Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, many scientists suspected SARS-CoV-2 might have originated in a biosafety laboratory, most likely in Wuhan, China, where the outbreak began in December 2019. Among them, Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and a virologist, and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., a molecular biologist were experts who discussed the idea of a lab origin.
I interviewed Latham about some of their theories in July 2020. His interview is featured in “Cover-Up of SARS-CoV-2 Origin?” Latham and Wilson argue that while the virus most likely has a bat origin, the mechanism by which it jumped from bat to human was not a natural one and they have previously presented three different theories by which the virus may have been created in and escaped from a lab.
In a February 16, 2021, article1 in Independent Science News, the pair again reviewed the evidence for a laboratory origin, and the reasons why a zoonotic origin will never be found.
Aside from not being known for exotic culinary dishes involving animals such as bats, Wuhan, located in central China, is an unlikely location for zoonotic virus spillover as it has “no cultural, geographic or climatic predisposing factors,” Latham and Wilson note. Wuhan is also not a known hotspot for exotic animal smuggling.
The well-recognized absence of bats in Wuhan is why researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) traveled several hundred miles to collect bat coronavirus samples.
What’s more, Latham and Wilson cite research showing that “when WIV researchers needed to study a Chinese population that was not routinely exposed to bat coronaviruses (as a control group), they chose Wuhan residents.” Zheng-li Shi, head of coronavirus research at the WIV, even admitted that she “had never expected this kind of thing to happen in Wuhan, in central China.”
According to Latham and Wilson, “The chance of a person from Wuhan being patient zero is approximately 1 in 630,” based on calculations that take into account the population size of Wuhan, the global population and the fact that coronavirus-carrying animals are found virtually all over the world.
“It truly is very, very, unlikely that a natural zoonotic pandemic would start in Wuhan. Yet no commentator on the outbreak seems to have properly acknowledged the true scale of this improbability,” Latham and Wilson write.2
Another coincidence that strongly points to a lab origin is the fact that the WIV not only has the world’s largest collection of bat coronaviruses, but WIV researchers had also singled out one specific coronavirus out of 28 relevant species for more in-depth work, “and it is a member of this species that broke out in Wuhan,” Latham and Wilson note, adding:
“This, then, is a further curious coincidence: for a pandemic coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) to emerge in Wuhan and be a member of the species most studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
Latham and Wilson go on to review the research done at the WIV in more detail, comparing and contrasting it to the natural evolution of coronaviruses. There are four basic types of coronaviruses: Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma- and Delta-coronaviruses. (For an illustration of the evolutionary tree of these viruses, please see the original article.3)
Of these four, only two are of interest when we’re searching for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 — the Alpha and Beta versions, of which there are 28 species, and “apparently random” coronavirus spillovers from Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses are known to have occurred in the past. (There are very few Gamma- and Delta-coronaviruses, and none is known to affect humans.)
Six of the 28 Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses are known to affect humans: HCoV-NL63, HCoV-229E, MERS, SARS, HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1 (SARS-CoV-2 makes No. 7). When you locate these six viruses on the coronavirus evolutionary tree, you find that they are widely distributed, which is an indication that previous zoonotic spillovers have been random.
Not so with SARS-CoV-2, though. When you place SARS-CoV-2 on this evolutionary tree, its location is not random like the others. Rather, it emerged from original SARS (as evidenced by its name). Latham and Wilson explain:4
“From a zoonotic perspective, nothing appears to be special about these SARS-related coronaviruses. Consequently, the emergence of a second pandemic virus from the same coronavirus species constitutes a second surprising coincidence.
We can again calculate its probability. If each Alpha and Beta coronavirus species is equally likely to spill over to humans, which is consistent with our understanding, then the probability of a virus from the SARS-related coronavirus species starting a zoonotic pandemic is 1 in 28.
(And if there are undiscovered coronavirus species — pretty much a certainty — the number will be greater still). It is a coincidence that, just like the emergence in Wuhan, heavily favors a lab escape if we take into account the specifics of the coronavirus research program at the WIV …”
Latham and Wilson then go on to review 18 publications by Zheng-li, starting in 2005, describing her research into SARS-like coronaviruses. They point out that while Zheng-li collected a wide array of bat viruses, her specific research focus was the zoonotic spillover potential of a single species, namely SARS-related coronaviruses (one of the six Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses known to infect humans).
“So while most discussions of a potential lab escape have mentioned that SARS-CoV-2 emerged within commuting distance of the WIV and that researchers at the WIV worked on bat coronaviruses, none have mentioned that the coincidence is much greater than that.
Zheng-li Shi concentrated, especially with her potentially highly risky molecular research, on the particular species of coronavirus that is responsible for the pandemic,” Latham and Wilson write, adding that:
“If one accepts as reasonable the assumptions made above, the probability of Wuhan being the site of a natural SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is obtained by multiplying 1 in 630 by 1 in 28. The chance of Wuhan hosting a SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is thus 17,640 to 1.”
They also dismiss the argument that these are little more than circumstantial evidences that could be due to sheer chance. Circumstantial evidence is not a “special category of evidence,” they point out; rather, “all evidence of causation is composed of coincidences.”
“All an observer can do is to add up the coincidences until they surmise that the threshold of reasonable doubt has been surpassed. Conclusions are always provisional, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, anyone open to persuasion ought at this point to conclude that a probability of 17,640 to 1 far exceeds that threshold. A lab escape should at this point be the default hypothesis.”
Since the beginning of the outbreak, we’ve also discovered that the WIV held a virus sample known as RaTG13 which, so far, is the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2. While Zheng-li has denied extensive study on RaTG13, scientific publications reveal this virus has been studied since at least 2017.
In addition to all of this, no substantive zoonotic theory has ever been presented, which makes it far less plausible than any of the lab-origin theories. While several potential intermediate species have been proposed, none has actually been found to carry SARS-CoV-2 or a precursor to it.
What’s more, as detailed in “Top Medical Journal Caught in Massive Cover-Up” and “Lawsuits Begin Over SARS-CoV-2 Lab Leak,” the scientific cornerstone for the zoonotic origin theory hinges on two seriously flawed papers published in PLOS Pathogens and Nature.
Both journals apparently allowed data sets to be secretly changed without publishing notices of correction. Authors appear to have renamed samples, failed to attribute samples properly, and produced a genomic profile that doesn’t match the samples in the paper.
Some data are also missing. An investigation into the discrepancies found RaTG13, which is 96% identical to SARS-CoV-2, is actually btCoV-4991, a virus found in samples collected in 2013 and studies on them published in 2016. Meanwhile, there are at least “four distinct lab origin theories,” Wilson and Latham note, including:5
1. The serial passage theory, which proposes the virus was created by serial passaging through an animal host or cell culture.6
2. Evidence of genetic manipulation, including the chimeric structure of the virus and the presence of a furin cleavage site.7 While a majority of the viral genetic sequence is close to that of RaTG13, its receptor binding domain is nearly identical to that of a pangolin coronavirus, while the furin cleavage site has not been seen in any other SARS-like coronaviruses.
Others have pointed out that the virus, which is highly adapted to human lung cells, appears to have evolved in the absence of immune system antibodies, which suggests mutation within cell culture.8
In “China Deletes Key SARS-CoV-2 Related Science,” I also review evidence9 suggesting SARS-CoV-2 was created by serial passaging an ancestor virus through transgenic mice equipped with human ACE2 receptors. (Research10 has confirmed transgenic mice with human ACE2 receptors are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, whereas normal mice are not.)
3. The failed vaccine development theory.11
4. The Mojiang miners passage theory,12,13 which proposes a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 — possibly RaTG13, as this virus was collected from that very same mine — sickened six miners in 2012, and once inside these patients, some of whom were ill for several weeks, it mutated into SARS-CoV-2. Samples from four of the hospitalized miners were sent to the WIV.
“To-date, there are conflicting claims about the results of those tests and nothing has been formally published. The Mojiang Miners Passage theory proposes, however, that, by the time they arrived at the WIV, these patient-derived samples contained a highly adapted human virus, which subsequently escaped,” Wilson and Latham write, adding:
“Our prediction … simply based on assessing the probabilities, is that no convincing natural zoonotic origin for the pandemic will ever be found by China or the WHO or anyone else — for the simple reason that one does not exist.”
Despite the complete absence of a plausible zoonotic origin theory, the World Health Organization’s investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, has now officially cleared the WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.14,15,16
They’ve also stated that the lab-escape theory will no longer be part of the team’s investigation going forward.
The WHO team and its Chinese counterparts now insist the most likely scenario is that SARS-CoV-2 piggybacked its way into the Wuhan market in shipments of frozen food from other areas of China where coronavirus-carrying bats are known to reside, or another country, possibly in Europe. As a result, the WHO team is considering expanding its scope to look into other countries as the potential source of the virus.
As noted in a Wall Street Journal op-ed17 by Dr. Scott Gottlieb, “By lending credence to this improbable theory, WHO is damaging trust in the important project of figuring out where the virus originated.”
There are obvious problems with the WHO’s conclusions. For starters, no serious investigation was actually done. The WHO team was not equipped or designed to conduct a forensic examination of laboratory practices;18 rather, they relied on information obtained directly from the Chinese team.
Secondly, China was allowed to hand pick the members of the WHO’s investigative team, which includes Peter Daszak, Ph.D., who has close professional ties to the WIV and has gone on record dismissing the lab-origin theory as “pure baloney.”19,20
He was also the mastermind behind the publication of a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”21,22 This manufactured “scientific consensus” was then relied on by the media to “debunk” theories and evidence showing the pandemic virus most likely originated from a laboratory.
The inclusion of Dazsak on this team virtually guaranteed the dismissal of the lab-origin theory from the very start, and based on the lame justifications given by the team leader, Danish food safety and zoonosis scientist Ben Embarek, it seems clear they had no intention of looking at evidence that might implicate the WIV or any other Wuhan lab.
For example, Embarek claims that officials at the WIV “are the best ones to dismiss the claims and provide answers” about the potential for a lab leak. But suspects in an investigation are hardly the most reliable sources of evidence to dismiss suspicions against them.
Embarek further insisted that lab accidents are “extremely rare,” hence it’s “very unlikely that anything could escape from such a place.”23 This too is a wholly unconvincing argument that flies in the face of available data.
According to the Cambridge Working Group in 2014, “biosafety incidents involving regulated pathogens have been occurring on average over twice a week” in the U.S. alone,24,25 and virology labs accidentally released the original SARS virus on no less than four separate occasions.26,27 Three of those four instances led to outbreaks.28 The 1977 H1N1 influenza outbreaks in the Soviet Union and China were also the result of a lab escape.29
Thirdly, a number of scientific bodies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods have resolutely dismissed the frozen food origination story, as no credible evidence has surfaced suggesting food, food packaging or food handling might be a significant route of transmission.30
You may be wondering, if there’s so much evidence pointing toward a lab origin, why are leading health authorities and scientists dismissing it all and insisting SARS-CoV-2 is a natural occurrence, mysterious as it might be? The answer undoubtedly comes down to money.
Should the COVID-19 pandemic be officially recognized as the result of a lab accident, the world might be forced to take a cold hard look at gain-of-function research that allows for the creation of these new pathogens. The end result would ideally be the banning of such research worldwide, which means tens of thousands of researchers would lose their jobs. Prestigious careers would be spoiled.
On top of that, the culprits might face criminal charges under the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, and nations might be held financially responsible for the economic destruction caused by the pandemic around the globe. These are no minor issues. They offer plenty of incentive to cover up the truth.
As Rutgers microbiologist and founding member of the Cambridge Working Group, Richard Ebright, told Boston Magazine:31
“For the substantial subset of virologists who perform gain-of-function research, avoiding restrictions on research funding, avoiding implementation of appropriate biosafety standards, and avoiding implementation of appropriate research oversight are powerful motivators.”
Antonio Regalado, biomedicine editor of MIT Technology Review, was even more blunt, stating that if SARS-CoV-2 was found to be a lab creation, “it would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom.”32 There’s little doubt that this is the reason why the lab origin theory has been roundly labeled as pure conspiracy theory spread by science deniers and Trump flag-wielding kooks.
Such a stance is extremely unhealthy, however, as it seeks to strangle not only free speech but also scientific inquiry, and “criminalizes” logic in general. In a February 15, 2021, AP News article,33 the three authors identify several professors and organizations as “superspreaders” of disinformation about SARS-CoV-2’s origin.
Among them are Francis Boyle, a bioweapons expert who drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act; Luc Montagnier, a world-renowned virologist who won the Nobel prize for his discovery of HIV; and the Center for Research on Globalization. The remainder are individuals and organizations that I, having written many hundreds of articles about COVID-19 over the past year, have never even heard of.
According to AP, the parties on this list have no training in virology (apparently, Nobel prize-winning virologists aren’t good enough) and therefore do not have the expertise to speak on the issue of viral origins. However, they don’t mention the many who have presented evidence for a lab origin who do have all the “right” credentials.
It’s also worth noting that the AP article was produced in collaboration with the Atlantic Council, which is part of the technocratic hub that is using the pandemic to further its Great Reset agenda. That alone qualifies the article as pure globalist propaganda.
If SARS-CoV-2 really was the result of zoonotic spillover, the easiest and most effective way to quash “conspiracy theories” about a lab origin would be to present compelling evidence for a plausible theory. So far, that hasn’t happened, and as noted by Latham and Wilson, the most likely reason for that is because the virus does not have a natural zoonotic origin, and you cannot find that which does not exist.
Source: mercola rss
Research led by scientists at the University of Queensland found phytonutrients have proneurogenic effects in the brain.1 The researchers studied the effects of quercetin in vitro and in an animal model. The basis of the research was investigating flavonoids, which are phytonutrients commonly found in fruits and vegetables.
Evidence has demonstrated that flavonoids have the potential to protect brain cells against injury, suppress neuroinflammation and promote cognitive functioning.2 The researchers found the most prominent examples of these flavonoids and polyphenols are epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), commonly found in green tea, resveratrol, red grapes and berries.3
Taking steps to protect your brain from the assault of processed foods and environmental toxins is a crucial way to protect your overall health and ability to stay independent as you age.
The results of a nationally representative cross-sectional study published in the BMJ4 found that 57.9% of the calories eaten by the participants came from ultraprocessed foods and 89.7% of the energy was from added sugars. One physician calls this diet pattern “Fast Food Genocide.”5
Added sugars present a significant risk to brain health as they contribute to obesity6 and Alzheimer’s disease.7 The researchers wrote8 that in ultraprocessed foods, the added sugars were eight times higher than in processed foods and five times higher than in minimally processed foods.
In the 9,317 participants surveyed, the researchers found 82.1% in the highest quintile consumed over the recommended limit of 10% of their calories from added sugar, as compared to the 26.4% in the lowest quintile. This indicates a significant need to improve dietary intake and protect brain health.
The study9 from the University of Queensland is yet another piece of evidence demonstrating the power of phytonutrients to your health. The researchers sought to investigate how natural compounds may have become part of the environmental stimuli that shape neurological structure and function.
They chose to investigate bioactive compounds found in apples as they are consumed worldwide and analyzed the presence of quercetin in apple peel and 3,5 dihydroxybenzoic acid from the apple flesh. Dihydroxybenzoic acid is not related to flavonoids but did appear to have proneurogenic properties.
Quercetin was chosen as it was an abundant flavonoid extracted from apple peel. However, past studies have investigated the effects of other flavonoids, namely EGCG and resveratrol named by researchers from the University of Queensland.
One study published in Genes & Nutrition10 investigated the neuroprotective actions demonstrated by flavonoids that help promote memory, learning and cognitive functions. They found the effects are supported by two processes. In the first, flavonoids appeared to play an important role in signaling cascades.
In the second, the flavonoids improve peripheral and cerebral vascular blood flow in a way that could lead to angiogenesis and the production of new nerve cells in the hippocampus. The result of the second pathway is the same described by the researchers analyzing quercetin — generation of new nerve cells in the hippocampus.11
Evidence has shown that flavonoids have a direct and indirect effect on the central nervous system12 and the various effects on the brain include the ability to reverse some symptoms that are associated with Alzheimer's disease and enhance cognitive function.13 The neuroprotective mechanism also contributes to the quality of neurons and their connectivity, which one study suggests:14
“... can thwart the progression of age-related disorders and can be a potential source for the design and development of new drugs effective in cognitive disorders.”
The current study supports past evidence that drinking green tea can improve cognitive functioning. A study15 from the National University of Singapore used data from neuroimaging from 36 older adults. The researchers were interested in the effect that tea might have on the structure, organization and function of the brain.16
The participants were asked about their tea-drinking habits from age 45 to the present and then underwent an MRI. From the imaging, the researchers discovered that the participants who drank tea had better brain structure, function and organization. However, those who drank the most — at least four times a week for about 25 years — also had greater functional connectivity strength.
While the growth of new nerve cells in the hippocampus does support better memory and recall, greater connectivity offers additional benefits. Assistant professor Feng Lei from the National University of Singapore explained the importance of connectivity in a press release:17
"Take the analogy of road traffic as an example — consider brain regions as destinations, while the connections between brain regions are roads. When a road system is better organised, the movement of vehicles and passengers is more efficient and uses less resources. Similarly, when the connections between brain regions are more structured, information processing can be performed more efficiently.
We have shown in our previous studies that tea drinkers had better cognitive function as compared to non-tea drinkers. Our current results relating to brain network indirectly support our previous findings by showing that the positive effects of regular tea drinking are the result of improved brain organisation brought about by preventing disruption to interregional connections."
Research evidence has also suggested that drinking green tea is associated with a lower risk of cognitive impairments.18 One literature review19 of in vitro and in vivo administration of EGCG found it reduced beta-amyloid accumulation in the lab and animal models.
The ability to break up beta-amyloid plaques may also be the basis for an association with the reduction of atherosclerosis plaque. Researchers from the University of Leeds and Lancaster University found green tea can prevent heart disease by dissolving arterial plaque.20
EGCG alters the structure of amyloid fibrils formed by apolipoprotein A-1 (apoA-1), which is the main component of high-density lipoprotein shown to accumulate in atherosclerosis plaques. This happens in the presence of heparin. Unfortunately, the concentrations required to achieve this result in the study were so high you can't achieve the same results from drinking green tea alone.
Another benefit to the cardiovascular system from long-term tea drinking is an improvement in your blood pressure readings. One systematic review21 of 25 randomized control trials with 1,476 participants found those who regularly drank either green or black tea for 12 weeks had an average of 2.6 mm Hg lower systolic pressure and 2.2 mm Hg lower diastolic pressure compared to those who did not drink tea.
The researchers measured the effects of green tea and black tea and found that green tea provided the best results, especially in those who drank it for more than 12 weeks. According to the authors, this reduction:22
"... would be expected to reduce stroke risk by 8 percent, coronary artery disease mortality by 5 percent and all-cause mortality by 4 percent at a population level ... These are profound effects and must be considered seriously in terms of the potential for dietary modification to modulate the risk of CVD [cardiovascular disease]."
The data from this literature review did not show exactly how much tea was needed to receive these benefits. However, previous studies have suggested the ideal amount is between three and four cups of tea per day. For example, one study23 in 2007 found clear evidence that three or more cups of tea — in this case, black tea — reduced the risk of heart disease.
Similarly, drinking three to four cups of green tea each day has demonstrated the ability to promote heart and cardiovascular health.24 Improvements in cardiovascular health may be the result of beneficial effects on endothelial function, which is integral to blood pressure and heart disease.25
Resveratrol is produced by the plant to resist disease. While it is found in grapes and berries, it's also produced by the cacao plant and found in raw cacao and dark chocolate. Although red wine does have some resveratrol, it is in such small amounts you can't drink enough to get the benefits.26
It's also important to remember that alcohol damages your brain and organs, and is itself a neurotoxin. This means drinking enough red wine for the benefits of resveratrol is counterproductive.
Resveratrol can cross the blood-brain barrier where it has a dramatic effect as an antioxidant. Researchers from Georgetown University Medical Center write that resveratrol, when given to people with Alzheimer's, appears to “restore the integrity of the blood-brain barrier, reducing the ability of harmful immune molecules secreted by immune cells to infiltrate from the body into brain tissue.”27
The ability to improve cerebral blood flow is likely the basis for the neuroprotective effects of improving cerebral blood flow and cognitive performance,28 depression,29 brain inflammation30 and may improve learning, mood and memory.31
Researchers are also investigating resveratrol’s use against lung cancer when the compound is administered nasally in high doses.32 In one study33 conducted at the University of Newcastle, researchers detected improvements in bone density in postmenopausal women who were given resveratrol.
In the study, called “Resveratrol for Healthy Ageing in Women (RESHAW),” women took 75 milligrams (mg) of resveratrol twice daily or a placebo for 12 months, after which researchers measured their bone density by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans, commonly called DXA scans.34
"The modest increase in bone mineral density at the femoral neck with resveratrol resulted in an improvement in the study population’s T-score and a reduction in the 10-year probability of major fracture risk," said Peter Howe, an author of the study and Professor Emeritus at the university.35
In addition to the neurological, cardiovascular, bone and other health benefits of these powerful phytonutrients, they also play a role in supporting your immune system. During cold and flu season, and during the current COVID-19 pandemic, providing added support to your immune system may help protect your health.
Resveratrol is known to play a role in the prevention and progression of inflammatory chronic diseases such as obesity, neurodegeneration and diabetes.36 Evidence also shows it modulates your immune system by interfering with pro-inflammatory cytokines synthesis, modulating immune cell function related to the production of cytokines by CD4 and CD8 T-cells.37
In 2017, resveratrol was tested against Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in the laboratory and found it significantly inhibited infection and lengthened cell survival after infection.38
One 2015 study40 found green tea was also able to help with dental issues. After 28 days of using a 2% green tea mouthwash, the data revealed those using the green tea had a reduction of plaque and their gingivitis scores.
Evidence has also suggested there is an antifungal activity of EGCG that is four times higher than that of the drug fluconazole and up to 16 times higher than flucytosine.41 Another study42 demonstrated a foot bath infused with green tea polyphenols could significantly reduce infected areas of people with interdigital tinea pedis, or athlete's foot.
The topical application of a green tea ointment also demonstrated an effective cure rate of 81.3% for people with impetigo.43 Interestingly, the antiviral and antifungal effects of green tea do not appear to have the same antibacterial effect on your intestinal tract.44
EGCG is sensitive to brewing temperature. To release the most from your tea leaves, brew your green tea at 100 degrees Celsius or 212 degrees Fahrenheit.45 Try drinking it while it's freshly brewed to get the most health benefits, rather than tea that may have been sitting for a few hours. Consider adding a spritz of citrus juice to boost the benefits and increase the catechin absorption.46
Source: mercola rss
“Bill Gates — What You Were Not Told,” a segment of the Plandemic documentary,1 reviews the personal and professional background of the Microsoft mogul, Bill Gates. Contrary to popular myth, many see Gates as more of an opportunist than a genius inventor, and the video touches on several of the less honorable moments of his career.
After years of building a reputation as a “ruthless tech monopolizer,” Bill Gates 2.0 was launched with the creation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. With this foundation, he reinvented and rebranded himself as one of the world’s most generous philanthropists.
Alas, as noted by AGRA Watch,2 Shiva Vandana, Ph.D., and others, Gates’ brand of philanthropy creates several new problems for each one it solves and can best be described as “philanthrocapitalism.” As noted in the AGRA Watch article, “Philanthrocapitalism: The Gates Foundation’s African Programs Are Not Charity,” published in December 2017, advocates of philanthrocapitalism:3
“… often expect financial returns or secondary benefits over the long term from their investments in social programs. Philanthropy becomes another part of the engine of profit and corporate control. The Gates Foundation's strategy for 'development' actually promotes neoliberal economic policies and corporate globalization.”
Indeed, over the years, Gates has ended up in a position where he monopolizes or wields disproportional influence over not only the tech industry, but also global health and vaccines, agriculture and food policy (including biopiracy and fake food), weather modification and other climate technologies,4 surveillance, education and media.
Not surprisingly, he’s tied to online fact checker organizations that strangle free speech, and recently told “60 Minutes” that to combat mistrust in science, we need to find ways to “slow down the crazy stuff.”5 What’s “crazy” and what’s not, however, is rarely as clear-cut as the mainstream media would like you to believe.
And, like a true philanthrocapitalist, Gates’ generosity ends up benefiting himself most of all. As discussed in “Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?” the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donates billions to the very same companies and industries that the foundation owns stocks and bonds in.
As Gates himself reveals in the featured video, he figured out that vaccines are phenomenal profit makers, saying they’re the best investment he’s ever made, with more than a 20-to-1 return. The one thing that allows for this is the liability shield vaccine makers have been given by the government.
As mentioned in the featured video, Gates is financing an effort to divert solar rays from the Earth’s surface in an attempt to combat global warming — an irrational approach at best, considering the potential this has to devastate global agriculture.
His latest book also details his climate change recommendations, which just so happen to include urging governments to support the very companies he’s invested in and similar sleight-of-hand gestures.
Meanwhile, as noted by The Nation, Gates himself is a serious polluter, with a 66,000 square-foot mansion, a private jet, 242,000 acres of farmland (which makes him the largest farmland owner in the U.S.) and investments in fossil fuel-dependent industries such as airlines, heavy machinery and cars.
“According to a 2019 academic study6 looking at extreme carbon emissions from the jet-setting elite, Bill Gates’s extensive travel by private jet likely makes him one of the world’s top carbon contributors — a veritable super emitter,” The Nation writes.7
“In the list of 10 celebrities investigated — including Jennifer Lopez, Paris Hilton, and Oprah Winfrey — Gates was the source of the most emissions. ‘Affluent individuals can emit several ten thousand times the amount of greenhouse gases attributed to the global poor,’ the paper noted. ‘This raises the question as to whether celebrity climate advocacy is even desirable …’”
Gates’ focus on climate change makes perfect sense once you realize that he’s part of the technocratic elite that, for decades, have been working to gobble up the world’s resources in anticipation for the Great Reset, previously known as the One World Order.
Over the past year, the need for the Great Reset has been announced by government leaders around the world, the clarion call being that we need to “reset” the global economy and the way we live, work, travel and socialize in order to make the world more fair and sustainable. Addressing climate change under the banner of a global emergency is part and parcel of that PR campaign.
If you’ve paid attention, you’ve probably seen the hints. During the initial lockdowns in the early part of 2020, there were a slew of articles talking about how nature and wildlife were thriving in the absence of human socialization and travel. At other times, the COVID-19 pandemic has been presented as a warning to us all as to what happens when you get out of sync with nature.
Gates clearly feels pressure to do his part to realize the technocratic dream. He told “60 Minutes”8 he is eager to see his various visions come to fruition within his lifetime, and he guesses he might have 20 or 30 years left. As reported by ZeroHedge:9
“Gates is pushing drastic and 'fundamental' changes to the economy in order to immediately halt the release of greenhouse gasses — primarily carbon dioxide— and 'go to zero' in order to save the planet from long-prognosticated (and consistently wrong) environmental disaster. Changes we'll need to make in order to realize Gates' vision include:
And since producing plants to make fake meat emits gases as well, Gates has backed a company which uses fungus to make sausage and yogurt, which the billionaire calls ‘pretty amazing’ … ‘The microbe was discovered in the ground in a geyser in Yellowstone National Park. Without soil or fertilizer it can be grown to produce this nutritional protein — that can then be turned into a variety of foods with a small carbon footprint.’"
Indeed, Gates would like wealthy Western nations to switch entirely to synthetic lab-grown beef, and rails against legislative attempts to make sure fake meats are properly labeled as such, since that slows down public acceptance.10
With his land ownership, Gates clearly is in a monopoly position (yet again!) to drive agriculture and food production in whatever direction he desires, and he wants us all to eat as much fake food as possible. As noted in a long and detailed article on Gates’ philanthrocapitalist endeavors by The Defender:11
“Thomas Jefferson believed that the success of America’s exemplary struggle to supplant the yoke of European feudalism with a noble experiment in self-governance depended on the perpetual control of the nation’s land base by tens of thousands of independent farmers, each with a stake in our democracy.
So at best, Gates’ campaign to scarf up America’s agricultural real estate is a signal that feudalism may again be in vogue. At worst, his buying spree is a harbinger of something far more alarming — the control of global food supplies by a power-hungry megalomaniac with a Napoleon complex.”
The article goes on to detail Gates’ “long-term strategy of mastery over agriculture and food production globally,” starting with his support of GMOs in 1994. Ever since then, Gates’ “philanthropic” approaches to hunger and food production have been built around his technology, chemical, pharmaceutical and oil industry partners, thereby ensuring that for every failed rescue venture, he gets richer nonetheless.
“As with Gates’ African vaccine enterprise, there was neither internal evaluation nor public accountability,” The Defender writes.12 “The 2020 study ‘False Promises: The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)’ is the report card on the Gates’ cartel’s 14-year effort.
The investigation concludes that the number of Africans suffering extreme hunger has increased by 30 percent in the 18 countries that Gates targeted. Rural poverty has metastasized dramatically …
Under Gates’ plantation system, Africa’s rural populations have become slaves on their own land to a tyrannical serfdom of high-tech inputs, mechanization, rigid schedules, burdensome conditionalities, credits and subsidies … The only entities benefiting from Gates’ program are his international corporate partners …
His investment history suggests that the climate crisis, for Gates and his cronies, is no more than an alibi for intrusive social control, ‘Great Reset’-scale surveillance, and massive science fiction geoengineering boondoggles, including his demented and terrifying vanity projects to spray the stratosphere with calcium chloride or seawater to slow warming, to deploy giant balloons to saturate our atmosphere with reflective particles to blot out the sun, or his perilous gambit of releasing millions of genetically modified mosquitoes in South Florida.
When we place these nightmare schemes in context alongside the battery of experimental vaccines he forces on 161 million African children annually, it’s pretty clear that Gates regards us all as his lab rats.”
Gates, of course, has also played a leading role in the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel who has a channel on Substack,13 Gates had a hand in the “criminally negligent coronavirus response policies” that killed an inordinate number of senior citizens in nursing homes in New York, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Schachtel points out that a common thread in these instances is that they listened to the frightfully inaccurate modeling forecasts from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), which is funded and controlled by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He writes:14
“In March and early April, politicians were informed by the modeling ‘experts’ at Gates-funded IHME that their hospitals were about to be completely overrun by coronavirus patients.
Modelers from IHME claimed this massive surge would cause hospitals to run out of lifesaving equipment in a matter of days, not weeks or months. Time was of the essence, and now was the time for rapid decision making, the modelers claimed.
On two separate April 1 and April 2 press conferences, Cuomo made clear that his policy decisions were based off of the IHME model … In an April 9 briefing, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer referred to the IHME model in order to project deaths and the PPE resources needed for the supposed surge. It was the same story with the government of Pennsylvania.”
White House Coronavirus Task Force members Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx, both of whom have substantial ties to Gates, also relied on the IHME forecast models. As noted by Schachtel:
“These models, and the policy decisions that were made by relying on them, set off a chain of events that led to indefinite lockdowns, complete business closures, statewide curfews, and most infamously, the nursing home death warrants.”
The Gates Foundation also co-sponsored Event 201, a scripted tabletop exercise held mere months before the COVID-19 outbreak that ended up being remarkably prophetic.
Strangely enough, in an April 2020 BBC interview, Gates denied the simulation had occurred, saying that “We didn’t simulate this, we didn’t practice, so both the health policies and economic policies, we find ourselves in uncharted territory.”15 In an article for National Herald India, Norbert Häring highlights Gates’ apparent forgetfulness, stating:16
“It is true that if a little less emphasis had been placed on opinion manipulation, more attention could have been paid to health and economic policy. One of the four meetings was entirely devoted to this. But health and economic policies did get discussed. Gates can hardly have forgotten that.
The video on control of public opinion is the most interesting one, as it helps to put in perspective the efforts in this regard, which we are currently experiencing. One participant tells us that Bill Gates is financing work on algorithms which comb through the information on social media platforms to make sure that people can trust the information that they find there.”
Gates has also erased other evidence where the truth is coming back to haunt him. Case in point: Gates-funded fact checkers have vehemently denied claims that Gates ever said we’ll need digital vaccine passports, passing it off as yet another crazy conspiracy theory.
But Gates did say that in a June 2020 TED Talk. Someone just edited that specific statement out of his speech after the quote started making the rounds on social media. In a December 11, 2020, article, The Defender presented the proof.17
Fact checkers also dismiss claims that subdermal microchips or digital tattoos will eventually be used to track and trace us, yet as noted by The Defender, Gates did commission MIT to develop an injectable quantum dot dye system to “tattoo” medical data on your body, and has patented technology that uses implanted biosensors that monitor body and brain activity and is tied to a crypto currency system.
He’s also invested tens of millions into microchip devices with remote-controlled drug-delivery systems, military contractors that track and trace pandemic infections and vaccine compliance, and has a greater than $1 billion investment in 5G video surveillance satellites and 5G antennas. When you put all of these things together, Gates’ plans start to take on a rather ominous feel.
Whether preplanned or not, the COVID-19 pandemic is clearly being used to usher in highly controversial changes that are unmistakably totalitarian-building, including the private take-over of government through public-private partnerships.
Surveillance has become the biggest for-profit industry on the planet, and your entire existence is now being targeted for profit. Among those who stand to profit the most is Gates himself.
For a better understanding of what you’re giving up by going along with the mainstream narrative that we need Big Tech to save us, see my article about social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff and her extraordinary book, "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism."
You also won’t want to miss my interview with Patrick Wood, featured in “The Pressing Dangers of Technocracy.” He paints a picture that can be hard to swallow, especially if you’re just coming around to hearing about all of this for the first time, but it’s really crucial that everyone begin to understand what we’re facing.
Time is running out. To have any chance of stopping it, we must understand our trajectory, and unite to change the course Gates and others like him have set for us.
Source: mercola rss
Ubiquitous exposure to phthalates, found in everything from food packaging to personal care products, is putting children’s brain development at risk, according to Project TENDR (Targeting Environmental Neuro-Development Risks), a collaboration of scientists, health professionals and advocates for children and the environment.1
The group formed in 2015 due to concerns that toxic environmental chemicals were playing a role in neurodevelopmental disorders including autism, attention deficits, hyperactivity, intellectual disability and learning disorders.
Recently, they’ve honed in on phthalates, finding that enough evidence exists to call for immediate action to protect children’s brains from exposure to this harmful class of chemicals.2
Phthalates are high-production volume chemicals used frequently as plasticizers in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and other plastics.
An estimated 8.4 million metric tons of plasticizers, including phthalates, are used worldwide each year,3 with phthalate production amounting to about 4.9 million metric tons annually.4 The Norwegian Institute of Public Health found that 90% of those tested from 2016 to 2017 had eight different plasticizers in their urine.5
In a peer-reviewed article published in the American Journal of Public Health, members of Project TENDR came to the conclusion that exposure to ortho-phthalates can impair brain development, increasing children’s risk of learning, attention and behavioral disorders.
They cite data from longitudinal birth cohort studies that show associations between exposure to phthalates in utero and the following health conditions:6
Other behavioral problems
Adverse cognitive development
Poorer psychomotor development
Impaired social communication
According to the report, more than 30 published studies from 11 different countries have measured prenatal phthalate exposure with the children being followed for alterations in neonatal behavior, cognitive development, executive function, social behavior and more.
“The most consistent pattern across multiple studies is associations with behaviors commonly associated with ADHD (including hyperactivity, aggression/defiance and emotional reactivity), deficits in executive function or ADHD clinical diagnosis,” the researchers noted.7
In one example, children born to mothers that were in the highest quintile of urinary phthalate levels (specifically, DEHP metabolites) during the second trimester of pregnancy were nearly three times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD compared to children born to mothers in the lowest quintile.8
Prenatal exposure to phthalates, especially metabolites of DBP and DEHP, has also been linked to a range of additional problem behaviors such as an increased likelihood of delinquent behaviors and more aggressive behaviors,9 along with reductions in child perceptual reasoning, lowered IQ by seven points, anxiety and poorer working memory.10
There are several sensitive windows of exposure to phthalates, including prenatally and postnatally into adolescence and potentially adulthood. The ongoing development of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus and cerebellum, during these periods make it especially vulnerable to exposures to phthalates toxicities.
The mechanisms behind phthalates’ harms are varied, but the chemicals are known to disrupt organization and function of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, the system responsible for the management of stress and involved in the regulation of immune function and metabolic homeostasis. They may also inhibit fetal testosterone production and may also have antiestrogenic effects,11 which could have repercussions for brain plasticity.12
“The hippocampus and, consequently, aspects of neural plasticity, cognitive flexibility, anxiety-like behavior, learning and memory, are thought to be particularly vulnerable to phthalates,” the team noted,13 adding that phthalates may also cause harm by disrupting thyroid hormone pathways and altering lipid metabolism and ion homeostasis, including calcium signaling and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors activation. They noted:14
“Given the widespread exposures to phthalates, including among women and children, and the limited existing US regulations, none of which focus on pregnant women, health-protective regulatory actions are required to eliminate these potentially harmful exposures.”
While the U.S. put restrictions on the use of eight phthalates in children’s toys and other child care items, this is being legally challenged by the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council and other industry groups.15
Further federal regulation of the chemicals remains lax and, in fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of 28 phthalates for use as food additives in food contact products, such as cellophane, paper and paperboard, coating agents and binders.
Environmental and public health organizations submitted petitions asking the FDA to eliminate its approval of the 28 phthalates as food additives but the FDA did not meet the statutory deadline for final decision.16
As a result, diet continues to be a significant route of exposure to phthalates, since the chemicals can leach into food not only from food packaging commonly used by fast food and take-out restaurants but also from plastic equipment used in food production, such as commercial dairy, conveyor belts and food preparation gloves.17
Another common route of exposure is from building supplies, including vinyl flooring and wall coverings, which allow phthalates to migrate into household dust and indoor air. They’re also widely used in personal care products and cosmetics, including nail polish, fragrance, lotion and hair products.
“Overall, women have higher exposure to phthalates found in personal care products than men,” the report noted, which is especially problematic since “[p]hthalates are readily transferred from mother to fetus during pregnancy.”18
Because people are exposed to multiple phthalates simultaneously, the report called for regulation of the chemicals as a class and policy reforms to eliminate the chemicals from products that lead to exposure in pregnant women, women of reproductive age, infants and children.
“We're exposed to multiple phthalates, and that mixture can come within a single product, but also across multiple products that people are exposed to in a day," lead author Stephanie Engel told CNN. "The reality is that we need to think of phthalates as a class because that's how people are exposed to them.”19
Reviewing the chemicals as a class would also prevent manufacturers from simply swapping one phthalate with another, similar to what occurred with bisphenol-A and bisphenol-S. Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, told CNN:20
"This is the whole history of these chemicals, whether you call it 'whack a mole' or 'chemical conveyor belt' or 'unfortunate substitution.' We move from one chemical that we have concerns about to another one which we just haven't studied yet, which often turns out to be just as problematic.
We can't continue to test these things one at a time. I could make an argument that if one chemical can be substituted for another without changing the process, then why would you think the biology would be different?"
While industry groups have pushed back due to the “costs” associated with removing the chemicals, some retailers and manufacturers have already taken voluntary action to replace them. Home Depot introduced policy to restrict phthalates in vinyl flooring and wall-to-wall carpeting, for instance, and Apple removed the class of chemicals from nearly all of its products.21
In a perspective article published in the journal Science, Dick Vethaak from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Juliette Legler from Utrecht University in the Netherlands suggest that ubiquitous exposure to microplastics, including plastic particles smaller than 5 millimeters and nanosized plastics smaller than 1 µm, represent another significant risk to human health.22,23
Exposure occurs via both inhalation and ingestion and is the result of the continual breakdown of plastic products such as car tires, clothing, paint coatings and more, which comes in shapes such as spheres, fragments and fibers. The plastics contain mixtures of chemicals, including additives and other environmental contaminants.
“[A] growing body of evidence suggests widespread exposure to microplastics from various foods, drinking water and air,” the researchers noted, adding that microplastics may cause physical, chemical and microbiological toxicity in humans, with the toxic effects acting cumulatively.
In addition, chemical toxicity could also occur since microplastics may act as “vectors to transfer exogenous hazardous chemicals, proteins and toxins present in or on the particles into the body.”24 They pointed out a little-known and understudied potential hazard as well — the presence of an eco- or biocornoa, which are substances on the surface of the plastic particle that could interfere with normal particle uptake:25
“Before crossing the epithelial barriers in the lung and intestine, microplastics are trapped in the mucus layer covering the cells, whereas ingested particles have to pass through acidic conditions in the stomach and intestinal lumen.
The role of the changing composition of the eco- or biocorona acquired by microparticles, from the outside to the inside of the body, across tissue barriers, and the underlying mechanisms in mediating uptake and toxicity are poorly understood and deserve more study.”
In a study at University of Newcastle, Australia, researchers quantified what microplastic exposure may mean for humans, revealing a shocking finding that the average person could be eating about 5 grams of plastic per week — about the amount found in one credit card.26
While environmental groups have called for national targets for plastic reduction, recycling and management, along with an international treaty to stop plastic pollution in the oceans, don’t underestimate the impact one person — you — can have by making simple tweaks to your daily life.
By avoiding the use of single-use plastics like straws, utensils, bags and bottles, and seeking to purchase products that are not made from or packaged in plastic, you can make a dent in the amount of plastic waste and pollution being produced.
You can take steps to reduce your exposure to phthalates and other plasticizers by making small changes in your everyday routine. This includes:
Avoid plastic containers and plastic wrap for food and personal care products. Store food and drinks in glass containers instead.
Avoid plastic children's toys. Use toys made of natural substances, such as wood and organic materials.
Read labels on your cosmetics and avoid those containing phthalates.
Avoid products labeled with “fragrance,” including air fresheners, as this catch-all term may include phthalates commonly used to stabilize the scent and extend the life of the product.
Read labels looking for PVC-free products, including children's lunch boxes, backpacks and storage containers.
Do not microwave food in plastic containers or covered in plastic wrap.
Frequently vacuum and dust rooms with vinyl blinds, wallpaper, flooring and furniture that may contain phthalates, as the chemical collects in dust and is easily ingested by children.
Ask your pharmacist if your prescription pills are coated to control when they dissolve as the coating may contain phthalates.
Eat mostly fresh, raw whole foods. Food packaging is often a source of phthalates.
Use glass baby bottles instead of plastic. Breastfeed exclusively for the first year, if you can, to avoid plastic nipples and bottles altogether.
Remove your fruit and vegetables from plastic bags immediately after coming home from the grocery store and wash before storing them; alternatively, use cloth bags to bring home your produce.
Cash register receipts are heat printed and often contain BPA. Handle the receipt as little as possible and ask the store to switch to BPA-free receipts.
Use natural cleaning products or make your own.
Replace feminine hygiene products with safer alternatives.
Avoid fabric softeners and dryer sheets; make your own to reduce static cling.
Check your home's tap water for contaminants and filter the water if necessary.
Teach your children not to drink from the garden hose, as many hoses contain plasticizers such as phthalates.
Use reusable shopping bags for groceries.
Take your own non-plastic leftovers container to restaurants. Avoid disposable utensils and straws.
Bring your own mug for coffee and bring drinking water from home in glass water bottles instead of buying bottled water.
Consider switching to bamboo toothbrushes and brushing your teeth with coconut oil and baking soda to avoid plastic toothpaste tubes.
Source: mercola rss
The flaws of vaccine trials in general are really highlighted by current COVID-19 vaccine studies, one of the most egregious ones being the fact that vaccine makers rarely use inert placebos (such as a saline shot), which is the gold standard for drug trials.
As noted in a January 25, 2021, article in The Defender,1 vaccine developers typically assess the safety of a new vaccine against another vaccine, and by so doing, they effectively hide side effects as most vaccines have side effects and risks.
As just one example, the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is being tested against a meningitis vaccine,2 which just so happens to share many of the side effects reported from COVID-19 vaccines. As reported by the National Vaccine Information Center:3
"According to the CDC, at least 50% of individuals receiving meningococcal vaccines targeting meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y, and W-135 (Menactra or Menveo) experience mild side effects …
Adverse events reported by Sanofi Pasteur in the Menactra vaccine product insert include … headache; fatigue … joint pain; chills; anaphylaxis; wheezing; upper airway swelling; difficulty breathing; hypotension … lymph node swelling; Guillain-Barre syndrome; convulsions; dizziness; facial palsy; vasovagal syncope; paresthesia; transverse myelitis; acute disseminated encephalomyelitis …
Adverse events reported by Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics (GlaxoSmithKline) in the pre-licensing clinical trials of Menveo vaccine include … headache; joint and muscle pain; malaise; nausea; chills … acute disseminated encephalomyelitis … pneumonia … suicidal depression and suicide attempts."
Now, Pfizer and Moderna have started offering placebo recipients in their trials the real mRNA gene therapy, which means it will be even more difficult to tease out which side effects are actually caused by the shot and which ones aren't, over the long term. As reported by NPR, February 17, 2021:4
"Tens of thousands of people who volunteered to participate in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine studies are still participating in follow-up research, though that's somewhat hampered because many people who had been given a placebo shot opted to take the vaccine instead."
In fact, according to Dr. Carlos Fierro, who runs the clinical trial for the Moderna vaccine in Lenexa, Kansas, virtually all of the 650 volunteers who initially received the placebo have now opted to get the real vaccine, which means he had "essentially no comparison group left for the ongoing study," which was slated to run for two full years.
As Dr. Steven Goodman at Stanford University told NPR,5 getting rid of the initial control groups makes it far more difficult to assess the safety and effectiveness of the COVID vaccines since they won't have anything to compare the vaccine recipients against.
Ironically, both the use of an active placebo and the elimination of control groups are being justified on "moral grounds" by pro-vaccine advocates who say it's unethical to not provide volunteers with something of value, such as another vaccine in the case of active placebos, or a vaccine they know is effective in the case of giving placebo recipients the real McCoy.
Both of these arguments are beyond questionable. As mentioned, no vaccine is 100% safe, so getting an active vaccine placebo comes with risk, not merely benefit, and when it comes to the novel mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines, historical data are troubling to say the least, and the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is rapidly filling up with COVID-19 vaccine-related injury reports and deaths.
As reported in "COVID-19 Vaccine To Be Tested on 6-Year-Olds," as of February 4, 2021, VAERS had received 12,697 injury reports and 653 deaths following COVID-19 vaccination.6 Even more telling, between January 2020 and January 2021, COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of the annual vaccine deaths, even though these vaccines had only been available for less than two months!
What's more, previous research7 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are ever reported to VAERS, so in reality, we may be looking at more than 1 million COVID-19 vaccine injuries within the first two months of their release.
In my view, the data are far from assuring overall, which makes the elimination of long-term control groups — flawed as they may be due to active placebo use — all the more troubling.
Historically, previous attempts to create a coronavirus vaccine have all failed miserably, as they ended up creating devastating immune enhancement. This is why any and all short-cuts taken in the COVID-19 vaccine development is so troubling.
In my May 2020 interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., he summarized the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began in 2002, following three consecutive SARS outbreaks. By 2012, Chinese, American and European scientists were working on SARS vaccine development, and had about 30 promising candidates.
Of those, the four best vaccine candidates were then given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. In the video above, which is a select outtake from my full interview, Kennedy explains what happened next.
While the ferrets displayed robust antibody response, which is the metric used for vaccine licensing, once they were challenged with the wild virus, they were overtaken by a cytokine storm response, known as paradoxical immune enhancement, became severely ill and died.
The same thing happened when they tried to develop a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine in the 1960s. RSV is an upper respiratory illness that is very similar to that caused by coronaviruses.
At that time, they had decided to skip animal trials and go directly to human trials. The RSV vaccine was tested on about 35 children, with identical results. Initially, they developed a robust antibody response, but when challenged with the wild virus, all became ill and two died. The vaccine was abandoned.
Despite such dire failures, some still argue that placebo arms aren't needed in COVID-19 vaccine trials. In an opinion piece in STAT News,8 Kent Peacock, a professor of philosophy, and John Vokey, a professor of psychology, both from the University of Lethbridge, compare the use of placebo control groups with giving out dummy parachutes during wartime.
"Giving the real treatment to 100% of the volunteers removes one of the major ethical barriers to challenge trials: the high probability of harmful side effects or death to members of a control group," they say, completely ignoring the fact that volunteers in the vaccine arm may be put at grave unknown risks, not just in the short term but in the long term as well.
This entire argument hinges on the idea that the vaccine being tested is KNOWN to be safe, which it absolutely is not at this point, and won't be for many years. They even argue that "not using a placebo … would be less ethically questionable to test the vaccine on older participants."
Well, they published that article in early September 2020, and now we can more or less conclusively state that they are wrong on this point, as older vaccine recipients have been dropping like flies.
As reported by Brian Shilhavy, editor of Health Impact News, February 19, 2021:9
"Earlier this week we published10 the English translation of a video in German that attorney Reiner Fuellmich published with a whistleblower who works in a nursing home where several residents were injected with the experimental COVID mRNA shots against their will, and where many of them died a short time later.
Since that interview was published, other whistleblowers in Germany who work in nursing homes have also stepped forward, some with video footage showing residents being held down and vaccinated against their wish ...
Fuellmich … stated: 'We are getting more and more calls from other whistleblowers form other nursing homes in this country, plus we're getting information from other countries, Sweden for example, Norway … Gibraltar … here are also incidents in England and in the United States that match these descriptions …
It means that people are dying because of the vaccines. What we are seeing in this video clip is worse than anything we ever expected. If this is representative for what's going on in other nursing homes, and in other countries, then we have a very serious problem.
And so do the people who make the vaccines, so do the people who administer the vaccines. It looks more and more as though we're dealing with homicide, and maybe even murder.'"
It's important to realize what mRNA and DNA COVID-19 vaccine actually are. They are not traditional vaccines made with live or attenuated viruses. They're actually gene therapies. They don't even meet the medical or legal definition of a vaccine, as detailed in "COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines." This novel, never before used therapy has a long list of potential problems, including the following:
The messenger RNA (mRNA) used in many COVID-19 vaccines are synthetic. Your body sees these synthetic particles as non-self, which can cause autoantibodies to attack your own tissues. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained this in her interview, featured in "How COVID-19 Vaccines May Destroy the Lives of Millions."
Your body also views free mRNA as a warning signal to your immune system, as they drive inflammatory diseases. This is why making synthetic mRNA thermostable, meaning it doesn't break down as easily as it normally would by encasing the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles is likely to be problematic.
COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, and PEG is known to cause anaphylaxis.11
Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic.12
The synthetic RNA influences, in part, the gene syncytin. According to Mikovits, when syncytin is aberrantly expressed in the brain, you can develop multiple sclerosis. Expression of the syncytin gene also inflames and dysregulates communication between the brain microglia, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain. It also dysregulates your immune system and your endocannabinoid system, which is the dimmer switch on inflammation.
The synthetic mRNA also has an HIV envelope expressed in it, which can cause immune dysregulation.
Commonly reported side effects among recipients of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines include:
Persistent malaise13,14 and extreme exhaustion15
Persistent headache and migraine onset16
Severe allergic, including anaphylactic reactions17,18,19
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome20
Seizures and convulsions21,22
Paralysis,23 including Bell's Palsy24
Swollen lymph nodes25
Sudden death within hours or days26,27,28,29,30
Many of these symptoms are suggestive of neurological damage. According to Mikovits, this is precisely what you'd expect, as these conditions are caused by neuroinflammation, a dysregulated innate immune response and/or disrupted endocannabinoid system.
Long term, Mikovits predicts we'll see a significant uptick in migraines, tics, Parkinson's disease, microvascular disorders, cancers, severe pain syndromes like fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, bladder problems, kidney disease, psychosis, neurodegenerative diseases such as Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS) and sleep disorders.
If you got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you'd use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection.
I've written many articles over the past year detailing simple strategies to improve your immune system, and with a healthy immune system, you'll get through COVID-19 without incident. Below, I'll summarize some of the strategies you can use both to prevent COVID-19 and address any side effects you may encounter from the vaccine.
• Eat a "clean," ideally organic diet. Avoid processed foods of all kinds, especially vegetable oils, as they are loaded with damaging omega-6 linoleic acid that wrecks your mitochondrial function. Linoleic acid has been shown to increase mortality from COVID-19.
• Consider nutritional ketosis and time-restricted eating, both of which will help you optimize your metabolic machinery and mitochondrial function.
• Implement a detoxification program to get rid of heavy metals and glyphosate. This is important as these toxins contribute to inflammation. To improve detoxification, I recommend activating your natural glutathione production with molecular hydrogen tablets.
A simple way to block glyphosate uptake is to take glycine. Approximately 3 grams, about half a teaspoon, a few times a day should be sufficient, along with an organic diet, so that you're not adding more glyphosate with each meal.
• Maintain a neutral pH to improve the resiliency of your immune system. You want your pH to be right around 7, which you can measure with an inexpensive urine strip. The lower your pH, the more acidic you are. A simple way to raise your pH if it's too acidic (and most people are) is to take one-fourth teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) or potassium bicarbonate in water a few times a day.
Nutritional supplementation can also be helpful. Among the most important are:
Vitamin D — Vitamin D supplements are readily available and one of the least expensive supplements on the market. All things considered, vitamin D optimization is likely the easiest and most beneficial strategy that anyone can do to minimize their risk of COVID-19 and other infections, and can strengthen your immune system in a matter of a few weeks.
N-acetylcysteine (NAC) — NAC is a precursor to reduced glutathione, which appears to play a crucial role in COVID-19. According to one literature analysis,31 glutathione deficiency may actually be associated with COVID-19 severity, leading the author to conclude that NAC may be useful both for its prevention and treatment.
Zinc — Zinc plays a very important role in your immune system's ability to ward off viral infections. Like vitamin D, zinc helps regulate your immune function32 — and a combination of zinc with a zinc ionophore, like hydroxychloroquine or quercetin, was in 2010 shown to inhibit SARS coronavirus in vitro. In cell culture, it also blocked viral replication within minutes.33 Importantly, zinc deficiency has been shown to impair immune function.34
Melatonin — Boosts immune function in a variety of ways and helps quell inflammation. Melatonin may also prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection by recharging glutathione35 and enhancing vitamin D synthesis, among other things.
Vitamin C — A number of studies have shown vitamin C can be very helpful in the treatment of viral illnesses, sepsis and ARDS,36 all of which are applicable to COVID-19. Its basic properties include anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, antioxidant, antithrombotic and antiviral activities. At high doses, it actually acts as an antiviral drug, actively inactivating viruses. Vitamin C also works synergistically with quercetin.37
Quercetin — A powerful immune booster and broad-spectrum antiviral, quercetin was initially found to provide broad-spectrum protection against SARS coronavirus in the aftermath of the 2003 SARS epidemic,38,39,40 and evidence suggests it may be useful for the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 as well.
B vitamins — B vitamins can also influence several COVID-19-specific disease processes, including41 viral replication and invasion, cytokine storm induction, adaptive immunity and hypercoagulability.
Type 1 interferon — Type 1 interferon prevents viral replication and helps degrade the RNA. It's available in spray form that you can spray directly into your throat, your nose. Mikovits recommends taking a couple of sprays per day prophylactically, and more if you have a cough, fever or headache.
Last but not least, if you or someone you love have received a COVID-19 gene therapy "vaccine" and are experiencing side effects, help raise public awareness of these problems by reporting it. The Children's Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do three things:42
Source: mercola rss
John Edmunds is on top of the world. He's one of the modelling-paper mafiosi. The London, U.K., professor is a key government advisor on COVID-19-related policies. Edmunds also was a co-author of one of the primary modelling papers1 that have been used to convince the masses that vigilance against new variant B.1.1.7 should be their top priority.
And Edmunds co-wrote an influential January 21, 2021 report2 that concluded, "There is a realistic possibility that VOC B.1.1.7 is associated with an increased risk of death compared to non-VOC viruses."
In addition, he speaks often to reporters about the deadliness3 of the new variant.4 Edmunds tells them, for example, that a "disaster"5 would ensue if lockdowns are eased too soon, because what first must be done is to "vaccinate much, much, much more widely than the elderly."6
Edmunds happens to be the spouse of someone who, at least until April 2020, was an employee of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and held shares in the company. (Edmunds doesn't disclose this in any of his media interviews that I've read and watched. He also doesn't disclose his own stock holdings.)
According to an April 2020 Daily Telegraph7 article,8 Edmunds's wife is Jeanne Pimenta and she works for GSK. The Daily Telegraph article states Edmunds asserted his partner had recently resigned from GSK. So it's unclear whether Pimenta currently works there or not.
I did a little digging and found that the only Jeanne Pimenta LinkedIn profile9 indicates she's currently director of epidemiology at GSK, while Jeanne Pimenta's ResearchGate profile10 says she's an epidemiologist at BioMarin Pharmaceutical. (More about Edmunds being married to a present or former Glaxo employee in the next section of this article.)
In any case, GSK's financial success is skyrocketing. On February 311 the company announced it's collaborating with mRNA-vaccine company CureVac to spend 150 million euros — approximately $180 million — to make vaccines for the new variants.
That effectively gives them first-entrant advantage in vaccines for the new variants. And that same February 3 news release12 touts the new-variant vaccines as also able to serve as "booster" shots after the initial rounds of vaccination. In addition, GSK joined forces with CureVac to pump out, later this year, 100 million doses of CureVac's "first-generation" COVID-19 vaccine called "CvnCoV."13
Not only that: this fall14 GSK together with another international pharmaceutical firm, Sanofi, are scheduled to start producing what could turn out to be up to 1 billion doses of their COVID-19 vaccine annually.15 GSK's understated February 3 announcement16 of its Q4 2020 financial results said it will "continue to expect meaningful improvement in revenues and margins" because they are "building a high-value biopharma pipeline."
Note that GSK and other pharma companies17 like Moderna and Pfizer18 are not responsible for damage and compensation payments to people seriously injured and killed by COVID-19 vaccines. Governments19 will pay instead — that is, if those injured and killed and their loved ones are able to beat the long odds20 and get any compensation at all.
And a remarkable February 8, 2021,21 investigative report in the German news outlet Welt Am Sonntag (which translates to World on Sunday) reveals another impetus for the wildly inaccurate modelling governments use to keep populations in a state of fear and control.
The German article shows that in March 2020 government officials enlisted "leading scientists from several research institutes and universities. Together, they were to produce a [mathematical-modelling] paper that would serve as legitimization for further tough political measures."
These scientists obediently wrote a modelling paper tailored to the government's instructions. The then-secret paper asserted that if lockdown measures were lifted immediately, up to 1 million Germans would die from COVID-19, some "agonizingly at home, gasping for breath," after being turned away from overflowing hospitals.
There's still more to the web of money and influence surrounding Edmunds and other modelling-paper mafiosi, including Neil Ferguson.
The first new-variant modelling paper Edmunds co-wrote, which was posted on December 23, 202022 was co-authored with his fellow members of the Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). People in the center's COVID-19 Working Group also contributed.
The modelling paper was posted on the e-journal medrχiv, which publishes only non-peer-reviewed papers. The journal is the creation of an organization led by Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg and his wife.23 I discuss medrχiv and the Zuckerberg connection in my February 3 article24 on the baselessness for the modelling papers that claim the new variants are very dangerous.
Edmunds also is dean of the LSHTM's Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health. I contacted the institution's media-relations department to request an interview with one of the December 23, 2020, modelling paper's authors. I didn't receive a response.
In a February 2017 video interview,25 Edmunds enthused that the LSHTM specializes in every aspect of vaccine development, from basic science to large-scale clinical trials.
In the video he also touts using mathematical modelling as a good way to show that vaccines protect individuals and society. (And among other things he describes his group's efforts in giving children flu vaccines and — in conjunction with Public Health England — promoting human papillomavirus [HPV] vaccines for girls and boys.)
In addition, Edmunds is a key member of the UK Vaccine Network26 (which until recently was known as the UK Vaccines Network — the URL for the organization has "UK Vaccines Network"27 in it).
And he's a member of the U.K. government's Science Advisory Group for Emergencies28 (SAGE), which provides COVID-measure advice — much of it related to the unprecedentedly forceful push for mass vaccination — to U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson and his cabinet.
On top of that, Edmunds is a member of the U.K. government's New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG).29 It works hand in hand with SAGE, and it also heavily promotes vaccination.
And as mentioned earlier, Edmunds is married to a current or former GSK employee. A 2015 article that Edmunds co-authored states under "Competing interests" for Edmunds that "My partner works for GSK."30 Similarly, on the NERVTAG website's conflict-disclosure pages — which for some reason haven't been updated since October 201731 — it reveals that Edmunds's spouse works for GSK.
As a quick other note, the "Author Contributions and Acknowledgements" section of the PDF of the December 23 modelling analysis32 of B.1.1.7 (pages 15 and 16) shows that almost all of the paper's authors and members of the modelling center's COVID-19 Working Group receive funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and/or Wellcome Trust. (By the way, a search for Wellcome Trust yields the Wellcome website.33)
And there's more to the Edmunds story. Among other of my finds: he's also on the Scientific Advisory Board34 for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI).35 CEPI was created primarily by the BMGF, the World Economic Forum and the major pharma company Wellcome.
CEPI's website states36 it was "launched in Davos [at the meeting of the World Economic Forum in January] 2017 to develop vaccines to stop future epidemics. Our mission is to accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and enable equitable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks."
Investigative journalist Vanessa Beeley last year wrote a must-read two-part37 analysis of the ties between the key individuals, institutions, companies and funders of the UK's COVID-19 response. She mentioned that GSK is working with CEPI to develop COVID-19 vaccines. This alliance is still going strong38 today.
Note also that the LSHTM's Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, which Edmunds heads, is primarily funded by the BMGF and the Gavi alliance. (Gavi promotes mass vaccination of people around the world — including by quarterbacking the COVAX program.
Gavi's biggest funders include the BMGF. Doctors Without Borders has criticized Gavi39 for being "aimed more at supporting drug-industry desires to promote new products than at finding the most efficient and sustainable means for fighting the diseases of poverty.")
BMGF funding for the LSHTM's Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health is growing very fast. For example, BMGF's new grants to the faculty rose from $4.9 million in 2013-2014 (see page 14 [p. 9 in the PDF] of the LSHTM's 2014 annual report40) to $13.19 million in 2015-2016 (see page 14 [p. 9 in the PDF] of the LSHTM's 2016 annual report41) (top new research grants to each faculty at the LSHTM stopped being reported in the annual reports after 2017).
Funding from the BMGF to the LSHTM as a whole was 30.2 million pounds ($40.2 million) in 2017-2018 (see page 9 [p. 6 in the PDF] in the school's 2018 annual report42). By the way, the LSHTM also has a Vaccines Manufacturing Innovation Centre.43 It develops, tests and commercializes vaccines. (I couldn't find any information on where the vaccines center's funding comes from.)
The vaccines center also performs affiliated activities like combating "vaccine hesitancy." The latter includes the Vaccine Confidence Project.44 The project's stated purpose is,45 among other things, "to provide analysis and guidance for early response and engagement with the public to ensure sustained confidence in vaccines and immunisation."
The Vaccine Confidence Project's director is LSHTM professor Heidi Larson.46 For more than a decade she's been researching how to combat vaccine hesitancy. LSHTM47 underpins the project, which also is a member of the WHO's Vaccine Safety Net.48
Here's information about two other members of this club:
Public Health England (PHE) issued its first detailed report on the new variant in late December 202049 and continues to provide updates.50 None of their reports are peer-reviewed. One of the highest-profile co-authors of the PHE reports is PHE director Susan Hopkins.51 She's also a professor of infectious diseases at Imperial College London.52 The college receives tens of millions of dollars a year from the BMGF.
See for example this grant,53 this one,54 this one55 and this one.56 (I emailed PHE media relations to request an interview about PHE's new-variants reports. PHE communications person Zahra Vindhani responded, "Dr. Hopkins won't have the capacity for this in the upcoming weeks, and we aren't able to confirm anyone else for this either.")
PHE is guided in its approach to vaccination by PHE's "Strategic Priority 1" for combating infectious diseases in 2020 to 2025. It is to "Optimise vaccine provision and reduce vaccine preventable diseases in England" (see p. 9 of PHE's Infectious Disease Strategy 2020-202557).
Neil Ferguson is a co-author of the PHE reports and also of a widely quoted December 31 modelling paper58 on the dangerousness of B.1.1.7. He's acting director of the Imperial College London-based Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium.59
Ferguson's modelling has been extremely faulty again over the years. This has been thoroughly documented. For example, as investigative journalist Beeley wrote in Part One60 of a two-part investigative report in April-May 2020, Ferguson's modelling over-estimated by about 3 million-fold the death toll from the bird flu, also known as H5N1.
As a result, a lot of money was made by bird-flu-vaccine manufacturers, ranging from Roche (for its now-infamous, ineffective Tamiflu61) to Sanofi,62 and they were used widely.63
Ferguson also grossly overestimated the effects of swine flu, or H1N1. As a result, millions of people were needlessly given GSK's Pandemrix.64 It caused brain damage, primarily narcolepsy65 and cataplexy, in hundreds if not thousands of vaccine recipients, mostly children. The pharma giant was granted no fault in any damage claims.66
Therefore the British government paid more than 60 million pounds (approximately $80 million at 2017 conversion rates) to victims.67 (And as mentioned earlier in this article, GSK and other pharma companies68 are similarly protected from having to pay damages to people injured or killed by their COVID-19 vaccines.)
Ferguson also is a member, together with Edmunds and others, of SAGE.69
Another group he's a member of is the highly influential NERVTAG.70 It's the group that issued the January 21, 202171 warning, mentioned earlier in this article, that B.1.1.7 is deadly.
Ferguson is a NERVTAG member even though he was reported to have resigned last spring72 after being caught visiting with his married lover when everyone in England was supposed to only be having contact with members of their own households (based in large part on Ferguson's modelling and his urging the government to lock the country down).
Ferguson also is a member73 of the UK Vaccines Network,74 along with Edmunds and others such as the Network chair Chris Whitty, who's also the U.K. government's top COVID-19 adviser.
The network's focus, according to its website, "to support the [U.K.] government to identify and shortlist targeted investment opportunities for the most promising vaccines and vaccine technologies that will help combat infectious diseases with epidemic potential, and to address structural issues related to the UK's broader vaccine infrastructure."
These ties bind Edmunds, Ferguson and Hopkins — along with the rest of the modelling-paper mafiosi — to the bidding of governments, Big Pharma, Bill Gates and other powerful players. They present an image of being fully devoted to the public good, while in fact actively helping to destroy it.
Editor's Note: This is a reprint of an article by Rosemary Frei. She has a master of science in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary and was a freelance medical journalist for 22 years. She is now an independent investigative journalist in Canada.
Source: mercola rss
You’ve reached the pot of gold and got your hands on either the Lucky, Luckier or Luckiest Essential Oil Blends! […]
Source: plant therapy Blog
1 Recent research found surges in daily positive tests during the fall of 2020 in 18 European countries linearly correlate with:
2 COVID-19 gene therapy "vaccines" are designed to:
3 Vaccine passports are ushering in an ever-increasing surveillance state, which many people are welcoming because they've been led to believe they're:
4 Cost-benefit analyses reveal the cost of lockdowns, in terms of Quality Adjusted Life Years and Wellbeing Years, in the U.S. and Canada are:
5 According to the World Health Organization's investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus most likely originated from which of the following?
6 Which of the following has long-held ties to and deep influence over corporate media in the U.S. and elsewhere?
7 Red and near-infrared light therapy activates genes involved in which of the following?
Source: mercola rss
A number of medical professionals and occupational respirator experts, including Chris Schaefer, featured in the video above, have warned that wearing of face masks may have adverse health effects and that people really should not be forced to wear them on a regular basis.
Aside from that, there’s a glaring lack of evidence proving they actually prevent viral illness. On the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly shows they have little to no impact on viral spread.
Research1 also shows asymptomatic individuals pose virtually no risk, as they rarely ever spread live virus, thereby undermining the idea that everyone must be masked simply because you don’t know who’s infectious and who’s not.
Despite all of that, government officials insist that universal mask wearing is an essential strategy to combat COVID-19, now even recommending wearing two,2 three3,4 or even four5 layers of face masks. And, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Americans may have to wear masks all the way through 2022.6
Just when you thought mainstream propaganda could not propose a greater irrational perversion of the truth, a new study7 from the National Institutes of Health claims wearing a moist mask — which is a breeding ground for harmful bacteria — is actually good for you because inhaling through the wet mask hydrates your lungs and boosts your immune system. As reported by Healthing.ca, February 16, 2021:8
“The study, published in the Biophysical Journal, tested an N95 mask, a three-ply disposable surgical mask, a two-ply cotton-polyester mask and a heavy cotton mask, measuring the level of humidity by having a volunteer breathe into a sealed steel box.
When the person did not wear a mask, the water vapor of the exhaled breath filled the box, leading to a rapid increase in humidity inside the box. When the person wore a mask, the buildup of humidity inside the box greatly decreased as most of the water vapor remained in the mask, became condensed, and was re-inhaled. The researchers conducted the tests at three different temperatures ranging from 7 to 36 degrees Celsius.
‘We found that face masks strongly increase the humidity in inhaled air and propose that the resulting hydration of the respiratory tract could be responsible for the documented finding that links lower COVID-19 disease severity to wearing a mask,’ said Adriaan Bax, Ph.D., a NIH Distinguished Investigator and the study’s lead author.
‘High levels of humidity have been shown to mitigate severity of the flu, and it may be applicable to severity of COVID-19 through a similar mechanism.’”
However, it’s important to realize that the humidity inside the mask will allow pathogenic bacteria to rapidly grow and multiply — a documented fact not addressed by the NIH — and since the mask makes it more difficult to breathe, you’re likely to breathe heavier, thereby risking inhaling the microbes deep inside your lungs. As you’ll see below, this can have significant health risks that vastly outweigh any benefit you might get from breathing more humid air.
In June 2020, Schaefer wrote an open letter9 addressed to the chief medical officer in Alberta, Canada, Dr. Deena Hinshaw, pointing out the errors of recommending universal wearing of N95 masks, surgical masks or nonmedical masks as protection against SARS-CoV-2. In it, he writes:10
“I have been teaching and conducting respirator fit testing for over 20 years and now currently for my company SafeCom Training Services Inc. My clients include many government departments, our military, healthcare providers with Alberta Health Services, educational institutions and private industry. I am a published author and a recognized authority on this subject.
Filter respirator masks, especially N95, surgical and non-medical masks, provide negligible COVID-19 protection for the following reasons:
1. Viruses in the fluid envelopes that surround them can be very small, so small in fact that you would need an electron microscope to see them. N95 masks filter 95% of particles with a diameter of 0.3 microns or larger. COVID-19 particles are .08 – .12 microns.
2. Viruses don’t just enter us through our mouth and nose, but can also enter through our eyes and even the pores of our skin. The only effective barrier one can wear to protect against virus exposure would be a fully encapsulated hazmat suit with cuffs by ankles taped to boots and cuffs by wrists taped to gloves, while receiving breathing air from a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).
This barrier is standard gear to protect against a biohazard (viruses) and would have to be worn in a possible virus hazard environment 24/7 and you wouldn’t be able to remove any part of it even to have a sip of water, eat or use the washroom while in the virus environment. If you did, you would become exposed and would negate all the prior precautions you had taken.”
In his letter, and in the video above, Schaefer also stresses that these kinds of face masks pose “very real risks and possible serious threats to a wearer’s health” for a number of reasons, including the following:
1. Wearing a face mask increases breathing resistance, and since it makes both inhaling and exhaling more difficult, individuals with pre-existing medical conditions need to be screened by a medical professional to make sure they won’t be at risk of a medical emergency if wearing a face mask.
This includes those with shortness of breath, lung disease, panic attacks, breathing difficulties, chest pain on exertion, cardiovascular disease, fainting spells, claustrophobia, chronic bronchitis, heart problems, asthma, allergies, diabetes, seizures, high blood pressure and those with pacemakers. The impact of wearing a face mask during pregnancy is also wholly unknown.
2. Face masks can reduce oxygen intake, leading to potentially hazardous oxygen deficiency (hypoxia).
3. They also cause rapid accumulation of harmful carbon dioxide, which can have significant cognitive and physical impacts. That said, there is some evidence to support that this may be one of the few benefits of mask wearing, as slightly elevated CO2 levels can also contribute to health benefits as per my interview with Patrick McKeown. (We’re not talking about dangerously high levels, however.)
4. Wearing a face mask increases your body temperature and physical stress, which could result in an elevated temperature reading that is not related to infection.
5. All face masks can cause bacterial and fungal infections in the user as warm, moist air accumulates inside the mask. This is the perfect breeding ground for pathogens. “That is why N95 and other disposable masks were only designed to be short duration, specific task use and then immediately discarded,” Schaefer notes.
Medical doctors have warned that bacterial pneumonia, facial rashes, fungal infections on the face,11 “mask mouth” (symptoms of which include bad breath, tooth decay and gum inflammation) and candida mouth infections12 are all on the rise.
What’s worse, a study13,14 published in the February 2021 issue of the journal Cancer Discovery found that the presence of microbes in your lungs can worsen lung cancer pathogenesis and can contribute to advanced stage lung cancer. As reported by Global Research:15
“While analyzing lung microbes of 83 untreated adults with lung cancer, the research team discovered that colonies of Veillonella, Prevotella, and Streptococcus bacteria, which may be cultivated through prolonged mask wearing, are all found in larger quantities in patients with advanced stage lung cancer than in earlier stages.
The presence of these bacterial cultures is also associated with a lower chance of survival and increased tumor growth regardless of the stage.”
6. With extended use, medical masks will begin to break down and release chemicals that are then inhaled. Tiny microfibers are also released, which can cause health problems when inhaled. This hazard was highlighted in a performance study16 being published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials.
Schaefer also points out that to provide any benefit whatsoever, users must be fitted with the right type and size of respirator, and must undergo fit testing by a trained professional. However, N95 respirators, even when fitted properly, will not protect against viral exposures but can adequately protect against larger particles.
Surgical masks, which do not seal to your face, “do not filter anything,” Schaefer notes. These types of masks are designed to prevent bacteria from the mouth, nose and face from entering the patient during surgical procedures, and researchers have warned that contaminated surgical masks actually pose an infection risk.17 After just two hours, a significant increase in bacterial load on the mask was observed.
Nonmedical cloth masks are not only ineffective but also particularly dangerous as they’re not engineered for “easy inhalation and effective purging of exhaled carbon dioxide,” making them wholly unsuitable for use.
In the video, Schaefer demonstrates the only type of mask that is actually safe to wear — the gas mask kind of respirator you’d use to protect yourself against painting fumes, organic vapors, smoke and dust.
Real respirators are built to filter the air you breathe in, and get rid of the carbon dioxide and humidity from the air you breathe out, thereby ensuring there’s no dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide or reduction in oxygen inside the mask.
I’ve written many articles detailing the evidence showing that face masks do not prevent viral illnesses. To these we can now add an updated Cochrane review,18 which summarizes randomized trial evidence from studies that looked at face masks, hand-washing and/or physical distancing as prevention against respiratory infections.
There are many limitations to the included studies, including the facts that none was specific to COVID-19 and most had questionable adherence. They did not include the one COVID-19 specific trial that also included adherence parameters. With regard to medical and surgical masks, they found that:
“Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 3005 people).”
Four health care studies and one small community study looked at the use of N95/P2 respirators. Here they found that:
“Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (5 studies; 8407 people) or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people).”
Cochrane’s review certainly would have been more complete had they included the only COVID-19-related study to date. Unfortunately, they only included studies published before April 1, 2020. The trial in question, which was done in Denmark, was published November 18, 2020.
This COVID-19-specific randomized controlled surgical mask trial19,20 confirmed and strengthened previous findings, showing that mask wearing may either reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or increase your risk by 23%. Either way, the vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free.
The study included 3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study. Based on the adherence scores reported, 46% of participants always wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended and 7% failed to follow recommendations.
Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed those who did not adhere to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no difference.
Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls. So, essentially, we’re destroying economies and lives around the world to protect a tiny minority from getting a positive PCR test result which, as detailed in “Asymptomatic ‘Casedemic’ Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear,” means little to nothing.
Considering the dearth of evidence for universal mask use, just what is the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention relying on to back up its recommendation?21 Believe it or not, their primary “evidence” is an anecdotal story about two symptomatic hair stylists who interacted with 139 clients during eight days.
Sixty-seven of the clients agreed to be interviewed and tested. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The fact that the stylists and all clients “universally wore masks in the salon” is therefore seen as evidence that the masks prevented the spread of infection. The Danish study reviewed above didn’t make it onto the CDC’s list of studies either.
The CDC’s own data22,23,24 also show 70.6% of COVID-19 patients reported “always” wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14.4% reported having worn a mask “often.” So, a total of 85% of people who came down with COVID-19 had “often” or “always” worn a mask.
This too contradicts the idea that mask wearing will protect against the infection, and is probably a slightly more reliable indicator of effectiveness than the anecdotal hairdresser story.
Another recent investigation25 revealed the same trend, showing that states with mask mandates had an average of 27 positive SARS-CoV-2 “cases” per 100,000 people, whereas states with no mask mandates had just 17 cases per 100,000. I reviewed these and other findings in my December 31, 2020, article, “Mask Mandates Are Absolutely Useless.”
The CDC’s scientific backing for double-masking is equally flimsy. Using rubber dummy heads for their experiments, they claim wearing two tightly fitted masks could reduce exposure to aerosols by about 95%.26,27
However, there are several reasons to take these results with a grain of salt, starting with the fact that mannequins don’t breathe. The CDC even admits as much in its report, when they note that “double masking might impede breathing or obstruct peripheral vision for some wearers.”
In the final analysis, it seems clear that the most effective ways to prevent the spread of viral illnesses, SARS-CoV-2 included, is frequent handwashing with mild soap and water, and staying home if you have symptoms of a respiratory infection. As for masking up when you’re healthy, let alone double, triple or quadruple masking, there’s simply no scientific consensus for that strategy.
Source: mercola rss
Vitamin D regulates the expression of hundreds of genes and is integral to biological functions that affect every bodily system. As you’ll see in this short video, vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency can trigger several generalized symptoms that you may have associated with other health conditions.
It is also called the sunshine vitamin since your skin makes vitamin D when exposed to ultraviolet light from the sun.1 Vitamin D performs many functions within the body, including maintaining adequate levels of calcium and phosphate, essential for normal bone mineralization.2
It helps reduce inflammation, which is necessary for the modulation of cell growth and immune function. Vitamin D also affects genes that help regulate cell differentiation and apoptosis.
The main indicator of your vitamin D level is 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD). Data collected from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2005-2006 showed a deficiency prevalence of 41.6% in the U.S. population.3 However, as I discuss later in this article, as many as 80% of people may be deficient in vitamin D.
It’s important to note that how the measurement of insufficiency and deficiency is defined depends on the serum concentrations used. Some researchers use a level of 20 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) or 50 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L); the ng/mL is used most frequently in the U.S. and nmol/L is the standard in Europe.
However, GrassrootsHealth Nutrient Research Institute recommends vitamin D serum concentration levels from 40 ng/mL to 60 ng/mL or 100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L.4 At this level, the number of people who are likely deficient in vitamin D would be significantly higher.
During cold and flu season, and the COVID-19 pandemic, it is essential to maintain healthy levels of vitamin D to help reduce your risk of viral and bacterial illness.5,6 A blood test is the best way to determine your vitamin D levels, but here are some symptoms that may indicate your levels are low.
1. Aching muscles — Nearly half of all adults are affected by muscle pain.7 Researchers believe most of those are deficient in vitamin D. Some studies have suggested that nerves have vitamin D receptors that affect the perception of pain. In one animal model, research demonstrated a vitamin D-deficient diet can induce deep muscle hypersensitivity that was not connected to low levels of calcium.8
2. Painful bones — Vitamin D regulates the level of calcium in your body, necessary to protect bone health.9 Vitamin D deficiency can cause your bones to soften, called osteomalacia. This may be a precursor to osteoporosis.
3. Fatigue — This is a common symptom of a variety of different health conditions, including sleep deprivation. Researchers have found that supplementing cancer patients suffering from fatigue can improve their symptoms.10
In one study11 using 174 adults with fatigue and stable medical conditions, the researchers found 77.2% were deficient in vitamin D. After normalizing their level, the fatigue symptoms improved significantly.
4. Reduced muscle performance — Vitamin D deficiency is as common in athletes as in others. Vitamin D is crucial for muscle development, strength and performance. Older adults taking a vitamin D supplement have a reduced risk of falls and improved muscle performance.12
Correction through oral supplementation or sensible sun exposure may reduce symptoms of stress fractures, musculoskeletal pain and frequent illness. Vitamin D also has a direct effect on muscle performance. In one paper from the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the author wrote:13
“Higher serum levels of vitamin D are associated with reduced injury rates and improved sports performance. In a subset of the population, vitamin D appears to play a role in muscle strength, injury prevention, and sports performance.”
5. Brain health — Vitamin D is also essential for your brain health. Symptoms of deficiency can include dementia caused by an increase of soluble and insoluble beta-amyloid, a factor in Alzheimer's disease.14 Research has also found an association with depression15 that may be associated with the function of vitamin D buffering higher levels of calcium in the brain.16
Vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women can increase the risk of autism and schizophrenic-like disorders in the baby.17 One study of people with fibromyalgia found a vitamin D deficiency was more common in those who had anxiety and depression.18 Another looked at vitamin D deficiency in obese subjects and found a relationship between low levels of vitamin D and depression.19
6. Poor sleep — The mechanism linking vitamin D and poor sleep quality has not been identified. But research has found people with low levels of vitamin D have poor quality sleep and a higher risk of sleep disorders.20
7. Sweaty head — Excessive sweating, especially on your head, or a change in your pattern of sweating, can indicate a vitamin D deficiency.21
8. Hair loss — Vitamin D is crucial to the proliferation of keratinocytes and plays an important role in your hair cycle. The vitamin D receptor appears to play a role in the anagen phase of hair growth, leading researchers to conclude, "Treatments that upregulate the vitamin D receptor may be successful in treating hair disorders and are a potential area of further study."22
9. Slow-healing wounds — Chronic wounds are a major public health challenge.23 In the U.S. 2% of the population is affected by chronic wounds and it is estimated to account for 5.5% of the cost of health care in the U.K. NHS. Vitamin D promotes wound healing and the creation of cathelicidin, a peptide that fights wound infections.24
10. Dizziness — Evidence from animal models suggests that vitamin D is critical in the development of the inner ear,25 which affects balance and coordination. Analysis of people with vestibular neuritis, characterized by vertigo, showed lower serum vitamin D levels than in people without vestibular neuritis.26
11. Heart problems — Clinical studies have shown that vitamin D3 improves circulation and can help improve high blood pressure.27 In one study28 researchers discovered that vitamin D3 also has a significant effect on the endothelial cells that line your cardiovascular system. They found that it helped balance concentrations of nitric oxide and peroxynitrite, which improved endothelial function.
12. Excess weight — How vitamin D affects obesity has not been identified. However, data do show there is a high probability of deficiency in people who are obese.29
13. Recurring infections — There have been multiple epidemiological studies that show vitamin D deficiency can increase the risk of infection and raise the severity, particularly in respiratory tract infections.30 Multiple studies have demonstrated that vitamin D deficiency increases the potential risk for severe disease and mortality, especially in those who are critically ill.31
14. Reduced cognitive function — Data show that vitamin D deficiency increases your risk of dementia twofold32 and raises your risk of impaired cognitive function.33
Vitamin D plays an important role in the development and severity of many diseases. This is why, from the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, I suspected that optimizing vitamin D levels would significantly lower the incidence of infection and death in the general population.
Since then, mounting evidence has revealed this is indeed the case as researchers have repeatedly found that higher levels of vitamin D reduce the rate of positive tests, hospitalizations and mortality related to this infection.
One study,34 released in late 2020, assessed the serum 25OHD levels of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to evaluate the influence it might have on the severity of the disease. The researchers found 82.2% of those with COVID-19 were vitamin D deficient (levels lower than 20 ng/mL).
Interestingly, they also found those who were deficient had a greater prevalence of cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, high iron levels and longer hospital stays. A second study35 found similar results for people who only tested positive for COVID-19.
In other words, these patients were tested for the illness using the PCR test, which gives notoriously high false-positive results, and did not necessarily have symptoms of the illness. Yet, those who were "likely deficient" in vitamin D also had an increased risk of testing positive.
Recently, data showed people who received supplemental vitamin D3 while hospitalized with COVID-19 had reduced admissions to the ICU by 82% and reduced mortality by 64%.36 Editor’s note: This preprint study has since been pulled due to “concerns about the description of the research in this paper,”37 but an archived version is still available.
You can read more about the study, from information published before being pulled, at “Vitamin D Supplementation Reduces COVID-19 Deaths by 64%.”
Before the paper was removed, this information triggered British MP David Davis to call for a reevaluation of the official recommendations for vitamin D. He tweeted, “The findings of this large and well-conducted study should result in this therapy being administered to every COVID patient in every hospital in the temperate latitudes."38
He added that the demonstration of the "clear relationship between vitamin D and COVID mortality is causal," and his government should raise the availability of free vitamin D supplements to vulnerable populations. Other experts also called for official vitamin D recommendations.39
It's important to remember the data showing people who are deficient in vitamin D have a higher risk of severe disease has been available long before the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, information that may suggest the other side of the same coin — namely supplementing with vitamin D — may have a positive effect on disease severity, can come under attack.
It isn’t a big leap to understand that if simple and inexpensive solutions, such a vitamin D, hydroxychloroquine and zinc, may reduce the potential risk of severe disease and death, the billions of dollars the pharmaceutical companies stand to make by vaccinating the world would be lost.
Unlike the painful reports of vaccine adverse events received by the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), supplementing with vitamin D, magnesium and vitamin K2 have been studied for years and found to be “well tolerated.”40,41
Added to which, the studies on vitamin D have demonstrated insufficiency and deficiency are associated with a number of health conditions, which you can find more information about in “Are You Ready for the Darkest Day of the Year?” and “Health Conditions in Which Vitamin D Plays an Important Role.”
In the past, I've written about the importance of taking vitamin K2 MK-7 and magnesium with your vitamin D3 supplement. Both play an important role in your overall health and in the bioavailability and application of vitamin D in your body. If you're not using magnesium and vitamin K2, you could need nearly 2.5 times more vitamin D, which GrassrootsHealth discovered in its D*action project.42
Over 10,000 individuals provided information about supplement use and overall health status to GrassrootsHealth since they began conducting large-scale population-based nutrient research in 2007.43
That information has led to the recommendation that vitamin D blood levels between 40 ng/ml and 60 ng/ml (100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L) are safe, effective and lower overall disease incidence and health care costs. As reported by GrassrootsHealth from their data:44
"... 244% more supplemental vitamin D was needed for 50% of the population to achieve 40 ng/ml (100 nmol/L) for those not taking supplemental magnesium or vitamin K2 compared to those who usually took both supplemental magnesium and vitamin K2."
In practical terms, this means when you take vitamin K2 and magnesium with vitamin D, you need far less vitamin D to achieve a healthy level. You’ll find more about the relationship between these supplements, how they can improve cognitive function and the impact on mortality at “Magnesium and K2 Optimize Your Vitamin D Supplementation.”
Source: mercola rss