 also show 70.6% of patients with confirmed COVID-19 reported always wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness and 14.4% wore it often. This means a total of 85% of people who had confirmed cases of COVID-19 either “often” or “always” wore a face mask. For a discussion of more science-based evidence about face masks, see “Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Do More Harm Than Good.” Denight’s focus on keeping children “in their bubble” is not far from what’s happening across the world. Data from a study37 using Germany's first registry recorded the experiences of children wearing masks. It shows there are physical, behavioral and psychological harms38 being perpetrated on children in the name of science. Data from 25,930 children found the average child was wearing a mask 270 minutes each day and parents, doctors and others reported 24 health issues associated with that mask wearing. These problems:39 “… included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).” Added to these concerning symptoms, they also found 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play.40 Hundreds more experienced “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.”41 Push Back Against Tyranny Measurements of anxiety or depressive disorder have also jumped dramatically for adults. Data from the CDC42 show the percentage of adults reporting symptoms of anxiety disorder and/or depressive disorder was 11% in the first quarter of 2019 but jumped dramatically to 41.1%43 across the U.S. by January 2021. This jump in anxiety and depression in adults is significant for children since there is a positive relationship between a child's behavioral problems and mental health with maternal mental health44 and parental mental health.45 This means that independent of their own stress and psychological harm from mask-wearing, lockdowns and plastic shields, children also respond negatively to the rising rate of anxiety and depression exhibited by adults. Thus, the impact on a child’s mental health is the result of both their own stress and that of their parents. March 20, 2021, marked the 1-year anniversary of the first COVID-19 lockdown. On that day, people in more than 40 countries took to the streets to peacefully demonstrate against the lies and tyrannical measures being taken by governmental agencies and experts in the name of a viral pandemic. Chances are you didn't hear about this global rallying cry for freedom since the mainstream media have near-universally censored any news of it. However, this information is vital to understanding how your freedoms are being stripped and what you can do to protect your rights. Our children and our children's children are depending on us to ensure they have the freedom and the right to make decisions for themselves about their health, wellness and finances. Read more at “Global Pushback Against Tyranny Has Begun.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/01/cdc-guidelines-for-desk-shields-in-schools.aspx

While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. At this point, it seems quite clear that this was done to protect the COVID jab rollout.

The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other alternatives available. In a sane world, the COVID gene therapies would never have gotten an EUA, as there are several safe and effective treatment options available.

One treatment that stands out above the others is ivermectin, a decades-old antiparasitic drug that is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medications.

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. It’s been shown to significantly inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro,1 speed up viral clearance and dramatically reduce the risk of death.

Gold Standard Review Supports Use of Ivermectin

Dr. Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor, Ph.D., researcher and director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd (video above).2 in the U.K., has been trying to get the word out about ivermectin. To that end, she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel3 and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference,4 which was held online, April 24, 2021.

Twelve medical experts5 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.6

Lawrie has published several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looking at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment.”7

Her February 2021 meta-analysis, which included 13 studies, found a 68% reduction in deaths. This is an underestimation of the beneficial effect, because one of the studies included used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the control arm. 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).

Two months later, March 31, 2021, Lawrie published an updated analysis that included two additional randomized controlled trials. This time, the mortality reduction was 62%. 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. Since the sensitivity analysis rendered an even better result, it confirms the initial finding. In other words, ivermectin is unlikely to reduce mortality by anything less than 62%.)

Lawrie reviewed the February and March analyses and other meta-analyses in an interview with Dr. John Campbell, featured in “More Good News on Ivermectin.” Lawrie has now published her third systematic review. According to this paper, published June 17, 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics:8

“Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared to no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38 …) … Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% … Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence.

Low-certainly evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation,’ whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement’ and ‘deterioration’ clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials …”

World Health Organization Refuses to Recommend Ivermectin

Despite the fact that most of the evidence favors ivermectin, when the WHO finally updated its guidance on ivermectin at the end of March 2021,9,10 they largely rejected it, 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 still ended up showing a 72% reduction in deaths. 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.

Even more remarkable, 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 the drug. 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

Why Ivermectin Has Been Censored

If you’ve been trying to share the good news about ivermectin, you’re undoubtedly noticed that doing so is incredibly difficult. Many social media companies are banning such posts outright.

Promoting ivermectin on YouTube, or even discussing benefits cited in published research, violates the platform’s posting policies. DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., is but one of the victims of this censorship policy.

His interviews with medical and scientific experts such as Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung and ICU specialist, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the president and chief medical officer12 of the FLCCC, and Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,13 have been deleted from the platform. The interview with Malone had more than 587,330 views by the time it was wiped from YouTube.14

But why? Why don’t they want people to feel confident that there’s treatment out there and that COVID-19 is not the death sentence they’ve been led to believe it is? The short answer is because ivermectin threatens the vaccine program. As explained by Andrew Bannister in a May 12, 2021, Biz News article:15

“What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts?

What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalization?

The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, ‘there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.’

The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won’t happen in 2021 … The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal.

The vaccine manufactures, having spent hundreds of million dollars developing and testing vaccines during a pandemic, would not see the $100bn they were expecting in 2021 … Allowing any existing drug, at this time, well into stage 3 trials, to challenge the legality of the EUA of vaccines, is not going to happen easily.”

The WHO and Drug Companies Are Severely Compromised

The WHO’s rejection of ivermectin only makes sense if a) you take into account the EUA requirements; and b) remember that the WHO receives a significant portion of its funding from private vaccine interests.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest funder of the WHO after the United States, and The GAVI Alliance, also owned by Gates, is the fourth largest donor. The GAVI Alliance exists solely to promote and profit from vaccines, and for several years, the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, served on the GAVI board of directors.16

As reported by Bannister, Merck, the original patent holder of ivermectin, also has severe conflicts of interest that appear to have played a role in the rejection of ivermectin. He writes:17

“Ivermectin has been used in humans for 35 years and over 4 billion doses have been administered. Merck, the original patent holder,18 donated 3.7 billion doses to developing countries … Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal …

Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both.

In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, ‘A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies’ of the drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries.

The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic.

The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy.”

FLCCC Calls for Widespread and Early Use of Ivermectin

In the U.S., the FLCCC has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19,19,20 and Kory 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 202021 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.22

Based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.

As noted by the FLCCC:23

“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.

… 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.”

The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of ivermectin:

I-MASK+24 — a prevention and early at-home treatment protocol
I-MATH+25 — an in-hospital treatment protocol. The clinical and scientific rationale for this protocol has been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine26 in mid-December 2020
I-RECOVER27 — a long-term management protocol for long-haul syndrome

In addition to Lawrie’s meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the FLCCC has also published a scientific review28 in that same journal.

This paper, “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19,” published in the May/June 2021 issue, found that, based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces “large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.”

Ivermectin Significantly Reduces Infection Risk and Death

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

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

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

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

In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%.

It’s worth noting that ivermectin’s effectiveness appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world. Additional evidence for ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial,29 which began June 23, 2021. Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date.

Ivermectin in the Treatment of Long-Haul Syndrome

The FLCCC believes ivermectin may also be an important treatment adjunct for long-haul COVID syndrome. In their June 16, 2021, video update, the team reviewed the newly released I-RECOVER protocol.

Keep in mind that ivermectin is not to be used in isolation. Corticosteroids, for example, are often a crucial treatment component when organizing pneumonia-related lung damage is present. Vitamin C is also important to combat inflammation. Be sure to work with your doctor to identify the right combination of drugs and supplements for you.

Last but not least, as noted by Kory in this video, it’s really important to realize that long-haul syndrome is entirely preventable. The key is early treatment when you develop symptoms of COVID-19.

While ivermectin has a good track record when it comes to prevention and early treatment, it can be tricky to obtain, depending on where you live and who your doctor is.

A highly effective alternative that anyone can use, anywhere, is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. It’s extremely safe and very inexpensive. The biggest cost is the one-time purchase of a good tabletop jet nebulizer. To learn more, download Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery,” in which he details how to use this treatment.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/30/ivermectin-covid-19-treatment.aspx

I. National Institutes of Health (NIH) research1 published June 15, 2021, finds antibody evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the U.S. earlier than previously thought.

1. Why did it take NIH so long to do this experiment, or perhaps to tell us? These antibody tests take only a few minutes to perform. The blood was drawn more than 15 months ago.
2. Why is NIH relying on these two antibodies in nine individuals as evidence of COVID infection, but will not let a single U.S. person use them as evidence of prior infection and immunity?

“A participant was considered seropositive if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies on the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA in a sequential testing algorithm.
Sensitivity and specificity of the Abbott and EUROIMMUNE ELISAs and the net sensitivity and specificity of the sequential testing algorithm were estimated with 95% confidence intervals.”2

3. The old excuse that we don’t know how long immunity lasts has been crushed by the data from several studies. Perhaps unsurprisingly, one of avuncular Tony Fauci’s early emails said he expected immunity to be long-lasting. But Americans were told lies to push the vaccine program and keep people frightened of COVID even after they had recovered and were immune.

II. “The NIH report states that the CDC testing guidelines early in the pandemic had a narrow focus: Only people who had been in contact with a person confirmed to have an infection, or who had traveled to an area known to have coronavirus transmission, were advised to be tested.”3

1. What The Washington Post fails to make clear is that the test for COVID — the only test permitted to be used by federal agencies — from January 1, 2020, until early March 2020, was grossly inaccurate. CDC knew this. To cover it up, they allowed only a tiny number of people to get tested during this period, virtually restricting testing to those who already had a confirmatory clinical picture.

2. This CDC coverup had terrible consequences, possibly intended. It gave the infection two months to spread through the U.S. and become established via community transmission.

3. By this time, the tracing of contacts to control the epidemic had already been made obsolete. There was way too much unidentified spread happening. Track and trace does not work when most infections are asymptomatic.

4. It is conceivable that CDC keeps claiming that the vast majority of infections have symptoms in order to justify the many billions of dollars travelling through CDC’s hands for the track and trace program,4 which is still active.

5. The program cannot possibly work to control the pandemic at this late stage. The only purpose to use track and trace now is to obtain data on citizens’ social networks.

III. Seven of nine persons whose blood tested positive for antibodies were black or Hispanic. Therefore, the authors are concerned about possibly increased susceptibility in minority populations. Aha! Now we know why this story was dribbled out now. To scare black and Hispanic Americans into vaccination.

*This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Office of the Director and the National Cancer Institute.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/30/covid-19-infections-in-usa-before-pandemic-declaration.aspx

Many scientists and medical experts have warned that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is both unnecessary and risky in the extreme. The video above features comments by Peter Doshi, Ph.D., made during a June 10, 2021, public hearing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

Doshi is an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and the senior editor of The BMJ. He has previously pointed out that while Pfizer claims its vaccine is 95% effective, this is the relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction — which is far more relevant for public health measures — is actually less than 1%.1 As such, the COVID-19 vaccine is of dubious benefit, to say the least.

If you choose to watch the video above I must warn you to stop after Doshi finishes and not view the presentation by Dr. Jacqueline Miller. She’s a paid shill pediatrician and the head of development for infectious diseases at Moderna. The reason I advise this caution is because if you understand reality, you will be shocked at how easily a physician can sell out and sacrifice even her own children in the delusional belief that Moderna’s shot provides any benefit to children.

Meanwhile, largely because of irresponsible beliefs and comments like Miller’s, harms are rapidly mounting, which skews the risk-benefit ratio even further. Considering the potential for harm, children should not get the COVID-19 vaccine, Doshi says, citing trial evidence from Pfizer — the very same evidence used to support its emergency use authorization application for 12- to 15-year-olds. In this trial, harms clearly outweighed the benefits.

Risk-Benefit Analysis

While benefits were rare and short-lived, side effects were common and long-term effects are completely unknown. In the 12-to-15 age group, 75.5% experienced headache, along with a long list of other transient side effects. However, more serious systemic adverse events also occurred in 2.4% of the trial subjects receiving the actual mRNA shot.

2% of the fully vaccinated [children] avoided COVID; 98% of the vaccinated wouldn’t have gotten COVID anyway … So, the benefit is small. ~ Peter Doshi, Ph.D.

Now, Pfizer boasted a 100% efficacy rate in this age group. This, Doshi explains, was based on 16 cases occurring in the placebo group, while no cases were recorded in the vaccine group. However, since there were about 1,000 placebo recipients, fewer than 2% of the placebo group actually tested positive for COVID-19.

“Put another way, 2% of the fully vaccinated avoided COVID,” Doshi says, adding “98% of the vaccinated wouldn’t have gotten COVID anyway … So, the benefit is small.”

One of the reasons for why children reap so little benefit from this jab is because a significant portion of American children are already immune and aren’t at risk of infection to begin with. Doshi cites Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data showing an estimated 23% of children under the age of 4 and 42% of those age 5 through 17 have already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection and now have robust and long-lasting immunity.

While most side effects in children have been short-lived, at least seven deaths among 12- to 17-year-olds had been reported as of June 11, 2021, as well as 271 events rated “serious.”2 In the long term, there’s really no telling what might happen, and that’s a really important point.

As noted by Doshi, during the 2009 swine flu pandemic, narcolepsy didn’t become apparent until nine months after vaccination with the Pandemrix vaccine, and it wasn’t until four months into Israel’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign that heart damage was recognized as a side effect in young men and boys.

Cocooning Does Not Work

Doshi goes on to explain why vaccinating children will not likely benefit adults, as claimed. This practice, sometimes referred to as “cocooning,” has never actually been proven. Doshi cites a 2021 BMJ editorial3 in which the authors stressed that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is “hard to justify right now,” seeing how children experience only mild disease and transmission by children is limited, while the possibility of unintended consequences is high.

“Should childhood infection (and re-exposures in adults) continue to be typically mild, childhood vaccination will not be necessary to halt the pandemic,” the authors state.4

“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.”

Doshi points out that even if you believe that a small benefit is better than nothing, you must remember that this is an unproven hypothetical benefit. We would need a proper randomized controlled trial to ascertain whether vaccinating children might actually benefit adults. “We need confirmatory evidence, not just assumptions,” Doshi says.

Vaccinating Children to Benefit Adults Is Unethical

However, even if vaccinating children were found to reduce infection among adults, we may still not be able to do so. Why? Because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can only authorize the use of a medical product in a given population if the benefit outweighs the risk in that same population.

This means that even if adults were to benefit, if children don’t benefit from it themselves, then we cannot authorize the vaccine for children. So, if children reap no benefit, then whether or not vaccinating them might benefit adults is a moot argument. You cannot authorize a drug for use in a population that reaps no benefit.

In conclusion, Doshi points out that the FDA has no basis on which to grant COVID-19 vaccines emergency use authorization for children in the first place, as COVID-19 is not an emergency in children. The threat this infection poses to children is negligible and no more serious than that of the common cold or flu.

Since demonstrated risks far outweigh demonstrated benefits in children, the vaccines also fail to meet the biologics license application required for ultimate market approval.

Already, healthy children have died shortly after the jabs, dozens of cases of heart inflammation have been reported, and Pfizer’s own biodistribution study raises serious questions about the shot’s potential to cause infertility. Last but not least, since there’s no “unmet need,” there’s also no need to rush to approve these injections for children.

To be clear, the only way they can even try to justify vaccinating children is by sacrificing them as shields to protect the elderly, which is completely unethical. Children are not harmed by COVID-19 itself, yet they keep using the slogan that “Nobody is safe until everyone is vaccinated,” which simply isn’t true.

Carefully Consider the Many Risks

While long-term effects are unknown, there’s reason to suspect they may be severe. A Pfizer biodistribution study5,6 demonstrates the synthetic mRNA does not stay near the injection site as initially assumed. It is, in fact, widely disseminated in your body within hours of injection.

It enters your bloodstream and accumulates in a variety of organs, primarily your spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands and, in women, the ovaries. The spike protein — which we now know is pathogenic and causes disease in and of itself — also travel to your heart, brain and lungs. Once in your blood circulation, the spike protein binds to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels. When that happens, one of several things can occur:

It can cause platelets to clump together — Platelets, aka thrombocytes, are specialized cells in your blood that stop bleeding. When there’s blood vessel damage, they clump together to form a blood clot. This is why we’ve been seeing clotting disorders associated with both COVID-19 and the vaccines
It can cause abnormal bleeding
In your heart, it can cause heart problems
In your brain, it can cause neurological damage
In your blood vessels, it can cause vasculitis, including Kawasaki disease, antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma and Sjogren’s disease.7 These conditions significantly increase your risk of death, in some cases raising mortality by 50 times compared to people who do not have these conditions

Regardless of the tissue, the spike protein can also impair your mitochondrial function, which is imperative for good health, innate immunity and disease prevention of all kinds.

When the spike protein interacts with the ACE2 receptor, it can disrupt mitochondrial signaling, thereby inducing the production of reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. If the damage is serious enough, uncontrolled cell death can occur, which in turn leaks mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) into your bloodstream.8

Aside from being detected in cases involving acute tissue injury, heart attack and sepsis, freely circulating mtDNA has also been shown to contribute to a number of chronic diseases, including systemic inflammatory response syndrome or SIRS, heart disease, liver failure, HIV infection, rheumatoid arthritis and certain cancers.9

The spike protein is also expelled in breast milk, which could be lethal for babies. You are not transferring antibodies. You are transferring the vaccine itself, as well as the spike protein, which could result in bleeding and/or blood clots in your child. All of this suggests that for individuals who are at low risk for COVID-19, children and teens in particular, the risks of these vaccines outweigh the benefits by a significant margin.

How Spike Protein Harms Your Health

I’ve written several articles detailing the mechanisms by which the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can decimate your health. For a refresher, see my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., featured in “The Many Ways in Which COVID Vaccines May Harm Your Health.”

I recently came across yet another paper that describes a very important mechanism that, to my knowledge, is not widely known, despite being published in July 2020. The paper, “Genetic Polymorphisms Complicate COVID-19 Therapy: Pivotal Role of HO-1 in Cytokine Storm,”10 explains that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has a far higher affinity for porphyrin molecules in the cell membrane than ACE-2.

Porphyrins are molecules with optical properties. Their ability to absorb light accounts for many of the beneficial health effects of sunlight.11 Porphyrins are also the building blocks of heme, the precursor to hemoglobin, which is necessary to bind oxygen in your blood.

According to this paper, porphyrins not only facilitate SARS-CoV-2 invasion into the cell, but they also allow the virus to bind functional hemoprotein within the cell, thereby increasing oxidative stress.

When the spike protein bind to porphyrins, it upregulates free heme and iron, which causes oxidation and fuels inflammation. It also increases reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation, while decreasing levels of heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) enzymes. HO enzymes degrade heme into free iron, bilirubin (which has antioxidant effects) and carbon monoxide (which is antiapoptotic). As such, the HO system plays a crucial role in cellular defense.

The spike protein essentially overwhelms the anti-inflammatory cytoprotection normally offered by HO-1. As dysfunctional porphyrin are no longer capable of making heme, more hemoprotein becomes available for SARS-CoV-2 to bind to, which results in the release of more free iron. As the cycle continues, inflammation builds. Iron released by dying cells also has toxic effects. All of this has devastating consequences for your mitochondria, and, as noted in this paper:12

“If insufficient mitochondria in cells are evident, such as in white adipose cells, these cells are unable to accommodate the severe ROS formed leading to overwhelming inflammation. Brown adipose cells are better at handling ROS due to higher concentrations of mitochondria.”

This explains why obese individuals are at much higher risk. Because their fat cells have fewer mitochondria, they’re less able to counteract the ROS and therefore end up with higher levels of inflammation. The unprecedented outpouring of toxic iron into the body may also help explain why some end up with “long-hauler syndrome” after recovering from COVID-19.

Worst of all, since all of this is related to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the COVID shots may also end up promoting cancer, as excess iron is tightly associated with tumorigenesis in multiple human cancer types through a variety of mechanisms, including catalyzing the formation of mutagenic hydroxyl radicals, regulating DNA replication, repair and cell cycle progression, affecting signal transduction in cancer cells, and acting as an essential nutrient for proliferating tumor cells.

Do You Have Vaccine Regret?

If you’ve already had one or two COVID shots and are now having second thoughts, first, be sure to never have another vaccination again, with any vaccine of any kind. Even if you’re not having discernible symptoms as of yet, you’d be wise to start building your innate immune system. To do that, you need to become metabolically flexible and optimize your diet.

I interviewed Dr. Vladimir Zelenko June 23, 2021, and that interview should go live July 4, 2021. We discussed what Dr. Mike Yeadon — a former chief scientist at Pfizer, which is one of the primary manufacturers of COVID shots — believes, which is that those who are vaccinated are already condemned to certain and agonizing deaths.

He believes those who have received the injection will die prematurely and three years is a generous estimate for how long they can expect to remain alive.

If Yeadon’s projections are true, it changes EVERYTHING. There is no way to know if it is accurate or not, but Yeadon is someone who has serious insights as Pfizer’s former chief scientist. I was a Boy Scout and their motto is to “Be prepared.” Clearly, this is one contingency that needs to be planned for. Zelenko happens to share this belief. We discuss in great detail the strategies that can be used to lower the risk of Yeadon’s predictions coming true.

Use time-restricted eating and eat all your meals for the day within a six- to eight-hour window. Avoid all vegetable oils and processed foods. Focus on certified-organic foods to minimize your glyphosate exposure, and include plenty of sulfur-rich foods to keep your mitochondria and lysosomes healthy. Both are important for the clearing of cellular debris, including these spike proteins. You can also boost your sulfate by taking Epsom salt baths.

You’ll also want to make sure your vitamin D level is optimized to between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L), ideally through sensible sun exposure. Sunlight also has other benefits besides making vitamin D.

To combat the toxicity of the spike protein, you’ll want to optimize autophagy, which may help digest and remove the spike proteins. Time-restricted eating will upregulate autophagy, while sauna therapy, which upregulates heat shock proteins, will help refold misfolded proteins and also tag damaged proteins and target them for removal. It is important that your sauna is hot enough (around 170 degrees Fahrenheit) and does not have high magnetic or electric fields.

Other remedies that might be helpful if you’re experiencing side effects from your COVID shot(s) include:

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin treatments. Ivermectin appears particularly promising as it actually binds to the spike protein. To learn more, please listen to the interview that Brett Weinstein did with Dr. Pierre Kory,13 one of Dr. Paul Marik’s collaborators

Low-dose antiretroviral therapy to reeducate your immune system

Low-dose interferons such as Paximune, developed by interferon researcher Dr. Joe Cummins, to stimulate your immune system

Peptide T (an HIV entry inhibitor derived from the HIV envelope protein gp120; it blocks binding and infection of viruses that use the CCR5 receptor to infect cells)

Cannabis, to strengthen Type I interferon pathways

Dimethylglycine or betaine (trimethylglycine) to enhance methylation, thereby suppressing latent viruses

Silymarin or milk thistle to help cleanse your liver

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/29/children-covid-vaccine.aspx

Cancer is a disease of uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells. In 1971,1 President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer with a goal to make a national commitment to find a cure. Chemotherapy has been one of the primary treatments used in cancer with the objective to destroy cancer cells.2

However, chemo is technically a poison. When administered it travels throughout your body and affects every cell, unlike radiation or surgical treatments, which target precise locations.3

Glioblastoma is a specific type of brain cancer that develops from glial cells in the brain.4 It is sometimes referred to as a grade 4 astrocytoma. The tumor is fast-growing, invasive and commonly spreads throughout the brain. According to the Glioblastoma Foundation5 it can result in death as quickly as 15 months after diagnosis.

Symptoms of a glioblastoma develop rapidly as the cells grow and fluid around the tumor increases pressure in the brain.6 Some common symptoms include severe headaches, nausea and vomiting. Depending on the location of the tumor, symptoms can include weakness or sensory changes in the face, arms or legs, neurocognitive or memory issues and difficulty with balance.

Despite decades of research, researchers have written that the survival rate for individuals with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) has not changed in more than 40 years.7 Thomas Seyfried, who I believe is one of the best cancer biologists in the world, recently published an 80-month case report follow-up on a patient with glioblastoma,8 who has lived far longer than expected.

Long-Term Care With Ketogenic Metabolic Therapy

Writing in the journal Nutrition & Metabolism in 2007,9 Seyfried and colleagues proposed that restricting calories on a ketogenic diet is an effective alternative means of treating malignant brain cancer. The researchers used an animal model to test the theory and found the method was safe and effective.

August 16, 2014, a 26-year-old man presented at University Hospital Plymouth with symptoms of a malignant brain tumor.10 The man refused the recommended standard of care and opted instead to use ketogenic metabolic therapy (KMT). He educated himself on the implementation of the diet despite pressure from health care professionals to use their treatment.

He took medication to control the seizures and strictly followed the ketogenic diet, monitoring his glucose and ketones. It took two weeks to enter therapeutic ketosis. A second MRI in January 2015 showed no noticeable progression of the tumor. Serial MRIs every three to five months showed the tumor was growing slowly, quite unlike the natural progression of a glioblastoma.

Just over two years later, an MRI showed enough tumor growth that the patient decided to undergo a debulking surgery. Histological analysis showed an invasive astrocytic tumor. The tumor cells had a chance mutation known as IDH1, which improves the length of survival.11 After surgery, the patient continued the ketogenic diet, maintaining his glucose ketone index (GKI) near or below 2.0.12

In October 2018, an MRI showed interval progression after the patient had relaxed his strict adherence to the ketogenic diet. He returned to eating a keto diet that kept his GKI at 2 and included additional interventions such as breathing exercises, stress management and moderate physical training.

Over the following 2.5 years and seven MRIs, the tumor showed slow interval progression. As of the time of the case study writing in April 2021, the patient was “active with a good quality of life, except for occasional tonic-clonic seizures and no signs of increased intracranial pressure.”13

This case study is similar to one presented in 201814 of a 38-year-old man with a diagnosis of GBM. In addition to using a calorie-restricted ketogenic diet, this patient also underwent a subtotal tumor resection and used a modified standard of care treatment including epigallocatechin gallate, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, metformin and methylfolate.

After nine months of treatment, biomarkers and clinical symptoms indicated the tumor was regressing. At the time of the case study, 24 months after the start of therapy, the patient was in excellent health and showed evidence of significant tumor regression.15

Importance of Glucose and Glutamine to Cancer Cells

Seyfried commented in a press release from Boston College:16

“We were surprised to discover that KMT could work synergistically with the IDH1 mutation to simultaneously target the two major metabolic pathways needed to drive the growth of GBM. Glucose drives the glycolysis pathway, while glutamine drives the glutaminolysis pathway.

No tumor, including GBM, can survive without glucose and glutamine. Our study has identified a novel mechanism by which an acquired somatic mutation acts synergistically with a low carbohydrate, high fat diet to provide long-term management of a deadly brain tumor.”

The team postulated that the long-term survival of the first patient whose follow-up case study was written at 80 months after diagnosis may have been in part due to the IDH1 mutation17 and KMT, both targeting glycolysis and glutaminolysis essential for GBM growth.18

Glutamine is an amino acid that plays a role in intestinal health. Glucose and glutamine are fermentable fuels in the body. Studies19 have suggested microbial protein fermentation plays a role in generating a range of molecules that may increase inflammation and tissue permeability.

Seyfried writes that glucose and glutamine may drive breast cancer growth “through substrate level phosphorylation (SLP) in both the cytoplasm (Warburg effect) and the mitochondria (Q-effect), respectively.”20

In an interview with me, Seyfried describes how cancer cell metabolism is different from normal cell metabolism, changing from respiration to fermentation.21 If you measure oxygen consumption in tumor cells it looks like they are using oxygen to make ATP. However, the mitochondria are abnormal and what Seyfried realized was that the cells were fermenting amino acids, and in particular glutamine.

Using an animal model,22 Seyfried and colleagues demonstrated that with a calorically restricted ketogenic diet and a glutamine antagonist, they could reverse disease symptoms and improve animal survival. The strategy also appeared to reduce inflammation, swelling and hemorrhaging.

He also suggests that KMT with glutamine targeting may be an effective means of improving overall survival for women with breast cancer.23 This means targeting glucose and glutamine in the treatment of cancer all but eliminates their source of energy and starves the cells, so they can’t survive.

Why Cancer Is a Metabolic Disease

Western medicine has been operating under the theory that cancer is a genetic disease. This rules everything from research funding and treatment to the entire cancer industry. Unfortunately, despite decades of relying on this dogma, it has not led to any significant breakthrough in treatment or prevention.

Seyfried and others have advanced the theory that cancer is primarily the result of defective energy metabolism in, and damage to, the cell’s mitochondria. Genetic mutations that are detectable in cancer cells are not the primary cause of cellular overgrowth but are rather a downstream effect of defective energy metabolism.24

Research data demonstrate that cancer growth is suppressed when the nucleus from a tumor cell is transferred to the cytoplasm of normal cells with normal functioning mitochondria.25 This tells us that normal mitochondria can suppress cancer growth. Conversely, for cancer cells to proliferate, you must have dysfunctional mitochondria.

Seyfried’s research has demonstrated the growth and progression of cancer can be managed using a “whole body transition from fermentable metabolites, such as glucose and glutamine, to respiratory metabolites.”26 These are primarily ketone bodies that are formed when you follow a ketogenic diet.

In “Why Cancer Needs To Be Treated as a Metabolic Disease,” I discuss many of the pathways Seyfried notes in his interview with Dr. Peter Attia. Seyfried answers questions about the different types of mitochondrial abnormalities that are found in cancer cells and why cancer cells do not self-destruct.

Changing the view of cancer from a genetic disorder to primarily a metabolic disease has a significant impact on the approaches to preventing, treating and managing cancer.27

Healthy Mitochondria Help Prevent Cancer

Seyfried’s take-home message is that as long as your mitochondrial respiration remains healthy, cancer will not develop. There are several strategies you can use to help keep your mitochondria healthy. Avoiding toxic environmental factors and implementing healthy lifestyle strategies are the primary means of protecting your mitochondria.

In fact, this is the sole focus of the metabolic mitochondrial therapy program detailed in my book “Fat for Fuel.” Topping my list of strategies to optimize mitochondrial health, which you can read more about in my book, are:

Cyclical nutritional ketosis — The divergence from our ancestral diet — this massive prevalence of processed, unnatural foods and excessive amounts of added sugars, net carbs and industrial fats — is responsible for most of the damage to your mitochondria.

Calorie restriction — Another extremely effective strategy for reducing mitochondrial free radical production is to limit the amount of fuel you feed your body. This is a noncontroversial position as calorie restriction has consistently shown many therapeutic benefits.

Meal timing — Meal timing is also important. Specifically, eating too late in the evening, when your body doesn’t need the energy, is one of the worst things you can do to your mitochondria, as it creates a buildup of ATP that is not being used.

Normalizing your iron level — Iron also plays an important role in mitochondrial function, and contrary to popular belief, excessive iron levels are far more prevalent than iron deficiency. Virtually all men over the age of 16 and post-menopausal women are at risk of high iron.

Exercise — Exercise upregulates genes that promote mitochondrial efficiency, helping them grow and divide so that you have more mitochondria. By placing an increased energy demand on your cells, free radicals signal that you need more mitochondria to meet the energy demand. As a result, your body adapts to your level of activity by creating more mitochondria and making them work more efficiently.

Nutritional supplements — The following nutrients and cofactors are also needed for mitochondrial enzymes to function properly:

CoQ10 or ubiquinol (the reduced form)
L-Carnitine, which shuttles fatty acids to the mitochondria
D-ribose, which is raw material for the ATP molecule
Magnesium
Marine-based omega-3
All B vitamins, including riboflavin, thiamine and B6
Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA)

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/28/role-of-eating-ketogenic-for-glioblastoma.aspx

A landmark study by Grandjean, et al.,1 has been published confirming that very low levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy impair the brain development of the child and at a population level may be causing more damage than lead, mercury or arsenic.

The study found that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of 0.2 mg/L, which is exceeded four to five times in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities, was enough to lower IQ by one point. The authors stated that even this impact is likely underestimated and:

“These findings provide additional evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant … and the benchmark results should inspire a revision of water-fluoride recommendations aimed at protecting pregnant women and young children.”

A urinary fluoride (UF) concentration of 0.2 mg/L is far below what a pregnant woman in a fluoridated community would have, as confirmed by two recent studies.
A study of pregnant women in fluoridated San Francisco, California,2 found a mean UF concentration of 0.74 mg/L, and one with participants in fluoridated communities across Canada3 found a mean UF concentration of 1.06 mg/L. Both levels were significantly higher than those found in women in nonfluoridated communities.

Grandjean, et al.’s study, published in Risk Analysis, was a benchmark dose (BMD) analysis of the pooled data from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded ELEMENT and MIREC birth cohorts in Mexico and Canada. These are the birth cohorts that were used in the studies that found exposure to low levels of fluoride during pregnancy is linked to cognitive impairment in children.4,5,6,7

A Benchmark Dose is used to identify a dose or concentration that would likely cause a defined amount of harm, in this case a loss of one IQ point.

What makes this paper so important is that BMD is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) risk assessment methodology, and the paper’s authors used a one IQ point drop as the adverse effect amount because the EPA has used this same level of IQ loss in their own risk assessments and has recommended use of such a level.

It has been well established that a loss of one IQ point leads to a reduced lifetime earning ability of $18,000. Summed over the whole population we are talking about a loss of billions of dollars of earning ability each year.

It is estimated that over 72% of public drinking water systems in America are fluoridated; thus, millions of pregnant women are currently being exposed to levels of fluoride that have the potential to lower their children’s IQ by at least four points and probably more.

Moreover, it’s important to point out that in risk assessments using BMD methodology, it’s standard practice to apply a safety factor on top of the calculated BMD in order to determine a safe reference dose (RfD) to protect the whole population (including the most vulnerable) from harm.

If that safety factor used was the standard safety margin of 10, to account for the variables in population-wide sensitivity, then the EPA might conclude that any urine fluoride concentration above 0.02 mg/L would be unacceptable and “unsafe.” This is 35 times lower than what the American Dental Association and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend for fluoridated communities.

Study Submitted to Judge in Federal Fluoridation Lawsuit

Michael Connett, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA, has sent a copy8 of this BMD analysis to the judge presiding over the case currently in federal court. The Fluoride Action Network is involved in an ongoing federal lawsuit9 against the EPA seeking to prohibit the deliberate addition of fluoride to drinking water because of its neurotoxicity.

A trial was held in June 2020, which featured world-renowned experts10 testifying in court that fluoridation posed a danger on par with lead. At the conclusion, the judge stated that we had presented “serious evidence” that presents “serious questions” about the safety of fluoridation, and said, “I don’t think anyone disputes that fluoride is a hazard.”

The judge also noted that the EPA had used an incorrect standard for assessing the available science and offered them a second chance to review it accurately, which they have declined repeatedly.

Since last summer, we have also won several legal victories, including rulings against EPA motions to dismiss the case and a recent ruling in April 2021 granting our motion to amend our original 2016 petition to include the latest studies and a more detailed listing of plaintiffs.
In the written order,11 the court dismantles the EPA’s arguments one by one, showing that the judge is committed to ensuring that all of the science is considered and remains the focus, which is a very good sign for our side.

The ruling also sets a precedent for future environmental cases under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by allowing petitioners to update and amend complaints to include the most up-to-date science during the trial, rather then restart the multiyear petition process over as the EPA attorneys wanted.

The court will hold the trial in abeyance until the final National Toxicology Program monograph on fluoride’s neurotoxicity is published possibly later this year. The judge was also awaiting the release of the benchmark dose analysis mentioned above and at least one additional study due out later in 2021.

Once all of this new research is available to the court, the judge could potentially hold a second phase of the trial, allowing additional discovery and testimony only on this new evidence. In fact, during the April 22, 2021, status hearing, the judge said this was his preference, and in the court order it is written, “As this Court has indicated, the evolving science warrants reopening of expert discovery and trial evidence.”

The court order indicated that once the judge has had the opportunity to see the new evidence and hear from both sides, the Fluoride Action Network will be able to resubmit our amended petition to the EPA for what will likely be one last opportunity for their reconsideration before a final ruling is made by the judge.

The next court hearing will be August 26, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. (Pacific U.S.). To get additional updates and links to view the hearing, follow FAN on Facebook and Twitter or sign up for our weekly bulletin.

For those wanting to catch up on this precedent setting trial, we have several resources available for you. First is a 16-minute video featuring our attorney, Michael Connett, providing a detailed background on the case and trial. Second, we have a 30-minute interview of Connett by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Third, FAN has a comprehensive database of documents, timelines, media coverage and materials about the lawsuit on our website.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<< Damning Deposition Videos The talking point we probably hear the most from proponents at council hearings, and repeated by policy makers, is that government agencies like the CDC and EPA vouch for fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness, and regulate the practice responsibly, so therefore it must be true and we must be wrong. Instead of verifying any of these claims, policy makers have put their blind trust in these agencies. The media outlets, on the other hand, which should be the nation’s watchdog, have suspended their professionalism by not only blindly trusting these agencies, but also by discrediting those opposed to fluoridation. Under oath, representatives from these agencies proved that their mantra of “safe and effective” is only a baseless claim used to promote a failed policy. In this first video, Casey Hannan, the director of the CDC’s Oral Health Division, testifies that the CDC has no data12 establishing the safety of fluoride’s effect on the brain, despite decades of touting the safety of fluoridation for all citizens, including children. In this second video, Hannan admits there is no prenatal or early-life benefit13 from fluoride despite its known neurotoxicity to this same sub-population. In the third video, Joyce Donohue, Ph.D., a scientist from the EPA’s Office of Water, admits that the EPA’s current fluoride risk assessment, and thus fluoridation regulations, are out of date and should be updated14 in response to the collection of studies showing neurotoxicity published over the past several years. These three videos are just a small taste of what was admitted under oath by representatives of the government agencies responsible for protecting the health of Americans. For example, during the trial we also watched a video of CDC’s Hannan agreeing with the finding that “fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain … and increase risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” as well as agreeing with the National Research Council finding that “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the function of the brain and body by direct and indirect means.” FAN will be able to share much more of this video content with you after a ruling is made in the trial, exposing the failure of these agencies to protect the public from overexposure to fluoride. Former NTP Director Warns Parents in Op-Ed Along with the avalanche of new peer-reviewed studies showing harm and the lawsuit exposing government negligence, there has been an ever-growing chorus of warnings to the public and opposition to fluoridation from researchers and public health experts. This includes the former director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health. Toxicologist and microbiologist Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., co-authored an op-ed appearing in Environmental Health News with Christine Till, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada, and Dr. Bruce Lanphear, MPH, a physician, clinical scientist and professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada. Till is a co-author of several significant fluoride studies including the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride neurotoxicity study15 and others finding lowered IQ, increased diagnosis of ADHD and thyroid impairment. She received a leadership award from York University, in part, for this groundbreaking research. Lanphear is also an award-winning researcher who has been a member of two National Academies of Science committees, is a member of the EPA’s Lead Review Panel and is renowned for his research on low-level lead exposure and many other environmental neurotoxins. The op-ed, titled “It Is Time to Protect Kids' Developing Brains From Fluoride,”16 highlights the mounting evidence that fluoride is impairing brain development and compares the response from the public health community to its delayed response to the obvious harm caused by lead. The authors call for the U.S. "to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children," and state: "Given the weight of evidence that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain, it is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to review their recommendations and regulations to ensure they protect pregnant women and their children ... We can act now by recommending that pregnant women and infants reduce their fluoride intake." The op-ed is accompanied by a powerful animated short video17 on the impact of fluoride on brain development produced by Little Things Matter, a nonprofit scientific organization composed of children’s environmental health professionals. Dr. Till was also recently filmed giving an hour-long “must watch” presentation and Q&A on her fluoride neurotoxicity research.18 FAN has compiled quotes19 (and produced a video) from a variety of experts warning about fluoride’s neurotoxicity, as well as a list of opinion pieces and journal articles20 warning of harm. From Womb to Tomb An April 2021 study from Sweden found 50% higher rates of hip bone fractures in post-menopausal women in an area with up to about 1 mg/L fluoride in drinking water.21 It also found 10% to 20% higher rates of fractures for all types of bone fractures and for those types commonly associated with osteoporosis. The high-quality cohort study used detailed information from more than 4,000 older Swedish women enrolled starting in 2004 and followed through 2017. Their largest source of exposure was from naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water, at concentrations at or below 1 mg/L. Their total exposures fell within the same range as women living in areas with artificial fluoridation. Concern for fluoride’s effect on bone quality was raised 25 years ago based on animal studies: “[O]ne cannot help but be alarmed by the negative effects of fluoride on bone strength consistently demonstrated in animal models.”22,23 The animal findings prompted human studies. This new Swedish study builds on previous studies that found increased risk of bone fractures in older people with long-term fluoride exposure.24,25,26 It is also consistent with extensive experience from randomized controlled trials (RCT) done in the 1990s that attempted to decrease fracture risk for those with osteoporosis by giving patients relatively high doses of fluoride. Instead of decreasing fracture risk, those studies found increased risk, especially for hip fractures, and the attempts to use fluoride as a medication against osteoporosis have been largely abandoned. Researchers concluded that although fluoride can increase bone mineral density (BMD), it simultaneously decreases bone quality and bone strength, despite the greater density. This ought to have serious implications for the practice of fluoridation. The study’s findings suggest that long-term consumption of fluoridated water may be responsible for 50% or more of the hip fractures experienced by older people. There are about 2 million osteoporotic fractures in the U.S. per year, of which about 300,000 are hip fractures.27 Hip fractures in the elderly are a leading cause of disability and death. “About 30% of people with a hip fracture will die in the following year.”28 “Of those who survive, many do not regain their prefracture level of function. About 50% of patients with hip fractures will never be able to ambulate without assistance and 25% will require long-term care.”29 Water fluoridation may literally be killing older people, taking years off their lives or leaving them confined to wheelchairs. “Treating hip fractures is also very expensive. A typical patient with a hip fracture spends US $40,000 in the first year following hip fracture for direct medical costs and almost $5,000 in subsequent years.”30 Widespread fluoridation in the U.S. might help explain why, “Hip fracture rates among the U.S. population are the highest in the world.”31 Just as with the fluoride neurotoxicity studies that are finally being taken seriously, and funded by government agencies, this new study could help spur more high-quality studies on bone effects of fluoride. But there is already more than enough evidence of risk to the brain, and now to bone health, that there is no justification to continue intentionally adding fluoride to drinking water for the sole purpose of trying to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridation Lobby Is Doubling Down Unfortunately, in response to the abundance of new research, the landmark lawsuit, growing concern in the scientific community and the sustained advocacy and education efforts of FAN, the promoters of fluoridation have doubled-down on their efforts to expand the practice further in an effort to gaslight public officials into believing the practice isn’t on the brink of extinction. The United Kingdom and New Zealand32 are both being threatened with nationwide fluoridation mandates. In the U.K., the fluoridation lobby alongside the health secretary, Matt Hancock, are urging the government to take the power33 over fluoridation from local councils so he can mandate it throughout the country. While this threat is very real, the proposal doesn’t seem to have made much progress since March, but FAN is tracking it and working with U.K. residents to mount opposition. In New Zealand, the government has revived and amended a bill that was introduced in 2016 but lacked enough support for passage. As introduced, the bill would have moved fluoridation decisions from local councils — where they reside presently – to district health boards. However, the current government has amended the language to centralize fluoridation authority even further, by giving full control34 to the director-general of health, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield. Using this process has defied the normal democratic process, with no select committee, community consultation or public input. Supporters of this proposal are trying to pass it into law by the end of the year, at which time local councils (and local taxpayers) will be responsible for all capital and operational costs. While a number of mayors have come out in opposition, as well as citizens and professionals led by Fluoride Free NZ,35 the proposal appears to be moving forward. Learn more in this new video from FAN. The dental lobby is also targeting large cities in North America. This past summer, a coalition led by Delta Dental worked behind the scenes to pressure the city council in Spokane, Washington, to pass a resolution to fluoridate their drinking water, despite the public voting three times to reject fluoridation. Part of their sales pitch was that COVID was presenting an oral health emergency, to which this would be a solution. It was eventually revealed that implementation would take at least five years, making their exploitation of the pandemic to sell their fluoridation chemicals apparent. A local citizens group assisted by FAN, Safe Water Spokane,36 has fought this effort, and as a result the council has tabled their fluoridation resolution and will study the issue for the next year. Click here to learn more about Spokane. Calgary, Alberta, is also being threated with fluoridation despite voting numerous times to reject the practice. After hearing from the O’Brien Institute for Public Health that the practice causes cognitive impairment,37 the cowardly council decided to put the issue to a public vote this October, rather than make a decision. FAN is working with local campaigners Safe Water Calgary38 to ensure the public votes “no” on reintroducing fluoridation chemicals. The CDC has even partnered with private industry, using your tax dollars to develop new fluoridation products39 for rural water systems and private wells to expand the practice to every corner of the country (and likely beyond). We can’t count on the mainstream media or the public health authorities to tell the public or decision makers about what is happening. It’s up to us to make this information go viral! It’s up to us to bring it to our elected leaders and demand action! We need your support more than ever. Please help us get to the finishing line of a world without fluoridation.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/29/low-levels-of-fluoride-can-reduce-iq.aspx

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

In this interview, CJ Hopkins, an American playwright, novelist and columnist who currently resides in Berlin, Germany, discusses the implementation of the globalist plan for a new normal, also known as the Great Reset. The first year or two of Phase 1, Hopkins describes as the “shock-and-awe” phase.

“It’s pretty classic,” he says. “It’s the hysteria that was rolled out right at the beginning of [the COVID-19 pandemic]. We had the fake pictures of people dropping dead in the streets in China, and they were advertising a 3.4% death rate. Hundreds of millions of people were going to die.

States of emergency were declared. I covered all of this with citations in my early columns. Basically, a police state was rolled out and everyone was locked down. Here in Europe, the police were arresting people for being outside without permission. Neighbors started reporting their neighbors for going outdoors without a mask or beyond curfew.

That was pretty much the whole first year. This was really shock and awe. It feels like now we’re moving into Phase 2 with the rollout of a social segregation system and vaccine passes. In a lot of ways, I feel like Phase 2 is going to be more insidious than Phase 1 was.”

What’s in Store for Phase 2?

While hesitant to predict what’s to come, Hopkins fears some version of the intended social segregation system will be implemented despite public pushback. “That really concerns me,” he says. Even partial implementation can be enough to get the proverbial foot in the door, so to speak, to allow a fuller implementation to occur later on.

In the U.S., resistance by certain states is encouraging. So far, 14 states have implemented laws banning the requirement of vaccine passports to prevent a two-tier society from forming. In Europe, however, due to the smaller sizes of each country, it’s easier to create the ideological uniformity required to impose these systems, so what happens there remains to be seen. When asked how he’s structuring his resistance to the plan for global tyranny, Hopkins replies:

“The main way is through my ‘Consent Factory’ columns. My essays. And through the ‘Consent Factory’ on social media. I try to whip up as much resistance and create as much awareness as I can and urge people to spread that and do the same. That’s what I do. My medium is words.

On a personal level, I think it’s really important not to cooperate with the system. For example, in Germany, they’re rolling out a segregation system so that if I want to go to a restaurant, a café, a nonessential store or attend the theater, I need to present either a proof of vaccination or a negative test within 24 hours to enter these establishments.

I think it’s really important for those of us who are pushing back against this, to not play along. I’m going to try to go to the restaurants. I’m going to try to enter the stores.

And I want to make the people who have been made responsible for the system, I want to make them eject me, and I want to politely but loudly make it clear: ‘You’re ejecting me from your establishment because I’m not conforming to this insane ideological program.’ Hopefully, if a lot of people do this, enough social friction can be created and build resistance to it.”

Coerced Compliance Is Not a Return of Freedom

In the U.S., the lifting of mask mandates for vaccinated individuals only appears to be part of the more insidious style we can expect in Phase 2. In essence, it’s just another strategy to coerce compliance with vaccination. “Get the vaccine and you can have your freedom; you can go back to normal,” is the idea here.

But it’s a false freedom. Being coerced to comply with the demand to be a guinea pig for an experimental gene therapy in order to “regain” basic human freedom is hardly freedom.

“This is what I mean by I think Phase 2 is going to be more insidious than Phase 1, because that’s exactly right. We’re getting this carrot-and-stick stuff,” Hopkins says. “Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton came out and tweeted, ‘Get vaccinated or wear a mask.’ That’s it. These are the choices …

My sense is the mask regulations will probably be the last thing to go here in Germany. Clearly, the masks, I think, were the primary means of generating the appearance of an apocalyptic plague that is threatening the very fabric of society. When people take off their masks, the illusion will just evaporate.”

Suffocating Censorship Abounds

As in the U.S., Germany and virtually all other countries are experiencing severe censorship of anything COVID-19 related. Hopkins describes the situation as “suffocating,” saying “it’s been one of the most impressive and frightening experiences that I can remember.”

Very quickly, the German media, government and entertainment industry started marching in lockstep. Gleichschaltung is a German word that harkens back to the Nazi regime. Gleich means “the same” and schaltung means “to switch.”

“What it means is basically synchronizing all aspects of culture, messaging and ideology in the society to make everything absolutely uniform and to eliminate all dissent,” Hopkins explains. “Of course, this is what the Nazis did, and this is exactly what I have witnessed here.

It happened almost instantly, in the spring of 2020. And it has been absolutely suffocating. Anyone protesting, questioning or challenging the official narrative has been demonized as a far-right conspiracy theorist, an anti-Semitic extremist. It’s been really intense.”

How Did We Get Here?

For many, myself included, the current reality is beyond surreal. It’s like living in a nightmare, hoping to wake up at any moment. How did we get here? Hopkins offers his personal take on the situation:

“I started writing political satire and commentary back in 2016. I did that because I got interested in the Donald Trump phenomenon. I’m not a fan of Donald Trump personally, but something new was happening and it caught my attention.

What I covered all during the Trump years was this unauthorized president got elected and it felt to me like this was part of a broader populist pushback against whatever you want to call it — global capitalist ideology is what I call it — and what we’ve been living with for the last 30 years since the fall of the Soviet Union …

Suddenly around 2016, there was Brexit and Trump and various reactionary populist movements rising up in Europe. It interested me. Here’s some resistance against the new ideology.

What I watched, what I described in my columns and in my books, was the system, the entire global system, and this is where it gets too simplistic to talk about because it’s not a bunch of capitalists sitting in a room, scheming and plotting all this out. It’s the system reacting to this insurgency, to this sort of populist rebellion inside of it.

And what they did is very clear. They made an example of Trump. They demonized him. They demonized everybody who put him in office. Really polarized society so that you were either a good Democrat or you were a white supremacist, racist, neo-Nazi monster. They did this for four years solid and, of course, it all culminated in 2020 when they removed Trump from office and then had the big spectacle of ‘restoring normality.’

I can’t help but see the rollout of the ‘new normal’ and this whole narrative, this introduction, of what I see as a more totalitarian version of global capitalist society. I see this in that same context.

A point that I always make about this is the lockdowns were the big thing in the beginning, right? And for most of the last year. Where does the concept of lockdown come from? Well, it comes from prisons. And when do you lock the prisoners down? You lock them down when they’re rebelling, when they’re rioting.

And you do it to remind them, ‘Hey, you’re in prison, and we can lock you down and impose any type of measures on you that we want, any time we want, until you start toeing the line.’ I cannot help but see what we’ve been through during this past year as part of that lesson that the ruling establishment, the system itself, is teaching us …

There’s a book that I recommend to everyone — especially to true believers if any of them are watching and they still have just a little bit of an open mind — by Milton Mayer, called ‘They Thought They Were Free.’ He was here in Germany in the 1930s as the Nazis came to power, as this ideological synchronization was rolled out. And what he describes mirrors almost exactly what we’ve been experiencing.

The context is completely different. It’s not a political ideology that’s being rolled out [now]. But just the introduction of this official narrative, this official ideology, and the coercion and implementation of police measures and the abrogation of the constitution [is the same as back then].

And people’s reactions to it and nonreactions to it. How it was all implemented step by step by step, the old ‘how to boil a frog’ thing. If you read that and compare it to what we’ve been through for the last year, it’s just horrifying.”

What Can We Do?

The book, “They Thought They Were Free,” is available as a free PDF download here. Now, if what we’re experiencing is subjugation training, how can we most effectively resist it? Certainly, we need to spread the word and collaborate with friends and neighbors, because if they’re listening to the mainstream media, they’re not getting this at all.

To me, one of the most frightening parts of this are the attempts to coerce people into getting vaccinated with an experimental gene therapy. What’s happening is absolute 100% illegal and a clear violation of the Nuremberg Code, because the only way you can give informed consent to anything is to have both sides of the story.

But they are only presenting one side. Anything that opposes their narrative is immediately censored. People with any kind of following on social media are simply deplatformed. As a result, people have no idea what they’re getting themselves into.

Clearly, we have to realize that this is a long-term game. The globalists, the technocratic elite who are running this nightmare simulation, have been organizing and planning its execution for decades. They’re not flying by the seat of their pants. They have a long-term game plan, and we need to establish one too, even if, for the moment, we’re lagging behind.

“I think you’re absolutely right and this is why I brought up that term, Gleichschaltung, this synchronization,” Hopkins says. “It’s very clear to me, to you, to those of us who have been paying attention, the intensity of the effort to silence discussion. To silence dissent. To silence questioning.

To present this uniform ideological narrative … and there’s no room in it for questioning, for argument, for a discussion. If you question it, you are absolutely demonized. It makes it really difficult to communicate. I’m a satirist, so I think I kind of slip through the lines because maybe the censors don’t know if I’m serious or not.

It’s more difficult for people who are just trying to present facts and information because they’re getting completely shut out. I think we have to continue to try to do it no matter what. I think it’s important to repeatedly present the facts.

To repeatedly point out what happened at the beginning of this — All the propaganda. All the false information. Where [the virus] came from. The models. The way the PCR tests were used to generate the appearance that suddenly, perfectly healthy people became medical cases.”

How a Real-World Pandemic Simulation Was Created

That last point is an important one. We now know, rather unequivocally, that we did not have a lethal pandemic as much as we had a casedemic, meaning a pandemic of false positive tests.

The vast majority were perfectly healthy, but because the PCR tests were run at a ridiculously and indefensibly high cycle threshold (CT), they picked up dead fragments of the virus, resulting in false positives. Medicine as we know it was suddenly turned on its head, and these healthy individuals were deemed “sick” based on flawed testing and nothing else.

The official narrative violates just about everything we know about medicine and science. And they did it simply by redefining terms.

Once actual death counts dropped, mainstream media reverted from flashing death statistics to “case” statistics, thereby making it appear as though the pandemic was raging, even as hospitals remained empty of COVID-19 patients.

“It’s so frustrating because you can’t get this through to people who are true believers,” Hopkins says. “First of all, the test was never meant to be diagnostic of illness. But the fact that you could turn this test up to 40, 50 cycles, and suddenly people who were perfectly healthy, with no symptoms of illness whatsoever, became medical cases.

The next step, of course, was to use that to inflate the deaths. Then people who were dying in hospitals, they didn’t have to be dying of [some other] illness anymore. If they were tested and the PCR test showed they had been infected, then they were COVID deaths. And then those statistics were exploded. They basically redefined traditional established scientific and medical knowledge.”

That too is a key point. The official narrative violates just about everything we know about medicine and science. And they did it simply by redefining terms. The World Health Organization redefined the word “pandemic.” The medical term “case” was redefined, as was the definition of a “COVID death.” They’ve redefined the term “herd immunity” and even the term “anti-vaxxer.”

According to Merriam-Webster, an “anti-vaxxer” is now anyone who opposes vaccination or simply disagrees with vaccine mandates. Based on this loosened definition, an estimated 79% of Americans are now anti-vaxxers.1 Most recently, they redefined what a “breakthrough case” is among the vaccinated.

It’s All About Manipulating Statistics

Those who define the terms control the narrative. Simply by redefining what constitutes illness, they’re able to dial the pandemic up and down at will. On the day President Biden was inaugurated, the pandemic was dialed back by the WHO simply lowering the recommended CT. By then, the vaccination program had begun, and to make the vaccines appear effective, the caseload needed to decline.

Unfortunately, breakthrough cases started appearing, meaning fully vaccinated individuals were being hospitalized for COVID-19. So, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changed the definition of a breakthrough case and lowered the recommended CT when testing fully vaccinated individuals.2

The CDC no longer records mild or asymptomatic infections in vaccinated individuals as “COVID cases.” The only cases that now count as COVID cases — if the patient has been vaccinated against COVID-19 — are those that result in hospitalization or death.3,4 And, like magic, the vaccine effectiveness got a boost. Breakthrough cases dropped by several thousand overnight, from 10,262 (as of April 30, 2021)5 to 3,0166 (as of June 1, 2021).

Meanwhile, if you’re unvaccinated and come down with a mild case, or if you test positive at a higher CT and have no symptoms, you still count as a COVID case. So, we now have this remarkably unscientific and illogical situation where testing rules and definitions of illness vary depending on whether the patient is vaccinated or unvaccinated!

There’s only one reason for doing something as unprecedented as this, and that is to manipulate statistics. This allows the CDC to inflate the caseload among unvaccinated people and minimize breakthrough cases among the vaccinated. The end result is that unvaccinated people will appear more prone to infection, even though they’re not, and the vaccines will appear far more protective than they actually are.

“The reason it is so difficult to resist is [because] this simulation has been created through all of these means that we’re talking about, and the people who believe in this simulation — I’ve likened them to cult members — there’s no shaking their belief in this,” Hopkins says.

“I think it’s important, nonetheless, to keep confronting them and presenting these facts to everybody. The other [strategy] is on a personal level, just as I was saying before.

I think it’s crucial that those of us who are not true believers in this new ideology continue to try to live according to reality, and refuse to reify it, refuse to behave according to these rules that are being imposed.

Fundamentally, the idea that anything about this virus requires a radical restructuring of society where I have to present my medical papers to get a cup of coffee is insane. It’s literally insane. And it’s important that those of us who continue to have a grip on reality treat it as insane, and not treat it as legitimate at all …”

More Information

To read more of what Hopkins has to say, please visit his website, cjhopkins.com, or blog, consentfactory.org. He also has a Substack and Patreon account where you can find his work.

In closing, I believe a major part of the solution is to develop alternative distribution networks that are censorship resistant. Ultimately, we need a decentralized Internet. That’s currently in the works, but full implementation of it is bound to take years. In the meantime, we have to perfect online “guerilla tactics” to get around the censorship and form collaborative networks. We also need to engage in peaceful civil disobedience in our day-to-day lives. As noted by Hopkins:

“Until we get there, it’s crucial to continue to use whatever means. People are trying to avoid Facebook censors by playing with the fonts and the pictures and what have you. It’s another thing that people can study — in totalitarian societies, people adapted.

Everyone knew that the official sources were just pumping out propaganda, so, they learned how to speak and read between the lines. It might become more and more necessary to find ways to not say directly what you’re saying, but rather point to it so that it can lead other people to where you’re going. So, use whatever means are still available to get the facts, to get reality, out there.

Secondly, and I think just as important, back to my point about how we live our everyday lives. Go back to that restaurant where I have to show my vaccine pass or my test to sit down and get a cup of coffee. I have choices. I could choose to stay home. I could choose to get a counterfeit vax pass.

Neither one of those to me are the right choices because the choice is to go and demand that people treat me according to reality and not treat me according to the rules of their new ideology. Create that friction … I have no hostility to the server, but I want to make that server uncomfortable with what he or she is doing.

I want to make the other people who are sitting in the restaurant uncomfortable watching me be ejected, watching me be segregated because I don’t conform to this ideology. Maybe they all go home and sleep soundly. Maybe two of them are haunted by that moment.

Maybe they see another moment like that in another café the next day. Or at the cinema that night when they go out. The more moments they see of people standing up and saying, ‘This is insane and it is wrong and I’m not going to cooperate with it’ — all these little moments of friction, they can build and create the resistance that we need.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/27/cj-hopkins-fight-against-tyranny.aspx

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 eicocanoids. 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 cannaboid. 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/2021/06/27/toxic-legacy-how-glyphosate-destroys-your-health.aspx

In the January 22, 2021, lecture above, Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., discusses what he has dubbed the pandemic virus industrial complex — who they are, how they function and interact with elements within the academic, military and commercial complexes, and how they have been trying to obscure facts that indicate SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus that originated in a lab.

I have previously interviewed Latham a few times. He is the publisher of Independent Science News, a website that provides critical commentary on food, agriculture and biotechnology. It’s part of the Bioscience Resource Project, an educational nonprofit public interest group co-founded by Latham and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., that provides independent research and analysis of genetic engineering and its risks.

Latham points out that there are currently no data to suggest a natural zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2. On the other hand, there’s plenty of evidence and data suggesting the virus was genetically manipulated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China. Much of the related research was done by a scientist called Shi Zheng-Li, Ph.D.

The pandemic virus industrial complex is an interlocking set of corporations and other institutions who feed off and support each other with goods and services in a self-reinforcing way. ~ Jonathan Latham, Ph.D.

He goes on to summarize the Mojiang miners passage theory. This theory postulates that the virus evolved inside the bodies of six miners who became ill with a suspected novel coronavirus infection in 2012. Some of the miners were sick for several weeks — a sufficient amount of time for the virus to mutate, Latham believes.

Viral samples from the miners were sent to the WIV. Latham and Wilson believe research on these samples was what led to an accidental release of the virus in late 2019.

The Pandemic Virus Industrial Complex

Latham describes the pandemic virus industrial complex as “an interlocking set of corporations and other institutions who feed off and support each other with goods and services in a self-reinforcing way.” It is an enterprise that leverages public money for private profit. He also notes that many of these participants play unexpected roles. For example:

Philanthropic organizations act as string-pullers, influencers and profit centers
The Defense Department is both a cash cow and a provocateur
Academia provides public relations via legacy media controlled by philanthropic organizations and the drug industry
Academic nonprofits act as money launderers

“These nontraditional roles are intended to confuse and camouflage the various moving parts of what is a complex situation,” Latham says, “thereby protecting the whole from scrutiny.” While there are many similarities between the military industrial complex and the pandemic virus industrial complex, there’s an important difference between the two.

The pandemic virus industrial complex is public facing, and is expected to be beneficial and transparent. As such, it has an image of respectability that must be maintained, and that is why academics and philanthropic and nonprofit organizations play such important roles in this scheme.

Together, they help obscure the real agenda under a veneer of respectability and public good. In essence, they maintain the illusion that everything that’s taking place is for the betterment of mankind when, in reality, it’s a profit-making scheme.

Latham believes the pandemic virus industrial complex has played a decisive role in the effort to obscure the likely origin of the pandemic. He also believes this is the missing framework that helps explain the politicization of the pandemic.

Previous Obscuration Attempts of Manmade Outbreaks

In his lecture, Latham reviews some of the history of this viral pandemic industrial complex. In 2014, an Ebola outbreak in West Africa was decisively blamed on zoonotic transfer from infected bats. According to a report in EMBO Molecular Medicine,1 a 2-year-old boy playing with bats in a tree stump was Patient Zero.

However, while the paper failed to produce conclusive evidence to support its conclusion, Western media ran with this story. In West Africa, however, the rumor was that the real source of the outbreak was a hospital in Sierra Leone, which housed a biological laboratory where research on Ebola and related viruses, such as the lassa fever virus, was being done.

This research was largely funded by the U.S. Department of Defense. The reason for this funding was a recent upgrading by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the lassa fever virus as a Category A infectious substance, meaning a pathogen likely to be used as a bioweapon by terrorists. The research was carried out under the auspices of the Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium, led by Harvard University.

The Consortium is also tied to other academic institutions, including Tulane University, Scripps Research Institute, the University of California, San Diego, the Broad Institute of Boston and the University of Texas, as well as a number of private drug companies. According to Latham, statements made by some of the people involved in the research suggest they were taking advantage of West Africa’s lax and inferior biosecurity standards.

In his book, “The Ebola Outbreak in West Africa: Corporate Gangsters, Multinationals & Rogue Politicians,” Chernoh Bah provides evidence showing the Patient Zero story was a fraud. The young boy died at 18 months of age, far too young to play with bats, and he was never diagnosed with Ebola. Neither was anyone in his family. The first recorded case of Ebola was actually found in Guinea, some three months after the little boy had died.

Bah also found other gaping holes in the narrative. For example, despite widespread sampling, no Ebola virus was ever found in any animal, and no animal die-offs occurred before the outbreak, which tends to be typical in natural zoonotic spillover events. Despite the obvious problems with the official narrative, no formal investigation of the lab leak theory was ever performed.

Follow the Money

According to Latham, we can learn a number of things from this story. First of all, lab escapes are likely more common than we think, and widely considered zoonotic outbreaks may not be zoonotic in origin at all. Another example is the AIDS epidemic, which you can learn about in the book “The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS.”

The second thing we can learn from the West African Ebola story relates to the money trail. The U.S. Department of Defense funded the research done by the Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium. Other oft-used alternative sources are public health funding and international aid. Whatever the case, be it biodefense, public health funding or relief aid, the money comes from We the People.

Thirdly, corporate members of the Consortium had a specific business model in mind, and it had nothing to do with protecting vulnerable Africans from lassa or Ebola. The goal of drug companies is to sell vaccines, drugs and diagnostic tools, primarily to the U.S. or European militaries.

The fact that the 2014 Ebola outbreak narrative went unchallenged shows a disturbing lack of academic rigor, and it was certainly not the first time. As noted by Latham, scientists are failing in their role to pursue and promulgate knowledge and understanding.

“Instead, more and more frequently, academia creates fictions,” he says. They create “convenient, self-serving narratives.” Legacy media works hand-in-hand with such academics, acting as a megaphone for their dubious scientific claims.

Science Used for PR Purposes

One example of how businesses use academics to shape a narrative and manipulate public opinion was when, in May 2020, 77 Nobel laureates signed a public letter urging the U.S. government to reinstate funding to EcoHealth Alliance, which has subcontracted gain-of-function research on coronaviruses to the WIV. Earlier that year, then-President Trump had ordered the National Institutes of Health to cancel that funding.

The letter was organized by Sir Richard Roberts, a molecular biologist and Nobel Prize winner who also happens to be a senior executive with New England Biolabs, a manufacturer of laboratory equipment and reagents.

“Cutting funds for biotech virus research threatens their core business,” Latham says. So, is Roberts really a disinterested party? Or does he have a very keen interest in keeping dangerous gain-of-function research going, risks be damned?

Back in 2016, Roberts organized a similar campaign, in which 107 Nobel laureates attacked Greenpeace for supposedly blocking the approval of GMO golden rice.

The National Press Club in Washington D.C. brought nationwide attention to the letter with a formal press conference. One of the organizers of that press event was a former Monsanto PR executive, and the website created to promote the campaign was traced to the biotech industry.

“The point here is that there’s nothing spontaneous about these letters,” Latham says. “They’re carefully choreographed PR gambits … What is really being defended is the overlapping interests of companies like New England Biolabs and Monsanto. In this world, science and scientists are useful pawns with which to shape public opinion.”

Propaganda Now Coming From the Most Unlikely Sources

One of the latest propaganda tactics employed in an effort to shape public opinion and discourage inquisitiveness is that if you’re concerned about the potential for lab leaks, you’re anti-science and a racist pro-Trumper.

If you file freedom of information act (FOIA) requests with scientists, you’re anti-science. If you question Dr. Anthony Fauci, you’re anti-science.2,3 If you’re against GMOs, you’re anti-science. If you’re against gain-of-function research, you’re anti-science. If you’re anti-nuclear energy, you’re anti-science. This is a ploy and nothing else. Sadly, this propaganda is now being spewed by even the most unlikely of sources, such as Mother Jones.

June 14, 2021, Mother Jones published a hit piece on the Center for Food Safety, penned by Kiera Butler.4 In May 2021, the Center for Food Safety sued the NIH in an effort to force the agency to reveal its funding of gain-of-function research.

“Virologists say this kind of research is vital and has led to many important medical discoveries, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. But Center for Food Safety argues that gain-of-function research is too dangerous to pursue,” Butler writes.

“Why would this lefty food and farms group … rail against high-level virology research? The key to the answer has to do with the Center for Food Safety’s long opposition to the practice of genetic engineering. In a recent phone call, I spoke to CFS’s Kimbrell, who explained what he sees as the connection.

‘You genetically engineer bacteria and plants, then you genetically engineer animals, then you genetically engineer embryos — all that has happened, with some promise, but also a tremendous amount of danger and threat,’ he said.

‘Now, viruses are not technically an organism, but they are living biological elements. So, they fit certainly within that narrative: Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should do something.’

Kimbrell said he ‘absolutely’ thinks the pandemic was the result of an accidental lab release. Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, he believes, used gain-of-function to enhance a coronavirus. The virus then escaped out of the lab, spread uncontrollably, and caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, in effect, gain-of-function research caused the pandemic.”

Butler also discusses the Organic Consumers Association, the U.S. Right to Know, the International Center for Technology Assessment, and Children’s Health Defense — all of which have raised questions and concerns about this kind of dangerous research on pathogens. According to Butler, they have no business questioning such research, and their involvement could put us all in jeopardy.

“With tens of thousands of followers on social media, anti-GMO groups have the potential to turn the tide of public opinion; hanging in the balance is science that could potentially help prevent the next pandemic,” she writes.

Butler Accused of Journalistic Malpractice

In true propagandist fashion, Butler goes on to rebut gain-of-function concerns with commentary from EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak, Ph.D., one of the most conflicted individuals you could possibly find. Indeed, his conflicts of interest have become so widely known, he was recently removed from the Lancet commission charged with investigating the origin of COVID-19 because of it.5,6

Butler also goes to great lengths trying to paint the issue in political partisan colors, and quotes Dr. Peter Hotez, another highly compromised industry-funded player who has publicly called for cyberwarfare assaults on American citizens who disagree with official COVID narratives.

In a scathing rebuttal, Center for Food Safety founder attorney Andrew Kimbrell accuses Butler of “journalistic malpractice,”7 and rightfully so, in my opinion. She clearly tries to confuse readers by stressing that “gain-of-function” is a broad definition and that much of the gain-of-function research being done is both harmless and valuable.

However, that’s not the kind of research the Center for Food Safety or anyone else is concerned about. The Center for Food Safety’s lawsuit specifically pertains to the manipulation of pathogens in order to make them more virulent and dangerous to humans, and she didn’t interview a single mainstream scientist who has warned of the dangers associated with this practice, even though there are dozens of them.

Overall, Butler’s piece reads like classic propaganda, created by the very people with something to hide. As noted by GM Watch:8

“The Gates-funded Alliance for Science was quick to promote Butler’s article. They’re a PR campaign based at Cornell that pushes agrichemical industry views and tries to undermine the industry’s critics, particularly those critics concerned about GMOs.

As part of this effort, the Alliance for Science has been posing as an expert body on myths about the pandemic, even though they have no such myth-busting expertise. An early example of this was a piece they published by their employee Mark Lynas that branded GMWatch, among others, as conspiracy theorists for saying the virus may have accidentally leaked from a lab.

On Twitter, Mary Mangan, who sits on the Alliance’s advisory board, has been carefully tracking and commenting on exactly which ‘anti-GMO groups’ have been calling for the lab leak hypothesis to be taken seriously …

Interestingly, a reporter told HuffPost in relation to a court case involving Monsanto that she thought Mangan had tried to ‘play’ her to do a hit job on one of the expert witnesses critical of the company’s Roundup herbicide. Could it be that Ms Butler wasn’t so resistant to being played?”

Gain-of-Function Research Poses Very Real Threat

Another clear propaganda piece was published by Hotez in The Daily Beast, June 21, 2021.9 In recent weeks, Fauci’s role in the pandemic has become increasingly clear, and it’s far from flattering. He funded dangerous research that may in fact have resulted in a global outbreak. Now, he’s trying to deflect blame by saying that personal attacks on him “represent an assault on American science,” and Hotez is doing what he can to strengthen that ridiculous notion.

To do so, Hotez takes it a step further, linking attacks on Fauci to attacks not only on science but also on the very foundation of democracy. According to Hotez, “moral courage and standing up for democratic values demands that the American people throw their full support behind scientists and scientific institutions. To do otherwise is to capitulate to the forces of insurrection.”10

Like Butler, Hotez spends an inordinate amount of time trying to paint concerns about dangerous research on pathogens that have the potential to kill us all as a far-right, racist, anti-science, anti-democracy issue, when it’s nothing of the sort.

When dangerous science has the potential to wipe out mankind, it is cause for concern among thinking individuals of all political persuasions. It’s not anti-science. It’s anti-recklessness, and to prevent another disaster, those responsible must be held to account for their actions. Clearly, not all science is dangerous. Being against recklessly dangerous science does not mean you’re against all science or science in general.

If we want to prevent another pandemic like this from occurring in the future, we must first determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and how it ended up in the population. If it can be proven that it came from a lab, then we need to identify and hold those responsible for its creation and release accountable for their actions and/or neglect and, lastly, we need to prevent a reoccurrence by banning research in which pathogens are purposely manipulated to make them more dangerous.

To get to the bottom of it all, we need to look at the pandemic virus industrial complex. We need to dissect how it functions and how its members interlink and work together to obscure the truth.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/28/pandemic-virus-industrial-complex.aspx

1 Who is Dr. Robert Malone?

He’s an online college biochemistry professor
He’s a former U.S. Food and Drug Administration official and whistleblower
He developed the nanolipid used in mRNA gene therapy
He invented the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology

Dr. Robert Malone invented the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology. He has grave concerns about the lack of transparency of side effects, censoring of discussion and the lack of informed consent that these bring. Learn more.

2 Instead of encouraging the open sharing of information, the media and its “fact checkers” have succeeded in using the pandemic to:

Generate fear and control human behavior

The media and its “fact checkers” have succeeded in generating fear and in controlling human behavior via the pandemic. Learn more.

Increase their journalistic integrity
Ensure all opinions and facts are represented
Protect the freedom of speech

3 Why are variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus unlikely to pose a significantly differing or worse risk to people with natural immunity, compared to the original?

Because variants are completely new viruses, so your immune system kicks in
Because variants are at most 0.3% dissimilar from the original, so T cells can easily recognize and protect against them

Variants are unlikely to pose significantly differing risk to people with natural immunity compared to the original, as resistance is primarily based on your T cells, which have been shown to recognize and attack variants that are up to 80% dissimilar. SARS-CoV-2 variants are at most 0.3% dissimilar from the original, which means T cell immunity will easily recognize and protect against them. Learn more.

Because natural immunity against one virus means you’re immune against all viruses
SARS-CoV-2 does not mutate

4 Despite there being obvious problems with the gene-based COVID-19 “vaccines,” scientists are already working on which of the following?

DNA-based seasonal influenza vaccines
An mRNA AIDS vaccine
A COVID-flu mRNA combo shot and a pneumococcal-COVID combo booster

Scientists are moving full steam ahead to produce several additional gene-based vaccines, including the first COVID-flu mRNA vaccine, a pneumococcal-COVID mRNA booster shot for adults over 65, and mRNA seasonal influenza vaccines. Learn more.

An mRNA hepatitis B vaccine to be administered at birth

5 The term “net zero” doesn’t mean zero emissions, as rich polluters will still be able to:

Transition to cleaner alternatives
Settle for damages of their past mistakes
Use renewable energy resources
Continue to pollute

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

6 The evidence is now overwhelming that SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic are the result of:

A laboratory release

The evidence is now overwhelming that SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic are the result of a laboratory release. Learn more.

A mutated bat virus
Humans’ natural contact with animals
Completely natural origins

7 Research shows a strong correlation between the rise in celiac disease and which of the following?

Decreased usage of glyphosate due to organic farming
Increased use of glyphosate as a desiccant on wheat

There’s a strong correlation between the rise in celiac disease over time and the rise in glyphosate usage on wheat, which is the primary culprit in celiac disease. Learn more.

Increased levels of arsenic and lead in irrigation water
Excessive levels of linoleic acid in processed foods

 
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/28/week-188-health-quiz.aspx