Lose Them Pounds

Evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic was being used to herd us into a new paradigm where personal freedom is obliterated was presented in a March 2020 Newspunch article,1 which noted that “The world as we know it will change forever in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, according to Bill Gates, who declared that we will soon have ‘digital certificates’ to display our health and vaccination status.”
At the time, Gates also announced the “need” for a national health tracking system, and that positive tests for infectious disease must be publicly identifiable so that people will know to maintain social distance from infectious individuals.
As Newspunch noted,2 “If history repeats, it will go from being technology adopted for its ‘convenience and safety’ and then overnight will become mandatory for you and your family — or else.”
Now, 12 months later, we’re seeing warnings of the “or else” everywhere we look. In February 2021, Israel paved the way by restricting access to gyms, pools, hotels and sporting venues to vaccinated-only,3 thereby effectively segregating unvaccinated individuals from portions of society. Most countries are openly discussing the very real possibility of following suit.
Free Doughnuts Given for Vaccine Compliance
Many private companies are also considering limiting their services to vaccinated-only patrons, although most have realized you catch more bees with honey than vinegar. Case in point: As of March 22, 2021, Krispy Kreme shops around the U.S. will dole out free doughnuts to patrons who can prove they’ve received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine.4
Proving they’re not stingy when it comes to handing out special privileges, the offer will last to the end of the year. In other words, if you got the shot, you can enjoy a free doughnut every day for the remainder of 2021. If you’ve got your vaccination card and wear a mask too, you get a free medium-sized gourmet coffee of your choice as well.
To make sure the unvaccinated dregs won’t feel discriminated against, those who choose to not get the shot will be given a free consolation doughnut on Mondays between March 29 and May 24 “to help kick start a good week,” to quote NBC News, which isn’t even being the least sarcastic in its reporting.5
Unvaccinated patrons who comply with proper mask wearing will receive their choice of a Krispy Kreme-branded “I’m a Life Saver” sticker or “Wear It With Pride” pin on their way out, any day of the week during that same time period.The next phase of collaboration will allow direct injections at Krispy Kreme and other fast food participating retail establishments.  You will soon be able to drive-thru and get an injection in one arm while eating your free doughnut or free French fries with the other.
Enticing Health Trap
From a health professional’s standpoint, it must be noted that the free doughnut offer is as devious as a sheep in wolf’s clothing, seeing how indulging in sugar and linoleic acid is a recipe for maximizing any ill effects from the virus and vaccine alike by ruining mitochondrial health. Doughnuts are probably the absolute most harmful “food” there is, and a surefire way to make sure your week starts off in the worst possible way.
It didn’t take long for us to realize that COVID-19 claims the lives of the old, frail and already sick, a vast majority of deaths occurring in those with two or more comorbidities, including obesity and diabetes. So, a doughnut-a-day diet for all is unlikely to drive the virus into oblivion.
As reported in “The Type of Fat You Eat Affects Your COVID Risk,” the amount of unsaturated fat you eat may have a direct impact on your risk of COVID-19 complications as well. This matters, seeing how COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to prevent infection or spread of the virus. Whether you’re vaccinated or not, you can still get COVID-19. The only difference is that the vaccine may lessen your symptoms.
Obeying Repeat Liars — Your Public Duty?
If you’re wondering why people are getting vaccinated against a virus that has an average survival rate of 99.74%,6 or why mask-wearing continues to be “a thing” despite being proven ineffective for viruses in virtually every published study, you clearly have not understood your public duty, which is to trust the experts — even if they’re repeatedly proven wrong or caught lying on a regular basis.
They’re experts for a reason; they’ve been properly trained to dispense advice. And, while erring is human, their expertise will still trump anything you might come up with on your own. Or so the reasoning goes.
The idea of billions of people thinking and making decisions for themselves, going in every-which direction, is a recipe for irreversible chaos — societal breakdown, even.
As reported by political scientist Tom Nichols in his Atlantic article,7 “Following Your Gut Isn’t the Right Way to Go,” experts have had “a rough year” in terms of teasing out the facts, so despite all their faults, “We still have to trust them.” The idea of billions of people thinking and making decisions for themselves, going in every-which direction, is a recipe for irreversible chaos — societal breakdown, even. He writes:

“My gut instincts are much like those of any other American. When my wife and I became eligible for COVID-19 vaccinations in our state, we plowed through different locations and times trying to capture an appointment.

When we finally nailed down a date, I blurted out, as if it mattered: ‘Which vaccine is it?’ I immediately ran through questions in my head. Do I trust the new Johnson & Johnson vaccine? Do I prefer one shot to two? Are Moderna’s data more reliable than Pfizer’s? Perhaps most important: Do I have any idea what I am talking about? …

The answer is no. I do not have any idea what I’m talking about when it comes to vaccines … but my knowledge doesn’t really matter. My wife’s doctor cut right to the chase when she told us (using those palpitation-inducing words ‘Given your age and risk factors’) to take whatever’s available, and that’s what we’re going to do …

When the pandemic recedes … we’ll need to recover some perspective and learn once again when to put aside gut instincts and listen to the people who know what they’re doing … I have confidence in the educational and scientific infrastructure that created them.

This belief is the crux of the matter. Sometimes, experts and their institutions fail. But people who believe that medical schools, research institutions, peer review, and lab trials — in other words, the entire structure of modern science — have all failed or become corrupted are beyond the reach of reason …”

Medical Compliance = Freedom from Persecution
You’ve undoubtedly heard the term “the new normal” being tossed about. Part of that new normal is the concept that medical compliance guarantees you freedom from persecution. It’s simple, really. If you want no trouble, follow the rules and stop arguing about right and wrong.
As reported in “’Papers, Please’: Vaccine Passports Have Officially Arrived,” it’s only a matter of time before you’ll be asked to prove your vaccination status in order to carry on with your daily life, and you should be thankful there are big tech geniuses out there who can ensure maximum efficiency and ease of use of such a system.
In all likelihood, it won’t take long before you won’t even need to carry such proof. It’ll be securely embedded somewhere in your body, so forgetfulness won’t ever cause a problem.
The alternative is a life spent within the four walls of your private abode, and who wants that? Besides, it’ll only be a decade or less before private ownership rights are abolished and you’ll be relegated to a portable cot in public sleeping quarters. Who knows where you’ll end up if you don’t have your health verification papers?
This direction was dictated by the World Economic Forum8 years ago, so you’d best start thinking about the benefits of behavioral modification now. Again, ownership requires good sense, which the average person doesn’t have, so all ownership must, and shall, be transferred to experts who best know how to distribute goods and services in an equitable fashion.
Twisted Predictions Come True
If you sense a heightened level of sarcasm in this article, you’d be correct. After all, today is April 1, and this is my annual April Fool’s Day installment where I’ve used this day as a warning about where we are have been headed over the years. I’ve upset many people, who were scared by reading the articles and felt deceived by the April Fool’s prank.  The sad reality, though, is that these have been warnings to be taken seriously and make you think.
Just read our April Fool’s predictions from 2014, “US to Ban Raw Meat Sales”, the 2015, “US Government Rolls Out Mandatory Adult Vaccination and Tracking Program,” the 2017 “FixBit Promises to Revolutionize Medicine by Detecting Deficiencies and Delivering Drugs by Drone,” the 2019 “Federal Government Mandates Vaccine Reeducation Camps — The Dystopian Future Has Arrived,” or last year’s “New App Requires Reporting of People Sneezing or Coughing,” and see how they’ve held up.
If you go back and read the comments on these articles, there were many that objected to the articles as being too farfetched. As it turns out, most of these satirical predictions have actually manifested:

• In 2014, I predicted that raw meat would be banned.   Bill Gates just recently announced his plans to push for regulations to force rich countries to eat fake meat.• In 2015, I joked about the rollout of a mandatory adult vaccination and electronic tracking program; that Twitter and Facebook posts would be monitored for anti-vaccine chatter; and that Americans would be urged to relinquish responsibility for personal health and well-being to appointed health officials — Check, check and check!
• In 2017, I imagined an automated medical monitoring and drug delivery system called “FixBit.” Today, we’re not far off. Embeddable monitoring devices and drug delivery systems exist. They just haven’t become ubiquitous.
• In 2019, I joked about mandated vaccine reeducation camps for vaccine deniers and refusers, and while most public talks of such facilities in recent months have centered around the reeducation of political wrong-thinkers, vaccine reeducation really doesn’t feel very far off at this point.
Even at the time of publication, the sheer number of people reporting weeping and having anxiety attacks reading it forced me to add a big, red satire notice right at the top; that’s how believable it was.

Of course, we have a level of censorship that is unprecedented, and this too is a clear “reeducation” attempt. At present, there’s a coordinated effort underway to eliminate a dozen vaccine safety advocates off various platforms.

Even political leaders are openly calling for private tech companies to deny us our right to free speech. Among them, Congressman Mike Doyle, D-Penn., who asked Facebook and Twitter to remove a dozen accounts, including mine, from their platforms during a House hearing on disinformation and extremism.9

A primary instigator of this antidemocratic bullying is the ironically misnamed Center for Countering Digital Hate.10 If you want to know what extremists look like, look no further than this Tweet:11

• Last year’s April Fool’s article about COVID-19 testing, contact tracing and digital snitching on suspected disease carriers came even closer to the truth, containing just a single fabrication (as is the case this year too).

In short, it’s hard to come up with truly outlandish satire anymore that won’t transform into mainstream fact in short order. That’s where we are, and there’s nothing funny about it. So far, the only falsehood in this article is the claim that Krispy Kreme is giving out free coffee, stickers or pins to mask-wearers. They’re not. Doughnuts for vaccine papers, however, is entirely true.
My sarcastic insinuation to comply with inevitable loss of medical rights, privacy and human liberty, should be chalked up as just that: sarcasm. No, on the contrary, we need to fight like never before against the rapid encroachment of dystopia, where the outlandish is accepted as “the new normal” — not through physical violence, but through calm, stoic, well-reasoned civil disobedience.
Authoritarians Must Be Stopped
Sadly, many fail to realize the slippery slope that is mindless obedience. It started with masks. “It’s just a mask. It’s not worth getting harassed over.” A year later, dutiful mask-wearing has resulted in the threat of vaccine passports and mandatory vaccinations.
Now, the persecution you risk is not just verbal harassment (or in some extreme cases getting arrested or fined). No, now you risk being relegated into second-class citizen status, unable to engage in common social activities or to have the freedom to travel.
As vaccination compliance grows, you can bet your last dollar, yen or drachmae that the call for additional obedience will emerge. Who knows what it might be? I fear even making a suggestion, as no matter how far-fetched, it may turn out to be prophetic. I do foresee vaccination requirements becoming ever more restrictive, though, until they eventually encompass all public areas and venues, including grocery stores. As noted in a December 2020 Daily Beast article:12

“The government can’t force people to get vaccinated, but businesses can bar people who are not … Too much is at stake to wait for people who refuse to get vaccinated. We need a plan to move forward without them …

Just as I may have a right not to wear a mask or get a shot, you have a right to be able to walk down the street without me giving you a lethal disease. Choosing not to get vaccinated isn’t ‘freedom’ any more than driving drunk is … It, too, is coercive; the anti-vaxxer is forcing me to swim in their viral discharge, anytime we share space in public.”

This is how it’s being presented. Unvaccinated people are lethal germ carriers, veritable biological weapons in their own right. Their very presence in a public area is an act of biological terrorism. Never mind the fact that a healthy person exerts no health threat to anyone, anywhere, and never has.
The myth that SARS-CoV-2 spreads asymptomatically has empowered tyrannical authoritarians to demonize every single person on the planet. If you’re alive, you can now be labeled an unacceptable health threat without any evidence whatsoever. It’s inhumane and, quite frankly, insane.
As discussed in “Will You Obey the Criminal Authoritarians?” experiments have shown that people can be easily manipulated into acting against their own better judgment, and harm others in extreme ways simply because they were told to do so.
With societal norms rapidly changing and an increasingly totalitarian environment emerging, it raises the question whether the public will continue to blindly obey criminal authoritarians, no matter what the consequences. My hope is that people will realize the true, long-term cost of blind obedience, and make more life-affirming choices, if not for themselves, then for their children, who will be forced to live in the world we allow to be created.

NOTICE
This piece is our annual April Fool’s article. Unfortunately, nearly everything in it is true. Krispy Kreme is NOT giving out free coffee, stickers or pins for mask compliance. They are, however, giving out free doughnuts to those who can prove their COVID-19 vaccination status. Sarcastic commentary should not be misread or construed as actual recommendations.
All other details in this article are true, and describe a rapidly-approaching reality in which personal freedoms are decimated to “protect” us all from an infectious disease. To avoid this dystopian future, it is imperative that we fight to protect and preserve our right to privacy — be it medically related or not — both online and offline.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/01/doughnuts-given-for-vaccine-mask-compliance.aspx

N-acetylcysteine (NAC), a form of the amino acid cysteine and a common dietary supplement, may prevent strokes in people with hereditary cystatin C amyloid angiopathy (HCCAA), a rare genetic disorder.1 People with HCCAA have an average life expectancy of just 30 years, and most die within five years of their first stroke,2 so reducing their incidence could prove to be essential to increasing survival.

The finding is even more significant because it was conducted by researchers from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), which is notoriously against supplements.3 NAC appears to work by preventing the formation of amyloid-producing proteins, which promote amyloid deposits linked to strokes.4

Preventing Strokes Could Save the Lives of Those With HCCAA

HCCAA belongs to a group of diseases known as cerebral amyloid angiopathies (CAAs), in which amyloid deposits form in the blood vessels of the central nervous system.

Amyloid deposits are also involved in a number of other neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Creutzfeldt-Jacob’s and Huntington´s diseases.5 HCCAA is an inherited disease, caused by a leucine 68 to glutamine variant of human cystatin C known as L68Q-hCC.

Young people with the mutation suffer from microinfarcts, which are microscopic lesions, or areas of cellular death or tissue necrosis,6 that are associated with cognitive impairment in older adults.7 Cerebral microinfarcts are clinical markers for stroke and dementia.8

In people with HCCAA, the microinfarcts begin in their 20s along with brain hemorrhages, leading to paralysis, dementia and — as the strokes become more frequent — death.9 hCC deposits are found primarily in the brain in those with HCCAA, though they may also be found in other internal organs.

The study by CHOP researchers suggests NAC may block the precipitation of amyloid plaque deposits, as well as help break up their formation, which could make a dramatic difference for those living with HCCAA. The study’s lead author, Dr. Hakon Hakonarson, director of CHOP’s Center for Applied Genomics, said in a news release:10

“Amyloids cannot precipitate without aggregating, so if we can prevent that aggregation with a drug [NAC] that is already available, then we could make an incredible difference in the lives of these patients.

Additionally, since we already have genetic testing available to identify these patients, we could conceivably give this treatment early in life and potentially prevent that first stroke from ever occurring.”

NAC May Help Prevent Strokes

NAC is most well-known to help increase glutathione and reduce the acetaldehyde toxicity11 that causes many hangover symptoms. Anyone who overdoses on acetaminophen (Tylenol) also receives large doses of NAC in the emergency room, as it helps prevent liver damage by increasing glutathione.

NAC is also sometimes prescribed to break up mucus in the lungs,12 and the CHOP researchers used NAC to treat cell lines expressing wild type and L68Q-mutant hCC, to determine its effects on toxic oligomers that occur in multiple types of amyloidosis.

NAC broke the oligomers into monomers (oligomers are composed of a few monomer units13), which helps prevent the formation of amyloid deposits linked to strokes.14 “Given the results from the described cellular work, it became evident that NAC could potentially be useful to treat this devastating disease,” the researchers wrote in Nature Communications.15

NAC was also evaluated in six patients with the L68Q-hCC variant who were taking NAC. The variant is thought to stem from a mutation in the Icelandic population that occurred during the 16th century. The proband — the person who was the starting point for the family genetic study — from one HCCAA family in Iceland had suffered from three serious strokes over a nine-month period at the age of 22.

The person was put on a respirator after the third stroke and was suffering from mucus plugging, but was treated with NAC, which gradually resolved the mucus plugging. Due to the positive results from the cellular models, the person continued to take NAC, as did five family members who were also carriers of the mutation.

Because the impacts of NAC on hCC deposition in the brain cannot be directly monitored, the researchers conducted skin biopsies on the six individuals. Research suggests that amyloid deposits in the skin correlate with symptom status in HCCAA patients, with those experiencing symptoms having higher deposition in the skin.16

Up to 90% Reduction in L68Q-hCC After NAC

The skin biopsies showed that five of the six patients had a 50% to 90% reduction of hCC protein complex deposition following NAC supplementation — a dramatic result. The researchers wrote:17

“[T]he proband had very high levels of hCC protein complex deposition in the first skin biopsy. Subsequent biopsies reveal the proband had not progressed in terms of deposition; rather, the deposition had decreased by about 40%.

… The reduction in hCC deposition in the proband from first biopsy to third (approximately 15 months at two different doses) was estimated at ~70% … The parent demonstrated an ~50% reduction in staining on biopsy #3 … and the sibling ~30% after 6 months of NAC.

In the second cohort, carriers 1 and 2 showed a visible reduction in the hCC deposition with carrier 1 having near-complete clearance following 600?mg of NAC 3× per day for 24 months.

… Treatment with NAC in human patients not only prevents ongoing deposition of cystatin C protein complex in the skin, but also reduces prior deposits in a significant way.”

An NAC clinical trial was launched in 2019 to investigate whether the results will be confirmed in a larger number of subjects, with results expected in the second quarter of 2021.

The Many Benefits of NAC

In the case of HCCAA, the average lifespan of those affected has dropped significantly, from approximately 65 years in 1825 to about 30 years in 2021. Lifestyle, economic and industrial changes have all been suggested as contributing factors to this decline, including increased consumption of carbohydrates in the diet. This theory fits with NAC showing a benefit, as the researchers noted:18

“Hyperglycemia has been linked to oxidative stress in diabetes, and it is possible that increased carbohydrates in Icelandic diets in the 19th century created enough oxidative stress in L68Q-hCC carriers to make presentation of the disease more severe.

This hypothesis is compatible with our results; increased oxidative stress would increase multimerization of L68Q-hCC, and dietary reducing agents like NAC would reverse that effect and prevent deposition of new aggregates. Therapeutic benefits would be derived mainly from the lack of new occlusions causing new strokes.”

While the most common use of NAC is for liver support, it’s also showing increasing promise as a neuroprotectant. In addition to HCCAA, scientists are investigating NAC as a treatment for Parkinson’s disease, which has been linked to glutathione deficiency in the substantia nigra, a region that houses dopamine neurons.19

NAC is a precursor to and rate-limiting nutrient for the formation of glutathione;20 because glutathione is poorly absorbed, in many cases it’s easier to raise your glutathione by taking NAC instead.

It could also have potential for Alzheimer’s as, according to the CHOP researchers, the process of protein deposition that occurs in HCCAA is similar to what occurs in Alzheimer’s, although at an accelerated pace in HCCAA compared to Alzheimer’s, which is why dementia occurs later in life with the latter.

“If the underlying mechanisms of protein deposition and pathogenesis are sufficiently similar, similar or identical treatments may be effective,” they said.21 Another area where NAC shows particular promise is in the treatment of mental health disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder,22 depression23 and substance use disorders.24

NAC even shows promise for COVID-19. According to one literature analysis,25 glutathione deficiency may be associated with COVID-19 severity, leading the author to conclude that NAC may be useful both for its prevention and treatment.

NAC may also combat the abnormal blood clotting seen in many cases, and helps loosen thick mucus in the lungs. Interestingly, with COVID-19 treatment as a new indication, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration suddenly cracked down on NAC, claiming it is excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement, as it was approved as a new drug in 1985.26

As such, NAC cannot technically be marketed as a supplement, even though there are no fewer than 1,170 NAC-containing products in the National Institutes of Health’s Dietary Supplement Label Database.27

Why the CHOP Study Has Additional Significance

The fact that CHOP researchers are recommending NAC for the treatment of HCCAA is of particular significance because of their historical opposition to the use of dietary supplements. In October 2013, it announced that its list of medications approved for use would no longer include most dietary supplements, making it the first U.S. hospital to discourage its patients from using dietary supplements as a matter of policy.28

Their reasoning was that dietary supplements are “essentially unregulated” with “no sound information” about side effects, drug interactions or standard dosing, which they said made giving them to sick children “unethical when the risks are unknown.” But considering the results of the recent study, it would be unethical to withhold such a potentially lifesaving treatment.

The policy is so stringent that parents are asked upon their child’s admission whether they’re taking any supplements. The use of the supplements is then discouraged, including parents being informed of the hospital’s anti-supplement policy and supplement risks, and if “after receiving this information, a parent or guardian insists on continuing to give their child a dietary supplement,” they must sign a waiver to that effect.

Only a limited list of “acceptable products” are allowed in CHOP’s supplement formulary, and it’s unclear if NAC is one of them. If not, it certainly deserves to be added, and perhaps the study will open CHOP’s eyes to the life-saving potential of natural products and dietary supplements.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/01/n-acetylcysteine-prevents-strokes.aspx

Viral infections begin when the virus is implanted at a portal of entry and begins replicating. The most common portals are the nose, throat and upper airways,1 which led to a recent initiative to educate people on the importance of nasal hygiene.2

A virus is either DNA or RNA and requires another living cell to replicate, which ultimately leads to symptoms. There are several factors that determine viral transmission, which include the size of the virus and the size of the respiratory aerosol.3 The largest viruses are 500 nanometers (nm) in diameter, just visible “under a light microscope on the highest resolution,” according to Britannica.4

The COVID-19 virus is 100 nm in diameter,5 far smaller than the holes in a standard cloth mask can filter,6 which is just one of the reasons mask mandates are not effective.

Viruses don’t move on their own, but depend on people, the environment and other pieces of equipment to gain access to a host.7 Once a virus like the influenza virus is inhaled, if it’s not neutralized it can invade the respiratory tract and airway cells.8

Viruses that cause the common cold are spread through the air and close personal contact with respiratory secretions or stool of a person who is infected.9 Shaking hands or touching a contaminated surface, and then touching your eyes, nose or mouth, can inoculate your membranes with the virus.

SARS-CoV-2 is known to enter the body through the nasal epithelial cells.10 The “Sanitize Your Nose”11 campaign was launched by Global Life Technologies, maker of Nozin Nasal Sanitizer.12

Nasal Decontamination Is Not New

The Sanitize Your Nose campaign was launched in mid-2020 to raise public awareness that together with routine hand washing, the practice of reducing viral load in the nasal cavity may help to reduce the spread of viruses.

According to their press release,13 9 out of 10 Americans understand handwashing helps reduce the risk of infection, but only 3 out of 10 understand that reducing the viral and bacterial load in the nasal cavity may also help reduce the risk.

The active ingredient in Nozin Nasal Sanitizer is 62% ethyl alcohol in combination with natural oils, including coconut oil, jojoba, lauric acid and vitamin E.14 The company’s website states:15

“… the formula combines the safe, proven, antiseptic power of ethyl alcohol with the emollient, antioxidant benefits of natural oils. [and] … does not promote antibiotic resistance as it utilizes the non-selective antiseptic action of ethanol.”

The nasal spray has been in use to reduce the spread of Staphylococcus aureus16 but is now being advertised by the company to help reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load and thus impact the potential for an active infection.

Each ampule is approved for one-time use for adults and children over 12 years. Once opened, the sleeve is squeezed to wet the swab tip and then swabbed around the outside of the nostril six times in each direction.17

Application of the ethanol alcohol and natural oils mixture has demonstrated a broad-spectrum efficacy against pathogenic organisms for up to eight hours. Specifically, it was shown to reduce colonization of S. aureus and other nasal bacteria.18

New Antiviral Nose Spray Promises 99.9% of Viruses Killed

The Health Ministry in Israel recently approved the production19 of an at-home antiviral the inventors claim is effective within two minutes to reduce 99.9% of viruses in the nasal cavity. Biochemist Gilly Regev, Ph.D., invented the product and cofounded the company SaNOtize, which is based in Canada. 

Israel will be the first country where the product will be sold and has been given approval for sale in people aged 12 and up.20 It has also been approved in New Zealand and the company is seeking approval in other countries, including the U.K. The product delivers a physical barrier in a combination with nitric oxide, known to kill viruses.21,22

The product will be sold under the brand name Enovid,23 for which clinical trials were recently completed demonstrating the antiviral treatment was effective in preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, shortening the course of the disease and reducing the severity of symptoms in people who were infected. Chief science officer and co-founder Chris Miller, Ph.D., said in a press release:24

“Our novel formulation of Nitric Oxide for use in humans is designed to kill viruses in the upper airways, preventing them from incubating and spreading to the lungs. The pharmacology, toxicity, and safety data for use in humans has been well-established for decades. Our innovative product design also allows the treatment to be self-administered effectively and affordably.”

In a separate press release announcing the results of the clinical trials,25 the company said it was applying for emergency use authorization in the U.K. and Canada, which would facilitate a nearly immediate return to work, school and society, well ahead of the anticipated return following full vaccinations.

In addition to reducing infection in those who have not been vaccinated, the nitric oxide nasal spray (NONS) also reduced infectivity or the transmission of the virus. Regev said:26

“Now that NONS has been demonstrated to be safe and effective in clinical trials, we must move with urgency to get it into the hands of the public where it can help bring an end to the pandemic, accelerate a return to normality, and prevent future outbreaks of COVID-19 and its variants.

The human toll of this disease cannot be expressed simply in numbers, and each day compounds the frustration, fear and loss suffered by millions around the world. Combined with the roll-out of vaccines, NONS can help get the world back on its feet.”

In a video27 describing Enovid, Regev stressed that one day COVID-19 would no longer be a threat, but the product would continue to be an effective deterrent for any type of viral infection, including flu or the next pandemic.

History of Sanitizing Your Nose to Lower Infection

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention28 currently recommends hospitals use strategies to reduce the colonization of S. aureus before major surgeries to reduce the risk of post-surgical infection. Sue Barnes, infection control specialist, is a member of the Sanitize Your Nose advisory board. In a press release, she said:29

“Health care professionals have long recommended that patients have their noses sanitized before surgeries and other periods of heightened vulnerability to help prevent infections. Now is the perfect time to look beyond the health care setting and encourage everyone to incorporate sanitizing the nose into their regular routines, especially when they are heading into higher risk environments, such as crowded public places.”

However, most of the research has been done on reducing bacterial nasal contamination prior to surgical procedures and not the reduction of viral transmission. A study published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews30 in 2017 looked at surgical site infection rates and the potential for nasal decontamination to reduce post-surgical infections, specifically from S. aureus colonizing the nasal cavity.

A literature search located two studies that were included in the review. The authors concluded there was limited evidence from randomized controlled trials that nasal decontamination could prevent surgical infections.

Another study31 evaluated the use of the antibiotic mupirocin to eliminate S. aureus before open-heart surgery. The intervention group received the medication four times a day for 48 hours before the surgery. The evidence suggested mupirocin lowered the incidence of sternal wound infection but did not change the frequency of skin infections or pneumonia after open-heart surgery.

A third study32 found preoperative nasal decontamination for S. aureus significantly decreased postoperative infections following surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

A literature review33 assessing the relationship between S aureus colonization in the nose and the development of post-surgical infection again found a positive trend, but the researchers acknowledged the samples were too small to demonstrate the efficacy of pretreatment to eradicate post-surgical infection.

In a letter to the editor,34 anesthesiologist Dr. Duncan McGuire proposed that decolonization of the nasal cavity in the hospital may not be effective. He pointed out past research demonstrated reducing S. aureus may help prevent surgical site infections, but research has not presented “substantive evidence that nasal/oral decontamination would actually reduce viral transmission.”35

The letter followed the release of a study36 demonstrating the application of povidone-iodine may contribute to infection control and operating room management strategies. The data also showed 42% of the participants experienced short term thyroid dysfunction with the intervention that resolved after treatment was discontinued.

McGuire’s concern was the application of povidone-iodine can induce sneezing and thus increase the spread of viral particles. The use of chlorhexidine mouth rinse can induce coughing, which can also raise the risk of viral spread before the virus was inactivated by the povidone-iodine.

Routine Nasal and Sinus Irrigation May Lower Viral Load

It’s possible that regularly rinsing your nasal cavity and sinuses, where the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 tends to reside, would help clear the pathogen and prevent it from gaining a strong foothold. Past research has shown that nasal irrigation can reduce the symptoms and duration of other viral conditions such as seasonal flu and the common cold.

In one randomized controlled trial,37 participants who used nasal irrigation and gargling with hypertonic saline reduced duration of the common cold by 1.9 days and transmission within the household by 35% when the intervention was started within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms.

Dr. Amy Baxter, a pediatric emergency medicine physician in Atlanta, Georgia, suggests38 irrigating your sinuses any time you’ve been exposed to an infected individual or test positive for COVID-19. She recommends flushing your sinuses using a mixture of boiled lukewarm water (8 ounces) and povidone-iodine (half a teaspoon).

Povidone-iodine has been shown to effectively kill not only Klebsiella pneumoniae and Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria, but also rapidly inactivates SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, H1N1 influenza virus A and rotavirus after 15 seconds of exposure.39

The mixture used in this study — 7% povidone-iodine diluted 1-to-30, bringing the total concentration to 0.23% povidone-iodine — inactivated over 99% of the coronaviruses causing SARS and MERS.40

Either a neti pot or sinus rinse bottle can be used. The water pressure you get from a sinus rinse bottle can provide a more effective flush. However, if higher pressure is uncomfortable, a neti pot, which relies on gravity, may be a more comfortable choice.

Nasal and sinus irrigation using a neti pot is another way of physically removing allergens that trigger seasonal allergic reactions. The water is administered through one nostril, flows through the nasal passages and sinuses and out the other nostril.

It is crucial you do not use tap water in your neti pot as it burns and could trigger a deadly brain infection from an amoeba that’s commonly found in the lakes, rivers and hot springs that feed the tap water supply.41 Instead, use a saline solution of distilled water and salt.

Preventive Strategy Using Nebulized Hydrogen Peroxide

One of my favorite preventive strategies you can use at home is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. The treatment was first conceived and championed by Dr. Charles Farr42 in the early 1990s. Since then, thousands of doctors have used the treatment for upper respiratory infections.

In March 2021, I interviewed Dr. David Brownstein, who has a clinic just outside Detroit, Michigan, where he has successfully treated over 200 patients with nebulized hydrogen peroxide. When the treatment is initiated within the first couple days of infection, Brownstein has found it significantly reduces the number of patients who will experience long-haul syndrome from COVID-19.

In the article linked above, he shared that in his initial 107 patients, just 2% develop long-haul syndrome, which is in stark contrast to the 20% to 40% reported elsewhere. In my interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, in which we discussed hydroxychloroquine treatment, he also found that none of the patients treated within the first five days of symptoms went on to develop long-haul syndrome.

In March 2020, Dr. Thomas Levy published guidance43 on how to use nebulized hydrogen peroxide for the prevention and treatment of all viral respiratory infections, including COVID-19.

To use the protocol, you’ll want to use food-grade peroxide, which comes in concentrations of 12% and must be diluted to 1% or less before use. This is administered with a nebulizer that emits a fine mist and a face mask that covers your mouth and nose. The mist can be comfortably inhaled deep into your nostrils, sinuses and lungs where it inactivates viral pathogens.

For more information about how it works, and a video demonstrating how to mix the solution and use a nebulizer, see “How Nebulized Peroxide Helps Against Respiratory Infections.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/03/nasal-sanitizer.aspx

Tech billionaire Bill Gates, co-founder and former CEO of Microsoft, may seem a strange fit for the role of America’s top farmer. But he’s been quietly amassing massive tracts of U.S. land under the cover of investment firm Cascade Investment LLC, and now owns a minimum of 242,000 acres of U.S. farmland.1

The finding was outed by Eric O’Keefe’s magazine, The Land Report, which puts out a list of the 100 biggest landowners in the U.S. each year. It was a 2020 purchase of 14,500 “prime” acres in Washington state that first caught O’Keefe’s attention, as he calls any sale of more than 1,000 acres “blue moon events.”

When he dug deeper, the purchaser of the 14,500 acres — in the heart of some of the most expensive acreage in America — was recorded as a small Louisiana company. “That immediately set off alarm bells,” O’Keefe told the New York Post.2 It turned out the company was acting on behalf of Cascade Investment for Bill Gates, and he owns land not only in Washington but also in Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, California and multiple other states.

“Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, has an alter ego,” O’Keefe wrote. “Farmer Bill, the guy who owns more farmland than anyone else in America.”3 Clearly Gates has a big vision for all that land, but unfortunately it doesn’t involve organic, biodynamic or regenerative farming methods, which are needed to heal ecosystems and produce truly sustainable, nourishing food for future generations.

Instead, the acreage seems earmarked for even more genetically engineered (GE) corn and soy crops — the base foods for what will become an increasingly synthetic, ultraprocessed food supply.

Gates and Fake Meat Bigwigs Aim for Industrialized Farming

Imitation meat company Impossible Foods was co-funded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates,4 and Gates has made it clear that he believes switching to synthetic beef is the solution to reducing methane emissions that come from animals raised on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).5

The strong recommendation to replace beef with fake meat is made in Gates’ book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need,” which was released in February 2021.6 In an interview with MIT Technology Review, he goes so far as to say that people’s behaviors should be changed to learn to like fake meat and, if that doesn’t work, regulations could do the trick.7

In the U.S., consumers are increasingly seeking out wholesome, real, minimally processed food. Fake meat like the Impossible Burger is the opposite — a highly processed fake food, but one that’s disguised as something good for you and the environment.

Where in nature can you find ingredients like genetically engineered yeast, soy protein concentrate, modified food starch and soy protein isolate? The answer is nowhere, and therein lies a key part of the problem.

However, Gates, along with Pat Brown, founder of Impossible Foods, believes that the “winning strategy” for the future of farming involves “finding ways for farmers to produce more corn and soybeans on every acre … while substantially lowering carbon emissions.”8 According to Fortune:9

“Surprisingly, both Gates and Brown believe that genetically modified seeds and chemical herbicides, in the right doses — and not land-intensive organic farming — are crucial to curbing carbon emissions.”

Gates and Brown Support GMOs and Chemicals

When animals are raised according to regenerative agriculture, a complete ecosystem is created, one that is both healing for the land and productive for the farmers who keep it. Eating meat is not synonymous with harming the environment; it’s industrial farming practices that inflict the damage. Some also believe eating meat means ripping out more forests so animals can graze, but often it’s grasslands and prairies that have been plowed up to plant a surplus of corn for ethanol.

U.S. cropland is already dominated by a two-crop planting cycle of corn and soybeans, largely for industrial animal feed. Like concentrated animal feeding operations, these chemical-laden monocrops are devastating the environment, and even though they’re plant foods, are part of the problem, not the solution.

Rather than reverting to regenerative agriculture, in which livestock and crops are integrated into a symbiotic, complementary system that mimics the way nature works, agrochemical companies like Syngenta are using gene editing, genetic engineering, chemicals and biologics to create hybrid seed lines, crops resistant to winds, flooding and droughts and other lab-created agricultural elements.

It’s all based on technology to advance seed and crop protections, in what’s referred to as “the new paradigm of farming.” If Gates has his way, organic will be pushed out of the picture. Fortune reported:10

“Gates — America’s biggest owner of farmland — acknowledges that organic farming is more harmful to the environment than conventional farming. Asked by Rashida Jones on a December 2020 podcast, ‘Does eating organic help [reduce emissions]?’ Gates replied, ‘No, organic produce requires more land than typical farming techniques. I know that’s not a popular answer.’ Jones riposted, ‘Hard take, Bill!’”

Brown is also pro-GMOs and chemical herbicides. Fortune continued:11

“In an article from 2019, Brown wrote that Impossible was facing a shortage of soy because it relied on farms that didn’t use genetically modified seeds. The reason: Non-modified seed wasn’t nearly as resistant to disease, lowering output and forcing farmers to use far more herbicide.

Brown found that going with genetically modified crops provided both the extra supply he needed, and gave burgers the ‘beefy texture’ his fans craved. ‘The safest and most environmentally friendly option to allow us to scale up production and provide the Impossible Burger to consumers at the lowest possible cost is GM soy,’ he said.”

It’s an incredibly short-sighted statement, however, that completely ignores the many downsides of GM soy, which include devastating effects on insects like monarch butterflies as well as the promotion of herbicide-resistant superweeds.

Testing by Moms Across America also revealed the Impossible Burger contains glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, which has been shown to alter the gene function of over 4,000 genes in the livers, kidneys and cause severe organ damage in rats at levels of just 0.1 part per billion.12 The Impossible Burger contained 11.3 ppb (glyphosate and its break down AMPA).

Biotech PR Campaign to Convince You to Eat Synthetic Food

U.S. Right to Know reporter Stacy Malkan tweeted in March 2021 that Bill Gates’ plans to remake our food systems are a problem for both farmers and consumers who don’t want to eat GE corn and soy that’s turned into processed, synthetic food products.13

Whether or not it’s “unpopular” doesn’t matter, though, as Gates said he thinks rich countries should be eating all fake meat. When asked whether he thinks plant-based and lab-grown meats could “be the full solution to the protein problem globally,” he says that, in middle- to above-income countries, yes, and that people can “get used to it”:14

The plan to get consumers used to replacing their burgers with synthetic, fake food has been underway since at least 2014, when a group of powerful agribusiness executives met to organize a PR campaign that would put synthetic biology and GMOs in a more favorable light. Dana Perls, from Friends of the Earth, attended the meeting and later wrote:15

“The meeting was under Chatham House rules — which means I can’t disclose who said what. However, I can say that the meeting was an alarming insight into the synthetic biology industry’s process of creating a sugar-coated media narrative to confuse the public, ignore the risks, and claim the mantle of ‘sustainability’ for potentially profitable new synthetic biology products.

Over the course of the day, primarily CEOs, directors and PR people from powerful chemical and synthetic biology companies, bounced around tales of promise, discussed how to position synthetic biology as a ‘solution’ to world hunger, and made blithe claims of safety that were not backed up by any actual data.

… When I asked how biotech companies will protect small farmers who are producing the truly natural products, I was met with a hard cold stare, silence and a non-answer about needing to meet consumer demand.”

In a recap of the key take-away points from the meeting, Perls said the industry’s PR strategy included not using the terms “synthetic biology” and “genetically engineered,” which have negative connotations, and trying to change the public narrative by capturing emotions and flooding the media with feel-good stories about synthetic biology.

The group agreed that the industry should remain self-regulated as much as possible, and that the results of corporate studies should not be public knowledge. They even suggested that the industry should present the image that they’re looking out for food sustainability, transparency and food sovereignty. But, Perls noted, “When I pointed out that corporate-controlled synthetic biology is the antithesis of ‘food sovereignty,’ I was met again with stony silence.”16

UN Food Summit Boycotted Over Agribusiness Influence

Corporate interests are also dominating the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit, and hundreds of farmers and human rights groups are boycotting it as a result. They believe it favors agribusiness interests, elite foundations and the exploitation of African food systems.17

The Summit claims it is convening to “launch bold new actions to transform the way the world produces and consumes food,”18 but critics say it is biased toward industrial, corporate farming while leaving out those in regenerative agriculture and the knowledge of indigenous people.19

The controversy began right from the start, when U.N. secretary general António Guterres appointed Agnes Kalibata as the event’s head. Kalibata is the former Rwandan agriculture minister who is now the president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), an organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.20

AGRA is essentially a Gates Foundation subsidiary, and while some of its projects appear to be beneficial, most of its goals are centered on promoting biotechnology and chemical fertilizers. AGRA was launched in 2006 with funding from Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.

After more than a decade, AGRA’s influence has significantly worsened the situation in the 18 African nations targeted by this “philanthropic” endeavor. Hunger under AGRA’s direction increased by 30% and rural poverty rose dramatically.21

Concerns that the Summit was dominated by corporate industry heightened when its concept paper included precision agriculture, data collection and genetic engineering as pillars for addressing food security while leaving out regenerative agriculture.

As reported by The Guardian, Michael Fakhri, the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, wrote to Kalibata stating that the Summit was focused on “science and technology, money and markets” while leaving fundamental questions about inequality, accountability and governance unaddressed.22

Corporate Ideology Is Pushing Out Real Regeneration

Unfortunately, the U.N. Food Summit is now poised to bow down to corporate ideology instead of embracing the small farmers and regenerative practices that have true potential to feed the world and heal the planet. As for Gates’ increasing monopoly on farmland, it’s worth noting that when you own the land, you also own the water that’s beneath it.

For those who control resources like food and water, power is limitless, and with his vast amounts of land, he can grow all the GE soy necessary to create the fake meat he’s so heavily pushing — or perhaps it’s even worse than that. As noted by The Defender about several of Gates’ more questionable endeavors:23

“Thomas Jefferson believed that the success of America’s exemplary struggle to supplant the yoke of European feudalism with a noble experiment in self-governance depended on the perpetual control of the nation’s land base by tens of thousands of independent farmers, each with a stake in our democracy.

So at best, Gates’ campaign to scarf up America’s agricultural real estate is a signal that feudalism may again be in vogue. At worst, his buying spree is a harbinger of something far more alarming — the control of global food supplies by a power-hungry megalomaniac with a Napoleon complex.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/02/future-farming-bill-gates.aspx

Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., is a physicist and activist who works tirelessly to defend the environment and protect biodiversity from multinational corporations. Her life’s work has culminated in the creation of seed banks that may one day save future generations’ food sovereignty, but how she got there is a fascinating story, chronicled in the documentary “The Seeds of Vandana Shiva.”
Shiva, “a brilliant scientist” who became “Monsanto’s worst nightmare and a rock star of the international organic food movement,”1 grew up in a Himalayan forest, where her father, a forest conservator, carried out inspections. She would travel up to 45 miles a day with her father as a young girl, and as they traversed the forest he taught her everything about the trees, plants and herbs therein.
“We had a classroom out in the forest,” Shiva said, but her formal studies were done in a convent which, at that time, didn’t regard science as a subject fit for girls. Shiva wanted to study physics, though, and she was especially intrigued by Einstein and his connections of intuition with science. “Everyone has their favorite person that they want to be,” she said. “Einstein was the shaper of the dream of my life.”
A Search for Knowledge as a Whole

Shiva got a scholarship to attend Chandigarh University in Punjab, India, and from there she went on to the Bhabha National Atomic Research Center in Mumbai, India, for training in atomic energy. Later, her sister, a medical doctor, asked her about the health and environmental effects of nuclear technology and radiation.
As Shiva grasped the devastation nuclear energy had caused, she said, “I realized that a science that only teaches you how to modify nature without the understanding of what that modification does to the larger world is not a complete science.”
She gave up her idea of being a nuclear physicist and instead went looking for knowledge as a whole. She studied on her own, finding quantum theory, and while pursuing a Ph.D. in Canada, went to visit some of her favorite spots, including an oak forest she held close to her heart.
When she arrived, the forest had been cut down to make room for apple orchards, changing the entire microclimate in the area. The loss of something that she felt was a part of her impacted her deeply and set the stage for her environmental activism.
The Tree Hugging Movement Is Born

Shiva states that her involvement in the contemporary ecology movement began with the Chipko movement in 1973.2 The timber mafia were cutting down trees throughout the Indian Himalayas, taking away this precious resource from the rural villagers who depended on the forest for subsistence.
The government denied villagers access to the land and the lumber, while the logging companies cleared out forests, leading to problems with erosion, depleted water resources and flooding.
The villagers, primarily women, fought back in the best way they could, by physically embracing the trees to stop the loggers. Chipko is a Hindi word that means “to hug” or “to cling to,”3 and the movement spread, creating what became widely known as the tree hugging movement.
The women of Chipko taught Shiva how much women who hadn’t been to school knew about the interconnectedness of nature, but it took a major flood to make the government realize that what the women were saying was right. The revenue that came in from the forest logging was little compared to what they had to pay for flood relief.
In 1981, the government listened to the women and ordered a ban on logging in the high-altitude Himalayas, while tree hugging became a worldwide practice of ecological activism.
1982: The Water Wars

The Ministry of Environment invited Shiva to conduct a study on the impact of limestone mining in the Mussoorie hills. There were “scars all along the mountains,” and she went straight to the women in the community and asked what the key issue was. It was water. The rainfall in limestone creates giant caves and cavities, which act as nature’s aquifers.
Up in those mountains, Shiva said, the mining was robbing the valley of its water source — billions of dollars’ worth of water resources — while the miners’ wastes were destroying stream flows, villages were being washed away and workers were being exploited.
When word of Shiva’s study got out, both her father and infant son were threatened, but she continued on with her research, following her father’s advice that “as long as you follow your conscience you have nothing to fear.” Ultimately, Shiva’s calculations showed that the limestone left in the mountain contributed more to the economy than the extraction of limestone from the mountain.
Just as in the case of the forest in the Himalayas, in which the government was forced to recognize that the forest left standing contributed more than their conversion into timber. Shiva’s study was the basis of a Supreme Court ruling that led to the mining being discontinued.4
The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology

Shiva went on to found the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, which she called the Institute for “Counter Expertise.” The goal was to counter the “expertise” of the destroyers and “bring to the front the knowledge of those who were defending the Earth and their lives.”
Shiva was able to carry out independent research because she didn’t rely on funding from outside sources. “You can have a billion-dollar grant and hire researchers to do the work, who don’t know about the issue,” she said, or you can have just a few thousand dollars and work with communities, where the people become the researchers. This is important, Shiva noted, as “When money is your master, then your conscience is no more your guide.”
During this time, she also challenged the standing law in India, which stated that the father would automatically become the natural guardian of the children in cases of divorce. She went directly to the Supreme Court and became the first case in which the court decided the mother should get custody of the child, setting precedent for all of India.
In 1985, she was invited to Nairobi for a U.N. conference on women, where she spoke about women and the environment, including the Chipko movement, stating that it was the first time the link was made between environmental degradation and its impact on women. In 1988, her book “Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development” was published, marking the beginning of eco-feminism. Shiva went on to write more than 20 books.
The Violence of the Green Revolution

In 1984, Shiva was working for United Nations University on conflicts over resources when an eruption of extremist violence broke out in Punjab. Religion was blamed for the unrest, but it was more likely a battle over resources. That same year, a gas leak from a pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, had devastating consequences, killing 3,000 people immediately and 30,000 more in the aftermath, with many still suffering health effects to this day.
“My head is in a spin,” Shiva said of her mindset at the time. “That’s when I realized Punjab is the home of the Green Revolution.” The Green Revolution is the name given to the introduction of chemical agriculture to the developing world, which was promised to bring more food, more prosperity and more peace.
The movement even earned a Nobel Peace Prize but, Shiva said, “death ensued.” It didn’t add up. “You’re supposed to give a Nobel Peace Prize for peace, but this is war,” she said. When she turned her research efforts toward the Green Revolution, she found that, as a result of this new chemical-based agriculture, soils and rivers were dying and desertification was taking place, while 25% of small farmers were dispossessed.
“This was an agrarian crisis,” Shiva said, “not a religious conflict.” She uncovered that many of the people being killed were those in positions of bureaucratic power, “controlling the architecture that allowed the Green Revolution to happen.”
This led Shiva to write another book, “The Violence of the Green Revolution.” Once she understood that the promises of the Green Revolution were a lie, she moved her focus to truly sustainable agriculture.
Putting Patents on Life

In 1987, Shiva was invited to a biotechnology meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, which was attended by some independent scientists along with U.N. officials and the agro-chemical lobby, which would soon turn into the biotech lobby.
The focus was on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that would allow them to patent seeds, securing the GMO seeds’ future growth and the ability to collect royalties from farmers.5 An international treaty was discussed to move GMOs and patented seeds globally. Shiva told IDR:6

“This is why the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), World Trade Organisation (WTO), General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and others came into the picture. What was most horrifying was their ambition to limit this to a total of just five companies that would control food and health globally. Today, we have four — I call them the poison cartel.”

While the spin was to position GMOs as essential to feeding the world, Shiva said, “the reality was that they were the door to owning life on Earth.” The patented seeds also necessitated monocultures, so the same seeds could be sold everywhere, and people could be replaced with herbicides and machines. It ushered in industrialized farming while eliminating small farms.
On the flight home from Switzerland, she said, she began thinking about how to deal with this and by the time she got off the flight, “A seed was speaking to me … Farmers with their own seed, fighting for their seed freedom, are the biggest force in the world against seed monopoly.”
Navdanya: The Right to Save Seeds

In 1994, Shiva founded Navdanya, a nonprofit organization promoting biodiversity, organic farming and seed saving. She traveled to villages where women would give her seeds, and she started saving them and encouraging farmers to do the same. A training and research farm was created in order to have a seed bank where all the seeds were collected and to have research on how biodiversity and native seeds can feed the world.
But saving seeds and creating seed banks was only one aspect. The other was to create awareness, including translating the information into different languages to tell the world about the importance of saving seeds and protecting crops. There are now at least 127 seed banks in India, which will keep growing, along with a network of farmers and seed savers who have been trained in organic farming.
Shiva has also traveled the globe to warn other countries, including those in Africa, about plans to displace rural farmers so investors can turn the land into industrial farms to export the commodities. She said:

“A handful of multinational corporations … is driving species extinction. The poisons they have deployed are pushing the disappearance of bees, the disappearance of pollinators, the disappearance of insects, the disappearance of biodiversity.
Industrial agriculture is not only destroying biodiversity, it is destroying the soil and releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere … This is not a food system. It is not an ecological system. It is a recipe for destruction of the planet’s health and the destruction of our health.”

Regenerative agriculture and animal husbandry are the next and higher stage of organic food and farming. They’re not only free from toxic pesticides, GMOs, chemical fertilizers and concentrated animal feeding operations, but are also regenerative in terms of the health of the soil, the environment, the animals and rural farmers. As Shiva put it, “Regenerative agriculture provides answers to the soil crisis, the food crisis, the climate crisis and the crisis of democracy.”7
In short, regenerative agriculture practices aim to rebuild soil health, restore ecosystems and promote human health through the growing of nutrient-dense food, while providing farmers with economic and financial stability. Shiva is confident this can be done, as long as humans embrace their interconnectedness while acting on an individual level to be agents of change:

“Food can be grown in abundant, ecologically sustainable and just ways. But to do this we need a shift in our perception. We need a change in paradigm. We are part of nature. We must participate in her processes. We have to understand our interconnectedness, our oneness on this Earth. But this is not how Big Food and Big Agriculture works.”

About the Directors

I believe in bringing quality to my readers, which is why I wanted to share some information about the Directors, Camilla Becket and Jim Becket, from “The Seeds of Vandana Shiva.”

Here is a little more about them and what went in to making this film. Thank you Camilla and Jim for sharing with us.
Camilla grew up in apartheid South Africa and was an activist in the anti-apartheid movement. She managed outreach for independent publishers who originated works by anti-apartheid thinkers and artists, including Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu. She launched Becket Films with Jim in 2005 with a mission to focus on international environmental issues, social justice, and health.
Camilla has co-produced several Becket Films projects, including films for the Religion, Science, and Environment series about besieged water bodies around the world and what can be done to restore them.
Jim brings a varied career to his filmmaking: Human rights lawyer, journalist, and author. As Director of Public Information for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva, Jim made several films about refugee problems around the world. Moving to Los Angeles, he worked as a screenwriter, producer and director of TV and narrative movies.
Since then he has co-produced several documentaries on contemporary environmental issues, including The Green Patriarch, The Amazon: The End of Infinity, The Arctic: The Consequences of Human Folly and El Misterio del Capital de los Indigenas Amazonicos. Jim’s awards include festival Best Film awards, two Humanities awards, and a George Foster Peabody award.

What was your inspiration for making this film?
We were first introduced to Vandana Shiva at a series of environmental conferences almost twenty years ago. And like most people on their first meeting with her, realized immediately that we were in the presence of an eco-activist rock star.
The more time we spent with her, and learned about her life experiences, the more we, as filmmakers, were inspired to tell her story.
Her life has embodied the notion that “one person can make a difference”, and so finally we asked if we could try to capture her journey on film. She agreed. The Seeds of Vandana Shiva is the result.
Why seeds? After learning that the real goal of developing GMOs were for patents to monopolize the world’s seed supply, Vandana began speaking out about the ecological and social costs of industrial agriculture and building the movement to save native seeds.
And through her evolution as an activist against the global Goliaths of food and farming, we also wanted to shine a light on where we are today — industrial food production accounts for up to 40% of carbon emissions, while pesticides destroy soils, water systems and biodiversity, and harm human health. Contrary to the spin that industrial food is essential to feeding the world, today more than two billion people face food insecurity across the globe.
The good news is that The Seeds of Vandana Shiva also shows how we can tip the scales, each in our own way: Vandana speaks for an ecologically regenerative vision for food and farming which we can all engage in — millions already do. But we need millions more for real change to occur.
In the end, our hope is that Vandana’s extraordinary story will act as a catalyst for more people to understand the issues at stake, and to deeply inspire them to be part of the change.

What was your favorite part of making the film?

There were many rewards to making The Seeds of Vandana Shiva, but the best part was making the trips to Dr. Shiva’s organic farm, Navdanya, in the foothills of the Himalayas.
Not only is Navdanya the center of Dr. Shiva’s research and seed saving work, but it is also an education center where people travel from all over India and elsewhere in the world to learn about seed saving and ecological food systems.
It is where we found Dr. Shiva at her most relaxed and willing to share her experiences with us. We also loved how many volunteers stepped up to offer time and expertise during production. It was so gratifying to realize how many people really wanted this film to be made!
Now we are enjoying the process of sharing The Seeds of Vandana Shiva with the world, in the hope that it will inspire more people to advocate for regenerative, organic, and fair-traded food.

Where do the proceeds to your film go?
We financed filming and production with foundation grants, crowd-funders and a lot of sweat equity. Now we’re fundraising for an outreach and impact campaign, for more people to be able to see this film.
There is no time to lose. Our climate, our environment, our health and our democracies are in crisis.
Sharing Dr. Shiva’s experience and wisdom more widely with the world could not be more timely or urgent. Why? Because the ecological and social crises intersect in agriculture and the way we grow food.
The good news is that no-one explains the issues more clearly or what we can do about it than Vandana Shiva.
Also, documentaries — that both inform and entertain — are proven to be a powerful means to introduce audiences to issues in a way that can move them to advocate for much needed change.
It’s happened before and it can happen again, but we can’t do it alone. We need everyone who cares about the climate, the environment, and the wellbeing of human communities to support our outreach, in whichever way that they can.
All income raised will be for translations, communications, education and strategy materials, and to facilitate community screenings around the world. Please support The Seeds of Vandana Shiva impact campaign here!

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/03/the-seeds-of-vandana-shiva.aspx

While COVID-19 can hardly be called a major public health threat anymore, having now reached endemic status (like the seasonal flu), the fearmongerers who need this crisis to continue in order to complete the implementation of a Great Reset of the global economy and social structure aren’t letting up.
In a mid-March 2021 appearance on MSNBC News, National Institutes of Health director Dr. Francis Collins expressed dismay at the public’s display of independence, saying:

“Oh my God, Florida, stay out of the bars with your masks off! What are you doing? This is exactly the wrong thing to be doing unless you want to end up where Europe is.”

He’s referring to a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 that is, allegedly, now “causing so many problems” in Europe. But is it really? To be clear, there will be many new variants of this virus, just as the seasonal flu changes and evolves from year to year. The thing is, as viruses mutate within a population over time, they tend to become more benign.
Mutations: ‘Much Ado About Nothing’
As reported by Mary Petrone, Ph.D., and Nathan Grubaugh, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology and microbial diseases at Yale, in a March 2020 CNN Health article:1

“A recent scientific article suggested that the novel coronavirus responsible for the Covid-19 epidemic has mutated into a more ‘aggressive’ form. Is this something we need to worry about? No, and here’s why …

The effects of mutation in real life are nuanced and generally innocuous. Using the idea of mutation to incite fear is harmful, especially in the midst of an epidemic like COVID-19 …

The genetic material of the virus is RNA, not DNA like in humans. Unlike with human DNA, when viruses copy their genetic material, it does not proofread its work. Because RNA viruses essentially operate without a spell-check, they often make mistakes.

These ‘mistakes’ are mutations, and viruses mutate rapidly compared to other organisms. While this might sound frightening, mistakes during replication usually produce changes that are neutral or even harmful to the newly generated virus. Neutral mutations, which neither improve nor hinder viruses’ survival, may continue to circulate without any noticeable change in the people they infect.

Mutations that are harmful to the viruses are less likely to survive and are eliminated through natural selection. Fortunately, when mutations occur that help a virus spread or survive better, they are unlikely to make a difference in the course of an outbreak.

Viral traits such as infectiousness and disease severity are controlled by multiple genes, and each of those genes may affect the virus’ ability to spread in multiple ways. For example, a virus that causes severe symptoms may be less likely to be transmitted if infected people are sick enough to stay in bed.

As such, these traits are like blocks in a Rubik’s cube; a change in one characteristic will change another. The chances of a virus navigating these complex series of trade-offs to become more severe during the short timescale of an outbreak are extremely low.”

The Ever-Moving Goal Post

If you’ve paid attention, you’ve likely noticed that the goal post for “public safety” has been moved further and further away as we’ve gone along. At regular intervals, there’s been another Chicken Little warning that the sky is still falling and that we must not let down our guard.
First it was the number of deaths that was cause for alarm. Now we know that many of the so-called COVID-19 deaths were not, in fact, caused by the virus, while erroneous epidemiological models predicted millions of deaths lest drastic measures were taken.
As PCR testing took off, rising “case” loads seemed to confirm such dire predictions, sparking widespread panic. With 20/20 hindsight, we now realize that the cycle thresholds of these tests were set so high that even healthy, uninfected and noninfectious people tested positive.
This, in turn, allowed for the myth of asymptomatic spread to take root, and that then became the fear trigger, with everyone being a potential threat, no matter how healthy they appear.
The solution offered was for everyone to wear a mask at all times. Or two. Or perhaps three. Fortunately, even the experts backed off from suggestions of four layers. Yet, from the start, we knew, based on published science, that masks don’t work against viruses.
As “cases” skyrocketed in tandem with fraudulent PCR testing, we were then told the best thing to do is shut everything down for two weeks to prevent overloading hospitals. Stay home, save a life, let the virus die out.
But even though hospitals remained at functional capacity in most areas, as “cases” (read false positives) continued to rise, two-week lockdowns were turned into three weeks, then four. In some areas, lockdowns dragged on for months, yet it didn’t seem to have the desired effect on the case load. By this time, hospital capacity was entirely forgotten.
As lockdowns continued and people started to grumble, the “experts” in charge of this global organization (or more accurately, reorganization) warned that this was the new normal. Settle in. Get used to it. The virus doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, so our only hope is a vaccine. We just have to keep it together until then, and then we’ll all be safe again.
Alas, flies in the ointment appeared in the form of inexpensive treatments that worked just fine, and scientists and medical doctors sharing concerns about these novel “vaccines” that really aren’t and the public health dangers of lockdowns.
Censorship unlike anything the world has ever seen before was launched, and vaccine-deniers became the new enemy — worse even than those pesky asymptomatic healthy people that refuse to wear a mask.
Something had to be done about free thinkers and question-raisers, and so the goal post was moved again. The whole world, all 7-plus billion people, must get vaccinated, or else we’re all toast. This way, people will turn on each other and force each other to comply and stop with the questioning.
We cannot simply undo the harm caused by flawed policies advocated by our elites, but we can resolve that we never let this happen to our country again. ~ Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis
And so it continues. The sky hasn’t fallen yet, but we’re promised that unless we comply, it surely will. Any day now. Just a matter of time. Obey, and the experts will make sure we survive the inevitable pandemonium. Now, vaccine passports are being rolled out, and both private companies and entire nations are considering restricting any sense of normalcy to vaccinated-only. Aren’t you tired of chasing the goal post yet?
Chicken Little’s Puppet Masters

In a Wall Street Journal essay2 published March 18, 2021, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis urges readers not to trust “the elites,” pointing out that “Influential people in public health, government and the media” have “failed to rise to the moment.” He goes on:

“The COVID-19 pandemic represented a test of elites in the U.S., from public-health experts to the corporate media. The results have been disappointing. Policy makers who bucked the elites and challenged the narrative have been proven right to do so.

To begin with, highly publicized epidemiological models were as consequential as they were wrong … The lockdowns failed to stop the virus but did a great deal of societal damage along the way — damage that a more targeted approach, seeking to reduce total harms, would have been able to avoid (and did, in places like Sweden and Florida) …

Elites sent conflicting messages about the efficacy of cloth masks, the uniformity of risk across age brackets, the danger of outdoor transmission … Perhaps most damaging to public trust was the public-health campaign urging ‘15 Days to Slow the Spread’ … Going from ‘save the hospitals’ to ‘zero COVID’ represents one of the greatest instances in history of moving the goal post …

While it was abundantly clear by May that schools represented low-risk environments for the spread of COVID and that the consequences of prolonged school closures were potentially catastrophic, the corporate media did its best to obscure the data and stoke fear and panic among parents and teachers.

Had the media presented the data on schools in a rational fashion with proper context and perspective … millions of students would be in markedly better shape academically and socially.

For months we were told to ‘trust the experts,’ but far too often over the past year those who were most influential in our society — in public health, government and media — proved incapable of rising to the moment … We cannot simply undo the harm caused by flawed policies advocated by our elites, but we can resolve that we never let this happen to our country again.”

Who’s in Charge, Really?

DeSantis’ definition of “elites” is basically prominent public health and corporate media leaders. That may be appropriate for the critique offered in his article, but even these influential individuals are mere foot soldiers in the bigger scheme of things.
Above them towers a pyramidical power structure populated by globalist entities — nongovernmental organizations, think-tanks, private corporations and billionaire philanthropists — many of which we’ve never even heard of, and who rule without being seen.
In fact, one of the most influential yet universally overlooked global powerhouses, the Swedish Wallenberg family dynasty’s motto is “Esse non videri,” or in Swedish, “Att verka utan att synas,”3 which translates into “To operate without being seen.”
The Wallenbergs’ involvement in banking, and technological and power infrastructure grants them immense power over entire nations, not to mention the global intelligence and surveillance apparatus as a whole.
I suspect that in the final analysis, we will find the little country of Sweden may actually be a most significant power player in the Great Reset. The hope, of course, is that by exposing this nefarious global takeover plan, we can stop it and reverse course.
Fauci Called Out for His Theatrical Performance

More locally we have Dr. Anthony Fauci, who surely qualifies as an elitist pharmaceutical priest whose advice we ought to balance with more rational perspectives. In a recent Senate hearing over the COVID-19 pandemic, Sen. Rand Paul confronted Fauci about his mask recommendations, saying:4,5

“You’re telling everybody to wear a mask, whether they’ve had an infection or a vaccine. What I’m saying is that they have immunity, and everybody agrees they have immunity.

What studies do you have that people that have had the vaccine or have had the infection … are spreading the infection? If we’re not spreading the infection, isn’t it just theater? You’ve had the vaccine and you’re wearing two masks, isn’t that theater?”

When Fauci tries to defend his position by bringing up the issue of new variants that the vaccine may or may not defend against, which he says necessitates the use of a mask even if vaccinated, Paul strikes back saying:

“What studies show significant reinfection, hospitalization and death from the variants? None in our country. Zero. You’re making your policy based on conjecture. You have the conjecture that we’re going to get variants so you want people to wear a mask for another couple of years.

You’ve been vaccinated and you parade around in two masks for show. You can’t get it again … You’re defying everything we know about immunity by telling people to wear masks who have been vaccinated … If you have immunity, [wearing a mask] is theatre. You’re wearing a mask to give comfort to others. You’re not wearing a mask because of any science.”

Masks and Social Distancing Here to Stay?

In related news, BBC News reports mask wearing and social distancing in the U.K. may need to continue for “several years.”6 So says Mary Ramsay, head of immunization at Public Health England. Another extension on the foreign holiday (vacation) ban is also being considered.
The reason, again, is that no one can be free until the whole world has gotten vaccinated. The idea being presented, as DeSantis pointed out, is that we now have to reach a COVID-free state before we can start living life again. Meaning, as long as there’s a single specimen of SARS-CoV-2 anywhere on the planet, the whole world is at risk, as it will spread and grow, so no one can live as they please until the virus has been eradicated.
The goal post is now so far in the future, we can’t even see a glimmer of it in the distance anymore. The old saying, “Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile,” seems apt at this point.
At some stage, you must realize that the more you give in and obey, the more you have to give in and obey. There really is no end to what they can take from you, and holding on to the belief that your government would never [fill in the blank] is becoming more dangerous by the day.
It’s also important to realize that your government isn’t the ultimate power. Our government officials take orders too, believe it or not, from what is now commonly known as the deep state. It’s not a government at all, but a global, hidden power structure that is accountable to no one, while influencing and manipulating everyone to bring about a new world order.
The New World Order

In years past, this shadowy cabal of power brokers were referred to under the term the New World Order. In 2020, the World Economic Forum came out on the public stage and announced the Great Reset, which is nothing but the NWO rebranded. So, it’s a conspiracy no more.
In the video above, investigative journalist Harry Vox talks about disease outbreaks, quarantines and curfews being essential tools in the ruling class’ toolkit, and how these tools were planned to be used to usher in the next phase of control.
The interview, which took place seven years ago, sounds more than a little prophetic today, as these three indispensable tools for totalitarian control have been part of our reality for the past 12 months. In it, Vox also refers to “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development,” a document by the Rockefeller Foundation, in which they lay out their “Lockstep” scenario, which details the global response to a lethal pandemic.
The Lockstep Scenario
While the name and origin of the virus differs, the scenario laid out in this document matches many of the details of our present. A deadly viral pandemic. A deadly effect on economies. International mobility coming to a screeching halt, debilitating industries, tourism and global supply chains. “Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers,” the document reads.
“In the absence of official containment protocols,” the virus spread like wildfire. In this narrative, the U.S. administration’s failure to place strict travel restrictions on its citizens proved to be a fatal flaw, as it allowed the virus to spread past its borders. China, on the other hand, fared particularly well due to its rapid imposition of universal quarantines of all citizens, which proved effective for curbing the spread of the virus.
Many other nations where leaders “flexed their authority” and imposed severe restrictions on their citizens — “from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries of communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets” — also fared well.
Listen to the disbelief in the interviewer’s voice when he asks if Vox actually believes that such a thing could happen, that we would have to stand in line to get our temperature checked before entering a building.
Well, every single one of us has now had to do this at least a few times, so we know it’s possible. And if that’s possible, why not the rest of the Lockstep plan, which tells us that: “Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck, and even intensified.”
We can no longer afford to disbelieve the lengths to which the globalist elites, the unelected deep state, can and will go to seize total control over our global resources and people. They’ve already told us what the ultimate plan is — to use bioterrorism to take control of the world’s resources, wealth and people.
All we need to do is to believe it, and realize that the only thing giving them the power to impose their will is our fear. As long as we choose fear and demand our government keep us safe from pathogens, they have every chance of winning.
To learn more about the hidden power structure running this global reorganization toward authoritarian control, see “Bill Gates Wants to Realize Global Vision in His Lifetime,” “The Great Reset and Build Back Better,” “Technocracy and the Great Reset” and “Who Pressed the Great Reset Button?”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/02/covid-19-fear-destroys-freedom.aspx

I’ve discussed why COVID-19 vaccines are in fact gene therapies and not vaccines in several previous articles, including “COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines,” “COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy” and “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”

However, despite being a recognized form of gene therapy since its inception, vaccine makers are now frantically trying to deny that this mRNA technology is gene therapy. One reason for this, suggested by David Martin, Ph.D.,1 might be because as long as they’re considered “vaccines,” they will be shielded from liability.

Experimental gene therapies do not have financial liability shielding from the government, but pandemic vaccines do, even in the experimental stage, as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect. Another reason might be because they fear people won’t line up for experimental gene therapy. It has a very different connotation in people’s minds (as it should).

A third possibility is that they know full well that you cannot, ethically, mandate gene therapy in the way you can mandate vaccines. Mandatory public health measure directives are typically based on the idea that it’s acceptable for some individuals to be harmed as long as the measure benefits the collective.

Well, the COVID-19 “vaccines” are only designed to lessen symptoms of COVID-19. They do not prevent infection or spread, and since the vaccinated individual is the only one receiving a potential benefit, “the greater good” argument falls apart.

Who knows, there may be other factors at play that we’ve not realized as of yet, but whatever the reason, they really do not want you to think of these injections as gene therapy. They want you to accept them as any other conventional vaccine.
mRNA-Based Medicines Designed to Not Irreversibly Alter DNA
Try as they might, though, they cannot get rid of mRNA’s gene therapy label. For starters, Moderna describes its product as “gene therapy technology” in its SEC filings. On page 70, they also provide the following specifics:2

“Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism.”

In other words, it’s a form of gene therapy, but one that doesn’t enter and permanently alter your actual DNA. Instead, the mRNA stays in the cellular fluid where ribosomes read the code and create the protein per the mRNA’s coding.
The difference between vaccine mRNA and your natural mRNA is that your natural mRNA resides in the nucleus of the cell where your cellular DNA resides — it can be likened to a reverse photocopy of your DNA — and exits the nucleus when a protein needs to be made.
This is in stark contrast to mRNA from vaccines, which is synthetic and enters the cell from the outside and is not designed to enter the nucleus. Additionally, your own mRNA is rapidly degraded by enzymes, but the one from the vaccine is protected in a liposome that will protect it from degradation and keep on producing spike proteins. How long? No one knows because it has never been tested.
Can Vaccine mRNA Reverse-Transcribe Into Genome?

However, some doctors still worry that mRNA injections might be able to reverse-transcribe into your genes and alter your DNA on a permanent basis. One is Dr. Richard Urso, an ophthalmologist, who shared his concerns on a December 2020 episode of The Shepard Ambellas Show.3,4
He claimed the mRNA of retroviruses (which are part of our genome) have been shown to have the ability to transcribe into your DNA, and if it can do that, vaccine mRNA might be able to do this as well. According to Urso, if this turns out to be correct, the result of mRNA vaccination might be lifelong COVID-19.
A new study by MIT and Harvard scientists demonstrates that segments of the RNA from the coronavirus itself are most likely becoming a permanent fixture in human DNA. This was once thought near impossible, for the same reasons which are presented to assure us that an RNA vaccine could accomplish no such feat. ~ Dr. Doug Corrigan
Another skeptic is Dr. Doug Corrigan, who in a March 16, 2021, blog reviewed the findings of recent research5,6 showing SARS-CoV-2 RNA can reverse-transcribe into the human genome:7

“In my previous blog, ‘Will an RNA Vaccine Permanently Alter My DNA?’8 I laid out several molecular pathways that would potentially enable the RNA in an mRNA vaccine to be copied and permanently integrated into your DNA.
I was absolutely not surprised to find that the majority of people claimed that this prospect was impossible … After all, we’ve been told in no uncertain terms that it would be impossible for the mRNA in a vaccine to become integrated into our DNA, simply because ‘RNA doesn’t work that way.’
Well, this current research which was released not too long after my original article demonstrates that yes, indeed, ‘RNA does work that way’… Specifically, a new study9,10 by MIT and Harvard scientists demonstrates that segments of the RNA from the coronavirus itself are most likely becoming a permanent fixture in human DNA.
This was once thought near impossible, for the same reasons which are presented to assure us that an RNA vaccine could accomplish no such feat. Against the tides of current biological dogma, these researchers found that the genetic segments of this RNA virus are more than likely making their way into our genome.
They also found that the exact pathway that I laid out in in my original article is more than likely the pathway being used (retrotransposon, and in particular a LINE-1 element) for this retro-integration to occur.
And, unlike my previous blog where I hypothesize that such an occurrence would be extremely rare (mainly because I was attempting to temper expectations more conservatively due to the lack of empirical evidence), it appears that this integration of viral RNA segments into our DNA is not as rare as I initially hypothesized …
To be fair, this study didn’t show that the RNA from the current vaccines is being integrated into our DNA. However, they did show, quite convincingly, that there exists a viable cellular pathway whereby snippets of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA could become integrated into our genomic DNA. In my opinion, more research is needed to both corroborate these findings, and to close some gaps.”

A January 2020 Phys.org article,11 “Modified RNA Has a Direct Effect on DNA,” also notes that “it has now been revealed that RNA has a direct effect on DNA stability,” and this too may or may not play a role in mRNA therapy for COVID-19.
Vaccine Makers Fear Negative Perception of Gene Therapy
Getting back to Moderna’s SEC filing, in it, they also admit that public perception of other types of gene therapy may negatively impact perception of mRNA medicines. The problem, they admit, is that irreversible gene therapies have side effects, and knowing this, people might shun mRNA medicines too. The SEC filing goes on to note:12

“Because no product in which mRNA is the primary active ingredient has been approved, the regulatory pathway for approval is uncertain. The number and design of the clinical trials and preclinical studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products, or may require safety testing like gene therapy products.”

Well, the pandemic allowed them to sneak mRNA gene therapy under the proverbial radar so that they don’t have to conduct more stringent gene therapy safety testing. Instead, they were handed the global population for the largest testing imaginable, and all without liability when something goes wrong — provided it’s viewed as a “vaccine,” that is.
mRNA Therapies Classified as Gene Therapy in Europe and US

The SEC filing13 for BioNTech (BioNTech’s mRNA technology is used in the Pfizer vaccine) is equally clear, stating on page 21: “Although we expect to submit BLAs for our mRNA-based product candidates in the United States, and in the European Union, mRNA therapies have been classified as gene therapy medicinal products, other jurisdictions may consider our mRNA-based product candidates to be new drugs, not biologics or gene therapy medicinal products, and require different marketing applications.”
So, in the U.S. and Europe, mRNA therapies, as a group, are classified as “gene therapy medicinal products.” The crux here, again, appears to be the idea that mRNA therapy does not cause permanent DNA alterations. On page 35 of the BioNTech SEC filing, they further clarify the alleged difference between other, irreversible, gene therapies and mRNA gene therapy:

“There have been few approvals of gene therapy products in the United States and other jurisdictions, and there have been well-reported significant adverse events associated with their testing and use.
Gene therapy products have the effect of introducing new DNA and potentially irreversibly changing the DNA in a cell. In contrast, mRNA is highly unlikely to localize to the nucleus, integrate into cell DNA, or otherwise make any permanent changes to cell DNA.
Consequently, we expect that our product candidates will have a different potential side effect profile from gene therapies because they lack risks associated with altering cell DNA irreversibly.”

Hacking the Software of Life

Company executives and scientists familiar with mRNA technology have, for years, been referring to this new technology as gene therapy. The video above features a TED Talk by Dr. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer of Moderna, given in 2017, more than two full years before COVID-19.

In it, he points out that they were, at that time, already working on a variety of vaccines, including an mRNA vaccine for influenza and individualized cancer vaccines based on the genetic sequence of the patient’s tumor, stressing that this vaccine would not act like any previous vaccine ever created.

“We’ve been living this phenomenal digital scientific revolution, and I’m here today to tell you that we are actually hacking the software of life, and that it’s changing the way we think about prevention and treatment of disease,” Zaks said.
“In every cell there’s this thing called messenger RNA or mRNA for short, that transmits the critical information from the DNA in our genes to the protein, which is really the stuff we’re all made out of. This is the critical information that determines what the cell will actually do. So, we think of it as an operating system …
So, if you could change that … if you could introduce a line of code, or change a line of code, it turns out that has profound implications for everything, from the flu to cancer …
Imagine if instead of giving [the patient] the protein of a virus, we gave them the instructions on how to make the protein, how the body can make its own vaccine,” he said.

How mRNA Vaccines Work

Zaks further differentiates conventional vaccines and mRNA vaccines by explaining that when using a conventional vaccine, you have viral protein floating around outside the cell, whereas the mRNA approach reprograms the cell to create that viral protein inside of itself.

“What’s more alarming?” he asks. “A stranger prowling the neighborhood, or somebody who just broke into your ground floor and tripped the alarm? That’s what happens with an mRNA vaccine. You’ve tripped the alarm wire and now the cell is dialing 911, it’s calling the police — at the same time that it’s making the protein, saying ‘That’s the bad guy.’ That’s how an mRNA vaccine works.”

Zaks also refers to the company’s mRNA shots as “information therapy,” which is just another way of saying gene therapy because mRNA is a carrier of genetic code. (For clarification, code in your natural mRNA matches your DNA, whereas vaccine mRNA has no equivalence inside your genome since it’s coming from the outside. Vaccine mRNA still carries “genetic code,” though, just not anything found in your body before.) As explained on genome.gov:14

“Messenger RNA (mRNA) is a single-stranded RNA molecule that is complementary to one of the DNA strands of a gene. The mRNA is an RNA version of the gene that leaves the cell nucleus and moves to the cytoplasm where proteins are made.
During protein synthesis, an organelle called a ribosome moves along the mRNA, reads its base sequence, and uses the genetic code to translate each three-base triplet, or codon, into its corresponding amino acid.
mRNA, are one of the types of RNA that are found in the cell. This particular one, like most RNAs, are made in the nucleus and then exported to the cytoplasm where the translation machinery, the machinery that actually makes proteins, binds to these mRNA molecules and reads the code on the mRNA to make a specific protein.
So in general, one gene, the DNA for one gene, can be transcribed into an mRNA molecule that will end up making one specific protein.”

mRNA Technology Ushers in Transhumanism

In true technocratic, transhumanist Fourth Industrial Revolution fashion, Zaks and other mRNA pushers view the body as your hardware, your genetic code as software and these mRNA injections as software updates. As noted by Patrick Wood in a recent Technocracy News article:15

“Pure and simple, this is unvarnished, raw transhumanism … Scientists think they can rewrite the genetic code [his words, not mine, for all you out there who still don’t believe these mRNA vaccines change the genetic code just because some ‘fact checker’ says they don’t], believing they can improve on a person’s God-given genetic makeup is entering dangerous territory …
These scientists truly believe that the human body is nothing more than a machine that can be hacked into and reordered according to some programmer’s instructions … Who’s to say they won’t correct one problem and create something far worse?”

What Is Transhumanism?

What exactly is transhumanism? Technocracy News describes16 it as “a twisted philosophy that believes in the use of high technology to transform humans into immortal beings … Furthermore, they seek to use genetic engineering to create a new master race of sorts, that will shed all of the ‘unseemly’ characteristics of humans.” Britannica defines17 it as a:

“… social and philosophical movement devoted to promoting the research and development of robust human-enhancement technologies. Such technologies would augment or increase human sensory reception, emotive ability, or cognitive capacity as well as radically improve human health and extend human life spans.
Such modifications resulting from the addition of biological or physical technologies would be more or less permanent and integrated into the human body.”

Great Reset Is a Transhumanist Agenda

Miklos Lukacs de Pereny, research professor of science and technology policy at the Peruvian University San Martin de Porres, has given presentations18 and interviews19 in which he warns that transhumanism is part and parcel of the Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution agendas, which are being rolled out at a furious pace under the auspices of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported by Life Site News, November 10, 2020:20

“The COVID-19 pandemic was manufactured by the world’s elites as part of a plan to globally advance ‘transhumanism’ — literally, the fusion of human beings with technology in an attempt to alter human nature itself and create a superhuman being and an ‘earthly paradise,’ according to a Peruvian academic and expert in technology.
This dystopian nightmare scenario is no longer the stuff of science fiction, but an integral part of the proposed post-pandemic ‘Great Reset,’ Dr. Miklos Lukacs de Pereny said at a recent summit on COVID-19.
Indeed, to the extent that implementing the transhumanist agenda is possible, it requires the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of a global elite and the dependence of people on the state, said Lukacs.
That’s precisely the aim of the Great Reset, promoted by German economist Klaus Schwab, CEO and founder of World Economic Forum, along with billionaire ‘philanthropists’ George Soros and Bill Gates and other owners, managers, and shareholders of Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Finance who meet at the WEF retreats at Davos, Switzerland, contended Lukacs.
Transhumanists … seek to ‘relativize the human being’ and ‘turn it into a putty that can be modified or molded to our taste and our desire and by rejecting those limits nature or God have placed on us’ …
Indeed, WEF’s Schwab has been promoting the Great Reset as a way to ‘harness the Fourth Industrial Revolution’ … which, he declared in January 2016, ‘will affect the very essence of our human experience.’ Schwab described the Fourth Industrial Revolution then as ‘a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines among the physical, digital and biological spheres’ …
Those technologies include genetic engineering such as CRISPR genetic editing, artificial intelligence (A.I.), robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), 3D printing, and quantum computing. ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution is nothing other than the implementation of transhumanism on a global level,’ emphasized Lukacs.”

mRNA Technology Is Still Gene Therapy
In “COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy” (hyperlinked above), I provide even more background information showing that mRNA “vaccines” are in fact gene therapy, and how this technology has been viewed and presented as gene therapy in the past.

The fact is, everywhere you look, mRNA technology, mRNA therapy and mRNA medicines — anything mRNA — have been, for years, treated as a form of gene therapy. Take the 2015 paper21 “mRNA: Fulfilling the Promise of Gene Therapy” in the journal Molecular Therapy. In this paper, the authors point out that in vitro-transcribed mRNA has the potential to play a role in gene therapy previously only envisioned for DNA.

Back in 2009, the paper22 “Current Prospects for mRNA Gene Delivery” in the European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics noted that while “replication-deficient viruses have been used most successfully in the field of gene therapy … mRNA has … emerged as an attractive and promising alternative in the nonviral gene delivery field,” and a 2019 paper23 in Frontiers in Oncology discussed the therapeutic prospects of “mRNA-based gene therapy for glioblastoma.”

If they want to call it “temporary gene therapy,” I’m OK with that — provided they can prove that it is in fact temporary, how long the effects last, and that vaccine mRNA cannot reverse-transcribe into the human genome like SARS-CoV-2 RNA apparently can.

But to deny that it’s gene therapy altogether and insist that it’s simply an updated form of vaccine technology is simply impossible, as it does not perform any of the functions of an actual vaccine (i.e., prevent infection and spread).
Do You Want to Update Your Software?
Now, if our genetic makeup is to be viewed as “the software of life,” as Zaks puts it, then should we not have the sole authority to decide for ourselves whether we actually want a “software update,” be it temporary or permanent?

“If we truly live in a free society, wouldn’t it stand to reason that we would want to have an energetic debate over how to answer that question?” Wood asks.24
“Contrary to what some scientists believe, we are not machines. We are human beings with bodies, souls and free wills. Anyone who tries to mandate the acceptance of an experimental gene-altering treatment is going against the international Nuremberg Codes, which require informed consent of any experimental treatment.”

What to Do if You’ve Had a Change of Heart
If you already got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you’d use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. I review these strategies at the end of “Why COVID Vaccine Testing Is a Farce.”

Last but not least, if you got the vaccine and are having side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:25

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 CHD website

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/31/covid-vaccine-software-update.aspx

The phrase “better living through chemistry” is a variation on an advertising campaign used by the DuPont Chemical Company1 in the mid-1930s until the early 1980s.

In 2014,2 it became the title of a “comedy” that portrays the life of a man bullied by his father and wife, and his subsequent “rebirth” through chemical use. However, the Hollywood and public relations versions of “better living through chemistry” are not the reality.

For instance, recent data from the University of California San Francisco revealed that 55 chemicals previously not found in humans were found in the bodies of pregnant women and their babies.3

Chemical-laden plastic has become such a ubiquitous part of modern-day life that is hard to imagine a world without it. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, it’s a relatively new invention4 and there’s still a lot we don’t know about how it impacts human and environmental health.

The chemicals in plastic are intergenerational endocrine disruptors5 for which there is not enough evidence to demonstrate plastic is safe for current and future generations. These chemicals have widespread use in plastic products and are similar in nature to natural sex hormones, which earns them the designation of endocrine disruptors.

But the chemicals in plastics are just one of the enormous number of chemicals being released into the environment through human use and disposal in waste products, including human waste. For example, according to the Environmental Working Group,6 every day women in America use an average of 12 personal care products, including cosmetics, that contain up to 168 different chemicals.

And those are just the chemicals the manufacturers have told the public is in those products. Many of these are applied to the skin, which allows ingredients to be absorbed directly into the bloodstream. This is only one of the ways chemicals are absorbed in the body.

For example, food can introduce chemicals in the body, either through its ingredients or through its packaging. The fast-food industry was valued at $647.7 billion in 2019 and is estimated to grow 4.6% by 2027, reaching $931.7 billion.7 Yet, despite the fact that it has been identified as a significant source of hormone-disrupting chemicals, the market continues to grow as consumer demand increases.

Scientists Find 42 ‘Mystery Chemicals’ in Pregnant Women

In the featured study, researchers8 found 109 chemicals using high-resolution mass spectrometry on blood samples from pregnant women and their babies. The study was done to develop a screening workflow for the identification and prioritization of chemical exposure in maternal and cord blood samples as a development for the future evaluation of health risks.

In a small sample of 30 women and their babies’ cord serum samples, they discovered 55 previously unreported chemicals in human blood. In addition to this, they also found 42 “mystery chemicals” with sources and uses that were unidentified by the researchers.9 The scientists wrote that the majority of the 55 compounds had “limited to no information about their sources or uses.”10

However, the source of the chemicals is believed to be from consumer products and other industrial sources, as written in a press release from the University of California.11 Since they were found in both the pregnant woman and their newborn children, evidence suggests the chemicals are able to pass across the placenta.

Tracey Woodruff, Ph.D., is a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California San Francisco and senior researcher on the study. She commented in the press release:12

“These chemicals have probably been in people for quite some time, but our technology is now helping us to identify more of them. It is alarming that we keep seeing certain chemicals travel from pregnant women to their children, which means these chemicals can be with us for generations. It’s very concerning that we are unable to identify the uses or sources of so many of these chemicals.”

Woodruff spoke to a journalist from Live Science,13 expressing her concerns that exposure during pregnancy is dangerous since it’s at a vulnerable time of development, potentially leading to lifelong consequences. Two of the newly detected chemicals in the human body were polyfluoroalkyl or perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFASs), used in products such as pizza boxes and nonstick cookware.

Ten were plasticizers, such as phthalates, but the majority of the newly detected chemicals the researchers had no information about. Another author, Dimitri Abrahamsson, told Live Science that the number of chemicals discovered should signal a sense of “alarm,” continuing:14

“We’re being exposed to chemicals that we have very little information about. And these chemicals could potentially have harmful health effects that we don’t know and can’t predict.”

Phthalates and Plasticizers Pose Health Dangers

Data from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health discovered 90% of the people tested from 2016 to 2017 had eight different plasticizers in their urine.15 These colorless, odorless chemicals, composed mostly of phthalates, are used to change the elasticity of materials during the manufacturing process.16

Although you can probably name shower curtains, takeout containers and storage bags as plastic products, did you know clothing, paper coffee cups, tea bags and chewing gum are also made with plastic?17 Because the chemicals are not tightly bound to the products, they can dissipate into the surrounding environment, including the food you eat and the water you drink.

While the National Toxicology Program18 believes phthalates are “reasonably considered to be a human carcinogen,” politics and regulations have allowed plastics to remain in many of the products you use today.

In addition to the passage of chemicals from mother to child, ingestion of plastic particles can start in infancy. Globally, the baby bottle industry was valued at $2.6 billion in 2018, and the plastic segment accounted for 44.1% of the overall share.19 Researchers20 found that microplastics are released from plastic baby bottles into the contents, sometimes up to 16 million plastic particles per liter.

In this study, researchers tested only the number of particles released by the bottle as they use purified water and not standard drinking water. Since standard drinking water also contains microplastics,21 this means the number may have been significantly underestimated when the bottles are used at home.

Phthalates are powerful hormone disruptors that can cause males in many species to develop feminine characteristics.22 By disrupting the endocrine system they can also increase the risk of testicular cancer, low sperm count and infertility, which researchers have found in animal species including whales, deer, otters and bears.

A peer-reviewed article published in the American Journal of Public Health23 used data from longitudinal birth cohort studies to show associations between exposure to phthalates in utero and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, lower IQ, impaired social communication, poor psychomotor development and adverse cognitive development.

EPA and FDA Responsible for Your Toxic Exposure

Woodruff and her team were able to tentatively identify some of the chemicals used in chemical libraries. However, confirmation is made by comparing them to the pure chemicals known as “analytical standards,” provided by the manufacturer. Manufacturers do not always provide the samples. Woodruff continued her statement in the press release from the University of California, saying:24

“EPA must do a better job of requiring the chemical industry to standardize its reporting of chemical compounds and uses. And they need to use their authority to ensure that we have adequate information to evaluate potential health harms and remove chemicals from the market that pose a risk.”

During the UCSF study, researchers found chemical manufacturer Solvay halted access to a chemical standard for one of their perfluorooctanoic acid compounds they have used as a replacement for those that have been phased out. The researchers had been applying this chemical standard as a comparison, looking for the presence and toxicity of the replacement chemical.25

It may seem odd that a regulated industry would have the option of withdrawing its chemical composition, but as Sharyl Attkisson from Full Measure26 revealed in an investigative report, the industry is self-regulated. When the law was passed in 1938, it was missing a section that would have given the FDA the authority to impose sanctions.

Melanie Benesh of the Environmental Working Group told Attkisson that the FDA does not have jurisdiction to recall products or “to do a systematic look at their ingredients and what their long-term effects are.”

While the FDA has no teeth, the EPA is not using its regulatory prerogative in many cases. According to their website, the EPA “gathers health, safety and exposure data; requires necessary testing; and controls human and environmental exposures for numerous chemical substances and mixtures. EPA regulates the production and distribution of commercial and industrial chemicals …”27

Yet, as I have covered in the past, the EPA has been sued for its mercury policy, allowing dental offices to continue to discharge nearly 5.1 tons of mercury each year into publicly owned water treatment plants, most of which are subsequently released into the environment.28

The EPA has also been accused of colluding with Monsanto, which you can read more about in “Evidence EPA Colluded With Monsanto to Dismiss Cancer Concerns Grows Stronger.” They have blocked warning labels about glyphosate, and they promote the use of sewage sludge, which they dubbed “biosolids.”

This sludge is spread as fertilizer on U.S. agricultural lands, golf courses, parklands and cemeteries. As described in “BioSludged,”29 biosolids can contain dioxins, pharmaceuticals, surfactants, hormones and heavy metals, as well as disease-causing pathogens.

The persistence of these toxins in the treated soil means they may be absorbed by food crops that end up on your plate. Yet, high-profile PR companies, some funded by the EPA, spin biosolids as environmentally friendly and a form of recycling.

The EPA’s Environmental Dumping Ground

According to the World Wildlife Federation,30 between 1930 and 2000, there was a 400-fold increase in the production of man-made chemicals across the world, rising from 1 million to 400 million tons each year. These man-made chemicals produce widespread environmental contamination during their manufacture, use and disposal.

Chemicals can travel vast distances through the air or water and have been found to contaminate nearly every environment and type of wildlife, including birds, alligators, polar bears and panthers. There has been a widespread decline of mink in the Great Lakes, otters in Canada and other species across North America and Western Europe.31

Experts believe it is the environmental contamination of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins, which is supported by studies using laboratory mink. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) is classified by the U.S. EPA as a cancer-causing agent. It has been found in the Mediterranean to the Baltic Sea.

In 1979, it was tested on monkeys and they all died within weeks. Scientists have found caimans, an alligator species native to South America, with sex reversals caused by environmental contamination from bisphenol A. The chemical was also responsible for reproductive malformations in quail and chicken embryos.

Consider Your Daily Choices

It doesn’t appear that the EPA or FDA has plans to take broad steps to warn the public about dangerous environmental chemicals now or in the near future. On the contrary, in some cases, they’re working with the companies to remove warning labels that could have alerted consumers to their risks, such as the incident in California where the EPA stepped in to remove warning labels about glyphosate.32

Despite scientific evidence to the contrary,33,34,35 to date the EPA continues to insist that there is “No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.”36 Governmental regulatory agencies do not appear willing to go against large manufacturers in order to protect the health of their citizens.

Instead, it’s up to you to vote with your pocketbook and keep an eye on the products and services that you use. For example, one way to promote change in the cosmetic industry is to participate in tracking adverse events37 from any chemical or product you use.

Instead of buying the newest celebrity-endorsed personal care product or cosmetic, consider making your own bath and handwashing products without preservatives. Seek out safe products that are free of potentially dangerous chemicals by using the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Database.38

The easiest way to steer clear of glyphosate is to buy locally and organically grown food from a trusted source. For a list of ways to help reduce your exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, see “Why Your Hormones Have Been Hijacked.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/31/chemicals-found-pregnant-women.aspx

As of March 16, 2021, 19 European countries plus Thailand1 had suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s vaccine, either in full or in part, following reports of deadly blood clots.2,3 March 2, 2021, The Defender reported4 U.K. data showing the AstraZeneca vaccine was responsible for 77% more adverse events and 25% more deaths than the Pfizer vaccine, which in the U.S. has been connected with a majority of death reports in the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (VAERS).
AstraZeneca’s vaccine has received emergency use authorization in Europe but not in the U.S., where the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are available. Contrary to the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines use a viral vector to deliver double-stranded DNA for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein into your cells.5
Business Insider has created a comparison chart6 of the four vaccines — Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson — currently available in the U.S. and Europe.
Norway Links Lethal Blood Clots to AstraZeneca Vaccine
While virtually all post-vaccination deaths so far have been shrugged off as coincidence, even when occurring in healthy individuals in their 20s and 30s, doctors at Oslo University Hospital have now announced the blood clotting disorders experienced by some recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine are in fact caused by the vaccine.7
We have the reason. Nothing but the vaccine can explain why these individuals had this immune response. ~ Professor Pål Andre Holme, Oslo University Hospital
A March 18, 2021, article in Science Norway reads, in part:8

“’Our theory that this is a powerful immune response most likely triggered by the vaccine, has been confirmed,’ says professor and chief physician Pål Andre Holme. Three Norwegian health workers under the age of 50 have been hospitalized. One is dead …

‘In collaboration with experts in the field from the University Hospital of North Norway HF, we have found specific antibodies against blood platelets that can cause these reactions, and which we know from other fields of medicine, but then with medical drugs as the cause of the reaction,’ the chief physician explains …

When asked to clarify why he says ‘most likely’ in the quote, Holme confidently responds that the reason for these rare cases of blood clots has been found.

‘We have the reason. Nothing but the vaccine can explain why these individuals had this immune response,’ he states. [Norwegian national newspaper] VG also asks how Holme can know that the immune response is not caused by something other than the vaccine.

‘There is nothing in the patient history of these individuals that can give such a powerful immune response. I am confident that the antibodies that we have found are the cause, and I see no other explanation than it being the vaccine which triggers it,’ he responds.”

The three health workers reported acute pain, bleeding, low platelet counts and were found to have blood clots in “unusual places,” such as their stomachs and brains. Later that same day, March 18, 2021, the European Medicines Agency ruled the AstraZeneca vaccine is “safe and effective, despite some concerns over possible side effects,” CNBC reported,9 and that benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.
Meanwhile, March 22, 2021, Norway Today reported the Norwegian Medicines Agency had received two new reports of blood clots with deadly consequences following vaccination with the AstraZeneca vaccine. In a press release, the agency stated that “The Norwegian Medicines Agency cannot rule out that these cases may have a connection with the AstraZeneca vaccine.”10 One of the two victims was a health care worker.
German Experts Weigh In
A March 19, 2021, German Spektrum article11 reviews preliminary findings by German investigators, which add further weight to Holme’s findings in Norway. It reads, in part (translation from German using translate.com):

“The effects of the suspended vaccinations with the AstraZeneca vaccine are believed to have been due to a particular immune response that activates platelets and thus triggers thrombosis. This preliminary conclusion is being made by a working group made up of Andreas Greinacher from the University Hospital Greifswald.

The effect corresponds in many details to a heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) type 2,12 in which antibodies against a protein complex are formed in connection with heparin, which in turn respond to a receptor on the platelets …

The team demonstrated the similarity of thrombosis with HIT in the blood of four patients with sinus vein thrombosis. Antibodies appear to form against a complex of heparin and the signaling molecule PF4, which in turn interact with the receptor CD32 of the platelets and thus activate them.

This triggers the clotting cascade, which leads to the thrombosis. The antibodies produced in the vaccinated individuals were very similar to those found in HIT, Greinacher said at a news conference. So far, however, it is still unclear where these antibodies come from, whether they form against the vaccine virus or the spike antigen or perhaps against a factor only involved in the immune response.”

According to Greinacher, people with a history of thrombosis probably do not have a higher risk of complications from the vaccine due to the mechanism of harm. He also points out that there is treatment against HIT, which the team believes “should also work in the case of the suspected vaccination side effect.”
Spektrum reports that, based on these findings, the Society for Thrombosis and Hemostasis Research suggests vaccinated individuals who experience thrombosis or neurological symptoms such as dizziness, headache or visual impairment on the fifth day post-vaccination and onward should be tested for HIT type 2.
The HIT type 2 test will detect antibodies against the heparin complex and, if positive, the Society recommends administering intravenous immunoglobulin G to prevent the activation of CD32 and interrupt the mechanism that results in thrombosis.
AstraZeneca Efficacy Data Being Questioned
March 22, 2021, AstraZeneca13 announced its Phase 3 U.S.-based trial showed the vaccine was 79% effective at preventing symptomatic cases of COVID-19 and 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalization, with no increased risk for adverse effects compared to placebo.
According to The Associated Press,14 partial results from trials in the U.K, Brazil and South Africa — where a “manufacturing mistake” had led to some participants receiving only half of their first dose — suggested the vaccine was 70% effective.
The AP goes on to cite a number of individuals saying the U.S. results should allay concerns about the AstraZeneca vaccine.
That narrative broke apart the very next day, March 23, 2021, when the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) issued a statement15,16,17 first thing in the morning, saying the Data and Safety Monitoring board (DSMB) had notified them that AstraZeneca’s data may include “outdated information” that cast doubt on its effectiveness. As reported by The Defender:18

“Notably, in its most recent data, AstraZeneca neglected to include key information, such as the number of trial participants who developed ‘severe COVID.’ AstraZeneca President Ruud Dobber, during an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box, said the number was ‘5,’ shortly after the data were released.”

“We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible,” the NIAID said in its statement.19
Dr. Anthony Fauci, who heads the NIAID and was one of the people quoted by the AP as saying the U.S. trial ought to put concerns to rest, went on the defensive, saying “This is really what you call an unforced error because the fact is, this is very likely a very good vaccine. If you look at it the data, they really are quite good, but when they put it into the press release, it wasn’t completely accurate.”20

AstraZeneca responded21 saying the data were based on a “pre-specified interim analysis with a data cut-off” of February 17, 2021, and promised to share more data with the independent review board.
In a Tweet,22 Francois Balloux, professor and director of the UCL Genetics Institute, called the NIAID’s statement “highly unusual,” noting it “comes close to accusing Oxford/AZ of having willfully misrepresented” some of its trial results.
Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, called the NIAID’s statement “unprecedented,” as while the DSMB will “sometimes disagree with investigators over vaccine trial results,” they typically do so “in private,” not publicly.23
This isn’t the first time AstraZeneca has been challenged over its data handling, though. As reported by The Defender:24

“‘The way they handled their data early on, AstraZeneca basically shot themselves in the foot,’ Julian Tang, a virologist at the University of Leicester, said even before the latest issue arose.

AstraZeneca has received criticism over its studies since the first data released in the UK, which purported to show the vaccine was 70% effective, yet failed to account for a manufacturing mistake and didn’t include enough participants over 65 to determine efficacy among older patients …”

Full Throttle Forward Despite Risks

Despite concerns about data mishandling and two independent investigations finding a mechanism of harm, the World Health Organization and the European Medicines Agency are saying the AstraZeneca vaccine is good to go and urge countries to keep using it.
March 18, 2021, the EMA issued a press release25 giving the AstraZeneca the green-light, despite admitting it is associated with “very rare cases of blood clots associated with thrombocytopenia, i.e., low levels of blood platelets.” The justification, as usual, is that the benefits outweigh the risks.26,27,28
But do they? What exactly are the benefits? You can still contract the virus. You can still spread the virus. All it promises to do is lessen your symptoms when you get infected. Sure, the idea is that by lessening symptoms, you’ll reduce your risk of hospitalization and death, but lessening symptoms is not what a vaccine is supposed to do. A vaccine is supposed to make you immune to the disease in question, and none of the COVID-19 vaccines does that.
I’ve discussed this in previous articles, including “COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines,” “COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy” and “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”

What’s more, COVID-19 is really only a serious risk to the very old and people with two or more comorbidities. For the rest, its lethality is on par with the common flu.29,30,31,32,33 It may be different in terms of symptoms and complications, but the actual lethality is about the same.
Data34 have shown the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio for all age groups is 0.26%. If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 if you get infected is just 0.01%.
Meanwhile, as reviewed in “COVID-19 Vaccine Tested on Babies Even as Death Toll Mounts,” the lethality rate of COVID-19 vaccines is somewhere between 0.0024% and 0.0028%, and that’s assuming all deaths are being reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is doubtful.
The key difference between being harmed or killed by COVID-19 and being harmed or killed by the vaccine is that the illness kills those who are old, sick and frail, while reports show the vaccine is killing young and healthy people. From my perspective, the argument that the vaccine benefits outweigh the risks simply does not hold water.
Side Effects 3X More Common in Those Previously Infected

In related news, according to researchers at King’s College, people who have already had COVID are three times more likely to experience vaccine side effects than those who have not been exposed to the virus, and this appears true for both mRNA and DNA versions of the vaccine.35
They gleaned this information from the college’s ZOE app, which has logged more than 700,000 vaccinations. According to that data, 35.7% of those given the Pfizer vaccine who had previously been infected reported side effects, compared to just 12.2% of those not previously infected.
Looking at the AstraZeneca vaccine specifically, 52.7% of previously infected had side effects, compared to 31.9% of those who had not been previously infected.
While The Telegraph reports this as being a beneficial thing, saying “More severe side effects are often a sign of better immunity, and emerging research suggests just one dose of vaccine gives a similar protective effect to two doses in people who have had a previous infection,” some experts vehemently disagree.
Proper Timing May Eliminate Some Vaccine Risks

In January 2021, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate, sent a public letter36 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner detailing the risks of vaccinating individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection.
He urged the FDA to require prescreening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins to reduce the risk of injuries and deaths following vaccination, as the vaccine may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus.

Fox TV host Tucker Carlson recently interviewed him about these risks as well. In that interview, Noorchashm said:37

“I think it’s a dramatic error on 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 we have with the COVID-19 pandemic, where a half-percent of the population is susceptible to dying, and compound it by causing totally avoidable harm by vaccinating people who are already infected …

The signal is deafening, the people who are having complications or adverse events are the people who have recently or are currently or previously infected [with COVID]. I don’t think we can ignore this.”

In an emailed response to The Defender, Noorchashm fleshed out his concerns, saying:38

“Viral antigens persist in the tissues of the naturally infected for months. When the vaccine is used too early after a natural infection, or worse during an active infection, the vaccine force activates a powerful immune response that attacks the tissues where the natural viral antigens are persisting. This, I suggest, is the cause of the high level of adverse events and, likely deaths, we are seeing in the recently infected following vaccination.”

Noorchashm is now pushing for the implementation of a prevaccine screening campaign (#ScreenB4Vaccine), using PCR or rapid antigen testing to determine whether the individual has an active infection, and an IgG antibody test to determine past infection.
If either test is positive, he recommends delaying vaccination for a minimum of three to six months to allow your IgG levels to wane. At that point, he recommends testing your blood IgG level and use that as a guide to decide the timing of your vaccination. As reported by The Defender:39

“Noorchashm told Carlson that he’s been wrongly accused of stoking vaccine hesitancy, when just the opposite is true — if public health officials want people to trust the vaccines, they need to do everything possible to avoid creating situations where the vaccines can actually cause harm.

‘People aren’t stupid,’ Noorchashm said. ‘If you explain how the vaccine works, and give them the information on how to keep themselves safe,’ that is how you build trust.”

What to Do if You Regret Getting the COVID-19 Vaccine
If you already got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you’d use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. I review these strategies at the end of “Why COVID Vaccine Testing Is a Farce.”
Additionally, if you’re experiencing side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:40

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 CHD website

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/30/deadly-blood-clots-caused-by-covid19-vaccine.aspx

In 2000, everything about Bill Gates’ public persona changed. He morphed from a hardnosed and ruthless technology monopolizer into a soft, fuzzy and incredibly generous philanthropist when he and his wife launched the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.1

It was a public relations coup. May 18, 1998, the U.S. Justice Department, in collaboration with 20 state attorneys, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.2 At that time, the company was 23 years old and was ruling the personal computer market. The Seattle Times described the fallout from the antitrust lawsuit:3

“The company barely escaped being split up after it was ruled an unlawful monopolist in 2000 for using its stranglehold on the PC market with its Windows operating system to cripple competitors, such as Netscape’s Navigator Web browser.”

How would the world be different today if the company had been split? Yale law professor George Priest described the antitrust lawsuit as “one of the most important antitrust cases of its generation.”4 In 2002, a court settlement placed restrictions on Microsoft to curb some of its practices for five years.

It was later extended twice and then expired May 12, 2011. The lawsuit had a dramatic effect on “the emergence of an entirely new field called IP (intellectual property) antitrust,” Iowa law professor Herbert Hovenkamp told the Seattle Times.5

Later, large sums donated from the foundation made the news multiple times, including $9.5 million to GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines), a second $7.5 million to GAVI and $6.8 million to the World Health Organization in 2017.6

By June 2020, in the middle of a global pandemic, the Gates Foundation’s donations totaled 45% of WHO’s funding from nongovernmental sources.7 Once mainstream media’s attention was no longer on Gates’ antitrust activities and focused on the philanthropist actions of the foundation, Gates publicly turned his attention to vaccinating the world, long before COVID-19.8

Event 201: A Preplanned Pandemic

In a deep dive into the Gates Foundation’s charitable donations, The Nation found there were $250 million in grants to companies where the foundation held corporate stocks, including Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi and Medtronic. The money was directed at supporting projects “like developing new drugs and health monitoring systems and creating mobile banking services.”9

What Gates had discovered was an easy path to political power, allowing him to shape public policy without being elected to office. In other words, favorable headlines could be bought with charitable contributions.10 One event that Gates has personally supported and participated in was Event 201.11

Writing in The Defender, Robert Kennedy Jr. describes the exercise that Gates organized in October 2019. Many high-ranking men and women with governmental authority participated in Event 201, which coincidentally simulated a worldwide pandemic triggered by a novel coronavirus, just months before SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, changed the world.12

They included 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. During the event, the group developed strategies to control a pandemic, the population and the narrative surrounding the event.

At no time did they investigate using current therapeutic drugs and vitamins or communicating information about building immune systems. Instead, the aim was to develop and distribute patentable antiviral medications and a new wave of vaccines.

As Kennedy reports, Gates spoke to the BBC13 April 12, 2020, and claimed these types of simulations had not occurred, saying “Now here we are. You know we didn’t simulate this; we didn’t practice, so both the health policies and economic policies … we find ourselves in uncharted territories.”

Yet, videos of the event are available14 and Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security released a statement naming the Gates Foundation as a partner in sponsoring the pandemic simulation.15 It seems strange and alarming that a man with the responsibility of running the Gates Foundation and the powerful influence he has over global public policy decisions had forgotten an exercise he organized only six months before the interview.16 Or was it deception?

Uncanny Prediction or Planned Event?

During the pandemic exercise, the global experts “modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic.”17 After questions arose about whether the exercise had “predicted the outbreak in China,” Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security released a thinly supported statement, saying:18

“… the exercise served to highlight preparedness and response challenges that would likely arise in a very severe pandemic … Although our tabletop exercise included a mock novel coronavirus, the inputs we use for modeling the potential impact of that fictional virus are not similar to nCoV-2019.”

Kennedy characterizes the fourth simulation in Event 201, writing that “the participants primarily focused on planning industry-centric, fear-mongering, police-state strategies for managing an imaginary global coronavirus contagion culminating in mass censorship of social media.”19

The transcript of the fourth simulation shows that the participants discussed communication strategies using dissemination of information and censorship on social media.20,21 Communication strategist Hasti Taghi, who works for a major media company and leads strategic initiatives with the World Economic Forum,22 said:

“So, I think a couple of things we have to consider are even before this began, the anti-vaccine movement was very strong and this is something specifically through social media that has spread.

So, as we do the research to come up with the right vaccines to help prevent the continuation of this, how do we get the right information out there? How do we communicate the right information to ensure that the public has trust in these vaccines that we’re creating?”

The question the group undertook wasn’t how to communicate the truth about the vaccine development, manufacture and distribution, but rather how to “communicate the right information to ensure the public has trust in these vaccines that we’re creating?”

The issue of gaining public trust to take a vaccine was significant in this simulation, even though the U.S. population is well indoctrinated in the perceived value of annual flu shots and childhood vaccinations. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a list of 26 different types of vaccines currently in use in the U.S.

In addition to the long list of recommended childhood vaccinations, there are adult vaccines against shingles, tetanus and pneumococcal pneumonia that are routinely given. Why, then, did the global experts in communication and control believe communicating the “right information” would be necessary to “ensure the public trust”?

Group Calls for Social Media Censorship

This was only one of the highly predictive conversations during Event 201 that played out in 2020 as the global COVID-19 pandemic unfolded. George Gao, director-general, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention,23 predicted:24

“By and long, we have more cases in China and also death cases reported. And also, my staff told me that before there’s misinformation and there’s some belief. People believe, ‘This is a manmade … some pharmaceutical company made the virus,’ so there’s some violations of human … That is because of this misinformation.”

Others agreed with the need for social media censorship as it may pertain to the spread of “disinformation” about the pandemic or vaccines and vaccine injury, without regard to the source. The idea was to remove any information that did not align with the government’s mandates and ideas. Kevin McAleese, who is a communications officer with a Gates-funded agricultural project, said:25

“To me, it is clear countries need to make strong efforts to manage both mis- and disinformation … If the solution means controlling and reducing access to information, I think it’s the right choice.”

During the ensuing conversation, Tom Inglesby, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security,26 replied, “In this case, do you think governments are at the point where they need to require social media companies to operate in a certain way?”27

At each step of the simulation, the global “experts” agreed that information censorship through media platforms would be necessary to control the flow of the “right information” in order for people to willingly follow the leader.

What is interesting about the transcript from Event 201 is that what was planned and shared was frighteningly close to what has happened since January 2020. It may have been a coincidence to predict one or two major public health decisions, but it appears that the group was either phenomenally prophetic or they shaped the decisions and events of 2020 from behind the scenes.

Framing the Vaccine Message to Trigger Action

From the outside, the driving force behind economically devastating lockdowns, warp speed vaccine development and population control and surveillance strategies has been to “flatten the curve” and lower the death rate of SARS-CoV-2. Yet, as I and others have exposed, when these strategies are analyzed, it’s apparent there is more than what meets the eye.

In July 2020, Yale University28 announced a study of the trigger words and phrases that would have a higher likelihood of promoting an otherwise individualistic society to quietly follow mandates (not laws) to control behavior. The phrases tested were believed to be most successful at conveying feelings about health, helping others and fear.

The hope was to manipulate behavior in such a way that it lowered the governmental risk for riots and dissidence. The study was conducted by Yale University using 4,000 participants who were randomized to receive one of 12 different messages. After the message, they were then evaluated to “compare the reported willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine at three and six months of it becoming available.”29

The primary outcome of the study was to find the right combination of phrases and messaging that would increase the number of people who got the vaccine. The study began July 3, 2020, and the last participant underwent testing by July 8, 2020.30 To date, the results of the study have not been published.

The president of the U.S. announced in July 2020 that there would be an “overwhelming” vaccine campaign launched by November 2020.31 In December 2020, the National Institutes of Health released a COVID-19 vaccination communication recommending behavioral and social science actions that might address vaccine hesitancy and increase the number who take the vaccine, including:32

Framing accepting a vaccine as a social norm including “promotional materials that induced peer pressure to vaccinate.”
Encouraging those who vaccinate to share their positive experience on social media.
Nudging a person into accepting the vaccine by making it convenient and easy, leveraging electronic portals to send messages and using competition, gamification and incentives to encourage behavioral changes.
Assessing the values of the target audience and then embedding those values into messages about vaccinations. Examples might include being a protector of the community, building on desires to go back to normal activities or as a way of enacting equality and social justice by protecting vulnerable people.

In other words, many of the messages that you’ve been seeing in the media and your doctor’s office have been designed to trigger emotions that would lead you to take the vaccine. These same pressure tactics are not routinely used in the media for some of the more common adult vaccinations including pneumococcal, tetanus, hepatitis or shingles vaccines.

It’s Time to Speak With One Voice and Fight for Freedom

As I’ve written before, what we lose as a society when we acquiesce to these mandates and controls will be exponentially harder to get back. One of the freedoms we give away is allowing our thoughts and beliefs to be censored on social media without fighting back.

It is essential to safeguard your constitutional rights and civil liberties against unlawful overreach, and yet many appear to be willing to give up easily. Although the government has a duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens, this must be balanced against the loss of civil rights and liberties.

We’re currently facing a battle of freedom versus tyranny. For example, multiple studies have demonstrated that long-term lockdowns are clearly not in the public’s best interest.33,34 Instead, it’s tantamount to abuse. And yet many have gone along with these mandates, which were not laws.

It’s vital to understand that the vast majority of information you consume in mainstream media is carefully designed propaganda that has been crafted from nearly two decades of personal data collected from you.

Although Yale University undertook a study with 4,000 participants for a COVID-19 messaging campaign, that data had been gathered and collated through your use of social media.

As I have carefully identified in many previous articles, this plan will result in a progressive loss of your freedom and liberty that eventually results in tyranny and slavery. It is crucial to be vigilant and seek the truth so that you can understand how to distinguish between fact and a fictional narrative that promises you liberation but eventually enslaves you.

My newest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” will be available April 29, 2021, on Amazon. In it, I investigate the origins of the virus and how the elite has used it to slowly erode your personal liberty and freedom. In addition, I’ll also show you how to protect yourself against the disease and what you can do to fight back against the technocratic overlords.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<< The book goes into detail about pandemic profiteers. While I'm not thrilled about associating with Amazon, by pushing the book ranking up on their platform — one of the biggest tech companies who are benefiting from this global pandemic — we are actually using it to get the word out about them.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/30/bill-gates-event-201.aspx