Lose Them Pounds

Each year the International Herb Association1 names the Herb of the Year, and for 2021 it is parsley (Petroselinum crispum). Parsley is from the Apiaceae family, which also includes caraway, coriander, cumin and celery.2 The plants grow best in hardiness zones 2 to 11, reaching a height of up to 1 foot and spreading 1 foot across.3 When left to flower, the plants produce small green-yellow flowers.

Parsley is considered an herb. The word herb refers to the green part of a plant used to season and flavor food. For example, spinach is green but is a vegetable because it is a food and not a flavoring. Parsley is green but used as a flavoring and so it’s an herb.

Herbs are known for their fragrance and aromatic properties.4 In many cases, herbs have been a part of natural and traditional medicines for decades. There is also an essential difference between what is classified as a spice and what is an herb. It boils down to what part of the plant you are using.

For example, an herb is the green part of the plant, whereas using dried bark, roots or seeds would be considered a spice. Using herbs in your cooking adds a richer flavor to your foods. Some recipes call for dried herbs and others for fresh. This is not interchangeable since the process of drying changes the flavor profile.

Dried herbs may be used during the cooking process, but fresh herbs are often added at the end of your meal preparation.

Parsley Named Herb of the Year

National Herb Week was established in 1991 by the International Herb Association (IHA).5 It is celebrated each year in the week before Mother’s Day, which in many parts of the U.S. marks the beginning of gardening season.

The purpose of National Herb Week is to bring national attention to the many available herbs used in the kitchen and grown in gardens. Since 1995, Herb of the Year has been used to highlight National Herb Week. The IHA’s Horticultural committee chooses the herb based on the plant meeting two of three criteria.

The criteria include having outstanding characteristics in medicine, cooking or as a decorative plant. Every year, the IHA publishes a book on the selected herb in which members contribute material that may range from botanical information to how to use the plant. For 2021, the IHA chose parsley.6

There are three varieties of parsley.7 Crispum has curly leaves and looks a little like moss. Neapolitanum is better known as Italian parsley and has a stronger flavor and flat leaves. Tuberosum was developed in the last 200 years and is grown for the flavor of the roots.

Parsley is native to the Mediterranean region where it was cultivated for more than 2,000 years. Some historians believe the Roman Emperor Charles the Great popularized the herb since it grew all over his property.8

Parsley is one of the most common fresh herbs used in the U.S. and for decades has been used as a garnish in restaurants.9 The ancient Greeks and Romans used it more in ceremonies than in the kitchen. Ultimately, the taste of the plant depends on the soil in which it grows and climate conditions.

Parsley is easy to grow in well-drained soil. The plant prefers cool summer climates, but must be protected as the temperature drops. The flat leaf variety is more cold- and drought-tolerant than the curly leaf.10 Container plants can overwinter indoors and provide fresh parsley during the winter months.

Health Benefits of Flavonoid Glycosides

Parsley is more than just a pretty face. The leaves and stems are rich in flavonoid glycosides that have demonstrated significant antioxidant activity.11 One chemical analysis of Petroselinum crispum leaves and apiin identified 29 flavonoid glycosides.12 Apiin13 is a natural diglycoside of apigenin. This is a flavone, which is one of six subclasses of flavonoids.14

In a study, the water extract of parsley contained 90% pure apigenin and a high content of phenolics and total flavonoids with high antioxidant activity.15 Analysis also found high amounts of quercetin in the parsley extract.

In the lab the extract demonstrated a low level of toxicity and high dose-dependent antioxidant potential. Apiin, the major compound found in parsley, had significant antioxidant activity on cells placed under oxidative stress. The researchers conclude this data suggest it is likely the antioxidant activity is related to all compounds found in the plant.16

Dietary flavonoids are naturally found in vegetables, fruits, wine, tea and chocolate. The high bioavailability is a major contributor to the biological activities,17 which include antioxidant, anticancer, antitumor and hepatoprotective effects.18 Other biological effects can include antidiabetic, antiviral, antibacterial and antifungal activity.

Many of the effects seem to be related to modulating cell signaling cascades. There is some limited evidence that the anti-inflammation and antioxidant activity in flavonoids have an influence on neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease.

Animal model studies have demonstrated that flavonoids can cross the blood-brain barrier, helping to reduce cognitive impairment during normal and pathological aging.19 Plants use flavonoids to combat environmental stress, regulate cell growth and attract pollinating insects.

Anti-Inflammatory Benefits of Parsley

Your body uses acute and intermittent increases in inflammation to fight physical injury and infection. However, chronic inflammation can lead to several of the leading causes of death in the U.S.,20 including cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic kidney disease, diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.21,22

Infections, poor diet, exposure to toxins, psychological stress and physical inactivity all contribute to a rising level of chronic inflammation. There are several lifestyle choices you can make that help reduce the risk of chronic inflammation, and therefore may reduce your risk of chronic disease. Among those are your food choices.

Plants have been a part of cultural medicinal practices for centuries. Traditionally, parsley has been used to treat cardiac disease, kidney disease, diabetes and high blood pressure.23 More recently, scientists have found it has a positive effect on female infertility.

A recent study24 published in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology sought to evaluate the acute toxicity and anti-inflammatory activity of parsley extract in an animal model. The researchers also measured the animals’ estrogen levels, protein and cholesterol.

Using a polyphenolic fraction, the researchers investigated subacute toxicity measuring weight and later a histopathological examination of the kidneys and liver. The results showed the extract did not negatively impact the liver or kidneys of the animals and did show:25

“… remarkable anti-inflammatory activity, as well as significant estrogenic effect compared to negative control.” And concluded, “This study provides a scope of the potential use of Petroselinum sativum Hoffm. extracts in counteracting female infertility issues.”

Researchers from two universities in Korea26 also analyzed the ethanol extract of parsley as an ingredient in functional cosmetics. They sought to verify the antiaging, anti-inflammatory and skin brightening effects of the parsley extract, including the polyphenol and total flavonoid content. Laboratory studies showed no cytotoxicity and researchers concluded the evidence suggested:27

“Parsley extracts have remarkable anti-oxidant effects and are valuable as a cosmetics ingredient with anti-inflammatory, skin-brightening, and anti-aging effects.”

An earlier study28 of parsley ethanol extract evaluated the anti-inflammatory and antihepatotoxic activity in an animal model when hepatic damage was induced. Later, histopathological tests on the liver were carried out. Results of the experiment showed the flavonoids, tannins and/or triterpenoids offered significant protection against hepatic damage.

Parsley May Help Reduce Anxiety and Depression

Estimates of the percentage of the population experiencing depression or anxiety disorders included 6.68% of adult Americans experiencing anxiety in 201829 and 4.7% of the population with regular feelings of depression in 2019.30 These numbers rose dramatically in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A systematic review of the literature31 found the prevalence of stress was 29.6%, anxiety 31.9% and depression 33.7%. Researchers concluded COVID-19 had an impact on mental health and it was essential to develop interventions for vulnerable groups.

In a paper published in 202132 researchers sought to evaluate the effects parsley extract may have on anxiety and depression, with an aim to help in the treatment of these disorders. The researchers wrote that depression and anxiety are generally treated with chemical psychotropic medications that may cause unwanted side effects.

The intent was to investigate medicinal plants that may offer safe and effective therapeutic treatment options with fewer side effects. Parsley was investigated for its potential anxiolytic and antidepressant activities to find if there was a correlation with the known antioxidant activity.

In an animal model, the researchers used several chemical and functional tests to determine the anti-anxiety, antidepressant and antioxidant activity. They concluded:33

“Parsley, a daily used culinary herb worldwide, presents enormous health benefits and through this study, it has been shown to have a remarkable antidepressant-like and anxiolytic activity, even better than classic drugs, especially with the dose of 100 mg/kg.

In the search for an effective medicine with fewer or almost no side effect, this plant could be a well-placed alternative. This work encourages its daily consumption as well as its development to a well-established phytomedicine.”

Another active component to parsley is myristicin, which researchers have demonstrated has potential chemopreventive actions.34 The same substance is also found in high amounts in nutmeg.35 Research using myristicin derived from nutmeg demonstrated anxiolytic effects in rats.36

More Benefits From Adding Parsley to Your Diet

Green leafy vegetables, such as parsley, contain vitamin K1, also known as phylloquinone.37 Just 10 sprigs of parsley deliver over the recommended daily value for vitamin K.38 Your body uses vitamin K to move calcium out of your bloodstream and into your bones.

Low levels of vitamin K are associated with a higher risk of bone fracture. A recent literature review39 found people with the highest levels of vitamin K had 22% fewer bone fractures than those with low levels.

Vitamin K is a fat-soluble vitamin your body uses in blood clotting and a variety of other cellular functions. One paper published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition40 sought to determine if there is an association between vitamin K, cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality.

The data we gathered from the Framingham Offspring study and included 3,891 men and women. Although there is an association between vitamin K and vascular health, the data from this study did not show an association between low levels and cardiovascular disease.

There was, however, a link between low levels and all-cause mortality, since those with low levels were more likely to die within 13 years,41 representing a 19% increased risk.42 Ten sprigs of parsley also have 22% of the recommended daily value of vitamin C.43

The combination of vitamin C and the anti-inflammatory effects of parsley may offer some protection to people who have rheumatoid arthritis. Findings presented in the Annals of Rheumatic Diseases44 focused on individuals who developed inflammatory polyarthritis. Researchers found those who ate the lowest amount of foods rich in vitamin C were three times more likely to develop arthritis.

Parsley also has a diuretic effect.45 Animal models demonstrate this effect may be mediated through the cellular sodium potassium pump, leading to a reduction in the absorption of both minerals and thus to an increase in osmotic water flow and diuresis.

Since vitamin K is fat soluble, it’s best to eat your parsley with foods that have healthy fat, such as pastured and organically grown meat and dairy products. This increases absorption. Eating foods rich in vitamin K, such as parsley, is the best way to consume vitamin K1.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/07/parsley-herb-of-the-year-2021.aspx

The video above features the first of several tribunals1 on COVID-19, in which we expose the willful misconduct that runs like a red thread through the entire pandemic narrative. This first one is sponsored by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), a 501c3 nonprofit organization chartered to educate and empower you with information that promotes health and happiness for you and your family.

The panel, consisting of a number of experts from different fields, including scientists, doctors, authors, activists and attorneys, is hosted by Alexis Baden-Mayer. The topic, of course, is COVID-19, which has risen as the most important topic of our lifetime.

Collectively, the panelists, which include yours truly, have spent well over 75,000 hours investigating myriad events that make up the global response to COVID-19, from its likely lab origin, to where we are at present. As noted by Baden-Mayor, we find ourselves “trapped in a web of questionable science and rampant acts of alleged willful misconduct with no apparent and insight.”

“Collectively, our panelists have published groundbreaking books, lawsuits and peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts on the subject of COVID-19 that currently form the foundation of many ongoing legal efforts, attempting to protect the inalienable rights of billions of good people worldwide,” Baden-Mayor says.

“It has been more than a year since the SARS-CoV-2 virus came into public awareness, and what began as two weeks to flatten the curve has morphed into a never-ending emergency. Is this still an emergency? And if so, why are we empowering the same people to lead us who have already proven their own incompetence?

At the very least tonight, we will take up the work that should have been performed long ago by mainstream media networks that have consistently vacated their duty to impartially investigate and objectively inform their audiences. We will ask the hard questions to people who have been censored and vilified simply for lifting their voices to help people throughout the world.

Some of the questions we pose may feel uncomfortable at first, but are nevertheless essential to our collective freedom and our children’s future. And some of the answers you hear may challenge the narratives you’ve been conditioned to accept. We will listen as our expert panelists share verifiable information, and invite you to decide for yourself whether the information you are hearing has merit.

This tribunal does not exist to tell you what to think or what you need to know. This tribunal of experts has gathered to empower you, to think for yourself and create opportunities for you to take action.

The alleged acts of willful conduct threaten not only our freedom, but also unnecessarily prolongs the crisis by preventing the free exchange of ideas and clinical information that saves lives. We will embark on a historic journey together in search of answers to hard questions and solutions to challenging problems …

If you are like the billions of people who have felt that something just isn’t right, and you don’t know who to trust. I assure you, you are not alone. Take heart and have courage together. We are going to make sure COVID-19 comes to an end. And most importantly never happens again.”

Speakers List
The speakers and panelists featured in this first tribunal, in addition to myself, are:

Dolores Cahill, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and immunologist,2 founder of the World Freedom Alliance3 and a member of the World Doctors Alliance,4 which is committed “to debate the causes of harm resulting from the coronavirus act measures and to raise issues that expose harmful medical and life-limiting practices detrimental to the well-being of all living men women and children”

Kimberly and Foster Gamble, creators of two THRIVE documentaries5

Kevin Jenkins, executive director of the Urban Global Health Alliance6 and producer of the censored documentary film “Medical Racism: The New Apartheid”7

Dr. Peter McCullough, vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and co-author of “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection” in the American Journal of Medicine.8,9 McCullough is one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the United States

Joy Fritz, a former death records clerk10 and contributor to The Defender11

Ronnie Cummins, co-founder and international director of the OCA and its Mexican affiliate Via Organica12

Tara Thorton, co-founder of the Freedom Angels Foundation, which fights against tightening vaccination regulations13

Dr. James Lyon Weiler, Ph.D., a research scientist, president and CEO of The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge14

Anna Garner, founder of New Mexico Stands Up!, a volunteer-driven organization that provides public interest legal services to restore essential rights and health freedom15

Dr. Henry Ealy (“Dr. H”), a certified holistic nutritionist, founder and executive community director of the Energetic Health Institute16

Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMed Info17

David “Avocado” Wolfe, a raw food advocate18

The Truth About COVID-19

Download Interview Transcript

The first roundtable discussion starts off with a prerecorded video featuring Cummins and me. Our full-length discussion was summarized in “The Book You’ll Want to Read Before It Disappears.” I’ve included it again, above, for your convenience. The book in question is “The Truth About COVID-19,” which we wrote together.

In that book, we review how the COVID-19 pandemic was never a pandemic in any real, historical sense, the tactics used to keep the fraud going, the likely origin of the virus, the less-than-humanitarian intentions driving the pandemic narrative as a whole, censored prevention and treatment strategies, the potential hazards of COVID-19 “vaccines,” why vaccine passports are a ticket to totalitarianism and much more.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<< Shocking Statistics Are Being Ignored Anyone who has looked at the U.S. federal vaccine adverse events reporting system (VAERS) will be struck by the shockingly high number of serious injuries and deaths occurring after receiving the COVID-19 "vaccine." Many of these occur within the first 24 to 48 hours after taking the vaccine, which ought to raise automatic questions. Yet the timing of these injuries and deaths are ignored, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration insists that none of them has any relation to the vaccines,19 which simply isn't believable. As noted by Baden-Mayor: "As of April 16 [2021], the following information is confirmed: At least 3,186 Americans have died after receiving experimental COVID injections. At least 1,015 of those deaths have occurred within 24 hours. According to the various medical records, at least 115 expecting mothers have spontaneously aborted their babies or given birth to stillborn babies after receiving experimental COVID injections. At least 86,080 Americans have reported some form of injury post-injection, including at least 6,282 people who have required hospitalization due to the severity of their injuries. We support everyone's right to access experimental COVID injections, but it is important to note that they are not FDA approved. Currently the clinical trials are ongoing until October 27, 2022, for Moderna, the NIH study until January 2, 2023, for Johnson & Johnson, and April 6, 2023, for the Pfizer-BioNTech. Under current informed consent laws, you have the right to decline the use of any experimental product without fear of job loss, discrimination or segregation from the society that you paid taxes to support. It is your body. It is your choice." Side Effect Reports Are Skyrocketing These numbers are skyrocketing by the day. As of April 23, 2021, the total number of adverse reports had jumped to 118,902, 12,618 of which were serious and 3,544 of which died.20 While shocking as is, the real numbers are undoubtedly even higher, as VAERS is a passive surveillance system that relies on voluntary reporting. Historically, less than 10% of vaccine side effects are reported to VAERS.21 An investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services put it as low as 1%.22,23 What this means is side effects may actually be 10 times or even 100 times higher than reported. We could, in reality, be looking at anywhere from 126,000 to 1.2 million serious side effects, and anywhere from 35,440 to 354,400 vaccine-related deaths already. Making matters even worse, it appears VAERS is backlogged by about three months, so the data you see on VAERS does not reflect the true, real-time numbers of adverse reactions being reported. This is important to know, since the system's primary goal is to "detect new, unusual or rare vaccine adverse events" as a way to monitor safety of vaccines, and the greater the backlog, the more people will be exposed to a potentially dangerous vaccine. A backlog by months also suggests an enormous number of adverse effects are happening, and that in and of itself is incredibly disturbing. It is also highly likely that the majority of the deaths from the vaccine will be due to antibody?dependent enhancement (ADE) or paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE), as detailed in "How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System" and "Will Vaccinated People Be More Vulnerable to Variants?" We will not see these deaths until the fall, because that is the typical season when coronavirus infections occur, be it SARS-CoV2 or other coronaviruses responsible for the common cold. So, when exposed to a wild coronavirus, there is indeed a risk that ADE response, due to pathogenic priming, will produce an excessive and potentially lethal immune reaction. Steadfast Suppression of Attempts to Save Patients As noted by McCullough during the roundtable discussion, something very unusual happened in 2020. For the first time, doctors around the world were actively discouraged and prevented from saving their patients. There was "an enormous, complete, pervasive, steadfast suppression of any attempts to help patients with COVID-19," he says. He points out that esteemed medical facilities have developed effective treatment protocols for COVID-19, including Harvard, Johns Hopkins and Emory, yet these have all been suppressed and censored. "It's stunning," McCullough says. "By this time, we should be using the Harvard protocol, the Emory protocol. How about Hopkins? I'll take any one of them … We seem to somehow have developed a uniform game plan … to do nothing to help patients with COVID-19, passively allow as much suffering hospitalization and death as possible, create enormous amounts of fear in our society, and then be prepared for mass vaccination." Willfully Inflated Death Counts Fritz, a certified death reporting clerk who has worked for years assisting doctors and acting as an interface between funeral homes and state and federal reporting agencies, is now helping families correct death certificates that inaccurately list COVID-19 as the cause of death. March 24, 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a COVID alert that some say has led to significantly inflated and therefore fraudulent death counts. In response to Baden-Mayor's questions, "Did the COVID alert No. 2 lead to inflated dead counts? And what are some of the problems associated with the death certificate reporting that make the process susceptible to data manipulation and therefore significant inaccuracy?" Fritz replies: "For context, the COVID No. 2 alert and the follow-up NBSS April guidance was issued within two weeks of the emergency being declared in March 2020. Their explicit guidance was given before there was any population-wide testing available to statistically determine the infection fatality rates, so we didn't have probability [data] yet. Yet, without any population surveillance available, any good data, they asserted that COVID would be the underlying cause of death 'more often than not.' They made a declaration of statistical probability before there was national statistics available. Then they disseminated this unfounded probabilistic rationale to those who officially report, approve, code and tally our mortality statistics. People need to understand the importance of the underlying cause of death. If you look at a death certificate, it has a bunch of information on it. The underlying cause of death is the diagnostic code you pick to report in our mortality statistics. That's the one cause that's going to be reported about that patient. It's very important. Normally, before this, infections were not given as the underlying cause of death, for the most part, for patients over 60 years old. I got a lot of cases where the doctor is saying it was MRSA, an antibiotic-resistant form of staph that's really hard to treat and can kill people. The vital records registrars would reject death certificates that had underlying cause of death with MRSA and say, 'Go back and ask the doctor what they were on medication for. Did they have diabetes? Did they have chronic illnesses?' So, this flies in the face of what I was used to, as far as infections being highlighted as the underlying cause of death as a rule." Illogical COVID Rules Have Created a Statistical Mess Fritz goes on to review what happened the last time the National Center for Health Statistics had a governing committee make recommendations regarding contagious or vaccine-preventable disease. On page 139 of the 2003 report from this panel, the committee asked how to address questions such as "Was a contagious disease present at time of death, or did the death result from a vaccine preventable disease?" "The committee subgroup on death certificates decided against the death certificate being updated to include those risk factors," Fritz says. The committee stated that "the death certificate is not a medical record and is not intended to include prevalence data." "This is a very important part of what the precedence was, before this pandemic, about contagious and vaccine-preventable diseases on death certificates," Fritz says. "They intentionally, in 2020, changed this with the COVID guidance. They created this lopsided reporting system — and they didn't make it for all contagious diseases — they just made it for COVID. So, it's naturally going to create a ballooning of reporting for this one contagious disease. Then, if you look at the context, these are experts at our statistical regulatory bodies. They know about the statistics on death certificates and [the importance of] accuracy. These guys know that — according to peer-reviewed medical literature, across the board, in every continent in the world — 20% to 60% of our death certificates have the wrong or an inaccurate cause of death listed. So, we have a major margin of error that these experts already knew about. And now they're manipulating the system to milk out the information … without fixing the system. That's very problematic." While Fritz is trying to help families correct death certificates that incorrectly list COVID-19 as the cause of death, that task just got more difficult. She recently received a text from her local government in California, advertising that FEMA is now giving families $9,000 to cover funeral expenses if your loved one died from COVID-19, and the way you prove that is with a death certificate listing COVID-19 as the cause of death. What's more, this payment program will go on to 2025, so it not only deincentivizes people from correcting death certificates issued in 2020, but incentivizes the continued mislisting of COVID-19 as the cause of death presently and into the future, using bribery. Fritz is founding a nonprofit 501c3 organization called the Factual Reporting Advocacy Network to help educate families, medical officers, certifiers, mortuaries and others about the importance of accuracy in death certificates, because it affects national and global statistics, which in turn drive all sorts of funding, such as medical research. She's also pushing for an independent national audit of COVID-19 death records to establish true cause of death and to update the certificates accordingly. Roundtable 2: The Medical Ethics Panel The OCA tribunal, which is three hours long, features roundtables with nine additional panelists. I hope you take the time to listen to all of them. Roundtable 2, which begins at the 50-minute mark, includes Sayer Ji, Dr. Ealy and Jenkins, who discuss willful misconduct as it pertains to medical ethics. You cannot make ethical medical decisions unless you know both the risks and the benefits, so the censorship of medical information is, in a very real sense, a violation of human rights. Ji reviews how public health officials have failed to honor the ethics of medicine and what can be done to correct course and serve those who are desperately looking for answers. As noted by Ji, you cannot make ethical medical decisions unless you know both the risks and the benefits, so the censorship of medical information is, in a very real sense, a violation of human rights. March 23, 2021, Ealy published a peer-reviewed paper, "COVID-19: Restoring Public Trust During a Global Health Crisis — An Evidence-Based Position Paper to Ensure Ethical Conduct," available for free reading and download on GreenMedInfo.24 In it, he substantiates McCullough's allegation of rampant, wanton misconduct among public health officials, the active suppression of safe and effective treatments, and pandemic measures being implemented based on incorrect assumptions and outright lies. One lie that allowed for the implementation of draconic measures was that SARS-CoV-2 was being spread asymptomatically. There's no evidence of this, and from a virology standpoint, having a respiratory infection without symptoms is highly unlikely. The PCR test being used as a diagnostic tool is also problematic, as revealed in the Corman-Drosten review,25 headed by former Pfizer chief scientist Dr. Michael Eaton. The test was developed before a viral isolate was available, which means we don't even know if it's detecting the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus. On top of that, health agencies instructed labs to use excessive amplification cycles, known to result in massive numbers of false positives. Ealy also discusses a paper26 written in collaboration with team of other investigators published in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, titled, "COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective." This paper details how the CDC has enabled the corruption of case- and fatality-reporting data in violation of federal law. The panelists also address racial disparities, such as how communities of color are being disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, both the illness and pandemic measures, and the U.S. government's history of knowingly withholding evidence-based cures. Ealy also points out that the CDC has known for the past 20 years that 35% to 45% of Americans are deficient in vitamin A; 37% to 46% are deficient in vitamin C; 65% to 95% are deficient in vitamin D; 60% to 84% are deficient in vitamin E; and 11% to 15% of Americans are deficient in zinc. These are key nutrients to mount an effective immune response. Yet no guidance has been issued for correcting these widespread nutritional deficits — not in the past, and not now, even though a large body of research now shows vitamins C, D and zinc play a crucial role in preventing COVID-19 and improving outcomes. You also don't want to miss Jenkins' impassioned speech in which he strips the pandemic down to the bare bones and exposes what it's really all about. It's about turning mankind into slaves. It's about systemic annihilation. They want to control our bodies and minds, and to do that, they must first strip us of our freedom. That's what this pandemic is all about. "I'm here to hurt your feelings today," Jenkins says. "I'm not here to make you feel good. The bottom line is you are … locked out of the truth because you've allowed it to happen. This is the year of action. A year of taking it all back. This is a year of flying free … We are at war for humanity. This has nothing to do with race. Race is a distraction … Are they censoring because you are black or white? They're censoring us because we're telling the truth. Big tech, big pharma, finance, education — they're all working against us. We have failed, all of us. So, you've got to get up. Come join us at Urban Global Health. Come join us at Freedom Airways.27 Join all of the other groups." Roundtable 3: Questionable Science Roundtable 3, which starts around the 1 hour 30-minute mark, includes Cahill, Lyons, Weiler and Garner, who review issues revolving around questionable science and the law. Cahill begins by reviewing the absolute lack of empirical evidence supporting the use of face masks, social distancing and lockdowns as a mitigation strategies to reduce viral spread. Cahill's organization, the World Freedom Alliance, recently launched the Hope & Accountability project, also known as The European Spring, which aims to hold decision-makers and doctors accountable for their scientific misconduct. Notices of liability are being sent off to members of the European Parliament, Presidents and Prime Ministers across Europe, as well as ministers for health and the regulators. She explains: "A notice of liability, which is based in the rule of law, [specifies] that harm is not really done by big organizations. Harm is done by one man or woman to another man or a woman. Responsibility rests on individual people, and on their roles, for example, the prime minister, the minister for health — but also the individual who is the head of the regulatory agency — that if there are several deaths in a country, the regulators … in each individual country, are required by law to stop the clinical trial. They're also required to give full informed consent so that everybody enrolled in these gene therapy, so-called vaccinations, are required to be informed about the adverse events. And you are not allowed to enroll people that cannot give consent, such as those with dementia … Under law, you are accountable as individuals for what you do, and what you fail to do. But of course, the person that's most responsible is the person that actually put that needle into those people. And that, in our law is a severe crime, contributory manslaughter. So, the people who are involved in administering [these injections] … and cause huge [numbers of] adverse events and death, they will be accountable." Weiler delves into further details about the unscientific use of PCR tests, serious flaws in the tests' design, the many ways in which false positives can be created, and the mechanics of how your immune system actually works to fight infection. Landmark Court Filings Underway Garner, an attorney and founder of New Mexico Stands Up! discusses potentially landmark cases filed in defense of American people, and the importance of relying evidence-based science when making public health decisions. "We were doing what we can to get the word out and get it to the courts, which may be our last bastion — the wall that could fall down in terms of the lies that we're being told," she says. "We have been told so many lies, we've been told lies about the number of cases, we've been told lies about the number of deaths caused by COVID. Fear has absolutely wrecked everybody's sense of proportion of what's right and wrong. And this is a battle of right versus wrong, because those of us who haven't drunk the cocaine, as I call it, rather than the Kool-Aid, know that everything about this is so wrong. We've been deprived of our fundamental inalienable God-given rights, our right to breathe oxygen, for goodness sake, our rights to socialize with our fellow man. We need hugs, we need socialization, especially as developing children. And that's where our next level of litigation is going to take us." Garner recently sued the New Mexico Governor, challenging the state of public health emergency, which is based on lies, including the use of a basically meaningless test to diagnose infection. "If that PCR test is considered to be the bottom card of this house of cards that we have been dealt, if we pull that out, I think the rest of the house of cards has to collapse," she says. "And that means that the orders, the mandates, the restrictions that have been put in place as a result of this declaration are all null and void." Garner is also filing a case on behalf of children, based on a German victory, in which a mother sued, saying forcing her child to wear a mask at school and during fitness classes was child abuse. The judge agreed, ruling that it constitutes child abuse and granted injunctive relief. Garner's case will be the first of that kind in the U.S. "I can't emphasize how much that people need to know what their rights are. If they don't know what their rights are, they're going to continue giving them up. And that's exactly what they've done. They've given that their right to breathe. They've given up their right to have free exercise of their religion with fellowship and singing, and sitting close to people in the bench. They have given up their rights to be able to assemble with their friends and family in numbers greater than five. This whole thing is just insane. And those of us who are looking at this and going, 'This is insane,' need to realize that we're the ones who aren't insane, and try to help people come back to some level of reasonableness." Garner is in need of donations and volunteers, including brave, hard-nosed attorneys willing to fight for the rights and freedoms of Americans, so please donate or sign up to volunteer on NMstandup.org. Roundtable 4: Creative Action In Roundtable 4, starting around the 2 hour 18-minute mark, Wolfe, Thorton and the Fosters turn to the more spiritual side of things and discuss how we can nourish and inspire ourselves and others to take action on behalf of humanity. Again, I hope you watch this video in its entirety, and share it widely with everyone you know. Together, we can get through this, and, as you can see, you're not alone.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/05/organic-consumers-associations-covid-19-tribunal.aspx

Only about 52% of the U.S. public says they have trust in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, according to a recent Robert Wood Johnson Foundation/Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health poll.1
After the year we’ve just had, I’m surprised it’s that many. The latest CDC blunder came when it released a misleading and inaccurate statistic about the rate of outdoor COVID-19 transmission, placing it at a “hugely exaggerated” 10%.2
The error was egregious enough that it prompted The New York Times to release what it described as “a special edition of the newsletter on a misleading CDC statistic,” featuring a number of epidemiologists who say the CDC’s reports on outdoor transmission risk for COVID-19 vastly overestimate the risk.3
Initially, the CDC stated that unvaccinated people should wear masks in most outdoor settings and vaccinated people should continue to wear them at “large public venues.”
The CDC updated their guidelines May 13, 2021, to state that vaccinated individuals no longer need to wear a mask outdoors and in most spaces indoors,4 but implies that unvaccinated people, including children and those with natural COVID-19 immunity from previous infection, must continue to do so in many cases, even outdoors.
Vaccinated or not, and with a mask or without, however, the rate of outdoor transmission of COVID-19 is typically extremely low — and it’s time the CDC’s guidance acknowledged this.
Outdoor COVID Transmission Makes Up Less Than 1% of Cases

In a White House press briefing held April 27, 2021, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, CDC director, stated, “There’s increasing data that suggests that most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors; less than 10 percent of documented transmission, in many studies, have occurred outdoors.”5 But as noted by David Leonhardt in his article for The New York Times:6

“Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving. This isn’t just a gotcha math issue. It is an example of how the C.D.C. is struggling to communicate effectively, and leaving many people confused about what’s truly risky.”

Going outdoors mask-free is not an example of a risky activity, regardless of vaccination status, because the transmission rate in most outdoor settings is extremely low — far lower than the 10% rate the CDC reported.
Nonetheless, the CDC still recommends that children at summer camps wear masks virtually “at all times” except when eating, drinking or swimming, as should all camp operators and staff, even if they’re vaccinated7 — and despite research showing masks are ineffective.
There’s also the growing realization that nanoplastics and other pollutants, such as lead, antimony and copper, in disposable face masks are poised to be an environmental health crisis and likely pose a health risk to those who inhale them for long periods of time, such as children being forced to wear them during school and summer camp.8
What’s more, Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, told The New York Times that the CDC’s 10% benchmark is “a huge exaggeration.” “In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me,” Leonhardt said.9
Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious diseases and HIV doctor at UCSF, tweeted several examples of studies showing the low rate of outdoor COVID transmission.10,11
Research Supports Negligible Rates of Outdoor Transmission

One study cited by Gandhi took place in China, with researchers analyzing 318 outbreaks with three or more cases, comprising 1,245 confirmed cases.12 All of them occurred indoors. Even when the criteria were widened to include 7,324 cases, only one outdoor “outbreak” could be found, and it only involved two people:

“Our study does not rule out outdoor transmission of the virus. However, among our 7324 identified cases in China with sufficient descriptions, only one outdoor outbreak involving two cases occurred in a village in Shangqiu, Henan. A 27-year-old man had a conversation outdoors with an individual who had returned from Wuhan on January 25 and had symptom onset on February 1. This outbreak involved only two cases.”

Another extensive review from the Canterbury Christ Church University’s Centre for Sport, Physical Education & Activity Research stated, “There are very few examples of outdoor transmission of COVID-19 in everyday life, suggesting a very low risk.”13 They added:

“The science of transmission of COVID-19 concludes the risk of COVID-19 infection is low outdoors … if normal conventions of personal space and natural social distancing are not breached.”

Leonhardt also cited cases in Singapore14 that were classified as outdoor transmission, but it turned out that very broad definitions were used to define “outdoors.”
For some studies, an indoor case referred only to transmissions that occurred in mass accommodation, such as nursing homes, and residential facilities, while all other settings were deemed to be outdoors, which included “workplace, health care, education, social events, travel, catering, leisure and shopping.”15 “I understand why the researchers preferred a broad definition,” Leonhardt wrote:16

“They wanted to avoid missing instances of outdoor transmission and mistakenly suggesting that the outdoors was safer than it really was. But the approach had a big downside. It meant that the researchers counted many instances of indoors transmission as outdoors. And yet even with this approach, they found a minuscule share of total transmission to have occurred outdoors.”

Perhaps most revealing of all is a study Gandhi shared from Ireland, which analyzed 232,164 cases of COVID-19. Only 262 resulted from outdoor transmission, which is just 0.1% of the total.17 The Irish Times also spoke with Mike Weed, a professor at the University of Canterbury, who evaluated 27,000 COVID-19 cases, finding that those associated with outdoor transmission were “so small to be insignificant.”18
‘Outdoor Masks Should Not Have Been Mandated at All’
Cevik, the University of St. Andrews virologist, told The New York Times in April 2021, “I think it’s a bit too much to ask people to put the mask on when they go out for a walk or jogging or cycling … I think outdoor masks should not have been mandated at all. It’s not where the infection and transmission occurs.”19
In February 2021, a group of Italian researchers used mathematical models to calculate the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 in outdoor air along with the risk of outdoor airborne transmission.20 They found very low average outdoor concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 in public areas (<1 RNA copy/m3) “excluding crowded zones, even in the worst-case scenario and assuming a number of infects up to 25% of population.” Further, even if 10% of the population is infected, they found it would take an average of 31.5 days of continuous outdoor exposure for a person to inhale enough virus to get infected — and even then the dose would only cause infection in 63% of those exposed.21,22 Despite the science showing the miniscule risk of catching COVID-19 outdoors, the CDC only recently stated that vaccinated individuals could shed their masks in outdoor settings — raising questions about their faith in the vaccines’ effectiveness — and is still advising everyone else to wear them in many cases. But as Leonhardt stated about the CDC’s initial guidelines:23 “These recommendations would be more grounded in science if anywhere close to 10 percent of Covid transmission were occurring outdoors. But it is not. There is not a single documented Covid infection anywhere in the world from casual outdoor interactions, such as walking past someone on a street or eating at a nearby table.” Where’s the Guidance for Those With Natural COVID Immunity? In their latest guidance, the CDC makes it clear that their expectation is for everyone to get vaccinated. “If you are fully vaccinated, find new guidelines for fully vaccinated people,” they advise, linking to their recent update, and “If you are not vaccinated, find a vaccine,” linking to ways to find a COVID-19 vaccine near you.24 A sizeable percentage of the population, however, has made it clear that they have no intention of getting vaccinated with an experimental gene therapy. Everyone has their own reasons for this decision, including an unknown risk of side effects and death, but for some, their reasoning is that they’ve already had COVID-19 and therefore have natural immunity. If you’ve had COVID-19, you have some level of immunity against the virus. It’s unknown how long it lasts, just as it’s unknown how long protection from the vaccine lasts. Even the CDC admits that it’s rare to get sick again if you’ve already had COVID-19, yet they say those who have recovered from COVID-19 should still get vaccinated.25 If they don’t, they should still mask up in virtually every setting, according to CDC’s logic, even though they have immunity that’s likely superior to that provided by the vaccine. Robust natural immunity has been demonstrated for at least eight months after infection in more than 95% of people who have recovered from COVID-19.26,27 A Nature study also demonstrated robust natural immunity in people who recovered from SARS and SARS-CoV-2.28 What’s more, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate, has repeatedly warned the FDA that prescreening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins may reduce the risk of injuries and deaths following vaccination, as the vaccine may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus.29 Without such screening, he wrote in one letter to the FDA, “this indiscriminate vaccination is a clear and present danger to a subset of the already infected.”30 Unfortunately, the CDC’s guidance gives the impression of only two options if you want to get back to “normal” pre-COVID life: Get vaccinated … or get vaccinated. In so doing, they’ve — literally overnight — pushed us into a world in which only the “impure” unvaccinated individuals must be masked, creating a new form of segregation and second-class citizens.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/04/cdc-exaggerated-outdoor-covid-risks.aspx

In my opinion Dr. Peter McCullough is one of the most courageous well credentialed academic physicians out there and I hope to interview him soon. He is vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and despite his impeccable credentials, he has been vilified for stating during the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, that it was all about the vaccine and getting a global mass vaccination campaign underway.

“All roads lead to the vaccine,” McCullough said in a recent interview (video above1,2), with stakeholders banking on countries mandating the vaccine worldwide. The first video above is a 16-minute outtake from a much longer interview, which is the second video.3

McCullough points out that a number of countries are already talking about making the as-yet unlicensed COVID-19 vaccine compulsory, meaning anyone and everyone can be forced to take it against their will. “That’s how bad stakeholders want vaccination,” McCullough says. “They do want a needle in every arm. But why?” That’s the million-dollar question right there.

Unbelievable Incentives Offered

Recent weeks have seen a significant rise in all sorts of vaccination incentives in the U.S., from free doughnuts, cake,4 french fries, hot dogs and pizza,5 to arcade tokens,6 10-cent beer,7 free state park season passes,8 free Uber and Lyft rides,9 free marijuana10 and Cincinnati Reds baseball tickets,11 a chance to win a full scholarship12 and even $1 million13 and $5 million14 giveaways.

Below is a more complete list of incentives, posted on vaccines.gov.15 As you might expect, the million-dollar lotteries have proven to be a resounding success, credited with enticing millions of people to get their shots.16

As noted by Ohio’s first “Vax-a-Million” lottery winner,” the chance of a windfall was too great to resist. “I kept hemming and hawing about it, and I work all the time, and when the Vax-a-Million thing started I immediately went down there and got it. It pushed me over the edge,” he told a local paper.17

>>>>> Click here <<<<< >>>>> Click here <<<<< To say the vaccine push has an air of desperation about it would be a profoundly serious understatement. Considering the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has logged more deaths following COVID-19 vaccination than all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 201318 — a period of 15 1/2 years — one has to wonder why our leaders are so insistent on everyone getting these experimental gene therapies. They're even pushing for former COVID-19 patients to get the jab, even though they already have superior permanent immunity19 and studies show they have a far higher risk of severe side effects from the COVID jab.20 If it's really about protecting the public against COVID-19, why aren't recovered COVID patients — whose protection is far superior to vaccine-induced immunity — offered some sort of immunity passport or granted access to sporting events or education that is now only granted to those with vaccine certificates? What's more, North Carolina has now passed legislation that allows children as young as 12 to get the COVID vaccine without parental consent.21 Think about that. As of May 21, 2021, 4,406 Americans had died after the COVID vaccine,22 including three teenagers,23,24,25,26 and 12-year-olds are now being encouraged to make a life and death decision without their parents? As noted by McCullough, historically, the threshold at which an experimental vaccine program is shut down is 25 to 50 deaths, yet here we are, with over 4,000 deaths being reported in the U.S. and many thousands more in Europe.27,28 In a recent report, the Israeli People Committee, a civilian body of health experts, similarly concluded that "there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people."29 After vaccinating 45 million with the pandemic swine flu vaccine in 1976, the U.S. stopped the program after only 25 deaths.30 (The number of deaths reported after the 1976 inoculation program varies from three to 53, depending on the source.31,32,33,34) And let's remember this too: If something goes wrong, the vaccine manufacturers are completely indemnified against lawsuits. You're on your own. Mass Vaccination Is a Beyond Terrible Strategy As a physician, McCullough is no longer recommending this vaccine, and other prominent virologists and physicians are calling for a stop to the program. Sadly, many are complying simply because they're desperate to get back to the "normal" they knew before, of sending their children to school, keeping their job and leading the life they had before the pandemic. Don't do it, McCullough says — don't fall for this trap because it's only going to make things worse. By vaccinating everyone against a very narrow spectrum of immunity — the original SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which has since mutated in any number of ways and no longer exists — "we are setting ourselves up for a superbug that's going to wipe out populations," he says. As such, the COVID-19 vaccine is a bioweapon, McCullough warns, and the side effect concerns are "far beyond anything we have ever seen … Americans should be extraordinarily alarmed." What's This Vaccine Program Really About? Why is the vaccine pushed in this way? McCollough believes it's a global goal to "mark" people, to get you into their vaccine database, which will eventually be turned into a tool for population control, courtesy of vaccine passports. When we're talking about population control, there are two distinct forms, and both may apply in this case. One form of population control is about controlling people through the ideology of utilitarianism, vaccine passports and a social credit system, all of which are tied together. Another form is actual depopulation. Population Control Through Utilitarianism and Vaccination Utilitarianism is based on a mathematical equation that some individuals can be sacrificed for the greater good of the majority. In other words, if some people are harmed by vaccines, it's an acceptable loss because society as a whole may or will reap gains. This discredited pseudo-ethic has repeatedly been used to justify horrific human rights abuses. The Third Reich, for example, employed the utilitarian rationale as an excuse to demonize and eliminate minorities judged to be a threat to the health, security and well-being of the State.35 Now, utilitarianism is being called upon yet again, under the false narrative that mankind as a whole is in peril unless everyone rolls the dice and gets vaccinated. In the end, the idea is that vaccine refusers won't be allowed to freely participate in society any longer. This is the disincentive or negative incentive, which is added on top of the positive incentives previously mentioned. While U.S. government officials realize they cannot mandate vaccination on a national level, as it would be a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, they are pushing for it nonetheless by encouraging private companies to mandate vaccination as a condition of employment or access to services. They're also spending billions of dollars on advertising in conventional media, paid for by U.S. taxpayers. In short, vaccine passports are a way to force compliance. But the vaccine database can also form the foundation for a much larger control structure, a social credit system, where you lose points any time you behave in a way that is deemed undesirable. This quite literally could be anything, judging by the Chinese social credit system. People with low social credit scores can't travel on certain kinds of public transportation, can't travel overseas, hold certain jobs, go to school or even get a loan. The point is, once you're in this system, you're under someone else's control. If they say you have to get a booster shot, you have to comply — again and again — or risk losing basic human rights, such as the ability to buy and sell, travel or get an education. The Depopulation Agenda The other form of population control refers to actual depopulation. A primary problem the global elite have been trying to solve for a long time is that there are too many people consuming too much of the world's perceived limited resources and polluting everything in the process. The answer, in their mind, is to reduce the global population. While birth control and abortions are promoted to help with this, these strategies aren't effective, or rapid, enough. They need a less fertile population and they need people to die sooner. I believe [COVID-19 booster shots] are going to be used to damage your health and possibly kill you. I can see no sensible interpretation other than a serious attempt at mass depopulation. ~ Michael Yeadon Ph.D. While many may not want to believe this could possibly be true, you have to remember that the intention is not to cause suffering per se. It's a form of self-preservation, as their end goal is to concentrate all the world's wealth into their own hands. Ultimately, that's what the Great Reset is all about. In the interview above, which is part of the full-length documentary "Planet Lockdown,"36 Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a life science researcher and former vice-president and chief scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer, shares his views on the COVID-19 pandemic and his fears about the COVID-19 vaccines. "Basically, everything your government has told you about this virus, everything you need to do to stay safe, is a lie," Yeadon says. "And if they're not telling the truth, that means there's something else. And I'm here to tell you that there is something very, very bad happening. If you don't pay attention, you will soon lose any chance to do anything about it." Will Booster Shots Be the Death Knell? Of all the lies we've been told over the past year, the ones that worry and frighten Yeadon the most are the lies about virus variants and booster shots. In fact, he believes not buying into these lies may be key to your very survival. "When your government scientists tell you that a variant that's 0.3% different from SARS-CoV-2 could masquerade as a new virus and be a threat to your health, you should know, and I'm telling you, they are lying," Yeadon says. "If they're lying — and they are — why is the pharmaceutical industry making top-up [booster] vaccines? … There's absolutely no possible justification for their manufacture. And the world's medicines regulators have said, 'Because they are quite similar to the original vaccines … we won't be asking them to do any clinical safety studies' … There's no possible benign interpretation of this. I believe they're going to be used to damage your health and possibly kill you. Seriously. I can see no sensible interpretation other than a serious attempt at mass depopulation. This will provide the tools to do it, and plausible deniability. They'll create another story about some sort of biological threat and you'll line up and get your top-up vaccines [booster shots], and a few months or a year or so later, you'll die of some peculiar inexplicable syndrome. And they won't be able to associate it with the vaccines … Given that this virus represents, at worst, a slightly bigger risk to the old and ill than influenza, and a smaller risk [than influenza] to almost everyone else … we didn't need to do anything. [We didn't need] lockdowns, masks, mass testing, vaccines. There are multiple therapeutic drugs that are at least as effective as the vaccines are. They're already available and cheap … An off-patent drug called ivermectin, one of the most widely-used drugs in the world, is able to reduce symptoms at any stage of the disease, including lethality by about 90%. So, you don't need vaccines and you don't need any of the measures that have been introduced at all." Why Have Effective Treatments Been Suppressed? Like Yeadon, McCullough has raised serious questions about the need for a vaccine. Evidence clearly shows there are highly effective treatments,37,38 yet they've been near-universally suppressed in favor of these experimental shots. Why? If it's about protecting public health and saving lives, why would effective treatments be vilified? As noted by McCullough during a roundtable discussion in the first of several U.S.-based tribunals on COVID-19,39 something very unusual happened in 2020. For the first time, doctors around the world were actively discouraged and prevented from saving their patients. There was "an enormous, complete, pervasive, steadfast suppression of any attempts to help patients with COVID-19," he said, adding: "We seem to somehow have developed a uniform game plan … to passively allow as much suffering hospitalization and death as possible, create enormous amounts of fear in our society, and then be prepared for mass vaccination." Disturbingly, there's evidence suggesting the COVID-19 vaccines might indeed perform as a "depopulation weapon" of sorts. For example, there's the potential for formation of non-neutralizing antibodies that can trigger an exaggerated immune reaction (referred to as paradoxical immune enhancement or antibody-dependent immune enhancement or ADE) when the individual is exposed to the wild virus post-vaccination.40,41,42 I've detailed this issue in several articles, including "How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System" and "Will Vaccinated People Be More Vulnerable to Variants?" Put plainly, the vaccine may increase susceptibility to the virus and make people more likely to die from the infection, and data43 now show COVID-19 deaths are spiking around the world right along with rising vaccination rates, even though countries were trending toward herd immunity and deaths were at an all-time low right before the vaccines were released. The mRNA vaccines also trigger your body to produce antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and the spike proteins in turn contain syncytin-homologous proteins that are essential for the formation of placenta.44 If a woman's immune system starts reacting against syncytin-1, then there is the possibility she will miscarry if pregnant and ultimately become infertile. Mass vaccinating children and women of childbearing age against COVID-19 is a profoundly bad idea that could cause mass infertility if the COVID jab triggers an immune reaction against syncytin-1. We also now know that the worst symptoms of COVID-19 are created by the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and that is the very thing these gene-based vaccines are instructing your body to make. What's worse, the spike protein your body creates is a genetically modified version that appears far more toxic than the spike protein found in the actual virus. This was discussed in great detail in my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., featured in "The Many Ways in Which COVID Vaccines May Harm Your Health." Like McCullough and Yeadon, Mikovits believes the COVID-19 vaccine is a bioweapon designed to destroy your innate immunity and set you up for rapid onset of debilitating illness and premature death. She too suspects many will die rather rapidly. "It's not going to be 'live and suffer forever.' It's going to be suffer five years and die," she says. While the death toll from COVID-19 vaccines is already at a historical level, I fear it may shoot far higher as we move through fall and winter. The reason for this is ADE. Fall and winter are the seasons in which most coronavirus infections occur, be it SARS-CoV2 or other coronaviruses responsible for the common cold, and if ADE does turn out to be a common problem, then vaccinated individuals may in fact turn out to be at significantly higher risk of severe COVID-19 and a potentially lethal immune reaction due to pathogenic priming. Will You Gamble Your Life? In my view, there are still so many potential avenues of harm and so many uncertainties, I would encourage everyone to do your homework, keep reading and learning, weigh the potential pros and cons, ignore all pressure tactics and take your time when deciding whether to get any of these COVID-19 gene therapies. And, if you or someone you love has already received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it, preferably to all three of these locations.45 While adverse effects and deaths have thus far been ignored, we need as much data as possible if we're to have any chance of stopping this mass vaccination campaign and push toward population control. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like) Report the injury on the Children's Health Defense website
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/07/vaccines-depopulation.aspx

NewsGuard, which claims to rate news sources based on a set of credibility criteria, has since its inception rated mercola.com unfavorably. In March 2020, NewsGuard dismissed us as a misinformation site based on an article in which I asked whether the Wuhan Institute of Virology might be the source of the COVID-19 pandemic. In his March 4, 2020, email, NewsGuard analyst and deputy health editor John Gregory wrote:

“We are updating our rating to reflect Mercola’s coverage of the novel coronavirus strain, known as COVID-19. In an article titled ‘Novel Coronavirus — The Latest Pandemic Scare,’ the site promotes two unfounded conspiracy theories about the virus’ origins:
The article stated: ‘In January 2018, China’s first maximum security virology laboratory (biosecurity level 4) designed for the study of the world’s most dangerous pathogens opened its doors — in Wuhan. Is it pure coincidence that Wuhan City is now the epicenter of this novel coronavirus infection?’
There is no evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the source of the outbreak, and genomic evidence has found that the virus is 96% percent identical at the whole-genome level to a bat coronavirus.
The article also stated that ‘the hysteria being drummed up follows a now well-worn pattern where the population is kept in a perpetual state of anxiety and fear about microbes so that drug companies (aided by federal health officials) can come to the rescue with yet another expensive (and potentially mandatory) drug or vaccine.’
It later suggested the outbreak was timed to coincide with the presidential budget request in order to benefit ‘the Pharma and public health lobby.’ No evidence is provided to back this conspiracy, nor does any appear to exist. Why did Mercola.com publish these claims, despite the lack of evidence backing them up?”

There’s No Shortage of Evidence

In our reply to Gregory, we provided a series of publications1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 — including documentation from the U.S. State Department and published research — that, taken together, strongly suggest the WIV might have been the source of the outbreak, thus forming a firm foundation upon which to ask the simple question: Did the virus originate in the Wuhan lab?
It didn’t help my case any, of course, because NewsGuard is not in the business of upholding truth in media. They’re about upholding the illusion of truth in media, simultaneously suppressing truth and promoting disinformation that maintains a pro-industry narrative.
All of my health articles reference published research and I’ve even published my own research in peer-reviewed journals, the last of which was a scientific review9 on the impact of vitamin D in COVID-19 — co-written with William Grant, Ph.D., and Dr. Carol Wagner, both of whom are part of the GrassrootsHealth expert vitamin D panel.
None of that matters to NewsGuard. According to them, I’m peddling unscientific misinformation. End of story. Never mind the fact that I also have a long medical background and had a successful medical practice for many years.
The same hoaxer label has been slapped on countless distinguished medical professionals, researchers and scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, over the past year. The thing we all have in common is that we share information that counters the globalist, state-sponsored narrative.
Much more has come to light since Gregory’s email back in March 2020 so much so that in May 2021, several members of the U.S. Congress vowed to launch their own investigation to explore the lab accident theory.10,11
NewsGuard Is a Censorship Tool

When Big Pharma funds fact checkers, how likely are those fact checkers to find truth on alternative health sites? That’s a question worth pondering. When it comes to NewsGuard, Big Pharma’s fingerprints are all over their business plan.
The lead investor in the NewsGuard startup was the Publicis Groupe,12 one of the world’s biggest international PR firms, the client list of which reads like a Who’s Who of the international drug industry. It has offices in more than 100 countries and employs some 84,000 professionals,13 including, undoubtedly, some of the best wordsmiths and mind-wranglers in the world.
As detailed in “The Web of Players Trying to Silence Truth,” Publicis also connects to the banking industry, educational institutions, Big Tech companies like Google and Microsoft, the U.S. State Department and Department of Defense, global technocratic institutions like the World Health Organization, pro-censorship groups like the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), global NGOs and the World Economic Forum, and dominating health websites like WebMD and Medscape.
These connections, taken together, explain how certain counterviews can be so effectively erased. Indeed, one of Publicis’ selling points is “the power of one.” It’s a one-stop shop, offering clients seamless end-to-end “marketing, communication and digital transformation, driven through the alchemy of data, creativity, media and technology, uniquely positioned to deliver personalized experience at scale.”14
In addition to being a global hub for pharmaceutical marketing, as a partner of the World Economic Forum,15 which is leading the call for a Great Reset of the global economy and a complete overhaul of society,16 Publicis is also linked to the technocratic, transhumanist deep state.
Censoring COVID-19 truth and manufacturing pro-industry propaganda simultaneously serves three key masters — Big Pharma, Big Tech and the deep state — as the pandemic is a manufactured psychological operation designed to usher in the Great Reset, all while allowing Big Pharma to make a killing on pandemic vaccines and using the “need” for vaccination as justification for biosurveillance.
Master of Lies
April 27, 2021, Publicis tweeted out that it’s a proud NewsGuard partner in the fight against COVID-19 misinformation.17 It’s sort of ironic, because since when do PR firms specialize in truth? Publicis, in particular, is no stranger to misinformation.

The now defunct Purdue Pharma was one of its clients. Purdue went out of business in 2019 due to the thousands of lawsuits filed over its fraudulent marketing of OxyContin. Publicis created much of that marketing and is now also being sued over its role in the opioid epidemic by the state of Massachusetts.18
Publicis crafted misinformation about a dangerous drug, causing people to suffer and die by the tens of thousands. NewsGuard, however, doesn’t inform users that it’s funded by Big Pharma’s PR firm and therefore has no chance of impartiality on anything that concerns health.

If Publicis represents the drug industry, and the drug industry wants you to think you’re helpless against COVID-19 without their expensive drugs and vaccines, what do you think Publicis and NewsGuard will rate as “misinformation”?

Preventive strategies and alternative therapies, perhaps? You bet. And it doesn’t matter how much science there is to support such therapies, because it’s not about science. It’s about controlling what you believe works.

Making healthy people think they’re sick is a well-known Big Pharma business tactic. As noted in the paper19 “Selling Sickness: The Pharmaceutical Industry and Disease Mongering,” there’s a lot of money to be made from making people think they’re sick when they’re not.

That paper came out in 2002. In 2008, two of the three original authors published a follow-up essay,20 “Disease Mongering Is Now Part of the Global Health Debate.” Two years earlier, in 2006, they had helped organize the first international conference on disease mongering and were rejoicing in the fact that awareness was spreading. Fast-forward to 2020, and the whole world was successfully brainwashed into a state of chronic hypochondria.
Who’s Behind the CCDH?
NewsGuard’s health-related service, HealthGuard,21 is partnered with the CCDH, a progressive cancel-culture leader22 with extensive ties to government and global think tanks that is pushing the idea that anyone questioning the COVID-19 vaccine should be targeted and treated as a national security threat.

The CCDH is getting all sorts of free publicity, and no mainstream media or political leaders seem the least curious about where this organization came from or who funds it. Just how did CCDH founder Imran Ahmed have immediate power with federal officials, not only in the U.K., where it was founded, but in the U.S. as well?

As detailed in “Pressure Mounts to Ban My New Book From Amazon,” the CCDH is a one-man organization which, like Publicis, has connections to technocrat-led institutions that support the Great Reset.
By way of its board members, the CCDH can be linked to the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Council, the European Council of Foreign Relations, Save the Children Fund (funded by the Gates Foundation and a partner of Gates’ GAVI Vaccine Alliance), the British Parliament, the CIA and Microsoft.

CCDH board member Tom Brookes, for example, was a spokesman for Microsoft during its 2007 antitrust case.23 Chairman Simon Clark is a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress,24 funded by “dark money” from a liberal Swiss billionaire.25 Clark also has ties to a participant of Event 201, former CIA deputy director Avril Haines.26

Event 201 was a coronavirus pandemic exercise27 held in October 2019 that foreshadowed and “played out” the draconian countermeasures implemented when COVID-19 appeared mere months later. Bill Gates, Bloomberg’s Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the World Economic Forum were all participants.
Incidentally, a primary focus of that exercise was not how to best contain or combat the infection, but rather how to best censor and counteract problematic narratives about the virus, public disagreement with pandemic measures and doubts about vaccine safety. All of the suppression tactics discussed in that exercise were rolled out and became part of our everyday reality mere months later.
How Did CCDH Get Its Power of Influence?
Using CCDH reports as their basis, a growing number of American politicians28,29,30,31 and attorneys general32 have been making illegal requests to deplatform people and suppress free speech.

Why are they all referring back to the CCDH? This one-man show sprang out of nowhere. It has no history. It has no declared funding. All it has is a bunch of silent board members with ties to the deep state.

So, again, why are American politicians and attorneys general holding this group up as some preeminent source whose opinion is to be heeded, in violation of the U.S. Constitution no less? I could be wrong, of course, but it looks like the CCDH is nothing more than a deep state, probably pharma-funded, front group. And if so, what does that say about the politicians and attorneys general that kowtow to them?
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/04/newsguard-disinformation-campaign.aspx

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. 1035-96 — 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 buck 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. 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/2021/06/06/academic-censorship.aspx

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — an arm of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that in recent years has funded gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) — has denied that such funding occurred.

Fauci told a House Appropriations subcommittee that $600,000 was given to the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, which funneled the money to WIV, over a five-year period for the purpose of studying bat coronaviruses and whether they could be transmitted to humans.1

However, regarding gain-of-function (GOF) research, which refers to studies that have the potential to enhance the ability of pathogens to cause disease, including enhancing either their pathogenicity or transmissibility,2 Fauci said, “That categorically was not done.”3

However, Fauci has long supported controversial GOF research, which you can hear him speak about in the video above, which features a hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs at the U.S. Senate, held April 26, 2012.4

Dual Use Research Is Inherently Risky

Dual use research is so named because it involves research on select agents and toxins that could either benefit society or destroy it, depending on whether or not it falls into the wrong hands. Fauci specifically speaks about dual use research of concern, or DURC, which involves 15 potentially deadly pathogens, including:5

Highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses
Anthrax (Bacillus anthracis)
Botulinum neurotoxin

Burkholderia mallei
Burkholderia pseudomallei
Ebola virus

Foot-and-mouth disease virus
Francisella tularensis
Marburg virus

Reconstructed 1918 influenza virus
Rinderpest virus
Toxin-producing strains of clostridium botulinum

Smallpox (Variola major)
Smallpox (Variola minor viruses)
Yersinia pestis

DURC involves seven categories of research experiments, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which includes GOF and may:6

Enhance the harmful consequences of the agent or toxin

Disrupt immunity or the effectiveness of an immunization against the agent or toxin without clinical and/or agricultural justification

Confer to the agent or toxin resistance to clinically and/or agricultural useful preventative or treatment interventions against that agent or toxin or facilitates their ability to evade methods of detection

Increase the stability, transmissibility or the ability to disseminate the agent or toxin

Alter the host range or tropism of the agent or toxin

Enhance the susceptibility of a host population to the agent or toxin

Generate or reconstitute an eradicated or extinct agent or one of the 15 DURC toxins or agents

Controversy Over H5N1 GOF Research Began in 2012

Because GOF, or DURC, can be used to make pathogens more readily able to infect humans, it poses major biosecurity risks, which makes publication of such data almost as controversial as the research itself.

Two studies on highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza ignited the debate in 2012. One, led by Yoshihiro Kawaoka at the University of Madison?Wisconsin, identified molecular changes in H5N1 that would allow it to transmit among mammals.7

The other, led by Ron Fouchier at Rotterdam University in The Netherlands, genetically modified H5N1 virus, making it airborne transmissible in ferrets.8 As written in EMBO Reports in 2015:9

“Both groups introduced mutations into highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza (HPAI) that could potentially increase human-to-human transmission of the virus. These mutations are classified as GOF because they increase airborne transmissibility in ferrets — a good model for human transmission.

Some in the research and biosecurity communities are concerned that these experiments could result in accidental or intentional releases of the mutated pathogen, or that the now publicly available information about how to increase the human-to-human transmissibility of H5N1 influenza could be abused for developing biological weapons.”

Interestingly, the EMBO report actually was written to protest classifying Fouchier’s work as gain-of-function. However, in January 2012, six months before Fouchier’s article was published, 39 international flu researchers announced a voluntary moratorium on research related to H5N1, which was expected to last 60 days but continued until January 23, 2013, due to the highly controversial nature of the studies.
This prompted the U.S. to develop a DURC policy, which was released in March 2012; Fauci references it in the video above.10

Dual Use Research ‘Clearly Tips Towards Benefiting Society’

Fauci speaks favorably of DURC, despite its potential for grave danger. First, he instills fear in the naturally mutating viruses found in nature, noting, “Indeed, nature itself is the most dangerous bioterrorist, and even as we meet today, H5N1 and other influenza viruses are naturally mutating and changing with the potential of a catastrophic pandemic. This is not a theoretical danger. It is a real danger.”11

He later makes it clear that dual use research, including that which explicitly falls under the DURC label, should be allowed to continue:12

“If a particular research experiment is identified as DURC, that designation does not necessarily mean that such research should not be published, nor that it should even be prohibited in the first place.

However, it does call for us, as you mentioned, to balance carefully the benefit of the research to public health, the biosafety and biosecurity conditions under which the research is conducted and the potential risk that the knowledge gained from such research might fall into the hands of those with ill intent.”

Even in light of the controversy, Fauci is steadfast in his support of DURC and GOF research, citing its “clear” benefit to society:13

“Importantly, the public attention and concern generated by this issue has triggered a voluntary moratorium or pause on this type of research on the part of the influenza research community as well as a fresh look at how the U.S. government handles DURC as manifested by a formalization of a government wide policy to address the issue.

This policy, which was released on March 29, strengthens and formalizes ongoing efforts in DURC oversight and is described in my written testimony.

The ultimate goal of the NIH in its embrace of this new policy is to ensure that the conduct and communication of research in this area will remain transparent and open at the same time as the risk-benefit ratio of such research clearly tips towards benefiting society.”

Controversy Due to ‘Public Misunderstanding’

During the hearing, Fauci downplayed the public controversy over the two H5N1 DURC studies, calling it a public misunderstanding:

“I might point out that one of the causes of the public misunderstanding was the widespread belief that the virus that was transmitted by aerosol from one ferret to another actually killed the ferrets when, in fact, that was not the case.”14

So, by Fauci’s logic, the fact that the virus was genetically modified into a form that made it capable of being transmitted via the air to mammals is inconsequential because it didn’t kill the ferrets during the experiment, and the public uproar that ensued was all a misunderstanding. In lending his further support, he stated:15

“We feel that these studies provide critical information and it was important to determine if H5N1 virus that has this enhanced transmissibility would remain sensitive to existing anti-influenza drugs and vaccines. In addition, and importantly, knowledge of the genetic mutations that facilitate transmission may be critical for global surveillance of emerging influenza viruses.”

Another moratorium was placed on U.S.-funded GOF research in October 2014, after a string of concerning events, including publication of controversial GOF studies and high-profile “incidents” at U.S. biocontainment laboratories, led to more than 300 scientists launching a petition calling for an end to gain-of-function research.16 That moratorium was lifted in December 2017.17

However, according to Ronnie Cummins, co-founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and Alexis Baden-Mayer, OCA’s political director (as mentioned earlier in the Mercola link on GOF experiments):

“Exemptions to this ‘pause,’ eventually reviewed by a secret government panel, were nonetheless allowed to go forward. The ban was lifted in 2017. Yet between 2014 and 2016, the NIH and Fauci-led NIAID continued funding gain-of-function research overseas at the Wuhan lab, via [Peter] Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance.

Not surprisingly both Fauci and Daszak have been staunch defenders of the official Chinese government story that the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) ‘naturally’ evolved from bats and/or other host species to infect humans.”

Clear Links Show NIAID Funded GOF Research

In a May 11, 2021, Senate hearing, Sen. Rand Paul questioned Fauci on the NIAID’s funding of GOF research on bat coronaviruses, some of which was conducted at the WIV. Fauci denied the charge, saying, “The NIH has not ever, and does not now, fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute.”18 However, NIH’s funding of such research can be easily double-checked.

In a Truth in Media report,19 investigative journalist Ben Swann reviews documents proving Fauci lied to Congress, including a paper titled “SARS-Like WIV1-CoV Poised for Human Emergence,”20 submitted to PNAS in 2015 and subsequently published in 2016. In this paper, the authors state:

“Overall, the results from these studies highlight the utility of a platform that leverages metagenomics findings and reverse genetics to identify prepandemic threats. For SARS-like WIV1-CoV, the data can inform surveillance programs, improve diagnostic reagents, and facilitate effective treatments to mitigate future emergence events.

However, building new and chimeric reagents must be carefully weighed against potential gain-of-function (GoF) concerns.”

At the end of that paper, the authors thank “Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology for access to bat CoV sequences and plasmid of WIV1-CoV spike protein.” They also specify that the research was supported by the NIAID under the grant awards U19AI109761 and U19AI107810, which together total $41.7 million.

As noted by Swann, this paper clearly spells out that the NIAID spent $41.7 million on GOF research, with the aim of determining how bat coronaviruses can be made more pathogenic to humans, and that this research continued after the 2014 moratorium on such funding was implemented.

Shortly after the March 2021 Senate hearing, WIV deleted mentions of its collaboration with Fauci’s NIAID, NIH and other U.S. research partners from its website.21 It also deleted descriptions of GOF research on the SARS virus. This appears to be an attempted cover-up, not only of their own involvement but also American government involvement.

Several members of the U.S. Congress, however, have now vowed to launch their own investigation to explore the lab accident theory. The Energy and Commerce Committee has also requested extensive records from both the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance detailing research and collaborations with WIV.22 As George Washington famously said, “Truth will ultimately prevail where there are plans taken to bring it to light.”23
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/08/fauci-promoting-gain-of-function-bioweapons.aspx

1 Which of the following social media platforms is currently beta testing a new algorithm that reduces “vaccine hesitant” commentary by 42.5%?

Twitter

Facebook

Facebook is beta testing a new algorithm that classifies users who post counternarrative information about vaccines into one of two “vaccine hesitancy” tiers. This suppression strategy is currently reducing “vaccine hesitant” comments by 42.5% within the test group, which comprises 1.5% of the total user base. Learn more.

MeWe

Instagram

2 Which of the following issues has Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), changed his stance on at least once?

The most likely origin of SARS-CoV-2

The usefulness and need for masks

Post-vaccination mask requirements

All of the above

A virtuoso of contradiction, Fauci has changed his stance on the usefulness and need for masks multiple times, including promising people wouldn’t need to wear a mask after being vaccinated, only to change his recommendation after the vaccine rolled out. Most recently, Fauci changed his mind about the most likely origin of SARS-CoV-2, now saying he’s not convinced it’s of natural origin after all. Learn more.

3 Which if the following played a key role in enabling the scientific community to hide its potential role in the COVID-19 pandemic by near-universally supporting the natural origin theory and ridiculing the lab leak theory?

Alternative media

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Mainstream media

Mainstream media played a key role in enabling the scientific community to hide its potential role in the COVID-19 pandemic by near-universally supporting the natural origin theory and ridiculing the lab leak theory. Learn more.

The World Economic Forum

4 The CDC’s statement that 10% of COVID-19 cases may be transmitted in outdoor settings is a:

Conservative estimate

Reasonable guess based on scientific data

Good reason to continue wearing masks outdoors

Huge exaggeration

The latest CDC blunder came when it released a misleading and inaccurate statistic about the rate of outdoor COVID-19 transmission, placing it at a “hugely exaggerated” 10%. Learn more.

5 Which of the following statements is accurate?

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors have been actively discouraged from helping and prevented from saving their patients

Something very unusual happened in 2020. For the first time, doctors around the world were actively discouraged from helping and prevented from saving their patients. Esteemed doctors and medical facilities have developed effective treatment protocols for COVID-19, including Harvard, Johns Hopkins and Emory, yet all been suppressed and censored in an apparent effort to cause as much suffering and death as possible. Learn more.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials have ensured doctors and the public have access to accurate data on the pandemic

Censoring certain medical is in the best interest of the public because it ensures everyone can make informed decisions

To make an informed medical decision, you only need to know the benefits

6 Which of the following is the most accurate definition of propaganda?

Purposeful lies and misinformation aimed at hiding a truth

An organized attempt to get large numbers of people to think or do something

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, but rather a means of sub-rational manipulation. Learn more.

The propagation of truth

An organized attempt to thoroughly inform the public about something that is in their best interest

 
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/07/week-185-health-quiz.aspx

Watch the latest video at foxnews.comSaint Anthony’s halo is tarnishing and hanging more crooked by the day. Dr. Anthony Fauci — whose medical expertise has been held as indisputable by mainstream media since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic — is now facing mounting scrutiny and critique as correspondence obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Buzzfeed reveals he’s lied both to the public and the U.S. Senate on a number of issues.

The emails were released to the public in the early-morning hours of June 2, 2021. All 3,234 pages of emails can be found on Document Cloud.1 News media pounced on the release, with each reporter offering their own spin on what the fallout of the emails might be.

In the video above,2 “The Next Revolution” host Steve Hilton details how Fauci and National Institute of Health director Dr. Francis Collins have both repeatedly lied about the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

‘Utter Fraudulence’

In a no-holds-barred monologue Wednesday, June 2, 2021, Fox News host Tucker Carlson (above) called for a criminal investigation of Fauci in the aftermath of the release of thousands of emails, exchanged in the early days of the pandemic between Fauci and numerous individuals, including Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and billionaire Bill Gates.

Carlson blasted Fauci for what he said was “utter fraudulence” that should put Fauci under criminal investigation. After previously hosting him on many Fox newscasts, including Carlson’s own, the emails show Fauci is “just another sleazy federal bureaucrat — deeply political and often dishonest,” Carlson said.

What’s worse, the emails implicate Fauci “in the very pandemic he’d been charged with fighting.” While Fauci has denied funding gain-of-function research, emails now reveal he did indeed support “the grotesque and dangerous experiments that appeared to have made COVID possible,” Carlson said, adding that the emails are so damning that “in retrospect it looks a lot like perjury.”

Sen. Rand Paul apparently agrees. In a recent Fox News interview (below), Paul said the released emails reveal a “disturbing picture” that “should preclude [Fauci] from the position that he’s in.”

Are Fauci’s days numbered? pic.twitter.com/bszGs7aRxL— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) June 3, 2021

Fauci Lied About Not Funding Gain-of-Function Research

Some of the emails show Fauci, early in 2020, was concerned that Americans might think the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China. Why would he be concerned about that? As noted by Carlson, this makes perfect sense if he knew he had funded the very research that now looked like the source of the pandemic.

January 31, 2020, Kristian Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in California, emailed Fauci stating that “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered." He later wrote that he and his team "all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory." Interestingly, some six weeks later, Andersen published a paper in which he and his team insisted the virus could not have been created in a lab. I'll have more to say on this later, as the email cache also reveals Fauci had a hand in the creation of that paper. On a side note, four days after the release of the emails, Andersen deleted his entire Twitter account.3 The next day, Fauci sent an urgent email to Dr. Hugh Auchincloss, the principal deputy director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), titled "IMPORTANT." "It is essential that we speak this AM," Fauci wrote. "Keep your cell phone on … Read this paper as well as the e-mail that I will forward to you now. You will have tasks today that must be done." Attached to the email was a file titled "Baric, Shi et al - Nature medicine - SARS Gain of function.pdf." This paper was written by Ralph Baric, Ph.D., a virologist in the U.S., and Shi Zhengli, a researcher at the WIV who specializes in bat coronaviruses. May 11, 2021, Fauci testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.4 During an exchange with Sen. Rand Paul, Fauci insisted that "the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology." He also insisted that Baric does not engage in gain-of-function research. This is the same Baric whose paper Fauci sent to Auchincloss, clearly marked as "SARS gain-of-function." As reviewed in "The Biggest Flip-Flop Ever — Who's Going to Jail?" the kind of research Fauci funded has long been referred to as gain-of-function, yet now he's trying to redefine what's covered by that term. As noted by Carlson in his June 2, 2021, report, social media platforms aggressively censored and deplatformed people for the "crime" of talking about the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 being a lab creation that got loose, and they did so largely based on the word of Fauci himself. Fauci said it wasn't so, and that became the gospel repeated by fact checkers everywhere. Now all of a sudden, there appears to have been a coordinated U-turn. The question is, why did they lie to us for so long? In the video report above, Carlson reveals part of the answer: Scientists were afraid to lose their funding, funding which, by the way, comes from the American taxpayers. Fauci Lied About the Origin of the Virus In an April 17, 2020, White House press briefing, Fauci lied again, when he said the science was "totally consistent with a jump from an animal to a human." Yet "what he asserted as conclusively known could not have been known," Carlson points out. Two days after this press briefing, EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak, Ph.D., wrote to Fauci thanking him for his help in deflecting the lab origin theory. The email reads: "As the PI of the R01 grant publicly targeted by Fox News reporters at the Presidential press briefing last night, I just wanted to say a personal thankyou on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology." Who is Daszak? He's none other than the middle-man between Fauci's NIAID/NIH and the WIV. EcoHealth Alliance received several NIH grants for millions of dollars involving gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, which were then farmed out to Zhengli and others at the WIV. So, Daszak certainly had cause to want to deflect attention from the lab leak theory. He was also well aware of how risky this research was. In 2015, he spoke at a National Academies of Science seminar on reducing risk from emerging infectious diseases, warning of the danger of experimenting on "humanized mice,"5 meaning lab mice that have been genetically altered to carry human genes, cells or tissues. That same year, Daszak also published a paper in which he warned a global pandemic might occur from a laboratory incident and that "the risks were greater with the sort of virus manipulation research being carried out in Wuhan."6 January 2, 2020, he sent out a tweet announcing he'd successfully isolated SARS coronaviruses "that bind to human cells in the lab," and that the work of other scientists show some of these viruses have pandemic potential as they can infect humanized mice.7 Yet, from the get-go, Daszak did everything he could to dispel discussion about SARS-CoV-2 being anything but all-natural. He went on record dismissing the lab-origin theory as "pure baloney."8,9 He was also the mastermind behind the publication of a scientific statement published in The Lancet10 condemning such inquiries as "conspiracy theory,"11,12 which was then relied on by the media to "debunk" theories and evidence showing the pandemic virus most likely originated from a laboratory. To further ensure the lab-leak theory would die out, Daszak was chosen to be on two separate commissions charged with investigating the origin of SARS-CoV-2, one by the World Health Organization13 — which, of course, dismissed the lab theory out of hand — and one by The Lancet.14 'Hidden Hand' Behind Natural Origin Theory Revealed Now, finally, all these efforts to obfuscate the truth are falling apart. Fauci's role in the obfuscation is also becoming much clearer. In the documentary "Plandemic — Indoctornation," Dr. Meryl Nass stated there had to have been "a hidden hand behind the Nature Medicine paper"15 that became the basis for the natural, zoonotic origin theory. This paper is not to be confused with the other Nature Medicine paper cited earlier, published by Baric and Shi. The paper Nass is referring to was created by Scripps researcher Kristian Andersen who, in January 2020, told Fauci that some of the features of the genomic sequence "(potentially) look engineered." Andersen's paper "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2"16 — published March 17, 2020, and co-written by Andrew Rambaut, Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes and Robert Garry — became the preeminent "proof" that SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin and couldn't possibly come from a lab. "Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus," the paper states.17 The email cache now identifies who comprised the "hidden hand" behind this paper. They were none other than Fauci himself, NIH director Collins and Jeremy Farrar, head of the Wellcome Trust. In the email on page 2,401, dated March 6, 2020, Andersen thanks Fauci, Collins and Farrar for their "advice and leadership" on the paper. His four co-authors are cc'd, along with the Salk Institute's communications director, Chris Emery. Fauci, Collins and Farrar — A Tag-Team of Coverup Artists This is huge. "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2"18 was the scientific underpinning of the natural origin claim, and now we find out Fauci himself was involved in its creation. Farrar and Collins are also neck-deep in this cover-up. Farrar cosigned the scientific statement in The Lancet,19 which turned out to have been orchestrated by Daszak, as mentioned earlier. Farrar was also involved in the WHO Solidarity Trial,20 which poisoned patients with toxic doses of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). In this trial, which was clearly designed to prove HCQ was "dangerous," they used a cumulative dose of 8,800 mg over 10 days. Meanwhile, doctors across the world who reported success with the drug were using standard doses around 200 mg per day for just a few days. Farrar, having spent 18 years leading a clinical research unit in Vietnam,21 would have (or should have) been aware that such high doses of HCQ — a widely used anti-malaria medication — would be toxic. As for Collins, he promoted the cover-up by publishing a March 26, 2020, blog post22 in which he said Andersen's Nature Medicine paper proved a natural origin, and to ignore rumors to the contrary. What's more, after Fauci unconvincingly tried to claim that the NIAID/NIH has never funded any gain-of-function research, Collins came to his rescue with a public NIH statement23 in which he backed Fauci's claim. Bombshell Emails on What Fauci Knew In a June 3, 2021, report, Carlson reviewed Fauci's "surreal" media appearances following the release of the emails. As just one example, he simply laughed off the question of why so much of a particular email between him and Collins was redacted. In the unredacted part, Collins warns Fauci that a "conspiracy theory" about the virus' origin is gaining speed. Why, exactly, was this email redacted? What did the remainder of the email say? Fauci claims ignorance on the matter, and the mainstream media are letting him off the hook. Now, when a document is redacted, a classification is assigned, explaining why parts must remain secret, and in this case, those classifications are interesting indeed. Redacted emails between Fauci and nongovernment individuals such as Zuckerberg and Daszak bear codes such as:24,25 (b)(4), which refers to information that would impair the application of state-of-the-art technology within a U.S. weapon system (b)(6), which refers to information, including foreign government information, that would cause serious harm to relations between the U.S. and a foreign government, or to ongoing diplomatic activities of the U.S. (b)(7), which refers to information that would impair the current ability of U.S. government officials to protect the president, vice president and other protectees for whom protection services, in the interest of national security, are authorized Fauci Lied About Masks The email cache also shows Fauci lied about other things, including masks and vaccines. In one email, Fauci explained that surgical masks don't work against viruses because the viruses slip right through the material, which is the truth. But when it comes to his public statements about masks, Fauci has been a serial liar. He started off saying Americans shouldn't wear them because they offer little to no protection — which is true — and the benefits are mostly psychological, as it might make you feel safer. Then he changed his mind, urging everyone to wear a mask all the time. When confronted about this U-turn, he said he lied about masks not being effective because he wanted to make sure there would be enough for frontline workers. Well, in reality, he lied about lying, because he told the truth that first time. Everything since then, however, has been one fib after another. One mask wasn't even sufficient. Fauci started recommending two. Then he insisted people had to keep wearing them even after they get vaccinated. There's no scientific rationale for this at all, and Fauci knows it. Fauci Still Has Not Told the Truth About Natural Immunity Fauci has also been dishonest about the need for COVID-19 vaccination. In early March 2020, a former Obama official emailed Fauci asking if people who recover from COVID-19 can expect to be immune thereafter. Fauci replied, "No evidence in this regard, but you would assume that their [sic] would be substantial immunity post infection." Here, it's fairly safe to make assumptions because it's a well-established medical fact that when you recover from a viral infection, you are immune, and that immunity can be lifelong in many cases. It would be quite unusual if immunity were not incurred after recovering from a viral infection. As noted by Carlson, that robust immunity occurs post-COVID-19 has also been confirmed in studies over the past year. Now, if you have natural immunity against an illness, you do not need to be vaccinated. Period. Yet to this day, Fauci has never admitted this publicly, and he has not publicly opposed recommendations to vaccinate those who have recovered from COVID-19, even though there's evidence to suggest such individuals are at higher risk of vaccine injury. Not even those who can prove they have antibodies are excluded from the vaccine push. Fauci Tried to Derail Florida Other emails from March 2020, discussed in The Beltway Report,26 show Fauci also promised to put pressure on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to close down gyms, bars and beaches. The recipient of this email exchange was a Florida HIV specialist named Doug Brust, who wrote, "I'm the HIV doc here. I'm it … I am putting my life on the line so folks can go pump iron, drink beer, have a burger, and get a tan." In response, Fauci wrote, in part:27 "Regarding the bars and beaches, I have been screaming on TV 2 to 5 times per night to tell the younger generation to start taking this seriously … I am very surprised that Gov. DeSantis has not completely closed the bars, even if they serve food. Take out only. I will bring this up at the Task Force meeting tomorrow." Fauci's Book Release Scrubbed Amid Backlash In light of Fauci's rapidly waning star power, his book, "Expect the Unexpected: Ten Lessons on Truth, Service, and the Way Forward," slated for release in November 2021, has now been scrubbed from Amazon and Barnes & Noble. We found an archived copy of the original Amazon listing, but even the cached version disappeared within a week. If you search for the book on either of these book vendors now, you won't find it. As reported by Just the News June 2, 2021:28 "The scrubbing of the book comes after backlash from critics who accused Fauci of profiting off of the deadly pandemic the U.S. response to which he has overseen. Among those criticizing Fauci is Fox News Channel contributor Joe Concha, who compared him to New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signing a seven-figure book deal about his efforts during the pandemic, which resulted in a high number of death among assisted-living residents. 'If you look at the numbers again, you had Cuomo profiting off a pandemic, a government official,' said Concha, also a media reporter for The Hill newspaper. 'Now we have Fauci doing it as well. I think this is appalling.' Daily Caller writer Greg Price slammed Fauci for 'publishing a book and [becoming] the highest paid federal government employee while you lost your business and had your kids out of school for a year.'" Truth may be slow to surface, but eventually, the truth usually breaks through. And that certainly appears to be the case here. The truth about the lab leak theory — that it's actually the most plausible and not a wild goose-chase — is now emerging just about everywhere. I'm sure many of you remember we have been exposing this information since early last year. Even Vanity Fair29 has an in-depth article detailing the drama. The theory that mere weeks ago was derided as debunked hogwash conspiracy theory, if acknowledged at all, is now suddenly getting the level-headed attention it should have, and probably would have, received all along, had it not been for Fauci and his co-conspirators. This case ought to establish one thing, and that is that "conspiracy theories" are not automatically untrue.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/09/faucis-emails.aspx

March 20, 2021, on the 1-year anniversary of the first COVID-19 lockdown, people in more than 40 countries took to the streets to peacefully demonstrate against COVID-19 lies and tyrannical measures under the banner of “Worldwide Freedom Day.” While synchronized around the world that particular day, demonstrations are more or less ongoing in various areas.

Peaceful Protests Are Ending Vaccine Passport Requirements

In the U.K., Britons held a “Unite for Freedom” rally in London, Saturday May 29, 2021, as seen in the short video clip above. According to ITV.com,1 hundreds of no-vaccine-passport protesters surged into the Westfield shopping mall in London, while another large crowd gathered in Parliament Square.

They were reportedly cleared from the mall after about 20 minutes by police, but no one was injured or arrested in this particular instance.

As reported by Reuters2 May 30, 2021, it now looks like the U.K. will be scrapping its plan for vaccine passports as a legal requirement for large events, although a government spokesman told Reuters that a final decision has yet to be made and that the COVID-19 vaccine certification review is still ongoing. Why the sudden change? Undoubtedly, it’s because Britons have repeatedly taken to the streets in protest of the medical apartheid these passports create.

14 US States Have Banned Vaccine Passport Requirements

In the U.S., there’s also good news. A number of states have enacted laws that ban vaccine passport requirements in order to prevent the creation of a two-tier society of those with the freedom to live as they please, and others whose lives would be restricted based on vaccination status alone.

As of May 28, 2021, the following 14 states have banned vaccine passports from being required:3 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Wyoming.

Utah has issued a partial ban that applies to state government only. Only two states so far — Hawaii and New York — have actually implemented vaccine certification requirements for certain activities.

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

Florida Fights to Make Cruise Lines Adhere to Law

In my home state of Florida, one of the best pro-freedom governors in the U.S., Ron DeSantis, is now fighting the cruise industry over its proposed vaccination passport requirement.4 The bill he signed into law May 3, 2021,5 prohibits state government from issuing vaccine passports and private businesses from requiring proof of vaccination status to enter or obtain services.

As such, cruise lines that do business in Florida and want to restrict travel to vaccinated-only are in violation of this new anti-medical apartheid law. As reported by NBC News:6

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave the go-ahead Wednesday to begin work toward restarting cruises for the first time in over a year after the massive ships became some of the first superspreader locations for the coronavirus …

To comply with CDC guidance … several cruise liners want to require nearly everyone onboard to be fully vaccinated. But that could now be illegal in Florida, the center of the American cruise industry, under a law DeSantis signed … that prohibits businesses from discriminating against unvaccinated customers.

‘In Florida, your personal choice regarding vaccinations will be protected, and no business or government entity will be able to deny you services based on your decision,’ DeSantis said of the law, which codified executive orders he had already issued.

The dispute may end up in court, as the cruise industry argues that the state law doesn’t apply to it thanks to federal rules. In the meantime, companies may decide to move ahead with plans to require vaccinations, even if it means racking up violations in Florida.”

A Social Credit System Is the End Goal of Vaccine Passports

It’s important to realize that vaccine passports or any other type of certification in and of themselves are not the end goal here. They’re merely a part of a much larger plan to implement a social credit system, such as that already implemented in China. First, they’d be expanded to cover other required vaccinations.

Ultimately, the vaccine passport will expand to include not just vaccination status but also other medical data, basic identification records, financial data and just about anything else that can be digitized and tracked. The end goal is to end freedom as we know it, using a social credit system to ensure compliance.

Booster shots against COVID-19 variants would logically come first, followed by any number of other vaccinations. The sky’s the limit as far as that’s concerned, and many are likely to be gene-based and therefore dangerous in the extreme. Already, vaccine makers have announced they’re working on a combination COVID-flu/mRNA vaccine,7 a pneumococcal-COVID/mRNA booster shot for adults over 65,8 and mRNA/seasonal influenza vaccines.9

Ultimately, the vaccine passport will expand to include not just vaccination status but also other medical data, basic identification records, financial data and just about anything else that can be digitized and tracked. It may even extend to include real-time biological data.

The end goal is to end freedom as we know it, using a social credit system to ensure compliance. If you disobey or act “out of line” with a prevailing dictate, your freedom to travel, bank, shop, get a loan or even leave your home could be vastly restricted.

We can see how such a system could work by looking at the Chinese social credit system10 where behavior is electronically monitored to assess “trustworthiness” in real-time. Aside from failing to pay taxes on time, score-lowering actions can include such minutia as cheating in an online video game, jaywalking, not visiting your parents on a frequent-enough basis, smoking in a nonsmoking zone or walking your dog without a leash.

Momentary thoughtlessness can also land you on any one of hundreds of blacklists controlled by a variety of state agencies with their own jurisdictions, and if you end up on one, you’re typically subject to blacklisting across all of them, at which point you won’t be allowed to do much of anything except work to improve your score. On average, it takes two to five years to get off a blacklist, and that’s assuming you comply with all the recommendations put forth.11

While the Chinese social credit score is still in its infancy, eventually, the plan is to use it to “search for signs of potentially harmful behavior before it occurs”12 — in other words, a real-world pre-crime type of situation as illustrated in the movie “Minority Report.” This is what vaccine passports can lead to, and there’s every reason to believe that is the plan.

As noted by Naomi Wolf, a former adviser to the Clinton administration, in an interview with Fox News’ Steve Hilton:13,14

“I’m [the] CEO of a tech company, I understand what these platforms can do. It is not about the vaccine, it’s not about the virus, it’s about your data … What people have to understand is that any other functionality can be loaded onto that platform with no problem at all. It can be merged with your Paypal account, with your digital currency.

Microsoft is already talking about merging it with payment plans. Your network can be sucked up. It geolocates you everywhere you go. Your credit history can be included. All of your medical and health history can be included …

It is absolutely so much more than a vaccine pass … I cannot stress enough that it has the power to turn off your life, or to turn on your life, to let you engage in society or be marginalized.”

It’s All Been Building to This Point

Indeed, recreating China’s social credit system here in the U.S. is likely easier at this point than anyone would like to think, and probably wouldn’t take long to implement. Silicon Valley titan Oracle nabbed the contract to be the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s central data repository for all COVID-19 vaccine data in the U.S. early on in the pandemic.

Oracle also manages the database for COVID-19 cases and the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) database for clinical research into COVID-19 vaccines and drugs, a program overseen by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Now consider this: Oracle has for many years also managed the U.S. national security database, as well as databases for the CIA, Navy Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence and the National Security Agency, plus banking, and a host of commercial databases. As reported by The Defender:15

“’The information about your banks, your checking balances, your saving balance is stored in an Oracle database,’ Ellison was quoted in the 2004 book, ‘The Naked Crowd.’ ‘Your airline reservation is stored in an Oracle database. What books you bought on Amazon is stored in an Oracle database. Your profile on Yahoo! is stored in an Oracle database.’”

And, as Ellison admitted in 2002, thousands of databases can easily be integrated into a single national file — something he offered to do for free for the U.S. government all the way back then.

The Defender also recounts an old Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program called Total Information Awareness (TIA), which sought to collect the medical records, drug prescriptions, DNA, financial information, travel data and media consumption habits of all Americans.16

The justification for this vast data collection, according to DARPA, was that “the whole population needed surveillance to prevent not only future terrorist attacks, but bioterrorism and even naturally occurring disease outbreaks.” The program was defunded in 2003 after intense public backlash, “but TIA never really went away,” The Defender writes.17 “Various of its programs ended up divvied into a web of military and intelligence programs.”

Here are a few more connections to consider when trying to decide whether a social credit system is really in the works, and why a vaccine passport could serve a central function.

Oracle Labs, the research arm of Oracle, is partnered with DARPA to create an “optically interconnected supercomputer” — something that would come in handy if putting together a massive social credit system that demands interconnectivity between thousands of databases.

DARPA is also working on advanced pandemic surveillance and biological threat detection.18 In fact, it has an entire division specializing in biological technologies — the Biological Technologies Office (BTO) — which developed hydrogel, an implantable type of nanotechnology that transmits light-based digital signals through wireless networks.19

It’s basically a gel-like biosensor that can both record and share biological data. The hydrogel is manufactured by Profusa, which is partnered with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation20 and backed by Google, the largest data mining company in the world.

In 2020, there were rumors that this hydrogel would be part of Moderna’s mRNA delivery system.21 DARPA, by the way, actually funded Moderna too.22 However, it is unclear whether hydrogel actually ended up being used in Moderna’s or any other COVID-19 vaccine. At any rate, it could be used, if not now, then in the future.

Now, ask yourself, considering all of these various data points that I’ve covered — which by no means includes everything — just how likely is it that a national social credit system based on digital surveillance, including medical and biological surveillance, is NOT in the works?

Vaccine Passports Spell the End of Freedom

I recently interviewed Wolf about her book “The End of America.” The book, published in 2007, was a prescient warning about the very time we now find ourselves in. In it, she laid out the 10 steps toward tyranny that have been followed by virtually every modern-day would-be tyrant.

“They all took the same 10 steps, and they always work. I warned people that when you start to see these 10 steps, you have to take action, because there is no way to recover once things go too far without a bloody revolution or a civil war. We are [now] at Step 10 … and once Step 10 locks in, there is no going back,” Wolf says.

The 10 steps toward tyranny start with the invocation of a terrifying internal and/or external threat. It may be a real threat or an imagined one, but in all cases, it’s a hyped-up threat. From 2001 onward, that threat was terrorism, which was used as the justification for stripping us of our liberties.

The last and final step in the implementation of tyranny, Step 10, involves the creation of a surveillance state where citizens are under constant surveillance and critique of the government is reclassified as dissent and subversive activity. Vaccine passports are clearly an integral part of that surveillance apparatus, and a precursor to a social credit system.

There simply can be no doubt of that, and if we don’t put a stop to it now, we’ll be locked into not just a national dictatorship but a global one, run by unelected, largely unknown individuals and Big Tech oligarchs. There will be no one to help anyone else, because all nations will be in the same boat.

Peaceful Protest and Legislative Action Are the Remedy

To avoid the fate that comes next, everyone everywhere needs to recognize the danger and take action. Such action includes peaceful protest and civil disobedience — simply not complying with mask mandates, social distancing, lockdowns, vaccination or anything else.

We must also fight through legislation. As mentioned earlier, 14 U.S. states have already passed laws banning requirements for vaccine passports, which protects the freedoms of everyone within those states. While that’s a good start, there are dozens more to go, and other countries need to enact such laws as well. As noted by Wolf in my interview with her:

“Once [vaccine passports] are launched … people like you and I, Dr. Mercola, will be switched off of society. ‘Oops, my vaccine passport is positive. I guess I can’t go food shopping for my family.’ ‘I said something critical of biofascism on Dr. Mercola’s show, so now my child can’t get into school.’

Just as in Israel, where people who are critics are being surveilled [and] marginalized from society, it has turned into a two-tier society. If you choose not to get vaccinated, then you’re really in a marginalized minority in an apartheid state.

The more we know about these vaccines, the scarier it is to have coercion that is social. It’s also illegal. In America, we have the Americans with Disabilities Act. It means it’s illegal to even ask me anything about my medical status. You can’t ask me if I’m pregnant. You can’t ask me if I’m disabled. You can’t ask me if I have diabetes or HIV. You cannot ask me anything. By definition, these intrusive measures are unlawful.

We have to use the law to save the law, basically … We have to fight before we are living in fascist regime where every move is tracked and we’re marginalized from society.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/08/protests-against-vaccine-passports.aspx