Originally published: July 12, 2021

In the featured video, which aired June 22, 2021, independent reporter Stew Peters plays an audio recording¹ made by a young woman who suddenly developed Guillain-Barre syndrome after her Moderna injection. Her neurologist believes her condition is the direct result of the COVID shot.

While the neurologist filed an adverse event report with the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), the woman decided to report it to Moderna as well. The Moderna rep does not appear the least surprised by the injury, and appears to admit he’s received similar reports before.

Everyone Who Gets the Jab Is Part of the Safety Trial

During that call, the Moderna representative reads her the following disclaimer:

“The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine has not been approved or licensed by the Food and Drug Administration, but it has been authorized for emergency use by the FDA under an emergency use authorization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019, for use in individuals 18 years of age and older.

There is no FDA-approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19. The EUA for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is in effect for the duration of the COVID-19 EUA declaration, justifying emergency use of the product unless that declaration is terminated or the authorization is revoked sooner.”

The rep also points out that all clinical trial phases are still ongoing, and that long-term protective efficacy against COVID-19 is unknown. When the patient asks whether everyone who gets the COVID shot — even if they did not specifically sign up to be a trial participant — is in fact part of the clinical trial, he replies, with a chuckle, “pretty much, yeah.”

So, in a nutshell, while vaccine makers, health authorities, mainstream media, social media platforms like Facebook and public advertisements tell you the vaccine has undergone rigorous testing, has been “approved” and is safe and effective, none of those claims are true.

The shots have received emergency use authorization only, which is completely different from regular FDA approval and licensing. They don’t know how effective the shot is, or how long the effects last, and they don’t know if it’s safe, because the trials have not been completed. In fact, the public vaccination campaign is a big part of those trials, whether people realize it or not.

Children Are Being Coerced Into Medical Experimentation

This makes the push to inject children and teens all the more disturbing. Vaccine manufacturers have received EUA for children as young as 12,² and parents are now being told their children “must” participate in what is a medical experiment.

People are being told it’s their social “duty” to participate in a medical experiment. People are told they have to participate in a medical experiment or lose their job or educational prospects. What’s happening here is no different than being told you “must” participate in a new cancer drug trial in order to keep your job or attend school. It’s completely absurd, unethical and illegal.^3,4,5

When people do get the shot, they are not informed that they’re taking part in a medical experiment and they’re not asked to sign a consent form (as this particular requirement is waived under EUA rules). While consent forms are waived under an EUA, providing truthful information about potential side effects is not.

It’s really important to realize that coercing people to participate in medical experimentation violates long-established research ethics rules. If you wanted to perform a medical study and decided to lure participants with free ice cream or a free Playstation, the ethics committee would shut down your project.

The problem here is that the COVID-19 injection trials have no oversight boards. There’s no Data Safety Monitoring Board, no Clinical Event Committee and no Clinical Ethics Committee. This despite the fact that such oversight is standard practice for all human research. If such committees do exist, they’ve not been announced and no standard reports have been published.

Myocarditis Update

Peters also addresses an increasingly common side effect, namely myocarditis, i.e., heart inflammation. Animal research performed by Masonic Medical Research Institute researchers in collaboration with the Boston Children’s Hospital was posted on the preprint server bioRxiv, June 20, 2021.⁶

The study, “Selectively Expressing SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein S1 Subunit in Cardiomyocytes Induces Cardiac Hypertrophy in Mice,”⁷ found that the spike protein itself (without the rest of the virus) “directly impairs endothelial function.” As it turns out, the S1 subunit of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein activates NF-kB, a protein that controls not only the transcription of DNA but also cellular survival, cytokine production and secondary inflammation.

This disease process does not involve the ACE2 receptor but rather the toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), which is responsible for the detection of pathogens and the initiation of innate immune responses. In summary, the research showed spike protein subunit “caused heart dysfunction, induced hypertrophic remodeling and elicited cardiac inflammation.”

“Since CoV-2-S does not interact with murine ACE2, our study presents a novel ACE2-independent pathological role of CoV-2-S [SARS-CoV-2], and suggests that the circulating CoV-2-S1 [CoV-2-spike protein subunit 1] is a TLR4-recognizable alarmin that may harm the CMs [cardiomyocytes, i.e., heart cells] by triggering their innate immune responses,” the authors state.⁸

In short, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein subunit directly damages the heart and causes myocarditis by triggering an exaggerated immune response — a cytokine storm — in the heart cells.

Importantly, hypertrophic remodeling means this is a permanent reshaping and damage of the heart, which refutes claims that the hundreds of myocarditis cases reported to VAERS are of little concern and that their hearts will eventually heal. I believe those assumptions will be found to be wrong, and that many of them may be left with permanently damaged hearts.

‘They Knew What They Were Doing’

As noted by Jane Ruby, Ph.D., on the Stew Peters Show, this research should have been done before these injections were put out into the public domain. Instead of conducting rigorous animal trials, vaccine makers are using the public as guinea pigs in one of the biggest experiments in human history, making tens of billions of dollars in profits while enjoying absolute immunity from any damage their experimental jabs cause.

By falsely labeling these gene modification tools as vaccines (because gene therapy does not qualify as a pandemic treatment that can be granted immunity against liability), they’ve been given the green light to conduct human experimentation without remuneration, informed consent or liability under the guise of a public health emergency.

There’s no way these gene therapies in any rational society would have been released to be tested on this many human subjects, including pregnant women and children, were it not for this sinister misrepresentation.

Here’s the most disturbing part, though: It appears these COVID injections may have been designed to cause this kind of cell damage on purpose. Why? Because the researchers also tested the natural spike protein subunit of another coronavirus called NL63.

This virus was chosen because it, like SARS-CoV-2, uses the ACE2 receptor for entry into the human cell. The NL63 spike protein did not, however, trigger this kind of heart damage. “They knew what they were doing when they engineered this mRNA to make this particular spike protein,” Ruby says.

Pfizer Injection Victim Speaks Out

Originally published: September 7, 2021

“Let’s start with a thought experiment: If an engineering design flaw exists and no one measures it, can it really injure people or kill them?” a Twitter user named Ehden writes.¹ He goes on to discuss an overlooked aspect of the COVID mRNA shots, something called “codon optimization,” which virtually guarantees unexpected results. Ehden explains:²

“Trying to tell your body to generate proteins is hard for many reasons. One of them is the fact that when you try to run the protein information via ribosomes which process that code and generate the protein, it can be very slow or can get stuck during the process.

Luckily, scientists found a way to overcome this problem, by doing code substitution: instead of using the original genetic code to generate the protein, they changed the letters in the code so the code would be optimized. This is known as Codon Optimization.”

COVID Shots Use Codon Optimization

A codon consists of three nucleotides, and nucleotides are the building blocks of DNA. An August 2021 article in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, addressed the use of codon optimization as follows:³

“The open reading frame of the mRNA vaccine is the most crucial component because it contains the coding sequence that is translated into protein.

Although the open reading frame is not as malleable as the non-coding regions, it can be optimized to increase translation without altering the protein sequence by replacing rarely used codons with more frequently occurring codons that encode the same amino acid residue.

For instance, the biopharmaceutical company CureVac AG discovered that human mRNA codons rarely have A or U at the third position and patented a strategy that replaces A or U at the third position in the open reading frame with G or C. CureVac used this optimization strategy for its SARS-CoV-2 candidate CVnCoV …

Although replacement of rare codons is an attractive optimization strategy, it must be used judiciously. This is because, in the case of some proteins, the slower translation rate of rare codons is necessary for proper protein folding.

To maximize translation, the mRNA sequence typically incorporates modified nucleosides, such as pseudouridine, N1-methylpseudouridine or other nucleoside analogues. Because all native mRNAs include modified nucleosides, the immune system has evolved to recognize unmodified single-stranded RNA, which is a hallmark of viral infection.

Specifically, unmodified mRNA is recognized by pattern recognition receptors, such as Toll-like receptor 3 (TLR3), TLR7 and TLR8, and the retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIGI) receptor. TLR7 and TLR8 receptors bind to guanosine- or uridine-rich regions in mRNA and trigger the production of type I interferons, such as IFNα, that can block mRNA translation.

The use of modified nucleosides, particularly modified uridine, prevents recognition by pattern recognition receptors, enabling sufficient levels of translation to produce prophylactic amounts of protein.

Both the Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech SARS-CoV-2 vaccines … contain nucleoside-modified mRNAs. Another strategy to avoid detection by pattern recognition receptors, pioneered by CureVac, uses sequence engineering and codon optimization to deplete uridines by boosting the GC content of the vaccine mRNA.”

Much of this information was previously reviewed in my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D. You can’t see the article but the video is embedded above. This study was published well after our interview and merely confirms what Seneff and Mikovits have unraveled in their research.

According to Ehden, 60.9% of the codons in COVID shots have been optimized, equivalent to 22.5% of the nucleotides, but he doesn’t specify which shot he’s talking about, or exactly where the data came from.

That all mRNA COVID shots are using codon optimization to one degree or another is clear, however. A July 2021 article⁴ in the journal Vaccines specifically evaluates and comments on the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA shots, noting:

“The design of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines involves many different types of optimizations … The mRNA components of the vaccine need to have a 5′-UTR to load ribosomes efficiently onto the mRNA for translation initiation, optimized codon usage for efficient translation elongation, and optimal stop codon for efficient translation termination.

Both 5′-UTR and the downstream 3′-UTR should be optimized for mRNA stability. The replacement of uridine by N1-methylpseudourinine (Ψ) complicates some of these optimization processes because Ψ is more versatile in wobbling than U. Different optimizations can conflict with each other, and compromises would need to be made.

I highlight the similarities and differences between Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines and discuss the advantage and disadvantage of each to facilitate future vaccine improvement. In particular, I point out a few optimizations in the design of the two mRNA vaccines that have not been performed properly.”

What Can Go Wrong?

One key take-home from the Nature Reviews Drug Discovery article⁵ cited above is that replacing rare codons “must be used judiciously,” as rarer codons can have slower translation rates and a slowed-down rate is actually necessary to prevent protein misfolding.

A (adenine) and U (uracil) in the third position are rare, and the COVID shots replace these A’s and U’s with G’s (guanine) or C’s (cytosine). According to Seneff, this switch results in a 1,000-fold greater amount of spike protein compared to being infected with the actual virus.

What could go wrong? Well, just about anything. Again, the shot induces spike protein at levels unheard of in nature (even if SARS-CoV-2 is a “souped up” manmade concoction), and the spike protein is the toxic part of the virus responsible for the most unique effects of the virus, such as the blood clotting disorders, neurological problems and heart damage.

So, to expect the COVID shot to not produce these kinds of effects would be rather naïve. The codon switches might also result in protein misfolding, which is equally bad news. As explained by Seneff in our previous interview:

“The spike proteins that these mRNA vaccines are producing … aren’t able to go into the membrane, which I think is going to encourage it to become a problematic prion protein. Then, when you have inflammation, it upregulates alpha-synuclein [a neuronal protein that regulates synaptic traffic and neurotransmitter release].

So, you’re going to get alpha-synuclein drawn into misfolded spike proteins, turning into a mess inside the dendritic cells in the germinal centers in the spleen. And they’re going to package up all this crud into exosomes and release them. They’re then going to travel along the vagus nerve to the brainstem and cause things like Parkinson’s disease.

So, I think this is a complete setup for Parkinson’s disease … It’s going to push forward the date at which someone who has a propensity towards Parkinson’s is going to get it.

And it’s probably going to cause people to get Parkinson’s who never would have gotten it in the first place — especially if they keep getting the vaccine every year. Every year you do a booster, you bring the date that you’re going to get Parkinson’s ever closer.”

Immune Dysfunction and Viral Flare-Ups

Other significant threats include immune dysfunction and the flare-up of latent viral infections, which is something Mikovits has been warning about. In our previous interview, she noted:

“We use poly(I:C) [a toll-like receptor 3 agonist] to signal the cell to turn on the type I interferon pathway, and because [the spike protein your body produces in response to the COVID shot] is an unnatural synthetic envelope, you’re not seeing poly(I:C), and you’re not [activating] the Type I interferon pathway.

You’ve bypassed the plasmacytoid dendritic cell, which combined with IL-10, by talking to the regulatory B cells, decides what subclasses of antibodies to put out. So, you’ve bypassed the communication between the innate and adaptive immune response. You now miss the signaling of the endocannabinoid receptors …

A large part of Dr. [Francis] Ruscetti’s and my work over the last 30 years has been to show you don’t need an infectious transmissible virus — just pieces and parts of these viruses are worse, because they also turn on danger signals. They act like danger signals and pathogen-associated molecular patterns.

So, it synergistically leaves that inflammatory cytokine signature on that spins your innate immune response out of control. It just cannot keep up with the myelopoiesis [the production of cells in your bone marrow]. Hence you see a skew-away from the mesenchymal stem cell towards TGF-beta regulated hematopoietic stem cells.

This means you could see bleeding disorders on both ends. You can’t make enough firetrucks to send to the fire. Your innate immune response can’t get there, and then you’ve just got a total train wreck of your immune system.”

We’re now seeing reports of herpes and shingles infection following COVID-19 injection, and this is precisely what you can expect if your Type I interferon pathway is disabled. That’s not the end of your potential troubles, however, as these coinfections could accelerate other diseases as well.

For example, herpes viruses have been implicated as a trigger of both AIDS⁶ and myalgic encephalomyelitis⁷ (chronic fatigue syndrome or ME-CFS). According to Mikovits, these diseases don’t appear until viruses from different families partner up and retroviruses take out the Type 1 interferon pathway. Long term, the COVID mass injection campaign may be laying the foundation for a rapidly approaching avalanche of a wide range of debilitating chronic illnesses.

Are COVID Shots Appropriately Optimized?

As noted in the Vaccines article cited earlier, the codon optimization in the Pfizer and Moderna shots could be problematic:⁸

“As mammalian host cells attack unmodified exogeneous RNA, all U nucleotides were replaced by N1-methylpseudouridine (Ψ). However, Ψ wobbles more in base-pairing than U and can pair not only with A and G, but also, to a lesser extent, with C and U.

This is likely to increase misreading of a codon by a near-cognate tRNA. When nucleotide U in stop codons was replaced by Ψ, the rate of misreading of a stop codon by a near-cognate tRNAs increased.

Such readthrough events would not only decrease the number of immunogenic proteins, but also produce a longer protein of unknown fate with potentially deleterious effects …

The designers of both vaccines considered CGG as the optimal codon in the CGN codon family and recoded almost all CGN codons to CGG … [M]ultiple lines of evidence suggest that CGC is a better codon than CGG. The designers of the mRNA vaccines (especially mRNA-1273) chose a wrong codon as the optimal codon.”

The paper also points out the importance of vaccine mRNA to be translated accurately and not merely effectively, because if the wrong amino acids are incorporated, it can confuse your immune system and prevent it from identifying the correct targets.

Accuracy is also important in translation termination, and here it comes down to selecting the correct stop codons. Stop codons (UAA, UAG or UGA), when present at the end of an mRNA coding sequence signals the termination of protein synthesis.

According to the author, both Pfizer and Moderna selected less than optimal stop codons. “UGA is a poor choice of a stop codon, and UGAU in Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines could be even worse,” she says.

What Health Problems Can We Expect to See More Of?

While the variety of diseases we may see a rise in as a result of this vaccination campaign are myriad, some general predictions can be made. We’ve already seen a massive uptick in blood clotting disorders, heart attacks and stroke, as well as heart inflammation.

More long term, Seneff believes we’ll see a significant rise in cancer, accelerated Parkinson’s-like diseases, Huntington’s disease, and all types of autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders.

Mikovits also suspects many will develop chronic and debilitating diseases and will die prematurely. At highest risk, she places those who are asymptomatically infected with XMRVs and gammaretroviruses from contaminated conventional vaccines. The COVID shot will effectively accelerate their death by crippling their immune function. “The kids that are highly vaccinated, they’re ticking time bombs,” Mikovits said in my May 2021 interview.

What Are the Options?

While all of this is highly problematic, there is hope. From my perspective, I believe the best thing you can do is to build your innate immune system. To do that, you need to become metabolically flexible and optimize your diet. You’ll also want to make sure your vitamin D level is optimized to between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L).

I also recommend time-restricted eating, where you eat all your meals for the day within a six- to eight-hour window. Time-restricted eating will also upregulate autophagy, which may help digest and remove spike protein. Avoid all vegetable oils and processed foods. Focus on certified-organic foods to minimize your glyphosate exposure.

Sauna therapy may also be helpful. It upregulates heat shock proteins, which can help refold misfolded proteins. They also tag damaged proteins and target them for removal.

Think Globally, Act Locally

National vaccine policy recommendations in the U.S. are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being seriously threatened.

Not only are lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws, but global political operatives lobbying the United Nations and World Health Organization are determined to take away the human right to autonomy and protection of bodily integrity.

We must take action to defend our constitutional republic and civil liberties, including the right to autonomy, in America. That includes reforming oppressive mandatory vaccination laws and stopping the digital health ID that will make vaccine passports a reality for us, our children and grandchildren if we don’t take action today.

Signing up to use the free online Advocacy Portal sponsored by the National Vaccine Information Center at http://www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state and federal legislators on your smartphone or computer so you can make your voice heard.

NVIC will keep you up to date on the latest bills threatening to eliminate — or expand — your legal right to make vaccine choices and give you guidance about what you can do to support or oppose those bills. So, please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN!

Share Your Story With Your Legislators and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up.

If you want to protect your legal right to say “no” to vaccines you do not believe are safe or effective, make an appointment to personally talk with someone you have elected to office at the local, state and federal level or write a letter in your own words stating your concerns.

Attend school board and city council and town hall meetings in your community that will impact your right to know and freedom to make decisions about how you or your children will live and stay healthy. If you have a different perspective on a story about vaccination that appears in your local newspaper, write a letter to the editor.

I must be frank with you: You have to be brave because there is a lot of censorship of conversations that challenge “official” narratives about vaccination. You likely will be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story and for defending your informed consent rights. Be prepared for it and have the courage to stand your ground.

Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

While our rights are being threatened, the vaccine injured are being swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than statistically acceptable “collateral damage” of one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination laws. Way too many people are being put at risk for injury and death and there is nothing scientific or moral about that. We should not be treating human beings like guinea pigs.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the four websites of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at http://www.NVIC.org, a nonprofit charity that has been educating the public about the need to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths since 1982. The information you get on their websites is fully referenced and will help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your community:

• NVIC.org — This website was established in 1995 and is the oldest and largest consumer operated website publishing information on diseases and vaccines on the internet. Learn about vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths and the history and current status of vaccine science, policy, law and ethics in the U.S. on more than 2,000 web pages.
• NVICAdvocacy.org — This communications and advocacy network, established in 2010, is your gateway to taking action to protect your right to make vaccine choices where you live.
• TheVaccineReaction.org — This weekly journal newspaper published by NVIC since 2015 is dedicated to encouraging an “enlightened conversation about vaccination, health and autonomy.”
• MedAlerts.org — This is a user-friendly search engine for the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) established under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and sponsored by NVIC since 2006. Search for descriptions of vaccine injuries and deaths reported to VAERS on this popular website.

Find A Doctor Who Will Listen and Care

If your doctor or pediatrician refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, coercion and refusal to provide medical care to someone declining one or more doses of government recommended vaccines is a violation of the informed consent ethic.

Unfortunately, it is becoming routine among members of the medical establishment to be reluctant to share vaccine decision-making power with patients and parents of minor children, especially during the aggressive push for all Americans to get COVID shots.

There are doctors out there who respect the precautionary and informed consent principles, so take the time to locate a doctor who treats you with compassion and is willing to listen and respect the health care choices you make for yourself or your child.

In 2015, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention labeled community water fluoridation as one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.¹ To this day, relatively few consumers are aware of water fluoridation’s sordid history or the battle that’s been going on behind the scenes to get this toxin out of U.S. drinking water.

I’ve been warning of the risks for well over a decade and have been ridiculed as a result. In one example from 2013, an article published by mainstream media outlet Slate scoffed at the idea of fluoride as a neurotoxin, insulting me directly in the process.²

Vindication is upon us, however, following the court-ordered release of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity — a release that was blocked by government officials and concealed from the public since May 2022.³

Fluoride Lawsuit Delayed for Years, Waiting on NTP Report

Paul Connett, Ph.D., executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has been instrumental in catalyzing the movement to remove fluoride from water supplies in the U.S. as well as internationally. FAN filed a historic lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in federal court.

In 2016, FAN and coalition partners filed a petition asking the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to U.S. drinking water under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The EPA dismissed FAN’s petition, prompting the lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial. Although the EPA filed a motion to dismiss the case, the motion was denied by the court in 2017.⁴ The trial was held in June 2020, but the judge was unable to make a final ruling.⁵

At the time, he requested more information, including the NTP’s systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity, as well as the benchmark dose analysis of fluoride’s neurotoxicity.⁶ Status hearings for the case have been delayed since. In December 2021, an update from FAN explained:⁷

“The document the Court wanted was the systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity from the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP). The NTP spent 4-5 years and at least a million dollars to produce two draft systematic reviews⁸ on fluoride’s neurotoxicity. Both draft reviews stated, ‘NTP concludes that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans.’

However, on February 9, 2021, seven months after the trial ended, the NTP wrote a private statement, not released to the press or to the public, that it would not complete its systematic review.

Instead, NTP wrote that it would do a ‘state of the science’ report on fluoride’s neurotoxicity. The public learned of NTP’s private statement after lawyers representing the U.S. EPA in the TSCA trial submitted it into the record on February 22, 2021 …

The National Toxicology Program is well aware that the Court is waiting for its document. The presumption is that powerful forces within the National Institutes of Health were behind the ending of the NTP’s systematic review and that they may be involved in the ‘state of the science’ report as well.”

Multiple delays, including cancelations and rescheduling, followed, with the EPA continuing to ask that the trial be delayed indefinitely until NTP published the report.

Finally, at a January 2023 hearing, FAN reported, “the judge acknowledged that “justice delayed is justice denied,” ultimately ruling against them. The court directed the plaintiffs and defendants to start the process of adjudicating whether the final NTP report and accompanying agency comments ought to be made public in preparation for the final phase of the trial.”⁹

Dental Groups Urged Officials to Alter NTP Fluoride Report

Reports suggest that prior to the NTP report’s scheduled release in May 2022, it was shared with members of dental groups like the American Dental Association. Linda Birnbaum, who was NTP director until 2019, said the report was set to be released until, “They were blocked.” Capital & Main reported a clear conflict, as dental groups got ahold of the NTP report and worried its findings would threaten the future of water fluoridation:¹⁰

“Leading up to the report’s intended release, individuals from dental organizations including the American Dental Association (ADA) scrutinized the report’s scientific credibility in communications with staff from other dental groups and health agencies including the National Institutes of Health and the NTP, divisions of HHS, records show.

This January, Birnbaum issued a scathing legal declaration as part of the lawsuit, writing, ‘The decision to set aside the results of an external peer review process based on concerns expressed by agencies with strong policy interests on fluoride suggests the presence of political interference in what should be a strictly scientific endeavor.’

… If federal health agencies shared the report with outside organizations, ‘That was completely inappropriate,’ said Birnbaum. ‘It’s either everybody gets a chance to look at it, or only very restricted government entities,’ Birnbaum added. ‘That trust, I would say, was broken.’

In a February 2022 email to various senior health officials including HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, ADA senior manager for strategic advocacy and public policy Robert Burns asked the NTP to ‘exclude — or carefully consider how to characterize — any lingering neurotoxin claims’ from the upcoming report.

He wrote that ‘such claims are often taken out of context,’ and might ‘undermine national, state, and local efforts to expand community water fluoridation’ at the CDC’s recommended levels.”

NTP Report — 52 of 55 Studies Link Fluoride to Lower IQ

So, what did the NTP report¹¹ reveal about fluoride’s neurotoxicity? Out of 55 studies included in the review, 52 found that increased fluoride exposure was associated with decreases in child IQ.

“Our meta-analysis confirms results of previous meta-analyses and extends them by including newer, more precise studies … The data support a consistent inverse association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ,” the report found.¹² While some have stated that the data only apply to water fluoride concentrations above those commonly found in U.S. drinking water, NTP didn’t agree, stating:¹³

“We do not agree with this comment … our assessment considers fluoride exposures from all sources, not just water … because fluoride is also found in certain foods, dental products, some pharmaceuticals, and other sources … Even in the optimally fluoridated cities … individual exposure levels … suggest widely varying total exposures from water combined with fluoride from other sources.

… We have no basis on which to state that our findings are not relevant to some children or pregnant people in the United States … Several of the highest quality studies showing lower IQs in children were done in optimally fluoridated (0.7 mg/L) areas…many urinary fluoride measurements exceed those that would be expected from consuming water that contains fluoride at 1.5 mg/L.”

No Safe Level of Fluoride in Water

The report also identified a drop of about seven IQ points over a fluoride range of 0.2 to 1.5 mg/L, which a peer reviewer described as “substantial … That’s a big deal.”¹⁴ The meta-analysis noted that no safe exposure level could be confirmed, including exposure to fluoride levels found in artificially fluoridated water.¹⁵ The next hearing for FAN’s lawsuit against the EPA is set for April 11, 2023.¹⁶

FAN obtained documents via the Freedom of Information Act that further showed dental groups’ attempts to “water down the report.” FAN explained:¹⁷

“When the NTP held firm, these agencies got HHS Assistant Administrator Rachel Levine to block its release. Only one historical example exists of an NTP report being blocked from release, a report on the carcinogenicity of asbestos-contaminated talc.

Talc industry groups conducted an aggressive lobbying campaign, enlisting friendly congresspeople to intervene. FAN was able to force today’s release of the NTP report by using leverage from the ongoing lawsuit against the EPA.

Fluoridation defenders have falsely claimed draft versions of the report had been ‘rejected’ by a National Academies committee. In fact, the committee recommended that NTP clarify their methods and reasoning for reaching their conclusions because the issue was considered so contentious. The NTP has done that in the report …

There is now little question that a large body of scientific evidence supports a conclusion that fluoride can lower child’s IQ, including at exposure levels from fluoridated water … With the release of this report, dental interests may have to rethink their denial of the evidence that fluoridation can reduce children’s IQ.”

97% of Western Europe Has Rejected Water Fluoridation

If the U.S. got it wrong about water fluoridation after declaring it a top public health achievement, it makes you wonder what else they’re wrong about. And it’s important to understand that water fluoridation is not the norm worldwide. In fact, 97% of people living in western Europe drink nonfluoridated water, including those in:¹⁸

Fluoride in drinking water is an industrial waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.¹⁹More than 300 studies have shown fluoride’s toxic effects on the brain,²⁰ including 2006 National Research Council review that suggested fluoride exposure may be associated with brain damage, endocrine system disruption and bone cancer.²¹

In 2012, Harvard researchers also revealed that children living in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas²² and suggested high fluoride exposure may have an adverse effect on children’s neurodevelopment.

A study of Mexican women and children also raised concern, showing that higher exposure to fluoride while in utero is associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in childhood, both at the age of 4 and 6 to 12 years.²³

Each 0.5 milligram per liter increase in pregnant women’s fluoride levels was associated with a reduction of 3.15 and 2.5 points on the children’s scores on the General Cognitive Index (GCI) of the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities and the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI), respectively.

Fluorosilicic acid, which is the fluoride chemical added to drinking water, may also be contaminated with additional harmful compounds, including lead and arsenic. Children, in particular, are at risk from ingesting fluoride, but they are exposed to the same levels in drinking water as adults. According to Steven Gilbert, Ph.D., founder and director of the Institute of Neurotoxicology and Neurological Disorders:²⁴

“From the 1950s the PHS [Public Health Service] recommendation for the concentration of fluoridated water has been 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per liter or ppm) for most of the U.S., with a range of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L. In 2015, this recommendation was lowered to 0.7 mg/L to reduce the toxic side effects of fluoride ingestion while attempting to maintain its beneficial effects.

For toxicological assessment, ingested doses are typically adjusted by body weight. Kids eat more, breathe more, and drink more than adults on a body weight basis so they will have higher fluoride doses than adults. Moreover, child organ systems such as the brain and bones are still developing, making them more vulnerable to the toxic effects of fluoride.”

Hopefully, now that the NTP review has been released, the truth about water fluoridation’s toxicity will come out, and the archaic practice can be ended in the U.S. and worldwide.

Help End the Practice of Fluoridation

There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Furthermore, according to screenings conducted for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 65% of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride — up from 41% a decade ago. Clearly, children are continuing to be overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide.

Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network and visit the links below:

• Like FAN on Facebook, follow on Twitter and Instagram, and sign up for campaign alerts.
• 10 Facts About Fluoride — Attorney Michael Connett summarizes 10 basic facts about fluoride that should be considered in any discussion about whether to fluoridate water. Also see 10 Facts Handout (PDF).
• 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation — Learn why fluoridation is a bad medical practice that is unnecessary and ineffective. Download PDF.
• Moms2B Avoid Fluoride — Help spread the word to expecting parents to avoid fluoride during pregnancy due to potential harm to the fetus.
• Health Effects Database — FAN’s database sets forth the scientific basis for concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of ingesting fluorides. They also have a Study Trackerwith the most up-to-date and comprehensive source for studies on fluoride’s effects on human health.

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get the Funding They Deserve

In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

In 2015, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention labeled community water fluoridation as one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.¹ To this day, relatively few consumers are aware of water fluoridation’s sordid history or the battle that’s been going on behind the scenes to get this toxin out of U.S. drinking water.

I’ve been warning of the risks for well over a decade and have been ridiculed as a result. In one example from 2013, an article published by mainstream media outlet Slate scoffed at the idea of fluoride as a neurotoxin, insulting me directly in the process.²

Vindication is upon us, however, following the court-ordered release of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity — a release that was blocked by government officials and concealed from the public since May 2022.³

Fluoride Lawsuit Delayed for Years, Waiting on NTP Report

Paul Connett, Ph.D., executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has been instrumental in catalyzing the movement to remove fluoride from water supplies in the U.S. as well as internationally. FAN filed a historic lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in federal court.

In 2016, FAN and coalition partners filed a petition asking the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to U.S. drinking water under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The EPA dismissed FAN’s petition, prompting the lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial. Although the EPA filed a motion to dismiss the case, the motion was denied by the court in 2017.⁴ The trial was held in June 2020, but the judge was unable to make a final ruling.⁵

At the time, he requested more information, including the NTP’s systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity, as well as the benchmark dose analysis of fluoride’s neurotoxicity.⁶ Status hearings for the case have been delayed since. In December 2021, an update from FAN explained:⁷

“The document the Court wanted was the systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity from the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP). The NTP spent 4-5 years and at least a million dollars to produce two draft systematic reviews⁸ on fluoride’s neurotoxicity. Both draft reviews stated, ‘NTP concludes that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans.’

However, on February 9, 2021, seven months after the trial ended, the NTP wrote a private statement, not released to the press or to the public, that it would not complete its systematic review.

Instead, NTP wrote that it would do a ‘state of the science’ report on fluoride’s neurotoxicity. The public learned of NTP’s private statement after lawyers representing the U.S. EPA in the TSCA trial submitted it into the record on February 22, 2021 …

The National Toxicology Program is well aware that the Court is waiting for its document. The presumption is that powerful forces within the National Institutes of Health were behind the ending of the NTP’s systematic review and that they may be involved in the ‘state of the science’ report as well.”

Multiple delays, including cancelations and rescheduling, followed, with the EPA continuing to ask that the trial be delayed indefinitely until NTP published the report.

Finally, at a January 2023 hearing, FAN reported, “the judge acknowledged that “justice delayed is justice denied,” ultimately ruling against them. The court directed the plaintiffs and defendants to start the process of adjudicating whether the final NTP report and accompanying agency comments ought to be made public in preparation for the final phase of the trial.”⁹

Dental Groups Urged Officials to Alter NTP Fluoride Report

Reports suggest that prior to the NTP report’s scheduled release in May 2022, it was shared with members of dental groups like the American Dental Association. Linda Birnbaum, who was NTP director until 2019, said the report was set to be released until, “They were blocked.” Capital & Main reported a clear conflict, as dental groups got ahold of the NTP report and worried its findings would threaten the future of water fluoridation:¹⁰

“Leading up to the report’s intended release, individuals from dental organizations including the American Dental Association (ADA) scrutinized the report’s scientific credibility in communications with staff from other dental groups and health agencies including the National Institutes of Health and the NTP, divisions of HHS, records show.

This January, Birnbaum issued a scathing legal declaration as part of the lawsuit, writing, ‘The decision to set aside the results of an external peer review process based on concerns expressed by agencies with strong policy interests on fluoride suggests the presence of political interference in what should be a strictly scientific endeavor.’

… If federal health agencies shared the report with outside organizations, ‘That was completely inappropriate,’ said Birnbaum. ‘It’s either everybody gets a chance to look at it, or only very restricted government entities,’ Birnbaum added. ‘That trust, I would say, was broken.’

In a February 2022 email to various senior health officials including HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, ADA senior manager for strategic advocacy and public policy Robert Burns asked the NTP to ‘exclude — or carefully consider how to characterize — any lingering neurotoxin claims’ from the upcoming report.

He wrote that ‘such claims are often taken out of context,’ and might ‘undermine national, state, and local efforts to expand community water fluoridation’ at the CDC’s recommended levels.”

NTP Report — 52 of 55 Studies Link Fluoride to Lower IQ

So, what did the NTP report¹¹ reveal about fluoride’s neurotoxicity? Out of 55 studies included in the review, 52 found that increased fluoride exposure was associated with decreases in child IQ.

“Our meta-analysis confirms results of previous meta-analyses and extends them by including newer, more precise studies … The data support a consistent inverse association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ,” the report found.¹² While some have stated that the data only apply to water fluoride concentrations above those commonly found in U.S. drinking water, NTP didn’t agree, stating:¹³

“We do not agree with this comment … our assessment considers fluoride exposures from all sources, not just water … because fluoride is also found in certain foods, dental products, some pharmaceuticals, and other sources … Even in the optimally fluoridated cities … individual exposure levels … suggest widely varying total exposures from water combined with fluoride from other sources.

… We have no basis on which to state that our findings are not relevant to some children or pregnant people in the United States … Several of the highest quality studies showing lower IQs in children were done in optimally fluoridated (0.7 mg/L) areas…many urinary fluoride measurements exceed those that would be expected from consuming water that contains fluoride at 1.5 mg/L.”

No Safe Level of Fluoride in Water

The report also identified a drop of about seven IQ points over a fluoride range of 0.2 to 1.5 mg/L, which a peer reviewer described as “substantial … That’s a big deal.”¹⁴ The meta-analysis noted that no safe exposure level could be confirmed, including exposure to fluoride levels found in artificially fluoridated water.¹⁵ The next hearing for FAN’s lawsuit against the EPA is set for April 11, 2023.¹⁶

FAN obtained documents via the Freedom of Information Act that further showed dental groups’ attempts to “water down the report.” FAN explained:¹⁷

“When the NTP held firm, these agencies got HHS Assistant Administrator Rachel Levine to block its release. Only one historical example exists of an NTP report being blocked from release, a report on the carcinogenicity of asbestos-contaminated talc.

Talc industry groups conducted an aggressive lobbying campaign, enlisting friendly congresspeople to intervene. FAN was able to force today’s release of the NTP report by using leverage from the ongoing lawsuit against the EPA.

Fluoridation defenders have falsely claimed draft versions of the report had been ‘rejected’ by a National Academies committee. In fact, the committee recommended that NTP clarify their methods and reasoning for reaching their conclusions because the issue was considered so contentious. The NTP has done that in the report …

There is now little question that a large body of scientific evidence supports a conclusion that fluoride can lower child’s IQ, including at exposure levels from fluoridated water … With the release of this report, dental interests may have to rethink their denial of the evidence that fluoridation can reduce children’s IQ.”

97% of Western Europe Has Rejected Water Fluoridation

If the U.S. got it wrong about water fluoridation after declaring it a top public health achievement, it makes you wonder what else they’re wrong about. And it’s important to understand that water fluoridation is not the norm worldwide. In fact, 97% of people living in western Europe drink nonfluoridated water, including those in:¹⁸

Fluoride in drinking water is an industrial waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.¹⁹More than 300 studies have shown fluoride’s toxic effects on the brain,²⁰ including 2006 National Research Council review that suggested fluoride exposure may be associated with brain damage, endocrine system disruption and bone cancer.²¹

In 2012, Harvard researchers also revealed that children living in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas²² and suggested high fluoride exposure may have an adverse effect on children’s neurodevelopment.

A study of Mexican women and children also raised concern, showing that higher exposure to fluoride while in utero is associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in childhood, both at the age of 4 and 6 to 12 years.²³

Each 0.5 milligram per liter increase in pregnant women’s fluoride levels was associated with a reduction of 3.15 and 2.5 points on the children’s scores on the General Cognitive Index (GCI) of the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities and the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI), respectively.

Fluorosilicic acid, which is the fluoride chemical added to drinking water, may also be contaminated with additional harmful compounds, including lead and arsenic. Children, in particular, are at risk from ingesting fluoride, but they are exposed to the same levels in drinking water as adults. According to Steven Gilbert, Ph.D., founder and director of the Institute of Neurotoxicology and Neurological Disorders:²⁴

“From the 1950s the PHS [Public Health Service] recommendation for the concentration of fluoridated water has been 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per liter or ppm) for most of the U.S., with a range of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L. In 2015, this recommendation was lowered to 0.7 mg/L to reduce the toxic side effects of fluoride ingestion while attempting to maintain its beneficial effects.

For toxicological assessment, ingested doses are typically adjusted by body weight. Kids eat more, breathe more, and drink more than adults on a body weight basis so they will have higher fluoride doses than adults. Moreover, child organ systems such as the brain and bones are still developing, making them more vulnerable to the toxic effects of fluoride.”

Hopefully, now that the NTP review has been released, the truth about water fluoridation’s toxicity will come out, and the archaic practice can be ended in the U.S. and worldwide.

Help End the Practice of Fluoridation

There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Furthermore, according to screenings conducted for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 65% of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride — up from 41% a decade ago. Clearly, children are continuing to be overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide.

Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network and visit the links below:

• Like FAN on Facebook, follow on Twitter and Instagram, and sign up for campaign alerts.
• 10 Facts About Fluoride — Attorney Michael Connett summarizes 10 basic facts about fluoride that should be considered in any discussion about whether to fluoridate water. Also see 10 Facts Handout (PDF).
• 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation — Learn why fluoridation is a bad medical practice that is unnecessary and ineffective. Download PDF.
• Moms2B Avoid Fluoride — Help spread the word to expecting parents to avoid fluoride during pregnancy due to potential harm to the fetus.
• Health Effects Database — FAN’s database sets forth the scientific basis for concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of ingesting fluorides. They also have a Study Trackerwith the most up-to-date and comprehensive source for studies on fluoride’s effects on human health.

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get the Funding They Deserve

In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

In December 2013, Zaire Ebola hemorrhagic fever broke out in Guinea and over the next three years spread across West Africa, ultimately killing 11,323 people.¹ While Ebola epidemics occur on a near-annual basis, this was the largest and deadliest in history.²

Of the five Ebola viruses known to cause disease in humans, Zaire Ebolavirus, first identified in Zaire in 1976, is the most dangerous, with a fatality rate ranging between 53% and 88%,³ depending on the variant.

The virus leads to severe immunosuppression, but most deaths are attributed to dehydration caused by gastric problems. Early signs of infection include nonspecific flu-like symptoms and sudden onset of fever, diarrhea, headache, muscle pain, vomiting and abdominal pains. Other less common symptoms include sore throat, rashes and internal/external bleeding.

As the infection sets in, shock, cerebral edema (fluid on the brain), coagulation disorders and secondary bacterial infections may occur. Hemorrhaging tends to begin four to five days after onset of the initial symptoms, which includes bleeding in the throat, gums, lips and vagina. Vomiting blood, excreting tar-like feces indicative of gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver- and/or multi-organ failure can also occur.

The Virus Hunter That Assigned Zoonotic Origin

According to a paper⁴ published at the end of December 2014, the Ebola epidemic was traced back to a 2-year-old boy in Meliandou, Guinea, named Emile Ouamouno. Supposedly, the boy had come in contact with an infected fruit bat in a hollowed-out tree.

This, even though no Ebolavirus RNA was ever detected in any of the bat samples collected from the area. Interestingly enough, the senior author on that paper was Fabian Leendertz, a renowned virus hunter with the Robert Koch Institute in Germany.

Leendertz was also a member of the World Health Organization team that investigated the origin of COVID-19.⁵ As you may recall, they also concluded, without evidence, that SARS-CoV-2 was most likely of zoonotic origin and dismissed the lab leak theory as not worthy of further consideration.

Lab Leak Suspected From the Start

However, just as with SARS-CoV-2, suspicions and rumors that the Ebola outbreak was the result of a lab leak were present from the start. Some scientists even suspected the virus might be a weaponized form of Ebola. As noted in a 2014 paper in the Journal of Molecular Biochemistry:⁶

“Another subject that may cause a plethora of arguments is that this virus may be a laboratory generated virus … There is a conjecture that the virus is transmitted to people from wild animals. However, by reason of the high mortality among them, it is impossible that these animals are the reservoir host of EVD.”

In late October 2022, Sam Husseini and Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., published a new analysis^7,8,9 in Independent Science News, in which they laid out the evidence pointing to a lab leak. They also dissect Leendertz December 2014 report, highlighting the holes in the zoonotic origin narrative. In fact, there’s evidence to suggest the outbreak in in Meliandou wasn’t Ebola at all. Husseini and Latham write:¹⁰

“Chernoh Bah, an independent journalist from Sierra Leone, wrote a book on the 2014 Ebola outbreak and visited Meliandou. Bah found that: ‘Local health workers still think malaria may have been the actual cause of his [Emile’s] death.’

While in Meliandou, Chernoh Bah also interviewed Emile’s father. According to Bah, the Leendertz team (who never claimed to have interviewed the father) made a crucial error: ‘The child was actually 18 months old when he died’ … The age question, it should be noted, is crucial to the entire outbreak narrative. As Emile’s father told Reuters:

‘Emile was too young to eat bats, and he was too small to be playing in the bush all on his own. He was always with his mother.’ Bah also identified another apparent error: that Emile had four siblings who never became sick. These siblings are not mentioned anywhere in the scientific literature …

Further, although some bats appear to carry antibodies against Ebola viruses, only intact Bombali Ebola (a different virus species in the Ebola genus) has ever been isolated from a bat, despite intensive searches … Bombali is a species of Ebola that does not infect humans.

Taken together, this suggests that bats rarely carry Ebola viruses and when they do it is in small quantities. This context makes it somewhat surprising that Saéz et al. ascribed the 2014 outbreak (without supporting evidence) to contact with bats.

Indeed, Fabian Leendertz now doubts that bats are true reservoirs of Ebola viruses.¹¹ Given the general want of evidence, one wonders by what exact process such poorly supported claims were transmuted into international headlines.”

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Was Ebola Experimented On Before the Outbreak?

As detailed by Husseini and Latham,¹² “persistent rumors in the region linked the outbreak to a US-run research laboratory in Kenema, Sierra Leone.¹³ This facility studies viral hemorrhagic diseases, of which Ebola is one.”

The Kenema lab, which has been run by the U.S.-based Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium (VHFC) since 2010, is located about 50 miles from the village in Guinea where the Ebola outbreak first emerged.¹⁴

The founder and president of the VHFC is Robert (Bob) Garry, who was also part of the group of virologists who in the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic concocted “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” paper¹⁵ in which they dismissed the lab leak theory and insisted zoonotic origin was the most plausible, despite the lack of evidence.¹⁶

As recently as November 2022, Garry still insisted SARS-CoV-2 “emerged via the wildlife trade.”¹⁷ In that same article, Garry drew parallels to the 2014 Ebola outbreak, claiming that conspiracy pundits were wrong about Ebola being leaked from the Kenema lab, because “we did not have EBOV [ebolavirus] in our laboratory and therefore could not have released or engineered it.”

According to Garry, the Ebola and SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks are both victims of “guilt-by-proximity.” However, in a March 11, 2023, interview on the Decoding the Gurus podcast, Kristian Andersen, vice president of the VHFC’s Kenema lab¹⁸ and another “Proximal Origin” author, clearly refuted Garry’s claim:¹⁹

“The problem is that people see these coincidences. One of the new ones is the Ebola lab leak, which also is being blamed on us, because we had been studying Ebola in Kenema in Sierra Leone, and lo and behold Ebola emerged just a few miles from there in 2014,”Andersen said.

So, what do we make of this? Garry claims the Kenema lab didn’t have any Ebola virus and Andersen says they did. Both are top executives at the lab and ought to know what was studied and what wasn’t. So, who’s telling the truth?

Was Kenema Lab Involved in Biowarfare Work?

According to Husseini and Latham,²⁰ there’s good reason to believe the Kenema lab was working with Ebola before the outbreak in Guinea, some 50 miles from the lab. For starters, the Guinea outbreak was the first time Zaire Ebola emerged in West Africa. All previous outbreaks of this most-lethal strain of Ebola occurred in the Congo basin, in the central African equatorial zone, some 3,000 kilometers (approximately 1,864 miles) from Guinea.

“Hence Zaire Ebola’s appearance in West Africa was a striking and very unexpected development,” they write. How did it get there? Ebola is not highly contagious as transmission typically requires direct contact.

There were no outbreaks between the Congo basin and Guinea, which you’d expect if it was spreading naturally from person to person. Equally mysterious is the fact that genome sequencing and phylogenetic analysis showed only a single jump from animal to human. Husseini and Latham explain:²¹

“Zoonotic outbreaks, including most past Ebola outbreaks, typically feature multiple jumps to humans from an animal source. Single jumps, however, are consistent with lab origins and are often considered a red flag for that possibility.

The reason is that researchers often work with a single isolate, perhaps one that they have found is particularly easy to replicate in the laboratory, whereas natural populations are typically diverse. This difference provides a genetic signal for distinguishing natural origins from laboratory ones.”

Zaire Ebola is also the preferred species used by research labs studying Ebola-type viruses, as it’s the most lethal and therefore has the greatest biowarfare potential. Husseini and Latham continue:

“Noting the gap between the weakness of the Leendertz account of the outbreak origin … and the forcefulness with which the Emile narrative was asserted by western scientists and western media, [journalist Chernoh Bah] wrote:

‘it is difficult not to interpret the ‘zoonotic origin of the West African Ebola epidemic’ narrative advanced by Fabian Leendertz and his team as part of a cover-up or obfuscation of the actual chain of events that laid the foundation for the West African Ebola outbreak’ …

In 2011, three years before the West African Ebola outbreak, Reuters profiled the research in Kenema at length.²² Readers were told that a ‘laboratory in southeastern Sierra Leone is an outpost of the U.S. government’s ‘war on terror,’ funded by a surge in bio-defense spending … [By] the fiscal year 2007 the NIH was requesting more than $1.9 billion.’ Reuters concluded that the Kenema labs’ share of that allocation was $40 million.

On August 25, 2013, just months before the Ebola outbreak, the VHFC posted on its website an article titled: ‘Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute make major advances in the fight against Ebola virus.’ This article was later removed but its existence is verifiable using the WayBackMachine.

Nevertheless, the title alone raises some key questions: Why did the VHFC post about Ebola if it wasn’t working on it at the time? In particular, what Ebola variant was being studied? What was the nature of the experiments? Why remove the post? …

We do know that Ebola was important to the VHFC and its partners and a primary interest for at least some of its members.

Indeed, all the leading US-based researchers of the VHFC, Robert Garry, Kristian Andersen, Erica Ollmann Saphire and Pardis Sabeti have published multiple original research papers on Ebola virus.^{23,24,25,26,27,28} An Ebola focus also accords with US biosecurity research priorities under whose auspices the Kenema lab is largely funded …

In 2013 Robert Garry co-authored a paper²⁹ on a novel treatment for Zaire Ebola. All eleven other authors were from USAMRIID, aka Fort Detrick. This site is the largest ‘biodefense’ facility in the world and Garry’s company, Zalgen, is located close-by.”

More Biowarfare Connections and Ebola Trials

Husseini and Latham point out that in 2014, when the Ebola outbreak occurred, Metabiota was a VHFC partner. As detailed in “Evidence of Pandemic and Bioweapon Cover-Ups,” Metabiota was hired by the WHO and the local government of Sierra Leone to monitor the spread of the Ebola epidemic, but clearly were not up to the task. A 2016 CBS News report detailed Metabiota’s bungled response.³⁰

2014 was also the year when Metabiota was entrusted with the operations of U.S. biological research labs in Ukraine, with funding from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and:^31,32

• Pilot Growth Management, cofounded by Neil Callahan. Callahan is also a cofounder of Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners, and he sits on Metabiota’s board of advisers
• In-Q-Tel, a CIA venture capital firm that specializes in high-tech investments that support or benefit the intelligence capacity of U.S. intelligence agencies
• Rosemont Seneca,³³ an investment fund co-managed by Hunter Biden³⁴

Metabiota’s founder, Nathan Wolfe, is also tied to EcoHealth president Peter Daszak, Ph.D., a prime suspect in the COVID pandemic who worked closely with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China, where SARS-CoV-2 is suspected of having originated. Wolfe has also received more than $20 million in research grants from Google, the NIH and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, just to name a few.

Aside from the Kenema lab’s obvious biowarfare connections, and the possibility of Ebola being experimented on there, several Ebola treatment trials were also taking place in Port Loko, Sierra Leone, about 190 km (118 miles) from Kenema, right around the same time that Ebola broke out in Guinea.

“From the limited descriptions available, one of these trials fits the timing required for it to have triggered the 2014 Ebola outbreak but none of them fits the location,” Latham and Husseini write.³⁵

“However, the data is incomplete; for his book, Constantine Nana corresponded with the lead investigator in the Port Loko Phase II trial, Dr. Peter Horby of the University of Oxford. Horby told Nana ‘he had no information as regards the results of the Phase I trial.’ To lead a Phase II trial and know nothing about that product’s Phase I trial is indeed mysterious and rather strange.”

Biosafety Is Lax at Kenema Lab

Latham and Husseini also review the lackadaisical approach to biosafety at the Kenema lab, despite working with extremely dangerous pathogens:³⁶

“In the U.S., using live filoviruses requires biosafety level four (BSL-4) facilities, where researchers wear positive pressure ‘space suits.’ But in Kenema … according to Reuters, biosafety ‘measures include goggles, gloves and masks.’ The article quoted VHFC member Matt Boisen, a U.S. scientist from Tulane, now with Zalgen: ‘Certainly we have less safety, less containment, but we do have the ability to do a lot more in the same amount of time’ …

Others have corroborated this laxity. In the 2014 outbreak, the earliest emergency responder was the medical non-profit Doctors Without Borders (MSF) who were called in for their extensive Ebola experience. MSF’s emergency response coordinator was Anja Wolz. She was highly critical of the biosafety measures used by Metabiota at Kenema.

Having seen how they visited suspected Ebola cases, she told AP: ‘I didn’t go inside the Metabiota lab … I refused because I had already seen enough.’ A CDC official, Austin Demby, later sent to investigate, reached similar conclusions.

In an email about the Kenema lab he wrote: ‘The cross contamination potential is huge and quite frankly unacceptable.’ Thus, there seems to have been a pattern at Kenema of lax biosafety procedures both before and during the outbreak.”

Another oddity that doesn’t fit the nature of a natural outbreak was the fact that hotspots were broadly spread out. There was no epicenter. Moreover, according to WHO Ebola coordinator Philippe Barboza, Metabiota staffers were “systematically obstructing any attempt to improve the existing surveillance system.” MSF also complained they got no cooperation from Kenema.

“Given the intentionality imputed by many of these witnesses to the failings in Sierra Leone, were they deliberate? If so, were they intended to divert attention away from the Kenema lab?” Latham and Husseini ask.

Genomic Testing

Latham and Husseini then delve into the genomic testing results, which suggest there was a “hidden” or unreported outbreak in Sierra Leone, which only later spread into Guinea. That doesn’t prove it came out of a lab in Sierra Leone, however. But unique features in the Makona strain of Ebola that caused the Guinea outbreak suggest the virus may have undergone some form of manipulation. Latham and Husseini explain:

“The Makona strain of Ebola is not a standard or known strain, nor is it similar to any published strain. It is novel, having approximately 400 mutations that are not found in any previously known Ebola strain. Hence, for the 2014 Ebola outbreak to have begun in a lab, the Makona strain must either represent the escape of an unpublished strain, perhaps one collected during fieldwork in central Africa.

Alternatively, Makona could be a radically manipulated derivative of a known strain–either through genetic engineering or passaging. A combination of these two possibilities should also be considered.

Of these two alternatives, we know that Ebola and other viruses were being sought from wild animals in the Congo basin at the time as part of USAID’s PREDICT project. The chief actors in this were the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Metabiota, which, at the time, was at the time a partner of the VHFC …

[One] possibility is that Metabiota, or other collectors, used the VHFC lab at Kenema as part of a cold chain for the preservation of samples brought from the Congo basin …

The Kenema lab may also have been used for initial screening or testing of such samples. A third possibility is the formal or informal sharing of samples or strains with VHFC contacts or colleagues at Kenema, perhaps to help in the development of commercial treatments or diagnostic tools …

Given these potentialities it is remarkable to discover that, in July 2014, during the epidemic, the VHFC wrote a brief report in which they accused Metabiota of an activity that would be riskier still.

The VHFC accused Metabiota staff at Kenema of culturing cells from Ebola patients, which they insisted was dangerous and should ‘be stopped immediately.’

Metabiota issued a qualified denial, but the allegation is highly credible since the two organisations shared the same site; moreover its implications are very great. It suggests, first, that Metabiota had an interest in culturing novel strains of Ebola, second, that they had the technical capability and the personnel competent to do so at Kenema, and third, that they were willing to take exceptional risks …

The allegation therefore raises, in a very concrete way, the question of what Metabiota might have been doing in Kenema prior to the outbreak … given the research interests and the capacities of the VHFC lab in Kenema and its collaborators, it is a relatively simple matter to theorise how a novel strain of Ebola, like Makona, might have reached Kenema and then spilled over there during routine research activities.

Interesting too is the dual role of Metabiota. Besides collecting samples from the wild, Metabiota was also the company that, at least according to MSF and the WHO, obstructed or mishandled testing and diagnosis at Kenema and that Sylvia Blyden alleged ‘messed up the whole region.’

If a research error on the part of Metabiota was the source of the strain (and Metabiota’s incompetence has been widely alleged³⁷), or even suspected to be, they would have had a strong incentive to also ‘bungle’ the identification of early cases and so obfuscate the origin.”

Pathogenic Research Must Be Reined In

While the case for the worst Ebola outbreak in history being the result of a lab leak is still based on circumstantial evidence, that evidence is compelling, and made even more so by the absence of evidence for a zoonotic origin. The same can be said for SARS-CoV-2.

Additionally, of all the scientists, companies and organizations involved in this kind of research across the world, how is it that the same short list of names pop up both in the Guinea Ebola case and COVID-19?

The take-home message here is that there is no possible way to guarantee containment of viruses in any of these laboratories, not even biosafety level 4 labs. And a pathogen doesn’t have to be developed as a bioweapon in order to act like one.

If gain-of-function research on lethal viruses is allowed to continue, the whole world will remain at risk, and I don’t think its hyperbolic to say gain of function research poses an existential threat to mankind. So far, we’ve been lucky in that escaped pathogens (suspected or confirmed) have not decimated the global population, but our luck may someday run out.

While dietary supplements cannot take the place of a healthy lifestyle, they can be used strategically to boost your health, especially in cases of deficiency. In the U.S., 57.6% of adults aged 20 and over use supplements, with multivitamins, vitamin D and omega-3 fats representing the top three.¹ Another survey put the percentage of Americans using supplements at 86%.²

So, it’s safe to say that many people are interested in taking control of their health with the support of supplemental vitamins, minerals and other compounds. But, when it comes to supplements, more isn’t always better.

To ensure you’re using only supplements you need — avoiding wasting your money while maintaining your body’s balance — I recommend using dietary interventions first. Next, work with a holistic health care practitioner who can guide you on which supplements your body truly needs.

19 Supplements I Consider Essential

The best supplements for you depend on your age, health status and health goals. If having a practitioner guide you isn’t possible, essential supplements may be next on your list — and I’ve compiled the list in rank order of what I believe to be the most important ones.

Some of the most important individual variables you need to consider would be if you are plant-based or choose to eat animal products. While many plant-based diets are fundamentally healthy, they do lack some vital nutrients, like vitamin B12, retinol, vitamin K2, carnosine, carnitine, collagen and choline. If you are plant-based, you will certainly want to consider adding these to your regimen.

1. Molecular Hydrogen (H₂)

Molecular hydrogen acts as a selective antioxidant, meaning it doesn’t indiscriminately suppress free radicals. Rather, it’s unique in that it helps your body make its own endogenous antioxidants. This is important because excessive use of antioxidants can be counterproductive, while molecular hydrogen serves as a redox regulator.

The H₂ molecule is the smallest in the universe, which allows it to diffuse through all cell membranes, including the blood-brain barrier and subcellular compartments, and into the mitochondria. According to Tyler LeBaron, Ph.D., it’s been shown to have therapeutic benefits in more than 170 different animal disease models.³ While there’s no risk of overdosing on molecular hydrogen, intermittent exposure produces the best results.

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

2. Vitamin D

Vitamin D has multiple actions on the immune system, including enhancing the production of antimicrobial peptides by immune cells, reducing damaging pro-inflammatory cytokines, and promoting the expression of anti-inflammatory cytokines.⁴

A recent study found giving vitamin D to people with COVID-19 cut risk of death from SARS-CoV-2 by 51% and reduced risk of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) by 72%.^5,6 Vitamin D also plays a role in heart disease, as it improves circulation and may be beneficial for high blood pressure. In addition, due to its effects on endothelial function, vitamin D may also help improve or prevent heart failure, heart attack, vasculopathy, stroke and diabetes.⁷

Ideally, optimize your vitamin D levels via sensible sun exposure, as there are many benefits to sun exposure even aside from vitamin D, such as increasing mitochondrial melatonin by near infrared (IR) exposure.

My vitamin D level is typically between 80 and 100 and I haven’t taken any vitamin D supplements so you can get your levels high if you are disciplined about your sun exposure. Just be sure to make sure you are eating a very low linoleic acid (LA) diet as it is excessive omega-6 fats that virtually everyone consumes, that cause sun-induced skin cancers.

However, if getting healthy sun exposure simply isn’t an option for you due to your location or lifestyle, daily vitamin D3 supplementation of 8,000 to 10,000 units is likely needed to reach a vitamin D level of 60 to 80 ng/mL.

Data from GrassrootsHealth’s D*Action studies suggest the optimal level for health and disease prevention is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL, while the cutoff for sufficiency appears to be around 40 ng/mL. In Europe, the measurements you’re looking for are 150 to 200 nmol/L and 100 nmol/L respectively.

The only way to gauge whether you might need to supplement, and how much to take, however, is to get your level tested, ideally twice a year — in the early spring and early fall — when your level is at its low point and peak, respectively. Make sure that your supplemental vitamin D intake is balanced with other nutrients, including vitamin K2 (to avoid complications associated with excessive calcification in your arteries) and magnesium.

3. Niacinamide

NAD+ (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide) is one of the most important biomolecules in your body. It’s involved in the conversion of food to energy, maintaining DNA integrity and ensuring proper cell function. Together, these functions help protect against or delay aging and virtually all chronic disease.

NAD+ also acts as fuel for longevity proteins called sirtuins. Sadly, NAD levels dramatically decline with age, contributing to aging and chronic disease states. NAD is also used up by DNA repair enzymes and enzymes involved in inflammation and immunity, such that chronic inflammation, or acute illness in old age, can rapidly result in depletion.

To restore NAD_, you need to fix the root cause for NAD+ depletion, which primarily involves addressing the decline in the NAD salvage pathway. By increasing enzymes in that pathway, which decline with age, your body can recycle NAD_ like it did naturally when it was younger. For more information, please review my fantastic interview with molecular biologist Nichola Conlon, Ph.D.

In addition to optimizing NAD+ levels, it also blocks lipolysis which is important if you are the more than 99% of the population that have elevated linoleic acid (LA) levels. Reducing the release of LA from your tissues will lower the amount of oxidative stress in in your body.

Niacinamide, like progesterone, inhibits the production of nitric oxide, and also like progesterone, it improves recovery from brain injury and also:

Niacinamide can also lower your triglycerides, which are a potent cardiovascular disease risk factor. It also has a direct anti-adrenaline effect and increases the oxidation of glucose which is your primary metabolic fuel.

The best way to supplement niacinamide is by taking a very low dose of 50 mg three times a day. This is an order of magnitude less expensive than taking NAD precursors like nicotinamide riboside or nicotinamide mononucleotide to increase NAD+ levels.

Please do NOT take high doses like 500 mg or even 1,000 mg, because taking more is not better and will be highly counterproductive as higher doses will impair your sirtuin longevity proteins.

You can purchase a niacinamide powder and take one-sixty-fourth of a teaspoon three times a day or take a 50 mg niacinamide tablet three times a day. Because a 50 mg niacinamide tablet currently is not being made commercially, we will be launching one very soon.

4. B Complex

Vitamin B complex is important for your health because it’s involved in a wide range of bodily functions and processes including cell health and the growth of red blood cells, energy levels, eyesight, brain function, digestion and appetite, proper nerve function, hormones and cholesterol production, and cardiovascular health.

B vitamins have a direct impact on your energy levels, brain function and cell metabolism. Vitamin B complex help support or promote cell health, growth of red blood cells, energy levels, eyesight, brain function, digestion, appetite, proper nerve function, and cardiovascular health and may help prevent infections.

Vitamin B complex is also important for pregnant women as it helps to form the neural tube, which is the precursor to the baby’s brain and spinal cord. It also helps to prevent birth defects of the baby’s brain and spine. It is important to note that vitamin B complex is water-soluble, which means it is not stored in the body and needs to be taken more than once a day.

5. Magnesium

Magnesium is necessary for the healthy functioning of most cells, especially your heart, kidneys and muscles. It’s involved in the functioning of more than 300 enzymes,⁸ and low levels of magnesium impede cellular metabolic function and deteriorate mitochondrial function.

Magnesium is also required for the activation of vitamin D, and deficiency may hamper your ability to convert vitamin D from sun exposure and/or oral supplementation. Unfortunately, deficiency is common and rarely diagnosed.⁹

When it comes to oral supplementation, my personal preference is magnesium threonate, as it appears to be the most efficient at penetrating cell membranes, including your mitochondria and blood-brain barrier. Magnesium is also absorbed through your skin, so you can use a topical solution or take Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate) baths to increase your levels.

6. Vitamin E

Vitamin E is a fat-soluble antioxidant that I believe is important for nearly everyone to take. Why? Because it limits the production of very dangerous free radicals from the metabolism of the omega-6 fat, linoleic acid (LA), which virtually everyone reading this has too much of. It does this by inhibiting lipolysis, or the release of the stored LA in your tissues.

While exercise and fasting are wonderful tools to improve your health, the downside is that virtually everyone has too much LA in their tissues and both of these strategies will increase lipolysis of LA stored in your tissue and produce loads of free radicals and oxidative stress.

Vitamin E not only can prevent oxidative stress from too much LA, but it may also help your body convert this dangerous fat to a non-dangerous saturated fat. Bacteria in your intestine can use vitamin E to saturate the LA. So, vitamin E can actually transform the polyunsaturated fat rather than just protect against it after effects.

Vitamin E is an aromatase inhibitor, which means it blocks the enzyme that converts androgens like testosterone to estrogen, which is useful in reducing the risk for many cancers, especially breast and prostate cancers. Not only does it prevent the production of estrogen, but it also detoxifies xenoestrogens from synthetic chemicals.

Vitamin E is an iron chelator and can also remove age spots or liver spots and scars on your skin if applied topically. It does this because it is an iron chelator. Another term for liver spots is lipofuscin, which is an accumulation of oxidized fats like LA and iron.

While cosmetically unattractive, removing lipofuscin spots is key because what you see on your skin is the tip of the iceberg. They are also in your tissues and organs and will contribute to premature aging. Thankfully, taking vitamin E orally seems to help lower lipofuscin levels. Vitamin E also lowers prolactin, which helps counteract high estrogen levels which tends to increase fertility. Finally, it also blocks adrenaline and reduces cortisol and inflammation.

All of these are major reasons why I am huge fan of vitamin E and believe most people would benefit by taking it. However, you just need to be very careful in selecting your vitamin E supplements as most on the market are counterproductive. Natural vitamin E is a family of eight different compounds: four tocopherols and four tocotrienols. If you eat certain wholesome foods, all eight of the different vitamin E compounds are naturally available.

So, please be careful and make sure to avoid all synthetic vitamin E supplements. You also want to make sure that it has no soy oil in it as soy is typically a GMO, loaded with glyphosate and high in LA.

Your vitamin supplement should have all tocopherols (alpha, beta, gamma and delta) with the majority of tocopherol as alpha. Similarly, it should have balance tocotrienols (alpha, beta, gamma and delta). The most common vitamin E supplement on the market is made from GMO soy, is synthetic and only has alpha tocopherol with no other isomers and has no tocotrienols. You definitely don’t want to use supplements like that.

7. Vitamin C (Not Ascorbic Acid)

Vitamin C is a powerful antioxidant that can strengthen your body’s natural defenses. It may reduce your risk of chronic disease, including protection against immune system deficiencies, cardiovascular disease, prenatal health problems, eye disease and even skin wrinkling.

Vitamin C plays an essential role in your body, particularly for skin and immune health. It also boosts collagen production and helps protect your skin from UV damage. Some research has found that supplementing with vitamin C can shorten the duration of a cold and may help prevent and treat other infections, such as tetanus and pneumonia.

There are basically two types of vitamin C: that derived from whole foods with all the vital and important micronutrients and synthetic ascorbic acid. They both are important and serve crucial biological roles.

The best of the synthetic ascorbic acid would by liposomal forms as they can more easily penetrate cell membranes, especially when needed in large doses as when treating an acute infection, sepsis or cancer. However, it is best to avoid taking synthetic ascorbic acid daily as this can impair copper utilization by your mitochondria.

It is better to take whole food vitamin C daily as this will support the integration of copper into the electron transport chain in your mitochondria and allow you to generate cellular energy more efficiently. Ideally this can be in the form of fruits that are high in vitamin C, like oranges, tangerines, amla (also known as gooseberry) and, my favorite, acerola cherries. It is best to take it a few times a day as vitamin C is water soluble.

8. Probiotics

If you don’t eat fermented foods on a regular basis, a probiotic supplement can be useful for maintaining your gut health and microbial diversity. Your gut microbiome affects nearly all your physiological systems, but gut microbial diversity decreases with age.¹⁰

For each gram-per-day increase in the average national consumption of fermented vegetables, the mortality risk for COVID-19 decreased by 35.4% in one study.¹¹ Beneficial bacteria found in fermented foods may even be effective for suppressing colon cancer,¹² while your mental health is also affected.

One randomized controlled trial demonstrated that high-dose probiotic supplementation is beneficial for people with depression,¹³ while Lactobacillus has been found to produce gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA), a neurotransmitter that inhibits excessive neuronal firing, helping to induce a natural state of calm,¹⁴ in animal studies.¹⁵

9. Omega-3 Fat as DHA and EPA

Omega-3 fats are important for brain health, warding off autoimmune disease¹⁶ and decreasing mortality from cardiovascular disease, while also reducing heart attacks and coronary heart disease events.¹⁷ An omega-3 index test is one of the most important annual health screens that everyone needs, and it’s a more important predictor of your heart disease risk than your cholesterol levels.

Even research supported by the National Institutes of Health suggests an omega-3 test is a good predictor of overall health and all-cause mortality.^18,19 The ideal sources for EPA and DHA omega-3s include cold-water fatty fish, like wild-caught Alaskan salmon, sardines, herring and anchovies. If you do not eat these fish on a regular basis, consider taking a krill oil supplement.

Fish oil is among the most popular supplements in the U.S. Globally, the fish oil market was valued at $1.9 million in 2019, with estimates suggesting this will rise to $2.8 million by 2027.²⁰ Many of these dollars may be wasted, however, due to a chemical process that leaves many fish oil supplements lacking in actual EPA and DHA.

The issue with most fish oil supplements is the chemical process used — trans-esterification — which transforms the oil into a synthetic product that’s far removed from the oil you’d get when eating fish or a high-quality cod liver oil.

When you eat fish or a high-quality cod liver oil, the omega-3 is in a triglyceride form. However, the omega-3s in most all fish oil supplements are in an ethyl ester which is essentially a synthetic substrate, created through the micro distillation process of crude fish oil, in which ethanol and/or industrial alcohol is added. This mix is heat distilled in a vacuum chamber, resulting in a concentrated omega-3 ethyl ester condensate.

The problem with ethyl esters is they’re the least bioavailable form of omega-3. Manufacturers could convert them back into the triglyceride form by detaching the ethyl alcohol molecule and reattaching a glycerol molecule in a process known as re-esterification,²¹ but most don’t because it’s so costly.

Additionally, not only does this molecular distillation process remove vital resolvins and protectins that are important in reducing inflammation, but it also concentrates the EPA and DHA. You can tell the concentration of these two fats in any given supplement by looking at the label. In fish, the oil consists of 20% to 30% EPA and DHA, whereas purified fish oil concentrate typically contains between 60% and 85% EPA and DHA.²²

In my view it is best to avoid most omega-3 supplements as there are many dangers with them. Krill or a high-quality cod liver oil are some of the best choices I know of, but you must be careful here also, as most are very low quality and add synthetic vitamin A and D into the oil.

Krill oil stands out in this regard, however. It’s more bioavailable because the EPA and DHA are bound in a phospholipid form, allowing you to take lower doses while still reaping similar results. Research also suggests krill oil alleviates oxidative stress and iron accumulation, such that it could be used as a treatment for toxicity caused by iron overload.²³

10. L-Glycine

I personally take teaspoon (about 5 grams) of glycine twice a day, in the morning and before bed. Glycine is an amino acid and is an important methyl-group donor. Methyl groups are found in DNA, where they play a role in cellular reactions. Glycine helps protect against intracellular calcium overload and hypoxia and has anti-inflammatory effects.

In addition to supporting brain function,²⁴ supplemental glycine may be useful for the “prevention and control of atherosclerosis, heart failure, angiogenesis associated with cancer or retinal disorders and a range of inflammation-driven syndromes, including metabolic syndrome.”²⁵Importantly, glycine is also a glutathione precursor, discussed below. Ray Peat has shown that glycine is:

11. N-acetylcysteine (NAC)

NAC, a form of the amino acid cysteine. It’s most well-known to help increase glutathione and reduce the acetaldehyde toxicity²⁶ that causes many hangover symptoms. Anyone who overdoses on acetaminophen (Tylenol) also receives large doses of NAC in the emergency room, as it helps prevent liver damage by increasing glutathione.

NAC can be combined with glycine (known as GlyNAC) for even more benefits. In a pilot trial of older adults, GlyNAC supplementation for 24 weeks corrected glutathione deficiency and improved multiple measures of health, including:²⁷

12. Quercetin

Quercetin, an antioxidant flavonol found in foods such as onions, apples, plums and green tea, is a natural antiviral²⁸ which helps drive zinc into the cells to stop viral replications. It also combats inflammation and works as a natural antihistamine. A number of studies have also shown quercetin, when used early, also lowers your risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19,²⁹ and improves clinical outcomes.

Quercetin is one of the supplements I recommend keeping in your medicine chest for times when you feel you’re “coming down” with something, be it the common cold or influenza. This is because it helps drive zinc ions into your cells, which then serves to halt replication of the virus that you are infected with.

Like vitamin E, quercetin also chelates iron. Like niacinamide, it also increases NAD+ levels but through a different mechanism. Rather than serving as a substrate to make NAD+, it helps to activate the rate limiting enzyme in the NAD+ salvage pathway, NAMPT, thus increasing NAD+ levels. Finally, it can also help with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Plant-Based Diets Essential Supplements

If you are eating a plant-based diet or you do eat animal foods but are avoiding any organ meats, which are some of the most nutrient dense foods that we know of, then please seriously consider adding these supplements to your regimen.

13. Vitamin B12

Vitamin B12 is likely the most important nutrient that is missing from a plant-based diet and it is absolutely essential that you take it if you choose not to eat animal foods. Left undetected and unaddressed, a vitamin B12 deficiency can lead to fatigue, muscle weakness, intestinal issues, limited nerve development, mood disturbances and much more.

But it is not only vegetarians that can be deficient in this important B vitamin. There are three factors are involved in the widespread B12 deficiency we’re seeing today:

• Many people don’t have enough stomach acidity due to lower levels of pepsin secretion to release the vitamin B12 from dietary proteins.
• Factory-farmed meat and poultry (the most common types consumed today) contain lower levels of vitamin B12.
• Insufficient production of intrinsic factor, a special protein, required for B12 to be absorbed in your small intestine may be the result of aging or an autoimmune condition.

Your body needs vitamin B12 to make red blood cells, maintain nerves, produce DNA and to carry out essential functions for your heart, arteries and veins, nervous system, brain and cognitive function. There’s no way you can enjoy optimal health without adequate B12 levels.

When you supplement with vitamin B12 be sure to choose the more biologically active, methylcobalamin, or “methyl B12,” is the most bioavailable and most absorbable form of vitamin B12. Avoid using the most common form of B12, cyanocobalamin.

14. Retinol (Vitamin A)

Retinol, also known as Vitamin A, is a fat-soluble vitamin that is essential for many bodily functions, including vision, growth, cell division, reproduction and immunity. It is not to be confused with beta-carotene. Even though many nutritional labels conflate the two, they are completely different. Since many are unable to easily convert beta-carotene to vitamin A, it is important to make sure you are getting retinol not beta-carotene.

Vitamin A is necessary for producing hemoglobin, the protein in your red blood cells that transports oxygen. It is necessary to properly recycle and make copper available in your mitochondrial electron transport chain for energy production. It is also necessary for your body to produce two vitally important hormones, progesterone and pregnenolone and has ant-estrogenic properties. It is also helpful for male fertility.

One of the most important benefits of retinol would be to help your body’s immune system and natural defense against illness and infection to work optimally. It also works synergistically with vitamin D with many similar benefits. Also, like vitamin E, retinol has anti-estrogenic properties.

Retinol is responsible for making the pigments in your eye’s retina, improves your vision and promotes good night vision. It also can help protect against cancer. It likely also improves skin health and helps keep your skin moist, and may help reduce the risk of skin and other cancers. Doses are typically from 5,000 to 10,000 I.U.s.

15. Copper

Copper is an essential mineral that plays a vital role in many bodily functions, including the production of red blood cells, the absorption of iron and the maintenance of nerve cells. Most importantly, it is vital to the proper functioning of your mitochondria so you can generate enough ATP.

Copper and its master protein, ceruloplasmin, are instrumental for mitochondrial function. Ceruloplasmin is what drives the copper into the mitochondria, and each mitochondrion needs about 50,000 atoms of copper to do its work.

There are five cytochrome complexes embedded in your inner mitochondrial membranes. Their purpose is to shuttle electrons created from the food you eat that is ultimately converted to acetyl-CoA to produce ATP. If these complexes are deficient in copper, you will not be able to generate enough cellular energy.

Despite its bad rap, most people are deficient in copper. To raise your copper level, you could use a copper bisglycinate supplement (about 4 to 8 mg), or foods like grass fed beef liver, and whole food vitamin C that has the enzyme tyrosinase which is loaded with copper. For additional information please review my podcast with Morley Robbins.

16. Zinc

Zinc plays many roles in your body. It is required for the healthy functioning of all your cells, tissues, organs and bones. Zinc is the second most abundant trace mineral in your body, coming in just after iron. It’s found in foods like beef, poultry, shellfish and mushrooms.

Zinc deficiency is not just an issue with vegetarians, but for those with GI and digestive disorders who can experience decreased zinc absorption. Those who eat seeds, grains, nuts and legumes that are loaded with phytates which can bind zinc and also prevent absorption, may also be deficient. Pregnant and nursing women require higher levels of zinc and those with excessive alcohol consumption also need extra zinc to metabolize the alcohol.

Researchers have discovered hundreds of ways zinc supports health in your body, and every year, they continue to discover more. In the last decade alone, there have been tens of thousands of studies investigating the roles zinc plays in promoting good health.

Zinc provides support for immune function, healthy cell growth, respiratory health and healthy metabolism. It also helps support brain health and healthy function of your taste, smell and vision.

One of the biggest challenges with zinc for people of any age is that zinc isn’t stored in your body, so you must consume the amount your body needs each and every day which is about 15 mg. If you are eating sufficient animal protein or organs, you should not need to supplement unless you are sick, as supplemental zinc can be quite useful to limit viral replication especially if taken with quercetin.

17. Vitamin K2

Vitamin K2 is needed to activate the protein osteocalcin, which is found in your bones. Without vitamin K2, this and other vitamin K2-dependent proteins remain inactivated, and cannot perform their biological functions.³⁰ Vitamin K2 also facilitates the transfer process of calcium from your arteries to your bone. Without it, your risk of arterial calcification increases. It does this by increasing the production of an important hormone for bone health, osteocalcin.

In one study, those who consumed foods with the highest amount of vitamin K2 were less likely to experience severe calcification in their arteries or less likely to die from heart disease over a seven- to 10-year period.³¹ Vitamin K2 also works in tandem with vitamin D and magnesium. As a rule, if you have osteoporosis, heart disease or diabetes, you’re likely deficient in vitamin K2.

If you are eating fermented foods such as natto, or vegetables fermented using a starter culture of vitamin K2-producing bacteria, then you may not need to take a supplement. Certain cheeses such as Brie, Munster and gouda, are also particularly high in K2, as are grass fed organic animal products such as egg yolks, liver, butter and dairy.

18. Collagen

Collagen, in addition to being rich in glycine, is well-known for its role in skin health, including helping mitigate age-related wrinkles.³² It may also reduce joint pain and stiffness³³ while improving glucose tolerance³⁴ and high blood pressure.³⁵

My personal preference is to use a less denatured (unhydrolyzed) organic collagen supplement, as it has a more balanced amino acid profile or, better yet, simply boost your collagen intake by making homemade bone broth using bones and connective tissue from grass fed, organically raised animals.

19. L-Carnosine

Carnosine is a dipeptide composed of two amino acids: beta-alanine and histidine. It’s a potent antioxidant as it binds to advanced lipoxidation endproducts (ALEs) that are the result of oxidized seed oils in your diet. The highest concentrations of carnosine are found in your muscles and brain.

If you’re a vegetarian or vegan, you will have lower levels of carnosine in your muscles. This is one reason why many strict vegans who do not properly compensate for this and other nutritional deficiencies tend to have trouble building muscle. Eating beef is known to efficiently raise carnosine levels in your muscle,³⁶ which is why if you’re a vegetarian or vegan this supplement may be particularly important.

Bonus Methylene Blue

While methylene blue is clearly not a vitamin or mineral and is, in fact, the oldest known modern drug, I consider it an important and, in many cases, essential supplement for most because it is the best product out there to increase mitochondrial electron transport efficiency and your production of cellular energy currency or ATP. In simpler terms, most anyone who is fatigued or tired will benefit from using methylene blue.

Additionally, it is very inexpensive if you avoid buying it in foolish ways. If you purchase 1 ounce (25 grams) of the bulk powder it will last you over three years if you take 20 mg/day, which is a solid maintenance dose, but if you are tired you can easily double or triple that.

Twenty mg is a very small amount and is about half of one-sixty-fourth teaspoon. That would be a one-one hundred twenty-eighth teaspoon, but those are not available. Just be really careful, though, as methylene blue is a dye and will stain your countertop. It’s best to measure over a stainless-steel sink. A dose of 50 mg is best taken by putting one-sixty-fourth teaspoon into an empty gel cap, as it can irritate your mouth at higher concentrations.

The best time to take it is prior to near infrared (IR) exposure from a near IR sauna, a photobiomodulation panel or sun exposure. For more details about methylene blue be sure to view my interview with the leading researcher in the field, Francisco Lima-Gonzalez, Ph.D.

The Timing of Your Supplements Matters

When and how you take supplements — such as with or without food and in the morning or evening — can make a difference in their safety and effectiveness. For instance, fat-soluble vitamin K2 is best taken with your largest meal that contains fat, while magnesium, which helps your body relax, is best taken in the evening. In the infographic above, you can see a simple breakdown of some of the most common supplements and when it’s best to take them.

Originally published: May 4, 2021

Over the past year, I’ve been researching and writing as much as I can to help you take control of your health, as fearmongering media and corrupt politicians have destroyed lives and livelihoods to establish global control of the world’s population, using the COVID-19 pandemic as their justification.

I’ve also kept you informed about billionaire-backed front groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a partner of Bill Gates’ Alliance for Science, both of whom have led campaigns aimed at destroying my reputation and censoring the information I share.

Other attackers include HealthGuard, which ranks health sites based on a certain set of “credibility criteria.” It has sought to discredit my website by ensuring warnings appear whenever you search for my articles or enter my website in an internet browser.

Well-Organized Attack Partnerships Have Formed

HealthGuard, a niche service of NewsGuard, is funded by the pharma-funded public relations company Publicis Groupe. Publicis, in turn, is a partner of the World Economic Forum, which is leading the call for a “Great Reset” of the global economy and a complete overhaul of our way of life.

HealthGuard is also partnered with Gates’ Microsoft company, and drug advertising websites like WebMD and Medscape, as well as the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — the progressive cancel-culture leader with extensive ties to government and global think tanks that recently labeled people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine as a national security threat.

The CCDH has published a hit list naming me as one of the top 12 individuals responsible for 65% of vaccine “disinformation” on social media, and who therefore must be deplatformed and silenced for the public good. In a March 24, 2021, letter¹ to the CEO’s of Twitter and Facebook, 12 state attorneys general called for the removal of our accounts from these platforms, based on the CCDH’s report.

Two of those state attorneys general also published an April 8, 2021, op-ed² in The Washington Post, calling on Facebook and Twitter to ban the “anti-vaxxers” identified by the CCDH. The lack of acceptance of novel gene therapy technology, they claim, is all because a small group of individuals with a social media presence — myself included — are successfully misleading the public with lies about nonexistent vaccine risks.

“The solution is not complicated. It’s time for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to turn off this toxic tap and completely remove the small handful of individuals spreading this fraudulent misinformation,” they wrote.³

Pharma-funded politicians and pharma-captured health agencies have also relentlessly attackedme and pressured tech monopolies to censor and deplatform me, removing my ability to express my opinions and speak freely over the past year.

The CCDH also somehow has been allowed to publish⁴ in the journal Nature Medicine, calling for the “dismantling” of the “anti-vaccine” industry. In the article, CCDH founder Imran Ahmed repeats the lie that he “attended and recorded a private, three-day meeting of the world’s most prominent anti-vaxxers,” when, in fact, what he’s referring to was a public online conference open to an international audience, all of whom had access to the recordings as part of their attendance fee.

The CCDH is also partnered with another obscure group called Anti-Vax Watch. The picture below is from an Anti-Vax Watch demonstration outside the halls of Congress. Ironically, while the CCDH claims to be anti-extremism, you’d be hard-pressed to find a clearer example of actual extremism than this bizarre duo.⁵

Gates-Funded Doctor Demands Terrorist Experts to Attack Me

Most recently, Dr. Peter Hotez, president of the Sabin Vaccine Institute,⁶ which has received tens of millions of dollars from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,^7,8,9 — with funds from the foundation most recently being used to create a report called “Meeting the Challenge of Vaccine Hesitancy,”^10,11— also cited the CCDH in a Nature article in which he calls for cyberwarfare experts to be enlisted in the war against vaccine safety advocates and people who are “vaccine hesitant.” He writes:¹²

“Accurate, targeted counter-messaging from the global health community is important but insufficient, as is public pressure on social-media companies. The United Nations and the highest levels of government must take direct, even confrontational, approaches with Russia, and move to dismantle anti-vaccine groups in the United States.

Efforts must expand into the realm of cyber security, law enforcement, public education and international relations. A high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the UN secretary-general could assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced measures.

The task force should include experts who have tackled complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril. It is becoming increasingly clear that advancing immunization requires a counteroffensive.”

Why is Hotez calling for the use of warfare tactics on American citizens that have done nothing illegal? In my case, could it be because I’ve written about the theory that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus, created through gain-of-function research, and that its release was anticipated by global elites, as evidenced in Event 201?

It may be. At least those are some of my alleged “sins,” detailed on page 10 of the CCDH report, “Disinformation Dozen: The Sequel.”¹³ Coincidentally enough, the Nature journal has helped cover up gain-of-function research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, publishing a shoddy zoonotic origins study relied upon by mainstream media and others, which was riddled with problems.^14,15

So, it’s not misinformation they are afraid of. They’re afraid of the truth getting out. They’re all trying to cover for the Chinese military and the dangerous mad scientists conducting gain-of-function work.

You may have noticed our website was recently unavailable; this was due to direct cyber-attacks launched against us. We have several layers of protective mechanisms to secure the website as we’ve anticipated such attacks from malevolent organizations.

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

What This Means for You

Through these progressively increasing stringent measures, I have refused to succumb to these governmental and pharmaceutical thugs and their relentless attacks. I have been confident and willing to defend myself in the court of law, as I’ve had everything reviewed by some of the best attorneys in the country.

Unfortunately, threats have now become very personal and have intensified to the point I can no longer preserve much of the information and research I’ve provided to you thus far. These threats are not legal in nature, and I have limited ability to defend myself against them. If you can imagine what billionaires and their front groups are capable of, I can assure you they have been creative in deploying their assets to have this content removed.

Sadly, I must also remove my peer reviewed published study¹⁶ on the “Evidence Regarding Vitamin D and Risk of COVID-19 and Its Severity.” It will, however, remain in the highly-respected journal Nutrients’ website, where you can still access it for free.

The MATH+ hospital treatment protocol for COVID-19 and the iMASK+ prevention and early outpatient COVID-19 protocol — both of which are based on the use of vitamins C, D, quercetin, zinc and melatonin — are available on the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s website. I suggest you bookmark these resources for future reference.

It is with a heavy heart that I purge my website of valuable information. As noted by Dr. Peter McCullough during a recent Texas state Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing, data shows early treatment could have prevented up to 85% (425,000) of COVID-19 deaths.¹⁷ Yet early treatments were all heavily censored and suppressed.

McCullough, in addition to being a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the Texas A&M University Health Sciences Center, also has the distinction of having published the most papers of any person in the history of his field, and being an editor of two major medical journals. Despite that, his video, in which he went through a paper he’d published detailing effective early treatments, was summarily banned by YouTube in 2020.

“No wonder we have had 45,000 deaths in Texas. The average person in Texas thinks there’s no treatment!” McCullough told the senate panel.¹⁸ Indeed, people are in dire need of more information detailing how they can protect their health, not less. But there’s only so much I can do to protect myself against current attack strategies.

They’ve moved past censorship. Just what do you call people who advocate counteroffensive attacks by terrorism and cyberwarfare experts? You’d think we could have a debate and be protected under free speech but, no, we’re not allowed. These lunatics are dangerously unhinged.

The U.S. federal government is going along with the global Great Reset plan (promoted as “building back better”), but this plan won’t build anything but a technological prison. What we need is a massive campaign to preserve civil rights, and vote out the pawns who are destroying our freedom while concentrating wealth and power.

In late February 2023, Moderna agreed to pay $400 million to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for the patent it holds on Moderna’s mRNA shot.¹

The patent process is a part of the COVID mRNA shots that the media haven’t really addressed and people in general don’t know anything about — probably because it’s a total racket. Based on internal documents and correspondence, it appears the NIAID funded the creation of SARS-CoV-2. At the same time, it patented and receives royalty payments for the “vaccine” against said virus.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is supposed to be the primary government agency responsible for public health research, but by the looks of it, it appears instead to be in the business of creating public health threats in order to profit from them.

And the agency itself isn’t the only one raking in profits. Many patents are held by individuals working at the NIH/NIAID. So, taxpayers fund research that may or may not work out, while Big Pharma, the NIH and individuals at the NIH profit from products that end up on the market. This is a clear conflict of interest that can hurt public health in any number of ways.

For starters, it incentivizes the NIH to support and promote potentially dangerous drugs, as we’ve clearly seen during the COVID pandemic. The NIH also has a significant stake in regulations that impact patents and vaccine mandates, and may use its influence to benefit itself rather than the public.

Conflicts of Interest Influence Public Health Policy

In the Full Measure video above, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson reports the findings of watchdog group Open The Books, which recently took a deep dive into “the issue of government scientists collecting royalty payments from pharmaceutical companies for discoveries made while working on your dime.”

According to OpenTheBooks.com founder and CEO Adam Andrzejewski, the NIH distributes $32 billion of taxpayer funds as research grants each year to an estimated 56,000 different entities. “That basically buys you the entire American health care space,” he says.

As the largest federal grant-maker, the NIH has a monopoly on what research gets done and what doesn’t, as it decides which scientists and projects get that money. Scientists vying for grants also recognize that in order to get a piece of that pie, they have to play by the rules, and that means doing work that supports establishment narratives on public health policy.

But that’s not all. The NIH is also gobbling up patents, which further weakens its incentive to protect and promote what’s truly in the public’s best interest due to the financial conflicts of interest that come into play.

How the Third-Party Royalty Complex Works

As explained by Andrzejewski, under the 1984 Bayh-Dole Act, government scientists can collect royalties from drug companies for discoveries they make while working on the public’s dime:

“Here’s how the third-party royalty complex works. You have a government scientist funded by taxpayers, and they work in a government lab that’s also funded by taxpayers. And when they have an invention [a drug, device or therapeutic] … the NIH … then licenses that invention … to the private sector.

And the private sector then pays royalties back to NIH. NIH then distributes those royalties on a royalty split schedule, back to the scientist. Details of those royalty payments to government scientists are kept as strictly held secrets.”

In fact, these royalty payments are kept under such closed wraps, scientists who receive them aren’t even required to divulge them on their financial statements, let alone to the public. Congress can’t even access those data.

In mid-June 2022, Sen. Rand Paul questioned then-NIAID chief Dr. Anthony Fauci about whether he’d ever received royalty payments from an entity to which he had given a research grant, and whether he or anyone else on the vaccine committee had ever received payments from vaccine makers.² Fauci suffered one of his now-famous lapses of memory and wouldn’t answer.

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

NIH Fights to Shield Conflicted Parties

Paul’s questioning of Fauci came on the heels of a lawsuit filed against the NIH to obtain these payment disclosures. The lawsuit was filed by Open The Books in October 2021. But while the NIH eventually did release them, many of the most crucial pieces of information were redacted, and Paul’s attempt to get answers led nowhere. As noted by Andrzejewski:

“That lawsuit unearthed 3,000 pages of royalty payments to NIH scientists from 2010 to 2021. During that time, 2,407 government scientists received $325 million in secretive royalty payments, averaging out to more than $135,000 each.

But much is left unknown. NIH redacted or blacked out key details. We don’t know who paid it. We don’t know how much each individual scientist received. We can only see their names and count the number of times that each scientist received a payment.

And they also redacted the invention, the license number or the patent number … So, every single one of those individual, third-party royalty payments has the appearance of a conflict of interest …

We need to be able to follow the money. Unelected bureaucrats are running the entire American health care complex without any scrutiny. They’re basically telling the American people, ‘Sit down, shut up, pay up. We’ll run things.’ And that’s not how the federal government is supposed to operate.”

COVID Jabs Are Rife With Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest also appear to have played a role in the U.S. government’s preferential treatment of Pfizer and Moderna during the pandemic. Pfizer was the first to receive government authorization for its COVID jab, and it just so happens to be part of an NIH royalty-sharing agreement.

Moderna also has such an agreement. What this all means is that the NIH helped invent certain technologies that went into these shots, and then licensed those technologies to Pfizer and Moderna in return for royalty payments.

So, the NIH has been making tens of millions of dollars from the COVID shots. Could that financial incentive influence the NIH’s stance on vaccine mandates? What do you think?

As you may recall, Johnson & Johnson’s COVID jab was vilified for causing blood clots, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration even limited the authorized use of the Janssen shot to people over the age of 18 who have no access to Moderna’s or Pfizer’s jabs, and/or those who voluntarily opt for the Janssen shot, understanding the risks.³

Meanwhile, Pfizer’s and Moderna’s shots also cause blood clots, but neither of them was placed under restrictions. Instead, both were added to the U.S. childhood and adult vaccination schedules. Janssen wasn’t.

The NIH Royalty Cash Cow

The NIH’s secret royalties and the conflicts of interest these payments create were also addressed by “Rising” hosts Robby Soave and Briahna Joy Gray in a recent episode (video above). Alexander Zaitchik, author of “Owning the Sun: A People’s History of Monopoly Medicine from Aspirin to COVID-19 Vaccines,” also joined them on the program.

In Zaitchik’s view, the biggest scandal is not that government scientists are receiving royalty payments from drug companies but, rather, the intimate relationship that exists between government and “an industry that is using the monopoly system to price gouge the American people.”

“The NIH has basically abandoned its role to serve the public,” Zaitchik says, “and instead has become much too aligned with the industry and is an enabler, an accomplice and a protector of these monopolies. The vaccines are a point in case.

Government science was basically given, along with these massive research subsidies, through Warp Speed, to Moderna, for example. And there were no public interest provisions attached.

There were no pricing promises, there were no requests that technology be transferred [shared] with other parts of the world. It was basically a conveyor belt for private industry … So, for me, the real problem is NIH [being] fully aligned with industry on the monopoly question when public science is involved …”

Public Gets Fleeced Coming and Going

When public monies are being used for research, any scientific discoveries ought to be used for the public’s benefit, and the patents should remain public property with broad licensing rights.

This used to be the default position, but not anymore. In the 1970s, Big Pharma convinced Congress that this policy was slowing down innovation, and that if companies were allowed to claim exclusive rights to the patents, they’d be more apt to innovate. The Bayh-Dole Act was an outgrowth of this.

But we can now see why and how that doesn’t work. Public health is literally being sacrificed for profit, and since government agencies are in on it, there’s no one left to look out for the public’s interests.

Additionally, the public ends up getting fleeced twice. First, our tax dollars are being used to fund the research that private companies then lay claim to, and then we end up paying top dollar for the products we funded the development of, as there’s no price competition.

As noted by Zaitchik, while the Bayh-Dole Act is a bad law, it does have a rider that says generic production of drugs created with government funding can be mandated. However, every time patient groups have approached the NIH and asked for this provision to be enforced, as the monopoly is hurting patients who cannot afford the exorbitant prices, the NIH has rejected those requests.

For example, the U.S. Army invented a breakthrough prostate cancer drug, and Americans are paying six times the price for this drug compared to other parts of the world. But even though the government has the power to lower the price by mandating generic production, it refuses to do so.

“The whole system, up and down, has been completely corrupted by the amount of money and power the industry has been allowed to amass, because of the corruption in the patent system in general,” Zaitchik says.

Big Pharma Endangers Public Health

In closing, I’d like to draw attention to a paper published in Surgical Neurology International in October 2022, titled “The Pharmaceutical Industry Is Dangerous To Health. Further Proof With COVID-19.”⁴

“The COVID-19 period highlights a huge problem that has been developing for decades, the control of science by industry,” the author, Fabien Deruelle, an independent researcher in France, writes.

“In the 1950s, the tobacco industry set the example, which the pharmaceutical industry followed. Since then, the latter has been regularly condemned for illegal marketing, misrepresentation of experimental results, dissimulation of information about the dangers of drugs, and considered as criminal.

Therefore, this study was conducted to show that knowledge is powerfully manipulated by harmful corporations, whose goals are: 1) financial; 2) to suppress our ability to make choices to acquire global control of public health.”

Deruelle’s paper reviews a long list of techniques that drug companies use to shape and control the science, including the following:

1. Falsification of clinical trials and making data inaccessible
2. Faked studies
3. Conflict-of-interest studies
4. Concealment of the jab’s short-term side effects
5. Concealment of the fact there is no knowledge of the long-term effects of the COVID-19 jab
6. Dubious composition of the COVID shots, with many ingredients remaining unlisted
7. Inadequate testing methods
8. Conflicts of interest within governments and international organizations
9. Bribing of physicians
10. Denigration of renowned scientists who express differing views
11. The banning of alternative effective treatments
12. Unscientific countermeasures that eviscerate liberties and freedoms
13. Government use of behavior modification and social engineering techniques to impose isolation, masks wearing and vaccine acceptance
14. Scientific censorship by the media

White Collar Crooks Are Running the Show

Deruelle points out that all but one of the primary drug companies producing COVID “vaccines” — Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Merck and Johnson & Johnson — have long criminal histories, having been busted and fined huge sums for illegal marketing, recommending drugs for off-label use, misrepresenting trial results and concealing information about known dangers of their drugs. Moderna is the only exception, as it’s only been around since 2010. Deruelle writes:⁵

“In 2007, Merck paid $670 million, in 2009, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion, in 2010, AstraZeneca paid $520 million, and in 2012, Johnson and Johnson paid a fine of $1.1 billion …

Since 1995, Pfizer has been assessed more than $6.5 billion in penalties for 42 instances of misconduct; 36 instances of misconduct since 1995, resulting in over $11.5 billion in penalties for Johnson and Johnson; 35 instances of misconduct since 1995 and $8.8 billion in penalties for Merck.

Pfizer is singled out as having persistent criminal behavior and casual disregard for the health and well-being of patients. Pfizer is no different from other pharmaceutical companies, but it is larger and more egregious. Pfizer is a habitual offender, persistently engaging in illegal business practices, bribing physicians, and suppressing unfavorable trial results.”

Will Pfizer Stand Trial?

True to form, Pfizer is also accused of scientific fraud in its COVID-19 jab trial. Brook Jackson, who worked at one of Pfizer’s trial sites, sued Pfizer in 2021 for violating the False Claims Act.⁶ U.S. District Judge Michael Truncale heard oral arguments on the motions to dismiss, March 1, 2023.

As reported by The Epoch Times March 2, 2023,⁷ defense attorneys for Pfizer argued that “whether protocol violations occurred was ultimately irrelevant because the federal government was made aware of them but still granted emergency authorization to Pfizer’s vaccine.”

Jackson’s lawyers countered by saying the FDA authorized the vaccine before reviewing Jackson’s complaint. Judge Truncale has not issued a ruling as of this writing, and Jackson’s attorney suspects it may be weeks or even months before the judge issues his opinion.⁸

Conflicts of Interest Shaped COVID Responses

Deruelle also specifically delves into the conflicts of interest and relationships between the drug companies involved during COVID-19 and governments, international organizations and media — and how they worked the COVID “emergency” for their own benefit. Here are some select excerpts:⁹

“In 2009, the H1N1 episode should already have been enough to reveal that governments and the WHO are not autonomous. Work has shown that the 2009 H1N1 pandemic seems (based on case fatality rates [CFRs]) to have been the mildest influenza pandemic on record. Following investigations by the BMJ, it appears that this event declared by the WHO is significantly tainted by conflicts of interest.

A report by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has heavily criticized the WHO, national governments, and EU agencies for their handling of the swine flu pandemic: distortion of priorities of public health services all over Europe, waste of huge sums of public money, provocation of unjustified fear among Europeans, and creation of health risks through vaccines and medications which might not have been sufficiently tested before being authorized in fast-track procedures.

According to former head of health at the Council of Europe, W. Wodarg, the swine flu outbreak was a false pandemic driven by drug companies that influenced scientists and official agencies …

During the COVID-19 period, France hired private consulting firms, mainly McKinsey and Company, which is known for working with pharmaceutical companies. The Senate Inquiry Commission reports that McKinsey contributed on all aspects of the health crisis, notably for social engineering strategies on the vaccination campaign and the extension of the health pass …

The suppression of good science and scientists is not new, but COVID-19 unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, suppressing science for political and financial reasons … Since the beginning of COVID-19, much scientific data and expert opinion have been censored or labeled as false or misleading by many internet platforms …

In June 2019, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations signed a partnership (2030 agenda). In the field of health, this alliance is designed to combat key emerging global health threats and achieve universal health coverage. In October 2019, in New York City, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and its partners the WEF and the Gates Foundation, hosted Event 201, a fictional coronavirus pandemic …

Among the partners of the WEF, there are: Pfizer, AstraZeneka, Johnson and Johnson, Moderna, McKinsey, and Facebook et Google. A few months later, a coronavirus pandemic is declared, accompanied by its highly mediatized universal solution, the vaccine …

In addition to Event 201, other pandemic simulations, civil (MARS and SPARS in 2017) and military (Dark Winter in 2001, Atlantic Storm in 2003 and 2005, Global mercury in 2003, and Crimson Contagion in 2019), have taken place over the past 20 years. All these simulations correspond to fear programs induced by false media.

For the general welfare of the population, all these scenarios lead to the same methods (identical to those used during COVID-19): Isolation, control of movements and liberties, censorship, propaganda, and coercive vaccination of the population …

[T]here is no doubt that this is an event manipulated by governments, international agencies, pharmaceutical industries, and the media. In addition to the huge profits obtained by the pharmaceutical groups involved, the primary goal of this ‘pandemic’ seems to be compulsory vaccination, because the introduction of a European vaccine passport had already been planned since 2019 …

The objective of the WHO is to impose the Chinese model to become the norm. That is to say, a system with centralization of each person’s health data and restriction of freedoms for the unvaccinated … A period such as COVID-19 represents a powerful lever for increasing the effectiveness of global governance.”

Conflicts of Interest Threaten Our Freedom

In the final analysis, conflicts of interest and the collusion between government and industry does more than rob us of our hard-earned money. It now threatens our very freedom, as these monopolies are being used to further a totalitarian takeover of global proportions.

As such, we can no longer turn a blind eye or accept excuses such as “these relationships don’t influence our decision-making.” They absolutely influence the decisions being made, and the public is consistently on the losing end. Congress needs to start taking this seriously, and revisit laws such as the Bayh-Dole Act, which is currently allowing private monopolies to profit while no one is looking out for our interests.

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published June 12, 2018.

In December 2017, Slate magazine published an astonishing article about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil, revealing how the safety trials for this controversial vaccine actually “weren’t designed to properly assess safety.”¹ Gardasil is supposed to prevent infection by certain strains of HPV virus, which in rare cases may cause cervical cancer if left untreated.

However, trial data from Merck shows that Gardasil vaccinations may actually increase your risk of cervical cancer by 44.6% if you have been exposed to HPV strains 16 or 18 prior to vaccination.²

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has made this document inaccessible, but we’ve saved a copy of it. In his Slate article, investigative journalist Frederik Joelving recounts the story of Kesia Lyng, a 30-year-old Danish woman who, at the age of 19, participated in a clinical trial for Merck’s Gardasil vaccine.

“Lyng’s grandmother had died of cervical cancer the year before, so when a letter arrived offering her $500 to take part in a crucial international test of Gardasil, the decision was easy,” Joelving writes. “She got her first shot of the vaccine at Hvidovre Hospital in Copenhagen on September 19, 2002. The symptoms snuck up on her shortly after her second shot on November 14.

They never abated. It wasn’t until 2016 that she received her diagnosis — chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) … In recent years, Lyng has become suspicious that there is a connection between her disease and her Gardasil immunization. Her ailments evoke descriptions found in hundreds of news stories from women who also received the vaccine, as well as several medical case reports from around the world.”

HPV Vaccine Linked to Serious Side Effects, Including Death

Reported side effects of Gardasil vaccination include immune-based inflammatory neurodegenerative disorders, suggesting something is causing the immune system to overreact in a detrimental way, sometimes fatally.^3,4

The dangers of high immunogenicity was addressed in my 2015 interview with Lucija Tomljenovic, Ph.D., a research scientist at the University of British Columbia. In it, she explains that by triggering an exaggerated inflammatory immune response, vaccine adjuvants end up affecting brain function.

In collaboration with a team led by professor Yehuda Shoenfeld, a world expert in autoimmune diseases who heads the Zabludowicz Autoimmunity Research Centre at the Sheba Hospital in Israel, Tomljenovic has demonstrated how the HPV vaccine can cause brain autoimmune disorders. It was these findings that prompted the Japanese government to remove the HPV vaccine from its list of recommended vaccines.⁵ The vaccine injury law firm Sadaka Associates also claims that:⁶

“Medical researchers have accused drug regulators and manufacturers of concealing the real dangers of the HPV vaccine. Many girls have suffered life-threatening injuries as the result of the vaccine. The HPV vaccine has also caused death …

The drug regulators have also been accused of adding aluminum to the placebo in order to manipulate scientific data. Even though aluminum was used in the placebo, scientists have confirmed that the HPV vaccine has been linked to death.

There was a study done that involved 2,881 girls who receive the vaccine. Fourteen of the girls who received the vaccine died. Three of the girls who received the placebo died. There was a team of researchers at the National Institute of Cardiology that also found that there is a link between HPV vaccine and life-threatening reactions.

They looked at 28 studies that involved girls who had been given the HPV vaccine. They also looked at 16 randomized trials. They found that girls were given a placebo with aluminum in 14 of the randomized trials.

If aluminum is placed in a placebo, then a person is more likely to have an adverse reaction. Spanish researchers found that girls who receive the HPV vaccine are 10 times more likely to react to it. Canadian scientists found that 10 percent of the girls who were vaccinated had to be hospitalized due to a reaction. These girls had to be hospitalized within 42 days of receiving the vaccination.”

Overstated and Unproven Effectiveness

A 2012 systematic review⁷ of pre- and post-licensure trials of the HPV vaccine also concluded that the vaccine’s effectiveness is both overstated and unproven. According to the authors, the review revealed:

“… [E]vidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications).

Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data.

For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70 percent reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified.

Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).”

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Gardasil Trials Were Not Designed to Detect Safety Problems

It’s precisely these kinds of design flaws that are highlighted in the December 17, 2017, Slate article.⁸ Joelving reports that Merck has repeatedly “issued reassurances about the thorough randomized trials the vaccines were subjected to before approval.”

The public was told that the three HPV vaccines marketed in the U.S. were tested on tens of thousands of individuals around the world, without any compelling evidence of serious side effects having emerged. While that reads well on paper, the shocking truth appears to be that these trials were never designed to detect and evaluate serious side effects in the first place. According to Joelving:

“An eight-month investigation by Slate found the major Gardasil trials were flawed from the outset … and that regulators allowed unreliable methods to be used to test the vaccine’s safety. Drug regulators tend to look much more seriously at potential side effects that surface during a pre-licensure study, which is what Lyng participated in, rather than after a product has already been found to be safe and been put on the market.

But regulators never learned of Lyng’s plight. In fact, her repeated complaints of debilitating symptoms were not even registered in the study as potential side effects … Lyng’s experience was not unique. Interviews with five study participants and more than 2,300 pages of documents obtained through freedom-of-information requests from hospitals and health authorities suggest inadequacies built into Merck’s major clinical tests of Gardasil.”

Joelving describes these inadequacies in great detail, showing how Merck made the vaccine appear far safer than it actually is by using “a convoluted method that made objective evaluation and reporting of potential side effects impossible during all but a few weeks of its yearslong trials.” Serious adverse events were only recorded during a two-week period post-vaccination.

Moreover, during this narrow window of time, trial investigators “used their personal judgment to decide whether or not to report any medical problem as an adverse event.”

Side Effects Simply Marked Down as Medical History

Importantly, and shockingly, most of the health problems that arose after vaccination were simply marked down as “medical history” rather than potential side effects — a tactic that basically ensured that most side effects would be overlooked. No record was made of symptom severity, duration or outcome.

Even with this gross reporting flaw, at least one Gardasil trial of the new nine-valent vaccine reported nearly 10% of subjects experienced “severe systemic adverse events” affecting multiple system organ classes, and over 3% suffered “severe vaccine-related adverse events.”⁹ The 2012 systematic review¹⁰ of Gardasil pre- and post-licensure trials mentioned earlier isn’t the only report out there that has offered up severe criticism of Merck’s trial tactics. Joelving writes:

“In an internal 2014 EMA report¹¹ about Gardasil 9 obtained through a freedom-of-information request, senior experts called the company’s approach ‘unconventional and suboptimal’ and said it left some ‘uncertainty’ about the safety results.

EMA trial inspectors made similar observations in another report, noting that Merck’s procedure was ‘not an optimal method of collecting safety data, especially not systemic side effects that could appear long after the vaccinations were given.'”

Study Subjects Betrayed

In other words, when Merck says Gardasil has been extensively studied for safety, it’s referring to studies set up in such a way that data on potential side effects were actually excluded. If side effects are not included in the data collection, how can you rightfully claim that no significant problems exist?

Sadly, shoddy and incomplete documentation of adverse events, and follow-up periods that are too short to detect problems, can have tragic ramifications, and this is what appears to have happened with the release of Gardasil.

Joelving’s investigation reveals at least five other Danish women went on to develop debilitating health problems during the Gardasil trial. One developed severe fatigue, persistent flu-like symptoms and had to be admitted to the hospital for a serious infection shortly after one of her vaccinations. All of her symptoms were marked down as “medical history” and were not processed as adverse events.

A year after her vaccination, she developed such debilitating pain she had to use a wheelchair. To this day, she still sometimes has to use crutches, and has been given a tentative diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis. Another young woman also developed severe fatigue and headaches. She told Joelving she reported it to study personnel, yet there’s no mention of these problems anywhere in her file. Joelving writes:

“‘If I were a research subject, I would feel betrayed,’ Trudo Lemmens, a bioethicist and professor of health law and policy at the University of Toronto, told me. ‘If the purpose of a clinical trial is to establish the safety and efficacy of a new product, whether it’s a vaccine or something else, I would expect that they gathered all relevant data, including whether it had side effects or not.'”

Imprecision Medicine

Vaccines are often riskier than oral drugs, since they’re injected into your body and contain a number of toxic adjuvants. When there’s risk, you’d expect the benefit to be worth it, but research shows many drugs provide shockingly little benefit for a majority of people, and one wonders whether the same does not hold true for vaccines as well.

The following graphic is from a Nature article published April 29, 2015.¹² It shows the effectiveness of the top 10 highest-grossing drugs in the U.S. Nexium, for example, commonly prescribed for heartburn, is beneficial for just 1 out of every 25 patients.

Advair, prescribed for asthma, helps 1 in 20; Cymbalta eases symptoms of depression in 1 out of 9 patients; Crestor, prescribed for high cholesterol, benefits 1 in 20. While not included in the graphic below, the article¹³ also cites research¹⁴ suggesting statins may benefit as few as 1 in 50.

Truly, when you’re talking about a benefit rate of 5% or less, can you really say that the drug in question is an effective one? Yet they’re certainly marketed as such. Meanwhile, all of these drugs have side effects, which means all those who gain no benefit from the drug are risking their health for no good reason whatsoever.

As noted in Nature, a wide variety of factors play into how you might respond to any given medication, including your gender, age, ethnicity and genetics giving rise to differences in absorption, metabolism, excretion and more.

“The drug vemurafenib, for instance, was approved in the United States to treat late-stage melanoma in people whose tumors carry the BRAF(V600E) mutation. But some tumor cells develop other anomalies that make them resistant to the drug. Thus clinicians considering whether to prescribe vemurafenib may need to take into account a whole slew of biomarkers,” the article states.

Source: Nature April 29, 2015

Pregnant Women To Be Included in Experimental Drug Trials

Historically, pregnant women have been discouraged from taking drugs and vaccines during pregnancy, as there’s very little data on their safety for the growing fetus. Pregnant women have thus far not been included in clinical drug and vaccine trials. The reason for this should be obvious.

A pregnant woman is not only putting her own health on the line, but also that of her unborn child. Now, that’s all about to change. In April 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued draft guidance¹⁵ for industry on when and how they may include pregnant women in clinical trials for drugs and therapies. As reported by Science News:¹⁶

“It addresses considerations such as the effect pregnancy has on the absorption of drugs, nonclinical studies that should be conducted, and appropriate data collection and safety monitoring. The key concern with pregnant women participating in clinical trials is safety of the fetus.

The terrible birth defects that resulted from the wide use of the sedative thalidomide in the 1950s and ’60s weighed heavily on the eventual decision to largely exclude pregnant women from trials that test drugs. But that tragedy didn’t happen because pregnant women were studied, [obstetrician Anne] Lyerly says — it was because they weren’t studied.

‘If you don’t study a drug in a highly-controlled research setting,’ Lyerly says, ‘it’s not like the risk that would be imposed on those individuals goes away.’ Instead, the risk gets shifted to women who need the drug or women who get pregnant while on the drug.'”

According to research¹⁷ published in 2011, 94% of pregnant women in the study had taken one or more over-the-counter or prescription medications during their pregnancy; 70% used at least one prescription drug.

The average number of drugs used during pregnancy has also nearly doubled in recent decades, from 2.5 in 1976/1978 to 4.2 in 2006/2008. The researchers also concluded there was insufficient data to determine the risks to the baby for 98% of these drugs.

While the inclusion of pregnant women in drug trials may be justifiable, as Lyerly tries to claim above, what guarantee do we have that drug companies will design studies to actually FIND side effects, opposed to doctoring studies in such a way that side effects are simply obscured?

The fact is, there are no guarantees whatsoever, as these studies will be a) done by the same companies mass-marketing drugs that are effective for 5% of patients or less, and b) regulated by the same government agencies that let drug companies get away with doing safety studies that don’t actually record side effects.

Safety Is a Hindrance to Profits

Getting back to the HPV vaccine, research¹⁸ shows Merck played a distinct role in state HPV vaccination policy, promoting school-entry mandates^19,20,21 “by serving as an information resource, lobbying legislators, drafting legislation, mobilizing female legislators and physician organizations, conducting consumer marketing campaigns and filling gaps in access to the vaccine.”

It also found that most stakeholders thought the company “had acted too aggressively and nontransparently” to achieve their aim. Again, Merck designed their safety studies so as not to find side effects, and then aggressively lobbied to maximize vaccine uptake.

So, in essence, children and teens were sacrificed in these studies just to allow the company to say they had studied the vaccine and found it safe and effective (even though it has NEVER been proven to have prevented a single case of HPV and/or cervical cancer).

And now we’re going to allow Merck and others to include pregnant women in their studies as well? What could possibly go wrong? Again and again, we see a pattern suggesting safety is not allowed to get in the way of profits and policy. History also reveals a pattern of marketing drugs and vaccines by playing on people’s fears.

Most recently, Bill Gates stated he believes a global pandemic that could kill 30 million in six months is on its way, and we’re completely unprepared for it.^22,23

His comments archived the following month in The New England Journal of Medicine,²⁴ were made during an “Epidemics Going Viral, Innovation Vs. Nature” speaker series on April 27, 2018, sponsored by Massachusetts Medical Society and The New England Journal of Medicine. According to Gates, the next pandemic killer might well be a disease we’ve never encountered before.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has a history of supporting questionable vaccination agendas with their millions, so it makes sense, I guess, that Gates would be anxious to create a need for some costly remedy by amping up the fear factor. In the past decade, there’s been a string of attempts to rile up the masses and increase demand for pandemic vaccines.

The predicted pandemics all fell flat, and no mass casualties ever occurred, yet the fearmongering strategy is not easily abandoned. In the case of the HPV vaccine, it’s promoted as an anticancer vaccine, even though no proof exists that it actually prevents cancer. As mentioned earlier, Merck’s own research revealed an increased risk of cervical cancer with the vaccine under certain circumstances.

The Dangers of HPV Are Overhyped

It may be worth remembering the basics when pondering the decision of whether or not to vaccinate your child against HPV:

Hearing news of toxic chemical accidents — like the February 2023 Ohio train derailment — is shocking. What’s alarming, however, is that many assume such disasters are rare occurrences when, in fact, they’re incredibly common.

During the first seven weeks of 2023, the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters (CPCD) reported 30 chemical accidents in the U.S., or one every 1.5 days. On average, one estimate suggests accidental chemical releases due to train derailments, leaks from industrial plants, truck accidents and pipeline ruptures, occur every two days.¹

Dangerous Chemical Accidents Occur Regularly

It’s a myth that chemical accidents are unusual in the U.S. CPCD maintains a list of such incidents, detailing at least 224 since January 1, 2022.² Among them:³

• February 25, 2023, a fire at Schulz Xtruded Products in Hernando, Mississippi, caused a container of hydrofluoric acid to leak into Mussacuna Creek.
• February 18, 2023, a fire broke out at Clean Harbors storage facility in Braintree, Massachusetts. Clean Harbors collects, transports and processes hazardous waste, and the trailers that caught fire were full of paints, epoxy, oil filters and solvents. Residents in the area were advised to shelter in place with their windows closed.
• February 16, 2023, a fire took place at Nursery Supplies in Kissimmee, Florida, which produces flower pots made from recycled plastics. Two acres of planters were burned, and residents were ordered to shelter in place.
• February 14, 2023, a tanker truck overturned in Tucson, Arizona, spilling explosive nitric acid and causing a fire that shut down parts of Interstate 10. The truck driver was killed and area residents were ordered to either evacuate or shelter in place.
• January 28, 2023, two train cars carrying propionic acid and acetic anhydride derailed, causing the chemicals to leak. About 130 people were evacuated as a result.

In 2013, after an explosion at a fertilizer facility in Texas killed 15 people, an executive order was issued, directing the EPA to provide new rules to help prevent disasters at chemical facilities. New rules were issued in 2017, but they were suspended and overturned soon after. According to CPCD:⁴

“On August 19, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention (SCCAP) rule, which made long-awaited revisions to the Risk Management Program (RMP), intended to prevent chemical disasters and regulate facilities that use or store highly hazardous chemicals.

But over 100 organizations have since urged the EPA to further strengthen its proposal in key ways ‘to fully satisfy the law and the agency’s core commitments on environmental justice [and] worker safety …’

150 serious incidents at RMP facilities occur each year in the U.S. on average. This does not include the fires, releases, and explosions that occur with regularity at facilities not covered by the RMP, or hazardous materials being transported by rail or highway.”

39% of US Population Live Near a Hazardous Facility

Every U.S. state is home to chemical facilities that store or use hazardous chemicals, such as fertilizer plants, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturers, wastewater treatment plants and more.⁵

In all, about 12,500 such facilities exist in the U.S., and 39% of the population — nearly 124 million people — live within 3 miles of one.⁶ Further, in the event of a fire or spill, people up to 25 miles away from these industrial and commercial sites can be affected.⁷ Many low-income communities are disproportionately affected by these risks, which are compounded by threats from air pollution and lack of access to healthy foods.

A report by the Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform (EJHA), Coming Clean and the Campaign for Healthier Solutions analyzed cumulative health hazards for those living in these areas, with a focus on Los Angeles; Houston and Dallas, Texas; Louisville, Kentucky; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Charleston, West Virginia. It revealed:⁸

“In most of the areas researched, large majorities of the population live in fenceline zones around highly hazardous facilities, and most schools and medical institutions are located in these zones, at much greater rates than nationally.

… In addition to the constant threat of catastrophic chemical releases or explosions, in every area researched for this report fenceline zones face higher risk of cancer from toxic air pollution than the entire area (and often much higher than for the US as a whole). In 8 of the 9 areas, the potential for respiratory illness is higher in fenceline zones than for the entire area, and in every area is above the national rate.”

The Guardian also analyzed data related to U.S. chemical accidents. EPA data revealed 1,650 accidents at hazardous chemical facilities across the U.S. from 2004 to 2013, with disasters occurring at particularly high rates at petroleum, coal manufacturing and chemical manufacturing facilities.⁹ From 2004 to 2020, accidents at hazardous chemical facilities occurred most often in Texas, followed by Louisiana, California, Illinois and Iowa.¹⁰

“What happened in East Palestine [the Ohio train derailment], this is a regular occurrence for communities living adjacent to chemical plants,” Mathy Stanislaus, former assistant administrator of the EPA’s office of land and emergency management, told The Guardian. “They live in daily fear of an accident.”¹¹

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Three Serious Incidents in Two Weeks Show Need for Reform

A report by EJHA and Coming Clean examined three chemical accidents that occurred within a two-week timeframe in January 2022. “These incidents caused significant harm to workers and communities … [and] demonstrate the urgent need for commonsense reforms to the RMP rule, which is not currently doing enough to reduce hazards and prevent chemical fires, explosions and releases,” the report notes.¹²

One incident took place January 31, 2022, at the Winston Weaver Fertilizer Plant in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. More than 1 million pounds of ammonium nitrate fertilizer were stored at the plant when a fire broke out. “Acrid smoke” filled the air and 6,500 people within a 1-mile radius were evacuated over explosion risks. Fine particulate matter in surrounding neighborhoods had reached hazardous levels when measured 36 hours later.

Further, “In their efforts to manage the fire, firefighters poured hundreds of thousands of gallons of water onto the site, creating toxic runoff that entered the nearby Monarcas Creek,” according to the report.¹³ Despite this disaster, the EPA’s proposed revisions to the RMP rule do not cover ammonium nitrate.

“Many dangerous chemicals and facilities are currently exempt from disaster prevention requirements. EPA must expand the RMP program to cover ammonium nitrate production and storage facilities, as well as other highly hazardous chemicals,” the authors state.¹⁴

In another incident, an explosion occurred at Westlake Chemical South Plant in Westlake, Louisiana, January 26, 2022. This facility is the second largest chlorine facility in the Western Hemisphere and manufactures vinyl chloride, which is used to produce PVC (polyvinyl chloride).

A mushroom-shaped cloud appeared immediately after a loud boom was heard in the area. A chemical storage tank had exploded sending five employees to the hospital while 7,000 students sheltered in place at nearby schools. But the potential for even greater disaster exists. According to an RMP (risk management plan) created by the facility:¹⁵

“A worst-case chemical incident could release up to 660,000 pounds of highly toxic gas that could travel up to 25 miles in radius, covering all of Lake Charles and more than a dozen smaller towns. This would immediately threaten more than 210,000 people with serious injury or death.”

The third incident covered in the report occurred January 14, 2022, at Majestic Industries and Qualco Inc., in Passaic, New Jersey. Hundreds of firefighters battled a blaze that broke out at the facilities for days, leading to $15 million in damages.

However, the fire came close to igniting a warehouse were 3 million pounds of chemicals, including chlorine pellets, were stored. If that had occurred, fire officials stated it could have caused “one of the most catastrophic chemical disasters in the region in recent history.”¹⁶ Yet, the current RMP rule doesn’t account for adjacent or co-located facilities, considering them separate even when they’re part of the same complex.

Railroad Disasters Waiting to Happen

February 3, 2023, a train carrying toxic chemicals derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, a town near the Ohio-Pennsylvania border. In total, 38 rail cars derailed, and a massive fire that broke out damaged an additional 12 cars.¹⁷ Five of the cars that derailed were carrying vinyl chloride, a flammable gas that can lead to life-threatening respiratory issues and an increased risk of cancer.

The East Palestine derailment, like many recent chemical incidents, serves as a wake-up call of the potential disaster looming. In this case, the lack of safety on U.S. railways became apparent, but it’s something railway workers have been warning of for years.

Every day, about 12,000 rail cars transporting toxic chemicals travel through cities across the U.S. Annually, 4.5 million tons of hazardous materials are shipped by trains in the U.S.¹⁸

Liquified natural gas (LNG) may pose a particularly significant concern. In 2020, the U.S. Department of Transportation approved rail transport of LNG with no extra safety precautions, even though an accident could be catastrophic. In a letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation opposing the rule change, environmental group Earth Justice wrote:^19,20

“The amount of energy contained in LNG is quite alarming. One gallon of LNG has 0.89975 therms of energy. One DOT-113 tank car has a capacity of approximately 30,000 gallons, meaning that there would be approximately 27,000 therms worth of energy per tank car.

With this much LNG per tank car, it would only take 22 tank cars to hold the equivalent energy of the Hiroshima bomb.55 A unit train of 110 LNG tank cars would thus have five-times the energy of the Hiroshima bomb.”

U.S. Representative Nanette Barragan told The Guardian that we need the “same urgency” from the federal government given to the East Palestine train derailment “to focus on the prevention of these chemical disasters from occurring in the first place.”²¹

Yet, industry and even government opposition for enhanced emergency preparedness, new accident prevention requirements and other measures to enhance safety at facilities dealing with hazardous chemicals is fierce. As The Guardian reported:²²

“The US Chamber of Commerce has pushed back on stronger regulations, arguing that most facilities operate safely, accidents are declining and that the facilities impacted by any rule changes are supplying ‘essential products and services that help drive our economy and provide jobs in our communities.’

Other opponents to strengthening safety rules include the American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute.”

Has the apocalypse already happened? Are we hurdling toward a post-AI reality where it’s impossible to know what’s real and what’s fake? Podcast host Joe Rogan interviewed comedian and activist Russell Brand, delving into these questions and more, including the overarching agenda of control that’s accelerated since the pandemic.

Regarding the apocalypse, Brand likened it to homeless people living their lives in tents on the street, essentially “living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle in contemporary America, or living a post-apocalyptic lifestyle in contemporary America.”¹

“You know, when you’re in comfortable … spaces, you feel like everything’s OK, the end of the world is impossible. And it just seems like entertainment when you hear about nuclear treaties being torn up, that it can’t actually happen. But, of course it can. It’s so temporal,” Brand says.²

The pandemic brought to light how quickly reality can move from that safe space where “everything’s OK” to one that’s Orwellian, with rampant censorship and smear campaigns against any and all dissent.

With Each New Reality, You Become More ‘Porous’

What most people see and hear online is a carefully orchestrated narrative — one that globalists weren’t expecting people like Rogan and Brand to disrupt. “What our obligation is, as people that participate in this conversation, is to ensure that there is a distinction made between the empirical facts that are discussed and … the sort of joy of speculation,” Brand says.³

But many ideas that sound far-fetched — like a social credit system — have already been implemented in other countries, like China. Rogan explains he was warned, “They’re going to try to implement a social credit score system, and your money is going to be tied to decentralized digital currency.”⁴

“And your money will be tied to your social credit score system and you step out of line, you won’t be able to buy things, you won’t be able to travel, you won’t be able to do anything. They’re going to try to keep you within a 15-minute radius of your home. And they’re starting to do that in places. Yeah, all of it’s real.”⁵

So, too, is the fact that “centralized systems of corruption that bypass democracy” exist, while the military-industrial complex “through their overt and covert connections to government” is able to “dictate … [or] at least influence, foreign policy.” But, Brand says, once you open your eyes to the truths of these matters, you become “porous” and ready to absorb even more of the truth:⁶

“They’ve obviously got an agenda. And it’s their agenda that is driving the discourse, not the facts of the matter. And I suppose, in a way, we should be grateful that they are unwilling to have these open conversations — that they’re not willing to get people on with various views, opposing views, to listen to people that they disagree with, to openly criticize the establishment.

Because what I’ve been able to learn in the last couple of years is if you start focusing on the relationship between Big Pharma and the media, or Big Pharma and the government, just by focusing on that, you can really create clear narratives of corruption, hypocrisy, dishonesty, those things are there.

But me, because my background is not a journalist, it’s not a conventional education, I’m sort of open to the more extraordinary, exciting, visceral ideas, which once in a while proved to be true … but then you become kind of porous.”

‘The Middle Is Where the Propaganda Operates’

Brand believes there’s power to be had when you’re open to having conversations with all sides, however, while censorship ultimately leads to a loss of trust and authority. During the pandemic, he describes the “ivermectin moment” as pivotal in revealing the need for open conversation.

When Rogan, who is unvaxxed, revealed he’d treated his bout of COVID-19 with ivermectin and other remedies — fully recovering within three days — he was openly attacked. But Rogan believes it ultimately made the mainstream press lose credibility:⁷

“When you had CNN and MSNBC and all these different Cable News Network shows calling it [ivermectin] horse dewormer, when it was a drug that won the Nobel Prize for the inventor of it, it’s a drug that has had billions — literally billions — of prescriptions filled. It’s a drug that saved lives of drug addicts.

It’s on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines, and for them to have the gall and the sheer audacity to just out and out lie to people about what a medication is — and it’s used on humans far more than it’s used on horses.

And that they were calling that horse dewormer to try to mock me because they knew that I was unvaccinated, and I kicked COVID very quickly. And they did not want that narrative out there. And they were beholden to their handlers. They were beholden to the people that give them exorbitant amounts of money in advertising revenue. And they … followed in line, and they all piled on. And they lost … credibility.”

Many believed the media lies, regarding not only ivermectin but other pandemic measures, like face masks and lockdowns. But not everyone will — and this is where the chance for transformation lies. However, those in the middle are vulnerable to being influenced by the propaganda. Brand notes:⁸

“I heard this thing that that guy, Pavlov of the dogs, you know, he did other experimentation, the results of which were that 20% of people are highly susceptible to hypnosis, and similarly highly susceptible to placebos … It will be effective under … the right conditions … and the same with hypnosis, and 20% of people will not be hypnotized and will not respond to placebos.

The middle 60% is where propaganda operates. How many of that middle 60% can you persuade? And I was just astonished that authoritarianism could suddenly be repackaged in this manner, that authoritarianism could tell you that war is a good thing, that authoritarianism can tell you that Big Pharma is a good thing, that being locked in your home is good.”

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Only Big Pharma Solutions Allowed

A key illustration of the corruption was the blatant vilification of any COVID-19 solution that wasn’t tied to Big Pharma. “Convenient that of all the remedies, that only the ones that are controlled by pharmaceutical companies are the ones that get highlighted,” Rogan says.⁹ “And one … of the best pieces of evidence for that is vitamin D.”

One recent study found giving vitamin D to people with COVID-19 cut risk of death from SARS-CoV-2 by 51% and reduced risk of admission to the intensive care unit by 72%.¹⁰ I also launched an information campaign to raise awareness about the use of vitamin D for COVID-19 back in June 2020. My own vitamin D review was published October 31, 2020, in the high-impact, peer-reviewed journal Nutrients.¹¹

At the time, 14 observational studies suggested vitamin D levels are inversely linked with the incidence or severity of COVID-19, and my paper concluded, “The evidence seems strong enough that people and physicians can use or recommend vitamin D supplements to prevent or treat COVID-19.”¹²

Yet, I was widely vilified and discredited in the media for bringing attention to vitamin D’s potential for COVID-19. If this information had been allowed out, Rogan wonders, how many deaths could have been prevented?¹³

“There was a recent study that estimated somewhere in the range of 70% of all hospitalizations and deaths from COVID could have been prevented with vitamin D … I remember reading that article going, that is the most insane thing I’ve ever seen in my life. And when did they know that this was true?

Because if they just started handing out vitamin D — it’s readily available, so easy to get, so easy to make, so cheap — they just handed out vitamin D to everybody.

How many deaths could they have prevented? If that really is the case that high doses of vitamin D, along with you know, it’s great with magnesium and vitamin K, but if they educated people about nutrients, yes, about the value of nutrition, the value of supplementation? Yes. How many people could have been saved? And how cheaply could that have been done?”

Big Tech Gets Activists to Self-Censor

Both Rogan and Brand moved platforms online due to censorship. In May 2020, Rogan signed an exclusivity contract with Spotify for his “Joe Rogan Experience Podcast.”¹⁴ Rogan received $100 million for the deal; however, he said the move away from YouTube was intentional to fight back against its censorship — and particularly YouTube’s decision to block differing opinions on COVID-19, as he wanted to interview a variety of doctors and experts about it.

The tech giants use demonetization to get people to stop posting certain types of content, without it appearing as outright censorship. Instead, it appears as self-censorship. Rogan says:¹⁵

“Advertisements that are on YouTube, those people that are spending all that money, they can dictate what they want to be advertised on. And then they said, ‘Look, I don’t want to be on anything that talks about COVID or anything where they talk about Ukraine …

So OK. They just say, ‘Oh, well, we’ve got to stop people from doing that. What’s the best way?’ Well, the best way to self-censor? Or how do you get people to self-censor? You impact them economically. How do we do that and not make it look like we’re censoring them? We give strikes, giving strikes or demonetized.”

Brand experienced the same issues on YouTube and switched to Rumble as a result:¹⁶

“When YouTube was our primary platform, we would look at your [Rogan’s] content. All right, that’s the title of this Rogan video and this is the content. OK? Well, we can try that. And then we would get demonetized. And it becomes like a weird algebra.

You change this word, you change that word, you have to or you have, there’s certain things you just can’t say. This is what Rumble fundamentally offered. They gave me a good deal and the assurance that we’re not going to censor you.”

Take Action and Embrace the Uncomfortable

Even when the truth is heard by a sizeable minority, many don’t take action. But this is part of enacting positive change, whether it be for freedom and autonomy or your personal health.

“You have to take the action, and it usually involves suffering,” Brand says. “And yeah, that’s a hard thing to sell. People don’t want that. Now, they don’t want that information that you can tell people there’s a quick fix and an easy way. But whether it’s getting off drugs, becoming a standup comedian or accomplishing stuff in a martial art, normally it means you incrementally, day by day, hour by hour, session by session, you are going to experience a degree of suffering.”¹⁷

While you may feel powerless to fight back against globalist agendas and Big Tech censorship, by embracing changes you can control, you can make a difference in your own life and beyond. Rogan explains:¹⁸

“You don’t realize that in embracing discomfort and forcing yourself to do something very uncomfortable that you can control, like an ice bath, like a sauna, like a run, like a workout, you are eliminating another form of discomfort. You can do that. It’s one of the reasons why I’ve been able to mitigate all the stress and issues that come with success and with fame.

Your body is almost like a battery. And when you don’t use it, it’s almost like the juice runs over the side and it becomes unmanageable. But when you use it, you have a certain requirement that your body has to go through every day, because I think we evolved in a very specific way. I think we evolved running away from predators, protecting ourselves from invading tribes.

And this is just a natural part of being a human being, every human being. And I think that if you don’t give your body something to do it … [messes] with your brain, and I think that’s where a lot of people’s anxiety comes from, a lot of people’s insecurities.”

Originally published: July 30, 2020

Right now, there are three types of COVID-19 tests:¹

• Molecular — Also known as a PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, this test detects whether genetic material of the virus is present in the sample collected from your throat or sputum (the back of your sinuses)
• Antigen — This test, sometimes referred to as “rapid test,” detects viral proteins
• Antibody — Also known as a serology test, it detects the presence of antibodies in your blood

The first two, molecular and antigen, are so-called “viral tests” that detect active infections, whereas the antibody test will tell you if you’ve developed antibodies in response to a previous coronavirus infection. It typically takes your body one to three weeks after an infection clears to start making antibodies against the virus in question.

Common Cold Can Trigger Positive COVID-19 Antibody Test

Each of these COVID-19 tests have their issues and controversies. The problem with antibody testing is that there are seven different coronaviruses known to cause respiratory illness in humans.² Four of them cause symptoms associated with the common cold:

• 229E
• NL63
• OC43
• HKU1

In addition to the common cold, OC43 and HKU1 — two of the most commonly encountered betacoronaviruses³ — are also known to cause bronchitis, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pneumonia in all age groups.⁴ The other three human coronaviruses — which are capable of causing more serious respiratory illness — are:

• SARS-CoV
• MERS-CoV
• SARS-CoV-2

The tricky part is that the antibodies created by these different coronaviruses appear very similar, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admits recovering from the common cold can trigger a positive antibody test for COVID-19, even if you were never infected with SARS-CoV-2 specifically. As explained on the CDC’s “Test for Past Infection” web page:⁵

“Antibody tests check your blood by looking for antibodies, which may tell you if you had a past infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. Antibodies are proteins that help fight off infections and can provide protection against getting that disease again (immunity). Antibodies are disease specific …

A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold.”

Unclear if Cross-Reactive Antibody Tests Are Still Being Used

In a July 10, 2020, interview with KTTC news, Mayo Clinic chair of clinical microbiology, Dr. Bobbi Pritt, said:⁶

“Early on we had labs using tests that have not received that [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] review and some of those tests … may have given you a false positive and detected the normal coronavirus that circulates and causes the common cold. I would say the vast majority have been extensively tested to show that they do not cross react and give you false positives due to the common cold [anymore].”

While experts at the Mayo Clinic claim these cross-reactive antibody tests were an early problem that has since been corrected and eliminated, the CDC does not confirm or deny the accuracy of this statement on its “Test for Past Infection” web page.⁷

So, it’s unclear whether the antibody tests manufactured and used today are still capable of delivering a positive result if you were recently exposed and recovered from the common cold virus.

Back on April 29, 2020, infectious disease specialist and CNN medical analyst Dr. Kent Sepkowitz noted that “deciphering between the common cold antibody and the COVID-19 antibody is a real challenge scientifically,”⁸ but that doesn’t mean it cannot or hasn’t been done.

On a side note, labs are now reporting a shortage of chemicals and disposable pipette tips required to perform COVID-19 tests, which means longer wait times — again. As Scott Shone, director of the North Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health, told The New York Times,^9,10 July 23, 2020, “It’s like Groundhog Day. I feel like I lived this day four or five months ago,” referring back to the early days of the pandemic when test supplies were in short supply.

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Some Coronaviruses May Impart Resilience Against COVID-19

While the CDC warns it’s still uncertain whether COVID-19 antibodies prevents reinfection, or if it does, for how long, researchers in Singapore have presented evidence^11,12,13 suggesting the immunity is likely to be long-lasting.

They discovered common colds caused by the betacoronaviruses OC43 and HKU1 appear to make you more resistant to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that the resulting immunity might last as long as 17 years.

The authors suggest that if you’ve beat a common cold caused by a OC43 or HKU1 betacoronavirus in the past, you may have a 50/50 chance of having defensive T-cells that can recognize and help defend against SARS-CoV-2. As reported by the Daily Mail:¹⁴

“Scientists have found evidence that some immunity may be present for many years due to the body’s ‘memory’ T-cells from attacks by previous viruses with a similar genetic make-up — even among people who have had no known exposure to Covid-19 or SARS …

Blood was taken from 24 patients who had recovered from COVID-19, 23 who had become ill from SARS and 18 who had never been exposed to either SARS or COVID-19 …

Half of patients in the group with no exposure to either Covid-19 or SARS possessed T-cells which showed immune response to the animal betacoronaviruses, COVID-19 and SARS. This suggested patients’ immunity developed after exposure to common colds caused by betacoronavirus or possibly from other as yet unknown pathogens.”

According to the researchers, their findings demonstrate that:¹⁵

“Virus-specific memory T-cells induced by betacoronavirus infection are long-lasting, which supports the notion that COVID-19 patients would develop long-term T-cell immunity. Our findings also raise the intriguing possibility that infection with related viruses can also protect from or modify the pathology caused by SARS-Cov-2.”

Added support for these conclusions were published May 14, 2020, in the journal Cell. This study¹⁶found that not only did 70% of samples obtained from recovered COVID-19 patients have resistance to SARS-CoV-2 on the T-cell level but so did 40% to 60% of people who had not been exposed to the virus. According to the authors, this suggests there’s “cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.”

Other Researchers Report Low Immunity Post-Recovery

The immunity issue isn’t entirely cut and dry, though. Other research, which looked at antibody levels in recovered COVID-19 patients in Germany, found they lost their antibodies after two to three months.

“Clemens Wendtner, a chief physician at the hospital, tested COVID-19 patients for immunity after they had been treated for the disease at the end of January 2020. The tests showed a significant decrease in the number of antibodies,” DW reported in a July 14, 2020, article.¹⁷

“Wendtner says ‘neutralizing’ antibodies, which stop a viral attack, fell in four out of nine of the patients who were tested, within two to three months. Those findings coincide with a similar investigation done in China.

That study also found that antibodies in COVID-19 patients do not persist in the blood. Further research is still required. But these initial findings suggest that a second infection is possible …”

However, it is important to realize that loss of the ability to determine antibody levels may not necessarily reflect lack of immune protection, as there may be innate cell mediated immunity that provides protection that is not being measured by the humoral antibody production.

Will COVID-19 Behave Like the Common Cold?

If reinfection is possible, then COVID-19 would behave much like the common cold and seasonal influenza, which can strike more than once — if not in a single season, then certainly in any given year. If that’s the case, then “immunity passports” and most other COVID-19 interventions, such as school closings and business shutdowns, become even more questionable than they already are.

If SARS-CoV-2 ends up behaving like other human coronaviruses that cause the common cold, immunity may only last six to 12 months, a European study¹⁸ says. Here, they did not look at SARS-CoV-2 antibodies but, rather, antibodies against the other four coronaviruses that cause the common cold, none of which were long-lasting. According to BGR, which reported the findings:¹⁹

“‘Frequent reinfections at 12 months post-infection and substantial reduction in antibody levels as soon as 6 months post-infection’ were observed for those viruses.

If the novel coronavirus behaves the same way, then talk of ‘immunity passports’ and herd immunization is pointless. A person who recovered from COVID-19 could get it again in six to 12 months without another vaccine shot …

The researchers note that the human coronaviruses are ‘biologically dissimilar’ and ‘have little in common, apart from causing the common cold.’ But SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t have to be similar to any of them to follow the same immunity pattern.”

Is Herd Immunity Against COVID-19 Possible?

The issue of reinfection also raises questions about whether herd immunity is ever going to be possible. Studies cited by The Daily Mail²⁰ claim herd immunity against COVID-19 could be achieved if just 10% to 43% of people develop lasting immunity.

This is a far cry from the percentages typically required for vaccine-induced “herd immunity” (which is really a misnomer, as vaccine-induced immunity doesn’t work like natural immunity, and herd immunity is really only achieved when enough people recover from the illness in question). According to The Daily Mail:²¹

“The concept of herd immunity hinges on people only being affected once, so that when a certain number of people have been infected with the virus already it can’t spread any more.

It remains a mystery as to whether this is the case for COVID-19 but, if it is, then herd immunity could offer some protection during a second wave of the disease …

Researchers now say it could work to some extent if only one or two out of 10 people have been infected naturally and become immune to the disease … Another study has taken a similar line and suggested herd immunity could develop at around 43 percent of the population getting infected … Immunity among the most socially active people, scientists say, could protect those who come into contact with fewer others.”

Optimizing Vitamin D May Be Your Best Bet

Considering the many questions surrounding the possibility of reinfection and herd immunity, I believe one of your best bets is to address an underlying weakness that can have a significant impact on your COVID-19 risk, namely vitamin D insufficiency.

Rather than waiting for a likely harmful vaccine, get proactive and start optimizing your vitamin D level. You can learn more about this in “The Most Important Paper Dr. Mercola Has Ever Written” and “How to Fix the COVID-19 Crisis in 30 Days.” Also start working on reversing any underlying comorbidities such as insulin resistance and obesity.

When Should You Get Tested?

As for testing, I do not recommend getting a viral test (which checks for active infection) unless you have COVID-19 symptoms and need it to guide your treatment. Swabbing the back of your nasal cavity has its risks, and can actually introduce an infection or, some speculate, even some more nefarious agents.

Getting tested just for the heck of it doesn’t really make sense. Even if you test negative, you can get infected at any point after leaving the test site. If you have to get tested in order to travel or return to work, an antibody test may be more appropriate. Even if your antibodies wane with time, you’re still going to be immune for a while.

The best test are your clinical symptoms. If you have symptoms suggestive of coronavirus infection, then my best recommendation is to start nebulizing food grade hydrogen peroxide at 0.1% as suggested in the video below and discussed in my article on the topic.

I would also make sure that your vitamin D levels are adequate, as discussed in my paper on the topic. If you don’t know your vitamin D level and have not been in the sun or taken over 5,000 units of vitamin D a day, it would likely help to take one bolus dose of 100,000 units, and make sure you are taking plenty of magnesium, which helps convert the vitamin D to its active immune modulating form.

Another great option that is less expensive, easier to get and likely more effective than hydroxychloroquine, would be quercetin with zinc as discussed in my recent article on the subject.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the experimental antiviral drug remdesivir, brand name Veklury, for emergency use against COVID-19 in May 2020.¹ By October 2020, it had received full approval.² It remains a primary treatment for COVID-19 in hospitals, despite research showing it lacks effectiveness³ and can cause high rates of organ failure.⁴

On Twitter, John Beaudoin is calling for a criminal investigation into the drug, citing data that it may have killed 100,000 people in the U.S. “They know,” he says, “or they willfully refuse to know. Either way, it’s homicide.”⁵

Using drugs that cause organ failure, like remdesivir, isn’t in the best interest of public health. The fact that U.S. health authorities have focused on this and similarly harmful drugs to the exclusion of all others, including older drugs with high rates of effectiveness and superior safety profiles, sends a very disturbing message.

Did Remdesivir Kill Thousands in Massachusetts?

Beaudoin has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court and believes a spike in deaths from acute renal failure (ARF) in Massachusetts is due to remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences. Using a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Beaudoin received all the death certificates in Massachusetts from 2015 to 2022.

He then graphed the FOIA data, finding 1,840 excess deaths from acute renal failure from January 1, 2021 to November 30, 2022. Beaudoin also revealed an increase in deaths from acute rental failure in every age group over 15 years old, from 2015 to 2022.⁶ “Thousands dead in Massachusetts ARF likely due to Remdesivir. This requires CRIMINAL investigation,” he tweeted.⁷

Deaths, Kidney Injury Common With Remdesivir

Remdesivir use didn’t become widespread until 2020. From that time until October 2021, at least 7,491 adverse drug reactions were reported to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) VigiAccess, including 560 deaths, 550 serious cardiac disorders and 475 acute kidney injuries.⁸

For comparison, only 5,674 adverse drug reactions were reported for ivermectin from 1992 to October 13, 2021.⁹ Despite its strong safety profile and efficacy, ivermectin was widely vilified during the pandemic. Not to mention, remdesivir costs between $2,340 and $3,120,¹⁰ while the average treatment cost for ivermectin is $58.¹¹ Do you think this has anything to do with remdesivir’s promotion and ivermectin’s vilification?

While WHO updated its guidance in April 2022 to recommend the use of remdesivir in “mild or moderate COVID-19 patients who are at high risk of hospitalization,”¹² a study published in The Lancet found “no clinical benefit” from the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients.¹³ Further, the investigators believed three deaths during the study were related to remdesivir.¹⁴

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Gilead’s Political Ties Questioned as Remdesivir Use Persists

Still, the question remains why remdesivir continues to be used at all. In November 2020, WHO issued a bulletin recommending against the use of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients, stating, “There is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients.”¹⁵

Is it possible that Gilead’s strong political connections have influenced the government’s approvals and recommendations? It’s worth noting that Donald Rumsfeld was the chairman of Gilead from 1997 until he joined the Bush administration in 2001. Rumsfeld had previously served as secretary of defense under President Gerald Ford from 1975 to 1977, and again under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2006.

FDA Even Approved Remdesivir for Children

In late April 2022, the FDA even approved remdesivir as the first and only COVID-19 treatment for children under 12, including babies as young as 28 days,¹⁶ an approval that boggles the mind, considering COVID-19 is rarely serious in children while remdesivir is ineffective and carries a risk of serious, and deadly, side effects.

What’s worse, the drug is also approved for outpatient use in children, which is a first. Dr. Meryl Nass expressed her concerns about the FDA’s approval of remdesivir for outpatient use in babies, stating:¹⁷

“The FDA just licensed Remdesivir for children as young as one month old. Both hospitalized children and outpatients may receive it. The drug might work in outpatients, but the vast majority of children have a very low risk of dying from COVID. If 7 deaths per 1,000 result from the drug, as … European investigators thought¹⁸ … it is possible it will harm or kill more children than it saves.

Shouldn’t the FDA have waited longer to see what early outpatient treatment did for older ages? Or studied a much larger group of children? Very little has been published on children and remdesivir …

When we look at the press release issued by Gilead,¹⁹ we learn the approval was based on an open label, single arm trial in 53 children, 3 of whom died (6% of these children died); 72% had an adverse event, and 21% had a serious adverse event.”

More Lawsuits Filed Against Remdesivir

Two women are suing Kaiser Permanente and Redlands Community Hospital in California for giving remdesivir to their husbands without consent. Both men died from kidney and organ failure after being administered remdesivir. “The day he was admitted on August 12 they started the remdesivir and on [August 17] is when they were done,” Christina Briones told CBS News. “Five doses. [On] the 17th his kidneys started to fail.”²⁰

In California, lawsuits have been filed on behalf of at least 14 families against medical providers for prescribing remdesivir without providing necessary information about it, leading to the patients’ deaths.²¹ Another wrongful death suit was filed in Nevada, after a patient died of kidney failure and respiratory failure a week after being given remdesivir.²²

Safety Signal Revealed for Remdesivir and Kidney Failure

Meanwhile, a study published in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics in April 2021 detected a potential safety signal for remdesivir and acute renal failure:²³

“The combination of the terms ‘acute renal failure’ and ‘remdesivir’ yielded a statistically significant disproportionality signal with 138 observed cases instead of the nine expected. ROR [reporting odds ratio] of ARF with remdesivir was 20-fold that of comparative drugs.

Based on ARF cases reported in VigiBase, and despite the caveats inherent to COVID-19 circumstances, we detected a statistically significant pharmacovigilance signal of nephrotoxicity associated with remdesivir, deserving a thorough qualitative assessment of all available data.”

In May 2021, another pharmacovigilance analysis revealed red flags against remdesivir. “Compared with the use of chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, sarilumab, or tocilizumab, the use of remdesivir was associated with an increased reporting of kidney disorders,” the study found.²⁴ It concluded:²⁵

“Our findings, based on postmarketing real-life data from >5000 COVID-19 patients, support that kidney disorders, almost exclusively AKI [acute kidney injury], represent a serious, early, and potentially fatal adverse drug reaction of remdesivir. These results are consistent with findings from another group. Physicians should be aware of this potential risk and perform close kidney monitoring when prescribing remdesivir.”

In March 2022, yet another pharmacovigilance analysis warned of a significant association between remdesivir and acute kidney injury, especially in male patients and those over the age of 65 years. “Although causality was not confirmed,” they noted, “the association between remdesivir and AKI should not be ignored, especially in the older, male COVID-19 inpatients.”²⁶

US Government Pays Hospitals to Use Remdesivir

Remdesivir was developed as an antiviral drug and tested during the Ebola breakout in 2014. The drug was found to have a very high death rate and was not pursued further. In the early months of 2020, however, the drug was entered into COVID trials.²⁷ Those trials were also beyond disappointing.^28,29,30

Not only was the drug ineffective against the infection but it also had significant and life-threatening side effects, including kidney failure and liver damage.³¹ Dr. Paul Marik, a pulmonary and critical care specialist and founding member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), explained that during the pandemic the only drug he was allowed to prescribe was remdesivir.

When he refused to follow the remdesivir protocol, he was subjected to a “sham review,” an unofficial but well-known process in which a “troublesome” doctor is accused of wrongdoing and basically railroaded out of practice. In the end, he was fired and reported to the National Practitioner Databank and the Board of Medicine.

The financial motivations to report doctors going against the grain run deep. According to Marik, the U.S. government pays hospitals a 20% upcharge on the entire hospital bill when remdesivir is used.³² Citizens Journal also reported that the U.S. government pays hospitals a “bonus” on the entire hospital bill if they use remdesivir.³³ It described this practice as a bounty placed on your life, with payouts tied to declining health instead of recovery:³⁴

“For remdesivir, studies show that 71% to 75% of patients suffer an adverse effect, and the drug often had to be stopped after five to 10 days because of these effects, such as kidney and liver damage, and death.

Remdesivir trials during the 2018 West African Ebola outbreak had to be discontinued because death rate exceeded 50%. Yet, in 2020, Anthony Fauci directed that remdesivir was to be the drug hospitals use to treat COVID-19, even when the COVID clinical trials of remdesivir showed similar adverse effects.

… We now see government-dictated medical care at its worst in our history since the federal government mandated these ineffective and dangerous treatments for COVID-19, and then created financial incentives for hospitals and doctors to use only those ‘approved’ (and paid for) approaches. Our formerly trusted medical community of hospitals and hospital-employed medical staff have effectively become ‘bounty hunters’ for your life.”

Officials Push Expensive, Risky Treatments

In addition to remdesivir, Pfizer’s Paxlovid was granted emergency use authorization to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in December 2021.³⁵ The drug consists of nirmatrelvir tablets — the antiviral component — and ritonavir tablets, which are intended to slow the breakdown of nirmatrelvir.³⁶

But like remdesivir, there are many problems with Paxlovid. In this case, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a warning to health care providers and public health departments about the potential for COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatment.³⁷ Further, Pfizer stopped a large trial of Paxlovid in standard-risk patients because it didn’t show significant protection against hospitalization or death in this group.³⁸

Paxlovid costs $529 per five-day treatment³⁹ and has cost U.S. taxpayers $5.29 billion,⁴⁰ while safe and less expensive options exist. An investigation by Cornell University, posted on the University’s preprint server January 20, 2022, found ivermectin outperformed 10 other drugs against COVID-19.⁴¹

Since the FDA and CDC cannot be trusted, and even physicians’ hands are often tied by regulatory red tape, it’s imperative to take responsibility for your own health. In the case of COVID-19, seek early treatment using an effective and safe protocol — not one that puts profits over patients.

Bell’s palsy, a neurological disorder that causes paralysis or weakness of facial muscles, typically affects about 40,000 people in the U.S. annually.¹ But since the COVID-19 pandemic, Bell’s palsy diagnoses have been skyrocketing, with close to 50 million more people affected worldwide than before COVID.²

While it’s clear this condition is on the rise, what’s driving the increase remains a mystery, as does effective treatment for the millions affected.

Incidence of Bell’s Palsy on the Rise

Using data collected from 41 health care organizations around the world, researchers with Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Ohio identified 348,088 patients diagnosed with COVID-19, with or without a Bell’s palsy diagnosis within eight weeks of the COVID-19 diagnosis.³They also matched 63,551 patients with COVID-19 who didn’t get the jab with people who did get the jab but had no history of COVID-19.

An analysis of the data revealed Bell’s palsy diagnoses increased 8.6% among those who had COVID-19, compared to before the pandemic started. The incidence of Bell’s palsy also rose 6.8% among those who received a COVID-19 shot, although it’s unclear how “vaccinated” was defined in this study.⁴

While the exact underlying cause of Bell’s palsy is unclear, and it can affect people of any age, it’s most common in those aged 15 to 45. People who are pregnant or have preeclampsia, obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes or upper respiratory ailments may be at increased risk.⁵ According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, triggers of Bell’s palsy may include:

• An existing (dormant) viral infection
• Impaired immunity from stress, sleep deprivation, physical trauma, minor illness or autoimmune syndromes
• Infection of a facial nerve and resulting inflammation
• Damage to the myelin sheath, a fatty covering on nerve fibers

Is Molecular Mimicry Involved?

In terms of COVID-19, however, the researchers explained, “The mechanism of paralysis is thought to be viral, ischemic and/or immune mediated. The hypothetical mechanism of COVID-19 associated with BP [Bell’s palsy] is thought to be molecular mimicry attributable to a neuroimmunologic process between microbial and nerve antigens.”⁶

Molecular mimicry has also been suggested as the reason why mRNA COVID-19 injections are causing a range of autoimmune conditions.⁷ It occurs when similarities between different antigens confuse the immune system.

There are often significant similarities between elements in the vaccine and human proteins, which can lead to immune crossreactivity. When this occurs, researchers explained in Cellular & Molecular Immunology, “the reaction of the immune system towards the pathogenic antigens may harm the similar human proteins, essentially causing autoimmune disease.”⁸

In relation to COVID-19 shots, specifically, researchers wrote in the Journal of Autoimmunity, “Indeed, antibodies against the spike protein S1 of SARS-CoV-2 had a high affinity against some human tissue proteins. As vaccine mRNA codes the same viral protein, they can trigger autoimmune diseases in predisposed patients.”⁹

A significantly increased risk of Bell’s palsy has also been found with the meningococcal vaccine, when it was given along with another vaccination. The risk of Bell’s palsy increased 2.9-fold in the 12 weeks after vaccination among those administered concomitant vaccines.

Bell’s palsy has previously been noted as a complication of hepatitis B,¹⁰ smallpox and influenza (seasonal and H1N1) vaccination as well.¹¹ Research published in Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics also revealed an increased risk of cranial nerve palsies following vaccination, especially combinations of vaccines.¹²

In 59% of the cases, the palsies were identified as serious, which suggests, the authors noted, “that a cranial nerve palsy may sometimes be the harbinger of a broader and more ominous clinical entity, such as a stroke or encephalomyelitis [inflammation of the brain and spinal cord].”¹³

Another theory suggests COVID shots may trigger autoimmune phenomenon like Bell’s palsy via the production of interferon, a substance typically used by the body to fight infection. According to a comment published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases:¹⁴

“[D]iscussion between members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biologic Products Advisory Committee and a sponsor (Pfizer) raised the possibility that the vaccine might induce innate immune activation from a combined effect of mRNA and lipids, potentially including interferon production. Such interferon production could transiently break peripheral tolerance, a hypothetical phenomenon invoked in several case reports.”

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Bell’s Palsy 3.5- to 7-Fold Higher in COVID Shot Recipients

During two phase 3 COVID-19 shot trials involving 73,898 people, eight cases of Bell’s palsy were detected — seven among the shot groups and one among the placebo groups.

This “translates to an incidence of 19 per 100,000,” the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center researchers noted. Yet, at the time, “The FDA cited insufficient evidence to determine a causal association between COVID-19 vaccinations and BP. This area warrants continued surveillance,” they explained.¹⁵

However, while the media and the FDA brushed off the Bell’s palsy cases as what would be expected in the general population, the Lancet Infectious Diseases commentary said this was based on a misconception and “inaccurate reporting”:¹⁶

“The FDA briefing on the Pfizer-BioNTech trial stated ‘observed frequency of reported Bell’s palsy in the vaccine group is consistent with the expected background rate in the general population,’ although this statement was removed from the subsequent FDA briefing on the Moderna trial. However, this reporting is based on a misconception, driven by a subtle distinction between rates and proportions, that has persisted in the lay media.

The estimated incidence rate of Bell’s palsy in the general population ranges from 15 to 30 cases per 100,000 person-years.

Since the 40,000 vaccine arm participants were followed for a median of 2 months, the combined safety population receiving vaccine across the two trials represents roughly 6,700 person-years of observation time for an expected incidence of Bell’s palsy of one to two cases, in line with the single observed case in the combined placebo arms.

Therefore, the observed incidence of Bell’s palsy in the vaccine arms is between 3·5-times and 7-times higher than would be expected in the general population. This finding signals a potential safety phenomenon and suggests inaccurate reporting of basic epidemiological context to the public.”

CDC Monitoring Bell’s Palsy as Potential Safety Signal

The indications are that Bell’s palsy is potentially a “safety signal,” which is an adverse event that may need further investigation, as there is information to suggest it’s caused by the administration of a medication or vaccine.¹⁷

In September 2022, The Epoch Times asked the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data mining results. PRR¹⁸ measures how common an adverse event is for a specific drug compared to all the other drugs in the database.

According to the standard operating procedures¹⁹ for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is run jointly by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the CDC is required to perform these data mining analyses.

Initially, the CDC refused to release the data and even provided false information — twice — in response to The Epoch Times’ questions about the monitoring being performed. As reported by The Epoch Times in September 2022, the CDC initially claimed PRR analyses were “outside the agency’s purview” and that no monitoring was being done by them.²⁰

In reality, however, the CDC’s PRR monitoring revealed HUNDREDS of safety signals, including Bell’s palsy, along with blood clots, pulmonary embolism and death, which, according to the rules, require thorough investigation to either confirm or rule out a possible link to the shots.²¹

Anecdotal and Case Reports of Bell’s Palsy After COVID Shots

Former professional footballer Matthew Lloyd, who was diagnosed with Bell’s palsy, stated in 2022, “Heart issues and Bell’s palsy have gone through the roof since the boosters and Covid issues.”²²He’s not alone. As of February 10, 2023, there were 16,728 reports of Bell’s palsy following COVID-19 shots in VAERS²³ — and VAERS data are notoriously underreported.²⁴

In another example, a 61-year-old man developed unilateral Bell’s palsy shortly after receiving both his first and second doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot.²⁵ The man developed Bell’s palsy the first time five hours after the first dose was administered. Six weeks later he took the second dose and developed Bell’s palsy two days later.

In both cases, the unilateral facial paralysis occurred on the left side of his face. Although this was a case report, the researchers concluded, “The occurrence of the episodes immediately after each vaccine dose strongly suggests that Bell’s palsy was attributed to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, although a causal relationship cannot be established.”²⁶

A systematic review also looked into reported cases of Bell’s palsy following COVID-19 shots, finding that the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 shots were most commonly involved, and left-sided paralysis was reported more often.

Further, the time between receiving the shot and onset of facial weakness ranged from one to 48 days.²⁷ “Further studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to assess the association between Bell’s palsy and the dose-response of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers concluded.²⁸

Help for Bell’s Palsy

Bell’s palsy may occur as part of long COVID or post-vaccine syndrome, complex conditions being increasingly seen among people who have recovered from COVID-19 or received COVID-19 shots.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group’s (FLCCC) I-RECOVER²⁹ protocol can be downloaded in full,³⁰ giving you step-by-step instructions on how to treat long COVID³¹ and/or reactions from COVID-19 injections.³² In particular, for Bell’s palsy or facial paresthesia, FLCCC recommends:³³

• Low dose naltrexone. Begin with 1 mg/day and increase to 4.5 mg/day as required. May take two to three months for full effect.³⁴
• Low dose corticosteroid: 10 to 15 mg/day prednisone for three weeks. Taper to 10 mg/day and then 5 mg/day as tolerated.
• Reduced workload, stress and light exercises for a couple of months.

Additional alternative treatments may increase the potential for a favorable outcome. For instance, acupuncture is a “strongly recommended” treatment modality³⁵ that may lead to complete recovery in as few as five courses of treatment.³⁶ Facial exercise therapy may also help, especially when started early on in the recovery period.³⁷

Originally published: June 26, 2020

As lockdowns have kept people at home and out of medical facilities, infant vaccination rates have dropped. As you might expect, this is bad news for the drug industry, which is likely why they’ve started promoting baseless claims that childhood vaccinations might prevent COVID-19 deaths.

Baseless Claims Seek to Bolster Vaccine Uptake

There’s absolutely no evidence for this, yet, in March 2020, they started pushing the TB vaccine, claiming it might “steel the immune system” against SARS-CoV-2. As reported by Science:¹

“Researchers in four countries will soon start a clinical trial of an unorthodox approach to the new coronavirus. They will test whether a century-old vaccine against tuberculosis (TB), a bacterial disease, can rev up the human immune system in a broad way, allowing it to better fight the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 and, perhaps, prevent infection with it altogether.”

In April 2020, the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine was touted as a “major breakthrough” against COVID-19. The British Express reported:²

“Researchers at the University of Cambridge said the injection could prevent severe symptoms in people who have had it because the rubella virus has a similar structure to the coronavirus …

When they compared the rubella virus and the coronavirus the researchers found that they were 29 percent identical … The researchers have no evidence that the MMR vaccine works on COVID-19 patients but they assured ‘a study is warranted.’”

In June 2020, it was the polio vaccine’s turn in the spotlight. According to The Hill,³ tuberculosis and polio vaccines are being examined “for possible protection against COVID-19.”

Jeffrey D. Cirillo, a professor of microbial pathogenesis and immunology at Texas A&M Health Science Center, went so far as to state, “This is the only vaccine in the world that can be given to combat COVID-19 right now.”

Based on what? Based on vaccination rates in countries such as Pakistan, “where most of the population is vaccinated for tuberculosis and death rates for COVID-19 have been extremely low.” That’s it.

Meanwhile, discussions and evidence showing the benefits of vitamin C and vitamin D — as well as many other therapies — are banned and censored. This, despite significant scientific evidence actually backing their use and showing the biology by which these nutrients and therapies can prevent and/or treat this particular infection. Talk about travesty.

The oral polio vaccine, by the way, is now the primary cause of polio paralysis in the world, not wild polio.^4,5 This is an inconvenient fact that is completely ignored by most mainstream media.

Common Cold May Provide Long-Term Immunity Against COVID-19

In related news, June 12, 2020, the Daily Mail,⁶ Science Times⁷ and others⁸ reported findings from a Singaporean study⁹ led by professor Antonio Bertoletti, an immunologist with the Duke-NUS Medical School, showing common colds caused by the betacoronaviruses OC43 and HKU1 might make you more resistant to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that the resulting immunity might last as long as 17 years.

In addition to the common cold, OC43 and HKU1 — two of the most commonly encountered betacoronaviruses¹⁰ — are also known to cause bronchitis, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pneumonia in all age groups.¹¹ As reported by the Daily Mail:¹²

“They share many genetic features with the coronaviruses Covid-19, MERS and SARS, all of which passed from animals to humans. Coronaviruses are thought to account for up to 30 percent of all colds but it is not known specifically how many are caused by the betacoronavirus types.

Now scientists have found evidence that some immunity may be present for many years due to the body’s ‘memory’ T-cells from attacks by previous viruses with a similar genetic make-up — even among people who have had no known exposure to Covid-19 or SARS …

Blood was taken from 24 patients who had recovered from Covid-19, 23 who had become ill from SARS and 18 who had never been exposed to either SARS or Covid-19 …

Half of patients in the group with no exposure to either Covid-19 or SARS possessed T-cells which showed immune response to the animal betacoronaviruses, Covid-19 and SARS. This suggested patients’ immunity developed after exposure to common colds caused by betacoronavirus or possibly from other as yet unknown pathogens.”

In other words, if you’ve beat a common cold caused by a OC43 or HKU1 betacoronavirus in the past, you may have a 50/50 chance of having defensive T-cells that can recognize and help defend against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. According to the researchers:¹³

“These findings demonstrate that virus-specific memory T-cells induced by betacoronavirus infection are long-lasting, which supports the notion that Covid-19 patients would develop long-term T-cell immunity. Our findings also raise the intriguing possibility that infection with related viruses can also protect from or modify the pathology caused by SARS-Cov-2.”

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Other Studies Show Similar Results

Other studies have also discovered that many appear to have prior resistance to SARS-CoV-2. For example, a study¹⁴ published May 14, 2020, in the journal Cell, found 70% of samples obtained by the La Jolla Institute for Immunology from patients who had recovered from mild cases of COVID-19, as well as 40% to 60% of people who had not been exposed to the virus, had resistance to SARS-CoV-2 on the T-cell level.

According to the authors, this suggests there’s “cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.” Like Bertoletti’s study above, the Cell study found that exposure to coronaviruses responsible for the common cold appear to allow your immune system to recognize and fight off SARS-CoV-2 as well.

May 14, 2020, Science magazine reported¹⁵ these Cell findings, drawing parallels to another earlier paper¹⁶ by German investigators that had come to a similar conclusion.

That German paper,¹⁷ the preprint of which was posted April 22, 2020, on Medrxiv, found helper T cells that targeted the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in 15 of 18 patients hospitalized with COVID-19. As reported by Science:¹⁸

“The teams also asked whether people who haven’t been infected with SARS-CoV-2 also produce cells that combat it. Thiel and colleagues¹⁹ analyzed blood from 68 uninfected people and found that 34% hosted helper T cells that recognized SARS-CoV-2.

The La Jolla team²⁰ detected this crossreactivity in about half of stored blood samples collected between 2015 and 2018, well before the current pandemic began …

The results suggest ‘one reason that a large chunk of the population may be able to deal with the virus is that we may have some small residual immunity from our exposure to common cold viruses,’ says viral immunologist Steven Varga of the University of Iowa. However, neither of the studies attempted to establish that people with crossreactivity don’t become as ill from COVID-19.

Before these studies, researchers didn’t know whether T cells played a role in eliminating SARS-CoV-2, or even whether they could provoke a dangerous immune system overreaction. ‘These papers are really helpful because they start to define the T cell component of the immune response,’ [Columbia University virologist Angela] Rasmussen says.”

Statistician Believes Majority Are Resistant to COVID-19

These studies add support to the latest COVID-19 mortality models suggesting widespread resistance and prior immunity. Freddie Sayers, executive editor of UnHerd, recently interviewed professor Karl Friston, a statistician whose expertise is mathematical modeling, who believes prior immunity across the global population might be as high as 80%. Sayers reports:²¹

“[Friston] invented the now standard ‘statistical parametric mapping’ technique for understanding brain imaging — and for the past months he has been applying his particular method of Bayesian analysis, which he calls ‘dynamic causal modelling,’ to the available Covid-19 data …

His models suggest that the stark difference between outcomes in the UK and Germany, for example, is not primarily an effect of different government actions (such as … earlier lockdowns), but is better explained by intrinsic differences between the populations that make the ‘susceptible population’ in Germany … much smaller than in the UK …

Even within the UK, the numbers point to the same thing: that the ‘effective susceptible population’ was never 100%, and was at most 50% and probably more like only 20% of the population.”

These statistics really throw the idea of social distancing being an unavoidable part of the post-COVID-19 “new normal” into question. What’s more, once sensible behaviors such as staying home when sick are entered into Friston’s model, the effect of lockdown efforts vanish altogether, so global lockdowns were likely completely unnecessary in the first place.

Nobel-Prize Winning Scientist Debunks Growth Projections

Michael Levitt,²² a professor of structural biology at the Stanford School of Medicine who received the Nobel Prize in 2013 for his development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems, has also presented strong evidence that supports Friston’s model.

According to Levitt, statistical data reveals a mathematical pattern that has stayed consistent regardless of the government interventions implemented. While early models predicted an exponential explosion of COVID-19 deaths, those predictions never materialized. As reported by Sayers in the video above:

“After around a two-week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes ‘sub-exponential.’ This may seem like a technical distinction, but its implications are profound.

The ‘unmitigated’ scenarios modelled by (among others) Imperial College, and which tilted governments across the world into drastic action, relied on a presumption of continued exponential growth …

But Professor Levitt’s point is that that hasn’t actually happened anywhere, even in countries that have been relatively lax in their responses.”

Levitt believes prior immunity plays a significant role in why we simply don’t see an exponential growth pattern of COVID-19 deaths, and that certainly seems to make sense. A majority of people simply aren’t (and weren’t) susceptible to the disease in the first place.

He tells Sayers the indiscriminate lockdowns implemented around the world were “a huge mistake.” A more rational approach would have been to protect and isolate the elderly, who are by far the most vulnerable and make up the bulk of COVID-19 deaths around the world.

Hopefully, these data will not be swept under the rug if or when a second wave of COVID-19 emerges this fall. Making that mistake once is bad enough. Let us not repeat it.

Last but not least, to bolster your immune system and lower your risk of COVID-19 infection in the future, be sure to follow the instructions given in “Your Vitamin D Level Must Reach 60 ng/mL Before the Second Wave.”

As the pandemic years have made abundantly obvious, the results of politically and financially driven public health policies can be devastating. And, as more and more vaccines get added to both child and adult schedules, it’s becoming clear there needs to be an open and rational discussion about how vaccines fit into public health policy and what they offer in protection against infectious diseases.

One thing that is certain is we all want our children to be healthy and safe from unnecessary harm. However, as lead attorney for Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), Aaron Siri explains,¹ just one example of the negligence in regulations is the sadly lacking safety data on the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns.

Newborns Given Hepatitis B Vax Without Proper Safety Data

Before a newborn leaves the hospital, they’re given one vaccine for hepatitis B, even though the safety data for it is scant, if that. According to Siri,² the clinical trials designed to protect newborns included only 434 doses of Recombivax HB given to 147 healthy infants and children up to 10 years of age, and these children were monitored for only five days after each dose.³

In other words, the testing was done not only on infants, but also on older children whose immune system is vastly different than a newborn’s. Additionally, there were only 147 infants and children, total, involved in three clinical studies, which means there were far fewer infants who received the shot before it was released and approved in the childhood vaccine schedule.

If you’d like a closer look at the clinical trials and information on all vaccines, you can search “FDA vaccines licensed for use in the United States.” That will bring you to a page⁴ on the FDA website with a list of all the product names and the trade name. When you click on a specific vaccine link it will take you to the FDA’s page for the vaccine on which you’ll find a link for the package insert.

As Siri describes, section 6.1 of each package insert includes information about clinical trials the FDA used to approve a vaccine. In total there are four hepatitis B vaccines approved for use, but only two are approved for use in infants — Recombivax HB made by Merck and Engerix-B made by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

According to the package insert, the most frequently reported adverse reactions included a fever of over 101 Fahrenheit, diarrhea, fatigue and weakness, diminished appetite and rhinitis.

Siri also notes, there is no indication there was a control group in the studies. He compares the paucity of data in the clinical trials for Recombivax HB given to newborns to the warp speed COVID jab.⁵ Comparatively, the studies on the COVID jab, which we know were not adequate, would appear admirable.

For example, Siri notes the COVID jab had six months of safety data while the Recombivax HB shot followed children for just five days. Pfizer’s COVID trials⁶ enrolled 46,331 participants in a Phase 3 clinical trial while Recombivax HB tested just 147 infants and children.

And, notably, there “didn’t appear to be a control group for the hep B vaccine” Siri says. “And even if there was, what are you going to do with 147 kids’ data?”⁷

Believing this may have been an error, Siri’s group submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the studies the FDA used to approve Recombivax HB. The data confirmed that safety monitoring only occurred for five days after injections were given to newborns, 1-month-old and 6-month-old babies. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals was even worse, as the Engerix-B shot only tracked safety data for four days:

“These are the only two shots that a newborn can get in America,” Siri says. “That’s the first shot they get in life. So, I’d say ridiculous might be too soft of an adjective to describe that safety review period.”

On behalf of ICAN, Siri’s firm has filed a petition with the FDA requesting either a proper clinical trial to ascertain side effects and efficacy or withdrawing the licensure from Merck. By law, the FDA has six months to respond to such a request which, according to Siri, has expired. Having not received a formal response from the FDA, the plan is to sue the FDA in federal court over this issue.

Most Infants Are Not at High Risk for Hepatitis B

According to the CDC,⁸ the leading means of transmission include spread when infected blood, semen or other bodily fluids are transferred to an uninfected person. This happens through shared needles or other drug equipment, sexual contact, or from mother to baby at birth.

In other words, the likelihood of a child contracting hepatitis B except at birth is extremely low. For many people, it’s a short-term Illness, but it can become chronic and lead to liver cirrhosis or liver cancer. There is a simple blood test⁹ that detects the presence of the virus, called the surface antigen. If that test is positive, further testing is necessary to determine if the infection is acute or chronic.

The surface antigen test costs between $24 and $69.99 depending on the area of the country and the lab that draws the test.¹⁰ In comparison,¹¹ each hepatitis vaccine for infants costs the provider (pediatrician) between $26 and $27 per shot — but the markup they charge is well over four times their cost. You may pay from $118¹² to $140¹³ per shot depending on your provider.

Data¹⁴ show that the risk of an unvaccinated infant acquiring hepatitis B during birth can be up to 100% when they’re born to a hepatitis B antigen-positive mother. However, since a newborn’s immune system doesn’t function in the same way as an older child’s or an adult’s, wouldn’t it make more sense to spend $25 to test mothers before birth and vaccinate only those infants whose mothers have an acute or chronic hepatitis B infection?

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Childhood Shot Schedule: 20 Shots Before 6 Months

In the precious early months of life, when an infant’s brain and immune system are continuing to grow, most receive up to 20 injections of vaccines that parents are told will protect their child.¹⁵Beyond the hepatitis B newborn shot, at 2 months old they get six vaccine doses including a second hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal conjugate and inactivated poliovirus.

Some are repeated at 4 months and 6 months, when they also receive their first flu and COVID-19 shot. All told, there are potentially 19 doses of vaccine and one dose of an experimental mRNA injection an infant could receive by 6 months of age.

According to every vaccine’s package insert in Section 6.1, the clinical trial data don’t offer parents a strong indication of what could happen when their newborn and infant receives these doses:¹⁶

“Because clinical trials are conducted under widely varying conditions, adverse reaction rates observed in the clinical trials of a vaccine cannot be directly compared with rates in the clinical trials of another vaccine and may not reflect the rates observed in practice.”

Aluminum in the Hepatitis Vaccine Exacerbates Asthma

According to the CDC, one cost of following the childhood vaccination schedule is persistent asthma linked to aluminum exposure. Aluminum is the most common vaccine adjuvant, and the hepatitis B vaccine is one that contains it.^17,18 Despite its neurotoxicity,¹⁹ manufacturers add aluminum to vaccines to create an enhanced inflammatory response that theoretically generates higher protective antibodies.

However, an increasing number of parents say that repeated exposure to vaccines with aluminum may be harming their children. Indeed, previous animal studies demonstrated that aluminum increases the risk of allergy by inducing a T helper 2 cell-biased immune response.²⁰

In other words, the aluminum causes the T cells to be overactivated, which then exacerbates allergic responses.²¹ This is known to affect airway inflammation and the hyperresponsiveness that occurs in children with allergic asthma.

In a January 2023 study with 326,991 children born from 2008 to 2014, they set out to assess “the association between cumulative aluminum exposure from vaccines before age 24 months and persistent asthma at age 24 to 59 months.”²²

They found there was a 1.26- and 1.19-times higher risk of persistent asthma for each additional milligram of vaccine-related aluminum exposure. The observational study stopped short of saying that it proves a link between aluminum-containing vaccines and asthma.

The CDC also stated that it has no intention of altering its vaccine recommendations based on this study alone.²³ However, the researchers pointed out that rates of asthma in U.S. children steadily increased in the 1980s and 1990s, then remained steady since 2001.

The 2001 date is significant, as most aluminum-containing vaccines were added to the childhood vaccine schedule before 2001. This includes, for example, diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP), hepatitis B, some formulations of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines.

It’s Time for Rational Discussions on Vaccine Safety

Unofficial surveys^24,25 have suggested that highly vaccinated children may have more chronic health problems than unvaccinated children, and that unvaccinated children have a far lower incidence rate of autism. A 2014 study²⁶ published in the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology found that increases in autistic disorder correspond with the introduction of vaccines using human fetal cell lines and retroviral contaminants.²⁷

When you also consider that the U.S. was the first country to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for COVID jabs to children as young as 6 months,²⁸ and that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices just added them to the child vaccine schedule²⁹ even though children have the lowest risk of COVID and therefore the least need for the shots,³⁰ it’s clear that it’s time for some rational dialogue on vaccine safety.

But to have rational discussions, we cannot ignore signs that mandatory use of multiple vaccinations in early childhood is NOT a safe preventive strategy, especially since we have no idea how many children’s lives are sacrificed in the name of “the greater good.”

From my point of view, there’s little doubt we need to review the safety and effectiveness of the current vaccination program, especially since there has never been a large, prospective, well-designed study to evaluate whether children who are unvaccinated or who received fewer vaccines are more or less healthy than children who receive all federally recommended vaccines.

These discussions must include methodologically sound investigative studies that are not compromised by conflicts of interest within industry and government. The good news is that there is much more historical data available today about the vaccine program and the effect it has on children and families. Just one study comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children could shed light on the childhood vaccine schedule.

COVID Jab Added to Secure Indemnification

In yet another display of sacrificing children for Big Pharma and profits, the U.S. became the first country in the world to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID jabs to toddlers and children as young as 6 months. The FDA issued the EUA on June 17, 2022,³¹and the next day the CDC recommended all toddlers get the shot as soon as possible.³²

However, as with the Hepatitis B vaccine, the pediatric EUA was based on extremely weak evidence, even after the FDA lowered the efficacy requirements for the pediatric population and even though children have the lowest risk of COVID and therefore have the least need for the shots.³³

The addition of the unlicensed COVID-19 shots to the child, adolescent and adult vaccine schedules was approved in a unanimous 15-0 vote at the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).³⁴

Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology said the move was likely to shatter whatever remaining trust Americans had in the CDC, “as it should. I am shocked by the malfeasance. I have no trust left at all in our public health system. It is broken,” he said.

“Why the Rush for Toddler Vaccines?” asks Wall Street Journal editorial board member Allysia Finley in a July 4, 2022, op-ed.³⁵ Indeed, asked that same question, and I’m glad the legacy media’s WSJ had the courage to print it.

The stark truth is that the FDA and CDC are no longer in the business of protecting public health. They are securing profits for the drug industry, and the EUA for infants and young children was the first crucial step toward securing permanent legal indemnity for the drug makers.

By adding the shots to the vaccine schedule, it paves the way for U.S. schools to require them for attendance. The shots were also added to the Vaccine for Children (VFC) program, which provides vaccines to children at no or low cost using federal funding.³⁶

Pfizer and Moderna, the shots’ makers, will also be granted permanent legal indemnity, which otherwise would have disappeared once COVID-19 shots were no longer protected under emergency use authorization (EUA).³⁷

You can learn more about this indemnification process in “The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids,” which features my interview with Alix Mayer, board president of the Children’s Health Defense’s California chapter.

So, the reason the FDA and CDC have acted and continue to act so irrationally and ignore safety signals is that they are not working to protect you. They’re working for the drug industry, and they’ve just sold out our children.

I launched an information campaign to raise awareness about the use of vitamin D for COVID-19 back in June 2020. My own vitamin D review was published October 31, 2020, in the high-impact, peer-reviewed journal Nutrients.¹

At the time, 14 observational studies suggested vitamin D levels are inversely linked with the incidence or severity of COVID-19, and my paper concluded, “The evidence seems strong enough that people and physicians can use or recommend vitamin D supplements to prevent or treat COVID-19.”²

I was widely vilified and discredited in the media for bringing attention to vitamin D’s potential for COVID-19. The New York Times, in their July 2021 front-page hit piece,³ even dubbed me, “The most Influential spreader of coronavirus misinformation online,” in an attempt to minimize my efforts. The reporter claimed she could not verify my published study on vitamin D, even though I sent her a link to it, and it’s easy to find online.

Now, however, as is usually the case, the truth is being set free. An increasing number of studies are confirming what I said in 2020 — that vitamin D is a potent and highly effective intervention for COVID-19.

New Studies on Vitamin D and COVID-19

Giving vitamin D to people with COVID-19 cut risk of death from SARS-CoV-2 by 51% and reduced risk of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) by 72%.⁴ This was the finding of a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA), which weighs errors in order to assess if further studies are needed⁵ — or the results are so solid they’re unlikely to be affected by other studies.

The TSA revealed “the protective role of vitamin D and ICU admission showed that, since the pooling of the studies reached a definite sample size, the positive association is conclusive.”⁶ To put it another way, the results suggest “a definitive association between the protective role of vitamin D and ICU hospitalization.”⁷

Words like “conclusive” and “definitive” aren’t typically used lightly in scientific research. So, this finding is indeed impressive — although not altogether surprising, since a wealth of other data also shows vitamin D’s protective effect against COVID-19.

What does raise eyebrows, however, is why the study, which has major implications for public health, isn’t being talked about — and vitamin D isn’t being widely recommended for COVID-19.

Vitamin D Offers Serious Protection Against COVID-19

In the video above, John Campbell, a retired nurse and teacher based in England, details the study, which was published in the journal Pharmaceuticals.⁸ He believes regulatory authorities are acting unethically by not recommending vitamin D for COVID-19. Not only did COVID-19 patients supplemented with vitamin D have lower rates of ICU admission and fewer mortality events, but they also had lower rates of COVID-19 infection, by 54%.⁹

In other words, vitamin D provided significant protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Meanwhile, throughout the pandemic, “high-risk interventions were carried out. Very, very safe interventions, like vitamin D, zinc — basically ignored. It really is a scandal. A total scandal. Absolute disgrace,” Campbell says.¹⁰ The study laid out a number of reasons why it makes perfect sense that vitamin D fights COVID-19, stating:¹¹

“COVID-19 is characterized by high levels of inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein (CRP), and increased levels of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. In this sense, various data have demonstrated the anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and immunomodulatory properties of vitamin D, in addition to the importance of vitamin D for bone health, as well as its role in extra-skeletal function.”

Specific examples of how vitamin D may be beneficial in the case of COVID-19 show that it:¹²

Taken together, the researchers again stated that an “indisputable association between vitamin D supplementation and the protective effect on ICU admission can be considered definitive evidence.”¹³

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

High-Dose Vitamin D Saves Many COVID Patients

Another study investigated the effect of the drug tocilizumab and other factors, including high-dose vitamin D, in people with severe COVID-19.¹⁴ Perhaps most revealing was Table 3,¹⁵ which showed the effects of co-management agents including vitamin D, anticoagulants, steroids and antivirals. Among the seven patients who received high-dose vitamin D, none died. Instead, 100% of the group improved. According to the study:¹⁶

“100% of the patients with a low vitamin D status (less than 20 ng/mL) receiving high doses of vitamin D (50,000 IU every other day for two weeks or one intramuscular shot of 300,000 IU) showed clinical improvement compared to those receiving the usual treatment doses (10,000 IU daily or less) or those who did not receive it.”

In response, science journalist Simon Goddek, Ph.D., tweeted, “What happens if you administer high doses of Vitamin D to severe COVID-19 patients? They simply won’t die, as this study shows.”¹⁷

Vitamin D Lowers COVID-19 Infection and Death

Yet another study — this one published in Scientific Reports¹⁸ — shows the association between vitamin D, a “safe, widely available and affordable treatment,”¹⁹ and COVID-19 protection cannot be ignored.

Researchers from Johns Hopkins University, the University of Chicago and the Department of Veterans Health Affairs conducted a large-scale pharmacoepidemiologic study of the association between vitamin D3 and D2 supplementation and the probability of COVID-19 infection and mortality.²⁰

“Vitamin D deficiency has long been associated with reduced immune function that can lead to viral infection. Several studies have shown that vitamin D deficiency … increases the risk of infection with COVID-19,” they wrote.²¹

The study involved a large population of veterans, including 220,265 patients supplemented with vitamin D3 before and during the pandemic, and 407,860 untreated patients.²² Those taking vitamin D3 had a 20% lower risk. Death from COVID-19 was also lower among those taking vitamin D — 33% lower among those taking vitamin D3.²³

“These associated reductions in risk are substantial and justify more significant exploration and confirmation using RCTs [randomized controlled trials],” the researchers explained. “This is particularly important given the high rates of vitamin D deficiency in the U.S. population and COVID-19.”²⁴

About half the U.S. population has insufficient or deficient levels of vitamin D, and rates of vitamin D deficiency are even higher in people with darker skin, those living in higher latitudes in the winter, nursing home residents and people with reduced sun exposure. Among groups with low levels of vitamin D, rates of COVID-19 are higher.²⁵

“In response to these findings, physicians might consider regularly prescribing vitamin D3 to patients with deficient levels to protect them against COVID-19 infection and related mortality. The 50,000 IU dosage may be especially beneficial,” according to the study.²⁶

Why Isn’t Vitamin D Recommended for COVID?

The fact that vitamin D helps combat COVID-19 was widely censored and deemed “misinformation” during the pandemic. And despite the “conclusive” evidence, the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) states, “Do not offer a vitamin D supplement to people solely to prevent COVID‑19, except as part of a clinical trial.” It added:²⁷

“Based on direct evidence from the NICE evidence review and indirect evidence from the SACN [Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition] rapid review of vitamin D in acute respiratory tract infection (which did not include COVID‑19 as an outcome), the panel agreed that there was not enough evidence to recommend vitamin D supplements solely for preventing COVID‑19.”

Yet, vitamin D is typically nontoxic, representing a low-risk option that could have significant positive public health outcomes. When the researchers of the Scientific Reports study extrapolated their vitamin D findings to the entire U.S. population in 2020, they found supplementation with vitamin D3 would have prevented 4 million COVID-19 cases and 116,000 deaths.²⁸ Campbell asks:²⁹

“Now, why is this not being used despite the definitive evidence … why is it not being advised? Why is it not being shouted from the hilltops? … Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Authority in the United Kingdom is 86% industry-funded. Of course, they have no vested interest.

This is the national body that represents medicine … throughout all of the United Kingdom, and it’s 86% industry-funded. Coincidentally, vitamin D, which is basically free — it’s dirt cheap — and is essentially completely safe is not recommended. Other interventions, which are associated with high levels of risk are recommended … When is this going to be addressed? This is outrageous.”

This conflict of interest isn’t unique to the U.K., however. Significant portions of regulatory agencies’ budgets around the world come from the pharmaceutical industry that these agencies are supposed to regulate. For instance:³⁰

Vitamin D Even Improves Pancreatic Cancer

Another little-talked-about benefit of vitamin D relates to pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest forms of cancer with a five-year survival rate of just 7.2%.³¹ Researchers published the case of an 83-year-old woman with pancreatic cancer “who errantly took supratherapeutic doses of vitamin D 50,000 U daily, achieving a serum 25(OH)D level of more than 150 ng/mL, with no appreciable side effects.”

Eight months after diagnosis — and consistent daily intake of high-dose vitamin D — scans revealed “no evidence of disease progression.” Further, the researchers noted, “Currently she describes as feeling quite well with no difficulty accomplishing her activities of daily living.” They called for further research to investigate:³²

“One cannot conclude that her vitamin D dose was in any way related to this outcome. There is only one CT scan before the initiation of vitamin D, and there is no way to know what her pace of disease would have been in the absence of vitamin D supplementation. In addition, she was taking several other supplements such as shitake mushrooms, although inconsistently and for a shorter duration, which were also intended to treat her malignancy.

Nonetheless, given the poor prognosis of pancreatic cancer and the limited treatment options for patients, this case should stimulate further investigation. The daily dose of 50,000 U of vitamin D3 was well tolerated in our patient for over 10 months at the time of writing. Consideration should be given to a clinical trial that evaluates a similar dose.”

I’ve long recommended a vitamin D level of 40 to 60 ng/ml for optimal health and disease prevention. However, higher levels of 60 to 80 ng/ml may be even better, while a level upward of 100 ng/mL appears safe and beneficial for certain conditions, especially cancer.³³

Ideally, Get Your Vitamin D From the Sun

Optimizing your vitamin D levels isn’t only about preventing COVID-19; it supports health in multiple ways. It’s been shown that people genetically predisposed to vitamin D deficiency were 25% more likely to die from any cause compared to those with different genetics conducive to healthy vitamin D levels.³⁴

To optimize your levels, regular sun exposure is the best option, as not only will it naturally raise your vitamin D levels to healthy levels, but it will provide numerous other benefits, such as enhanced production of melatonin — a potent anticancer agent.³⁵ However, if you’re unable to get adequate sun exposure each day, supplementation may be necessary.

The only way to determine how much sun exposure is enough and/or how much vitamin D3 you need to take is to measure your vitamin D level, ideally twice a year. When supplementing, also remember vitamins D and K2, calcium and magnesium all work together and must be properly balanced for optimal health.

Once you’ve confirmed your vitamin D levels via testing, adjust your sun exposure and/or vitamin D3 supplementation accordingly. Then, remember to retest in three to four months to make sure you’ve reached your target level.

The video above features a recent lecture I gave to the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM) on how to optimize your mitochondrial health and function.

Mitochondrial dysfunction is at the root of most all chronic diseases, and it also plays a crucial role in conditions such as long COVID, which is becoming quite common. It’s also a root factor that must be addressed in COVID jab injuries, regardless of symptoms or severity.

Features of the post-jab injuries we see point to severe mitochondrial dysfunction, which in turn causes energy failure. The same goes for long COVID in people who struggle with unrelenting fatigue and other symptoms for months after they’ve recovered from COVID-19 infection.

If you can improve your mitochondrial function and restore energy supply to your cells, you’re going to massively increase your odds of reversing the problems caused by the jab or the virus.

US Life Expectancy Falls in Historic Decline

Allopathic medicine has been a leading cause of death in the U.S. for over two decades. In 1998, researchers concluded that properly prescribed and correctly taken pharmaceutical drugs were the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S.

Two years later, in 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield published her groundbreaking paper, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”¹ in which she provided data showing that medical errors by doctors were the third leading cause of death. Little has changed since then.

In 2016, Johns Hopkins patient safety experts calculated that more than 250,000 patients died each year from medical errors, again pegging it as the third leading cause of death.²

In July 2022, the National Institutes of Health concluded the annual death toll from medical errors could be as high as 440,000 — and possibly even more because of lack of reporting — making it, still, the third leading cause of death.³

In future years, I believe the medical intervention sold as “COVID vaccines” will prove to be the No. 1 killer of Americans, and we’re already seeing that trend. Something extraordinarily odd happened in 2020 and 2021, something that shaved nearly three years off the life expectancy in the U.S.⁴

Even a tenth or two-tenths of a year mean decline in life expectancy on a population level is a big deal, as it means a lot more people are dying prematurely than they really should be. A three-year drop is simply unheard of.

While media blame this drop on COVID-19 infection, that makes no sense because the average age of those who died from COVID was about 85, well over the life expectancy in 2019. No, this massive drop in life expectancy is due to younger people dying decades earlier than they should, and the only factor that can account for that is the mass injection of people with an experimental bioweapon.

Limit Your EMF Exposure

One of the most foundational lifestyle components that can make or break your mitochondrial health is electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. To allow your body to heal, you’ll want to minimize EMF exposure as much as possible. The World Health Organization classified cell phone radiation as a 2B carcinogen in May 2011.

However, as I detail in my 2020 book, “EMF*D,” it’s actually a Class 2A carcinogen. To minimize your EMF exposure, which includes electric fields, magnetic fields and radiofrequencies:

• Keep your cell phone in airplane mode whenever you’re not actively using it
• Do not sleep with it near your bed
• At night, be sure to turn off your Wi-Fi
• Turn the breakers off to your bedroom, as the electrical wiring in most homes also emit dirty electricity
• Alternatively, sleep in an EMF-shielding tent, which is what I use whenever I travel and have no control over the EMF exposure in my room

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Dietary Fat Choices Influence Energy Production

You have about 40 quadrillion to 100 quadrillion mitochondria throughout the cells of your body. In my lecture, I show a picture of the structure of your mitochondria. The cristae of the inner membrane of the mitochondria contains a fat called cardiolipin,⁵ the function of which is dependent on the type of fat you get from your diet.

Cardiolipin is important, because it influences the structure of the cristae inside your mitochondria, which is the area where energy production occurs. If cardiolipin is damaged, then the complexes will not be close enough together to form supercomplexes and thus the mitochondrial energy production will be impaired.

Cardiolipin also works like a cellular alarm system that triggers apoptosis (cell death) by signaling caspase-3 when something goes wrong with the cell. If the cardiolipin is damaged from oxidative stress due to having too much LA, it cannot signal caspase-3, and hence apoptosis does not occur. As a result, dysfunctional cells are allowed to continue to grow, which can turn into a cancerous cell.

The type of dietary fat that promotes healthy cardiolipin is omega-3 fat, and the type that destroys it is omega-6, especially linoleic acid (LA), which is highly susceptible to oxidation. So, to optimize your mitochondrial function, you want to avoid LA as much as possible, and increase your intake of omega-3s.

Primary sources of LA include seed oils used in cooking, processed foods and restaurant foods made with seed oils, condiments, seeds and nuts, most olive oils and avocado oils (due to the high prevalence of adulteration with cheaper seed oils), and animal foods raised on grains such as conventional chicken and pork.

Ideally, consider cutting LA down to below 7 grams per day, which is close to what our ancestors used to get. 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 LA intake.

Cronometer will tell you how much omega-6 you’re getting from your food down to the tenth of a gram, and you can assume 90% of that is LA. Anything over 10 grams of LA is likely to cause problems. Healthy fat replacements include tallow, butter or ghee, all of which are excellent for cooking.

Address Iron Excess and Copper Insufficiency

Another major culprit that destroys mitochondrial function is excess iron, and almost everyone, with the exception of menstruating women and those with large blood losses, have too much iron. On the other side of this coin is copper, which most people are deficient in.

Iron and copper are highly interdependent and need to be considered together. Low ferritin is rarely indicative of low iron. In most cases, it’s a sign that copper insufficiency is preventing proper iron recycling. Copper is also crucial for energy metabolism, detoxification and mitochondrial function.⁶You can learn more about this in “The Poorly-Understood Role of Copper in Anemia.”

To increase your copper level, you can either take 4 to 10 milligrams of copper bisglycinate per day, or eat more copper-rich foods, such as bee pollen, grass fed beef liver and acerola cherry. (Acerola cherry is very high in vitamin C, which contains the copper-rich tyrosinase enzyme.)

The other side of the equation is to lower your iron, which is easily done through regular blood donations. One way is to simply donate blood two to four times a year. If losing 10% of your blood in one sitting is problematic, then you can remove blood in smaller amounts once a month on the schedule I have listed below. If you have congestive heart failure or severe COPD, you should discuss this with your doctor, but otherwise this is a fairly appropriate recommendation for most.

The Importance of Sun Exposure

A third leading contributor to mitochondrial dysfunction is lack of sun exposure. Getting regular sun exposure is crucial for several different reasons:

Restore Metabolic Function With Time-Restricted Eating

The vast majority of people eat across 12 hours or more, which is a recipe for metabolic disaster. Health statistics bear this out. In July 2022, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology²⁰posted an update on the metabolic fitness or flexibility of the American population.

Metabolic fitness includes things like blood glucose and blood sugar, blood pressure and weight, and metabolic flexibility refers to your body’s ability to seamlessly transition between burning fat and carbohydrates as your primary fuel.

In 2016, 12.2% of Americans were considered metabolically fit.²¹ Two years later, in 2018, only 6.8% of U.S. adults had optimal cardiometabolic health.²² That was four years ago so, today, that ratio is probably even lower, especially if you consider the number of people who are now struggling with mitochondrial dysfunction as a result of the COVID jab.

TRE is one of the easiest yet most powerful interventions for restoring metabolic flexibility and optimizing your mitochondrial function, which is key for recovery from any illness or disease.

As a general rule, I recommend compressing your eating window to between six and eight hours, and fasting for the remaining 14 to 16 hours each day. The timing of that eating window is important though.

You want to avoid eating first thing in the morning (wait at least two or three hours) and you want to avoid eating right before bed. Ideally, have your last meal at least three hours or more before bedtime. So, to give you an example, you could eat all your meals between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., or 11 a.m. and 5 p.m.

Optimize NAD+

Boosting nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) is, I believe, another crucial component when treating COVID jab injuries and long COVID. NAD+ is a crucial signaling molecule believed to play an important role in mitochondrial function and longevity.

NAD is used up by DNA repair enzymes and enzymes involved in inflammation and immunity, such that chronic inflammation or acute illness can rapidly result in depletion. To learn more about the role of NAD+ in health, see my interview with Nichola Conlon, Ph.D., a molecular biologist, featured in “The Crucial Role of NAD+ in Optimal Health.” There are a number of ways to boost NAD+ without resorting to expensive supplements, including:

• Circadian rhythm optimization
• TRE and other forms of intermittent fasting
• Low-dose niacinamide (not niacin), taken at a dose of 50 mg three times a day. More is not better as it will impair the function of your longevity proteins (sirtuins)
• Intense exercise in a fasted state

Mitochondrial Rescuer: Methylene Blue

Methylene blue can be particularly useful for addressing the fatigue and neurological problems that are common in long COVID and COVID jab injuries, as it works as an electron cycler. It basically acts like a battery, but unlike other compounds that do the same thing, it doesn’t cause damaging oxidation in the process.

If anything interferes with oxygenation or cellular respiration, methylene blue is able to bypass that point of interference through electron cycling, thus allowing mitochondrial respiration, oxygen consumption and energy production to function as it normally would.

Methylene blue can also be helpful in instances where you have impaired blood flow that prevents the delivery of oxygenated hemoglobin to the tissues. In this case, methylene blue helps counteract the reduced blood flow by optimizing the efficiency of mitochondrial respiration.

Methylene blue also activates the Nrf2 pathway. Nrf2 is a transcription factor that, when activated, goes into the cell’s nucleus and binds to the antioxidant response element (AREs) in the DNA. It then induces the transcription of further cytoprotective enzymes such as glutathione, superoxide dismutase catalase, glutathione peroxidase, phase II enzymes, heme-1 oxygenase and many others.

Methylene blue’s action on mitochondrial respiration is also coupled with biochemical upregulation of your oxygen consumption machinery in general. This upregulation remains even after the methylene blue is expelled from your system, and over time, it can actually increase the number of mitochondria.

For neurological conditions, consider using methylene blue in combination with near-infrared sauna therapy. A 2020 paper²³ in Translational Neurodegeneration reviews the benefits of this combination, specifically as it refers to neuroprotection.

Methylene Blue Dosages and Quality Considerations

Methylene blue is a hormetic, so low dosages have the opposite effect of high dosages. While every possible dose response has not been tested, as a general guideline, the benefits mentioned here are based on lower dosages, ranging from 0.5 mg per kilogram of bodyweight to 4 mg per kg at most. For brain health and nootropic effects, a dosage between 0.5 mg to 1 mg per kg per day is recommended.

Selecting the correct product is of crucial importance. There are three basic types of methylene blue: industrial, chemical and pharmaceutical-grade. The only version you’ll want to use medicinally is pharmaceutical-grade, which is 99%+ pure. Lower grades will contain varying levels of heavy metals and other contaminants.

Pharmaceutical grade will be marked USP, which stands for United States Pharmacopeia. Taking it with some ascorbic acid (vitamin C) facilitates absorption. To learn more, see “The Surprising Health Benefits of Methylene Blue,” in which I interview Francisco Gonzalez-Lima, Ph.D., who has spent many years studying this drug.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks the truth about the authoritarian pandemic response that continues to threaten democracy and liberty as we know it. It’s cost him friendships and 40 years of political contacts, not to mention loss of income and business relationships.

But the threats to his reputation and credibility, as the media have attacked him and his message, don’t feel like a sacrifice, Kennedy says, as he feels called upon to advocate for this issue.

In an interview with journalist Kim Iversen, Kennedy explains, “I look at it as a gift. I was raised in a milieu, in a family, where we assume that our lives would be consumed in some controversy, and that it would be a privilege if we were able to take some meaningful role in that.”¹

Living Through a Real-World Milgram Experiment

Kennedy is part of the estimated 30% of the population who remained skeptical of the mainstream narrative throughout the pandemic. The majority, however, were not, instead buying fully into the fear and propaganda being sold to them.

He references the now-infamous experiment conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram in 1962, during which he tested the limits of human obedience to authority. The Milgram experiment was conducted following the trial of Nazi Adolf Eichmann, who used the Nuremberg defense, or “befehl ist befehl,” which translates to “an order is an order.”

The Milgram experiment clearly showed that people would act against their own judgment and harm another person to extreme lengths simply because they were told to do so.² It was associated with the CIA’s top-secret MKULTRA project, which engaged in mind control experiments, human torture and other medical studies, including how much LSD it would take to “shatter the mind and blast away consciousness.”³

MKULTRA was just one of a number of mind control experiments conducted by the CIA in the 1960s and 1970s. According to Kennedy:⁴

“The CIA did a lot of experiments with universities, almost 200 universities around the country with social scientists to study humans, human behavior, and they were experimenting with all kinds of things like psychiatric drugs, with psychedelic drugs, LSD, etc., with torture, with sensory deprivation, and all kinds of means for controlling not only individuals, but entire populations with propaganda, fear, all these things.

So you had all of these universities getting hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars from the CIA or from CIA front groups for programs that were called MKULTRA. The reason it’s called MK is that’s code for mind control. So MK Dietrich, MKULTRA, MK Naomi, Operation Artichoke, Operation Bluebird, many, many others, were all about funneling money to universities to study controlling human behavior.”

Yet, even during the Milgram experiment, 33% of the people got up and walked out, refusing to violate their ethics.

“They may be from a whole range of political backgrounds and parties, who just … maintain that capacity for critical thinking, and is not subject to … that override from authority,” Kennedy said. “And it seems to me … that we’re all now in the grips of this huge Milgram experiment, where we have a Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is this trusted authority, telling us to do things that we know are wrong, like censor speech.”⁵

Fear Is the Enemy

Fear is the enemy, as it allows totalitarian systems to take control of people, destroying democracy in the process, Kennedy says.⁶ It’s commonly used by people in authority to exert further control, like shot mandates and lockdowns. Children’s Health Defense, which Kennedy founded, has filed more than 50 lawsuits, many of them addressing COVID mandates.

In the beginning, even judges were too frightened to rule against the state dictates, leading to “really crazy decisions that … made no sense,” Kennedy says. They’ve since made some progress, including in New York, where a judge said since the shot doesn’t prevent transmission, you can’t have a mandate for it.⁷

But he points out that a government will not only not relinquish power, but will also abuse any power it has to the maximum extent possible. Just because the pandemic is over, the desire to control won’t go away. He explains:⁸

“People should keep in mind that nobody ever complied their way out of totalitarian regime rules. So, if you think that you know, by abandoning these rules, that somehow things are going to get better or it’s going to satiate the need to control you, it’s not. It’s just going to embolden them to do something worse.”

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Unprecedented Times, Technology Threaten Democracy

Kennedy also states that we’re facing a situation we’ve never been in before. It’s not that democracy hasn’t been threatened, and lost, in the past, but now the technological tools are available for widespread surveillance:⁹

“There have been many times when we lost democracy. There has been polarization that was this bad before, particularly during the Civil War. But other times in our history, there have been very, very toxic polarization.

There’s been times when we lost democracy and that large corporations, particularly during the Gilded Age in the 1880s and 1890s … — you know, the big oil companies like Standard Oil — were running our country, and that we really did not have a functioning democracy.”

The difference was that, back then, “we started cutting away at this monolith of corporate and government power, the merger of corporate power that had abolished democracy,” and were able to restore it. What’s different today is that we now have the technology available to control human behavior at a large scale:¹⁰

“The problem is that we’ve now got these instrumentalities, these technologies, for human behavioral control that we never had before. The ambition, the intention of every totalitarian regime in history is to control every aspect of human behavior — our speech, our thoughts, our transactions, our movements, everything that we do — but they’ve never been able to do that, because nobody, no government, has ever had that reach.

But today, we have facial recognition systems all over the place. We have satellite systems. Bill Gates says his satellite system, which is 61,000 satellites … will be able to look at every square inch of the Earth 24 hours a day. We’re now beginning on the road to adopting digital currencies, which is economic slavery. As soon as that happens, we lose all rights because they will be able to starve you.

And we already have an example of that with a trucker strike, and in our demonstration in Toronto, Trudeau sent people out to look at the license plates for these truckers and then froze their bank accounts. So they couldn’t pay their mortgage, they couldn’t put their kids in school, they couldn’t buy food for their family. None of them were charged with a crime.”

There’s No ‘Pandemic Exemption’ in the Constitution

Kennedy also makes the point that the framers of the Constitution did not add any exemptions due to pandemics. They were well aware of them, having experienced multiple epidemics during the Revolutionary War. But the Constitution was protected and allowed to function as intended. Adding exceptions is something new. Kennedy notes:¹¹

“There were epidemics in every city that killed tens of thousands of people — yellow fever, cholera, smallpox and many others. So, the framers knew all about it. But they didn’t put an epidemic or pandemic exception in the United States Constitution. It’s a new thing … we had a civil war and Lincoln — at a time when our country was really ‘this far’ away from being destroyed, 669,000 Americans died. It’s like 20 million people died today.

And yet, when he tried to get rid of Habeas Corpus, the Supreme Court said, ‘You can’t do that.’ There’s no exemption for war … there’s no exception for pandemics. We had a Spanish flu pandemic in 1918 and that killed 50 million people. And yet, we did not stop the Constitution from functioning.”

Censorship Destroys Democracy

Kennedy says the remedy to stop totalitarian control is democracy. But, “My father always said that democracy was completely dependent on the free flow of information.”¹² Open debate, allowed for by free speech, leads to the best ideas and solutions that allow a country and its population to thrive.

“If you shut off the free flow of information and start censoring things,” Kennedy says, “we lose the one advantage that we have. And, of course, once you start doing censorship, you are on the slippery slope to totalitarianism.”¹³ Right now, we’re facing institutional corruption, with the military industrial complex at the helm.

“I think if you removed Anthony Fauci … he’s going to be replaced by another Anthony Fauci,” Kennedy explains.¹⁴ Meanwhile, he says, it’s the military industrial complex, which also owns the press, that we need to take democracy back from:¹⁵

“We’re living in the era that Dwight Eisenhower warned us against on January 17, 1960 … in his farewell speech, Eisenhower gave probably the most important speech … in American history, where he warned Americans against the emergence of the military industrial complex — the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon and the associated industries, and he included the scientific bureaucracy.

He specifically spent a lot of time in that speech arguing about the federal scientific bureaucracy, meaning NIH, that they would be the authors of the destruction of American democracy if we allowed them to do that … And then 9/11 … turned America really into the beginnings of a surveillance state. And COVID completed the task.

… and the job of the CIA is to develop a pipeline of new wars that America could fight to feed this machine, the military contractors, and look what happened in COVID — 138 companies were involved in manufacturing and distributing the vaccine.

They’re all military contractors. The Pentagon and the National Security Agency ran the entire pandemic response. Pfizer and Moderna don’t really own those vaccines. They slap their labels on them, but it was a Pentagon project. And so, you know, we’re dealing with a military industrial complex.”

Can Democracy Withstand Turnkey Totalitarianism?

With totalitarian forces angling to control every aspect of human behavior, the time for dissent is now. The first step is waking up to the truth. The next is to stand up for what you believe in. The ultimate outcome, however, remains to be seen. According to Kennedy:¹⁶

“The levels of control that they have now over human behavior are greater than we’ve ever seen. It’s what I call turnkey totalitarianism … we’re trying to educate the public and build our army to restore democracy.

And they’re rising at the same time to put this infrastructure in place that will give them total control, destroy dissent and disable any kind of insurgency or subversion or any difference with the official government narrative, and the orthodoxies … when they put that in place, it’s really hard to predict whether democracy will have the resiliency to restore those institutions.”

Researchers have discovered that vitamin E comes in eight different forms but only one appears to meet human requirements, according to the National Institutes of Health.¹ Some foods are a natural source of vitamin E, which is the name for this group of fat-soluble compounds. Each of the eight forms has some level of biological activity, but it’s alpha-tocopherol that scientists have found prevents the propagation of free radicals and which the body prefers to use.

Additionally, only alpha-tocopherol supplementation has been shown to reverse symptoms of a vitamin E deficiency.² There are four tocopherol isoforms and four tocotrienol isoforms. Alpha-tocopherol is incorporated into lipoproteins in the liver that are then transported throughout the body.

While this has been the primary chemical form studied, researchers have also found that some forms of tocotrienols have biological activity, although they have lower systemic bioavailability.³

According to the NIH,⁴ three national surveys showed most Americans may consume less than the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) of vitamin E developed by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB). The RDA for alpha-tocopherol, which is the only recommendation made by the FNB, is from 11 mg to 15 mg beginning at age 9 through senior years. The RDA for lactating women is 19 mg per day.

The FNB believes alpha-tocopherol intake in healthy adults is likely higher than the national surveys indicate, since frank deficiency is rare and overt symptoms are not usually found in healthy people. However, as you are likely aware, there is a significant difference between overt deficiency and insufficiency that increases your risk of health conditions. Research data has now linked vitamin E with several unique health benefits.

Vitamin E Is a Strong Antioxidant Fighting Aging and Cancer

Understanding the importance of antioxidants began as scientists learned how free radical damage was involved in the early stages of atherosclerosis and that free radical damage may be involved in a host of other chronic health conditions.⁵ Vitamin E plays a significant role as an antioxidant as it scavenges loose electrons and reduces cellular damage.

One of the benefits of lowering free radical damage is reducing skin damage after UV exposure. Vitamin E has been used in dermatology for more than 50 years and is added to cosmetic products.⁶Additionally, the presence of vitamin C can slow lipid oxidation by regenerating alpha-tocopherol from radicals found in cell membranes.⁷

Vitamin E is a major lipid-soluble antioxidant, protecting against oxidative stress in the epidermis and dermal layers of the skin. Data show that it has strong photoprotective and antiaging properties that help to improve elasticity and structure of the epidermis and dermis. Topical application has been widely used, after which vitamin E accumulates in the cell membranes and extracellular lipid matrix, where it contributes to antioxidant defenses.⁸

In April 2022, researchers from MD Anderson Cancer Center⁹ published a paper in Cancer Discovery,¹⁰ in which they discuss data that show vitamin E may enhance cancer immunotherapy through a pathway that reinvigorates dendritic cells.

Dendritic cells have been a focus in cancer immunotherapy as they are critical in the immune response. Several strategies have been developed to target these cells in the hope that a better understanding of their function may help improve cancer therapies.¹¹ The researchers found that an analysis of electronic health records showed patients who took vitamin E had significantly improved survival rates.¹²

Recognizing that the impact of nutritional supplements in addition to immunotherapy is a relatively unexplored area, the researchers undertook an analysis of vitamin E and found that it blocks the activity of the SHP1 checkpoint, which in turn improves T cell ability to mount an antitumor immune response.¹³ Another 2020 study,¹⁴ looked at the benefits of using alpha-tocopherol in cancer prevention.

Researchers began with the understanding that those with a lower nutritional status had an increased risk of cancer and in some populations, supplementation had beneficial effects in lowering the risk. Other studies have focused on tocotrienol and the gamma and delta forms of tocopherols. While these three vitamin E compounds have a lower bioavailability, they appeared to have stronger cancer-preventive properties in animal models and cell lines.

Optimal Levels May Normalize High Blood Pressure

High blood pressure is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. One 2002 triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial¹⁵ evaluated the effects of vitamin E on blood pressure and heart rate in 70 individuals diagnosed with mild high blood pressure. At this time, the new blood pressure guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association had not yet been released.¹⁶

While the 2002 study categorized the participants with mild high blood pressure, the new guidelines would categorize those same participants with Stage 2 hypertension. At the end of the study, the researchers found a 24% decrease in systolic blood pressure in patients receiving vitamin E and a 12.5% reduction in diastolic blood pressure.

The participants received 200 IU of vitamin E each day which the researchers concluded could be an effective long-term strategy to reduce blood pressure.¹⁷

Another study in 2002 evaluated blood pressure in 15,317 men and women over age 20 and found that antioxidant vitamins could be important in the prevention of high blood pressure.¹⁸ Interestingly, researchers in 2000 evaluated vitamin E supplementation in patients whose high blood pressure was controlled using medication. In this case, supplementation appeared to have no relevant effect.¹⁹ This study was funded in part by the drug company Bayer Italia.

More recently, a 2019 meta-analysis²⁰ published in the Journal of Human Hypertension analyzed systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure in individuals who received vitamin E supplementation. A review of the qualifying studies showed no significant effect on mean arterial pressure or diastolic blood pressure but a reduction in systolic blood pressure.

Another 2020 paper²¹ began with the premise that although randomized human trials have resulted in conflicting results with vitamin E supplementation, data show vitamin E deficiency is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. These researchers suggest that the outcome of the human trials was significantly affected by the participants’ comorbidities, genetic variations, gender and age.

In a review of the literature, they found that patients diagnosed with a myocardial infarction frequently had lower plasma levels of vitamin E. They suggest that short-term treatment shows promising results and, thus, using acute rather than chronic supplementation may provide positive clinical outcomes.

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

More Health Benefits From Vitamin E Antioxidant Capacity

Vitamin E contributes to even more health benefits. Millions of women are impacted by premenstrual syndrome (PMS), which was first described in 1931. In 2009,²² researchers estimated 80% to 90% of women in their reproductive years suffer from symptoms, and up to 8% of those experience severe symptoms.

A 2016 study showed that supplementing with vitamin D and E had a significant effect on PMS symptoms and was “an effective and affordable treatment” for the condition.²³ This supports a 1983 double-blind, randomized dose-response study²⁴ of 75 women that suggested supplementation may be valuable for women with symptoms of severe PMS.

Vitamin E is essential for reproductive health in the rodent population,²⁵ most notably in the development of the placenta. A 2018 paper²⁶ acknowledges that while researchers know it is necessary for fertility, studies are lacking on how it affects female reproductive health.

Vitamin E has also demonstrated neuroprotective properties, notably in a study²⁷ of 30 patients with glaucoma whose progression slowed while taking oral alpha-tocopherol acetate and a 2014 paper²⁸that clarified the use of vitamin E in Alzheimer’s disease, finding it delayed the onset and progression of Alzheimer’s disease. A 2005 animal model²⁹ demonstrated that alpha-tocotrienol acted on molecular checkpoints to protect against stroke-induced neurodegeneration.

More Vitamin E Is Not Better

Vitamin E is a fat-soluble vitamin. The differences between water-soluble and fat-soluble vitamins affect how the vitamins are absorbed and stored. Your body can excrete water-soluble vitamins when there is an excess of the vitamin. But fat-soluble vitamins are dissolved and stored in fat, which is how they travel through the small intestine and are distributed in the bloodstream. Because the vitamin is fat-soluble, it is best absorbed when you’re eating a fat-rich meal.

And, because it’s fat-soluble, your body stores any excess of the vitamin, which increases your risk of adverse side effects. According to the National Institutes of Health,³⁰ it’s highly unlikely that you will experience adverse effects from consuming vitamin E-rich foods. However, high doses of alpha-tocopherol supplements can trigger side effects. Some common side effects include:³¹

Another challenge associated with taking vitamin E supplements is the lack of data indicating synthetic supplements are beneficial. A 2012 study^32,33 concluded that synthetic alpha-tocopherols found in vitamin E supplements had no discernible cancer protection but gamma- and delta-tocopherols found in food helped prevent colon, breast and prostate cancer.

Bear in mind that a supplement will not tell you it’s synthetic, so you have to know what to look foron the label.

• Synthetic alpha-tocopherol is typically listed with a “dl” (i.e., dl-alpha-tocopherol)
• Nonsynthetic or naturally derived is typically listed with a “d” (d-alpha-tocopherol). Note that when vitamin E is stabilized by adding either succinic acid or acetic acid, the chemical name changes from tocopherol to tocopheryl (as in d-alpha-tocopheryl succinate, for example)

Vitamin supplements are chemical additions to your body. As with other supplements, there is the potential that vitamin E supplements can interact with different types of medication.³⁴

Because vitamin E inhibits platelet aggregation, using it when you’re taking an anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication can increase the risk of bleeding. People taking antioxidant supplements, such as vitamin E, may find the supplement interferes with statin medications, specifically simvastatin (Zocor) or niacin.

You Can’t Go Wrong With Vitamin E-Rich Foods

Vitamin E is found in green leafy vegetables, nuts and some seeds. CNET lists foods that can help boost your vitamin E intake, including:³⁵

Grass-fed butter is also a rich source of vitamin E in a highly absorbable form. Butter doesn’t have to be a guilty pleasure. When butter is consumed as a whole food from a grass-fed source it contains many of the nutrients that your body needs. Some of these include:³⁶

• Vitamins A, K2 and E
• Lecithin for cholesterol metabolism and nerve health
• Antioxidants
• Iodine in a highly absorbable form