Lose Them Pounds

Everything You HAVE TO KNOW about Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods from Jeffrey Smith on Vimeo. A study demonstrates the toxicity of three genetically modified corn varieties from the American seed company Monsanto, according to the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering.

“For the first time in the world, we’ve proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized … Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems,” said Gilles-Eric Séralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation.

The researchers based their analyses on the data supplied by Monsanto to health authorities to obtain the green light for commercialization, but they draw different conclusions after new statistical calculations.

November 5, 2020, U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), an investigative public health nonprofit group, filed a lawsuit1 against the National Institutes of Health after the agency failed to respond to its July 10, 2020, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The USRTK’s lawsuit sought access to nonexempt records of gain-of-function experiments relating to the COVID-19 pandemic from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the EcoHealth Alliance, which partnered with and funded the Wuhan Institute.2
In a November 18, 2020, article,3,4 USRTK reports that emails obtained prove EcoHealth Alliance employees were behind the plot to obscure the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 by issuing a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory”:

“Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know show that a statement5 in The Lancet authored by 27 prominent public health scientists condemning ‘conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin’ was organized by employees of EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit group that has received millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer funding to genetically manipulate coronaviruses with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The emails obtained via public records requests show that EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak drafted the Lancet statement, and that he intended it to ‘not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person’6 but rather to be seen as ‘simply a letter from leading scientists.’7 Daszak wrote that he wanted ‘to avoid the appearance of a political statement.’8

The scientists’ letter appeared in The Lancet on February 18, just one week after the World Health Organization announced that the disease caused by the novel coronavirus would be named COVID-19.

The 27 authors ‘strongly condemn[ed] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,’ and reported that scientists from multiple countries ‘overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.’

The letter included no scientific references to refute a lab-origin theory of the virus. One scientist, Linda Saif, asked via email whether it would be useful ‘to add just one or 2 statements in support of why nCOV is not a lab generated virus and is naturally occuring? Seems critical to scientifically refute such claims!’9 Daszak responded, ‘I think we should probably stick to a broad statement.’10”

USRTK points out that several of the authors of that Lancet statement also have direct ties to the EcoHealth Alliance that were not disclosed as conflicts of interest.

“Rita Colwell and James Hughes are members of the Board of Directors of EcoHealth Alliance, William Karesh is the group’s Executive Vice President for Health and Policy, and Hume Field is Science and Policy Advisor,” USRTK writes.11

Daszak Leads Lancet Investigation Into SARS-CoV-2 Origin

This bombshell finding is all the more important in light of the fact that Daszak is now leading The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission charged with getting to the bottom of SARS-CoV-2’s origin.12
The nomination was suspect from the start, for no other reason than EcoHealth Alliance has received numerous grants from the National Institutes of Health for coronavirus research that was then subcontracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Daszak had also gone on the record stating he’s convinced that the virus is natural in origin. With that, his conflicts of interest were already crystal clear, but the finding that he orchestrated The Lancet statement condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” means The Lancet Commission’s investigation is little more than a cover-up operation.
If they want to maintain any semblance of credibility going forward, Daszak would need to be replaced with someone less tainted by conflicts and personal gain potential. Five other members of The Lancet Commission also signed the February 18, 2020, statement in The Lancet,13 which puts their credibility in question as well.
Daszak has every reason to make sure SARS-CoV-2 ends up being declared natural, because if it turns out to be a lab-creation, his livelihood is at stake. It would be naïve to believe that safeguarding the continuation of dangerous gain-of-function research wouldn’t be a powerful motivator to preserve the zoonotic origin narrative.
If you want to see just how deeply the mainstream media is in complete collusion with Daszak and is being used to bolster this fake narrative, you can view the “60 Minutes” interview with him below that was broadcast earlier this year.

Lab Escapes Are Commonplace
For the past decade, there have been red flags raised in the scientific community about biosecurity breaches in high containment biological labs in the U.S. and around the world.14
There were legitimate fears that a lab-created superflu might escape the confines of biosecurity labs where researchers are conducting experiments. It’s certainly a reasonable fear, considering the many biosafety breaches on record.15,16,17,18 For example, in 2014, six glass vials of smallpox virus were accidentally found in a storeroom in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s lab at the National Institutes of Health.19
It was the second time in one month mishandling of potential deadly infectious agents was exposed. One month before this shocking discovery, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention20 realized as many as 84, and possibly 86, of its scientists had been exposed to live anthrax.21,22
The live pathogen had been sent from another, higher-security facility, which failed to follow biosafety protocols. The anthrax sample was supposed to have been inactivated prior to transfer, but for a variety of reasons it wasn’t dead on arrival.
The next year, in 2015, the Pentagon realized a Dugway Proving Ground laboratory had been sending incompletely inactivated anthrax (meaning it was still live) to 200 laboratories around the world for the past 12 years. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report23 issued in August 2016, incompletely inactivated anthrax was sent out on at least 21 occasions between 2003 and 2015.
In 2017, the BSL 4 lab on Galveston Island was hit by a massive storm and severe flooding, raising questions about what might happen were some of the pathogens kept there to get out.24 As recently as 2019, the BSL 4 lab in Fort Detrick was temporarily shut down after several protocol violations were noted.25
Between October 2014 and December 2017, a moratorium on dangerous gain-of-function experiments was in effect in the U.S.26,27 The moratorium was initially issued after a rash of “high-profile lab mishaps” at the CDC and “extremely controversial flu experiments” in which the bird flu virus was engineered to become more lethal and contagious between ferrets.
The goal was to see if it could mutate and become more lethal and contagious between humans, causing future pandemics.
According to Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the West Africa Ebola pandemic likely originated out of a BSL-4 facility in Sierra Leone. He believes they were testing a live Ebola vaccine, thereby causing the outbreak.
Asia Times28 lists several other examples of safety breaches at BSL3 and BSL4 labs, as does a May 28, 2015, article in USA Today,29 an April 11, 2014, article in Slate magazine30 and a November 16, 2020, article in Medium.31
SARS Lab Escapes

The Medium article,32 written by Gilles Demaneuf, reviews SARS lab escapes specifically. No less than three out of four reappearances of SARS have been attributed to safety breaches. In the first incident, which took place in September 2003 in Singapore, an inexperienced doctoral student was infected with SARS. The case was blamed on “inappropriate laboratory standards” and cross-contamination.33
Other shortcomings that contributed included “inadequate record-keeping procedures, totally inadequate training, inexistent virus stock inventory, patchy maintenance records plus a variety of structural problems including the absence of gauges to indicate the pressure differentials, the lack of a freezer to store samples, problems with HEPA filters and air supply, and other equipment deficiencies.”34
As long as we are creating the risk, the benefit will always be secondary. Any scientific or medical gains made from gain-of-function research pales in comparison to the incredible risks involved if these creations are released.
The second accident took place in December 2003 at the Level 4 lab at the Taiwan Military Institute of Preventive Medical Research (IPMR) of the National Defense University.
A lieutenant-colonel working with SARS was infected as a result of negligence when disinfecting an accidental spill. The third incidence took place between February and April 2004 in Beijing, resulting in nearly 1,000 people being medically quarantined.
Why Tracking Down Origin of SARS-CoV-2 Is Crucial

As noted by the National Review,35 getting to the bottom of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial if we are to prevent a similar pandemic to erupt in the future:

“If it originated from a person eating bat or pangolin at a wet market, then we need to take steps to ensure that bat and pangolin consumption and trade stops everywhere in the world … Bat guano is used as fertilizer in many countries, and that guano can be full of viruses … If this is the source of the virus, we need to get people to stop going into caves and using the guano as fertilizer …
In a strange way, the ‘lab accident’ scenario is one of the most reassuring explanations. It means that if we want to ensure we never experience this again, we simply need to get every lab in the world working on contagious viruses to ensure 100 percent compliance with safety protocols, all the time.”

We’re told gain-of-function research is necessary in order to stay ahead of the natural evolution of viruses. A pathogen that mutates and jumps species, for example, may end up posing a severe threat to mankind. However, by manipulating pathogens, turning nonlethal viruses into lethal ones, for example, we are creating the very risk we’re supposedly trying to avoid.
And, as long as we are creating the risk, the benefit will always be secondary. Any scientific or medical gains made from this kind of research pales in comparison to the incredible risks involved if these creations are released. This sentiment has been echoed by others in a variety of scientific publications.36,37,38,39
Considering the potential for a massively lethal pandemic, I believe it’s safe to say that BSL 3 and 4 laboratories pose a very real and serious existential threat to humanity.
U.S. biowarfare programs employ some 13,000 scientists,40 all of whom are hard at work creating ever-deadlier pathogens, while the public is simply told to trust that these pathogens will never be released, either involuntarily or voluntarily.
Historical facts tell us accidental exposures and releases have already happened, and we only have our lucky stars to thank that none have turned into pandemics taking the lives of millions.
Considering safety breaches at these labs number in the hundreds, it’s only a matter of time before something really nasty gets out. Consider the ramifications if a souped-up Ebola or Spanish flu were to get out, for example. Is SARS-CoV-2 the product of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology? It might be. There’s certainly compelling evidence to suggest it.
But even if such suspicions turn out be wrong, we must ask the question and do a proper investigation. We absolutely need to know how this virus came about, and if it was a lab creation, how it got out.
Naturally, there will be resistance. As mentioned, many thousands of researchers stand to lose their careers were this kind of research to be banned. As Antonio Regalado, biomedicine editor of MIT Technology Review, told Boston Magazine,41 “If it turned out COVID-19 came from a lab it would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom.”
Some might be looking at an even worse fate. With sufficient evidence, certain researchers and public health authorities could face life behind bars for their involvement, which is the penalty for bioterrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act. All things considered, there’s virtually no benefit to gain-of-function research, but plenty of risk.

Flying under the radar, so to speak, during the media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic, is the rollout of a hyperfast speed 5G wireless network. As millions of Americans are suddenly working remotely, it has proven to be a powerful opportunity for regulators to move 5G forward. Yet, in the face of expanding wireless connections, a landmark study recommends reducing exposure.
Despite concern by many experts, the implementation is moving forward under the guise of bringing a faster and more efficient internet, at any cost. The term 5G stands for the fifth generation of wireless access, which Jonathon Adelstein, head of the Wireless Infrastructure Association, characterizes as “4G on steroids.”1 The association represents nearly 200 companies in the telecommunications industry.2
However, Adelstein’s characterization of 4G on steroids is not quite accurate. While the 4G network uses under 6 gigahertz (GHz) on the radio frequency spectrum, 5G will occupy from 30 GHz to 300 GHz, which are shorter millimeter wavelengths.3 The health effects of consistent exposure to pulses of these wavelengths have not been thoroughly studied, but the initial evidence shows it is likely dangerous.
If faster speed and reliability are truly the end goals, then fiber optic connections are a far better and safer way forward. It’s not the faster speeds of 5G that are of concern to scientists but, rather, the distribution of wireless data when in most cases it could be routed more easily and less expensively over fiber optic cables.
Newest Data Confirms Past Evidence

Following the passage of New Hampshire House Bill 522, the New Hampshire legislative Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was formed.4 The commission was engaged to “study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019.”5
The commission was made up of 13 members whose education included epidemiology, occupational health, toxicology, physics, engineering electromagnetics and a representative from the wireless industry. As quoted from EMF Safety Network, the commission was asked to answer eight pointed questions, including:6

Why thousands of peer-reviewed radiofrequency (RF) studies that show a wide range of health effects, including DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility and many other ailments, have been ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)
Why the FCC guidelines do not account for health effects of wireless technology
Why the FCC RF limits are 100 times higher than those in other countries
Why the FCC is ignoring the World Health Organization classification of wireless as a possible carcinogen
Why, when the world’s leading scientists signed an appeal to protect public health from wireless radiation, nothing has been done

The commission heard from experts and ultimately all except the telecommunication representative acknowledged that RF radiation coming from wireless devices had an effect on humans, animals, insects and plants. The commission wrote:7

“There is mounting evidence that DNA damage can occur from radiation outside of the ionizing part of the spectrum. The Commission heard arguments on both sides of this issue with many now saying there are findings showing biological effects in this range. This argument gets amplified as millimeter waves within the microwave range are beginning to be utilized.”

Their first recommendation was “an independent review of the current RF standards of the electromagnetic radiation in the 300MHz to 300GHz microwave spectrum” to assess the health risks that were linked to cellular communications.8
The remaining recommendations included those that would reduce an individual’s exposure to the 5G network and increase the public’s knowledge and awareness of their exposure.
Included was a shorter minority report written by the business and industry representative and the telecommunications representative, who were not in agreement with the majority of experts. The EMF Safety Network wrote, “This minority report parrots the language of the telecommunications industry and exposes their agenda to ignore science and continue to confuse the public.”9
Safety Is Taking a Backseat to Speed

In much the same way the tobacco industry convinced the public that smoking was not dangerous, so is the telecommunications industry selling the public on speed over safety. In the interview above with Greater Earth Media, IT professional Jon Humphrey made the glaringly obvious comparison between the actions of telecommunication, tobacco and leaded gas industries, saying:10

“So, they know the technology is dangerous and that’s why they’re just trying to get as much of it out there as they can before they’re finally held accountable. Sadly, we’ve seen this all before.

We saw it with big tobacco, we saw it with leaded gas and in every single case the big corporations did what they always do — they lied and then they paid off politicians and they paid scientists and they silenced people and discredited them and sadly they did get away with a lot of it and that’s what we need to make sure doesn’t happen with 5G.”

The promise is that speeds will be from 10 to 100 times faster than 4G running primarily on millimeter-wave (MMW) bandwidth. According to EMF coach and author Lloyd Burrell, the signals will likely be weaker since the wavelengths do not penetrate buildings and tend to be incorporated into rain and plants. To adjust, the 5G network will use:11

“… smaller cell stations (and the technology of beamforming) that’ll scramble/unscramble and redirect packets of data on a no-interference path back to us. This could mean wireless antennas on every lamp post, utility pole, home and business throughout entire neighborhoods, towns and cities.”

This requires a new infrastructure mounting 5G cell stations on existing structures, such as utility poles. During U.S. Senate hearings on the topic, when asked about the safety studies on these small cell stations, representatives from the industry stated they were not aware if any such studies existed.12
This led Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., to say, “So there really is no research ongoing. We’re kind of flying blind here.” An article published in Scientific American by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., director for the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, identified another challenge:13

“5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.”

How Is 5G Different From 4G?

As explained in this video by IEEE Spectrum, part of a large organization devoted to engineering, there are several differences between 4G and 5G technology. Considering there are already many who struggle with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, saturating cities and suburban areas with additional radio frequencies will only add to this once rare affliction.
One of the significant problems with the technology is that it relies primarily on MMW, which is known to penetrate human tissue up to 2 millimeters, where it is absorbed by the surface of the cornea and is conducted by sweat glands within the skin.14 Each of these factors leads to an association with a number of potential health problems.
For example, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is using MMW in crowd control weapons called the Active Denial System because it produces a severe burning sensation. The DOD writes, “The Active Denial System generates a focused and very directional millimeter-wave radio frequency beam.”15
MMW is also known to suppress your immune function16 and increase cellular stress, harmful free radicals, learning deficits17 and, potentially, bacterial antibiotic resistance.18 There is nothing to suggest that 5G will produce less harm than the current technology, and there are thousands of studies demonstrating the harmful effects from that.
Research by Martin Pall, Ph.D., details how excessive oxidative stress triggered by microwave exposure from wireless technology can lead to reproductive harm and neurological disorders, such as anxiety, depression, autism and Alzheimer’s.19
Without the Choice to Opt-Out, What Can You Do?

Once it’s installed in your neighborhood, you won’t have a choice to opt out of 5G exposure. “5G will be virtually everywhere, with the options of being able to simply “get away from it” being very limited as millions of small cell devices are rolled out,” Humphrey says.20
There’s no doubt in my mind that microwave radiation from wireless technologies is a significant health hazard that needs to be addressed if you’re concerned about your health. Unfortunately, the rollout of 5G will make remedial action difficult, which is why we all need to get involved and do what we can to prevent it in the first place, such as contacting your local lawmakers and signing local petitions.
Below are several suggestions to help reduce your exposure and mitigate the damage from wireless technology. In addition, you can download a free chapter from my book, “EMF*D,” that summarizes many of the major recommendations. This is handy to keep on your desktop as a reference as you’re making changes in your home.

Identify major sources of EMF in your home, such as your cellphone, cordless phones, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth headsets and other Bluetooth-equipped items, wireless mice, keyboards, smart thermostats, baby monitors, smart meters and the microwave in your kitchen. Ideally, address each source and determine how you can best limit their use.
Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cellphone or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cellphone radiation than adults due to having thinner skull bones and developing immune systems and brains.
Research also demonstrates that infants under the age of 1 do not effectively learn language from videos, and do not transfer what they learn from the iPad to the real world, so it’s a mistake to think electronic devices provide valuable educational experiences.21

Connect your desktop computer to the internet via a wired Ethernet connection and be sure to put your desktop in airplane mode. Also avoid wireless keyboards, trackballs, mice, game systems, printers and portable house phones. Opt for the wired versions.

If you must use Wi-Fi, shut it off when not in use, especially at night when you are sleeping. Ideally, work toward hardwiring your house so you can eliminate Wi-Fi altogether. If you have a notebook without any Ethernet ports, a USB Ethernet adapter will allow you to connect to the internet with a wired connection.

Avoid using wireless chargers for your cellphone, as they too will increase EMFs throughout your home. Wireless charging is also far less energy efficient than using a dongle attached to a power plug, as it draws continuous power (and emits EMF) whether you’re using it or not.

Shut off the electricity to your bedroom at night. This typically works to reduce electrical fields from the wires in your wall unless there is an adjoining room next to your bedroom. If that is the case, you will need to use a meter to determine if you also need to turn off power in the adjacent room.

Use a battery-powered alarm clock, ideally one without any light. I use a talking clock for the visually impaired.22

If you still use a microwave oven, consider replacing it with a steam convection oven, which will heat your food as quickly and far more safely.

Avoid using “smart” appliances and thermostats that depend on wireless signaling. This includes all new “smart” TVs as they emit a Wi-Fi signal and, unlike your computer, you cannot shut the Wi-Fi signal off. Consider using a large computer monitor as your TV instead, as they don’t emit Wi-Fi.

Refuse a smart meter on your home as long as you can, or add a shield to an existing smart meter, some of which have been shown to reduce radiation as much as 98%.23

Consider moving your baby’s bed into your room instead of using a wireless baby monitor. Alternatively, use a hard-wired monitor.

Replace CFL bulbs with incandescent bulbs. Ideally remove all fluorescent lights from your house. Not only do they emit unhealthy light, but more importantly, they transfer current to your body just being close to the bulbs.

Avoid carrying your cellphone on your body unless in airplane mode and never sleep with it in your bedroom unless it is in airplane mode. Even in airplane mode it can emit signals, which is why I put my phone in a Faraday bag.24

When using your cellphone, use the speaker phone and hold the phone at least 3 feet away from you. Seek to radically decrease your time on the cellphone. Instead, use VoIP software phones that you can use while connected to the internet via a wired connection.

Avoid using your cellphone and other electronic devices at least an hour (preferably several hours) before bed, as the blue light from the screen and EMFs both inhibit melatonin production.25,26 If you must use your phone make sure you have the blue light filters activated and have it in dark mode.

The effects of EMFs are reduced by calcium-channel blockers, so make sure you’re getting enough magnesium. Most people are deficient in magnesium, which will worsen the impact of EMFs.

Pall has published a paper suggesting that raising your level of Nrf2 may help ameliorate EMF damage.27 One simple way to activate Nrf2 is to consume Nrf2-boosting foods, such as cruciferous vegetables and fermented foods and beverages.28
Exercise, calorie restriction (such as intermittent fasting) and activating the nitric oxide signaling pathway (one way of doing that is the Nitric Oxide Dump exercise) will also raise Nrf2.

Muscle mass decreases with age, a phenomenon known as sarcopenia. After the age of 30, most people experience muscle mass decreases of about 3% to 8% per decade, with the rate of decline increasing further after age 60.1 This isn’t set in stone, however, and you can influence muscle loss, slowing down its progress significantly, via lifestyle factors like diet and exercise.
Luc van Loon, a professor of exercise physiology and nutrition at Maastricht University in The Netherlands, has been studying muscle loss for years, revealing the importance of diet to your muscle health. Every day, 1% to 2% of your muscle is broken down and rebuilt, according to van Loon, which means that your muscle is rebuilt every two to three months.2
Amino acids from protein are particularly important in this process, acting as the raw material or “building blocks” of your muscle while also playing a role in new muscle growth. Leucine, in particular, has been established as an amino acid with greater anabolic properties.3
The richest source of leucine, which helps regulate the turnover of protein in your muscle, is whey protein. Older people not only have accelerated muscle loss, but also require greater protein intake to stimulate maximum muscle protein synthesis compared to younger people.4
For instance, while the muscle protein synthesis rate of healthy young adults increases by about 75% following intake of 20 grams of protein, older adults require about 40 grams of protein to experience a similar increase.5
Without whey, it can be difficult to achieve enough leucine to maintain body protein from diet alone. Fortunately, whey, in combination with exercise, represents a simple option for older adults looking to maintain their muscle mass.
‘You Are What You Just Ate’

In 2015, van Loon and colleagues published a comprehensive overview of how the body handles protein after a meal, including details such as protein digestion, amino acid absorption and muscle protein synthesis rates.6 The study’s title, “You Are What You Just Ate,” hints at the findings, which revealed that when 12 young men ingested 20 grams (g) of protein, 55.3% of it was released into their circulation within five hours.
After consuming the protein, muscle protein synthesis rates also increased significantly and a rise in plasma essential amino acid also occurred, translating into improved leg muscle protein balance. According to the study:7

“Ingestion of a single meal-like amount of protein allows ~55% of the protein derived amino acids to become available in the circulation, thereby improving whole-body and leg protein balance.

About 20% of the dietary protein derived amino acids released in the circulation are taken up in skeletal muscle tissue following protein ingestion, thereby stimulating muscle protein synthesis rates and providing precursors for de novo muscle protein synthesis.”

The influence of protein on your muscle may be even more important post-exercise, especially in the elderly, but van Loon and colleagues found that even those who are frail benefit from protein supplementation after exercise.
In fact, their study involved 62 frail elderly subjects with an average age of 78 years, who engaged in progressive resistance exercise twice a week for 24 weeks. They received either a protein drink or a placebo beverage during the exercise.
Those in the protein group gained significant benefits, including an increase in lean body mass from 47.2 kilograms (104 pounds) to 48.5 kilograms (106.9 pounds), an effect that wasn’t seen in the placebo group. According to the researchers, “Dietary protein supplementation is required to allow muscle mass gain during exercise training in frail elderly people.”8
Protect Your Muscles During ‘Catabolic Crises’

While muscle mass does decline gradually over time, it’s also possible that a single event can trigger a catabolic crisis that acts as a tipping point, breaking down muscle to a point that’s difficult to recover from.
Even a brief period of bed rest, such as recovering from a surgery or illness, can initiate significant declines in muscle strength and it’s also known that muscle loss is accelerated during periods of bed rest while muscle protein synthesis declines.9
During typical daily life, consuming a moderate amount of high-quality protein with each meal, and exercising close to protein-containing meals, can help to limit losses of muscle mass and function in older adults.10 Protecting muscles during periods of inactivity, however, is crucial for older adults.
This can be achieved by consuming targeted nutritional support, including protein and amino acid supplementation, along with physical therapy. Van Loon also suggests that making small changes during bed rest can make a big difference. As Outside Online reported:11

“Van Loon advocates some simple fixes — like never, ever feed someone in a hospital bed unless it’s absolutely necessary. Make them get up, and ideally make them shuffle down the hallway to get food. Same for watching TV.

Even this tiny amount of muscle contraction, he says, will enhance muscle synthesis when the patient eats. Similarly, since you don’t eat as much when you’re in bed, the proportion of protein in the meal should be higher to ensure sufficient muscle synthesis signals.”

Protein Before Bed Increases Muscle Mass

I generally recommend avoiding food close to bedtime, and past research has linked eating close to night-time sleep to an increased risk of heart disease, obesity and diabetes. However, targeted nutritional therapy prior to sleep may have a different, beneficial effect, acting as an opportunity to support muscle reconditioning in the elderly or athletes, for instance.12
In a review by Van Loon and colleagues, they found that ingesting protein prior to sleep increases muscle protein synthesis rates while you sleep and may be useful following resistance exercise in both young and old adults:

“Protein ingested prior to sleep is effectively digested and absorbed during sleep, thereby increasing plasma amino acid availability and stimulating muscle protein synthesis during overnight sleep in both young and old. When pre-sleep protein intake is combined with exercise performed the same evening, overnight muscle protein synthesis rates will be further increased.13

Protein ingestion prior to sleep can be applied in combination with resistance type exercise training to further augment the gains in muscle mass and strength when compared to no protein supplementation …

Protein ingestion before sleep has been hypothesized to represent an effective nutritional strategy to increase daily protein intake and, as such, to attenuate muscle mass loss in hospitalized older adults.

In more clinically compromised older populations the combination with exercise or exercise mimetics (such as NMES [neuromuscular electrical stimulation]) may further increase the efficacy of pre-sleep protein ingestion to improve overnight muscle protein balance.”

Leucine as a Pharmaconutrient

Van Loon describes leucine as a pharmaconutrient that may be useful for preventing and treating sarcopenia and other conditions like Type 2 diabetes.14 Muscle protein synthesis may become blunted in response to amino acid or protein intake in the elderly, but free leucine ingestion may reverse this blunted response.15
Older adults may also have attenuated postexercise increases in muscle protein synthesis when they consume small amounts of protein compared to younger adults. This can also be improved via leucine, as research suggests that in older adults, consuming leucine along with protein boosts muscle protein synthesis rates after exercise compared to consuming protein alone.16
As far back as 1975, it’s been known that leucine may also “play a pivotal role in the protein-sparing effect of amino acids.”17 As explained in a more recent study, published in 2017, this is what makes whey such an efficient protein source:18

“Protein ingestion produces a strong anabolic stimulus that elevates muscle protein synthesis. The ability of a serving of protein to stimulate muscle protein synthesis (MPS) is dependent on absorption and blood kinetics of amino acids, amount of protein ingested, and the amino acid composition of the protein source.

Only the essential amino acids (EAA), especially leucine, initiate an immediate increase in MPS. Being a rapidly digested protein with a high leucine content, whey has been shown to stimulate MPS more than equal amounts of casein and soy in the first hours after exercise …

At the molecular level the mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) and its substrates … are believed to largely be responsible for the protein synthetic response to resistance exercise and protein intake, with resistance exercise potentiating the effect of protein ingestion.”

How Much Leucine Is Best?
Ori Hofmekler, author of “Unlock Your Muscle Gene: Trigger the Biological Mechanisms That Transform Your Body and Extend Your Life,” is an expert on how to use food to build muscle and improve your health. He believes you need far higher amounts of leucine than the recommended daily allowance, as most leucine is used as a building block rather than an anabolic agent.
The typical requirement for leucine to maintain body protein is 1 to 3 grams daily. However, to optimize its anabolic pathway, Hofmekler believes you need somewhere between 8 and 16 grams of leucine per day, in divided doses.
Siim Land, author of “Metabolic Autophagy: Practice Intermittent Fasting and Resistance Training to Build Muscle and Promote Longevity,” also states that to activate mTOR and boost muscle protein synthesis, you need a significant quantity of leucine, at least 3 grams. In our August 2020 interview, he stated:

“Using leucine or HMB [hydroxy methylbutyrate, a metabolite of leucine] can be really useful for getting more protein synthesis from less protein. You can get away with eating less protein and still getting the benefits of the mTOR stimulation. But I would say that leucine itself could be better than HMB by itself.

HMB has some anticatabolic effects, but most of those effects are mediated by leucine and mTOR itself. You could use both, but if you want to get more benefits from the mTOR and muscle growth, then leucine is probably more important than HMB.”

More Frequent Protein Intake Useful for Muscle Building
Breaking the doses up into multiple meals may be especially beneficial, because if you eat twice, six hours apart, you can activate mTOR twice a day, thus allowing you to get better muscle-building benefits. As explained by Land:

“What determines your muscle growth throughout the 24-hour period is the balance between mTOR stimulation and autophagy. So, if you’re eating only once a day, then the amount of mTOR stimulation is relatively small compared to eating twice a day or three times a day.

That’s why if someone has the goal of increasing their muscle mass, maintaining muscle mass or preventing sarcopenia, then for them it is much wiser to incorporate more frequent meals. For them I would say that a 16-to-8 type of fasting where they eat twice a day is perfectly suitable, and is actually better than the one meal a day.

It becomes increasingly more difficult to maintain muscle mass if you’re already predisposed to sarcopenia and you’re eating once a day, because there’s a threshold of how much mTOR you can stimulate per meal, and how much muscle protein synthesis you can create per meal as well. It doesn’t have to mean that you start eating six times a day. Increasing the eating window is generally a better idea.

For most people, I would say that the 16-to-8 type of fasting, where they fast for 16 hours and eat within eight hours, is a really good balance between getting a daily stimulation in autophagy, while at the same time also stimulating enough mTOR and being able to build muscle.”

Getting large amounts of leucine from your regular diet may be difficult. For example, 4.6 eggs will provide you with 2.5 grams of leucine,19 which means you’d have to eat nearly 15 eggs to reach the 8-gram minimum. High-quality whey, on the other hand, contains about 10% leucine (10 grams of leucine per 100 grams of protein).20
So, 80 grams of whey protein will give you 8 grams of leucine. Whey derived from cheese manufacturing that uses raw grass fed milk is the highest quality whey available and one of the best sources of leucine around.

COVID-19 has been called the great equalizer, but nothing could be further from the truth. The disease clearly affects certain groups far worse than others, and the countermeasures implemented to quell the outbreak have been a phenomenal boon for wealthy globalists while decimating the livelihood, and perhaps even the will to live, of the average person. As reported by IPS News:1

“According to the latest ILO reports,2 as job losses escalate due to lockdowns, nearly half of the global workforce is at risk of losing livelihoods, access to food and the ability to survive.
The World Economic Forum states that ‘With some 2.6 billion people around the world in some kind of lockdown, we are conducting arguably the largest psychological experiment ever.’3
As governments and corporations tighten political authoritarianism4 and technological surveillance, curtailing privacy and democratic protest, much of humanity is succumbing to anxiety, depression and a sense of powerlessness.”

Pandemics Highlight Pre-Existing Health Inequalities

An ever-growing number of doctors, academics and scientists are now questioning the origin of the virus, the validity of using PCR tests to diagnose “cases,” the usefulness of face masks, the questionable classification of COVID-19 deaths, the suppression of scientifically verified methods of prevention and treatment, and the safety and usefulness of COVID-19 vaccines.
There are clear problems in all of these areas, yet questions and logical thinking have been, and continue to be, met with harsh resistance and denial.
Those leading the charge in terms of pandemic responses — most notably the World Health Organization, media companies and Big Tech — have not been shy about their censoring of counter-narratives, almost without exception. Even military information warfare units are being deployed in the fight against “anti-vaccine propaganda.”5
When it comes to the disease itself, we now know certain comorbidities significantly raise your risk of complications and deaths. Among the top ones are obesity, insulin resistance and vitamin D deficiency.
While these conditions are exceptionally common overall, they’re particularly prevalent in Black and indigenous communities, and when combined with inadequate access to health care, these groups also end up being disproportionally affected by COVID-19. As noted by IPS News:6

“The disproportionately higher rates of COVID deaths among American Indians and Alaska Natives,7 for example, are due to higher rates of obesity, diabetes, asthma and heart disease than among more privileged U.S. communities.”

Research8 suggests even mild obesity can influence COVID-19 severity, raising the risk of respiratory failure by 2.5 times and the risk of needing intensive care by nearly five times. Inflammation triggered by obesity is also thought to be responsible for the threefold greater risk of pulmonary embolism (blood clots in the lungs) seen in obese COVID-19 patients.9,10
Certain groups — particularly the elderly and those with darker skin — are also far more prone to the illness due to the fact that they’re also at highest risk for vitamin D deficiency.
COVID-19, the Great Inequity

While the media and political and economic institutions claim the pandemic narrative is based on scientific consensus, this clearly isn’t the case. There’s no evidence supporting universal mask use, for example, and there’s even less scientific support for lockdowns — a strategy based on a high school project that won third place.11
James Corbett of the Corbett Report discusses this shocking revelation in the video above. As it turns out, the young girl’s father is Robert Glass, a senior researcher at Sandia National Laboratories, who worked on pandemic emergency response plans for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
His proposal to shut down schools and businesses in the case of an influenza pandemic was published in the November 2006 issue of the journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases.12
Now, as many small businesses are failing thanks to months-long shutdowns and employment opportunities look bleak in many areas, government leaders around the world are suddenly joining the World Economic Forum in calling for a Great Reset of the economy.13
This hardly seems like a random coincidence. This plan, which has been brewing for decades, will further empower and enrich wealthy, unelected powerbrokers while enslaving and impoverishing everyone else.
COVID-19 Is a Class War

The fact that the pandemic has been used to shift wealth from the poor and middle class to the ultra-wealthy is clear for anyone to see at this point. As reported by IPS News:14

“The combined wealth of U.S. billionaires ‘surpassed $1 trillion in gains since March 2020 and the beginning of the pandemic,’ according to a study by the Institute for Policy Studies.15”

While 45.5 million Americans filed for unemployment, 29 new billionaires were created, the Institute for Policy Studies reported in June 2020,16 and the five richest men in the U.S. — Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison — grew their wealth by a total of $101.7 billion (26%), between March 18 and June 17, 2020, alone.17
The disparity in treatment of big box stores and small retailers is striking — and illogical. Why is it safe to shop with hundreds of people in a Walmart but unsafe to shop in a store that can only hold a fraction of that?
Pandemic profiteers include big tech companies like Zoom and Skype, along with some of the largest retailers. Walmart and Target report record sales this year.18 And no wonder, when they’ve frequently been the only places that haven’t been shut down. Online retailers like Amazon19 and Wayfair20 are also boasting record revenues.
The disparity in treatment of big box stores and small retailers is striking — and illogical. Why is it safe to shop with hundreds of people in a Walmart but unsafe to shop in a store that can only hold a fraction of that? Why has the largest retailers been allowed to remain open while mom and pop shops have been forcibly shut down? It makes no sense, yet the targeted destruction of small businesses continues. As noted by IPS News:21

“The COVID pandemic has not been the ‘Great Equalizer’ as suggested by the likes of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and members of the World Economic Forum. Rather, it has exacerbated existing inequalities along gender, race and economic class divides across the world.22”

Hypocrisy Abounds

That the COVID-19 pandemic is a form of class war is also evident in the way rules are enforced. While citizens are told what to do, those who lay down the rules repeatedly break them. It’s “rules for thee, not for me.”

In the eight-minute video above, YouTuber Joey B. Toonz highlights the hypocrisy of government officials who restrict public gatherings but keep a different set of rules for themselves.

From telling people they have to wear masks between bites to closing down indoor gatherings at dining establishments and small businesses across the country, the hypocrisy of different states’ governors is blatant.

Threatening criminal citations and even arrest, these governors demand obedience “for the public good.” It’s all about “saving lives,” they say. Yet these same governors continue living life more or less normally, socializing and traveling as they always have, without repercussions. 

White House news reporters don’t get off the hook, either, as the video shows how they, too, have one standard for the president and the public and a different set of rules when they think the cameras are off.

The hypocrisy of the ruling class makes the restrictions all the more difficult to bear, as it’s becoming increasingly clear that there really are two sets of rules, and they’re based on class.

There’s the haves and the have nots, and those with meager finances are also disproportionally robbed of their freedom to socialize and travel, which is just as devastating as not being allowed to make a living. The video highlights the case of an elderly woman who asked to be euthanized because she just couldn’t take the restrictions any longer.
The Global Restructuring
At this point, it should be obvious for anyone paying attention that the pandemic is being prolonged and exaggerated for a reason, and it’s not because there’s concern for life. Quite the contrary.
It’s a ploy to quite literally enslave the global population within a digital surveillance system23 that is not of our own choosing — a system so unnatural and inhumane that no rational population would ever voluntarily go down that road.

“The ‘Great Reset’ seeks to … expand corporate control of natural resources and state surveillance of individuals,” IPS News writes.24 “In the post-pandemic ‘Great Reset,’ there would not be much life left outside the technological-corporate nexus dominated by monolithic agribusiness, pharmaceutical, communication, defense and other inter-connected corporations, and the governments and media serving them.
The proponents of the ‘Great Reset’25 envisage a Brave New World where, ‘You will own nothing. And you will be happy. Whatever you want, you will rent, and it will be delivered by drones.’
But it is more likely that this elite-led revolution will make the vast majority of humanity a powerless appendage of technology with little consciousness and meaning in their lives.”

It should also be clear that most if not all pandemic restrictions to freedom are meant to become permanent. Indeed, they’re bound to become even more restrictive and invasive once plans for health passports, an all-digital currency, standard basic income, debt forgiveness in return for relinquishing all future rights to private ownership, digital IDs and a social scoring system are fully implemented.
If this is the first time you’re hearing any of this, be sure to review “Who Pressed the Great Reset Button?” “The Pressing Dangers of Technocracy,” “The Global Takeover Is Underway” and “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun.”
Now’s the Time to Fight Back

It’s important to understand that now’s the time to fight back: to resist any and all unconstitutional edicts. Once the “new world order” is in place, you will no longer be able to do a thing about it.
Your life — your health, educational and work opportunities, your finances and your very identity — will be so meshed with the automated technological infrastructure that any attempt to break free will result in you being locked out or erased from the system, leaving you with no ability to learn, work, travel or engage in commerce.
It sounds far-fetched, I know, but when you follow the technocratic plan to its inevitable end, that’s basically what you end up with. The warning signs are all around us, if we’re willing to see them for what they actually are. The only question now is whether enough people are willing to resist it to make a difference.
We must keep pushing for transparency and truth. We must insist on medical freedom and personal liberty. Do not allow yourself to be bullied into silence.
And, even more importantly, release the fear. It’s a fearful public that allows the technocratic elite to dictate the future and rip away our personal freedoms. It’s fear that allows tyranny to flourish. Really look at the data, so you can see for yourself that panic is unwarranted.
For practical strategies on how you can respond in light of all the tyrannical interventions that have been imposed on us, check out James Corbett’s interview with Howard Lichtman below. I also recommend reading “Constitutional Sheriffs Are the Difference Between Freedom and Tyranny.”

Take Control of Your Health
Last but not least, now is also the time to take control of your own health. Remember, insulin resistance, obesity and vitamin D deficiency top the list of comorbidities that significantly raise your risk complications and death from COVID-19. These are also underlying factors in a host of other chronic diseases, so by addressing them, you’ll improve your health overall.

By Dr. Mercola

Bee colonies around the globe are mysteriously disappearing, a phenomenon known as colony collapse disorder (CCD). Since 2006, it’s estimated that close to one-third of all honey bee colonies have simply vanished into thin air. Where are the bees going? What’s causing their devastating demise?
One forerunning theory is that genetic engineering of crops is involved, either through the genetically modified crops themselves or the pesticides and herbicides that go with them.
Monsanto, which is the world leader in this type of biotechnology, is likely none too pleased about the recent accusations hurled against their product, so they’ve taken matters into their own hands and purchased one of the leading bee research firms – one that, conveniently, lists its primary goal as studying colony collapse disorder.
If this isn’t the classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse then I don’t know what is.

Why Your Food Supply Depends on Independent Bee Research

It is absolutely crucial to the food supply that the dedicated application of research is allowed to continue surrounding colony collapse disorder. To get an idea of the magnitude of importance, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that without bees to act as pollinators, the United States alone could lose $15 billion worth of crops.i
Do you enjoy apples? How about beets? You’d better get your fill now, because without bees these, and the crops listed below, will disappear. In all, bees pollinate at least 130 different crops in the U.S. alone, including fruits, vegetables and tree nuts.

Almonds
Sunflower
Apricots
Avocadoes
Blueberries

Boysenberries
Cherries
Citrus
Cranberries
Grapes

Kiwifruit
Loganberries
Macadamia nuts
Nectarines
Olives

Peaches
Pears
Plums/Prunes
Raspberries
Strawberries

Asparagus
Broccoli
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery

Cucumbers
Cantaloupe
Honeydew
Onions
Pumpkins

Squash
Watermelons
Alfalfa Hay
Alfalfa Seed
Cotton Lint

Cotton Seed
Legume Seed
Peanuts
Rapeseed
Soybeans

Bee Research Goes to the Wolves…

Beeologics says their mission is to become the “guardian of bee health worldwide,” and states they are dedicated to “restoring bee health and protecting the future of insect pollination” with its primary goal to control the colony collapse disorder and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) infection crises.” Monsanto bought the company in September 2011, just months before Poland announced it would ban growing of Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) MON810 maize, noting, poignantly, that “pollen of this strain could have a harmful effect on bees.”ii
The ongoing blight of GM crops has been implicated in CCD for years now. In one German study,iii when bees were released in a GM rapeseed crop, then fed the pollen to younger bees, scientists discovered the bacteria in the guts of the young ones mirrored the same genetic traits as ones found in the GM crop, indicating that horizontal gene transfer had occurred.
Further, the newer systemic insecticides, known as neonicotinoids, have become the fastest growing insecticides in the world. Two prominent examples, Imidacloprid and Clothianidin, are used as seed treatments in hundreds of crops. Virtually all of today’s genetically engineered Bt corn is treated with neonicotinoids.
Bee colonies began disappearing in the U.S. shortly after the EPA allowed these new insecticides on the market. Even the EPA itself admits that “pesticide poisoning” is a likely cause of bee colony collapse.
These insecticides are highly toxic to bees because they are systemic, water soluble, and very pervasive. They get into the soil and groundwater where they can accumulate and remain for many years and present long-term toxicity to the hive. They enter the vascular system of the plant and are carried to all parts of it, as well as to the pollen and nectar. Neonicotinoids affect insects’ central nervous systems in ways that are cumulative and irreversible. Even minute amounts can have profound effects over time. And the little bees are being exposed over and over again as pesticides become more necessary due to the inherent weaknesses of monoculture.
One of the observed effects of these insecticides is weakening of the bee’s immune system.
Forager bees bring pesticide-laden pollen back to the hive, where it’s consumed by all of the bees. Six months later, their immune systems fail, and they fall prey to natural bee infections, such as parasites, mites, viruses, fungi and bacteria. Indeed, pathogens such as Varroa mites, Nosema, fungal and bacterial infections, and IAPV are found in large amounts in honey bee hives on the verge of collapse. In addition to immune dysfunction and opportunistic diseases, the honey bees also appear to suffer from neurological problems, disorientation, and impaired navigation.
A bee can’t survive for more than 24 hours if she becomes disoriented and unable to find her way back to the hive.
Even butterflies are suffering… A decline in the North American monarch butterfly population has been linked to increased plantings of herbicide-tolerant GM crops, and overuse of the herbicide glyphosate, which is the key chemical in Monsanto’s Roundup.iv Glyphosate is killing milkweed, upon which monarchs rely for habitat and food.

GM Crops Lead to Monoculture…

Monoculture is the growing of just one type of crop on a massive scale. Where farms used to consist of multiple types of produce, pigs, chickens and cows, today you see mile upon mile of corn and soybeans… Monoculture farming practices have sadly resulted in a widespread shift away from sustainable family farms and locally produced foods, and toward industrialized agriculture, massive farming complexes, and confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), all driven by large corporations whose chief motivation is maximizing profit.
Monoculture increases dependency on chemical pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In fact, the use of GM crops like corn and soy (the United States leads the world in GM crop acreage, by the way) is the very definition of monoculture! Why is this an important point to remember? Because, ironically, Monsanto-owned Beeologics states right on their website that large-scale monoculture and pesticide use are key reasons why bees are dying!

“Assorted factors have been implicated in the reduced capability of bees to survive in recent years, including the dearth of resources and poor nutrition which are a key factor in bee and colony loss. Every doctor prescribes exercise and a healthy diet as preventive measures to disease. And every beekeeper knows that good forage over time is the ultimate cure. Bees, as a community, overcome almost all diseases easily when the weather is favorable and wild flowers bloom prolifically. However, in recent years, large scale monoculture has resulted in a lack of natural weeds, and all too often pesticide-laden crop forage.”v

It will be interesting to see how long this information remains on their site, or if Monsanto will realize the irony in these words and have it taken down… the problem, of course, is that now Monsanto will be able to massage any forthcoming “research” to make sure it exonerates their prized GM creations from having any role in CCD…
A recent Global Research article reports:

“Owning a major organization that focuses heavily on the bee collapse and is recognized by the USDA for their mission statement of “restoring bee health and protecting the future of insect pollination” could be very advantageous for Monsanto. In fact, Beelogics’ company information states that the primary goal of the firm is to study the very collapse disorder that is thought to be a result — at least in part — of Monsanto’s own creations.”

What Can You do to Help the Honeybees?

The documentary film Vanishing of the Bees recommends four actions you can take to help preserve our honey bees:

Support organic farmers and shop at local farmer’s markets as often as possible. You can “vote with your fork” three times a day. [When you buy organic, you are making a statement by saying “no” to GMOs!]
Cut the use of toxic chemicals in your house and on your lawn, and use organic pest control.
Better yet, get rid of your lawn altogether and plant a garden. Lawns offer very little benefit for the environment. Both flower and vegetable gardens provide good honey bee habitats.
Become an amateur beekeeper. Having a hive in your garden requires only about an hour of your time per week, benefits your local ecosystem, and you can enjoy your own honey!

If you are interested in more information about bee preservation, the following organizations are a good place to start.

Pesticide Action Network Bee Campaign vi
The Foundation for the Preservation of Honey Beesvii
American Beekeeping Federationviii
Help the Honey Beesix

By Dr. Mercola

In its latest move against small farmers who dare to operate outside the umbrella of CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) and Monsanto-dominated crops, the U.S. government has seized $70,000 from a small dairy farmer in Maryland. The feds did this under the “Bank Secrecy Act,” which requires that paperwork be filled out for any cash deposit in excess of $10,000.

The farmers, Randy Sowers and his wife Karen, made deposits totaling more than $295,000 from May 2011 to February 2012, but each transaction was less than $10,000.

Now they are being accused of “structuring,” a violation of federal currency reporting requirements, as the feds are accusing them of deliberately depositing money in increments of less than $10,000 in an attempt to evade Currency Transaction Reporting requirements.

Government Seizes $70,000 On What Grounds?

The dairy farmer’s “crime” stems from his weekly sales at local farmers’ markets. The sales averaged about the same amount each week and, dutifully, the Sowers deposited them. They’d reportedly never even heard of the Bank Secrecy Act or “structuring,” but that was of no interest to the feds—the consistency of the amount the Sowers deposited, always less than $10,000, raised red flags to the feds, who claimed that this was indicative of a crime.

The government promptly seized about $70,000 from the bank account, then issued a warrant for the seizures. As reported by Food Freedom News:1

“The Dept. of Justice has since sued to keep $63,000 of the Sowers’ money, though they committed no crime other than maintaining their privacy. Without funds, they will be unable to make purchases for the spring planting. When a similar action was taken against Taylor’s Produce Stand last year, the feds seized $90,000, dropped the charges, and kept $45,000 of Taylor’s money.

Knowing that most farms operate on a very thin margin, such abuse of power wipes out a family’s income, and for a bonus, the feds enhance the monopoly power of Monsanto, Big Dairy and their supply chain.… Former Maryland assistant U.S. attorney Steven Levin told the paper [City Paper], “The emphasis is on basically seizing money, whether it is legally or illegally earned. It can lead to financial ruin for business owners, and there’s a potential for abuse here by the government.””

The raid on the Sowers was conducted by an agency created in 2009 to go after money-laundering criminals. The agency started out with a bang by seizing $1.2 billion from a real money launderer, but it appears that what it’s interested in now is making criminals out of small business persons, including small farmers.

Why Are Family Farms Under Attack?

If they’re not seizing bank accounts, it seems the government will find other ways to attack small farmers. A family farm in rural Michigan—and possibly others—may be shut down by a new state law that designates certain breeds of hogs as a threat to neighboring hog breeders and croplands.
Basically, the fight is over the definition of feral hogs vs. domestic hogs. The dictionary definition of “feral” refers to an animal running wild. But Michigan authorities have taken it a step further and extended the definition to include enclosed private hunting preserves and small farms that house what authorities call an “invasive species” of hogs.

There is no genetic test to determine whether the species on these farms are truly invasive, so authorities are basing their cases against these farmers solely on visual observations. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) uses this vague description to describe the prohibited hogs, and makes it clear that this does not apply to the domestic hogs raised on CAFOs:2

“Wild boar, wild hog, wild swine, feral pig, feral hog, feral swine, Old world swine, razorback, eurasian wild boar, Russian wild boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus). This subsection does not and is not intended to affect sus domestica involved in domestic hog production.”

Other descriptions supplied by the MDNR include such a wide variety of characteristics that virtually any pig other than the familiar pink domestic breed raised on CAFOs could potentially be deemed “feral”:

Erect or folded/floppy ear structure
Straight or curly tail
Solid black, wild/grizzled, solid red/brown, black and white spotted, or black and red/brown spotted coat colorations
“Other characteristics” not currently known to the MDNR

Interestingly, the Big Pork industry has been planning this anti-feral pig campaign for years, and even bragged about it in a 2010 newsletter.3 It was the same newsletter where they declared a win against the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in Ohio, where HSUS was seeking legislation to end the practice of sow gestation stalls (cages so small the sow can’t turn around or move).

What this means for residents of Michigan is that soon they will be unable to purchase sustainably and humanely grown meat from the Mangalitsa “wooly” hogs raised on Baker’s Green Acres farm. This particular breed is being raised by only a handful of small farms across the country; whereas more than 2 million pigs are slaughtered each week in the United States, only about 50 of them are Mangalitsas (which have been called the “it” pig by the New York Times, as several high-end restaurants and specialty markets have featured the rich, naturally raised meat4).

But, of course, this issue is about much more than pasture-raised pork from a heritage breed … it’s about your ability, your right, to purchase and consume pure, unadulterated food – a right that continues to be threated for those living in the United States.

FDA Also Threatens Your Right to Food Choice …

Another glaring example of government going out of its way to prohibit your access to pure, unprocessed food is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) war against raw milk. When the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) filed a lawsuit against the FDA over their raw milk ban, stating that banning raw milk in interstate commerce is unconstitutional, the FDA rebutted with the following extremely concerning and outrageous statements:

“There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food.”
“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.”
“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.”
FDA’s brief goes on to state that “even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA’s regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health.”
“There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract.”

Since when did the FDA have authority to tell you what you can and cannot eat and feed your children? Apparently they believe they’ve had it all along. If you go by these assertions, it means the FDA has the authority to prohibit any food of their choosing and make it a crime for you to seek it out. If, one day, the FDA deems tomatoes, broccoli or cashews capable of causing you harm (which is just as ludicrous as their assertions that raw milk is harmful), they could therefore enact such a ban and legally enforce it.

What this means is that freedom of food choice is a myth if you live in the United States, and this simply is not acceptable. No one, and certainly not any government agency, should be able to restrict your access to pure, unadulterated food, but the dairy industry and other industrial farmers that depend on CAFOs employ powerful lobbyists will stop at nothing to persuade government to remove the small farmers from the market entirely. The truth is, if enough people start demanding naturally, sustainably and humanely raised meat, dairy and produce, the giant farming monopolies that currently dominate the market would not be able to compete.

Their businesses depend on pesticides, CAFOs, genetically modified seeds, growth hormones and the like … so when they see all-natural creameries like the one operated by Randy Sowers and his wife Karen, or natural farms like Bakers Green Acres gaining loyal and growing customer bases, they get nervous – and they get the government involved in any way they can.

Please Support Your Local Small Farms

The healthiest food choices are nearly always those that come from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources.

This is why I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. This includes not only visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also taking part in farmer’s markets and community-supported agriculture programs. Now that summer is almost here in the United States, fresh produce and other wonderful whole foods are available in abundance. Not only is the food so much tastier and healthier when you get it from sustainable, non-CAFO sources, but there is something about shopping for fresh foods in an open-air, social environment that just feels right. An artificially lit, dreary supermarket — home to virtually every CAFO food made — just can’t compete.

If you want to experience some of these benefits first-hand, here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:

Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
Farmers’ Markets — A national listing of farmers’ markets
Local Harvest — This Web site will help you find farmers’ markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals — The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) — CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
FoodRoutes — The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA’s, and markets near you.

Finally, for more information on the ongoing attacks against small family farms in the United States consider watching Farmageddon: The Unseen War on American Family Farms, a documentary by Kristin Canty. But I warn you … the injustices it contains may just make your blood boil.

In addition to standard concerns over the safety of COVID-19 vaccines is the moral dilemma of taking vaccines made with aborted fetal cells. For many, this alone is a cause for objection. Several of the vaccine candidates, including AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine, are made using aborted fetal cell lines.1,2
Several fact checkers — including Politifact,3 The Associated Press4 and Snopes5 — have labeled the claim as “false,” but is it? As it turns out, fact checkers are relying on semantics to “debunk” this claim. In reality, most thinking individuals are able to determine the truth of the matter once the details are explained.
Semantics and Technicalities Used to ‘Debunk’ the Truth

A common mistake by less experienced citizen journalists is to use rather general terms, assuming people will “get the gist” without having to be overly specific, and this is precisely what self-declared fact checkers home in on when rating something false or misleading.
Fact checkers routinely rely on semantics and technicalities to break apart a given claim, and unless you carefully read their explanation, you’re likely to miss this and simply write it off based on the headline claiming something to be false. The case of COVID-19 vaccines containing aborted fetal cells is a perfect example of this, so let’s go through some of what you need to know before discounting this claim off-hand.
Commonly Used Fetal Cell Lines

There are several cell lines commonly used in vaccine development that originate from aborted fetuses, including:6

HEK2937,8,9,10,11 — human embryonic cell line originally derived from kidney tissue obtained from a female fetus aborted in the Netherlands in 1972
MRC512 — human embryonic cell line originally derived from the lung tissue of a 14-week-old male fetus aborted in 1966
PER.C613 — human embryonic cell line originally derived from the retina of an 18-week-old male fetus aborted in the Netherlands in 1985
WI3814 — human embryonic cell line originally derived from the lung tissue of a 12-week-old female fetus aborted in 1961

Vaccine makers using at least one of these fetal cell lines in the development of their COVID-19 vaccines include:15,16,17

AstraZeneca (HEK293)

Jansen Research and Development (owned by Johnson & Johnson), (PER.C6)

CanSino Biologics (HEK293)

University of Pittsburgh (HEK293)

ImmunityBio (HEK293)

Altimmune (PER.C6)

Vaccine makers using either “ethically derived” cell lines, meaning cell lines that do not originate from aborted human fetuses, or no cell lines at all, include Moderna, Merck, Novavax, Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline and Sinovac.18
The Claim

Now, the claim made by some citizen journalists is that certain COVID-19 vaccines “contain cells from an aborted fetus.” One video headline stated: “CONFIRMED — aborted fetus in COVID-19 vaccine.”19
Fact checkers have “debunked” these claims and labeled them false, in one instance because the name of the fetal cell line was incorrect,20 and in others because the vaccines do not literally “contain” these cells; rather, the fetal cell lines were used as a growth medium for the virus during the production phase.
In yet other instances, fact checkers have slapped a false label on it by claiming the cell lines are not the original cells but, rather, clones thereof.21 All of these justifications are really all about semantics. What most people are referring to when they object to the use of fetal cell lines is that an aborted fetus was used. Period.
While some may indeed be concerned about the actual, literal inclusion of fetal cells in the finished vaccine, typically, it’s simply a moral objection to the use of aborted fetuses in medical research and development.
So, labeling the claim that “COVID-19 vaccines contain fetal cells” as “false” can actually be just as misleading, as this ignores the moral issue of aborted fetuses being used in medicine, and in fact makes it sound as though it’s not happening. Again, you’d have to read the whole fact checking article to see that fetal cell lines are indeed used in the development of some of these vaccines, and the “false” label is based on some technical detail or specificity of the verbiage.
How Are Fetal Cell Lines Used in Vaccine Development?

So, what is a fetal cell line, really, and how is it used in vaccine development? Simplified layman’s answers to these questions can be found in the fact sheet22 “COVID Vaccines & Fetal Cell Lines,” created by the Charlotte Lozier Institute.
The following illustrations and descriptions are taken from the first page of that fact sheet. The bottom illustration shows the specific role of these cell lines. The cells are used as a growth medium for the virus, since the virus needs a living cell to infect and multiply in. The viruses are then harvested from the cells and purified (and inactivated in the case of inactivated vaccines) before being added to the final vaccine as one of several ingredients.

According to Politifact’s fact check of the fetal cell claim:23

“After the purification process, the final vaccine contains trillionths of a gram of fragmented DNA from the cell line … The vaccine is created from a virus grown in a cell line derived from aborted fetal tissue. However, the cell line is purified away from the vaccine before it is used. It is inaccurate to claim that the vaccine ‘contains’ aborted fetal tissue.”

Similarly, The Associated Press fact checking article included a quote by Dr. Deepak Shrivastava, president of Gladstone Institutes, who stated:24

“What’s important for the public to know even if they are opposed to the use of fetal cells for therapies, these medicines that are being made and vaccines do not contain any aspect of the cells in them. The cells are used as factories for production.”

The Ethics of Fetal Cell Lines

Again, for many, the issue is not that the vaccine might contain actual cells from an aborted fetus. It’s the fact that a fetus was used in the production — in any way. For some, this is the only thing that matters. Others may feel using these cells as a growth medium is fine as long as the cells are not injected along with the vaccine.
Either way, fact checkers are clearly trying to dissuade people from having a public conversation about the ethics of using aborted fetuses in vaccine development. The fact is, fetal cells ARE used during production of certain vaccines, and some may object to getting those vaccines because they object to abortion and/or feel it’s unethical to harvest aborted fetuses for their tissues.
There’s also the issue of disclosure. Drug companies and vaccine policymakers should not be allowed to decide whether or not to share this information with the public prior to vaccination. After all, there are other vaccines grown in animal cells, for example, which might be a more ethical choice for some people, but to make that choice, they must be given the information.
The Nonsensical ‘Clone’ Defense

The claim that fetal cells are not used in vaccine development because they are clones of the original is perhaps the most ludicrous justification used by fact checkers.25 That’s like saying your 20-year-old or 40-year-old body is no longer your body because all the cells are mere copies of the cells found in the original fetus that grew inside your mother.
If the cells in your body are still you, then the cells in the petri dish are still that of the original fetus that was aborted.
Cells grow and multiply naturally. The cells in your adult body are no longer the original individual cells of you as a fetus. They are in essence “clones” of the originals. They’ve been growing and multiplying, dying and being replaced, with each passing moment from the time of your conception when a sperm entered an egg.
There’s virtually no difference between cells growing and multiplying indefinitely in a petri dish and cells growing and multiplying in your body during your lifetime. If the cells in your body are still you, then the cells in the petri dish are still that of the original fetus that was aborted.
Residual DNA in Vaccines Linked to Autism?

Some may also object to vaccines manufactured through the use of fetal cell lines on the basis that there may be health risks involved, due to potential DNA contamination. In a 2011 scientific review,26 Helen Ratajczak, a former drug company scientist, linked the introduction of human fetal cell lines in vaccine production (among other things) to the rapid rise in autism. On page 70 of her paper, Ratajczak explains this particular connection:27

“Data from a worldwide composite of studies show that an increase in cumulative incidence began about 1988–1990. The new version of the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (i.e., MMR II) that did not contain thimerosal was introduced in 1979.
By 1983, only the new version was available. Autism in the United States spiked dramatically between 1983 and 1990 from 4–5/10,000 to 1/500. In 1988, two doses of MMR II were recommended to immunize those individuals who did not respond to the first injection. A spike of incidence of autism accompanied the addition of the second dose of MMR II …
It is important to note that unlike the former MMR, the rubella component of MMR II was propagated in a human cell line derived from embryonic lung tissue.
The MMR II vaccine is contaminated with human DNA from the cell line. This human DNA could be the cause of the spikes in incidence. An additional increased spike in incidence of autism occurred in 1995 when the chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue …
The human DNA from the vaccine can be randomly inserted into the recipient’s genes by homologous recombination, a process that occurs spontaneously only within a species. Hot spots for DNA insertion are found on the X chromosome in eight autism-associated genes involved in nerve cell synapse formation, central nervous system development, and mitochondrial function.
This could provide some explanation of why autism is predominantly a disease of boys. Taken together, these data support the hypothesis that residual human DNA in some vaccines might cause autism.”

Fetal Cell Lines May Contaminate Vaccine With DNA
Another paper28 focusing on the health consequences of vaccines made with the help of fetal cell lines was published in 2015. These authors also stress that fetal cell lines used in vaccine development can cause the vaccine to be contaminated with human DNA — which has happened with certain MMR vaccines — and that this DNA contamination may play a role in autism and autoimmune diseases.
According to the authors:

“Average single stranded DNA and double stranded DNA in Meruvax II were 142.05 ng/vial and 35.00 ng/vial, respectively, and 276.00 ng/vial and 35.74 ng/vial in Havrix respectively. The size of the fetal DNA fragments in Meruvax II was approximately 215 base pairs.
There was spontaneous cellular and nuclear DNA uptake in HFF1 and NCCIT cells. Genes that have been linked to autism (autism-associated genes; AAGs) have a more concentrated susceptibility for insults to genomic stability in comparison to the group of all genes contained within the human genome …
Vaccines manufactured in human fetal cell lines contain unacceptably high levels of fetal DNA fragment contaminants. The human genome naturally contains regions that are susceptible to double strand break formation and DNA insertional mutagenesis.”

In 2019, one of the four authors of that 2015 paper, Dr. Theresa Deisher, wrote an open letter29 to legislators, reviewing the hazard of fetal cell DNA in vaccines. In it, she wrote:30

“I obtained my doctorate from Stanford University in Molecular and Cellular Physiology in 1990 and completed my post-doctoral work at the University of Washington. My career has been spent in the commercial biotechnology industry, and I have done work from basic biological and drug discovery through clinical development …
Merck’s MMR II vaccine (as well as the chickenpox, Pentacel and all Hep-A containing vaccines) is manufactured using human fetal cell lines and are heavily contaminated with human fetal DNA from the production process.
Levels in our children can reach up to 5 ng/ml after vaccination, depending on the age, weight and blood volume of the child. That level is known to activate Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9), which can cause autoimmune attacks …
Anyone who says that the fetal DNA contaminating our vaccines is harmless either does not know anything about immunity and Toll- like receptors or they are not telling the truth …
Administration of fragments of human fetal (primitive) non-self DNA to a child could generate an immune response that would also cross-react with the child’s own DNA, since the contaminating DNA could have sections of overlap very similar to the child’s own DNA …
Injecting our children with human fetal DNA contaminants bears the risk of causing two well-established pathologies:

1) Insertional mutagenesis: fetal human DNA incorporates into the child’s DNA causing mutations. Gene therapy using small fragment homologous recombination has demonstrated that as low as 1.9 ng/ml of DNA fragments results in insertion into the genome of stem cells in 100% of mice injected.
The levels of human fetal DNA fragments in our children after vaccination with MMR, Varivax (chickenpox) or Hepatitis A containing vaccines reach levels beyond 1.9 ng/ml.
2) Autoimmune disease: fetal human DNA triggers a child’s immune system to attack his/her own body.”

Adverse Effects Relabeled to Minimize Safety Concerns
Disturbingly, the public is now being reprogrammed to view side effects of vaccination as a natural occurrence by renaming adverse reactions as “immune responses.” A December 1, 2020, CNBC article,31 which looked at the frequency of adverse reactions, noted that 10% to 15% of participants in the Pfizer and Moderna trials reported “significantly noticeable” side effects.

At the bottom of the article is a suggestion from a past advisory committee member, who proposes the nomenclature of “serious adverse reaction” be changed to “immune response,” so they can change the way people view these side effects, even if they end up having to stay home from work because of them, which appears quite possible.

Dr. Eli Perencevich, a professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa Health Care, has suggested essential workers should be granted three days of paid leave after they’re vaccinated, as many will feel too sick to work.32 Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that the vaccine’s side effects are “no walk in the park.”33
Side Effects Are Common in COVID-19 Vaccine Trials
An October 1, 2020, report34 by CNBC reviewed the experiences of five participants in Moderna’s and Pfizer’s SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials. One of the participants in Pfizer’s vaccine trial “woke up with chills, shaking so hard he cracked a tooth after taking the second dose.”

A Moderna trial participant told CNBC he had a low-grade fever and felt “under the weather” for several days after his first shot. Eight hours after his second shot he was “bed-bound with a fever of over 101, shakes, chills, a pounding headache and shortness of breath. He hardly slept that night, recording that his temperature was higher than 100 degrees for five hours.”35

Regulators in the U.K. are also warning people to avoid Pfizer’s vaccine if you have a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccines, medicine or food. They also warn the vaccine should only be given in facilities with resuscitation capabilities.36

A group of researchers have also expressed concern that some COVID-19 vaccine candidates might put certain people at a higher risk of acquiring HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.37,38,39

Using the failed attempt to create an HIV vaccine as an example, researchers explain40 that the genetically engineered adenovirus, Ad5, used in the HIV vaccine trials, is the same one being used now in four COVID-19 candidates being studied in the U.S., Russia and Pakistan.

At the time of the failed HIV vaccine, scientists were unable to identify the exact reason why Ad5 seemed to increase the risk of HIV; it just inexplicably did. Interestingly, Dr. Anthony Fauci was the lead author on the HIV study,41 in which he questioned “whether the problem extends to some or all of the other recombinant vectors currently in development or to other vector-based vaccines.”

Reflecting on that question, the researchers say they decided to go public with this information now, because Ad5 vaccines for COVID-19 might soon be tested in populations with high HIV prevalence, and they believe that informed consent about the HIV/AIDS risk should be part of the COVID-19 clinical studies.
At least two participants in the AstraZeneca trial have also developed transverse myelitis (severe inflammation of the spinal cord) and a participant in India’s AstraZeneca trial is suing the company claiming the vaccine caused “serious neurological damage.”42 Meanwhile, a 70-year-old Philadelphia priest who participated in Moderna’s Phase 3 trial has died.43 It’s still unknown whether he received the vaccine or a placebo.
It’s worth noting that the number needed to vaccinate in order to prevent one case of COVID-19 is 256 for Pfizer’s vaccine44 and 167 for Moderna’s,45 so hundreds of people will be risking their health to potentially prevent a single individual from getting sick.
Add to that the fact that the vaccines are only evaluated for their ability to reduce symptoms of COVID-19, regardless of their severity. It’s entirely unknown whether they’ll actually lower the risk of infection, hospitalization or death.
Who Pays for COVID-19 Vaccine Damage?

I’ve written several articles discussing the potential problems with COVID-19 vaccines, and these risks are made all the more concerning considering you can expect little help if you do end up being harmed by the vaccine. As explained by Dr. Meryl Nass in a December 4, 2020, blog post:46

“If you are injured by a vaccine or other ‘countermeasure’ designated by the DHHS Secretary as intended for a pandemic or bioterrorism threat (COVID-19, pandemic flu, anthrax, smallpox) your options for receiving any financial benefit are very limited.
First, everyone involved with getting the vaccine to you has had their liability waived under the PREP Act … Congress did create a program to compensate some victims, but it is much less generous than the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) … It is called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).”

As noted by Nass, the CICP is administered within the Department of Health and Human Services (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. “DHHS therefore essentially acts as the judge, jury and defendant,” Nass writes.47
What’s more, 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, for example.
According to the CICP director, 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. Of course, a significant problem with the COVID-19 vaccine is that no one really knows what injuries might arise, or when, making difficult to prove the injury was caused by the vaccine.
Should your employer end up making COVID-19 vaccination a condition of employment, you also cannot sue your employer for vaccine-related side effects. According to experts interviewed by CNBC, “claims would be routed through worker’s compensation programs and treated as an on-the-job injury.”48

The most recent large-scale study from the World Health Organization shows remdesivir does not produce promised results. As I’ve covered in the past, there are numerous scientists who question the official story about the COVID-19 pandemic and the baseless fearmongering driving changes to worldwide behavior.
Recently I shared a video interview in which British journalist Anna Brees spoke with Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., who is a past vice-president and chief scientific adviser of the drug company Pfizer and founder and CEO of the biotech company Ziarco, now owned by Novartis.
Yeadon has over 25 years of experience working in the pharmaceutical industry and has consulted with over 20 biotechnology companies.1 In the interview, he talks about his concerns that widespread PCR testing is creating the false idea the pandemic is resurging, as the total mortality rate is completely normal. He also discusses his concerns with COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
PCR testing is generating needless fear, and likely helping to fuel a Big Pharma push for antiviral drugs governments may seek to stockpile, thus driving financial gain. One antiviral drug that proved disappointing in 2014, and again in 2020, is remdesivir. The path this drug is taking is eerily similar to that of another failed drug, Tamiflu.
To Know Tamiflu Is to Understand Remdesivir

In this video, Dr. Tom Jefferson is speaking at The Symposium about Scientific Freedom in Copenhagen. He describes the journey he and his team took to publish the only Cochrane review based solely on raw unpublished regulatory data.2 Ultimately, the results of the review showed Tamiflu shortened the duration of symptoms from flu by less than one day.
The struggle to get the data was nearly as eye-opening as the results. According to Jefferson, the journey began in 2009 when the team received what Jefferson characterized as a “HUGE amount of money — £5,000 — to commission a rapid update of our existing review of the drugs.”3 In his depiction of the funding that amounted to $6,675, his arms were spread wide as if he were unable to hold it.
In October 2009, Jefferson received a phone call from Melanie Sinclair, Ph.D., claiming to be a ghostwriter for Adis and responsible for writing the Kaiser meta-analysis. In other words, the study research that found Tamiflu could reduce the effects of pneumonia from flu was not penned by the scientists, but instead by a global publisher of over 30 medical journals.4
“This is vital to understand because it formed the major part of the rationale for stockpiling huge amounts of oseltamivir (Tamiflu),” Jefferson explained. During the process, the team also received a challenge from a pediatrician in Osaka who pointed out the key piece of evidence underpinning the Kaiser conclusions that Tamiflu had an impact on complications from influenza came from a study funded by Roche.
Four of the six authors were employed by the pharmaceutical company and a fifth was a paid consultant. The bulk of the data analyzing the effectiveness were unpublished. Jefferson described the climate of the time, saying:5

“So we were in the middle of a situation where there was an unfolding pandemic that everybody said would kill just about half the population on the planet, we had a HUGE pot of money — £5,000 — to update the review and we had this criticism, which under Cochrane rules we had to answer within six months.”

The team requested the unseen trial data but came up against many obstacles that took several years to overcome. In the meantime, a 2009 BMJ investigation by Deborah Cohen6 that is behind a paywall, uncovered interesting details from the lead researchers on two of the pivotal trials included in the Kaiser review:7

“John Treanor, lead author of a pivotal Tamiflu treatment trial, told The BMJ: ‘I did not perform an independent analysis of the primary data, which was not required or requested by JAMA at the time of submission, and I do not have access to the primary data, which I also never requested.’

When asked a similar question, [Karl] Nicholson, lead author of the other pivotal Tamiflu treatment trial, ‘said he did not recall seeing the primary data. He said that the statistical analysis had been conducted by Roche and he analysed the summary data.'”

Roche Protected Data That Showed Tamiflu Not Effective

By 2012, Jefferson and the team had not received the raw data from any of the researchers or from Roche, which had sent an open letter promising to send it. Jefferson then published open letters to:

GlaxoSmithKline
World Health Organization
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Roche
European Medicines Agency (EMA)

“These organizations had promoted the drug. They had pushed the drug in any way. And we were asking them how did you reach your conclusions? How did you support your policy?”

What Jefferson found was:8

“WHO was recommending Tamiflu use, but they’d never vetted the data. EMA had approved Tamiflu; they’d never vetted the full data set. CDC was promoting the use of the drug. They had never seen the data set.

CDC’s promotion was taking place despite the fact that the FDA — which HAD vetted the data — required Roche to add a statement on the label saying serious bacterial infections may begin with influenza-like symptoms or may co-exist with or without complications during the course of influenza.

Here comes the punch. Tamiflu has not been shown to prevent such complications. FDA was saying, this business about complications: no evidence of that.”

Four years after Roche promised the data, 150,000 pages were delivered to Jefferson’s team from which they determined “there was no convincing trial evidence that Tamiflu affected influenza complications and treatment or influenza infections in prophylaxis.”9
FDA Knew of Negative Trial Results but Approved Drug Anyway

Remdesivir is an antiviral drug that was evaluated during the Ebola breakout in 2014. The development used at least $70.5 million in taxpayer money, and that number may be higher.10 After analysis showed disappointing results for treating Ebola, it was once again tested in the early months of 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.11
A few of the remdesivir trials were stopped early after participants experienced significant side effects. Yet, some scientists believed the data suggested the drug could shorten recovery time.12 However, the drug has not produced adequate results and has not been proven to reduce the potential for death in those with severe disease. Worse, treatment comes with an added price tag of potential kidney damage.13
It seems remdesivir is following in the footsteps of Tamiflu. The story exploded when Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the President’s Coronavirus Task Force and NIAID, made a promotional announcement from the White House, in which he called results that had not been peer-reviewed from a pharmaceutical-sponsored clinical trial “highly significant” and remdesivir to be the new “standard of care.”14
WHO recently revealed the results from the SOLIDARITY trial15 showing remdesivir has little to no positive effect on mortality, length of stay or the need for ventilation.16
This supports what some doctors have been reporting and other studies have found, which I discuss in greater detail in the past article, “The New COVID-19 Medication Isn’t Backed by Results.” Gilead, makers of remdesivir and the developer of Tamiflu, attempted to cast doubt on the results of the SOLIDARITY trial, writing:17

“The SOLIDARITY Trial is a multi-center, open-label global trial that provided early access to Veklury [remdesivir], among other investigational COVID-19 treatments, to patients around the world — particularly in countries where ongoing trials of investigational treatments were not available.

The trial design prioritized broad access, resulting in significant heterogeneity in trial adoption, implementation, controls and patient populations and consequently, it is unclear if any conclusive findings can be drawn from the study results.”

However, the endpoint measurements in the trial included mortality, length of hospitalization and ventilation requirements. These are more objective than most open-label clinical trials. As Dr. Srinivas Murthy from British Columbia Children’s Hospital in Vancouver, pointed out:18

“Mortality should not be affected by whether a study is open label or closed or placebo blinded for obvious reasons: you or your doctors can’t will yourself into staying alive by knowing you had the drug.”

Gilead also questioned the use of a heterogeneous group of patients from 405 hospitals across 30 countries. Yet, the SOLIDARITY team says this is a strength of the study as it demonstrates “how remdesivir performs in complex real-world environments beyond the controlled settings of the smaller clinical trials that came before.”19
October 22, 2020, one week after the trial results were made public, the FDA officially approved the drug as treatment for any hospitalized person over age 12. A press officer at the FDA acknowledged they were aware of the trial data, but based their decision largely on the two Gilead sponsored trials.
Gilead to Make Cheaper, Generic Version of a $10 Drug

Dr. Derek Angus, chief health care innovation officer at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, believes this approval may slow or stop further trials that may help identify the populations of people in which remdesivir may possibly have a potential positive effect.
The cost of treatment is another stumbling block since one five-day course costs the government $2,340 and private insurers $3,120. As more hospitals are looking to purchase remdesivir, Gilead reached agreements to develop a generic version that would be cheaper. This move was to help low- and middle-income countries.
However, according to a review by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) published in May 2020, a cheaper version may not be necessary. ICER is a nonprofit group that evaluates drug pricing. Initial estimates showed the total cost of producing a “finished product” at $10.20 This included packaging and a small profit margin and was based on the cost of the active pharmaceutical ingredients in the drug.
The cost estimate was based on research published in the Journal of Virus Eradication analyzing the cost of repurposing drugs for use with COVID-19 and included remdesivir. The data used global shipment record “costs of active pharmaceutical ingredients using established methodology, which had good predictive accuracy for medicines for hepatitis C and HIV amongst others.”
After three producers in Bangladesh and India reported a price range of $590 to $710 for a 10-day course of treatment,21 ICER revised their cost range, writing: “Given the $10 estimate from Hill et al, and the new information on early generic pricing in developing countries, we have chosen in this update to frame the cost recovery pricing for remdesivir as a range between $10 and a rough mid-point generic pricing figure of $600 per 10-day course.”
This means in order to lower the price from $3,120 for other countries, Gilead must make the drug cheaper than a range of $10 (estimated based on the known costs of the active ingredient) to $600 (estimated cost of manufacture in Bangladesh and India, when these prices already include a small profit margin).
Ultimately, the full story behind the clinical trials and use of the antiviral drug will likely not be known until Gilead releases the raw data from their clinical studies.
The Tamiflu Cochrane review began in 2009, but it was not until 2013 that Roche finally released the full clinical data. Jefferson said that it was only after analyzing the raw data that the team found Tamiflu could shorten influenza by only a few hours.22
Steps to Reduce the Risk of Severe Disease

Some health experts and the media are using the rising number of cases of COVID-19 diagnosed each day as a way of encouraging people to stay in place and wait for a vaccination. As I’ve written several times in the past months, PCR testing does not accurately diagnose an active infection.
I recommend that you proactively work to support your immune system using strategies evidence has demonstrated reduces your risk of severe disease. You’ll find several simple, yet significant strategies on my Coronavirus Resource Page.
As I have written, it has become apparent that optimizing your vitamin D level may be the least expensive, easiest and most beneficial strategy to minimize your risk.
It is also important to make simple lifestyle changes that have an impact on normalizing your blood sugar levels as this can reduce your risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and severe disease from SARS-CoV-2 and other viral infections like flu.23,24
You may lower your risk of heart disease by following suggestions that affect your lifestyle and exposure to environmental toxins. In my article, “Cholesterol Managers Want to Double Statin Prescriptions,” I share a list to help minimize your toxic exposure and improve your body’s ability to maintain good heart health.
Additionally, in “Nearly Half of American Adults Have Cardiovascular Disease,” I summarize further strategies to improve microcirculation in your heart. I also talk about mitochondrial function and insulin resistance, which are related to strong heart health.
It is difficult to control Type 2 diabetes when you rely strictly on medication and do not change the underlying lifestyle factors that have caused the problem. If properly addressed, Type 2 diabetes can be entirely reversible in most people.
The reason is that Type 2 diabetes is a diet-derived condition rooted in insulin resistance and faulty leptin signaling. This means it can effectively be treated and reversed through dietary and lifestyle choices. I discuss this further, with suggestions for changes, in “Diabetes Can Increase Complications of COVID-19.”

1 A secondary analysis of the VITAL study found patients with no prior history of cancer who took 2,000 IUs of vitamin D per day reduced their risk for which of the following diseases by 17% (and 38% if of healthy weight)?
Cancer
A secondary analysis of the VITAL study found patients with no prior history of cancer who took 2,000 IUs of vitamin D per day reduced their risk for metastatic cancer and death by 17%. The risk was reduced by as much as 38% among those who also maintained a healthy weight. Learn more.
Heart disease
Parkinson’s
Alzheimer’s

2 The “effectiveness” of COVID-19 vaccines refer to:
The ability to prevent COVID-19-related hospitalizations
The ability to reduce symptoms of COVID-19, regardless of severity
None of the COVID-19 trials for which we have data is designed to find out whether the vaccine reduces hospitalization rates or deaths. They only look at whether it reduces symptoms if you do get infected. Learn more.
The ability to prevent COVID-19 related death
None of the above

3 Which of the following pandemic measures have been proven to prevent infection and lower mortality?
Universal mask wearing
Social distancing
Extensive PCR testing of asymptomatic people
None of the above
PCR tests cannot diagnose infection and therefore cannot tell us anything about the prevalence of infection. There’s also no evidence to suggest that social distancing and universal mask wearing prevent infection or lower mortality. Learn more.

4 Which of the following failed vaccination programs has been cited as the origin of the anti-vaccine movement?
The 2009 pandemic H1N1 swine flu vaccination program
The 2005 bird flu vaccination program
The 1976 pandemic swine flu vaccination program
The 1976 swine flu vaccine program has been cited as the origin of the anti-vaccine movement. Fear of an impending swine flu pandemic led to the deployment of a fast-tracked vaccine that injured thousands and killed at least 300. Learn more.
The 1977 Russian flu vaccine program

5 Research has confirmed there’s an inverse relationship between which of the following?
Sun exposure (vitamin D) and seasonal influenza deaths
A scientific review published in 2006 concluded that epidemic seasonal influenza is most likely related to the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency during winter months. Since then, other studies have confirmed this theory. A 2010 study found there’s an inverse relationship between UVB sun exposure — which is how your body synthesizes vitamin D naturally — and influenza deaths. Learn more.
Cold weather and hospitalization for the common cold
Hotter temperatures and COVID-19 cases requiring intensive care
Sun avoidance and MERS deaths

6 At extremely high doses, vitamin C:
Should be avoided in all cases
Kills viruses by acting like an antiviral drug
Vitamin C at extremely high doses, however, acts as an antiviral drug, actually killing viruses. Learn more.
Is too expensive to use clinically
Can turn your hair color grey

7 At a molecular level, high linoleic acid (omega-6) consumption:
Improves gut health
Preferentially kills neurons
Damages metabolism and impedes your body’s ability to generate energy in your mitochondria
At a molecular level, excess linoleic acid consumption damages your metabolism and impedes your body’s ability to generate energy in your mitochondria. Learn more.
Improves metabolic function and energy production