Lose Them Pounds

Technology futurist and geopolitical expert Jamie Metzl believes the COVID-19 pandemic was a “totally preventable event” and is calling for a full and unrestricted international forensic investigation into the origins of COVID-19, lest an even worse disaster occur in the future.1

In the interview above, which shows a clip from the Joe Rogan Experience, he explains why he believes the most likely scenario is that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, accidently leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

A more in-depth explanation can be found in an open letter,2 of which Metzl was the lead drafter, which states that finding the true origins of SARS-CoV-2 is critically important to not only address the current pandemic but to reduce the risk of pandemics of the future.

Problems With COVID Origins From the Start

In 2019, Metzl was appointed to the World Health Organization expert advisory committee on human genome editing.3 This is important because, as Metzl himself stated, he’s a supporter of WHO.

Yet, even he acknowledged there’s a “big problem,” and it began in the earliest days of the pandemic, when WHO inspectors weren’t able to go to Wuhan, China, to properly investigate because the Chinese government wouldn’t give them visas.4

WHO has essentially been parroting the rhetoric of the Chinese government because they don’t have authority to have their own surveillance network in the area. It’s problematic, too, because WHO is being tasked with investigating and potentially calling out China, which is one of their member states — a member state with a lot of influence.

Metzl states that the accidental laboratory leak hypothesis is a logical conclusion for a number of reasons. “The evidence is actually really strong,” he said. “It’s all circumstantial evidence, but we don’t have ANY evidence of the other hypotheses of where COVID comes from, like a series of different jumps through animals in the wild.”5

On the contrary, Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance president who is also part of the WHO team investigating the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and has a long history of close ties to the Chinese laboratory in question — the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) — told The Associated Press in November 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 could have passed from a wildlife poacher to a trader who brought it to Wuhan.6

Others have also pushed the idea that SARS-CoV-2 arose and evolved naturally, skipping from one animal species to another before ultimately developing the capability of infecting humans.

It was also suggested that the virus got to humans from a wet market in Wuhan, where live animals, including bats, are sold for food. However, according to Metzl, “I knew early on that this whole story of the wet market was a lie, and the Chinese government knew and for many, many months pushed that story, even knowing it wasn’t true.”7

COVID-19 Lab Leak Likely

So, what is the circumstantial evidence that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab, and not from a wet market or other zoonotic transmission? Metzl explained:8

“When this outbreak began, for me, one of the reasons why I started to get suspicious very early on is that I’ve been in Wuhan … it’s not a place where a bunch of locals are eating bats. Wuhan is a really sophisticated city. It’s their Chicago, and I knew they didn’t have horseshoe bats in Wuhan.”

Further, Wuhan is far from the southern part of China where horseshoe bats (the supposed source host) exist. Metzl continued, “As a matter of fact, when the outbreak happened, it was winter there, and so there weren’t bats there.”9 Adding additional support to this theory is a paper published in The Lancet in January 2020, which reviewed details about the first 41 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in Wuhan.10

Of the 41 patients, only 27, or 66%, had been exposed to the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan. The paper “made clear that one-third of first COVID cases had no exposure to the wet market,” Metzl said. “If everything started in the wet market, all of the early cases would have had exposure to the market.”11

Even the earliest case — a person who became ill December 1, 2019 — had no link to the market.12 Speaking with Science, Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University, also regarded the 13 patients with no link to the market as significant. “That’s a big number, 13, with no link,” she said. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace.”13

The other curious thing about SARS-CoV-2, even compared to other coronaviruses like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), is that it’s ready made for getting to humans. Metzl explained that with the first SARS, researchers were able to track how the virus jumped between species, mutating in order to become more able to infect humans.

“In the comparative studies of different animals and humans, humans are most susceptible to SARS-CoV-2,” Metzl said. “Somehow, you have to explain how this virus shows up, kind of seemingly out of nowhere, in Wuhan, ready for action, ready to fully infect humans.”14

Wuhan Epicenter of Gain of Function, Bat Coronavirus Research

Finding patient zero, or the first person to be infected with SARS-CoV-2, is one of the big questions still waiting to be answered. If the zoonotic origin hypothesis is true, this would mean that the virus spread among animals, such as from bats to pangolins, then infected a human, who just happened to show up in Wuhan.

One reason Metzl and a growing group of others think this is far-fetched is because Wuhan is home to WIV; it’s the only city in China with a level 4 virology institute. WIV researchers have been conducting experiments involving the bat coronavirus RaTG13 — the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2, with 96.2% similarity — since at least 2016.

In 2012, six miners working in a copper mine with known bats present were infected with a bat coronavirus and developed COVID-19-like symptoms. RaTG13 was sampled from the mine where the miners were infected.15 WIV has also been involved in gain-of-function research with bat coronaviruses.

Gain-of-function studies involve increasing the capacity of a pathogen to cause illness. The method is controversial because it can also risk new viruses leaking out of laboratories and into the population. Given the circumstances, the chances of a person who got the virus zoonotically ending up in Wuhan are slim. According to Metzl:16

“What are the chances that that patient zero just happened to show up in Wuhan, the only city in China that has a level four virology institute, that has the world’s largest collection of bat coronaviruses, that is doing gain-of-function research trying to make them more virulent, particularly trying to make them more able to infect human cells.

If patient zero is just somebody who had an exposure to an animal, the mathematical odds of that person just showing up in Wuhan would be, actually, kind of absurd.”

Who Is Patient Zero?

If the lab leak hypothesis is true, patient zero would be someone who works at WIV or someone exposed to a virus that escaped from WIV via waste, an escaped animal or another accident.

Huang Yan Ling was a researcher at WIV who worked closely with Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., the director of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, also known as “bat woman.” She has been studying bat-borne viruses since 2004, including SARS-like coronaviruses.

Many believe Ling is patient zero for the COVID-19 pandemic, but she’s now missing. Her profile and biography are missing from WIV’s website, but, after rumors surfaced that she was presumed dead, the Chinese government posted a notice on WIV’s site saying she’s alive and well. No proof of this was offered, however.

A message reportedly appeared on China’s WeChat messaging service claiming to be from Ling and stating, “To my teachers and fellow students, how long no speak. I am Huang Yanling, still alive. If you receive any email [regarding the Covid rumor], please say it’s not true,” but she has since vanished from social media.17

Meanwhile, in February 2021, the WHO team tasked with investigating COVID-19 origins announced its investigators concluded that WIV had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak, and that the lab-escape theory would no longer be part of the team’s investigation.18

China has been accused of cover-ups from the beginning, and Metzl believes if China hadn’t carried out cover-ups and silenced whistleblowers, “COVID could have been suppressed in the first few weeks.” He said:19

“China, whatever the origin, carried out a massive cover up, destroyed samples, eliminated or removed databases, imprisoned Chinese journalists and put gag orders on scientists so they couldn’t speak about this.”

Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, is among those who have been outspoken about China’s apparent efforts to hide information about the source of SARS-CoV-2.20 According to Chan, the database on bat and mouse viral pathogens, which had been managed by Shi, has been taken offline, restricting scientists and researchers’ ability to analyze the potential origins of SARS-CoV-2.21

Full Investigation Needed to Reveal COVID Origins

Metzl believes that while the gain-of-function research being conducted in China — with funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, by the way — may have been well intentioned, perhaps as a way of trying to understand how the most dangerous pathogens may develop and get ahead of them in terms of treatment, “In our effort to prevent it, we’re actually increasing the likelihood of it happening.”22

He states the most likely scenario is that there was an accident of some kind that allowed the virus to escape from the lab, which isn’t a stretch considering the U.S. embassy visited WIV in January 2018, noting not only that research was being conducted on SARS-like coronaviruses that could infect humans but also citing a number of safety problems, including “a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory.”23

In the open letter to get to the bottom of COVID-19’s origins, it’s stated that the current WHO investigatory team does not have the independence and necessary access to carry out a full and unrestricted investigation into the origins of COVID-19, and only by carrying out a truly unrestricted, independent investigation will the truth be revealed.

The letter outlines what a full investigation should look like, and calls on governments to take action, concluding:24

“[W]e cannot afford an investigation into the origins of the pandemic that is anything less than absolutely thorough and credible. If we fail to fully and courageously examine the origins of this pandemic, we risk being unprepared for a potentially worse pandemic in the future.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/23/jamie-metzl-questions-the-origins-of-covid-19.aspx

In the last year, have you ever felt that you’re living in an altered sense of reality, where things you once knew to be true no longer are? It’s not in your imagination. In recent years and months, the long-held definitions of three words all changed, with immense ramifications for public health policy in the midst of COVID-19.

The even greater implication for society is that by putting out this false information, they’re attempting to change your perception of what’s true and not true, and perverting science in the process.

WHO Changed the Definition of Pandemic

What exactly is a pandemic? WHO’s original definition of a pandemic from May 1, 2009, specified simultaneous epidemics worldwide “with enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses:”1,2

“An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”

This definition was changed in the month leading up to the 2009 swine flu pandemic, removing the severity and high mortality criteria and leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”3

This switch in definition allowed WHO to declare swine flu a pandemic after only 144 people had died from the infection worldwide, and it’s why COVID-19 is still promoted as a pandemic even though plenty of data suggest the lethality of COVID-19 is on par with the seasonal flu.4

Vaccine Definition Changed

By referring to COVID-19 vaccines as “vaccines” rather than gene therapies, the U.S. government is violating its 15 U.S. Code Section 41,5 which regulates deceptive practices in medical claims. Per this law, it is unlawful to advertise:6

“… that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”

Further, you cannot have a “vaccine” that does not meet the definition of a vaccine. Up until recently, Merriam-Webster defined a vaccine as “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.”7

COVID-19 vaccines are not conventional vaccines made with live or attenuated viruses. They’re actually gene therapies. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are made with lipid nanoparticles that contain polyethylene glycol (PEG)8 and messenger RNA (mRNA).

mRNA are snippets of genetic code that carries instructions for cells to produce proteins. The definition of genetic is “relating to genes” and genes contain instructional code that tell the body what proteins to make. Therapy is the medical treatment of disease, so mRNA vaccines are very clearly gene therapy.

As noted by David Martin, Ph.D., Moderna’s SEC filings9 specify and stress that the FDA considers its technology a “gene therapy technology,” originally intended for cancer treatment. Its mechanism of action also confirms it to be gene therapy. The mRNA gene therapies currently being misleadingly marketed as “vaccines” turn your cells into bioreactors that churn out viral proteins to incite an immune response, and there’s no off-switch.10

Conveniently, since COVID-19 “vaccines” did not meet the former definition of vaccine, Merriam-Webster’s vaccine definition has recently been changed to include a description of the experimental COVID-19 gene therapies:11

“A preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious disease:

a: an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated (see attenuated sense 2) pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)

b: a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)”

Why They Don’t Want COVID Vaccines To Be Called Gene Therapy

Moderna’s SEC filings, which, in the video above, Martin claims to have carefully reviewed, specify and stress that its technology is a “gene therapy technology.” Originally, its technology was set up to be a cancer treatment so, more specifically, it’s a chemotherapy gene therapy technology.

As noted by Martin, who would raise their hand to receive prophylactic chemotherapy gene therapy for a cancer you do not have and may never be at risk for? In all likelihood, few would jump at such an offer, and for good reason.

States and employers would not be able to mandate individuals to receive chemotherapy gene therapy for a cancer they do not have, as it simply would not be legal.

Yet, they’re proposing that all of humanity be forced to get gene therapy for COVID-19. If they actually called it what it is, namely “gene therapy chemotherapy,” most people would — wisely — refuse to take it. Perhaps that’s one reason for their false categorization as vaccines.

But there may be other reasons as well. Martin strays into conjecture, as we have no proof of their intentions, but he speculates that the reason they’re calling this experimental gene therapy technology a “vaccine” is because by doing so, they can circumvent liability for damages.

As long as the U.S. is under a state of emergency, things like PCR tests and COVID-19 “vaccines” are allowed under emergency use authorization. And, as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect, the makers of these experimental gene therapies are not financially liable for any harm that comes from their use.

That is, provided they’re “vaccines.” If these injections are NOT vaccines, then the liability shield falls away, because there is no liability shield for a medical emergency countermeasure that is gene therapy.

WHO Changed Definition of Herd Immunity

In June 2020, WHO’s definition of herd immunity, posted on one of their COVID-19 Q&A pages, was in line with the widely accepted concept that has been the standard for infectious diseases for decades. Here’s what it originally said, courtesy of the Internet Archive’s Wayback machine:12

“Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”

It should be noted that “immunity developed through previous infection” is the way it has worked since humans have been alive. Your immune system isn’t designed to get vaccines. It’s designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent. Apparently, according to WHO, that’s no longer the case. In October 2020, here’s their updated definition of herd immunity, which is now “a concept used for vaccination”:13

“‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.

Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing it on, breaking any chains of transmission.”

On Twitter, research analyst Heather Taylor posted a screenshot with the two definitions — one from June 9, 2020, and the other from November 13, 2020 — clearly changed to imply that herd immunity, over the course of several months, suddenly became a concept that only applies to vaccination. “This still astounds me,” she wrote.14 Indeed, it’s a blatant corruption of science.

In a 2020 JAMA Patient Page on herd immunity, Dr. Angel Desai, associate editor of JAMA Network Open, and Maimuna Majumder, Ph.D., with Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, clearly explain that herd immunity may be achieved via natural infection and recovery, as has always been the case:15

“Herd immunity may be achieved either through infection and recovery or by vaccination … Achieving herd immunity through infection relies on enough people being infected with the disease and recovering from it, during which they develop antibodies against future infection.”

WHO’s Advice Flip-Flops Often

You may remember that in the early days of the pandemic, face masks were not recommended for the general public. In February 2020, Christine Francis, a consultant for infection prevention and control at WHO headquarters, was featured in a video, holding up a disposable face mask.

She said, “Medical masks like this one cannot protect against the new coronavirus when used alone … WHO only recommends the use of masks in specific cases.”16

Those specific cases include if you have a cough, fever or difficulty breathing. In other words, if you’re actively sick and showing symptoms. “If you do not have these symptoms, you do not have to wear masks because there is no evidence that they protect people who are not sick,” she continued.

In March 2020, the U.S. Surgeon General publicly agreed, tweeting a message stating, “Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!” and going on to say that they are not effective in preventing the general public from catching coronavirus.17

As of March 31, 2020, WHO was still advising against the use of face masks for people without symptoms, stating that there is “no evidence” that such mask usage prevents COVID-19 transmission.18

By June 6, 2020, the rhetoric had changed. Citing “evolving evidence,” WHO reversed their recommendation, with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO’s director general, advising governments to encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult.19

Another example of WHO conveniently changing former truths to fit their agenda occurred in June 2020. During a press briefing, Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO’s technical lead for the COVID-19 pandemic, made it very clear that people who have COVID-19 without any symptoms “rarely” transmit the disease to others. In a dramatic about-face, WHO then backtracked on the statement just one day later.

On June 9, 2020, Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of WHO’s emergencies program, quickly backpedaled Van Kerkhove’s statement, saying the remarks were “misinterpreted or maybe we didn’t use the most elegant words to explain that.”20

Widespread asymptomatic spreading is the only reason that lockdowns and mask usage among the healthy make sense. For months, health officials have been perpetuating the myth of asymptomatic spreading to escalate fear. A landmark study involving 9,899,828 million residents of Wuhan, China, published in Nature Communications,21 found not one case of asymptomatic transmission.

Living in a Topsy-Turvy World

Over the course of recent years, and in some cases recent months, the long-held definitions of pandemics, vaccines and herd immunity have drastically changed to fit in with the new narrative being churned out by public health officials and mainstream media.

In many ways, you’re living in a fog of war right now — a fog of COVID war — according to Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER).

During such a fog, “It is often unclear who is making decisions and why, and what the relationships are between the strategies and the goals. Even the rationale can become elusive as frustration and disorientation displace clarity and rationality.”22 Seeing through the fog is the first step to coming out of the battle unscathed.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/22/who-pandemic-definition.aspx

As noted by Russel Brand in a recent video commentary (above), some of the same drug companies now responsible for developing and manufacturing fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccines were also responsible for creating the opioid crisis in the U.S., which has killed as many Americans as have died from COVID-19.
Most have also been convicted of other unethical and criminal activities over the years, any of which puts their ethical fitness into question. Not surprisingly, opioid addiction and overdose deaths skyrocketed during 2020 lockdowns and, now, COVID-19 vaccines are taking their toll as well.
Johnson & Johnson Found Partly Liable for Opioid Crisis

In 2019, Johnson & Johnson was found partially liable for the “human and financial costs” of the opioid epidemic in the U.S. and was ordered to pay $572 million to the state of Oklahoma. While the company denied any wrongdoing, “data revealed during the trial proved a culture of downplaying the risks of opioids to customers and physicians,” Cassiobury Court reported, adding:1

“Sales representatives were trained to tell doctors that the risk of addiction was 2.6% or less if the drugs were prescribed by a doctor and, most shockingly, doctors were specifically targeted as ‘key customers’ if they had a history of prescribing a high amount of opioids.”

In “Capitalism Gone Wrong: How Big Pharma Created America’s Opioid Carnage,” published in The Guardian July 24, 2019, Chris McGreal, author of “American Overdose, the Opioid Tragedy in Three Acts,” wrote:2

“Oklahoma’s attorney general accused the company of a ‘cunning, cynical and deceitful scheme’ to ramp up narcotic painkiller sales as one of a web of firms that created the biggest drug epidemic in American history as profits surged. The companies worked in step to change medical culture and practice by influencing doctors, researchers, federal regulators and politicians.”

Curiously, as noted by Brand, Johnson & Johnson’s stock price rose by 5% immediately following that verdict. What this means, he suggests, is that we’ve created systems that encourage malpractice. Profit motives override all other concerns, including lethal effects.
When companies engage in unethical behavior, especially the falsification and manipulation of science, they create distrust and cynicism. This should be obvious, and it’s nobody’s fault but their own.
Importantly, Johnson & Johnson made false claims about the safety of its opioid, going so far as to manipulate scientific papers to support its assertion that the risk of addiction was less than 2.6%.3 As Brand points out, when companies engage in unethical behavior, especially the falsification and manipulation of science, they create distrust and cynicism.
This should be obvious, and it’s nobody’s fault but their own. We can point to these very specific examples and say, “Look here. They manipulated and falsified science to make money. When they were caught, all they had to do was pay a manageable fine, which they recouped through a rise in stock price.”
If it happened once (and believe me, it’s happened more than once), it can happen again. And if it can happen at all, why couldn’t this unethical behavior occur when creating what is expected to be a phenomenally profitable pandemic vaccine? We’re told we must not question the safety or effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, yet the histories of the makers are such that not questioning everything they do would be naïve in the extreme.
Johnson & Johnson has also been involved in a long list of product safety and contamination issues, marketing and safety violations, government contract violations and foreign corrupt practices resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. You can find their rap sheet on the Corporate Research Project’s website.4
Pfizer’s Long History of Unethical Behavior

Another COVID-19 vaccine maker, Pfizer, has been sued in multiple venues over unethical behavior,5 including unethical drug testing and illegal marketing practices.
In 2014, it was ordered to pay $75 million to settle charges relating to its testing of a new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children. As reported by the Independent6 at the time, Pfizer sent a team of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic.
For two weeks, the team set up “within meters” of a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and began dispensing the experimental drug, Trovan. Of the 200 children picked, half got the experimental drug and the other half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin. Eleven of the children treated by the Pfizer team died, and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure.
Pfizer denied wrongdoing. According to the company, only five of the children given Trovan died, compared to six who received Rocephin, so their drug was not to blame. The problem was they apparently never told the parents that their children were being given an experimental drug.
What’s more, while Pfizer produced a permission letter from a Nigerian ethics committee, the letter turned out to have been backdated. The ethics committee itself wasn’t set up until a year after the trial had already taken place.
In his 2010 paper,7 “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR,” Robert G. Evans, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor at Vancouver School of Economics, described Pfizer as “a ‘habitual offender,’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.” Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards.
Such sums did nothing to deter bad behavior. In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay $14.5 million to settle federal charges of illegal marketing,8 and in 2014 they settled federal charges relating to improper marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million.9
The Corporate Research Project also details Pfizer’s history of bribery, environmental violations, labor and worker safety violations and more.10 Pfizer has also been bullying countries to put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its vaccine.
Pfizer’s Vaccine Plant Has History of Recalls
A March 10, 2021, article11 by KHN also highlights persistent, long-standing problems at Pfizer’s vaccine plant in Kansas, which is slated to start producing COVID-19 vaccines:

“The McPherson, Kansas, facility, which FDA inspectors wrote is the nation’s largest manufacturer of sterile injectable controlled substances, has a long, troubled history. Nearly a decade’s worth of FDA inspection reports, recalls and reprimands reviewed by KHN show the facility as a repeat offender.

FDA investigators have repeatedly noted in reports that the plant has failed to control quality and contamination or fully investigate after production failures.

The 1970s-era manufacturing site has had persistent mold concerns over the years and been the focus of at least four intense FDA inspections since Pfizer took over its operations in late 2015, when it acquired Hospira.”

The plant is going to be a fill-and-finish site for the Pfizer vaccine. The question is whether the site has really cleaned up its act, or whether contamination might become an issue.

“The facility’s record of recalls and field alerts include vials of medication that contained glass and cardboard particles and, as one customer complained, a ‘small insect or speck of dust,'” KHN reports.

“A 2017 FDA warning letter … said the contaminants such as cardboard and glass found in vials posed a ‘severe risk of harm to patients’ and indicated that the facility’s process for manufacturing sterile injectable products was ‘out of control.’”

AstraZeneca’s Extensive Rap Sheet
Then there’s AstraZeneca, whose director of research for the drug Seroquel, Wayne MacFadden, confessed to entering into multiple sexual affairs for the sole purpose of obtaining information and favors that might benefit the company.12
Aside from that eyebrow-raising scandal, AstraZeneca has been brought into the halls of justice more than once. Below is but a sampling of its criminal history. Even more can be found on the Corporate Research Project’s “AstraZeneca: Corporate Rap Sheet” page:13

In 2003, AstraZeneca was fined $355 million to settle Medicare fraud charges relating to its marketing of the cancer drug Zoladex.14,15 Among the many charges they pleaded guilty to was that they had encouraged doctors to illegally request Medicare reimbursements. Four years later, in 2007, the company was ordered to pay another $12.9 million in damages for its overcharging Medicare and private insurance for Zoladex16
In 2005, the European Commission fined AstraZeneca 60 million euros for misusing the patent system to delay market entry of competing generics17,18
In 2010, AstraZeneca was fined $520 million for off-label drug marketing19
Also in 2010, the company agreed to pay $198 million to settle more than 25,000 lawsuits filed by patients harmed by three of its psychiatric drugs20
In 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fined the company $4.3 million for improperly influencing and rewarding prescribers to use their products, in other words, bribery21

AstraZeneca’s Vaccine Is For-Profit After All
Now, AstraZeneca has made a big deal about its vow not to profit from its COVID-19 vaccine. Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute and the co-developer of the AstraZeneca vaccine, has gone on record saying “I personally don’t believe that in a time of pandemic there should be exclusive licenses.”22 As reported by KHN:23

“Oxford University surprised and pleased advocates of overhauling the vaccine business in April by promising to donate the rights to its promising coronavirus vaccine to any drugmaker. The idea was to provide medicines preventing or treating COVID-19 at a low cost or free of charge, the British university said …

‘We actually thought they were going to do that,’ James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a nonprofit that works to expand access to medical technology, said of Oxford’s pledge. ‘Why wouldn’t people agree to let everyone have access to the best vaccines possible?’”

The fantasy didn’t last long. A few weeks later, Oxford University caved to the urgings of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and signed an exclusive contract with AstraZeneca. According to an article in The Nation,24 “Gates himself describes his foundation as intimately involved in the partnership between AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford.”

This vaccine deal gives AstraZeneca “sole rights and no guarantee of low prices,” KHN writes.25 Indeed, the not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself appears to have a say when it comes to declaring the end date. It could be as early as July 1, 2021, according to a company memo obtained by the Financial Times.26

As explained by investigative journalist Whitney Webb in a recent Corbett Report interview,27 the actual patents and royalties for the AstraZeneca vaccine are held by a private company called Vaccitech, which has been quite open about the future profit potential with its shareholders, noting that the COVID-19 vaccine will most likely become an annual vaccine that is updated each season. Oxford University itself also stands to make millions from the deal. According to KHN:28

“Other companies working on coronavirus vaccines have followed the same line, collecting billions in government grants, hoarding patents, revealing as little as possible about their deals — and planning to charge up to $37 a dose for potentially hundreds of millions of shots.”

All of this tells you that the same greed that drove these drug companies into criminal acts before is still at play today, and they have repeatedly proven that profit potential wins over harm potential every time.
Leaked Data Warns of mRNA Instability

A recent feature investigation29 by journalist Serena Tinari published in The BMJ reviews the content of leaked — possibly hacked — documents showing the European Medicines Agency (EMA) had concerns about early batches of the Pfizer vaccine having lower than expected levels of intact mRNA:

“EMA scientists tasked with ensuring manufacturing quality — the chemistry, manufacturing, and control aspects of Pfizer’s submission to the EMA — worried about ‘truncated and modified mRNA species present in the finished product.’

Among the many files leaked to The BMJ, an email dated 23 November [2020] by a high ranking EMA official outlined a raft of issues. In short, commercial manufacturing was not producing vaccines to the specifications expected, and regulators were unsure of the implications. EMA responded by filing two ‘major objections’ with Pfizer, along with a host of other questions it wanted addressed.

The email identified ‘a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species’ between the clinical batches and proposed commercial batches — from around 78% to 55%. The root cause was unknown and the impact of this loss of RNA integrity on safety and efficacy of the vaccine was ‘yet to be defined,’ the email said.”

Considering the delivery of intact mRNA is of crucial importance for the efficacy of this vaccine, the suspicion is that the lower levels might render the vaccine ineffective.
One problem is that while the EMA has authorized Pfizer’s vaccine and issued a public assessment stating the quality is “considered to be sufficiently consistent and acceptable,” it’s not clear if and how the agency’s concerns about inadequate mRNA levels were actually corrected.
The EMA has explained away the issue by stating that some of the leaked information was “partially doctored” by essentially cutting and pasting data from different users into valid emails.
“But the documents offer the broader medical community a chance to reflect on the complexities of quality assurance for novel mRNA vaccines,” Tinari writes, “which include everything from the quantification and integrity of mRNA and carrier lipids to measuring the distribution of particle sizes and encapsulation efficiency.”
It’s well-recognized that RNA instability is of the utmost importance when it comes to this kind of technology, as even minor degradation anywhere along the RNA strand can slow the translation performance and result in the incomplete expression of the target antigen (in this case the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein).
One problem is there’s no regulatory guidance for mRNA based “vaccines.” Yet another problem is that the data currently available is so scant that regulators probably wouldn’t be able to make an appropriate assessment about the percentage of intact mRNA required for efficacy.
Lipid Nanoparticles Are Highly Inflammatory

mRNA fragility and instability is the reason why Pfizer and Moderna use a lipid nanoparticle delivery system, which brings a whole separate set of problems. Scientist and researcher Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., believes the nanoparticle allows the mRNA to escape the normal degradation by enzymes that normally remove mRNA, thereby allowing it to persist in your tissues for a long time, continuing to produce spike proteins all the while.
As previously suspected, research30 posted March 4, 2021, on the preprint server bioRxiv now warns that the lipid nanoparticle component of these mRNA vaccines is in fact “highly inflammatory” and may be responsible for many of the side effects being reported. According to the authors:

“Vaccines based on mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are a promising new platform used by two leading vaccines … Clinical trials and ongoing vaccinations present with very high protection levels and varying degrees of side effects. However, the nature of the reported side effects remains poorly defined.

Here we present evidence that LNPs used in many preclinical studies are highly inflammatory in mice.
Intradermal injection of these LNPs led to rapid and robust inflammatory responses, characterized by massive neutrophil infiltration, activation of diverse inflammatory pathways, and production of various inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. The same dose of LNP delivered intranasally led to similar inflammatory responses in the lung and resulted in a high mortality rate …

Their potent adjuvant activity and reported superiority comparing to other adjuvants in supporting the induction of adaptive immune responses could stem from their inflammatory nature. Furthermore, the preclinical LNPs are similar to the ones used for human vaccines, which could also explain the observed side effects in humans using this platform.”
Can You Trust Big Pharma to Safeguard Your Health?

Considering their long histories of unethical, illegal and criminal behaviors, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are hardly beacons of hope for mankind when it comes to COVID-19 — or any other pandemic, for that matter.
Sadly, the rapidly escalating reports of serious side effects and deaths from these injections, and the companies’ dismissal of these events as coincidental or insignificant further prove that profit is still the primary driver. If they can make a buck by ignoring a problem, they will.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/24/big-pharma-gene-therapy.aspx

Better hang on folks, as technocracy’s plan to digitize you to the blockchain so you can be manipulated and controlled as a digital asset is being deployed — just as they said they would.

Please understand, though, that this technocracy blockchain implementation is centralized, which is the primary problem as it is under the government’s control. This is in radical contrast to decentralized crypto assets like bitcoin, which I believe actually offers a solution to the impending tyranny and seizure of our finances.
Health Passports Are Here
Since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear that “health passports” would be implemented, and in recent months the reality of what we’re facing is getting clearer. Make no mistake: The voluntary “health passes” now being rolled out are just the tip of the iceberg.

Before long, they will become mandatory, at which point unvaccinated individuals will be effectively excluded from society. This is the slippery slope I’ve warned about that will create two separate classes of citizens: those with approved and verified health status, and the “untouchables.”

Not only will these passes — once mandatory — restrict your ability to move about and engage in social activities if you’re unvaccinated, but you will also face financial penalties. Even your ability to obtain employment will ultimately be based on your medical decisions.1

Evidence of this can be found in IBM Watson Health’s announcement that IBM’s Digital Health Pass will be integrated into Salesforce’s Work.com “to help businesses, schools and governments verify vaccine and health status.”2

In short, we will soon find ourselves in an iatrarchy, meaning we’re governed by physicians’ decisions (although the ruling agency is more likely to be Bill Gates than a qualified medical expert), and if you refuse, you’re penalized. Other descriptive terms include medical technofascism and medical technocracy.

Regardless of how you describe it, the fact is you will no longer have the right of self-determination. You will no longer have the right to decide what medical risk-taking you’re willing to submit to, and which you’d rather do without. Your body and your health will no longer be yours to preside over.

If you want to have the ability to shop, socialize, get an education and work, you’ll have to hand over your body, and all your biological data, for the medical technocracy to do with what it will. It’s hard to imagine a less free society than that.
IBM Partners With Moderna
IBM and Moderna have taken the next step toward tracking vaccinated individuals in real time by teaming up to produce COVID-19 digital health passes to allow people to “return to the activities and things they love.” As reported by Raul Diego in a March 10, 2021, Mint Press News article:3

“According to a company press release,4 the collaboration will ‘focus on exploring the utility of IBM capabilities in the U.S.,’ such as a recently unveiled pilot program for a COVID-19 Digital Health Pass in the State of New York, which effectively deputizes private businesses to enforce government-imposed Covid-19 regulations.”

IBM and Moderna will “explore technologies, including artificial intelligence, blockchain and hybrid cloud” to “support smarter COVID-19 vaccine management,” according to the press release.5 In short, the partnership is aimed at facilitating data sharing between “governments, health care providers, life science organizations and individuals,” but this data is not restricted to health data.

As reported by Diego,6 other “multiple blockchain ledger applications” being leveraged include IBM’s Blockchain Transparent Supply and Food Trust services, which shares food sourcing and supply-chain data, and its Blockchain World Wire cross-border payment processing service.
Vaccine Pass Rolled Out in New York
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the so-called Excelsior Pass,7 built on IBM’s Digital Health Pass, during his January 2021 state of the state address.8

The first test of the Excelsior Pass took place during an NBA game at the Barclays Center. A second test occurred March 2, 2021, at an NHL game at Madison Square Garden. Other pilot programs for health verification passes have also been rolled out in various places around the world.

Right now, vaccine passports are voluntary, but IBM is already looking at the Excelsior Pass as a model for what it predicts will be mandatory digital health passes in the future.

In Israel, for example, there’s the Green Pass,9 and in Los Angeles, California, schools have adopted the Daily Pass QR Health Portal, a partnership between Microsoft and Anthem Health, the largest membership health system in the U.S.10 And, March 17, 2021, the European Commission proposed its version of “digital green certificates” that the EC says will offer a “coordinated approach” to allow citizens to freely travel around Europe.11

Right now, vaccine passports are voluntary, but IBM is already looking at the Excelsior Pass as a model for what it predicts will be mandatory digital health passes in the future. According to IBM’s U.S. public and federal market leader, Steve LaFleche, the passes will cease to be voluntary “once government guidelines and regulations force the private sector to enforce their implementation.”12 As noted by Diego:13

“Conveniently, IBM’s strong presence in the law enforcement space, as one of the largest providers of digital profiling technologies and AI policing systems in the world, may also help with any obstacles Moderna may face among vaccine-hesitant populations.”

Genetic Profiteering Is Part of the New Economy
In his article,14 Diego highlights the connection between these health passes and the far broader agenda known as the Great Reset, which involves a complete “redesign of supply chain and capital organization structures.” The plan is to replace conventional capitalism with a data-driven economic model, and part of this scheme is the collection of our genomic data.

“DNA is the single point of data convergence across humanity that allows for these new ‘moral’ economic models to generate enough volume to replicate present-day economies of scale and design financial instruments to exploit human beings at a cellular level,” Diego writes.15

He points out that in 2017, Tal Zacks, former chief medical officer at Moderna, gave a Ted Talk16 in which he explained that the company’s mRNA “information technology” is — contrary to current denials — designed to manipulate the human genetic code.
Transhumanist Dr. Bradley Perkins — former deputy director of the Office of Strategy and Innovation at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and chief medical officer for The Commons Project, responsible for the creation of the CommonPass17 in collaboration with the World Economic Forum — has also discussed the profit potential of genomic data collection across the health care and insurance industries.18 In an article discussing the scaling up of data-capitalism, Diego writes:19

“Stored in Amazon’s cloud servers, Human Longevity’s bioinformatics platform is only one of several next-generation sequencing technologies designed to perform the type of comparative genome sequencing work Perkins and his life science industry colleagues are counting on to carry out what he estimates is ‘probably the largest scale enterprise ever’ of ‘translating the language of biology in the form of linear DNA code into the language of health and disease.’
Perkins admits that ‘the genome in isolation, it’s not very useful’ and that what the business of genomics basically boils down to is the ‘building [of] integrated health records,’ in order to be able to correlate ‘high-quality clinical data’ with the whole genome sequence.
‘We’re in the business of building a large database,’ Perkins reveals … With CommonPass, Perkins is continuing to do all he can to build that database. After all, a biometric passport required at all ports of entry would go a long way to procuring a goldmine of genomic data.”

Technofascism in the Name of COVID Response

It’s now beyond clear that COVID-19 is being used as the justification for the implementation of new economic and social systems20 that have been decades in the making. And, while changes are couched in socially appealing terms like social justice, environmental protection and all things fair and wonderful, the truth is diametrically opposed to the terms used.
The Great Reset will separate the technocratic elite from the masses and turn global government into a dictatorship. I’ve written many articles detailing this scheme from various angles.
Without doubt, this is an economic war on the working class. Since the beginning of the pandemic around March 2020, the greatest transfer of wealth has taken place, from the middle class to the wealthiest among us, and the Great Reset will complete this transfer such that we eventually will own nothing.21,22
That proclamation is not hyperbole. It comes straight from the horse’s mouth — the World Economic Forum — which, for years, has been one of the driving forces of this technocratic, transhumanistic agenda.

One of the reasons why many have a hard time wrapping their minds around the problem of the Great Reset and the technocratic agenda is because they don’t understand how technocrats view humanity. It is in fact very different from the view most of us have of what it means to be human. Most tend to agree with the view that humans are sovereign beings who are free by divine authority.

This is the view enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Technocracy, on the other hand, views humans as a natural resource, no different from an oil deposit or livestock, and they are to be used as such.

To minimize problems within this human resource management system, there needs to be maximum compliance with minimal effort. This is where social engineering through media propaganda (brainwashing), censorship and artificial intelligence comes in, and this is why they are using centralized blockchain technology. Their goal is to digitize you and your family, and convert everyone into digital assets that are easily manipulated and controlled.

For the most part, once fully implemented, the control system will be fully automated. To use the health pass as one example, say you miss your vaccination date. The system will know you didn’t show up for your shot, and your access to banking might be cut off until it registers that you got your inoculation.

There doesn’t even need to be another human involved, because your physical body, health records, geolocation, activities and financials are all connected and trackable in real time by artificial intelligence-driven software that analyzes everything you do.
Revealing Their Plan Can Help Stop It

If you want to take a deep-dive into the COVID economic reset, check out my new hero and technocracy exposure queen, Alison McDowell. She has a blog called Wrench in the Gears. In the video above,23 McDowell discusses the Fourth Industrial Revolution and human capital commodity markets, which are part and parcel of the Great Reset, and how the pandemic has allowed the technocrats to push through longstanding plans to radically change the way we learn, work and live.

As noted by McDowell, what we’re looking at down the road is basic human needs being turned into global investment markets, and the condition for this is massive surveillance tied to a predatory police state apparatus.

This anti-human “new normal” that world leaders are now urging us to accept and embrace is the trap of all traps. The good news is that while the trap has been sprung, the door has not yet closed. The way we prevent the implementation of the Great Reset in all its glory is through transparency. If enough people end up understanding what’s really going on and what the goal of this Great Reset actually is, they won’t be able to implement it.

The technocratic elite need us all to passively acquiesce, because there are far more of us than there are of them. That’s what pandemic measures are achieving. We’re growing to accept work and travel restrictions. We’re growing to accept government telling us where and how we can celebrate holidays, and with whom. With the rollout of voluntary health passes, we’ll grow to accept the idea that we cannot enter certain venues unless we can show the proper “papers.”

We simply must refuse to accept this. The days of uncertainty about what COVID-19 is are over, and we must take a strong stand against the continued erosion of our personal freedoms. We must also carefully reconstruct how we live and interact in order to minimize our contribution to the transhumanist technocratic control system, because we are actually the ones financing and helping build the very control system that is meant to enslave us.

We work for companies that are building the system. We buy products from them, which allows them to generate the needed revenue. So, we must stop buying their products and stop working for them. Google, for example, and also to a large extent Facebook, have been collecting your personal data for nearly two decades.

They have created massive server farms that are capable of analyzing this data with deep learning and artificial intelligence software to generate incredibly precise details on just what type of propaganda and false narrative is required to surreptitiously manipulate you into the behavior they are seeking.

By using these products, you’re giving them the very things they need to control and enslave you. It’s crucial to understand that the vast majority of information you are exposed to is carefully designed propaganda crafted from nearly two decades of personal data mining.
Never Surrender to the New Normal
Right now, we only have two choices: freedom or living under authoritarian rule. Temporary oppressive controls might be warranted in certain extreme circumstances where public health is at grave risk, but COVID-19 is not a threat to a majority of the population. It’s no more perilous to the masses than the seasonal flu that we’ve lived with all our lives.
Data24 show the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio is 0.26%. People under the age of 40 have a mere 0.01% risk of dying from the infection. The vast majority that test positive for SARS-CoV-2 have no symptoms at all, and most do not get seriously ill.
What’s more, the average age of death from COVID-19 is somewhere between 76.925 and 82.26 Either way, this is right around the average age of death from any cause anyway, and therefore not an outrageous threat to public health. The answer, if we really want to protect the masses, is to educate and promote healthy living at all stages of life.
Segregating society into classes based on vaccination status achieves nothing except the willful destruction of our freedom. The goal of this agenda is profit through control. Nothing else. By tying health care into the digital surveillance apparatus, you end up with a very robust platform for automated mass control that can then be expanded into all other areas of life until the very idea of self-determination and personal decision-making becomes obsolete.
Safeguarding our Constitutional rights and civil liberties against unlawful government overreach is essential. Once those freedoms are relinquished, they will be difficult, if not impossible, to get back. By showing proof that you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, through a digital certificate or app on your phone, the hope is that you can once again board an airplane and travel freely, attend a concert or enjoy a meal in your favorite restaurant, just like you used to.

Except, being required to present your “papers” in order to live your life isn’t actually freedom at all — it’s a loss of personal liberty that you once had, one that disappeared right before your eyes and one that’s setting the stage for even more intrusive surveillance and privacy erosion.

While government has a duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens, this duty must be balanced against the loss of individual rights and liberties.
Since many of our elected leaders are clearly not up to the task of defending those rights and liberties on their own accord, we must demand it, and refuse to comply with tyrannical proposals such as “voluntary health passports,” because soon enough, they will become mandatory. After that, there’s no telling what you’ll have to do next.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/22/ibm-moderna-health-passport.aspx

Global lockdowns were ostensibly initiated to protect the general public and “flatten the curve” of COVID-19 infections. Yet, experts agree that this policy may well have been one of the biggest public health mistakes ever made.1

Public health is a system designed to promote health, prevent disease and encourage healthy behaviors. The goal is to encourage proper medical care and healthy efforts through the implementation of policies and programs.

In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health2 in 2009, the authors offered evidence that public health policies have a significant effect on health, citing changes in seat belt laws, workplace health and safety and public tobacco use that have significantly affected health outcomes.

The health of communities is highly influenced by these policies, which governments use to help prevent obesity, control infectious disease, provide clean air and water and more. Yet, in the past year, it has become apparent that public health policies have moved away from evidence-based decision-making and are being driven by another agenda.

Experts Call Lockdowns the Biggest Health Mistake Ever Made

In an interview with Daily Clout, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya declared that the COVID-19 lockdowns may well be remembered as the “single worst public health mistake” in the last 100 years.3 The full interview is found inside the Daily Clout membership area. Bhattacharya also emailed a journalist from Newsweek about his interview, reiterating his statements:4

“I stand behind my comment that the lockdowns are the single worst public health mistake in the last 100 years. We will be counting the catastrophic health and psychological harms, imposed on nearly every poor person on the face of the earth, for a generation.

At the same time, they have not served to control the epidemic in the places where they have been most vigorously imposed. In the U.S., they have — at best — protected the “non-essential” class from COVID, while exposing the essential working class to the disease. The lockdowns are trickle-down epidemiology.”

During the interview, Bhattacharya indicated that his belief and subsequent work on the Great Barrington Declaration5 was a product of two basic facts.6

“One is that people who are older have a much higher risk from dying from COVID than people who are younger … and that’s a really important fact because we know who is most vulnerable, it’s people that are older.

So the first plank of the Great Barrington Declaration: let’s protect the vulnerable. The other idea is that the lockdowns themselves impose great harm on people. Lockdowns are not a natural normal way to live.”

He goes further into the explanation in an open letter published November 25, 2020, on the website.7 The Great Barrington Declaration calls for “focused protection” and finding a middle ground between locking down an entire economy and just “letting it rip.”

Although naysayers encourage the public to remain fearful, wear masks and seek a vaccine, it’s telling that thus far, the declaration has collected over 41,500 signatures from medical practitioners and over 13,500 signatures from medical and public health scientists.8

In addition, the declaration is open for public signatures and has collected over 758,500 from concerned citizens from around the world. The website allows you to read and sign the declaration, answers many frequently asked questions, shares the science behind the recommendations and explains how the declaration was written.

Analysis Shows Lockdowns Increased Public Health Damage

In 2019, before the pandemic, the World Health Organization published a document on nonpharmaceutical public health measures to mitigate the impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza, another potentially deadly respiratory illness. They clearly state, “there is a very low overall quality of evidence that workplace measures and closures reduce influenza transmission.”9

In the past months, scientists have learned more about the SARS-CoV-2 virus and many teams have analyzed the impact that lockdowns may or may not have had on the spread of the virus and the economy in several countries.

A paper published by the University of Bristol, U.K., in June 2020, found that the distribution of infections was on the decline, even before the U.K. had instituted lockdowns.10 The paper does not take into account the expected “second-wave” in the fall, but it is apparent from their analysis that infection rates were on the decline during the summer months well before fall.

A second paper,11 also published by U.K. scientists, found that closing schools and prohibiting mass gatherings may have helped to lower the incidence. However, stay-at-home orders and mask-wearing in public “was not associated with any independent additional impact.”

In New Zealand, communities were under a level 4 lockdown, which cost the country at least $10 billion.12 Using empirical data and comparing the numbers against areas in the U.S. that were practicing only social distancing at the time, one analysis found that lockdowns did not reduce the number of deaths and the ineffectiveness triggered large economic losses with little benefit for New Zealand.

In an analysis13 of nonpharmaceutical interventions, including business closures and mandatory stay-at-home orders in 10 countries, researchers found “no clear, significant beneficial effect” in countries using more restrictive policies as compared to those with less restrictive policies.

Cost-Benefit Analysis Doesn’t Support Lockdowns

In a paper14 by psychologist Oliver Robinson, Ph.D., from the University of Greenwich, London, he found less restrictive nonpharmaceutical measures had a similar effect as lockdowns.

Psychological research also suggested lockdowns could exacerbate stressors, and were strong predictors of becoming sick when exposed to a respiratory virus. Additionally, “the extremely high financial cost of lockdowns may have negative implications for overall population health in terms of diminished resources for other health issues.”15

This has only been the tip of the iceberg in the cost-benefit evaluation researchers have completed in the past months analyzing the overall impact lockdowns have had on society. In August 2020, researchers from the U.K.16 looked at the cost of the lockdown to the country.

They evaluated quality-adjusted life years, COVID-19 mortality and comorbidity rates and an economic cost as a percentage of loss against the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). What they found was the average age at death and life expectancy loss for non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 deaths differed by less than two years.

Their results suggested “that the costs of continuing severe restrictions are so great relative to likely benefits in lives saved that a rapid easing in restrictions is now warranted.”17

In Israel, researchers estimated18 the lockdown would save an average of 274 lives in the country as compared to testing, tracing and isolating those who are sick. The analysis also estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was an average of $45,104,156 to prevent one death.

The lockdowns and policy changes have also affected treatment for other health problems, such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer.19 This public health policy has come at a high cost, which society will be paying for years in treating physical and mental health conditions.

Should the Government Outlaw Sugar, Tobacco and Alcohol?

Of course, it does sound funny to describe a cost-benefit analysis, which ultimately places a price on life and death. Even so, it is difficult to accurately ascertain the number of deaths that can legitimately be attributed to COVID-19, since the public numbers are skewed.

According to a peer-reviewed study20,21 in October 2020 by the Public Health Policy Initiative of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, the CDC has inflated the mortality statistics by 1,670%.

The report offers a sobering reality check of the true mortality numbers that can be attributed to COVID-19 infection. Although some self-appointed internet “fact” checkers claim this study is mistaken, the numbers speak for themselves. For example, on page 20, there’s a graph that compares the fatalities based on the CDC’s current illegal reporting guidelines against the fatality count had they continued using guidelines that have been in use for the past 17 years.

Using the inflated statistical guidelines, the CDC reported 161,392 deaths from COVID-19 by August 23, 2020. However, using the traditional guidelines the CDC has used for the past 17 years, that number was just 6% of the total, equaling 9,684. Using the older guidelines, the CDC22 also reported the leading causes of death in 2019, including 659,041 from heart disease, 599,601 from cancer and 87,647 from diabetes.

It is apparent from these numbers, whether you compare the leading causes of death in 2019 to the inflated numbers from the CDC, or to those using the traditional guidelines, heart disease, cancer and diabetes still cause significantly more deaths than COVID-19.

These conditions have been associated with the use of sugar, tobacco and alcohol. This now begs the question, with the high number of deaths from these chronic conditions, should the government outlaw sugar, tobacco and alcohol use to protect public health?

‘Mass Delusional Psychosis’ May Be the Root of Public Fear

Just one year ago, you likely would have rebelled against being told you had to stay at home, forgo meeting with friends and give up eating at restaurants. But within the past 12 months, those limitations have become commonplace, and many have accepted the mandates as part of their daily lives.

Many mental health experts have publicly expressed concerns over the blatant fear and panic mongering that has occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. They warn about the psychiatric effects that adults and children experience, which likely have long-term consequences.

The mask mandates, inaccurate reporting of deaths and COVID “cases” and the media attention on all things COVID-19 with the expressed negligence covering rising suicide rates and opioid overdoses,23,24 have led to what Florida journalist S.G. Cheah characterizes as mass insanity caused by “delusional fear of COVID-19.”25

Cheah refers to lectures and articles by a psychiatrist and medical-legal expert Dr. Mark McDonald26 is a board-certified child and adolescent psychiatrist who believes “the true public health crisis lies in the widespread fear which morphed and evolved into a form of mass delusional psychosis.” Cheah continues:

“Even when the statistics point to the extremely low fatality rate among children and young adults (measuring 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at 25),27 the young and the healthy are still terrorized by the chokehold of irrational fear when faced with the coronavirus.”

Steps to Restore Sanity Moving Forward

The first step in overcoming the fear and delusion surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic is a fuller understanding of how it’s being perpetuated, as discussed in “The World Is Suffering From Mass Delusional Psychosis,” and recognizing some of the significant collateral damage that has occurred as shared in “Public Health Officials Are Lying About Lockdowns.”

Armed with this knowledge, you are better able to make decisions about your safety and the safety of your family. Moving forward it’s important to remember to protect those who are at the highest risk of severe disease and death, including nursing home residents, hospitalized patients, people over 70 and those living in crowded institutions such as homeless shelters and prisons.

In these cases, infectious control strategies are warranted. Yet, as has been demonstrated by research evidence and the knowledge of tens of thousands of medical experts who have signed the Great Barrington Declaration,28 the rest of the population can and should go back to normal.

Unfortunately, masks have become a signal of virtue, with the idea that wearing them will help to protect yourself and the surrounding population. This is not a virtuous action and is perpetuated by fear. Fear is never helpful and never virtuous.

Consider sharing information from independent journalists, scientific evidence and the Great Barrington Declaration as a means of helping others to reduce their fear and panic over an infectious process that has not claimed nearly as many lives as the public has been led to believe.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/24/global-lockdown.aspx

1 Which of the following has been promoted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a consumer advocacy group bankrolled by technocrat billionaires?
GMOs
Trans fats
Artificial sweeteners
All of the above
CSPI has a history of promoting industry science and propaganda, having supported artificial sweeteners, trans fats, GMOs, fake meat and the low-fat myth. They’ve also actively undermined transparency in labeling efforts. Learn more.

2 Moderna and Pfizer’s mRNA technologies for COVID-19 are:
Gene therapies that reprogram your cells to produce SARS-CoV-2 antigen
mRNA contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA gene therapy “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 antigen (its spike protein), which activates your immune system to produce antibodies. Learn more.
The same as conventional vaccines using live or attenuated viruses, but injecting a synthetic molecule instead
Gene therapies that force your body to produce the SARS-CoV-2 virus
Like conventional vaccines, but use viral RNA to trigger an immune response instead of the whole inactivated virus

3 Which of the following organizations worked with Congress to establish the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which sought to secure compensation for those injured by mandated childhood vaccines?
Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)
National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) worked with Congress to establish the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986. The act sought to secure compensation for vaccine injured children and ways to ensure safer childhood vaccines. Learn more.
Mercola.com
Children’s Health Defense (CHD)

4 Since children themselves have little reason to get a COVID-19 vaccine, health officials are spinning the notion that children must be vaccinated for the sake of:
Preventing age discrimination
Using up excess vaccine doses
Herd immunity
Since children themselves have little reason to get a COVID-19 vaccine, health officials are spinning the notion that children must be vaccinated for the sake of herd immunity. Learn more.
Boosting the economy

5 Which of the following has been identified by a longtime World Health Organization insider as the directive force inside the WHO?
Swissmedic, the Food and Drug Administration of Switzerland
The United States White House administration
Harvard Global Health Institute
Bill Gates and his vaccine alliance, GAVI
According to long-term WHO insider, Astrid Stuckelberger, Ph.D., Bill Gates’ vaccine alliance, GAVI, is directing the WHO. Learn more.

6 Which of the following funded risky gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology as recently as 2019?
The U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), under the leadership of Dr. Anthony Fauci, funded risky gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology as recently as 2019. Learn more.
The World Health Organization
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The World Monetary Fund

7 Which of the following are among the best still-living representations of the way humans have lived for tens of thousands of years?
California Seventh-day Adventists
The African Hadza tribe
The Hadza tribe are among the best still-living representations of the way humans have lived for tens of thousands of years. They’re nomadic hunter-gatherers whose diet is primarily meat-based. Chronic disease is rare among the Hadza, who remain vital well into old age. Learn more.
The American Mohawk
Canadian Inuit

 
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/22/week-174-health-quiz.aspx

Hundreds of farmers and human rights groups are boycotting the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit because they believe it favors agribusiness interests, elite foundations and the exploitation of African food systems.1

The Summit claims it is convening to “launch bold new actions to transform the way the world produces and consumes food,”2 but critics say it is biased toward industrial, corporate farming while leaving out those in regenerative agriculture and the knowledge of indigenous people.3

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.4

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.

Corporate Interests Dominating Food Summit

After Kalibata was appointed special envoy to the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit in December 2019, 176 civil society organizations and farmer groups from 83 countries urged Guterres to withdraw the appointment due to Kalibata’s clear conflicts of interest with corporate interests.

A second statement, signed by more than 500 academics and organizations, also opposed Kalibata’s appointment to, and her organization of, the Summit.5 AGRA is known to promote the interests of agribusiness, leading civil society organizations to argue that Kalibata’s appointment was a clear conflict of interest.

“This concern over Kalibata’s nomination has been largely borne-out by Kalibata’s top-down approach to organizing the Summit and her exclusion of those most affected by food insecurity and malnutrition in the planning process,” according to an August 2020 report by AGRA Watch.6

A dozen individuals representing development banks, academic institutions and the private sector came forward in support of Kalibata, but “11 had past or current connections to the Gates Foundation,” AGRA Watch reported, adding:7

“These findings illustrate the influence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) on global food and agricultural policy. AGRA Watch has continually documented the role of the BMGF in influencing agricultural development, which has grown immensely in recent years.

That Gates Foundation seeks to exercise influence not only through its funding of projects and shaping of expertise, but also in funding the governance platforms that determine food and agricultural policy. This role of the BMGF in driving policy decisions based on its proprietary and technological model of agricultural development is often overlooked.”

Precision Agriculture, Genetic Engineering Take Center Stage

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:8

“It [appears] heavily skewed in favor of one type of approach to food systems, namely market-based solutions … it leaves out experimental/traditional knowledge that has the acute effect of excluding indigenous peoples and their knowledge. The business sector has been part of the problem of food systems and has not been held accountable.”

The 300 million-member Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism announced plans to boycott the Summit and set up a meeting of their own, while others, including Sofía Monsalve Suárez, head of nutrition rights group Fian International, questioned the Summit’s legitimacy:9

“We cannot jump on a train that is heading in the wrong direction … We sent a letter last year to the secretary general about our concerns. It was not answered. We sent another last month, which has also not been answered. The summit appears extremely biased in favor of the same actors who have been responsible for the food crisis.”

Other nutrition experts also expressed the need for the Summit to be more inclusive of initiatives such as agro-ecology and food sovereignty.

Food Group Calls on UN to Sever Ties With WEF

A group of 148 organizations from 28 countries also called on the U.N. to revoke their 2019 strategic partnership formed with the World Economic Forum (WEF). WEF’s involvement with the Summit has been called a form of “corporate hijacking” that would infringe on people’s rights to food and food production. According to the People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty:10

“The WEF will exploit the Summit to streamline neoliberal globalization, which it has espoused for the past 50 years. It is the perfect venue to push for the role of ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies’ to transform food systems, which the WEF has been championing since 2017.

A corporate-led FSS [Food Systems Summit] would be a great advantage to the political elites and corporate billionaires, enabling them to pose hypocritically as responsible entities that promote healthier diets and climate action.

… The sidelined and marginalized sectors in society — the poor farmers, workers, Indigenous Peoples, herders, pastoralists, fisherfolks, urban poor, women, Dalits, and youth — should replace these corporate moguls in shaping the Summit’s proceedings and reforms.”

Beyond the Summit, WEF’s takeover of the U.N. has been denounced by more than 400 civil society organizations and 40 international networks, which claim it will only accelerate the move toward a privatized, undemocratic global takeover. Monsalve Suárez stated:11

“Corporations in the global industrial food chain alone destroy 75 billion tons of topsoil annually and are responsible for the annual loss of 7.5 million hectares of forest. This destruction, along with other factors, leaves 3.9 billion underfed or malnourished people. The WEF represents the interests of those who destroy the environment and abuse our human rights. It cannot be considered a strategic partner in solving the world’s crises.”

Africa’s Traditional Food Systems Under Attack

Planning documents for the Summit also reveal plans for a “radical transformation shift” in Africa, away from traditional farming practices and toward industrial farming — even describing the potential as the “new oil.”12 The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), which released the documents, said the plans recycle the “same false solutions … with the same narrow benefits accruing to a limited number of actors.”13

For instance, one section of the documents is titled “the promise of digital and biotechnologies and the transformation of food systems,” and describes “the significant potential for capturing large economic, social and environmental payoffs from the use of biotechnology products … In West Africa, for instance, farmers can benefit significantly from the adoption of Bt cotton.”14

Technology and development take center stage, along with “strengthening the use of big data” for decisions on things like fertilizer use, genetically engineered crops and “accessing markets.” As noted by U.S. Right to Know:15

“This agenda aligns perfectly with the plans of the agrichemical industry, the Gates Foundation and its main agricultural development program, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, which encourages African countries to pass business-friendly policies and scale up markets for patented seeds, fossil-fuel based fertilizers and other industrial inputs they say are necessary to boost food production.”

“The main problem with AGRA,” Global Justice Now explains, “is that it is laying the groundwork for the deeper penetration of African agriculture by agribusiness corporations,” and:

“The BMGF, through AGRA, is one of the world’s largest promoters of chemical fertiliser. Some grants given by the BMGF to AGRA have been specifically intended to ‘help AGRA build the fertiliser supply chain’ in Africa. One of the largest of AGRA’s own grants, worth $25 million, was to help establish the African Fertiliser Agribusiness Partnership (AFAP) in 2012 whose very goal is to ‘at least double total fertiliser use’ in Africa.”16

Bill Gates Is the Biggest Owner of US Farmland

The BMGF’s involvement in the Summit is also self-serving, as Bill Gates owns more farmland in the U.S. than any other private farmer, having purchased a total of 242,000 acres — much of it considered some of the richest soil in the U.S. — at a frenzied pace over the past few years.17

Gates, however, isn’t interested in regenerative agriculture but instead is furthering an agricultural agenda that supports agrochemicals, patented seeds, fake meat and corporate control — interests that undermine regenerative, sustainable, small-scale farming. One of the key players in this agenda is the widespread adoption of synthetic meat.

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).18

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 2021.19 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.20

What many aren’t aware of, however, is that Gates is either personally invested in, or invested in via Breakthrough Energy Ventures, fake meat companies like Beyond Meats, Impossible Foods, Memphis Meats and other companies he actively promotes.21

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.”22

Small Farmers, Regenerative Agriculture Are the Answer

The U.N. Food Summit is 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. If you’re new to this discussion, you can find the top six reasons to support regenerative agriculture here. As Timothy Wise, senior adviser at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, told The Guardian:23

“A growing number of farmers, scientists and development experts now advocate a shift from high-input chemical-intensive agriculture to low-input ecological farming. They are supported by an array of new research documenting both the risks of continuing to follow our current practices and the potential benefits of a transition to more sustainable farming.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/19/un-food-systems-summit-2021.aspx

OK folks, today you are in for a real treat. We have presented many of the pieces previously, but this will help put them in the proper perspective. That is the phase we are in now. We have the facts, we just need to understand what they mean and interpret them properly.
This is a really important article. It catalyzed my understanding of what the heck is going on. The facts are obvious; the entire response to the global pandemic was facilitated by the World Health Organization. Their recommendations were followed lock-step by virtually every government on Earth.
No one will dispute this fact. The next data point is: Who controls the WHO? Some will dispute this, but the evidence is pretty clear and solid. It is Bill Gates, who became the WHO’s biggest funder when then-President Trump removed U.S. support last year.
What does Gates have to benefit from controlling the WHO? How about the best investment he ever made, with many tens of billions of dollars running through his “nonprofit” GAVI Vaccine Alliance? The maniacal suppression and censorship of any inexpensive natural alternative for COVID-19 makes perfect sense now.
These natural therapies, nebulized hydrogen peroxide being the best example, would be serious competition for the vaccines. If everyone knew that these remedies were readily available, highly effective and practically free, who would risk their life for a vaccine? Virtually no one. It all makes perfect sense.
With that framework, enjoy the information our team has compiled that expands on this general concept. Every day we are putting the pieces of the puzzle together, and the more pieces we fit together, the sooner you will see the bigger picture. More to come in the very near future.
WHO Insider Speaks Out

In July 2020, four German attorneys founded the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss1).2,3 In the video above, the founding members, led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich,4 interviews Astrid Stuckelberger, Ph.D., a WHO insider, about what she discovered about Bill Gates and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.
Stuckelberger has served as deputy director of the Swiss national program of aging since the 1990s, and is the president of the WHO-funded Geneva International Network on Ageing.
According to her bio,5 she “is an internationally recognized expert on issues related to evaluating scientific research for policymakers, in particular in health and innovation assessment, pandemic and emergency management training and in optimizing individual and population health and well-being.”
She’s also a published author, with a dozen books to her credit, as well as more than 180 scientific articles, policy papers and governmental and international reports. Stuckelberger points out that much of the research done was and still is highly politicized and primarily done to support and justify political decisions.
For the past 20 years, since 2000, she’s been involved with public health at the WHO, and was part of their research ethics committee for four years. In 2009, she got involved with the WHO’s international health regulations.
Stuckelberger points out that the whole purpose of WHO’s international health regulations is to prepare member states to be ready for a pandemic, to be able to not only prevent outbreaks but also respond swiftly when an outbreak occurs. However, the WHO has actually been actively preventing and undermining this pandemic preparedness training.
The Center of Corruption

According to Stuckelberger, Switzerland is at the heart of the corruption, largely thanks to it being the headquarters for GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, founded by Bill Gates. In 2009, the GAVI Alliance was recognized as an international institution and granted total blanket immunity.6
As explained by Justus Hoffmann, Ph.D., one of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee members, GAVI has “qualified diplomatic immunity,” which is odd, considering the organization has no political power that would warrant diplomatic immunity. Odder still is that GAVI’s immunity clauses go beyond even that of diplomats. GAVI’s immunity covers all aspects of engagement, including criminal business dealings.
GAVI is a nongovernmental organization that is allowed to operate without paying any taxes, while also having total immunity for anything they do wrong.
“They can do whatever they want,” Stuckelberger says, without repercussions. The police, for example, are barred from conducting an investigation and collecting evidence if GAVI were to be implicated in a criminal investigation. “It’s shocking,” she says. GAVI is also completely tax exempt, which Stuckelberger notes is “very strange.”
Essentially, GAVI is a nongovernmental organization (NGO) that is allowed to operate without paying any taxes, while also having total immunity for anything they do wrong, willfully or otherwise. This is rather unprecedented, and raises a whole host of questions. It’s particularly disturbing in light of evidence Stuckelberger claims to have found showing that GAVI is “directing, as a corporate entity, the WHO.”
Furthermore, documents cited by Stuckelberger show the WHO has assumed what amounts to dictatorial power over the whole world. The director general has the sole power to make decisions — including decisions about which tests or pandemic medications to use — that all member states must then obey.
The Nation-State of Gates

What’s more, Stuckelberger discovered that, in 2017, Gates actually requested to be part of the WHO’s executive board — like a member state — ostensibly because he gives them so much money. Indeed, his funding exceeds that of many individual member states.
Like Stuckelberger says, this is truly incredible — the idea that a single man would have the same power and influence over the WHO as that of an entire nation. It’s a brazen power grab, to say the least. While there’s no evidence that Gates was ever officially granted the status of a member state, one wonders whether he doesn’t have it unofficially.
One thing that raises Stuckelberger’s suspicion is the fact that Swissmedic, the Food and Drug Administration of Switzerland, has entered into a three-way contract agreement with Gates and the WHO. “This is abnormal,” she says.
Essentially, in summary, it appears that when he did not get voted in as a one-man nation state, Gates created three-party contracts with member states and the WHO, essentially placing him on par with the WHO. As mentioned earlier, whatever the director general of the WHO says, goes. They’ve effectively turned global health security into a dictatorship.
The question is, is Gates the real power behind the curtain? Does he tell the director general what to do? When you look back over the past year, it seems Gates has often been the first to announce what the world needs to do to address the pandemic, and then the WHO comes out with an identical message, which is then parroted by world leaders, more or less verbatim.
As noted by Fuellmich, it’s becoming clear that many private-public partnerships have been hijacked by the private side — and they’re immune from liability. “This has got to stop,” he says.
A complete review and overhaul of the United Nations, which established the WHO, is also required as the U.N. has done nothing to prevent or rein in undemocratic and illegal activity. As noted by Fuellmich, we probably need to reconsider whether we even need them.

Changed Definition of Pandemic Allowed Health Dictatorship
In the interview, they also highlight the WHO’s role in setting the stage for a global health dictatorship by changing the definition of “pandemic.” The WHO’s original definition, pre-2009, of a pandemic was:7,8

“… when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”

The key portion of that definition is “enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” This definition was changed in the month leading up to the 2009 swine flu pandemic. The change was a simple but substantial one: They merely removed the severity and high mortality criteria, leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”9 This switch in definition is why COVID-19 was and still is promoted as a pandemic even though it, at no point, has caused any excess mortality.10,11,12
We now have plenty of data showing the lethality of COVID-19 is on par with the seasonal flu.13,14,15,16,17 It may be different in terms of symptoms and complications, but the actual lethality is about the same. Yet we’re told the price we must all pay to keep ourselves and others safe from this virus is the relinquishing of our civil rights and liberties.
In short, by removing the criteria of severe illness causing high morbidity, leaving geographically widespread infection as the only criteria for a pandemic, the WHO and technocratic leaders of the world were able to bamboozle the global population into giving up our lives and livelihoods.
WHO Rewrites Science by Changing Definition of Herd Immunity

The WHO has also radically altered the definition of “herd immunity.” Herd immunity occurs when enough people acquire immunity to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community. When the number susceptible is low enough to prevent epidemic growth, herd immunity is said to have been reached.

Prior to the introduction of vaccines, all herd immunity was achieved via exposure to and recovery from an infectious disease. Eventually, as vaccination became widespread, the concept of herd immunity evolved to include not only the naturally acquired immunity that comes from prior illness, but also the temporary vaccine-acquired immunity that can occur after vaccination.

However, in October 2020, the WHO upended science as we know it, revising this well-established concept in an Orwellian move that totally removes natural infection from the equation.

As late as June 2020, the WHO’s definition of herd immunity, posted on one of their COVID-19 Q&A pages, was in line with the widely-accepted concept that has been the standard for infectious diseases for decades. Here’s what it originally said:18

“Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”

The updated definition of herd immunity, which appeared in October 2020, read as follows:19

“‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.
Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but — crucially — vaccines work without making us sick.
Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing it on, breaking any chains of transmission. With herd immunity, the vast majority of a population are vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population.”

After public — and no doubt embarrassing — backlash, the WHO revised its definition again December 31, 2020, to again include the mention of natural infection, while still emphasizing vaccine-acquired immunity. It now reads:20

“’Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity,’ is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.
WHO supports achieving ‘herd immunity’ through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.
Herd immunity against COVID-19 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination, not by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease.”

WHO’s Recommendation of PCR Test ‘Intentionally Criminal’
Stuckelberger also shocks the Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee by pointing out that twice — December 7, 2020,21,22 and January 13, 202123 — the WHO issued medical alerts for PCR testing, warning that use of high cycle thresholds (CT) will produce high rates of false positives, that the CT value should be reported to the health care provider and that test results be considered in combination with clinical observations, health history and other epidemiological information.
Yet since the beginning of the pandemic, it has pushed PCR testing as the best way to detect and diagnose infection. This, she says, makes it intentionally criminal. The January 13, 202124,25 medical product alert was, incidentally, posted online January 20, 2021, mere hours after Joe Biden’s inauguration as the President of the United States.
In this alert, the WHO stressed that the “CT needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load,” and that “Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested.”
It also reminds users that “disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results,” so that “as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases.” The alert goes on to explain:26

“This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”

Taking a patient’s symptoms into account and using a scientifically defensible CT count should have been routine practice from the beginning. It just didn’t fit the geopolitical narrative. Since the start of the pandemic, the WHO has recommended using a CT of 45,27,28,29 which guarantees an enormous number of false positives, and therefore “cases.” This alone is how they kept the pandemic fearmongering going.
The scientific consensus has long been that anything over 35 CTs renders the PCR test useless,30,31,32 as the accuracy will be a measly 3% — 97% are false positives.33 By finally recommending lower CTs and more precise criteria for diagnosis, the WHO engineered an assured end to the caseload at a desired time. Coincidentally, the next day, January 21, 2021, President Biden announced he would reinstate the U.S.’ financial support for the WHO.34
Time to Put an End to the Global Health Mafia

The WHO was created as a specialized agency of the U.N., established in 1948 to further international cooperation for improved public health conditions. It was given a broad mandate under its constitution to promote the attainment of “the highest possible level of health” by all peoples.
It is now beyond dispute that the WHO is beyond compromised. Because of its funding — a large portion of which comes from the “one-man nation-state of Gates” — it fails to complete its original mandate. Worse, WHO serves corporate masters and through its dictatorial powers is essentially destroying, not improving, the health of the world.
In June 2010, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) issued a report35 on the WHO’s handling of the 2009 pandemic of novel influenza A (H1N1), which included the recommendation to use a fast-tracked vaccine that ended up causing disability and death around the world.
PACE concluded “the handling of the pandemic by the WHO, EU health agencies and national governments led to a waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.”36
Specifically, PACE found “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO,” and that the drug industry had influenced the organization’s decision-making — a claim echoed by other investigators as well.37,38,39,40,41
The Assembly made a number of recommendations, including greater transparency, better governance of public health, safeguards against undue influence by vested interests, public funding of independent research, and last but not least, for the media to “avoid sensationalism and scaremongering in the public health domain.”42
None of those recommendations were followed and, if anything, the WHO’s mismanagement of public health, thanks to private-public partnerships with NGOs such as GAVI, has only worsened. Other reports, two published in 201543,44 and one in 2017,45 also highlighted the WHO’s failures and lack of appropriate leadership during the 2013 through 2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

While the WHO is recognized as being uniquely suited to carry out key functions necessary in a global pandemic, experts at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the Harvard Global Health Institute, have pointed out, years ago, that the WHO has eroded so much trust that radical reforms would be required before it can assume an authoritative role.

Yet here we are, still, and no reforms ever took place. Instead, the corruption festered and metastasized, and the WHO turned into a power hub for the technocratic deep state that seeks to assume power and control over all nations.

As noted by Fuellmich, we probably need to take a long hard look at the WHO and the U.N., and decide whether they’re even worth saving. At bare minimum, the disproportionate influence by private vested interests, disguised as NGOs such as GAVI, must be thoroughly investigated and routed out.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/19/gavi-bill-gates-world-health-organization.aspx

In children and young adults from age birth to 19, the survival rate of COVID-19 is 99.997%.1,2 In most cases, symptoms are mild or nonexistent. Among children who were hospitalized, 0.19% of children died from COVID-19, with researchers concluding in a 2021 study, “Hospitalization and in-hospital death are rare in children diagnosed with COVID-19.”3
Despite the fact that COVID-19 has had little impact, physically, to children, health officials are setting the stage for widespread vaccination of this population. The University of Oxford, which is collaborating on a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, is already enrolling children between the ages of 6 years and 17 years and 8 months in their U.K. vaccine trial.4
A COVID vaccine for infants and children is every bit as unnecessary, dangerous and foolish as the hepatitis B vaccine is for infants that I have been railing against for the past two decades.
Moderna is also enrolling 3,000 children between the ages of 12 and 17 to test their COVID-19 vaccine, using the same dose given to adults,5 while Pfizer also expanded its clinical trials to include children as young as 12.6 Johnson & Johnson even announced on February 28, 2021, that it plans to test its COVID-19 vaccine on infants, including newborn babies, pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems.
“They did not get into a lot of detail about it but did make it clear they will be pursuing pediatric and maternal coronavirus immunization studies,” Dr. Ofer Levy, a member of the FDA’s advisory committee who reviewed Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine data, told The New York Times.7
It’s Gene Therapy — Not a Vaccine

The COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine in the medical definition of a vaccine. It’s more accurately an experimental gene therapy, of which the effectiveness and safety are far from proven. During the first six weeks the vaccine was available, more than 500 post-vaccination deaths and nearly 11,000 other adverse events were reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).8
According to Children’s Health Defense (CHD), professor Dolores J. Cahill, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and immunologist, “expects to see successive waves of adverse reactions to the experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) injections ranging from anaphylaxis and other allergic responses to autoimmunity, sepsis and organ failure.”9
Considering that children are at extremely low risk from COVID-19, vaccination offers them far more risk than benefit, and parents may be understandably reluctant to volunteer their children to receive this experimental and unlicensed gene therapy. Public health officials have made it clear, however, that vaccination of children is expected. CHD reported:10

“Already last April — when next to nothing was known about COVID’s epidemiology, and candidate vaccines had barely begun to be studied — Bill Gates set the stage for the pediatric push, declaring that the end goal is to make COVID-19 vaccines ‘part of the routine newborn immunization schedule.’”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), also stated that 85% to 90% of the U.S. population, including children, will need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine before life can return to normal, and he suggested that first graders may be authorized to be vaccinated by September 2021.11
Using ‘Herd Immunity’ to Justify Vaccinating Children

Since children themselves have little reason to get a COVID-19 vaccine, health officials are spinning the notion that children must be vaccinated for the sake of herd immunity. Now, they want you to think that not only should you look at the people around you as vectors of disease, but also the children, who could be asymptomatic carriers, silently bringing a deadly disease to grandma’s house.
What’s being largely ignored, however, are the studies showing that children are not driving the COVID-19 pandemic and, in fact, appear less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults.12
“In short, public health leaders say, parents must ‘vaccinate the young to protect the old.’ Given the federal government’s estimate that one vaccine injury results from every 39 vaccines administered, it seems clear that officials expect children to shoulder 100% of the risks of COVID vaccination in exchange for zero benefit,” CHD noted.13
Herd immunity, which occurs when enough people acquire immunity to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community, is calculated using reproductive number, or R-naught (R0), which is the estimated number of new infections that may occur from one infected person.14
R0 of below 1 (with R1 meaning that one person who’s infected is expected to infect one other person) indicates that cases are declining while R0 above 1 suggests cases are on the rise. It’s far from an exact science, however, as a person’s susceptibility to infection varies depending on many factors, including their health, age and contacts within a community.
The initial R0 calculations for COVID-19’s HIT were based on assumptions that everyone has the same susceptibility and would be mixing randomly with others in the community. But a study published in Nature Reviews Immunology suggested that the herd immunity threshold for COVID-19 may need to be adjusted because children are less susceptible to the disease:15

“Another factor that may feed into a lower herd immunity threshold for COVID-19 is the role of children in viral transmission. Preliminary reports find that children, particularly those younger than 10 years, may be less susceptible and contagious than adults, in which case they may be partially omitted from the computation of herd immunity.”

COVID Gene Therapy May Not Prevent Transmission

Another point being largely ignored in the mainstream media is that it’s unknown if the COVID-19 vaccines prevent transmission, putting a major hole in the push for vaccine-driven herd immunity.
Unlike conventional vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent, the COVID-19 injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nanolipid carrier compound,16 the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.
They do not actually impart immunity or inhibit transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.17,18
At a virtual press conference held by the World Health Organization (WHO) on December 28, 2020, WHO officials warned there is no guarantee that COVID-19 vaccines will prevent people from being infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and transmitting it to other people.19
In a New Year’s Day interview with Newsweek, Fauci reinforced the WHO’s admission that health officials do not know if COVID-19 vaccines prevent infection or if people can spread the virus to others after getting vaccinated.20
Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in December 2020 for Pfizer/BioNTech21 and Moderna22 to release their experimental mRNA vaccines for use in the U.S., the companies only provided evidence from clinical trials to demonstrate that their vaccines prevented mild to severe COVID-19 disease symptoms in vaccinated participants compared to unvaccinated trial participants.
The companies did not investigate whether the vaccines prevent people from becoming asymptomatically infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and/or transmitting it to other people.23,24
Meanwhile, if you or your child recovered from COVID-19 or had an asymptomatic case, you likely already have some level of protective immunity25 — another factor being largely ignored in the push to vaccinate children. In fact, trials suggested there’s no benefit to getting vaccinated among those who have been previously infected with COVID-19.26
Fauci’s Involvement With Medical Patents

While Fauci is not named on the patent of Moderna’s vaccine, the NIH has a 50% stake in it,27 and the recognition that would come with a successful vaccine launch would certainly include Fauci. NIH scientists may also collect royalties from vaccines they’re involved with.28
The video above, with David E. Martin, Ph.D., a national intelligence analyst, also goes into detail about Fauci’s involvement with medical patents. Martin has pointed out that even though Moderna “very clearly did not have the legal right, and they did not have the contractual rights, they didn’t have the licensing rights” required to enter into a federal contract, they were still somehow pushed to the front of the line by the NIH and Fauci.
In the Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier prepared by Martin, he describes multiple criminal violations he believes are associated with “COVID-19 terrorism,” including gain of function research that was carried out by NIAID in violation of an NIH moratorium. Part of the dossier also spells out some of Fauci’s patents in detail along with the NIAID’s “economic bonanza”:29

“Since the passage of the Bayh Dole Act (Pub. L. 96-517, December 12, 1980), federally funded research has been an economic bonanza for U.S. universities, federal agencies, and their selected patronage. For the first decade following Bayh Dole, NIH funding doubled from $3.4 billion to $7.1 billion. A decade later, it doubled again to $15.6 billion.

In the wake of September 2001, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) saw its direct budget increase over 300% without accounting for DARPA funds of as much as $1.7 billion annually from 2005 forward. In 2020, NIH’s budget was over $41 billion.

What has become of the $763 billion of taxpayer funds allocated to making America healthier since inventors have been commercially incentivized? Who has been enriched? The answer, regrettably, is that no accountability exists to answer these questions. The NIH is the named owner of at least 138 patents since 1980.

The United States Department of Health and Human Services is the named owner of at least 2,600 patents. NIAID grants or collaboration have resulted in 2,655 patents and patent applications of which only 95 include an assignment to the Department of Health and Human Services as an owner.

… NIAID’s Director, Dr. Anthony Fauci is listed as an inventor on 8 granted U.S. patents. None of them are reported in NIAID, NIH, or GAO reports of active licensing despite the fact that Dr. Fauci reportedly was compelled to get paid for his interleukin-2 ‘invention’ — payments he reportedly donated to an unnamed charity.”

Conflicts Are Rampant

It’s worth noting that Moderna has no legal rights to a key patent for its vaccine delivery system, and company executives are among those who have dumped their stock. Both Moderna and the NIH are essentially engaged in patent infringement, as a core part of the technology — the lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology that is part of the vaccine delivery system — belongs to a small Canadian biotech company called Arbutus.30
Moderna sought to invalidate the patent owned by Arbutus Biopharma, but lost the challenge at the end of July 2020.31 After losing the challenge, Moderna said their LNP technology is actually far more advanced than Arbutus’ and claimed “the LNP used to make mRNA-1273, its Covid-19 vaccine candidate, is not covered by the Arbutus patent.”32 “In short,” the Dossier notes:33

“… while Moderna enjoys hundreds of millions of dollars of funding allegiance and advocacy from Anthony Fauci and his NIAID, since its inception, it has been engaged in illegal patent activity and demonstrated contempt for U.S. Patent law.

To make matters worse, the U.S. Government has given it financial backing in the face of undisclosed infringement risks potentially contributing to the very infringement for which they are indemnified.”

Conflicts of interest are also rampant at NIH, where, since 2012, health researchers receiving federal funding have reported more than 8,000 significant financial conflicts of interest totaling at least $188 million.34 In 2006,35 evidence was also uncovered showing that 916 NIH researchers had secretly received royalty payments for drugs and other inventions while working for the government.
Fauci was among those who had “received tens of thousands of dollars in royalties for an experimental AIDS treatment they invented [interleukin-2]. At the same time, their office has spent millions in tax dollars to test the treatment on patients across the globe.”
While it appears inevitable that the experimental COVID-19 gene therapy injections will soon be pushed on children, considering the many unanswered questions and conflicts in place, some may prefer to put off getting vaccinated against COVID-19 for as long as possible while waiting for the real truth to emerge.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/18/herd-immunity-excuse-for-gene-therapy-vaccine-kids.aspx

If your gums bleed easily when you brush your teeth, you may need more vitamin C, according to a study by University of Washington (UW) researchers.1 Bleeding gums can be a warning sign of periodontal disease, also known as gum disease, that results from infection and inflammation in your gums and the bone supporting your teeth.2 Your gums may bleed even during the early stages of the disease, known as gingivitis.

However, according to Philippe Hujoel, a dentist and professor of oral health sciences with the UW School of Dentistry, if your gums are bleeding the first thing you think about shouldn’t be brushing and flossing more — even though this is what the American Dental Association recommends — it should be figuring out why your gums are bleeding, and a nutrient deficiency could be to blame.3

Low Vitamin C Levels Linked to Bleeding Gums

The recommended daily vitamin C intake set by the World Health Organization was based on scurvy prevention, but according to the UW study, this may be too low to achieve the full benefits that vitamin C, also known as ascorbic acid, has to offer.4 One such benefit is the prevention of microvascular fragility, a condition that can manifest as bleeding gums or retinal hemorrhaging.

Using data from 15 trials spanning six countries, the researchers found that vitamin C supplementation reduced the tendency for bleeding gums in people with vitamin C levels below 28 ?mol/L. Vitamin C levels are considered normal when they’re greater than 28 ?mol/L, while vitamin C depletion is diagnosed at 11 to 28 ?mol/L and a deficiency at less than 11 ?mol/L.5

For those with vitamin C levels greater than 48??mol/L, vitamin C supplementation did not reduce bleeding gums in all cases. However, both retinal hemorrhaging and bleeding gums increased when vitamin C levels fell to the 11 to 28 ?mol/L range, which is considered adequate for protection against scurvy.6

They concluded that vitamin C requirements intended to prevent scurvy may lead to vitamin C levels in the body that are too low to prevent bleeding gums. Further, the tendency for bleeding gums and retinal hemorrhaging is associated with low vitamin C levels and could be an indication of systemic microvascular pathology, including bleeding in the brain, heart or kidneys,7 that could be reversed by increasing daily vitamin C intake.8

This isn’t the first time the link between vitamin C and gum bleeding has been discovered. Paul Robertson, the former dean of the UW School of Dentistry, conducted studies in 1986 and 1991 that also found a connection. According to the study’s lead author Philippe Hujoel:9

“There was a time in the past when gingival bleeding was more generally considered to be a potential marker for a lack of vitamin C. But over time, that’s been drowned out or marginalized by this overattention to treating the symptom of bleeding with brushing or flossing, rather than treating the cause.”

This is problematic, because by focusing only on brushing and flossing, the systemic damage caused by the nutrient deficiency continues. The study noted:

“A default prescription of oral hygiene and other periodontal interventions to ‘treat’ microvascular pathologies, even if partially effective in reversing gingival bleeding as suggested in this meta-analysis, is risky because it does not address any potential morbidity and mortality associated with the systemic microvascular-related pathologies.”

Why Your Body Needs Vitamin C

Vitamin C, a water-soluble vitamin found in abundance in fruits and vegetables, is an essential nutrient that humans must get from their diet or supplements. It has powerful antioxidant properties because of an ability to donate electrons to oxidized molecules.

Vitamin C, even in small quantities, protects proteins, lipids and even DNA and RNA in your body from reactive oxygen species that are generated during normal metabolism as well as due to toxin exposure, such as cigarette smoke and air pollution.

Vitamin C is also involved in the biosynthesis of collagen, carnitine and catecholamines, according to Rhonda Patrick, Ph.D., and as such, “vitamin C participates in immune function, wound healing, fatty acid metabolism, neurotransmitter production, and blood vessel formation, as well as other key processes and pathways.”10

Vitamin C’s anti-cold effects are also among its most-studied uses, and research suggests that using vitamin C prophylactically as well as therapeutically at the onset of cold symptoms may reduce symptoms and cold duration.11

It may also be useful against COVID-19 and, as noted by Dr. Andrew Saul, editor-in-chief of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, at extremely high doses vitamin C acts as an antiviral drug.

Oral Health Is Part of Your Overall Health

If your gums are bleeding or you’re having any other problem with your oral health, seeking the foundational cause is key, as what happens in your mouth doesn’t stay there.

“Your teeth are organs that are connected to your whole nervous system and basically are part of your brain, kind of like your eyes,” biological dentist Dr. Dominik Nischwitz said during our 2020 interview on holistic dental care. “You have this massive brain nerve there called the trigeminal nerve. It’s one of the 12 cranial nerves and takes up 50% of the space of all the other ones, so it’s quite important.”

While it’s true that brushing and flossing are important, they’re not going to correct a low vitamin C level, for instance, if that’s what’s causing your gums to bleed. Nischwitz also focuses on nutrition and has developed a Bone Healing Protocol that includes certain micronutrients and focuses on high doses of vitamin D3.

Vitamin D levels, for example, should ideally be above 60 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL), and if your levels are low to begin with, you may need to take a supplement for several months before any further treatments begin. The protocol also stresses magnesium, vitamin K2, vitamin C and B vitamins.

Nutrients for Gum and Oral Health

Just as it’s important to optimize the bacteria in your gut, it’s important to optimize the bacteria in your mouth. Your oral microbiome is negatively affected by antibacterial mouthwash, fluoride-containing toothpaste and fluoridated water, so stopping the use of these items is the first step to a healthier mouth.

“In the mouth, you don’t want to have a ‘scorched earth policy,’ nuking all bacteria and hoping the good bugs come back,” says biological dentist Dr. Gerry Curatola, founder of Rejuvenation Dentistry. “[G]ood bugs basically have a harder chance of setting up a healthy-balanced microbiome when you disturb them, denature them or dehydrate them with alcohol-based products.”

Curatola describes your mouth as your “gateway to total body wellness” and is among those who recommend specific nutrients to support gum and overall health. In addition to vitamin C, he recommends coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), as bleeding gums are often a sign of CoQ10 deficiency.

There are also a number of homeopathic tissue salts that can be beneficial for oral health, including silica, calcarea fluorica (calcium fluoride), calcium phosphate and calcium carbonate.

Oil Pulling for a Healthier Mouth, Reduced Bleeding

A gentle way to reduce plaque, bad breath and gingivitis while improving oral health and hygiene is oil pulling using coconut oil. According to Ayurvedic tradition, oil pulling may improve more than 30 systemic diseases including reduced inflammation and bleeding.12

While tending to your oral health via diet and lifestyle changes is essential, oil pulling is a sensible addition to your daily oral hygiene routine. Coconut oil is an ideal oil for oil pulling due to its antimicrobial effects.13 Coconut oil is antibacterial and antiviral and contains 92% saturated fats,14 49% of which is the anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial medium chain saturated fat lauric acid.15

It may also be effective against gingivitis. In a pilot study of 20 people with plaque-induced gingivitis, coconut oil was used as a mouthwash daily for 30 days. A control group carried out normal daily oral health procedures but without coconut oil. Both plaque and bleeding decreased in the groups, but the coconut oil group had a more significant decline, showing promise for reducing plaque formation and gingivitis.16

Another study also added coconut oil pulling to the normal oral hygiene procedures of middle-aged adults with plaque-induced gingivitis. The group that used oil pulling in addition to regular brushing had a significantly greater decline in gingivitis and plaque after six weeks.17

U.K. researchers also conducted a systematic review to look into the effect of oil pulling with coconut oil on oral health, finding that coconut oil pulling worked as well as chlorhexidine mouthwash for plaque score, gingival index score and bleeding-on-probing.18

The Best Way to Boost Your Vitamin C

If you struggle with bleeding gums, it’s essential to optimize your vitamin C levels. Certain populations, including people who smoke, consume alcohol or have inflammatory bowel disease, may need increased intake of vitamin C, but some research suggests vitamin C deficiency may be more common than realized.

“Interestingly, a population-based cross-sectional study of nearly 150 patients admitted to a large teaching hospital in Canada found that 60% of the patients had suboptimal plasma vitamin C levels and 19% were deficient, with levels approaching those associated with scurvy,” Patrick noted.19

Fortunately, a wide variety of foods are high in vitamin C, including red pepper, parsley, broccoli, kiwi, strawberries, guava, tomato and all citrus fruits. You can get significant amounts of vitamin C from your diet if you eat these foods on a daily basis. If you’re deficient or you want to treat illness, vitamin C in supplement form, either liposomal or IV, may be needed.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/18/vitamin-c-and-bleeding-gums.aspx