Lose Them Pounds

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

In this interview, Ari Whitten, author of “The Ultimate Guide to Red Light Therapy,” reviews the mechanics and basic benefits of red light and infrared light. Whitten, who has a degree in kinesiology, exercise science and movement science, has studied natural health, fitness and nutrition for over 20 years. He’s been a personal trainer, health coach and nutritionist for many years, and went on to do a Ph.D. program in clinical psychology.
Light as Nutrition
Red and near-infrared light are, of course, a subset of natural sunlight, which actually acts and has value as a nutrient. Red light and near-infrared light therapies are ways to get some of those benefits. It may be particularly valuable and beneficial for people who aren’t getting enough natural sunlight exposure, and that’s a majority of people. As noted by Whitten:
“There’s a mountain of literature showing that regular sun exposure is one of the most powerful and important things you can do for your health and to prevent disease. Simultaneously, we have a general public that is afraid of sunlight.
Even the subject of melanoma is rife with misunderstanding because there is research showing, mechanistically, that if you expose cells in a Petri dish to lots of UV light, you can absolutely induce DNA damage and induce cancer formation.
You can take rats and expose them to tons of isolated UV light and induce cancer. You can even find an association between sun burns and increased melanoma risk.
Despite all of those things, it is also the case that when you compare people with regular sun exposure to people with much less sun exposure, they do not have higher rates of melanoma.
In fact, there’s a bunch of studies comparing outdoor workers to indoor workers, showing that outdoor workers have lower rates of melanoma despite three to nine times more sun exposure.”
One of the reasons for this is because indoor workers are exposed to fluorescent lighting, which is loaded with dirty electricity or high voltage transients that cause biological harm. So, not only do they not get sunlight exposure, but they also get harmful EMF exposure.
But the biggest factor has to do with the frequency of exposure. Intermittent exposure – occasional exposure followed by many days or weeks of little to no exposure – tends to be more problematic than regular, frequent sun exposure, as you’re more likely to burn and cause DNA damage in your skin.

Regular exposure, on the other hand, ameliorates this risk, as it engages innate adaptive systems in your skin, your melanin in particular, that are explicitly designed to prevent DNA damage from UV light exposure.
“So, we have this system built into our bodies that’s designed to allow us to get all these benefits of sunlight without the DNA damage and the increased skin cancer risk,” Whitten says.”Framing light as a nutrient is the best way of understanding this.
Just as we require adequate nutrients from the food we eat, just as our bodies require physical movement to express normal cell function, we also require adequate light exposure to express normal cell function. The absence of that exposure to sunlight creates abnormal cell function. And there are myriad mechanisms through which this occurs.
Vitamin D is obviously the most well-known one that regulates over 2,000 genes related to immune health, musculoskeletal health and many other things. But there are many other mechanisms [as well].”
Bioactive Wavelengths
As explained by Whitten, there are specific bioactive wavelengths, and they work through different mechanisms. One mechanism is through your eyes, which is why you’re typically better off not wearing sunglasses on a regular basis. When you’re outdoors on a sunny day, without sunglasses, blue and green wavelengths enter your eyeballs and feed through nerves into the circadian clock in your brain.
Your circadian clock, in turn, regulates a variety of bodily systems, from neurotransmitters involved in mood regulation to hormones involved in immune function. A dysregulated circadian rhythm has been linked to dozens of diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease and neurological diseases.
“I consider disrupted circadian rhythm and poor sleep to be probably the single most common cause of low energy levels and fatigue,” Whitten says. Fatigue is the key focus of his Energy Blueprint brand, and in the interview, he reviews some of the other root causes for poor energy and fatigue, aside from light exposure.
In summary, your body’s resilience, i.e., your ability to tolerate environmental stressors, is directly dependent on the robustness, both in terms of quantity and quality, of your mitochondria. When your resilience threshold is exceeded, disease processes are activated, and fatigue can be viewed as the initial universal symptom prior to overt disease. For more information about this side topic, be sure to listen to the interview or read through the transcript.
Red Light Therapy
Modern day red light and near-infrared light therapy is an extension of the original Helio therapy or sun-based therapy, which has a long and rich history of use for a number of diseases, including tuberculosis.
Over the past few decades, more than 5,000 studies have been published about red and near-infrared light therapy, a.k.a, photobiomodulation, for a wide range of ailments, from combating wrinkles and cellulite to hair regrowth, sports performance, accelerated injury recovery, increased strength and much more.
“You get improvements in strength adaptations, improvements in muscle protein synthesis and the amount of muscle that’s gained, amplified fat loss, increased insulin sensitivity — all when combined with exercise, compared with exercise alone,” Whitten says.
“There’s also research on people with Hashimoto’s hypothyroidism showing profound reductions in thyroid antibodies, as well as thyroid hormone levels. There are also hundreds of studies on random niche things like helping people with diabetic ulcers … combating arthritis pain and chronic pain, joint health, tissue and bone healing …
There are at least dozens, if not hundreds, of studies on using red light therapy in the context of people undergoing chemotherapy to combat oral mucositis, which is inflammation of the oral mucosa that happens as a side effect of some chemotherapy drugs. One of the most, if not the most, effective treatment for that is red light therapy.”
There are also studies showing benefits for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s patients. The difficulty is getting the light to sufficiently penetrate the skull. According to Whitten, near-infrared at 800 to 900 nanometers will penetrate about 20% to 30% deeper than red wavelengths in the range of 600 to 700 nanometers.
“So, if you’re trying to treat the brain, you need a pretty powerful device to be able to emit a strong enough beam of light to penetrate through the skull bone to actually deliver some of that light — which is a relatively small portion, probably less than 20% or something of the overall light being emitted — into the brain,” he says.
More Is Not Necessarily Better
A common fallacy is that if something is beneficial, then the more the better. But this can be a hazardous assumption. As explained by Whitten, there is a bi-phasic dose response to red and near-infrared light therapy. Basically, you need to do enough of it to experience its effects, but if you overdo it, you can cause negative effects. So, it’s all about finding the sweet spot.
That said, as a general rule, your risk of exceeding the beneficial dose with light therapy is lower than it is with something like exercise. Meaning, it’s much easier to overdo exercise and end up with tissue damage from that than it is to overdo red and near-infrared light therapy.
“I interviewed Dr. Michael Hamblin, who’s widely recognized as the world’s top researcher on red and near-infrared light therapy, and I asked him explicitly about this biphasic dose response. I was actually pretty shocked by his response.
He kind of blew off the whole thing as not really significant, [saying] ‘It’s really hard to overdo it, and I’m not worried about really negative side effects from overdoing it.’ Having said that, he is a researcher and he’s doing things in a lab.
And what I’ve seen in my group of about 10,000 people that have gone through my program, many people with severe chronic fatigue or debilitating chronic fatigue syndrome, is there seems to be a small subset of people, I’m guessing somewhere between 1% and 5% of people, that have a really negative reaction to it, even at really, really small doses, let’s say two minutes of red light therapy …
So, there seems to be this small subset of people that is really hypersensitive and prone to negative effects. Generally, in my experience, those people are usually in very poor health overall.”
One potential reason for this is because, like exercise and fasting, light therapy is a type of hormetic stress, which works in part by transiently increasing free radicals or reactive oxygen species.
People with extremely poor mitochondrial health will have a very low resilience threshold, so their capacity to tolerate that burst of reactive oxygen species will be low. At that point, they’re simply creating damage, and their bodies don’t have the resilience to effectively recover from it.
Mechanisms of Action
As noted by Whitten, there are several accepted mechanisms of action, and then there are more speculative mechanisms. One of the most well-known mechanism is cytochrome c oxidase, a photo receptor on your mitochondria that literally captures photons of red and near-infrared light.
Cytochrome c oxidase, photo receptors on your mitochondria, capture photons of red and near-infrared light. The most effective wavelengths that activate this system are in the 600 to 700 nanometer and the 800 to 1,000 nanometer ranges. In response to those light photons, your mitochondria will produce energy more efficiently.
The most effective wavelengths that activate this system are in the 600 to 700 nanometer range, and the 800 to 1,000 nanometers range. In response to those light photons, your mitochondria will produce energy more efficiently. “In general, cells — whether it’s skin cells, your thyroid gland, your muscle cells — they work better if mitochondria are producing more energy,” Whitten explains.

This is one general principle of how light therapy can help heal such a diverse range of tissues and conditions. Another mechanism is related to the benefits of hormesis and the transient spike in reactive oxygen species. That burst of reactive oxygen species creates a cascade of signaling effects that stimulate the NRF2 pathway and heat shock proteins, for example.
As a result, your intracellular antioxidant response system is strengthened and your mitochondria are stimulated to grow bigger and stronger. It also stimulates mitochondrial biogenesis, the creation of new mitochondria. Ultimately, all of this increases your resistance to a broad range of environmental stressors.
“If hormesis is dosed properly, it should not create lasting harm. It should stress the system temporarily and stimulate adaptive mechanisms that ultimately make the whole system more resistant to any kind of harm,” Whitten says. “But you shouldn’t be doing hormesis at a dose that is actually creating damage.”
Light Therapy Modulates Gene Expression
A third mechanism of action involves retrograde signaling and the modulation of gene expression. Your mitochondria play a key role here as well. As explained by Whitten:
“Mitochondria are not just mindless energy generators, but they are also environmental sensors that pick up on what’s going on in the environment. Are there toxins present, is there a pathogen present? Is there increased inflammatory cells present?
They’re picking up on these signals. They’re also picking up on light signals … and reactive oxygen species from hormetic stress. And they’re relaying these signals back to the mitochondria in a way that modulates gene expression.”
There’s a specific set of genes that are expressed in response to red and near-infrared light therapy. In summary, it activates genes involved in cell repair, cell regeneration and cellular growth, depending on the tissue.
For example, in your brain, it activates brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), in your skin, it increases expression of fibroblasts that synthesize collagen, in your muscles, it locally increases expression of IGF1 and factors involved in muscle protein synthesis. “So, you’re getting these local effects in those specific tissues that upregulates genes involved in cell healing, growth and repair,” Whitten says.
Exposure to UVA, red light and near-infrared light also increases the release of nitric oxide (NO) which, while being a free radical, also has many metabolic benefits in optimal concentrations. Many of the benefits of sun exposure cannot be explained solely through the production of vitamin D, and the influence of NO may be part of the answer.
There’s also a speculative line of research suggesting that red and near-infrared light interact with chlorophyll metabolites in a way that helps recycle ubiquinol from ubiquinone (the reduced version of CoQ10).
So, those specific wavelengths of light may help recycle reduced CoQ10, which also enhances energy production. “So, there may be this really interesting synergy between your diet and red and near-infrared light therapy were consuming more chlorophyll-rich compounds may enhance this effect,” Whitten says.
Light Structures Water
Yet another mechanism of action has to do with the structuring the water that surrounds your cells. One of the best ways to build this structured water is through exposure to sunlight. Simply drinking structured water is ineffective. Whitten explains:
“The structuring of water is a really fascinating layer of the story. There’s research showing that the water near membranes, and our mitochondria are composed of membranes, can actually change in viscosity in response to red and near-infrared light therapy.
There are a couple things that happen there. One is that reduced viscosity actually helps the physical rotation of the ATPAs, the ATP synthase pump on the mitochondria, which is the last part of the respiratory chain in mitochondria that creates ATP molecules. That’s a physical rotary mechanism.
So, you have this rotary pump that needs to move in water, and there’s some research suggesting that it moves more efficiently with less resistance when the viscosity of that surrounding water is reduced, and that this may, at least partly, be responsible for the enhanced energy production.
But there’s one other layer to the story. I’ve dug really deep into the literature on light and deuterium. It was tough to find any literature on this, but I did find one really interesting study. Basically, what they found is that, when the viscosity of this water around the mitochondrial membranes is reduced, it does two things.
It pushes the deuterium molecules — which is this isotope of hydrogen that tends to damage mitochondria — away from the mitochondria and makes it less likely to go through the mitochondrial ATP synthase pump where it can create damage.
It also enhances the movement of hydrogen ions — normal hydrogen not deuterium — across the membrane, so more hydrogen can move faster and more efficiently through the mitochondria, whereas deuterium moves less efficiently.

So, it doesn’t necessarily deplete deuterium from your body … but it almost mimics deuterium depletion in a way by making the deuterium much less likely to actually get into the mitochondria where it would create damage.”
On Saunas
We cover far more in this 1.5-hour interview than I’ve summarized here, so for more information, be sure to listen to the interview in its entirety. For example, we delve into the benefits of sauna bathing and the hormetic response to heat stress, which helps repair misfolded proteins.
We also discuss the different types of saunas, the problem posed by electromagnetic fields and why most near-infrared saunas really aren’t. As a quick summary review, there are no pure near-infrared saunas, as part of the near-infrared spectrum is non-heating. Incandescent heat lamps, which is what most people are referring to when talking about near-infrared saunas, emit mostly mid- and far-infrared.
Only about 14% of that light is in the near-infrared spectrum. That said, these kinds of incandescent heat lamps could potentially still deliver a therapeutic dose if you use them for about 20 minutes.
“Let’s frame it this way,” Whitten says. “If you have a heat a near-infrared style sauna, a heat lamp style sauna, where you’re sitting in a chamber that is 110 degrees to 120 degrees Fahrenheit, you cannot claim that it has the same benefits of a sauna when the research on sauna uses sauna chambers that are massively hotter than 110 to 120 degrees. They’re using temperatures of 170 to 220 degrees.
So, if it’s 100 degrees less, you can’t just say it has all the benefits of saunas. Maybe it does have the same benefits, or maybe it has some of the benefits, or maybe it even has superior benefits. But all of those are speculative claims that you can’t make until you’ve done the studies …
We know, for example, that in animal studies, heat stress extends lifespan. It stimulates all kinds of mechanisms that are involved in longevity, autophagy, increased resilience via these hormetic pathways. And in general, when it comes to hormesis, I believe you do need to get a bit uncomfortable.

It should be something that pushes you into your edge of discomfort. And my experience with the heat lamp style sauna is that by themselves, these 110-, 120-degree F chambers, don’t really push the edge of discomfort apart from maybe the local area that’s being exposed to the light from the heat lamps.”
One way to get around this and eliminate the EMF problem, is to preheat your far-infrared sauna as high as it’ll go, then turn it off and turn on your near-infrared bulbs. As for benefits, heat stress is known to:

Preserve muscle mass and prevent the loss of muscle if you’re unable to exercise for a period of time
Lower your risk of infections
Improve detoxification
Reduce your risk of depression, cardiovascular and neurological disease
Reduce all-cause mortality

More Information
To learn more, be sure to pick up a copy of Whitten’s book, “The Ultimate Guide to Red Light Therapy.” On his website, TheEnergyBlueprint.com, you can also access his Energy Blueprint podcast, articles, programs and testimonials.
In his book, Whitten provides specific recommendations for red- and near-infrared therapeutic devices, which can save you a lot of research time if you’re considering this kind of therapy. As noted by Whitten:

“There are a few good brands. It really matters what device you get. I want to put this caution out there because there are a lot of junk devices. There are a lot of devices that are one-fiftieth the power output of the devices that I recommend, and somebody who isn’t savvy to that, isn’t knowledgeable about why the power output of these devices matters, might just go on Amazon and buy some $30 device.
If you get an underpowered device, you’re not doing the same red light therapy, or near-infrared light therapy as [when you’re using] a real high-powered device. So, it is very important to do this the right way, to get the right quality device and to dose it the right way.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/21/red-light-near-infrared-light-therapy-benefits.aspx

In this interview, Dr. Paul Saladino, author of “The Carnivore Code” — a book on nose-to-tail animal-based eating — reviews what it means to be healthy at the most foundational level and shares his findings from a recent trip to Africa where he visited the Hadza tribe, who are among the best still-living representations of the way humans have lived for tens of thousands of years.
Like the !Kung tribe in Botswana, the Hadza live a hunter-gatherer life amidst the encroachment of modernized society.

“I see the Hadza as a time machine. They’re like a time capsule,” Saladino says. “They do not suffer chronic disease like we do in Western society, and that alone makes them infinitely fascinating. They do not suffer cancers like we suffer cancers.

They do not suffer autoimmune disease, which is a huge spectrum of disease, and they do not suffer depression, mental illness, skin issues. They do not suffer dementia anywhere near the rates that we do. They age with grace. This is called squaring of the morbidity curve.

If you look at a graph of their vitality across the lifespan, it is essentially flat and then drops off very quickly at the end. It’s like a square. They lose their vitality within the last few weeks of life, but until they’re 70 or 80 years old, they are vital individuals.”

If we look at Western society, the morbidity curve has a very different look. It’s like a ramp that steadily declines. In the Western world, people lose vitality consistently throughout life. This doesn’t happen in native hunter-gatherer societies, primarily because they do not suffer from the debilitation of chronic disease.
The Hadza Diet

Saladino primarily wanted to find out how the Hadza eat, what foods they prioritize and how it affects their health. Other investigators have analyzed the Hadza diet, but he wanted to confirm it for himself. For example, one 2009 study1 found the Hadza ate a lot of meat, tubers, berries, and fruit and honey from the baobab tree. According to this paper, the Hadza don’t eat vegetables.

“That supports a hypothesis that I had advanced previously in my work, which was that maybe vegetables, meaning roots, stems, leaves and seeds, are not that good for humans in the first place,” Saladino says. “I wanted to see this firsthand.”

The study in question also asked the Hadza to rank how much they liked each food. Honey was ranked the highest, followed by meat (primarily the eland, a very large type of antelope, baboon and bush pig), baobab fruit and berries. Tubers were their least favorite food. Saladino’s investigation supported these basic preferences as well.
Did a Meat-Based Diet Make Man Smarter?

Essentially, the Hadza favor meat and animal organs, while tubers are looked upon more as survival foods that don’t make up the majority of the diet. Saladino reviews how during the Pleistocene, going back some 2 million years, the human brain suddenly got a lot larger, and evidence suggests the reason for this was an increasing presence of meat in the diet.

“We really became human in the last 2 million years,” he says. “Before that, there was Australopithecus and a divergence, a sort of a schism of the evolutionary tree with a species called Paranthropus boisei, and then Homo habilis and Homo erectus.

That branch point was super fascinating because that was a branch point between meat and plant. This is about 4 million years ago in human evolution, and Paranthropus boisei ate more plants. We can tell this based on stable isotopes, looking at the teeth.

Homo habilis and homo erectus ate more and more meat … The unique nutrients found in that meat and those organs allowed our brains to grow — nutrients like choline, carnitine, taurine, B12, K2, essential fatty acids [and carnosine] …

I think the prevailing thinking now, which is quite compelling in my opinion, is that eating meat and organs made us human, and the species that chose to eat more plants went extinct … Many anthropologists believe the Hadza are some of the direct descendants of the original Homo sapiens who remained in the Rift Valley in Africa.”

The Hadza Lifestyle

When asked why they choose to maintain their hunter-gatherer lifestyle, being well aware of modern civilization all around them and other tribes that have chosen to farm and keep herds of cattle and goats, the Hadzi replied, “We want to be free. We like to eat meat. We want to be able to hunt and we like this lifestyle.” Another question that arose was what makes the Hadza happy? Interestingly, this is more or less a non-issue. “Happiness” is their default state of mind.

“That is their default mode when they are in nature doing what humans have always done,” Saladino says. “This is so interesting to me. Here’s this group of hunter-gatherers. They live in the bush. They do not sleep on beds. They sleep on the ground in these thatched huts that they build in a day. They’re nomadic.

They have little camps … The camp that we went to was about 40 to 50 men and women with children, and they moved the camp three or four times a year. They have three or four camps that they’ve established, and they know spots in the Lake Eyasi region. Some of them are better for the rainy season, some of them are better for the dry season, and so the whole camp will move throughout the year at different times …

They have fires for men and fires for the women. They live under rock shelters. They sleep in the auspices of rocks and they are profoundly healthy individuals. They love their life because every day they get to go play. For them, play and fun is hunting. The next day, we got to see this because we went on a hunt with them. It was incredible. It was so joyous and so simple.”

The Importance of Organ Meats
Saladino recounts the hunt, noting how the organ meats were consumed in the field. After hunting down a baboon, the men created a fire to burn off the hair, after which the animal was gutted. Intestines were given to the hunting dogs, while all the other organs — heart, liver, lungs, spleen, kidneys and pancreas — were cooked on the open fire and shared among the hunting party. Nothing is wasted, not even the bones, which are broken to extract the marrow.
They also eat the connective tissue, which is high in collagen, and the skin. The internal organs, which are the most highly prized, are called epeme, and according to the local lore, the epeme must be shared among all the men of the tribe. If a hunter chooses not to, bad things will happen to them. The hunter responsible for the kill is rewarded with the most valuable organs, however, such as the brain, which Saladino says was “delicious.”
While they might not understand individual nutrients, they clearly know that if you eat these organs, you will be more vital. “That’s why I think it’s so important for humans to get back to eating nose to tail, to eating those organs,” Saladino says. Interestingly, while the Hadza diet has been described as high in fiber, Saladino disagrees.
The tubers they collect are extremely fibrous. So much so, you cannot actually swallow it. You have to chew it and spit out the fibers, so in reality, their diet is low to moderate (at best) in fiber.

“The other thing I want to mention about eating the tubers was that there was no bathroom to wash my hands in. Nor did I want to because I’m very interested in soil-based organisms and the interaction of our microbiome with our environment. Everyone believes that the Hadza have a healthy, diverse microbiome because they eat a high-fiber diet.

Well, No. 1, they don’t eat a high-fiber diet. No. 2, they probably have a healthy, diverse microbiome because they live in nature and they are inevitably taking inputs, information from nature, in the form of dirt and soil-based organisms.

This is something that I’ve always expected and it’s a complete paradigm shift. And, as we know, adding fiber to the diet does not increase alpha diversity, and removing fiber does not decrease alpha diversity.

What does increase alpha diversity? Well, living in nature increases alpha diversity probably because you’re eating dirt, and there was definitely dirt on my hands and my fingers, and dirt on this tuber as I’m holding it in my mouth. The Hadza are not a dirty people though.

They do not smell. They don’t use deodorant. They don’t have bad breath. I was really close to them a lot of the time in the bush hunting. They don’t have body odor. Yet they don’t bathe that regularly. We were there for a week and they didn’t bathe.”

Their microbiome is most likely the reason for their lack of body odor, as malodorous armpits are due to specific axillary bacteria. The Hadza microbiome has previously been studied in some detail, showing they have higher levels of microbial richness and biodiversity than Western urban controls.
The Hadza are also unique in that they have an absence of Bifidobacterium. Differences in microbial composition between the sexes have also been found, which is probably a reflection of the division of labor between the sexes.

“I think that when humans are exposed to soil-based organisms and live in a natural environment like this, that is what creates high alpha diversity,” Saladino says. “I think that’s what creates the microbial richness that we really should seek if we’re looking to be healthy, or we want a healthy gut microbiome, rather than trying to just put a whole bunch of fiber in our guts, which causes problems for some people.”

Fiber Isn’t a Cure-All
Saladino cites two recent research papers, one of which compared Tanzanian urbanites with more rural dwellers, finding that urbanites had higher rates of inflammation. In the second, companion paper, the authors blamed the higher inflammation in urbanites to a fiber-poor Western diet. Saladino disagrees with these conclusions, saying:

“What they’re trying to say is that the urban people in Tanzania are eating more saturated fat and less fiber and that is what fuels their inflammatory phenotype. What I observed was completely different than that. In fact, when you go into a grocery store in urban Tanzania, there are two aisles, there’s two sort of shelves of oil.

One of them is a huge shelf of vegetable oil. They call it flower oil and safflower oil, and many of the vegetable oils that we saw were actually expired and they’re in plastic. Right next to that is a whole shelf of beef fat, beef tallow.

The beef tallow is actually cheaper than the vegetable oil, but what do people buy in the cities? They buy seed oils. So, my observation is that in the urban cities, people are probably eating more seed oils and less saturated fat than the rural settings.

In speaking to our guide in Tanzania, he told us he went to his doctor in Tanzania and his doctor told him that he needed to stop eating red meat because red meat causes diabetes, and encouraged him to eat seed oils. We said, ‘Gasper, that’s completely wrong. Do the Hadza eat animal meat and fat?’ He said, ‘Yes.’

I said, ‘Do the Hadza look like they have diabetes?’ He said, ‘No.’ [I said] ‘Your doctor is completely wrong. His thinking is outdated. His thinking is antique, based on sort of the epidemiology that has been promulgated in the Western world.’

It’s incredible that in this Nature Immunology paper, their editorializing and trying to claim that it’s a fiber-poor Western diet that contributes to inflammation. I think it’s the seed oils and processed refined sugars that are clearly doing that and I would posit that it has nothing to do with how much fiber you eat.

Some people can tolerate fiber, but for a lot of people, it makes them much worse. As I have shown, and as I’ve talked about in my podcast, which is called Fundamental Health, adding more fiber into your diet doesn’t improve the alpha diversity of your microbiome. I’ve even tested my microbiome on zero-fiber diets consisting of meat, organs and honey, in some ways trying to make a Hadza diet, and my alpha diversity was very high.”

Surprising Health Benefits of Raw Honey
Saladino also recounts how the Hadza collect honey made by stingless bees that burrow into the baobab tree. It’s a common belief that honey is no different than sugar, but Saladino is starting to reconsider this notion.

“I went down this rabbit hole recently, and I did a recent Controversial Thoughts podcast about honey,” Saladino says. “In some of my research, what I found was that raw honey contains nitric oxide metabolites. How cool is that? And honey actually improves endothelial function.”

The assumption is that the nitric oxide metabolites are converted back to nitric oxide when you eat the honey. Saladino cites a 2003 paper,2 “The Identification of Nitric Oxide Metabolites in Various Honeys,” in which they did an intravenous injection of diluted honey into sheep, showing it increased plasma and urinary nitric oxide metabolite concentrations.
Honey has also been shown to increase nitric oxide and total nitrite concentrations in humans, Saladino says. Heating decreases the nitric oxide metabolites in the honey, though, so for this benefit, you wouldn’t want to add it to boiling liquids.

“Then, there’s interventional studies that show honey performs differently in both humans and animal models relative to sucrose, which we would sort of expect, but within ketogenic circles, where people get very dogmatic about carbohydrates, honey is often thought to be the same as sucrose because honey does contain glucose and fructose, which is the disaccharide of sucrose.

It’s fascinating to me that these whole foods are an informational package that our body perceives differently than a processed sucrose/high fructose corn syrup. Actually, in these studies honey performed differently than sucrose. Honey performed different than dextrose, which is not surprising because dextrose is a glucose polymer.

Sucrose is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose, and fructose and glucose are handled differently by the liver and our physiology. How interesting that honey appears to be good for humans potentially because of these nitric oxide metabolites and other things.

I had Malcolm Kendrick on my podcast. We talked about the way that nitric oxide is made by endothelial nitric oxide synthase and how critical that is for endothelial health. These are the cells that line all of the blood vessels of our body, and if those endothelial cells don’t have nitric oxide, they can’t expand properly.

How interesting that honey contains these foundational things for humans and it’s probably very valuable for us. That first paper I showed suggested that the darker honey had more nitric oxide, and I can tell you the honey I ate in Tanzania was some of the most iridescent, dark, richly colored honey I’ve ever had in my life.

I just want to make this point that reductionist thinking in nutrition doesn’t serve us, and I would posit that honey is nothing like sucrose.”

The take-home message here is that, provided you’re metabolically healthy, you can safely include honey in your diet. It’s important to realize, though, that if you are insulin resistant or have diabetes, all forms of sugar need to be cut back until you’ve successfully reversed these conditions.
Health and Happiness Are Within Your Reach

In closing, there’s a lot we can learn from the Hadza. As noted by Saladino:

“I spent a week with the Hadza. I got to hunt for berries with them and dig tubers with the women and we drank the water out of the baobab tree. I got to see all of these parts of their life. They are always in nature, they’re always in the sun. They’re always having low-level activity with spurts of sprinting.

They follow the circadian rhythms of the sun, which was one of the most joyous things. One of the reasons I came to Costa Rica was because I thought, ‘I want to do an experiment. How can I live a little bit more like the Hadza? How can I be more in nature?’

Here in Costa Rica, I basically live in the jungle. I’m in Santa Teresa, by the beach. I’m in the ocean every morning. I get to watch all of the sunsets and sunrises and this has been a real gift. I think this is another takeaway for people to realize, and it’s been self-evident. This is what humans need. As I said, the Hadza’s default state is happiness.”

So, not only do we need to identify an appropriate human diet, but also the most appropriate human lifestyle. Done right, your default state will also be that of happiness and physical vitality.
You can get more sunlight. You can avoid blue light devices. You can avoid EMFs. You can eat the diet your ancestors ate and walk out of the zoo and find a richer life. ~ Dr. Paul Saladino
The key message is that there’s an intrinsic happiness that results spontaneously from engaging in certain types of behaviors, and topping that list is the regular immersion in the natural world.

“I fear that in Western society, humans have been placed into a little bit of a zoo,” Saladino says. “We’ve been given these hamster wheels to run on, which essentially are treadmills at gyms and we’ve been given this processed, synthetic food, these rat pellets that are dropped into our cage every once in a while. It’s no wonder that we’re just not happy.

You know, I’m not a zoologist, but I have heard that when animals are placed in cages in the zoo, they become fat and unhealthy and they develop chronic diseases that they don’t get in the wild. I’ve always found that to be a fascinating parallel with humans because I think we’re exactly the same.

The difference for us is that the door to the cage is open. We have only to open the latch and walk through. We can get back to these things. You can get more sunlight. You can avoid blue light devices. You can avoid EMFs. You can eat the diet your ancestors ate and walk out of the zoo and find a richer life. Remember, the door is open. You’ve just got to walk through it.”

More Information
To learn more about Saladino and his work, check out his website, heartandsoil.co (not .com). There, you will find his blog, podcast, social media links and much more.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/21/african-hadza-tribe.aspx

If early statistics are any indication, we are facing the greatest public health calamity in modern history. No, I’m not talking about a third, fourth or fifth wave of COVID-19. I’m talking about the current vaccination campaign. I have no doubt that deaths caused by COVID-19 vaccines will end up far exceeding the number of actual COVID-19 deaths.
The greatest tragedy here is that while COVID-19 kills already unhealthy elderly individuals who are just years from their natural death, the vaccines are killing the young and healthy who typically have many more decades to live. From my perspective, there’s simply no justification for this. There’s no “greater good” argument that can ever make this type of tradeoff OK.
Equally unjustifiable is the fact that death within months of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test was automatically pegged as a COVID-19 death, whereas death within days or even hours of the vaccine is shrugged off as coincidental, no matter how many times it happens. It is reprehensibly inexcusable the way these deaths are being attributed.
Now, these experimental gene therapy “vaccines” are being tested on young children and even babies as young as 6 months old, the ramifications of which are wholly unknown.
According to Forbes1 and The New York Times,2 Moderna has officially started testing its vaccine on children between the ages of 6 months and 11 years. A total of 6,750 children will be included in the trial. Testing on 12- to 17-year-olds began in December 2020, the data from which are still unpublished. Considering what’s happening in the adult population, testing on young children and babies seems extremely premature and risky beyond belief.
Deaths Mount by the Week

Unfortunately, there’s no simple way to keep tabs on vaccine-related deaths. Each country has its own reporting mechanism, and vaccine reactions aren’t always properly reported.
In the U.S., for example, past investigations have shown only somewhere between 1%3 and 10%4 are ever reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is a passive, voluntary reporting system.
Granted, unlike other vaccines, deaths following COVID-19 vaccination are supposedly required to be reported,5 so perhaps VAERS data are more reliable for COVID-19 vaccines than for others. As of yet, though, it’s impossible to confirm that all related deaths are in fact being reported.
As of March 5, 2021, a total of 31,079 adverse reaction reports had been filed for COVID-19 vaccines, including 1,551 deaths.
VAERS data processed as of March 5, 2021, show a total of 1,551 deaths. (This includes all locations, ages, genders and location of vaccine administration.) At that time, a total of 31,079 adverse reaction reports had been filed for COVID-19 vaccines, which means deaths account for 4.99% of adverse events. Life-threatening events account for 3.56% of total side effects reported, and permanent disability accounts for 2.10% of total side effects reported.

Comparing COVID-19 and Vaccine Death Rates

Another difficulty is matching different data sets together. For example, to put these numbers into greater context, you’d want to know how many people have been vaccinated as of that same date, March 5, 2021.
This too can be tricky to determine, as vaccination statistics6 will often use breakdowns such as the number of vaccinated people per 100, or vaccine doses administered, which doesn’t tell you how many people were vaccinated, seeing how some vaccines require a single dose while others require two.
Accepting those limitations, we can at least get an approximate idea. Using Our World in Data’s statistics,7 as of March 5, 2021, 55.55 million Americans had received at least one dose. (Another graph shows that as of March 5, 28.7 million Americans were considered fully vaccinated, having received all prescribed doses. However, since side effects can occur after the first dose, I will use that statistic.)

Dividing reported deaths, 1,551, by the number of people having received at least one dose, 55,550,000, we end up with a reported lethality rate of 0.0028%. If only 10% of adverse events are reported to VAERS, we’re looking at approximately 15,510 deaths and a lethality rate of 0.028%.
If only 1% are reported, there may be around 155,100 deaths, and vaccines may be killing 0.28% of all who get them. Again, while any and all deaths following COVID-19 vaccination are supposed to be reported, it’s still unclear whether mandatory reporting is actually taking place.

While 0.0028% or even 0.28% might not seem like a shockingly high percentage of deaths, it’s hard to justify even a single death of a young and healthy individual. For comparison, the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio from COVID-19, for all age groups, is 0.26%. Those under 40 have only a 0.01% risk of dying from COVID-19 if infected.8
As of right now, the vaccine may not match or exceed the lethality of COVID-19 itself, but we’re only three months into the vaccination campaign. According to NPR,9 21.7% of the U.S. population had received at least one vaccine dose as of March 16, 2021.
There are compelling reasons to suspect these vaccines may contribute to death further down the line, perhaps months or a few years into the future. Those ending up with permanent disability as a result of these vaccines will be at increased risk of early death, for example, and there’s no telling how these vaccines might impact the longevity of children.
If premature death occurs a year or more down the line, it’s unlikely that anyone will suspect it being connected to the vaccine. Right now, even deaths that occur within 24 hours in people who were young and in good health are chalked up to coincidence, which is truly remarkable.
Comparing COVID-19 Vaccines With Flu Vaccines

Another way to judge the lethality of COVID-19 vaccines is to compare it to seasonal flu vaccines which, by the way, used to account for a majority of vaccine injuries. As reported by The Vaccine Reaction:10

“The death rate following COVID mRNA vaccination is much higher than that following influenza vaccination. The CDC’s data allows only a ballpark estimation of the rate of deaths following flu vaccination. In the 2019-2020 influenza season the CDC reports that 51.8 percent of the U.S. population received a vaccine, which is approximately 170 million people.

VAERS reports that in the calendar year 2019 (not the 2019-2020 influenza season) there were 45 deaths following vaccination. To provide context, in 2018 VAERS reports 46 deaths, and in 2017 it reports 20 deaths.

The 45 deaths in 2019 are occurring at a rate of 0.0000265% when calculated using the number of vaccines given in the 2019–2020 influenza season. As of Feb. 26, 47,184,199 COVID vaccinations had been given with 1,136 deaths reported following vaccination, which is approximately a rate of .0024%.”

Are These Deaths Pure Coincidence?
As of March 5, 2021, the youngest recorded death shortly following COVID-19 vaccination was 23.11 Among the more recent reports is that of a healthy 39-year-old mother who died of multiple organ failure just four days after receiving her second dose of the Moderna vaccine.12
The average age of death post-vaccination is 75 and older,13 which is near-identical to the age of death for COVID-19 itself. However, whereas COVID-19 primarily kills elderly in nursing homes who have multiple comorbidities, the vaccines are cutting lives short among elderly who appear to be in relatively good health.
Examples include baseball legend Hank Aaron, who died in his sleep 17 days after receiving the vaccine. He was 86. His death was reported as completely natural and unrelated to the vaccine.14
Another is that of boxing champ Marvin Hagler who, according to his friend Thomas Hearns, was admitted to the ICU due to side effects from his COVID-19 vaccination. (Hearns had posted on his Instagram and Twitter accounts that Hagler was in the hospital ICU “fighting the after effects of the vaccine” and that he wanted fans to pray for his recovery.15
His posts have since been removed, but a screenshot of a retweet16 by Tariq Nasheed is still available.) Hagler died shortly thereafter. He was 66.
I suspect that once more celebrities start dying from the vaccines, more people might start to rethink their decision to get vaccinated. Mainstream media and industry-allied fact checkers are working overtime, though, to “debunk” any suggestion of a link between deaths and the vaccines.
Side Effects Range From Mild to Serious

Aside from sudden death,17,18,19,20,21,22 which is most serious of all, a range of other side effects are being reported, many of which will have a significant impact on quality of life. Examples of side effects reported after vaccination with Pfizer’s, Moderna’s and AstraZeneca’s vaccines from around the world include:

Persistent malaise23,24
Bell’s Palsy25,26,27

Extreme exhaustion28
Swollen, painful lymph nodes

Severe allergic, including anaphylactic reactions29,30,31
Thrombocytopenia (a rare, often lethal blood disorder)32,33

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome34 and/or myocarditis35
Miscarriages and premature birth.36,37,38 As of March 5, 2021, 85 cases of miscarriage or premature birth had been reported39

Chronic seizures and convulsions40,41
Severe headache/migraine that does not respond to medication

Paralysis42
Sleep disturbances

Psychological effects such as mood changes, anxiety, depression, brain fog, confusion, dissociation and temporary inability to form words
Cardiac problems, including myocardial and tachycardia disorders43

Blindness, impaired vision and eye disorders44,45
Stroke46,47

As reported by The Defender, March 5, 2021, while vaccine injury reports are growing in number, consistent trends have emerged, including the following:48

Overall, 31% of deaths have occurred within 48 hours of vaccination
People who report getting sick within 48 hours of vaccination account for 47% of deaths
About 20% of deaths are cardiac-related

A majority of these side effects are from the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, which use mRNA technology. The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a chimpanzee adenovirus vector genetically engineered to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein instead. However, while many hoped this vaccine would be safer than mRNA versions, this doesn’t seem to be the case.
As of March 16, 2021, more than 20 European countries had suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s vaccine, either in full or in part, following reports of deadly blood clots.49,50 According to a March 2, 2021, report51 by The Defender, U.K. data show the AstraZeneca vaccine actually has 77% more adverse events and 25% more deaths than the Pfizer vaccine.
Like AstraZeneca’s vaccine, Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine also uses an adenovirus vector to carry the gene for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein into your cells, thereby triggering your cells to produce this protein.52 Business Insider has created a comparison chart53 of the four vaccines currently available in the U.S. and Europe — Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson.
Concerned Doctors Speak Out
Sadly, the vaccine debate is nothing if not one-sided. Medical professionals expressing concern are roundly ignored, despite their growing number. Among them is cardiac surgeon and patient advocate Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, who recently sent a public letter54 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner detailing the risks of vaccinating individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection.
He’s urging the FDA to require prescreening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins to reduce the risk of injuries and deaths following vaccination. He warns the vaccine may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus.
Immunologist Dr. Bart Classen has also warned there is troubling evidence suggesting some mRNA shots may cause prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s and ALS,55 and Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist specializing in multisystem inflammatory syndrome, has expressed concern about mRNA vaccines’ ability to cause “microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in safety trials.”56
Doctors for COVID Ethics Want Answers to Safety Questions

February 28, 2021, a dozen doctors and scientists with Doctors for COVID Ethics published an open letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), expressing a number of concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. It reads, in part:57

“We note that a wide range of side effects is being reported following vaccination of previously healthy younger individuals with the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, there have been numerous media reports from around the world of care homes being struck by COVID-19 within days of vaccination of residents.

While we recognize that these occurrences might … have been unfortunate coincidences, we are concerned that there has been and there continues to be inadequate scrutiny of the possible causes of illness or death under these circumstances …”

Doctors for COVID Ethics is requesting the EMA provide responses to a series of questions, including evidence that gene-based vaccines won’t enter the bloodstream and disseminate throughout the body and be taken up by endothelial cells, and that platelet activation won’t result in disseminated intravascular coagulation.
Importantly, they also “demand conclusive evidence that an actual emergency existed at the time of the EMA granting conditional marketing authorization” for all three vaccines, seeing how by the time the vaccines became available, “health systems of most countries were no longer under imminent threat of being overwhelmed because a growing proportion of the world had already been infected and the worst of the pandemic had already abated.”
If the EMA fails to produce all of the evidences requested, the group demands “that approval for use of gene-based vaccines be withdrawn” until all safety issues have been properly addressed.
What to Do if You Regret Getting the COVID-19 Vaccine
If you already got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you’d use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. I review these strategies at the end of “Why COVID Vaccine Testing Is a Farce.”
Additionally, if you’re experiencing side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:58

If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
Report the injury on the CHD website

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/23/covid-19-vaccine-testing-on-children.aspx

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a general practitioner in Cheshire, England, and the author of three books, including “Statin Nation,” has made it his mission to add some balance to the widespread fear-mongering that occurs at the hands of the health care lobby and media.
“In a world where the truth can be, literally, turned upside down, how can you know what to believe, and who to believe?” he asks. His blog attempts to “dig down to find the meaning behind the headlines,” and one of his recent posts centered on COVID-19 and the “impossible things” — some might call them lies — that are being propagated in its name.1
Top Eight COVID Lies

Kendrick’s post takes aim at widespread COVID-themed disinformation, highlighting six top inconsistencies. I’ve added two more as well.

1. No Such Thing as Herd Immunity — Except From Vaccines — 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.
In the case of COVID-19, however, we’ve been told that the idea of natural herd immunity to COVID-19 is not achievable — and even considering that it could be is “deadly and dangerous.”2 Yet, a curious thing happened. When vaccines became available, the idea of vaccine-induced herd immunity to COVID-19 became widespread. According to Kendrick:3

“First, I was told that attempting to create herd immunity was not achievable. It would also be extremely dangerous and would inevitably result in many hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.
Then the vaccines arrived at fantastical speed and I was told that mass vaccination, by creating herd immunity, would be the factor that would allow us to conquer COVID19 and return to normal life. I am not entirely sure which of these things is impossible, but one of them must be.”

2. Vaccines Induce ‘Stronger and Longer Lasting Immunity’ — In February 2021, The HuffPost reported that the COVID-19 vaccine would “induce stronger and longer lasting immunity” than the immunity induced by natural infection.4 However, an internist with special interests in vaccine-induced illnesses, Dr. Meryl Nass, suggests the protection the COVID vaccine provides will be inferior to that acquired via natural infection:

“No one knows how long immunity lasts, if in fact the vaccines do provide some degree of immunity … For every known vaccine, the immunity it provides is less robust and long-lasting than the immunity obtained from having had the infection.
People who have had Covid really have no business getting vaccinated — they get all the risk and none of the benefit.”

In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises people who have previously been infected with COVID-19 to still get vaccinated, even though trials suggest there’s no benefit in this population. A CDC report also incorrectly cited the vaccine’s effectiveness for those previously infected, prompting one congressman to say they’re “lying.”
In a high-profile report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 15 scientists stated that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.5
But according to Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky, “That sentence is wrong. There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either.”6 Kendrick adds:7

“I also know that vaccinations can only ever really create an attenuated response. Whereas a full-blown infection triggers a full-blown immune response.
So, I think it is pretty close to impossible that vaccination can provide greater protection than that from getting the actual disease. Which is why I think it is utterly bonkers we are actually vaccinating people who have circulating antibodies in their blood.”

3. Universal Mask Use Is Essential to Stop COVID-19 — It’s been touted that face masks are essential to stopping the spread of COVID-19 and could save 130,000 lives in the U.S. alone.8 But in 2019, the World Health Organization analyzed 10 randomized controlled trials and concluded, “there was no evidence that facemasks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”9
Only one randomized controlled trial has been conducted on mask usage and COVID-19 transmission, and it found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.10
“Never has a trial been subjected to such immediate and hostile reporting. Fact-checkers (whoever exactly they might be, or what understanding they have of medical research) immediately attacked it,” Kendrick noted, adding:11

“Yes, we have now entered a world when political fact checkers feel free to attack and contradict the findings of scientific papers, using such scientific terms as ‘Mostly false’ … Ignoring the modern-day Spanish Inquisition, and their ill-informed criticisms, I will simply call this study.More evidence that face masks don’t work. Perhaps someone will come along with a study proving that face masks work. So far … nada. Another impossible thing.”

4. COVID-19 Death Statistics — The positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for COVID-19 are plagued with problems, one of which is that they are not designed to be used as diagnostic tools as they cannot distinguish between inactive (noninfectious) viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.12
If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick from it and you cannot spread it to others. Further, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive.” These false positive tests, in turn, can contribute to the number of people dying “with” COVID-19, but not actually dying “of” the disease.
“[W]e have the very strange concept that any death within twenty-eight days of a positive COVID19 swab is recorded as a COVID19 death,” Kendrick said, explaining:13

“You can have a positive swab long after you have been infected — and recovered. There are just some bits of virus up your nose that can be magnified, through the wonders of the PCR test, into a positive result.
Which means that an elderly person, infected months ago, can be admitted to hospital for any reason whatsoever. The they can have a positive swab — everyone is swabbed. Then they can die, from whatever it was they were admitted for in the first place. Then, they will be recorded as a COVID19 death.
In truth, this is just the start of impossible things when it comes to the number of COVID19 deaths. Do not get me started on PCR cycle numbers, and false positives. We would be here all day.”

5. The Swedish COVID-19 Response Was a Disaster — Sweden handled the pandemic differently than most of the globe, and has been chided for its looser restrictions and lack of severe lockdowns. In October 2020, TIME called the Swedish COVID-19 response a “disaster,”14 but Kendrick cites data showing that the death rate in Sweden in 2020 was right in line with other years — nothing out of the ordinary.15

When Kendrick compared the number of deaths in Sweden in 2012 — one of their highest death statistics — to 2020, the difference between absolute death rate in 2012 and 2020 is 0.012%.
“That is 120 extra deaths per million of the population, which is 1,224 people in a population of 10.2 million. The statistics tell us that twelve thousand people died from COVID19 in Sweden. Maybe you can make all that add up. Frankly, I find it impossible.”16
6. Lockdowns Have Worked — Available data reveal lockdowns have been completely ineffective at lowering positive test rates, while extracting a huge cost in terms of human suffering and societal health.
Using data from the Worldometer,17 Kendrick compiled a list of the countries with the highest rate of COVID-19, based on deaths per million of the population. Every country on the list, which included the U.K., Italy, the U.S., Spain, Mexico and others, had “fairly strict” lockdowns.
Four countries that have been criticized for not having strict lockdowns — Sweden, Japan, Belarus and Nicaragua — did not make the list, and have an average death rate of 391 per million. In contrast, the top 20 “lockdown” countries have an average death rate of 1,520 per million. According to Kendrick:18

“Yet although this evidence is out there, I am being asked to believe that lockdowns work. At least the WHO agrees with me on this impossible thing.
As Dr. David Nabarro, the WHO special envoy on COVID19 said, ‘We really do appeal to all world leaders, stop using lockdown as your primary method of control. Lockdowns have just one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.’19”

7. Asymptomatic Spreaders Are Driving the Pandemic — The reasoning given for lockdowns, masks and social distancing is to stop the spread of disease among people who are asymptomatic. It’s common sense to stay home if you’re sick and exhibiting symptoms, but for people who feel healthy, the institution of lockdowns to prevent asymptomatic spread is unprecedented.
Yet, during a June 8, 2020, press briefing, Maria Van Kerkhove, the World Health Organization’s technical lead for the COVID-19 pandemic, made it very clear that asymptomatic transmission is very rare, meaning an individual who tests positive but does not exhibit symptoms is highly unlikely to transmit live virus to others.

A study in Nature Communications also found “there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts.”20 When they further tested asymptomatic patients for antibodies, they discovered that 190 of the 300, or 63.3%, had actually had a “hot” or productive infection resulting in the production of antibodies. Still, none of their contacts had been infected.21

8. The Virus Didn’t Come From a Lab Accident — Despite the complete absence of a plausible zoonotic origin theory, WHO’s investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has officially cleared the Wuhan Institute of Virology and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.22
The WHO investigation was riddled with conflicts of interest from the start, and no credible theory for natural zoonotic spillover has been presented to date. However, there are at least four distinct lab origin theories, including the serial passage theory, which proposes the virus was created by serial passaging through an animal host or cell culture, as well as evidence for genetic manipulation.23

You may be wondering, if there’s so much evidence pointing toward a lab origin, why are leading health authorities and scientists dismissing it all and insisting SARS-CoV-2 is a natural occurrence, mysterious as it might be?

Should the COVID-19 pandemic be officially recognized as the result of a lab accident, the world might be forced to take a cold hard look at gain-of-function research that allows for the creation of these new pathogens. The end result would ideally be the banning of such research worldwide, with significant financial repercussions, the ending of prestigious careers in that realm and potential criminal charges for those involved as well.
In the face of misinformation and manipulation, what you can do now is keep your eyes open and your ears tuned to the science, so you don’t fall victim to the unnecessary panic and fear, or the increased surveillance and control, that is being created.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/20/misinformation-on-coronavirus.aspx

While the outrageously conflicted investigative commission put together by the World Health Organization has dismissed the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 being a lab-leaked virus, deciding to pursue the imported frozen food theory instead,1,2,3 the lab-origin story refuses to die, and for good reason.
There’s just too much evidence pointing in that direction. Evidence of U.S. involvement is also mounting, although it hasn’t received quite as much coverage. Two individuals who have been heavily implicated are:

• Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) who rose to national prominence as the leader of the White House Coronavirus Task Force.
• Peter Daszak, Ph.D., president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization focused on pandemic prevention that has worked closely with bat coronavirus researcher Shi Zhengli and others at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
Daszak was chosen to be on two separate commissions charged with investigating the origin of SARS-CoV-2, one by the WHO4 and one by The Lancet.5 His inclusion has been widely criticized, as he played a central role in the plot to obscure the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 from the very beginning by crafting a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”6,7

In the video above, Chris Martenson, Ph.D., reviews Newsweek’s reporting8,9 on NIAID-funded gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the WIV. Newsweek wrote a series of articles on this in late April 2020.
I first mentioned that the outbreak had the hallmarks of a laboratory escape in my February 4, 2020, article, “Novel Coronavirus — The Latest Pandemic Scare.” Now, well over a year later, mainstream media like Politico10 and The New York Times11 are picking up the threads as well.
US Defense Suspected Lab Origin From the Start

In its April 27, 2020, article,12 Newsweek noted that, according to a March 27, 2020, U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency assessment report, SARS-CoV-2 was likely an accidental release from an infectious diseases laboratory. In its original January 2020 report, the DIA had stated the outbreak “probably occurred naturally.”
According to Newsweek,13 “The classified report, titled ‘China: Origins of COVID-19 Outbreak Remain Unknown,’ ruled out that the disease was genetically engineered or released intentionally as a biological weapon.”
More recently, in his March 8, 2021, Politico article,14 columnist Josh Rogin also points out that “just months into the pandemic, a large swath of the government already believed the virus had escaped from the WIV lab, rather than having leaped from an animal to a human at the Wuhan seafood market or some other random natural setting …”
Rogin also touches on key pieces of research that support the lab-origin theory by presenting a highly credible theory for how the virus became so highly adapted for human infection, namely coronavirus studies done on mice genetically engineered to express the human ACE2 receptor. He writes:15

“A little-noticed study was released in early July 2020 by a group of Chinese researchers in Beijing, including several affiliated with the Academy of Military Medical Science.

These scientists said that they had created a new model for studying SARS-CoV-2 by creating mice with humanlike lung characteristics by using the CRISPR gene-editing technology to give the mice lung cells with the human ACE2 receptor — the cell receptor that allowed coronaviruses to so easily infect human lungs.

After consultations with experts, some U.S. officials came to believe that this Beijing lab was likely conducting coronavirus experiments on mice fitted with ACE2 receptors well before the coronavirus outbreak — research that they hadn’t disclosed and continued not to admit to.”

Indeed, in 2015, Daszak spoke at a National Academies of Science seminar on reducing risk from emerging infectious diseases, warning of the danger of experimenting on “humanized mice,”16 meaning lab mice that have been genetically altered to carry human genes, cells or tissues.
According to the Daily Mail,17 that same year Daszak also published a paper in which he warned a global pandemic might occur from a laboratory incident and that “the risks were greater with the sort of virus manipulation research being carried out in Wuhan.”
Then, January 2, 2020, Daszak sent out a tweet announcing he’d successfully isolated SARS coronaviruses “that bind to human cells in the lab,” and that the work of other scientists show some of these viruses have pandemic potential as they can infect humanized mice.18 Lastly, there are the words of WIV researcher Zhengli herself, who in a July 31, 2020, Science article admitted:19,20

“We performed in vivo experiments in transgenic (human ACE2 expressing) mice and civets in 2018 and 2019 in the Institute’s biosafety laboratory. The viruses we used were bat SARSr-CoV close to SARS-CoV … The results suggested that bat SARSr-CoV can directly infect civets and can also infect mice with human ACE2 receptors.”

Scientists Call for Independent Investigation
March 4, 2021, The New York Times21 reported that, following the WHO’s dismissal of the lab-origin theory, two dozen scientists and policy experts have signed an open letter22 calling for an independent investigation into the virus’ origin.

“The open letter … lists what the signers see as flaws in the joint W.H.O.-China inquiry, and state that it could not adequately address the possibility that the virus leaked from a lab,” The New York Times writes.

Perhaps one of the biggest flaws in the WHO’s inquiry is the universal absence of evidence demonstrating a wholly natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. If the virus was truly natural, surely, we’d have some evidence of its evolution at this point, yet we have nothing.
In addition to highlighting their concern about the investigative commission’s limited scientific independence, they also expressed concern “that the joint team’s work has been inaccurately reported by the media as an independent investigation whose conclusions reflect those of the WHO”:

“Although the findings were those of the joint team, they were widely reported as representing the WHO itself. As strong supporters of the WHO and its mission, we believe it must be made clear that any findings of the joint committee, while potentially useful to a limited extent, represent neither the official position of the WHO nor the result of an unrestricted, independent investigation.”

The letter details not only the shortcomings of the WHO’s investigative commission, but also what a full and independent investigation “should look like,” starting with the creation of a multidisciplinary team, whose members have “no unresolved conflicts of interest and no full or partial control by any specific agenda or country.”
They also, and rightfully so, recommend “considering all possible scenarios for each pathway,” and then following standard forensic approaches, which include securing full access to all relevant sites, records, logs, databases and samples.
Fauci Implicated in Risky Research at WIV
April 28, 2020, Newsweek published a follow-up article highlighting Fauci’s role, noting that the NIAID funded “risky coronavirus research” at the WIV as recently as 2019:23

“In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million …

The NIH research consisted of two parts. The first part24 began in 2014 and involved surveillance of bat coronaviruses … The program funded Shi Zheng-Li, a virologist at the Wuhan lab … to investigate and catalogue bat coronaviruses in the wild. This part of the project was completed in 2019.

A second phase25 of the project, beginning that year, included … gain-of-function research for the purpose of understanding how bat coronaviruses could mutate to attack humans. The project was run by EcoHealth Alliance … under the direction of President Peter Daszak … NIH canceled the project just this past Friday, April 24 [2020] …

Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.”

At the time, Fauci and Daszak both declined to comment and the National Institutes of Health responded with a dismissive statement saying that “Most emerging human viruses come from wildlife,” and that “scientific research indicates that there is no evidence that suggests the virus was created in a laboratory.”26 In the video above, Martenson reviews research refuting the NIH’s claim of there being no evidence of a lab connection.
Fauci’s Despicable Treachery
Someone who has taken a particular interest in Fauci’s potential role in this pandemic is Dr. Peter Breggin. He actually wrote an entire report,27 “Dr. Fauci’s COVID-19 Treachery,” about Fauci’s “chilling ties” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its military. The report was published in October 2020.
Breggin is convinced Fauci “has been the major force” behind research activities that enabled the CCP to manufacture lethal SARS coronaviruses, which in turn led to the release — whether accidental or not — of SARS-CoV-2 from the WIV.
He claims Fauci has helped the CCP obtain “valuable U.S. patents,” and that he, in collaboration with the CCP and the WHO, initially suppressed the truth about the origins and dangers of the pandemic, thereby enabling the spread of the virus from China to the rest of the world.
Fauci has, and continues to, shield the CCP and himself, Breggin says, by “denying the origin of SARS-CoV-2” and “delaying and thwarting worldwide attempts to deal rationally with the pandemic.”
In the executive summary of the report, Breggin documents 15 questionable activities that Fauci has been engaged in, starting with the fact that he funded dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses, both by individual Chinese researchers and the WIV in collaboration with American researchers. This research, Breggin says, allowed the CCP and its military to create their own bioweapons, including SARS-CoV-2.
He points out that the American-Chinese collaboration was initially detailed in a paper written by two Chinese researchers, Botao Xiao (trained at Northwestern University and Harvard Medical School) and Lei Xiao back in February 2020. According to Breggin, the CCP forced them to recant and the paper was withdrawn.

“The stated purpose [of gain-of-function research] is to learn to prevent and treat future outbreaks; but research labs are the most common source of outbreaks from dangerous pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, as well as two earlier accidental escapes by SARS viruses in 2004 from a research facility in Beijing,” Breggin writes.28

Why Did Fauci Continue Gain-of-Function Research?
While President Trump canceled funding for dangerous gain-of-function research on viruses in April 2020 after the Chinese-American collaborations became publicly known, Fauci has since then released fresh funds.
Part of the funding is again directed to the EcoHealth Alliance, which for years has outsourced its research projects to WIV and other Chinese researchers. Fauci also continued outsourcing gain-of-function research to the WIV back in 2014, after then-President Obama ordered a stop to such research.

“In order to outsource dangerous viral research from the U.S. to China during the Obama moratorium, Fauci prematurely approved the Wuhan Institute as a highest-level containment facility (known as BSL-4) capable of safely working with lethal viruses,” Breggin writes.29

“He did this while knowing the Institute had a very poor safety record and while also knowing that all such facilities in China are overseen by the military as part of its biowarfare program. Thus, Fauci created two grave worldwide threats, the accidental release of a deadly coronavirus and/or its use as a military weapon.”

Interestingly, while the original moratorium on gain-of-function research was a direct order by the president, when the moratorium was lifted at the end of 2017, it was done so by the NIH and NIAID.
Fauci holds himself out as the ultimate source of objective scientific information and science-based conclusions. In reality, he works with and empowers globalist pharmaceutical firms and globalist organizations. ~ Dr. Peter Breggin
Fauci also defended and promoted gain-of-function research on bird flu viruses a decade ago, saying such research was worth the risk because it allows scientists to prepare for pandemics.30 However, as noted by Breggin, this kind of research does not appear to have improved governments’ pandemic responses one whit.
Fauci Has Globalist Ties
Breggin also highlights Fauci’s connections to and support of director-general of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a member of a Marxist-Leninist Ethiopian political party whose corrupt past and terrorist ties have been highlighted ever since his controversial nomination.31,32,33 Incidentally, Tedros has also been accused of covering up cholera outbreaks in Ethiopia.

“Together, they initially minimized the dangers of COVID-19. Fauci and Tedros also delayed worldwide preparations for the pandemic while allowing the Chinese to spread the virus with thousands of international passenger flights,” Breggin writes.

Commenting on a recent paper by Fauci, in which he dismisses the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 was created in and released from the WIV, arguing instead for a natural mutation, Breggin says:

“By persistently and unequivocally claiming that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from nature untouched by lab manipulations, Fauci continues to protect himself and China, and their relationship, to the endangerment of America and the rest of the world.

Fauci holds himself out as the ultimate source of objective scientific information and science-based conclusions. In reality, he works with and empowers globalist pharmaceutical firms and globalist organizations such as WHO and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation … These globalists gained power and influence as their policies and practices, including the shutdowns, continue to worsen conditions throughout the world.”

The globalist, technocratic agenda also shines through Fauci’s call for a political agenda that protects the population from pathogens by limiting or eliminating “aggressive” and manmade interventions into nature. Fauci’s paper, published in the journal Cell in September 2020, reads in part:34

“The COVID-19 pandemic is yet another reminder … that in a human-dominated world, in which our human activities represent aggressive, damaging, and unbalanced interactions with nature, we will increasingly provoke new disease emergences.

We remain at risk for the foreseeable future. COVID-19 is among the most vivid wake-up calls in over a century. It should force us to begin to think in earnest and collectively about living in more thoughtful and creative harmony with nature …”

Indeed, this language is straight out of the technocratic handbook, now rebranded as “the Great Reset.” As noted by Breggin:

“Fauci’s utopian scheme, which overlaps with the Green New Deal, would permanently suppress and disrupt the activities and lives of the 7.8 billion people on Earth in the vain hope of reducing future pandemics.

Thus the American official most responsible for the creation of SARS-CoV-2 in a Chinese lab instead blames its origins on human interventions into the environment and nature, thereby completely exonerating himself while holding humanity responsible.

Simultaneously, he is using the pretext of protecting us from viruses to impose a radical totalitarian agenda upon humanity. Indeed, the largest, most aggressive, and most dangerous human interventions into nature must include Fauci-funded gain-of-function research in which viruses are taken out of nature and engineered into pathogens.”

Fauci the Fearmonger Flag Bearer
In the main body of the report (Page 7 onward), Breggin goes on to detail Fauci’s role in the media fearmongering that has allowed pandemic measures to stretch on.

“Most people have very unrealistic fears about the risk of dying from COVID-19,” Breggin notes, and “This is due in part to the CDC and to Dr. Anthony Fauci who inflate the risk of COVID-19 deaths. Most people who die while being positive for SARS-CoV-2 are near to or past their average longevity.

In addition to being old, the great majority are already ill with heart disease, cancer, or some other chronic illnesses that may in fact have caused them to die. But even using the CDC’s biased data, the risk of death for most people is too small to require them to sacrifice the quality of their lives as the government demands under the threat of catching COVID-19.”

In Breggin’s estimation, Fauci “has been and continues to be an extraordinarily destructive force in the world.” Not only did he play a role in China’s ability to create SARS-CoV-2 and other potential biological weapons, he’s also covering up its origin, and initially tried to downplay the threat of the novel virus.
To top it off, “he became the go-to scientist and management czar for the very pandemic that he helped to create, enormously increasing his power and influence, and the wealth of his institute and his global collaborators, including Bill Gates and the international pharmaceutical industry,” Breggin writes, adding, in conclusion:

“In his rise to power, Fauci has done a great deal of additional damage … for example, by suppressing the most effective, safest, and least expensive medication treatment (hydroxychloroquine in varied combinations), while manipulating his clinical research to promote an ineffective, dangerous, and highly expensive drug (remdesivir) …

It is time to fire Fauci, to investigate this entire disaster, and to consider what needs to be done to protect the US and the world from future lab-generated pandemic disasters, whether accidental or intentional.”

Gain-of-Function Research Must Be Banned
Fauci isn’t the only individual who needs to be fired. The Organic Consumer Association’s “Gain-of-Function Hall of Shame”35 lists several others whose wheeling and dealings ought to be scrutinized under a high-magnifying loupe. These include Zhengli, Daszak, Bill Gates, Dr. Ralph Baric, Dr. Christian Hassell, Dr. Robert Kadlec and Scott Dowell.
Even more importantly, we need to ban gain-of-function research. As noted by Marc Lipsitch in his 2018 review, “Why Do Exceptionally Dangerous Gain-of-Function Experiments in Influenza?”:36

“This is a question of intense debate over the last 5 years, though the history of such experiments goes back at least to the synthesis of viable influenza A H1N1 (1918) based on material preserved from the 1918 pandemic.

Experiments to create potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs) are nearly unique in that they present biosafety risks that extend well beyond the experimenter or laboratory performing them; an accidental release could, as the name suggests, lead to global spread of a virulent virus, a biosafety incident on a scale never before seen …

While there are indisputably certain questions that can be answered only by gain-of-function experiments in highly pathogenic strains, these questions are narrow and unlikely to meaningfully advance public health goals such as vaccine production and pandemic prediction.

Alternative approaches to experimental influenza virology and characterization of existing strains are in general completely safe, higher throughput, more generalizable, and less costly than creation of PPP in the laboratory and can thereby better inform public health. Indeed, virtually every finding of recent PPP experiments that has been cited for its public health value was predated by similar findings using safe methodologies.”

While the origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains to be conclusively proven, a paper37 published in Nature in 2015 discussed how a “lab-made coronavirus related to SARS” capable of infecting human cells had stirred up debate as to whether or not this kind of research is worth the risks:

“Although the extent of any risk is difficult to assess, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, points out that the researchers have created a novel virus that ‘grows remarkably well’ in human cells. ‘If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,’ he says.”

With 20/20 hindsight, we now have a much clearer idea of what the release of such a virus can do. We may chalk it up to luck that SARS-CoV-2 turned out to be orders of magnitude less lethal than initially suspected, thereby not resulting in the deaths of tens of millions.
Biggest Fraud in Human History

The sad part is that even though SARS-CoV-2 turned out to be a minor hazard for the vast majority of people, its existence was used to justify the elimination of rights and liberties and facilitate the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle-classes to the ultra-rich the world has ever seen.
In the video above, Minnesota state senator and family physician Scott Jensen summarizes how we’ve been played. Essentially, by using PCR testing incorrectly, false positives were maximized, thereby keeping the fearmongering of rising “cases” going.
Then, January 20, 2021, on the day of the inauguration of Joe Biden, the World Health Organization finally did what it should have done from the very beginning — it recommended using lower cycle thresholds for the PCR test to prevent false positives, and changed the way COVID-19 is diagnosed.
Whereas before, doctors were told to slap a diagnosis on anyone with a certain range of symptoms, they were now told that a symptomatic patient also must have a positive test. Conversely, a positive test is not a case unless they also have the appropriate symptoms.
With that, the “case” load immediately started dropping.38 In reality, though, the caseload was always low, and none of the pandemic measures that destroyed lives and livelihoods were actually required. All that was needed was for honest and scientifically justifiable recommendations to be issued.
Dismantle the Medical Crime Syndicate
Fauci, again, bears blame for this needless destruction, as he knew up to 90% of positive PCR tests were false positives. Documents obtained through FOIA by The Colorado Herald39 conclusively prove Fauci knew this as early as March 2020, and he said and did nothing. 

“For a year, the CDC and WHO have guided public policy to include lockdowns, mask orders, school closures, segregation of the elderly, and now a vaccine push that rivals China’s, all based on a lie,” The Colorado Herald writes.40

“If a person has a positive PCR test, he has the deadly Coronavirus; that is a lie, one-hundred percent. Everyone has coronaviruses; they are everywhere, and that is why the overly sensitive PCR tests contributed, more than any other COVID-19 lie this year, to a pandemic that did not exist.

Fauci, the CDC, and the WHO should be held civilly and criminally liable for any business that shut down as a result of policies that were based on lies, lives lost to suicide and isolation based on lies, and the education lost by the nation’s youth this year … all based on lies.”

Indeed, defunding and dismantling the public terror organization that is the WHO, firing co-conspirators, starting with Fauci, and decentralizing pandemic planning from the global and federal level to the state and local levels would be a good start. To be in control of your health, you first need to have individual rights.
Medicine and government both work best when individualized and locally applied. Now that the truth is out, we must cease obeying the dictates of master manipulators and stand firm in the truth. Enough is enough. We must not give another inch to this lie.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/20/niaid-funded-virus-research-and-used-outbreak-against-us.aspx

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