A highly prized essential oil that hails from Japan, Hinoki Leaf Essential Oil is most notable for its natural healing […]
Source: plant therapy Blog
Source: Young Living Blog
According to the regional director of the European office of the World Health Organization, Hans Henri Kluge, a new coronavirus variant called “Delta” (its scientific name being B.1.617.2 and originating in India) is “poised to take hold” in Europe, which may necessitate renewed lockdowns.1
In a June 10, 2021, article, The Hill reported that the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant “can spread quickly and infect those who have received one of two vaccine doses at higher rates than the fully vaccinated.”2
According to Kluge, Europe is facing the same situation as they did back in the winter of 2020, when cases rapidly rose, resulting in “a devastating resurgence, lockdowns and loss of life.” “Let’s not make that mistake again,” Kluge said during the press conference.
The Delta variant is now the dominant strain in the U.K., where a surge in cases, supposedly, has occurred predominantly among younger people between the ages of 12 and 20.3
Research by Public Health England (PHE) suggests two doses of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID shot is 88% effective against the Delta variant, while AstraZeneca’s DNA injection is “supposedly” 60% effective. After a single dose, either of the shots was only 33% protective against symptomatic illness.4,5
However, while single-dose recipients are said to be at greater risk than those having received two doses, more fully “vaccinated” people have actually died from this variant. According to the PHE, of the 42 Britons who had died with the Delta variant as of mid-June 2021, 12 had received two doses of gene therapy, compared to just seven single-dose recipients.6
More importantly, a June 11, 2021, PHE report7 shows that as a hospital patient, you are six times more likely to die of the COVID Delta variant if you are fully vaccinated, than if you are not vaccinated at all.
The information shows up in Table 6 of the 77-page document, which are labled as the attendance to emergency care and deaths by vaccination status and confirmed Delta cases from February 1, 2021, to June 7, 2021.
Of 33,206 Delta variant cases admitted to the hospital, 19,573 were not vaccinated. Of those, 23 (or 0.1175%) died. But, of the 13,633 patients who were vaccinated with either one or two doses, 19 (or 0.1393%) died, which is an 18.6% higher death rate than for the unvaccinated patients. Seven of the 5,393 patients who were partially vaccine with one dose died, or 0.1297%.
Of the 1,785 patients who had both vaccine doses 14 days or more before admission, 12 (or 0.6722%) died. This death rate is 5.72 times higher than that for unvaccinated patients. Put another way, if all 33,206 patients had been fully vaccinated, there would have been 223 deaths.
The PHE also claims the Delta variant is 64% more likely to transmit within households than the Kent (Alpha) variant that had previously dominated, and that it’s 40% more transmissible outdoors.8
Knowing what we now know about how science and statistics are being manipulated to give the appearance of a serious problem where there is none, I take these statements and data with a grain of salt. World leaders, however, are using the data to impose yet more restrictions. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is now considering keeping lockdown rules in place until spring of 2022.9
Similarly, Chile, which has one of the highest COVID-jab rates in the world, with 58% of the population having received two doses and 75% having received their first dose, authorities announced a blanket lockdown across the capital of Santiago, June 10, 2021. The lockdown came in response to the highest COVID-19 case numbers since the beginning of the pandemic.10
In the U.S., Delta accounts for about 10% of cases and is doubling every two weeks, according to the former Food and Drug Administration commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who spoke about the variant on a “Face the Nation” broadcast June 13, 2021.11,12
According to Gottlieb, Delta is likely to “spike a new epidemic heading into the fall.”13 Showing just how crazy a repeat this is, Gottlieb is again citing data from Neil Ferguson. Yahoo! News calls Ferguson a “prominent British epidemiologist” but in fact, the man is beyond untrustworthy and has been thoroughly — and publicly — disgraced.
His only prominence is that of a failed statistician whose models have been repeatedly proven faulty to a ridiculous degree. The fact that Gottlieb is again using Ferguson’s models ought to set off warning bells that this is fear propaganda to justify even further COVID jabs and nothing else.
It was Ferguson’s Imperial College model14 that predicted the death of 2 million Americans and 500,000 Britons unless draconian lockdown and social distancing measures were implemented. A major flaw in his model was that he didn’t account for the fact that the susceptible population is only ever a small portion of people, never 100%.15
Ferguson was also the source of the December 2020 prediction that the Alpha variant B117 — the so-called “Kent” strain that became the predominant strain before Delta — would be 50% to 70% more contagious than previous variants circulating in the U.K., and would infect children and teens to a greater extent than previous variants.16
Well, what happened? PHE data reveal the rolling average of infections (i.e., positive tests, which may be symptomatic or asymptomatic) sharply declined starting in January 2021, from a high of 68,053 cases in early January to a low of 1,649 cases in early May 2021.17
Daily hospitalizations also dropped, as did the number of daily deaths, which plunged from a high of 1,610 in January 2021 to a low of eight on June 13, 2021.18 Apparently, the much-feared and “far more infectious” B117 strain didn’t unleash a mass-death cascade after all.
What’s more, the fact that mainstream media and health authorities have not highlighted the number of children infected or hospitalized is a clear hint that children really weren’t at great risk from B117 either. They just wanted you to fear the possibility of it being so.
In the U.S., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data19 show adolescent hospitalizations for COVID-19 peaked at a rate of 2.1 per 100,000 hospital admissions in early January 2021. By mid-March, that had declined to 0.6 per 100,000. In April, it rose a little again, to 1.3 per 100,000. In actual numbers, we’re talking about a total of 204 teens — aged 12 to 17 — being admitted to hospital for assessment between January 2021 and March 2021.
These statistics are indeed quite far from catastrophic. Fewer than one-third required intensive care and none died. Meanwhile, there are at least four reported deaths among 12- to 17-year-olds following COVID “vaccination,” along with several hundred adverse effect reports, including dozens of cases of heart inflammation.20
As Ferguson’s calamitous predictions for Alpha variant B117 having failed to come to fruition, it appears the same fearmongering narrative has now simply shifted over to the Delta variant.
Clearly, they want us to fear for our children, as this will improve compliance with freedom-robbing measures and boost vaccine uptake. Right now, they’re having a really hard time explaining why children, whose risk of serious complications or death from COVID-19, and who aren’t a primary disease vector, would need to participate in an uncontrolled gene therapy experiment.
After a year and a half of lies and disinformation, it seems clear the technocrats pushing for a Great Reset are more than willing to make things up as they go, simply to keep the pandemic going. According to Kluge, the way out of this new phase of the pandemic is “a combination of public health measures and vaccination, not one or the other.”21
This despite the fact that we already know that none of these strategies actually work. As noted by pathologist Dr. Roger Hodkinson22 in a May 27, 2021, Last American Vagabond interview,23 masks, social distancing and lockdowns did not work and never will, and the COVID jabs are too dangerous to pursue.
In the interview above, Hodkinson reviews the very real concerns surrounding vaccine-induced spike proteins and their potentially devastating effects on health and human reproduction,24 seeing how Pfizer’s own research demonstrates free spike proteins are disseminated throughout your body within hours of injection.25,26,27
I detailed this research in “Researcher: 'We Made a Big Mistake' on COVID-19 Vaccine,” which featured an interview with Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher Byram Bridle, Ph.D. I’ve also explained the mechanics of why the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is so dangerous and toxic in “The Many Ways in Which COVID Vaccines May Harm Your Health.”
In a June 11, 2021, Daily Beast article,28 Dr. Peter Hotez — a rabid anti-vax hater — is now saying that children living in conservative “red” states, where COVID jab refusal tends to be higher, face a dangerous “nightmare summer.”
Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, has in the past called for violent suppression of vaccine safety information, bullying parents of vaccine-injured children29 by calling them “anti-vaxxers” even though they’re discussing their children’s injuries that occurred as a result of vaccination, not because they didn’t vaccinate them.
In 2018, Hotez classified vaccine safety and pro-informed consent advocacy groups such as the National Vaccine Information Center as "hate groups" that “hate children,”30 and said we must “snuff out” (a term typically reserved for gangster style murder) the “anti-vaccine” movement.31,32 He’s also stated that vaccination “is not a choice; it’s a responsibility.”33 Not surprisingly, Hotez has very strong ties to the vaccine industry.
During a March 23, 2019, appearance on the Joe Rogan show, Hotez suggested Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Reddit, Instagram and other online platforms should hire chief scientific officers to manage, filter and regulate content.34 Hotez has also called for the use of cyberwarfare tactics against people who dare discuss potential vaccine problems, including yours truly.
No doubt, he’s loving the current Dark Age of online censorship that arose with the COVID pandemic.
“The only way to prevent these variants from gaining a foothold is to step up the pace of vaccinating everyone over the age 12 (and hopefully children younger than that by the fall),” Hotez writes in his Daily Beast article.35
“But in these robust pockets of vaccine resistance, it’s hard to imagine getting anywhere close to full coverage of young people. For example, more than 50 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds are vaccinated (received at least one dose of vaccine) in Massachusetts and Vermont, whereas less than 10 percent of those in this same age group have been vaccinated in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
Here’s what might happen if we don’t fully vaccinate the South. First, the number of cases could accelerate in July and August, just as they did last year … In addition, we might see the new variants rise in frequency and disproportionately affect children, adolescents, and young adults, possibly including a multisystem inflammatory syndrome of children or MIS-C.
Some children’s hospitals in the region may already be seeing an acceleration in hospitalizations and ICU admissions. In fact, the CDC just reported on rising hospitalization rates among adolescents this spring.”
Here, Hotez cites the CDC data36 I discussed earlier, and the way he does it ends up misrepresenting the trend. To repeat, no teenagers have died from COVID-19. And the uptick in hospitalization he’s talking about is an uptick from the mid-March low. But the April 2021 hospitalization rate for teens is still only about half the January 2021 rate (1.3 per 100,000 hospitalizations compared to 2.1 per 100,000). We are not looking at a doomsday trend here.
“The nation has to be fully and evenly vaccinated if we are to have any hope of navigating our way out of this epidemic. It’s also the surest way to protect young people in this region,” Hotez writes.37
I disagree. Already last year, in 2020, data suggested the vast majority of the global population already had full or partial natural immunity. Initially, experts estimated that 70% of the population or more would need to be exposed and develop immunity before natural herd immunity would be achieved.38
By mid-October 2020, more than a dozen scientists claimed the herd immunity threshold is actually somewhere between 43% and 9%, which means a vast majority of the global population — by then — were already at very low risk of serious illness.39,40,41,42,43 Data from Stockholm, Sweden, which didn’t shut down during 2020, showed a herd immunity threshold of 17%.44
Contrast that to the COVID jabs, which do NOT actually make you immune. You can still contract the illness and spread the virus. The vaccine makers admit the design of the shots mean they will only lessen your symptoms if or when you get infected. Theoretically, this will prevent or lower your risk of hospitalization and death.
However, on the flipside, scientists have fervently warned that the COVID shots may trigger antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), making vaccinated individuals far more prone to serious complications and death when encountering the wild virus.
Children and teens also are not dying from COVID-19 in droves. In fact, they’re not dying from it at all, so the idea that they are in dire need of gene therapy is simply not true.
Is there cause to be concerned about the new Delta variant? Or any other variant for that matter? According to Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a life science researcher and former vice-president and chief scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer, the answer is a firm “no.” In the interview above, which is part of the full-length documentary “Planet Lockdown,”45 Yeadon explains why.
“Basically, everything your government has told you about this virus, everything you need to do to stay safe, is a lie,” Yeadon says. “Every part of it … None of the key themes that you hear talked about — from asymptomatic transmission to top-up vaccines [i.e., booster shots] — not one of those things is supported by the science.
Every piece is cleverly chosen adjacently to something that probably is true, but is itself a lie, and has led people to where we are right now.”
When it comes to your susceptibility to variants, mutated versions of SARS-CoV-2, your resilience is not dependent on antibodies as much as it’s dependent on your T-cell immunity, also known as cellular immunity. Yeadon explains:
“You've got four or five different arms of the immune system: innate immunity, mucosal, antibody, T-cells and compliment[ary systems]. There are all of these different wonderful systems that have integrated, one with another, because it needs to defend you against all sorts of different threats in the environment.
What I'm telling you is that the emphasis on antibodies in respect of respiratory viral infections is wrong, and you can establish that quite easily by doing some searching …
I'm not saying antibodies have no role, but they're really not very important. This has been proven. There are some people in whom a natural experiment has occurred. They have a defect and they actually don't make antibodies, but they're able to fight off COVID-19, the virus SARS-CoV-2, quite well.
The way they do that is, they have T-cell immunity, cellular immunity. [T-cells] are cells that are trained to detect virus-infected cells and to kill those cells.
That's how you defend yourself against a virus. So, all of these mentions of antibody levels, it's just bunk. It is not a good measure of whether or not you're immune. It does give evidence that you've been infected, but their persistence is not important as to whether you've got immunity …
We've known this for decades. We've known about T-cells for decades. They were clearly in my undergraduate textbooks. And we've known about their importance in defending you against respiratory viruses since probably the 1970s, certainly the 1980s …
It's quite normal for RNA viruses like SARS-CoV-2, when it replicates, to make typographical errors. It’s got a very good error detection, error correction system so it doesn't make too many typos, but it does make some, and those are called ‘variants.’
It’s really important to know that if you find the variant that's most different from the sequence identified in Wuhan, that variance … is only 0.3% different from the original sequence.
I'll say it another way. If you find the most different variance, it's 99.7% identical to the original one, and I can assure you … that amount of difference is absolutely NOT possibly able to represent itself to you as a different virus. [So] when your government scientists tell you that a variant that's 0.3% different from SARS-CoV-2 could masquerade as a new virus and be a threat to your health, you should know, and I'm telling you, they are lying.”
To recap, what Yeadon is saying is that a virus cannot mutate into a version that is so dissimilar from the original that your body cannot identify it. If you have T cell immunity, your immune system will recognize the mutated virus and take care of it, just as it would with the original version of the virus.
He explains how, earlier in the pandemic, scientists obtained blood from patients who had been sickened with the SARS virus 17 or 18 years ago. SARS-CoV-1, responsible for that SARS outbreak, is only 80% similar to SARS-CoV-2. They wanted to know if the immune systems of these patients would be able to recognize SARS-CoV-2 — which they did. They still had memory T-cells against SARS-CoV-1, and those cells also recognized SARS-CoV-2, despite being only 80% similar.
Now, if a 20% difference was not enough to circumvent the immune system of these patients, why should you be concerned with a variant that is at most 0.3% different from the original SARS-CoV-2? And why would we need booster shots for these near-identical variants?
Yeadon is extremely suspicious of the intentions behind booster shots for different variants, saying:
“You should be terrified at this point, as I am, because there's absolutely no possible justification for their manufacture. There's no possible benign interpretation of this. I believe they [the booster shots] are going to be used to damage your health and possibly kill you. Seriously. I can see no sensible interpretation other than a serious attempt at mass depopulation.
This will provide the tools to do it, and plausible deniability. They'll create another story about some sort of biological threat and you'll line up and get your top-up vaccines, and a few months or a year or so later, you'll die of some peculiar inexplicable syndrome. And they won't be able to associate it with the vaccines.
That's my belief — that they're lying to you about variants so they can make damaging top-up vaccines that you don't need at all. I think they will be used for malign purposes …”
Until or unless someone in the know steps up to the plate with a confession, we have no way of knowing whether depopulation is actually an intended outcome of these shots. Still, even if there’s no ill intent behind them, the real-world outcome may still be a mass-casualty event.
What seems clearer is that world leaders are sowing fear that is wildly disproportionate to the actual health threat of this virus and its variants, and the most logical reason for this is because they need this pandemic to continue in order to usher in the Great Reset.
The Great Reset, in turn, is part of a parallel agenda built around transhumanist ideologies, ideas and ideals, where man is merged with machine and biologically controlled through the use of nanotechnology and digital surveillance.
If I’m correct, then the COVID pandemic narrative will continue to be spun, not for the next several months but years. The fearmongering will persist until permanent tracking has been implemented, getting regular gene therapy injections have become the norm and no one does anything unless government says it’s OK. In other words, until life has been permanently turned into a hell fit for robots alone.
In the video below, talkRADIO host Julia Hartley-Brewer shares her opinion on the matter, saying that if the U.K. does not open on “Freedom Day,” June 21, 2021, as planned, then lockdowns are likely to continue forever.
She points out that the “vaccines” are working better than anyone dared hope, and a far larger portion of the population than expected have willingly taken them. People are as safe as they’re ever going to get, yet government is still vacillating, saying it’s not enough. It’s time to go back to the old normal where people are free to live their own lives, Hartley-Brewer says, and she’s absolutely right.
Boris Johnson will announce a four week delay to lockdown lifting. But Julia says: "We have to get out of this and if it's not now, it may be never. We need to get back to the old normal where we have our freedom."@JuliaHB1 pic.twitter.com/slAnzM5xVx
— talkRADIO (@talkRADIO) June 14, 2021
Source: mercola rss
In an interview with a reporter from the Washington Examiner, Nicholas Wade, retired science writer for The New York Times, postulated the reason the media and others didn’t further explore the idea that the SARS-CoV-2 virus leaked from a lab was that the theory was initially and publicly proposed by then-President Trump.1
Wade believes the theory became politically polarized, burying the possibility it would be fully and independently explored. In April 2020, Trump made a comment that he had seen evidence supporting the theory that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a lab in China. At a White House event, he was asked about the evidence, to which he replied, “I cannot tell you that. I'm not allowed to tell you that.”2
His inability to disclose the source was immediately pounced upon by the media, prompting headlines that stated he claimed to have evidence but cited no details. Just days later, mainstream media began refuting Trump's comment, claiming the virus was not “cooked up in a Chinese lab,”3 and headlines proclaimed there was “‘Exactly Zero’ Evidence COVID-19 Came From a Lab.”4
Many reporters also claimed what one reporter in the LA Times wrote: “The story has all the earmarks of a conspiracy theory.”5 In this case, however, the truth is beginning to come out. As I’ve reported in the past months, many scientists believe the evidence demonstrates it is nearly impossible for the virus to have developed in nature.6 Within the past month the idea that the virus originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, has been gaining mainstream media attention.7
The questions appeared to start after the World Health Organization’s joint report with Beijing was released, which concluded the lab leak hypothesis was “extremely unlikely.”8 However, as demonstrated by interviews with at least one member of the investigation team, it appeared the group’s assessment at the lab was not thorough.
Challenging the idea of the origins of the virus has been seen as career suicide for scientists,9 but the recent release of emails10 from Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical adviser to the president, has shed new light that may ultimately create an environment where the truth will be exposed.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, BuzzFeed obtained and published online11 over 3,000 pages of emails written to and from Fauci from various sources. The emails revealed an exchange between Fauci and Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance based in New York.
In the published documents is a telling email from Daszak to Fauci, “to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators.”12 This email came hours after Fauci publicly dismissed the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally leaked from a Wuhan lab.
Earlier in the day the Washington Examiner13 reported that Fauci was asked directly about the hypothesis the virus leaked from a lab and he said the scientific evidence “is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”
EcoHealth Alliance is a research group that secured a grant from the NIH to do research on coronaviruses in Wuhan before the pandemic broke in 2019.14 As reported in a February 2021 article in the Austin American-Statesman, the original grant from the NIH was for $3.4 million awarded in 2014 to an organization, “which aims to protect people from viruses that jump from species to species."15
EcoHealth Alliance turned around and hired the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), with which they had been collaborating since 2004,16 paying $598,500 over five years.17 WIV had reportedly secured approval from the NIH and the U.S. State Department to do the research.
In February 2021, the Austin American-Statesman reporter attempted to refute the claim that Fauci and the NIH had funded gain-of-function research "on a bat coronavirus, which ‘created’ SARS-CoV-2,"18 despite incriminating evidence to the contrary as I have reported. But now, as I will show below, Fauci’s emails show that he knew much more than he was admitting to.
The very person who funded and worked closely with WIV was also appointed to the joint inspection team led by WHO and Beijing.19 The report was criticized over its strong conclusions that were based on little evidence. In a later 60 Minutes interview, Daszak admitted they had taken at face value the word of the Chinese officials in their investigation.20
Early in 2020, the NIH pulled the multimillion-dollar grant from EcoHealth Alliance and then reinstated it in July with what Daszak termed “absurd conditions.”21 In a press release from EcoHealth Alliance they expressed displeasure at the conditions placed on the research grant, writing:22
“We were initially pleased to learn that the National Institutes of Health had reversed its indefensible decision to terminate our funding for a five year research project on emerging coronaviruses, during this coronavirus pandemic.
However, NIH's letter cynically reinstates and instantly suspends EcoHealth Alliance’s funding, then attempts to impose impossible and irrelevant conditions that will effectively block us from continuing this critical work.”
The Wall Street Journal reported some of the conditions under which EcoHealth Alliance could continue to receive funding. These included:23
In their response to the letter from the NIH outlining the conditions of the reinstatement, The Wall Street Journal reports, "EcoHealth Alliance said in its response that it hadn’t sent any grant funds to the Wuhan Institute before the grant was suspended, though it has provided funding to the institute in previous years."24
Daszak called the demands for information about how millions of taxpayer dollars were being spent “heinous,” and in an email to Nature, his partner scientist at WIV, Shi Zhengli, called it “outrageous.”25 Shi Zhengli is the WIV virologist who has been working with EcoHealth Alliance for over 15 years on viruses originating in bats.
In a statement to Nature, Daszak expressed concern that the additional information requested by the NIH about how millions of dollars are being spent was “pressure of a very aggressive administration.”26 Tapping into what is known to be a strong motivating factor — fear — he insinuated that the work being done by EcoHealth Alliance was all that is standing between any virus and human health, saying:27
“And it turns out that they decided that this issue and our work is going to be one of the angles of attack. That’s extremely unfortunate. The winner in all of this is the virus, and not just this virus — SARS-CoV-2 — but all the other viruses.”
As shared in this 15-minute video,28 Fauci has been a chief supporter of gain-of-function research. In 2014, the Obama Administration put a ban on gain-of-function research, which Fauci reversed in 2017. The research, according to the NIH guidelines, did not follow safety protocols in the specific grant to the EcoHealth Alliance shared with WIV.
That same lab was cited in 2018 for having substandard safety protocols. As noted in the video, in response to the pandemic, The Hill’s Rising, a morning news show, shared that Fauci pushed for more gain-of-function research, mentioning the Global Virome Project (GVP).29
The goal of GVP is to raise several trillion dollars to fund the discovery of zoonotic virus threats to humans,30 which includes gain-of-function research. Interestingly, the same Peter Daszak who is head of EcoHealth Alliance, receiving multimillion-dollar grants from the U.S. government, is also the secretary and treasurer of GVP.31
Daszak’s influence in suppressing information that the pandemic could have had a lab origin runs even deeper. In a Freedom of Information Act release, U.S. Right to Know32 found Daszak had penned a paper published in the Lancet that was central to the argument dismissing the idea the virus could have been released from a lab.
He orchestrated the paper signed by 27 scientists to “avoid the appearance of a political statement.”33 Getting back to Fauci’s finger in the pie, it is apparent from his answers in the video above that he now denies ever having funded gain-of-function research, even though there's irrefutable evidence that he did as I reported in, “The Biggest Flip-Flop Ever — Who's Going to Jail?”
In an interview with a reporter from the Washington Examiner, Wade talked about what would happen if it were accepted that virologists indeed developed SARS-CoV-2 in the lab.34
"Well, this is of course one of the reasons virologists have not been too keen to explore this possibility. I think there will definitely be a public backlash. People will want to scrutinize much more closely the safety conditions virologists thought were adequate and what experiments they were doing."
Wade has been interviewed by several reporters in response to a paper he wrote titled, "Origin of COVID — Following the Clues: Did People or Nature Open Pandora's Box at Wuhan?"35 In this paper he stated that if we're ever to solve the mystery of where this novel virus came from, people must be willing to follow the science as “it offers the only sure thread through the maze.”
Unlike Fauci, who appears to be intent on distancing himself and the NIH from responsibility for the research that appears to have resulted in the virus and ultimately the financial and mental health disaster that followed, Wade presents a balanced approach to the data and goes on to write:36
"It's important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory. Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction."
To summarize his paper, Wade believes the preponderance of clues lean toward the virus originating in a laboratory setting, most likely from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, after having undergone manipulation to increase infectiousness and pathology in humans.
In the meantime, the arguments laid out by government officials and supported in the media for the past year in support of natural origin are grounded in inconclusive speculations that require you to throw out scientifically possible scenarios. Wade writes:37
"It seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence. It’s documented that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were doing gain-of-function experiments designed to make coronaviruses infect human cells and humanized mice.
This is exactly the kind of experiment from which a SARS2-like virus could have emerged. The researchers were not vaccinated against the viruses under study, and they were working in the minimal safety conditions of a BSL2 laboratory. So escape of a virus would not be at all surprising.”
Source: mercola rss
In an interview with Oracle Films, musician Eric Clapton detailed his experience suffering from a severe adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. Clapton has been blasted by mainstream media for speaking out about the vaccine and COVID lockdowns, and he said he’s lost friends over his views.
He’s even fearful of losing the love and trust of members of his own family, but believes in speaking out for what he believes in and sharing his experiences:1
“I believe most of all in free speech and freedom of movement, choice of movement and life and love and kindness and with all of this exposure to the polarization of politics and the medicine and the science, I found it very difficult to be neutral because I’ve seen scorn and contempt from both sides, and I get caught in the crossfire a lot.
… I’m talking today on behalf of people like me who may be lost, maybe need to hear someone talk about it from a human point of view without condemnation … There has to be a way to bring people together. I believe music can do that, but it’s a long way away. There’s still time, I believe, for us to come together.”
Before he received the COVID-19 vaccine, Clapton collaborated with Van Morrison on the song “Stand and Deliver,” which was released in December 2020. It takes on the U.K.’s pandemic response, which included strict lockdowns.
Analysis of scientific evidence since the start of the pandemic supports the theory that lockdowns have been ineffective in stopping the spread of the illness and have come at an exceedingly high financial and human cost.2 They’ve even been called the "single worst public health mistake" of the last 100 years.3 In the song, Clapton sings:4
“Stand and deliver / You let them put the fear on you / Stand and deliver / But not a word you heard was true / But if there’s nothing you can say / There may be nothing you can do / Do you want to be a free man / Or do you want to be a slave?”
Even though Clapton was unhappy with the government’s pandemic response, and even considered moving his family away from England, he believed he was vulnerable to COVID-19 due to his age — 76 years — and diagnosis of emphysema.
He decided to get a COVID-19 vaccine — the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which uses a chimpanzee adenovirus vector genetically engineered to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The side effects began shortly after his first dose:5
“I went and had the jab … within several hours, I was shaking like a leaf and I went to bed early and I couldn’t get warm … and I thought, I’m running a fever. I was boiling hot and sweating and then I was cold, and I was out for the count for about a week.
I had been preparing for a project where I was going to be playing acoustic guitar with a couple of musicians and we were going to film it. That week knocked me out and I had to start again from scratch. I was OK, but it didn’t come off as well as I would like to because, professionally, it was a huge setback …”
When it came time to get the second dose, Clapton was hesitant, but went ahead anyway, only to experience an even more severe reaction:6
“Bit by bit I realized that I probably shouldn’t have had the first jab, but then I was offered the second and I thought, well … what’s the point in stopping now. So I went and had the second, and then it got really bad. Within about a week … my hands didn’t really work.”
Clapton had previously been diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy, which is nerve damage in the arms and/or legs that causes pain, burning, numbness and pins-and-needles sensation. The condition is progressive and incurable, Clapton noted, but said his was always manageable.
“I expected it to be something that would gradually grow worse as I got older into my 80s, but always I could get some ice pack or whatever and it would be fine.” This changed after the second COVID-19 vaccine, however.
After the second COVID-19 vaccine, Clapton’s peripheral neuropathy got significantly worse, which he attributed to an assault on his immune system:7
“[When I had the second jab] this ramped up from, on a scale of 10, say from three to eight or nine. Agony and chronic pain. When you know there’s nothing that will work, there’s no medication you can take that will help, it’s very, very frightening. And the worst thing is you don’t know when it’s going to wear off or when it’s going to go away.
So that was what frightened me the most, medically, health-wise, and it still does because I have gigs to do, I have recording work to do, but I can’t touch the guitar to play … it’s not fun … and when I put it down, it’s there until I go to bed, and I take sleeping pills because I can’t sleep because of the pain. That’s not a good way to live.
It’s not all due to the vaccine but the vaccine took my immune system and just shook it around again, and that’s still going on. Then I read a lot of the evidence that I had been reading about with people that were having adverse reactions, that was on the list … damage to the immune system.”
Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., is among those who have warned about COVID-19 vaccines leading to dysregulation in the immune system. She explained in our June 2021 interview:
“As mentioned, it's an adenovirus vector expressing the protein. So, the HIV, the XMRV envelope, the syncytin, the HERV-W envelope and the ACE2 are already being expressed in the vector … these adenovirus vector protein-producing vaccines are grown in an aborted fetal tissue cell line, so now you've got human syncytin [in there]. You've got 8% of the human genome of another human.
So, again, looking at the communication that has to regulate your Type I interferon response, it’s going to give you autoimmunity. In immunocompromised people, it's going to continue to express and that will give you a live infection, and you already have your firetrucks fighting another [infection]. You can't fight a war on three fronts.”
The U.K. maintains a “Yellow Card” reporting site to report adverse effects to vaccines and medications.8 From December 9, 2020 to June 2, 2021, the site reported the following submissions:9
This works out to an overall adverse event reporting rate of three to seven Yellow Cards per 1,000 doses administered for the Pfizer/BioNTech, AstraZeneca and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.10 When asked whether he felt he was made aware of the vaccine risks beforehand, Clapton said, “Oh god no. I didn’t even know there was a yellow card report. I didn’t know there was any such thing.”
Other than saying you may be a bit sore, Clapton said, “They say it’s safe.” After the second dose, however, he told his doctor to make a Yellow Card report and got a note that would hopefully exempt him from having to receive a booster dose:11
“I lost the use of my hands for about three weeks, so I thought I was in real trouble … I can’t touch anything cold or hot. I have to use these [holding up a pair of gloves], otherwise my hands will begin to burn and they’ll stay burnt all day … And that’s my experience from having had the second jab.
I went to my doctor pretty quickly and said, you know, I can’t have any more vaccinations. This is not possible for me because I don’t know what will happen. I don’t what will happen next, and from what I read and from what I’ve been told, there would be a booster in the autumn, and I said I have to have a document that says I’m allergic, I can’t have COVID vaccine, which I have in my backpack.”
It was about this time that Robin Monotti with Oracle Films invited Clapton to talk about his experiences, which he said was an easy decision. “It was easy to say yes because I realized that I wasn’t the only one that was suffering adverse reactions,” Clapton said.12
Clapton is supportive of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), written by infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, which highlighted grave concerns over lockdown measures implemented during the pandemic and has collected more than 850,000 signatures in support.13
The GBD authors, along with a team of academics, researchers and subject matter experts, are now publishing a regular analysis of the global impact of COVID-19 restrictions, called Collateral Global.14 The reality is, lockdowns have caused a great deal of harm, from delays in medical treatment and disrupted education to joblessness and drug overdoses.
Clapton said what disturbs him the most about the pandemic response is coercion. NHS propaganda ads in the U.K. featured photos of sick, elderly people with sayings like “Look him in the eyes and tell him the risk isn’t real.” “That’s very dark, it’s victimization is what it is,” Clapton said, adding:15
“The trick they got together with their propaganda was making it so you’re responsible for other people’s lives. So, I can be labeled a murderer and people would really believe that. That’s powerful. It’s very clever.”
COVID-19 anxiety syndrome has also now manifested in many, which refers to pandemic-related psychological distress that may persist long beyond the pandemic, interfering with daily life.16 Clapton said he suffers from this but it was worse when he was following the news. Now, he doesn’t watch television. This psychological suffering is a key control mechanism, Clapton said, referencing George Orwell’s “1984”:
“It’s so true. There’s so much of the sickness is in our heads now. We’ve become weak. If we’re talking about freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of choice with the vaccine, for instance, then the opposite of that is what we’re experiencing if you take that away.”
Clapton believes more people aren’t speaking out because of fear of reprisal if they go against the official narrative, including reprisal from their own family. While Clapton said he’s felt some level of alienation due to his views, in his case, he said, “My fear is about what will they do to my children? My fear about vaccination is what will it do to my children?”
Source: mercola rss
Yet another hit piece has been published blasting “anti-vaccine” influencers for sharing viewpoints that go against the status quo. This time, the article was published by The Center for Public Integrity, which claims to use investigative reporting to reveal the “causes and effects of inequality.”1
The title of the article — “Spreading Vaccine Fears. And Cashing In.” — and its content, however, reveal that it’s far from actual journalism and nothing more than biased propaganda.2
In the interest of full disclosure, I’m publishing my full response to reporter Liz Essley Whyte below. Whyte contacted Mercola.com in April 2021, stating she was “writing an article about anti-vaccine activists for whom activism is also a way to make money” and asking if I’d be willing to do an interview with her. My team asked for a list of questions and, after repeated follow-ups, those were provided about one month later.
Among them, “What is your response to critics who say your frequent criticism of mainstream medicine, including vaccines, serve to build a customer base and boost your profits?” and “How much does Mercola.com (and/or any other Mercola-branded companies) do in sales and/or profits (in dollar figures) per year? How has that grown over the years? How did the pandemic affect those figures?”
You can see that they’re trying to build a case that websites such as mine — which is solely interested in sharing the truth — are only out to make profits or are exploiting the fear generated by mainstream media to sell supplements. But as I stated previously, the real profiteers in this pandemic are not people selling supplements online but billionaires who are only getting richer.
Meanwhile, in their “investigative” piece, The Center for Public Integrity ignored the majority of my responses to their questions, publishing only this:3
“Disagreeing with big pharma and the federal agencies they’ve captured is a detriment to anyone,” Mercola said in a statement. “Placing yourself in the crosshairs of these coordinated attacks is not financially or personally beneficial.”
If Whyte were truly interested in opening up a conversation about the spreading of fear by mainstream media and its implications to society and COVID-19 vaccinations, it would have been crucial to publish my response — but Whyte did not choose to include it.
For some background, in April 2021, Whyte wrote an article for The Center for Public Integrity titled, “I’m Pregnant. Here’s Why I Decided to Get the Coronavirus Vaccine.”4 Even her doctor told her that whether or not to get the experimental vaccine while pregnant is “a personal choice,” which she said “wasn’t exactly useful advice.” Ultimately, Whyte wrote, “I concluded the clear benefits of getting vaccinated outweighed unknown and possibly nonexistent risks.”5
In my view, giving these vaccines to pregnant women is beyond reprehensible. This experimentation is doubly unforgivable seeing how women of childbearing age have virtually no risk of dying from COVID-19, their fatality risk being a mere 0.01%.6 Pregnant women simply do not need this vaccine, and therefore any risk is likely excessive.
This does give you some insight into Whyte’s personal beliefs about vaccination, which were evident in her journalism as well. As for my response to Whyte’s questions, you can read it for yourself now, in its entirety:
Unfortunately, disagreeing with big pharma and the federal agencies they’ve captured is a detriment to anyone. Pharmaceutical PR groups, lobbied politicians, and the controlled media groups criticize those who interfere with the plan to vaccinate everyone from cradle to grave, even if they’re compromised. Placing yourself in the crosshairs of these coordinated attacks is not financially or personally beneficial.
Medical risk taking is a personal choice, and that choice must be preserved, and that’s exactly what we stand for — preserving the health freedoms of our global community while also exposing false health information provided by pharmaceutical public relations campaigns.
While you may promote the EUA [Emergency Use Authorization] vaccine to pregnant women based on a 20-week rat study, others find that to be reprehensibly negligent advice. The truth is that COVID vaccination for pregnant women is an experiment, and there is not adequate safety testing for these novel injections — even if the V-Safe program states quite clearly that only preliminary information is available.
Unlicensed COVID vaccinations during pregnancy is experimental. To suggest that safety data is ‘piling up’ is deliberate misinformation. Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons | NEJM.7
Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%). Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases).
Restrictions to freedom of speech within the big tech monopoly platforms will only accelerate segregation of communities and alternative platforms for nonconformist points of view.
Trust in big tech, big pharma, federal agencies and the media is justifiably broken. I was one of the first to widely publicize that this virus leaked from the Wuhan lab and was immediately discredited by mainstream fact checkers and news sources — Please see attached from NewsGuard.
Ironically, NewsGuard is owned by Publicis, a big tech and big pharma public relations company.8,9 Publicis is not just the owner of the fact checkers, they are partners in campaigns against what they consider to be health ‘misinformation.’10
It turns out the owners of Newsguard, campaigning against misinformation, were directly responsible for the deadly opioid marketing campaigns that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.11 More information is available in my latest book if you wish to learn more.”12
The Center for Public Integrity hit piece is only the latest in a series of media articles aimed at spreading lies about anyone who speaks out against the standard COVID narrative.
As seems to be the pattern, the “expert” source quoted in the article is Imran Ahmed, who runs the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — a progressive U.K.-based cancel-culture leader13 with extensive ties to government and global think tanks that has labeled people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine as “threats to national security.”
Ahmed has gone on record saying he considers anti-vaxxers “an extremist group that pose a national security risk,”14 and admits tracking and spying on 425 vaccine-related Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter accounts.15 CCDH is also partnered with HealthGuard, which is NewsGuard’s health-related service.16
In Whyte’s article, Ahmed states, “These are old-fashioned snake-oil salesmen. They are willing to let people suffer death, disease in order to make profits for themselves.” He adds, “Anti-vaccine influencers are ‘a classic example of bad actors who are proficient in digital spaces, at creating outcomes which are bad for us and society … They react the way you would expect them to.”17
However, CCDH’s partner NewsGuard is in the business of censoring the truth. NewsGuard previously classified Mercola.com as fake news because we reported the SARS-CoV-2 virus as potentially having been leaked from the biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory in Wuhan City, China, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak. Since then, several members of the U.S. Congress have vowed to launch their own investigation to explore the lab accident theory.18
In May 2021, NPR also published a hit piece about Mercola.com and other vaccine safety advocates designed to disparage and discredit those who are speaking out against COVID propaganda. Similar to The Center for Public Integrity, the line of questioning sent to Mercola.com for comment was not journalism but, rather, aimed at spreading pharmaceutical propaganda.
It wasn’t disclosed in the article, for instance, that NPR has received $17.5 million in donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which were intended to target coverage of global health and education.19 This may explain why NPR rarely publishes anything critical of Gates and, when it does, “it can feel scripted.”20
NPR has also praised Facebook for blatant censorship, with statements such as, “Facebook said it now limits the reach of posts that could discourage people from getting vaccinated, even if the messages don't explicitly break its rules. But the cat-and-mouse game continues.”21 Then if you scroll to the bottom, you’ll see the editor’s note: “Facebook is among NPR's financial supporters.”22
In a similar vein, Coda Story published a false article on May 7, 2021, with misleading and defamatory statements against Mercola.com,23 even though it was in possession of an email with my side of the story. As was the case with The Center for Public Integrity and NPR, I published the full email exchange with Coda Story, so you could read my responses, which, again, were not included in the article.
Coda Story claims that it “tells you stories you never heard before, shows you connections you never knew existed, and investigates the nuance and complexity of the world.”24 Surely, then, its reporters would be eager to dive into the counterpoints provided in our email, in order to explore, investigate and share these connections with the world.
In reality, they revealed their true colors, both with the blatant lies they published and their refusal to explore the truth further, even after it was clearly presented. Meanwhile, media are largely ignoring news that deserves to be heard — like NewsGuard’s real disinformation campaign based on censoring COVID-19 truth and manufacturing pro-industry propaganda to serve Big Pharma, Big Tech and the deep state.
The fact that Publicis is being sued for its role in creating Purdue’s deceptive marketing for OxyContin, which is described as the “crime of the century,” is also mostly buried.
The media and its “fact checkers” have succeeded in generating fear and controlling human behavior via the pandemic, and anything that counters its final solution of vaccination is being censored and discredited via biased propaganda disguised as journalism — this is a clue that shouldn’t be overlooked.
If you’d like to get involved in the rally behind legislation that prevents the alteration of laws that safeguard our freedoms, check out the Five Freedoms Campaign, which focuses on creating legislation to preserve key freedoms and prevent emergency laws from infringing on your freedom to assemble, worship, protest and engage in business. Legislation is also being crafted to open schools, remove mask mandates and eliminate requirements for vaccine passports.
Source: mercola rss
Source: Young Living Blog
A recently published literature review1 found eating 18 grams of any type of mushroom contributes to reducing your potential risk of cancer. Mushrooms are not plants or animals. They are umbrella-shaped fruiting bodies of a fungus that typically grows above ground.
Mushrooms produce millions of microscopic spores that are spread by animals or the wind. Once these have germinated in wood or soil, they send out a network of rooting threads called mycelium that can persist for many years.2 Mycelium digests the surrounding nutrients externally and then absorbs those nutrients.
Scientists do not believe that all mushroom species have been identified. Neither do they agree on how many species there may be, with estimations ranging from a low of 45,000 catalogued species in 2015 to a high of 1.5 million to 5.1 million3 yet to be discovered and named. According to a paper in the American Society for Microbiology,4 in 2017 there were 120,000 identified species, which the researchers estimated may be just 3% to 8% of the population of mushrooms.
In ancient Egypt, mushrooms were thought to bring long life and have been used for centuries by Chinese medicine practitioners.5 Greek physician Hippocrates used the Amadou mushroom for cauterizing wounds and as a potent anti-inflammatory.6 The first people populating North America used puffball mushrooms to heal wounds.
Despite a long history of medicinal use, Western medicine has only just begun exploring the depth of benefits available in these fungi. As researchers develop methods to test individual components, they have discovered that, “Mushrooms are nature’s miniature pharmaceutical factories, rich in a vast array of novel constituents and wide open for exploration.”7
Researchers from Pennsylvania State University performed a literature review and meta-analysis8 seeking to assess an association between the risk of any type of cancer and mushroom intake. They pulled data gathered from January 1, 1966, to October 31, 2020, and found 17 out of 841 identified studies that met the criteria for inclusion.
Analysis of data from more than 19,500 cancer patients9 revealed individuals with the highest consumption of mushrooms had the lowest risk of any type of cancer. Importantly, there was substantial variety in the results between studies.10
However, researchers also found that the higher consumption of mushrooms was consistently associated with a reduction in risk in cohort studies and case-control studies when compared against those eating the least number of mushrooms.11
Interestingly, the scientists found a specific link between high mushroom consumption and low risk of breast cancer, which they wrote may be “due to the small number of studies which examined associations of mushroom intake with other site-specific cancers.”12
The scientists reported in a press release that those who consumed 18 grams of mushrooms, or about one-eighth to one-fourth cup, daily had a 45% reduced risk of cancer. John Richie, one author and researcher at Penn State Cancer Institute, commented on the results:13
“Overall, these findings provide important evidence for the protective effects of mushrooms against cancer. Future studies are needed to better pinpoint the mechanisms involved and specific cancers that may be impacted.”
Another researcher on the team pointed out:14
“Mushrooms are the highest dietary source of ergothioneine, which is a unique and potent antioxidant and cellular protector. Replenishing antioxidants in the body may help protect against oxidative stress and lower the risk of cancer.”
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture,15 on average, people eat about 3 pounds of fresh mushrooms every year and 87% of those are grown domestically. Mushrooms have a high nutrient content, providing essential minerals such as manganese, copper, zinc, selenium, calcium, magnesium and iron.16
Compared to their size and weight, they are a rich source of protein and fiber. They are high in potassium and sulfur, as well as many of the B vitamins such as riboflavin, niacin and pantothenic acid.17
Mushroom varieties have antioxidants that other plants or fungi do not possess, such as ergothioneine, about which one paper in the journal Molecules says, "ET [ergothioneine] is concentrated in mitochondria, suggesting a specific role in protecting mitochondrial components, such as DNA, from oxidative damage."18
Mushrooms also contain unusually high levels of glutathione,19 important for the detoxification of heavy metals and other contaminants20 and called the “master antioxidant,” as it plays a powerful role in reactivating other antioxidants.21 As noted in The Guardian:22
"… [S]cientists think [ergothioneine and glutathione] may help to protect the body against the maladies of old age, such as cancer, coronary heart disease, and Alzheimer's disease."
In a press release following the publication of a paper in Food Chemistry, Robert Beelman, Professor Emeritus of food science and director of the Penn State Center for Plant and Mushroom Products for Health, said:23
"What we found is that, without a doubt, mushrooms are the highest dietary source of these two antioxidants [ergothioneine and glutathione] taken together, and that some types are really packed with both of them.
There's a theory — the free radical theory of aging — that's been around for a long time that says when we oxidize our food to produce energy there's a number of free radicals that are produced that are side products of that action and many of these are quite toxic.
The body has mechanisms to control most of them, including ergothioneine and glutathione, but eventually enough accrue to cause damage, which has been associated with many of the diseases of aging, like cancer, coronary heart disease and Alzheimer's."
The current study analyzed the potential relationship between mushrooms and cancer. However, Beelman has focused on the relationship with neurodegenerative conditions, pointing out that in countries like France and Italy, where people have more ergothioneine in their diet, they:24
“… have lower incidences of neurodegenerative diseases, while people in countries like the United States, which has low amounts of ergothioneine in the diet, have a higher probability of diseases like Parkinson's Disease and Alzheimer's.
Now, whether that's just a correlation or causative, we don't know. But, it's something to look into, especially because the difference between the countries with low rates of neurodegenerative diseases is about 3 milligrams per day, which is about five button mushrooms each day."
Shiitake mushrooms are popular and versatile in a variety of dishes. They have a rich buttery flavor, which becomes smokey when the mushrooms are dried. They're loaded with vitamins, minerals and compounds that are remarkably beneficial for your health, even though they are close to 90% water.25
When dried the mushrooms offer the greatest nutritional value as they are more concentrated. One nutrient is lentinans, which is an active polysaccharide that appears to enhance T helper cell function and stimulate interferon, interleukin and normal killer cells.26
One study in 201527 revealed that whole dried shiitake mushrooms could improve human immune function. The researchers engaged 52 healthy adults who ate up to 10 grams of the mushrooms each day for four weeks.
At the end of the study, the scientists found an increase in the proliferation of T-cells and natural killer cells and a greater ability to activate receptors. Biomarkers suggested the mushrooms improved gut immunity and reduced inflammation. Compounds in shiitake mushrooms have been found to effectively treat or protect against cancer,28 infectious diseases,29 inflammation,30 and heart and liver problems.31
Another study showed that the lentinan and several beta-glucans in shiitake mushrooms exhibited "marked anticarcinogenic activity, immunity-stimulating effects and may participate in physiological processes related to the metabolism of fats in the human body.”32
Including mushrooms in your daily diet may also help keep your cognitive functioning intact. Research published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease33 found adults who routinely ate two portions or more of mushrooms a week reduced their odds of mild cognitive impairment by 43%.34
This was independent of confounding factors such as heart disease, high blood pressure, age and alcohol and cigarette consumption. The researchers defined one portion as three-quarters of a cup of cooked mushrooms. This was meant as a guideline since the results demonstrated that even a small portion each week could be beneficial.
Ultimately, the researchers believe the reason the participants who ate two servings of mushrooms each week had a reduction in mild cognitive impairment was the result of ergothioneine, found in each of the varieties of mushrooms included in the study.35
I highly recommend adding mushrooms to your diet as they are an excellent addition to any salad and go great with all kinds of grass fed meat and wild-caught fish. However, it is important to choose organically grown mushrooms as the fungi easily absorb air and soil contaminants. Growing your own mushrooms is an excellent option and likely a far safer alternative than foraging for wild mushrooms.
Although foraging may sound like fun it's vital to recognize the need for caution. Unfortunately, there are no simple rules to distinguish the difference between toxic and edible mushrooms. And, in more than 95% of cases where toxicities were reported, amateur mushroom hunters have misidentified a poisonous mushroom.36
The severity of the poisoning can vary, but the most toxic effects come from mushrooms containing Amanita phalloides.37 There's no antidote for amatoxin poisoning, so it's essential if you have any reason to suspect someone has ingested an amatoxin containing mushroom you do not wait for symptoms but seek immediate emergency treatment.
There are some medications that may help lessen the severity of the poison,38 but they are not always successful. The most famous of the Amanita mushrooms is the lethal death cap mushroom, which may kill more people each year than any other type of mushroom.39
Source: mercola rss
In the video above, DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., an evolutionary biologist, interviews Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,1 and Steve Kirsch, an entrepreneur who has been researching adverse reactions to COVID-19 gene therapies.
I realize that this is an absolutely epic three-hour interview but if you ever valued what I have been teaching, you must at a bare minimum very carefully read this entire article.
Malone is the scientist that actually invented the technology that makes the COVID jab possible and he spills the beans on just how this introduction has been ethically compromised to make informed consent absolutely impossible for the average person. Watch the interview if your schedule allows, but carefully read this article for sure.
Kirsch recently published the article, “Should You Get Vaccinated?” in which he reviews how and why he has changed his mind about the COVID-19 “vaccines.” This after he got both doses of the Moderna shot, as have his three daughters.
If you or someone you know is equivocal about the COVID jab, then please, you simply MUST read Kirsh’s article as it is clearly one of the best pieces written on the topic and provides the other side of the story that is NEVER given in the mainstream media. Remember, without full disclosure of the vaccine’s risk, it is impossible to have informed consent.2 If you read Kirsch’s article, you will get, in great detail, the other side that the conventional media refuses to share. He writes:
“I recently learned that these vaccines have likely killed over 25,800 Americans (which I confirmed 3 different ways) and disabled at least 1,000,000 more. And we’re only halfway to the finish line. We need to PAUSE these vaccines NOW before more people are killed.
Based on what I now know about the miniscule vaccine benefits (approximately a 0.3% reduction in absolute risk), side effects (including death), current COVID rates, and the success rate of early treatment protocols, the answer I would give today to anyone asking me for advice as to whether to take any of the current vaccines would be, ‘Just say NO.’
The current vaccines are particularly contraindicated if you have already been infected with COVID or are under age 20. For these people, I would say ‘NO! NO! NO!’
In this article, I will explain what I have learned since I was vaccinated that totally changed my mind. You will learn how these vaccines work and the shortcuts that led to the mistakes that were made.
You will understand why there are so many side effects and why these are so varied and why they usually happen within 30 days of vaccination. You will understand why kids are having heart issues (for which there is no treatment), and temporarily losing their sight, and ability to talk. You will understand why as many as 3% may be severely disabled by the vaccine.”
As explained by Malone, many months ago he warned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that the spike protein — which the COVID-19 “vaccines” instruct your cells to make — could be dangerous. The FDA dismissed his concerns, saying they did not believe the spike protein was biologically active. Besides, the vaccine makers specifically designed the injections so that the spike protein would stick and not float about freely.
Well, they were wrong on both accounts. It’s since been well-established that, indeed, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein gets free, and that it is biologically active and causes severe problems. It is responsible for the most severe effects seen in COVID-19, such as bleeding disorders, blood clots throughout the body and heart problems.
These are the same problems we now see in a staggering number of people having received one or two shots of COVID-19 “vaccine.” For more in-depth information about how the spike protein causes these problems, please see my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D.
Using the word vaccine isn’t really appropriate here, and I don’t want to contribute to the misuse of that word. These injections are clearly not vaccines. They don’t work like any previous conventional vaccines. As the actual inventor of the mRNA vaccines clearly says in the interview, they are gene therapy. So, please understand that when I say vaccine or vaccination, I’m really talking about gene therapy.
In a recent interview3 with Alex Pierson, Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher Byram Bridle, Ph.D., discussed previously unseen research obtained from the Japanese regulatory agency through a freedom of information act request.
The study was a biodistribution study done by Pfizer, which showed that the mRNA in the vaccine does not stay in and around the vaccination site but is widely distributed in the body, as is the spike protein.4
This is a serious problem, as the spike protein is a toxin shown to cause cardiovascular and neurological damage. Once in your blood circulation, the spike protein binds to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels. When that happens, it can cause platelets to clump together, resulting in blood clots, and/or cause abnormal bleeding. I detailed these and other findings in “Researcher: ‘We Made a Big Mistake’ on COVID-19 Vaccine.”
The spike protein also has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries. Kirsch cites data suggesting the miscarriage rate among women who get the COVID “vaccine” within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is 82%.5 The normal rate is 10%, so this is no minor uptick. Kirsch writes:6
“It is baffling that the CDC says the vaccine is safe for pregnant women when it is so clear that this is not the case. For example, one our family friends is a victim of this. She miscarried at 25 weeks … She had her first shot 7 weeks ago, and her second shot 4 weeks ago.
The baby had severe bleeding of the brain and other disfigurements. Her gynecologist had never seen anything like that before in her life. They called in a specialist who said it was probably a genetic defect (because everyone buys into the narrative that the vaccine is safe it is always ruled out as a possible cause).
No VAERS report. No CDC report. Yet the doctors I’ve talked to say that it is over 99% certain it was the vaccine. The family doesn’t want an autopsy for fear that their daughter will find out it was the vaccine. This is a perfect example of how these horrible side effects just never get reported anywhere.”
Disturbingly, the Pfizer biodistribution data package reveals that corners were cut in the interest of speed, and one of the research facets that were skipped was reproductive toxicology. Yet, despite the lack of an initial reproductive toxicology investigation and a rapidly growing number of reports of miscarriages (which is likely to be a significant undercount), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is still urging pregnant women to get vaccinated. Why is that?
What’s more, as discussed in the interview, there’s evidence that data in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is being manipulated as reports that were filed are now missing. Why were they removed? And without the filers’ consent?
Even with that manipulation, the number of deaths reported post-vaccination against COVID-19 is beyond anything we’ve ever seen. According to Kirsch, the rate of death from COVID-19 shots exceeds that of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,7 which historically has been the most hazardous.
Other serious effects are also off the charts. For example, Israeli data show boys and men between the ages of 16 and 24 who have been vaccinated have 25 times the rate of myocarditis (heart inflammation) than normal.8 Additionally, many young people are actually dying as a result of this myocarditis.9
Malone points out that, in re-reading the most current version of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that governs these COVID shots, he discovered that the FDA opted not to require stringent post-vaccination data collection and evaluation, even though they had the latitude to do so.
As noted by Weinstein, this is yet another anomaly that needs an answer. Why did they opt for such lax data capture, because without it, there’s no way of evaluating the safety of these products. You cannot identify the danger signals if you don’t have a process for capturing effects data and evaluating all of it.
“The whole logic of EUA is you’re basically substituting real-time capture of key information for prospective capture of key information,” Malone explains. “But to do that, you’ve got to get the information and it has to be rigorous.”
Furthermore, as noted by Weinstein, if you release a vaccine under emergency use — because you say there’s an unprecedented health emergency and there are no other options, therefore it’s worth taking a larger than normal risk — then you still would not give it to people who are at no or low risk of the disease in question.
This would include children, teens and healthy individuals under the age of 40, at bare minimum. Children appear naturally immune against COVID-1910 and have been shown to not be disease vectors,11 and people under 40 have an infection fatality ratio of just 0.01%.12 That means their chances of survival is 99.99%, which is about as good as it gets.
Pregnant women would also be excluded as they are a high-risk category for any experimentation, and anyone who has recovered from COVID would be excluded as they now have natural immunity and have no need for a vaccine whatsoever. In fact, a recent Cleveland Clinic study13,14 found people who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at least 42 days prior to vaccination reaped no additional benefit from the jabs.
Yet all of these incredibly low-risk groups are urged and even inappropriately incentivized to get vaccinated, and this too is anomalous behavior. Part of the risk-benefit analysis is not only the risk of serious outcomes and death from the disease, but also the availability of alternative treatments, and here we have the third massive anomaly.
We’ve seen a clear suppression of information showing that there are not just one but several effective remedies that could reduce the risk of COVID-19 to a number of cohorts down to virtually zero. Examples include hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, both of which have been safely used for decades in many millions of people around the world.
The precautionary principle dictates that as long as a drug or treatment strategy doesn’t do harm, even if the positive effect may be small, it should be used until better data or better treatments becomes available. This is the logic they used with masks (even though the data overwhelmingly showed no statistical benefit and there are a number of potential harms).
But when it comes to hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, they suppressed the use of these drugs even though they are extremely safe when used in the appropriate doses and have been shown to work really well in many dozens of studies. As noted by Kirsch in his article:15
“Repurposed drugs [such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin] are safer and more effective than the current vaccines. In general, early treatment with an effective protocol reduces your risk of dying by more than 100X so instead of 600,000 deaths, we’d have fewer than 6,000 deaths. NOTE: The vaccine has already killed over 6,000 people and that’s from the vaccine alone (and doesn’t count any breakthrough deaths).”
Doctors are also being muzzled and their warnings suppressed and censored. Dr. Charles Hoffe has administered Moderna’s COVID-19 “vaccine” to 900 of his patients. Three are now permanently disabled and one has died. After writing an open letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry, the provincial health officer for British Columbia, in which he stated that he’s “been quite alarmed at the high rate of serious side-effects from this novel treatment,”16 his hospital privileges were yanked.
In a May 30, 2021, essay,17 Malone reviewed the importance of informed consent, rightly concluding that censorship makes it so that informed consent simply cannot be given. Informed consent isn’t just a nice idea or an ideal. It is the law, both nationally and internationally. The current vaccine push also violates bioethical principles in general.
“By way of background, please understand that I am a vaccine specialist and advocate, as well as the original inventor of the mRNA vaccine (and DNA vaccine) core platform technology. But I also have extensive training in bioethics from the University of Maryland, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, and Harvard Medical School, and advanced clinical development and regulatory affairs are core competencies for me,” Malone writes.
“Why is it necessary to suppress discussion and full disclosure of information concerning mRNA reactogenicity and safety risks? Let’s analyze the vaccine-related adverse event data rigorously. Is there information or patterns that can be found, such as the recent finding of the cardiomyopathy signals, or the latent virus reactivation signals?
We should be enlisting the best biostatistics and machine learning experts to examine these data, and the results should — no must — be made available to the public promptly. Please follow along and take a moment to examine the underlying bioethics of this situation with me …
The suppression of information, discussion, and outright censorship concerning these current COVID vaccines which are based on gene therapy technologies cast a bad light on the entire vaccine enterprise. It is my opinion that the adult public can handle information and open discussion. Furthermore, we must fully disclose any and all risks associated with these experimental research products.
In this context, the adult public are basically research subjects that are not being required to sign informed consent due to EUA waiver. But that does not mean that they do not deserve the full disclosure of risks that one would normally require in an informed consent document for a clinical trial.
And now some national authorities are calling on the deployment of EUA vaccines to adolescents and the young, which by definition are not able to directly provide informed consent to participate in clinical research — written or otherwise.
The key point here is that what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research. This goes back to the Geneva convention and the Helsinki declaration.18 There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects.”
Experimentation without proper informed consent also violates the Nuremberg Code,19 which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation. This set of principles were developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again.
In the U.S., we also have the Belmont report,20 cited in Malone’s essay, which spells out the ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research, covered under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46 (subpart A). The Belmont report describes informed consent as follows:
“Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.
While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that the consent process can be analyzed as containing three elements: information, comprehension and voluntariness.”
Americans, indeed the people of the whole earth, are being prevented from freely accessing and sharing information about these gene therapies. Worse, we are misled by fact checkers and Big Tech platforms that ban or put misinformation labels on anyone and anything discussing them in a critical or questioning way. The same censorship also prevents comprehension of risk.
Lastly, government and any number of vaccine stakeholders are encouraging companies and schools to make these experimental injections mandatory, which violates the rule of voluntariness. Government and private businesses are also creating massive incentives to participate in this experiment, including million-dollar lotteries and full college scholarships. None of this is ethical or even legal. As noted by Malone:21
“… as these vaccines are not yet market authorized (licensed), coercion of human subjects to participate in medical experimentation is specifically forbidden. Therefore, public health policies which meet generally accepted criteria for coercion to participate in clinical research are forbidden.
For example, if I were to propose a clinical trial involving children and entice participation by giving out ice cream to those willing to participate, any institutional human subjects safety board (IRB) in the United States would reject that protocol.
If I were to propose a clinical research protocol wherein the population of a geographic region would lose personal liberties unless 70% of the population participated in my study, once again, that protocol would be rejected by any US IRB based on coercion of subject participation. No coercion to participate in the study is allowed.
In human subject clinical research, in most countries of the world this is considered a bright line that cannot be crossed. So, now we are told to waive that requirement without even so much as open public discussion being allowed? In conclusion, I hope that you will join me; stop to take a moment and consider for yourself what is going on. The logic seems clear to me.
1) An unlicensed medical product deployed under emergency use authorization (EUA) remains an experimental product under clinical research development.
2) EUA authorized by national authorities basically grants a short-term right to administer the research product to human subjects without written informed consent.
3) The Geneva Convention, the Helsinki declaration, and the entire structure which supports ethical human subjects research requires that research subjects be fully informed of risks and must consent to participation without coercion.”
Again, if your schedule allows, I sincerely hope you take the time to listen to Weinstein’s interview with Malone and Kirsch. Yes, it is very long — about 3 ½ hours — but they are all astute in their observations, which makes for an enlightening conversation. And remember to read and widely share Kirsch’s article, “Should You Get Vaccinated?”22
Source: mercola rss
1 Which of the following statements is accurate?
2 Which of the following companies own a huge majority of all S&P 500 firms?
3 Which of the following drugs is recommended by the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance for all stages of COVID-19?
4 Which of the following supplements was recently attacked by the FDA, which after 57 years of nonaction — right as 16 clinical trials are investigating its usefulness against COVID-19 — decided it is excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement?
5 What happens when government gives out contradictory recommendations in an already fearful situation?
6 Gain-of-function (GOF) research refers to studies that have the potential to enhance the ability of pathogens to:
7 Which of the following strategies is the most effective for combating and reversing periodontitis?
Source: mercola rss