Lose Them Pounds

I’ve written many articles detailing the roles vitamin D plays in COVID-19, from how it can help prevent initial infection, to how it can reduce your risk of complications and death. One of the reasons I’ve been pushing for vitamin D optimization as a way to minimize the risks associated with this infection is because the evidence for it is overwhelming.

British Health Authorities Disparage Vitamin D Claims

British health authorities, however, disagree.1 According to new COVID-19 guidance2 from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Public Health England and the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN), there’s insufficient evidence to support the recommendation to take oral vitamin D for the sole reason of preventing or treating COVID-19.
With that, they are backtracking on previous recommendations issued by British health officials who, in November 2020, urged people to take supplemental vitamin D this winter to reduce their risk of respiratory infections, including COVID-19.3
What’s more, while the new guidance does urge Britons to take a vitamin D supplement between October and March, it only recommends a dose of 400 IUs a day, which is easily 10 times lower than what most people would require for general health and immune function.
While the panel agreed low vitamin D was associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes, they claim it’s impossible to confirm causality due to inconsistencies between the studies (such as dosing, setting, populations, duration and definitions of outcomes), and because vitamin D deficiency and severe COVID-19 share many of the same risk factors.
According to professor Ian Young, who chairs SACN, “This evidence review confirms that currently there is not enough available evidence to determine that there is a causal relationship between vitamin D and COVID-19.”
However, if vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19 share the same risk factors, wouldn’t it make more sense to urge people to address their vitamin D deficiency instead of using this as a justification for why vitamin D supplementation cannot be recommended?
It’s really hard to imagine that scientists with a genuine concern for public health would come out with this kind of guidance, especially when you consider that vitamin D supplementation — at whatever dosage required to get your blood level above 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L) — won’t make your health any worse. There’s absolutely no downside to it.
Vitamin D Is Important for Optimal Immune Function

In the video above, Dr. Roger Seheult reviews how vitamin D works, and the benefits of vitamin D, both for respiratory infections in general and as it pertains to COVID-19.
Importantly, vitamin D is a steroid hormone that can pass through cellular membranes into the nucleus and controls the expression of genes. So, it’s not just a mere vitamin required as a cofactor. It can actually modify how the cells in your body behave and function.
Vitamin D receptors are found in a large number of different tissues and cells, including your immune cells. This means vitamin D plays an important role in your immune function specifically. If vitamin D is lacking, your immune system will be impaired, which in turn makes you more susceptible to infections of all kinds. As noted by Seheult, vitamin D:

Stimulates “the innate immune response, which provides frontline protection against infectious agents”
Increases expression of antimicrobial peptides in your monocytes and neutrophils — both of which play important roles in COVID-19
Enhances expression of an antimicrobial peptide called human cathelicidin, “which is of specific importance in host defenses against respiratory tract pathogens”

Vitamin D for COVID-19

While Seheult also reviews a number of studies looking at vitamin D in relation to respiratory illnesses other than COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2-specific investigations have found:

• COVID-19 is far more common in vitamin D deficient individuals — In one study,4,5,6 82.2% of COVID-19 patients tested were deficient in vitamin D, compared to 47.2% of population-based controls. (Mean vitamin D levels were 13.8 ± 7.2 ng/ml, compared to 20.9 ± 7.4 ng/ml in controls.)

They also found that blood levels of vitamin D inversely correlated to D-dimer levels (a measure of blood coagulation). Many COVID-19 patients have elevated D-dimer levels, which are associated with blood clots.

• Vitamin D status influences COVID-19 severitys — COVID-19 patients who have higher vitamin D levels tend to have milder illness and better outcomes. One study7,8 found the risk of severe COVID-19 and related deaths virtually disappeared when vitamin D levels were above 30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L).

In another study,9 COVID-19 patients with a vitamin D level between 21 ng/mL (50 nmol/L) and 29 ng/mL (75 nmol/L) had a 12.55 times higher risk of death than those with a level above 30 ng/mL. Having a level below 20 ng/mL was associated with a 19.12 times higher risk of death.

My scientific review,10 “Evidence Regarding Vitamin D and Risk of COVID-19 and Its Severity,” published October 31, 2020, also lists data from 14 observational studies that show vitamin D blood levels are inversely correlated with the incidence and/or severity of COVID-19.

This makes sense when you consider that vitamin D regulates inflammatory cytokine production — a lethal hallmark of COVID-19 — and is an important regulator of your immune system. Dysregulation of the immune system is another hallmark of severe COVID-19.

Seheult also reviews studies showing COVID-19 outcomes appear to be linked to UVB exposure. For example, in one such study,11 they found a marked variation in mortality depending on whether the patients lived above or below 35 degrees North latitude. As noted by the authors:12

” … the hypothesis is not that vitamin D would protect against SARS?CoV?2 infection but that it could be very important in preventing the cytokine storm and subsequent acute respiratory distress syndrome that is commonly the cause of mortality.”

Now, as noted by Seheult, it’s also possible that COVID-19 itself might be the cause of the lower vitamin D levels seen in these patients. This was reviewed in a letter to the editor, titled, “Vitamin D Deficiency in COVID-19: Mixing Up Cause and Consequence,” published in Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental, November 17, 2020.13 What they found was that as plasma cytokine levels increased in COVID-19 patients, vitamin D levels modestly dropped.

• Vitamin D influences infection risks — Vitamin D has also been linked to a lower risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in the first place.

The largest observational study14 to date, which looked at data for 191,779 American patients, found that of those with a vitamin D level below 20 ng/ml (deficiency), 12.5% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 8.1% of those who had a vitamin D level between 30 and 34 ng/ml (adequacy) and 5.9% of those who had an optimal vitamin D level of 55 ng/ml or higher. According to the authors:

“SARS-CoV-2 positivity is strongly and inversely associated with circulating 25(OH)D levels, a relationship that persists across latitudes, races/ethnicities, both sexes, and age ranges.”

How to Improve Your Vitamin D Absorption

The specific dosage required to maintain an optimal vitamin D level can vary widely from person to person depending on a variety of factors, including age and weight. Your gut health can also play an important role in how well you absorb the vitamin D you take, according to recent research.15
When you have a healthy gut, beneficial bacteria produce butyrate by breaking down dietary fiber. Butyrate, in turn, helps increase vitamin D, so the more butyrate you have, the more vitamin D your body can absorb.
Another factor that can influence your vitamin D absorption is your magnesium level.16 Magnesium is required for the conversion of vitamin D into its active form.17,18,19,20 According to a scientific review21,22 published in 2018, as many as 50% of Americans taking vitamin D supplements may not get significant benefit as the vitamin D simply gets stored in its inactive form, and the reason for this is because they have insufficient magnesium levels.
More recent research by GrassrootsHealth23 shows you need 146% more vitamin D to achieve a blood level of 40 ng/ml (100 nmol/L) if you do not take supplemental magnesium, compared to taking your vitamin D with at least 400 mg of magnesium per day.

Your vitamin K2 intake can also affect your required vitamin D dosage. According to GrassrootsHealth,24 “combined intake of both supplemental magnesium and vitamin K2 has a greater effect on vitamin D levels than either individually,” and “those taking both supplemental magnesium and vitamin K2 have a higher vitamin D level for any given vitamin D intake amount than those taking either supplemental magnesium or vitamin K2 or neither.”
Data25 from nearly 3,000 individuals revealed 244% more oral vitamin D was required to get 50% of the population to achieve a vitamin D level of 40 ng/ml (100 nmol/L) if they weren’t concurrently also taking magnesium and vitamin K2.

Safeguard Your Immune System With Vitamin D
In summary, if you cannot get sufficient amounts of sun exposure to maintain a vitamin D blood level of 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L) to 60 ng/mL (150 nmol/L), a vitamin D3 supplement is highly recommended. Just remember that the most important factor here is your blood level, not the dose, so before you start, get tested so you know your baseline.
If you live in the northern hemisphere, now is the time to check your vitamin D level and start taking action to raise it if you’re below 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L).
This will help you determine your ideal dose, as it can vary widely from person to person. Also remember that you can minimize your vitamin D requirement by making sure you’re also getting enough magnesium and vitamin K2. I’m convinced optimizing your vitamin D can go a long way toward minimizing your chances of contracting a respiratory infection, be it the common cold, seasonal influenza or COVID-19.
If you live in the northern hemisphere, now is the time to check your vitamin D level and start taking action to raise it if you’re below 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L). Experts recommend a vitamin D level between 40 and 60 ng/mL (100 to 150 nmol/L).

An easy and cost-effective way of measuring your vitamin D level is to order GrassrootsHealth’s vitamin D testing kit. Also, if you haven’t already visited www.stopcovidcold.com please do so now so you can take your free COVID risk test and grab a free PDF copy of my vitamin D report.
Once you know your current vitamin D level, use the GrassrootsHealth vitamin D calculator26 to determine how much vitamin D you might need to reach your target level. Retest your vitamin D level in three to four months to make sure you’ve reached your target level. If you have, then you’re taking the correct dosage. If you’re still low (or have reached a level above 80 ng/mL), you’ll need to adjust your dosage accordingly and retest again in another three to four months.

Google, which is neither a governmental agency nor a health organization, is nonetheless acting as such in their latest push to provide “accurate and timely information on COVID-19 vaccines.”1 In a blog post published December 10, 2020, Dr. Karen DeSalvo, Google’s chief health officer, and Kristie Canegallo, the company’s vice president of trust and safety, detailed Google’s plans for COVID-19 vaccine promotion.
Since the start of the outbreak, Google has introduced more than 200 products and initiatives, including an exposure notification contact tracing system, which aims to alert individuals via their cellphones if they’ve been exposed to someone with COVID-19;2 the potential privacy violations of this technology are immense, and it’s only one such example.
Now, Google notes,3 “As the world turns its focus to the deployment of vaccines, the type of information people need will evolve.” With communities being “vaccinated at an unprecedented pace and scale,” Google intends to share “information to educate the public, including addressing vaccine misperceptions and hesitance, and helping to surface official guidance to people on when, where and how to get vaccinated.”
Starting in the United Kingdom, with plans to roll out to other countries as more vaccines are authorized, Google will launch a new search feature so that whenever someone searches for information on COVID-19 vaccines, they’ll be given a list of authorized vaccines in their area along with information panels on each vaccine.
They’ve also teamed up with the Australian Science Media Centre (SMC) to spread more fact-checking propaganda as part of their COVID-19 Vaccine Media Hub — a disturbing revelation considering SMC’s long history of corporate and government bias.
Google and Industry Front Group AusSMC Team Up

To help influence the media through its search engine, Google’s News Initiative gave $1.5 million toward the creation of the COVID-19 Vaccine Media Hub as well as to support fact-checking. According to Google:4

“Led by the Australian Science Media Centre, and with support from technology non-profit Meedan, the hub will be a resource for journalists, providing around-the-clock access to scientific expertise and research updates.

The initiative includes science media centers and public health experts from Latin America, Africa, Europe, North America and the Asia-Pacific region, with content being made available in seven languages.”

Science Media Centres exist in a number of countries, including the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with a reported mission to provide “high-quality” scientific information to journalists. Their mission, as stated on their website, is:5

“To provide, for the benefit of the public and policymakers, accurate and evidence-based information about science and engineering through the media, particularly on controversial and headline news stories when most confusion and misinformation occurs.”

But SMC is not an independent news agency as it claims to be, as it counts among its biggest funders a number of high-level industry players with worldwide agendas, including the Wellcome Trust, GlaskoSmithKline, CropLife International, Sanofi and AstraZeneca.6 To put it simply, as reported by the U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) SMC promotes corporate views of science:7

“The Science Media Centre launched [in the U.K.] in 2002 in response to ‘media frenzies over MMR, GM crops and animal research’ to help news outlets better represent mainstream science, according to the SMC fact sheet. According to the group’s fact sheet. In its [2002] founding report,8 the SMC was created to address:

• A growing ‘crisis of confidence’ in society’s views of science
• A collapse of respect for authority and expertise
• A risk-averse society and alarmist media coverage and
• The ‘apparently superior media strategies’ used by environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth”

SMC’s Power Over Media

Google’s partnership with SMC to provide COVID-19 vaccine information isn’t about real fact-finding and sharing the truth. It’s about parroting the company line and spreading propaganda to the masses — something they’ve been successful at in the past.
As noted by USRTK,9 “… The SMC model has been influential in shaping media coverage about science. A media analysis10 of U.K. papers in 2011 and 2012 found that a majority of reporters who used SMC services did not seek additional perspectives for their stories.” The analysis reviewed two of the services provided by SMC:

“Roundups & rapid reactions,” which provide lists of “expert” statements in the relevant field directly to journalists
“Briefings,” which provide expert opinions on scientific events for use by the media

The case study used for the analysis was a study of paralyzed rats that learned to walk again after the stimulation of neurons. The majority of news articles (60%) that covered SMC’s briefings did not use an independent non-SMC source.
Among news articles that used SMC’s expert reactions, 23% did not use an independent source, and of the rest that did, only 32% included external sources that offered an opposing view to the one provided by SMC.
The analysis concluded that there are “more journalists than there should be” that are relying solely on SMC information instead of consulting independent sources.11 Still, SMC claims it is objective and nonbiased because it caps donations from any one institution at 5% of annual income (the Wellcome Trust and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) are exceptions, contributing over the 5% upper limit).12
But how much independence is truly retained when so much of the funding comes from different companies and front groups within the same industries? Their panel of “experts” represent the funding industries’ agendas and are not providing the media with objective academic feedback. In short, SMC has one agenda, and that is to infiltrate you with corporate propaganda.
SMC’s Political Clout

SMC’s political influence is also concerning. “In 2007,” USRTK reported, “SMC stopped a proposed ban on human/animal hybrid embryos with its media campaign to shift coverage from ethical concerns to the benefits of embryos as a research tool …”13 At the time, the U.K. government was planning to ban human/animal hybrid embryos after public consultations revealed ethical concerns, but SMC changed that. As Nature reported:14

“Perhaps the biggest criticism of [SMC director Fiona] Fox and the SMC is that they push science too aggressively — acting more as a PR agency than as a source of accurate science information. In December 2006, for example, the UK government indicated that it planned to ban scientists from creating hybrid embryos containing cells from humans and other animals.

… Researchers, funders and scientific societies organized a campaign to change the government’s mind. The SMC coordinated the media outreach, hosting five briefings at which scientists played down ethical qualms and said that hybrid embryos were a valuable research tool that might lead to disease treatments.

The resulting media coverage reflected those views, according to an analysis of the campaign’s effectiveness commissioned by the SMC and other campaign supporters.

More than 60% of the sources in stories written by science and health reporters — the ones targeted by the SMC — supported the research, and only one-quarter of sources opposed to it. By contrast, journalists who had not been targeted by the SMC spoke to fewer supportive scientists and more opponents.

The SMC was ‘largely responsible for turning the tide of coverage on human–animal hybrid embryos,’ says Andy Williams, a media researcher at the University of Cardiff, UK, who carried out the analysis … But Williams now worries that the SMC efforts led reporters to give too much deference to scientists, and that it stifled debate. It was a strategic triumph in media relations,’ he says.”

‘It’s a Really Dangerous Thing’

Google and SMC are pulling out all the stops to censor COVID-19 related information, especially that surrounding vaccines. In addition to the SMC-led COVID-19 Vaccine Media Hub, Google states they’re conducting research to find out “what kinds of formats, headlines and sources are most effective in correcting COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and whether fact checks that follow these best practices impact willingness to get vaccinated.”15
This blatant censorship under the guise of “fact checking” has been going on for months. For instance, Google’s June 2019 update effectively removed Mercola.com from Google search results. Our referenced content has been at the top of health search results for over 15 years, but now when entering a health-related search word into Google, you will no longer find Mercola.com articles in the search results.
The only way to locate Mercola articles is by adding “Mercola.com” to the search word(s) in question. If undesirable pages don’t vanish automatically in the new algorithm, Google’s quality raters will manually manipulate crowdsourced relevance to bury the page or pages. The same occurs in regard to COVID-19 vaccine information. Data that contradict or question the status quo are buried, while the official narrative is pushed to the top.
Now, with SMC further controlling the media by sending out talking points to journalists on COVID-19, it’s further limiting the type of real scientific debate that’s necessary to protect public health and health freedom. Ian Sample, The Guardian’s science editor, explained one such example to Nature.16
In 2013, he had a short deadline to report a story on a tornado that struck in Oklahoma. He received three emails from SMC that day, containing tornado facts and comments from 11 researchers, “many addressing the controversial link between extreme weather and global warming.” He was happy to have the “help,” working the information into the story in order to meet the deadline. “That information was really handy,” he said.17 However, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
Despite its convenience, relying on “facts” from an industry front group will skew real science. “It’s a really dangerous thing and an easy thing for journalists to start relying on SMC comments,” Sample said. “We should be picking who we’re talking to and picking which questions we’re asking.”
Connie St. Louis, director of the science journalism course at City University, London, agreed. As one of SMC’s noted critics, she told Nature18 that SMC was “fueling a culture of churnalism,” and since journalists began relying on SMC briefings instead of finding their own information “the quality of science reporting and the integrity of information available to the public have both suffered.”
Where Can You Find the Truth?
Efforts to shut down public discussions about health information are in full force. So what can you do? Knowledge truly is power, so look beyond fact-checkers’ labels and the top of Google’s canned search results — and the corporations behind them — in your search for truth. I also recommend boycotting Google by avoiding any and all Google products. Tips for achieving this follow:

Stop using Google search engines. Alternatives include DuckDuckGo and Startpage
Uninstall Google Chrome and use Brave or Opera browser instead, available for all computers and mobile devices. From a security perspective, Opera is far superior to Chrome and offers a free VPN service (virtual private network) to further preserve your privacy
If you have a Gmail account, try a non-Google email service such as ProtonMail, an encrypted email service based in Switzerland
Stop using Google docs. Digital Trends has published an article suggesting a number of alternatives19
If you’re a student, do not convert the Google accounts you created as a student into personal accounts

As detailed in “Spy Agencies Threaten to ‘Take Out’ Mercola,” this website has been labeled a national security threat by British and American intelligence agencies that are collaborating to eliminate “anti-vaccine propaganda” from public discussion using sophisticated cyberwarfare tools.1,2,3

In a December 22, 2020, article,4 The Hill claims the “anti-vaccination movement sees COVID-19 as an opportunity” to strengthen its position, stating that “As public health officials seek to reassure Americans on the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine, anti-vaccine efforts could prevent the country from reaching herd immunity.”

According to a November 9, 2020, report in The Times,5 the British “government regards tackling false information about COVID-19 vaccination as a rising priority,” ostensibly for the same reason. But does concern for implementation of public health policy really justify the use of cyberwarfare against those who raise questions about vaccine safety?

Wouldn’t vaccine safety be part and parcel of a successful public health campaign? Doesn’t public trust play a significant part as well? The fact that they’re trying to shut down any and all conversations about vaccines — using warfare tactics no less — suggests that the planned mass vaccination campaign has very little to do with keeping the public healthy and safe. It’s about controlling the public, for some undisclosed purpose.
‘Anti-Hate’ Group Defames Vaccine Safety Advocates
In July 2020, Imran Ahmed, a member of the Steering Committee on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force under the British government’s Commission for Countering Extremism and the chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), told The Independent6 he considers anti-vaxxers “an extremist group that pose a national security risk,” because “once someone has been exposed to one type of conspiracy it’s easy to lead them down a path where they embrace more radical world views that can lead to violent extremism.”

In other words, Ahmed implies that people who question the safety and necessity of a COVID-19 vaccine might be prone to violent extremism — a defamatory statement that has no basis in reality.

In its report, “The Anti-Vaxx Playbook,”7 CCDH identifies six leading online “anti-vaxxers” — Barbara Loe Fisher, Joseph Mercola, Del Bigtree, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Sherri Tenpenny and Andrew Wakefield — and outlined an alleged anti-vaxxer “plan to attack a forthcoming COVID vaccine” based on remarks made by speakers during the Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination, sponsored by the non-profit, Nacional Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) and held online October 16 through 18, 2020.

According to The Washington Post,8 the report quotes “leaked audio” from the conference. Similarly, in a December 22, 2020, Twitter post,9 the CCDH states that “Anti-vaxxers have been meeting secretly to plan how to stop the COVID vaccine. We were there. Today we’re exposing their playbook.”

It’s rather laughable. Just who is the conspiracy theorist here? There was no audio to be “leaked” since it was a PUBLIC conference, open to absolutely anyone and everyone, just like the previous four conferences on vaccination that NVIC has held beginning in 1997. It was openly promoted by NVIC, this website, as well as many other groups and was about as far from a “secret meeting” as you could possibly get.

Since the CCDH admitted “being there,” they must have paid the nominal registration attendance fee of $80, as did more than 3,000 other registered attendees from the U.S, Canada, Europe, Asia and Africa. The NVIC conference, which was originally scheduled to be held in a hotel, was produced online for the first time after COVID-19 social distancing and travel restrictions were instituted in March, 2020.

Vaccine Concerns Are Growing Rapidly
The CCDH report also lists several private Facebook groups dedicated to vaccine information, including “Vaccination Re-Education Discussion Forum,” “Stop Mandatory Vaccination,” “Vaccine Choices” and “Restore Liability for the Vaccine Makers.”

CCDH admits tracking and spying on 425 vaccine-related Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter accounts. In all, these accounts have 59.2 million followers, “nearly 877,000 more than they had in June,” CCDH notes, adding that:10

“This means that anti-vaxxers grew fast enough to outpace the removal of accounts belonging to influential figures such as Del Bigtree, Larry Cook and David Icke in that period. Those removals led to a loss of 3.2 million followers from the total, while other anti-vaxxers in our sample gained over 4.1 million …
Analysis of this year-long growth also shows the substantial contributions that alternative health entrepreneurs and conspiracy theorists make to the reach of the anti-vaccine movement.
Entrepreneurs now have 22.6 million followers, supplying two-fifths of the anti-vaccine movement’s online following. Anti-vaccine conspiracy accounts grew by nearly 50 percent over the year, starting at 15.5 million followers in 2019 and rising to 23.1 million by December 2020.”

According to the CCDH, “Anti-vaxxers have developed a sophisticated playbook for spreading uncertainty about a COVID vaccine.”11 To counter this information, medical and scientific professionals need to “take action,” by which the CCDH means they must push for COVID-19 vaccination.

“To do so, they must convince the public that COVID is dangerous and give them confidence that a vaccine is safe and effective,” the CCDH writes,12 adding that anti-vaxxers “win the debate by default if a skeptical public fail to take action and use the vaccine.”

‘Anti-Vaxx Playbook’
Just what is the “anti-vaxx playbook”? According to the CCDH, the “playbook for spreading uncertainty” about the vaccine involves five key steps:13

Establishing “a ‘master narrative’ comprising three key messages: COVID is not dangerous, the vaccine is dangerous and vaccine advocates cannot be trusted”
Adapting that master narrative for “online subcultures” such as “Alternative health entrepreneurs, conspiracy theorists, and accounts directed at parents or ethnic communities”
Offering “online answering spaces where people with doubts about COVID or the vaccine can direct their questions”
Converting vaccine-hesitant individuals into anti-vaxxers and then training them to become “more effective activists”
Mitigating attacks on their online infrastructure by migrating followers to “alt-tech” platforms such as Telegram and Parler and developing “techniques for undermining fact-checking”

In the report, the CCDH details many of the specific messages shared by me and others, such as deaths being falsely attributed to COVID-19, thereby artificially inflating mortality statistics, the fact that COVID-19 has a 99+% survival rate unless you’re very old and have underlying comorbidities, and the fact that there are now several effective therapeutics for COVID-19, making a vaccine less relevant.

“Anti-vaxxers take advantage of existing media and political narratives around the speed of vaccine development to claim trials have been rushed, and that it is too soon to know if COVID vaccines are safe,” the CCDH states. “Variations of this narrative highlight perceived shortcomings in clinical trials, and draw on past examples of vaccines with adverse effects.”

Zero Solid Counterarguments Made
Reading through the CCDH’s report, I’m struck by the irony that none of the so-called “anti-vaxx arguments” are actually met by solid pro-vaccine counterarguments or data.

CCDH does not negate or even debate the accuracy of any of them. It just brushes them aside as misinformation and lies without providing any proof whatsoever. In fact, the report summarizes our concerns so well that I’d encourage everyone to read it.

At the end of the report, they do list a number of strategies that pro-vaccine advocates should use to counter anti-vaccine messages, but again, nowhere do they recommend leaning on published science.

Instead, it’s all about shaming people who question vaccines as “conspiracy theorists,” promoting harrowing stories of people who got sick with COVID-19 and “shouting about getting vaccinated.”

“Recipients of the vaccine should post about getting it — such a campaign could create authentic social proof and work against the anti-vaxxers’ aim of creating doubt around the safety of vaccines. ‘I’ve had the vaccine’ Twibbons and Instagram filters could also help achieve this,” CCDH writes.14

CCDH Promotes Draconian Censorship
Other recommendations issued by the CCDH include deplatforming anyone who questions vaccines. “Deplatforming works,” they say, adding that:15

“The problem lies with a very small number of accounts. The 59 million followers of anti-vaxxer social media accounts identified in this report are following just 425 accounts, pages, groups and channels across Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram.
The 10 anti-vaxxers we track with the largest cross-platform followings make up the majority of the total audience for anti-vaxxers online. These are the ‘superspreaders’ of anti-vaxx misinformation.
As this report has demonstrated, anti-vaxxers are concerned by the prospect of losing their privileged position on social media platforms … the evidence is clear that the best way of preventing someone falling for a conspiracy theory is to prevent them from seeing it in the first place.”

The CCDH also urges legislators to “hold platforms accountable” through fines and criminal sanctions, legal liability for forum administrators and/or “transparency for the online advertising world” — in other words, warn advertisers that the platform they’re supporting with their advertising dollars is promoting “medical misinformation” and “anti-vaccine conspiracy theories.”

I am surprised by their recommendation because to the best I can discern, ALL the major media platforms have already censored every major site that questions vaccines many months ago. They cannot censor them any more than they already are. Most of the YouTube, Facebook and Twitter accounts have been heavily censored or deplatformed.
Greenwald on Big Tech Censoring
In the video at the top of this article, UnHerd interviews Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, who is one of my favorite articulate journalists. At the end of October 2020, Greenwald resigned from The Intercept — a publication he co-founded in 2014 — after the publication refused to publish an article in which he raised a critique against presidential candidate Joe Biden.16
According to Greenwald, the refusal to publish the piece violated his “contractual right of editorial freedom.” In the interview, he stresses the dangers inherent with online censorship by big tech and social media platforms. Who should be in control of “the truth”? Can anyone really be designated as the ultimate source of truth, be it about vaccines or anything else?
What looks like a proven orthodoxy one month becomes a gross error the next, and that’s exactly why things have to be debated rather than suppressed. ~ Glenn Greenwald

As noted by Greenwald, social media platforms claim the right to be the arbiters of truth by hiring so-called fact-checkers and relying on experts at the World Health Organization.
However, we have repeatedly seen the WHO issue statements that have turned out to be inaccurate or false — sometimes by their own admission — so just how reliable are they? By strictly sticking with the WHO’s guidance and censoring everything else, the censors have in many instances promoted misinformation exclusively.
Greenwald gives the example of masks. In February and March 2020, the WHO did not recommend wearing face masks and actually warned they might be counterproductive. Now all of a sudden, masks are a must, even though the science hasn’t changed one bit.
In fact, the evidence that masks don’t protect against viral transmission has only grown stronger. Early on the WHO also questioned whether human-to-human transmission was even possible and cast doubt on the true danger of the virus.

“That’s the nature of human fallibility,” Greenwald says. “What looks like a proven orthodoxy one month becomes a gross error the next, and that’s exactly why these things have to be debated rather than suppressed.”

Risks of Censorship Are Too Grave To Be Justifiable
When asked whether he believes nothing should ever be censored on health grounds, he wisely replies that not only do people need to rely on their own common sense when encountering information, but institutions also need to work to build credibility and public trust.
Indeed, refusing to hold a discussion about the scientific evidence does not build trust. Forcibly shutting down anyone who raises sensible questions does not build trust. Destroying the reputations and livelihoods of people who report on questions raised does not build trust.
In short, the medical industry, and the vaccine industry in particular, have severe trust and credibility deficits that they themselves created and continue to grow with the help of big tech and national intelligence agencies who are going to extreme lengths to prevent counter narratives from getting out.
Greenwald also points out that the U.S. has never before allowed government to intervene in the public discourse in this way. It should be undisputable that censorship is anathema to a democratically run, free and open society. While there may not be a benefit to allowing misinformation to be disseminated, the risks of censoring are simply too grave to be justifiable.
Big tech censorship is even more insidious than government censorship, because it’s far more opaque. At least if the government says it’s going to censor certain kinds of expression, there’s some level of transparency in how that’s being done.
Private tech companies, on the other hand, move the goal post at will, and they’re never entirely clear about who will be censored, for what, exactly, or how. What’s more, there’s no real process for appeal. Greenwald points out that social media companies never really wanted to be in the position of being censors but were pressured into it by politicians, in some cases, and mainstream media journalists in others.
Journalists initially wanted to maintain control over the public discourse by restricting the competition’s reach, and once social media companies relented and started censoring, the whole thing just snowballed and grew.
The problem we face now is that censorship fortifies power and is very difficult to end once it has taken hold. This in turn does not bode well for individual freedom or democracy as a whole. Censorship is a direct threat to both.
It also has a tendency to spread ever more widely, covering more and more topics as we go along. For example, there was active suppression and censorship of certain political issues leading up to the 2020 presidential election, and now there’s censoring of evidence showing election interference. What will be next?
Technocratic Totalitarianism Is at Our Doorstep
The fact, then, that U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies are getting involved in censoring should tell us something. It tells us it’s not really about protecting public health. It’s about strengthening government control over the population. The fact that intelligence agencies view vaccine safety advocates as a national security threat also tells us that government is now in the business of protecting private companies, essentially blurring the line between the two.

If you criticize one you criticize the other. In short, if you impede or endanger the profitability of private companies, you are now viewed as a national security threat, and this falls squarely within the parameters of technocracy, in which government is dissolved and replaced with the unelected leaders of private enterprise.

The right and freedom to critique one’s government is a hallmark of democracy, so this state-sponsored war against truthful information is clear evidence of a radical turn toward technocratic totalitarianism. While the situation may appear hopeless, it’s not yet too late to turn things around. For some encouragement, listen to Kennedy Jr.’s speech below.

Resistance is the only way forward, and one way you can resist censorship is to find ways around it. One such way is to subscribe to this newsletter, and any other newsletters you find interesting, and to share information you find valuable with your family and friends via more old-school means such as email and text message.
At the bottom of each page, you’ll find an “Email Article” button that makes my articles easy to share. Also consider eliminating Facebook and all Google-based services to cut down on their data mining of your personal information, as all of it is being used against you in one way or another, whether you’re aware of it or not.

Acetaminophen, known by the brand names Tylenol and Panadol, is the most widely used drug ingredient in the U.S., taken by more than 50 million Americans every week.1 Most don’t think twice about popping a couple of Tylenol tablets to take the edge off a headache or other minor aches and pains, believing it to be a relatively benign over-the-counter medication choice.
Even acetaminophen comes with risks, however. Those linked to liver damage are well known, but it’s now emerging that acetaminophen has other unintended effects in your body — effects that may influence your behavior, emotions and psychological processes. Taken together, if you don’t have to use acetaminophen, don’t — it’s best to avoid using this drug unless absolutely necessary.
Acetaminophen Increases Risk Taking

Acetaminophen, which is found in over 600 medicines, is used by 23% of the U.S. population weekly,2 mostly for its pain- and fever-reducing effects. But along with blunting your pain, it may also be dampening your response to risks, such that you become more likely to take them while using the drug.
Researchers from The Ohio State University recruited 189 college students to take part in the study. They were given either 1,000 milligrams (mg) of acetaminophen or a placebo, then, once the drug took effect, they were asked to rate various activities based on risk on a scale of 1 to 7.
Those who took acetaminophen rated the activities, which included things like walking home alone at night in an unsafe area or bungee jumping, as less risky than those who took the placebo. In another study by the same researchers, undergraduate students took part in a test to measure risk-taking behavior.3
The study involved clicking a button to inflate a balloon on a computer. As it inflated, they were rewarded with money, but if it got too big and burst, they lost it all. Students who took acetaminophen were more likely to keep pumping the balloon and had more balloons burst than students not taking the drug.
“If you’re risk-averse, you may pump a few times and then decide to cash out because you don’t want the balloon to burst and lose your money,” study co-author Baldin Way said in a news release. “But for those who are on acetaminophen, as the balloon gets bigger, we believe they have less anxiety and less negative emotion about how big the balloon is getting and the possibility of it bursting.”4
Taking more risks on the laboratory test has been linked to increased risk-taking outside of the lab, including driving without a seatbelt, using drugs and alcohol and stealing. This is what has the researchers concerned, especially considering how widespread acetaminophen usage is.
“Acetaminophen seems to make people feel less negative emotion when they consider risky activities — they just don’t feel as scared,” Way said. “With nearly 25 percent of the population in the U.S. taking acetaminophen each week, reduced risk perceptions and increased risk-taking could have important effects on society.”5
Acetaminophen Blunts Positive and Negative Emotions

If you take acetaminophen, you expect it to dull your physical pain, but it may also blunt your emotions, both positive and negative. A series of studies, conducted by Way and colleagues, involved showing college students 40 photographs designed to elicit positive, neutral or negative emotions.6 The students were given 1,000 mg of acetaminophen or a placebo 60 minutes prior to viewing the photos.
The students were asked to rate the photos on a scale of -5 (extremely negative) to +5 (extremely positive), as well as rate how much emotion the photo made them feel. Those who took acetaminophen rated the photos as less extreme on either end of the spectrum, and also had more neutral emotional reactions.
“People who took acetaminophen didn’t feel the same highs or lows as did the people who took placebos,” Way said in a news release.7 They then conducted a similar study asking people to evaluate not only the emotional content of photos, but also how much of the color blue it contained. They were trying to determine if acetaminophen affected perceptions that weren’t emotional in nature.
Again, the participants who took acetaminophen had emotional reactions that were significantly blunted, but the judgments of blue color content were similar among everyone. This suggests acetaminophen affects emotional evaluations but not magnitude judgments, such as color content.8
Acetaminophen Is an ‘Empathy Killer’

Acetaminophen is not only a painkiller but also an “empathy killer,” Way and colleagues wrote in a 2016 study published in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.9 Empathy, the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and understand their feelings and point of view, is a character trait that benefits society and individuals in multiple ways.
Those who feel empathy for others’ pain and suffering may trigger prosocial actions, for instance, or curb aggressive behaviors. It’s also known that when people observe others experiencing pain, brain regions are activated that also light up in response to our own pain.10 This suggests empathy for pain may share similar neural and psychological processes as the experience of physical pain.
Again, Way and colleagues conducted a series of studies to compare subjects’ responses to others’ physical or social pain. After receiving acetaminophen or a placebo, they read scenarios about another’s pain, watched ostracism in the lab or witnessed other participants being exposed to painful noise blasts.
The acetaminophen users had significantly fewer empathic responses compared to those who took a placebo. The researchers explained:11

“As hypothesized, acetaminophen reduced empathy in response to others’ pain. Acetaminophen also reduced the unpleasantness of noise blasts delivered to the participant, which mediated acetaminophen’s effects on empathy.

Together, these findings suggest that the physical painkiller acetaminophen reduces empathy for pain and provide a new perspective on the neurochemical bases of empathy. Because empathy regulates prosocial and antisocial behavior, these drug-induced reductions in empathy raise concerns about the broader social side effects of acetaminophen …”

Taking Acetaminophen Reduces Pain From Social Rejection

The pain caused by social rejection is another area where acetaminophen unexpectedly interferes. Those who took acetaminophen daily for three weeks reported less social pain on a daily basis compared to those who took a placebo.12
Further, when the researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure brain activity in the participants, the drug reduced neural responses to social rejection in areas previously linked to the distress of social pain and physical pain.
“Acetaminophen reduces behavioral and neural responses associated with the pain of social rejection, demonstrating substantial overlap between social and physical pain,” the researchers noted.13 Indeed, the pain of social rejection can feel like a literal painful blow, but the problem with taking acetaminophen to blunt it is that positive emotions are also affected, meaning chronic users may have a dulled existence.
When Way and colleagues again gave 1,000 mg of acetaminophen or placebo to subjects, then measured their response to positive empathy, these positive feelings were blunted; those taking acetaminophen did not experience the same uplifting feelings as others did when reading about others’ positive experiences.14
“Results showed that acetaminophen reduced personal pleasure and other-directed empathic feelings in response to these scenarios,” Way and colleagues wrote, adding that this also has societal implications since positive empathy is related to prosocial behavior.
Cognitive Function Also Affected

When acetaminophen affects your brain’s responses to social rejection, empathy and more, it also extends to other cognitive processes, possibly making them less effective. In another trial, participants who took either acetaminophen or a placebo performed a test to gauge decision-making abilities.
They had to click a button when the letter F appeared on a computer screen but not hit the button when an E was shown. Those who took acetaminophen performed worse on the test, suggesting the drug may lead to greater errors or flaws in decision making, and may also inhibit broader evaluative processes in the brain.15
Lead author Dan Randles, a postdoctoral fellow in the psychology department at University of Toronto, said in an interview with Forbes:16

“… [A]cetaminophen not only affects physical pain, but also feelings of social rejection, uncertainty and evaluative processing … This study is the first to provide compelling evidence that acetaminophen is affecting all of these symptoms by reducing the distress associated with any kind of cognitive conflict; whether the source is physical, social or more abstract.”

Acetaminophen Is Risky During Pregnancy
After long being recommended as a safe pain reliever during pregnancy, it was revealed in 2014 that acetaminophen is in fact a hormone disruptor,17 casting doubts on its safe use during pregnancy.
According to that 2014 study, use of acetaminophen during pregnancy was associated with a 37% increased risk of their child being diagnosed with hyperkinetic disorder, a severe form of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Their children were also up to 30% more likely to be prescribed ADHD medication by the time they were 7 years old.18 A study published in JAMA Psychiatry in 2019 further strengthened the link between acetaminophen use and ADHD, while also noting an increased risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD).19 Aside from a higher risk of neurodevelopmental problems, studies have also shown:

Use of acetaminophen during pregnancy may increase your risk of pre-eclampsia and thromboembolic diseases20
Taking the drug for more than four weeks during pregnancy, especially during the first and second trimester, moderately increases the risk of undescended testicles in boys21
Using acetaminophen in the third trimester increases your risk of preterm birth22

Liver Damage Is a Major Problem With Acetaminophen Use
Yet another reason to be extremely cautious with regard to acetaminophen is its negative effects on your liver. Acetaminophen is the top cause of acute liver failure in the U.S. It can even be toxic to your liver at recommended doses when taken daily for just a couple of weeks.23
Part of the reason for the risk is that acetaminophen’s recommended dose and the amount of the drug that causes an overdose are very close. There is not much margin of safety, and because acetaminophen is found in so many over-the-counter medications, it’s easy to double- or triple-up without even realizing it.
Even taking just a little more acetaminophen than the recommended dose over a few days or weeks (referred to as “staggered overdosing”) is dangerous, and can be deadlier than one large overdose.24 There are other risks to acetaminophen that haven’t been covered here, including potentially fatal skin reactions.
California state regulators are even considering adding acetaminophen to the list of carcinogens covered by Proposition 6525 because it’s related to phenacetin, an over-the-counter painkiller banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1983 because of links to cancer.
Considering its many risks, I don’t recommend using acetaminophen for minor aches and pains. Instead, try one of the many natural pain relief options available that can provide relief without drugs.

Regardless of what the mainstream media want you to think, many are starting to realize the truth, which is that both vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and vitamin D have an enormous amount of research showing they provide important immune function enhancements, and that your immune function is your frontline defense against all illness, including COVID-19.

As reported in the paper “Optimal Nutritional Status for a Well-Functioning Immune System Is an Important Factor to Protect Against Viral Infections,” published April 23, 2020:1

“The role nutrition plays in supporting the immune system is well-established. A wealth of mechanistic and clinical data show that vitamins, including vitamins A, B6, B12, C, D, E, and folate; trace elements, including zinc, iron, selenium, magnesium, and copper; and the omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid play important and complementary roles in supporting the immune system.
Inadequate intake and status of these nutrients are widespread, leading to a decrease in resistance to infections and as a consequence an increase in disease burden.”

High-Dose Vitamin C Acts as an Antiviral Drug

As explained in the video above by Dr. Andrew Saul, editor-in-chief of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, at extremely high doses, vitamin C actually acts as an antiviral drug, effectively inactivating viruses.
His Tokyo presentation, “Orthomolecular Medicine and Coronavirus Disease: Historical Basis for Nutritional Treatment,” highlights the fact that when used as a treatment, high doses of vitamin C — often 1,000 times more than the U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) — are needed.
It’s a cornerstone of medical science that dose affects treatment outcome, but this premise isn’t accepted when it comes to vitamin therapy the way it is with drug therapy. Most vitamin C research has used inadequate, low doses, which don’t lead to clinical results.

“The medical literature has ignored over 80 years of laboratory and clinical studies on high-dose ascorbate therapy,” Saul notes, adding that while it’s widely accepted that vitamin C is beneficial in fighting illness, controversy exists over to what extent. “Moderate quantities provide effective prevention,” he says, while “large quantities are therapeutic.”
Landmark Paper Puts Vitamin C on the COVID-19 Treatment Map

While health authorities and mainstream media have ignored, if not outright opposed, the use of vitamin C and other supplements in the treatment of COVID-19, citing lack of clinical evidence, we now have a landmark review2 recommending the use of vitamin C as an adjunctive therapy for respiratory infections, sepsis and COVID-19.
Vitamin C’s antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulating effects make it a potential therapeutic candidate, both for the prevention and amelioration of COVID-19 infection, and as an adjunctive therapy in the critical care of COVID-19. ~ Nutrients December 7, 2020
The review,3 published December 7, 2020, in the journal Nutrients, was co-written by Dr. Paul Marik who, in 2017, developed a groundbreaking vitamin C-based treatment for sepsis. Marik is now heading up the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance,4 which has developed a highly successful treatment for COVID-19.
The COVID-19 protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+5 while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,6 due to the addition of the drug Ivermectin. Vitamin C remains a central component of this treatment, though.
(The two protocols7,8 are available for download on the FLCCC Alliance website in multiple languages. The clinical and scientific rationale for the I-MATH+ hospital protocol has also been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine9 in mid-December 2020.) As explained in the Nutrients review abstract:10

“There are limited proven therapies for COVID-19. Vitamin C’s antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulating effects make it a potential therapeutic candidate, both for the prevention and amelioration of COVID-19 infection, and as an adjunctive therapy in the critical care of COVID-19.
This literature review focuses on vitamin C deficiency in respiratory infections, including COVID-19, and the mechanisms of action in infectious disease, including support of the stress response, its role in preventing and treating colds and pneumonia, and its role in treating sepsis and COVID-19.
The evidence to date indicates that oral vitamin C (2-8 g/day) may reduce the incidence and duration of respiratory infections and intravenous vitamin C (6-24 g/day) has been shown to reduce mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays, and time on mechanical ventilation for severe respiratory infections …
Given the favorable safety profile and low cost of vitamin C, and the frequency of vitamin C deficiency in respiratory infections, it may be worthwhile testing patients’ vitamin C status and treating them accordingly with intravenous administration within ICUs and oral administration in hospitalized persons with COVID-19.”

International Vitamin C Campaign Launched

In a December 16, 2020, action alert,11 Rob Verkerk, Ph.D., founder and scientific director of the Alliance for Natural Health, announced the launch of an international vitamin C campaign12 in response to the landmark review, which “puts all the arguments and science in one, neat place.”
As noted by Verkerk, there are several reasons to take supplemental vitamin C. First, your body cannot make it. Second, most people do not get sufficient amounts from their diet and, third, your body’s requirement for vitamin C can increase 10-fold whenever your immune system is challenged by an infection, disease or physical trauma.
In fact, the Nutrients review13 points out that it’s common for hospitalized patients to have overt vitamin C deficiency, defined as a blood level at or below 11 µmol/L. This is particularly true for older patients and those hospitalized for respiratory infections.
According to the authors, “Vitamin C concentrations are three to 10 times higher in the adrenal glands than in any other organ. It is released from the adrenal cortex under conditions of physiological stress (ACTH stimulation), including viral exposure, raising plasma levels fivefold.” In his action alert, Verkerk notes:14

“Taking vitamin C as a preventative and then, upping your intake if you’re infected, is a no brainer. So is using vitamin C intravenously for those with acute respiratory infections, or sepsis, in critical care.
So much so, that we argue — given the now available evidence — that doctors and other health professionals who avoid recommendations on vitamin C in relation to COVID disease prevention and treatment, should be considered medically negligent …
There is ample evidence to show that supplements like zinc, vitamin C, and vitamin D can help prevent and treat COVID-19, but we’re prevented from learning about these benefits by the federal government.
Because supplements are not, and can never become, FDA-approved, they cannot claim to have an impact on disease, even when we know they can. This nonsense has to stop.”

How Vitamin C Works

As mentioned, the Nutrients review15 details vitamin C’s mechanisms of action and how it helps in cases of infectious disease, including the common cold, pneumonia, sepsis and COVID-19. For starters, vitamin C has the following basic properties:

Anti-inflammatory
Immunomodulatory
Antioxidant
Antithrombotic
Antiviral

Beneficial antiviral effects apply to both the innate and adaptive immune systems. When you have an infection, vitamin C improves your immune function in part by promoting the development and maturation of T-lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell that is an essential part of your immune system.
Phagocytes, immune cells that kill pathogenic microbes, are also able to take in oxidized vitamin C and regenerate it to ascorbic acid. With regard to COVID-19 specifically, vitamin C:16

Helps downregulate inflammatory cytokines, thereby reducing the risk of a cytokine storm. It also reduces inflammation through the activation of NF-?B and by increasing superoxide dismutase, catalase and glutathione. Epigenetically, vitamin C regulates genes involved in the upregulation of antioxidant proteins and downregulation of proinflammatory cytokines

Protects your endothelium from oxidant injury

Helps repair damaged tissues

Upregulates expression of Type-1 interferons, your primary antiviral defense mechanism, which SARS-CoV-2 downregulates

Eliminates ACE2 upregulation induced by IL-7. This is particularly noteworthy, as the ACE2 receptor is the entry point for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus’ spike protein binds to ACE2)

Appears to be a powerful inhibitor of Mpro, a key protease (enzyme) in SARS-CoV-2 that activates viral nonstructural proteins

Regulates neutrophil extracellular trap formation (NETosis), a maladaptive response that results in tissue damage and organ failure

Enhances lung epithelial barrier function in an animal model of sepsis by promoting epigenetic and transcriptional expression of protein-channels at the alveolar capillary membrane that regulate alveolar fluid clearance

Mediates the adrenocortical stress response, particularly in sepsis

The graph below, from the Nutrients review, illustrates the key ways in which vitamin C ameliorates the pathology seen in COVID-19.

Nebulized Peroxide May Be Even Better
The beautiful graphic above makes it really clear that one of the primary ways that vitamin C works is through the generation of reactive oxygen species. Guess what the primary one is? If you guessed hydrogen peroxide give yourself a high five!
It is highly likely that the peroxide forms a very powerful signaling function that stimulates the immune system to defeat whatever viral threat it is exposed to. This is one of the reasons why nebulized peroxide is my absolute favorite intervention for acute viral illnesses. It is highly effective, inexpensive and has no side effects when used at the very low doses recommended (0.1%, which is 30 times less concentrated than regular drugstore 3% peroxide).
My video below discusses the details of how you can use this therapy. The key is to have your nebulizer already purchased and ready to go so that it is locked and loaded and you don’t have to go out and purchase anything if you or a loved one gets sick. You can still use vitamin C with the peroxide, as they likely have a powerful synergy and use different complimentary mechanisms.

Since you are not using full strength 3% peroxide and diluting it by 30 to 50 times, it is unlikely the stabilizers will present a problem, but to be safe, it is best to use FOOD-GRADE peroxide. Also, do not dilute it with plain water as the lack of electrolytes in the water can damage your lungs if you nebulize it. Instead, use saline or add a small amount of salt to the water to eliminate this risk.

Clinical Evidence

The Nutrients review17 also includes clinical evidence for the role of vitamin C in COVID-19, noting that early oral supplementation might help prevent a mild case from developing into something more serious. In patients with critical symptoms, intravenous administration of vitamin C has been shown to speed up recovery, reducing both ICU stays and mortality.
Interestingly, vitamin C deficiency and COVID-19 share many of the same risk factors, including male gender, darker skin, older age and comorbidities such as diabetes, high blood pressure and COPD. All of these subgroups are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 and, according to the authors, all “have also been shown to have lower serum vitamin C levels.”
Commenting on the clinical evidence supporting the use of vitamin C in the treatment of COVID-19, the authors write:18

“There are currently 45 trials registered on Clinicaltrials.gov investigating vitamin C with or without other treatments for COVID-19. In the first RCT to test the value of vitamin C in critically ill COVID-19 patients, 54 ventilated patients in Wuhan, China, were treated with a placebo (sterile water) or intravenous vitamin C at a dose of 24 g/day for 7 days …

The more severely ill patients with SOFA [sequential organ failure assessment] scores ? 3 in the vitamin C group exhibited a reduction in 28-day mortality: 18% versus 50% in univariate survival analysis (Figure 2). No study-related adverse events were reported.”

Figure 2 below, from version 1 of the study,19 “High-Dose Vitamin C Infusion for the Treatment of Critically Ill COVID-19,” posted on the preprint server Research Square August 10, 2020 (updated September 23, at which point it was renamed20), shows the 28-day mortality rates between critically ill COVID-19 patients given high-dose IV vitamin C (HDIVC) compared to those given a placebo.

The Nutrient review also summarizes findings from other COVID-19 trials using vitamin C, as well as a few case reports:21

“In the UK, the Chelsea and Westminster hospital ICU, where adult ICU patients were administered 1 g of intravenous vitamin C every 12 h together with anticoagulants, has reported 29% mortality, compared to the average 41% reported by the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC) for all UK ICUs …
The Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Expert Group (FLCCC), a group of emergency medicine experts, have reported that, with the combined use of 6 g/day intravenous vitamin C (1.5 g every 6 h), plus steroids and anticoagulants, mortality was 5% in two ICUs in the US (United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas, and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia), the lowest mortality rates in their respective counties.
A case report of 17 COVID-19 patients who were given 1 g of intravenous vitamin C every 8 h for 3 days reported a mortality rate of 12% with 18% rates of intubation and mechanical ventilation and a significant decrease in inflammatory markers, including ferritin and D-dimer, and a trend towards decreasing FiO2 requirements.
Another case of unexpected recovery following high-dose intravenous vitamin C has also been reported. While these case reports are subject to confounding and are not prima facie evidence of effects, they do illustrate the feasibility of using vitamin C for COVID-19 with no adverse effects reported.”

How Much Vitamin C Do You Need?

As detailed in the introduction of the Nutrients review,22 primates and humans are dependent on an adequate supply of vitamin C from fruits and vegetables. Gorillas need 4.5 grams a day, while smaller primates weighing around 7.5 kilos need about 600 mg per day. This gives us a clue as to what the human requirement might be, and it’s quite a bit higher than the daily recommended intake. According to the authors:23

“The EU Average Requirement of 90 mg/day for men and 80 mg/day for women is to maintain a normal plasma level of 50 µmol/L, which is the mean plasma level in UK adults. This is sufficient to prevent scurvy but may be inadequate when a person is under viral exposure and physiological stress.
An expert panel in cooperation with the Swiss Society of Nutrition recommended that everyone supplement with 200 mg ‘to fill the nutrient gap for the general population and especially for the adults age 65 and older. This supplement is targeted to strengthen the immune system.’ The Linus Pauling Institute recommends 400 mg for older adults (>50 years old).
Pharmacokinetic studies in healthy volunteers support a 200-mg daily dose to produce a plasma level of circa 70 to 90 µmol/L. Complete plasma saturation occurs between 1 g daily and 3 g every four hours, being the highest tolerated oral dose, giving a predicted peak plasma concentration of circa 220 µmol/L.
The same dose given intravenously raises plasma vitamin C levels approximately tenfold. Higher intakes of vitamin C are likely to be needed during viral infections with 2–3 g/day required to maintain normal plasma levels between 60 and 80 µmol/L. Whether higher plasma levels have additional benefit is yet to be determined, but would be consistent with the results of the clinical trials discussed in this review.”

While high-dose vitamin C regimens typically call for intravenous administration, if treating a viral infection at home (be it COVID-19 or something else), you could use oral liposomal vitamin C, as this allows you to take far higher doses without causing loose stools.
You can take up to 100 grams of liposomal vitamin C without problems and get really high blood levels, equivalent to or higher than intravenous vitamin C. I view that as an acute treatment, however. I discourage people from taking mega doses of vitamin C on a regular basis if they’re not actually sick, because it is essentially a drug — or at least it works like one.
Saul, who has worked with and recommended vitamin C for most of his professional life suggests taking “enough vitamin C to be symptom-free,” whatever dosage that might be. When you’re well, you typically don’t need more than the 200 mg to 400 mg recommended in the quote above.

Patients who are critically ill and potentially dying face overwhelming challenges, including a variety of intense emotions, loss of dignity and helplessness. A study published in the American Journal of Nursing shows that patients who have chosen a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) order may not receive the same patient care as others.1
The difference appears to be based on the interpretation of the order by individual nurses and doctors. A DNR order is an important consideration at any time in life when a person may not want extraordinary measures taken if their physical condition deteriorates.
Currently, Baby Boomers outnumber young children, resulting in a rising number of age-related health challenges that must be faced by providers and the community. In 2015, Mary Kruczynski, director of policy analysis at the Community Oncology Alliance, commented on the dichotomy between science and medical care, saying:2

“Yet as science evolves from the macro down to the nano level, we have had some difficulty embracing a key concept: physicians can diagnose disease by molecular rearrangements using gene microarrays, and yet we as a society are unable to come to a common understanding that death is an inevitable continuum of life.

Every single living organism is destined, indeed genetically programmed, to die. And yet, despite all of our advances, neither the larger scientific community nor society as a whole is willing to initiate a sustainable debate around death — the only certain facet of existence.”

Whether a person is admitted to the hospital for an appendectomy, COVID-19 or a tumor, their physical condition can deteriorate to a point where resuscitation is necessary to maintain life. As you consider your options, this data demonstrates it’s crucial that your wishes are well documented and communicated so they do not negatively impact care.
Study: DNR Interpretation Affects How Care Is Delivered

For more than 40 years, DNR orders have been a health care consideration. However, as recent research has demonstrated, not every health care professional has the same understanding of the order. Guidelines define the action as withholding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), which is reiterated in a position statement by the American Nurses Association. In it they stress:3

“Patients with do-not-resuscitate orders must not be abandoned, nor should these orders lead to any diminishment in quality of care. Language matters in promoting effective communication with patients, family members, and others.

Both health care providers and the public can be confused about the definition and implications of DNR (do not resuscitate) and associated terms such as comfort care, DNAR (do not attempt resuscitation), DNI (do not intubate), FC (full code), and POLST (Physician’s Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment).”

Confusion about how a DNR order may impact care, misinterpretation of the order and a nurse’s perspective on care were all factors that played a role in the development of this study. The difference between definition and functional outcome has an impact a person’s care in the hospital. The researchers wrote:4

“While the definition of DNR might seem straightforward, its interpretation in clinical practice can be complicated. In this study, most of the nurses understood the meaning of DNR. Yet their interpretations often indicated clinical situations in which a DNR order was misaligned with the plan of care or was misinterpreted as replacing it.”

Confusion about the definition and implications is exactly what researchers found when they examined care based on a person’s DNR designation. Direct care nurses from a large urban hospital participated in an open-ended interview to gather information.5
When the data were analyzed, the researchers found there were varying interpretations on how to carry out DNR orders that resulted “in unintended consequences.”6 The nurses also reported they perceived a variety of interpretations from other team members and patients. The researchers identified three key areas from the data:7

The nurses could clearly define a DNR order but had a variety of interpretations for how care was specifically given.
The nurses reported situations during which other health care members disagreed on how a DNR order might affect patient care.
Family conflicts and confusion could arise when the patient’s condition changed, and some members would disagree about the status of a DNR order.

The researchers believe each of these perceptions increased the potential to change patient care, increased tension between health care members and set up potential challenges in role expectations.
Maureen Shawn Kennedy, editor in chief of the American Journal of Nursing, commented on the importance of the study, saying,8 “Everyone — nurses, physicians, and families — needs to be on the same page in understanding the level of care a patient will receive.”
What Is a DNR Order?

As Dr. Roger Seheult explains in the MedCram video above, a DNR order is not as simple as you may think. To define a DNR order, it helps to know what’s involved in a “full code,” or a situation where a person will receive all measures to maintain life. As Seheult explains there are three main categories of action that can be taken:

Most Invasive — Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS) and electric shock.
Intubation — A tube is placed down a person’s trachea to help them breathe or if their neurological status has deteriorated so they can’t protect their airway. This also involves sedation.
Medications — Vasopressors are medications given to help support a person’s blood pressure.

Each of these strategies has side effects and possible adverse events. The most invasive of the procedures are most successful when a person’s cardiovascular system needs immediate support after a trauma, and they are otherwise healthy.
In many hospital cases a code does not happen suddenly the way it does on television. Instead, a person’s health may gradually deteriorate in the intensive care unit, so medications are needed to support blood pressure, dialysis to support kidney function or ventilation to support oxygen exchange. Finally, the heart may be unable to sustain function and stops.
This is why in-hospital CPR is not as successful. As Seheult explains there are three typical scenarios. In the first case, patients recover and no longer need support measures. In the second case, despite the team’s best efforts the patient doesn’t recover and dies. In the third case, the patient doesn’t get worse or better but appears to stay in a holding pattern on “life support measures.”
Understanding the Different End of Life Choices

While these choices are not easy ones to make, they are important if you’d rather your life is not maintained using extraordinary measures. People can choose the measures they want and don’t want from each of the major cardiovascular support actions listed above.
People who do not want any measures taken have a DNR/DNI (do not intubate) order written in their chart. People who would like medications but not CPR or intubation have a modified DNR order, so all health care providers are aware of the patient’s wishes.
It’s important that the right orders are written, and you understand and use the terminology used in your hospital to avoid any confusion. For instance, in some hospitals they use “allow natural death” (AND) to mean a patient wants only comfort measures to control pain and reduce discomfort.9
Each of these decisions are meant to define the type of care given during a health crisis when CPR, intubation or vasopressor medications may be necessary.
However, as the current study showed, not all health care professionals interpret the order in the same way, which means the general care you or a loved one receives may be different than if there wasn’t a DNR order on the chart.
Advanced Directives and POLST

There are steps you can take to ensure the type of care you want is given. The first step is to have an advanced directive. These are legal documents that tell your family and health care providers what you want to help avoid confusion if you are too sick or injured to speak for yourself.
An advanced directive can help guide your care based on your wishes. The two most common types are a durable power of attorney for health care, which is sometimes called a medical power of attorney, and a living will.10
All states have different laws about advance directives, so it’s crucial you are aware of your state regulations, so your advance directive is legally binding and followed where you live.11 You can get an advance directive form from your state bar association.
Before creating your directives, it’s important to speak with your family and anyone you may name in a medical power of attorney. A health crisis is a confusing and challenging time for loved ones. Since they are the people making many of the decisions, it’s helpful they know and understand the situation, wishes and fears that went into the decision making.
A living will is a document that is used to speak for someone who is unable to speak for themself, such as when a person is at the end of life or permanently unconscious. A medical power of attorney names an agent or proxy who has the legal right to make health care decisions when a person is no longer able.
Physician orders for life sustaining treatment (POLST) is another document that helps set a standard of care during a crisis that medical providers must follow. The form must be signed by a qualified member of the health care team. Emergency medical providers, like paramedics, must follow the orders on a POLST but are not bound to an advanced directive.12
Not all states have POLST forms. National POLST13 is a not-for-profit organization working to standardize the process in each state. In 2015, the National Academy of Medicine published a report that encouraged the creation of a program to meet national standards and in which they made “recommendations to create a system that coordinates care and supports and respects the choices of patients and their families.”14
What Can You Do to Ensure the Right Care Is Given?

Advanced directives and POLST are legal steps you can take to ensure the right type of care is given. However, since DNR orders and advanced directives may open other decisions to interpretation, it’s important that you educate others and advocate for yourself or your loved one if hospitalization occurs for any reason.
As the study demonstrated, some providers believe a DNR order may mean the patient is interested only in comfort measures, regardless of why they were admitted or their current medical status. However, the intent of a DNR order does not extend beyond making decisions about intubation, CPR and vasopressor medications.
It may be necessary to communicate this to health care providers to assure they are well aware that you or your loved one wants “everything” done, short of specific decisions outlined in an advanced directive, POLST or DNR/DNI order.

In a December 16, 2020, Independent Science News article,1 journalist Sam Husseini reveals new evidence tying the EcoHealth Alliance to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) — links that add a new dimension to analyses of the underlying purpose of the group’s research activities into coronaviruses and, potentially, the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic itself.
The New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization focused on pandemic prevention, has played a central role in the current pandemic. As noted by Husseini:2

When SARS-CoV-2 first emerged in Wuhan, China, the EcoHealth Alliance was providing funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) to collect and study novel bat coronaviruses.
EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak has been the primary expert chosen by the mainstream media to explain the origin of the pandemic.
Daszak is also intimately involved in the two major international committees tasked with investigating the origin of the virus. He’s both a member of the World Health Organization’s committee3 and the head of The Lancet’s COVID-19 commission,4 even though he has openly and repeatedly dismissed the possibility of the pandemic being the result of a lab leak.5

As noted by Husseini, the fact that EcoHealth Alliance has received nearly $39 million — one-third of the organization’s total budget — from the U.S. DOD has never been mentioned in any of Daszak’s media appearances. It’s also never been mentioned during any of the discussions of the EcoHealth Alliance’s role before or during the pandemic.

Daszak Responsible for Obscuring SARS-CoV-2 Origin

In a November 18, 2020, article,6,7 U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), an investigative public health nonprofit group, reported that emails obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests prove that Daszak played a central role in 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 statement8 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 …

The emails … 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’9 but rather to be seen as ‘simply a letter from leading scientists.’10 Daszak wrote that he wanted ‘to avoid the appearance of a political statement.’11

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.”

USRTK also pointed out that several of the authors of that Lancet statement have direct ties to the EcoHealth Alliance that were not disclosed as conflicts of interest:12

“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.”

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. All of this suggests The Lancet Commission’s investigation into the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is little more than a cover-up operation.
Money Trail Leads to Pentagon
While all of that is bad enough, we now have Husseini’s report, showing that EcoHealth Alliance has been receiving substantial funding from the DOD. In fact, the organization gets more money from the DOD than the National Institutes of Health. What’s more, it appears EcoHealth Alliance has gone to some length to obscure this funding. As reported by Husseini:14

“For much of this year, Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance garnered a great deal of sympathetic media coverage after its $3.7 million five-year NIH grant was prematurely cut when the Trump administration learned that EcoHealth Alliance funded bat coronavirus research at the WIV.

The temporary cut was widely depicted in major media as Trump undermining the EcoHealth Alliance’s noble fight against pandemics. The termination was reversed by NIH in late August, and even upped to $7.5 million. But entirely overlooked amid the claims and counter-claims was that far more funding for the EcoHealth Alliance comes from the Pentagon than the NIH.

To be strictly fair to the media, Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance obscures its Pentagon funding … Only buried under their ‘Privacy Policy,’ under a section titled ‘EcoHealth Alliance Policy Regarding Conflict of Interest in Research,’ does the EcoHealth Alliance concede it is the ‘recipient of various grant awards from federal agencies including the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense.’

Even this listing is deceptive. It obscures that its two largest funders are the Pentagon and the State Department (USAID); whereas the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which accounts for a minuscule $74,487, comes before either.

Meticulous investigation15 of U.S. government databases reveals that Pentagon funding for the EcoHealth Alliance from 2013 to 2020, including contracts, grants and subcontracts, was just under $39 million. Most, $34.6 million, was from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which is a branch of the DOD which states it is tasked to ‘counter and deter weapons of mass destruction and improvised threat networks.'”

Other Military Connections

Husseini also uncovered another military connection to the EcoHealth Alliance. One of its policy advisers is David Franz, a former Fort Detrick commander. Fort Detrick is the principal government biowarfare/biodefense facility in the U.S. Franz was one of the people who promoted the story that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — a false claim that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“Four significant insights emerge from all this,” Husseini writes.16 “First, although it is called the EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak and his non-profit work closely with the military. Second, the EcoHealth Alliance attempts to conceal these military connections.

Third, through militaristic language and analogies Daszak and his colleagues promote what is often referred to as, and even then somewhat euphemistically, an ongoing agenda known as ‘securitization.’ In this case it is the securitization of infectious diseases and of global public health.

That is, they argue that pandemics constitute a vast and existential threat. They minimize the very real risks associated with their work, and sell it as a billion-dollar solution. The fourth insight is that Daszak himself, as the Godfather of the Global Virome Project, stands to benefit from the likely outlay of public funds.”

The Role of Shi Zhengli

Other key figures in the COVID-19 pandemic are Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., and Ralph Baric, Ph.D. The two were part of a joint research program into bat coronaviruses, conducted at the University of North Carolina and WIV. When U.S.-based gain-of-function research was placed under moratorium in 2014, money was funneled to the WIV where Shi continued the work.17
Shi and Baric were two of the co-authors named on a 2015 study18 published in Nature Medicine, in which they discussed the possibility of bat coronaviruses affecting humans. As reported by The Gateway Pundit back in April 2020:19

“After the work stopped in the US, the Chinese moved forward with the project and ran research and development in Wuhan at the Wuhan Virology Center. From Shi Zhengli’s papers and resume, it is clear that they successfully isolated the virus in the lab and were actively experimenting with species to species transmission.

It’s also important to note that back in 2017 we had solid intelligence about a viral leak in a high security Chinese virology R&D center that resulted in the SARS virus getting out and killing people. This information provides a basis that contradicts the theory that [SARS-CoV-2] is a variant that just magically mutated in a bat in the wild and then jumped to a human when they ate bat soup.”

The Gateway Pundit went on to quote Shi from a Chinese interview published in December 2017, in which she stated that bat coronaviruses collected from a cave in Kunming, Yunnan between 2011 and 2015 had the genetic components of the SARS strain responsible for human outbreaks. Interestingly, she also stated that both diagnostic techniques and vaccines for the coronaviruses capable of easily infecting humans had already been developed.
Spotlight on Ralph Baric

Emails obtained by USRTK also shed light on the role Baric and others have played in the creation of the natural origin narrative. As reported by USRTK, December 14, 2020:20

“The emails of coronavirus expert Professor Ralph Baric … show conversations between National Academy of Sciences (NAS) representatives, and experts in biosecurity and infectious diseases from U.S. universities and the EcoHealth Alliance.

On Feb. 3, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) to ‘convene meeting of experts… to assess what data, information and samples are needed to address the unknowns, in order to understand the evolutionary origins of 2019-nCoV, and more effectively respond to both the outbreak and any resulting misinformation.’

Baric and other infectious disease experts were involved in drafting the response. The emails show the experts’ internal discussions and an early draft dated Feb. 4. The early draft described ‘initial views of the experts’ that ‘the available genomic data are consistent with natural evolution and that there is currently no evidence that the virus was engineered to spread more quickly among humans.’

This draft sentence posed a question, in parentheses: ‘[ask experts to add specifics re binding sites?]’ It also included a footnote in parentheses: ‘[possibly add brief explanation that this does not preclude an unintentional release from a laboratory studying the evolution of related coronaviruses].'”

In a February 4, 2020, email response, infectious disease expert Trevor Bedford recommended skipping any mention of binding sites, because weighing evidence would provide support for both the natural origin and lab origin scenarios. USRTK points out that the issue of binding sites is an important one, as the distinctive binding sites of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein “confer ‘near-optimal’ binding and entry of the virus into human cells.”

Scientists have argued that the SARS-CoV-2’s unique binding sites may be the result of either natural spillover in the wild, or deliberate recombination of an unidentified viral ancestor. As such, there’s no reason to dismiss the lab-creation theory. Still, despite wide-open questions, Daszak, Baric and the rest of the group appear to have been intent on shutting down discussions about this possibility. USRTK writes:21

“Kristian Andersen, lead author of an influential Nature Medicine paper asserting a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, said the early draft was ‘great, but I do wonder if we need to be more firm on the question of engineering.’ He continued, ‘If one of the main purposes of this document is to counter those fringe theories, I think it’s very important that we do so strongly and in plain language …’

In his response, Baric aimed at conveying a scientific basis for SARS-CoV-2’s natural origin. ‘I do think we need to say that the closest relative to this virus (96%) was identified from bats circulating in a cave in Yunnan, China. This makes a strong statement for animal origin.'”

In a series of December 2020 Twitter posts,22 Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, also points out other details in the released emails suggesting the group were intentionally trying to squelch discussions about a lab origin.
Scientific Hubris Is a Serious Threat to Us All
December 18, 2020, Colin David Butler,23 Ph.D., of the Australian National University, published an editorial24 in the Journal of Human Security in which he reviews the history of pandemics from antiquity through COVID-19, along with evidence supporting the natural origin and lab escape theories respectively. As noted by Butler:

“If the first theory is correct then it is a powerful warning, from nature, that our species is running a great risk. If the second theory is proven then it should be considered an equally powerful, indeed frightening, signal that we are in danger, from hubris as much as from ignorance.”

Indeed, scientific hubris may well be at the heart of our current problem. Why are certain scientists so reluctant to admit there’s evidence of human interference? Why do they try to shut down discussion? Could it be because they’re trying to ensure the continuation of gain-of-function research, despite the risks?
We’re often told that this kind of research is “necessary” in order to stay ahead of the natural evolution of viruses, and that the risks associated with such research are minimal due to stringent safety protocols.
Yet the evidence shows a very different picture. For the past decade, red flags have repeatedly been raised within the scientific community as biosecurity breaches in high containment biological labs in the U.S. and around the world have occurred with surprising frequency.25,26,27,28,29
Three out of four reappearances of SARS have been attributed to safety breaches.
As recently as 2019, the BSL 4 lab in Fort Detrick was temporarily shut down after several protocol violations were noted.30 Asia Times31 lists several other examples of safety breaches at BSL3 and BSL4 labs, as does a May 28, 2015, article in USA Today,32 an April 11, 2014, article in Slate magazine33 and a November 16, 2020, article in Medium.34
The Medium article,35 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. Clearly, getting to the bottom of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial if we are to prevent a similar pandemic from erupting in the future. And, as noted by National Review:36

“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.”

As long as we are creating the risk, the benefit will 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.37,38,39,40

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. 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.

At the start of the pandemic, doctors were placing COVID-19 patients on ventilators for more reasons than saving lives. The Wall Street Journal reports some physicians are now reverting to the basics of treatment with better survival rates and better patient outcomes. How much of this story will reach mainstream media?
In the 1950s, the CIA ran a cover campaign called “Operation Mockingbird,” in which they recruited journalists as assets to spread propaganda.1 The campaign officially ended in the 1970s, but when you read the uniform media reports over the past 10 months, the evidence suggests the project never really stopped.
Many of the current media stories may make you long for the days of Woodward and Bernstein when uncovering information and breaking a story appeared more important than repeating the “company” line.
It appears there are few who write balanced pieces about what COVID-19 testing really shows, the science behind hydroxychloroquine, zinc, remdesivir or ivermectin, or the role high-dose vitamin C may play as an antiviral.
What does appear to be happening is a grassroots movement away from the initial treatment protocols for hospitalized COVID-19 patients and a reversion to prepandemic guidelines for ventilator use. Dr. Eduardo Oliveira from Advent Health Central Florida described the movement to a Wall Street Journal reporter: “Let’s go back to the basics. The less you deviate from it, the better.”2
Returning to Basics Raises Survival Rates

The point made by the journalist was that in the early stages of the disease, doctors were preemptively using powerful sedatives and ventilators for two reasons — “to save the seriously ill and protect hospital staff from COVID-19.”3
In other words, the critically ill, and often elderly, were placed on sedatives that had largely been abandoned because of side effects, and put on ventilators that lowered the chance of survival, “partly to limit contagion at a time when it was less clear how the virus spread, when protective masks and gowns were in short supply.”4
While early reports showed high flow oxygen through a nasal cannula may support breathing and does not require risky sedation, doctors were unsure if the patients would continue to release the virus into the air and raise the risk for health care workers.
Dr. Theodore Iwashyna is a critical care doctor at the University of Michigan, who also spoke with the reporter from The Wall Street Journal, saying,5 “We were intubating sick patients very early. Not for the patients’ benefit, but in order to control the epidemic and to save other patients. That felt awful.”
In addition to ventilation, patients were also given heavy doses of sedation so nurses and doctors could limit their exposure. However, these heavy doses of sedation increase the risk for delirium, long-term confusion and potentially death.6
Over time, doctors learned that while the disease is different from other viruses, it does respond to basic treatment protocols and prepandemic guidelines for ventilator use. Survival for patients in one hospital system rose 28% from April to September 2020 as doctors adjusted the treatment protocols using computerized guides to determine oxygen delivery and rate of flow.7
The Wall Street Journal reported on a study of three New York City hospitals in which the death rate from March to August 2020 dropped from 25.6% to 7.6%, which researchers attributed to less crowding of hospital facilities and new medications and improved treatment. Contact with a person’s family also improves their recovery, which is a common finding when people are ill.8,9,10
Over 50% of Mechanically Ventilated COVID-19 Patients Die

It wasn’t long before doctors discovered that ventilators were causing more damage to COVID-19 patients’ lungs than they were helping. Ventilators push air into a person’s lungs after a tube is inserted through the mouth and down the trachea.
Even in the best circumstances, ventilators can injure a person’s lungs by placing too much pressure against the tissue as the machine pushes air in. Typically, with low oxygen saturation, people are given breathing support with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP).
This is also used to treat severe sleep apnea as it helps regulate the pressure and level of oxygen using mild pressure gradients to keep the airways open. However, mechanical ventilation became widespread and remained that way even after published reports demonstrated that ventilation did not lower mortality rates, but may have in fact raised them.
Several studies have indicated the fatality rate once patients are on ventilators is more than 50%.11 In a case series of 1,300 critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) in Lombardy, Italy, 88% were on ventilation and the mortality rate was 26%.12
A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association included 5,700 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 in the New York City area from March 1, 2020, to April 4, 2020.13 They found the mortality rates for those who were on mechanical ventilation ranged from 76.4% to 97.2%, depending on the age bracket.
Another study of 24 patients admitted to Seattle area intensive care units showed 75% were placed on mechanical ventilation and half the 24 patients died between Day 1 and Day 18 after being admitted.14
There are inherent risks to ventilation, including lung damage to the air sacs from high levels of oxygen and from high pressure used by the machines. Another risk is long-term sedation, which is difficult for some patients to bounce back from.
MATH+ at First Sign of Breathing Problem Prevents Ventilator

Information about natural therapeutics continues to be suppressed by the media and is not received by those who need it most: critical care doctors. The Alliance for Natural Health has asked why is “success in critical care being ignored?” and goes on to question:15

“We all need to be asking why. After all, people are dying. How would it make relatives feel if it was found that their loved one had died needlessly just because the doctors who were having greatest success were not being listened to and their innovative protocols had been systematically ignored?”

In other words, it’s time to go back to the basics when treating this virus. One of those protocols they are referring to is the MATH+ protocol. At the time of the article, doctors had treated 100 patients with a 98% survival rate and no ventilation. The two people who died were both over 80 and had advanced chronic conditions.16
The protocol was first developed by a group of leading critical care physicians who formed the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC).17 The protocol gets the name from the medications used, which include intravenous methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid (vitamin C), thiamine and full dose low-molecular-weight heparin.18
The protocol uses methylprednisolone and vitamin C intravenously in high doses to help mitigate the inflammatory response caused by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).19 They work synergistically and improve survival rates, particularly when given early in the disease. Thiamine helps optimize oxygen utilization and helps protect the heart, brain and immune system.
Heparin is used as a preventive and to help dissolve any blood clots that are known to appear with high frequency in this disease. The FLCCC writes that “Timing is a critical factor in the efficacy of MATH+ and to achieving successful outcomes in patients ill with COVID-19.”20
The protocol should be started soon after patients require oxygen supplementation for maximum benefit. Delaying therapy can lead to complications. The medications used in the protocol are all “FDA-approved, safe, inexpensive and readily available drugs.”21
Since the initiation of the protocol, doctors have found the addition of ivermectin beneficial to their patients. As such, it’s considered a core medication that’s administered on admission and repeated on Day 6 and 8 if the person has not recovered. Further, vitamin D, melatonin and zinc can be added, with therapeutic plasma exchange for patients whose disease is refractory.22,23
At High Doses, Vitamin C Has Antiviral Properties

A second treatment protocol being silenced for COVID-19 is high dose vitamin C. Dr. Andrew Saul is the editor-in-chief of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service. He presents valuable information on the importance of vitamin C for disease treatment, including COVID-19, which you can see in “Vitamin C Treatment for COVID-19 Being Silenced.”
At extremely high doses, vitamin C acts like an antiviral drug and kills viruses. When using this treatment at home to help prevent the need for hospitalization, use liposomal vitamin C as it is more bioavailable and doesn’t have the side effect of diarrhea at high doses.
Vitamin C is best known for its antioxidant properties. Even in small quantities, it protects proteins, lipids and DNA and RNA from reactive oxygen species that are generated during normal metabolism.
Vitamin C is also involved in the biosynthesis of collagen, carnitine and catecholamines. According to Rhonda Patrick, Ph.D., as such it “participates in immune function, wound healing, fatty acid metabolism, neurotransmitter production and blood vessel formation, as well as other key processes and pathways.”24
In the early months of the pandemic, a commentary published in The Lancet states “rescue therapy with high dose vitamin C can also be considered” for patients with ARDS caused by COVID-19.25
A study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine by Harri Hemila, Ph.D., who is considered to be an authority on vitamin C, stated that patients with pneumonia can tolerate up to 100 grams of vitamin C each day without developing diarrhea, “possibly because of the changes in vitamin C metabolism caused by the severe infection.”26
Hydroxychloroquine and Zinc Are a Powerful Combo Treatment

A hydroxychloroquine and zinc combination is yet another treatment that has been maligned in favor of remdesivir, an expensive drug with little documented evidence. In this short news video, reporter Sharyl Attkisson delves into the politics and finances of the two drugs in the treatment of COVID-19.
While remdesivir must be given in the hospital over five days, your doctor can prescribe hydroxychloroquine for use at home to help prevent hospitalization. Hydroxychloroquine is an antimalarial drug that was introduced in 1955.27 It has a long history of use outside a hospital setting, including for the treatment of arthritis and lupus, for which it was approved in 1956.28
According to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ home-based guide to treating COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are antiviral agents that29 “must be started quickly at STAGE I (Days 1 to 5)” and “These medicines stop the virus from (1) entering the cells and (2) from multiplying once inside the cells, and they reduce bacterial invasion in the sinuses and lung.”
They recommend the addition of azithromycin or doxycycline with either of the drugs. However, the guideline also stresses the necessity of using zinc and supplemental vitamins D and C:30

“Either combination above must also include zinc sulfate or gluconate, plus supplemental vitamin D, and vitamin C. Some doctors also recommend adding a B complex vitamin. Zinc is critical. It helps block the virus from multiplying. Hydroxychloroquine is the carrier taking zinc INTO the cells to do its job.”

There are several reasons why certain individuals and companies may not want an inexpensive generic drug to work against COVID-19, including eliminating the need for vaccination or the development of other antiviral drugs that are more costly than a two-week supply of hydroxychloroquine that can retail for as little as $20.31
You’ll find more about hydroxychloroquine and how one doctor calls those who are denying patients hydroxychloroquine “guilty of mass murder,” in “How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created.”

Mounting mortality data show COVID-19 is hardly the deadly pandemic it’s been made out to be. But just as people were starting to wake up to this fact, the British technocracy came up with a new narrative to keep the fearmongering going.
Mere days before Christmas, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced there’s a new, mutated, and far more infectious, strain of SARS-CoV-2 on the loose.1,2 The answer? Another round of even stricter stay-at-home orders, business shutdowns and travel bans, just in time for the holidays.
According to The New York Times, the U.K. restrictions may remain in effect for months. Considering these unscientific strategies didn’t work the first or second time around, it strains believability to think they’ll work now.
Indeed, anyone who knows anything about the Great Reset agenda can now see that the lockdowns, which destroy local economies and small businesses, have nothing to do with public health. They are mere smokescreens for the greatest transfer (if not theft) of wealth the world has ever seen.
The biggest losers are low- and middle-income earners, especially private business owners, who have been absolutely decimated while large box stores and multinational companies report record-breaking profits.
Despite the obviousness of the scheme, countries are responding to the news of the mutation with fervor. The Netherlands, Italy, Belgium, France, Germany, Poland, Austria, Denmark, Bulgaria and Ireland all issued travel restrictions from the U.K.3,4
What’s New About This Mutated SARS-CoV-2 Strain?

The mutated strain, referred to in some places as B1175 and in others as VUI-202012/01,6 reportedly began popping up in patient samples collected in September 2020 across southern England. In all, the virus is said to have 23 new mutations, several of which affect how the virus attaches to and infects human cells, potentially making it more virulent.
British researchers claim the mutation has rapidly displaced previous variants of the virus. In mid-November 2020, 28% of COVID-19 cases in London were attributed to B117. By December 9, 2020, that figure had risen to 62%, according to the Daily Mail.7 The following graphic from the U.K. government illustrates the spread of the virus from September through mid-December in London and the U.K as a whole.8

According to absolutely untrustworthy and disgraced epidemiologist Neil Ferguson, whose models have been grossly incorrect thus far, B117 may be 50% to 70% more contagious than previous variants circulating in the U.K.9
B117 also appears to infect children and teens to a greater extent than previous variants. According to Wendy Barclay, a government adviser and virologist at Imperial College London, children may be “equally susceptible as adults” to this new strain.10 However, while said to transmit more easily, B117 does not appear to cause more severe disease.
A mutated variant of SARS-CoV-2 that has one of the mutations found in B117 has also been identified in South Africa. This virus is now found in 90% of samples analyzed.11
While mainstream media are hyping these new variants for all their worth, The New York Times reports that “Researchers have recorded thousands of tiny modifications in the genetic material of the coronavirus as it has hopscotched across the world.”
In other words, mutations are nothing new. In fact, the virus has reportedly picked up one or two mutations per month since the start of the pandemic.12 What’s surprising about B117 is the unusually high number of mutations that seemingly emerged all at once.
One possibility that might explain this is that it evolved inside someone who was immunocompromised and therefore ended up battling the infection for an extended period of time.13
According to the Covid-19 Genomics Consortium UK, high rates of mutations have also occurred in immunosuppressed COVID-19 patients who received convalescent plasma. As explained in a Telegraph op-ed by Matt Ridley:14

“In a person with a deficient immune system, a large population of viruses can proliferate, mutate and diversify, and then the treatment selects a new strain from among this diversity. Essentially, the virus has a crash course in evolution.”

Still, that doesn’t mean there’s cause for hysteria. As noted by Dr. Deepti Gurdasani, a clinical epidemiologist at Queen Mary University of London, as mass vaccination programs get off the ground, “selection pressure” on the virus will further increase, which she suspects will trigger even more mutations,15 which in turn might reduce the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. According to a December 20, 2020, article in The New York Times:16

“Several recent papers17,18,19,20 have shown that the coronavirus can evolve to avoid recognition by a single monoclonal antibody, a cocktail of two antibodies or even convalescent serum …”

Show Us the Evidence
As London and southeast England faced strict, new lockdowns in the days before Christmas, British scientists were demanding to be shown evidence that B117 is in fact 50% to 70% more contagious.
Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence based medicine at Oxford University’s Nuffield department of primary care, told the Daily Mail,21 “I’ve been doing this job for 25 years and I can tell you can’t establish a quantifiable number in such a short time frame. Every expert is saying it’s too early to draw such an inference.”
He also stated the lack of transparency was “undermining public trust” in the government and its response measures. The data on the new strain come from an analysis by the New and Emerging Respiratory Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG), but none of the data have been released to the scientific community.

“It has massive implications, it’s causing fear and panic, but we should not be in this situation when the government is putting out data that is unquantifiable. They are fitting the data to the evidence. They see cases rising and they are looking for evidence to explain it,” Heneghan said.22

Conservative MPs have also called for the scientific evidence relating to the mutant strain to be made public.23 Former minister Sir Desmond Swayne stated the new Christmas lockdown rules had “all the characteristics of the government being bounced by the science, as it was right at the beginning … when we first went into lockdown last March.”24
The new restrictions were announced after Parliament had already discussed and voted on a less restrictive set of Christmas rules before going on break. In an interview with BBC Radio 4 Today, Swayne said:25

“The arrangements for Christmas were explicitly voted on by Parliament. If they’re to be changed then in my view, Parliament should vote again … irrespective of the Government acting in an emergency.

Nevertheless, it’s perfectly proper to recall Parliament … to at least ratify those changes. Explain to us — we are after all a democracy — explain to the elected representatives the evidence that they have and why they’ve reached this decision.

They’ve been looking at it [the new variant] since September. How convenient when Parliament went into recess … suddenly they were then able to produce this revelation. Let’s see the evidence then. Let’s have Parliament back and show us and convince us, come clean. I want Parliament to be recalled so we can scrutinize properly, in a democracy, decisions that are being made which affect our economy radically and our liberty.”

Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith laid the bulk of the blame on the government’s scientific advisers and accused chief medical officer professor Chris Whitty and chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance of “stepping back into the shadows when it suits them.”26
“Why did they not alert ministers to the dangers earlier? Especially when, as we now know, scientists learnt about this mutation back in September,” Smith wrote in an op-ed in The Telegraph.27
Is It a False Alarm?

Indeed, if the new, wildly different strain was discovered September 20, why all of a sudden is it an emergency a full three months later — especially considering the fact that the research still hasn’t been done to confirm whether this variant actually is any worse than previous strains? As reported by MIT Technology Review, December 21, 2020:28

“The situation could prove to be a false alarm. Sometimes virus variants appear to seem to spread more easily but in fact are being propelled by luck, like a superspreader event.

British teams, and some abroad, are now racing to carry out the lab experiments necessary to demonstrate whether the new variant really infects human cells more easily, and whether vaccines will stop it; those studies will involve exposing the new strain to blood plasma from COVID-19 survivors or vaccinated people, to see if their antibodies can block it …

The mutations seen in the new variant have all been spotted previously, according to comments posted online by Francois Balloux, a computational biologist at the University of College London, but apparently not in this combination.

They include one that causes the spike protein to bind more effectively to human cells, another linked to escape from human immune responses, and a third adjacent to a biologically critical component of the pathogen.”

Lockdowns May Prevent Natural Weakening of the Virus
Circling back to where we started, with the uselessness of lockdowns, in his op-ed in The Telegraph, Ridley29 points out that viruses naturally weaken over time as more and more people are exposed, and that by implementing tougher lockdowns, the virus primarily spreads among the sickest, which allows the most lethal strains to dominate.
It is a worrying possibility that lockdowns could prevent this natural attenuation of the virus. They keep the virus spreading mainly in hospitals and care homes among the very ill, preventing the eclipse of lethal strains at the hands of milder ones. If so … then not only do lockdowns fail to wipe out the disease, they may be prolonging our agony. ~ Matt Ridley
In other words, by shutting everything down, the natural weakening of COVID-19 is prevented, which is the precise opposite of what we want. Ridley writes:30

“Viruses will always evolve to be more contagious if they can, but respiratory viruses also often evolve towards being less virulent. Each virus is striving to grab market share for its descendants.

The best way of achieving this is to print as many copies of itself as possible while in a human body, yet not make that person so ill that they meet fewer people. Where the [lockdown] sceptics have a point is that it is a worrying possibility that lockdowns could prevent this natural attenuation of the virus.

They keep the virus spreading mainly in hospitals and care homes among the very ill, preventing the eclipse of lethal strains at the hands of milder ones. If so, and it’s only a possibility, then not only do lockdowns fail to wipe out the disease, they may be prolonging our agony.”

Lockdowns Are Not the Answer

Shutting down the world over a respiratory virus will perhaps go down in history as the most destructive and irrational decision ever made by public health “experts,” the World Health Organization and its technocratic allies.
I’ve written other articles about its effects — which aside from the transfer of wealth from the working class to the global elites, include a rise in food insecurity, mental health problems, excess deaths unrelated to COVID-19, domestic violence, child abuse, sex abuse and suicide — so I won’t belabor that here. What’s become clear is that lockdowns are a cure far worse than the disease.
It’s time to fight back, and to resist any and all unconstitutional and tyrannical edicts. To do that, we must overcome fear, as it is a fearful public that allows the technocratic elite to rip away our freedoms. It’s fear that allows tyranny to flourish. I urge you to really look at the data, so you can see for yourself that panic is unwarranted, and that the so-called “solutions” to the pandemic are in fact a path of total destruction.
This destruction — both moral and economic — is necessary for the Great Reset to occur. The technocratic elite need everything and everyone to fall apart in order to justify the implementation of their new system. Without this desperation, no one would agree to what they have planned.
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. Make it a point to really take care of yourself. Remember, insulin resistance, obesity and vitamin D deficiency top the list of comorbidities that significantly raise your risk complications and death from COVID-19. One key health strategy is eliminating all vegetable oils from your diet, which is likely one of the worst metabolic poisons you can eat.
These are also underlying factors in a host of other chronic diseases, including mental health problems, so by addressing them, you’ll improve your chances of getting through this challenging time with your health and sanity intact. You can find tons of information about how to reverse all of these issues by searching my article archives.

Vaccine passports, hastily ushered in as a byproduct of the COVID-19 pandemic, are expected to become “widely available” during the first half of 2021. “Rest assured, the nerds are on it,” Brian Behlendorf, executive director of Linux Foundation, told CNN Business.1
The Linux Foundation has partnered with IBM, the COVID-19 Credentials Initiative and CommonPass, a digital “health passport,” in order to develop vaccine credential apps that will be applicable globally.
If the initiative is successful, you’ll likely be required to pull up a vaccine certificate on your phone showing when and where you were vaccinated, along with which type of vaccine, in order to get on a plane or attend an indoor event, such as a concert, for starters.
“If we’re successful, you should be able to say: I’ve got a vaccine certificate on my phone that I got when I was vaccinated in one country, with a whole set of its own kind of health management practices … that I use to get on a plane to an entirely different country and then I presented in that new country a vaccination credential so I could go to that concert that was happening indoors for which attendance was limited to those who have demonstrated that they’ve had the vaccine,” Behlendorf said.2
The notion of having to present proof of a voluntary medical procedure in order to travel or attend public events is unprecedented in the U.S., but is being presented as a measure to protect public health. In reality, your freedom to go about your normal, daily life is being threatened, unless you consent to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. And this may only be the beginning.
What You Need to Know About CommonPass

The Commons Project and the World Economic Forum created the Common Trust Network, which developed the CommonPass app that’s intended to act as a health passport in the near future.
The app allows users to upload medical data such as a COVID-19 test result or proof of vaccination, which then generates a QR code that you will show to authorities as your health passport.3 The proposed common framework “for safe border reopening” around the world involves the following:4

Every nation must publish their health screening criteria for entry into the country using a standard format on a common framework
Each country must register trusted facilities that conduct COVID-19 lab testing for foreign travel and administer vaccines listed in the CommonPass registry
Each country will accept health screening status from foreign visitors through apps and services built on the CommonPass framework
Patient identification is to be collected at the time of sample collection and/or vaccination using an international standard
The CommonPass framework will be integrated into flight and hotel reservation check-in processes

Eventually, the CommonPass framework will be integrated with already existing personal health apps such as Apple Health and CommonHealth. If you want to travel, your personal health record will be evaluated and compared to a country’s entry requirements, and if you don’t meet them, you’ll be directed to an approved testing and vaccination location.
The groundwork for CommonPass was laid out in an April 21, 2020, white paper by The Rockefeller Foundation,5 and is part of the rollout of global surveillance and social control known as “the Great Reset.”
According to CNN, “Airlines including Cathay Pacific, JetBlue, Lufthansa, Swiss Airlines, United Airlines and Virgin Atlantic, as well as hundreds of health systems across the United States and the government of Aruba,” have already partnered with the Common Trust Network and their CommonPass app.6
The CommonPass App, Smart Cards Are Coming

CommonPass is just one example of apps being developed to track your personal health information and convert it into a digital health ID that you’ll need to scan just to go about your daily life. IBM developed the Digital Health Pass, which companies can use to assess everything from coronavirus test results and vaccination to an individual’s temperature.
If you don’t have a cellphone, you won’t be exempt from the need to show your health credentials. Companies that are part of the COVID-19 Credentials Initiative are working on a smart card that acts as a digital health credential that can be easily presented even if you don’t have a smartphone or stable internet connection.7
August 28, 2020, Ireland was among the first to begin a national trial of their new Health Passport Ireland initiative8 to track and display results of COVID-19 testing — and facilitate increased COVID-19 testing for businesses and the public, plus display COVID-19 vaccination status.9
The initiative has since been renamed Health Passport Europe,10 and states the system will soon be used worldwide for international travels. Aside from travel and tourism, Health Passports will be used for health care purposes, events, factories and offices, and even in schools and child care centers.
So, in order to achieve the “freedom” you need to go about your normal, daily life, you only need to get tested or vaccinated for COVID-19, have a health administrator create a Health Passport account in your name, download the app on your phone, receive your COVID-19 test results on your phone (and get retested as required), then display your COVID-19 status and vaccination history whenever it’s requested.
For those who haven’t been tested, Health Passport Europe states that you can still immediately use the technology by downloading the Health Passport Scanner app and using it to scan others whenever needed.
By scanning others to get their COVID-19 status, “It gives great security for you and your family throughout or daily lives, for example when availing of services, whilst travelling, at events, at work and much more.”11
Special Treatment ‘Same as a Mandatory Vaccination’

While many countries have suggested that the COVID-19 vaccine will not be mandated, by giving special privileges to the vaccinated, such as the ability to travel, attend social events or even enter a workplace, it essentially amounts to the same thing.
“As important as vaccination is for all of us: No special treatment for the vaccinated,” Germany’s Interior Minister Horst Seehofer told the Bild am Sonntag newspaper. “Distinguishing between the vaccinated and the not-vaccinated would be the same as a mandatory vaccination.”12
Still, Thomas Mertens, head of Germany’s Standing Commission on Vaccination (STIKO), has stated that vaccine passports may one day be used to grant access to travel, restaurants, concerts and cinemas, and may also be required by certain businesses.
“These are private agreements made by the restaurant owner, the airline and the concert organizer,” he told Die Welt newspaper. “I think something like that is possible. I’m not a lawyer, and at the end of the day lawyers will have to decide.”13
Seehofer, however, stated that while the government couldn’t stop businesses from requiring vaccination of their customers, he was clearly against it: “All I can do is warn against it. Special treatment for the vaccinated would divide society.”14
Meanwhile, Spain, which plans to vaccinate 2.3 million over a 12-week period, is maintaining a register of people who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine and intends to share it with other countries in the European Union.15 While the vaccine is voluntary, citizens are being called for their turn by the national health system, making it easy to track those who refuse.
In 2018, the European Commission drafted a proposal to strengthen cooperation against vaccine preventable diseases, including joint action to increase vaccination coverage, stating, “Vaccination programmes have become increasingly fragile; in the face of low uptake of vaccines, vaccine hesitancy, the increasing cost of new vaccines and shortages in vaccine production and supply in Europe.”16
It appears the sharing of private health information, including who chooses not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, is part of that joint action.
Tracking and Tracing Are Here

One year ago, it would have been hard to imagine widespread acceptance for cellphone apps that collect your vaccination status and convert it into a health passport you may soon need to present in order to travel or attend recreational events like concerts, or even attend school or go to work. But under the context of a pandemic, it’s suddenly perceived as necessary for public health.
“Vaccinated? Show Us Your App,” reads a New York Times headline from December 13, 2020, which states that United, JetBlue and Lufthansa airlines plan to introduce CommonPass in the coming weeks.17 “It is just the start of a push for digital Covid-19 credentials that could soon be embraced by employers, schools, summer camps and entertainment venues,” the Times added.
Indeed, Dr. Brad Perkins, Commons Project Foundation’s chief medical officer, added, “This is likely to be a new normal need that we’re going to have to deal with to control and contain this pandemic.”
Getting health passports to become a new normal has, in fact, been part of the plan all along for the Commons Project, which began developing software that tracks medical data well before the COVID-19 pandemic.18 “But spikes in virus cases around the world this spring accelerated its work,” The New York Times reported.
It’s Not About Infectious Disease

Now partnered with the World Economic Forum, CommonPass represents the beginning stage of mass tracking and tracing, under the guise of keeping everyone safe from infectious disease.
It is part and parcel of the Great Reset and the fourth industrial revolution, the nuts and bolts of which boil down to transhumanism. In years past, this plan was referred to as a “new world order” or “one world order.” All of these terms, however, refer to an agenda that has the same ultimate goal.
As explained by journalist James Corbett, for those who forgot about what the New World Order was/is all about, it’s “centralization of control into fewer hands, globalization [and] transformation of society through Orwellian surveillance technologies.”19
In other words, it’s technocracy, where we the people know nothing about the ruling elite while every aspect of our lives is surveilled, tracked and manipulated for their gain. The tracking and tracing of COVID-19 test results and vaccination are setting the stage for biometric surveillance, tracking and tracing, which will eventually be tied in with all your other medical records, digital ID, digital banking and a social credit system.
What can you do? Getting informed and sharing your knowledge is the first step to protecting your freedom. Next, learn the role of your local sheriff, who should safeguard your Constitutional rights and protect your civil liberties against unlawful government overreach.
The most important part is to contact your local sheriff and urge him or her to learn about the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA).
The goal is to create a partnership between the people, the sheriff and the local law enforcement chiefs to make sure county sheriffs are trained on Constitutional rights and their own role as guardians of the Constitution and protectors of civil liberties, so they will no longer enforce unlawful, unconstitutional orders, whatever they might be.