Categories
Recommended

Media Rats Jump Off Their Sinking Ship

I first mentioned that the COVID-19 outbreak had the hallmarks of a laboratory escape over 15 months ago in my February 4, 2020, article, “Novel Coronavirus — The Latest Pandemic Scare.”

I, and anyone else who discussed this possibility, were roundly dismissed as unreliable kooks by mainstream media, who for well over a year have insisted SARS-CoV-2 made the jump from bats to humans at one of Wuhan’s open-air “wet markets.”

To support their assertion, mainstream journalists relied on papers and “scientific consensus” statements concocted by individuals who are in fact deeply involved in the very research that created this pandemic.

Individuals such as National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci, National Institutes of Health director Dr. Francis Collins,1 Dr. Ralph Baric and EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak — four prominent natural origin promoters given plenty of airtime — have a lot to lose if it turns out the pandemic virus originated in a lab.

So, of course they would want everyone to think SARS-CoV-2 just arose naturally and jumped species. In fact, if the world embraced this notion, they’d be able to use this pandemic to justify the expansion of the dangerous gain-of-function research they were involved with, and which is now accused of causing the pandemic.

Mainstream Media Covered Up the Truth for Over a Year

Trusting biased or outright lying sources has its price, and now mainstream media are scrambling to save face as the public, political and scientific consensus is rapidly shifting to accept the lab leak theory as not only viable but probable. The new details are so compelling that President Biden has now ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to investigate the origins of the coronavirus.2

In a May 18, 2021, National Review article,3 Jim Geraghty reviews how the official narrative has shifted in recent weeks. As reported by Rising with Krystal & Saagar host, Saagar Enjeti, in a May 19, 2021, newscast (video at the top of article), China and the U.S. public health establishment both worked to cover up the pandemic origin, but they would never have succeeded for as long as they did had it not been for the mainstream media, which willingly assisted in this effort.

Everywhere you looked, legacy media insisted the lab-leak theory had been “debunked,” without ever really presenting any evidence, over or beyond parroting the opinions of conflicted “experts.” As noted by journalist and documentary filmmaker Leighton Woodhouse, “’Disinformation’ is the New Disinformation.”4 In other words, whenever mainstream media declares that something is disinformation, they’re most likely misinforming you.

Indeed, mainstream media have become so consistently wrong over the past year, you’ve basically needed to interpret the news by turning it around 180 degrees to have any chance of not being grossly misinformed.

Lame Excuses Don’t Cut It

Now, many legacy journalists find themselves in the uncomfortable position of being called out for their collusion with people who have worked to deceive us.

In a Twitter thread,5 freelance commentary writer Drew Holden reviews some of the many mainstream headlines deriding the lab leak theory as debunked disinformation. It’s a veritable Hall of Shame of the worst of the worst journalists out there.

If you want to get clued in on where the fake news is, take a look at that list. Some journalists are now trying to defend and justify their poor journalistic ethics by blaming others, but it’s not working so well.

What all these science journalists won’t admit is they got took by their best scientist sources, who misled them, on purpose, to the detriment of science, journalism and our public health. The scientists who got it right were the ones who had no conflicts of interest. ~ Josh Rogin

In a series of tweets — responding to an article6 by former New York Times science writer Donald McNeil,7 in which McNeil admits he failed at his job because he got sucked into the politics of it and chose to trust Fauci and Daszak, both of whom he knows personally — Josh Rogin, a foreign policy columnist for the The Washington Post, wrote:8

“If you are writing a piece defending yourself for being wrong for a year about the lab leak hypothesis by blaming everyone else except yourself for your own wrongness, you haven’t learned a thing and you are just engaged in bullshit navel-gazing that literally nobody cares about.

What all these science journalists won’t admit is they got took by their best scientist sources, who misled them, on purpose, to the detriment of science, journalism and our public health. The scientists who got it right were the ones who had no conflicts of interest.”

Conflicted Scientists Push for More Dangerous Research

Indeed, it’s high time to recognize that conflicts of interest matter, and relying on experts who have everything to gain by a particular narrative being projected as the correct one is a very bad idea.

If mainstream journalists want to end up on the right side of history — and not the side that ends up killing millions by spreading medical and scientific ignorance — they have to stop parading conflicted individuals before us as paragons of truth while dismissing experts that have no skin in the game and actually come from a position of neutrality.

Going forward, listening to independent experts may be more important than ever, because as noted by Enjeti, the same scientists who misled us about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 are now busy planning an even bigger research project focused on the same dangerous research that may have brought us COVID-19.

The $1.2 billion Global Virome Project9 will expand worldwide collaboration on risky virus research sixfold, and as noted by Enjeti, “Turning the spigot on for gain-of-function research while so many questions remain unresolved, is absolutely the last thing that we should do.”

Lab-Leak Theory Gains Traction

In the video above, Freddie Sayers interviews10 Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times science writer, about his widely-read article11 detailing the evidence supporting the two primary origin theories.

As reported by Wade in “Origin of COVID — Following the Clues: Did People or Nature Open Pandora’s Box at Wuhan?”12 if we are ever to solve the mystery of where this novel virus came from, we must be willing to actually follow the science, as “it offers the only sure thread through the maze.”

“It’s important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory,” Wade writes.13 “Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction.”

As even mainstream media pundits will now admit, the preponderance of clues leans toward SARS-CoV-2 originating in a lab, most likely the WIV. Evidence further suggests the virus underwent some sort of manipulation to increase infectiousness and disease in humans.

There’s research dating as far back as 1992 detailing how inserting a furin cleavage site right where we find it in SARS-CoV-2 is a “sure way to make a virus deadlier.” Coincidentally, one of 11 such studies were written by Dr. Shi Zhengli, head of coronavirus research at the WIV.

The arguments laid out in support of the natural origin theory, meanwhile, are grounded in inconclusive speculations that require you to throw out scientifically possible scenarios. From a scientific standpoint, doing so is ill advised.

“It seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence,” Wade writes.14

Protecting Dangerous Research

In a May 19, 2021, publication,15 Peter Gøtzsche with the Institute for Scientific Freedom, summarized and provided additional commentary on Wade’s article. One obvious point that legacy media have completely ignored is that the idea that a virus can escape from a lab is not a conspiracy theory. It is a fact. Lab leaks have caused several outbreaks through the years, and lab accidents occur daily.

Like Wade, Gøtzsche also highlights how the very people arguing for the natural origin theory were the ones with the most to lose, were the virus to be a lab creation. For whatever reason, legacy media near-universally ran with the opinion of these conflicted experts while smearing many other highly-esteemed scientists who presented evidence to the contrary.

We know with great certainty that researchers at the WIV had access to and were doing gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. We also know that they collaborated with scientists in the United States, and received funding from the National Institutes of Health for such research. As noted by Gøtzsche:16

“Researchers at the Wuhan Institute were led by China’s leading expert on bat viruses, Dr. Shi Zheng-li. Shi teamed up with Ralph S. Baric from the University of North Carolina who pioneered techniques for genetically manipulating these viruses, which became a major aspect of research at the Wuhan Institute. Their work focused on enhancing the ability of bat viruses to attack humans so as to ‘examine the emergence potential.’

In 2015, they created a novel virus by taking the backbone of the SARS virus replacing its spike protein with one from another bat virus known as SHC014-CoV. This manufactured virus was able to infect a lab culture of cells from the human airways.

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

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

China is responsible for over 3 million deaths so far and the United States is complicit. Whatever one thinks of the origin of SARS-CoV-2, it is clear that if the Wuhan Institute of Virology had not conducted gain-of- function research, and therefore had not collected more than a thousand samples of coronaviruses from bat caves, there would have been no pandemic.

As suggested by others, it is clear that this type of research should never have been funded and should never have been performed. The WHO and the United Nations should issue a call to stop all gain-of-function research permanently. All governments should make gain-of-function research illegal, with stiff penalties for breaking the law. This research is a great threat to mankind. It must stop.”

First Step Taken, But Doesn’t Go Far Enough

Mainstream journalists aren’t the only ones searching for an acceptable cover story right now. In a remarkable — and wholly unbelievable — about-face, Fauci and NIH director Dr. Francis Collins now insist that none of the research they’ve ever funded qualifies as gain-of-function,17,18 and that evidence used to prove that funding did go to gain-of-function research has been misinterpreted.19

Regardless, May 25, 2021, Sen. Rand Paul announced the U.S. Senate passed an amendment20 that permanently bans all federal funding on gain-of-function research in China.21 While that’s great news, it doesn’t go nearly far enough, and will in no way prevent another manmade pandemic. The reason is obvious. This kind of research is being done all around the world, not just in China.

Unless the U.S. government bans gain-of-function research within its own borders, and encourages the rest of the world to ban it as well, there’s nothing to prevent researchers from cooking up another deadly pathogen that would never have arisen naturally.

As noted by Wade,22 the “lab escape scenario for the origin of the SARS2 virus … is not mere hand-waving in the direction of the Wuhan Institute of Virology … [it is] based on the specific project being funded there by the NIAID.”

Indeed, blaming the WIV and calling it a day is not acceptable. We need to get to the bottom of what happened and close down loopholes that can lead to a repeat. That, without a doubt, includes shutting down gain-of-function research everywhere, not just our collaboration with China.

While some journalists are trying to deflect heat by referring to the recent acceptance of the lab leak theory as a “pro-Trump culture war on American scientists,”23,24 this won’t work in the long run, because facts are facts.

Scientists who are conducting dangerous research capable of killing us all — regardless of their nationality — need to be held accountable, if culpable, and prevented from going too far. End of story.

This is not a partisan issue. It’s a matter of right and wrong. As long as gain-of-function research is being conducted, regardless of where, we face the possibility, if not probability, of another perhaps even more lethal outbreak.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/03/media-sinking-ship.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Don’t Use Antibody Tests Post Vaccine to Determine Immunity

Antibodies are proteins your body makes in response to infections and will be detectable in your blood after infection as a sign of your body’s battle against that pathogen. Antibodies for COVID-19 are believed to develop within one to three weeks after infection, and a positive antibody test for COVID-19 means that a person may have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in the past.1

Titer blood tests, which measure the presence and amounts of certain antibodies in your blood, are sometimes used to prove immunity to a disease.2 If your titer is positive, which means it’s above a set value, you’re considered to be immune to the disease, such as measles, mumps or rubella.3

This is why, for instance, proof of prior diagnosis with chickenpox, measles and mumps is allowed instead of vaccination to enter most U.S. public schools4 — once you’ve had the disease and recovered, you’re immune.

In the case of COVID-19, however, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a safety communication in May 2021,5 warning both the public and health care providers not to use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests to gauge immunity, especially among people who’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine.

Antibody Testing Not Recommended to Assess COVID-19 Immunity

In their safety communication, the FDA noted, “… results from currently authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination.”

They state that while a positive antibody test may identify those who have been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, “more research is needed in people who have received a COVID-19 vaccination.” SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests haven’t been studied to assess the level of protection the vaccine-induced immune response provides in those who’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine.

Even in people who have not been vaccinated, the FDA states that a positive antibody test isn’t adequate to show that you’re protected from COVID-19; it’s only an indication that you were possibly infected with SARS-CoV-2 previously. In those who have received a COVID-19 vaccine, a positive result from a SARS-CoV-2 antibody test could indicate a previous natural infection or could be caused by the vaccine. According to the FDA:6

“A COVID-19 vaccination may also cause a positive antibody test result for some but not all antibody tests. You should not interpret the results of your SARS-CoV-2 antibody test as an indication of a specific level of immunity or protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

COVID Vaccines Induce Antibodies to the Spike Protein

There’s a significant difference in the immune response triggered by natural infection versus vaccination. In the case of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, such as those produced by Pfizer and Moderna, antibodies to the spike protein are induced. In the case of natural SARS-CoV-2 infection, nucleocapsid proteins are detected by antibody testing.

Because of this, people who have received a COVID-19 vaccine and haven’t previously been infected will receive a negative antibody test, provided the test doesn’t detect the vaccine-induced spike protein antibodies.7 Interestingly, it’s been found that the spike proteins can damage human cells and alter mitochondrial function even without a viral component.8

In an animal study published in Circulation Research, when a pseudo virus, which was a cell surrounded by spike proteins that did not contain a virus, was administered into the lungs of hamsters, it caused inflammation, and when healthy endothelial cells that line human arteries were exposed, it disrupted signaling to the mitochondria and caused damage and fragmentation.9

The good news about the FDA’s warning is that, as Daily Mail put it, “the [antibody] blood test likely won’t confirm that someone has been vaccinated (functioning like a pseudo-immunity passport).”10 On the other hand, the warning also suggests that those who have previously had a positive antibody test for COVID-19 shouldn’t assume they’re protected. However, this could be a fear-based method to convince more people to get vaccinated. Daily Mail reported:11

“The briefing comes as the United States’ vaccine rollout progress has slowed down in recent weeks, and some who have previously tested positive for COVID-19 or the antibodies do not believe getting vaccinated is necessary. The FDA is saying otherwise and encouraging all Americans to get vaccinated if they are able to do so.”

Red Cross Needs COVID Plasma — but Only From the Unvaccinated

In the U.S., more than 100,000 people have been treated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma, which is sometimes referred to as survivor’s plasma.12 Because it contains antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, convalescent plasma may help your body fight off the virus and has been found to reduce the progression of COVID-19 in mildly ill older adults.13

Transfusion of plasma with higher SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels has also been linked to a lower risk of death in nonventilated patients hospitalized for COVID-19, compared to transfusion of plasma with lower antibody levels.14 The Red Cross accepts donations for COVID-19 convalescent plasma, but only from people who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine.

According to the Red Cross, “At this time individuals who have received a COVID-19 vaccine are not able to donate convalescent plasma with the Red Cross. The Red Cross is working as quickly as possible to evaluate this change — as it may involve complex system updates.”15

In a video posted to Twitter by Musicman, a news anchor states, “That [convalescent] plasma is made up of antibodies from people who have recovered from the virus, but the vaccine wipes out those antibodies, making the convalescent plasma ineffective in treating other COVID-19 patients.”16

While the Red Cross site doesn’t explain why they’re “not able” to use convalescent plasma, in January 2021 the Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society (RAPS) offered a clue to its membership after the FDA revised its guidelines on who can qualify to donate.

“With two vaccines authorized for emergency use in the U.S. and others in clinical development, FDA says that convalescent plasma should not be collected from individuals who received an investigational COVID-19 vaccine in a clinical trial or who received an authorized or licensed COVID-19 vaccine, unless they meet specific criteria detailed in the guidance,” RAPS says.17

In order to be eligible, the FDA stated vaccine recipients must have had symptoms of COVID-19 along with a positive test result, and be within six months of complete resolution of symptoms. According to the FDA, the purpose of the criteria is “to ensure the COVID-19 convalescent plasma collected from donors contains sufficient antibodies directly related to their immune response to COVID-19 infection.”18

Before the COVID-19 vaccines received emergency use authorization, the FDA also warned against collecting convalescent plasma from subjects who received the vaccine in a clinical trial “because of the uncertainty regarding the quality of the immune response produced by such investigational vaccines.”19

Problems With Antibody Tests

There have been problems with COVID-19 antibody tests from the start, in part because it may turn positive if you have antibodies against common cold viruses. There are seven different coronaviruses that cause respiratory illness in humans. Four of them cause symptoms associated with the common cold, while three of them — SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 — can cause more serious respiratory illness.

However, the antibodies created by these coronaviruses are very similar, and the U.S. CDC admitted that recovering from the common cold can trigger a positive antibody test for COVID-19, even if you were never infected with SARS-CoV-2 specifically. According to the CDC:20

“A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance that a positive result means you have antibodies from an infection with a different virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses).”

Vaccine Risks for People Who’ve Had COVID

An international survey of 2,002 people who had received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine found that people who had previously had COVID-19 experienced “significantly increased incidence and severity” of side effects after the COVID-19 vaccine.21 Those who had previously had COVID-19 had a greater risk of experiencing any side effect, along with the following, specifically:

Fever
Breathlessness

Flu-like illness
Fatigue

Local reactions
Severe side effects leading to hospital care

The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were linked to a higher incidence of side effects compared to the viral vector-based COVID-19 vaccines, but the mRNA side effects tended to be milder, local reactions. Systemic reactions, such as anaphylaxis, flu-like illness and breathlessness, were more likely to occur with the viral vector COVID-19 vaccines.

According to the researchers, the findings should prompt health officials to re-evaluate their vaccination recommendations for people who’ve had COVID-19,22 but the CDC continues to state that those who have recovered from COVID-19 should still get vaccinated.23

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, Ph.D., has repeatedly warned the FDA that “clear and present danger” exists for those who have had COVID-19 and subsequently get vaccinated, due to viral antigens that remain in the body after a person is naturally infected; the immune response reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine may trigger inflammation in tissues where the viral antigens exist.24

Noorchashm believes that people should be screened for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins prior to COVID-19 vaccination, while vaccination should be delayed for people with symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as for those who have recently recovered from the virus.

Booster Dose Within One Year of COVID Vaccine?

The media continue to promote the fake narrative that natural immunity — the type acquired by getting infected by and recovering from a virus — isn’t as powerful or long-lasting as vaccine-acquired immunity.25,26

However, Dr. Anthony Fauci stated during an Axios virtual event that a COVID-19 vaccine booster is likely. “I think we will almost certainly require a booster sometime within a year or so, after getting the primary [shot],” he said, “because the durability of protection against coronaviruses is generally not lifelong.”27

Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla has also stated that not only will people need a third booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine within 12 months of being fully vaccinated, but annual vaccination will probably be necessary.28

Robust natural immunity has been demonstrated, however, for at least eight months after infection in more than 95% of people who have recovered from COVID-19.29,30 A Nature study also demonstrated robust natural immunity in people who recovered from SARS and SARS-CoV-2,31 while additional data show patients who were infected with COVID-19 develop an immune response that could protect them for years.32
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/03/covid-19-antibody-test-post-vaccine.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Weekly Health Quiz: Vaccines, Antigens and Spike Proteins

1 If you’ve already had COVID-19, viral antigens may persist in your body that, when reactivated by a COVID-19 vaccine-induced immune response:

Provide protection against COVID-19 variants

Increase your risk of obesity

Cause you to lose your sense of smell and taste

Trigger inflammation and damage in tissues where the viral antigens exist

The immune response reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine may trigger inflammation in tissues where the viral antigens are present. Learn more.

2 The spike proteins on the SARS-CoV-2 virus damage endothelial cells by:

Disrupting mitochondrial function

When the S protein attached to the ACE2 receptor, it disrupted signaling to the mitochondria and caused damage and fragmentation. The alterations in mitochondrial function were confirmed as part of the inhibition of ACE2 signaling in the lab. Learn more.

Scratching the surface

Increasing the production of plaque

Improving vasodilation

3 May 11, 2021, Sen. Rand Paul questioned Dr. Anthony Fauci on the NIAID’s funding of gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses, some of which was conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Which of the following did The National Pulse discover had quietly occurred in late March?

The WIV admitted conducting gain-of-function research on the NIAID’s behalf

The WIV deleted mentions of its collaboration with the NIAID/NIH and other American research partners from its website

Shortly after Fauci’s testimony, the WIV deleted mentions of its collaboration with the NIAID/NIH and other American research partners from its website. It also deleted descriptions of GoF on the SARS virus. Learn more.

Fauci accepted blame for financing dangerous gain-of-function research during the 2014-2017 moratorium on federal funding of such research

The WIV publicly denied having ever conducted gain-of-function research funded by the NIAID or NIH

4 Which of the following now appears to be one of the key reasons for why COVID-19 vaccines are causing so many side effects and likely will cause neurological and vascular problems in the future?

The vaccines contain a toxic heavy metal adjuvant

The spike protein acts as a sugar, triggering insulin resistance

The spike protein acts as a toxic prion

A key problem with all of these gene-based COVID-19 vaccines is that the spike protein itself appears toxic, and your body is now a spike protein-producing factory. Its inherent toxicity may be due to it being a prion protein. If so, we can expect these injections to cause all manner of prion diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS). Learn more.

The vaccines contain an undisclosed nano tracking device that causes inflammation

5 NVIC does not make vaccine use recommendations but, rather, encourages you to make:

Uninformed health care decisions

Choices that only align with their beliefs

Health care choices based on media propaganda

Educated decisions when it comes to your health

NVIC does not make vaccine use recommendations but, rather, supports the availability of all preventive health care options, and encourages you to make educated decisions when it comes to your health. Learn more.

6 Which of the following parts of SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for the worst symptoms of COVID-19 and causes the most damage?

The spike protein

The worst symptoms of COVID-19 are created by the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and that is the very thing gene-based COVID vaccines are instructing your body to make. Learn more.

The viral matrix

The mRNA

The PEG nanoliposome

 
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/31/week-184-health-quiz.aspx

Categories
Recommended

The Truth About Bill Gates, Microsoft and Jeffrey Epstein

In early May, the announcement1 that Bill and Melinda Gates would be divorcing after 27 years of marriage shocked both those that praise and those that loathe the “philanthropic” power couple.

Less than a week after the initial announcement of the divorce, May 7, the Daily Beast reported2 that Melinda Gates had allegedly been “deeply troubled” by Bill Gates’ relationship with child sex trafficker and intelligence asset Jeffrey Epstein.

The report suggested that Melinda was a major reason for her husband’s decision to distance himself from Epstein around 2014 because of her discomfort with Epstein after they both met him in 2013. That previously unreported meeting had taken place at Epstein’s mansion on New York’s Upper East Side.

The Daily Beast also revealed that the details of the Gates’ divorce had been decided several weeks prior to the official announcement. Then, May 9, the Wall Street Journal3 published a report suggesting that the plans for divorce went back even further, with Melinda having consulted divorce lawyers in 2019.

Allegedly, that consultation was made after details of Bill Gates’ relationship with Jeffrey Epstein had gained considerable mainstream media attention, including from The New York Times.

While mainstream media outlets apparently agree that Jeffrey Epstein was a likely factor in the Gates’ recently announced split, what these same outlets refuse to cover is the real extent of the Bill Gates-Jeffrey Epstein relationship. Indeed, the mainstream narrative holds that Gates ties to Epstein began in 2011, despite the evidence pointing to their relationship beginning decades earlier.

This blanket refusal to honestly report on the Gates-Epstein ties likely is due to Gates’ outsized role in current events, both in terms of global health policy as it relates to COVID-19 and in his being a major promoter and funder of controversial technocratic “solutions” to a slew of societal problems.

What is more likely, however, is that the nature of the relationship between Gates and Epstein before 2011 is even more scandalous than what transpired later, and it may have major implications not just for Gates but for Microsoft as a company and for some of its former top executives.

This particular cover-up is part of an obvious tendency of mainstream media to ignore the clear influence that both Epstein and members of the Maxwell family wielded — and, arguably, continue to wield — in Silicon Valley. Indeed, the individuals who founded tech giants such as Google, LinkedIn, Facebook, Microsoft, Tesla and Amazon all have connections with Jeffrey Epstein, some closer than others.

This investigation is adapted from my upcoming book “One Nation Under Blackmail,” which will be released early next year and will include a more complete investigation into Epstein’s ties to Silicon Valley, scientific academia and intelligence agencies.

The Evening Standard Mystery

In 2001, perhaps the most important article ever written about Jeffrey Epstein was published. The article, which focused mainly on Ghislaine Maxwell’s and Epstein’s relationship with Prince Andrew, was published January 22, 2001,4 in London’s Evening Standard.

The article, written by Nigel Rosser, was never retracted and was published well before Epstein’s first arrest and the onset of his public notoriety. It has, nevertheless, since been removed from The Evening Standard’s website and can now only be found on professional newspaper databases. I made a PDF of that article and several other scrubbed Epstein-related articles publicly available in October 2019.5 The full article can also be accessed here.

Key statements made in the article make it clear why it was removed from the internet, apparently in the wake of Epstein’s first arrest in Florida. Rosser introduces Epstein as “an immensely powerful New York property developer and financier,” a nod to Epstein’s past in the New York real estate market.

Later in the article, he notes that Epstein “once claimed to have worked for the CIA although he now denies it,” one of several likely reasons why the article was removed from the internet well before Epstein’s second arrest in 2019.

Much of the article notes the closeness of Epstein and Maxwell to Prince Andrew and suggests that both wielded considerable influence over the prince, largely due to Maxwell’s role as his “social fixer.” It states that Maxwell was “manipulating” the prince and that “the whole Andrew thing is probably being done for Epstein.”

One line stands out, however, as the first major clue toward demystifying the true origin of the Gates-Epstein relationship. Soon after Rosser introduces Epstein in the article, he states that Epstein “has made many millions out of his business links with the likes of Bill Gates, Donald Trump and Ohio billionaire Leslie Wexner, whose trust he runs.”

Both Wexner’s and Trump’s relationships with Epstein prior to 2001 are well known and date back to 1985 and 1987, respectively. Mainstream media, however, continue to report that Gates and Epstein first met in 2011 and have declined to follow the leads laid out by Nigel Rosser.

I am personally aware of this withholding of information to a degree, as a BBC reporter contacted me in 2019 for details about this 2001 Evening Standard article, which I provided. To date, the BBC has never reported on the contents of that article. Notably, the BBC has received millions6 in funding for years7 from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Not only was Rosser’s article never retracted, but neither Gates, Trump nor Wexner disputed the claims made in the article at the time, which was well before Epstein became notorious. In addition, given that Gates is named alongside two known close Epstein associates at the time — Donald Trump and Leslie Wexner — it further suggests that Gates’ ties to Epstein prior to 2001 were considerable enough to warrant his mention alongside these two other men.

In addition to the Evening Standard article, there is evidence from Maria Farmer, an Epstein victim who was employed by Epstein and Maxwell from 1995 to 1996, that she recalled hearing8 Epstein mention Bill Gates in such a way as to imply they were close friends and which gave her the impression that the Microsoft cofounder might soon be visiting one of Epstein’s residences.

Microsoft, McKinley and Isabel Maxwell

Beyond these two key pieces of evidence, there is also the fact that, prior to the Evening Standard article, Gates already had a documented connection to a business run by Ghislaine Maxwell’s sisters in which Ghislaine had a financial stake, which may offer a clue as to the nature of the “business links” alluded to by Nigel Rosser.

Furthermore, the odd nature of Gates’ relationship with Isabel Maxwell, who has ties to the PROMIS software espionage scandal and to Israeli intelligence, is documented in a 2000 article from the Guardian.

Twin sisters Christine and Isabel Maxwell, along with their husbands at the time, created the McKinley Group in January 1992. Christine and Isabel had both previously worked9 for the front company Information on Demand used by their father Robert Maxwell to sell the backdoored PROMIS software to the U.S. government.

After Robert Maxwell’s death, Christine and Isabel “wanted to circle the wagons and rebuild”10 and saw McKinley as “a chance to recreate a bit of their father’s legacy.” The McKinley Group, however, was not just a venture of Isabel, Christine and their husbands, as Ghislaine Maxwell also had “a substantial interest” in the company, according to a Sunday Times article published in November 2000.

That same article also noted that Ghislaine, throughout the 1990s, had “been discreetly building up a business empire as opaque as her father’s” and that “she is secretive to the point of paranoia and her business affairs are deeply mysterious.” She chose to describe “herself as an ‘internet operator'” during this period, even though “her office in Manhattan refuses to confirm even the name or the nature of her business.”

Ghislaine Maxwell posing with her siblings, including twin sisters Isabel and Christine, in 2019 in London.

Another article, appearing in The Scotsman11 from 2001, separately notes that Ghislaine “is extremely secretive about her affairs and describes herself as an internet operator.” It is unclear how involved Ghislaine actually was in the McKinley Group’s affairs. However, during this period, she was operating an intelligence-linked sexual-blackmail operation with Jeffrey Epstein, and there was considerable overlap of their finances, as noted in press reports from the time and afterward.

McKinley created what became known as the Magellan Internet Directory, remembered as “the first site to publish lengthy reviews and ratings of websites.” Magellan’s “value-added content” approach attracted several large corporations, resulting in “major alliances” with AT&T, Time-Warner, IBM, Netcom and the Microsoft Network (MSN) that were all negotiated by12 Isabel Maxwell.

Microsoft’s major alliance with McKinley came in late 1995, when Microsoft announced13 that Magellan would power the search option for the company’s MSN service.

McKinley’s fortunes fell, as its effort to become the first search engine to go public failed, igniting a stand-off14 between Christine Maxwell and Isabel’s then husband that also resulted in the company essentially falling behind15 other market leaders. As a result, McKinley missed the window for a second IPO attempt and continued to lag behind in adding ad revenue to their business model.

Excite, which was later acquired by AskJeeves, ultimately bought16 the McKinley Group and Magellan for 1.2 million shares of Excite in 1996, which was then valued at $18 million. It was said that it was Isabel Maxwell who made the deal possible, with Excite’s CEO at the time, George Bell, claiming17 she alone salvaged their purchase of McKinley.

Despite McKinley’s lackluster end, the Maxwell twins and other stakeholders in the company, Ghislaine Maxwell among them, not only obtained a multimillion-dollar payout from the deal but also forged close connections with Silicon Valley high rollers. It is unclear if the money Ghislaine received from the sale was used to further the sexual blackmail operation she was then conducting alongside Jeffrey Epstein.

Maxwell Ties to US and Israel Intelligence Grow

After the sale of McKinley/Magellan, the overt ties of Christine and Isabel Maxwell to intelligence in both the U.S. and Israel grew considerably. Isabel’s ties to Microsoft also persisted following the sale of the McKinley Group. She became president of the Israeli tech company CommTouch, whose funding was linked18 to individuals and groups involved in the Jonathan Pollard nuclear spying affair.

CommTouch, an “obscure software developer” founded in 1991 by former Israeli military officers, focused on “selling, maintaining and servicing stand-alone email client software products for mainframe and personal computers.”

The company specifically courted19 Isabel because she was the daughter of Israeli “super-spy” Robert Maxwell. Isabel had similar reasons for joining the company, telling Haaretz20 that leading the company gave her “a chance to continue her father’s involvement in Israel.”

Of all the alliances and partnerships Isabel negotiated during her early years at CommTouch, it was her dealings with Microsoft cofounders Bill Gates and Paul Allen that put CommTouch “on the map.”21

Microsoft’s cofounders did much more than put CommTouch “on the map,” however, as they essentially intervened to prevent the collapse of its initial public offering, a fate that had befallen Isabel Maxwell’s previous company, the McKinley Group, not long before. Indeed, CommTouch kept pushing back its IPO until a massive investment from firms tied to Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen was announced in July 1999.22

The investments from Allen’s Vulcan and Go2Net resulted in a jump in “interest in the stock sale and in CommTouch, until now an obscure software developer,” according to a Bloomberg report,23 and also inflated their stock price immediately prior to their going public. The money from the Allen-linked companies was specifically used “to expand sales and marketing and build its presence in international markets.”

Allen’s decision to invest in CommTouch seems odd from a financial perspective, given that the company had never turned a profit and had over $4 million in losses just the year before. Yet, thanks to Allen’s timely investment and his apparent coordination with the company’s repeated delays of its IPO, CommTouch was valued at over $230 million when it went public, as opposed to a $150 million valuation just weeks before Allen’s investment.24

Paul Allen and Nicole Junkermann at Cinema Against AIDS Cannes in Cannes, France. Source: Vocal Media

It is not exactly clear why Paul Allen came to the rescue of CommTouch’s IPO and what he expected to gain from his investment.

It is worth pointing out, however, that Allen later became among the members25 of an elite online community set up in 2004 called A Small World, whose membership also included26 Jeffrey Epstein and Epstein-linked figures such as Lynn Forester de Rothschild and Naomi Campbell, as well as Petrina Khashoggi, the daughter of Adnan Khashoggi, a former client of Epstein’s.

A Small World’s largest shareholder27 was Harvey Weinstein, the now-disgraced media mogul who was a business partner of Epstein and who has since been convicted of rape and sexual abuse. Around this same time, Paul Allen was photographed with28 Epstein associate Nicole Junkermann,29 herself an intelligence asset.

CommTouch Strikes a Deal With Microsoft

Less than three months after Allen’s investments in CommTouch in October 1999, the company announced that it had struck a major deal30 with Microsoft whereby “Microsoft will utilize the CommTouch Custom MailTM service to provide private label web-based email solutions for select MSN partners and international markets.”

In addition, per the agreement, “CommTouch will provide MSN Messenger Service and Microsoft Passport to its customers while building upon its Windows NT expertise by supporting future MSN messaging technologies.” “We are looking forward to further enhancing our relationship with Microsoft by integrating other state-of-the-art Microsoft products,” Gideon Mantel of CommTouch said at the time of the deal’s public announcement.

In December 1999, Microsoft announced31 that it had invested $20 million in CommTouch by purchasing 4.7% of its shares. The announcement pushed CommTouch stock prices from $11.63 a share to $49.13 in just a few hours’ time. Part of that deal had been finalized by Richard Sorkin, a recently appointed CommTouch director. Sorkin had just become a multimillionaire following the sale of Zip2, Elon Musk’s first company of which Sorkin had been CEO.

It further appears that Bill Gates, then head of Microsoft, made a personal investment in CommTouch at the behest of Isabel Maxwell. In an October 2000 article32 published in The Guardian, Isabel “jokes about persuading Bill Gates to make a personal investment” in CommTouch sometime during this period. The Guardian article then oddly notes, regarding Isabel Maxwell and Bill Gates:

“In a faux southern belle accent, [Isabel] purrs: ‘He’s got to spend $375m a year to keep his tax free status, why not allow me to help him.’ She explodes with laughter.”

Given that individuals as wealthy as Gates cannot have “tax-free status” and that this article was published soon after the creation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Isabel’s statements suggest that it was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, which manages the foundation’s endowment assets, that made this sizable investment in CommTouch.

Furthermore, it is worth highlighting the odd way in which Isabel describes her dealings with Gates (“purring,” speaking in a fake Southern accent), describing her interactions with him in a way not found in any of her numerous other interviews on a wide variety of topics. This odd behavior may be related to Isabel’s previous interactions with Gates and/or the mysterious relationship between Gates and Epstein during this time.

Isabel Maxwell as CommTouch President

CommTouch’s Clout Expanded Rapidly

After 2000, CommTouch’s business and clout expanded rapidly, with Isabel Maxwell subsequently crediting investments from Microsoft, led by Gates, and Paul Allen for the company’s good fortune and the success of its effort to enter the U.S. market.

Maxwell, as quoted in the 2002 book “Fastalliances,”33 states that Microsoft viewed CommTouch as a key “distribution network,” adding that “Microsoft’s investment in us put us on the map. It gave us instant credibility, validated our technology and service in the marketplace.” By this time, Microsoft’s ties to CommTouch had deepened with new partnerships, including CommTouch’s hosting of Microsoft Exchange.34

Though Isabel Maxwell was able to secure lucrative investments and alliances for CommTouch and saw its products integrated into key software and hardware components produced and sold by Microsoft and other tech giants, she was unable to improve the company’s dire financial situation, with CommTouch netting a loss of $4.4 million35 in 1998 and similar losses well into the 2000s, with net losses totaling $24 million36 in 2000 (just one year after the sizable investments from Microsoft, Paul Allen and Gates).

The losses continued even after Isabel formally left the company and became president emeritus in 2001. By 2006, the company was over $170 million in debt. Isabel Maxwell left her position at CommTouch in 2001 but for years retained a sizable amount of CommTouch stock valued at the time at around $9.5 million.37 Today, Isabel Maxwell is, among other things, a “technology pioneer”38 of the World Economic Forum.

Epstein, Edge and Nathan Myhrvold

Another indication of a relationship between Epstein and Gates prior to 2001 is Epstein’s cozy ties with Nathan Myhrvold, who joined Microsoft in the 1980s and became the company’s first chief technology officer in 1996. At the time, Myhrvold was one of Gates’ closest advisers, if not the closest, and cowrote Gates’ 1996 book, “The Road Ahead,” which sought to explain how emerging technologies would impact life in the years and decades to come.

In December of the same year that he became Microsoft’s CTO, Myhrvold traveled on Epstein’s plane from Kentucky to New Jersey, and then again in January 1997 from New Jersey to Florida. Other passengers accompanying Myhrvold on these flights included Alan Dershowitz and “GM,” presumably Ghislaine Maxwell. It is worth keeping in mind that this is the same period when Gates had a documented relationship with Ghislaine’s sister Isabel.

In addition, in the 1990s, Myhrvold traveled with Epstein in Russia alongside Esther Dyson,39 a digital technology consultant who has been called40 “the most influential woman in all the computer world.” She currently has close ties to Google as well as the DNA testing company 23andme and is a member41 of and agenda contributor42 to the World Economic Forum.

Dyson later stated that the meeting with Epstein had been planned by Myhrvold. The meeting appears to have taken place in 1998, based on information posted on Dyson’s social media accounts. One photo43 features Dyson and Epstein, with a time stamp indicating April 28, 1998, posing with Pavel Oleynikov, who appears to have been44 an employee of the Russian Federal Nuclear Center.

In that photo, they are standing in front of the house of the late Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet nuclear scientist and dissident, who is alleged to have had ties to U.S. intelligence. Sakharov45 and his wife, Yelena Bonner, were supporters of Zionist causes.46

The photos were taken in Sarov, where the Russian Federal Nuclear Center is based. That same day, another photo47 was taken that shows Epstein inside a classroom full of teens, apparently also in Sarov, given the time stamp.

Another Dyson image,48 one without a visible time stamp but with a caption stating the photo was taken “at Microsoft Russia in Moscow” in April 1998, shows Nathan Myhrvold. Dyson’s caption further states, “This was the beginning of a three-week trip during which Nathan and a variety of hangers-on (including a bodyguard) explored the state of post-Soviet science.” Epstein appears to be one of the “hangers-on,” given the photographs, dates and the described purpose of the trip.

Microsoft’s Ties to Epstein

Myhrvold and Epstein apparently had more in common than an interest in Russian scientific advances. When Myhrvold left Microsoft to cofound Intellectual Ventures, Vanity Fair reported49 that he had received Epstein at the firm’s office with “young girls” in tow who appeared to be “Russian models.”

A source close to Myhrvold and cited by Vanity Fair claimed that Myhrvold spoke openly about borrowing Epstein’s jet and staying at his homes in Florida and New York. Vanity Fair also noted that Myhrvold has been accused of having sex with minors provided by Epstein by none other than Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who stands accused of the same crime and who had previously flown with Myhrvold on Epstein’s private plane.

In addition, a former colleague of Myhrvold’s at Microsoft later developed her own ties to Epstein. Linda Stone,50 who joined Microsoft in 1993 and worked directly under Myhrvold, eventually became a Microsoft vice president. She introduced Epstein to Joi Ito of the MIT Media Lab after Epstein’s first arrest. “He has a tainted past, but Linda assures me that he’s awesome,” Ito later said51 in an email to three MIT staffers.

In Epstein’s famous little black book, there are several phone numbers for Stone, and her emergency contact is listed as Kelly Bovino, a former model and alleged Epstein coconspirator. After Epstein’s 2019 arrest, it emerged that Epstein had “directed”52 Bill Gates to donate $2 million to the MIT lab in 2014. Epstein also allegedly secured a $5 million donation from Leon Black for the lab. Ito was forced to resign his post as the lab’s director shortly after Epstein’s 2019 arrest.

Nathan Myhrvold,53 Linda Stone,54 Joi Ito, Esther Dyson,55 and Bill Gates56 were all members of the Edge Foundation community (edge.org website), alongside several other Silicon Valley icons. Edge, which is described as an exclusive organization of intellectuals “redefining who and what we are,”57 was created by John Brockman, a self-described “cultural impresario” and noted literary agent.

Brockman is best known for his deep ties to the art world in the late 1960s, though lesser known58 are his various “management consulting” gigs for the Pentagon and White House during that same period. Edge, which The Guardian59 once called “the world’s smartest website,” is an exclusive online symposium affiliated with what Brockman calls “the Third Culture.”

Epstein appears to have become involved with Brockman as early as 1995, when he helped to finance and rescue a struggling book project that was managed by Brockman. Edge, however, is more than just a website. For decades, it was also instrumental in bringing together tech executives, scientists who were often Brockman’s clients, and Wall Street financiers through its Millionaires’ Dinner, first held in 1985.

In 1999, this event rebranded as the Billionaires’ Dinner, and Epstein became intimately involved in these affairs and the Edge Foundation itself. Epstein was photographed attending several of the dinners as was Sarah Kellen, Ghislaine Maxwell’s chief “assistant” and coconspirator in the Epstein/Maxwell-run sex trafficking and blackmail scheme.

Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft and Jeffrey Epstein at the 2000 Edge Billionaires’ Dinner. Source: www.edge.org/igd/1200

From 2001 to 2017, Epstein funded60 $638,000 out of a total of $857,000 raised by Edge. During this period, there were several years when Epstein was Edge’s only donor. Epstein stopped giving in 2015, which was incidentally the same year that Edge decided to discontinue its annual Billionaires’ Dinner tradition.

In addition, the only award Edge has ever given out, the $100,000 Edge of Computation prize, was awarded in 2005 to Quantum computing pioneer David Deutsch — it was funded entirely by Epstein. A year before he began donating heavily to Edge, Epstein had created the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation to “fund and support cutting edge science around the world.”

Since the Epstein scandal, regular attendees of the Billionaires’ Dinner, sometimes called the Edge annual dinner, have referred to the event as an “influence operation.” If one follows the money, it appears it was an influence operation largely benefiting one man, Jeffrey Epstein, and his network. The evidence points toward Myhrvold and Gates as being very much a part of that network, even before Epstein’s involvement in Edge increased significantly.

A Tale of Two Bills

It is worth exploring the ties between the “philanthropic” endeavors of Bill Gates and Bill Clinton in the early 2000s, particularly given Epstein’s and Ghislaine Maxwell’s ties to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative during that period.

According to former Israeli intelligence operative Ari Ben-Menashe, Bill Clinton had been the main focus61 of Epstein’s sexual blackmail operation in the 1990s, a claim supported62 by Epstein victim testimony and Epstein’s intimate involvement with individuals who were close to the former president at the time.

Bill Gates at the White House Conference on the New Economy in 2000. Source: LA Times

Despite tensions arising from the Clinton administration’s pursuit of Microsoft’s monopoly in the late 1990s, the Gates and Clinton relationship had thawed by April 2000, when Gates attended the White House “Conference on the New Economy.”63

Attendees64 besides Gates included close Epstein associate Lynn Forester (now Lady de Rothschild) and then secretary of the treasury Larry Summers, who has also come under fire for his Epstein ties. Another attendee was White House chief of staff Thomas “Mack” McLarty, whose special assistant Mark Middleton met with Epstein at least three times65 at the Clinton White House.

Middleton was fired after press reports surfaced detailing his ties to illegal donations linked to foreign governments that had been made to Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign. Another participant in the conference was Janet Yellen, Biden’s current Secretary of the Treasury.

Gates spoke at a conference panel titled “Closing the Global Divide: Health, Education and Technology.” He discussed how the mapping of the human genome would result in a new era of technological breakthroughs and discussed the need to offer internet access to everyone to close the digital divide and allow the “new” internet-based economy to take shape.

At the time, Gates was backing a company,66 along with American Telecom billionaire Craig McCaw, that hoped to establish a global internet service provider monopoly through a network of low-orbit satellites. That company, Teledesic, shut down between 2002 and 2003 and is credited as being the inspiration67 for Elon Musk’s Starlink.

Bill Clinton and Bill Gates entered the world of philanthropy around the same time, with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation launching in 2000 and the Clinton Foundation, in 2001. Not only that but Wired described68 the two foundations as being “at the forefront of a new era in philanthropy, in which decisions — often referred to as investments — are made with the strategic precision demanded of business and government, then painstakingly tracked to gauge their success.”

Other media outlets, however, such as HuffPost,69 challenged that these foundations engaged in “philanthropy” and asserted that calling them such was causing “the rapid deconstruction of the accepted term.” HuffPost further noted that the Clinton Global Initiative (part of the Clinton Foundation), the Gates Foundation and a few similar organizations “all point in the direction of blurring the boundaries between philanthropy, business and nonprofits.”

It noted that this model for “philanthropy” has been promoted by the World Economic Forum and the Milken Institute. It is also worth noting that several of Epstein’s own “philanthropic” vehicles were also created just as this new era in philanthropy was beginning.

The Milken Institute was founded by Michael Milken,70 the notorious Wall Street “junk bond king,” who was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and securities fraud in 1989. He served little prison time and was ultimately pardoned by71 Donald Trump. Milken committed his crimes while working alongside Leon Black and Ron Perelman at Drexel Burnham Lambert72 before its scandalous collapse.

Black was deeply tied to Epstein, even having Epstein manage his personal “philanthropic” foundation73 for several years, even after Epstein’s first arrest. Perelman was a major Clinton donor whose 1995 fundraiser for the then president was attended by Epstein and whose companies offered jobs to Webster Hubbell and Monica Lewinsky after their respective scandals in the Clinton administration.

Like Gates, Milken has transformed his reputation for ruthlessness in the corporate world into one of a “prominent philanthropist.” Much of his “philanthropy”74 benefits the Israeli military and illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine.

Years after creating their foundations, Gates and Clinton discussed how they have “long bonded over their shared mission” of normalizing this new model of philanthropy. Gates spoke to Wired75 in 2013 about “their forays into developing regions” and “cites the close partnerships between their organizations.”

In that interview, Gates revealed that he had met Clinton before he had become president, stating, “I knew him before he was president, I knew him when he was president, and I know him now that he’s not president.”

Also in that interview, Clinton stated that after he left the White House he sought to focus on two specific things. The first is the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), which he stated exists “thanks largely to funding from the Gates Foundation,” and the second is the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), “where I try to build a global network of people to do their own thing.”

The Clinton Health Access Initiative first received76 an $11 million donation from the Gates Foundation in 2009. Over the last 12 years, the Gates Foundation has donated more than $497 million to CHAI. CHAI was initially founded in 2002 with the mission of tackling HIV/AIDS globally through77 “strong government relationships” and addressing “market inefficiencies.”

The Gates Foundation’s significant donations, however, began not long after78 CHAI’s expansion into malaria diagnostics and treatments. Notably, in 2011, Tachi Yamada, the former president of the Gates Foundation’s Global Health program, joined CHAI’s board alongside Chelsea Clinton.

Bill Gates and Bill Clinton at the annual Clinton Global Initiative in 2010

Regarding the CGI, Epstein’s defense lawyers argued in court79 in 2007 that Epstein had been “part of the original group that conceived of the Clinton Global Initiative,” which was first launched in 2005. Epstein’s lawyers described the CGI as a project “bringing together a community of global leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges.”

The Gates Foundation80 gave the CGI a total of $2.5 million between 2012 and 2013 in addition to its massive donations to the CHAI and an additional $35 million to the Clinton Foundation itself. In addition to the Gates Foundation donations, Gates’ Microsoft has been intimately involved81 in other “philanthropic” projects backed by Clinton.

In addition to these ties, Hillary Clinton established82 a partnership between the Clinton Foundation and the Gates Foundation in 2014 as part of the Clintons’ No Ceilings initiative. That partnership sought to “gather and analyze data about the status of women and girls’ participation around the world” and involved the two foundations working “with leading technology partners to collect these data and compile them.”

Months before the partnership was announced, Gates and Epstein met for dinner and discussed the Gates Foundation and philanthropy, according to The New York Times.83 During Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful run for president in 2016, both Bill and Melinda Gates were on her short list84 as potential options for vice president.

In addition, Epstein attempted to become involved in the Gates Foundation directly, as seen by his efforts to convince the Gates Foundation to partner with JP Morgan on a multibillion-dollar “global health charitable fund”85 that would have resulted in hefty fees paid out to Epstein, who was very involved with JP Morgan at the time.

Though that fund never materialized, Epstein and Gates did discuss Epstein becoming involved in Gates’ philanthropic efforts. Some of these contacts were not reported by the mainstream press until after the Bill and Melinda Gates divorce announcement. Yet, as mentioned, it was known that Epstein had “directed” Gates to donate to at least one organization — $2 million in 2014 to the MIT Media Lab.

Recent revelations about Gates and Epstein meetings that took place between 2013 and 2014 have further underscored the importance Epstein apparently held in the world of billionaire “philanthropy,” with Gates reportedly claiming that Epstein was his “ticket”86 to winning a Nobel Prize. Norwegian media, however, reported87 in October 2020 that Gates and Epstein had met the Nobel Committee chair, which failed to make a splash in international media at the time.

It is worth asking if Epstein managed to arrange such meetings with other individuals who also coveted Nobel Prizes and if any such individuals later received those prizes. If Epstein had such connections, it is unlikely that he would use them only once in the case of Bill Gates, given the vastness of his network, particularly in the tech and science worlds.

The year 2013 is also when Bill and Melinda Gates together met with Epstein88 at his New York residence, after which Melinda allegedly began asking her soon-to-be ex-husband to distance himself from Epstein.

While the stated reason for this, in the wake of the Gates’ divorce announcement, was that Melinda was put off by Epstein’s past and his persona, it could potentially be related to other concerns about Melinda’s reputation and that of the foundation that shares her name.

Indeed, 2013 was also the year that the Gates mansion systems engineer, Rick Allen Jones, began to be investigated by Seattle police for his child porn and child rape collection, which contained over 6,000 images and videos. Despite the gravity of his crime, when Jones was arrested89 at the Gates mansion a year later, he was not jailed after his arrest but was merely ordered “to stay away from children,” according to local media reports.

From Melinda’s perspective, this scandal, combined with Bill Gates’ growing association with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, may have posed a threat to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s reputation, well before Epstein’s 2019 arrest.

2013 was also the year that the Maxwells become involved in the Clinton Foundation. That year, Ghislaine Maxwell’s TerraMar Project, which officially supported UN Sustainable Development Goals as they relate the world’s oceans, made a $1.25 million commitment90 to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of an effort to form a Sustainable Oceans Alliance. TerraMar shut down shortly after Epstein’s 2019 arrest.

Isabel Maxwell and Al Seckel at the World Economic Forum’s 2011 Annual Meeting

Notably, Ghislaine’s TerraMar Project was in many ways the successor to Isabel Maxwell’s failed Blue World Alliance, which was also ostensibly focused on the world’s oceans. Blue World Alliance was set up by Isabel and her now deceased husband Al Seckel, who had hosted a “scientific conference” on Epstein’s island.

The Blue World Alliance also went under the name91 Globalsolver Foundation, and Xavier Malina, Christine Maxwell’s son, was listed as Globalsolver’s liaison to the Clinton Foundation. He was previously an intern at the Clinton Global Initiative.

Malina later worked92 in the Obama administration at the Office of White House Personnel. He now works for Google. It is also worth noting that during this same period, Isabel Maxwell’s son, Alexander Djerassi,93 was chief of staff at the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs in the Hillary Clinton–run State Department.

Gates Science and Epstein Science

While the Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundation intermingled, and the latter had ties to Epstein and Maxwell, it also appears that Epstein had significant influence over two of the most prominent science advisers to Bill Gates over the last 15 years — Melanie Walker and Boris Nikolic.

A screenshot from a 2019 presentation Melanie Walker gave for Rockefeller Foundation, where she is a fellow. Source: YouTube94

Melanie Walker,95 now a celebrated neurosurgeon, met Jeffrey Epstein in 1992 soon after she graduated from college, when he offered her a Victoria’s Secret modeling job. Such offers were often made by Epstein and his accomplices when recruiting women into his operation and it is unclear if Walker ever actually worked as a model for the Leslie Wexner-owned company.

She then stayed at a New York apartment building associated with Epstein’s trafficking operations during visits to New York, but it is unclear how long she stayed there or at other Epstein-owned properties. After she graduated from medical school in 1998, she became Epstein’s science adviser for at least a year.

By 1999, she had grown so close to Prince Andrew that she attended a Windsor Castle birthday celebration96 hosted by the Queen along with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. During this period, Melanie appears on Epstein’s flight logs97 under her birth name,98 Melanie Starnes,99 though it looks like “Starves” on the flight logs.

The close relationship between Prince Andrew and Melanie Walker came under scrutiny after Epstein’s former housekeeper at the Zorro Ranch property, Deidre Stratton, stated in an interview100 that Prince Andrew had been “given” a “beautiful young neurosurgeon” while he stayed at Epstein’s New Mexico property.

Given that only one neurosurgeon was both close to Prince Andrew and a part of Epstein’s entourage at the time, it seems highly likely that this woman “gifted” to Andrew was Melanie Walker.

According to Stratton, Andrew “kept company” with this woman for three days. The arrangement was set up by Epstein, who was not at the property at the time. The exact timing of the stay is uncertain, but it likely took place between 1999 and 2001. Stratton said the following101 about the stay:

“At the time, Jeffrey had this, she supposedly was a neurosurgeon, quite young, beautiful, young and brilliant, and she stayed in the home with him … At one point we had all these different teas and you could pick the teas that you wanted and she asked me to find one that would make Andrew more horny.

I’m guessing she understood her job was to entertain him because I guess, the fear, I don’t know; the fear would be that Andrew would say, ‘No I didn’t really find her that attractive.’ … He would tell Jeffrey that and then she would be on the ropes.

I’m guessing that, another theory is, that Jeffrey probably had her on retainer and she knew what her job would be, should be, to make these people happy … Sex was all they thought about. I mean, I know for sure that Jeffrey would ideally like three massages a day.”

Sometime later, Walker moved to Seattle and began living with then Microsoft executive Steven Sinofsky, who now serves as a board partner102 at the venture capital firm Andreesen Horowitz. Andreesen Horowitz notably backs Carbyne911, the Israel intelligence-linked precrime start-up funded by Epstein and his close associate, former prime minister of Israel Ehud Barak, as well as another Israeli intelligence-linked tech company led by Barak, called Toka.103

Toka recently won contracts with the governments of Moldova, Nigeria and Ghana through the World Bank, where Melanie Walker is currently a director104 and a former special adviser to its president. It is unclear when, how and under what circumstances Walker met Sinofsky.

Epstein’s Influence on the Gates Foundation

After moving to Seattle to be with Sinofsky and after a brief stint as a “practitioner in the developing world” in China with the World Health Organization, Walker was hired as a senior program officer by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 2006.

Given that the main feature of Walker’s resume at the time was having been a science adviser to another wealthy “philanthropist,” Jeffrey Epstein, her hire by the Gates Foundation for this critical role further underscores how Bill Gates, at the very least, not only knew who Epstein was but knew enough about his scientific interests and investments to want to hire Walker.

Walker went on to become105 deputy director for Global Development as well as a deputy director of Special Initiatives at the foundation. According to the Rockefeller Foundation,106 where she is a fellow, Walker later advised Gates on issues pertaining to neurotechnology and brain science for Gates’ secretive company bgC3,107 which Gates originally registered108 as a think tank under the name Carillon Holdings.

According to federal filings, bgC3’s focus areas were109 “scientific and technological services,” “industrial analysis and research,” and “design and development of computer hardware and software.”

During her time at the Gates Foundation, Walker introduced Boris Nikolic, Gates’ science adviser, to Epstein. Today, Melanie Walker is the cochair of the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Neurotechnology and Brain Science, having previously been named a WEF Young Global Leader. She also advises the World Health Organization, which is closely linked to Bill Gates’s “philanthropy.”

At the WEF, Walker wrote an article in 2016 titled “Healthcare in 2030: Goodbye Hospital, Hello Home-spital,”110 in which she discusses how wearable devices, brain-machine interfaces and injectable/swallowable robotic “medicines” will be the norm by 2030.

Years before COVID-19 and the Great Reset-inspired efforts to change health care in just this way, Walker wrote that while the dystopian scenario she was painting “sounds crazy … most of these technologies are either almost ready for prime time, or in development.” Of course, a lot of those technologies took shape thanks to the patronage of her former bosses, Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Gates.

In the case of Boris Nikolic, after being introduced to Epstein through Walker, he attended a 2011 meeting111 with Gates and Epstein where he was photographed alongside James Staley, then a senior JP Morgan executive, and Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and a close Epstein associate.

Nikolic was chief adviser for science and technology to Bill Gates at the time, advising both112 the Gates Foundation and bgC3. According to the mainstream narrative, this is supposed to be the first time that Gates and Epstein had ever met. In addition, this may have been when Epstein pitched the joint Gates Foundation-JP Morgan “global health charitable fund.”

The 2011 meeting at Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan mansion attended by James E. Staley, Larry Summers, Jeffery Epstein, Bill Gates and Boris Nikolic.

In 2014, Nikolic “waxed enthusiastic”113 about Epstein’s supposed penchant for financial advice ahead of a public offering for a gene-editing company that Nikolic had a $42 million stake in.114 Notably, both Nikolic and Epstein were clients of the same group of bankers at JP Morgan, with Bloomberg later reporting that Epstein regularly helped those bankers attract wealthy new clients.

In 2016, Nikolic cofounded Biomatics115 capital, which invests in health-related companies at “the convergence of genomics and digital data” that are “enabling the development of superior therapeutics, diagnostics and delivery models.” Nikolic founded Biomatics with Julie Sunderland, formerly the director of the Gates Foundation’s Strategic Investment Fund.

At least three of the companies backed by Biomatics116 — Qihan Biotech,117 eGenesis118 and Editas119 — were cofounded by George Church, a Harvard geneticist with deep ties to Epstein and also closely associated with the Edge Foundation. Biomatics investment in Qihan Biotech is no longer listed120 on the Biomatics website.

Church’s Qihan Biotech seeks to produce human tissues and organs inside pigs for transplantation into humans, while eGenesis seeks to genetically modify pig organs for use in humans. Editas produces CRISPR gene-editing “medicines” and is also backed by121 the Gates Foundation as well as Google Ventures.

Church has been accused122 of promoting eugenics as well as unethical human experimentation.123 Epstein’s significant interest in eugenics124 was made public after his death, and Bill Gates, as well as his father William H. Gates II, have also been linked125 to eugenics movements and ideas.

After Epstein’s death in 2019, it was revealed that Nikolic had been named the “successor executor” of Epstein’s estate, further suggesting close ties to Epstein despite Nikolic’s claims to the contrary. After details of Epstein’s will were made public, Nikolic did not sign a form indicating his willingness to be executor and did not ultimately serve126 in that role.

The Epstein Cover-Up Continues127

Despite the relatively abrupt shift in the mainstream media regarding what is acceptable to discuss regarding the Jeffrey Epstein-Bill Gates relationship, many of these same media outlets refuse to acknowledge much of the information contained in this investigative report. This is particularly true in the case of the Evening Standard article and Bill Gates’ odd relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell’s sister Isabel and CommTouch, the company Isabel previously led.

The likely reason for the continued cover-up of the true extent of Epstein’s ties to Gates has much more to do with Gates’ company Microsoft than with Bill Gates himself. While it is now permissible to report on ties that discredit Gates’ personal reputation, the information that could tie his relationship with Epstein and the Maxwells to Microsoft has been omitted.

If, as the Evening Standard reported, Epstein did make millions out of his business ties with Gates prior to 2001 and if Gates’ ties to Isabel Maxwell and the Israeli espionage-linked company CommTouch were to become public knowledge, the result could easily be a scandal on par with the PROMIS software affair.

Such a disclosure could be very damaging for Microsoft and its partner128 the World Economic Forum, as Microsoft has become a key player in the WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution initiatives that range from digital identity and vaccine passports to efforts to replace human workers with artificial intelligence.

There are clearly powerful actors with a vested interest in keeping the Epstein-Gates narrative squarely focused on 2011 and later — not necessarily to protect Gates but more likely to protect the company itself and other top Microsoft executives who appear to have been compromised by Epstein and others in the same intelligence-linked network.

This is hardly an isolated incident, as similar efforts have been made to cover up (or memory hole) the ties of Epstein and the Maxwells to other prominent Silicon Valley empires, such as those led by Jeff Bezos129 and Elon Musk.130 One key reason for this is that the Epstein network’s blackmail operation involved not only sexual blackmail but electronic forms of blackmail, something used to great effect by Robert Maxwell on behalf of Israeli intelligence as part of the PROMIS operation.

Given its nature, electronic forms of blackmail through illegal surveillance or backdoored software can be used to compromise those in power with something to hide, but who were uninclined to engage in the exploitation of minors, such as those abused by Epstein.

That Isabel and Christine Maxwell were able to forge close business ties with Microsoft after having been part of the front company that played a central role in PROMIS-related espionage and after explicitly managing their subsequent companies with the admitted intention to “rebuild” their spy father’s work and legacy, strongly points to the probability of at least some Microsoft products having been compromised in some fashion, likely through alliances with Maxwell-run tech companies.

The lack of mainstream media concern over the documented ties of the Epstein network to other top Microsoft executives of the past, such as Nathan Myhrvold, Linda Stone and Steven Sinofsky, makes it clear that, while it may be open season on the relationship between Bill Gates and Epstein, such is not the case for Microsoft and Epstein.

The ties of Epstein and the Maxwells to Silicon Valley, not just to Microsoft, are part of a broader attempt to cover up the strong intelligence component in the origin of Silicon Valley’s most powerful companies. Much effort has been invested in creating a public perception that these companies are strictly private entities despite their deep, long-standing ties to the intelligence agencies and militaries of the U.S.131 and Israel.132

The true breadth of the Epstein scandal will never be covered by mainstream media because so many news outlets are owned by these same Silicon Valley oligarchs or depend on Silicon Valley for online reader engagement.

Perhaps the biggest reason why the military/intelligence origins and links to the current Silicon Valley oligarchy will never be honestly examined, however, is that those very entities are now working with breakneck speed to ush
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/01/the-truth-about-gates-epstein-relationship.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Facebook Insider Blows Whistle on Vaccine Censorship

May 24, 2021, Project Veritas released a video interview1 with two Facebook insider whistleblowers — a data center technician and a data center facility engineer — who have come forward with internal documents showing how the social media platform is suppressing science and medical facts in the name of combating “vaccine hesitancy.”

Facebook recently rolled out a beta test designed to censor negative vaccine information — regardless of its veracity and truthfulness — with the aim of eventually rolling this censorship program in all nations, in as many languages as possible.

The documents prove Facebook is working on behalf of Big Pharma and in coordination with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization to protect and promulgate the false narrative that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for everyone. The platform is even hiding posts in which people who dutifully got the shots talk about their adverse effects.

Vaccine Hesitancy Comment Demotion

According to the internal documents, Facebook is beta testing a new algorithm that classifies users who post counternarrative information about vaccines into “vaccine hesitancy” (VH) tiers. The users are secretly assigned a “VH score” that dictates whether their posts and comments will be removed, demoted or left alone — regardless of whether they’re factually accurate. According to Project Veritas:2

“The insider … revealed the tech giant was running the ‘test’ on 1.5% of its 3.8 billion users with the focus on the comments sections on ‘authoritative health pages.’ ‘They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page, before you even see it,’ the insider [said] …

The stated goal of this feature is to ‘drastically reduce user exposure’ to VH comments. Another aim of the program is to force a ‘decrease in other engagement of VH comments including create, likes, reports [and] replies.'”

Two-Tiered Rating System for Vaccine Content

Vaccine content is rated based on its perceived ability to “discourage vaccination in certain contexts, thereby contributing to vaccine hesitancy or refusal.” According to a “Borderline Vaccine Framework” document, vaccine content is “tiered … by potential harm and how much context is required in order to evaluate harm.” The ratings are divided into three primary tiers:3

Explicit discouragement of COVID vaccination
Alarmism, criticism
Indirect vaccine discouragement — This includes congratulating people who have refused the vaccine, “shocking stories” that may deter people from getting the vaccine, promoting alternatives to vaccination or “suggesting natural immunity is better versus getting the vaccine,” minimizing the risks of natural COVID-19 infection, voicing personal objections to or skepticism about the vaccine, and even “neutral discussion or debate”

Depending on where your comment falls within these tiers, your post or comment will be either removed or “demoted” to varying degrees. As noted by investigative journalist and founder of Project Veritas, James O’Keefe, in a Fox News interview:4

“What’s remarkable about these private documents … is that ‘Tier 2’ [violation] says even if the facts are true … you will be targeted and demoted — your comments will be targeted and demoted.”

While it’s unclear who approved this beta test, the listed authors of the “vaccine hesitancy comment demotion” program are senior software engineer Joo Ho Yeo;5 data scientist Nick Gibian6 who, according to LinkedIn, works on health misinformation and civic harassment; software engineer Hendrick Townley, who states his primary interests are in “harnessing technology and technical understanding towards strengthening our democratic institutions and solving pressing policy issues;”7 machine learning and data scientist Amit Bahl;8 and product manager Matt Gilles.9

A New Form of Shadow Banning

The comment demotion strategy that is currently being beta tested is very similar to shadow banning, where a user has been secretly banned — which means none of their followers can actually see their posts — yet they continue posting because they’re unaware that the content is not being disseminated.

Internal documents reveal that this suppression strategy is currently reducing “vaccine hesitant” comments by 42.5% within the test group.

Under this two-tier information suppression system, you will have no idea whether your posts or comments are being suppressed and can’t be seen by other users, and to which degree your post or comment is being suppressed. In general, however, the internal documents reveal that this suppression strategy is currently reducing “vaccine hesitant” comments by 42.5% within the test group.

Facebook Is Actively Suppressing Life-Saving Science

Now, an example of a “vaccine hesitant” comment is not just “I don’t know if I want the vaccine.” It also includes comments like, “I saw a study that said someone died who got the vaccine,” and personal experiences such as “Excruciating pain after my second vaccine! Shaking so bad, almost to convulsions.”

Facebook is even censoring and putting “fake news” labels on data obtained directly from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is jointly run by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

This despite having a public policy to “remove content that repeats … false health information … that are widely debunked by leading health organizations such as the World Health Organization and the CDC.”

They justify this by stating that VAERS data and other study findings cannot be communicated unless “full context” is provided. But as noted by the whistleblower, that’s a highly ambiguous term. What is full context? Do you have to post an entire study in order for it to be contextual?

In the final analysis, it’s clear that Facebook is actively suppressing and censoring science, medical facts and first-hand personal experiences, and in so doing, they are putting the whole world in harm’s way. By suppressing crucial information about vaccine risks they are eliminating any possibility of informed consent because it is impossible to understand the risks.

They are promoting ignorance that can, and I firmly believe, will, literally kill many of their users. And, since Facebook openly admits coordinating its censorship with the CDC and WHO, the same can probably be said for both of those organizations. As one of the whistleblowers tells O’Keefe:

“[Zuckerberg wants to] build a community where everyone complies — not where people can have an open discourse and dialogue about the most personal and private and intimate decisions. The narrative [is] get the vaccine, the vaccine is good for you, everyone should get it. If you don’t, you will be singled out as an enemy of society.”

Facebook Has Turned From Digital Town Square to Digital Jail

The second whistleblower, a data center facility engineer, says Facebook is now “prohibiting people from having an open dialogue about issues that affect their personal security.” He likens the platform to an abusive partner who doesn’t allow their spouse to speak to friends and family about what’s going on behind closed doors.

Ironically, leaked video from the same whistleblower shows Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, back in mid-July 2020, expressing his own vaccine hesitancy during a video conference.

“I do just want to make sure that I share some caution on this because we just don’t know the long-term side effects of basically modifying people’s DNA and RNA,” Zuckerberg told his team, referring to COVID-19 vaccines under development.

As noted by O’Keefe, Zuckerberg’s own words would now violate his company’s public policy and rules of expression.

Children’s Health Defense Sues Facebook Over Censorship

In related news, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) sued Facebook in August 2020, charging the company, its CEO, Zuckerberg, and several fact-checking organizations with “censoring truthful public health posts and for fraudulently misrepresenting and defaming the children’s health organization.”10 As reported by The Defender, May 25, 2021:11

“The complaint12 alleges Facebook has ‘insidious conflicts’ with the pharmaceutical industry and health agencies, and details factual allegations regarding the CDC, CDC Foundation and the World Health Organization’s extensive relationships and collaborations with Facebook and Zuckerberg, calling into question Facebook’s collaboration with the government in a censorship campaign.

Facebook censors CHD’s page, targeting factual information about vaccines, 5G and public health agencies. Facebook-owned Instagram deplatformed CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Feb. 10 without notice or explanation.

Lawyers for Children’s Health Defense are awaiting the ruling of Judge Susan Illston after defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss in the CHD lawsuit alleging government-sponsored censorship, false disparagement and wire fraud.”

Florida Governor Signs Law to Crack Down on Censorship

It seems legal action may be the only way to rein in censorship that has spiraled out of control, and Florida, my home state, is paving the way with brand-new legislation, SB 7072,13 to hold social media companies liable for their censorship. As reported by NBC News, May 24, 2021:14

“Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis … said the bill … cracks down on … social media ‘censorship’ while safeguarding Floridians’ ability to access social media platforms. ‘One of their major missions seems to be suppressing ideas that are either inconvenient to the narrative or which they personally disagree with,’ DeSantis said …

DeSantis … and others have accused social media companies of censoring conservative thought by removing posts or using algorithms that reduce the visibility of posts …

The bill also imposes hefty financial penalties against social media platforms that suspend the accounts of political candidates. The bill would fine companies $250,000 a day for doing so …

Florida’s attorney general can bring action against technology companies that violate the law, under Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and social media platforms found to have violated antitrust law will be restricted from contracting with any public entity, DeSantis said.”

The bill also allows private users to sue for certain violations, with statutory damages totaling up to $100,000 per proven claim or actual damages, plus punitive damages “if aggravating factors are present.”15

Facebook Harms Users in Other Ways Too

As detailed in “Harvard Professor Exposes Surveillance Capitalism,” which features an interview with Shoshana Zuboff, author of the book, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” free social media platforms aren’t free. You pay with your personal data.

So, not only is Facebook and other social media companies suppressing your freedom of speech — often at the request of government officials, which is illegal — they’re also stealing your personal data and using it to control and manipulate you.

Their primary function isn’t actually to allow you to communicate with others. Their primary function is surveillance, data collection and social engineering. In other words, you are the commodity, not the other way around. They need you far more than you need them.

Companies like Facebook, Google and third parties of all kinds have the power, and use that power, to target your personal inner demons, to trigger you, and to take advantage of you when you’re at your most vulnerable to entice you into action that serves them, commercially or politically.

Your entire existence — even your shifting moods, deciphered by facial recognition software — has become a source of revenue for corporate entities as you’re being cleverly maneuvered into doing (and typically buying) or thinking something you may not have done, bought or thought otherwise.

Facebook’s massive experiments, in which they used subliminal cues to see if they could make people happier or sadder and affect real-world behavior offline, have proved that — by manipulating language and inserting subliminal cues in the online context — they can change real-world behavior and real-world emotion, and that these methods and powers can be exercised “while bypassing user awareness.”

Other technologies, such as digital security systems, employ hidden microphones to spy on your private conversations. All of these data streams, from cell phones, computers, “smart” appliances and video cameras around public areas add to ever-expanding predictive modeling capabilities that, ultimately, are used to control and manipulate you.

We Need New Laws

As noted by Zuboff, the reason we’re in this creepy situation is because there are no laws in place to curtail this brand-new type of surveillance capitalism. Indeed, the only reason it has been able to flourish over the past 20 years is because there’s been an absence of laws against it, primarily because it has never previously existed.

Google and Facebook were the only ones who knew what they were doing. The surveillance network grew in the shadows, unbeknownst to the public or lawmakers. The good news is, it’s not too late to take back both our privacy — and our freedom of speech online — but we need legislation that addresses the reality of the entire breadth and depth of these systems in their entirety. As noted by Zuboff:16

“The choice to turn any aspect of one’s life into data must belong to individuals by virtue of their rights in a democratic society. This means, for example, that companies cannot claim the right to your face, or use your face as free raw material for analysis, or own and sell any computational products that derive from your face …

Anything made by humans can be unmade by humans. Surveillance capitalism is young, barely 20 years in the making, but democracy is old, rooted in generations of hope and contest.

Surveillance capitalists are rich and powerful, but they are not invulnerable. They have an Achilles heel: fear. They fear lawmakers who do not fear them. They fear citizens who demand a new road forward as they insist on new answers to old questions: Who will know? Who will decide who knows? Who will decide who decides? Who will write the music, and who will dance?”

How to Protect Your Online Privacy

While there’s no doubt we need a whole new legislative framework to curtail surveillance capitalism and censorship alike, in the meantime, there are ways you can protect your privacy online and limit the “behavioral surplus data” collected about you. (As of yet, there’s not much you can do about online censorship, other than encourage your state legislators to address it, as Florida just began to do.) To protect your privacy, consider taking the following steps:17

Ditch Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms that siphon your personal data and censor content — Today, there are free-speech alternatives that do neither of those things.

Use a virtual private network (VPN) to mask the true identity of your computer.

Do not use Gmail, as every email you write is permanently stored. It becomes part of your profile and is used to build digital models of you, which allows them to make predictions about your line of thinking and every want and desire.
Many other older email systems such as AOL and Yahoo are also being used as surveillance platforms in the same way as Gmail. ProtonMail.com, which uses end-to-end encryption, is a great alternative and the basic account is free.

Don’t use Google’s Chrome browser, as everything you do on there is surveilled, including keystrokes and every webpage you’ve ever visited. Brave is a great alternative that takes privacy seriously.
Brave is also faster than Chrome, and suppresses ads. It’s based on Chromium, the same software infrastructure that Chrome is based on, so you can easily transfer your extensions, favorites and bookmarks.

Don’t use Google as your search engine, or any extension of Google, such as Bing or Yahoo, both of which draw search results from Google. The same goes for the iPhone’s personal assistant Siri, which draws all of its answers from Google.
Alternative search engines include SwissCows, DuckDuckGo and Qwant. Avoid StartPage, as it has been bought by an aggressive online marketing company which, like Google, depends on surveillance.

Don’t use an Android cellphone, as they are always listening and recording your conversations.

Don’t use Google Home devices — These devices record everything that occurs in your home, both speech and sounds such as brushing your teeth and boiling water, even when they appear to be inactive, and send that information back to Google.

Regularly clear your cache and cookies.

Don’t use Fitbit, as it has been acquired by Google and will provide them with all your physiological information and activity levels, in addition to everything else that Google already has on you.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/31/facebook-censoring-vaccine-hesitancy.aspx

Categories
Recommended

The Truth About COVID

I recently had the opportunity to be a guest on Mikhaila Peterson’s “Opposing Views” on the topic of COVID-19. Open debate and sharing of information from all sides is so important, especially now that censorship of certain groups, organizations and individuals — in direct violation of Constitutional law — is rampant.
The other guest featured was Jeremy Kamil, Ph.D., an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at LSU Health Shreveport, who has studied the herpes virus for two decades and has a passion for studying how viruses work. Peterson said she emailed 20 doctors to get views from the conventional medical community on COVID-19 — and Kamil was the only one who agreed to be on the show.
I encourage you to watch the video in full and make up your own mind about what you hear, but as I didn’t get a chance to respond to Kamil’s statements directly, I’d like to do that now, as well as provide a recap of some of the most important take-away points from the interview.
A Trial Run for COVID-19, a Lab-Engineered Virus

When talking about COVID-19, it’s important to start at the beginning — not the start of the pandemic but Event 201, which took place in October 2019.
Representatives from the World Economic Forum, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Johns Hopkins University Population Center, the World Bank, the Chinese government and vaccine maker Johnson & Johnson were among those at the event, which was organized by Bill Gates and, too coincidentally, simulated a worldwide pandemic triggered by a novel coronavirus.1,2
Mirroring what is now occurring, social media censorship was a prominent strategy used at the event to protect the dissemination of vaccine propaganda and the narrative surrounding the global event. If you are considering brushing this off as “conspiracy theory,” you can read about Event 201 for yourself at its official site.3 
Peterson and I discussed a bit about Gates, and you may be wondering why I’m bringing him up. It’s part of understanding the immense power and control being wielded by private individuals and the ultimate goal of technocratic tyranny. When the U.S. withdrew funding from the World Health Organization in 2020, Gates became the biggest funder of the WHO.
The two — Gates and the WHO — have been instrumental in pushing for a global vaccination campaign, and Gates has a great deal of money invested in these vaccines. The WHO is the tool that was used to implement a global shutdown — a catastrophe — in 2020, with the end goal being wealth transfer, economic destruction and societal reformation.
It is also interesting that Gates and company have restricted access to this highly profitable vaccine only to countries that can afford it. The patents have not been shared with other countries so they could get this “lifesaving” vaccine, which clearly emphasizes that the primary purpose of this vaccine is not to save lives but to make large profits.
Gates isn’t the only player — there are many others, including Google and founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Klaus Schwab, who first started circulating the idea of The Great Reset. Kamil said he wasn’t familiar with the term, which is something I’d urge him to read up on as he formulates his opinions.
I also touched briefly on the overwhelming evidence suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus that leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which was conducting gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci.4 It’s a lot to take in, I know, especially if this is the first you’re hearing about it, but as the pieces of the puzzle come together, it becomes obvious what is really going on.
No Flu Cases Because ‘Masks Are Really Effective’?

When asked about the mysterious disappearance of flu during the 2020-2021 season, Kamil stated it’s because “masks are really effective [at] suppressing viral transmission.” If that’s the case, then why didn’t COVID-19 cases similarly disappear? The next rational question is, were flu cases and deaths simply reallocated as COVID-19 deaths?
Up until around July 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) counted flu and pneumonia deaths separately, but then began reporting a combination of pneumonia, flu and COVID deaths, under a new category listed as “PIC” (Pneumonia, Influenza, COVID), via their COVIDView webpage.5
February 12, 2021 — toward the end of peak flu season in the U.S. — COVIDView was replaced with the COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review, which no longer appears to mention flu and pneumonia.6
As for the effectiveness of masks — and the absurdities surrounding their use during activities like swimming — there’s a wealth of evidence that masks are ineffective. Only one randomized controlled trial has been conducted on mask usage and COVID-19 transmission, and it found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.7
A working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research8 found that nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as lockdowns, quarantines and mask mandates, have not significantly affected overall virus transmission rates.9
Proper Response ‘Must Be Driven by Case Numbers’
When asked what the “proper” response to the pandemic would be, Kamil said, “It has to be driven by case numbers.” This sounds good in theory, provided the case numbers you’re basing recommendations on are accurate — and the resulting recommendations are in line with the severity of the disease and individual risk assessments. But, in the case of COVID-19, they most often were not.
What evidence is there that the case numbers were manipulated? PCR tests recommended by the WHO used to be set to 45 cycle thresholds (CTs),10 yet the scientific consensus has long been that anything over 35 CTs renders the test useless,11 as the accuracy will be a measly 3%, with the other 97% being false positives and artificially driving up case numbers.
Then, one hour after Joe Biden’s inauguration as the 46th president of the United States, January 20, 2021, the WHO — suddenly and out of the blue — lowered the recommended PCR CT,12 which automatically guaranteed that the number of “cases,” i.e., positive PCR test results, would plummet.
And this isn’t even getting into how the CDC changed how COVID-19 is recorded on death certificates in March 2020, de-emphasizing preexisting conditions and comorbidities, and basically calling all deaths in which the patient had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test a COVID-19 death.
‘Look to People Who Aren’t Making a Buck Off It’

Another one of Kamil’s points was to avoid getting data from “someone trying to sell you something.” I would agree, only Kamil used the example of someone “selling a health supplement online,” ignoring the fact that the real profiteers in this pandemic are not people selling supplements online but billionaires who are only getting richer.

Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, now has a net worth of $5.3 billion,13 to give one example. He joined the billionaires club April 2, 2020, when news that phase 2 trials of Moderna’s COVID vaccine were set to begin, driving up its stock.14
Meanwhile, Pfizer’s COVID vaccine has already generated $3.5 billion in revenue in the first three months of 2021,15 and the company said it expects “durable demand” for the vaccine to continue in coming years, similar to flu vaccines. Estimates suggest revenue will reach $26 billion for Pfizer’s COVID vaccine by the end of 2021.16
So, following Kamil’s own advice, Pfizer and Moderna would be among those to not trust, based on their making billions, which is exponentially more than any supplement manufacturer is making. But even putting profits aside, as I told Peterson, one point that should give anyone pause before trusting a company would be if it has a criminal history of fraud and selling dangerous products — of which both Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson can attest to.
Myth: It’s ‘Impossible to Die From COVID’ After Vaccination

Kamil made some statements that I strongly disagree with, one of them being that if you get a COVID-19 vaccine “it’s almost 100% impossible for you to die from COVID — even if you caught like the scariest variants we know of.” This is simply not true. As of April 26, 2021, there have been 9,245 reported cases of COVID-19 in fully vaccinated individuals, including 132 deaths.17 This is from the CDC’s own data.
There’s also a risk of death from the COVID-19 vaccine. According to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), as of April 23, 2021, there have been 3,544 deaths reported following COVID-19 vaccination.18 Past investigations have shown only between 1%19 and 10%20 of adverse reactions are ever reported to VAERS, which is a passive, voluntary reporting system, so the actual number could be much higher.
Kamil also suggested that if you’re healthy, it makes no difference in terms of getting sick from COVID-19 because “viruses like healthy cells” and “they love a healthy [cell] just like a person might, if you’re a carnivore, might like a juicy steak.”
This seriously undermines the power that you have to take control of your health, because, in reality, it’s well known that people who are unhealthy, with underlying conditions, are far more likely to contract and die from COVID-19. Your state of health absolutely matters.
Kamil also seems to be seriously misguided about health organizations like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, stating that it doesn’t “make a dollar more” by approving a vaccine and describing it as “one of the best organizations, like, as far as protecting your health and watching out for, like, Americans.”
While the FDA itself does not accept corporate money, it does receive money funneled via a nonprofit foundation, which in turn receives money from other nonprofits funded by private interests. It’s really all a façade because the end result is the same. Those donating the money ultimately end up with the ability to pull strings, when needed. The FDA’s conflicts of interest and failures to act on behalf of Americans’ best interests are also well noted.
Fear Is the Most Powerful Emotion to Drive Human Behavior

The pandemic has succeeded in generating fear and controlling human behavior, and anything that counters its final solution of vaccination is being censored — this is a clue that shouldn’t be overlooked. Vaccine passports are also being offered as part of this solution, as a tool to get your freedom back, but it’s at the price of — your freedom.
Imagine a world in which you cannot travel, go to a sports event, enter your workplace or even a grocery store unless you have the proper credentials. If it sounds like history repeating itself in the most horrific way, you’re not far off. Even open debate is being silenced, and it’s impossible to give informed consent to vaccination if you only know one side. When you only have one side to the story, then that’s propaganda, not real information.
What Should You Do to Stay Healthy Against COVID?

Peterson asked me one very important question, which was what should people be doing to stay healthy. One key strategy is to be metabolically flexible, and my No. 1 recommendation to do so is to remove linoleic acid from your diet.
Omega-6 linoleic acid (LA) is a pernicious metabolic poison that is highly susceptible to oxidation, and as the fat oxidizes, it breaks down into harmful subcomponents such as advanced lipid oxidation end products (ALES) and oxidized LA metabolites (OXLAMS). These ALES and OXLAMS also cause damage. To avoid LA, which is linked to chronic degenerative disease, you need to avoid all vegetable oils and eliminate virtually all processed foods and restaurant foods from your diet.
Other strategies to build immunity include optimizing vitamin D. My peer reviewed study, published in the journal Nutrients in October 2020,21 demonstrates the clear link between vitamin D deficiency and severe cases of COVID-19.
I also recommend familiarizing yourself with nebulized hydrogen peroxide, which can be used not only to improve symptoms but as a routine maintenance strategy to support optimal health. You can hear the rest of the interview in its entirety, including the unique risks posed by mRNA vaccines, by watching the video above.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/30/mikhaila-peterson-the-truth-about-covid-19.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Corruption in the Medical Establishment

This article is meant as something simple and logical that you can send to friends who still blindly trust in the American medical establishment. It’s a collection of stories and links that are not conspiratorial at all. All logical, all “respectable,” bland almost — yet demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt that we need to watch out for ourselves.

Now, are there amazing and brilliant professionals involved in medicine and medical research? You bet, and I tip my hat off to them. But the system is corrupt as hell, and we are all better off dealing with reality versus fantasy. My heart bleeds when I think of those who trusted the American medical establishment and who were effectively murdered in the hospital last year. What an awful way to go.

I think we owe it to ourselves to seek the truth. And it’s important that when we present our facts-based skepticism to others, we do it in an even-headed way.

My own skepticism started when I was a kid because I grew up around medical research. From conversations, I learned that some research was factual and some, well, not so much. I also heard heart-wrenching stories about medical mismanagement and cruelty. Some made my stomach turn. Growing up, I thought that it had to do with how things were done “in Russia.” Corruption and so on.

I realized that things were not much better in America when I had to look after a relative at a good American hospital (before COVID). The chaos blew my mind! One department didn’t know what the other one was doing, nurses broke basic sanitary rules, etc.

I was coming into this with idealistic ideas about American medicine working like a well-tuned machine (maybe mechanical but at least fine-tuned!), and my delusions were crashed. I realized that, existentially, it’s the same everywhere.

Then 2020 showed up, and science in the traditional sense of it went out of the window. The official narrative was getting weirder and weirder, the bullying and the censorship were competing with each other in absurdity — and so to save my sanity, I started really looking into the state of medicine and medical research.

Half of Scientific Literature ‘May Simply Be Untrue’

“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness,” wrote Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet in 2015.1

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine,” wrote Marcia Angell in 2009.2

Below is her presentation at Harvard Medical School from a few years ago (when it was still OK to be critical of the pharma industry).

Here is a must-watch interview with Leemon McHenry, posted March 9, 2021.

Here are some facts about the state of hospitals in America (pre-2020):3

“Using a weighted average of the 4 studies, a lower limit of 210,000 deaths per year was associated with preventable harm in hospitals.

Given limitations in the search capability of the Global Trigger Tool and the incompleteness of medical records on which the Tool depends, the true number of premature deaths associated with preventable harm to patients was estimated at more than 400,000 per year. Serious harm seems to be 10- to 20-fold more common than lethal harm.”

And here is a list of links to articles in “respectable media” about various unseemly practices, including by the very pharma companies that we are supposed to idolize today. I borrowed much of the list from my earlier article, “Pandemic, Meet Panopticon. Panopticon, Meet Pandemic.”4

The Guardian — Pfizer pays out to Nigerian families of meningitis drug trial victims5

The Atlantic — Did Pfizer Bribe Its Way Out of Criminal Charges in Nigeria?6

The U.S. Department of Justice — Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History7

STAT — Lavishly funded Moderna hits safety problems in bold bid to revolutionize medicine8

The Intercept — Drug Companies Continue to Shed Liability for Rushed Coronavirus Treatments9

Nature Biotechnology — Research not fit to print: Some biotech companies now eschew traditional publication in peer-reviewed journals10

Daily Mail — Merck Knew its Anti-Baldness Drug Propecia Was Linked to Depression and Reports of Suicide11

NPR — Rush to Produce, Sell Vaccine Put Kids in Philippines at Risk12

Medical Xpress — Narcolepsy fiasco spurs COVID vaccine fears in Sweden13

BMJ — Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs?14

The Guardian — Revealed: how drug firms ‘hoodwink’ medical journals15

Reuters — AstraZeneca to be exempt from coronavirus vaccine liability claims in most countries16

Forbes — Johnson & Johnson to Pay $100 Million in Baby Powder Settlement17

Wikipedia — List of largest pharmaceutical settlements18

NPR — The Campaign To Wipe Out Polio Was Going Really Well … Until It Wasn’t19

Drugwatch — Pfizer20

The BMJ Opinion — Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines — we need more details and the raw data21

The Guardian — UK firm tried HIV drug on orphans22

Consumer Reports — How Your Hospital Can Make You Sick23

MSN — Killer fungus spread rampantly at US hospital Covid ward: study24

Journal of Patient Safety — A New, Evidence-based Estimate of Patient Harms Associated With Hospital Care25

PLOS Medicine — Editors, Publishers, Impact Factors, and Reprint Income26

The New York Review — Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption27

The Lancet — Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?28

I will end this with a story. When I was a kid, my mom’s hospital was giving out a limited number of condominiums to select employees. There was throat-cutting competition. We didn’t get it. Later on, it turned out that the building had asbestos, and people started getting sick. Many of them were doctors. It wasn’t corruption even; they just didn’t know.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/29/medical-establishment-corruption.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Can This Natural Sweetener Lower Blood Sugar?

Many people have a sweet tooth. For some, it can become an addiction,1 fueled by a food industry that continually creates an abundance of highly palatable, inexpensive, ultraprocessed foods. As some companies cash in on a market for lab-created, low-calorie sweeteners, one natural sweetener may help curb your sweet tooth without raising your blood sugar. In fact, it may have the opposite effect.

While manufacturers seek out “perfectly engineered food,”2 the incidence of obesity3 and obesity-related health conditions4 has skyrocketed. Type 2 diabetes is one of the obesity-related conditions that has a significant impact on many of your bodily systems.

People with diabetes have a higher risk of also having heart disease, stroke, glaucoma, kidney disease and high blood pressure.5 It would make sense if the incidence of diabetes and obesity goes down, you could have a positive impact on these conditions that contribute to at least five of the top 10 leading causes of death.6

The obesity epidemic is one of the most important global public health challenges. Obesity was linked with 4.7 million premature deaths worldwide in 20177 and according to the National Diabetes Statistics Report, 34.2 million people, or 10.5% of the U.S. population, has diabetes.8 By using this sweetener you may reduce your risk of insulin resistance, a primary symptom of diabetes.

Not All Sugar Is Created Equally

Sugar is a carbohydrate9 found in fruits and vegetables and added to food products. Added sugars are usually sucrose (table sugar) and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Once digestion has started in the stomach, sugars break down into one of three monosaccharides from which other sugars are formed.

These include glucose, fructose and galactose. Glucose is one of the main compounds found in sucrose, lactose and maltose. These are disaccharide sugar compounds commonly found in foods. Fructose is the main type of sugar found in fruits and vegetables and galactose is found mostly in dairy products.

In the West, the most used plant-based sweeteners are sucrose and HFCS, a sweetener made from corn. Evidence shows us that no matter what type of sugar you are consuming, it has a significant effect on your metabolism, even in the healthiest people.

Sugar hides under as many as 61 different names in 74% of processed food products10 and while there are copious numbers of studies over decades demonstrating the damage it does to your health, the industry has managed to bury the evidence and claim it has little to no effect on your health or your weight.

In one 12-week study,11 researchers demonstrated men who ate 650 calories a day of sugar had higher levels of fat in their blood and liver. Interestingly, the researchers separated the two groups into those who had evidence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and those who did not. During the study, each participant followed both diets for 12 weeks.

Lead researcher Bruce Griffin, Ph.D., from the University of Surrey, commented on the results saying,12 “Our findings provide new evidence that consuming high amounts of sugar can alter your fat metabolism in ways that could increase your risk of cardiovascular disease.”

Sugar can also affect your brain, mood and behavior. Several studies have found an association between a rising intake of sugar and an increase in rates of depression.13,14,15

Sugar stimulates the release of dopamine,16 which is a neurotransmitter that plays a role in many important pathways, many of which affect your mood. This is why sugar feels so good and why manufacturers use it to drive your behavior. But, like other addictive drugs, sugar is not healthy.

Allulose Natural Sweetener Has Unique Action on Blood Sugar

One natural sweetener option is Astrea Allulose. Although the market in Japan is significant,17 it is a relatively little-known alternative sweetener in the West. Allulose is found in small quantities in some fruits such as figs, jackfruit and raisins and was given a generally regarded as safe (GRAS) food designation by the FDA.18

Allulose is a monosaccharide sugar that differs from fructose only at one of the carbon atoms.19 This one change makes a world of difference in the way the molecule acts in the body. It is functionally a carbohydrate and mostly absorbed in the small intestines. However, the majority of allulose is excreted by the kidneys before it is metabolized.20

This means that most of the calories you consume from allulose are excreted through your kidneys before being metabolized. It has only been recently that the FDA21 differentiated allulose from sucrose or HFCS on nutrition labels. Before this, anytime it was added to a processed food, it was simply listed as an added sugar.

Therefore, there was little incentive to include allulose in products. Since allulose has 95% fewer calories than sucrose,22 the FDA allowed manufacturers to exclude it from the total and added sugar counts on nutrition labels.23

The percentage of the monosaccharide that is not metabolized does not contribute to energy or caloric intake. In one animal study, researchers found allulose24 contributes a fraction of 1% of the energy of sucrose.25

The researchers called the energy value “effectively zero” and suggested that this “rare sugar providing zero energy … may be useful in sweeteners for obese people as an aid for weight reduction.”26

In addition to contributing little to no calories, allulose elicits a physiological response in the body that may lower your blood glucose27 and reduce abdominal fat28 and fat accumulation around the liver.29,30 This may reduce the rising number of people who have NAFLD. Allulose can also decrease insulin resistance31 and reduce the potential risk for Type 2 diabetes.32

Natural Compound May Reduce Glucose With Few Side Effects

In an analysis of 40 human trials,33 allulose demonstrated the ability to significantly reduce after-meal insulin response, which the researchers believe “lead to modest improvements on postprandial glucose and insulin regulation.”34

Another study35 engaged 30 people who did not have diabetes. They were given a loading dose of sucrose and then randomized to receive 2.5, 5, 7.5 or 10 grams of allulose. Plasma glucose and insulin levels were measured at 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes after ingestion. The researchers found that in a dose-dependent manner, allulose reduced plasma glucose and insulin levels.

In other words, allulose not only contributes very little to caloric intake or blood glucose, but it also may help to improve insulin regulation. While there are not yet allulose-specific human studies regarding safety, animal studies36 have not found toxicity even at high doses.

In one nonrandomized controlled trial37 using 30 healthy individuals within a normal BMI range, researchers discovered individuals experienced gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms when the dose reached 0.4 grams per kilogram of body weight (g/kg*BW). Gastrointestinal tolerance testing did not indicate severe diarrhea or other symptoms until the dose read 0.5 g/kg*BW.

The researchers suggest that based on their results a maximum single dose should not be over 0.4 g/kg*BW.38 This means a person who weighs 160 pounds could eat 29 grams of allulose in one serving, which is equivalent to 7.25 teaspoons of sugar, without experiencing GI symptoms.

While there is no immediate toxic effect on the body, evidence does suggest that consistent use may affect the weight of your kidneys and liver, the two organs through which the natural sweetener passes. In a study published in 2019,39 researchers noted that using allulose can prevent obesity, but continuous consumption may increase the weight of the liver and kidneys “without apparent pathological and functional abnormalities.”

The study investigated the potential these parameters could change after the participant no longer consumed allulose. Using an animal model, the researchers fed allulose for four weeks and then a controlled diet without allulose for another 10 weeks. At the end of four weeks the weights of the liver and kidney were higher, but the difference disappeared after the animals were no longer fed allulose.40

High-Fructose Corn Syrup Is Worse Than White Sugar

HFCS, aka corn sugar, is another common form of sugar found in processed foods. While it’s often cited interchangeably with fructose, actually HFCS and fructose are not the same. Fructose is a simple sweetener found naturally in many fruits and vegetables.41 HFCS, on the other hand, is artificially produced from corn, through a process that involves first turning it into corn starch and then back into a mixture of fructose and glucose.42

But whether it’s simple fructose or HFCS, there is evidence to show this type of sugar causes greater damage than simple glucose or table sugar. This is because fructose does not act like glucose in your body.

In one study,43 a group of postmenopausal overweight or obese women consumed fructose beverages with their meals for 10 weeks. The data showed this practice increased fasting glucose and reduced the insulin response. The researchers concluded that the “present results suggest that long-term consumption of diets high in fructose could lead to an increased risk of CVD [cardiovascular disease].”44

Unfortunately, because HFCS is cheaper and 20% sweeter than regular table sugar, it’s used by many food and beverage manufacturers, and it has been shown through numerous studies that it not only can contribute to impaired glucose tolerance,45 cardiovascular disease and diabetes, but also can disrupt your sense of hunger and satiety.46

In regard to diabetes, with one global analysis of 43 countries,47 researchers found in areas where HFCS was highly available, the prevalence of diabetes was 20% higher. The results suggested that increased consumption of HFCS increased the risk of Type 2 diabetes, which was independent of obesity.

In another study,48 men and women were given 24 ounces of either a HFCS- or sucrose-sweetened beverage. Blood and urine samples were collected over six hours and a variety of metabolic biomarkers were measured. The researchers found that HFCS led to significantly different acute metabolic effects than sucrose.

Initially, experts thought fructose would be a better choice because it has a low glycemic index. However, only the liver can metabolize fructose.49 And, as mentioned, consuming fructose also increases your appetite, which ultimately contributes to obesity, diabetes and NAFLD.50

The Toxic Effects of Artificial Sweeteners

Many sweeteners have side effects, and those from artificial sweeteners are more toxic than others. Research in 200851 revealed that sucralose, also known as Splenda, reduces your gut bacteria by 50% and increases the pH level in your intestines. A study52 from 2018 found sucralose is metabolized and accumulates in fat cells.

Research published in 2016 from the Ramazzini Institute linked Splenda to leukemia.53 Not long after this study was published in a peer-reviewed journal, the company engaged public relations firm Ketchum, notorious for its close work with Monsanto and promotional work for genetically engineered crops.

It appears the marketing ploy worked, as the company reduced the impact of the scientific evidence. By 2017, market research showed the market size for Splenda was valued at $697.4 million and was projected to increase 3% through 2025.54 North America and Asia-Pacific accounted for the majority of the market share.

Originally, it was hoped that artificial sweeteners would help curb cravings for sweets in people who have diabetes. Yet, in one study55 using health participants it took only two weeks for the artificial sweetener to trigger adverse effects on blood sugar levels, which lead study author Richard Young from the University of Adelaide commented on in a press release:56

“This highlights the potential for exaggerated post-meal glucose levels in high habitual NAS [noncaloric artificial sweeteners] users, which could predispose them to developing Type 2 diabetes.”

Artificial sweeteners may also increase your risk of weight gain, obesity, metabolic syndrome and other related problems like Type 2 diabetes by inducing “metabolic derangements,” according to a report published in the journal Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism.57

Further research found aspartame (NutraSweet), another artificial sweetener, is associated with greater glucose intolerance in people with obesity.58 These are only some of the side effects of artificial sweeteners, which increase your risk of challenging health conditions and are not a safe alternative to table sugar.

You can find more information about Splenda in “Beware the Latest ‘Diet’ Fad: Artificial Sweeteners Fortified With Vitamins and Minerals” and “Research Reveals Shocking Information About Sucralose (Splenda) Side Effects.”

The article “Top 8 Tips to Optimize Your Blood Sugar Level” lists some of the top ways you can take control of your health and reduce your risk of diabetes. The following articles offer some dietary suggestions that may help your body regulate glucose:

Garlic Supports Healthy Blood Sugar
These Herbs and Spices Can Help Deter Diabetes
Seven Reasons You Should Drink Moringa Tea

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/31/allulose.aspx

Categories
Recommended

New Research: COVID Infection Antibodies Could Last Years

It turns out researchers have discovered that not only does the SARS-CoV-2 virus infect your cells, but the spike protein shell can also damage your endothelial cells and may be responsible for many of the vascular and long-haul symptoms.1 In a new study, the researchers created a cell surrounded by spike (S) protein without a virus.

Using an animal model, they administered this to the lungs and found the spike protein was enough to cause damage and inflammation. The experiment was replicated in the lab using cell cultures. The data showed that when the S protein attached to the ACE2 receptor it disrupted signaling to the mitochondria and caused damage and fragmentation.

Senior co-author of the study Uri Manor explained that the S protein receptor was enough to damage vascular cells “by virtue of its ability to bind to this ACE2 receptor.” Some of the long-haul symptoms of COVID-19 may be related to vascular damage.

However, in my interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko in March 2021, he revealed that none of his patients who received treatment in the first five days went on to develop long-haul symptoms. In his population of 3,000 patients, early treatment for high-risk patients reduced the risk of long-haul symptoms.

It also demonstrated a death rate of 0.1% after three high-risk patients died. But the benefits to the patients who recovered have not ended since recent data show patients who were infected with COVID develop an immune response that could protect them for years.2

Evidence Suggests COVID Antibodies May Last Years

In a study published in the journal Nature, the researchers began with the understanding that protective antibodies are generated by long-lived bone marrow plasma cells.3 They noted that research in 2020 reported people who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 showed a rapid decline in serum antibodies in the first few months after infection. 

The question the researchers sought to answer is whether this reduction in antibodies indicated the bone marrow plasma cells generating immunity against the virus may also have been short-lived. The researchers engaged a group of 77 participants who had a mild COVID-19 infection.4

The group donated blood samples at three-month intervals beginning one month after they had recovered from their initial infection. Eighteen of the participants also donated bone marrow approximately seven or eight months after the infection, and five came back four months later for a second bone marrow extraction.

As the researchers expected, the levels of antibodies in the blood dropped quickly within the first month. However, some of the participants had detectable antibodies even after 11 months.

The testing also showed 78% of the bone marrow samples had antibody-producing cells for SARS-CoV-2. Researchers also tested bone marrow of 11 people who had never had COVID-19. In their bone marrow samples there were no antibody-producing cells. The team concluded:5

“We demonstrate that S-binding BMPCs are quiescent, indicating that they are part of a long-lived compartment. Consistently, circulating resting memory B cells directed against the S protein were detected in the convalescent individuals. Overall, we show that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces a robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune response in humans.”

Senior author of the study Ali Ellebedy, Ph.D., an associate professor of pathology & immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, pointed out one flaw in assuming natural immunity against COVID-19 had waned by measuring antibodies in the blood, saying:6

“Last fall, there were reports that antibodies waned quickly after infection with the virus that causes COVID-19, and mainstream media interpreted that to mean that immunity was not long-lived. But that’s a misinterpretation of the data. It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau.

Here, we found antibody-producing cells in people 11 months after first symptoms. These cells will live and produce antibodies for the rest of people’s lives. That’s strong evidence for long-lasting immunity.

People with mild cases of COVID-19 clear the virus from their bodies two to three weeks after infection, so there would be no virus driving an active immune response seven or 11 months after infection. These cells are not dividing. They are quiescent, just sitting in the bone marrow and secreting antibodies. They have been doing that ever since the infection was resolved, and they will continue doing that indefinitely.”

Humoral and Cellular Immunity: What’s the Difference?

There are two main areas of your immune system. The first is the innate immune response that has physical and cellular responses to pathogens. The purpose is for an immediate reaction to help prevent the spread of foreign bodies throughout the body.7

Innate immunity is nonspecific and uses natural killer cells, macrophages, mass cells and basophils at the cellular level, as well as skin, cough reflex and membranes on a physical level.

Long term immunity is tied to the adaptive immune system. This is specific to the pathogen invading your body. Adaptive immunity is also called acquired immunity and develops when your body is exposed to protein antigens. The immune system then builds specific defense mechanisms against those antigens.

Within the adaptive immune response are humoral and cellular immunity. Antibodies are part of humoral immunity. The humoral system is first on the scene to deal with foreign pathogens that are circulating or outside of infected cells. Cellular immunity is mediated by T lymphocytes and addresses pathogens inside infected cells.

The media reported that natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 declined after a person recovered from the infection because levels of humoral immunity measured in the bloodstream decline as the person recovered. However, this decline is a natural response to any infection and is expected.

Recent data from the research into bone marrow immune cells demonstrates that while circulating humoral antibodies decline after an active infection, a high percentage of those who had been infected with mild disease continue to produce low levels of immune cells that would recognize the virus if the person was infected again and mount a significant defense against it.

Before COVID-19,8 it was acknowledged that a natural infection nearly always produces a better immune response in the body than a vaccine. The argument for vaccines was that it reduced the risk from diseases that may produce long term disability or death, such as birth defects from rubella or liver cancer from hepatitis B.

But the same cannot be said for SARS-CoV-2. You can only conclude that vaccines against COVID-19 are not a necessary health risk when you consider the following factors:

As Zelenko and others have demonstrated, early treatment reduces death rates and long-haul symptoms
Recent data demonstrate natural immunity is produced following a COVID-19 infection and natural immunity produces a better response than vaccines

Doctor Warns if You Had COVID Don’t Get Vaccinated

Fox news reporter Tucker Carlson spoke to retired cardiac surgeon Dr. Hooman Noorchashm about his concerns regarding the new COVID-19 vaccines.9 Noorchashm is a strong proponent of vaccination programs, but also believes that questions should be asked about specific vaccines and their potential side effects. In this case, he calls the COVID-19 vaccination program an:10

“… absolutely unprecedented vaccine campaign in the history of Western Civilization. And that is that, while in the middle of an outbreak when millions of people in the world are already infected recently or currently, we’re deploying a vaccine.

This is one of the most dramatic differences between this vaccine and any other. You don’t have to go to medical school to understand that is not a standard approach to vaccinate people while they’re infected.”

He goes on to explain that we have hundreds of thousands of people who were mildly infected or those who were asymptomatic, who may experience problems from the vaccine. He calls the program:11

“… a dramatic error on the part of public health officials to try to put this vaccine into a one-size-fits-all paradigm … We’re going to take this problem that we have with the COVID-19 pandemic, which is that 0.5% of the population is susceptible to dying, and we’re going to compound it by causing totally avoidable harm by vaccinating people who are already infected recently.”

His concerns for a hyperinflammatory response after vaccination if you carry antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 is not shared by the CDC. In fact, they encourage those who have recovered to get vaccinated because:12

“… experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19. Even if you have already recovered from COVID-19, it is possible — although rare — that you could be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 again.”

One international survey13 of 2,002 people found those who had recovered from a COVID-19 illness and received their first dose of the vaccine experienced “significantly increased incidence and severity of side effects.” These side effects included fever, breathlessness and severe effects that led to hospitalized care.

Noorchashm has written multiple letters warning people should be first screened for the presence of viral proteins before vaccinations. In one letter14 he warned that without screening, “this indiscriminate vaccination is a clear and present danger to a subset of the already infected.”

COVID Vaccine Deaths Exceed All Other Vaccines Over 15 Years

During a recent Texas State Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing,15 Dr. Peter McCullough, vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center, testified that according to available data, early treatment could have prevented up to 85% of deaths from COVID-19.

Yet, despite being inexpensive and readily available, many of these early treatments have been censured and suppressed as public health officials have encouraged people to wait for a global mass vaccination campaign.

The result of waiting for a gene therapy vaccine has been devastating. Five months into the campaign, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) shows that more than 4,200 people in the U.S. have died after getting the shot.16 Any other vaccine would have been pulled from the market by now.

For example, in 1976, 45 million people were vaccinated against the swine flu. After over 500 cases of Guillain-Barre were reported with over 25 deaths, the program was canceled.17

Currently, health authorities have decided that more than 4,200 deaths from the COVID vaccine is either coincidental or inconsequential. When you consider the numbers, the death toll is 7,000% greater from the COVID-19 vaccine than during the swine flu vaccination campaign, which was canceled because the vaccine was deemed too risky.

These numbers are likely to be seriously underestimated since VAERS appears to be backlogged by about three months.18

Even if the data were current, only 1%19,20 to 10%21 of adverse events after vaccination are ever reported. This means that while the VAERS records 4,201 deaths as of May 14, 2021,22 this number may instead be much higher.

Death Rate May Rise This Fall and Winter

Although deaths from COVID-19 vaccines have already reached a historic level, I fear this may go even higher during the fall and winter months. One of the greatest wild cards of these vaccines is antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) or paradoxical immune enhancement (IPE).

I have 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” In summary, ADE means the vaccine actually enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, rather than enhancing your immunity against the infection. This results in more severe disease.

Fall and winter months are when most coronavirus infections occur, whether those are from SARS-CoV-2 or other coronaviruses responsible for the common cold. If ADE does turn out to be a common problem, then vaccinated individuals may be at higher risk for severe COVID-19 illness and a potentially lethal immune reaction due to pathogenic priming.

There are so many potential avenues for harm and so many uncertainties that I would encourage you to do your homework, keep reading and learning, weigh the potential pros and cons, ignore all pressure tactics and take your time when you decide whether or not to get one of these COVID-19 gene therapies.

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:23

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/2021/06/01/covid-19-antibodies.aspx

Categories
Recommended

No-Cost Access to NVIC’s Fifth International Vaccine Conference

The topic of the National Vaccine Information Center’s (NVIC) Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination was Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century. The initially pay-for-view conference was held online with more than 50 speakers presenting information on vaccine science, policy, law and civil liberties.
“Following the conference, NVIC was targeted by political operatives and global non-governmental organizations and corporations that are working with governments to silence criticism of vaccine safety and one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies and laws,” NVIC said in a statement.1
In its “Anti-Vaxx Playbook,”2 the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) identified six leading online “anti-vaxxers,” which include not only yours truly but also Fisher. In the Playbook, CCDH details the messages shared by me and others during the conference, such as:

Deaths being falsely attributed to COVID-19, thereby artificially inflating mortality statistics

The fact that COVID-19 has a 99%+ survival rate unless you’re very old and have underlying comorbidities

The fact that there are now several effective therapeutics for COVID-19, making a vaccine less relevant

However, the CCDH report presents these messages without any counterarguments. It does not negate or even debate the accuracy of any of them. It just brushes them aside as “misinformation” and “lies” without providing any proof whatsoever, and in doing so, it actually ends up strengthening our messaging.
In fact, the report summarizes our concerns so well that I’d encourage everyone to read it3 — it is, in essence, attempting to accomplish via censorship the opposite of what NVIC is striving for. Where CCDH is fighting to make open vaccine discussion akin to a national security threat or digital hate, NVIC serves a truly crucial public health service centered on transparency and science.
You simply cannot make an informed decision if you’re only allowed to hear one side of the equation — the supposed benefit side — while potential adverse effects, which may be lifelong, are hidden or denied. CCDH called NVIC’s conference “private,”4 but it was and still is very much public and you’re free to view it in its entirety.
Explore Science, Vaccine Choice, Health and Liberty
The first session of NVIC’s free online conference is focused on science, provided by experts in biology, immunology, molecular and cellular physiology, pharmacology and more. According to NVIC:5

“The quality and quantity of the science being used to buttress public health policy and law in the 21st century, particularly vaccine policy and law, has been debated since the mid-20th century when serious adverse reactions to whole-cell pertussis (DPT) vaccine were acknowledged in the medical literature and publicized in Europe and the U.S.”

During the Session 1 presentations, you can learn about vaccine science that is pertinent to helping you make informed health choices, such as:6

Vaccine ingredients
Monitoring vaccine side effects

Epidemiology of SARS-Cov-2
Development of COVID-19 vaccines

Flaws in clinical trial designs
Pharmaceutical product marketing

HPV vaccine risk factors
Use of human fetal cell lines to produce and test vaccines

Research into the reported association between inflammation, epigenetics and autism
How human health is affected by the microbiome

Session 2 is focused on pharmaceutical industry partnerships with Big Tech companies and their lobbying efforts to influence vaccine exemptions in public health laws:7

“The debate about the science and ethics of mandatory vaccination has become more intense in the past decade as citizens of many countries push back against one-size-fits-all vaccine policies that apply increasingly more severe societal sanctions to individuals, who maintain that use of vaccines should be voluntary.”

Indeed, the speakers cover topics that have received renewed importance in 2020 and 2021, including threats to autonomy and freedom of thought, speech and conscience, and defending the legal right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to vaccine risk-taking.
Session 3 is centered on the ongoing paradigm shift toward health and liberty, with health professionals, attorneys, spiritual leaders and human rights activists moving away from the vaccine- and drug-dependent medical model as the only option for wellness. NVIC explains:8

“As the education level of populations is increasing in the U.S. and throughout the world, so is easier access to scientific, medical, legal and other types of information that consumers can use to make informed choices.
Recent public opinion polls demonstrate that more people are asking more questions about the quality and quantity of the science being used to buttress medical policies, which rely almost exclusively on use of prescription drugs and vaccines.”

While health professionals continue to challenge the status quo to provide the best possible care for their patients, attorneys are increasingly challenging Big Pharma and educational systems, and activists are holding institutions accountable for violating civil liberties.
Vaccine Mandates, Liability Shields and Medical Atrocities

The fourth session of NVIC’s conference continues to explore the scientific, medical, legal, ethical and holistic health themes touched on in the other sessions, while adding issues that anyone making informed decisions about vaccination should be aware of, including:9

Animal vaccines
How to access and interpret information contained in the federal vaccine adverse event reporting system

The threat to medical privacy and informed consent rights posed by electronic health care records and vaccine tracking systems
The expansion of vaccine mandates to include adults

Strategies used by mandatory vaccination proponents in state legislatures
COVID-19 vaccines

Propaganda and psychological warfare
Urban community education and organizing

Historical examples of medical atrocities
Vaccine product liability shields

The untold story of why and how the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed and then systematically dismantled

Access NVIC’s Conference for Free

The conference was made available for free viewing online February 2, 2021. You can access the conference website and watch all the presentations by clicking below. This conference was organized to be an educational event and you are encouraged to follow the conference agenda and view presentations in sequential order, so you can experience it as it was originally broadcast.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<< Awarded With NVIC Lifetime Achievement Award As you can see in the video at the top of this page, in 2020 I was the recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from NVIC, a nonprofit organization intent on evaluating information relating to vaccines and the science, policies and laws behind their use. NVIC is one of our longtime health partners, offering a clearinghouse for science-backed information on diseases and vaccines. NVIC does not make vaccine use recommendations but, rather, supports the availability of all preventive health care options, and encourages you to make educated decisions when it comes to your health. “Observing his patients’ struggle to heal and stay well, Dr. Mercola refused to accept the status quo,” Barbara Loe Fisher, NVIC’s co-founder said. “Listening to his patients, he dared to think outside the box, and after years of research, moved away from reliance on prescription drugs, vaccines and surgery so he could embrace a less toxic, more natural approach to health and wellness.” In 2009, at NVIC's Fourth International Public Conference on Vaccination, I received their Visionary Award for speaking out about the importance of taking control of your health and communicating the truth about the H1N1 swine flu pandemic.10 The Lifetime Achievement Award was announced at NVIC’s Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination, which was broadcast online October 16 to 18, 2020, and is now available online, free of charge, for everyone to view.11 ‘Holistic Health Pioneer’ Like Mercola.com, NVIC is one of a handful of sites being targeted by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. CCDH has been one of the most vocal organizations calling for the deplatforming of anyone who might have the ability to influence public opinion about vaccines — and NVIC is a leading authority in this area, having worked with the U.S. Congress to establish the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986. Facebook deleted NVIC’s account March 2, 2021,12 but we will continue to support them in their mission to defend the human right to freedom of thought and conscience.13 In regard to the Lifetime Achievement Award, Fisher said: “Dr. Mercola’s advice about how to stay healthy has had an immeasurable positive impact on the lives of millions of people around the world. Often the first to recommend a new way to prevent illness, long before others do, he is a holistic health pioneer who has never stopped searching for ways to help people stay well. Like most pioneers, Dr. Mercola has been criticized by those who are threatened by his refusal to be a prisoner of convention. Yet he has steadfastly refused to bow to pressure from powerful industries and institutions trying to stop him from searching for and speaking the truth about how to maintain health. In 2008, when Dr. Mercola reached out to the National Vaccine Information Center and offered to help us forward our mission to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education, his encouragement and support gave new life to this charity, founded and operated by parents of vaccine injured children since 1982. He has been publicly attacked by media corporations for his support of NVIC’s work, but … has never backed down or waivered in his commitment to educate and defend everyone’s right to make voluntary vaccination decisions. … At this 5th International Public Conference on Vaccination, we honor Dr. Mercola with a lifetime achievement award for his courage and commitment and the brilliant body of work he has created during his career, which has truly changed the way that people all over the world view their right to know and freedom to take control of their health.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/29/nvic-lifetime-achievement-award.aspx

Exit mobile version