Lose Them Pounds

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

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

Governments are using fear to control and manipulate their citizens. That has now been admitted by members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B), a subcommittee that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) in the U.K. And they should know, because they advocated for it, and now say it was a regrettable mistake. As reported by The Telegraph, May 14, 2021:1

“Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behavior during the COVID pandemic have admitted its work was ‘unethical’ and ‘totalitarian.’ Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s COVID-19 response.

SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase ‘the perceived level of personal threat’ from COVID-19 because ‘a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened.’

Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: ‘Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government. By nature I am an optimistic person, but all this has given me a more pessimistic view of people.’”

Psychological Warfare Is Real

The Telegraph quotes several of the SPI-B members, all of whom are also quoted in the newly released book, “A State of Fear: How the UK Government Weaponised Fear During the Covid-19 Pandemic,” written by Laura Dodsworth:2

“One SPI-B scientist told Ms Dodsworth: ‘In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian.

The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared’ …

One warned that ‘people use the pandemic to grab power and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise … We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in’ …

Another member of SPI-B said they were ‘stunned by the weaponization of behavioral psychology’ during the pandemic, and that ‘psychologists didn’t seem to notice when it stopped being altruistic and became manipulative. They have too much power and it intoxicates them.’

Steve Baker, the deputy chairman of the COVID Recovery Group of Tory MPs, said: ‘If it is true that the state took the decision to terrify the public to get compliance with rules, that raises extremely serious questions about the type of society we want to become. If we’re being really honest, do I fear that government policy today is playing into the roots of totalitarianism? Yes, of course it is.’”

The Manufacture of Fear

For nearly a year and a half, governments around the world, with few exceptions, have fed their citizens a steady diet of frightening news. For months on end, you couldn’t turn on the television without facing a tickertape detailing the number of hospitalizations and deaths.
Even when it became clear that people weren’t really dying in excessive numbers, the mainstream media fed us continuous updates on the growing number of “cases,” without ever putting such figures into context or explaining that the vast majority were false positives.
People don’t enjoy being hoodwinked and they don’t want to live in a state of fear. We maybe need to be a bit bolder about standing up more quickly when something is not right. ~ Laura Dodsworth
Information that would have balanced out the bad news — such as recovery rates and just how many so-called “cases” actually weren’t, because they never had a single symptom — were censored and suppressed.
They also refused to put any of the data into context, such as reviewing whether the death toll actually differed significantly from previous years. Instead, each new case was treated as an emergency and a sign of catastrophic doom.
Don’t Be Confused — Contradiction Is a Warfare Tactic
Aside from the barrage of bad-news-only data — which, by the way, was heavily manipulated in a variety of ways — fear and anxiety are also generated by keeping you confused. According to Dodsworth, giving out contradictory recommendations and vague instructions is being done intentionally, to keep you psychologically vulnerable.

“When you create a state of confusion, people become ever more reliant on the messaging. Instead of feeling confident about making decisions, they end up waiting for instructions from the Government,” she said in a May 20, 2021, interview on the Planet Normal podcast.3

An example provided by Dodsworth are the pandemic measures implemented over Christmas 2020:

“Family Christmases were on, then off, then back on, then off again. You have got someone tightening the screw, then loosening the screw, then tightening it again. It’s like a torture scenario.”

But that’s not all. As explained by psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, by layering confusion and uncertainty on top of fear, you can bring an individual to a state in which they can no longer think rationally. Once driven into an illogical state, they are easily manipulated. I have no doubt driving people into a state where logic and reason no longer registers is the whole point behind much of the conflicting information we’re given.
The Fear Factory

In her book, Dodsworth details a number of branches of the British government that are using psychological warfare methods in their interaction with the public. In addition to the SPI-B, there’s the:4

• Behavioral Insights team, the so-called “nudge unit,” a semi-independent government body that applies “behavioral insights to inform policy, improve public services and deliver positive results for people and communities.”5 This team also advises foreign nations.
• Home Office’s Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU), which is part of the U.K.’s Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, advises front groups disguised as public “grassroots” organizations on how to “covertly engineer the thoughts of people.”
• Rapid Response Unit, launched in 2018, operates across the British Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s office (colloquially known as “Number 10” as in the physical address, 10 Downing Street in London) to “counter misinformation and disinformation.” They also work with the National Security Communications Team during crises to ensure “official information” gets maximum visibility.6
• Counter Disinformation Cell, which is part of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Both monitor social media and combat “fake news” about science in general and COVID-19 in particular, with “fake news” being anything that contradicts the World Health Organization’s guidance.7
• Government Communications Headquarters (QCHQ), an intelligence and security organization that provides information to the U.K. government and the armed forces. According to Dodsworth, QCHQ personnel, and even members of the 77th Brigade, have been enlisted as so-called sockpuppets and trolls to combat anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown messaging on social media.

According to Dodsworth, there are many others. In her book, she claims at least 10 different government departments in the U.K. are working with “behavioral insights teams” to manipulate the public.
We’re Just Seeing It Now

Importantly, government’s reliance on behavioral psychology didn’t just happen as a result of the pandemic. These tactics have been used for years, for myriad PR purposes, and while the pandemic may be winding down, Dodsworth warns that more and more behavioral scientists are being hired:8

“It’s growing and growing. Right now, I feel we are in a maelstrom of nudge,” she says. “In the past, there have been calls to consult the public on the use of behavioral psychology, and those calls have come from the behavioral scientists themselves. And yet it hasn’t happened. We haven’t yet been consulted on the use of subconscious techniques which effectively strip away our choices …

I fervently hope this book [‘The State of Fear’] is actually going to inspire a much-needed conversation about the use of fear, not just in the epidemic, but the way we use behavioral psychology overall.

It’s not just a genie that has been let out the bottle. It’s like we’ve unleashed a Hydra and you can keep chopping its head off, but they keep employing more of these behavioral scientists throughout different government departments. It’s very much how the Government now does business. It’s the business of fear …

I think ultimately people don’t want to be manipulated. People don’t enjoy being hoodwinked and they don’t want to live in a state of fear. We maybe need to be a bit bolder about standing up more quickly when something is not right.”

Fear Is Contagious

Fear has long been the tool of tyrants. It’s profoundly effective, in part because it spreads from person to person, just like a virus. The contagion of fear is the topic of the Nova “Gross Science” video above, originally aired in mid-February 2017. Among animals, emotional distress responses are telegraphed through pheromones emitted through various bodily secretions such as sweat and saliva.
As explained in the video, when encountering what is perceived as a serious threat, animals with strong social structures, such as bees and ants, will release alarm pheromone. The scent attracts other members of the hive or colony to collectively address the threat.
Humans appear to have a very similar capability. When scared or stressed, humans produce chemosignals, and while you may not consciously recognize the smell of fear or stress, it can have a subconscious impact, making you feel afraid or stressed too.
Humans also tend to mimic the feelings of those around us, and this is yet another way through which an emotion can spread like wildfire through a community or an entire nation — for better or worse. Behavioral psychologists refer to this as “emotional contagion,” and it works both positive and negative emotions.
For example, if you’re greeted by a smile when meeting someone, you’re likely to smile back, mimicking their facial expression and behavior. If someone looks at you with an angry scowl, you’re likely to suddenly feel angry too, even if you weren’t before and have no subjective reason to — other than that someone looked at you the “wrong” way.
However, while both positive and negative emotions are contagious, certain emotions spread faster and easier than others. Research cited in the Nova report found that “high arousal” emotions such as awe (high-arousal positive emotion) and anger or anxiety (high-arousal negative emotion) are more “viral” than low-arousal emotions such as happiness or sadness.
The Nova report also points out that researchers have been mining Twitter and other social media data to better understand how emotions are spread, and the types of messages that spread the fastest. However, they ignored the primary culprits, Google and Facebook both of which steal your private data and use it to manipulate your behavior.
At the time, in 2017, they said this information was being harvested and used to develop ways to avoid public messaging that might incite mass panic. But the COVID-19 pandemic suggests the complete opposite. Clearly, behavioral experts have been busy developing ways to generate maximum fear, anxiety and panic.
How to Inoculate Yourself Against Negative Contagion

At the end of the report, Nova cites research detailing three effective ways to “immunize” yourself against negative emotional contagions.

Distract yourself from the source of the negative contagion — In the case of pandemic fearporn, that might entail not reading or listening to mainstream media news that for the past year have proven themselves incapable of levelheadedness.
Project your own positive emotions back at the source of the negative contagion — If talking to someone who is fearful, they might end up “catching” your optimism rather than the other way around.
Speak up — If someone is unwittingly spreading “negative vibes,” telling them so might help them realize what they’re doing. (This won’t work if the source is knowingly and purposely spreading fear or anxiety though.)

Pandemic of Panic

In a recent Tweet,9 Ivor Cummins, a biochemical engineer who researches the root causes of chronic disease, shared a short video detailing the root cause of the panic pandemic. Why has the whole world seemingly gone mad from fear?
As explained by Cummins, the outsized level of public fear is the result of a catastrophic feedback loop system where political and mainstream media drivers are pushing fear onto the public, and public fears are then feeding the media (fear sells) and pushing politicians to take action, which generates more fear messages. And so, round and round it goes.
However, at a certain point, this engine of fear starts losing steam. To keep the pandemic pandemonium going, academics bearing doomsday predictions were brought in to scare politicians and provide more fearporn fodder for the media.
Aiding the academic drivers are unelected, undemocratic organizations such as the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Big Pharma (just to name a few), all of which support these academic doomsday prophets from behind the scenes or openly promote them.
All of the organizations Cummins mentions are part of a technocratic, unelected elite that are making decisions for the entire world. If we were to somehow shut down this secondary engine that feeds into the first, the global insanity would probably start to abate.
The question is, can that be done? Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has likened our current predicament to “an apocalyptical battle,”10 as we’re facing formidable undemocratic forces with seemingly unlimited financial resources, political influence and the ability to control the global landscape of communications.
We’re facing a globalist agenda that ultimately seeks to gain total control by stripping away human rights and the rights of countries, and they’re using “biosecurity” as justification for it all.
Exposing the Grand Plan

As explained by journalist James Corbett in his October 16, 2020, Corbett Report,11 the Great Reset is a new “social contract” that ties every person to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, and a social credit ID that will end up dictating every facet of your life.
It’s about getting rid of capitalism and free enterprise, and replacing them with “sustainable development” and “stakeholder capitalism” — terms that belie their nefarious, antihumanity intents. As noted in the book, “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order”:12

“… Sustainable Development is Technocracy … The Sustainable Development movement has taken careful steps to conceal its true identity, strategy and purpose, but once the veil is lifted, you will never see it any other way. Once its strategy is unmasked, everything else will start to make sense.”

In her blog post “The Great Reset for Dummies,” journalist Tessa Lena summarizes the purpose behind the call for a global “reset”:13

“The mathematical reason for the Great Reset is that thanks to technology, the planet has gotten small, and the infinite expansion economic model is bust — but obviously, the super wealthy want to continue staying super wealthy, and so they need a miracle, another bubble, plus a surgically precise system for managing what they perceive as ‘their limited resources.’

Thus, they desperately want a bubble providing new growth out of thin air — literally — while simultaneously they seek to tighten the peasants’ belts, an effort that starts with ‘behavioral modification,’ a.k.a. resetting the western peasants’ sense of entitlement to high life standards and liberties … The practical aim of the Great Reset is to fundamentally restructure the world’s economy and geopolitical relations based on two assumptions:

One, that every element of nature and every life form is a part of the global inventory (managed by the allegedly benevolent state, which, in turn, is owned by several suddenly benevolent wealthy people, via technology).

And two, that all inventory needs to be strictly accounted for: be registered in a central database, be readable by a scanner and easily ID’ed, and be managed by AI, using the latest ‘science.’

The goal is to count and then efficiently manage and control all resources, including people, on an unprecedented scale, with unprecedented digital … precision — all while the masters keep indulging, enjoying vast patches of conserved nature, free of unnecessary sovereign peasants and their unpredictability.”

These new global “assets” can also be turned into brand-new financial instruments that can then be traded. For example, Zero-Budget Natural Farming is now being introduced in India. This is a brand-new concept of farming in which farmers must trade the carbon rate in their soil on the global market if they want to make a living. They’ll get no money at all for the crops they actually grow.
The Pandemic Has Been a Psychological Operation

There’s not a single area of life that is left out of this Great Reset plan. The planned reform will affect everything from government, energy and finance to food, medicine, real estate, policing and even how we interact with our fellow human beings in general.
It goes without saying that to radically transform every last part of society has its challenges. No person in their right mind would agree to it if aware of the details of the whole plan. So, to roll this out, they had to use psychological manipulation, and fear is the most effective tool for inducing compliance there is.
The following graphic illustrates the central role of fearmongering for the successful rollout of the Great Reset.

Social Engineering Is Central to Technocratic Rule

Technocracy is inherently a technological society run through social engineering. Fear is but one manipulation tool. The focus on “science” is another. Anytime someone dissents, they’re simply accused of being “anti-science,” and any science that conflicts with the status quo is declared “debunked science.”
The only science that matters is whatever the technocrats deem to be true, no matter how much evidence there is against it. We’ve seen this first-hand during this pandemic, as Big Tech has censored and banned anything going against the opinions of the WHO, which is just another cog in the technocratic machine.
If we allow this censorship to continue, the end result will be nothing short of devastating. So, we simply must keep pushing for transparency, truth, medical freedom, personal liberty and the right to privacy.
Recognizing that the fear we feel has been carefully manufactured can help free us from its grip, and once we — en masse — no longer believe the lies being put before us, the engine driving the fear and panic will eventually run out of steam.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/18/fear-contagious.aspx

Beauty is big business. Cosmetics and personal care products benefit from social media, targeted pricing and companies that are aiming at sustainable alternatives demanded by consumers.

In fact, the Environmental Working Group (EWG)1 says that legislation passed in the 1930s marked the last time federal supervision regulating personal care products was updated, “before most of the synthetic chemicals in use today were even invented.”2

In addition to a well-known lack of oversight, the Food and Drug Administration allows products to be sold without basic safety testing of the ingredients.3 Sunscreen is one of those products. While regular, consistent and sensible sun exposure is vital for optimal health, overexposure can damage your skin and raise your risk of skin cancer.

Unfortunately, people have been made to fear the sun so much that vitamin D deficiencies have become a serious problem,4 as has been demonstrated during the COVID-19 outbreak.5 In addition to your immune system, your cells require the active form of vitamin D to access the genetic blueprint stored in your cells.

Research also suggests that inadequate sun exposure may be correlated with the development of “specific cancers, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, autism, Alzheimer’s disease and age-related macular degeneration.”6

However, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends shielding yourself from the sun,7 even on cool or overcast days. In addition to wearing a hat, protective clothing and staying in the shade, the CDC adds, “Your best bet to protect your skin is to use sunscreen or wear protective clothing when you’re outside—even when you’re in the shade.”

This means if you’re spending the day at the beach or outdoors for hours at a time, you likely need some form of sun protection. While clothing is an ideal choice, many people opt for sunscreen, which can have several adverse ramifications. One of these is exposure to known carcinogens, which pharmaceutical testing company Valisure found in 27% of the products tested.8

Benzene Found in 78 Samples of Sunscreen Tested

Valisure tested 294 sunscreen products across a range of companies and found 78 contained at least three times the level of benzene than the FDA allows in special circumstances.9 Benzene is an industrial chemical recognized by the CDC, U.S. Health and Human Services and World Health Organization as a known human carcinogen.10

CBS News reports11 that 14 of the sunscreen products analyzed by Valisure with the highest amount of contaminants came from four popular personal care brands, including Neutrogena, Sun Bum, CVS Health and Fruit of the Earth. Not all the products in these brands contained benzene.

Routes of exposure known to increase your risk from benzene are inhalation, ingestion and skin and eye contact. The FDA recognizes benzene as a Class 1 solvent that should not be used in consumer products. However, it also states, “… if their use is unavoidable in order to produce a drug product with a significant therapeutic advance, then their levels should be restricted.”12

After testing, it’s apparent that benzene is not a part of the formulation for all sunscreen products. This likely indicates that it is not a necessary component for the product to work and therefore does not fall under the special circumstances for which the FDA allows 2 parts per million (ppm).

The dangers associated with benzene have been known as early as 1897.13 Scientists have evidence that exposure to benzene is additive, and it increases your risk for cancers like leukemia. David Light, founder and CEO of Valisure, commented on the results of the study, saying:14

“Benzene is one of the most studied and concerning human carcinogens known to science. Its association with forming blood cancers in humans has been shown in numerous studies at trace levels of parts per million and below.

The presence of this known human carcinogen in products widely recommended for the prevention of skin cancer and that are regularly used by adults and children is very troubling.”

Valisure has petitioned the FDA to recall the contaminated batches. The regulatory agency is considering that petition. In the meantime, a spokesperson from the FDA commented to CBS News, “The FDA takes seriously any safety concerns raised about products we regulate, including sunscreen.”15

As Valisure notes in their press release, the FDA has determined that because of the unacceptable toxicity of benzene, it should not be used in any “standard” pharmaceutical product.16 Yet, the FDA has not established an exposure limit and the 2 ppm concentration only applies in special circumstances, which in this instance does not include sunscreen.

Dr. Christopher Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, believes even the 2 ppm limit established by the FDA in special circumstances is not safe, saying:17

“There is not a safe level of benzene that can exist in sunscreen products. Even benzene at 0.1 ppm in a sunscreen could expose people to excessively high nanogram amounts of benzene.”

FDA Study Says Sunscreen Chemicals Build Up in Your Body

Two studies funded by the FDA and published in 201918 and 202019 showed certain ingredients in sunscreen may build up in the body at unhealthy levels. The chemicals the FDA studied included avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate and octinoxate.20

Some of these chemicals accumulate at levels higher than what would be considered safe.21,22 This begs the question of why the FDA considers these products safe. This is worrisome since the study showed all the chemicals are above the safety level seven days after a person used sunscreen.23 This unwillingness of the FDA to move on sunscreen ingredients is not new.

Over 20 years ago, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., asked the FDA to require warnings on sunscreen products that contain retinyl palmitate after a lab study showed the chemical causes tumor growth in animals.24 While some dermatologists claim retinyl palmitate is safe, Schumer insisted definitive studies are needed to be done because consumers “have the right to know.”25

In one study26 using data from the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), researchers found that 96.8% of the sunscreen samples had detectable levels of benzophenone-3, another name for oxybenzone.

Oxybenzone enhances the ability of other chemicals to penetrate your skin. This includes anything on your skin including toxic herbicides, pesticides and insect repellent. In a study published in 2004,27 oxybenzone was among other chemicals that significantly increased the absorption of the herbicide 2,4-D, which is a significant concern for agricultural workers.

The chemical, along with at least eight other sunscreen ingredients, shows up in breast milk and amniotic fluid, as well as in urine and blood.28 A follow-up study published by the FDA research team29 looked at an expanded line of active sunscreen ingredients. The participants applied 2 mg per square centimeter over 75% of their body at two-hour intervals at baseline and again on Days 2, 3 and 4.

Over the following 21 days, blood samples were collected that demonstrated the mean maximum plasma concentration for oxybenzone was 258.1 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) when applied as a lotion and 180.1 ng/mL when applied as an aerosol spray.30 The higher concentration was a little over 500 times higher than the presumed safety threshold of 0.5 ng/mL31 after just a couple days of use.

Despite data from their own funded research on the dangers of systemic absorption of sunscreen, the FDA continues to urge Americans to use sunscreen. The justification for this recommendation, as noted by doctors in an accompanying editorial,32 and discussed by the American Academy of Dermatology,33 is a lack of evidence.

Mounting research demonstrates oxybenzone is dangerous, but the FDA is waiting for yet another study to demonstrate clear evidence of harm before taking action to protect you. Other studies show oxybenzone:

Is a phototoxicant, which means its adverse effects, and its ability to form harmful free radicals, are magnified when exposed to light,34 which of course is the primary product use
Is neurotoxic (toxic to your brain)35
Has significant reproductive and fertility effects. It can “significantly lower” testosterone levels in adolescent boys36 and alters hormone levels in men, specifically testosterone, estradiol and inhibin B,37 reduces sperm count in men38 and reduces male fertility by affecting calcium signaling in sperm, in part by exerting a progesterone-like effect.39 It is linked to endometriosis in women40 and can result in lower male birth weight and decrease gestational age41
Is lethal to certain sea creatures, including horseshoe crab eggs, and poses a serious threat to coral reefs and sea life42,43,44

Avoid Sunscreen With Nanoparticles

Considering the endocrine disrupting and neurotoxic effects of oxybenzone, its high absorbability and the availability of safe sunscreens (those containing nonnanosized zinc oxide and titanium dioxide), it seems rather irrational to continue using oxybenzone-containing sunscreen to protect yourself against overexposure to the sun.

But the newest technology in sunscreen is not any less dangerous. As mentioned earlier, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are sunscreen ingredients that are known to be safe. However, the safety does not extend to the nanosized versions. Most nanosized particles measure less than 100 nanometers.

Sunscreens made with nanoparticles usually contain titanium dioxide or zinc oxide. Many are also spray-on sunscreen products. Animal research has shown that inhaling nanoparticles allows them to reach areas of your lungs your body finds difficult to clear.

This may allow them to pass into your bloodstream. After entering your lungs or penetrating your skin, nanoparticles have the potential to cause widespread damage to your cells, organs, immune system, nervous system, heart and brain.45 Some scientists postulate that the toxic effect nanoparticles have in the body is related to their size, which may trigger your body’s immune response.46

Inhaling titanium dioxide in high doses is a possible carcinogen identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).47 Inhaling zinc oxide can lead to metal fume fever,48 characterized by chest pain, cough, nausea, reduced lung volume and leukocytosis.49

Internal Sun Protection and Other Sensible Sun Tips

It’s important to remember that you need a balanced approach to sensible sun exposure. Many of the sun avoidance recommendations make it sound as though all sun exposure is dangerous. However, as mentioned, too little sun exposure is also dangerous. Ideally, you want to expose large portions of your skin to the sun without sunscreen daily, while being careful to avoid getting burned.

You can use clothing to protect your skin if you’re outside for long periods and can reduce your risk of sunburn by eating plenty of antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables and/or taking an astaxanthin supplement. Astaxanthin has been shown to be an effective internal sunscreen, protecting your skin from UVA radiation damage.50,51,52

When you want to use sunscreen, the key to remember is that there are only two primary safe sunscreen ingredients, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. Additionally, they must not be nanosized. Your safest choice is a lotion or cream with zinc oxide as it is stable in the sun and provides the best protection from UVA rays. Your next best choice is titanium dioxide. Here are my top sensible sunning tips:

• Give your body a chance to produce vitamin D before you apply sunscreen. Expose large amounts of your skin (at least 40% of your body) to sunlight for short periods daily. Optimizing your vitamin D levels may reduce your risk of many internal cancers and reduces your risk of melanoma as well.

• Stay out just long enough for your skin to turn the very lightest shade of pink. Shield your face from the sun using a safe sunscreen or hat, as your facial skin is thin and more prone to sun damage, such as premature wrinkling.

• When you’ll be in the sun for longer periods, cover up with clothing, a hat or shade (either natural or shade you create using an umbrella). A safe sunscreen can be applied after you’ve optimized your skin’s daily vitamin D production, although clothing is your safest option to prevent burning and skin damage.

• Consider the use of an “internal sunscreen” like astaxanthin to gain additional sun protection. Typically, it takes several weeks of daily supplementation to saturate your body’s tissues enough to provide protection. Astaxanthin can also be applied topically, which is why it’s now being incorporated into a number of topical sunscreen products.

Consuming a healthy diet full of natural antioxidants is another highly useful strategy to help avoid sun damage. Fresh, raw, unprocessed foods deliver the nutrients that your body needs to maintain a healthy balance of omega-6 and animal-based DHA omega-3 oils in your skin, which are your first lines of defense against sunburn.

Vegetables also provide your body with an abundance of powerful antioxidants that will help you fight the free radicals caused by sun damage that can lead to burns and cancer.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/18/toxic-sunscreen-ingredients.aspx

Antibiotic resistance (AR) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) took a backseat to the COVID-19 pandemic, but it hasn’t gone away. It remains “one of the biggest public health challenges of our time,” as even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) admits.1

While antibiotic resistance refers to bacteria resistant to antibiotics, antimicrobial resistance is a broader term used to describe resistance to drugs among a variety of microbes, including parasites, viruses and fungi.2

AMR has been declared one of the top 10 global public health threats to humanity,3 but it rarely makes front page news, especially now that COVID has entered the arena.
Not only has the COVID-19 pandemic — and its unprecedented promotion of hand sanitizer, antimicrobials and disinfectants — made AMR worse,4 but it continues to overshadow the growing threat of AMR, which will likely surpass the number of COVID-19 deaths by at least threefold — annually — by 2050. As noted by NewStatesman:5

“The scary thing is, [AMR is] insidious and silent. The latest figures suggest AMR will cause over 10 million deaths per year by 2050. This is more than deaths from cancer and diabetes combined, and triple the current Covid-19 death toll of 3.4 million deaths worldwide since 2019.”

Antimicrobial Resistance Increased During COVID-19 Pandemic

While the world stopped due to COVID-19, the use of antimicrobial agents — for disinfecting surfaces and public spaces and treating patients — increased. The high rates of antimicrobial agent usage in COVID-19 patients are now being blamed for a rapid rise in multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), including:6

Extended-spectrum ?-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae
Carbapenem-resistant New Delhi metallo-?-lactamase (NDM)-producing Enterobacterales

Acinetobacter baumannii
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

Pan-echinocandin-resistant Candida glabrata
Multitriazole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus

In many cases, COVID-19 patients have presented with secondary infections with multidrug-resistant organisms. Fungal co-infections in COVID-19 patients are also common, as is antibiotic treatment, with one report from China suggesting that more than 70% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics.7

Other research suggested 84.7% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients received intravenous antibiotic therapy, while a report published in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy stated that up to 95% of COVID-19 patients in hospitals are prescribed antibiotics.8

As for why so many patients were excessively treated with antibiotics, despite COVID-19 being caused by a virus (SARS-CoV-2), researchers suggested that co-bacterial fungal or secondary infections were only part of the reason. Others included:9

Since the symptoms of COVID-19, such as cough and fever, may also occur in bacterial pneumonia “clinicians empirically add a broad-spectrum antibiotic despite the suspicion of a viral origin”
Anxiety and uncertainty regarding COVID-19 and an absence of effective SARS-CoV-2 treatments potentially drove “widespread and excessive prescription of antibiotics”

Multiple reports point to increased AMR during the pandemic. For instance, incidence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales colonization increased from 6.7% in 2019 to 50% in March to April 2020.10

Excessive Antimicrobials During Pandemic Affect Environment

AMR has clear toxicological effects on the environment, in part because patients excrete a large proportion of drugs they ingest into wastewater, which allows drug residues and drug metabolites to be released into rivers and coastal waters.11

A team from the University of Plymouth in England conducted a risk assessment to determine the potential environmental impact of prescribing COVID-19 patients antibiotics, which revealed, “The data for amoxicillin indicate a potential environmental concern for selection of AMR …”12 The team urged such assessments be carried out in the future to keep tabs on the potentially disastrous effects of pandemic prescribing habits on AMIR:13

“We recommend more extensive environmental assessments be undertaken for all antimicrobial medicines used during pandemics. This will facilitate development of a robust evidence base in order to guide antibiotic prescribing choices that are less likely to increase AMR and have the least environmental impact …”

Even the World Health Organization made it clear that countries were at risk of the accelerated spread of AMR due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They cited data showing that antibiotic use increased throughout the pandemic. About 79% to 96% of people who reported taking antibiotics didn’t have COVID-19 but were taking them in the hopes of preventing infection (antibiotics don’t work against viral infections).14

Further, WHO noted that while about 15% of people with severe COVID-19 may develop a bacterial co-infection that would require antibiotics, 75% of COVID-19 patients were actually receiving such drugs.15

Why Development of New Antibiotics Isn’t the Answer

Clearly alternatives to antibiotics are needed — and fast. It’s been estimated that the pharmaceutical industry will need upward of $37 billion over the next decade to replace antibiotics that no longer work.16 However, drug companies have little financial incentive to innovate new antibiotics, so unless taxpayers end up footing the bill, it’s unlikely that such products will enter the market anytime soon.

There are 43 antibiotics in clinical development, but none of them show much promise for solving rapidly rising AMR, as innovation is stagnant — most “new” antibiotics brought to the market are variations of drug classes that have been around since the 1980s. WHO’s annual Antibacterial Pipeline Report also found that antibiotics currently in development are insufficient to tackle AMR:17

“The 2020 report reveals a near static pipeline with only few antibiotics being approved by regulatory agencies in recent years. Most of these agents in development offer limited clinical benefit over existing treatments, with 82% of the recently approved antibiotics being derivatives of existing antibiotic classes with well-established drug-resistance. Therefore, rapid emergence of drug-resistance to these new agents is expected.”

Pesticides Make Antibiotic Resistance Worse

The overuse of antimicrobials during the COVID-19 pandemic is a driving factor making AMR worse, but it’s only one piece of the puzzle. Widely used herbicides like glyphosate (Roundup) and dicamba (Kamba) also play a role.

Research from University of Canterbury researchers revealed that agrichemicals and antibiotics in combination increase the evolution of antibiotic resistance, such that bacteria may develop antibiotic resistance up to 100,000 times faster when they’re exposed to certain herbicides in the environment.18

Herbicides promote antibiotic resistance by priming pathogens to more readily become resistant to antibiotics.19 This includes Roundup (the actual formulation of Roundup, not just its active ingredient glyphosate in isolation), which was shown to increase the antibiotic-resistant prowess of E. coli and salmonella, along with dicamba and 2,4-D. Rodale News reported:20

“The way Roundup causes this effect is likely by causing the bacteria to turn on a set of genes that are normally off, [study author] Heinemann says. ‘These genes are for ‘pumps’ or ‘porins,’ proteins that pump out toxic compounds or reduce the rate at which they get inside of the bacteria …’

Once these genes are turned on by the herbicide, then the bacteria can also resist antibiotics. If bacteria were to encounter only the antibiotic, they would instead have been killed.

In a sense, the herbicide is ‘immunizing’ the bacteria to the antibiotic … This change occurs at levels commonly used on farm field crops, lawns, gardens, and parks.”

In the U.S., industrial agriculture even uses the antibiotics oxytetracycline and streptomycin as pesticides on agricultural plants, a practice that’s banned in the European Union and Brazil due to rising concerns over antibiotic resistance. But in the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency approved the “maximum level” of oxytetracycline for use in citrus fruits in December 201821 — just days after approving residues of the drug on fruit.22

Agricultural Antibiotics Cannot Be Ignored

Industrially raised farm animals living on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) have emerged as another major reservoir of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Due to poor farming practices, including the use of low doses of antibiotics in animal feed for purposes of growth promotion, antibiotic resistance in farm animals is on the rise, threatening human and animal health along with food production sustainability.

Worldwide, most antibiotics are used not for human illness or companion pets but for livestock. Overall, 73% of the antibiotics sold globally are used in farm animals raised for food, typically on CAFOs.23 Researchers explained the glaring role of CAFOs in antibiotic resistance in Environmental Health Perspectives:24

“This prolonged use of antibiotics, especially at low levels, presents a risk of not killing the bacteria while promoting their resistance by selecting for resistant populations.

The resistance genes can pass readily from one kind of bacteria to another. Thus, workers in the animal units may become colonized with resistant organisms and can pass them on to co-workers and family members or friends.

Consumers of meat may also become colonized through mishandling of raw meat or through insufficient cooking. Ultimately, these genes may pass into pathogens, and diseases that were formerly treatable will be capable of causing severe illness or death.”

In addition, most antibiotics ingested by animals are not metabolized but, rather, excreted. This waste is then applied to soil as a fertilizer, which may then be sprayed with herbicide. The antibiotic-resistant microbes can also be carried elsewhere by houseflies.25

Pandemic ‘Stretched the Limits’ of Optimal Antibiotics Usage

Increased AMR is yet another fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, which will combine with the already perilous AMR pandemic in progress, resulting in further deaths and environmental destruction. Writing in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, researchers stated, “the ongoing pandemic is stretching the limits of optimal antibiotic stewardship”26 and called for an end to unnecessary use of antimicrobial agents:27

“Moreover, unnecessary use of antimicrobial agents would be associated with a significant economic burden on healthcare systems, which could be directly caused by the drug itself and indirectly caused by healthcare costs for the management of drug-related adverse events … continuing this intervention to curb inappropriate antibiotic usage and surveying the reasons for guideline non-adherence should be conducted within hospitals.”

Beyond this, choosing organic foods, including grass fed meats and dairy products, can help you avoid exposure to antibiotic residues in the food supply, while also supporting food growers who are not contributing to AMR. Unfortunately, as the world continues to put all of its attention on COVID-19, the catastrophe of AMR is getting worse instead of better.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/17/antimicrobial-resistance.aspx

In the video above, DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein Ph.D., interviews Dr. Pierre Kory about the importance of early treatment of COVID-19 and the shameful censoring of information about ivermectin, which has been shown to be very useful against this infection.

It’s no small irony then that YouTube deleted this interview, which is why I embedded a Bitchute version. How this interview could possibly be labeled as misinformation is a mystery, considering all they do is discuss published research. Not to mention, they’re both credentialed medical science experts.

Kory, a lung and ICU specialist and former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is the president and chief medical officer1 of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). Another founding member of FLCCC is Dr. Paul Marik2 who, as noted by Kory, is the most-published intensive care specialist who is still practicing medicine and seeing patients.

Marik, known for having created an effective sepsis treatment protocol, was asked by a group of peers early on in the pandemic to help create a treatment protocol for COVID-19. The resulting collaboration led to the creation of the FLCCC. Each of the five founding members has treated critical illnesses for decades and, as Weinstein says, they are “unimpeachable. You couldn’t ask for better credentials. You couldn’t ask for a better publication record.”

Yet, despite stellar credentials and being on the frontlines treating hundreds of COVID-19 patients, they have been dismissed as “kooks on the fringe, making wild-eyed claims,” Weinstein says. How can that be? Initially, the FLCCC insisted, based on the evidence, that COVID-19 was a corticosteroid-dependent disease and that corticosteroids were a crucial part of effective treatment.

“I was actually invited to give Senate testimony back in May [2020] where I testified that it was critical to use corticosteroids; that lives are being lost [because we weren’t using it],” Kory says.

“As you might know, I got killed for that. We got killed for that. We were totally criticized for not having an evidence-base. [Yet] our reading of the evidence was that you had to use it. So that basically that’s how we came together, and that was the first components of our protocol.”

Ivermectin Suitable for All Treatment Stages

The FLCCC’s COVID-19 protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+3 while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,4 due to the addition of ivermectin.

The two protocols — I-MASK+5 and I-MATH+6 — are available for download on the FLCCC Alliance website in multiple languages. The clinical and scientific rationale for the I-MATH+ hospital protocol has also been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine7 in mid-December 2020.

Since those early days, the FLCCC has been vindicated and corticosteroids, as well as blood thinners, are now part of the standard of care for COVID-19 in many places. The same cannot be said for the remainder of the protocols, however, including the use of ivermectin, which continues to be suppressed, despite robust clinical evidence supporting its use in all phases of COVID-19.8,9 As noted by the FLCCC:10

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

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

Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 202011 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.12

A Disease of Phases

As noted by Kory, they rather quickly realized that COVID-19 was a disease with very specific phases, and that successful treatment depended on the phase the patient was currently in. It starts out as a general viral syndrome, much like a cold or flu. Most patients recover without incidence. However, in a subset of patients, things take a turn for the worse after Day 5. Their oxygen level starts dropping and lung inflammation sets in.

“We now know that it’s a cell called a macrophage that gets activated and attacks the lungs,” Kory explains. “So, you have this sort of immune response that is attacking the lungs and the lungs start to fail … So, it’s predominantly a severe lung disease …

We knew relatively early on that by the time they get to the ICU … there’s not a lot of viral replication on going on. In fact, you can’t culture a virus after about Day 7 or 8. So, it’s actually a disease of inflammation, not viral invasion …

So, you didn’t have to go after the virus at that point, you had to actually check the inflammation … What we think triggers [the] inflammation is actually the viral debris. It’s the RNA that triggers this massive response. It’s not the virus. It’s actually the debris of the dead virus that does it.”

Kory notes that after having treated the first handful of patients, he realized that anticoagulants, blood thinners, were needed, as there was abnormal blood clotting going on in all of them. Yet for some reason the medical community was, again, told not to do it because there were no clinical trials supporting the use of anticoagulants for a viral illness.

“It was bizarre,” Kory says. “They were like, you can’t observe, you can’t make clinical reasoning, you can’t deduce, you need a trial before you do [anything] … Everyone talks about evidence-based. I’m like, what about experience-based medicine? I’ve been doing this for 30 years. Why can’t I do what my experience tells me to do? …

You couldn’t actually doctor. I felt like I was being handcuffed. I I’ve never seen that in my life before … I have the sense that doctors have been forcibly demoted from the position of scientific clinician to technician …

I’ve never been asked before to get advice from … desk jockeys. I mean, they’re not on the front lines … I’ve never been asked to do that before. I’ve always been asked to use the best extent of my experience and judgment and insight to best help the patient. That’s the oath I took …

Instead we’re in this situation where if we open our mouth and say the wrong word, suddenly there are warnings appended to what we’ve said. It’s insane. It’s limiting discussion, limiting choices, limiting approaches.”

Overwhelming Evidence for Ivermectin

Kory spends a significant portion of the 2 1/2-hour interview reviewing the evidence for using ivermectin. This drug has a long history of use as an antiparasitic. It’s been credited with virtually eradicating onchocerciasis (river blindness), a condition caused by a parasitic worm. The drug was originally made from a soil organism found in Japan. However, as early as 2012, researchers started looking at ivermectin’s antiviral properties.

In April 2020, an Australian group showed ivermectin eradicated all viruses studied in as little as 48 hours, at least in the petri dish. Due to the state of emergency the world was in, some countries, including Peru, decided to recommend ivermectin to their population. It was well-known that the medication was safe, so the risk of doing so was very low.

As was the trend, Peruvian officials were roundly criticized for using an “unproven” remedy, and shortly thereafter, they removed it from the national guidelines. Some states continued to give it out, however, and according to Kory, each ivermectin campaign resulted in a precipitous decline in cases and deaths.

Literally, people are dying because they don’t know about this medicine. Providers are being told not to use the medicine … And I’ve never studied a medicine which has more evidence than this. ~ Dr. Pierre Kory

Marik was the first in the group to really take notice of the remarkable consistency in the studies using ivermectin. Kory dove into the research right behind him, and came to the conclusion that there indeed was something special about this drug. The population-based evidence was also very strong.

With regard to calls for randomized controlled trials, Kory points out that once you can see from clinical evidence that something really is working, then conducting controlled trials becomes more or less unethical, as you know you’re condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death. In fact, this is the exact same argument vaccine makers now use to justify the elimination of control groups by giving everyone the vaccine.

“When I posted our preprint November 13 [2020], I literally thought the pandemic was over,” Kory says. “We showed the basic science level. We showed multiple clinical trials. We showed the epidemiologic effects.

Everything was there to show that this is an intervention on the par of vaccines that could literally extinguish the pandemic, and quickly. I thought at the beginning that it was as simple as putting the evidence out there … and what happened? Crickets! Nothing happened …

I cannot believe that this is occurring. Literally, people are dying because they don’t know about this medicine. Providers are being told not to use the medicine … And I’ve never studied a medicine which has more evidence than this …

You have dozens of randomized controlled trials conducted by interested and committed clinicians from oftentimes low and middle income countries around the world. And there’s no conflicts of interest. None of them is going to make a million dollars by finding out that ivermectin works in COVID. None of them have a conflict of interest.”

For example, studies have shown ivermectin:13

• Inhibits replication of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza viruses — In “COVID-19: Antiparasitic Offers Treatment Hope,” I review data showing a single dose of ivermectin killed 99.8% of SARS-CoV-2 in 48 hours.

An observational study14 from Bangladesh, which looked at ivermectin as a pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 among health care workers, found only four of the 58 volunteers who took 12 mg of ivermectin once per month for four months developed mild COVID-19 symptoms between May and August 2020, compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who had declined the medication

• Inhibits inflammation through several pathways

• Lowers viral load

• Protects against organ damage

• Prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure; speeds recovery and lowers risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients — The average reduction in mortality, based on 18 trials, is 75%.15 A WHO-sponsored review16 suggests ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 mortality by as much as 83%

Ivermectin Has Been Intentionally Suppressed

As noted by Weinstein, ivermectin appears to be intentionally suppressed. It’s simply not allowed to be a go-to remedy. The obvious question is why? Don’t they want to save lives? Isn’t that why we shut down the world?

“I would have these data arguments,” Kory says. “But it’s not about the data. There’s something else. There’s [something] out there that is just squashing, distorting, suppressing the efficacy of ivermectin, and its egregious.”

Indeed, as noted by Weinstein, it’s not even difficult to prove that ivermectin is being suppressed and censored. Censorship of certain COVID-related information, such as ivermectin, is written into the community guidelines. You’re not allowed to talk about it. If you do, your post will be censored, shadow-banned or taken down. If you persist, your entire account will be taken down.

Mexico’s Experience With Ivermectin

Another population-based experiment that demonstrates ivermectin’s real-world usefulness occurred in Mexico. Kory explains:

“Mexico did something which I think is the model for the world. I think, on a public health level, it’s what every country in the world should adopt, at a minimum. They [had a] clinicians committee.

They actually got expert clinicians [and] they gave them a seat at the table at the public health level. It’s called IMSS, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. That’s the agency which controls a good portion of their healthcare infrastructure, mostly outpatient, I think …

In December, hospitals were filling. It was a crisis almost like in India. They decided to deploy ivermectin using a test and treat strategy. Basically, anyone who appeared at the testing booths, if you tested positive, you were given ivermectin at a reasonably low dose … 12 milligrams … and only two days’ worth. They got four pills [at 3 mg each].

And when they did that, you saw across Mexico this precipitous decline in deaths and hospitalizations. And, if you look a few months later, right now — and this is publicly available data — look at the occupancy of beds in hospitals in Mexico, throughout the entire country, we’re talking about 25% to 30% occupancy.

There’s nobody in the hospitals in Mexico. They’ve basically decimated COVID in that country by using a test and treat strategy … Those were real public health leaders. They made a risk-benefit decision. They used their clinical judgment and expertise to have the right people at the table.”

As noted by Kory, the IMSS was attacked by the federal health minister, but they fought back, and laid out the evidence supporting their decision. This included studies showing a 50% to 75% reduction in hospitalizations using just that four-pill regimen.

As for the FLCCC, they recommend dosages between 0.2 mg and 0.4 mg per kilogram when taken at first signs of mild symptoms. For mild disease, they recommend continuing the drug for five days. For moderate disease, of if you start taking it late, they recommend continuing until you’re recovered.

The in-hospital protocol involves higher doses. Keep in mind, however, that the FLCCC protocols include several other remedies, not just ivermectin, so be sure to review the latest guidance.17,18

Some regions in India have also used ivermectin. Kory believes the minister of Goa made some of the boldest moves in the world with regard to ivermectin, recommending all adults over the age of 18 to take ivermectin for five days, as a preventive. Uttar Pradesh also gave it out, while other states, such as Tamil Nadu, outlawed it. Here too, population-based data suggest ivermectin is tightly correlated with a decline in hospitalizations and deaths.

Where You Can Learn More

While ivermectin certainly appears to be a useful strategy, which is why I am covering it, it is not among my primary recommendations. In terms of prevention, I believe your best bet is to optimize your vitamin D level, as your body needs vitamin D for a wide variety of functions, including a healthy immune response.

What’s more, although ivermectin is a relatively safe drug, it can still have side effects. Vitamin D, on the other hand, is something your body absolutely requires for optimal health, which is why I would encourage you to focus on vitamin D first.

As for early treatment, I recommend nebulized hydrogen peroxide treatment,19,20 which is inexpensive, highly effective and completely harmless when you’re using the low (0.04% to 0.1%) peroxide concentration recommended.

All of that said, ivermectin and several other remedies certainly have a place, and it’s good to know they exist and work well. On the whole, there’s really no reason to remain panicked about COVID-19. If you want to learn more about ivermectin, there are several places where you can do that, including the following:

• April 24 through 25, 2021, Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd.,21 hosted the first International Ivermectin for COVID Conference online.22

Twelve medical experts23 from around the world — including Kory — shared their knowledge, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org24

• An easy-to-read and print one-page summary of the clinical trial evidence for ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website25

• A more comprehensive, 31-page review of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology26

• The FLCCC website also has a helpful FAQ section where Kory and Marik answer common questions about the drug and its recommended use27

• A listing of all ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on c19Ivermectin.com28

As noted by Lawrie during her closing address at the 2021 International Ivermectin for COVID Conference:29

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

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

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

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

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

The latter includes urgently reaching out to colleagues around the world to discuss which of our tried and tested safe older medicines can be used against COVID.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/16/ivermectin-for-covid-19-infection.aspx

In recent decades, the food system has dramatically changed, which in turn has impacted food safety and human health. Company documents from Nestlé, one of the largest food manufacturers, reveal 70% of its products are junk foods.1 Vegetable oils2 and changes in how cereals,3 salads4 and meats5 are grown have dramatically altered the overall safety and nutrition of most people’s diets.

Americans spend 57.9% of their food budget on ultraprocessed foods, like those produced by Nestlé.6 This means more than half of what the average person in America eats are foods that can be purchased in a local gas station or convenience store.

Ultraprocessed foods often have added sugar and account for 89.7% of added sugar in the diet,7 while coming from an industry with a long history of intentionally confusing consumers. It’s crucial to be informed and vote for your beliefs on state and federal ballots, and with your pocketbook when choosing your food.

Nestlé Health and Wellness Claims Are False

Former Nestlé chief executive Peter Brabeck-Letmathe characterized Nestlé as a “nutrition, health and wellness company.”8 Yet 70% of the overall products produced by the company are junk foods.

The Financial Times reported on a presentation sent to top executives of Nestlé Corporation in 2021. In the presentation, Nestlé acknowledged only 37% of their food and drink revenues ranked above 3.5 on a 5-star scale using Australia’s Health Stars rating system.

Using the same scale, 96% of all the company’s beverages, excluding pure coffee, and 99% of their confectionery and ice cream products also failed to meet the 3.5-star threshold.

Executives at Nestlé are reportedly considering new commitments to nutrition and updating the internal nutrition standards. Nestlé’s chief executive Mark Schneider said the company recognizes that consumers are looking for healthier diet options and is seeking to become a global leader in food allergy treatments.9

In an interview with Bloomberg, Schneider said “processed foods” is a misunderstood term, since when you cook whole foods at home, you’re also processing food, and said, “So processed food per se is not a good or bad thing.” He was excited by the company’s upcoming line of vitamins, saying, “Personalized vitamins, minerals and supplements are going to be the next frontier.”10

However, the source of the vitamins, minerals and supplements is crucial to the product’s bioavailability and biochemical properties. Will the vitamin, minerals and supplements from Nestlé follow the same path of many of the company’s other processed foods, filled with sugar and additives?

Outrageously, even with Nestlé’s dismal food and drink portfolio, the Nestlé company ranks highest in efforts to encourage healthier diets across the world’s largest food and drink manufacturers.11 Financial Times reports Nestlé said:12

“In recent years, we have launched thousands of products for kids and families that meet external nutrition yardsticks. We have also distributed billions of micronutrient doses via our affordable and nutritious products.

We believe that a healthy diet means finding a balance between wellbeing and enjoyment. This includes having some space for indulgent foods, consumed in moderation. Our direction of travel has not changed and is clear: we will continue to make our portfolio tastier and healthier.”

Food Manufacturers Have History of Confusing Consumers

Despite the company’s strong PR campaign, the industry has a long history of confusing their consumers. Most large food manufacturers had been members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). Before 2020, they were the largest and most powerful lobbying group for the processed food industry.

The science propaganda arm of the GMA was the International Life Science Institute (ILSI). Together, these organizations had consistently supported pesticide producers and junk food manufacturers. In 2014, I dubbed the GMA the most evil organization on the planet as it worked hard to ensure the growth of subsidized, genetically engineered and chemically dependent, highly processed junk foods.

In its history, the GMA had also proven it would break the law to achieve their goals. As I reported in the link above, during the 2013 ballot campaign to label GMOs in Washington state, the organization used illegal actions to hide the identity of members who donated funds to the opposing campaign, which shielded them from consumer backlash. This helped defeat the ballot by a 1% margin.

However, the illegal actions came to light and the GMA was sued for money laundering and intentionally violating other laws, found guilty and ordered to pay an $18 million fine. In the years that followed, the Organic Consumers Association called for a traitor boycott on all products owned by GMA members.13,14

The aim was to send a clear message to the food industry that consumers would no longer tolerate their lies, deception and lack of transparency. By 2014, companies began leaving GMA and in 2017 the Organic Consumers Association reported15 some of the heavy hitters that had recently left the organization included Mars Inc, Campbell Soup Co., Nestlé and Dean Foods.

All told, the organization lost approximately 50 members from 2012 to 2017. Prior to this, the ILSI had been flying under the radar as a classic food industry front group. However, by 2019, mainstream media had begun identifying cracks in their armor that revealed their true colors.

The New York Times published an investigative report on the ILSI titled “A Shadowy Industry Group Shapes Food Policy Around the World.”16 In it the reporter commented that the organization was coming under:17

“… increasing scrutiny as it was little more than a front group advancing the interests of the 400 corporate members that provide its $17 million budget, among them Coca-Cola, Dupont, PepsiCo, General Mills and Danone.”

GMA Rebranded but Still the Same

By 2018, GMA executives recognized the writing on the wall as their membership continued to drop. In early 2020 the company rebranded as Consumer Brands Association with a mission to “advocate for product affordability, access and innovation; eliminate consumer confusion; and solve large problems in the marketplace.”18

The rebranding helped infuse new life into the organization, which saw the membership jump by over 30%. Rejoining the ranks was Campbell Soup Co. along with Hostess Brands, Butcher Box and Sargento Foods, to name a few. Jeffrey Harmening is the chair of Consumer Brands Association and coincidentally the CEO of General Mills Inc.19

The current member list20 includes, in part, Abbott Nutrition, Coca-Cola Co., Kellogg Co. and Procter & Gamble. Retail members include Amazon.com and the Target Corporation.

According to Jay Byrne, former head of public relations at Monsanto in 2001, changing the way people think about industry is tantamount to cyber warfare. He said, “Imagine the internet as a weapon, sitting on a table. Either you use it or your opponent does, but somebody’s going to get killed.”21,22

Ultraprocessed Foods Are Not Healthy

In the U.S. 42.5% of adults 20 and over are obese and, in total, 73.6% are overweight or obese.23 While these statistics are already alarming, the American Obesity Association suggests that by 2025 50% of Americans may be obese — and predicts this will jump to 60% by 2030.24

The trigger behind this ongoing rise in weight is a burning question, with a complex answer. However, the consumption of ultraprocessed foods is likely a large contributor.

No matter how much renovating, reconfiguring or reprogramming food manufacturers do to junk food ingredients or processing, the products will never be healthy alternative food source. In fact, Nestlé is considering dropping or replacing standards for the “treats”25 in their food line, which would lower the percentage of foods categorized as “junk food.”

As one justification Nestlé uses for altering the standards that identify “healthy” ultraprocessed foods, they said: “We believe that a healthy diet means finding a balance between well-being and enjoyment. This includes having some space for indulgent foods, consumed in moderation.”26

However, these “indulgent foods,” as Nestlé categorizes them, are largely responsible for the rising levels of obesity in the Western world. A small-scale, but rigorous, randomized and carefully controlled study27 was performed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to analyze if those eating ultraprocessed foods ate more calories and gained more weight.28

During the study, the researchers measured energy intake and weight change, and took metabolic measurements.29 They sought to determine if processed foods were a problem independently or if people who ate processed foods already had health problems that were unrelated to their diet.

The evidence demonstrated that when eating ultraprocessed foods compared to an unprocessed diet, the average person increased their intake by 459 calories each day, often over breakfast and lunch. In the two weeks the participants were on the ultraprocessed diet they gained an average of 1.98 pounds and while on the unprocessed diet lost the same amount.30

Eating this food sold for human consumption isn’t fit for animals. In one study led by Eric Berg, Ph.D., from North Dakota State University, scientists fed animals a typical American diet. However, the experiment had to be stopped early as veterinarians deemed it was inhumane to the animals.31

In addition to obesity and the subsequent health conditions that accompany the condition, evidence suggests that eating ultraprocessed foods may have a negative effect on bone strength and increase the risk for fracture.32 It is apparent from scientific evidence that no matter what spin the industry uses, ultraprocessed foods are downright dangerous.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/16/nestle-unhealthy-food-portfolio.aspx

N-acetylcysteine (NAC), a precursor to reduced glutathione, appears to play an important role in COVID-19. According to an April 2020 literature analysis,1 glutathione deficiency may be associated with COVID-19 severity, leading the author to conclude that NAC may be useful both for its prevention and treatment.

NAC has a long history of use as a poison control remedy for acetaminophen poisoning in the emergency room. It neutralizes the toxic effects of the drug by recharging glutathione, thereby preventing liver damage. But the idea that NAC can also be helpful against viral infections is not new. Previous studies2,3 have found it reduces viral replication of certain viruses, including the influenza virus.

In one such study,4 the number needed to treat (NNT) was 0.5, which means for every two people treated with NAC, one will be protected against symptomatic influenza. That’s significantly better than influenza vaccines, which have an NNV (number needed to vaccinate) of 71,5 meaning 71 people must be vaccinated to prevent a single case of confirmed influenza. It’s even better than vitamin D, which has an NNT of 33.6

Early At-Home Treatment Is Crucial

In the video above, MedCram producer and cofounder Kyle Allred interviews Dr. Roger Seheult, a pulmonologist who has been treating COVID-19 patients since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, about strategies that can significantly reduce your need for hospitalization should you contract this infection.

Among those strategies is the use of NAC, which used to be readily available over the counter and online. Disturbingly, as more information is coming out about the usefulness of NAC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is now clamping down on sales.

Since the beginning of this pandemic, global and national health authorities have done everything in their power, it seems, to discourage and prevent people from accessing any treatment that competes with the COVID jab. This appears to be yet another shameful attempt to prevent patients from helping themselves and boost the risk of infections progressing into more serious cases.

Should you come down with symptoms of COVID-19, early treatment is crucial. Not only can it significantly reduce the length of time that you’re sick, early treatment will also minimize your risk of long-hauler syndrome. A summary of the treatment strategies Seheult reviews in more detail in the video is as follows:

Monitor your oxygen saturation status using a pulse oximeter. If your oxygen saturation drops below 94% at rest, you should seek medical treatment. Below 90%, you are hypoxic and need supplemental oxygen
Use vitamins and other immune-boosting supplements, including vitamins C and D, quercetin, zinc and NAC, and/or medications such as monoclonal antibodies
Use immune-boosting strategies such as sleep (melatonin can be used if you’re experiencing poor sleep) and raising your core temperature in a hot bath or sauna
Prevent spread at home using ventilation, air filtration and isolation

Amazon Removes All NAC Products

May 6, 2021, Natural Products Insider reported7 that Amazon is removing all NAC products from the site, following warning letters being sent out by the FDA stating NAC cannot be lawfully marketed as a dietary supplement because it was first studied as a drug in 1963.8

Consequently, products containing the ingredient are excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement under section 201(ff)(3)(B)(i) of the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The thing is, NAC has been sold as a supplement for 57 years, and the FDA never did a thing about it — until now, when more than a dozen studies are investigating its usefulness against COVID-19.

As reported by Natural Products Insider,9 there are at least 1,170 NAC-containing products in the National Institutes of Health’s Dietary Supplement Label Database. The FDA suddenly put NAC in its crosshairs in July 2020, when it sent out warning letters to seven companies that marketed NAC as a remedy for hangovers.10

CRN’s Legal Arguments as to Why FDA Is Wrong

In December 2020, the trade group for the supplement industry, the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), challenged the FDA’s position, calling it “legally invalid.”11 CRN argued that FDA records fail to prove that the FDCA section in question actually applies to NAC.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FDA for information proving NAC was investigated as a drug in 1963, all they received was a handwritten letter containing “what appears to be a handwritten approval date of 1963” for an inhaled drug. According to CRN:

“This handwritten notation raises a number of questions about the reliability of this record, not the least of which is whether the approval date was actually 1963 or sometime later, why was the approval data handwritten, when was the notation made, and who made it. This is not the type of document that should be regarded as authentic.”

Moreover, an inhaled substance cannot be treated the same as an orally ingested product, hence the NAC drug approved in 1963, if valid, still would not apply to oral supplements. The FDA did approve an NAC drug for oral-only use in 2016, but by then dietary supplement companies had already been marketing NAC supplements for several decades, and therefore cannot be canceled by a new drug approval. As reported by Natural Products Insider:12

“FDA’s interpretation of section 201(ff)(3)(B)(i) in the warning letters also conflicts with ‘the presumption against statutory retroactivity,’ according to CRN. Mister and Olsen highlighted ‘a well-established canon of statutory interpretation that legislation shall not be read to have a retroactive effect on private rights unless Congress expresses a clear, unambiguous intent to the contrary.’

Section 201(ff)(3)(B)(i) was incorporated in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which went into effect on Oct. 25, 1994.

According to CRN, the exclusionary provision should be not be interpreted to apply to products containing articles approved as drugs before Oct. 25, 1994 because DSHEA’s text and the provision’s legislative history suggests ‘Congress expressed no clear intent for this provision to have a retroactive effect.

Further, Congress created section 201(ff)(3)(B)(i) to protect commercial interests necessary to incentivize new drug development in the wake of DSHEA’s enactment …

A retroactive application of this section does nothing to incentivize new drug development because drugs and supplements that were both on the market prior to DSHEA’s passage already co-existed and drug companies developed these products with no expectation of DSHEA’s protections.’”

CRN further argued the FDA failed to sufficiently explain this sudden change in policy on NAC, thus “rendering it arbitrary and capricious.” According to CRN, before the seven warning letters in July 2020, “it was FDA’s longstanding policy to permit the marketing of dietary supplements containing NAC.”

Even though the agency had reviewed more than 100 notifications’ structure/function claims for NAC-containing supplements over the years, they never raised the drug exclusion clause. In one response to a petition for a qualified health claim, the FDA had even stated that NAC was considered a dietary supplement.

NAC Supplements Continue To Be Sold Elsewhere

Unfortunately, Amazon has apparently decided to side with the FDA, despite the ongoing legal controversy and, as of this writing, has already removed all NAC product listings. Since Amazon owns Whole Foods Market, NAC products may be removed from brick and mortar stores as well. But that doesn’t mean you can’t find NAC elsewhere.

“The Natural Products Association (NPA) … is advising its members to continue selling NAC-containing supplements,” Natural Products Insider writes.13 “FDA hasn’t taken final agency action on NAC, and there’s been debate on such issues as when NAC came to market as a drug …

‘Like we’ve told our members, sell it direct,’ [NPA president and CEO Dan Fabricant] added. ‘Sell it through other vendors because it’s not an unlawful ingredient. This is by no way a closed chapter with FDA on NAC.’”

NAC in COVID-19 Treatment

As mentioned, the FDA’s timing is highly suspect, considering its inaction in previous years, and considering the many studies now looking at NAC in the treatment of COVID-19. At present, ClinicalTrials.gov lists 16 clinical studies underway or completed involving NAC against COVID-19.14 That’s five more than there were in November 2020.

This includes a still-ongoing Phase 2 trial looking at NAC in patients with severe COVID-19. As noted in the trial description:15

“Recent studies suggest that the virus that causes COVID-19 may work by suppressing the immune system, which is the body’s defense against infections and other diseases.

White blood cells called lymphocytes are an important part of this defense, but recently it was found that the number of lymphocytes in a COVID-19 patient’s blood goes down as the infection gets worse and goes up as a patient gets better. N-acetylcysteine has been shown to help increase the number of lymphocytes in the blood when a virus is responsible for lowering it.”

Another recently completed trial16 used inhaled vapor of NAC in combination with diclofenac sodium, menthol and methyl salicylate in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Researchers have confirmed that in severe COVID-19 cases, cytokines such as interleukin-6 (IL6), interleukin-10 (IL10) and TNF-? are all elevated. Once they reach excessive levels, a cytokine storm develops, causing significant tissue damage. NAC may be able to inhibit this damaging cascade.

While the findings have yet to be published, they determined that “after regular inhalation of vapor with above medication, oxygen saturation level increased in the study group 384.61% in the morning and 515.79% at night comparing the control group. Furthermore, patients of study group need to stay nearly 1 day less in hospital in comparison to control group.”

Glutathione Depletion Worsens COVID-19 Outcomes

Previous research17 has shown NAC inhibits the expression of proinflammatory cytokines in cells infected with highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus. Proinflammatory cytokines also play a crucial role in COVID-19 severity.

Researchers have confirmed that in severe COVID-19 cases, cytokines such as interleukin-6 (IL6), interleukin-10 (IL10) and TNF-? are all elevated.18 Once they reach excessive levels, a so-called cytokine storm develops, causing significant tissue damage. NAC may be able to inhibit this damaging cascade.

In one 2020 paper,19 the authors describe the case of a COVID-19 patient that had glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, a genetic disorder that can lead to hemolytic anemia, a condition in which red blood cells are broken down faster than they are made.

G6PD deficiency has been shown to facilitate human coronavirus infection (such as the common cold) due to the fact that G6PD depletes glutathione, and some of these patients are also at increased risk of hemolytic anemia when given hydroxychloroquine. As noted in this paper:20

“G6PD deficiency may especially predispose to hemolysis upon coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection when employing pro-oxidant therapy. However, glutathione depletion is reversible by N-acetylcysteine (NAC) administration.

We describe a severe case of COVID-19 infection in a G6PD-deficient patient treated with hydroxychloroquine who benefited from intravenous (IV) NAC beyond reversal of hemolysis.

NAC blocked hemolysis and elevation of liver enzymes, C-reactive protein (CRP), and ferritin and allowed removal from respirator and veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenator and full recovery of the G6PD-deficient patient.”

In addition to that G6PD-deficient patient, NAC was also given to nine other COVID-19 patients who were on respirators but did not have G6PD deficiency. In these patients, “NAC elicited clinical improvement and markedly reduced CRP in all patients and ferritin in 9/10 patients.” The authors hypothesize that NAC’s mechanism of action “may involve the blockade of viral infection and the ensuing cytokine storm.”21

That said, they point out that it’s difficult to discern whether these anti-inflammatory effects were specific to the use of NAC, as steroids and other anti-inflammatory drugs were sporadically used. Still, they believe NAC does have the ability to reduce inflammation in patients with COVID-19.

Additional Research Findings

Other papers have also been published describing how NAC can benefit COVID-19 patients, including the following:

• An October 2020 paper22 in Medical Hypotheses cited evidence that NAC helps improve redox status, “especially when under oxidative stress,” replenish glutathione stores, increase T cells, inhibit the NLRP3 inflammasome pathway and decrease plasma TNF-?.

“Mediation of the viral load could occur through NAC’s ability to increase cellular redox status via maximizing the rate limiting step of glutathione synthesis, and thereby potentially decreasing the effects of virally induced oxidative stress and cell death,” the authors wrote, adding:

“We hypothesize that NAC could act as a potential therapeutic agent in the treatment of COVID-19 through a variety of potential mechanisms, including increasing glutathione, improving T cell response, and modulating inflammation. In this article, we present evidence to support the use of NAC as a potential therapeutic agent in the treatment of COVID-19.”

• Another August 2020 paper, “Rationale for the Use of N-acetylcysteine in Both Prevention and Adjuvant Therapy of COVID-19,” published in the FASEB Journal, also explained the many potential benefits of NAC:23

“COVID-19 may cause pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cardiovascular alterations, and multiple organ failure, which have been ascribed to a cytokine storm, a systemic inflammatory response, and an attack by the immune system. Moreover, an oxidative stress imbalance has been demonstrated to occur in COVID-19 patients.

NAC … has been proposed not only as a mucolytic agent, but also as a preventive/therapeutic agent in a variety of disorders involving GSH depletion and oxidative stress … Thiols block the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 thereby hampering penetration of SARS-CoV-2 into cells.

Based on a broad range of antioxidant and anti-inflammatory mechanisms … the oral administration of NAC is likely to attenuate the risk of developing COVID-19, as it was previously demonstrated for influenza and influenza-like illnesses.

Moreover, high-dose intravenous NAC may be expected to play an adjuvant role in the treatment of severe COVID-19 cases and in the control of its lethal complications … including pulmonary and cardiovascular adverse events.”

• A more recent paper24 published on the preprint server ChemRxiv.org, June 1, 2021, hypothesizes NAC may be used to perturb the spike protein by reducing its solvent accessible disulfide bond, “thereby disintegrating its structural architecture.” By so doing, the virus loses its capacity to infect your cells.

Analyses have shown NAC causes a threefold weakening of the spike protein’s binding affinity with the ACE2 receptor. Other experiments have shown NAC inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication in VEroE6 cells by 54.3%. According to the authors, “Our observed results open avenues for exploring in vivo pharmaco-preventive and therapeutic potential of NAC for COVID-19.”

NAC Shown to Improve Variety of Lung-Related Problems

Studies have also demonstrated that NAC helps improve a variety of lung-related problems, including pneumonia and ARDS,25 both of which are common characteristics of COVID-19. For example:

Research26 published in 2018 found NAC reduces oxidative and inflammatory damage in patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

Another 2018 study27 found NAC improves post-operative lung function in patients undergoing liver transplantation.

A 2017 meta-analysis28 found a significant reduction in ICU stays among ARDS patients treated with NAC (although there was no significant difference in short-term mortality risk).

A 2007 study29 concluded NAC improves ARDS by “increasing intracellular glutathione and extracellular thiol molecules” along with general antioxidant effects.

A 1994 study30 found NAC enhances recovery from acute lung injury, significantly regressing patients’ lung injury score during the first 10 days of treatment, and significantly reducing the need for ventilation. After three days of treatment, only 17% of those receiving NAC needed ventilation, compared to 48% in the placebo group.

NAC is also a well-known mucolytic used to help clear mucus out of the airways of cystic fibrosis patients.31 Some studies also suggest NAC can help reduce symptoms of COPD and prevent exacerbation of the condition.32

NAC Also Protects Against Blood Clots

Lastly, NAC may also protect against hypercoagulation that can result in stroke and/or blood clots33 that impair the ability to exchange oxygen in the lungs. Many COVID-19 patients experience serious blood clots, and NAC counteracts hypercoagulation,34,35,36 as it has both anticoagulant and platelet-inhibiting properties.37

A 2017 paper38 also found NAC has potent thrombolytic effects, meaning it breaks down blood clots once they’ve formed. This is largely thanks to the sulfur in NAC (from cysteine). The sulfur reduces the intrachain disulfide bonds by von Willebrand factors that have polymerized by dissociating the sulfur bonds holding them together, thus contributing to the clot.

Once von Willebrand factor sulfur bonds are broken, the clots start to dissolve and the blood vessels open up again allowing for exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. According to the authors,39 “NAC is an effective and safe alternative to currently available antithrombotic agents to restore vessel patency after arterial occlusion.” (Restoring vessel patency means the blood vessel is now unobstructed so that blood can flow freely.)

Two additional papers40,41 show the same thing. Importantly, NAC’s mechanism of action does not appear to increase bleeding disorders like heparin does, so it would likely be a safer alternative to the heparin used in the MATH+ protocol.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/17/nac-banned-on-amazon.aspx

What does The New York Times and a majority of other legacy media have in common with Big Pharma? Answer: They’re largely owned by BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world. Moreover, it turns out these two companies form a secret monopoly that own just about everything else you can think of too. As reported in the featured video:1,2

“The stock of the world’s largest corporations are owned by the same institutional investors. They all own each other. This means that ‘competing’ brands, like Coke and Pepsi aren’t really competitors, at all, since their stock is owned by exactly the same investment companies, investment funds, insurance companies, banks and in some cases, governments.

The smaller investors are owned by larger investors. Those are owned by even bigger investors. The visible top of this pyramid shows only two companies whose names we have often seen …They are Vanguard and BlackRock.

The power of these two companies is beyond your imagination. Not only do they own a large part of the stocks of nearly all big companies but also the stocks of the investors in those companies. This gives them a complete monopoly.

A Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028, together will have investments in the amount of 20 trillion dollars. That means that they will own almost everything.’”

Who Are the Vanguard?

The word “vanguard” means “the foremost position in an army or fleet advancing into battle,” and/or “the leading position in a trend or movement.” Both are fitting descriptions of this global behemoth, owned by globalists pushing for a Great Reset, the core of which is the transfer of wealth and ownership from the hands of the many into the hands of the very few.

Interestingly, Vanguard is the largest shareholder of BlackRock, as of March 2021.3,4 Vanguard itself, on the other hand, has a “unique” corporate structure that makes its ownership more difficult to discern. It’s owned by its various funds, which in turn are owned by the shareholders. Aside from these shareholders, it has no outside investors and is not publicly traded.5 As reported in the featured video:6,7

“The elite who own Vanguard apparently do not like being in the spotlight but of course they cannot hide from who is willing to dig. Reports from Oxfam and Bloomberg say that 1% of the world, together owns more money than the other 99%. Even worse, Oxfam says that 82% of all earned money in 2017 went to this 1%.

In other words, these two investment companies, Vanguard and BlackRock hold a monopoly in all industries in the world and they, in turn are owned by the richest families in the world, some of whom are royalty and who have been very rich since before the Industrial Revolution.”

While it would take time to sift through all of Vanguard’s funds to identify individual shareholders, and therefore owners of Vanguard, a quick look-see suggests Rothschild Investment Corp.8 and the Edmond De Rothschild Holding are two such stakeholders.9 Keep the name Rothschild in your mind as you read on, as it will feature again later.

The video above also identifies the Italian Orsini family, the American Bush family, the British Royal family, the du Pont family, the Morgans, Vanderbilts and Rockefellers, as Vanguard owners.

BlackRock/Vanguard Own Big Pharma

According to Simply Wall Street, in February 2020, BlackRock and Vanguard were the two largest shareholders of GlaxoSmithKline, at 7% and 3.5% of shares respectively.10 At Pfizer, the ownership is reversed, with Vanguard being the top investor and BlackRock the second-largest stockholder.11

Keep in mind that stock ownership ratios can change at any time, since companies buy and sell on a regular basis, so don’t get hung up on percentages. The bottom line is that BlackRock and Vanguard, individually and combined, own enough shares at any given time that we can say they easily control both Big Pharma and the centralized legacy media — and then some.

Why does this matter? It matters because drug companies are driving COVID-19 responses — all of which, so far, have endangered rather than optimized public health — and mainstream media have been willing accomplices in spreading their propaganda, a false official narrative that has, and still is, leading the public astray and fosters fear based on lies.

To have any chance of righting this situation, we must understand who the central players are, where the harmful dictates are coming from, and why these false narratives are being created in the first place.

As noted in Global Justice Now’s December 2020 report12 “The Horrible History of Big Pharma,” we simply cannot allow drug companies — “which have a long track record of prioritizing corporate profit over people’s health” — to continue to dictate COVID-19 responses.

In it, they review the shameful history of the top seven drug companies in the world that are now developing and manufacturing drugs and gene-based “vaccines” against COVID-19, while mainstream media have helped suppress information about readily available older drugs that have been shown to have a high degree of efficacy against the infection.

BlackRock/Vanguard Own the Media

When it comes to The New York Times, as of May 2021, BlackRock is the second-largest stockholder at 7.43% of total shares, just after The Vanguard Group, which owns the largest portion (8.11%).13,14

In addition to The New York Times, Vanguard and BlackRock are also the top two owners of Time Warner, Comcast, Disney and News Corp, four of the six media companies that control more than 90% of the U.S. media landscape.15,16

Needless to say, if you have control of this many news outlets, you can control entire nations by way of carefully orchestrated and organized centralized propaganda disguised as journalism.

If your head is spinning already, you’re not alone. It’s difficult to describe circular and tightly interwoven relationships in a linear fashion. The world of corporate ownership is labyrinthine, where everyone seems to own everyone, to some degree.

However, the key take-home message is that two companies stand out head and neck above all others, and that’s BlackRock and Vanguard. Together, they form a hidden monopoly on global asset holdings, and through their influence over our centralized media, they have the power to manipulate and control a great deal of the world’s economy and events, and how the world views it all.

Considering BlackRock in 2018 announced that it has “social expectations” from the companies it invests in,17 its potential role as a central hub in the Great Reset and the “build back better” plan cannot be overlooked.

Add to this information showing it “undermines competition through owning shares in competing companies” and “blurs boundaries between private capital and government affairs by working closely with regulators,” and one would be hard-pressed to not see how BlackRock/Vanguard and their globalist owners might be able to facilitate the Great Reset and the so-called “green” revolution, both of which are part of the same wealth-theft scheme.

BlackRock and Vanguard Own the World

That assertion will become even clearer once you realize that this duo’s influence is not limited to Big Pharma and the media. Importantly, BlackRock also works closely with central banks around the world, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is a private entity, not a federal one.18,19 It lends money to the central bank, acts as an adviser to it, and develops the central bank’s software.20

In all, BlackRock and Vanguard have ownership in some 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.

BlackRock/Vanguard also own shares of long list of other companies, including Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Alphabet Inc.21 As illustrated in the graphic of BlackRock and Vanguard’s ownership network below,22 featured in the 2017 article “These Three Firms Own Corporate America” in The Conversation, it would be near-impossible to list them all.

In all, BlackRock and Vanguard have ownership in some 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.23

A Global Monopoly Few Know Anything About

To tease out the overarching influence of BlackRock and Vanguard in the global marketplace, be sure to watch the 45-minute-long video featured at the top of this article. It provides a wide-view summary of the hidden monopoly network of Vanguard- and BlackRock-owned corporations, and their role in the Great Reset. A second much shorter video (above) offers an additional review of this information.

How can we tie BlackRock/Vanguard — and the globalist families that own them — to the Great Reset? Barring a public confession, we have to look at the relationships between these behemoth globalist-owned corporations and consider the influence they can wield through those relationships. As noted by Lew Rockwell:24

“When Lynn Forester de Rothschild wants the United States to be a one-party country (like China) and doesn’t want voter ID laws passed in the U.S., so that more election fraud can be perpetrated to achieve that end, what does she do?

She holds a conference call with the world’s top 100 CEOs and tells them to publicly decry as ‘Jim Crow’ Georgia’s passing of an anti-corruption law and she orders her dutiful CEOs to boycott the State of Georgia, like we saw with Coca-Cola and Major League Baseball and even Hollywood star, Will Smith.

In this conference call, we see shades of the Great Reset, Agenda 2030, the New World Order. The UN wants to make sure, as does [World Economic Forum founder and executive chairman Klaus] Schwab that in 2030, poverty, hunger, pollution and disease no longer plague the Earth.

To achieve this, the UN wants taxes from Western countries to be split by the mega corporations of the elite to create a brand-new society. For this project, the UN says we need a world government — namely the UN, itself.”

As I’ve reviewed in many previous articles, it seems quite clear that the COVID-19 pandemic was orchestrated to bring about this New World Order — the Great Reset — and the 45-minute video featured at top of article does a good job of explaining how this was done. And at the heart of it all, the “heart” toward which all global wealth streams flow, we find BlackRock and Vanguard.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/15/does-vanguard-and-blackrock-own-the-world.aspx

As COVID-19 vaccines are being rolled out and given to millions of Americans in every state, it is critical that doctors and other medical workers who are administering the vaccines actively report every serious health problem, injury and death that happens after vaccination to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

Known as VAERS,1 the centralized vaccine reaction reporting system was created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.2,3 If you get a vaccine, including a COVID-19 vaccine, and your health deteriorates within hours, days or weeks of being vaccinated, the person who gave you the shot is required by federal law to file a report with VAERS.4
If he or she refuses to file a vaccine reaction report, you can do it yourself. Click to learn how to report a vaccine reaction to VAERS.

DPT Vaccine-Injured Children’s Parents Got VAERS in 1986 Act

In 1982, when Kathi Williams and I joined with other parents of DPT vaccine-injured children and founded the educational charity known today as the National Vaccine Information Center,5 we discovered there was no centralized vaccine reaction reporting system in the U.S. and no requirement for doctors to report vaccine reactions.

Back then, the government’s Monitoring System for Adverse Events Following Vaccination6 was split into two parts: Doctors vaccinating children in public health clinics were supposed to report serious vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths to the Centers for Disease Control; and doctors in private practice and vaccine manufacturers could choose to report to the Food and Drug Administration7,8 — but there was no requirement to report vaccine reactions.

As parents who had watched our children have serious reactions and regress into chronic poor health after DPT shots,9,10 we argued that every vaccine provider and every vaccine manufacturer should be required to report vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths to the government.

To ensure transparency, we wanted those vaccine reaction reports to be accessible to the public and to independent researchers investigating vaccine safety issues. We also wanted a way for individuals who had experienced a vaccine reaction to be able to file a vaccine reaction report themselves if a vaccine provider refused to do it.

That is why we worked with Congress in the early 1980s to secure vaccine safety informing, recording, reporting and research provisions in the 1986 Act.11,12,13

We insisted that the government publish written information describing vaccine reactions and disease risks to be given to parents before children are vaccinated;14 that doctors and other vaccine providers be required to keep a permanent record of all vaccines given and the manufacturer’s name and lot number;15 and that serious health problems following vaccination be recorded in the child’s permanent medical record, along with the requirement that vaccine providers and manufacturers be required to report adverse events to a centralized vaccine reaction reporting database monitored by health agencies and open to the public.16

Ultimately, Congress agreed with parents that federal health agencies should create a new centralized Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. VAERS was finally launched in 1990 — four years after the 1986 Act was passed.17

VAERS: A Post-Marketing Vaccine Safety Surveillance Tool

VAERS records the timing of the vaccination and onset of the adverse event; the age and current illnesses or medications taken by the person who reacted; past history of vaccine reactions; the name of the state where the person lives and other important information to help record and evaluate reported vaccine reactions.18,19

CDC officials say that, “about 85 to 90 percent of the reports [to VAERS] describe mild side effects such as fever, arm soreness and crying or mild irritability. The remaining reports are classified as serious, which means that the adverse event resulted in permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness or death.”20

Government officials repeatedly emphasize that vaccine-related injuries and deaths reported to VAERS are rarely caused by the vaccine.21,22,23

The reality is that federal health agencies are unable to follow up every vaccine reaction, so the system remains a broad post-marketing surveillance tool for picking up red flags that signal unusual or frequent vaccine complications, which may not have been identified in prelicensing clinical trials24 or — in the case of COVID-19 vaccines — were not identified prior to the FDA granting vaccine manufacturers an Emergency Use Authorization to distribute experimental COVID-19 vaccines.25

And because VAERS is open for public view and analysis, it is an invaluable database for research and public education.26,27,28,29 You can search the VAERS database of vaccine reaction reports filed since 1990 by going to NVIC.org and accessing the user-friendly MedAlerts search engine.

No Legal Sanctions for Doctors Failing to Report to VAERS

Sadly, even though it has been a federal law for vaccine providers and vaccine manufacturers to report to VAERS for more than three decades, there are no legal consequences for failing to report. A 2011 federally funded study found that less than 1% of vaccine reactions that happen in the U.S. are ever reported to VAERS.30

That’s because Congress made it a federal requirement in the 1986 Act to report but did not include legal penalties when vaccine companies or vaccine providers fail to report. The result is that 99% of vaccine reactions, including injuries and deaths, which are taking place every day among the highly vaccinated U.S. population, go unreported.

Reporting to VAERS Should Be a Priority for COVID-19 Vaccines

Today, the U.S. is operating under a public health emergency declaration31 and there is an even greater need to step up efforts to report vaccine reactions to VAERS, especially injuries and deaths, that occur after vaccination. COVID-19 vaccines were fast tracked to market in record-breaking time.32,33,34,35 Most of the participants in clinical trials were healthy people between 17 and 55 years old.36,37

This means that while COVID-19 vaccines are being given to millions of Americans, VAERS becomes an extremely important mechanism for detecting a pattern of vaccine-related serious health problems that may not have been detected in clinical trials that only included thousands of subjects and did not include certain high-risk categories of people — like those over age 8538,39 or pregnant women40,41 or people with certain underlying health problems.42,43

During this time when there is a national COVID-19 vaccination campaign underway, you can help by reminding medical workers giving COVID-19 vaccines to file reaction reports with VAERS. Vaccine administrators are not supposed to be making their own judgments about whether an adverse event following vaccination was or was not caused by the vaccine.

They are simply supposed to file a VAERS report as required under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act whenever a person suffers a serious deterioration in health after vaccination, especially if it results in a permanent injury or death.

If a Vaccine Provider Fails to Report to VAERS — DIY

Remember, if you or your minor child have gotten a COVID-19 shot and have suffered a reaction44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54 but the person who gave the vaccine refuses to make a report to VAERS, you can file a report yourself. It’s your health. Your family. Your choice.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/15/vaers-covid-19-vaccine-reaction-report.aspx

The more we learn about the COVID-19 vaccines, the worse they look. In a recent interview1 with Alex Pierson (above), Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher Byram Bridle, Ph.D., dropped a shocking truth bomb that immediately went viral, despite being censored by Google.

It also was featured in a “fact” check by The Poynter Institute’s Politifact,2 which pronounced Bridle’s findings as “false” after interviewing Dr. Drew Weissman,3 a UPenn scientist who is credited with helping to create the technology that enables the COVID mRNA vaccines to work. But, as you can see below, unlike Bridle, Politifact neglected to go beyond interviewing someone with such a huge stake in the vaccine’s success.

In 2020, Bridle was awarded a $230,000 government grant for research on COVID vaccine development. As part of that research, he and a team of international scientists requested a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) access to Pfizer’s biodistribution study from the Japanese regulatory agency. The research,4,5 previously unseen, demonstrates a huge problem with all COVID-19 vaccines.

“We made a big mistake,” Bridle says. “We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen; we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So, by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”

This toxin, Bridle notes, can cause cardiovascular damage and infertility — a claim echoed by researchers such as Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., whom I’ve interviewed about these issues.

Pfizer Omitted Industry-Standard Safety Studies

What’s more, TrialSite News reports6 that Pfizer documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency [EMA] reveal the company “did not follow industry-standard quality management practices during preclinical toxicology studies … as key studies did not meet good laboratory practice (GLP).”

Neither reproductive toxicity nor genotoxicity (DNA mutation) studies were performed, both of which are considered critical when developing a new drug or vaccine for human use. The problems now surfacing matter greatly, as they significantly alter the risk-benefit analysis underlying the vaccines’ emergency use authorization. As reported by TrialSite News:7

“Recently, there has been speculation regarding potential safety signals associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Many different unusual, prolonged, or delayed reactions have been reported, and often these are more pronounced after the second shot.

Women have reported changes in menstruation after taking mRNA vaccines. Problems with blood clotting (coagulation) — which are also common during COVID-19 disease — are also reported. In the case of the Pfizer COVID mRNA vaccine, these newly revealed documents raise additional questions about both the genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity risks of this product.

Standard studies designed to assess these risks were not performed in compliance with accepted empirical research standards. Furthermore, in key studies designed to test whether the vaccine remains near the injection site or travels throughout the body, Pfizer did not even use the commercial vaccine (BNT162b2) but instead relied on a ‘surrogate’ mRNA producing the luciferase protein.

These new disclosures seem to indicate that the U.S. and other governments are conducting a massive vaccination program with an incompletely characterized experimental vaccine.

It is certainly understandable why the vaccine was rushed into use as an experimental product under emergency use authority, but these new findings suggest that routine quality testing issues were overlooked in the rush to authorize use.

People are now receiving injections with an mRNA gene therapy-based vaccine, which produces the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in their cells, and the vaccine may be also delivering the mRNA and producing spike protein in unintended organs and tissues (which may include ovaries).”

Toxic Spike Protein Enters Blood Circulation

The assumption that vaccine developers have been working with is that the mRNA in the vaccines (or DNA in the case of Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca’s vaccines) would primarily remain in and around the vaccination site, i.e., your deltoid muscle, with a small amount draining into local lymph nodes.8

Pfizer’s data, however, show this isn’t the case at all. Using mRNA programmed to produce luciferase protein, as well as mRNA tagged with a radioactive label, Pfizer showed that the majority of the mRNA initially remain near the injection site, but within hours become widely distributed within the body.9

We have known for a long time that the spike protein is a pathogenic protein. It is a toxin. It can cause damage in our body if it gets into circulation. ~ Dr. Byram Bridle

The mRNA enters your bloodstream and accumulates in a variety of organs, primarily your spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands and, in women, the ovaries. The spike protein also travel to your heart, brain and lungs, where bleeding and or blood clots can occur as a result, and is expelled in breast milk.

This is a problem, because rather than instructing your muscle cells to produce the spike protein (the antigen that triggers antibody production), spike protein is actually being produced inside your blood vessel walls and various organs, where it can do a great deal of damage.

“It’s the first time ever scientists have been privy to seeing where these messenger RNA [mRNA] vaccines go after vaccination,” Bridle told Pierson.10

“Is it a safe assumption that it stays in the shoulder muscle? The short answer is: absolutely not. It’s very disconcerting … We have known for a long time that the spike protein is a pathogenic protein.

It is a toxin. It can cause damage in our body if it gets into circulation … The spike protein on its own is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation.”

The Spike Protein Is the Problem

Indeed, for many months, we’ve known that the worst symptoms of severe COVID-19, blood clotting problems in particular, are caused by the spike protein of the virus. As such, it seemed really risky to instruct the body’s cells to produce the very thing that causes severe problems.

Bridle cites research showing that laboratory animals injected with purified spike protein from SARS-CoV-2 straight into their bloodstream developed cardiovascular problems and brain damage.

Assuming that the spike protein would not enter into the circulatory system was a “grave mistake,” according to Bridle, who calls the Japanese data “clear-cut evidence” that the vaccine, and the spike protein produced by it, enters your bloodstream and accumulates in vital organs. Bridle also cites recent research showing the spike protein remained in the bloodstream of humans for 29 days.

Once in your blood circulation, the spike protein binds to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels. As explained by Bridle, when that happens, one of several things can occur:

It can cause platelets to clump together — Platelets, aka thrombocytes, are specialized cells in your blood that stop bleeding. When there’s blood vessel damage, they clump together to form a blood clot. This is why we’ve been seeing clotting disorders associated with both COVID-19 and the vaccines
It can cause abnormal bleeding
In your heart, it can cause heart problems
In your brain, it can cause neurological damage

Importantly, people who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 absolutely should not donate blood, seeing how the vaccine and the spike protein are both transferred. In fragile patients receiving the blood, the damage could be lethal.

Breastfeeding women also need to know that both the vaccine and the spike protein are being expelled in breast milk, and this could be lethal for their babies. You are not transferring antibodies. You are transferring the vaccine itself, as well as the spike protein, which could result in bleeding and/or blood clots in your child. All of this also suggests that for individuals who are at low risk for COVID-19, children and teens in particular, the risks of these vaccines far outweigh the benefits.

The Spike Protein and Blood Clotting

In related news, Dr. Malcolm Kendrick posted an article11 on his website June 3, 2021, in which he discusses the links between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and vasculitis, a medical term referring to inflammation (“itis”) in your vascular system, which is made up of your heart and blood vessels.

There are many different types of vasculitis, including Kawasaki’s disease, antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma and Sjogren’s disease. According to Kendrick, all of them have two things in common:12

1. Your body for some reason starts to attack the lining of your blood vessels, thereby causing damage and inflammation — The “why” can differ from one case to another, but in all cases, your immune system identifies something foreign in the lining of the blood vessel, causing it to attack. The attack causes damage to the lining, which results in inflammation.

Blood clots are a common result, and can occur either because the platelets clump together in response to the vessel wall damage, or because your anticlotting mechanism has been compromised. Your most powerful anticlotting system is your glycocalyx, the protective layer of glycoproteins that lines your blood vessels.

Among many other things, the glycocalyx contains a wide variety of anticoagulant factors, including tissue factor inhibitor, protein C, nitric oxide and antithrombin. It also modulates the adhesion of platelets to the endothelium. When blood clots completely block a blood vessel, you end up with a stroke or a heart attack.

A reduction in platelet count, known as thrombocytopenia, is a reliable sign that blood clots are forming in your system, as the platelets are being used up in the process. Thrombocytopenia is a commonly-reported side effect of COVID-19 vaccines, as are blood clots, strokes and lethal heart attacks — all of which are pointing toward spike proteins causing vascular damage.

2. They significantly increase your risk of death, in some cases raising mortality by 50 times compared to people who do not have these conditions.

The take-home message Kendrick delivers is that “If you damage the lining of blood vessel walls, blood clots are far more likely to form. Very often, the damage is caused by the immune system going on the attack, damaging blood vessel walls, and removing several of the anti-clotting mechanisms.” The end result can be lethal, and this chain of events is exactly what these COVID-19 vaccines are setting into motion.

SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein May Damage Mitochondrial Function

Other research suggests the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can have a serious impact on your mitochondrial function, which is imperative for good health, innate immunity and disease prevention of all kinds.

When the spike protein interacts with the ACE2 receptor, it can disrupt mitochondrial signaling, thereby inducing the production of reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. If the damage is serious enough, uncontrolled cell death can occur, which in turn leaks mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) into your bloodstream.13

Aside from being detected in cases involving acute tissue injury, heart attack and sepsis, freely circulating mtDNA has also been shown to contribute to a number of chronic diseases, including systemic inflammatory response syndrome or SIRS, heart disease, liver failure, HIV infection, rheumatoid arthritis and certain cancers.14 As explained in “COVID-19: A Mitochondrial Perspective”:15

“Apart from its role in energy production, mitochondria are crucial for … innate immunity, reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, and apoptosis; all of these are important in COVID-19 pathogenesis. Dysfunctional mitochondria predispose to oxidative stress and loss of cellular function and vitality. In addition, mitochondrial damage leads to … inappropriate and persistent inflammation.

SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) … enters cell by attaching to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors on cell surface … Following infection, there is internalization and downregulation of ACE2 receptors.

At vascular endothelium, ACE2 performs conversion of angiotensin II to angiotensin (1–7). Thus, a low ACE2 activity subsequent to SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to imbalance in renin-angiotensin system with relative excess of angiotensin II.

Angiotensin II through binding to its type 1 receptors exerts pro-inflammatory, vasoconstrictive, and prothrombotic effects, while angiotensin (1–7) has opposing effects … In addition, angiotensin II increases cytoplasmic and mitochondrial ROS generation leading to oxidative stress.

Increased oxidative stress may lead to endothelial dysfunction and aggravate systemic and local inflammation, thus contributing to acute lung injury, cytokine storm, and thrombosis seen in severe COVID-19 illness …

A recent algorithm showed that majority of SARS-CoV-2 genomic and structural RNAs are targeted for mitochondrial matrix. Thus it appears that SARS-CoV-2 hijacks mitochondrial machinery for its own benefit, including DMV biogenesis. Manipulation of mitochondria by virus may lead to mitochondrial dysfunction and increased oxidative stress ultimately leading to loss of mitochondrial integrity and cell death …

Mitochondrial fission enables removal of the damaged portion of a mitochondrion to be cleared by mitophagy (a special form of autophagy). Metabolomic studies suggest that SARS-CoV-2 inhibits mitophagy. Thus, there is accumulation of damaged and dysfunctional mitochondria. This not only leads to impaired MAVS [mitochondrial antiviral signaling] response but also aggravates inflammation and cell death.”

The author, Pankaj Prasun, points out that the virus’ impact on mitochondria helps explain why COVID-19 is so much deadlier for older people, the obese, and those with diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease.

All of these risk factors have something in common: They’re all associated with mitochondrial dysfunction. If your mitochondria are already dysfunctional, the SARS-CoV-2 virus can more easily knock out more mitochondria, resulting in severe illness and death.

The Spike Protein Is a Bioweapon

In my interview with Seneff and Mikovits (see earlier hyperlink), they both stressed that the key danger — both in COVID-19 and with the vaccines — is the spike protein itself. However, while the spike protein found in the virus is bad, the spike protein your body produces in response to the vaccine is far worse. Why?

Because the synthetic mRNA in the vaccine has been programmed to instruct your cells to produce an unnatural, genetically engineered spike protein. Specific alterations make it far more toxic than that found on the virus itself. Mikovits goes so far as to call the spike protein a bioweapon, as it is a disease-causing agent that demolishes innate immunity and exhausts your natural killer (NK) cells’ ability to determine which cells are infected and which aren’t.

In short, when you get the COVID-19 vaccine, you are being injected with an agent that instructs your body to produce the bioweapon in its own cells. This is about as diabolical as it gets.

In her paper, “Worse Than The Disease: Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research in collaboration with Dr. Greg Nigh,16 Seneff explains why the unnatural spike protein is so problematic.

In summary, normally, the spike protein on a virus will collapse on itself and fall into the cell once it attaches to the ACE2 receptor. The vaccine-induced spike protein does not do this. Instead it stays open and remains attached to the ACE2 receptor, thereby disabling it and causing a host of problems that lead to heart, lung and immune impairment.

What’s more, because the RNA code has been enriched with extra guanines (Gs) and cytosines (Cs), and configured as if it’s a human messenger RNA molecule ready to make protein by adding a polyA tail, the spike protein’s RNA sequence in the vaccine looks as if it is part bacteria,17 part human18 and part viral at the same time.

There’s also evidence suggesting the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein may be a prion, which is yet another piece of really bad news, particularly as it pertains to vaccine-induced spike protein. Prions are membrane proteins and when they misfold, they form crystals in the cytoplasm resulting in prion disease.

Since the mRNA in the vaccines has been modified to spew out very high amounts of spike protein (far greater than that of the actual virus), the risk of excessive buildup in the cytoplasm is high. And, since the spike protein doesn’t enter into the membrane of the cell, there’s a high risk that it can become problematic if indeed it works like a prion.

Remember, the research cited by Bridle at the beginning of this article found the spike protein accumulates in the spleen, among other places. Parkinson’s disease is a prion disease that has been traced back to prions originating in the spleen, that then travel up to the brain via the vagus nerve. In the same way, it’s quite possible COVID-19 vaccines may promote Parkinson’s and other human prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s.

What Are the Solutions?

While all of this is highly problematic, there is help. As noted by Mikovits, remedies to the maladies that might develop post-vaccination include:

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin treatments. Ivermectin appears particularly promising as it actually binds to the spike protein. Please listen to the interview that Brett Weinstein did with Dr. Pierre Kory,19 one of Dr. Paul Marik’s collaborators

Low-dose antiretroviral therapy to reeducate your immune system

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

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

Cannabis, to strengthen Type I interferon pathways

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

Silymarin or milk thistle to help cleanse your liver

From my perspective, I believe the best thing you can do is to build your innate immune system. To do that, you need to become metabolically flexible and optimize your diet. You’ll also want to make sure your vitamin D level is optimized to between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L), ideally through sensible sun exposure. Sunlight also has other benefits besides making vitamin D.

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

To combat the toxicity of the spike protein, you’ll want to optimize autophagy, which may help digest and remove the spike proteins. Time-restricted eating will upregulate autophagy, while sauna therapy, which upregulates heat shock proteins, will help refold misfolded proteins and also tag damaged proteins and target them for removal. It is important that your sauna is hot enough (around 170 degrees Fahrenheit) and does not have high magnetic or electric fields.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/14/covid-19-vaccine-mistake.aspx