At the end of 2021, the term “mass formation psychosis” had a value of 0 on Google Trends, meaning there’s not enough data for the term to even make it on the charts. Then, on December 31, Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,¹ mentioned it on an episode of The Joe Rogan Experience viewed by more than 50 million people.²

The term, which provides a coherent explanation of why so many people have fallen victim to the unbelievable lies and propaganda of the mainstream COVID-19 narrative, went viral. On January 2, 2022, mass formation psychosis reached a value of 100 on Google Trends,³ which means it had reached peak popularity.

Google Manipulates Reality Around ‘Mass Formation Psychosis’

The technocrats quickly took action, adding a rarely seen warning that popped up for those searching the suddenly popular phrase in the early days of 2022. It read, “It looks like these results are changing quickly. If this topic is new, it can sometimes take time for results to be added by reliable sources.”⁴

In reality, the topic is not new. Mattias Desmet, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Ghent in Belgium, who has 126 publications to his name,⁵ has been studying it for many years, and the phenomenon actually dates back over a hundred years. One of the earliest works on the subject, according to Malone, is an 1841 book titled, “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds,” which details “the irrational behaviors of crowds.”⁶

You won’t find any of this — at least not easily — if you search on Google for “mass formation psychosis” today, however, as it’s all been effectively buried by Big Tech. What you will find is the results of an orchestrated and carefully vetted links to sites that help control the mainstream narrative around the topic. This not only serves to twist the meaning of the term but also to discredit Malone, a classic Orwellian Doublespeak move.

The top search results include headlines like “An anti-vaxx scientist said ‘mass formation psychosis’ caused people to follow COVID-19 measures. Psychologists say there’s no such thing,” (Business Insider⁷) and “Fact Check-No evidence of pandemic ‘mass formation psychosis’, say experts speaking to Reuters” (Reuters⁸). Rogan’s interview with Malone was also taken down by YouTube.

Outrageously, one of the “expert fact checkers” used by the AP to discredit Malone and mass formation psychosis is Jay Van Bavel, a New York University assistant professor of psychology and neural science who not only stated he had never heard of the phrase and could not find it in peer-reviewed literature, but also has encouraged the use of “behavioral science” to “nudge” and “motivate” people to obey the official COVID-19 narrative.⁹ On January 10, Malone wrote:¹⁰

“[T]here has been an amazingly coordinated effort to shoot the messenger and actively character assassinate (or “defenstrate”) me as a surrogate while avoiding any reference to the highly credentialed academic Professor Dr. Mattias Desmet who actually developed the theory and has documented the extensive evidence in an upcoming academic book.

… In this coordinated propaganda and censorship response, we can clearly see the hands of the BBC-led Trusted News Initiative, the Scientific Technological Elite, the transnational investment funds and their World Economic Forum allies which control Pfizer and most of Big Pharma, Legacy Media and Big Tech (and many national governments) acting in real time to suppress a growing awareness by the general public of having been actively manipulated using crowd psychology tools to generate clinically significant fear and anxiety of COVID-19 (otherwise known as “Coronaphobia”) to advance their agendas on a global scale.”

What Is Mass Formation Psychosis?

In the video above, you can see Thomas Patrick Carrigan interview Malone, Desmet and board-certified internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough about mass formation psychosis. Don’t be confused by the term mass, it is just psychological speak for crowd. Crowd formation is the same as mass formation.

Formation is the sudden cohesion of the group (the crowd) around a shared consensus. Desmet says he prefers the term mass formation — not mass formation psychosis — because he doesn’t want to use a diagnostic term and the word “psychosis” has a stigma and medical meaning attached to it. Either way, both terms have the same meaning, which involves the formation of a hypnotic state.

Desmet’s upcoming book, “The Psychology of Totalitarianism,” explains that mass formation has grown over the last 200 years. On a grand scale, mass formation leads to totalitarian thinking and, eventually, to totalitarian states. He details the four conditions needed to achieve mass formation on a large scale, which include cognitive dissonance and psychological pain — factors that often leave people desperate for change and a way to escape:¹¹

1. Feelings of social isolation and being alone among a large number of people
2. Feelings that your life is pointless and meaningless
3. High levels of free-floating anxiety
4. High levels of free-floating frustration and aggression

According to an abridged excerpt from Desmet’s book:¹²

“If under these conditions a narrative is distributed through the mass media which indicates an object of anxiety and provides a strategy to deal with this object of anxiety, then all the free floating anxiety might be associated to this object and a huge willingness might be observed to participate in the strategy to deal with the object of anxiety.

At the same time, the field of attention gets narrower until it only contains the part of reality that is indicated by the narrative and people lose their capacity to take into account the other aspects of reality (what makes them often utterly irrational).”

The More Absurd It Gets, the More Successful It Will Be

People want to remove their feelings of social isolation and anxiety. Toward that end, mass formation involves obsessive focusing on a failure of the normal world or a particular event or person, who becomes the focus of the attention — and the more absurd the narrative becomes, the better. Desmet says in the video above:¹³

“The narrative that leads to the mass formation typically becomes more and more absurd, and the strange thing is that people don’t seem to notice this … The reason why people buy into the narrative is not, in the first place, because the narrative is correct or scientific or accurate.

The reason why people buy into the narrative is because it creates this new social bond. That’s why typically during mass formation, the people who don’t want to conform to the masses, who don’t go along with the narrative, are typically [accused of] lacking citizenship and solidarity.”

Desmet says that the more absurd the narrative and its surrounding measures become, the more successful they will be for a certain part of the population, usually about 30%, because the measures function as rituals, through which an individual shows that they are less important than the collective masses:¹⁴

“A ritual is a kind of behavior that is without pragmatic meaning or sense, which is a symbolic kind of behavior through which an individual shows that it belongs to a collective and that it wants to sacrifice something of itself, which is important, in favor of the collective.”

Another irony is that the higher the level of education, the more susceptible people usually are to mass formation, Desmet says. “The people who try to get advanced degrees are usually people who think that social status is very important. And that could be the reason they are inclined to conform with the mainstream narrative.”¹⁵ It may also explain why so many physicians and academics have bought into the propaganda, ignoring science in favor of the collective narrative.

Fanaticism Allows for Lies, Manipulation

Those who are under the spell of mass formation psychosis are so convinced that their narrative will save the world that they feel justified in using manipulative tactics and lies to protect it, Desmet explains, exemplifying Plato’s noble lie — the notion that, in the case of high-status individuals or designated public leaders, it’s acceptable to lie if the lie is made in the interest of the common good. According to Desmet:¹⁶

“Once you understand the nature of mass formation, you also understand what you can do about it. But that doesn’t mean that it is easy to do something about it. The process of mass formation is a kind of hypnosis. Most scholars agree that it is very hard to wake people up from such a state of mass formation. Mass formation is a phenomenon that’s provoked by a voice.

It’s the voice of a leader, the voice that is distributed time and time again through the mass media, that keeps people in the grasp of mass formation, and the leader himself is also grasped in this process of mass formation … both the hypnotist and the hypnotized are into the process.”

Who’s the leader today? “The experts. The authority and the technocrats you could say,” Desmet says. The way out involves having the courage to speak the truth, even though doing so is typically extremely dangerous.

The ancient Greeks had a word for this — parrhesia, which is having the courage to speak the truth in spite of danger. But as Desmet explains, while those who try to reveal knowledge that is in conflict with the narrative put themselves at risk, if no one speaks the truth, society cannot continue to function.

Four Steps to End Mass Formation Psychosis

The first step to ending mass formation, which is also the most important, is speaking out against the official narrative if things seem off to you. “If you want to make the mass formation less deep, then it is quintessential that there are people who continue to speak out and [are a] dissonant voice in society, because this will disrupt the process of mass formation,” says Desmet.¹⁷

The second step involves connecting with other people in the real world who have a similar viewpoint as you or a feeling that something is wrong. Forming small networks in your community will help you break the mass formation cycle. It’s important, however that when you speak to people about the truth that you don’t try to take them back to the “old normal,” because, remember, this is what drove them to mass formation in the first place. According to Desmet:¹⁸

“If we try to convince people or bring a different narrative, [it’s important] that we do not try to convince people to go back to the old normal, because the old normal, that’s what people tried to escape through the process of mass formation. It was exactly because the old normal was unbearable that people were sensitive to the process of mass formation.

What we should try to construct together is a new normal, which is not a technocratic or transhumanist new normal. We should show people that there are other options. There are other options to escape the old normal.”

In short, Desmet recommends the following four steps to break free from mass formation psychosis and enact favorable change one social circle at a time:

1. Continue to speak out
2. Seek to connect with others of like mind
3. Construct a narrative together of a new normal — not to be confused with the “new normal” the transhumanist, technocratic movements are trying to advance — showing people that there are other options to escape the old normal
4. Always stick to the principles of nonviolent resistance

The last step is an important one, because if you use aggression of any form, even in the way you speak, it will only be used as justification by the masses that they were right to oppose you. Nonviolent resistant is the most efficient strategy as you try to resist and defy the mass formation psychosis around you.

How to Reverse Mass Formation Psychosis

While I deeply appreciate Desmet’s and Malone’s description of how the cabal has been able to fool most of the population, this is the best description of how they pulled all the brainwashing and the solution of how to avoid it right out of the matrix.

We all have the capacity to generate reality with our minds and this is what the cabal has hijacked so effectively. Why? Because never in the history of mankind have the tools existed to pull it off. First radio and then TV spread the message, but then social media leveraged the effectiveness of the brainwashing exponentially.

I would recommend watching this video a few times and sharing it with your friends, as it will help them understand — how we can repair the damage. We need to free our mind from their hijacking and use it for constructive purposes — not destructive ones.

As reported in this short news clip, research evidence¹ shows that probiotics may help reduce long-haul symptoms after COVID-19. Some people experience symptoms for weeks or months after a COVID-19 infection has resolved. When these symptoms persist for four weeks or more, they are known as long COVID, long-haul COVID, chronic COVID or long-haul syndrome.

Many of the symptoms of long COVID can also mirror those that are caused by the COVID-19 genetic therapy injections. Although anyone can experience symptoms of long COVID, it is more frequently seen in people who have been sick enough to be hospitalized or in the ICU.

According to Dr. Peter McCullough, board-certified internist and cardiologist, 50% of those who have been sick enough to be hospitalized will have symptoms of long COVID:²

“So, the sicker someone is, and the longer the duration of COVID, the more likely they are to have long COVID syndrome. That’s the reason why we like early treatment. We shorten the duration of symptoms and there’s less of a chance for long COVID syndrome.”

Symptoms of long COVID include fatigue, shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, joint pain, memory problems, loss of taste or smell and muscle pain or headache.³ The symptoms are the result of damage to the lungs, immune system, mitochondria, heart and nervous system. McCullough goes on to explain that after a severe case of COVID-19, blood clots and heart problems can happen for up to 90 days or more.

Inflammation to the lining of the heart — pericarditis — and around the lining of the lungs — pleuritis — can also occur in long COVID. Data from a study⁴ published in November 2021 show the administration of probiotics can affect the gut microbiome, and subsequently help your body heal from the symptoms of long COVID.

Data Show Probiotics Help Long-Haul COVID Symptoms

Roughly 12 million people may suffer from long COVID symptoms, which a Swedish study found could potentially be alleviated after 14 days of probiotics.⁵ The study was published September 2021 in the journal Medicines.⁶ The researchers wanted to evaluate how effective probiotics might be in alleviating two of the symptoms of long COVID — muscle soreness and brain fog.

They enrolled 200 patients who had complaints of muscle fatigue after COVID. One hundred participants received a placebo and 100 received a combination of ImmunoSEB (systemic enzyme complex) and ProbioSEB CSC3 (probiotic complex). The participants were tested at different time points from Day 1 to Day 14.

The data showed that those treated with the supplements had 91% resolution of muscle fatigue by Day 14. There was also a greater reduction in mental fatigue scores as compared to those receiving the placebo. The researchers concluded:⁷

“This study demonstrates that a 14 days supplementation of ImmunoSEB + ProbioSEB CSC3 resolves post-COVID-19 fatigue and can improve patients’ functional status and quality of life.”

ABC News interviewed public health medical educator Dr. Shad Marvasti, who recommends using probiotic supplements with at least 10 strains of active cultures to help support the immune system.⁸ He noted fermented foods such as sauerkraut, miso, kimchi and tempeh would help populate your gut microbiome.

He also mentions yogurt. However, I recommend that if you do use yogurt, it’s homemade since the products sold in the grocery store are high in sugar, which is a nutrient that feeds harmful bacteria in the gut. Also, if you decide to eat fermented soy, to be sure it’s grown organically, as most soy in the U.S. is a GMO food that is contaminated with pesticides and herbicides.

During data-gathering for the research, the scientists found other coronavirus infections, such as SARS, also triggered long-term symptoms. During follow-up, data showed 64% reported muscle fatigue at three months, 54% at six months and muscle fatigue at 12 months in 60% of those surveyed.⁹ Likewise, after the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), 48% reported fatigue after 12 months.

The researchers believe that the supplement regimen used on the participants reduced physical and mental fatigue and would be an effective early intervention. They suggest that while scientists continue to characterize long haul syndrome, these dietary supplements are added to clinical recommendations to help improve functional status and quality of life.¹⁰

Poor Gut Health May Predict Severe COVID

In an unrelated study published in 2018, researchers performed a systematic review of 70 randomized placebo-controlled trials¹¹ to evaluate how specific probiotics may benefit individuals who had irritable bowel syndrome or other gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances. The data from the review indicated that there were specific probiotics with beneficial effects on lower GI health conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome.

Knowledge that probiotics offer a distinct advantage to the immune system has prompted study into the relationship between gut health and COVID outcomes. The featured study was published in the same month and year as another paper¹² that proposed the use of postbiotics in the treatment of post-COVID long-haul symptoms.

The writers advocate postbiotics that may help alleviate the burden on the body from viral infections and they postulate there may be a role for “precision postbiotics” in preventive interventions. Postbiotic is an umbrella term for components of microbial fermentation.¹³ This can include short-chain fatty acids, functional proteins, metabolites and extracellular polysaccharides.

Since the start of the pandemic, several studies have shown that patients with GI symptoms often have more severe disease. One review of more than 1,000 patient records was presented to the American College of Gastroenterology.¹⁴ The data showed those who presented at admission with GI symptoms and suspected COVID-19 infection had worse outcomes than those who did not have GI symptoms.

After adjusting for comorbidities, demographics and other clinical symptoms, of 1,000 patients, 22.4% had at least one GI symptom, the most common of which was nausea and vomiting. Researchers also found those who had GI symptoms had a higher body mass index, a higher prevalence of diabetes and high blood pressure, and were older.

While this group had a higher rate of ICU admission and intubation, the study did not include mortality rates in the analysis. However, SciTech Daily¹⁵ reported that autopsy results and studies have suggested a sizable number of people with severe COVID-19 also have GI problems. A significant number of people with respiratory problems also had GI symptoms, suggesting that when the virus affects the GI tract, it can increase the severity of the illness.

Another paper¹⁶ published in January 2021 suggested the GI symptoms that predict severe COVID-19 are triggered by poor gut health. The writer, Heenam Stanley Kim, Ph.D., from Korea University, proposes that gut dysbiosis can exacerbate the severity of the infection.

This hypothesis is supported by a review of several studies since the start of the pandemic, which also demonstrated an association between severe disease and a lack of microbial diversity.¹⁷ An early study of patients admitted from March 4, 2020, to March 24, 2020, showed 31.9% had GI symptoms on admission.¹⁸

Your Gut Affects Brain Health and Immunity

Your gut health plays an important role in your neurological health and with your immune system. A very large part of your immune system sits in your gut microbiome and GI tract. Researchers estimate that up to 80% of your immune cells can be found in the gut.¹⁹

The complex interaction between your gut microbiome, pathogens and your immune system is affected by several factors, including your nutrition. One review of the research²⁰ published in 2021 identified the significance that nutrition plays in both prevention and treatment of infectious disease.

There are also deep connections that exist between your gut and your brain. Harvard Health²¹ explains that these two structures are linked through biochemical signaling. The primary connection is the vagus nerve, which is the longest nerve in the body.

For example, when the fight-or-flight response is triggered, warning signals are sent to the gut. This is why digestive problems can be triggered by a stressful event. On the other hand, digestive issues like irritable bowel syndrome or chronic constipation can trigger anxiety or depression.

Alzheimer’s disease continues to be a leading cause of death in the U.S., with 1 in 3 seniors dying with Alzheimer’s or dementia — more than the number killed by breast and prostate cancers combined.²²

One team of Swiss and Italian researchers found a connection between imbalanced gut microbiota and the development of amyloid plaques in the brain, associated with Alzheimer’s disease.²³ In a prior study²⁴ the team had found that the gut microbiota in people with Alzheimer’s disease is different from those without the condition; microbial diversity is reduced, and certain bacteria are overrepresented.

In their current study, the researchers engaged 89 people aged 65 to 85 years. Some were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or other neurodegenerative diseases and the others were healthy with no memory problems. The researchers used PET imaging to measure amyloid deposits in the brain and measure the serum markers of inflammation and proteins produced by intestinal bacteria.

“Our results are indisputable: Certain bacterial products of the intestinal microbiota are correlated with the quantity of amyloid plaques in the brain,” explained Moira Marizzoni, one study author with the Fatebenefratelli Center in Brescia, Italy.²⁵

The Effects of Artificial Sweeteners, Sleep and Sunlight

Several factors influence your gut microbiome. One factor found in many processed foods that has a devastating effect on your gut microbiome is artificial sweeteners. As early as 2008,²⁶ scientists had discovered that sucralose lowered your gut bacteria count by 47.4% to 79.7% and increased the pH level of your intestines.

More recently, scientists found that three of the most popular artificial sweeteners — sucralose (Splenda), aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal and Sugar Twin) and saccharin (Sweet’n Low, Necta Sweet and Sweet Twin) — have a pathogenic effect on two types of gut bacteria.²⁷

Lab data demonstrated the products can trigger beneficial bacteria to become pathogenic and potentially increase your risk of serious health conditions. This was the first study to demonstrate how two types of beneficial bacteria can become diseased and invade the gut wall. The bacteria studied were Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis).

This research supports past evidence that noncaloric artificial sweeteners induced “compositional and functional alterations” in the gut microbiome.²⁸ Data have also shown that artificial sweeteners can increase the permeability of the intestinal epithelial barrier, which leads to systemic inflammatory diseases. In the lab,²⁹ high concentrations of aspartame and saccharin induced cell death and at low concentrations, it increased the epithelial permeability.

Two strategies that also play a role in your gut microbiome are getting more sleep and sunshine. Researchers have found a curious bidirectional link between your gut health and sleep. One study published in the Frontiers of Psychiatry noted:³⁰

“There is considerable evidence showing that the gut microbiome not only affects the digestive, metabolic, and immune functions of the host but also regulates host sleep and mental states through the microbiome-gut-brain axis.

Preliminary evidence indicates that microorganisms and circadian genes can interact with each other. The characteristics of the gastrointestinal microbiome and metabolism are related to the host’s sleep and circadian rhythm.”

As noted in the Frontiers in Psychiatry study,³¹ mounting research suggests your gut microbiome helps regulate not only your mood but also your sleep cycle through what’s known as the gut-brain axis — a bidirectional communication “highway” that links your central and enteric nervous systems.³²

During the past pandemic months, it has become increasingly obvious that maintaining optimal levels of vitamin D could help reduce your risk of infectious disease.³³ A research team from the University of British Columbia was also interested in how exposure to UVB light may affect the human gut microbiome.³⁴

Past studies had suggested vitamin D could alter the gut microbiome³⁵ and since there are few natural foods that contain vitamin D,³⁶ a vast majority of your body’s requirement is usually met through skin exposure to UVB light.³⁷

The researchers from British Columbia noted that past research has shown sunlight has a positive effect on those with inflammatory bowel disease and multiple sclerosis, both of which are exacerbated by inflammation.³⁸ In this clinical pilot study the researchers found the fecal microbiota were positively altered after exposure to sunshine. They wrote:³⁹

“This is the first study to show that humans with low 25(OH)D serum levels display overt changes in their intestinal microbiome in response to NB-UVB skin exposure and increases in 25(OH)D levels, suggesting the existence of a novel skin-gut axis that could be used to promote intestinal homeostasis and health.”

Optimize Your Gut Microbiome

The choices you make every day have an impact on your gut microbiome. Optimizing your gut flora and vitamin D level is crucial to good health. Regularly eating traditionally fermented and cultured foods is the easiest, most effective and least expensive way to make a significant impact on your gut microbiome.

Healthy choices include lassi (an Indian yogurt drink), cultured grass-fed organic milk products such as kefir and yogurt, natto (fermented soy) and fermented vegetables of all kinds. Generally, I believe the majority of your nutrients need to come from food. However, supplemental probiotics are an exception if you don’t eat fermented food on a regular basis. Spore-based probiotics, or sporebiotics, can be helpful if antibiotics are necessary.

In addition to getting enough quality sleep and maintaining optimal levels of vitamin D, it is also important to feed your beneficial bacteria the nutrients they need to thrive. While harmful bacteria thrive on sugar and carbohydrates, beneficial bacteria thrive on fiber.

According to a study published in 2019 in The Lancet⁴⁰ people eating 25 to 29 grams of fiber each day had a reduced risk of a range of critical outcomes, such as stroke, coronary heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and all-cause mortality. However, they found eating 29 grams a day was merely adequate, writing:⁴¹

“Dose-response curves suggested that higher intakes of dietary fiber could confer even greater benefit to protect against cardiovascular diseases, Type 2 diabetes, and colorectal and breast cancer.”

For nearly a year, experts have noted that the COVID shots cannot establish herd immunity to end the pandemic, as the gene transfer injections do not prevent infection or transmission.

It’s not rocket science, yet health officials and government leaders around the world have irrationally claimed otherwise, and censored any and all — regardless of credentials — who dared to suggest alternative approaches.

Now, all of a sudden, the narrative is rapidly changing, with loads of these same individuals — truthfully, if you can believe that — acknowledging that the COVID “vaccines” cannot end the pandemic and that we need to learn to live with the virus. Some have even started speaking out against repeated boosters, at least at intervals of three to four months.

It seems a major driver for this U-turn in the pandemic narrative is the emergence of the Omicron variant. While incredibly infectious, it causes only mild cold symptoms in the vast majority of people, so it’s essentially ripping through populations, leaving natural herd immunity in its wake. As a result, many are now claiming the end of the pandemic is in sight.¹

Moving on From COVID

In a January 15, 2022, Trial Site News article, Mary Beth Pfeiffer reported:²

“The director of global infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital is predicting what was unthinkable less than a month ago: The end of the pandemic. Dr. Edward Ryan made stunning and encouraging comments on the Omicron variant that give hope for a return to normalcy.

Among these: Omicron will make boosters unnecessary. The COVID virus will join the ranks of the ‘common cold.’ And the latest wave will enter ‘clean up mode’ shortly. ‘We are fighting the last war with COVID and should be pivoting back to normal life,’ the summary of Dr. Ryan’s comments states. ‘Spring/Summer will be really nice!'”

According to Ryan, nearly 100% of COVID cases in the Boston area are now Omicron, which is good news, considering it doesn’t appear to bring with it any of the more severe side effects seen with previous strains, including Delta. In New England, the current outbreak is predicted to rapidly wane and disappear during the month of February 2022. Nationwide, Omicron was reportedly responsible for about 73% of all cases as of early January 2022.³

Pfeiffer also reports that, according to Ryan, booster shots will not be needed for Omicron, as by the time a dedicated injection is released, the wave will already be over and done with. Ryan is reported to have stated that “we’re all going to get it, which will give us the immunity we need to get through it,” referring to the Omicron infection.

Ryan’s comments fly in the face of mainstream medical recommendations, which near-universally call for boosters for everyone, including children. Clearly, however, Ryan makes a lot of sense. The boosters, while seemingly able to temporarily raise a double-jabbed person’s resistance against Omicron, it’s designed to protect against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain that no longer exists.

Overall, it appears the only reason a double-jabbed person would need a booster against Omicron is because the first two doses impaired their immune system such that they’re now more vulnerable, even to a milder strain. This downward spiral of negative immunity can only continue if people continue to take boosters, especially mismatched ones.

Vaccine-Induced Herd Immunity Called Out as ‘Myth’

In early August 2021, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, professor Sir Andrew Pollard, actually spoke out against the idea that the COVID shots were the answer everyone was looking for. At the time, he referred to the idea that vaccine-induced herd immunity against COVID was “mythical.” As reported by Yahoo! News, August 10, 2021:⁴

“… Pollard … said … that herd immunity is ‘not a possibility’ with the current Delta variant. He called the idea ‘mythical,’ warning that vaccine programs should not be developed around it.

‘We know very clearly with coronavirus that this current variant, the Delta variant, will still infect people who have been vaccinated and that does mean that anyone who’s still unvaccinated, at some point, will meet the virus,’ Pollard told a session of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on coronavirus.

He said that while vaccines might ‘slow the process’ of transmission down, they cannot currently stop the spread completely.

‘I think we are in a situation here with this current variant where herd immunity is not a possibility because it still infects vaccinated individuals,’ he said, predicting the next thing may be ‘a variant which is perhaps even better at transmitting in vaccinated populations.’ He added: ‘So that’s even more of a reason not to be making a vaccine program around herd immunity.'”

During that same APPG meeting, professor Paul Hunter from the University of East Anglia stressed that variants capable of evading the COVID shots were “an absolute inevitability.” Pollard and Hunter both turned out to be correct, as Omicron’s vaccine-evading capacity has now been documented.

Most People Are ‘Done’ With COVID

The reprieve Omicron provides could not have come at a better time. At this point, after two years of repetitive fearmongering, most people have simply had enough. It’s not often you put a hold on life for this long, and the general consensus appears to be that people are ready to brave life even if the threat of COVID remains.

In a December 22, 2021, Atlantic opinion piece, Yascha Mounk, associate professor at Johns Hopkins University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted that “No matter the severity of the variant, the appetite for shutdowns or other large-scale social interventions simply isn’t there.” He goes on:⁵

“It feels like everyone I know has COVID … The pattern among my circle of friends fits with what’s unfolding in South Africa, where the coronavirus’s new Omicron variant was first identified.

The number of cases in the country shot up quickly, but the number of deaths has so far increased much, much more gradually — possibly indicating that Omicron is more contagious but causes less severe disease than previous variants …

I wager that, whatever course Omicron — or future strains of the disease — might take, we are about to experience the end of the pandemic as a social phenomenon …

Despite skyrocketing caseloads, few pundits or politicians are proposing strict measures to slow the virus’s spread. The appetite for shutdowns or other large-scale social interventions simply isn’t there …

Scientists have their own way of deciding that a pandemic is over. But one useful social-scientific marker is when people have gotten used to living with the ongoing presence of a particular pathogen.

By that definition, the massive surge of Omicron infections that is currently coursing through scores of developed countries without eliciting more than a half-hearted response marks the end of the pandemic.”

Mounk, like others, pointed out that if Omicron turned out to be as mild as it initially appeared — which has been borne out since then — then natural herd immunity would develop as the highly infectious virus spread like wildfire. With that baseline of natural immunity, populations would, in the future, be far better equipped to handle any new strains that emerge, “without a significant increase in mortality.”

Living With Risk

Mounk goes on to discuss how, over time, people get used to and learn to live with all sorts of risks, including direct threats to life and limb, and that’s exactly the kind of resiliency we see building and spreading now:⁶

“When I was growing up in Germany, I was fascinated by news reports about life in very dangerous places. Residents of Baghdad or Tel Aviv seemed to put themselves in danger simply by going shopping or meeting friends for a cup of coffee.

How, I wondered with a mixture of horror and admiration, could anybody be willing to accept such an existential risk for such a trivial pleasure?

But the truth of the matter is that virtually all humans have, for virtually all of recorded history, faced daily risks of disease or violent death that are far greater than those that the residents of developed countries currently face.

And despite the genuine horrors of the past 24 months, that holds true even now … The determination to get on with our lives is deeply and perhaps unchangeably human.

In that sense, the spring of 2020 will be remembered as one of the most extraordinary periods in history — a time when people completely withdrew from social life to slow the spread of a dangerous pathogen. But what was possible for a few months has turned out to be unsustainable for years, let alone decades.

Whatever damage Omicron might wreak in the immediate future, we will, most likely, soon lead lives that look a lot more like they did in the spring of 2019 than in the spring of 2020.”

Do You Have a Cold, Flu or COVID?

Based on what I’m seeing around me, it seems the prediction that Omicron will “get” just about everyone is likely to be true. People are sick in droves. The good news is that there’s little panic surrounding these cases. Most people are now realizing that there’s no need.

That said, I still recommend treating any COVID symptoms early and aggressively, just in case. As mentioned, the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections are now related to Omicron, and the core symptoms are near-indistinguishable from the common cold and/or influenza. The most commonly reported symptoms of Omicron infection are:⁷

Fatigue	Cough
Congestion, sneezing and runny nose	Sore throat
Headache	Fever

In addition to these, other symptoms commonly reported with SARS-CoV-2 infection, up to and including Delta, include:

• Loss of taste or smell
• Stomach/gastrointestinal pain (which in some cases could be a sign of microclots in the intestines⁸)
• Nausea or vomiting
• Diarrhea

A key difference in symptomology between Delta and Omicron is that Omicron does not appear to cause the loss of taste and smell, which often occurs with Delta infection (as with previous strains). Fortunately, Omicron also does not seem to be associated with blood clots, like previous strains (especially the initial ones), and it’s also far less likely to cause severe lung infection and damage.^9,10

Treat Symptoms Early

Considering the uncertainties around diagnosis, it’s best to treat any cold or flu-like symptoms early. At first signs of symptoms, start treatment. Perhaps it’s the common cold or a regular influenza, maybe it’s the much milder Omicron, but since it’s hard to tell, your best bet is to treat symptoms as you would treat earlier forms of COVID.

Considering how contagious Omicron is, chances are you’re going to get it, so buy what you’ll need now, so you have it on hand if/when symptoms arise. And, remember, this applies for those who have gotten the jab as well, since you’re just as likely to get infected — and perhaps even more so. Early treatment protocols with demonstrated effectiveness include:

• The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s (FLCCC’s) prevention and early at-home treatment protocol. They also have an in-hospital protocol and long-term management guidance for long-haul COVID-19 syndrome. You can find a listing of doctors who can prescribe ivermectin and other necessary medicines on the FLCCC website
• The AAPS protocol
• Tess Laurie’s World Council for Health protocol
• America’s Frontline Doctors

Based on my review of these protocols, I’ve developed the following summary of the treatment specifics I believe are the easiest and most effective.

What you eat plays a significant role in how well your immune system functions. As a result, you can actively support your body’s ability to ward off acute and chronic conditions with each food you put into your mouth. However, depending on your food choices, you can also hinder it.

What’s the worst ingredient for your immune system? If you guessed sugar, nice try, but there’s an even worse offender that’s just as prevalent but not as widely recognized for its pernicious influence on health: industrially processed seed oils, often referred to as “vegetable oils.”

At the root of the harmful biochemical reactions triggered by seed oils is linoleic acid, which is an 18-carbon omega-6 fat. Linoleic acid is the primary fatty acid found in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and accounts for about 80% of the fatty acid composition of vegetable oils. Omega-6 fats must be balanced with omega-3 fats in order to not be harmful, but this isn’t the case for most Americans.

Why Seed Oils Are Even Worse Than Sugar

An immunologist with CNBC News recently named sugar the “worst food ingredient for your immune system,”¹ in large part because consuming too much of it can contribute to insulin resistance and obesity, which increases inflammation in your body and causes damage to blood vessels.

While your immune system is busy tending to these areas, CNBC notes, “This creates a major distraction for the immune system and paves the way for dangerous bacteria and viruses to slip through our body’s defenses.”² In fact, it’s been known since at least the 1970s that sugar weakens the immune system (while fasting strengthens it),³ and I recommend limiting added sugars to a maximum of 25 grams per day or 15 grams a day if you’re insulin resistant or diabetic.

But most health “experts” simply do not understand that seed oils are even worse than sugar. These fats become embedded in your cell membranes and stay there for about seven years, wreaking havoc on your health.

Not only are most of the omega-6s you eat, including seed oils, damaged and oxidized through processing, but even if they are unheated and pristine when consumed in any but small amounts, your body degrades them into free radicals that damage virtually every tissue in your body.

“Most of this linoleic acid, when it oxidizes, it develops lipid hydroperoxides and then these rapidly degenerate into … oxidized linoleic acid metabolites,” says Dr. Chris Knobbe, an ophthalmologist and the founder and president of the Cure AMD Foundation.⁴

OXLAMs (oxidized linoleic acid metabolites) create a perfect storm, as they are cytotoxic, genotoxic, mutagenic, carcinogenic, atherogenic and thrombogenic, according to Knobbe. Their atherosclerosis and thrombogenic actions are especially concerning because they can produce strokes and clots, however metabolic dysfunction can also occur.

During the lipid peroxidation cascade caused by the excess consumption of omega-6 seed oils, PUFAs accumulate in your cell membranes, leading to a peroxidation reaction. Because there are so many reactive oxygen species it leads to the development of insulin resistance at the cellular level. OXLAMs are also toxic to the liver and are associated with inflammation, fibrosis and fatty liver disease in humans.⁵

Dr. Paul Saladino, a physician journalist, also explained in a podcast that linoleic acid “breaks the sensitivity for insulin at the level of your fat cells,”⁶ essentially making them more insulin sensitive — and, since your fat cells control the insulin sensitivity of the rest of your body by releasing free fatty acids, you end up with insulin resistance.

Linoleic Acid Drives Chronic Diseases, Worsens COVID-19

There’s virtually nothing more destructive to your body than seed oils in producing heart disease, cancer, age-related macular degeneration, diabetes, obesity and dementia.⁷ When I interviewed Tucker Goodrich, who developed an IT risk management system used by two of the largest hedge funds in the world, then transitioned into medical research, he explained that animals typically develop cancer once the linoleic acid in their diet reaches 4% to 10% of their energy intake.

Yet, most Americans get approximately 8% of their calories from seed oils. “So, we’re way over what these thresholds in the lab would suggest is a safe level of these fats based on the laboratory work in animals,” Goodrich said, adding:

“We’ve got this huge disconnect between what the lab science tells us we should be doing and what our dietary guidelines tell us we should be doing. The scientists are saying, ‘Oh, look, it’s poison. It causes all the chronic diseases,’ and the government’s saying, ‘Eat lots of it.’ That’s not a good thing.”

Data also indicate that COVID-19 mortality rates are heavily influenced by the amount of unsaturated fats you eat. Simply put, unsaturated fat intake is associated with increased mortality from COVID-19, while saturated fat intake lowers your risk of death.⁸ The authors noted that unsaturated fats “cause injury [and] organ failure resembling COVID-19.”

More specifically, unsaturated fats are known to trigger lipotoxic acute pancreatitis, and the sepsis and multisystem organ failure seen in severe cases of COVID-19 greatly resembles this condition. In short, linoleic acid contributes to the inflammatory domino effect that eventually kills some people with COVID-19. Goodrich explained:

“I did an enormous post on this, looking at the effects of LA [linoleic acid] in SARS COV-2 and SARS in general. SARS is a severe acute respiratory syndrome. SARS kills you by giving you acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

ARDS can be caused by lots of different things, not just these viruses. You can get it from influenza. You can get it from inhaling acid into your lungs. What’s fascinating is the human literature is quite clear that you can induce ARDS through feeding seed oils.

Very sick people who can’t eat are fed intravenously. It’s called total parenteral nutrition (TPN). Generally, this is used through a product called Intralipid, which is made out of soybean oil and sugar. When you start to understand all this stuff, it’s just mind boggling. Doctors did an experiment after they noticed that a lot of their patients who came into the ICU and got TPN then subsequently got ARDS.

So, they started playing with what they were feeding them, and what they discovered was this soybean oil formula increased the patient’s rate of getting ARDS. The fatality rate from ARDS is 30% to 60%. Feeding seed oils increased the rate of ARDS by seven times.”

It’s Hidden in ‘Healthy’ Foods, Like Chicken and Olive Oil

Another reason why linoleic acid is so harmful is because it’s found in virtually every processed food, including restaurant foods, sauces and salad dressings. Many processed foods high in sugar also contain seed oils, which is why eliminating them from your diet is essential for improving and maintaining your health.

However, even if you cut out processed foods and skip sauces and salad dressings when you eat out, you may still be consuming too much seed oil because it’s hidden in “healthy” foods like chicken and pork. The problem is that these animals are fed grains that are high in linoleic acid,⁹ which makes the meat a major source as well. So if you’re eating chicken and pork, believing it to be good for you, you’re being misled.

Olive oil is another health food that’s a hidden source of linoleic acid; however, there are caveats. As Goodrich explained, the linoleic acid content of olive oil can vary significantly. “The percentages that I’ve seen quoted in literature range from 2%, which is awesome, to 22%, which is not good,” he said.

Olive oil also has the benefit of containing beneficial oleic acid, which is protective against both cardiolipin oxidation and LDL oxidation. Cardiolipin is a type of fat located in your mitochondria, and oxidation of cardiolipin is one of the things that controls autophagy.

By altering the composition of cardiolipin in your mitochondria to one that’s richer in omega-6 fats, you make it far more susceptible to oxidative damage. Goodrich cites research showing that when the linoleic acid in cardiolipin is replaced with oleic acid like that found in olive oil, the cardiolipin molecules become highly resistant to oxidative damage.

The other variable, however, is that olive oil is often cut with cheaper seed oils, which raises the linoleic acid content. So if you consume olive oil, I strongly recommend keeping close track of your total linoleic acid intake.

How Much Linoleic Acid Is Too Much?

Many now understand that your omega-6 to omega-3 ratio is very important, and should be about 1-to-1 or possibly up to 4-to-1, but simply increasing your omega-3 intake won’t counteract the damage done by excessive linoleic acid. You really need to minimize the omega-6 to prevent damage from taking place.

Ideally, consider cutting linoleic acid down to 2 or 3 grams per day, which is close to what our ancestors used to get before all of these chronic health conditions, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer, became widespread. If olive oil puts you over the limit, consider cooking with tallow or lard instead. Beef tallow is 46% oleic acid and lard is 36% oleic acid.

Remember, linoleic acid is considered an essential fat, so you don’t want to eliminate it entirely. It’s only when consumed in excessive amounts that linoleic acid acts as a metabolic poison — but virtually everyone is consuming excessive amounts.

What amount is “excessive”? Anything over 10 grams a day is likely to be problematic, although the exact cutoff is still unknown. In 1909, Americans ate 2 grams a day of vegetable oil, according to Knobbe, but by 2010 this had increased to 80 grams a day.¹⁰

If you’re not sure how much you’re eating, enter your food intake into Cronometer — a free online nutrition tracker — and it will provide you with your total linoleic acid intake. The key to accurate entry is to carefully weigh your food with a digital kitchen scale so you can enter the weight of your food to the nearest gram.

Cronometer will tell you how much omega-6 you’re getting from your food down to the 10th of a gram, and you can assume 90% of that is linoleic acid. Again, anything over 10 grams is likely to cause problems. Since there’s no downside to limiting your linoleic acid, you’ll want to keep it as low as possible, which you do by avoiding high-LA foods. This means eliminating all of the following oils:

Soy	Corn
Canola	Safflower
Sunflower	Peanut

Other high-LA foods include chips fried in vegetable oil, commercial salad dressings and sauces, virtually all processed foods and any fried fast food, such as french fries. I’m currently writing a book on this topic as well, so stay tuned for more information about what I believe is likely the leading contributing cause of virtually all chronic diseases we’ve encountered over the last century.

As of January 7, 2022, just over a year into the campaign to inject every human being with a gene transfer product to protect against COVID, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received 9,936 reports of death following the COVID jab in the United States’ territories alone.¹ When you include foreign reports received by VAERS, the death toll stands at 21,745.

A total of 1,541 miscarriages have also been reported post-jab in the U.S., or 3,594 if you include foreign reports. Despite these shocking statistics, U.S. health officials and “fact checkers” insist not a single death can be attributed to the shots.

During an early January 2022 Senate committee hearing on the nation’s Omicron response (see video above), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, and director for the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, testified — under oath — that they “did not know” how many deaths had been reported to VAERS following COVID “vaccination.”^2,3

Walensky referred to the shots as “incredibly safe,” claiming — against all science — that they “protect us against Omicron, they protect us against Delta, they protect us against COVID.” She also falsely claimed that all reported COVID-19 vaccine deaths have been “adjudicated.”

No, VAERS Is Not a Repository of Fake Reports

Worse yet, both Walensky and Fauci claim any and all adverse events following vaccination get reported to VAERS, including accidental deaths and car accidents. They both actually claim that if a person gets the COVID shot and gets hit by a car afterward, that is reported as an adverse reaction.

Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, adverse events are not automatically reported and, certainly, obvious accidents are not entered into the system as a suspected vaccine side effect.

As reported by Health Impact News,⁴ there are about 18 reports in VAERS that include “road traffic accident,” but most if not all relate to an adverse event, such as a heart attack, occurring while driving. They were not hit by someone else and entered into the system. As noted by Pam Long in a January 12, 2022, Twitter thread:⁵

“If anyone in public health utters ‘a person can get hit by a car & report their death to VAERS’ you need stop them, in any public meeting, and demand they explain what motive would a physician have to inflate VAERS reports with car accidents or any unrelated mortality?

Despite Walensky’s & Fauci’s cliché testimony to Congress. Not one person ‘got hit by a car’ & reported their own death to VAERS as a vaccine injury. Most reports are filed by medical professionals, using diagnostic language about drug reactions.”

VAERS was designed and created as an early warning system. It’s true that anyone can file a report, but it’s time-consuming, requires the knowledge of medical details a patient oftentimes won’t have, and carries penalties for filing a false report. There’s absolutely no reason to suspect, let alone assume, that people are filing false reports just to make the shots look bad.

Fact Checker Outs Himself as a Pharma Propagandist

Walensky and Fauci aren’t the only ones lying about the lethality of the COVID jab. Mainstream media are all-in as well. In a USA Today fact check,⁶ Daniel Funke claims that “COVID-19 vaccines [are] safe for children” and “not linked to deaths.”

“… online, some claim children face more risk from the vaccine than COVID-19 itself,” Funke writes. “USA TODAY previously rated False a claim that children are 50 times more likely to die from the COVID-19 vaccine than the virus. This claim is similarly wrong.

Public health officials say the vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech is safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 in children ages 5-11. As other independent fact-checking organizations have reported, the benefits of the vaccine outweigh its known and potential risks.

‘Over 700 children have died due to COVID-19 in the United States,’ Dr. Sonja Rasmussen, a professor in the departments of pediatrics and epidemiology at the University of Florida, said in an email.

‘I am not aware of any deaths in children that have been attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine’ … The benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine for children outweigh its known and potential risks, according to the CDC. The shot does not cause death.”

Funke cites data from Pfizer’s clinical trials, “which found the vaccine was safe” for children, as “no deaths were reported” in Pfizer’s trials for 12- to 25-year-olds, and those for 12- to 17-year-olds. Funke dismisses the rationale for looking at VAERS data on the basis that anyone can file a report and that reports are unverified, and therefore cannot be used to determine causation.

All Opinion and No Data

There are so many issues with this “fact-check,” no wonder Facebook attorneys are using the legal defense that fact checks are “opinion” only and not actual assertions of fact.^7,8 There’s nothing but opinions in this piece. As “evidence” that the COVID shots are safe and have caused no deaths, Funke presents:

Another opinion piece by USA Today

The supposed opinion of unnamed “public health officials”

Biased opinion assertions by other pharma-funded propaganda organizations (aka, “fact checking organizations”)

The opinion of a single professor who admits she is unaware of publicly available data

The unsupported opinion of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a captured agency that has repeatedly been caught manipulating data and changing definitions to fit the pandemic narrative

Pfizer’s preliminary trial data, which whistleblowers warn may have integrity issues9

The unsupported claim that VAERS data are unreliable because anyone can file, the implication being that people can file fake reports

The debatable claim that VAERS data cannot tell us anything about causation, hence it’s useless looking at it

It’s hard to come up with a less compelling list of evidences for safety, but then again, propagandists have to work with what they have, and in this case, they have nothing. Funke presents zero actual data to support his opinion.

Explain the Rise in Mortality if You Can

There are many data-driven reasons to suspect, predict and even assume that the COVID shots are killing more people than they’re saving — regardless of the age group in question. It would take an entire book to cover it all, so I will only review a few of those reasons here.

One very telling clue that recently came to light is life insurance data. According to OneAmerica, a national life insurance company based in Indianapolis, in the third quarter of 2021, working-age Americans (aged 18 to 64) died at a rate that is 40% higher than the prepandemic rate, and they didn’t die from COVID.¹⁰

And, according to CEO Scott Davidson, this catastrophic abnormality is consistently seen “across every player” in the life insurance industry.¹¹ A 40% increase in mortality is simply unheard of, and as of yet, they claim to have no clue as to what’s causing young and middle-aged people to die prematurely at such an astounding rate.

Looking at it from a sleuth’s point of view, one might ask, “What environmental factor with unknown safety was introduced in 2021 to people in this age group?” Sure, pandemic restrictions have led to spikes in drug overdoses and suicides, which affects this cohort in particular. But “deaths of desperation” cannot account for all of it.

The one wild card is the COVID jab. More than 173 million working-age Americans (18 to 64) got these experimental gene transfer injections,¹² and doctors and scientists have elucidated several mechanisms by which they might injure or kill.

What’s more, the rise in deaths began AFTER the rollout of the shots, and whatever the causative factor, it is not only national but likely international in scope. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, for example, also reports a 41% rise in death claims in 2021.¹³

Excess deaths (exceeding prepandemic norms) are also reported in the U.K.¹⁴ Among teens (aged 15 to 19), mortality spiked right after teens became eligible for the COVID shot.¹⁵ Between the week ending June 26 and the week ending September 18, 2020, and that same period of time in 2021, teenage deaths rose by 47%.¹⁶

A rise in disability claims¹⁷ also suggests that many who aren’t killed by this novel lethal threat are seriously injured, often long-term. For all of these reasons, the COVID jabs cannot be taken off the table. Logic demands that they be looked into as a potential causative factor.

Can VAERS Data Demonstrate Causality?

One person who has taken a strong stance against the claim that VAERS data cannot tell us anything about causation is Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. In the video “Vaccine Secrets: COVID Crisis,”¹⁸ he argues that VAERS can indeed be used to determine causality.

It’s important to realize that the idea that VAERS cannot show causality is part of how and why the CDC can claim none of the deaths is attributable to the COVID shot. Kirsch argues that this premise is in fact false, and that causation can be determined using VAERS’ data.

To prove his point, Kirsch gives the following analogy: Suppose you give a two-dose vaccine. After the first dose, nothing happens, but after the second dose, people die within 24 hours of a deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

When you look at the VAERS data, what you would find is no reports associated with the first dose, and a rash of deaths after the second dose, all within the same timeframe and with the same cause of death.

According to the CDC, you cannot ascribe any causality at all from that. To them, it’s just random chance that everyone died after the second dose, and from the same condition, and not the first dose or from another condition.

Kirsch argues that causality can indeed be identified from this kind of data. It’s very difficult to come up with another explanation for why people — many who are young, in perfect health with no predisposing conditions — die exactly 24 hours after their second dose. It’s even difficult to come up with another explanation for people who do have underlying conditions.

For example, is it reasonable to assume that people with, say, undiagnosed heart conditions, would die from DVT exactly 24 hours after getting a second dose of vaccine? Or that people with undiagnosed diabetes would die from DVT exactly 24 hours after their second dose?

Why not after the first dose, or two months after the second dose, or any other random number of hours or days, or for other random cause of death? Why would people randomly die of the same condition at the exact same time, over and over again?

At bare minimum, as an early warning system, VAERS is designed to flag potential causation. It’s by looking for repeated patterns of side effects that you would begin to identify a potentially problematic vaccine. Once a pattern is identified — and there’s no denying death within 24 hours to one week is a pattern seen for the COVID shots — an investigation should be launched.

But no such investigation has been launched for the COVID jabs. Clear-cut patterns are simply ignored. As an early warning system, VAERS is performing as intended, despite severe underreporting (the CDC recently published a paper in which they admit COVID jab adverse effects in children are underreported by a factor of 6.5¹⁹). It’s the follow-up that’s lacking. But lack of investigation and follow-up is not evidence that the shots can’t cause death.

‘Bad Batches’ Are Another Clue

Another clue that hints at SOME of the shots being able to cause rapid death is the “bad batch” phenomenon. Independent investigations have revealed that some lots of the shots are associated with very severe side effects and death, whereas other lots have no adverse events associated with their use.

According to howbadismybatch.com, a site that matches up vaccine lot codes with reports in the VAERS system, approximately 5% of the lots are responsible for 90% of all adverse reactions. Some of these batches have 50 times the number of deaths and disabilities associated with them, compared to other lots.²⁰

Another website that basically does the same thing is TheEagle’s VAERS Dashboard. (A video explaining how to use the dashboard can be found on Bitchute.²¹)

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, cofounder of the German Corona Investigative Committee, and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a former member of the German parliament, discuss this “smoking gun” evidence in the video above. According to Fuellmich and Wodarg, this lot-dependent data shows vaccine makers are conducting secret experiments within the larger public trial.

They appear to actually be doing lethal-dose testing on the public. Wodarg argues that the evidence for this is very clear from the data. They also appear to be coordinating these lethal-dose experiments, so that they’re not all releasing their most toxic lots at the same time, or in the same areas, so as to avoid detection through clustering.

More Data Showing COVID Jabs Can Kill

In closing, I will raise just two more pieces of evidence that speaks to COVID jabs having the ability to kill large numbers of people:

Based on the ever-mounting data, the claim that COVID shots have not, cannot, and/or will not cause death simply isn’t credible. And the longer these shots continue to be used, the greater the likelihood that they will indeed kill far more than the actual virus ever did. We also need to remember that the disabilities and long-term chronic ill health these shots are causing will prematurely kill many more, even if it takes 10 or 15 years, and we have no data on any of that yet.

Vaccine passports are poised to change the world as you know it, creating a digital trail of your every move. Right now, it’s injection status that’s being highlighted, but the end goal is to surveil and collect not only medical information but financial transactions, political affiliations, religious and philosophical beliefs and more.

Some have speculated that the introduction of digital IDs and vaccine passports in the U.S. is laying the infrastructure for a social credit system. China’s social credit system, a massive undertaking of government surveillance that aims to combine 600 million surveillance cameras — about one for every two citizens — with facial recognition technology, has the reported goal of being able to identify anyone, anywhere, within three seconds.¹

It’s difficult to imagine this type of tyranny transpiring in the U.S. — until you look back over the last two years. In 2019, it may also have seemed farfetched that you’d have to receive an injection of an experimental gene therapy in order to enter certain restaurants, gyms, entertainment venues and workplaces, yet, here we are.

As investigative journalist Corey Lynn, who recently detailed not only why it’s so important to stop vaccine passports but also 22 practical ways to do so, put it:²

“Simply put: the pandemic is to mandate an experimental gene therapy that the CDC likes to refer to as a ‘vaccine.’ That ‘vaccine’ is for purposes of getting everyone onto a vaccine ID passport. The passport is to force everyone into the new global social credit system.

That system is to bring the global population to full obedience, as the globalists control everyone’s access and spending to anything and everything in life, through the use of the new CBDC (central bank digital currency) system they are building toward.”

Are We Being Trained Like Dogs?

Lynn compared the vaccine ID passport system being rolled out to mandatory rabies vaccines for dogs. It might seem like a stretch, but there are many similarities between the rabies vaccine system and what could soon happen on a global scale, but this time to people, not dogs. Lynn writes:³

“Let’s put aside ‘rabies’ for one moment and look at the system that billionaire funders of big pharma and policymakers quickly put into place.

They made the vaccine mandatory, assigned an ID tag that dogs must wear, stored the information and address of the dog and its owner in a database, informed healthcare, retail, park services, and businesses that they should not provide services to those without this ID. If one doesn’t abide by this law, the owner can be fined, dog quarantined and force-vaccinated.”

Your dog can’t visit doggy day cares, dog parks or grooming centers unless he’s received the rabies shot. Failure to comply leaves your dog ostracized and you, as its owner, vulnerable to fines.

Lynn argues that, much like COVID-19, millions of pet owners have blindly gone along with the required rabies vaccines for their pets, despite questions over its safety and necessity on an annual basis, as studies suggest the shots may provide protection for more than six years.⁴

“They have tested this system on pet owners for years, and half the U.S. population willingly went along with this without even questioning it. Sound familiar?” Lynn asks. “… They are treating you like a dog, and they didn’t even show dogs the respect they deserve. You are nothing more than livestock to them.”⁵

How Digital Identities Threaten Your Freedom

Disguised as a tool for convenience and safety, digitized IDs, such as mobile driver’s licenses, “go way beyond what a driver’s license is about.”⁶ The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Annual Meeting 2018 in Davos was focused on “advancing good, user-centric digital identities.”⁷ This isn’t simply a matter of maintaining your name, address and birthdate, or proof that you’ve passed your state’s driving exam.

Digital identities are described by WEF as “complex webs, crossing the internet, of … personal data, digital history and the inferences that algorithms can draw from this.”⁸ These identities, they say, “are increasingly embedded in everything we do in our daily lives.” In a figure that describes digital identity systems in our everyday lives, WEF envisions that digital IDs, i.e., vaccine passports, will encompass:⁹

Health care — to access insurance, monitor health devices and wearables and prove qualifications (for providers)	Smart cities — to monitor devices that transmit data about energy usage, air quality and traffic congestion
Telecommunications — for individuals to use devices and service providers to monitor them	E-government — for individuals to file taxes, vote and collect benefits
Social platforms — for social interactions	E-commerce — to shop, conduct business transactions and secure payments
Financial services — to open bank accounts and carry out financial transactions online	Food and sustainability — to verify the origin of produce and enhance traceability in supply chains
Travel and mobility — to plan trips and go through border control between countries or regions	Humanitarian response — to access services and demonstrate qualifications to work in a foreign country

As an example of how this can translate to threatening something as foundational as your food choices, Lynn uses the example of the “entitlements digital currency” benefits program for food stamps in Illinois, which uses smart contracts and healthy eating tokens. She explains:¹⁰

“[O]nce you have been verified with your digital identity, you are given a benefit wallet that connects to smart contracts, and if you should ever try to purchase food items that do not fall into their determined ‘healthy food’ category, you won’t be able to purchase it. Surely they are just looking out for your health. What this really shows is their ability to block access to anything they don’t wish you to purchase or have access to.

Once all banks are connected into this digital identity (vaccine ID passport) system, they will be able to control your spending on everything. What happens if you do not get the Covid jab or booster? Every area of your life, included in the digital identity diagram above, will be controlled through this system.

All data on your life will be stored within your digital identity. They sell this enslavement system as ‘convenience’ and ‘equity,’ while ensuring you that ‘you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.’”

22 Ways to Stop Vaccine Passports

Your entire identity, including your medical history, finances, sexual orientation and much more, could soon be stored in a mobile app that’s increasingly required to partake in society. While some might call this convenience, others would call it oppression. Many others are being driven by fear to accept vaccine passports as “necessary” to protect safety.

In one survey that evaluated acceptance of vaccine passports, 60% stated they were in favor and only 20% stated they were strongly opposed. The study’s lead author, professor Stephan Lewandowsky, described those opposed as “surprisingly low,” adding, “It’s fascinating how people seem increasingly receptive to their personal data being used to inform themselves and others about what they can and can’t do.”¹¹

There’s still time, however, to stop the imposition of totalitarian control worldwide, and a key way to do so is to fight back against vaccine passports. Lynn highlights 22 ways to do just, which we can all take part in to protect privacy, freedom and constitutional rights.¹²

1. Do not comply, whether or not you’re coerced, bribed, guilted, intimidated or manipulated into complying. “Civil disobedience is necessary.”
2. Contact your investment adviser or asset manager. Give them a list of companies involved in vaccine passports and pushing the agenda, and tell them you no longer want to support them.
3. Avoid all digital identities and vaccine ID passports offered by banks, driver’s license facilities and other industries as a means of increasing “access” or “convenience.”
4. Tell your friends, family and acquaintances about the real goal of digital identities, which is to “put you on the Blockchain to surveil and control your every move.”
5. Contact your local sheriff. There are 3,081 sheriffs in the U.S., who should be contacted by phone, email and mail. They have the power to refuse to enforce illogical or illegal demands.
6. Share messages of truth around your community. You can spread the word using flyers, postcards, stickers or “swag with a message.”
7. Don’t support establishments that require proof of a shot or negative test. If you do, give them a card that reads, “I will not be a human experiment of a gene therapy jab for a virus that has a 99.98% survival rate.”
8. Email your state representative to block vaccine passports and digital IDs. Support and consider donating to those who are taking action against injection mandates and passports.
9. Move your money from large banks to small, family-owned banks and small credit unions. “If 10% of people did this, it would create a huge shift.”
10. Build family or community energy and food systems, as “resilient energy and food supplies will go a long way against their digital financial blackmailing systems.”
11. Boycott Amazon and big box stores that are “building the infrastructure to enslave humanity.”
12. Use cash as much as possible, as it allows you to avoid being tracked via your bank account and keeps your spending behaviors from being analyzed and used to manipulate industries, supply chains and markets.
13. Leave your cellphone at home and avoid any and all data-tracking apps.
14. Limit the personal data you share online, on paper and anywhere else.
15. Call your senators and demand that they oppose the Federal Vaccine Database Bill H.R. 550, which would allow the development of a federal vaccination registry.
16. Avoid purchasing “smart” products of any kind, such as smart televisions and Alexa devices. “These products are all used for surveillance purposes via audio, some visual, and data aggregating, not to mention potential integrated mind control technologies.”
17. Establish financial security outside the system, such as by learning or teaching trade skills and establishing networking and teamwork opportunities for people to build and work together within their local community.
18. Clear as many debts as you can so you aren’t beholden to anyone. “Invest in people, learning trade skills, family and community, hard assets, proper schooling for your children — which might mean a local homeschool network — local farmers for your food, any necessary supplies or equipment you feel you need, your health and peace of mind.”
19. Maintain resources — medical, legal and otherwise — to fight the COVID-19 tyranny¹³ and stay updated on legal action and legislation against COVID-19 mandates.
20. Be aware that it is not legal to require a person to get injected while it’s still under emergency use authorization. “Though the FDA has approved Pfizer’s Comirnaty jab, Pfizer has chosen to not yet produce it for the U.S., and instead are continuing to supply the EUA jab.”
21. Be there for those who have received the injection and are having adverse events or choosing not to get boosters. “Help them through it and find medical professionals that are aware of what is happening and will assist them.”
22. “Visualize a better future for all, where these corrupt individuals are stopped in their tracks.”

In mid-February 2021, Dr. Andrew Hill at Liverpool University published a scientific meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials involving the use of ivermectin in 1,255 COVID-19 patients. (The paper was initially posted on a preprint server.)

The review, which was funded by the World Health Organization and UNITAID, found that ivermectin increased viral clearance and reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75%. This is a rather massive benefit, yet the conclusion of the paper was dismissive, saying additional large clinical trials were needed to make a determination about whether or not to recommend its use.

Hill Accused of Scientific Misconduct

In early April 2021, Hill and his coauthors were accused of scientific misconduct by a French civic group called the Association BonSens. The TrialSite News video report from April 5 above reviews the details of this story. BonSens — labeled by some a “controversial group” based on its anti-mask mandate stance — accused Hill of data manipulation to downplay the usefulness of ivermectin.

According to BonSens, Hill’s analysis was then used by the WHO to recommend against ivermectin, even though it appears to have significant benefit. BonSens called on Hill to retract the paper, but Hill remained “resolute and stands behind the study,” TrialSite News said.

At the time, TrialSite News claimed to have been in conversation with “relevant and associated parties,” some of whom have asked to remain anonymous, who say Hill’s study was in fact modified, but that this was done “separate and apart from the investigator,” and that Hill had no say in the matter.

However, since then, one of the six studies Hill included in his analysis has been withdrawn “due to fraudulent data.” In a public notice¹ dated August 9, 2021, Hill and his coauthors addressed the matter, saying they would submit “a revised version excluding this study, and the currently posted paper will be retracted.” A revised and updated meta-analysis was published in November 2021.²

The updated review includes data from 23 randomized clinical trials with a total of 3,349 patients. Studies with “high risk of bias” were excluded. In this analysis, Hill found that “Ivermectin did not show a statistically significant effect on survival or hospitalizations,” and had only “borderline significant effect on duration of hospitalization in comparison with standard of care.”

No significant effect on clinical recovery time was detected. In conclusion, the paper states that the WHO “recommends the use of ivermectin only inside clinical trials.” Curiously, it also states that “a network of large clinical trials is in progress to validate the results seen to date.” What results might those be? Surely, they must be referring to positive results, or else a network of clinical trials would hardly be justified.

Positive Ivermectin Studies Largely Barred From Publication

December 3, 2021, TrialSite News interviewed Dr. Tess Laurie (above) about her own ivermectin analyses and that of Hill. She points out that she was concerned when she saw the initial meta-analysis Hill published, as the conclusion didn’t match the data. The reduction in death was significant, yet the conclusion was dismissive.

Laurie contacted Hill, asking him to explain his conclusion to her. He then told her that the conclusion of the paper was not his own. It had been written by his sponsor — the WHO. Laurie was shocked, she said, as this struck her as a clear conflict of interest.

In the interview, Laurie also discusses the general difficulty researchers have had, since the beginning, in getting papers published that support ivermectin. She admits her own team has downplayed the benefits by using extremely conservative analyses in an effort to get published.

“It seems, if you tell it like it is, you are not going to get published because you might be accused of overstating your case. And if you understate it, you’re told there’s not enough evidence,” Laurie says.

Strong Evidence for Ivermectin

According to Laurie, the evidence for ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is strong. In a previous interview, she reviewed a 13-study meta-analysis that found a 68% reduction in deaths. A follow-up review that included 15 studies found a 62% to 72% reduction in deaths.³

A meta-analysis⁴ by Laurie and her team published in the July-August 2021 issue of the American Journal of Therapeutics, which included 24 randomized controlled trials with a total of 3,406 participants, reported reductions in death ranging between 79% and 91%.

A study published February 2021 also reported that a five-day course of ivermectin at a dose of 12 mg per day sped up viral clearance, reducing the duration of symptomatic illness by three days compared to placebo (9.7 days versus 12.7 days).⁵

According to Laurie, what makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, and in the later inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary.

Dr. Surya Kant, a medical doctor in India who has written a white paper⁶ on ivermectin, claims the drug reduces replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by several thousand times.⁷ Kant’s paper led several Indian provinces to start using ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and as treatment for COVID-19 in the summer of 2020.⁸

Africa and Japan Defy the Odds With Ivermectin

Japan and Africa have also defied the odds with ivermectin. As reported by NewsRescue at the end of August 2021, “Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation predicted disaster in the developing world, but so far she has been dead wrong, at least as far as Africa is concerned.”⁹

Indeed, despite having nearly 1.4 billion people, Africa has maintained one of the lowest COVID caseloads and death rates in the world, accounting for just 4% of the global reported death rate as of mid-May 2021.¹⁰ While media feign confusion, ivermectin may well be the explanation for this phenomenon.

A study¹¹ published at the end of December 2020 found that African countries that participated in the African Program for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC), where intensive ivermectin mass campaigns were carried out between 1995 and 2015, had 28% lower COVID-19 mortality and 8% lower infection rates than non-APOC countries that did not participate in the ivermectin campaign.

“That a mass public health preventive campaign against COVID-19 may have taken place, inadvertently, in some African countries with massive community ivermectin use is an attractive hypothesis,” the authors said.¹²

Similarly, Japan has seen a massive decline in cases after adopting ivermectin as standard treatment against COVID. November 3, 2021, Free West Media reported:¹³

“The head of the Tokyo Medical Association appeared on national television in September urging doctors to use Ivermectin and they listened. A little over a month later, COVID-19 is under control in Japan …

Japan had slavishly adhered to all the Big Pharma prescriptions, including quarantine, contact tracing, masking, social distance, but finally the pandemic had hit them hard after they started aggressive vaccination in May 2021.

The results looked good initially, but in mid-July they started rising again and on August 6 cases hit a new all-time high and continued to rise.

Ivermectin was allowed as a treatment on August 13 and after 2 weeks the cases started to come down. In fact, they are now down 99% from the peak … In Japan, doctors can now prescribe it without restrictions, and people can buy it legally from India.”

Doctors Urge Acceptance of Ivermectin to Save Lives

In the U.S., the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.^14,15

FLCCC president Dr. Pierre Kory, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 2020,¹⁶ and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel January 6, 2021.¹⁷ As noted by the FLCCC:¹⁸

“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.

Dr. Kory testified that Ivermectin is effectively a ‘miracle drug’ against COVID-19 and called upon the government’s medical authorities … to urgently review the latest data and then issue guidelines for physicians, nurse-practitioners, and physician assistants to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19¹⁹ …

… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”²⁰

A one-page summary²¹ of the clinical trial evidence for Ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website. A more comprehensive, 31-page review²² of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology.

At the time of this writing, the number of trials involving ivermectin has risen to 71, including 31 randomized controlled trials. A listing of all the ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on c19Ivermectin.com.²³

The FLCCC’s COVID-19 protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+²⁴ while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,²⁵ due to the addition of ivermectin.

The two protocols^26,27 are available for download on the FLCCC Alliance website in multiple languages.

Take Control of Your Health Care

If COVID-19 were an actual medical crisis and not an excuse for a tyrannical power grab, doctors would have been allowed, indeed encouraged, to work together to find solutions. Their successes would then have been announced everywhere. Without doubt, ivermectin would have featured heavily in such reports, as doctors around the world have attested to its benefits.

That’s not what happened, though, which tells us we’re not dealing with a medical crisis that governments actually want to solve. As reported by the FLCCC, its members have “been blocked in attempts to disseminate scientific information about ivermectin on Facebook and other social media with the FLCCC’s pages repeatedly being shut down.”²⁸

Seasoned researchers like Laurie can’t get their research published, and the main thing they have in common is that they’re reporting positive results using ivermectin (and other common remedies). For nearly two years now, doctors and scientist have repeatedly shown we can control the COVID endemic, even with new variants. We can save the vast majority from severe illness and death.

Yet “authorities” within government, regulatory agencies and health agencies have refused to listen and insist there’s only one way forward — we need novel gene transfer injections that direct our cells to churn out the very toxin that makes COVID-19 so problematic. And when those shots are proven failures, the answer, these same “leaders” say, is more boosters!

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. The good news is you can choose who you listen to. You can listen to frontline medical experts, like the FLCCC, and follow their advice.

This article was previously published May 4, 2020, and has been updated with new information.

According to a January 2019 update by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 122 million American adults have diabetes or prediabetes¹ — conditions which have been shown to increase your chances of contracting and even dying from COVID-19.^2,3,4,5,6,7 As noted in an April 16, 2020, report by The New York Times:⁸

“Obesity may be one of the most important predictors of severe coronavirus illness, new studies say. It’s an alarming finding for the United States, which has one of the highest obesity rates in the world.”

Obesity Appears To Be Independent Risk Factor for COVID-19

After old age, obesity appears to be the most prominent risk factor for being hospitalized with COVID-19 — doubling the risk of hospitalization in patients under the age of 60 in one study⁹ — even if the individual has no other obesity-related health problems. A French study^10,11 also found obese patients treated for COVID-19 were more likely to require mechanical ventilation.

Dr. Leora Horwitz, director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone who co-wrote the paper¹² “Factors Associated with Hospitalization and Critical Illness Among 4,103 Patients With Covid-19 Disease In New York City” — which has not yet been peer-reviewed — told The New York Times:¹³

“Obesity is more important for hospitalization than whether you have high blood pressure or diabetes, though these often go together, and it’s more important than coronary disease or cancer or kidney disease, or even pulmonary disease.”

Most COVID-19 Patients Have More Than One Comorbidity

While obesity may top the list of comorbidities — underlying conditions that make COVID-19 worse — investigations reveal most COVID-19 patients have more than one underlying health issue. A study¹⁴ looking at 5,700 New York City patients found 88% had more than one comorbidity. Only 6.3% had just one underlying health condition and 6.1% had none.

In this particular study,¹⁵ published in JAMA, high blood pressure at 53.1% beat obesity (41.7%) as the No. 1 most common comorbidity among hospitalized patients, followed by diabetes at 31.7% and coronary artery disease at 10.4%.

Co-author Karina Davidson, senior vice president for the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research told Time magazine:¹⁶

“Having serious comorbidities increases your risk … We want patients with serious chronic disease to take a special precaution and to seek medical attention early, should they start showing signs and symptoms of being infected …”

Obesity Lowers Immune Function

According to The New York Times,¹⁷ one hypothesis for why obesity is worsening COVID-19 has to do with the fact that obesity causes chronic inflammation. Having more proinflammatory cytokines in circulation increases your risk of experiencing a cytokine storm. Obesity also makes you more vulnerable to infectious diseases by lowering your immune function.^{18,19,20,21,22,23}

As noted in one such study,²⁴ “there is a positive feedback loop between local inflammation in adipose tissue and altered immune response in obesity.” Yet another scientific review²⁵ pointed out “There is strong evidence indicating that excess adiposity negatively impacts immune function and host defense in obese individuals.” A 2018 review article further explained:²⁶

“Adipose tissue is now considered an extremely active endocrine organ that secretes cytokine-like hormones, called adipokines, either pro- or anti-inflammatory factors bridging metabolism to the immune system.

Leptin is historically one of most relevant adipokines, with important physiological roles in the central control of energy metabolism and in the regulation of metabolism-immune system interplay, being a cornerstone of the emerging field of immunometabolism.

Indeed, leptin receptor is expressed throughout the immune system and leptin has been shown to regulate both innate and adaptive immune responses.”

Glucose Metabolism Influences Cytokine Storms

An April 15, 2020, article²⁷ in The Scientist also reviews new evidence^28,29 that sheds further light on why obesity and diabetes are such potent risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection.

In a nutshell, higher blood glucose levels appear to play a significant role in viral replication and the development of cytokine storms. While the research in question looked at influenza A-induced cytokine storms, these findings may well be applicable in COVID-19 as well.

Cytokines are released by your immune system in response to foreign invaders. They, in turn, act as messengers that instruct other immune cells to fight the pathogen. In some cases, this immune response goes into overdrive, resulting in what’s known as a “cytokine storm” that can cause severe tissue damage and lead to death.

A cytokine storm response is typically the reason why people die from infections, be it the seasonal flu, Ebola, urinary tract infection or COVID-19. A critical player in cytokine production is the transcription factor interferon regulatory factor 5 (IRF5). In mice, genetically eliminating IRF5 protects them from influenza-induced cytokine storms.³⁰

Interestingly, “the inflammatory response to influenza infections is also known to drive up glucose metabolism,” The Scientist reports,³¹ “in part so that immune cells have the necessary energy to mount a strong response, and also because the virus needs the sugar to replicate.”

According to researchers at the State Key Laboratory of Virology at Wuhan University, the hexosamine biosynthesis pathway — a glucose metabolism pathway — is responsible for activating IRF5-induced cytokine production in cells and mice. The same pathway is also responsible for viral replication, they say.^32,33,34 As reported by The Scientist:³⁵

“Hexosamine biosynthesis starts with glucose and results in an end product called uridine diphosphate N-acetylglucosamine (UDP-GlcNAc) … Liu’s team now shows that O-GlcNAcylation of IRF5 is necessary for the transcription factor’s cytokine-producing activity …

The team also showed that patients infected with influenza have higher blood glucose levels and more O-GlcNacylation of IRF5 than healthy controls. Furthermore, blood glucose levels correlated tightly with levels of inflammatory cytokines.

The results show that ‘there is a connection [between] influenza virus infection, enhanced glucose metabolism and cytokine storm, all linked through O-GlcNAcylation of IFR-5,’ Mengji Lu, a virologist at the University Hospital Essen and a coauthor of the study, writes in an email to The Scientist …”

In a Science Advances press release, co-author Shi Liu states:³⁶

“We believe that glucose metabolism contributes to various COVID-19 outcomes since both influenza and COVID-19 can induce a cytokine storm, and since COVID-19 patients with diabetes have shown higher mortality.”

Insulin Resistance Is the Real Pandemic

So, to summarize, the real pandemic here appears to be dysregulated glucose metabolism; in other words, insulin resistance, which is exceedingly prevalent in the U.S.^37,38 Insulin resistance, in turn, is a diet-induced condition.

Specifically, processed foods — which are loaded with added sugars, processed grains and industrially processed omega-6 vegetable oils — are the primary culprits causing insulin resistance, Type 2 diabetes and obesity, and according to FoodNavigator.com,³⁹ doctors are finally starting to talk about the food industry’s role in the COVID-19 pandemic.

“A cardiologist has blamed the food industry for ‘normalizing’ ultra-processed junk food as more evidence emerges suggesting poor diet is the root cause behind increased mortality from COVID-19,” FoodNavigator states, adding:⁴⁰

“In light of the mounting evidence that obesity and poor diet increases the risk of a severe response to COVID-19 infection, medical professionals now want the public health message urgently updated. And this, they warn, means the food industry bracing itself for regulation, such as bans on advertising and taxes …

Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a London-based cardiologist, told the BBC that a Government and Public Health England failure to tell the public to change its diet would represent an act of ‘negligence and ignorance’ … For him, the pandemic highlighted that it was in the interest of everybody, including those in the food industry, to make sure the population was as healthy as possible.”

Malhotra stresses these views in his April 16, 2020, article⁴¹ “COVID-19 and the Elephant in the Room,” published in European Scientist. “Obesity and chronic metabolic disease is killing COVID-19 patients: Now is the time to eat real food,” he says. Indeed, if our public health agencies really want to save lives, it’s time to get onboard with nutrition.

“If this is not the time for Britain to reverse its epidemic of Type 2 diabetes, which as a single condition has been the most costly to the NHS [National Health Service], then when is?” Malhotra writes.⁴²

“Healthcare systems were already overstretched before COVID-19 because of decades of maldistribution of resources due to ‘too much medicine’ combined [with] our collective failure to implement policy changes to address the root cause of diet related disease — the unavoidable junk food environment.

The government public health message enhanced by the media to stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives has been powerful and effective. Given the speed at which health markers for metabolic disease improve from dietary interventions, an equally strong if not more significant population health message should now be to ‘eat real food, protect the NHS and save lives.’

Such implementation backed by policy changes may not just save hundreds and potentially thousands of lives around the world in the coming months but given the high likelihood of another international viral pandemic in the next decade a healthier population and a subsequently more manageable health service will be much better equipped to handle what would then be a smaller mortality peak on the next occasion.”

Junk Food Industry Faces Increasing Pressure

This is timely, considering a Corporate Accountability report,⁴³ announced⁴⁴ April 21, 2020, highlights the “outsized role” of International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a junk food industry front group funded by Coca-Cola, plays in shaping nutritional policies around the globe. According to the Corporate Accountability press release:⁴⁵

“Notable among the findings is that more than half of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee — the body that informs both national nutrition policy and how Americans eat and drink — has ties to ILSI …

The food and beverage industry’s role in stymying public health policy and propagating junk science is also taking on new dimensions during today’s pandemic. The surge of diet-related disease behind one in five deaths annually, is putting hundreds of millions of people at high risk of severe illness from COVID19.

‘For decades, Coke, its competitors, and its surrogates like ILSI have trafficked in junk science, co-opted public officials, and bullied advocates like myself …’ said Dr. Esperanza Ceron … ‘But we won’t be silenced. Too much is at stake’ …

‘It’s time for Coke to put something more on ice than its soft drinks,’ said Corporate Accountability Research Director Ashka Naik, a co-author of the report.

‘Coke is telling investors it cares about public health on the one hand, but funds ILSI to block public health safeguards on the other. Its misleading of investors and consumers is a liability that will only grow.’

A resolution … calls on Coke to come clean with its shareholders about its public health harms and liabilities. It would require a public, independent audit of how the corporation is contributing to the crisis of diet-related disease, whether through its products, its marketing, its political interference, or junk science.”

Data Show COVID-19 Isn’t a Significant Threat

In the featured Fundamental Health podcast above, Dr. Paul Saladino interviews Dr. Kirk Parsley about the lifestyle factors that are contributing to the high COVID-19 caseload in the U.S.

Saladino cites findings⁴⁶ showing that of the roughly 4,800 crew on the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, 660 had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. (As of April 23, when all of the crew had reportedly been tested, 840 tested positive.⁴⁷) However, as noted by Saladino and reported by Business Insider,⁴⁸ 60% were asymptomatic, meaning they had no symptoms. Only one crewmember has died,⁴⁹ and as of April 23, none were in intensive care.⁵⁰

Similarly, among the 3,711 passengers and crew onboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship, 712 (19.2%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and of these 46.5% were asymptomatic at the time of testing. Of those showing symptom, only 9.7% required intensive care and 1.3% died.⁵¹

Military personnel, as you would expect, tend to be healthier than the general population. Still, the data from these two incidents reveal several important points to consider. First of all, it suggests that even when living in close, crowded quarters, the infection rate is rather low.

Only 17.5% of the USS Theodore Roosevelt crew got infected — slightly lower than the 19.2% of those onboard the Diamond Princess, which had a greater ratio of older people.

Second, fit and healthy individuals are more likely to be asymptomatic than not — 60% of naval personnel compared to 46.5% of civilians onboard the Diamond Princess had no symptoms despite testing positive.

Saladino and Parsley go on to discuss current pandemic response efforts, such as the recommendation (and in some areas mandate) to wear a face mask when venturing outside. Both are convinced wearing a bandana across your face is completely useless, for the simple fact that the virus is so small it can easily slip through the fabric.

Parsley also reviews the statistics as of April 21, 2020, using Worldometer data,⁵² showing only 1.7% of American COVID-19 cases require hospitalization, and of those an even smaller ratio will actually die. Is it really reasonable to shut down the entire country and place everyone under house arrest over a 1.7% hospitalization rate?

So-called “COVID-19 cases,” by the way, simply means people who have tested positive using an RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) test, which is used to diagnose an active infection by detecting the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material.⁵³

Mortality Rates Are Still Vastly Overestimated

The hospitalization is actually bound to be even lower than 1.7% in real life, seeing how few people have actually been tested. Preliminary findings⁵⁴ published April 17, 2020, reveal the actual infection rate in Santa Clara County, California, is likely to be between 50- and 85fold higher than the number of confirmed cases.

This is based on seroprevalence data, meaning antibody testing. If you have antibodies against a particular pathogen, you’ve been exposed to it in the past, whether you developed symptoms or not, and you’re now immune to it.

Between April 3 and April 4, 3,330 Santa Clara county residents were tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a lateral flow immunoassay. In an effort to ensure results were as accurate as possible, they were adjusted for test performance characteristics using three estimates:

1. Test manufacturer data
2. A sample of 37 positive and 30 negative controls tested at Stanford
3. A combination of both

According to the authors:⁵⁵

“The unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5% … and the population-weighted prevalence was 2.81% … Under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics, the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% … to 4.16% …

These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases.

Conclusions: The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.”

Randomized antibody tests done in New York show that upward of 20% of the population in New York have been infected, suggesting that the virus had spread far more widely than known.⁵⁶

This is also strong support for a lower fatality rate as previous inaccurate PCR tests were only done on sick people and there was no idea how many in the population had been infected. Since more people are infected, this increases the denominator in the calculation and lowers the mortality rate calculation.

Blood Pressure Drugs May Worsen COVID-19

Making matters worse, the drugs routinely used to treat lifestyle-induced afflictions such as high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease may also be contributing to adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. According to Reuters:⁵⁷

“A disproportionate number of patients hospitalized by COVID-19 … have high blood pressure. Theories about why the condition makes them more vulnerable … have sparked a fierce debate among scientists over the impact of widely prescribed blood-pressure drugs.

Researchers agree that the life-saving drugs affect the same pathways that the novel coronavirus takes to enter the lungs and heart. They differ on whether those drugs open the door to the virus or protect against it …

The drugs are known as ACE inhibitors and ARBs … In a recent interview with a medical journal, Anthony Fauci — the U.S. government’s top infectious disease expert — cited a report showing similarly high rates of hypertension among COVID-19 patients who died in Italy and suggested the medicines, rather than the underlying condition, may act as an accelerant for the virus …

There is evidence that the drugs may increase the presence of an enzyme — ACE2 — that produces hormones that lower blood pressure by widening blood vessels. That’s normally a good thing.

But the coronavirus also targets ACE2 and has developed spikes that can latch on to the enzyme and penetrate cells … So more enzymes provide more targets for the virus, potentially increasing the chance of infection or making it more severe.

Other evidence, however, suggests the infection’s interference with ACE2 may lead to higher levels of a hormone that causes inflammation, which can result in acute respiratory distress syndrome, a dangerous build-up of fluid in the lungs. In that case, ARBs may be beneficial because they block some of the hormone’s damaging effects.”

This presents significant challenges for patients and doctors alike, as there’s currently no significant consensus on whether patients should discontinue the drugs. The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford in England recommends switching to alternative blood pressure medicines in patients who have only mildly elevated blood pressure and are at high risk for COVID-19.

A paper in NEJM stressed the potential benefits of the drugs instead, saying patients should continue taking them. However, several of the scientists who wrote that paper have done “extensive, industry-supported research on antihypertensive drugs,” Reuters notes.

Dr. Kevin Kavanagh, founder of the patient advocacy group Health Watch USA, believes it would be unwise to allow scientists funded by the drug industry to give clinical directions at this time. “Let others without a conflict of interest try to make a call,” he said.⁵⁸

Restore Insulin Sensitivity for Long-Term Risk Mitigation

If we want people to survive the next pandemic, whatever that might be, then improving public health has got to be the No. 1 priority going forward. Waiting for a drug cure or vaccine is a fool’s game.

Health care really needs to start emphasizing strategies known to improve overall health rather than throwing drugs at symptoms that don’t address the underlying causes. Robust immune function is necessary to effectively combat COVID-19, and the same is true for all other infectious disease.

When it comes to improving health, addressing insulin resistance is truly key, seeing how it’s a factor in virtually all chronic diseases. And, to do that, we need to dramatically cut down on processed foods.

As noted by Dr. Sandra Weber, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, in The New York Times,⁵⁹ “We know that if you do not have good glucose control, you’re at high risk for infection, including viruses and presumably this one [COVID-19] as well … [improving glucose control] would put you in a situation where you would have better immune function.”

For those who desire more in-depth understanding of how you can become metabolically flexible and eliminate insulin resistance, consider picking up a copy of my book, “Fat for Fuel.” It goes into far greater detail, providing a comprehensive program that will help optimize your metabolic flexibility and strengthen your immune system — both of which are crucial components of health and disease prevention.

January 12, 2022, “Rising” cohost Ryan Grim reviewed the content of the National Institutes of Health emails released by the House Oversight Committee Republicans. According to Grim, the emails:

“… paint a damning picture of U.S. government officials wrestling with whether the novel coronavirus may have leaked out of a lab they were funding, deciding that it may very well have, and then actively suppressing those questions.”

What this latest cache of emails reveal is that February 1, 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), his boss, then-NIH director Dr. Francis Collins and at least 11 other scientists joined a conference call, during which they were told the SARS-CoV-2 virus might have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, and that it might have been genetically engineered.

What Was Said During the Secret Conference Call?

The next day, Dr. Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, circulated a set of notes, summarizing the discussion. Mike Farzan, the scientist who discovered the SARS receptor, had reportedly stated that while the receptor binding domain (RBD) did not look engineered to him, he was bothered by the furin site.

According to Farrar’s note, Farzan “has a hard time explain[ing] that as an event outside the lab.” Farrar’s summary goes on to state that:

“… the likely explanation could be something as simple as passage SARS-live CoVs in tissue culture on human cell lines (under BSL-2) for an extended period of time, accidentally creating a virus that would be primed for rapid transmission between humans via gain of furin site (from tissue culture) and adoption to human ACE2 receptor via repeated passage …

So, I think it becomes a question of how do you put all this together, whether you believe in this series of coincidences, what you know of the lab in Wuhan, how much could be in nature — accidental release or natural event? I am 70:30 or 60:40.”

A note from professor and microbiologist Robert (Bob) Garry, Ph.D.,¹ reads:

“Before I left the office for the ball, I aligned the nCoV with the 96% bat CoV sequenced at WIV. Except for the RBD the S proteins are essential identical at the amino acid level — well all but the perfect insertion of 12 nucleotides that adds [sic] the furin site.

S2 is over its whole length essentially identical. I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus or one very similar to it to nCoV where you insert exactly 4 amino acids 12 nucleotide [sic] that all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function — that and you don’t change any other amino acids in S2?

I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature. Do the alignment of the spikes at the amino acid level — its [sic] stunning. Of course, in the lab it would be easy to generate the perfect 12 base insert that you wanted.

Another scenario is that the progenitor of nCoV was a bat virus with the perfect furin cleavage site generated over evolutionary times. In this scenario RaTG13 the WIV virus was generated by a perfect deletion of 12 nucleotides while essentially not changing any other S2 amino acid [sic]. Even more implausible IMO. That is the big if.”

Politics Overrode Scientific Consensus

So, in the earliest days of February 2020, the general consensus was that a WIV lab leak was a plausible scenario, and perhaps the most likely. However, politics rapidly entered the scene.

In a February 2, 2020, email, Collins stated that he was “coming around to the view that a natural origin is more likely,” and warned that “voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate” lest they convene a panel of experts to address the matter, and that such conspiracies could do “great potential harm to science and international harmony.”

Two days later, Fauci and Collins received a draft of the article, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” later published in Nature Medicine.² As noted by Grim, the actual draft is secret. All we have is an email reply from Fauci, in which he appears to flag or object to the inclusion of serial passage through humanized mice. Serial passaging is only briefly touched upon in the published article, which states:

“Furthermore, a hypothetical generation of SARS-CoV-2 by cell culture or animal passage would have required prior isolation of a progenitor virus with very high genetic similarity, which has not been described.

Subsequent generation of a polybasic cleavage site would have then required repeated passage in cell culture or animals with ACE2 receptors similar to those of humans, but such work has also not previously been described.”

If Fauci and Collins edited this article, “this is where they put the pressure of their pen the heaviest,” Grim says. Essentially, the issue of animal passage is raised, but then immediately dismissed.

Overall, the Nature Medicine article roundly dismissed the idea that the virus originated in a lab, proposing instead that, despite a dearth of evidence, it must have evolved naturally. The article didn’t stem the flow of questions, though. In a mid-April 2020 email to Fauci, Collins decried the continuation of the lab leak theory:

“Wondering if there is something NIH can do to help put down this very destructive conspiracy, with what seems to be growing momentum … I hoped the Nature Medicine article on the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 would settle this. But probably didn’t get much visibility. Anything more we can do? Ask the National Academy to weigh in?”

Fauci replied, “I would not do anything about this right now. It is a shiny object that will go away in times [sic].” He was wrong, of course, and the reason questions didn’t go away was because emerging evidence kept strengthening the lab leak theory, while there is nothing with which to support natural evolution.

The COVID Propaganda Wars

The Nature Medicine article is a glaring example of propaganda being promoted as science, and of science in turn being used for political aims. There’s really nothing scientific about dismissing a valid origin hypothesis in order to maintain “international harmony.”

Of course, the entire COVID pandemic has been plagued by propaganda. Behavioral scientist Simon Ruda, cofounder of the British Behavioral Insights Team, unofficially known as the “Nudge Unit,” confirms that the British government has been using propaganda tactics to scare the public into complying with COVID rules.

According to Ruda, fear tactics such as an overemphasis on flawed models were initially deployed to secure compliance during the first lockdown. However, it then never ended. “That fear seems to have subsequently driven policy decisions in a worrying feed-back loop,” he wrote in a January 13, 2022, Unherd article.³ He goes on to state:

“I remain a supporter of the use of behavioral science in public policy, and of the Behavioral Insights Team, more commonly known as the Nudge Unit. However, witnessing how the UK and other governments have responded to the pandemic, I can now appreciate the vulnerabilities of well-intentioned, democratic regimes, and the potential for behavioral science to be used inappropriately …

In 2010, the Nudge Unit was the first and only government unit dedicated to behavioral science in public policy. By 2021, there were over 400 globally …

We advocated two new dimensions to policy making: behavior-focused models describing what drives human decision making; and the priority of empirical research over all other sources of information.

I believe this contribution has — and can — continue to serve governments well. But it must be used appropriately. For me, it means seeing the bigger picture: recognizing what you can and can’t measure, and seeing the potential for unintended consequences …

[I]nvoking different emotions to convince people to stay at home during the pandemic⁴ is less appropriate. It could have negative consequences that are missed in the typical RCT evaluation.

This is because metrics will focus on proxies for behavior, but they probably can’t capture the potential longer-term effects of these campaigns beyond what is immediately measurable — such as worse inter-societal relations and reduced trust in institutions, the consequences of which could be significant …

In my mind, the most egregious and far-reaching mistake made in responding to the pandemic has been the level of fear willingly conveyed on the public …

Though I don’t think it’s fair to blame behavioral scientists for propagating fear (I suspect that this was more to do with Government communicators and the incentives of news broadcasters), it may be worth reflecting on where we need to draw the line between the choice-maximizing nudges of libertarian paternalism, and the creeping acceptance among policy makers that the state should use its heft to influence our lives without the accountability of legislative and parliamentary scrutiny.

Nudging made subtle state influence palatable, but mixed with a state of emergency, have we inadvertently sanctioned state propaganda?”

As noted by Ruda, it’s become quite clear over the past two years that we cannot rely on science or data alone in a pandemic. We also need “reflection, reason and debate … multidisciplinary teams” and “a strong culture of intellectual humility and designed-in cognitive diversity.”

Behavioral Science Has No Place in a Democracy

In his piece, Ruda acknowledges some of the criticism the Nudge Unit has received since its inception in 2010. But while Ruda still believes there’s a place for behavioral science in government, others say no way. In a January 14, 2022, Spiked article,⁵ Professor Emeritus of sociology Frank Furedi insists that “government’s use of behavioral science violates our freedom to judge and act for ourselves.”

“Ruda’s admission is … striking,” Furedi writes, adding that Ruda “even expressed concern about the state’s willingness ‘to use its heft to influence our lives without the accountability of legislative and parliamentary scrutiny.’”

Furedi goes on to cite a March 2020 paper by the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Behavior Advisory Committee, written on behalf of the U.K. government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), in which they stated that the people were “too relaxed about the pandemic.” Furedi writes:⁶

“‘A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened,’ it stated, adding that too many ‘are reassured by the low death rate in their demographic group.’

It then urged the government to increase ‘the perceived level of personal threat… among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.’ Some members of SAGE have since reported feeling ’embarrassed’ by the nature of SPI-B’s advice. As one regular SAGE attendee put it last year:

‘The British people have been subjected to an unevaluated psychological experiment without being told that is what’s happening.’

It is to be welcomed that at least some behavioral scientists are now questioning the political use of their discipline. But the problem goes deeper than fear-mongering during the pandemic. We need to address the corrosive influence of behavioral science on public life in general.”

Furedi stresses that the principal problem with “nudging” is that this kind of behavioral science is “fundamentally anti-democratic.” It’s based on the assumption that people “cannot be trusted to make rational choices,” and therefore must be subject to management by bureaucrats.

“They treat people’s emotional lives, lifestyles and relationships as legitimate objects of policymaking and professional intervention,” Furedi writes, adding that “This politics of behavior has given rise to a new form of technocratic governance.”

Indeed, over the past two years, subliminal psychological manipulation has near-universally replaced debate and discussion. The problem is that you cannot have a democracy without open debate. What we have now is, in fact, a technocratic form of governance, whether people realize it or not, and unless we pull the plug, there soon won’t be such a thing as democracy anywhere in the world.

‘Nudging’ Is Fundamentally Anti-Democratic

“When Britain’s then deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, casually remarked in 2010 that the Nudge Unit could change the way citizens think, he spoke like a totalitarian ruler. Since when was it within a democratic government’s mandate to try to manipulate and change its citizens’ thoughts?” Furedi asks.

He points to a report called “Mindspace: Influencing Behavior Through Public Policy,”⁷ written by the U.K. Cabinet Office and the Institute for Government and published in 2010, in which they reveal and basically admit that the use of behavioral psychology in policymaking “deprives people of the power to democratically determine their future,” Furedi says.

The report actually presents this kind of government activity as a form of “surrogate willpower,” which on its face shows that individual freedom is not honored or even taken seriously. Instead, government is actively trying to make our decisions for us, in large part by indoctrinating us with certain “values” and ideas that we might not naturally share or agree with.

At the end of the day, whether behavioral psychologists get things “right” or “wrong,” they are violating people’s freedom to make their own decisions all the same, and as noted by Furedi:⁸

“This threatens the very pre-condition for a flourishing, democratic public life — namely, the existence of morally autonomous individuals. After all, it is only through the making of choices that people develop a sense of responsibility for themselves and for others in society.

As our experience of the pandemic shows, we need to respect the common sense of citizens and allow them to make choices in line with their circumstances … Our minds must be a no-go area for these self-appointed high priests of the soul.”

Weaponizing Behavioral Science

The danger of behavioral science is also in full display when we look at how it’s being weaponized against the very public it claims to serve. It started with people who refused to buy into the propaganda being labeled as “anti-science conspiracy theorists” and “anti-vaxxers.” Now, those same people are being labeled as terrorists and targeted by national security agencies.

“Concern for U.K. Security as Anti-Vaxxer Groups Evolve Toward U.S.-Style Militias,” a headline in The Guardian⁹ declared in mid-January 2022. “Counter-terrorism officials are monitoring movement amid military-style training and lurch towards violent extremism.” According to this report, such individuals might “undermine national health security.”

In other words, “health” itself has now been weaponized. The national vaccination program equates to “national security,” and sharing information that might cause vaccine hesitancy equates to an act of domestic terrorism. It’s ridiculous, of course, but that doesn’t make it any less serious.

The Davos Agenda

Between January 17 and 21, 2022, the World Economic Forum hosted its annual meeting in Davos, where the top technocrats in the world meet to hatch and share the next steps in the technocratic takeover of the world.

WEF founder Klaus Schwab opened the Forum’s virtual Davos agenda by introducing Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party since 2012 and president of the People’s Republic of China since 2013.

Schwab’s short introduction makes it clear that this dictatorship is being looked to for inspiration and leadership as The Great Reset moves forward. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that Fauci and Collins were more concerned about “international harmony” than getting to the bottom of where SARS-CoV-2 came from.

Using the Chinese model of behavior modification and social engineering through technological surveillance and coercion, the WEF and its global allies aim to:

• Continue the building of a global biosecurity state in the name of fighting the COVID pandemic
• “Revitalize the global economy and accelerate its transition to net zero”
• “Preserve biodiversity by deploying nature-based solutions”
• “Narrow the gap between the rich and the poor to achieve more sustainable global development”

Anyone familiar with technocracy will recognize what a pile of manure this is. Without understanding what these goals entail, they might sound good, but in reality, this agenda is a call to war against humanity as we know it.