Categories
Recommended

Key Researcher in Wuhan Thanks Fauci for Downplaying Lab Leak

In an interview with a reporter from the Washington Examiner, Nicholas Wade, retired science writer for The New York Times, postulated the reason the media and others didn’t further explore the idea that the SARS-CoV-2 virus leaked from a lab was that the theory was initially and publicly proposed by then-President Trump.1

Wade believes the theory became politically polarized, burying the possibility it would be fully and independently explored. In April 2020, Trump made a comment that he had seen evidence supporting the theory that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a lab in China. At a White House event, he was asked about the evidence, to which he replied, “I cannot tell you that. I’m not allowed to tell you that.”2

His inability to disclose the source was immediately pounced upon by the media, prompting headlines that stated he claimed to have evidence but cited no details. Just days later, mainstream media began refuting Trump’s comment, claiming the virus was not “cooked up in a Chinese lab,”3 and headlines proclaimed there was “‘Exactly Zero’ Evidence COVID-19 Came From a Lab.”4

Many reporters also claimed what one reporter in the LA Times wrote: “The story has all the earmarks of a conspiracy theory.”5 In this case, however, the truth is beginning to come out. As I’ve reported in the past months, many scientists believe the evidence demonstrates it is nearly impossible for the virus to have developed in nature.6 Within the past month the idea that the virus originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, has been gaining mainstream media attention.7

The questions appeared to start after the World Health Organization’s joint report with Beijing was released, which concluded the lab leak hypothesis was “extremely unlikely.”8 However, as demonstrated by interviews with at least one member of the investigation team, it appeared the group’s assessment at the lab was not thorough.

Challenging the idea of the origins of the virus has been seen as career suicide for scientists,9 but the recent release of emails10 from Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical adviser to the president, has shed new light that may ultimately create an environment where the truth will be exposed.

Fauci Works With Group to Quash Lab Leak Theory

Under the Freedom of Information Act, BuzzFeed obtained and published online11 over 3,000 pages of emails written to and from Fauci from various sources. The emails revealed an exchange between Fauci and Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance based in New York.

In the published documents is a telling email from Daszak to Fauci, “to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators.”12 This email came hours after Fauci publicly dismissed the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally leaked from a Wuhan lab.

Earlier in the day the Washington Examiner13 reported that Fauci was asked directly about the hypothesis the virus leaked from a lab and he said the scientific evidence “is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”

EcoHealth Alliance is a research group that secured a grant from the NIH to do research on coronaviruses in Wuhan before the pandemic broke in 2019.14 As reported in a February 2021 article in the Austin American-Statesman, the original grant from the NIH was for $3.4 million awarded in 2014 to an organization, “which aims to protect people from viruses that jump from species to species.”15

EcoHealth Alliance turned around and hired the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), with which they had been collaborating since 2004,16 paying $598,500 over five years.17 WIV had reportedly secured approval from the NIH and the U.S. State Department to do the research.

In February 2021, the Austin American-Statesman reporter attempted to refute the claim that Fauci and the NIH had funded gain-of-function research “on a bat coronavirus, which ‘created’ SARS-CoV-2,”18 despite incriminating evidence to the contrary as I have reported. But now, as I will show below, Fauci’s emails show that he knew much more than he was admitting to.

The very person who funded and worked closely with WIV was also appointed to the joint inspection team led by WHO and Beijing.19 The report was criticized over its strong conclusions that were based on little evidence. In a later 60 Minutes interview, Daszak admitted they had taken at face value the word of the Chinese officials in their investigation.20

NIH Finally Seeks Accountability for Millions in Grant Money

Early in 2020, the NIH pulled the multimillion-dollar grant from EcoHealth Alliance and then reinstated it in July with what Daszak termed “absurd conditions.”21 In a press release from EcoHealth Alliance they expressed displeasure at the conditions placed on the research grant, writing:22

“We were initially pleased to learn that the National Institutes of Health had reversed its indefensible decision to terminate our funding for a five year research project on emerging coronaviruses, during this coronavirus pandemic.

However, NIH’s letter cynically reinstates and instantly suspends EcoHealth Alliance’s funding, then attempts to impose impossible and irrelevant conditions that will effectively block us from continuing this critical work.”

The Wall Street Journal reported some of the conditions under which EcoHealth Alliance could continue to receive funding. These included:23

A sample of the new coronavirus that Wuhan researchers used for genetic sequencing.
Arrange an inspection of the WIV by an outside team of scientists that would review the records “with specific attention to addressing the question of whether WIV staff had SARS-CoV-2 in their possession prior to December 2019.”

In their response to the letter from the NIH outlining the conditions of the reinstatement, The Wall Street Journal reports, “EcoHealth Alliance said in its response that it hadn’t sent any grant funds to the Wuhan Institute before the grant was suspended, though it has provided funding to the institute in previous years.”24

Daszak called the demands for information about how millions of taxpayer dollars were being spent “heinous,” and in an email to Nature, his partner scientist at WIV, Shi Zhengli, called it “outrageous.”25 Shi Zhengli is the WIV virologist who has been working with EcoHealth Alliance for over 15 years on viruses originating in bats.

In a statement to Nature, Daszak expressed concern that the additional information requested by the NIH about how millions of dollars are being spent was “pressure of a very aggressive administration.”26 Tapping into what is known to be a strong motivating factor — fear — he insinuated that the work being done by EcoHealth Alliance was all that is standing between any virus and human health, saying:27

“And it turns out that they decided that this issue and our work is going to be one of the angles of attack. That’s extremely unfortunate. The winner in all of this is the virus, and not just this virus — SARS-CoV-2 — but all the other viruses.”

Fauci Plays Word Games in Gain-of-Function Research Funding

As shared in this 15-minute video,28 Fauci has been a chief supporter of gain-of-function research. In 2014, the Obama Administration put a ban on gain-of-function research, which Fauci reversed in 2017. The research, according to the NIH guidelines, did not follow safety protocols in the specific grant to the EcoHealth Alliance shared with WIV.

That same lab was cited in 2018 for having substandard safety protocols. As noted in the video, in response to the pandemic, The Hill’s Rising, a morning news show, shared that Fauci pushed for more gain-of-function research, mentioning the Global Virome Project (GVP).29

The goal of GVP is to raise several trillion dollars to fund the discovery of zoonotic virus threats to humans,30 which includes gain-of-function research. Interestingly, the same Peter Daszak who is head of EcoHealth Alliance, receiving multimillion-dollar grants from the U.S. government, is also the secretary and treasurer of GVP.31

Daszak’s influence in suppressing information that the pandemic could have had a lab origin runs even deeper. In a Freedom of Information Act release, U.S. Right to Know32 found Daszak had penned a paper published in the Lancet that was central to the argument dismissing the idea the virus could have been released from a lab.

He orchestrated the paper signed by 27 scientists to “avoid the appearance of a political statement.”33 Getting back to Fauci’s finger in the pie, it is apparent from his answers in the video above that he now denies ever having funded gain-of-function research, even though there’s irrefutable evidence that he did as I reported in, “The Biggest Flip-Flop Ever — Who’s Going to Jail?”

Science Writer Makes Strong Argument for Lab Leak Origin

In an interview with a reporter from the Washington Examiner, Wade talked about what would happen if it were accepted that virologists indeed developed SARS-CoV-2 in the lab.34

“Well, this is of course one of the reasons virologists have not been too keen to explore this possibility. I think there will definitely be a public backlash. People will want to scrutinize much more closely the safety conditions virologists thought were adequate and what experiments they were doing.”

Wade has been interviewed by several reporters in response to a paper he wrote titled, “Origin of COVID — Following the Clues: Did People or Nature Open Pandora’s Box at Wuhan?”35 In this paper he stated that if we’re ever to solve the mystery of where this novel virus came from, people must be willing to follow the science as “it offers the only sure thread through the maze.”

Unlike Fauci, who appears to be intent on distancing himself and the NIH from responsibility for the research that appears to have resulted in the virus and ultimately the financial and mental health disaster that followed, Wade presents a balanced approach to the data and goes on to write:36

“It’s important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory. Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction.”

To summarize his paper, Wade believes the preponderance of clues lean toward the virus originating in a laboratory setting, most likely from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, after having undergone manipulation to increase infectiousness and pathology in humans.

In the meantime, the arguments laid out by government officials and supported in the media for the past year in support of natural origin are grounded in inconclusive speculations that require you to throw out scientifically possible scenarios. Wade writes:37

“It seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence. It’s documented that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were doing gain-of-function experiments designed to make coronaviruses infect human cells and humanized mice.

This is exactly the kind of experiment from which a SARS2-like virus could have emerged. The researchers were not vaccinated against the viruses under study, and they were working in the minimal safety conditions of a BSL2 laboratory. So escape of a virus would not be at all surprising.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/23/fauci-lab-leak-theory-emails.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Eric Clapton Details His Vaccine Injury

In an interview with Oracle Films, musician Eric Clapton detailed his experience suffering from a severe adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. Clapton has been blasted by mainstream media for speaking out about the vaccine and COVID lockdowns, and he said he’s lost friends over his views.

He’s even fearful of losing the love and trust of members of his own family, but believes in speaking out for what he believes in and sharing his experiences:1

“I believe most of all in free speech and freedom of movement, choice of movement and life and love and kindness and with all of this exposure to the polarization of politics and the medicine and the science, I found it very difficult to be neutral because I’ve seen scorn and contempt from both sides, and I get caught in the crossfire a lot.

… I’m talking today on behalf of people like me who may be lost, maybe need to hear someone talk about it from a human point of view without condemnation … There has to be a way to bring people together. I believe music can do that, but it’s a long way away. There’s still time, I believe, for us to come together.”

Song ‘Stand and Deliver’ Takes on COVID Lockdowns

Before he received the COVID-19 vaccine, Clapton collaborated with Van Morrison on the song “Stand and Deliver,” which was released in December 2020. It takes on the U.K.’s pandemic response, which included strict lockdowns.

Analysis of scientific evidence since the start of the pandemic supports the theory that lockdowns have been ineffective in stopping the spread of the illness and have come at an exceedingly high financial and human cost.2 They’ve even been called the “single worst public health mistake” of the last 100 years.3 In the song, Clapton sings:4

“Stand and deliver / You let them put the fear on you / Stand and deliver / But not a word you heard was true / But if there’s nothing you can say / There may be nothing you can do / Do you want to be a free man / Or do you want to be a slave?”

Clapton Lost Use of Hands After Second Vaccine Dose

Even though Clapton was unhappy with the government’s pandemic response, and even considered moving his family away from England, he believed he was vulnerable to COVID-19 due to his age — 76 years — and diagnosis of emphysema.

He decided to get a COVID-19 vaccine — the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which uses a chimpanzee adenovirus vector genetically engineered to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The side effects began shortly after his first dose:5

“I went and had the jab … within several hours, I was shaking like a leaf and I went to bed early and I couldn’t get warm … and I thought, I’m running a fever. I was boiling hot and sweating and then I was cold, and I was out for the count for about a week.

I had been preparing for a project where I was going to be playing acoustic guitar with a couple of musicians and we were going to film it. That week knocked me out and I had to start again from scratch. I was OK, but it didn’t come off as well as I would like to because, professionally, it was a huge setback …”

When it came time to get the second dose, Clapton was hesitant, but went ahead anyway, only to experience an even more severe reaction:6

“Bit by bit I realized that I probably shouldn’t have had the first jab, but then I was offered the second and I thought, well … what’s the point in stopping now. So I went and had the second, and then it got really bad. Within about a week … my hands didn’t really work.”

Clapton had previously been diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy, which is nerve damage in the arms and/or legs that causes pain, burning, numbness and pins-and-needles sensation. The condition is progressive and incurable, Clapton noted, but said his was always manageable.

“I expected it to be something that would gradually grow worse as I got older into my 80s, but always I could get some ice pack or whatever and it would be fine.” This changed after the second COVID-19 vaccine, however.

Clapton Says Vaccine Damaged His Immune System

After the second COVID-19 vaccine, Clapton’s peripheral neuropathy got significantly worse, which he attributed to an assault on his immune system:7

“[When I had the second jab] this ramped up from, on a scale of 10, say from three to eight or nine. Agony and chronic pain. When you know there’s nothing that will work, there’s no medication you can take that will help, it’s very, very frightening. And the worst thing is you don’t know when it’s going to wear off or when it’s going to go away.

So that was what frightened me the most, medically, health-wise, and it still does because I have gigs to do, I have recording work to do, but I can’t touch the guitar to play … it’s not fun … and when I put it down, it’s there until I go to bed, and I take sleeping pills because I can’t sleep because of the pain. That’s not a good way to live.

It’s not all due to the vaccine but the vaccine took my immune system and just shook it around again, and that’s still going on. Then I read a lot of the evidence that I had been reading about with people that were having adverse reactions, that was on the list … damage to the immune system.”

Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., is among those who have warned about COVID-19 vaccines leading to dysregulation in the immune system. She explained in our June 2021 interview:

“As mentioned, it’s an adenovirus vector expressing the protein. So, the HIV, the XMRV envelope, the syncytin, the HERV-W envelope and the ACE2 are already being expressed in the vector … these adenovirus vector protein-producing vaccines are grown in an aborted fetal tissue cell line, so now you’ve got human syncytin [in there]. You’ve got 8% of the human genome of another human.

So, again, looking at the communication that has to regulate your Type I interferon response, it’s going to give you autoimmunity. In immunocompromised people, it’s going to continue to express and that will give you a live infection, and you already have your firetrucks fighting another [infection]. You can’t fight a war on three fronts.”

Clapton Told Doctor to Make a ‘Yellow Card’ Report

The U.K. maintains a “Yellow Card” reporting site to report adverse effects to vaccines and medications.8 From December 9, 2020 to June 2, 2021, the site reported the following submissions:9

67,998 Yellow Cards reported for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine
195,641 Yellow Cards reported for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca
3,278 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna
754 Yellow Cards reported for COVID-19 vaccines, brand not specified

This works out to an overall adverse event reporting rate of three to seven Yellow Cards per 1,000 doses administered for the Pfizer/BioNTech, AstraZeneca and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.10 When asked whether he felt he was made aware of the vaccine risks beforehand, Clapton said, “Oh god no. I didn’t even know there was a yellow card report. I didn’t know there was any such thing.”

Other than saying you may be a bit sore, Clapton said, “They say it’s safe.” After the second dose, however, he told his doctor to make a Yellow Card report and got a note that would hopefully exempt him from having to receive a booster dose:11

“I lost the use of my hands for about three weeks, so I thought I was in real trouble … I can’t touch anything cold or hot. I have to use these [holding up a pair of gloves], otherwise my hands will begin to burn and they’ll stay burnt all day … And that’s my experience from having had the second jab.

I went to my doctor pretty quickly and said, you know, I can’t have any more vaccinations. This is not possible for me because I don’t know what will happen. I don’t what will happen next, and from what I read and from what I’ve been told, there would be a booster in the autumn, and I said I have to have a document that says I’m allergic, I can’t have COVID vaccine, which I have in my backpack.”

It was about this time that Robin Monotti with Oracle Films invited Clapton to talk about his experiences, which he said was an easy decision. “It was easy to say yes because I realized that I wasn’t the only one that was suffering adverse reactions,” Clapton said.12

Fear of Reprisal Is Keeping People From Speaking Out

Clapton is supportive of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), written by infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, which highlighted grave concerns over lockdown measures implemented during the pandemic and has collected more than 850,000 signatures in support.13

The GBD authors, along with a team of academics, researchers and subject matter experts, are now publishing a regular analysis of the global impact of COVID-19 restrictions, called Collateral Global.14 The reality is, lockdowns have caused a great deal of harm, from delays in medical treatment and disrupted education to joblessness and drug overdoses.

Clapton said what disturbs him the most about the pandemic response is coercion. NHS propaganda ads in the U.K. featured photos of sick, elderly people with sayings like “Look him in the eyes and tell him the risk isn’t real.” “That’s very dark, it’s victimization is what it is,” Clapton said, adding:15

“The trick they got together with their propaganda was making it so you’re responsible for other people’s lives. So, I can be labeled a murderer and people would really believe that. That’s powerful. It’s very clever.”

COVID-19 anxiety syndrome has also now manifested in many, which refers to pandemic-related psychological distress that may persist long beyond the pandemic, interfering with daily life.16 Clapton said he suffers from this but it was worse when he was following the news. Now, he doesn’t watch television. This psychological suffering is a key control mechanism, Clapton said, referencing George Orwell’s “1984”:

“It’s so true. There’s so much of the sickness is in our heads now. We’ve become weak. If we’re talking about freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of choice with the vaccine, for instance, then the opposite of that is what we’re experiencing if you take that away.”

Clapton believes more people aren’t speaking out because of fear of reprisal if they go against the official narrative, including reprisal from their own family. While Clapton said he’s felt some level of alienation due to his views, in his case, he said, “My fear is about what will they do to my children? My fear about vaccination is what will it do to my children?”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/22/eric-clapton-covid-19-vaccine-injury.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Media Continue Fake News Campaign Against Mercola

Yet another hit piece has been published blasting “anti-vaccine” influencers for sharing viewpoints that go against the status quo. This time, the article was published by The Center for Public Integrity, which claims to use investigative reporting to reveal the “causes and effects of inequality.”1

The title of the article — “Spreading Vaccine Fears. And Cashing In.” — and its content, however, reveal that it’s far from actual journalism and nothing more than biased propaganda.2

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m publishing my full response to reporter Liz Essley Whyte below. Whyte contacted Mercola.com in April 2021, stating she was “writing an article about anti-vaccine activists for whom activism is also a way to make money” and asking if I’d be willing to do an interview with her. My team asked for a list of questions and, after repeated follow-ups, those were provided about one month later.

Among them, “What is your response to critics who say your frequent criticism of mainstream medicine, including vaccines, serve to build a customer base and boost your profits?” and “How much does Mercola.com (and/or any other Mercola-branded companies) do in sales and/or profits (in dollar figures) per year? How has that grown over the years? How did the pandemic affect those figures?”

You can see that they’re trying to build a case that websites such as mine — which is solely interested in sharing the truth — are only out to make profits or are exploiting the fear generated by mainstream media to sell supplements. But as I stated previously, the real profiteers in this pandemic are not people selling supplements online but billionaires who are only getting richer.

Meanwhile, in their “investigative” piece, The Center for Public Integrity ignored the majority of my responses to their questions, publishing only this:3

“Disagreeing with big pharma and the federal agencies they’ve captured is a detriment to anyone,” Mercola said in a statement. “Placing yourself in the crosshairs of these coordinated attacks is not financially or personally beneficial.”

My Full Response to The Center for Public Integrity

If Whyte were truly interested in opening up a conversation about the spreading of fear by mainstream media and its implications to society and COVID-19 vaccinations, it would have been crucial to publish my response — but Whyte did not choose to include it.

For some background, in April 2021, Whyte wrote an article for The Center for Public Integrity titled, “I’m Pregnant. Here’s Why I Decided to Get the Coronavirus Vaccine.”4 Even her doctor told her that whether or not to get the experimental vaccine while pregnant is “a personal choice,” which she said “wasn’t exactly useful advice.” Ultimately, Whyte wrote, “I concluded the clear benefits of getting vaccinated outweighed unknown and possibly nonexistent risks.”5

In my view, giving these vaccines to pregnant women is beyond reprehensible. This experimentation is doubly unforgivable seeing how women of childbearing age have virtually no risk of dying from COVID-19, their fatality risk being a mere 0.01%.6 Pregnant women simply do not need this vaccine, and therefore any risk is likely excessive.

This does give you some insight into Whyte’s personal beliefs about vaccination, which were evident in her journalism as well. As for my response to Whyte’s questions, you can read it for yourself now, in its entirety:

“Liz,

Unfortunately, disagreeing with big pharma and the federal agencies they’ve captured is a detriment to anyone. Pharmaceutical PR groups, lobbied politicians, and the controlled media groups criticize those who interfere with the plan to vaccinate everyone from cradle to grave, even if they’re compromised. Placing yourself in the crosshairs of these coordinated attacks is not financially or personally beneficial.

Medical risk taking is a personal choice, and that choice must be preserved, and that’s exactly what we stand for — preserving the health freedoms of our global community while also exposing false health information provided by pharmaceutical public relations campaigns.

While you may promote the EUA [Emergency Use Authorization] vaccine to pregnant women based on a 20-week rat study, others find that to be reprehensibly negligent advice. The truth is that COVID vaccination for pregnant women is an experiment, and there is not adequate safety testing for these novel injections — even if the V-Safe program states quite clearly that only preliminary information is available.

Unlicensed COVID vaccinations during pregnancy is experimental. To suggest that safety data is ‘piling up’ is deliberate misinformation. Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons | NEJM.7

Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%). Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases).

Restrictions to freedom of speech within the big tech monopoly platforms will only accelerate segregation of communities and alternative platforms for nonconformist points of view.

Trust in big tech, big pharma, federal agencies and the media is justifiably broken. I was one of the first to widely publicize that this virus leaked from the Wuhan lab and was immediately discredited by mainstream fact checkers and news sources — Please see attached from NewsGuard.

Ironically, NewsGuard is owned by Publicis, a big tech and big pharma public relations company.8,9 Publicis is not just the owner of the fact checkers, they are partners in campaigns against what they consider to be health ‘misinformation.’10

It turns out the owners of Newsguard, campaigning against misinformation, were directly responsible for the deadly opioid marketing campaigns that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.11 More information is available in my latest book if you wish to learn more.”12

Media Are on a Campaign to Spread Lies

The Center for Public Integrity hit piece is only the latest in a series of media articles aimed at spreading lies about anyone who speaks out against the standard COVID narrative.

As seems to be the pattern, the “expert” source quoted in the article is Imran Ahmed, who runs the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — a progressive U.K.-based cancel-culture leader13 with extensive ties to government and global think tanks that has labeled people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine as “threats to national security.”

Ahmed has gone on record saying he considers anti-vaxxers “an extremist group that pose a national security risk,”14 and admits tracking and spying on 425 vaccine-related Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter accounts.15 CCDH is also partnered with HealthGuard, which is NewsGuard’s health-related service.16

In Whyte’s article, Ahmed states, “These are old-fashioned snake-oil salesmen. They are willing to let people suffer death, disease in order to make profits for themselves.” He adds, “Anti-vaccine influencers are ‘a classic example of bad actors who are proficient in digital spaces, at creating outcomes which are bad for us and society … They react the way you would expect them to.”17

However, CCDH’s partner NewsGuard is in the business of censoring the truth. NewsGuard previously classified Mercola.com as fake news because we reported the SARS-CoV-2 virus as potentially having been leaked from the biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory in Wuhan City, China, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak. Since then, several members of the U.S. Congress have vowed to launch their own investigation to explore the lab accident theory.18

In May 2021, NPR also published a hit piece about Mercola.com and other vaccine safety advocates designed to disparage and discredit those who are speaking out against COVID propaganda. Similar to The Center for Public Integrity, the line of questioning sent to Mercola.com for comment was not journalism but, rather, aimed at spreading pharmaceutical propaganda.

It wasn’t disclosed in the article, for instance, that NPR has received $17.5 million in donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which were intended to target coverage of global health and education.19 This may explain why NPR rarely publishes anything critical of Gates and, when it does, “it can feel scripted.”20

NPR has also praised Facebook for blatant censorship, with statements such as, “Facebook said it now limits the reach of posts that could discourage people from getting vaccinated, even if the messages don’t explicitly break its rules. But the cat-and-mouse game continues.”21 Then if you scroll to the bottom, you’ll see the editor’s note: “Facebook is among NPR’s financial supporters.”22

May 2021: More Fake News Against Mercola.com

In a similar vein, Coda Story published a false article on May 7, 2021, with misleading and defamatory statements against Mercola.com,23 even though it was in possession of an email with my side of the story. As was the case with The Center for Public Integrity and NPR, I published the full email exchange with Coda Story, so you could read my responses, which, again, were not included in the article.

Coda Story claims that it “tells you stories you never heard before, shows you connections you never knew existed, and investigates the nuance and complexity of the world.”24 Surely, then, its reporters would be eager to dive into the counterpoints provided in our email, in order to explore, investigate and share these connections with the world.

In reality, they revealed their true colors, both with the blatant lies they published and their refusal to explore the truth further, even after it was clearly presented. Meanwhile, media are largely ignoring news that deserves to be heard — like NewsGuard’s real disinformation campaign based on censoring COVID-19 truth and manufacturing pro-industry propaganda to serve Big Pharma, Big Tech and the deep state.

The fact that Publicis is being sued for its role in creating Purdue’s deceptive marketing for OxyContin, which is described as the “crime of the century,” is also mostly buried.

The media and its “fact checkers” have succeeded in generating fear and controlling human behavior via the pandemic, and anything that counters its final solution of vaccination is being censored and discredited via biased propaganda disguised as journalism — this is a clue that shouldn’t be overlooked.

If you’d like to get involved in the rally behind legislation that prevents the alteration of laws that safeguard our freedoms, check out the Five Freedoms Campaign, which focuses on creating legislation to preserve key freedoms and prevent emergency laws from infringing on your freedom to assemble, worship, protest and engage in business. Legislation is also being crafted to open schools, remove mask mandates and eliminate requirements for vaccine passports.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/22/media-fake-news-campaign-against-mercola.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Weekly Health Quiz: Spike Protein, NAC and Gain-of-Function

1 Which of the following statements is accurate?

The mRNA and subsequent spike protein is widely distributed in your body within hours of injection, and once in blood circulation can cause cardiovascular and neurological damage

Data show the mRNA and subsequent spike protein is widely distributed in the body within hours. This is a serious problem, as the spike protein is a toxin shown to cause cardiovascular and neurological damage. It also has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries. Learn more.

The mRNA in COVID-19 vaccines remain localized around the injection site in muscle tissue and therefore cannot cause vascular damage
Vaccine-induced spike protein is far safer than the spike protein found in the virus and does not cause similar damage as seen in COVID-19
Vaccine-induced spike protein ceases to be produced within hours of injection

2 Which of the following companies own a huge majority of all S&P 500 firms?

BNY Mellon and Allianz
BlackRock and Vanguard

BlackRock and Vanguard form a secret monopoly that own just about everything. In all, they have ownership in 1,600 American firms. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms. Learn more.

JPMorgan Chase and Charles Schwab
MetLife and Amundi Asset Management

3 Which of the following drugs is recommended by the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance for all stages of COVID-19?

Hydroxychloroquine
Corticosteroids
Ivermectin

The Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance recommends widespread use of ivermectin for all stages of COVID-19, including prevention. Learn more.

Remdesivir

4 Which of the following supplements was recently attacked by the FDA, which after 57 years of nonaction — right as 16 clinical trials are investigating its usefulness against COVID-19 — decided it is excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement?

Vitamin D
Resveratrol
Ubiquinol
N-acetylcysteine (NAC)

NAC supplements have been sold for 57 years, and the FDA has never taken action against it — until now, when 16 clinical trials are investigating its usefulness against COVID-19. It now claims NAC is excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement, resulting in Amazon pulling all listings for NAC products. Learn more.

5 What happens when government gives out contradictory recommendations in an already fearful situation?

People get confused and stop thinking logically, which makes them easily manipulated

Giving out contradictory information keeps you psychologically vulnerable. By layering confusion and uncertainty on top of fear, they bring you to a state in which you can no longer think logically, at which point you’re easily manipulated. Learn more.

People make their own decisions based on what they think is best
People search out authorities that provide clarity
Nothing. Government never gives out contradictory information

6 Gain-of-function (GOF) research refers to studies that have the potential to enhance the ability of pathogens to:

Succumb to antiviral medication
Cause disease, including enhancing their pathogenicity and transmissibility

Gain-of-function (GOF) research refers to studies that have the potential to enhance the ability of pathogens to cause disease, including enhancing either their pathogenicity or transmissibility. Learn more.

Be targeted by experimental vaccines
Infect animals other than humans

7 Which of the following strategies is the most effective for combating and reversing periodontitis?

Daily flossing
Daily oil pulling
Daily dental irrigation with warm water and hydrogen peroxide

Irrigating between your teeth with hydrogen peroxide water is one of the most effective strategies for reversing periodontitis. You also want to make sure you have adequate vitamin C, as the hydrogen peroxide and vitamin C work in tandem to eradicate pathogens and eliminate infection. Learn more.

Twice-annual dental cleanings

 
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/21/week-187-health-quiz.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Inventor of mRNA Interviewed About Injection Dangers

In the video above, DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., an evolutionary biologist, interviews Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,1 and Steve Kirsch, an entrepreneur who has been researching adverse reactions to COVID-19 gene therapies.

I realize that this is an absolutely epic three-hour interview but if you ever valued what I have been teaching, you must at a bare minimum very carefully read this entire article.

Malone is the scientist that actually invented the technology that makes the COVID jab possible and he spills the beans on just how this introduction has been ethically compromised to make informed consent absolutely impossible for the average person. Watch the interview if your schedule allows, but carefully read this article for sure.

Kirsch recently published the article, “Should You Get Vaccinated?” in which he reviews how and why he has changed his mind about the COVID-19 “vaccines.” This after he got both doses of the Moderna shot, as have his three daughters.

If you or someone you know is equivocal about the COVID jab, then please, you simply MUST read Kirsh’s article as it is clearly one of the best pieces written on the topic and provides the other side of the story that is NEVER given in the mainstream media. Remember, without full disclosure of the vaccine’s risk, it is impossible to have informed consent.2 If you read Kirsch’s article, you will get, in great detail, the other side that the conventional media refuses to share. He writes:

“I recently learned that these vaccines have likely killed over 25,800 Americans (which I confirmed 3 different ways) and disabled at least 1,000,000 more. And we’re only halfway to the finish line. We need to PAUSE these vaccines NOW before more people are killed.

Based on what I now know about the miniscule vaccine benefits (approximately a 0.3% reduction in absolute risk), side effects (including death), current COVID rates, and the success rate of early treatment protocols, the answer I would give today to anyone asking me for advice as to whether to take any of the current vaccines would be, ‘Just say NO.’

The current vaccines are particularly contraindicated if you have already been infected with COVID or are under age 20. For these people, I would say ‘NO! NO! NO!’

In this article, I will explain what I have learned since I was vaccinated that totally changed my mind. You will learn how these vaccines work and the shortcuts that led to the mistakes that were made.

You will understand why there are so many side effects and why these are so varied and why they usually happen within 30 days of vaccination. You will understand why kids are having heart issues (for which there is no treatment), and temporarily losing their sight, and ability to talk. You will understand why as many as 3% may be severely disabled by the vaccine.”

The Spike Protein Is a Bioactive Cytotoxin

As explained by Malone, many months ago he warned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that the spike protein — which the COVID-19 “vaccines” instruct your cells to make — could be dangerous. The FDA dismissed his concerns, saying they did not believe the spike protein was biologically active. Besides, the vaccine makers specifically designed the injections so that the spike protein would stick and not float about freely.

Well, they were wrong on both accounts. It’s since been well-established that, indeed, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein gets free, and that it is biologically active and causes severe problems. It is responsible for the most severe effects seen in COVID-19, such as bleeding disorders, blood clots throughout the body and heart problems.

These are the same problems we now see in a staggering number of people having received one or two shots of COVID-19 “vaccine.” For more in-depth information about how the spike protein causes these problems, please see my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D.

Using the word vaccine isn’t really appropriate here, and I don’t want to contribute to the misuse of that word. These injections are clearly not vaccines. They don’t work like any previous conventional vaccines. As the actual inventor of the mRNA vaccines clearly says in the interview, they are gene therapy. So, please understand that when I say vaccine or vaccination, I’m really talking about gene therapy.

Spike Protein Disseminates Throughout Your Body

In a recent interview3 with Alex Pierson, Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher Byram Bridle, Ph.D., discussed previously unseen research obtained from the Japanese regulatory agency through a freedom of information act request.

The study was a biodistribution study done by Pfizer, which showed that the mRNA in the vaccine does not stay in and around the vaccination site but is widely distributed in the body, as is the spike protein.4

This is a serious problem, as the spike protein is a toxin shown to cause cardiovascular and neurological damage. Once in your blood circulation, the spike protein binds to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels. When that happens, it can cause platelets to clump together, resulting in blood clots, and/or cause abnormal bleeding. I detailed these and other findings in “Researcher: ‘We Made a Big Mistake’ on COVID-19 Vaccine.”

Dangerous Corners Were Cut

The spike protein also has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries. Kirsch cites data suggesting the miscarriage rate among women who get the COVID “vaccine” within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is 82%.5 The normal rate is 10%, so this is no minor uptick. Kirsch writes:6

“It is baffling that the CDC says the vaccine is safe for pregnant women when it is so clear that this is not the case. For example, one our family friends is a victim of this. She miscarried at 25 weeks … She had her first shot 7 weeks ago, and her second shot 4 weeks ago.

The baby had severe bleeding of the brain and other disfigurements. Her gynecologist had never seen anything like that before in her life. They called in a specialist who said it was probably a genetic defect (because everyone buys into the narrative that the vaccine is safe it is always ruled out as a possible cause).

No VAERS report. No CDC report. Yet the doctors I’ve talked to say that it is over 99% certain it was the vaccine. The family doesn’t want an autopsy for fear that their daughter will find out it was the vaccine. This is a perfect example of how these horrible side effects just never get reported anywhere.”

Disturbingly, the Pfizer biodistribution data package reveals that corners were cut in the interest of speed, and one of the research facets that were skipped was reproductive toxicology. Yet, despite the lack of an initial reproductive toxicology investigation and a rapidly growing number of reports of miscarriages (which is likely to be a significant undercount), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is still urging pregnant women to get vaccinated. Why is that?

Is There Purposeful Suppression of VAERS Data?

What’s more, as discussed in the interview, there’s evidence that data in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is being manipulated as reports that were filed are now missing. Why were they removed? And without the filers’ consent?

Israeli data show boys and men between the ages of 16 and 24 who have been vaccinated have 25 times the rate of myocarditis (heart inflammation) than normal.

Even with that manipulation, the number of deaths reported post-vaccination against COVID-19 is beyond anything we’ve ever seen. According to Kirsch, the rate of death from COVID-19 shots exceeds that of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,7 which historically has been the most hazardous.

Other serious effects are also off the charts. For example, Israeli data show boys and men between the ages of 16 and 24 who have been vaccinated have 25 times the rate of myocarditis (heart inflammation) than normal.8 Additionally, many young people are actually dying as a result of this myocarditis.9

Malone points out that, in re-reading the most current version of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that governs these COVID shots, he discovered that the FDA opted not to require stringent post-vaccination data collection and evaluation, even though they had the latitude to do so.

As noted by Weinstein, this is yet another anomaly that needs an answer. Why did they opt for such lax data capture, because without it, there’s no way of evaluating the safety of these products. You cannot identify the danger signals if you don’t have a process for capturing effects data and evaluating all of it.

“The whole logic of EUA is you’re basically substituting real-time capture of key information for prospective capture of key information,” Malone explains. “But to do that, you’ve got to get the information and it has to be rigorous.”

Other Anomalies

Furthermore, as noted by Weinstein, if you release a vaccine under emergency use — because you say there’s an unprecedented health emergency and there are no other options, therefore it’s worth taking a larger than normal risk — then you still would not give it to people who are at no or low risk of the disease in question.

This would include children, teens and healthy individuals under the age of 40, at bare minimum. Children appear naturally immune against COVID-1910 and have been shown to not be disease vectors,11 and people under 40 have an infection fatality ratio of just 0.01%.12 That means their chances of survival is 99.99%, which is about as good as it gets.

Pregnant women would also be excluded as they are a high-risk category for any experimentation, and anyone who has recovered from COVID would be excluded as they now have natural immunity and have no need for a vaccine whatsoever. In fact, a recent Cleveland Clinic study13,14 found people who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at least 42 days prior to vaccination reaped no additional benefit from the jabs.

Yet all of these incredibly low-risk groups are urged and even inappropriately incentivized to get vaccinated, and this too is anomalous behavior. Part of the risk-benefit analysis is not only the risk of serious outcomes and death from the disease, but also the availability of alternative treatments, and here we have the third massive anomaly.

We’ve seen a clear suppression of information showing that there are not just one but several effective remedies that could reduce the risk of COVID-19 to a number of cohorts down to virtually zero. Examples include hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, both of which have been safely used for decades in many millions of people around the world.

The precautionary principle dictates that as long as a drug or treatment strategy doesn’t do harm, even if the positive effect may be small, it should be used until better data or better treatments becomes available. This is the logic they used with masks (even though the data overwhelmingly showed no statistical benefit and there are a number of potential harms).

But when it comes to hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, they suppressed the use of these drugs even though they are extremely safe when used in the appropriate doses and have been shown to work really well in many dozens of studies. As noted by Kirsch in his article:15

“Repurposed drugs [such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin] are safer and more effective than the current vaccines. In general, early treatment with an effective protocol reduces your risk of dying by more than 100X so instead of 600,000 deaths, we’d have fewer than 6,000 deaths. NOTE: The vaccine has already killed over 6,000 people and that’s from the vaccine alone (and doesn’t count any breakthrough deaths).”

Doctors are also being muzzled and their warnings suppressed and censored. Dr. Charles Hoffe has administered Moderna’s COVID-19 “vaccine” to 900 of his patients. Three are now permanently disabled and one has died. After writing an open letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry, the provincial health officer for British Columbia, in which he stated that he’s “been quite alarmed at the high rate of serious side-effects from this novel treatment,”16 his hospital privileges were yanked.

Bioethics Laws Are Clearly Being Broken

In a May 30, 2021, essay,17 Malone reviewed the importance of informed consent, rightly concluding that censorship makes it so that informed consent simply cannot be given. Informed consent isn’t just a nice idea or an ideal. It is the law, both nationally and internationally. The current vaccine push also violates bioethical principles in general.

“By way of background, please understand that I am a vaccine specialist and advocate, as well as the original inventor of the mRNA vaccine (and DNA vaccine) core platform technology. But I also have extensive training in bioethics from the University of Maryland, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, and Harvard Medical School, and advanced clinical development and regulatory affairs are core competencies for me,” Malone writes.

“Why is it necessary to suppress discussion and full disclosure of information concerning mRNA reactogenicity and safety risks? Let’s analyze the vaccine-related adverse event data rigorously. Is there information or patterns that can be found, such as the recent finding of the cardiomyopathy signals, or the latent virus reactivation signals?

We should be enlisting the best biostatistics and machine learning experts to examine these data, and the results should — no must — be made available to the public promptly. Please follow along and take a moment to examine the underlying bioethics of this situation with me …

The suppression of information, discussion, and outright censorship concerning these current COVID vaccines which are based on gene therapy technologies cast a bad light on the entire vaccine enterprise. It is my opinion that the adult public can handle information and open discussion. Furthermore, we must fully disclose any and all risks associated with these experimental research products.

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

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

The key point here is that what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research. This goes back to the Geneva convention and the Helsinki declaration.18 There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects.”

Experimentation without proper informed consent also violates the Nuremberg Code,19 which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation. This set of principles were developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again.

Lines Have Been Crossed That Must Never Be Crossed

In the U.S., we also have the Belmont report,20 cited in Malone’s essay, which spells out the ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research, covered under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46 (subpart A). The Belmont report describes informed consent as follows:

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

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

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

Lastly, government and any number of vaccine stakeholders are encouraging companies and schools to make these experimental injections mandatory, which violates the rule of voluntariness. Government and private businesses are also creating massive incentives to participate in this experiment, including million-dollar lotteries and full college scholarships. None of this is ethical or even legal. As noted by Malone:21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, if your schedule allows, I sincerely hope you take the time to listen to Weinstein’s interview with Malone and Kirsch. Yes, it is very long — about 3 ½ hours — but they are all astute in their observations, which makes for an enlightening conversation. And remember to read and widely share Kirsch’s article, “Should You Get Vaccinated?”22
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/21/mrna-inventor-interviewed-about-injection-dangers.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Why Mushrooms Increase Longevity

A recently published literature review1 found eating 18 grams of any type of mushroom contributes to reducing your potential risk of cancer. Mushrooms are not plants or animals. They are umbrella-shaped fruiting bodies of a fungus that typically grows above ground.

Mushrooms produce millions of microscopic spores that are spread by animals or the wind. Once these have germinated in wood or soil, they send out a network of rooting threads called mycelium that can persist for many years.2 Mycelium digests the surrounding nutrients externally and then absorbs those nutrients.

Scientists do not believe that all mushroom species have been identified. Neither do they agree on how many species there may be, with estimations ranging from a low of 45,000 catalogued species in 2015 to a high of 1.5 million to 5.1 million3 yet to be discovered and named. According to a paper in the American Society for Microbiology,4 in 2017 there were 120,000 identified species, which the researchers estimated may be just 3% to 8% of the population of mushrooms.

In ancient Egypt, mushrooms were thought to bring long life and have been used for centuries by Chinese medicine practitioners.5 Greek physician Hippocrates used the Amadou mushroom for cauterizing wounds and as a potent anti-inflammatory.6 The first people populating North America used puffball mushrooms to heal wounds.

Despite a long history of medicinal use, Western medicine has only just begun exploring the depth of benefits available in these fungi. As researchers develop methods to test individual components, they have discovered that, “Mushrooms are nature’s miniature pharmaceutical factories, rich in a vast array of novel constituents and wide open for exploration.”7

Two Mushrooms a Day May Lower Your Risk of Cancer

Researchers from Pennsylvania State University performed a literature review and meta-analysis8 seeking to assess an association between the risk of any type of cancer and mushroom intake. They pulled data gathered from January 1, 1966, to October 31, 2020, and found 17 out of 841 identified studies that met the criteria for inclusion.

Analysis of data from more than 19,500 cancer patients9 revealed individuals with the highest consumption of mushrooms had the lowest risk of any type of cancer. Importantly, there was substantial variety in the results between studies.10

However, researchers also found that the higher consumption of mushrooms was consistently associated with a reduction in risk in cohort studies and case-control studies when compared against those eating the least number of mushrooms.11

Interestingly, the scientists found a specific link between high mushroom consumption and low risk of breast cancer, which they wrote may be “due to the small number of studies which examined associations of mushroom intake with other site-specific cancers.”12

The scientists reported in a press release that those who consumed 18 grams of mushrooms, or about one-eighth to one-fourth cup, daily had a 45% reduced risk of cancer. John Richie, one author and researcher at Penn State Cancer Institute, commented on the results:13

“Overall, these findings provide important evidence for the protective effects of mushrooms against cancer. Future studies are needed to better pinpoint the mechanisms involved and specific cancers that may be impacted.”

Another researcher on the team pointed out:14

“Mushrooms are the highest dietary source of ergothioneine, which is a unique and potent antioxidant and cellular protector. Replenishing antioxidants in the body may help protect against oxidative stress and lower the risk of cancer.”

Ergothioneine and Glutathione Are Potent Antioxidants

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture,15 on average, people eat about 3 pounds of fresh mushrooms every year and 87% of those are grown domestically. Mushrooms have a high nutrient content, providing essential minerals such as manganese, copper, zinc, selenium, calcium, magnesium and iron.16

Compared to their size and weight, they are a rich source of protein and fiber. They are high in potassium and sulfur, as well as many of the B vitamins such as riboflavin, niacin and pantothenic acid.17

Mushroom varieties have antioxidants that other plants or fungi do not possess, such as ergothioneine, about which one paper in the journal Molecules says, “ET [ergothioneine] is concentrated in mitochondria, suggesting a specific role in protecting mitochondrial components, such as DNA, from oxidative damage.”18

Mushrooms also contain unusually high levels of glutathione,19 important for the detoxification of heavy metals and other contaminants20 and called the “master antioxidant,” as it plays a powerful role in reactivating other antioxidants.21 As noted in The Guardian:22

“… [S]cientists think [ergothioneine and glutathione] may help to protect the body against the maladies of old age, such as cancer, coronary heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease.”

In a press release following the publication of a paper in Food Chemistry, Robert Beelman, Professor Emeritus of food science and director of the Penn State Center for Plant and Mushroom Products for Health, said:23

“What we found is that, without a doubt, mushrooms are the highest dietary source of these two antioxidants [ergothioneine and glutathione] taken together, and that some types are really packed with both of them.

There’s a theory — the free radical theory of aging — that’s been around for a long time that says when we oxidize our food to produce energy there’s a number of free radicals that are produced that are side products of that action and many of these are quite toxic.

The body has mechanisms to control most of them, including ergothioneine and glutathione, but eventually enough accrue to cause damage, which has been associated with many of the diseases of aging, like cancer, coronary heart disease and Alzheimer’s.”

The current study analyzed the potential relationship between mushrooms and cancer. However, Beelman has focused on the relationship with neurodegenerative conditions, pointing out that in countries like France and Italy, where people have more ergothioneine in their diet, they:24

“… have lower incidences of neurodegenerative diseases, while people in countries like the United States, which has low amounts of ergothioneine in the diet, have a higher probability of diseases like Parkinson’s Disease and Alzheimer’s.

Now, whether that’s just a correlation or causative, we don’t know. But, it’s something to look into, especially because the difference between the countries with low rates of neurodegenerative diseases is about 3 milligrams per day, which is about five button mushrooms each day.”

Shiitake Mushrooms Rich in Lentinan and ?-Glucans

Shiitake mushrooms are popular and versatile in a variety of dishes. They have a rich buttery flavor, which becomes smokey when the mushrooms are dried. They’re loaded with vitamins, minerals and compounds that are remarkably beneficial for your health, even though they are close to 90% water.25

When dried the mushrooms offer the greatest nutritional value as they are more concentrated. One nutrient is lentinans, which is an active polysaccharide that appears to enhance T helper cell function and stimulate interferon, interleukin and normal killer cells.26

One study in 201527 revealed that whole dried shiitake mushrooms could improve human immune function. The researchers engaged 52 healthy adults who ate up to 10 grams of the mushrooms each day for four weeks.

At the end of the study, the scientists found an increase in the proliferation of T-cells and natural killer cells and a greater ability to activate receptors. Biomarkers suggested the mushrooms improved gut immunity and reduced inflammation. Compounds in shiitake mushrooms have been found to effectively treat or protect against cancer,28 infectious diseases,29 inflammation,30 and heart and liver problems.31

Another study showed that the lentinan and several beta-glucans in shiitake mushrooms exhibited “marked anticarcinogenic activity, immunity-stimulating effects and may participate in physiological processes related to the metabolism of fats in the human body.”32

Mushrooms Fight Cognitive Decline

Including mushrooms in your daily diet may also help keep your cognitive functioning intact. Research published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease33 found adults who routinely ate two portions or more of mushrooms a week reduced their odds of mild cognitive impairment by 43%.34

This was independent of confounding factors such as heart disease, high blood pressure, age and alcohol and cigarette consumption. The researchers defined one portion as three-quarters of a cup of cooked mushrooms. This was meant as a guideline since the results demonstrated that even a small portion each week could be beneficial.

Ultimately, the researchers believe the reason the participants who ate two servings of mushrooms each week had a reduction in mild cognitive impairment was the result of ergothioneine, found in each of the varieties of mushrooms included in the study.35

Choose Organic or Grow Your Own

I highly recommend adding mushrooms to your diet as they are an excellent addition to any salad and go great with all kinds of grass fed meat and wild-caught fish. However, it is important to choose organically grown mushrooms as the fungi easily absorb air and soil contaminants. Growing your own mushrooms is an excellent option and likely a far safer alternative than foraging for wild mushrooms.

Although foraging may sound like fun it’s vital to recognize the need for caution. Unfortunately, there are no simple rules to distinguish the difference between toxic and edible mushrooms. And, in more than 95% of cases where toxicities were reported, amateur mushroom hunters have misidentified a poisonous mushroom.36

The severity of the poisoning can vary, but the most toxic effects come from mushrooms containing Amanita phalloides.37 There’s no antidote for amatoxin poisoning, so it’s essential if you have any reason to suspect someone has ingested an amatoxin containing mushroom you do not wait for symptoms but seek immediate emergency treatment.

There are some medications that may help lessen the severity of the poison,38 but they are not always successful. The most famous of the Amanita mushrooms is the lethal death cap mushroom, which may kill more people each year than any other type of mushroom.39
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/21/mushrooms-for-longevity.aspx

Categories
Recommended

The Hidden Epidemic Fueling Cancer and Heart Disease

In this interview, repeat guest Dr. Thomas Levy, a board-certified cardiologist, shares his insights into an oft-forgotten and overlooked area of health, namely your oral health.

Oral infections are frequently a stealth contributor to chronic diseases such as breast cancer and heart disease. Levy became intrigued by the influence of oral health after meeting one of the pioneers in this field, Dr. Hal Huggins, who became one of his primary mentors.

As with his previous book, “Rapid Virus Recovery,” in which he details the use of nebulized hydrogen peroxide, Levy is giving away his book on oral health for free. You can download “Hidden Epidemic: Silent Oral Infections Cause Most Heart Attacks and Breast Cancers” on MedFox Publishing’s website.

The Importance of 3D Cone Beam Imaging

“Hidden Epidemic” is an apt title, as this issue is flying well below the radar of most health professionals. This, despite the fact that probably 95% of the population, or more, have some sort of infection in their mouth that is influencing their health in a negative way.

“Part of my initial journey was seeing what Dr. Huggins was doing, in addition to [his use of vitamin C and] taking out mercury fillings … he also focused on Dr. Weston Price’s work, which shows that root canals are chronically infected, all of them,” Levy says.

“This was later documented by the work that Dr. Huggins did with Dr. Boyd Haley at the University of Kentucky. They had over 5,000 root canaled teeth extracted by dentists around the country submitted to them. They did sophisticated testing and found extremely potent toxins and anaerobic bacteria in all of them.

It brought out the point that infected teeth are the nuclear bomb of oxidative stress. All diseases [are] caused by oxidative stress and the lion’s share of oxidative stress is caused by chronic infections.”

Levy co-wrote a book about these findings with Dr. Robert Kulacz called “The Toxic Tooth.” About four or five years ago, Levy convinced a friend that she needed to extract three root canaled teeth. To get the lay of the land, he accompanied her to her 3D cone beam examination. 3D cone beam imaging is a very sophisticated in-depth examination that provides far more information than your average dental X-ray.

An ordinary X-ray (panorex), can find up to 40% of dental abscesses. If you do a slightly more sophisticated digital subtraction, you might add another 10% or 20%. The 3D cone beam examination, however, can find all of them. Levy explains:

“It’s three-dimensional, and they rotate it around your head. It’s tomography, they take slices. You can literally look at every part of the head. There’s a lot of information in there other than teeth, but it’s the only way we can currently detect small, otherwise undetectable, abscessed teeth.

This is important because once a tooth has an abscess, no matter how small, that tooth is dead and it’s just accumulating infection that can disseminate throughout the rest of your body …

[A 3D cone beam examination] is truly the single most important thing that can be done for a heart disease, a heart attack patient or a breast cancer patient, in addition to many other diseases but those are the two biggies. If this is not done, they’re missing — probably greater than 90% of the time — the true reason why they have that condition in the first place.”

Stealth Oral Infections Are Amazingly Common

Looking at the 3D images, it became apparent that Levy’s friend would need a fourth tooth extracted. Adjacent to the three root canaled teeth was another tooth with an abscess so large it protruded into her sinus cavity. Hers is the image on the cover of “Hidden Epidemic.”

The odd part about this was she had no pain in that tooth. Not then and not ever. This made Levy convinced that abscessed teeth could well be far more widespread than previously imagined.

In speaking with dentists, Levy also realized that most dentists fail to realize that horribly abscessed teeth can be clinically silent. You can chew on them, they feel fine, they don’t ache or hurt. Everybody thinks an infected tooth will trigger enormous pain, but chronically abscessed teeth have no discomfort at all well over 95% of the time.

“One dentist I talked to that had seen my book [‘The Toxic Tooth: How a Root Canal Could Be Making You Sick’] said, ‘Hey, I got a 3D cone beam exam and [patients have] those abscesses all over the place.

What are you supposed to do?’ I was stunned. I said, ‘They’re infected dead teeth. They need to come out of the body, and then you need to do a restoration, something along the lines of a bridge or an implant. But if you’re concerned about your patient’s health, they can’t stay inside the body.’”

Root Canals 101

To briefly summarize the conventional approach, when you have an abscess, the typical intervention recommended would be to perform a root canal. Levy explains:

“A root canal is basically where they shave off the top of the tooth and go inside with little roto-rooter cores, and they actually pull and scrape out the inner pulp of the tooth. The pulp is the nerve connective vascular center of the tooth. It has all the nerves, all the blood supply. The reason somebody goes to see the dentist with this type of tooth is because it hurts.

So, primarily, the root canal procedure is a pain relief procedure, but it’s not an infection eradication procedure. It’s basically like, if you have an abscess on your arm and it hurts, rather than take care of the abscess and drain it and cure it, all you do is snip all the nerves going to it so that you don’t feel pain from the abscess anymore. That’s pretty much the same with the root canaled tooth.

The problem is, once that pulp is infected, the tooth is dead. They say, well, if you feel pain, it can’t be dead. But you’re not feeling pain from the core of the tooth, you’re feeling pain from the connective tissue around the tooth, from the infection that goes down into the root of the tooth. Just because there’s pain does not rule out that the tooth is technically dead.

With a root canal, you’ve effectively taxidermized the tooth. You basically just put the tooth in a state of technical preservation, not infection elimination. And in both ‘Hidden Epidemic’ and in ‘The Toxic Tooth,’ we go through reams of literature.

Believe me, there’s a ton of literature that shows how toxic these teeth are, how closely they correlate with coronary artery disease and cancers everywhere else through the body. So, it’s always a nasty scenario to have a chronically infected tooth stay in your body.

The other thing too is, when you chew on it, what happens? Every time you chew on something that has a big abscess at the root tip, you actually push pathogens and toxins into the draining venous and lymphatic circulation more effectively than if you just gave something intravenously, pushed with a syringe, to disseminate throughout the body.”

Periodontitis and Its Connection to Disease

In the interview, I share my own experience with a stealth abscess, which I discovered in the weeks before the COVID-19 pandemic. I also found out I had periodontitis, which can exacerbate or trigger just about any chronic disease. As noted by Levy, periodontitis has “a cause and effect relationship with most diseases in the body.”

Typically, the periodontitis precedes the abscess. Once the gum inflammation gets bad enough and permits oral pathogens to reach the apex of the tooth, the abscess begins to form. A chronically abscessed tooth is known as a “chronic apical periodontitis tooth.” “It’s very difficult to have a chronically abscessed tooth in pristine normal gums, it just really doesn’t happen,” Levy says.

Once you have inflammation in the gums, however, pathogens seep into the lymph every time you chew, making its way to the breast tissue. It also seeps into your venous system, which leads into the left atrium and left ventricle of your heart. Your venous system going to the heart is low pressure, and as it exits the left ventricle it gets pushed out with very high pressure.

“This means that the content that previously traveled through the venous system without any problem suddenly goes out from the left ventricle with great force, and the coronary artery receiving roughly 25% of the cardiac output gets the lion’s share of the pathogens that are first exposed to high systemic pressures,” Levy explains.

“Clear-cut data show virtually 100% of atherosclerotic plaques are colonized by periodontal pathogen. Plain and simple, it’s another form of what we call the chronic pathogen colonization in ‘Rapid Virus Recovery,’ which is discussed at some length. There’s actually a most incredible study from 2006 by Dr. Ott. Ott did angiograms with what’s called atherectomy.

The atherectomy is basically like a coronary roto rooter. They just take a device and core out, scrape out the atherosclerotic plaque. He did this in 38 chronic coronary artery disease patients, examined them, and found an array, most of the time over 50 different periodontal and oral pathogens of all varieties. He found them in 38 out of 38 patients …

And then finally, the coup de grace, if you will, was when Dr. Pessi in Finland coordinated a study … to immediately angiogram acute heart attack patients. Most heart attacks occur when you have a preexisting narrowing that suddenly occludes when you block it off with an acute platelet clot. So, you go immediately from a 70% to 100%, 85% to 100% blockage of the coronary artery.

Well, they went in on these acute heart attack patients and suctioned out those soft platelet clots and analyzed them. Over 80% had an extremely high concentration of the periodontal pathogens in up to 1,600% higher concentration than in the surrounding blood. Now, do we really think a blood clot formed and suddenly pathogens got attracted to it?

No, it was the preexistence of those pathogens that caused the [blockage]. And the same thing happens in the breast, but we’re not talking about the vascular system there but the lymphatic system. So, the bottom line is we have the data … to show that the mouth causes heart attacks; the mouth causes cancer.”

Researchers have also shown that periodontitis can make your microbiome abnormal. As you chew, the pathogens are pushed out and swallowed. Once in your gut, they disrupt your gut microbiome, resulting in leaky gut, and this too “either causes or always exacerbates any preexisting diseases,” Levy says.

Diseases Associated With Periodontitis

In his book, “Hidden Epidemic,” Levy provides a comprehensive list of diseases that periodontitis is associated with. Two of the most prevalent ones are heart disease and cancers, especially breast cancer. Research shows people with abscessed teeth, even when completely asymptomatic, have a fivefold greater chance of heart attack than the general population.

Some detractors will say this is merely an association, not correlation. But there are other studies showing that chronic periodontitis exacerbates disease. For example, researchers have found chronic periodontitis worsens asthma, and when you effectively treat the periodontitis, the asthma either goes into remission or becomes easier to manage. When the periodontitis is allowed to flourish again, the asthma comes back.

“I find it difficult to get around the fact that that’s a cause and effect,” Levy says. “Even if there’s an underlying problem causing the asthma, clearly the periodontitis has a cause and effect relationship as to how severe that particular condition is.”

Other chronic conditions with known links to periodontitis include but are not limited to:

Lupus and other autoimmune diseases
Inflammatory bowel disease

Crohn’s disease
Ulcerative colitis

Multiple sclerosis
Preeclampsia

Maternal hypertension
Alzheimer’s disease

Chronic kidney disease
Sudden hearing loss

Erectile dysfunction
Congenital vascular disease

Levy says:

“[In] Dr. Huggins’ clinic, lots of people with vascular disease, autoimmune diseases, including lupus, with high antinuclear antibody titers would come in and, not all of them, but a substantial number of them, by the time they finished their program, in just two weeks, their antinuclear antibodies had severely dropped in titers or even disappeared.

I became convinced, and I am very convinced now, that you can’t have an autoimmune disease, per se, if you don’t have chronic infection because somewhere, not necessarily in the gums, it could be other sources, but statistically speaking, it’s most commonly going to be from the mouth. Also, any time you’ve had chronic periodontitis, one or two root canals, a chronically abscessed tooth, you have chronically infected tonsils …

Although treating disease is rarely straightforward — it’s complex, involves protocols, different things — in my opinion, the etiology of disease is straightforward.

The etiology of all disease is increased oxidation of biomolecules. As biomolecules oxidize, electrons are taken away, and they become inactivated. And their inactivation, their inability to have their normal function, is the disease. You don’t have any additional disease process going on other than how much protein, sugar, enzymes and various distributions of biomolecules that you have oxidized.

In the case of a brief but acute illness that causes a lot of oxidation, high amounts of antioxidants, such as vitamin C and other electron donors, can resolve the disease. That’s not the case with chronic disease, however. With chronic disease, it appears all you can do is lessen it, mitigate it, make it better.

Way back when I was talking about this with Dr. Huggins, he rolled his eyes back at me in his delightful sarcastic fashion and said, ‘Tom … You can’t dry off while you’re still in the shower.’ That, in a nutshell shined a spotlight on the fact that modern medicine does not prevent nor resolve. They just treat symptoms. They don’t address the underlying disease, they don’t repair tissues, and they never look at what’s causing the oxidative damage.”

Effective Treatment Requires Quelling Inflow of Toxicity

While alternative and integrative medicine is getting very good at repairing oxidative damage that’s already present, many still fail to effectively prevent new damage from occurring. When you have an infection in your mouth, your system is flooded with new pathogens 24/7. The constant onslaught makes it very difficult to resolve a chronic condition.

“It saddens me every time I hear somebody say, ‘I went through this great alternative doc and I’m getting better and my breast lump is going down.’ And I say, ‘Well did he do any examination of your mouth?’ They say, ‘What are you talking about?’

I ask ‘Do you have any root canals?’ ‘Yeah, I have a couple, but they’re fine.’ Well, they’re not fine. And when you do thermography, you can see the red lines going from the heated areas of abscess streaking right on down into the breasts. Of course, you can’t see it with the heart disease, but it’s the same thing with the heart.

So, in a nutshell then, modern medicine doesn’t recognize or acknowledge what causes disease and it doesn’t really care what cures the disease. All it’s dedicated to is symptom relief and trying to make you feel better while staying on a medicine the rest of your life.

Integrative medicine always looks at trying to resolve oxidative damage and is starting to appreciate that we need to look for these causative factors that are producing the oxidative damage and keeping the patient from complete clinical resolution.”

Aside from abscessed teeth, certain dietary components can also drive harmful oxidation. Some of the most damaging are industrial vegetable oils and seed oils, which are loaded with oxidized linoleic acid (LA), an omega-6 fat. As detailed in “How Linoleic Acid Wrecks Your Health,” the primary way LA destroys your health is by radically increasing oxidative stress. So, radically limiting or eliminating processed seed oils from your diet can make a big difference.

Who Should Get a 3D Cone Beam Exam?

Whether you have discernible symptoms of a dental abscess or not, if you have a chronic health condition, your first step would be to get a 3D cone beam exam done. Levy recommends this for children as well, especially if they have cancer.

“If your 5-year-old gets leukemia or a brain tumor or something like that, they need to have this test done because kids get abscessed infected teeth too that are pain-free just like adults,” he says.

“The other example I like to use too is, when you’re an athlete — you’re in your 20s and in perfect health — it’s still a good idea, as part of your baseline examinations, to get this exam. If you have healthy teeth, great. Then when you’re 35, 40 years old, you start getting aches and pains, your blood sugar goes up, you’re getting a new disease. Then you repeat that test to see if something new has developed.”

If you worry about radiation exposure, know that this imaging technology uses about 90% less radiation than a conventional CT scan. You can also minimize oxidative stress from the radiation by fasting the day before and the day after the test, and/or drinking a pint of high-concentration molecular hydrogen water created from the tablets, not a hydrogen water generator. That’s what I do when I get these tests.

How to Address Oral Infections

In early stages of abscess, dental ozone therapy can be very useful and might save the tooth by eradicating the infection. In severe cases, however, the tooth simply must be extracted. The damage is done and you cannot fix it. The tooth is dead and must be removed or else infection will return again and again.

Warm water and a given amount of hydrogen peroxide in a water irrigation device consistently and amazingly can resolve even advanced periodontal disease in just a few weeks. ~ Dr. Thomas Levy

Naturally, the earlier you intervene, the better your chances of success. Remember, periodontitis precedes the abscess, so treating gum inflammation is crucial.

Here, irrigating with hydrogen peroxide can be very effective. Simply add hydrogen peroxide to your dental irrigator. I put about half a dropperful of 12% food grade hydrogen peroxide into my Waterpik irrigation water, plus one-eighth teaspoon of unprocessed salt and one-eighth teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate or potassium bicarbonate.

“Warm water and a given amount of hydrogen peroxide in a water irrigation device consistently and amazingly can resolve even advanced periodontal disease in just a few weeks,” Levy says.

“When you get rid of these pathogens, the gums spring back to life. I saw one lady who had no gum coming up between her teeth, just little flat lines, and I got her on this. Two weeks later, she had the healthiest looking little peaks of gum going on in there. With the waterpik and the tiny amount of hydrogen peroxide as part of your regular oral hygiene, there’s no need — and I would say even a contra indication — to do regular flossing.

Flossing, unless it’s done perfectly, and very few people do it perfectly, you’re always chronically damaging the gums and it’s not as good. If you floss and then waterpik, you’ll see stuff come out. If you waterpik and then floss, you’re not going to get anything more.”

Hydrogen Peroxide and Vitamin C Work Hand in Hand

In addition to irrigating with hydrogen peroxide, you also need to ensure you have an adequate vitamin C level. The hydrogen peroxide needs to be married with vitamin C for optimal effect. Smokers deplete their vitamin C stores in the gums and other tissues, which is why smokers are so prone to periodontitis and heart disease. But nonsmokers also tend to have depleted vitamin C stores that will prevent the elimination of pathogens. The same is true for acute viral infections.

In addition to vitamin C depletion, pathogenic infections are fueled by the presence of iron. So, the more iron there is, the more the infection flourishes. Iron is also a pro-oxidant in and of itself. When vitamin C enters a cell, it releases an electron, turning ferric iron into ferrous iron. Ferrous iron is biochemically compatible with passing that electron on to the hydrogen peroxide, which breaks down into a hydroxyl radical that causes oxidative stress, which in turn kills the pathogen.

The key point is you need to continuously have enough vitamin C, iron and hydrogen peroxide in your system so that the Fenton reaction can operate and destroy all the pathogens present, or else they’ll just replicate and take over again.

“Also, guess what else the vitamin C does? Outside of the cell, it’s the most powerful producer of new hydrogen peroxide. So, at the same time the vitamin C is going into the cell, it’s producing more peroxide outside of the cell, which is a nonionic tiny molecule that diffuses into the cell. The hydrogen peroxide, once it’s inside the cell, mobilizes new iron from the ferritin storage sites.

So, you have a situation where you’ve completely allowed unlimited amounts of the three substrates in the Fenton reaction to continue to completion until it’s done its pro-oxidative killing task. So, in every sense of the word, hydrogen peroxide is the effector arm of vitamin C’s ability to kill a pathogen,” Levy explains.

So, the take-home message here is that whether you’re dealing with an oral infection, or an infection caused by, say, a virus, vitamin C in combination with hydrogen peroxide can effectively address the infection. In the case of respiratory infections, you wouldn’t irrigate with peroxide, rather you’d nebulize it. Levy provides all the details on this in his free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery,” hyperlinked at the beginning of this article.

Nebulizing hydrogen peroxide can also help to address leaky gut by eradicating harmful pathogens there. “When you stop the brand-new oxidative pathogen toxin stress from dumping in, it’s incredible how rapidly a leaky gut can heal,” Levy says.

Other Strategies to Optimize Your Oral and Physical Health

In addition to regular irrigation with hydrogen peroxide and vitamin C supplementation, get into the habit of scraping your tongue. Your tongue has large amounts of pathogens on it, and manually scraping off the surface gunk will help keep the pathogen count low. Also, Levy recommends seeing a biological dentist for your checkups, someone who uses ozone therapy, so that you can get your tonsils injected with ozone.

“That’s the only way to resolve the chronic infection in them,” he says. “It’s not a big deal. It takes a few seconds, stings a little bit just like a local anesthetic, and then it’s all over. And it doesn’t require but maybe two or three visits. You just tack them onto whatever else you’re doing at the dentist. If you have a dentist who hasn’t done it and the dentist wants to email me or talk to me, that’s perfectly fine. I’m here to help.”

If, like me, you’re prone to hard calculus deposits on your teeth, you can use a scale remover to scrape around your teeth along the gum line. According to Levy, the buildup of scale on your teeth typically occurs when there’s a slight imbalance in your calcium-to-phosphorus ratio. Weston A. Price established that you ideally want a calcium-to-phosphorus ratio of 2 1/2-to-1. “Roughly a calcium of 10 and a phosphorus of 4,” Levy says.

Another contributing factor could be infection. When oxidative stress is high, it causes your reverse T3 to elevate, causing a deranged free T3 to reverse T3 ratio.

“All of that not only causes a predilection toward calcium depositing, it also causes the predilection toward focal infections metastasizing and focal cancers metastasizing,” Levy says. “Oxidative stress is primarily regulated by your thyroid function. Your thyroid function has to be perfect. That’s one of the things that doctors need to do right along with getting the 3D cone beam exam — make sure your T3 to reverse T3 ratio is perfect.”

To learn more, be sure to download your free copy of “Hidden Epidemic: Silent Oral Infections Cause Most Heart Attacks and Breast Cancers.” More details on hydrogen peroxide can be found in “Rapid Virus Recovery,” which is also available as a free download.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/20/thomas-levy-hidden-epidemic.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Air Pollution Is Making Your Allergies Worse

With each passing year, more people are affected by seasonal allergies. In the quest to identify the mechanism behind the growing number of people experiencing allergies, scientists have identified several factors that play an important role. One of these is air pollution.1,2

According to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America,3 more than 50 million Americans have experienced a variety of types of allergies each year, and that number only continues to rise. The annual cost exceeds $18 billion for allergic rhinitis and $25 billion for food allergies.

The most common types of seasonal allergies are reactions to tree, grass and weed pollen. Allergic rhinitis, which is also called hay fever, affects 5.2 million children and 19.2 million adults. Although these numbers are staggering, scientists expect them to continue to rise as increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have affected plant growth and pollen production.

The most common symptoms of allergic rhinitis include sneezing, stuffy, runny nose, watery and itchy eyes and itching in your nose, throat or mouth. A sizable number of allergy sufferers experience noticeable brain fog as well. Food and seasonal allergies are your body’s reactions to particles it considers foreign.

The first time your body meets a protein allergen, plasma cells release immunoglobulin E (IgE).4 This attaches to the surface of mast cells, which are found in great numbers in your surface tissue such as skin and nasal mucus membranes. Mast cells release important chemical mediators, one of which is histamine.

The next time your body encounters this allergen, your mast cells become activated within minutes and release a powerful cocktail of histamines, leukotrienes and prostaglandins. This triggers the cascade of symptoms that you associate with allergies.

Rising Levels of CO2 Feed Flowering Plants

One of the major components of air pollution is carbon dioxide. According to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions,5 carbon dioxide makes up 76% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Trees and other plants use carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. You might think rising levels of carbon dioxide may be good for plant life, but like most things, plants need a balance.

Gilles Oliver is an engineer from the National Aerobiological Surveillance Network, which tracks pollen throughout France. He spoke with a reporter from Vice France about the interaction between CO2 and plant life, saying,6 “But when the proportion of this CO2 in the air increases, plants grow faster and produce more pollen.”

An increase in pollen production raises your exposure to pollen, and thus produces more severe seasonal allergies. Changes in temperature and CO2 have also extended the frost-free season and thus lengthened pollen season.7 However, the pollen being produced by these plants may be contributing to the collapse of the bee population.

Scientists have found that increases in CO2 produce more pollen, but the pollen has lower protein levels.8 When bees harvest from flowers they first drink the nectar and then collect the pollen. Nectar is high in carbohydrates, while pollen offers long-term nutrition and provides the bees’ only natural source of protein.

When scientists compared flowers from Canada Goldenrod collected from 1842 to the present, they found the percentage of protein dropped by 33%.9 Over the same number of years, CO2 levels have risen by 30%. This increased the carbohydrates in the pollen making it essentially junk food for bees.10

The researchers confirmed the CO2 change in the environment played a role in dropping protein levels through testing published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.11

More than 100 past studies have demonstrated the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide reduces the nutritional value of plants, but this study was the first to examine the effects on bees. Mathilde Renard, an agricultural engineer at the Environmental Department of the Paris City Hall, also spoke with the Vice France reporter about the rising pollen counts in Paris.12

She attributes some of the urban pollen to the city’s planting efforts. One of the main strategies Paris is now using is to diversify the species to reduce the pollen concentration for each plant, in the hope of reducing citizens’ allergic response.

Other gardening choices that affect pollen count include preferentially planting male trees.13 Female trees shed more seeds and fruit, which need to be cleaned, but male trees tend to produce more allergic pollen. Some city planners have also chosen species based on their aesthetic value. For instance, birch trees are pretty, but birch tree pollen is one of the largest allergic triggers in the northern hemisphere.14

Pollution and Allergens Interact in Rising Allergies

Oliver attributes the increase in allergies in France to air pollution, saying,15 “It does two things. If you have allergies, it weakens your respiratory tract so you can get ill more easily. It also breaks up the pollen particles in the air, which allows them to penetrate deeper in our respiratory systems.”

The effect of air pollution on your body is insidious. The World Health Organization16 determined 92% of the global population is breathing polluted air. Most people associate air pollution with respiratory conditions since it has a significant impact on your pulmonary health.

However, while the damage to your lungs is significant, it’s important to remember air pollution affects more than your pulmonary system. For example, a study17 published in Environmental Health found a link between living close to busy roads and developing non-Alzheimer’s dementia and Parkinson’s disease.

According to the WHO, by 2016 air pollution was already responsible for respiratory diseases that killed 543,000 children aged 5 years and younger every year.18 Air pollution is also responsible for asthma in 14% of children around the globe. In April 2019, London launched an ultra-low emissions zone in central London in an attempt to reduce emissions by 45%.19

Researchers found that children living in these areas had a reduction in lung capacity by about 5% when pollution rose above legal levels.20 Dr. Ben Barrett commented on studies evaluating the effect air pollution has on pulmonary health in children, saying:21

“Air pollution has been found to restrict lung growth in children. Low lung function in childhood can persist into adulthood and is often associated with other health problems including chronic obstructive lung disease in later life.”

Air Pollution May Also Drive Pollen Deeper Into Your Lungs

As Oliver commented, air pollution increases the ability of pollen to penetrate your lungs. This can happen through several mechanisms.22 These include the facilitation of pollen release, stimulating the IgE-mediated response and enhancing the expression of allergens within pollen grains.

Grains of pollen do not only carry allergens, but can also elicit allergic responses in individuals who are sensitized. Pollen grains are too large to penetrate deep into the respiratory tract, so symptoms observed with patients who are allergic to pollen are more likely due to particles that are smaller than pollen grains. According to researchers:23

“Interestingly, air pollutants bind to these particles and exacerbate allergic disorders. Moreover, pollen grains release biologically active lipids, which activate immune cells in vitro.”

Researchers postulate that the interaction between air pollution and pollen grains outside the body may increase the amount of allergen released into the environment. This may happen through a variety of mechanisms that researchers have been studying in the lab and with human participants.24

They found that allergic reactions to grass pollen are greater in cities than in rural areas. Several types of air pollutants act “as adjuvants through binding to allergens and stimulating IgE synthesis, resulting in exacerbation of asthma symptoms.”25

A Clean Society May Increase Risk of Food Allergies

The number of people experiencing food allergies is also on the rise. One paper26 published by Yale University27 proposed the rising number may be the result of an exaggerated activation of the system that protects you against eating toxic foods. As many as 8% of children28 have a potentially deadly response to the major eight food allergens, often referred to as the “Big 8.”29

These include milk, eggs, wheat, soybeans, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts and peanuts. Your body uses multiple sensory mechanisms to monitor what you eat, including chemosensory processes in the gut. The Yale University scientists argue that the body has a food quality control system in which an allergic response plays a significant role.

One prevailing theory for this rise in food allergies is living in a too-clean environment. This is also called the hygiene hypothesis, which some scientists have expanded to include processed foods, dishwashing detergent and other environmental chemicals.

In a paper30 written in Clinical and Experimental Immunology, the researchers argue these factors also play a role in disrupting your internal food quality control system.

There is a difference between a food sensitivity, intolerance and a food allergy.31 A true allergy is mediated by the immune system and triggered by a reaction to proteins found in your food or drink. Food intolerances are also called food sensitivities. These are usually an unpleasant gastrointestinal reaction, but the reaction is not mediated by your immune system.

Although most food allergies develop in childhood, it’s not unheard of for adults to develop a food allergy. Data32 gathered from October 2015 to September 2016 suggest 10.8% of adults are allergic to food. Scientists believe this contradicts the long-held belief that most allergies develop in childhood.

In a survey of 40,443 adults, 38.3% had food allergies that sent them to the emergency room and 48% had at least one triggered after the age of 18. Your gut microbiome is vital to the functioning of your immune system, which mediates an allergic response to food. You’ll find suggestions on how to optimize your gut microbiome in “How Your Gut Health Impacts Your Disease Risk.”

Vitamin D — Links to Seasonal and Food Allergies

One physiological biomarker tied to the risk of seasonal and food allergies is vitamin D. Researchers have found there is both experimental and clinical evidence that vitamin D is linked to allergic rhinitis.33

One double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial34 evaluated the combined effect of vitamin D supplementation with an antihistamine medication. The study found that the people who received vitamin D and the medication had a significant decrease in their symptoms as compared to those who only received the medication.

The researchers measured vitamin D levels after eight weeks, finding those who received the supplement had a mean serum level of 24 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) and the level in the group who did not get vitamin D supplementation was 15 ng/mL.

It is important to note that the researchers did not use the supplement as a basis for concluding the vitamin D had a positive effect, but rather the serum level of vitamin D. The rising level of food allergies also corresponds to the increasing number of people with vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D plays a significant role in the regulation of IgE, important in the development of food allergies.

The link between vitamin D deficiency, which has almost doubled in just over 10 years in the U.S.,35 and poor regulation of IgE responses, may be a significant factor. Both play a role in the development, severity and course of allergic diseases and may help explain, at least in part, why so many adults are developing food allergies.

Vitamin D deficiency has become so widespread it’s been called a pandemic by a Harvard Medical School researcher.36 The short list of health benefits attributed to vitamin D optimization include improving your immune system, strengthening muscles, bones and teeth and improving your cardiovascular health.

I recommend you get your vitamin D level tested twice each year — once when the level is likely to be at its lowest (midwinter) and once when it’s at its highest (midsummer). Grassroots Health offers vitamin D testing through its D*Action Study and has an online vitamin D calculator you can use to estimate your vitamin D requirements.

To read more about the interaction between vitamin D deficiency and allergies, how to optimize your vitamin D and the synergy between vitamin D3, magnesium, calcium and vitamin K2, see “Vitamin D Deficiency Can Lead to Increased Allergies.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/19/allergies-worsened-by-air-pollution.aspx

Categories
Recommended

The Real Reason We Locked Down the Healthy

There are two prevailing theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The first is that SARS-CoV-2 emerged naturally and jumped from wildlife to humans, with or without an intermediary host. The other is that the virus was being kept and/or studied in a lab, from which it escaped.

Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, is one of the most ardent supporters of the natural origins theory. He told The Associated Press in November 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 could have passed from a wildlife poacher to a trader who brought it to Wuhan.1 Daszak also organized the publication of a scientific statement, published in The Lancet and signed by 26 additional scientists, condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”2

Daszak, however, is part of the World Health Organization team that investigated the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and has a long history of close ties to the Chinese laboratory in question — the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), from where it appears increasingly likely that the virus emerged.

The video above, “Deception in America Episode One: The Tale of Peter Daszak,” presents a succinct history of his involvement, as well as that of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and who has also long backed dangerous coronavirus research, including that conducted by EcoHealth Alliance. According to the film:3

“From the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, said to have begun some time in December of 2019, the battle to control the narrative has been fought ferociously by global organizations, CEOs, billionaires and the programs at the center of the Wuhan Institute of Virology controversy … Despite his attempts to shift the blame to anyone else but himself and his team, all roads eventually lead back to Daszak.”

EcoHealth Alliance Is the Middleman for NIAID’s WIV Funding

EcoHealth Alliance is a nonprofit organization that receives millions in funding every year from NIAID, and then gives it to WIV. In fact, the film reveals that, since 2002, EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak have received over 32 grants worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from NIH, with most coming from NIAID:4

“Over the years, Peter Daszak and the Ecohealth Alliance have received $5,764,128 from the Fogarty International Center and $7,875,012 from the NIAID, for a grand total of $13,639,140.”

EcoHealth Alliance also has contracts with other government departments worth millions of dollars. The following contracts are among them:5

$4.5 million with the Department of Defense (DOD)
$2.9 million with DOD
$499,000 with the National Science Foundation
$566,000 with the Department of Homeland Security
$1.2 million with the Department of Commerce

There are many others as well. According to USASpending.gov, EcoHealth Alliance has 36 contracts with various government agencies.6 Over the years, the organization has been awarded $61.5 million, with DOD chief among its funders, giving them a total of $41.9 million. Overall, 91% of EcoHealth Alliance’s funding comes from government grants.7

Daszak Joins the Lancet Commission on COVID-19

Daszak has extensive connections, including having worked for the Center of Infection and Immunity at Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, alongside colleague Jeffrey Sachs, the former director of The Earth Institute at Columbia.8 Sachs, also an adviser to the United Nations, spearheaded the Millennium Villages project, which was an attempt to reduce extreme poverty in Africa, supporting a shift to self-sufficiency.

While the project claimed to be a success, an evaluation in 2012 revealed its goals were unrealistic and serious questions were raised about the project’s ability to create long-lasting impact, along with its cost-effectiveness.9

Sachs also wrote a number of articles in support of China, stating, for instance, that “the U.S., not China, is the real threat to international law,”10 and was named chair of the Lancet Commission on COVID-19. He then named Daszak as one of the commissioners.

“Peter Daszak’s constant involvement with people like Jeffrey Sachs and the World Economic Forum suggests that he could be another one of those types of men who are so disconnected with reality that they will do anything to shape the world, not realizing what they are doing,” the film noted.11

In fact, in a Tweet from May 10, 2011, EcoHealth Alliance wrote, “Q for the crowd: is western style democracy, a la USA, compatible with sustainability? Or is eastern style (a la China) better?”12 As further noted by the film:13

“Peter Daszak’s Ecohealth Alliance receives far more in funding from the U.S. government, including grants from the Department of Defense, among others. He is also closely associated with Jeffrey Sachs via Columbia, who frequently appears alongside George Soros in talks and seminars.

Daszak is very well connected to many globalist enterprises and their organizers. His own organization touts the sustainable development goal model, originally devised by Jeffrey Sachs.

So, when Peter Daszak deflects and says his team and their research that are directly involved the Wuhan Virology Lab has nothing to do with the SARS coronavirus outbreak in 2019, it follows a pattern that the organizations he surrounds himself with do, wherein they blame a lack of funding, or other outside factors. It is never his fault.”

Daszak’s Gain-of-Function Research

Gain-of-function (GOF) research refers to studies that have the potential to enhance the ability of pathogens to cause disease, including enhancing either their pathogenicity or transmissibility.14 Such research is by its very nature controversial, since there are clear risks should the information be misused or the pathogens escape (or are maliciously released).

Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and virologist and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., a geneticist, are among those who believe gain-of-function research performed at WIV played “an essential causative role in the pandemic.”15 However, Daszak continues to say emerging infectious diseases come from climate change and ecological drivers, ignoring the gain-of-function research that he and his organization are directly involved with.

For instance, as reported by Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director for the Organic Consumers Association, EcoHealth Alliance lists WIV and the Wuhan University School of Public Health as subcontractors under a $3.7-million NIH grant16 titled, “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”

EcoHealth Alliance also used a sub-grant17 from the University of California at Davis to fund a gain-of-function experiment by Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., the director of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, also known as “bat woman,” and colleague Ralph Baric from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, involving the use of genetic engineering to create a “new bat SARS-like virus … that can jump directly from its bat hosts to humans.” According to Baden-Mayer (see hyperlinked article above):

“The work, ‘A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence,’18 published in Nature in 2015 during the NIH’s moratorium19 on gain-of-function research, was grandfathered in because it was initiated before the moratorium … and because the request by Shi and Baric to continue their research during the moratorium was approved by the NIH.

As a condition of publication, Nature, like most scientific journals, requires20 authors to submit new DNA and RNA sequences to GenBank, the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information Database. Yet the new SARS-like virus Shi and Baric created wasn’t deposited21 in GenBank until May 2020.”

Unacceptable Risks of a Man-Made Pandemic

Daszak and WHO officials continue to state that safety guidelines make it very unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 could have escaped from a lab, but a paper published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists22 revealed in 2012 that it’s a matter of when, not if, a potential pandemic pathogen (PPP) escapes.

At the time, they noted that there were at least 42 facilities engaged in research on live PPPs, “and the actual number is likely higher.” Using a conservative estimate that the probability for escape from a lab in a year is 0.3%, they found:

“[This] translates to an 80 percent likelihood of escape from at least one of the 42 labs every 12.8 years, a time interval smaller than those that have separated influenza pandemics in the 20th century. This level of risk is clearly unacceptable.”

In fact, biosecurity breaches in high containment biological labs in the U.S. and around the world have occurred with surprising frequency,23 and as the film noted:24

“It is hardly reassuring that despite increased policy demands for rigorous biosecurity procedures, potentially high-consequence breaches occur nearly daily. In 2010, 244 unintended releases of bioweapon candidate ‘select agents’ were reported. Being practical, the question is not if such escapes will result in a major civilian outbreak, but what the pathogen will be and how well it can be contained, if it can be contained at all.”

WHO’s investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, announced the Wuhan Institute of Virology and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan, China, had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak in February 2021. Since then, WIV deleted mentions of its collaboration with the NIAID/NIH and other U.S. research partners from its website.25 It also deleted descriptions of gain-of-function research on the SARS virus.

Several members of the U.S. Congress have now vowed to launch their own investigation to explore the lab accident theory. The Energy and Commerce Committee has also requested extensive records from both the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance detailing research and collaborations with WIV.26

If SARS-CoV-2 did, in fact, come from a lab, it shows clearly that gain-of-function research is the real threat and reason for locking down the healthy and highlights the disturbing truth that any such pathogen manufactured to infect humans can be designated as a biological weapon, even if it was created with non-nefarious intentions.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/19/gain-of-function-research-threat.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Shocking Case of Academic Censorship

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, professor Mark Crispin Miller, Ph.D., provides us with a startling example of a crackdown on academic freedom, with dire implications for free speech in America today. Ironically, it was his teaching students how to question propaganda, and to resist it, that brought on the curtailment of his academic freedom, after over 20 years of teaching that important subject at New York University.

His experience at NYU in the fall of 2020 culminated in his suing 19 of his department colleagues for libel — a case that has become a major flashpoint in the larger struggle to defend free speech and academic freedom, not just in the United States, but throughout the West today. Miller explained how he had come to teach the study of the media, and propaganda in particular:

“I had learned, as an English major, how to read literary texts closely and carefully to discover their hidden depths … and I discovered to my delight that you could do that with great movies as well. The more closely you watch them, and the more times you watch them, the more you see in them.

I then began to notice that TV commercials were also extremely subtle. As propaganda messages, they were really very carefully done so that they would appeal to you on both a conscious and an unconscious level. So, I started writing about those, and then about political rhetoric.

I started writing more and more about the media, and I was favoring magazines for [a] public readership … I wanted to reach more than just an academic audience from the beginning. And I quickly felt the urgency of alerting people to what the media was doing …

By the ’90s, it had become a crisis, as a handful of transnational corporations were controlling most of the content that everybody was absorbing, news and entertainment alike, and it was getting worse and worse. So, I started to become an activist for media reform. I wrote a great deal on this and lectured about it very widely.

This is through the ’90s — and you can see how successful I was. The Telecom[munications] bill of 1996, signed by Bill Clinton, set the seal on the creation of a media monolith, The Media Trust, which had already started in earnest under Reagan. Now, it was really getting serious.

Fast forward to 2001 … I shifted my interest from media concentration to the urgent need for voting reform, because it was becoming ever clearer that the outcome of our elections does not necessarily reflect the will of the electorate … As you can see, my interests were becoming more and more taboo.”

The Rise of State-Corrupted Corporate Media

Signs of trouble emerged in 2005, when Miller published the book “Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform.” Miller and his publisher had hoped the book would open the door to nationwide discussion of the need for radical reform of the election system, but to their surprise, the book was instantly “blacklisted” by the corporate media. No one would review it.

“I even hired my own publicist,” Miller says. “This is the woman who is the publicist for Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert. She came in full of piss and vinegar, [saying] ‘We’re going to really make this [book] famous.’ And she’d never encountered such resistance. She couldn’t get anywhere.”

Oddly, it was the LEFT press — for which he had often written — that now labeled Miller a “conspiracy theorist” — a stigma that’s stuck with him ever since. The slander drove him to investigate more deeply. “I asked myself, when did this become a thing?” he says. “When did ‘conspiracy theory’ come to spring from everybody’s lips?”

Miller went to the archives of The New York Times, The Washington Post and Time magazine, searching for the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist.” Up until 1967, “conspiracy theory” was used only from time to time in various ways, while the term “conspiracy theorist” was never used. From 1967 onward, however, “conspiracy theory” was used with increasing frequency. Why?

Because, in early 1967, the CIA sent a memo — No. 1035-960 — to all its station chiefs worldwide, instructing them to use their media assets to attack the works of Mark Lane, Edward Jay Epstein and other investigators who were questioning the Warren Report for its ludicrous assertion that “lone gunman” Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.

The memo advised the use of certain lines of attack — what we today call “talking points” — to help discredit those dissenting voices. One was that “If there was a conspiracy that big, somebody would have talked by now” — a dismissive claim that’s still in use today, especially concerning 9/11. Another tactic the agency advised was to associate the “conspiracy theories” with communist subversion, thereby casting wholly reasonable inquiry as a threat to the “free world.”

“This raises a profoundly important issue about democracy in general,” Miller says, “as to whether it’s possible when you have the media, the press, covertly manipulated by the state. And, it is part of this hidden history of America that … we all need to understand if we want to get a clear sense of what’s happening now.”

As Miller started advocating for media reform, he was hired by the late Neil Postman to teach at the NYU.

“He hired me in part because he wanted another public intellectual on the faculty … who was critical of the media. He shared my view that the whole purpose of media study should be to help inform people generally about the urgent need for a properly functioning democratic media system,” Miller says.

“I used to feel that media literacy should be taught in every high school and college. I still believe that, but I now realize that a key component of that curriculum has to be propaganda study. It’s crucial.”

Over the years, NYU’s media studies department ballooned and shifted direction, becoming more diffuse, more theoretically inclined and more fixated on the pieties of “social justice” — a phrase that Miller points out has been appropriated to mean something other than what it used to mean. Indeed, the “social justice” issue has a great deal to do with the censorship — the “canceling” — of professor Miller.

COVID Propaganda

While it acquaints his students with the history of modern propaganda — its birth in World War I, its use by the Bolsheviks and by the Nazis — Miller’s course on propaganda is primarily concerned with teaching students to perceive and analyze propaganda in real time, or to look back at very recent propaganda drives.

This is not an easy thing to do, he warns his students, since, while it’s easy to spot propaganda that you disagree with, it can be very difficult to recognize it as propaganda when it tells you something that you want to hear, and want to think is true.

“That’s the most effective propaganda,” Miller says. “It works best when you don’t see it for what it is. You think it’s news. You think it’s entertainment. You think it’s information. You think it’s expertise. So, you will agree with it. Someone else out there is spewing disinformation, but you’re getting the real thing.

So, it’s hard to study propaganda, because you must make an effort to pull back and be as impartial as possible. Read comprehensively, do all the research you can [on] all sides of that issue. See what the propaganda has blacked out. See what the propaganda has stigmatized as fake, as hoax, as junk science, and look at it objectively.

What’s hard is that you have to move out of your comfort zone. Sometimes you discover that a thing you’d fervently believed for years was false, or half true. I’ve had this experience myself many, many times.”

Miller made these points at the first “meeting” (via Zoom) of his propaganda course in September 2020, noting that such a thorough and impartial propaganda study can be difficult, not just because it makes you question your own views. Such a study can also pose a social challenge, as your discoveries may come as a shock to those around you — friends, roommates, family, even other of your teachers, who’ve never looked into the matter for themselves.

Propaganda is an organized attempt to get large numbers of people to think or do something — or not think or do something. It’s not like classical rhetoric, which is about persuasion through argument. It’s a kind of sub-rational manipulation. ~ Professor Mark Crispin Miller

What Is Propaganda?

“The COVID crisis has been driven by a number of propaganda themes,” Miller says. However, the word “propaganda” does not automatically mean that the information is false or malign. Propaganda can be true and used for benevolent ends. Public service ads encouraging you not to smoke, for example, are a form of propaganda.

The problem with propaganda is that it’s inherently biased and one-sided, which can become outright dangerous if the other side is censored. This is particularly so when it comes to medicine and health, and the censoring of COVID-19 treatment information and the potential hazards of the COVID vaccines is a perfect example of this.

“Propaganda is an organized attempt to get large numbers of people to think or do something — or not think or do something. That’s really all it is. That’s an informal definition but it’s a good one,” Miller says.

“It’s not like classical rhetoric, which is about persuasion through argument. [Propaganda] is a kind of sub-rational manipulation. It’s been with us for a long time, but the rise of the digital world, our absorption into the digital universe, has radically intensified this kind of effort and made it successful beyond the wildest dreams of [Nazi minister of propaganda] Dr. [Joseph] Goebbels or [profession public relations pioneer] Edward Bernays.

This incredible technological sophistication enables them, first of all, to move people at the deepest level. It also enables them to suppress dissidents with remarkable efficiency, spotting the word ‘vaccine’ in a post and then blocking it.

At the same time, it gives them an astonishing advantage when it comes to surveillance of every single one of us … It is going to require a tremendous amount of skill and sophistication on our part, to organize under that watchful eye.”

Academic Censorship

One topic Miller suggested studying in that first meeting of his propaganda course last fall, was the mask mandates. Miller made it clear that he was NOT telling the students not to wear masks, but that this would be a purely intellectual exercise.

Such study (which was not an assignment, but only a suggestion) would consist of reading through the scientific literature on masking: specifically, all the randomized, controlled studies of masking and the use of respirators in hospital settings — studies finding that those face coverings do NOT prevent transmission of respiratory viruses; and, as well, the several recent studies finding otherwise.

He also offered tips on how non-scientists can assess new scientific studies: by looking at reviews by other scientists, and by noting the university where a given study was conducted, and to see if it has any financial ties to Big Pharma and/or the Gates Foundation, as such a partnership may have influenced the researchers there.

The following week, a student who missed that introductory talk (she had joined the class late) was present when the subject of masks came up again, and she was so enraged by Miller’s emphasis on the importance of those prior studies (whose consensus had been echoed by the CDC until early April 2020, and by the WHO until early June 2020), that she took to Twitter, accusing him of endangering the students’ health, and of posting on his website (News from Underground) material “from far-right and conspiracy sites” — and demanding that NYU fire him.

“I was kind of floored by this,” Miller says. “This has never happened to me before. It was unpleasant, but it was her First Amendment right to express herself on Twitter, so that per se was not such a big deal. However, what happened immediately after that is not acceptable.”

The department chair, without consulting with Miller, responded to the student’s tweet with his thanks, adding: “We as a department have made this a priority, and discussing next steps.” The next day, Carlo Ciotoli, the doctor who advises the NYU on its stringent COVID rules, and Jack Knott, the dean of Steinhardt, emailed Miller’s students, without putting him on copy, hinting that he’d given them “dangerous misinformation.”

They also provided them with “authoritative public health guidance” — i.e., links to studies recommended by the CDC, finding that masks are effective against transmission of COVID-19. Thus, they told the students to believe those newer studies that Miller had already recommended, whereas he encouraged them to make up their own minds.

Shortly after that, the department chair asked Miller to cancel next semester’s propaganda course, “for the good of the department,” on the pretext that Miller’s film course would attract more students, so that he should teach TWO sections of that course. (Both courses admit 24 students.) Miller agreed, as the chair has that prerogative, but he did so under protest; and, he couldn’t let the matter go.

“I mean, I’m teaching a propaganda course, and look what happened,” Miller says. “So, with the help of some friends, including Mickey Huff, who runs Project Censored, I wrote a petition1 that people can find at Change.org. The only ‘ask’ in that petition is that NYU respect my academic freedom and set a good example for other schools.

But I did it in the name of all those professors, doctors, scientists, activists, journalists and whistleblowers who have been gagged or persecuted for their dissidence, not just over this last year, when it’s reached a kind of crisis point, but really for decades. It’s been going on for far too long, initially on the fringes, but now it’s happening all over the place.”

‘Slanderous Lunacy’

A month after the student attacked Miller on Twitter, he received an email from the dean, informing him that he was ordering a review of Miller’s conduct at the request of 25 of his department colleagues, whose letter to him was attached.

“I thought I’d seen everything,” Miller says. “[The letter] starts by saying, ‘We believe in academic freedom.’ The email from the dean and doctor also started saying ‘We believe in academic freedom,’ so I’ve learned that when somebody comes up and says, ‘I believe in academic freedom,’ you need to brace yourself because there’s a big ‘but’ coming. And that’s what happened with this letter from my colleagues.

‘We believe in academic freedom, BUT, as the faculty handbook points out, if a colleague’s behavior is sufficiently heinous, it can obviate his or her academic freedom. And we believe that’s the case with Professor Miller,’ it read.

Now, I think what the faculty handbook is referring to is if a professor tries to rape a student or uses lynch mob language against minority students or something like that. They put me in that category. Why? First of all, they said I discouraged students from wearing masks, and even intimidated those who were wearing masks, which is false to the point of insanity.

It was a Zoom class. I’ve never heard of a student wearing a mask on Zoom, although maybe that will be mandatory at some point. But my mask heresy was the least of it. They went on to charge me with ‘explicit hate speech,’ launching ‘attacks on students and others in our community,’ assailing my students with ‘non-evidence-based’ arguments or theories, ‘advocating for an unsafe learning environment,’ [and] ‘micro-aggressions and aggressions.’

I read this with increasing wonderment. If they had decided to craft a description of a professor completely antithetical to the way I teach, they couldn’t have done a better job. This was slanderous lunacy. They basically picked up where that student left off.”

Libel Suit Underway

In a Zoom “meeting,” Knott informed Miller that he had ordered the review at the behest of NYU’s lawyers, who told him that he must — a revelation that Miller finds significant, there being, in fact, no legal grounds for that review.

Soon afterward, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit dedicated to protecting academic freedom, sent Andrew Hamilton, NYU’s president, a detailed letter going through the case law, demonstrating clearly that the dean’s review is illegitimate, and that the president should intervene, and quash it. He did not reply.

Knott told Miller that the “review” would end with the semester — i.e., by mid-December 2020. Yet, seven months after it was ordered, Miller still has not heard anything about that putative “review” — which may have been put on hold, or quietly called off, because of what Miller did about his colleagues’ letter.

“After I talked to the dean, I went through the letter they wrote with a fine-tooth comb and crafted a cordial point-by-point rebuttal. I asked for a retraction and an apology, and they ignored it. A week later, I sent it again. I said, ‘Please, by November 20th I’d like you to retract this and apologize.’ Nothing.

So, I decided I had no choice. I certainly wasn’t going to let this go. It was outrageous, and represents, inside the academy, the kind of persecution and suppression that we see going on worldwide, throughout so-called democracies. So, I decided I had to sue them for libel.”

Support Free Speech Rights and Academic Freedom

At the time of this interview, Miller was waiting for the judge to rule on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. All of the documents relating to this case can be found on Miller’s website, MarkCrispinMiller.com.2 If you want to make a donation to help fund Miller’s legal case, you can do so on his GoFundMe page.3

“I’m trying to raise $100,000,” he says, “because I expect this to be a protracted and costly fight with depositions. The money goes directly into an escrow account that my lawyer manages, so I’m not profiting off this personally. Nor am I only doing it on my own behalf, as with the petition.

They have hurt me greatly. Not only professionally, within the institution and beyond, because word of this has traveled, but also physically, because the stress of that ordeal has really slowed my recovery from Lyme disease, which I’ve been battling for 10 years.

I became so ill from this that I ended up in the ER at NYU, in January. So, I am on medical leave this semester. I’ve just been working on my health and telling my story, so that I can prevail in the court of public opinion. But it isn’t just about me, my health, my career. It really is about all of us.

It’s about you, it’s about Bobby Kennedy, Sucharit Bhakdi and John Ioannidis. It’s about the Frontline Doctors and the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration. It’s about what appears to be a majority of expert opinion on some level, while the medical establishment, like the academy and the media, is utterly corrupt.

There are a lot of people of conscience, doctors who observe their Hippocratic oath, professors who believe in trying to teach the truth, journalists who have no place to publish because they’re actually trying to report the other side of a narrative that is increasingly preposterous and lethal. It’s for all of us because, as many have observed, once free speech goes, and with it, academic freedom, that’s the whole ballgame. That’s the end.

If we can’t even talk about what’s happening, if we end up being accused of conspiracy theory — which is now openly equated with domestic terrorism — if we’re accused of hate speech (which is out of the social justice playbook), and if we’re accused of dangerous misinformation about the virus, which has been happening all year, if we encounter any of those three responses to our attempts to tell the truth, then we are vilified and marginalized.

And my colleagues managed to hit me with all three in that letter. They accuse me of conspiracy theory, they accuse me of hate speech and they accuse me of doing the students harm by discouraging them from wearing masks.

All false. All I did was urge my class to read through all the literature on masks and make up their own minds as an example of the kind of thing they should do with all these narratives.”

Beyond infringing on freedom of speech, Miller’s case shows how censorship ultimately ends up chilling independent thinking and curbing your freedom of inquiry — the freedom to ask questions and ponder an issue or problem from multiple angles.

And, without the ability to think freely and express one’s thoughts, life itself becomes more or less meaningless as well as dangerous, while higher education becomes nothing more than training for compliance, as students are each trained to “do what you’re told,” as Dr. Anthony Fauci put it so gleefully November 12, 2020.

Big Lies Are Protected by Public Incredulity

To learn more about Miller’s case, visit markcrispinmiller.com. Miller also publishes a daily newsletter of banned news that you can sign up for. In closing, Miller notes:

“I believe that what’s happening now is the culmination of a quiet history of eugenics in the West that starts at the beginning of the 20th century — a movement that was forced underground by the Holocaust, because that was a big embarrassment, and [that] reemerged in the early ’50s as a movement for population control.

People don’t want to understand this. They want to see Bill Gates as a benign figure, as a kind of Father Teresa bringing happiness and health … They don’t want to know that his father was an intimate of the Rockefellers and sat on the Board of Planned Parenthood, not because he was a feminist, but because he really did believe … that abortion is one tool for getting rid of the unfit.

There is a eugenic discourse now being floated on the op-ed page in The New York Times where Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel writes that we shouldn’t expect to live past 75.

He treats it kind of half-jokingly, but if you then look at the toll that this crisis has taken on the elderly — in particular what’s happened in the nursing homes in California, New York, Michigan, Washington and North Carolina, as well as in Canada, Britain and Sweden.

They housed COVID patients in nursing homes. This has the look of what Dr. Vernon Coleman has called eldercide, but nobody wants to think that’s what’s going on. Marshall McLuhan said, ‘Little lies don’t need to be protected. But the big lies are protected by public incredulity.’ That is to say, ‘Come on, you’re crazy, they wouldn’t do that.’

It’s easier to call people ‘conspiracy theorists’ than it is to face the likelihood, or even the remote possibility, that what we’re saying is true. There are many ‘conspiracy theories’ that over the decades have turned out to be completely true. So, we have to make sure people know it through every means available. And now it’s quite urgent.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/20/academic-censorship.aspx