Lose Them Pounds

My usual response to the question “What is Regenerative Food and Farming?” goes something like this: Regenerative agriculture and animal husbandry are the next and higher stage of organic food and farming, not only free from toxic pesticides, GMOs, chemical fertilizers and factory farm production, and therefore good for human health, but also regenerative in terms of the health of the soil, the environment, the animals, the climate and rural livelihoods as well.
Or, as my fellow steering committee member for Regeneration International, Vandana Shiva, puts it: “Regenerative agriculture provides answers to the soil crisis, the food crisis, the climate crisis, and the crisis of democracy.”1
In 2010 Olaf Christen stated, “Regenerative agriculture is an approach in agriculture that rejects pesticides and synthetic fertilizers and is intended to improve the regeneration of the topsoil, biodiversity and the water cycle.”2,3 This corresponds almost exactly with the stated principles of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) or Organics International.
Since 2014, the Rodale Institute, IFOAM, Dr. Bronner’s, Dr. Mercola, Patagonia, the Real Organic Project, the Biodynamic Movement, the Organic Consumers Association, Regeneration International, Navdanya and others have also been discussing and implementing organic standards, practices and certification, which incorporate regenerative principles. According to Australian regenerative pioneer Christine Jones:

“Agriculture is regenerative if soils, water cycles, vegetation and productivity continuously improve instead of just maintaining the status [quo]. The diversity, quality, vitality and health of the soil, plants, animals and people also improve together.”4

Changing the Conversation: Regenerative Food and Farming

In September 2014 when a group of us, including Vandana Shiva, Andre Leu, Will Allen, Steve Rye, Alexis Baden-Meyer and staff from Dr. Bronner’s, Dr. Mercola, Organic Consumers Association and the Rodale Institute, organized a press conference at the massive climate march in New York City to announce the formation of Regeneration International, we set for ourselves a simple, but what seemed like then ambitious, goal.
We all agreed we needed to fundamentally change the conversation on the climate crisis in the U.S. and around the world — then narrowly focused on renewable energy and energy conservation — so as to incorporate regenerative and organic food, farming and land use as a major solution to global warming, given its proven ability to drawdown and sequester massive amounts of excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in the soil, forests and plants.
Now, less than a decade later, I believe our growing Regeneration Movement has achieved this goal. Regeneration is now the hottest topic in the natural and organic food and farming sector, while climate activists including the Sunrise Movement and 350.org in the U.S. regularly talk about the role of organic and regenerative practices in reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.
More and more people now understand that we can achieve, through enhanced photosynthesis and drawdown, the “Net Zero” emissions goal in 2030 to 2050 that nearly everyone now agrees will be necessary if we are to avoid runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.
Identifying Regenerative and Organic ‘Best Practices’

Inside Regeneration International, which now includes 400 affiliates in more than 60 countries,5 our conversation has shifted to identifying regenerative and organic “best practices” around the globe.
Our goal is to strategize how we can help qualitatively expand and scale up regenerative best practices so that organic and regenerative becomes the norm, rather than just the alternative, for the planet’s now degenerative multitrillion-dollar food, farming and land use system.
Our discussions and strategizing are not just an academic exercise. As most of us now realize, our very survival as a civilization and a species is threatened by a systemic crisis that has degraded climate stability, our food and our environment, along with every major aspect of modern life.
This mega-crisis cannot be resolved by piecemeal reforms or minor adjustments such as slightly cutting our current levels of fossil fuel use, reducing global deforestation, soil degradation and military spending.
Either we move beyond merely treating the symptoms of our planetary degeneration and build instead a new system based upon regenerative food, farming and land use, coupled with renewable energy practices and global cooperation instead of belligerence, or we will soon (likely within 25 years) pass the point of no return.
A big challenge is how do we describe the crisis of global warming and severe climate change in such a way that everyday people understand the problem and grasp the solution that we’re proposing, i.e., renewable energy and regenerative food, farming and land use?
Enhanced Photosynthesis Is All-Important

The bottom line is that humans have put too much CO2 and other greenhouse gases (especially methane and nitrous oxide) into the atmosphere (from burning fossil fuels and destructive land use), trapping the sun’s heat from radiating back into space and heating up the planet.
And, unfortunately, because of the destructive food, farming and forestry practices that have degraded a major portion of the Earth’s landscape, we’re not drawing down enough of these CO2 emissions through plant photosynthesis to cool things off.
In a word, there’s too much CO2 and greenhouse gas pollution blanketing the sky (and saturating the oceans) and not enough life-giving carbon in the ground and in our living plants, trees, pastures and rangelands.
Increasing plant and forest photosynthesis (accomplished via enhanced soil fertility and biological life, as well as an adequate amount of water and minerals) is the only practical way that we can draw down a significant amount of the excess CO2 and greenhouse gases in our atmosphere that are heating up the Earth and disrupting our climate.
Through photosynthesis, plants and trees utilize solar energy to break down CO2 from the atmosphere, release oxygen and transform the remaining carbon into plant biomass and liquid carbon.
Photosynthesis basically enables plants to grow above ground and produce biomass, but also stimulates growth below ground as plants transfer a portion of the liquid carbon they produce through photosynthesis into their root systems to feed the soil microorganisms that in turn feed the plant.
From the standpoint of drawing down enough CO2 and greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and sequestering them in our soils and biota to reverse global warming, qualitatively enhanced photosynthesis is all-important.
Agave Power: Greening the Desert

As my contribution to the global expansion of regenerative and organic food and farming practices, I have spent the last several years working with Mexican farmers and ranchers, consumer organizations, elected political officials (mainly at the local and state level), and socially and environmentally-concerned “impact investors.”
Our goal is to develop and qualitatively expand what we believe is a game-changer for much of the 40% of the world’s pasturelands and rangelands that are arid and semi-arid, areas where it is now nearly impossible to grow food crops, and where it is too overgrazed and degraded for proper livestock grazing.
We call this Mexico-based agave and agroforestry/livestock management system Agave Power: Greening the Desert, and are happy to report that its ideas and practices are now starting to spread from the high desert plateau of Guanajuato across much of arid and semi-arid Mexico.
We now are receiving inquiries and requests for information about this agave-based, polyculture/perennial system from desert and semi-desert areas all over the world, including Central America, the Southwestern U.S., Argentina, Chile, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Australia, Myanmar and Oman.
You can learn more about this Agave Power system on the websites of Regeneration International6 and the Organic Consumers Association.7
Primary Drivers of Regeneration and Degeneration

What I and others have learned “on the ground” trying to expand and scale-up regenerative and organic best practices is that there are four basic drivers of regenerative (or conversely degenerative) food, farming and land use.
The first is consumer awareness and market demand. Without an army of conscious consumers and widespread market demand, regenerative practices are unlikely to reach critical mass. Second is farmer, rancher and land stewardship innovation, including the development of value-added products and ecosystem restoration services.
The third driver is policy change and public funding, starting at the local and regional level. And last but not least is regenerative finance — large-scale investing on the part of the private sector, what is now commonly known as “impact investing.”
In order to qualitatively expand organic and regenerative best practices and achieve critical mass sufficient to transform our currently degenerative systems, we need all four of these drivers to be activated and working in synergy.
Let’s look now at four contemporary drivers of degeneration, degenerative food, farming and land use, in order to understand what the forces or drivers are that are holding us back from moving forward to regeneration.

1. Degenerated grassroots consciousness and morale — When literally billions of people, a critical mass of the 99%, are hungry, malnourished, scared and divided, struggling to survive with justice and dignity; when the majority of the global body politic are threatened and assaulted by a toxic environment and food system; when hundreds of millions are overwhelmed by economic stress due to low wages and the high cost of living; when hundreds of millions are weakened by chronic health problems, or battered by floods, droughts and weather extremes, regenerative change — Big Change — will not come easily.
Neither will it happen when seemingly endless wars and land grabs for water, land and strategic resources spiral out of control, or when indentured politicians, corporations, Big Tech and the mass media manipulate crises such as COVID-19 to stamp out freedom of expression and participatory democracy in order to force a “Business-as-Usual” or “Great Reset” paradigm down our throats.
Disempowered, exploited people, overwhelmed by the challenges of everyday survival, usually don’t have the luxury of connecting the dots between the issues that are pressing down on them and focusing on the Big Picture.
It’s the job of regenerators to connect the dots between the climate crisis and people’s everyday concerns such as food, health, jobs and economic justice, to globalize awareness, political mobilization and, most of all, to globalize hope.
It’s the job of regenerators to make the connections between personal and public health and planetary health, to expose the truth about the origins, nature, prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and chronic disease, and to mobilize the public to reject a so-called Great Reset disguised as fundamental reform, but actually a Trojan Horse for a 21st Century Technocracy that is profoundly antidemocratic and authoritarian.
Regenerators have to be able to make the connections between different issues and concerns, identify and support best practitioners and policies and build synergy between social forces, effectively lobby governments (starting at the local level), businesses and investors for change, all the while educating and organizing grassroots alliances and campaigns across communities, constituencies and even national borders.
But this of course will not be easy, nor will it take place overnight. Our profoundly destructive, degenerative, climate-destabilizing food and farming system, primarily based upon industrial agriculture inputs and practices, is held together by a multibillion-dollar system of marketing and advertising that has misled or literally brainwashed a global army of consumers into believing that cheap, artificially flavored, “fast food” is not only acceptable, but “normal” and “natural.”
After decades of consuming sugar, salt, carbohydrate-rich and “bad fat”-laden foods from industrial farms, animal factories and chemical manufacturing plants, many consumers have literally become addicted to the artificial flavors and aromas that make super-processed foods and “food-like substances” so popular.
2. Degenerate “conventional” farms, farming and livestock management — Compounding the lack of nutritional education, choice, poverty, inertia and apathy of a large segment of consumers, other major factors driving our degenerative food and farming system include the routine and deeply institutionalized practices of industrial and chemical-intensive farming and land use (monocropping, heavy plowing, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, GMOs, factory farms, deforestation, wetlands destruction) today.
These soil-, climate-, health- and environmentally-destructive practices are especially prevalent on the world’s 50 million large farms, which, in part, are kept in place by global government subsidies totaling $500 billion a year.
Meanwhile, there are few or no subsidies for organic or regenerative farmers, especially small farmers (80% of the world’s farmers are small farmers), nor for farmers and ranchers who seek to make this transition.
Reinforcing these multibillion-dollar subsidies for bad farming practices are a global network of chemical- and agribusiness-controlled agricultural research and teaching institutions, focused on producing cheap food and fiber (no matter what the cost to the environment, climate and public health) and agro-export agricultural commodities (often pesticide-intensive GMO grains).
What we need instead are subsidies, research and technical assistance for farmers and ranchers to produce healthy, organic and regenerative food for local, regional and domestic markets, rewarding farmers with a fair price for producing healthy food and being a steward, rather than a destroyer, of the environment.
Monopoly Control — Another driver of degeneration, holding back farmer adoption of regenerative practices and determining the type of food and crops that are produced, is the monopoly or near-monopoly control by giant agribusiness corporations over much of the food system, especially in industrialized countries, as well as the monopoly or near-monopoly control by giant retail chains such as Walmart and internet giants like Amazon.
The out-of-control “Foodopoly” that dominates our food system is designed to maximize short-term profits and exports for the large transnational corporations, preserve patents and monopoly control over seeds, and uphold international trade agreements (NAFTA, WTO) that favor corporate agribusiness and large farms over small farms; factory farms over traditional grazing and animal husbandry; and agro-exports instead of production for local and regional markets.
Food and farming is the largest industry in the world with consumers spending an estimated $7.5 trillion a year on food. In addition, the largely unacknowledged social, environmental and health costs (i.e., collateral damage) of the industrial food chain amounts to an additional $4.8 trillion a year.8
3. and 4. Degenerate public policy and public and private investments — Agriculture is the largest employer in the world with 570 million farmers and farm laborers supporting 3.5 billion people in rural households and communities.9 In addition to workers on the farm, food chain workers in processing, distribution and retail make up hundreds of millions of other jobs in the world, with over 20 million food chain workers in the U.S. alone (17.5% of the total workforce).
This makes public policy relating to food, farming and land use very important. Unfortunately, thousands of laws and regulations are passed every year, in every country and locality, that basically prop up conventional (i.e., industrial, factory farm, export-oriented, GMO) food and farming, while there is very little legislation passed or resources geared toward promoting organic and regenerative food and farming.
Trillions of dollars have been, and continue to be, invested in the so-called “conventional” food and farming sector, including trillions from the savings and pension funds of many conscious consumers, who would no doubt prefer their savings to be invested in a different manner, if they knew how to do this.
Unfortunately, only a tiny percentage of public or private investment is currently going toward organic, grass fed, free-range and other healthy foods produced by small and medium-sized farms and ranches for local and regional consumption.
Healthy soil, healthy plants, healthy animals, healthy people, healthy climate, healthy societies — our physical and economic health, our very survival as a species, are directly connected to the soil, biodiversity and the health and fertility of our food and farming systems. Regenerative organic farming and land use can move us back into balance, back to a stable climate and a life-supporting environment.
It’s time to move beyond degenerate ethics, farming, land use, energy policies, politics and economics. It’s time to move beyond “too little, too late” mitigation and sustainability strategies. It’s time to inspire and mobilize a mighty global army of Regenerators, before it’s too late.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/09/regenerative-food-and-farming-the-road-forward.aspx

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the largest charitable foundation in the world,1 has an agricultural agenda that supports agrochemicals, patented seeds, fake meat and corporate control — interests that undermine regenerative, sustainable, small-scale farming. One of the key players in this agenda is the widespread adoption of synthetic meat.

Imitation meat company Impossible Foods was co-funded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates,2 and Gates has made it clear that he believes switching to synthetic beef is the solution to reducing methane emissions that come from animals raised on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).3

The strong recommendation to replace beef with fake meat is made in Gates’ book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need,” which was released in February 2021.4 In an interview with MIT Technology Review, he goes so far as to say that people’s behaviors should be changed to learn to like fake meat and, if that doesn’t work, regulations could do the trick.5

Gates, by the way, invests in fake meat companies and is buying up U.S. farmland at a frenzied pace. Ultimately, as you can hear in the interview above between Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and social justice advocate Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., the Gates empire “will own everything.”6

Gates Invests in Fake Meat Companies

According to Gates, in order to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, fake meat will “be required.” He told MIT Technology Review:7

“In terms of livestock, it’s very difficult. There are all the things where they feed them different food, like there’s this one compound that gives you a 20% reduction [in methane emissions]. But sadly, those bacteria [in their digestive system that produce methane] are a necessary part of breaking down the grass.

And so I don’t know if there’ll be some natural approach there. I’m afraid the synthetic [protein alternatives like plant-based burgers] will be required for at least the beef thing.”

He then mentions Memphis Meats, which is producing synthetic meat in a lab via mass culturing stem cells from animals, often in a solution containing bovine serum, hormones, growth factors and other food additives.8 PR campaigns have gone so far as to call lab-grown meat “clean meat,” but research published in Environmental Science and Technology suggested it could actually require more intensive energy use compared to conventional meat.9

Gates says he thinks Memphis Meats will be too expensive to become widespread, “But Impossible and Beyond have a road map, a quality road map and a cost road map, that makes them totally competitive.” He’s referring to Impossible Foods, a leader in the fake meat industry that is producing plant-based “meat.”

Impossible Foods holds 14 patents, with at least 100 more pending.10 Beyond Meat is another leading producer of fake “beef,” “pork” and “chicken” products, which announced in 2020 that it would start producing some of its products in China.11

What many aren’t aware of, however, is that Gates is either personally invested in, or invested in via Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Beyond Meats, Impossible Foods, Memphis Meats and other companies he actively promotes.12 Gates told MIT:13

“As for scale today, they [Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat] don’t represent 1% of the meat in the world, but they’re on their way. And Breakthrough Energy has four different investments in this space for making the ingredients very efficiently …

Now I’ve said I can actually see a path. But you’re right that saying to people, ‘You can’t have cows anymore’ — talk about a politically unpopular approach to things.”

Gates isn’t stopping at fake meat, though. He’s also recently backed a biotechnology start-up company called Biomilq, which is developing lab-cultured breast milk.14

Gates: All Rich Countries Should Eat 100% Fake Beef

Whether or not it’s “unpopular” doesn’t matter, apparently, as Gates said he thinks rich countries should be eating all fake meat. When asked whether he thinks plant-based and lab-grown meats could “be the full solution to the protein problem globally,” he says that, in middle- to above-income countries, yes, and that people can “get used” to it:15

“I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef. You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time. Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.

So for meat in the middle-income-and-above countries, I do think it’s possible. But it’s one of those ones where, wow, you have to track it every year and see, and the politics [are challenging]. There are all these bills that say it’s got to be called, basically, lab garbage to be sold. They don’t want us to use the beef label.”

The irony of Bill Gates — who lives in a 66,000-square-foot mansion and travels in a private jet that uses up 486 gallons of fuel every hour16 — talking about how to save the environment isn’t lost on everyone.

The Nation criticized Gates’ contradictions, including the fact that, as a result of buying staggering amounts of farmland, he’s a major contributor to carbon emissions.17 His jet-setting lifestyle also makes him a carbon “super emitter”:18

“According to a 2019 academic study19 looking at extreme carbon emissions from the jet-setting elite, Bill Gates’s extensive travel by private jet likely makes him one of the world’s top carbon contributors — a veritable super emitter. In the list of 10 celebrities investigated — including Jennifer Lopez, Paris Hilton, and Oprah Winfrey — Gates was the source of the most emissions.”

Gates Is the Largest Farmland Owner in the US

Bill Gates owns more farmland in the U.S. than any other private farmer, having purchased a total of 242,000 acres — much of it considered some of the richest soil in the U.S. — in the past few years.20 Conventional agriculture represents one of the greatest sources of pollution on the planet.

An estimated 80% of soil carbon in heavily farmed areas has already been lost,21 due to destructive plowing, overgrazing and the use of soil-destructive, carbon-depleting chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The jet-travel study alone pointed to Gates as one of the most problematic carbon emitters, and that without considering agricultural emissions. The Nation noted:22

“The study only looked at Gates’s jet travel, but might have also considered Gates’s emissions from his farmland, which includes large tracts of corn and soybeans, which typically goes to feed animals (often on factory farms) — a particularly carbon-intensive model of agriculture.”

Christine Nobiss, founder of the Great Plains Action Society, which is led by Indigenous people, accused Gates of colonization: “Bill Gates is smart enough to understand — he’s smart, he can do the math — that no one single person needs that amount of land. He’s basically participating in the never-ending cycle of colonization.”23

She’s among those who have suggested Gates give away his farmland as an act of reparations and as a way to ensure it’s used for sustainable food production, but as The Nation noted, that’s not going to happen:24

“Not that Gates is going to give up his vast farmland. Nor is he going to sell any of his houses — including his 66,000-square-foot mansion outside Seattle. He’s also not going to get rid of his private jet — a Bombardier BD-700 Global Express that consumes 486 gallons of fuel each hour. But, Bill Gates writes, he is going to start buying ‘sustainable jet fuel.’”

No Private Property for Americans, Except Gates

So what does Gates intend to do with all that farmland? That remains to be seen, but it’s worth noting that when you own the land, you also own the water that’s beneath it, and with his vast amounts of land, he can grow all the genetically engineered soy necessary to create the fake meat he’s so heavily pushing.

For those who control resources like food and water, power is limitless, and control of the food supply is part of “building back better.” Founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Klaus Schwab first started circulating the idea of The Great Reset, of which “build back better” is an integral part of.

WEF has partnered with the EAT Forum, which will set the political agenda for global food production. The EAT Forum was cofounded by the Wellcome Trust, which in turn was established with the financial help of GlaxoSmithKline.

EAT collaborates with nearly 40 city governments across Africa, Europe, Asia, North and South America and Australia, and maintains close relationships with imitation meat companies such as Impossible Foods.25 Gates is also a supporter of The Great Reset,26 which is curious since his massive accumulation of wealth and land is the opposite of what The Great Reset promotes.

In truth, wealthy technocrats will not redistribute their own wealth during the reset, but will only continue to grow their financial empires as the rest of the world consents to giving up their privacy and ownership of all property.27

In fact, EAT developed a Planetary Health Diet that is designed to be applied to the global population and entails cutting meat and dairy intake by up to 90%, replacing it largely with foods made in laboratories, along with cereals and oil.28 As Summit News reported:29

“[While] billionaire philanthropists and technocrats are acquiring land at an accelerating speed, they appear to be telling the general public that in the future private property will virtually cease to exist. In his books, World Economic Forum founder and globalist Klaus Schwab makes clear that the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ or ‘The Great Reset’ will lead to the abolition of private property.

That message is echoed on the WEF’s official website, which states, ‘Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city — or should I say, ‘our city.’ I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.’

Apparently, you won’t be allowed to own any private property and your only recourse will be to live in a state of permanent dependency on a small number of rich elitists who own everything. That used to be called feudalism, which is a form of slavery.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/10/synthetic-fake-meat.aspx

Operation Mockingbird,1,2 publicly revealed during a 1975 Congressional hearing, was a clandestine CIA media infiltration campaign launched in 1948 under the Office of Special Projects.3
The CIA reportedly spent $1 billion a year (about one-third of its entire budget4) on under-the-table bribes to hundreds of American journalists who in return published fake stories at the CIA’s request. CIA-recruited journalists worked in most major news organizations, including CBS News, Time, Life, Newsweek and The New York Times, just to name a few.5 Later on, the campaign expanded to include foreign media as well.6 As reported by the Free Press:7

“In 1976, Senator Frank Church’s investigation into the CIA exposed their corruption of the media. The Church Committee reported: ‘The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda.

These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets’ …

The tactic was straightforward. False news reports or propaganda would be provided by CIA writers to knowing and unknowing reporters who would simply repeat the falsehoods over and over again.”

Reuters and BBC News Were Paid for Propaganda Campaign

While Operation Mockingbird may sound like ancient history, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest it’s still in full swing. During the Cold War, CIA propaganda disparaged communist ideologies. Today, it promotes radical socialist ideas that support a technocratic economic system instead.
While the propaganda messages change with the times, the basic modus operandi of their dissemination remains the same. If anything, the system has only gotten more efficient and effective, as the number of major media outlets has shrunk over these past decades, and a vast majority of journalists and news anchors simply parrot what’s reported by the three global news agencies.
The CIA also isn’t the only intelligence agency using the media for its own propaganda purposes. Leaked documents8 reveal Reuters and BBC News have been involved in a covert program by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to weaken Russia’s influence on its neighbors. In his extensive February 20, 2021, GrayZone article, Max Blumenthal writes:9

“Working through a shadowy department within the UK FCO known as the Counter Disinformation & Media Development (CDMD), the media organizations operated alongside a collection of intelligence contractors in a secret entity known simply as ‘the Consortium.’

Through training programs of Russian journalists overseen by Reuters, the British Foreign Office sought to produce an ‘attitudinal change in the participants,’ promoting a ‘positive impact’ on their ‘perception of the UK’ …

In effect, the British government was seeking to infiltrate Russian media and propagate its own narrative through an influence network of Russian journalists trained in the UK …

‘These revelations show that when MPs were railing about Russia, British agents were using the BBC and Reuters to deploy precisely the same tactics that politicians and media commentators were accusing Russia of using,’ Chris Williamson, a former UK Labour MP who attempted to apply public scrutiny to the CDMD’s covert activities and was stonewalled on national security grounds, told The Grayzone.

‘The BBC and Reuters portray themselves as an unimpeachable, impartial, and authoritative source of world news,’ Williamson continued, ‘but both are now hugely compromised by these disclosures. Double standards like this just bring establishment politicians and corporate media hacks into further disrepute.’”

Reuters, BBC Hired to Promote Pro-NATO Narratives
The leaked documents show both Reuters and the BBC received “multimillion-dollar contracts to advance the British state’s interventionist aims.” The FCO funded:

The cultivation of Russian journalists
The establishment of “influence networks” in and around Russia
The promotion of pro-NATO narratives in Russian-speaking regions

In its proposals, Reuters stated it has 15,000 journalists and staff within its global network, including 400 journalists within Russia. Reuters and BBC carried out their covert influencing mission in partnership with other high-profile media companies, including Bellingcat, Meduza and Mediazona.
Overseeing the operation was the Zinc Network, an intelligence contractor, which was also responsible for the establishment of a network of Russian and Central Asian YouTubers who were not registered as external sources. The Zinc Network also claimed to have the ability to “activate a range of content; to support anti-government protests inside Russia.”
This isn’t the first time Reuters and the BBC have been implicated in a Mockingbird-type media influencing operation. Documents declassified in January 2020 showed the British government funded Reuters “throughout the 1960s and 1970s to assist an anti-Soviet propaganda organization run by the MI6 intelligence agency,” Blumenthal writes.10 The BBC, meanwhile, was used as “a pass-through to conceal payments” to Reuters.
180-Degrees From the Truth

It’s no small irony that most of the organizations claiming to promote truth and counter disinformation are in fact doing the exact opposite. The Counter Disinformation & Media Development (CDMD) group sounds very much like the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).
The CCDH is an opaquely funded group run by Imran Ahmed, who is also a member of the Steering Committee on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force under the British government’s Commission for Countering Extremism.
Ahmed has gone on record saying he considers anti-vaxxers “an extremist group that pose a national security risk,”11 and admits tracking and spying on 425 vaccine-related Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter accounts.12
In addition to stating that medical and scientific professionals must “convince the public that COVID is dangerous and give them confidence that a vaccine is safe and effective,”13 the CCDH is also calling for deplatforming anyone who questions vaccines,14 and to “hold platforms accountable” through fines, criminal sanctions and other measures that can impact the platform’s bottom line.
So, just as the CDMD is actually not countering disinformation but, rather, creating it, the CCDH is not in the business of countering digital hate; it’s actively creating and promoting online hate by baselessly labeling millions of law-abiding parents — whose only crime is to be concerned about their children’s health — as extremist threats and enemies of the state.
Media Have Become Integral Part of Intelligence Spy Network
Other media reports15,16,17 have also highlighted the role of intelligence agencies in the global effort to eliminate “anti-vaccine propaganda” from public discussion, and the fact that they’re using sophisticated cyberwarfare tools to do so. For example, independent investigative journalist Whitney Webb writes:18

“British and American state intelligence agencies are ‘weaponizing truth’ to quash vaccine hesitancy as both nations prepare for mass inoculations, in a recently announced ‘cyber war’ to be commanded by AI-powered arbiters of truth against information sources that challenge official narratives …

The UK’s GCHQ [Government Communications Headquarters19] ‘has begun an offensive cyber-operation to disrupt anti-vaccine propaganda being spread by hostile states’ and ‘is using a toolkit developed to tackle disinformation and recruitment material peddled by Islamic State’ to do so.20

In addition, the UK government has ordered the British military’s 77th Brigade, which specializes in ‘information warfare,’ to launch an online campaign to counter ‘deceptive narratives’ about COVID-19 vaccine candidates.

The newly announced GCHQ ‘cyber war’ will not only take down ‘anti-vaccine propaganda’ but will also seek to ‘disrupt the operations of the cyberactors responsible for it, including encrypting their data so they cannot access it and blocking their communications with each other.’

The effort will also involve GCHQ reaching out to other countries in the ‘Five Eyes’ alliance (U.S., Australia, New Zealand and Canada) to alert their partner agencies in those countries to target such ‘propaganda’ sites hosted within their borders.”

Intelligence-Led Information Warfare Against the Public
Clues that U.S. intelligence agencies — not just the CIA but also the FBI — support this cyberwar against the public can also be found in a white paper21 published in the InfraGard Journal in June 2019. InfraGard, a nonprofit national security group, collaborates with the FBI22 on educational and information-sharing initiatives “that help mitigate threats” to national security.23
The InfraGard paper24 claims the American anti-vaccine movement is being orchestrated by Russian government-aligned organizations seeking to “sow discontent and distrust in topics and initiatives that serve U.S. interests,”25 and that “The biggest threat in controlling an outbreak comes from those who categorically reject vaccination.”26
Primer’s ultimate goal is to use their AI to entirely automate the shaping of public perceptions and become the arbiter of ‘truth,’ as defined by the state. ~ Whitney Webb
Other evidence includes the fact that the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Special Operations Command have awarded a multimillion-dollar contract to the U.S.-based “machine intelligence” company Primer, to develop “the first-ever machine learning platform to automatically identify and assess suspected disinformation.”27
According to Webb, “Primer’s ultimate goal is to use their AI to entirely automate the shaping of public perceptions and become the arbiter of ‘truth,’ as defined by the state.”28
The self-appointed arbiter of truth NewsGuard — which rates websites on criteria of “credibility” and “transparency” — is also partnered with both the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Department of Defense,29 which strongly suggests government support (if not direct involvement) of censorship.
NewsGuard is also funded by the PR firm Publicis, which also appears to have an important role in this information war. You can learn more about this part of the propaganda arm in “The Web of Players Trying to Silence Truth.” 
Most Mainstream Media Are Now Propagandists
Were it not for the mainstream media pumping out misleading if not flat-out false information on a daily basis for months on end, the COVID-19 pandemic would have been a mere blip on the public’s radar. None of the draconian, freedom-robbing measures would have been remotely possible.
Considering the consistency of the narratives across the world this past year, it’s inconceivable that there isn’t some central “agency” of sorts directing it all. And, if so, there clearly must be a reason behind it. One does not fear-monger for no reason whatsoever. It has a purpose.
Historically, fear has been used by every would-be authoritarian and totalitarian regime you can think of, so there’s every reason to suspect the same applies now. The main difference is that today’s totalitarian ruler is more or less wholly unknown.
Who is it that wants to rule the world’s population through fear? Who is trying to take control over the whole globe? Who is guiding and instructing virtually all government leaders? Intelligence agencies and their media partners undoubtedly play key roles, but they’re unlikely to be the true core of the power structure behind it all.
No, the real power and leadership resides with the technocratic elite, the members of which have quietly and diligently worked to forward the agenda of a New World Order (NWO) for decades. What was once known as the NWO is now referred to as the Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, with a public focus on a “green” carbon-based economy.
The not so public focus is technological surveillance and control over every facet of everyone’s life, from health and civic involvement to labor, education and economy. Unfortunately, members of the technocracy no longer carry member cards or pay membership dues, which obscures their affiliation, but certain organizations are so intimately involved in furthering the Great Reset agenda that you can safely assume a majority of their members play some role in this scheme.
The Council on Foreign Relations

Aside from intelligence agencies, another key player behind the Great Reset is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). As explained by Swiss Policy Research, “Executives and top journalists of almost all major U.S. media outlets have long been members of the influential Council on Foreign Relations.”30
Not to be confused with the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations or the European Council on Foreign Relations, CFR is a nonprofit think tank, the 5,000-plus members of which also include past and present presidents, politicians, secretaries of state, CIA directors, bankers, lawyers, academic professors and corporate leaders, just to name a few.31
CFR also operates the David Rockefeller Studies Program, which in turn advises the White House on foreign policy matters. Overall, the CFR wields incredible power and influence over the U.S. White House and its policies. As reported by Swiss Policy Research:32

“In his famous article about ‘The American Establishment,’ political columnist Richard H. Rovere noted: ‘The directors of the CFR make up a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as a nation …

[I]t rarely fails to get one of its members, or at least one of its allies, into the White House. In fact, it generally is able to see to it that both nominees are men acceptable to it.’ It was not until the 2016 election that the Council couldn’t, apparently, prevail.”

The Synchronization of Fake News
CFR has two international affiliates: the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission, both of which were established by CFR leaders “to foster elite cooperation at the global level.”
Well-known names in the Trilateral group’s U.S. branch include David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Michael Bloomberg and Google heavyweights Eric Schmidt and Susan Molinari, vice president for public policy at Google. Many of its board members are also members of the Aspen Institute, which grooms and mentors executives from around the world about the subtleties of globalization.
As you can see in the graphic below, major media are well represented in all three groups. As mentioned, CFR members also include current and former CIA directors. In his book, “American War Machine,”33,34 Peter Dale Scott also documents the ties between CFR, the CIA, the national security apparatus and the banking industry. Taken together, these ties explain how a false narrative (whatever it might be) can be so widely coordinated and synchronized.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<< Richard Stengel — Technocracy Poster Boy Knowing what you now know about the CFR, comments by Richard Stengel, the top state media appointee for President Biden’s transition team, will probably make a lot more sense. During a 2018 CFR forum on fake news, Stengel — a CFR member and Atlantic Council fellow, former State Department official for the Obama administration, former managing editor for Time magazine, strategic adviser to Snap Inc., which runs Snapchat and Bitmoji and a political analyst on MSNBC — insisted governments must use propaganda on their citizens.35 He repeated this sentiment in November 2020, after being appointed to President Biden’s transition team, saying he’s “not against propaganda. Every country does it, and they have to do it to their own population. And I don’t necessarily think it’s that awful.”36 As reported by The GrayZone:37 “A committed crusader in what he openly describes as a global ‘information war,’ Stengel has proudly proclaimed his dedication to the careful management of the public’s access to information.” Stengel has even proposed abolishing — “rethinking” — the First Amendment, which guarantees the freedom of speech and press, “for practical reasons in society.”38 Stengel’s presence in the Biden administration may be an augury of things to come, considering he created a nonclassified government entity during his Obama years, specifically to combat Russian disinformation.39 This entity, the Global Engagement Center, now facilitates the U.S. government’s efforts to spread its own propaganda around the world. Stengel, with his close ties to several key centers of technocratic power — the U.S. government, the CFR, the Atlantic Council, mainstream media and Big Tech — is a veritable poster boy for modern technocracy, which makes his shameless promotion of censorship and propaganda more than a little understandable. Pre-Mockingbird Media Manipulation While Operation Mockingbird has earned a place in history as a point at which the free press was compromised, in reality, the infiltration of the press occurred long before the 1950s. In his February 9, 1917, Congressional remarks, Congressman Oscar Callaway explained the origin and execution of the plan to control and manipulate public opinion and mindset through media, which had taken shape just two years earlier:40 “In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.” Operation Mockingbird was essentially the CIA’s effort to consolidate, while simultaneously expanding, this secret hold over the media some three decades later. It’s a sobering thought to realize that virtually no one alive today has ever been informed by a truly free and independent press. While the situation has surely deteriorated in more recent years, the covert use of mainstream media to manipulate and misdirect the public to protect the interests of the elite few has been par for the course for over 100 years. The Propaganda Multipliers When it comes to the actual dissemination of fake news and propaganda, news agencies play a central role, and there’s only three of them: The Associated Press (AP), Reuters and Agence France-Presse (AFP). As explained in the Swiss Policy Research post, “The Propaganda Multiplier”:41 “The key role played by these agencies means Western media often report on the same topics, even using the same wording. In addition, governments, military and intelligence services use these global news agencies as multipliers to spread their messages around the world. A study of the Syria war coverage by nine leading European newspapers clearly illustrates these issues: 78% of all articles were based in whole or in part on agency reports … 0% on investigative research. Moreover, 82% of all opinion pieces and interviews were in favor of a U.S. and NATO intervention, while propaganda was attributed exclusively to the opposite side.” In short, until or unless at least one of these news agencies sends out a notice, national and local media are unlikely to report on an event. Even photos and videos are typically sourced directly from these global news agencies. This way, people hear, see and read the exact same message everywhere. “This dependency on the global agencies creates a striking similarity in international reporting: from Vienna to Washington, our media often report the same topics, using many of the same phrases — a phenomenon that would otherwise rather be associated with ‘controlled media’ in authoritarian states,” Swiss Policy Research writes.42 Even media outlets that have foreign correspondents on their payroll do not expect those correspondents to conduct independent investigations. They too simply report whatever the Big Three news agencies want covered, and from the angle they want it covered. What you end up with is a sort of echo-chamber where only one view is presented. As one might expect, this setup makes for a perfect propaganda machine. As noted by Swiss Policy Research, “Due to the rather low journalistic performance of the mainstream media and their high dependence on a few news agencies, it is easy for interested parties to spread propaganda and disinformation in a supposedly respectable format to a worldwide audience.” Intelligence agencies and defense ministries are well aware of this and use it with regularity, as surely does the CFR and the rest of the technocratic apparatus. In short, the current censoring and labeling of anything that threatens the technocratic agenda and the profiteering of its members as “misinformation” and “disinformation” is a top-down scheme. It’s not random, by any means, and it’s not driven by the opinions of private companies themselves. Social media companies, for example, are mere tools for the technocratic deep state, which operates worldwide.  The question then becomes, if propaganda is that deeply entrenched in our media structure, how do we know what is true and what is not? There’s no easy answer to this question, but the solution involves first becoming aware of the fact that media lies, and that there is a reason for why the media narrative is what it is. One way to evaluate the news is to ask yourself, “Why might they want me to think of this in this particular way?” Eventually, patterns begin to form. Ultimately, to find the truth, you must be willing to look for it, and to look in places outside the mainstream media consortium. You have to ask questions and reason your way through the information you find. If something doesn’t make sense yet you’re told to accept it without question, it’s probably propaganda. Any number of COVID-19 restrictions, for example, have been illogical in the extreme, which tells us they’re not about protecting people from infection. It’s about something else, and that something else has often been the purposeful destruction of small businesses to facilitate wealth transfer from the middle- and lower class to the top echelon. Ultimately, that is the plan, and to stop it, we have to stop believing the propaganda. It’s just that simple. And that challenging.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/10/reuters-bbc-were-paid-for-propaganda-campaign.aspx

The rich flavonoid content found in hawthorn berries (genus Crataegus) has helped reverse the effects of cardiovascular disease, improve skin and support digestion and liver metabolism.1

Nearly 6 in every 10 adults living in the U.S. have at least one chronic disease and 4 of every 10 have two or more, which are the leading causes of death and disability.2 You can make a difference in your overall health and reduce your risk of many chronic diseases through lifestyle choices. In some cases, you’ll choose to stop something, and in others, you’ll choose to start.

According to the American Heart Association,3 nearly 50% of all adults living in the U.S. are affected by cardiovascular disease. This umbrella term includes several conditions, including heart disease, atherosclerosis, stroke, heart failure, high blood pressure and cardiac arrhythmias.4

Cardiovascular diseases affect the heart and supportive tissues that deliver blood, oxygen and nutrients throughout your body. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,5 heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S. and stroke is No. 5. Atherosclerosis is a significant factor associated with cardiovascular disease.

Yet, there are choices you can make that have an impact on your health, even after chronic diseases have developed. Consuming hawthorn berries or their extract may be one of those choices.

Hawthorn Berries Are Good for Your Heart

The medicinal use of hawthorn berries dates back to 659 AD in China.6 By the early 1800s, doctors in the U.S. were using it to treat heart conditions, including high blood pressure, heart failure and atherosclerosis.7

Modern research studies have found hawthorn berry extract demonstrates anti-atherosclerotic effects that may be related to signaling pathways affecting inflammation and apoptosis.8 Scientists have discovered four principal pathways in which hawthorn berries influence the cardiovascular system.9 These include antioxidation, anti-inflammatory, endothelial protection and lipid-lowering properties.

A review of the literature found the flavones in hawthorn demonstrated the ability to mitigate endothelial impairment following a coronary bypass graft operation. Hawthorn extract has also demonstrated the ability to maintain normal endothelial function in the lab and in vivo.

The extract helps reduce lipid retention and vascular plaque formation. This starts a process that ultimately reduces the production of inflammatory cytokines and reactive oxygen species (ROS). In turn, this helps maintain normal function and protect the vascular system from infiltration of circulating macrophages and monocytes, thus continuing to reduce inflammation.

Several human trials have demonstrated that participants taking hawthorn extract could increase their working capacity and reduce the symptoms of congestive heart failure.10 In one study11 of 952 patients with documented heart failure, researchers found those who received hawthorn as an add-on therapy for two years demonstrated significantly fewer symptoms of congestive heart failure — fatigue, dyspnea and palpitations.

Vascular protection also includes the ability to support calcium signaling activity in the heart and blood vessels.12 Several animal studies have shown that hawthorn acts as a vasodilator,13 including acting to raise levels of nitric oxide.14,15

In one 16-week study16 of individuals with Type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure, participants took 1,200 milligrams (mg) of hawthorn extract each day or a placebo. Those taking the extract demonstrated greater improvements in blood pressure over the placebo group. The researchers reported no interactions with the drugs the patients were already taking and there were only minor health complaints in both groups.

Liver Metabolism Benefits From Hawthorn Berries

Hawthorn berries also have traditionally been used to treat digestive issues, including constipation. The berries contain fiber that acts as a prebiotic to feed your healthy gut bacteria. In one animal study, those treated with hawthorn extract reduced the transit time of food in the digestive tract.17

In another animal study using rats with stomach ulcers, the extract showed protective effects on the stomach lining similar to those of an anti-ulcer medication.18 Hawthorn extract has also demonstrated the ability to lessen fat accumulation within the liver in animals fed a high-fat diet.

Fat accumulation in the liver that occurs without alcohol use is called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).19 A more severe form is called nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which triggers swelling and permanent damage to the organ.

Liver diseases are emerging as a global health concern, and NAFLD and alcoholic liver disease are the two most common.20 Although there is a wide variation found from country to country, the pooled prevalence globally is 25.24% of the population.

The highest prevalence has been found in the Middle East and South American countries, and the lowest prevalence is found in Africa. In the U.S. and North America, the prevalence is between 21% and 24.7%. In one animal study,21 researchers found that hawthorn leaf flavonoids, the most bioactive extracts found in hawthorn leaves, had a positive influence over diet-induced hepatic steatosis.

They also discovered the supplementation lowered the animals’ body weight and liver weight, and improved serum parameters and liver function. It appeared this was the result of increasing circulating adiponectin levels, which is a hormone involved in the regulation of glucose and fatty acid breakdown.

In addition, it activated AMPK. This led the researchers to conclude that hawthorn leaf extract helps ameliorate “hepatic steatosis by enhancing the adiponectin/AMPK pathway in the liver of HFD [high fat diet] induced NAFLD rats.”22

Antiaging Benefits Include Protection Against Wrinkles

Polyphenols have long been studied for the contribution they make helping to protect your skin from ultraviolet light and modulating skin characteristics. While hawthorn berry is rich in flavonoids, it is highest in proanthocyanidins, oligomeric proanthocyanidin (OPCs) or procyanidolic oligomers (PCOs).23 An analysis of hawthorn extract using high-performance liquid chromatography showed it was also high in epicatechins.24

The combination of chlorogenic acid, proanthocyanidins B2 and epicatechins accounted for 51.4% of the total amount of polyphenols in the fruit. These compounds are strong antioxidants. Like other areas of your body, the connective tissue in your skin is subject to the damaging effects of chronic inflammation and reactive oxygen species.25

Studies have demonstrated the powerful effects that epicatechins and proanthocyanidins have on photoprotection and the structure and function of your skin. One study26 evaluated the effect hawthorn extract has on skin aging triggered by UVB light that increases matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) production and the degradation of collagen.

This combination of damage from UVB light leads to the formation of wrinkles. Using an animal model, the researchers found treatments reversed epidermal thickening and damage caused by UVB light, which “suppressed MMP expression and stimulated the production of type I procollagen.”27 This suggested to the researchers that hawthorn extract may help “prevent UVB radiation-induced skin photoaging.”28

Another review of the literature29 found PCO and quercetin are specific bioflavonoids that are beneficial to connective tissue as they are associated with increased local circulation and promote the development of a strong collagen matrix.

Catechins are also strong antioxidants that have demonstrated anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial properties. In one study30 using green tea polyphenols, researchers engaged 60 women in a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The intervention group drank a beverage with 1,402 mg of total catechins per day.

Their skin structure, function and photoprotection were measured throughout the study. After exposure to a solar simulator, researchers found that those drinking the polyphenol beverage had better oxygen delivery and blood flow to the skin. The structural characteristics of the skin that were positively affected in the experimental group included density, elasticity, roughness and scaling.

What Is Hawthorn Berry?

The hawthorn plant is native to Northern temperate zones and commonly found in North America. It grows wild and is also cultivated as a garden ornamental.31 It’s commonly called a thornapple in reference to the apple-like fruit and thorns that protect the plant. They are sometimes planted as a thorny hedged barrier against livestock.

The plant is a member of the rose family. In the early spring, the plant has white or pink flowers that are followed by small apple-like fruit, which can range in color from red to black. Although the fruit can vary in flavor and texture, depending on the hawthorn plant, they are edible and, as I already mentioned, often used as herbal medicine.

Depending on the species, the plants can grow as a shorter rounded bush or a tree, reaching up to 25 feet tall. You’ll find hawthorn trees at nurseries as either seedlings or grafted trees.32 The plants enjoy full or partial sun and are susceptible to a number of diseases.33

If you decide to plant one in your garden, look for a variety that is disease-resistant. If you’re not using it as a barrier, avoid planting a tree with thorns as the thorns can grow up to 3 inches long. Although the trees don’t need much pruning, it’s wise to remove the suckers that come from the base of the trunk as they increase the size and density of the plant as it ages.

At one time, the hawthorn tree was known as the “bread and cheese tree” since the flowers, berries and leaves are safe to eat and it was a lifesaver during times of famine.34 The berries are also sometimes used to make wine, jam or syrup.

Easy Steps to Add Hawthorn to Your Diet

Hawthorn berries are likely going to be difficult to find at your local grocery store. However, you may find them sold at farmers markets, online or at specialty health food stores. There are several different ways you can incorporate them into your diet. The raw berries have a slightly sweet, yet tart taste and make a great snack.35

However, while the berries are not poisonous, the seeds are. The seeds contain amygdalin, which converts to deadly hydrogen cyanide in your small intestines.36 An adult may tolerate one or two seeds, but even this small amount in a child may be lethal.

You can also find hawthorn tea made with leaves or berries, or you can dry them and make your own tea at home.37 Hawthorn supplements are also available. According to a paper in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology38 from the Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents, the minimum effective dose of hawthorn extract for cardiac performance is 300 mg per day.

The authors found that the maximum benefit in most of the trials they reviewed was found after six to eight weeks of taking the supplement. Improved exercise tolerance in individuals with congestive heart failure was demonstrated in several studies they reviewed. The preparation was also found to be “well-tolerated and safe.”39
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/08/hawthorn-berry-health-benefits.aspx

As reported by New Delhi-based World Is One News (WION),1 Pfizer is demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation. In other words, it wants governments to guarantee the company will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it.
WION reports that Argentina and Brazil have rejected Pfizer’s demands. Initially, the company demanded indemnification legislation to be enacted, such as that which it enjoys in the U.S. Argentina proposed legislation that would restrict Pfizer’s financial responsibility for injuries to those resulting from negligence or malice.
Pfizer rejected the proposal. It also rejected a rewritten proposal that included a clearer definition of negligence. Pfizer then demanded the Argentinian government put up sovereign assets — including its bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings — as collateral. Argentina refused. A similar situation occurred in Brazil. Pfizer demanded Brazil:

“Waive sovereignty of its assets abroad in favor of Pfizer”
Not apply its domestic laws to the company
Not penalize Pfizer for vaccine delivery delays
Exempt Pfizer from all civil liability for side effects

Brazil rejected Pfizer’s demands, calling them “abusive.” As noted by WION, Pfizer developed its vaccine with the help of government funding, and now it — a private company — is demanding governments hand over sovereign assets to ensure the company won’t lose a dime if its product injures people, even if those injuries are the result of negligent company practices, fraud or malice.
Some liability protection is warranted, but certainly not for fraud, gross negligence, mismanagement, failure to follow good manufacturing practices. Companies have no right to ask for indemnity for these things. ~ Lawrence Gostlin, Law Professor

Aside from Argentina and Brazil, nine other South American countries have reportedly negotiated deals with Pfizer. It’s unclear whether they actually ended up giving up national assets in return.2
Vaccine Maker Accused of Abusing Its Power

According to STAT News,3 “Legal experts have raised concerns that Pfizer’s demands amount to an abuse of power.” Lawrence Gostin, law professor at Georgetown University and director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law told STAT:4

“Pharmaceutical companies shouldn’t be using their power to limit lifesaving vaccines in low- and middle-income countries. [This] seems to be exactly what they’re doing … Some liability protection is warranted, but certainly not for fraud, gross negligence, mismanagement, failure to follow good manufacturing practices. Companies have no right to ask for indemnity for these things.”

Mark Eccleston-Turner, a lecturer in global health law at Keele University in England, added:5

“[Pfizer] is trying to eke out as much profit and minimize its risk at every juncture with this vaccine development then this vaccine rollout. Now, the vaccine development has been heavily subsidized already. So there’s very minimal risk for the manufacturer involved there.”

Don’t Expect Compensation if Injured by COVID-19 Vaccine

In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from this or any other pandemic vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured, you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP),6 which is funded by U.S. taxpayers via Congressional appropriation to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

While similar to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which applies to nonpandemic vaccines, the CICP is even less generous when it comes to compensation. For example, while the NVICP pays some of the costs associated with any given claim, the CICP does not. This means you’ll also be responsible for attorney fees and expert witness fees.
A significant problem with the CICP is that it’s administered within the DHHS, which is also sponsoring the COVID-19 vaccination program. This conflict of interest makes the CICP less than likely to find fault with the vaccine.
Your only route of appeal is within the DHHS, where your case would simply be reviewed by another employee. The DHHS is also responsible for making the payment, so the DHHS effectively acts as judge, jury and defendant. As reported by Dr. Meryl Nass,7 the maximum payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person; however, you’d have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP gives you a dime.
CICP will only pay the difference between what your insurance covers and the total payout amount established for your case. For permanent disability, even $250,000 won’t go far. The CICP also has a one year statute of limitations, so you have to act quickly.
This too is a significant problem, as no one really knows what injuries might arise from the COVID-19 vaccine, or when, and this makes tying the injury to the vaccination a difficult prospect. Employers that mandate the COVID-19 vaccine will also be indemnified from liability for side effects. Instead, claims will be routed through worker’s compensation programs.

If the COVID-19 vaccines are as safe as the manufacturers claim, why do they insist on so much indemnification? Do they suspect or know something they’re refusing to admit publicly?
Side Effects Are Inevitable
Of course, those of us who have been looking at the science behind the mRNA technology used to create these novel “vaccines” have long since realized there are tremendous risks involved. For starters, mRNA vaccines are most accurately referred to as gene therapies, as this is what they are.

They effectively turn your cells into bioreactors that churn out viral proteins to incite an immune response, and there’s no off-switch.8 Based on historical and preliminary evidence, significant short- and long-term side effects are, quite frankly, inevitable.
For starters, your body sees the synthetic mRNA as “non-self,” which can cause autoantibodies to attack your own tissues. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained this in her interview, featured in “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”
Free mRNA also drive inflammatory diseases, which is why making synthetic mRNA thermostable — i.e., slowing the breakdown of the RNA by encasing it in lipid nanoparticles — is likely to be problematic. The nanoparticles themselves also pose a risk. COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, which is known to cause allergic reactions and anaphylaxis.9,10
What’s more, previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic.11 An obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use?
As detailed in my interview with Mikovits, the synthetic RNA influences the gene syncytin, which can result in:

Brain inflammation
Dysregulated communication between the microglia in your brain, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens
Dysregulated immune system
Dysregulated endocannabinoid system (which calms inflammation)

Pathogenic Priming and Antibody-Dependent Enhancement
Another significant problem is that we don’t know whether antibody production is protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections. If pathogenic, vaccinated individuals may be at increased risk of severe illness if they’re exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the future. As reported in a December 11, 2020, Vaccine: X paper:12

“The first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine(s) will likely be licensed based on neutralizing antibodies in Phase 2 trials, but there are significant concerns about using antibody response in coronavirus infections as a sole metric of protective immunity.
Antibody response is often a poor marker of prior coronavirus infection, particularly in mild infections, and is shorter-lived than virus-reactive T-cells … Strong antibody response correlates with more severe clinical disease while T-cell response is correlated with less severe disease; and antibody-dependent enhancement of pathology and clinical severity has been described.
Indeed, it is unclear whether antibody production is protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections. Early data with SARS-CoV-2 support these findings. Data from coronavirus infections in animals and humans emphasize the generation of a high-quality T cell response in protective immunity.”

A number of reports in the medical literature have indeed highlighted the risk of pathogenic priming and antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). As explained in “Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire? Due Diligence Warranted for ADE in COVID-19”:13

“ADE is an immunological phenomenon whereby a previous immune response to a virus can render an individual more susceptible to a subsequent analogous infection.
Rather than viral recognition and clearance, the prior development of virus-specific antibodies at a non-neutralizing level can facilitate viral uptake, enhancing replication; a possible immune evasion strategy avoiding intracellular innate immune sensors, or pattern recognition receptors …
ADE of SARS-CoV has also been described14 through a novel Fc?RII-dependent and ACE2-independent cell entry mechanism. The authors state15 that this warrants concern in the safety evaluation of any candidate human vaccines against SARS-CoV.”

Similarly, “Pathogenic Priming Likely Contributes to Serious and Critical Illness and Mortality in COVID-19 Via Autoimmunity,” published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, warns that:16

“Failure of SARS and MERS vaccines in animal trials involved pathogenesis consistent with an immunological priming that could involve autoimmunity in lung tissues due to previous exposure to the SARS and MERS spike protein. Exposure pathogenesis to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 likely will lead to similar outcomes.”

So, to be clear, what all of this means is that if you get vaccinated, you may actually be at increased risk for serious illness if/when you’re exposed to any number of mutated SARS-CoV-2 strains in the future.
This is why the recommendation to vaccinate individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, may actually be quite dangerous. Dr. Hooman Noorchashm recently sent a public letter17 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner detailing these risks.
How mRNA Injections May Trigger Prion Disease

What’s more, in a paper18 titled, “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease,” published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, Dr. Bart Classen warns there are also troubling evidences suggesting some of the mRNA shots may cause prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s and ALS. He writes:

“In the current paper, the concern is raised that the RNA based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19. This paper focuses on a novel potential adverse event mechanism causing prion disease which could be even more common and debilitating than the viral infection the vaccine is designed to prevent …
Analysis of the Pfizer vaccine against COVID-19 identified two potential risk factors for inducing prion disease is humans. The RNA sequence in the vaccine contains sequences believed to induce TDP-43 and FUS to aggregate in their prion based conformation leading to the development of common neurodegerative diseases.
In particular it has been shown that RNA sequences GGUA, UG rich sequences, UG tandem repeats, and G Quadruplex sequences, have increased affinity to bind TDP-43 and or FUS and may cause TDP-43 or FUS to take their pathologic configurations in the cytoplasm.
In the current analysis a total of sixteen UG tandem repeats were identified and additional UG rich sequences were identified. Two GG?A sequences were found. G Quadruplex sequences are possibly present but sophisticated computer programs are needed to verify these.
The spike protein encoded by the vaccine binds angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), an enzyme which contains zinc molecules. The binding of spike protein to ACE2 has the potential to release the zinc molecule, an ion that causes TDP-43 to assume its pathologic prion transformation.”

mRNA Technology Has Potential to Cause Microvascular Injury
Additionally, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist specializing in multisystem inflammatory syndrome, submitted a public comment19 to the FDA back in December 2020, in which he expressed concern that mRNA vaccines have “the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in safety trials.”
He cited research showing that “the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with formation of microthrombi (clots),” and that since no viral RNA has been found in brain endothelium, “viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus.”

“Is it possible the spike protein itself causes the tissue damage associated with Covid-19?” he asks. “In 13/13 brains from patients with fatal COVID-19, pseudovirions (spike, envelope, and membrane proteins) without viral RNA are present in the endothelia of cerebral microvessels …
It appears that the viral spike protein that is the target of the major SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is also one of the key agents causing the damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung, and kidney.
Before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in humans, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart … Vaccinated patients could also be tested for distant tissue damage in deltoid area skin biopsies …”
Reports of Side Effects Are Rapidly Mounting
Around the world, reports are now pouring in of people dying shortly after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. In many cases, they die suddenly within hours of getting the shot. In others, death occurs within the span of a couple of weeks.

In the wake of 29 senior citizen deaths,20 Norway is reportedly considering excluding the very old and terminally ill from getting the AstraZeneca vaccine. According to the Norwegian Medicines Agency:21

“Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.”

The Norwegian Institute of Public Health further noted that “for those with the most severe frailty, even relatively mild vaccine side effects can have serious consequences,” and that “For those who have a very short remaining life span anyway, the benefit of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant.”22

In Sweden, hospitals in Sörmland and Gävleborg suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine in mid-February 2021 after a full quarter of the vaccinated hospital staff reported side effects. To prevent staff shortages and conduct an investigation, the vaccination push was temporarily paused.23 Examples of side effects reported after vaccination with Pfizer’s, Moderna’s and AstraZeneca’s vaccines from around the world include:

Persistent malaise24,25Bell’s Palsy26,27,28

Extreme exhaustion29Swollen, painful lymph nodes

Severe allergic, including anaphylactic reactions30,31,32Thrombocytopenia (a rare, often lethal blood disorder)33,34

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome35Miscarriages36,37

Chronic seizures and convulsions38,39Severe headache/migraine that does not respond to medication

Paralysis40Sleep disturbances

Psychological effects such as mood changes, anxiety, depression, brain fog, confusion, dissociation and temporary inability to form wordsCardiac problems, including myocardial and tachycardia disorders41

Blindness, impaired vision and eye disorders42,43Stroke44,45

In the U.K., there were 49,472 reported side effects to the Pfizer vaccine and 21,032 reactions to the AstraZeneca vaccine as of January 24, 2021. As reported by Principia Scientific International,46 “For both vaccines this equates to 1 in every 333 people suffering an adverse reaction. This rate could actually be higher as some cases may have not been reported …”
Greatest Risk of All: Sudden Death

Perhaps most concerning of all are rapidly mounting reports of sudden death,47,48,49,50,51,52 mostly in the elderly but also in much younger, healthy individuals. In the U.S., COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of vaccine-related deaths between January 2020 and January 2021.

As of February 12, 2021, the number of side effects reported to VAERS totaled 15,923, including 929 deaths.53 Of the 799 deaths reported within the U.S., one-third occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 21% of them were cardiac-related.
Pfizer’s vaccine was the most dangerous in terms of death, being responsible for 58% of deaths while Moderna’s vaccine accounted for 41% of deaths. Pfizer’s vaccine was also responsible for 75% of Bell’s Palsy cases, compared to Moderna’s at 25%.54
Curiously, based on the data submitted to the FDA, Moderna’s vaccine has a death rate 5.41 times higher than Pfizer’s, yet both are dramatically lower than the national average. As noted by The Defender, the dramatic discrepancy in death rates “deserves notice and requires explanation,” adding:55

“If Moderna’s on-vaccine death rate is so far below the national death rate and also simultaneously more than five times greater than Pfizer’s on-vaccine death rate, then Pfizer’s study sample appears even less representative of the entire population …
Moderna’s screening process and exclusion criteria in the trial led to evidence that the general population is dying at a rate 6.3 times greater than the death rate in the Moderna trial — which means the Moderna study, including its estimated efficacy rate and the vaccine’s alleged safety profile — cannot possibly be relevant to most of the U.S. population.
The super-healthy cohorts studied by Moderna are in no way representative of the U.S. population. Most deaths from COVID-19 involve pre-existing health conditions of the types excluded from both Pfizer and Moderna trials …
Those enrolling in the post-market surveillance studies deserve to know the abject absence of any relevant information on efficacy and risk for them. In their zeal to help humanity, or to help themselves, these people may very well be walking into a situation that will cause autoimmunity due to pathogenic priming, potentially leading to disease enhancement should they become infected following vaccination.”

Do a Risk-Benefit Analysis Before Making Up Your Mind
To avoid becoming a sad statistic, I urge you to review the science very carefully before making up your mind about this experimental gene therapy. Also remember that the lethality of COVID-19 is actually surprisingly low. It’s lower than the flu for those under the age of 60.56

If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. And you could improve that to 99.999% if you’re metabolically flexible, insulin sensitive, and vitamin D replete.

So, really, what are we protecting against with a COVID-19 vaccine? These mRNA vaccines aren’t even designed to prevent infection, only to reduce the severity of symptoms. Meanwhile, they could potentially make you sicker once you’re exposed to the virus, and/or cause persistent serious side effects such as those reviewed above.
While I won’t tell anyone what to do, I would urge you to take the time to review the science and weigh the potential risks and benefits based on your individual situation before you make a decision that you may regret for the rest of your life, which can actually be shortened with this vaccine. Undoubtedly, Pfizer and other vaccine makers suspect this as well, which is why Pfizer is bullying nations into covering for any and all of its mistakes.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/08/pfizer-covid-vaccine.aspx

1 Which of the following is a possible consequence of wearing a face mask?
Increased risk of bacterial and/or fungal infections
The humidity inside the mask will rapidly allow pathogenic bacteria to grow and multiply. By breathing through a microbe-infested mask, you risk inhaling these pathogens. Bacterial pneumonia, facial rashes, fungal infections on the face, “mask mouth” (bad breath, tooth decay and gum inflammation) and candida mouth infections have all risen after mask mandates were implemented. The presence of microbes in your lungs can also worsen lung cancer pathogenesis. Learn more.
Not needing a vaccine
Improved immune function
Increased risk of estrogen-sensitive cancers

2 Vaccine makers will typically test the safety of their vaccine against which of the following?
Saline injection
Another vaccine
Vaccine makers rarely use inert placebos (such as a saline shot), which is the gold standard for drug trials. Instead, they typically assess the safety of a new vaccine against another vaccine. This hides side effects, as most vaccines have side effects and risks. Learn more.
A generic drug
Nothing

3 Which of the following celebrities is the biggest greenhouse gas polluter?
Jennifer Lopez
Paris Hilton
Bill Gates
Gates is now promoting the technocratic “reset” plan, which includes an aggressive climate change agenda, yet Gates’ extensive travel by private jet makes him a top polluter. Learn more.
Oprah Winfrey

4 Which of the following statements is most accurate?
SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to be of natural zoonotic origin
Researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology have admitted they created SARS-CoV-2
SARS-CoV-2 is, provably, an intentionally released bioweapon
To date, no credible theory for natural zoonotic spillover has been presented
No credible theory for natural zoonotic spillover has been presented, to date. Meanwhile, there are at least four distinct lab origin theories, although there’s still no evidence to determine whether the release was accidental or on purpose. Learn more.

5 Which of the following statements is correct?
All available COVID-19 vaccines are under emergency use authorization only; human trials have not yet been completed
COVID-19 mRNA gene therapy “vaccines” are fast-tracked products released under emergency use authorization — animal trials were skipped and human trials aren’t even completed yet — and based on historical and preliminary evidence, significant short- and long-term side effects are inevitable. Learn more.
Two COVID-19 vaccines are fully licensed and approved by the FDA in the U.S.
COVID-19 vaccines are made with attenuated SARS-CoV-2 virus
COVID-19 vaccines make your body produce live SARS-CoV-2 virus

6 The infamous Milgram experiment of 1962 was designed to test the limits of:
Willpower
Human obedience to authority
In 1962, in a now infamous experiment, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram tested the limits of human obedience to authority. Learn more.
Emotional regulation
Linguistic warfare

 
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/08/week-172-health-quiz.aspx

“Bill Gates — What You Were Not Told,” a segment of the Plandemic documentary,1 reviews the personal and professional background of the Microsoft mogul, Bill Gates. Contrary to popular myth, many see Gates as more of an opportunist than a genius inventor, and the video touches on several of the less honorable moments of his career.
After years of building a reputation as a “ruthless tech monopolizer,” Bill Gates 2.0 was launched with the creation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. With this foundation, he reinvented and rebranded himself as one of the world’s most generous philanthropists.
Gates’ Charity Is Not What It Seems

Alas, as noted by AGRA Watch,2 Shiva Vandana, Ph.D., and others, Gates’ brand of philanthropy creates several new problems for each one it solves and can best be described as “philanthrocapitalism.” As noted in the AGRA Watch article, “Philanthrocapitalism: The Gates Foundation’s African Programs Are Not Charity,” published in December 2017, advocates of philanthrocapitalism:3

“… often expect financial returns or secondary benefits over the long term from their investments in social programs. Philanthropy becomes another part of the engine of profit and corporate control. The Gates Foundation’s strategy for ‘development’ actually promotes neoliberal economic policies and corporate globalization.”

Indeed, over the years, Gates has ended up in a position where he monopolizes or wields disproportional influence over not only the tech industry, but also global health and vaccines, agriculture and food policy (including biopiracy and fake food), weather modification and other climate technologies,4 surveillance, education and media.
Not surprisingly, he’s tied to online fact checker organizations that strangle free speech, and recently told “60 Minutes” that to combat mistrust in science, we need to find ways to “slow down the crazy stuff.”5 What’s “crazy” and what’s not, however, is rarely as clear-cut as the mainstream media would like you to believe.
And, like a true philanthrocapitalist, Gates’ generosity ends up benefiting himself most of all. As discussed in “Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?” the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donates billions to the very same companies and industries that the foundation owns stocks and bonds in.
As Gates himself reveals in the featured video, he figured out that vaccines are phenomenal profit makers, saying they’re the best investment he’s ever made, with more than a 20-to-1 return. The one thing that allows for this is the liability shield vaccine makers have been given by the government.
Gates, Global Climate Czar

As mentioned in the featured video, Gates is financing an effort to divert solar rays from the Earth’s surface in an attempt to combat global warming — an irrational approach at best, considering the potential this has to devastate global agriculture.
His latest book also details his climate change recommendations, which just so happen to include urging governments to support the very companies he’s invested in and similar sleight-of-hand gestures.
Bill Gates’s extensive travel by private jet likely makes him one of the world’s top carbon contributors — a veritable super emitter. ~ The Nation
Meanwhile, as noted by The Nation, Gates himself is a serious polluter, with a 66,000 square-foot mansion, a private jet, 242,000 acres of farmland (which makes him the largest farmland owner in the U.S.) and investments in fossil fuel-dependent industries such as airlines, heavy machinery and cars.

“According to a 2019 academic study6 looking at extreme carbon emissions from the jet-setting elite, Bill Gates’s extensive travel by private jet likely makes him one of the world’s top carbon contributors — a veritable super emitter,” The Nation writes.7

“In the list of 10 celebrities investigated — including Jennifer Lopez, Paris Hilton, and Oprah Winfrey — Gates was the source of the most emissions. ‘Affluent individuals can emit several ten thousand times the amount of greenhouse gases attributed to the global poor,’ the paper noted. ‘This raises the question as to whether celebrity climate advocacy is even desirable …’”

Gates Leads the Technocratic Takeover

Gates’ focus on climate change makes perfect sense once you realize that he’s part of the technocratic elite that, for decades, have been working to gobble up the world’s resources in anticipation for the Great Reset, previously known as the One World Order.
Over the past year, the need for the Great Reset has been announced by government leaders around the world, the clarion call being that we need to “reset” the global economy and the way we live, work, travel and socialize in order to make the world more fair and sustainable. Addressing climate change under the banner of a global emergency is part and parcel of that PR campaign.
If you’ve paid attention, you’ve probably seen the hints. During the initial lockdowns in the early part of 2020, there were a slew of articles talking about how nature and wildlife were thriving in the absence of human socialization and travel. At other times, the COVID-19 pandemic has been presented as a warning to us all as to what happens when you get out of sync with nature.
No Real Food for You

Gates clearly feels pressure to do his part to realize the technocratic dream. He told “60 Minutes”8 he is eager to see his various visions come to fruition within his lifetime, and he guesses he might have 20 or 30 years left. As reported by ZeroHedge:9

“Gates is pushing drastic and ‘fundamental’ changes to the economy in order to immediately halt the release of greenhouse gasses — primarily carbon dioxide— and ‘go to zero’ in order to save the planet from long-prognosticated (and consistently wrong) environmental disaster. Changes we’ll need to make in order to realize Gates’ vision include:

Allocating $35 billion per year on climate and clean energy research.
Electric everything.
Widespread consumption of fake meat, since cows account for ‘4% of all greenhouse gases.’
Retooling the steel and cement industries, which Gates says account for 16% of all carbon dioxide emissions, to inject up to 30% of captured C02 into concrete, and create a different type of steel.
Widespread adoption of next generation nuclear energy to supplement wind and solar.

And since producing plants to make fake meat emits gases as well, Gates has backed a company which uses fungus to make sausage and yogurt, which the billionaire calls ‘pretty amazing’ … ‘The microbe was discovered in the ground in a geyser in Yellowstone National Park. Without soil or fertilizer it can be grown to produce this nutritional protein — that can then be turned into a variety of foods with a small carbon footprint.’”

Indeed, Gates would like wealthy Western nations to switch entirely to synthetic lab-grown beef, and rails against legislative attempts to make sure fake meats are properly labeled as such, since that slows down public acceptance.10
Gates Again Proves Feudalism Is a Failed System
With his land ownership, Gates clearly is in a monopoly position (yet again!) to drive agriculture and food production in whatever direction he desires, and he wants us all to eat as much fake food as possible. As noted in a long and detailed article on Gates’ philanthrocapitalist endeavors by The Defender:11

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

So at best, Gates’ campaign to scarf up America’s agricultural real estate is a signal that feudalism may again be in vogue. At worst, his buying spree is a harbinger of something far more alarming — the control of global food supplies by a power-hungry megalomaniac with a Napoleon complex.”

The article goes on to detail Gates’ “long-term strategy of mastery over agriculture and food production globally,” starting with his support of GMOs in 1994. Ever since then, Gates’ “philanthropic” approaches to hunger and food production have been built around his technology, chemical, pharmaceutical and oil industry partners, thereby ensuring that for every failed rescue venture, he gets richer nonetheless.

“As with Gates’ African vaccine enterprise, there was neither internal evaluation nor public accountability,” The Defender writes.12 “The 2020 study ‘False Promises: The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)’ is the report card on the Gates’ cartel’s 14-year effort.

The investigation concludes that the number of Africans suffering extreme hunger has increased by 30 percent in the 18 countries that Gates targeted. Rural poverty has metastasized dramatically …

Under Gates’ plantation system, Africa’s rural populations have become slaves on their own land to a tyrannical serfdom of high-tech inputs, mechanization, rigid schedules, burdensome conditionalities, credits and subsidies … The only entities benefiting from Gates’ program are his international corporate partners …

His investment history suggests that the climate crisis, for Gates and his cronies, is no more than an alibi for intrusive social control, ‘Great Reset’-scale surveillance, and massive science fiction geoengineering boondoggles, including his demented and terrifying vanity projects to spray the stratosphere with calcium chloride or seawater to slow warming, to deploy giant balloons to saturate our atmosphere with reflective particles to blot out the sun, or his perilous gambit of releasing millions of genetically modified mosquitoes in South Florida.

When we place these nightmare schemes in context alongside the battery of experimental vaccines he forces on 161 million African children annually, it’s pretty clear that Gates regards us all as his lab rats.”

Gates Foundation Seeded Catastrophic COVID-19 Policies

Gates, of course, has also played a leading role in the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel who has a channel on Substack,13 Gates had a hand in the “criminally negligent coronavirus response policies” that killed an inordinate number of senior citizens in nursing homes in New York, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Schachtel points out that a common thread in these instances is that they listened to the frightfully inaccurate modeling forecasts from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), which is funded and controlled by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He writes:14

“In March and early April, politicians were informed by the modeling ‘experts’ at Gates-funded IHME that their hospitals were about to be completely overrun by coronavirus patients.

Modelers from IHME claimed this massive surge would cause hospitals to run out of lifesaving equipment in a matter of days, not weeks or months. Time was of the essence, and now was the time for rapid decision making, the modelers claimed.

On two separate April 1 and April 2 press conferences, Cuomo made clear that his policy decisions were based off of the IHME model … In an April 9 briefing, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer referred to the IHME model in order to project deaths and the PPE resources needed for the supposed surge. It was the same story with the government of Pennsylvania.”

White House Coronavirus Task Force members Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx, both of whom have substantial ties to Gates, also relied on the IHME forecast models. As noted by Schachtel:

“These models, and the policy decisions that were made by relying on them, set off a chain of events that led to indefinite lockdowns, complete business closures, statewide curfews, and most infamously, the nursing home death warrants.”

Delete That Which No Longer Serves
The Gates Foundation also co-sponsored Event 201, a scripted tabletop exercise held mere months before the COVID-19 outbreak that ended up being remarkably prophetic.
Strangely enough, in an April 2020 BBC interview, Gates denied the simulation had occurred, saying that “We didn’t simulate this, we didn’t practice, so both the health policies and economic policies, we find ourselves in uncharted territory.”15 In an article for National Herald India, Norbert Häring highlights Gates’ apparent forgetfulness, stating:16

“It is true that if a little less emphasis had been placed on opinion manipulation, more attention could have been paid to health and economic policy. One of the four meetings was entirely devoted to this. But health and economic policies did get discussed. Gates can hardly have forgotten that.

The video on control of public opinion is the most interesting one, as it helps to put in perspective the efforts in this regard, which we are currently experiencing. One participant tells us that Bill Gates is financing work on algorithms which comb through the information on social media platforms to make sure that people can trust the information that they find there.”

Gates has also erased other evidence where the truth is coming back to haunt him. Case in point: Gates-funded fact checkers have vehemently denied claims that Gates ever said we’ll need digital vaccine passports, passing it off as yet another crazy conspiracy theory.
But Gates did say that in a June 2020 TED Talk. Someone just edited that specific statement out of his speech after the quote started making the rounds on social media. In a December 11, 2020, article, The Defender presented the proof.17
Fact checkers also dismiss claims that subdermal microchips or digital tattoos will eventually be used to track and trace us, yet as noted by The Defender, Gates did commission MIT to develop an injectable quantum dot dye system to “tattoo” medical data on your body, and has patented technology that uses implanted biosensors that monitor body and brain activity and is tied to a crypto currency system.
He’s also invested tens of millions into microchip devices with remote-controlled drug-delivery systems, military contractors that track and trace pandemic infections and vaccine compliance, and has a greater than $1 billion investment in 5G video surveillance satellites and 5G antennas. When you put all of these things together, Gates’ plans start to take on a rather ominous feel.
Gates Is the Most Visible Figurehead of Modern Technocracy

Whether preplanned or not, the COVID-19 pandemic is clearly being used to usher in highly controversial changes that are unmistakably totalitarian-building, including the private take-over of government through public-private partnerships.
Surveillance has become the biggest for-profit industry on the planet, and your entire existence is now being targeted for profit. Among those who stand to profit the most is Gates himself.
For a better understanding of what you’re giving up by going along with the mainstream narrative that we need Big Tech to save us, see my article about social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff and her extraordinary book, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism.”
You also won’t want to miss my interview with Patrick Wood, featured in “The Pressing Dangers of Technocracy.” He paints a picture that can be hard to swallow, especially if you’re just coming around to hearing about all of this for the first time, but it’s really crucial that everyone begin to understand what we’re facing.
Time is running out. To have any chance of stopping it, we must understand our trajectory, and unite to change the course Gates and others like him have set for us.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/03/bill-gates-harrowing-vision-for-the-world.aspx

Clinical trials are currently underway to determine if probiotics can help reduce the severity of COVID-19 and improve recovery, as your gut microbiota plays an important role in your overall health. In the past months, doctors and researchers have also discovered that people with poor gut health have a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19.

As well as influencing digestion and immunity, scientists have discovered you have a gut-brain axis and a gut-lung axis. The gut-brain axis has bidirectional communication, through which microbiota help regulate brain function.

For example, a study1 published in 2017 found Bifidobacterium breve strain A1 helps to reduce cognitive dysfunction that is normally induced by amyloid-beta in Alzheimer’s disease.

In another study,2 researchers found a connection between an imbalanced gut microbiome and the development of amyloid plaques in the brain. More recently, researchers have discovered that there is also a gut-lung axis,3 which supports the role your microbiota plays in your immune system, both locally and systemically.

Although your gut and lungs are anatomically distinct, there is growing evidence that communication between the systems helps maintain homeostasis of your immune system. Building on this knowledge, researchers are now investigating a potential and likely link between the health of your gut microbiome and the potential risk for more severe illness from COVID-19.4

Poor Gut Health Is Connected to Severe COVID-19

A review of more than 1,000 patient records showed those who presented at admission to the hospital with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and suspected COVID-19 infection had worse outcomes than those without GI symptoms. The review was done at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and ranked patients with a score of zero to three.

Even after adjusting for comorbidities, demographics and other clinical symptoms, the results held. One of the researchers from Rush University spoke with a journalist from MedPage Today, saying:5

“We knew that GI symptoms could be part of the infection but we did not know if they made a difference and conferred higher risk. So we wanted to look into the impact of initial GI symptoms to see if they might coincide with more serious disease and we found that those with GI symptoms also had established risk factors for severity, such as older age, diabetes, obesity, and hypertension.”

Of the patients evaluated, 22.4% reported experiencing at least one GI symptom, the most common of which was nausea and vomiting. Researchers also found those with GI symptoms had a higher body mass index, a higher prevalence of diabetes and high blood pressure, and were older. Although this group had a higher rate of ICU admission and intubation, the study did not look at the mortality rate.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention6 has also found that while the symptoms of COVID-19 will vary, over the course of the illness many people experience respiratory symptoms, fever, loss of taste and smell and gastrointestinal symptoms. This indicates GI symptoms are among those commonly reported to the CDC.

SciTech Daily7 reports that autopsy results and studies have suggested a sizable number of people with severe COVID-19 also have gastrointestinal problems. A paper published in January 2021, suggests the GI symptoms that predict severe COVID-19 are triggered by poor gut health.8

Heenam Stanley Kim, Ph.D., from Korea University examined the evidence and proposes that gut dysbiosis can exacerbate the severity of the infection.9 This hypothesis is supported by a review of several studies since the start of the pandemic, which also demonstrated that a lack of microbial diversity is associated with more severe disease.10

An early study of patients admitted to Stanford health care from March 4 to March 24, 2020, also found 31.9% of the patients had GI symptoms on admission.11

Poor Microbiome Diversity Increases Risk of Illness

The links between poor gut microbiota and chronic diseases were made long before COVID-19. One of the underlying factors affecting the diversity of your gut microbiome is a Western diet that is characterized by a high intake of processed foods and sugar and a low intake of fruits and vegetables.12

This combination increases chronic inflammation and is associated with several highly prevalent chronic diseases, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity. Kim began analyzing studies and making connections when he realized that countries with good medical infrastructures were among the hardest hit.

These countries ate a Western diet low in fiber, and he says that “a fiber-deficient diet is one of the main causes of altered gut microbiomes and such gut microbiome dysbiosis leads to chronic diseases.”13

This dietary pattern promotes an inflammatory response in the body and is associated with a sharp rise in “Western diseases.”14 One observational study of 1,000 healthy men and women found that eating processed foods leads to a significant reduction in gut microbiome diversity.15

Older age is also associated with reduced diversity of your gut microbiota. When compared to healthy adults, researchers hypothesize this difference may contribute to the development of chronic diseases.16 The changes in gut microbiome with age may be linked to changes in diet and lifestyle and medication use.

As more information was gathered about the progress of COVID-19, scientists identified groups of individuals with comorbidities that were at higher risk for severe disease. It appears one underlying factor between the groups of people who experience severe illness may be poor gut health.

Dr. Giancarlo Ceccarelli, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Rome, and colleagues, provided probiotics to 70 patients who tested positive for COVID-19.17 The results of their research were published in Frontiers in Medicine. The control group received hydroxychloroquine, antibiotics and the immunosuppressive drug tocilizumab, either alone or in combination.

The experimental group received the same therapy with the addition of an oral multistrain probiotic. Within 72 hours, diarrhea in those treated with the probiotic was in remission as compared to less than half of the control group.

Additionally, the intervention lowered the risk of developing respiratory failure eightfold and those in the control group had a higher risk of mortality. Ceccarelli commented on the results of the study:18

“Our preliminary results evidenced an improved survival rate and a lower risk of transfer to an intensive resuscitation for patients supplemented with the probiotic compared with those on standard treatment only. The gut bacteria have a long-reaching immune impact on the pulmonary immune system.

Our results stress the importance of the gut-lung axis in the control of the COVID-19 illness. Bacteriotherapy could represent an additional option for this severe disease.”

Probiotics Are a Potential Therapeutic Approach to COVID-19

Kim notes19 that dysbiosis in the gut microbiota may be the underlying factor that allows SARS-CoV-2 to access the otherwise well-protected cells of your intestinal lining. Ultimately, this allows the virus to leak into the body and affect internal organs, which may explain multiorgan dysfunction in those who are severely ill with the disease.

Kim proposes your gut health may be a critical factor that predicts symptom development. The reduced diversity in bacteria in those with severe COVID-19 includes bacterial families that produce butyrate. This is a short-chain fatty acid that is crucial to reinforcing the gut barrier function.

The resulting leaky gut from an altered microbiota may contribute to these gastrointestinal symptoms and allow the virus access to your internal organs.20 SARS-CoV-2 interacts with ACE2 enzymes found on the surface of many of these organs. This mediates the entry into the host cells and replication, which ultimately damages the tissue and promotes the severity of the illness.

In addition to protecting mucosal barrier function and inhibiting invasion of pathogenic bacteria, there are indications that your gut microbiota have a direct impact on bacteria in the lungs.21 Following sepsis, researchers have found an abundance of Bacteroides sp. in the lungs, which may indicate that the composition of your gut microbiome could be a predictive tool.

The first trial has started in Canada, but doctors in China have been using probiotics with other treatments for COVID since February 2020.22 The goal of the PROVID-19 randomized control trial23 is to evaluate whether probiotics could be a treatment option to reduce the duration and symptoms of patients who have tested positive for the virus and are not hospitalized.

A pilot study from the Chinese University of Hong Kong was accepted for publication in Gastroenterology.24 Researchers collected data from 150 patients with COVID-19 and 1,500 healthy individuals. The microbiome information was compared, after which they created a supplement of prebiotics and bifidobacterium strains.

The paper revealed only that “significantly more patients who received the formula achieved symptom resolution and a reduction in pro-inflammatory immune markers than those who had standard care.”

Probiotics Need Prebiotics to Flourish

The formulation the Chinese scientists developed increases the potential that beneficial bacteria will grow in your gut microbiome by also providing the nutrients they need to flourish. Prebiotics and probiotics are immunomodulatory.25 In other words, they both stimulate and suppress the immune system, which helps maintain homeostasis in the system.

After an evaluation of the current and past research demonstrating the powerful effect that your gut microbiome has on the immune system in combination with the current knowledge that this microbiome plays in the development of severe COVID-19, one scientist wrote:26

“In the event of a failure to produce a vaccine, it is believed that the best approach to fight COVID-19 infection is by improving the immune system using probiotics and prebiotics that have the potential to minimize the inflammation caused by COVID-19 infection.”

These are strategies you can begin to implement immediately without the need for a prescription from your doctor. Studies have confirmed that a high intake of sugar will increase the abundance of harmful bacteria in the gut, while at the same time simultaneously reduce the population of beneficial bacteria.27

Beneficial bacteria help to reinforce the gut barrier function and mitigate the effects of endotoxins released by harmful bacteria. Inulin is one type of water-soluble fiber found in asparagus, garlic, leeks and onions. The following whole foods help add prebiotic fiber to your diet and improve the health of your microbiome, thus improving your overall health:28,29

Asparagus
Banana
Beetroot

Breast milk
Burdock root
Cashews

Chicory root
Couscous
Fennel bulb

Garlic
Green peas
Jerusalem artichokes

Jicama
Konjac root
Leeks

Nectarines
Onion
Persimmon

Pistachios
Pomegranate
Savoy cabbage

Seaweed
Shallots
Snow peas

Tamarillo

Fermented Foods Are Flavorful and Often High in Fiber

Historically, the primary reason for fermenting was to preserve food. Over time, many cultures incorporated fermented foods into their daily diets, and some were credited with a selection of foods they shared with the world. For example, Japanese natto, Korean kimchi and German sauerkraut are popular in many areas outside their respective places of origin.30

The health benefits associated with fermented foods are many. In fact, the yogurt industry has used the growing interest in probiotics to advertise their products. While store-bought yogurt does have probiotic bacteria, it is also rich in sugar that feeds the harmful bacteria in your gut. This is just one reason why grocery store yogurt is typically not beneficial.

In the U.S., it’s becoming more popular to eat fermented foods at home. Yet, preparing them is largely a lost art. Probiotic-rich food, such as fermented vegetables, will boost the population of beneficial bacteria, which then reduce the potentially pathogenic colonies. Making your own yogurt at home is an easy way to start with fermented foods.

To make yogurt at home you only need a high-quality starter culture and raw, grass fed milk. You’ll find simple step-by-step instructions in “Benefits of Homemade Yogurt Versus Commercial.” You can also experiment with fermenting almost any vegetable. Cucumbers (pickles) and cabbage (sauerkraut) are among the most popular. Although it might seem intimidating at first, once you have the basic method down, it’s not difficult.

In the video below, I review how to do this. As I discuss in “Tips for Fermenting at Home,” there are several steps you can take to make the process a little easier. Begin with fresh, organic ingredients and be sure to wash them properly under cold running water. The idea is to remove bacteria, enzymes and other debris as this can affect the outcome.

Choose glass Mason jars with self-sealing lids. Most fermented vegetables will need to be covered with brine. I recommend using a vitamin K2-rich starter culture dissolved in celery juice. Allow the jars to sit in a relatively warm area for several days. The temperature should ideally be around 72 degrees Fahrenheit.

During the summer months, vegetables are typically finished in three to four days. In the winter, they may need up to seven days. The only way to tell when the fermentation process is complete is to open the jar and have a taste.

When you’re happy with the flavor and consistency, move the jars into the refrigerator. Refrigeration will slow fermentation and the vegetables can keep for many months. Remember not to eat out of the jar because you’ll contaminate the rest of the batch with the bacteria from your mouth. Make sure the vegetables are covered with brine before replacing the lid.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/06/probiotics-to-help-combat-covid.aspx

Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, many scientists suspected SARS-CoV-2 might have originated in a biosafety laboratory, most likely in Wuhan, China, where the outbreak began in December 2019. Among them, Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and a virologist, and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., a molecular biologist were experts who discussed the idea of a lab origin.
I interviewed Latham about some of their theories in July 2020. His interview is featured in “Cover-Up of SARS-CoV-2 Origin?” Latham and Wilson argue that while the virus most likely has a bat origin, the mechanism by which it jumped from bat to human was not a natural one and they have previously presented three different theories by which the virus may have been created in and escaped from a lab.
In a February 16, 2021, article1 in Independent Science News, the pair again reviewed the evidence for a laboratory origin, and the reasons why a zoonotic origin will never be found.
Why Zoonotic Origin Is Most Unlikely

Aside from not being known for exotic culinary dishes involving animals such as bats, Wuhan, located in central China, is an unlikely location for zoonotic virus spillover as it has “no cultural, geographic or climatic predisposing factors,” Latham and Wilson note. Wuhan is also not a known hotspot for exotic animal smuggling.
The well-recognized absence of bats in Wuhan is why researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) traveled several hundred miles to collect bat coronavirus samples.
What’s more, Latham and Wilson cite research showing that “when WIV researchers needed to study a Chinese population that was not routinely exposed to bat coronaviruses (as a control group), they chose Wuhan residents.” Zheng-li Shi, head of coronavirus research at the WIV, even admitted that she “had never expected this kind of thing to happen in Wuhan, in central China.”
According to Latham and Wilson, “The chance of a person from Wuhan being patient zero is approximately 1 in 630,” based on calculations that take into account the population size of Wuhan, the global population and the fact that coronavirus-carrying animals are found virtually all over the world.

“It truly is very, very, unlikely that a natural zoonotic pandemic would start in Wuhan. Yet no commentator on the outbreak seems to have properly acknowledged the true scale of this improbability,” Latham and Wilson write.2

Another coincidence that strongly points to a lab origin is the fact that the WIV not only has the world’s largest collection of bat coronaviruses, but WIV researchers had also singled out one specific coronavirus out of 28 relevant species for more in-depth work, “and it is a member of this species that broke out in Wuhan,” Latham and Wilson note, adding:

“This, then, is a further curious coincidence: for a pandemic coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) to emerge in Wuhan and be a member of the species most studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Zoonotic Spillover of SARS-CoV-2 Is Not Random

Latham and Wilson go on to review the research done at the WIV in more detail, comparing and contrasting it to the natural evolution of coronaviruses. There are four basic types of coronaviruses: Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma- and Delta-coronaviruses. (For an illustration of the evolutionary tree of these viruses, please see the original article.3)
Of these four, only two are of interest when we’re searching for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 — the Alpha and Beta versions, of which there are 28 species, and “apparently random” coronavirus spillovers from Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses are known to have occurred in the past. (There are very few Gamma- and Delta-coronaviruses, and none is known to affect humans.)
Six of the 28 Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses are known to affect humans: HCoV-NL63, HCoV-229E, MERS, SARS, HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1 (SARS-CoV-2 makes No. 7). When you locate these six viruses on the coronavirus evolutionary tree, you find that they are widely distributed, which is an indication that previous zoonotic spillovers have been random.
Not so with SARS-CoV-2, though. When you place SARS-CoV-2 on this evolutionary tree, its location is not random like the others. Rather, it emerged from original SARS (as evidenced by its name). Latham and Wilson explain:4

“From a zoonotic perspective, nothing appears to be special about these SARS-related coronaviruses. Consequently, the emergence of a second pandemic virus from the same coronavirus species constitutes a second surprising coincidence.
We can again calculate its probability. If each Alpha and Beta coronavirus species is equally likely to spill over to humans, which is consistent with our understanding, then the probability of a virus from the SARS-related coronavirus species starting a zoonotic pandemic is 1 in 28.
(And if there are undiscovered coronavirus species — pretty much a certainty — the number will be greater still). It is a coincidence that, just like the emergence in Wuhan, heavily favors a lab escape if we take into account the specifics of the coronavirus research program at the WIV …”

Zheng-li’s Research Revolved Around the Pandemic Virus 

Latham and Wilson then go on to review 18 publications by Zheng-li, starting in 2005, describing her research into SARS-like coronaviruses. They point out that while Zheng-li collected a wide array of bat viruses, her specific research focus was the zoonotic spillover potential of a single species, namely SARS-related coronaviruses (one of the six Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses known to infect humans).

“So while most discussions of a potential lab escape have mentioned that SARS-CoV-2 emerged within commuting distance of the WIV and that researchers at the WIV worked on bat coronaviruses, none have mentioned that the coincidence is much greater than that.
Zheng-li Shi concentrated, especially with her potentially highly risky molecular research, on the particular species of coronavirus that is responsible for the pandemic,” Latham and Wilson write, adding that:
“If one accepts as reasonable the assumptions made above, the probability of Wuhan being the site of a natural SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is obtained by multiplying 1 in 630 by 1 in 28. The chance of Wuhan hosting a SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is thus 17,640 to 1.”

They also dismiss the argument that these are little more than circumstantial evidences that could be due to sheer chance. Circumstantial evidence is not a “special category of evidence,” they point out; rather, “all evidence of causation is composed of coincidences.”

“All an observer can do is to add up the coincidences until they surmise that the threshold of reasonable doubt has been surpassed. Conclusions are always provisional, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, anyone open to persuasion ought at this point to conclude that a probability of 17,640 to 1 far exceeds that threshold. A lab escape should at this point be the default hypothesis.”

WIV Held Closest Known Relative to SARS-CoV-2
Since the beginning of the outbreak, we’ve also discovered that the WIV held a virus sample known as RaTG13 which, so far, is the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2. While Zheng-li has denied extensive study on RaTG13, scientific publications reveal this virus has been studied since at least 2017.
In addition to all of this, no substantive zoonotic theory has ever been presented, which makes it far less plausible than any of the lab-origin theories. While several potential intermediate species have been proposed, none has actually been found to carry SARS-CoV-2 or a precursor to it.
Our prediction … simply based on assessing the probabilities, is that no convincing natural zoonotic origin for the pandemic will ever be found by China or the WHO or anyone else — for the simple reason that one does not exist. ~ Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., and Allison Wilson, Ph.D.

What’s more, as detailed in “Top Medical Journal Caught in Massive Cover-Up” and “Lawsuits Begin Over SARS-CoV-2 Lab Leak,” the scientific cornerstone for the zoonotic origin theory hinges on two seriously flawed papers published in PLOS Pathogens and Nature.

Both journals apparently allowed data sets to be secretly changed without publishing notices of correction. Authors appear to have renamed samples, failed to attribute samples properly, and produced a genomic profile that doesn’t match the samples in the paper.
Some data are also missing. An investigation into the discrepancies found RaTG13, which is 96% identical to SARS-CoV-2, is actually btCoV-4991, a virus found in samples collected in 2013 and studies on them published in 2016. Meanwhile, there are at least “four distinct lab origin theories,” Wilson and Latham note, including:5

1. The serial passage theory, which proposes the virus was created by serial passaging through an animal host or cell culture.6
2. Evidence of genetic manipulation, including the chimeric structure of the virus and the presence of a furin cleavage site.7 While a majority of the viral genetic sequence is close to that of RaTG13, its receptor binding domain is nearly identical to that of a pangolin coronavirus, while the furin cleavage site has not been seen in any other SARS-like coronaviruses.

Others have pointed out that the virus, which is highly adapted to human lung cells, appears to have evolved in the absence of immune system antibodies, which suggests mutation within cell culture.8

In “China Deletes Key SARS-CoV-2 Related Science,” I also review evidence9 suggesting SARS-CoV-2 was created by serial passaging an ancestor virus through transgenic mice equipped with human ACE2 receptors. (Research10 has confirmed transgenic mice with human ACE2 receptors are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, whereas normal mice are not.)

3. The failed vaccine development theory.11

4. The Mojiang miners passage theory,12,13 which proposes a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 — possibly RaTG13, as this virus was collected from that very same mine — sickened six miners in 2012, and once inside these patients, some of whom were ill for several weeks, it mutated into SARS-CoV-2. Samples from four of the hospitalized miners were sent to the WIV.

“To-date, there are conflicting claims about the results of those tests and nothing has been formally published. The Mojiang Miners Passage theory proposes, however, that, by the time they arrived at the WIV, these patient-derived samples contained a highly adapted human virus, which subsequently escaped,” Wilson and Latham write, adding:
“Our prediction … simply based on assessing the probabilities, is that no convincing natural zoonotic origin for the pandemic will ever be found by China or the WHO or anyone else — for the simple reason that one does not exist.”

WHO Investigation Into COVID-19 Origin Is Blatantly Corrupt

Despite the complete absence of a plausible zoonotic origin theory, the World Health Organization’s investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, has now officially cleared the WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.14,15,16
They’ve also stated that the lab-escape theory will no longer be part of the team’s investigation going forward.
The WHO team and its Chinese counterparts now insist the most likely scenario is that SARS-CoV-2 piggybacked its way into the Wuhan market in shipments of frozen food from other areas of China where coronavirus-carrying bats are known to reside, or another country, possibly in Europe. As a result, the WHO team is considering expanding its scope to look into other countries as the potential source of the virus.
As noted in a Wall Street Journal op-ed17 by Dr. Scott Gottlieb, “By lending credence to this improbable theory, WHO is damaging trust in the important project of figuring out where the virus originated.”
There are obvious problems with the WHO’s conclusions. For starters, no serious investigation was actually done. The WHO team was not equipped or designed to conduct a forensic examination of laboratory practices;18 rather, they relied on information obtained directly from the Chinese team.

Secondly, China was allowed to hand pick the members of the WHO’s investigative team, which includes Peter Daszak, Ph.D., who has close professional ties to the WIV and has gone on record dismissing the lab-origin theory as “pure baloney.”19,20

He was also the mastermind behind the publication of a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”21,22 This manufactured “scientific consensus” was then relied on by the media to “debunk” theories and evidence showing the pandemic virus most likely originated from a laboratory.
No Credible Evidence Food Is a Route of Transmission

The inclusion of Dazsak on this team virtually guaranteed the dismissal of the lab-origin theory from the very start, and based on the lame justifications given by the team leader, Danish food safety and zoonosis scientist Ben Embarek, it seems clear they had no intention of looking at evidence that might implicate the WIV or any other Wuhan lab.
For example, Embarek claims that officials at the WIV “are the best ones to dismiss the claims and provide answers” about the potential for a lab leak. But suspects in an investigation are hardly the most reliable sources of evidence to dismiss suspicions against them.
Embarek further insisted that lab accidents are “extremely rare,” hence it’s “very unlikely that anything could escape from such a place.”23 This too is a wholly unconvincing argument that flies in the face of available data.
According to the Cambridge Working Group in 2014, “biosafety incidents involving regulated pathogens have been occurring on average over twice a week” in the U.S. alone,24,25 and virology labs accidentally released the original SARS virus on no less than four separate occasions.26,27 Three of those four instances led to outbreaks.28 The 1977 H1N1 influenza outbreaks in the Soviet Union and China were also the result of a lab escape.29
Thirdly, a number of scientific bodies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods have resolutely dismissed the frozen food origination story, as no credible evidence has surfaced suggesting food, food packaging or food handling might be a significant route of transmission.30
Why the Lab-Origin Theory Must Be Quashed

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? The answer undoubtedly comes down to money.
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, which means tens of thousands of researchers would lose their jobs. Prestigious careers would be spoiled.
On top of that, the culprits might face criminal charges under the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, and nations might be held financially responsible for the economic destruction caused by the pandemic around the globe. These are no minor issues. They offer plenty of incentive to cover up the truth.
As Rutgers microbiologist and founding member of the Cambridge Working Group, Richard Ebright, told Boston Magazine:31

“For the substantial subset of virologists who perform gain-of-function research, avoiding restrictions on research funding, avoiding implementation of appropriate biosafety standards, and avoiding implementation of appropriate research oversight are powerful motivators.”

Antonio Regalado, biomedicine editor of MIT Technology Review, was even more blunt, stating that if SARS-CoV-2 was found to be a lab creation, “it would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom.”32 There’s little doubt that this is the reason why the lab origin theory has been roundly labeled as pure conspiracy theory spread by science deniers and Trump flag-wielding kooks.
Such a stance is extremely unhealthy, however, as it seeks to strangle not only free speech but also scientific inquiry, and “criminalizes” logic in general. In a February 15, 2021, AP News article,33 the three authors identify several professors and organizations as “superspreaders” of disinformation about SARS-CoV-2’s origin.
Among them are Francis Boyle, a bioweapons expert who drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act; Luc Montagnier, a world-renowned virologist who won the Nobel prize for his discovery of HIV; and the Center for Research on Globalization. The remainder are individuals and organizations that I, having written many hundreds of articles about COVID-19 over the past year, have never even heard of.
According to AP, the parties on this list have no training in virology (apparently, Nobel prize-winning virologists aren’t good enough) and therefore do not have the expertise to speak on the issue of viral origins. However, they don’t mention the many who have presented evidence for a lab origin who do have all the “right” credentials.
It’s also worth noting that the AP article was produced in collaboration with the Atlantic Council, which is part of the technocratic hub that is using the pandemic to further its Great Reset agenda. That alone qualifies the article as pure globalist propaganda.
If SARS-CoV-2 really was the result of zoonotic spillover, the easiest and most effective way to quash “conspiracy theories” about a lab origin would be to present compelling evidence for a plausible theory. So far, that hasn’t happened, and as noted by Latham and Wilson, the most likely reason for that is because the virus does not have a natural zoonotic origin, and you cannot find that which does not exist.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/04/is-coronavirus-zoonotic.aspx

The Billion Agave Project is a game-changing, ecosystem-regeneration strategy recently adopted by several innovative Mexican farms in the high-desert region of Guanajuato. With your support, we’ve been the primary group to donate to Organic Consumers Association supporting this crucial project that is now proven to green arid regions and provide both food and income for some of the world’s most challenged farmers.
This strategy combines the growing of agave plants and nitrogen-fixing companion tree species (such as mesquite), with holistic rotational grazing of livestock. The result is a high-biomass, high forage-yielding system that works well even on degraded, semi-arid lands. A manifesto on mesquite is available in English1 and Español.2
The system produces large amounts of agave leaf and root stem — up to 1 ton of biomass over the 8- to 10-year life of the plant. When chopped and fermented in closed containers, this plant material produces an excellent, inexpensive (2 cents per pound) animal fodder.
This agroforestry system reduces the pressure to overgraze brittle rangelands and improves soil health and water retention, while drawing down and storing massive amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
The goal of the Billion Agave campaign is to plant 1 billion agaves globally to draw down and store 1 billion tons of climate-destabilizing CO2. The campaign will be funded by donations and public and private investments.
Why Agave?

Climate-Change Solution
Agave plants and nitrogen-fixing trees, densely intercropped and cultivated together, have the capacity to draw down and sequester massive amounts of atmospheric CO2.
They also produce more above-ground and below-ground biomass (and animal fodder) on a continuous year-to-year basis than any other desert or semi-desert species. Agaves alone can draw down and store above ground the dry-weight equivalent of 30 to 60 tons of CO2 per hectare (12 to 24 tons per acre) per year.
Ideal for arid and hot climates, agaves and their companion trees, once established, require no irrigation and are basically impervious to rising global temperatures and drought.
Livestock Feed Source
Agave leaves, full of saponins and lectins, are indigestible for livestock. However, once their massive leaves (high in sugar) are chopped finely via a machine and fermented in closed containers for 30 days, the end product provides a nutritious and inexpensive silage or animal fodder.
This agave/companion tree silage, combined with the restoration of degraded rangelands, can make the difference between survival and grinding poverty for millions of the world’s small farmers and herders.
Drought-Resistant
Agaves require little-to-no irrigation. They thrive even in dry, degraded lands unsuitable for crop production because of their Crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) photosynthetic pathway.
The CAM pathway enables agave plants to draw down moisture from the air and store it in their thick leaves at night. During daylight hours, the opening in their leaves (the stomata) closes up, drastically reducing evaporation.
A New Agroforestry Model

A pioneering group of Mexican farmers is transforming their landscape and their livelihoods. How? By densely planting (1,600 to 2,500 per hectare), pruning and intercropping a fast-growing, high-biomass, high forage-yielding species of agaves among preexisting (500 per hectare) deep-rooted, nitrogen-fixing tree species (such as mesquite), or among planted tree seedlings.
When the agaves are 3 years old, and for the following five to seven years, farmers can prune the leaves or pencas, chop them up finely with a machine, and then ferment the agave in closed containers for 30 days, ideally combining the agave leaves with 20% of leguminous pods and branches by volume to give them a higher protein level.
In Guanajuato, mesquite trees start to produce pods that can be harvested in five years. By Year 7, the mesquite and agaves have grown into a fairly dense forest. In Years 8 to 10, the root stem or pina (weighing between 100 and 200 pounds) of the agave is ready for harvesting to produce a distilled liquor called mescal.
Meanwhile the hijuelos (or pups) put out by the mother agave plants are being continuously transplanted back into the agroforestry system, guaranteeing continuous biomass growth (and carbon storage).
In this agroforestry system farmers avoid overgrazing by integrating rotational grazing of their livestock across their rangelands. They feed their animals by supplementing pasture forage with fermented agave silage.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/07/the-billion-agave-project.aspx