Health, Fitness,Dite plan, health tips,athletic club,crunch fitness,fitness studio,lose weight,fitness world,mens health,aerobic,personal trainer,lifetime fitness,nutrition,workout,fitness first,weight loss,how to lose weight,exercise,24 hour fitness,
This year, back-to-school plans are still a work in progress, and some (perhaps many) children will be learning from home because of the pandemic. As tempting as it might be to let the summer sleep schedules stay in place, it’s important that children have a regular routine — and that they are sleeping during the dark hours and awake during the light ones, as our bodies do best that way. So while a child whose trip to school is just a walk to the kitchen table might be able to sleep a bit later than one who has to catch an early bus, no child should be spending all morning in bed.
Sleep is crucial for all of us, and this is particularly true for children. Without enough quality sleep, children are more likely to have health and behavioral problems — and difficulty learning.
Here are a few simple things you can do to help your child get the sleep they need.
Our bodies do best when we go to bed and wake up at roughly the same time every day.
The blue light emitted by screens can keep us awake.
If your child is having trouble falling asleep, or is waking up at night, talk to your doctor. It’s also important to talk to your doctor if your child is snoring or having other breathing problems at night. Don’t ever ignore a sleep problem; always ask for help.
The post How to help your child get the sleep they need appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.
1 Which of the following have synergistic effects that make them useful in the prevention and early at-home treatment of COVID-19?
Vitamin C and quercetin have synergistic effects that make them useful in the prevention and early at-home treatment of COVID-19. Both are part of the MATH+ protocol developed by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group. Learn more.
2 Who owns the patent for SARS-CoV's genome (the coronavirus responsible for the 2003 SARS outbreak)?
The U.S. CDC owns the patent for SARS-CoV isolated from humans. In 2007, the CDC filed a petition with the patent office to keep their coronavirus patent confidential. By law, one cannot patent naturally-occurring DNA. If SARS-CoV is natural, then the patent is illegal. If the virus is manmade, the patent is legal, but the creation of the virus would be a violation of biological weapons treaties and laws. Learn more.
3 To improve heart health and lower your risk of heart attack, you should:
To improve heart health and lower your risk of heart attack, you should eliminate vegetable oils and eat more saturated fats. Learn more.
4 Which of the following is the oldest and largest consumer-led nonprofit organization in the U.S. that provides accurate and objective information about vaccines to help people make informed health choices?
Founded in 1982, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is the oldest and largest consumer-led nonprofit organization in the U.S. that provides accurate and objective information to help people make informed health choices and prevent vaccine-related injuries and deaths. Learn more.
5 Which of the following is a foundational component of two highly effective protocols developed by Dr. Paul Marik for the treatment of sepsis and COVID-19?
Vitamin C is a foundational component of two distinct and highly effective treatment protocols developed by Dr. Paul Marik — one for sepsis and another, called MATH+, specifically for COVID-19. Learn more.
6 According to Hypernormalisation, people willingly go along with living in a fake world because:
Their fake world is simpler than the real world by design, and as a result people went along with it because the simplicity was reassuring. Learn more.
7 Which of the following is ever-present in your cells at low levels, ready and waiting to be generated in greater amounts as soon as an infection is detected by your immune system, thereby killing off any pathogen that encounters it?
Endogenous hydrogen peroxide sits inside and outside cells in low levels, ready and waiting to be generated in greater amounts as soon as a pathogen is detected by the immune system. Nebulizing hydrogen peroxide with iodine into the sinuses, throat and lungs is a simple, straightforward way to augment your body's natural expression of hydrogen peroxide to combat infection. Learn more.
When it comes to COVID-19, there seem to be a lot more questions than answers. But as we continue to learn about the pathophysiology of the virus, more research is coming out about how to combat and/or prevent it.
Researchers from an August 2020 study published in Science of the Total Environment are the first to look at beta-glucans, types of soluble fiber, and how they may be able to protect you from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.1
One of the major complications of COVID-19 is pneumonia, which is also accompanied by rapid replication of the virus. During this rapid replication, your immune system releases pro-inflammatory cytokines that lead to an overreaction of the immune response called cytokine storm. Cytokine storm can lead to lung injury, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and death.
In this study, researchers took beta-glucans extract from a form of shiitake mushroom called Lentinus edodes and combined it with a lung injury model in vitro.
They found that beta-glucans reduced interleukin 1 beta and interleukin-6, two cytokines that can trigger the cytokine storm that causes ARDS in severe COVID-19 cases. The beta-glucans also reduced oxidative stress and activated immune substances called macrophages that destroy potential invaders like viruses.
According to other studies, beta-glucans also enhance the cell activity and function of natural killer (NK) cells,2 a type of white blood cell that plays a critical role in your innate immune system and acts as the first line of defense against viruses.3 Research shows NK cell count and function decrease considerably with COVID-19 infection, especially in those who become critically ill.4,5
Based on this information, researchers suggest that boosting innate immunity through things like beta-glucan supplementation may help mitigate COVID-19 infection and potentially flatten the curve.6
The research on beta-glucans and COVID-19 is promising, but since the virus is still new, there are only a limited number of studies available at this time. However, a number of studies have confirmed that beta-glucans offer powerful protection against other viral infections, such as the common cold and flu, which can result in similar immune responses. For example:
In addition to helping combat COVID-19 and other viral illnesses, beta-glucans also come with a number of other health benefits, including the following:
• Improved insulin resistance — Beta-glucans have been shown to reduce post-meal glucose and insulin responses, improve insulin sensitivity in diabetic and nondiabetic individuals, and help with glycemic control.11 Although other types of soluble fiber have this effect as well, when compared to the others, smaller amounts of beta-glucans are required to achieve the same results.
• Improved microbial diversity in the gut — Beta-glucans may help promote the growth of beneficial bacteria in your gut by acting like a prebiotic. In one study, beta-glucans improved the growth rate of Lactobacillus plantarum in the gut in both unstressed and stressed conditions.
Perhaps most importantly, beta-glucans were able to protect the probiotics from gastrointestinal stress caused by low pH, bile salts and digestive enzymes, increasing their survival rate as they traveled through the digestive system.12
• Cancer prevention — Beta-glucans have been used as a cancer treatment in Japan since 1980.13 According to a 2007 report in Medicina, beta-glucans can prevent oncogenesis — the process in which healthy cells become cancer cells — by protecting against carcinogens that damage cellular DNA.
The report notes that beta-glucans have also shown to inhibit tumor growth by activating macrophages and NK cells. Beta-glucans also help reduce inflammation associated with cancer and fight against metastasis, cancer recurrence and tumor drug resistance.14
• Reduced appetite and weight loss — In a 2018 animal study in PLOS One, researchers divided mice into two groups. One group was fed a high-fat diet with beta-glucans, while the other was fed a high-fat diet with cellulose, another high-fiber carbohydrate, for 12 weeks.
After the test period, the mice given the beta-glucans had significantly less weight gain and fat mass compared to the cellulose group. They also had increased production of short-chain fatty acids, especially butyrate, and higher secretions of the gut hormones peptide YY and GLP-1, which help reduce appetite and improve insulin sensitivity.15
You can find beta-glucans in supplemental form, but, as always, it’s best to get this type of fiber from whole food sources16 such as mushrooms (Reishi, Shiitake, Maitake), baker’s yeast or seaweed. Certain grains such as oats, barley, sorghum, rye and rice also contain it.
While beta-glucans are important immunomodulators, there are several other nutrients that boost immunity too, including:
• Vitamin C — Vitamin C is a potent antioxidant and one of the most powerful nutrients involved in both the innate and adaptive immune system. The vitamin protects against oxidative stress, helps kill microbes and supports the epithelial barrier of your skin, which keeps pathogens from entering your body. Vitamin C also helps clear white blood cells from infection sites and helps decrease potential tissue damage.17
In one 2020 study published in Pulmonology, researchers looked at whether high-dose vitamin C administered intravenously could help treat critically ill COVID-19 patients.18 Fifty-four patients were divided into two groups. One group was given 12 grams of vitamin C every 12 hours for seven days and the other group was given a placebo.
Patients in the high-dose vitamin C group had lower levels of interleukin-6, a pro-inflammatory cytokine that’s one of the underlying contributors to cytokine storm, and saw a significant reduction in 28-day mortality.
As a general rule, I don't recommend high doses of vitamin C unless it's in liposomal form. I also don't recommend long-term or chronic high-dose vitamin C supplementation as this may cause nutritional imbalances. For example, taking large doses of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) on a regular basis lowers your level of copper, so if you are already deficient in copper and take high doses of vitamin C, you can actually compromise your immune system.
• Vitamin D — Vitamin D, which is produced in your skin in response to sun exposure, is a steroid hormone with powerful antimicrobial activity capable of fighting bacteria, viruses and fungi. The evidence is clear that the lower your vitamin D level, the higher your risk of contracting a cold or the flu.19
One scientific review confirmed vitamin D supplementation boosts immunity and cuts rates of cold and flu.20 The researchers believe vitamin D offers protection by increasing antimicrobial peptides in your lungs, and that "[t]his may be one reason why colds and flus are most common in the winter, when sunlight exposure (and therefore the body's natural vitamin D production) is at its lowest …”21
According to a 2020 report in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, vitamin D has been used to prevent or treat acute respiratory infections since the 1930s.22 Recently, similarities between the risk factors of vitamin D deficiency and risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection have led researchers to look at whether vitamin D supplementation could be beneficial for preventing or treating the novel virus.
In one Indonesian study, researchers found that the majority of severe COVID-19 cases with inadequate vitamin D levels or vitamin D inadequacy died, leading them to conclude that vitamin D status is strongly correlated with COVID-19 mortality.23
In another study published in Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, British researchers analyzed data from 20 different European countries, comparing rates of COVID-19 and mortality rates against the population’s average vitamin D level.24
They found countries like Spain and Italy that reported higher death rates also had higher levels of vitamin D deficiency in the population. Conversely, countries with lower rates of COVID-19 and mortality, like Sweden and Norway, also had lower rates of vitamin D deficiency.
• Zinc — Zinc affects several different parts of your immune system. The nutrient is critical for normal development and function of neutrophils, NK cells and macrophages. Zinc also functions as an antioxidant and helps prevent damage from free radicals during inflammation associated with viral illness.25
Zinc has also been shown to inhibit viral replication of RNA-dependent viruses, which include COVID-19, rhinoviruses (which cause common colds) and influenza. Because of this, researchers from a 2020 report in Medical Hypotheses state that it’s likely that zinc may be beneficial for preventing and treating COVID-19.26
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which is supposed to be a "food police" and consumer advocacy group, was co-founded in 1971 by Michael Jacobson, who is still the executive director to this day. CSPI also manages the National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity, which is the largest nutrition advocacy coalition in the United States.1
CSPI has long proudly proclaimed that it does not accept any corporate money,2 but the general public actually plays a very small role in their funding. The organization is bankrolled by billionaires and their corporate entities, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund and Bloomberg Philanthropies.3
It has also partnered with Bill Gates' agrichemical PR group, the Cornell Alliance for Science,4 one of the most pro-GMO groups in the U.S. In fact, Greg Jaffe, head of CSPI's Biotechnology Project, is also the part-time associate director of legal affairs for the Cornell Alliance for Science.5 In a 2015 statement, Gary Ruskin of U.S. Right to Know commented on the alliance:6
"Why is CSPI defending a technology that has health and environmental risks but nearly no consumer benefits? CSPI has done a lot of good work over the years. But on the issue of GMOs, they have lost their way.
It is regrettable that their standards have sunk so low that one of their staff, Greg Jaffe, now serves as the associate director of legal affairs for the Cornell Alliance for Science, a public relations shop that parrots agrichemical industry propaganda, partners with industry front groups, and works closely with many of the industry's leading messengers."
CSPI has also received significant funding from the American Heart Association,7 which in turn has received financial backing by the makers of Crisco.8 In its 2018 Form 990, the AHA reported giving CSPI $49,500 in cash.9 I guess they think you don't have to count it as industry money if you accept that money from a major nonprofit that got its money from corporate and industry dollars.
As you'd expect from an organization with funding sources such as those, CSPI also has a long history protecting and promoting foods known for their potentially adverse health impacts. These include artificial sweeteners, trans fats, soy, genetically engineered (GE) foods and fake meats.
Considering the suspected (and in some cases well-verified) health hazards of these types of foods and food ingredients, CSPI's desire to protect public health is questionable to say the least. It seems they're more interested in promoting big, profitable industries.
For example, it wasn't until 2013 that CSPI finally downgraded the artificial sweetener from its former "safe" category to one of "caution."10 In 2016, they downgraded it again, from "caution" to "avoid."11 Remarkably, CSPI continues to promote diet soda as a safer alternative to regular soda to this day, saying it "does not promote diabetes, weight gain or heart disease in the way that full-calorie sodas do."12
This, despite overwhelming scientific evidence showing artificial sweeteners are just as bad, and in some ways more harmful, than sugar and high fructose corn syrup.
In 2014, the American Soybean Association (ASA) held a legislative and educational forum sponsored by Monsanto.13 While that should come as no surprise, considering Monsanto was one of ASA's biotech working group partners,14 what was surprising was that it featured a special presentation by Jacobson.
A few days later, the ASA posted the following comments on Facebook made by Jacobson during his presentation. It has since been taken down, but I did take a screenshot of it:15
"Many people have been made to fear genetically engineered ingredients, and it's totally irrational," and "The consumer is concerned about the safety of GMOs, but even critics have said, most off the record, that they are safe."
Jacobson's attendance at a paid Monsanto function is perhaps one of the more egregious parts of CSPI's history, and his statements at the forum make it clear that CSPI was fully onboard with Monsanto's GMO agenda.
This was also evident in the CSPI's support of the grossly misleading bioengineered (BE) logo.16 Here, again, CSPI sided with the Monsanto-funded ASA. The logo was sharply criticized by organic producers for the fact that it falsely presents GE foods as natural and wholesome.
For years, CSPI has proven it's out of step with democracy and is beholden to the likes of Monsanto and Bill Gates. As reported by Center for Food Safety in 2013:17
"One advocacy group, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), often seen as a leader in nutrition policy, stands virtually alone in its continued opposition to labeling GE foods.
This stance is troubling and confusing given how outspoken CSPI has been for decades on food labeling and consumer information. CSPI's position, explained in this recent news interview,18 boils down to three claims:
1. GE foods do not present either safety or nutrition concerns
2. Processed GE foods do not contain genetically-engineered material
3. Non-GE labels are 'misleading' because they imply a safer or superior food"
Believe it or not, but CSPI has been arguing that GE crops are safe to eat for over two decades now, despite the fact that such crops have a more than questionable safety profile and are loaded with health-harming pesticides. Many of the problems associated with GMOs are reviewed in the nine-part documentary series "GMOs Revealed."
CSPI was also instrumental in driving the anti-GMO labeling campaign forward, which ultimately resulted in the United States being the only country in the world that does not have clear GMO labeling.
In August 2001, the organization actually urged the FDA to take enforcement action against food companies using non-GMO labels, claiming such labels could "deceive consumers." However, as is evident in its press release, CSPI was well aware that Americans preferred non-GMO foods and that accurate labeling would simply inhibit GMO sales:19
"CSPI recently conducted a national opinion poll that found that labels stating 'GE' or 'non-GE' would influence many consumers' perceptions and preferences.
About 31% of consumers said that products labeled GE were not as safe as non-GE foods. A similar percentage said that foods labeled 'does not contain genetically engineered ingredients' were better than unlabeled foods. Only about 10% said that the GE-labeled product was safer or better …
Given many consumers' innate skepticism of any new technology, CSPI said that manufacturers must be careful not to mislead consumers. 'FDA needs to send a clear message to manufacturers that label statements need to be both accurate and not imply superiority,' added Jaffe."
Jaffe also undermined the GMO labeling movement in his testimony20 at a 2015 Energy and Commerce Committee hearing21 on the Pompeo bill H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015.
Colloquially known as the Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, it stripped states' of their right to implement food labeling laws and regulations that restricts or bans the growing of GMO crops.
At the time, polls showed over 90% of Americans wanted GMO labeling, yet Jaffe argued that he's not sure consumers really want to know whether foods contain GMOs, despite polling results. He also claimed there were no studies showing GMOs might be harmful. For a consumer advocate, it was a reprehensibly ignorant position.
In a 2014 interview22 with Food Product Design, Jaffe claimed the technology used to create GMO foods simply involves "adding one or two genes in a very precise way to a crop that already has thousands of genes" — falsely insinuating that doing so leads to completely predictable results.
He then went on to use the oft-repeated but false industry claim that "there is a strong international consensus ... that the foods made from the current GE crops are safe to eat."
Meanwhile, a January 2015 statement23 signed by 300 scientists, researchers, physicians and scholars asserted the exact opposite of what Jacobson and Jaffe claim, namely that there's no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs, and that the claim of scientific consensus on GMO safety is in actuality "an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated."
The paper also noted that such a claim "is misleading and misrepresents or outright ignores the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of scientific opinions among scientists on this issue."
If the CSPI's mission is to "represent citizens' interests" and "ensure that science and technology are used for the public good," as stated in its mission statement,24 how does it justify its anti-consumer position on the safety of GMOs? It seems fairly irreconcilable.
The same can be said about its stance on ultraprocessed fake meat, which it wants to be disguised as regular meat. In a May 2018 letter to the FDA,25 CSPI urges the agency "to reject efforts by the United States Cattlemen's Association to prohibit use of the terms "meat" or "beef" on plant-based and cultured proteins marketed as alternatives to traditional meat."
CSPI has also been horribly wrong on fats — probably because it was in bed with the soybean industry. In the 1980s, it spearheaded a highly successful campaign against the use of healthy saturated fats, touting trans fats as a healthier alternative. Its "Big Fat Myths" webpage still claims that:26
"Most experts agree that we should replace saturated fats with foods rich in unsaturated fats like seafood, nuts, salad dressing, mayo, and oils like soy, canola, and olive."
It was largely the result of CSPI's campaign that fast-food restaurants replaced the use of beef tallow, palm oil and coconut oil with partially hydrogenated vegetable oils,27 which are high in synthetic trans fats linked to heart disease and other chronic diseases.
In 1988, CSPI even released an article28 praising trans fats, saying "there is little good evidence that trans fats cause any more harm than other fats" and "much of the anxiety over trans fats stems from their reputation as 'unnatural.'" It wasn't until the 1990s that CSPI reversed their position on synthetic trans fats, but by then the damage had already been done.
The group's successful influence on the food industry is discussed in David Schleifer's article, "The Perfect Solution: How Trans Fats Became the Healthy Replacement for Saturated Fats,"29 in which he noted that, "the transition from saturated to trans fats shows how activists can be part of spurring corporations to change."
CSPI rarely admits its errors, however. In fact, rather than openly admitting it was flat out wrong about trans fats and had misled the public on this issue, CSPI has simply deleted sections of its previous support of it from the web.30 Notice how their historical timeline31 of trans fat starts at 1993 — the year CSPI realized the jig was up and they had to support the elimination of trans fat.
The truth of the matter is that vegetable oils — a primary source of trans fats — are likely worse for your health than excess sugar. If you need a refresher, see Dr. Chris Knobbe's lecture featured in "Are Seed Oils Behind the Majority of Diseases This Century?" and "Why Vegetable Oils Are Carcinogenic."
CSPI has also been a promoter of the thoroughly debunked low-fat myth. In 1995, CSPI launched a "1% or Less" campaign that urged everyone over the age of 2 to switch from whole and 2% milk to skim milk (also known as nonfat or fat-free milk) in order to reduce their saturated fat intake.32,33,34
It was another successful campaign that resulted in the doubling of skim milk sales.35 However, just like their trans fat campaign, this was equally ill advised. Research36 shows full-fat dairy actually lowers your risk of death from diabetes and cardiovascular causes such as stroke.
Indeed, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that consuming whole fats can be an important part of maintaining optimal health and actually fights heart disease and other diseases prevalent today rather than causing them.
In one analysis37 of blood fats in more than 2,900 adults, published 2018, the mortality rate over 22 years was identical regardless of the levels. This finding is just one of many that exonerates whole milk as a health wrecker.
Another aspect of the CSPI's advice that doesn't necessarily make sense is the fact that the fat removed from the milk during the making of skim milk38 isn't thrown away. It's made into cream, butter and other food products, so it's still in the food supply and still being consumed.
Considering how they've misled the public on such important health issues such as artificial sweeteners, trans fats, soy, GMOs and ultraprocessed fake meats, the CSPI needs to go the same way as the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which also fought against your right to know the truth about your food.
CSPI's campaign in the '80s switched Americans onto heart disease causing trans fats. They fought against GMO labeling and is partnered with Bill Gates' agrichemical PR group, Alliance for Science.
Now CSPI is calling for regulatory enforcement action against companies selling vitamins and supplements with antiviral effects,39 saying they're exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic for their own gain.
They're even trying to bring an end to the mercola.com website, simply because we're reporting published research relating to potential COVID-19 remedies. So please, share the truth about this dangerous group that is bankrolled by billionaires. Email, tweet, text and share by any method possible and help expose CSPI's dangerous lies.
Dr. David Brownstein, who has a clinic just outside of Detroit, has successfully treated over a hundred patients with what has become my favorite intervention for COVID-19 and other upper respiratory infections, namely nebulized hydrogen peroxide. He has published the results of his work in a study that you can download here.
Since I first wrote about it at the beginning of April 2020, I've received impressive testimonials of its effectiveness from friends and acquaintances who got severely ill and used it.
Brownstein is probably best known for his promotion of iodine and its supplementation. He was also an early adopter of vitamin D optimization and nebulized peroxide. He explains the background that led him to his current regimen:
"The history goes back about 28 years when I began practicing holistic medicine. Of course, we would see people with influenza and influenza-like illnesses every fall and winter, so I started searching for things that would help people's immune systems …
We initially started using vitamin C and vitamin D. I started to check vitamin D levels in 1992. What I found was the vast majority of my patients, well over 90%, were deficient in vitamin D, and those who had more chronic issues and were sicker in general, they usually had lower levels of vitamin D ...
Then I came across vitamin A. I originally read the research on how vitamin A helped third world countries when they had measles infections and helped … [patients] recover uneventfully if they had enough vitamin A, so I quickly added vitamin A to the regimen.
A few years later, I learned about iodine. Iodine has direct viricidal effects. It has immune system effects. It helps the white blood cells produce hydrogen peroxide to fight viral and bacterial infections, as well as thyroid effects. Iodine got added to the regimen, and so the original treatment of our patients was vitamins A, C, D and iodine at high doses for about four days.
What we found was our patients did not develop pneumonia, did not get hospitalized, did not die from flu and other influenza-like illnesses at anywhere near the rates that they should have when you looked at the published rates of problems with these illnesses."
While attending an oxidative medicine course, Brownstein learned about hydrogen peroxide. At that point, he and his staff started using nebulized hydrogen peroxide and intravenous (IV) hydrogen peroxide. That was back in the mid-1990s. So, he has been using nebulized peroxide clinically for 25 years now, which is longer than anyone I know of.
With each revision of his original protocol, patients seemed to fare better. Fast-forward another couple of years, at another medical course, he learned about the benefits of ozone.
"That was the latest addition to it. What we found over 28 years of using this therapy is that our patients did well. I never made a claim that this cured any influenza or influenza-like illness. What it does is it supports the immune system in multiple ways, and people get over it just like they've gotten over it for eons of time," Brownstein says.
"If we didn't get over these viral illnesses, we wouldn't survive as a human species, so it certainly makes sense we'd want a strong immune system in place when we get exposed to these pathogenic organisms.
When COVID-19 came around … we were warned that we're going to have millions of deaths, and this is going to be the biggest medical catastrophe in our lifetimes …
Everyone was on edge, and I had a meeting with my staff at the end of a work week. It was the last Thursday in February. And I told the staff that the first 28 years of our holistic practice was truly practice for this pandemic … And I said, 'I think we've got this covered.'
I said, 'I can't guarantee anyone anything, but we've treated coronavirus in past years' … Coronavirus is known to be part of the influenza-like illnesses … I don't see any reason why this wouldn't work for this illness as it has worked for the other viral/coronavirus illnesses that we've been treating.'"
Brownstein and the other physicians in his practice first started treating COVID patients in the middle of a Detroit winter under full social distancing and lockdown restrictions. As a result, he had to treat patients who were ill in a drive-through manner in his clinic parking lot. They'd stick their arm out their car window, and Brownstein and his colleagues would do an IV of hydrogen peroxide and vitamin C and intramuscular shots of ozone.
"I vividly remember the snow coming down on my face mask as I'm shaking my head like a dog in order to clear my face shield, trying to put the IV in," he says. "At the end of the treatment, we would do ozone. We didn't want to do IV ozone outside because the elements weren't good, so we decided to do intramuscular ozone.
People who were sick, who couldn't breathe, we'd meet them in the parking lot. At the end of the IVs, we'd open their car door and have them stick their rear end out the car door. We'd put ozone in each [butt] cheek and send them on their way.
We got them hooked up on a nebulizer too, nebulizing hydrogen peroxide and iodine. After they started the therapies, usually after the first nebulized treatment, their airways would open up, and they could breathe again. We ended up treating 107 patients that I wrote about in the published, peer-reviewed [paper]. We had one hospitalization, no ventilators, no deaths."
The case report,1 "A Novel Approach to Treating COVID-19 Using Nutritional and Oxidative Therapies," was published in Science, Public Health Policy, and The Law in July 2020. For a couple of months, Brownstein would post video interviews with his patients, in which they told their story.
He removed all of them after receiving a warning letter from the Federal Trade Commission, saying that because there's no established prevention, treatment or cure for COVID-19, any mention thereof falls in violation of FTC law.
"In their first letter to me, they said, 'Because there's no human clinical studies documenting what you say works, you need to remove it.' So, after we published the [case review], my lawyer wife sent the FTC a letter saying, 'Here's a published study. We'd like to put my study on my website without comment.' And they said, 'No, it's not a randomized. We want a randomized controlled study.'
So, we felt like we had punched the ball into the end zone, and then they moved the goal post back 30 yards, but that's where we stand right now with it. And we're still treating patients with it. The study was on 107 patients. We've probably treated 10 more patients since then, still with good success.
I wrote in the article that the reason I didn't do a randomized study was it's unethical for me to withhold that treatment from people when I'm as certain as I can be that the therapy was going to work. There's no way I could sleep at night if I was randomizing people to get the therapy, and others to not get the therapy.
COVID was a new illness. We had never seen it. Nobody had ever seen it. There were no randomized studies. There's no reason to. Too many people were dying. We've already had over 100,000 deaths. It's just tragic, and it's really going to be a stain on medicine when the final autopsy is written on this."
Interestingly, as explained by Brownstein, in addition to having direct viricidal effects, iodine also stimulates and supports the immune system. It increases the killing effect of hydrogen peroxide production in your white blood cells by improving white blood cell and thyroid function, which is one way our immune system works to kill pathogens. Vitamin C directly increases hydrogen peroxide production when used at high doses, he says, while vitamin A helps modulate your immune system.
"Perhaps instead of just relying on masks and social isolation, we should be talking about the immune system," Brownstein says. "How do we support it? And I'd like to throw out the question: Since when did talking about supporting the immune system become illegal? Since when do you have to be quiet about it?
Unfortunately, in this time and age, this is where we're at right now, and it's a sad time … I've been writing a book on a holistic approach to viruses. And in this book … I say that this illness is an example of what's wrong with our country.
The health of our country is in such decline, we finish last or nearly last in every single health indicator when compared to other Western countries, and this is why we've got hit so hard with this. And nobody talks about our health. All they're talking about is masks, social isolation and wait for a vaccine.
What about the next virus that comes around? What are they going to do about that one? And my comments on this warp speed vaccine to the world is, I hope it's safe and effective, but I don't think I'll be first in line getting this thing, not when it's bypassing all the safety studies …
What I'd be first in line with is trying to figure out how I'm going to support my immune system, so when I'm confronted with these different viruses — because after this one, there's going to be the next one — you're not going to depend on another warp speed project. You're going to depend on yourself to get over these things. We can do it."
Nebulized hydrogen peroxide is extremely safe. Brownstein has used it for 25 years with no ill effects being found. It's also incredibly inexpensive, and you can administer it at home, without a prescription.
In my view, it is one of the absolute best therapies for viral infections like SARS-CoV-2 or even worse respiratory viruses that will likely be unleashed in the future.
You need to buy a desktop nebulizer (it needs to produce a very fine mist and desktop versions are stronger than handheld battery operated models). The one I use is the Pari Trek S Compressor Aerosol System, which is available on Amazon or less expensively on eBay. The large battery option is unnecessary as you can simply plug in the device to run it when you need it.
Please understand, though, that the Pari Trek S is designed to treat asthmatics and as such only comes with a mouthpiece. While this would get the peroxide in the lungs where it is needed, it does nothing to reach the sinuses, which are also likely infected. This is why it would be worth pick up some face masks on Amazon to use instead of the mouthpiece as they are only about $10.
It is important to acquire this BEFORE you need it, as the sooner you treat the infection the better your results will be, although the testimonials are unbelievably impressive even in late stage illness. It is not necessary to treat yourself preventively, but only if you are sick or exposed to someone who is.
While I've been using a 0.1% dilution, Brownstein uses an even lower concentration of just 0.04%. Neither Brownstein nor I recommend using commercial 3% hydrogen peroxide found in most grocery stores, however, as it has potentially toxic chemical stabilizers in it.
Since you are not using full strength 3% peroxide and diluting it by 30 to 50 times, it is unlikely the stabilizers will present a problem, but to be safe it is best to use FOOD-GRADE peroxide. Also remember not to dilute it with plain water as the lack of electrolytes in the water can damage your lungs if you nebulize that. You will need to use saline or add a small amount of salt to the water to eliminate this risk.
Brownstein also dilutes the peroxide with sterile water and saline rather than distilled water. Using saline prevents the osmotic differential that can cause damage to lung cells. Brownstein dilutes the 35% food-grade peroxide as follows. When nebulizing, Brownstein also adds one drop of 5% Lugol's solution to the nebulizer as well.
Brownstein relates the case of a 67-year-old male patient. The man developed COVID-19 symptoms, and after seven or eight days could not breathe and went to the hospital where he was diagnosed with bilateral pneumonia. After two days of treatment, which included oxygen, he felt only slightly better, but was released from the hospital due to a shortage of beds.
"They sent him home on oxygen and told him, 'Only come back if you can't breathe.' So he goes home, and he calls me on the phone, crying, 'I'm going to die. They sent me home to die.'
I said to him, 'You're not going to die. Do you have a nebulizer?' And he said, 'No.' And I'm like, 'We need to start nebulizing right away … Send your wife over. We'll put a nebulizer in the car and tell you how to do it.' So, we mixed up the solution for him, and she brought the nebulizer home.
I called him up at the end of the day. He had done three nebulizer treatments, and he said that after the second nebulizer treatment his lungs started to open up. He felt about 70% better and didn't feel like he was going to die at that point.
He was still coughing and short of breath, but not like he was. After the third treatment, he said he was even better … So, this nebulizer thing really does work.
The one thing I'd like your readers to know, the handheld nebulizers don't work as well. I had a handful of patients who were using a handheld nebulizer and trying it with the same solution.
They were calling me back saying, 'It's not working.' When they got a desktop model, a little stronger model, it worked. So, I encourage people not to use a handheld nebulizer. Use a desktop model. It's a little bit stronger."
This story echoes the experiences of personal acquaintances who have tried the treatment. After two treatments, they felt significantly better. After the third treatment, their breathing was restored and they were well on their way to a full recovery.
You'd be hard-pressed to find another treatment that works within hours. Brownstein agrees that this scenario is consistent with what he has encountered among his own patients.
"Usually, everything feels better within a couple of hours of starting nebulizing," he says. When asked about how others in the medical community have responded to his blog posts about the treatment, he replies:
"In the middle of the crisis as I was posting … I started hearing from doctors all over the country, especially in New York and New Jersey. They were hospital physicians … They didn't know what to do. The therapies weren't working.
No. 1, they want the therapy for their family, and No. 2, they want to help their patients. So, I was hearing from doctors. They were interested. I heard from a couple of local doctors who sent patients to us whom they couldn't help.
They had nothing to offer them ... and [those patients] got better … It was really the first time I got a bunch of emails, messages and phone calls from doctors saying, 'Hey, tell me how it works. Tell me what you're doing.'"
In my April 2020 article, "Could Hydrogen Peroxide Treat Coronavirus?" I reviewed some of the basic science of how hydrogen peroxide works, as well as some of the studies assessing its therapeutic potential.
The most relevant study2 was published in March 2020 in the Journal of Hospital Infection. They studied 0.5% hydrogen peroxide, and found it killed human coronaviruses, including the coronaviruses responsible for SARS and MERS. Here are a few additional facts that explain how and why hydrogen peroxide works so well for respiratory infections:
1. Hydrogen peroxide freely crosses cell membranes and does not readily oxidize biological molecules, including lipids and proteins.3 It does however react with iron. The presence of free, unbound iron in high concentrations in pathogens is what allows them to be selectively targeted by hydrogen peroxide.
High concentrations of iron result in a rapid breakdown of hydrogen peroxide into hydroxyl radicals and water. The hydroxyl radical, a potent oxidizing agent, kills any pathogens present. (Under normal, healthy circumstances, hydrogen peroxide merely breaks down into oxygen and water.)
2. Peroxide is generated by activated phagocytes (pathogen-killing immune cells) at sites of inflammation.4 Phagocytes also contain high amounts of ascorbate (vitamin C), which directly donate electrons to peroxide to generate the pathogen-killing hydroxyl radical inside the infected cells. Vitamin C also helps generate increased amounts of extracellular hydrogen peroxide, which further boosts the elimination of pathogens.5
3. Hydrogen peroxide is continually generated inside all cells in your body, including the epithelial lining of your lungs. (Hydrogen peroxide is present in the air exhaled by healthy human subjects, and when inflammation is present, more peroxide is found in the exhaled breath.6) The presence of excreted peroxide on these surface cells in the airways is part of a healthy, at-the-ready immune response.7
4. Aside from its anti-pathogen properties, hydrogen peroxide is also recognized as an important signaling molecule, both intracellular and extracellular, influencing and modulating multiple metabolic processes.8
In summary, hydrogen peroxide sits inside and outside your cells in low levels, ready and waiting to be generated in greater amounts as soon as a pathogen is detected by the immune system by NADPH Oxidase (NOX).
Its presence in your human body (at varying amounts depending on whether infection is present), and the lack of toxic metabolites, are indicative of its safety and nontoxic nature.
Similarly, as noted by Brownstein, hydrogen peroxide is extremely safe to use and nebulize at the diluted levels suggested. It's also effective. All pathogens studied to date have been found to succumb to hydrogen peroxide, albeit at varying concentrations and for different amounts of exposure.
So, nebulizing hydrogen peroxide into the sinuses, throat and lungs is a simple, straightforward way to augment your body's natural expression of hydrogen peroxide to combat infection.
While individual sensitivities to inhaled peroxide vary, even very low concentrations (below 3%) have been shown to reliably kill most pathogens.9,10,11,12 Through trial and error, Brownstein found 0.04% was the lowest concentration at which patients report significant improvement, which is why he recommends that level of dilution.
To summarize, here's how I would treat myself or a family member:
The key is to have everything you need readily available. Have it in your possession before you need it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, so procure the nebulizer, peroxide and iodine before you get ill.
If you're exposed to someone who is sick, you can use the nebulized peroxide as a prophylactic, but if you're healthy, it's not recommended to nebulize daily. For prevention, also make sure your vitamin D level is above 40 ng/mL.
In the later stages of disease, NAC may be really useful. The MATH+ protocol developed by Dr. Paul Marik uses methylprednisolone, vitamin C, thiamine (vitamin B1) and heparin. Heparin is administered because COVID-19 is a blood disorder too. There are clotting complications, and the heparin seems to improve that.
NAC also prevents platelet aggregation and abnormal blood clotting. It also reduces oxidative stress and increases glutathione levels, both of which play important roles in this disease. In my view, quercetin, zinc, glutathione, vitamin D and nebulized peroxide is a home run.
"There are cheap and effective ways to treat [COVID-19], and we should be studying this," Brownstein says. "We should be allowed to report on it, and we should be allowed to study it. [If we were], we wouldn't have the travesty that's happened to our country."
Dr. Mercola Interviews the Experts
This article is part of a weekly series in which Dr. Mercola interviews various experts on a variety of health issues. To see more expert interviews, click here.
Patrick Wood — an economist, financial analyst and American constitutionalist — has devoted a lifetime to uncovering the mystery of what is controlling most of the craziness we're currently seeing, and which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
He's written two books on this topic: "Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation" and "Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order." I was intrigued by his work as my own approach is to seek to understand the foundational cause of any given problem.
"I think that's a really important takeaway for listeners," Wood says. "Don't just confine your view to the microcosm, like what's in front of you. Always try and look for the big picture … Once you have the big picture, it's hard to unsee it. Once you see it, it's hard to not see it. It guides everything else you do within your life at that point, and that's really important.
It's certainly important in medicine, because if a doctor or researcher doesn't really understand the whole picture, how can he understand a little part of the picture when you get right down into some nitty-gritty detail? It's very difficult."
Wood's foray into the ideology of technocracy began with a chance meeting with Anthony Sutton at a gold conference in the early 1970s. Sutton has written several books about political science, primarily about the Trilateral Commission, which Wood had studied from a financial angle.
They developed a relationship and eventually wound up collaborating on a newsletter and two books, "Trilaterals Over Washington: Volumes 1 and 2," which have recently been re-released.
"Having been mentored by somebody like Anthony Sutton, who was a world-class researcher, left indelible marks on my life. I couldn't do what I do today without his coaching, instruction, watching him do things, watching his mind work," Wood says.
"He would sit down every morning and spend his two or three hours just flipping through the newspapers. Looking for stories in the front page, back page, middle page, classifieds, whatever. He was really intent on keeping his mind focused on his subject, and digging in the right places and stuff. So that's helped me today, to do what I do."
So, what is "technocracy"? As explained by Wood, technocracy is a movement that got started in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, when scientists and engineers got together to solve the nation's economic problems. It looked like capitalism and free enterprise was going to die, so they decided to invent a new economic system from scratch.
They called this system "technocracy." It was to be a resource-based economic system. Rather than basing the economic system on pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand, this system is instead based on energy resources and social engineering. In a nutshell, under this system, companies would be told what resources they're allowed to use, when, and for what, and consumers would be told what to buy.
"They actually proposed to use an energy script instead of money, and let energy be the determining factor on what was produced, bought and sold, and consumed, and so on. But being engineers and scientists, in 1938 when this definition came out, which I'm going to read, they had capsulized what they viewed as the scientific method and the scientific approach.
It's important to see that today, because we see the same subtleties, the same mindsets, the same thinking processes that they had back then. I will contend that's a very dangerous thing. It's a dangerous thinking process. But here's what they concluded in 1938:
'Technocracy is the science of social engineering. The scientific operation of the entire social mechanism, to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.'
First off, you'll see that it's the science of social engineering. That ought to be enough to make the hair stand up on the back of your head, because who wants to be scientifically engineered by somebody that you don't know, somebody that doesn't know you, but rather has this idea that they can reform you, remake you?
But most importantly, you see the economic aspect that they had in mind, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism — that's all the people in society — to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.
This was an economic system from the get go, not a political system. And what's really important to see in that — the big takeaway here — is that technocracy viewed politics and politicians as an unnecessary, irrelevant, and even just a stumbling block to getting on down the road with society.
They proposed to get rid of all the politicians. Just dismiss them. Dismiss the Senate, the Congress, all the elected officials. They basically wanted to set up an organization chart, like a corporation would have today, where you have the president and you have vice-presidents doing different things. Then you have directors over certain departments and so on.
And they would just disappear the political system per se, leaving no citizen representation of government. Of course, that means the Constitution [is] immaterial, too, because that defines the political structure.
In fact, they openly called on FDR to declare himself dictator, so that he could just implement technocracy. He didn't take them up on it. We can thank God for that. We only got the New Deal instead. By comparison, it's much better … So, this was the genesis of technocracy and technocrats."
As explained by Wood, the technocrats "had this crazy idea that they were better than everybody else." This philosophy and mindset can be traced back to Henri de Saint-Simon, a French philosopher from around 1800. Saint-Simon is considered the father of scientism, social sciences, transhumanism and technocracy.
He said in one of his essays, "A scientist … is a man who foresees. It is because science provides the means to predict, that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men." This was the mindset of technocrats in the 1930s, and it's the same today. In essence, science is used to manipulate society and keep the economic engine running.
While technocracy began in the U.S., the first country to ever implement it was Nazi Germany under Hitler. However, it's important to realize that technocracy is not Republican or Democrat. It's not Marxist or Capitalist. It's not a Nazi philosophy. It's an independent ideology.
When technocracy first began in the U.S., it was a membership organization. At its peak, there were more than 500,000 card-carrying, dues-paying members in the United States and Canada. Incidentally, the head of technocracy in Canada was the grandfather of Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX. Around the same time, a technocratic organization also got started in Germany.
"As Hitler rose to power, he realized that the technocrats, as an organization, would be competitive with him becoming a dictator. So, he outlawed the Technocratic party in Germany. At about the same time, technocracy was outlawed in Canada [for two years]. For a number of reasons, they thought that somehow the two were connected and that technocracy in Canada would be supporting Hitler …
It was discovered later by historians that these technocrats, who were banned from meeting, were actually very active during the course of World War II, during Hitler's reign. They were the statisticians, the mathematicians, the physicists, the engineers for business and so on; that really enabled Hitler's expansion and dictatorship.
That's not to say that they were all in lockstep with his goals, but they had a good time supporting all those things, because they were highly prized by Hitler and his leadership.
During the war, they found out also that these technocrats were communicating between the columns of power in Nazi, Germany. Hitler was rather paranoid about keeping all of those different areas separate so they would not communicate, but they did communicate during the war.
After the war … a top-secret operation [took place] in the United States … called Operation Paperclip, which brought some 1,200 of these top scientists and engineers from Germany to the United States. They sanitized their resumes and installed them into positions of scientific prowess in the United States, like at the national technology agencies.
So, the very same people that were helping Hitler do what he did, completely bypassed the Nuremberg trial. Some of them should have been there, I'm sure. But they were brought to the United States and given high positions of prestige, to continue to practice their science and engineering."
The Trilateral Commission's co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Columbia University professor, brought the concept of technocracy into the Commission in 1973, with the financial support of David Rockefeller.
"Brzezinski wrote this book called 'Between Two Ages — America's Role in the Technetronic Era.' It caught Rockefeller's eye. And so, Rockefeller and Brzezinski became like the beauty and the beast. They went on to form the Trilateral Commission, which declared, from Day 1, that they wanted to foster a new international economic order.
They said that repeatedly in their literature, and this is what got Sutton excited, and me too. What is this new international economic order you're talking about? What do you mean? We have an economic order. It seems to be working. Why do you want to change everything? What is your idea here?"
The Trilateral Commission more or less took over the Jimmy Carter administration, and has dominated the political structure ever since. Regardless of their party affiliations, U.S. presidents have been members of the Trilateral Commission.
Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were all members. Within two weeks of his inauguration, Barack Obama appointed 11 Trilateral Commission members to top-level positions in his administration, equivalent to 12% of the Commission's entire U.S. membership.1 The ramifications of this are described in Wood's article,2 "Obama: Trilateral Commission Endgame."
"What happened here is that they were after the mechanism, because America was the greatest economic engine in the world at that time," Wood explains. "They wanted to get control of the economic engine of the world so that they could manipulate it for their own benefit and convert it, transform it if you will, into technocracy …"
It's important to realize we're fighting an enemy that has literally spent the last several generations compiling their power base. They've done it progressively, slowly and very consistently over time with the endgame in mind at all times. They engineered circumstances that allow them to amass more and more power.
Their last great power grab in the U.S. was the 9/11 tragedy. It allowed them to push through the Patriot Act, which sacrificed many of our freedoms in one fell swoop. They're in the process of doing it again with the current pandemic. It's quite clear the pandemic is being used to move us toward an authoritarian tyranny.
However, the COVID-19 pandemic has provided a platform that will dwarf their 9/11 power-grab and radically increase their ability to continue to erode our civil liberties and control our society. If you find this line of reasoning interesting, I think you will enjoy the video below from Really Graceful, which reviews whether or not you'd even notice if you were living under tyranny.
It's also crucial to understand that the only reason they've not yet been able to overtake the U.S. is because of our Constitution. We're the biggest barrier worldwide to implementing technocracy, which is why there's been so much focus on dismantling the freedoms of Americans.
"The strategy has been to build infrastructure for their system. Infrastructure is the schematic diagram that makes things work. For instance, we have roads in our country. We have railroads. We have physical roads. We have freeways. We have telecommunications systems. We have telephone lines. We have airports and things that connect everything together.
The concept of infrastructure is basic to any economic system. You have to have some type of infrastructure, so that the whole system will work. And so, today when the government passes a $2 trillion infrastructure bill, you and I will think, 'Oh, finally, we're going to get those potholes fixed on our street or something.'
In the technocrat mind, in the larger scheme, setting up the infrastructure involves so many more things today than it ever did.
For instance, the infrastructure of technocracy now has to do with anything called smart: smart growth, smart cities, smart phones, smart devices, the internet of things that ties everything together, all of the sensors and the cameras. This is the new infrastructure of the digital era. It's all technology based, I might add.
So, infrastructure started way back when the Trilateral Commission was first started. A case in point: One of the early founding members of the commission was [the late] Caspar Weinberger, who happened to be the president of Bechtel Engineering. That's the largest private engineering company in the world. They're huge. They're are private. Nobody knows much about them. But they were part of the Trilateral Commission group …
They've always realized that without building this infrastructure, they have nothing. They can get nowhere. They must have it in order to move on down the road. We've seen this emphasis on infrastructure ever since 1973 in ways that people hardly can understand anymore, because it's so technological.
But the infrastructure being laid today includes such things as the internet of things, where sensors and everything connect together to feed data back to, who knows, some mainframe somewhere.
All of the financial transactions, all of the data transactions [get sent] back to some computer somewhere where artificial intelligence is sitting on top of it all to make sense of all the data coming in.
The same artificial intelligence programs now are taking that data, working it, getting some sense of meaning out of it, then turning around and issuing things that we should do in response. In other words, how it should change us.
This is the science of social engineering. It's engineering by algorithm. They saw this even back in the 1930s, even though there was no such thing as artificial intelligence back then.
They realized that science eventually would be to the point where their algorithms could be automated to the point where they would be able to replace the political structure, to keep everything in line, to keep everything working.
Rule by algorithm. Operation by algorithm. This is the big predominant thing we see today. When something doesn't fit into the algorithm, you'll hear the term 'Science says.' We should do that thing."
To give you just one rather hilarious real-world example of the technocratic "science says" strategy, here's a sentence from a recent article in The Sun:3 "People who refuse to wear a face mask to reduce the risk of coronavirus have lower cognitive ability, new research has found."
Not only is it laughable because it's illogical, it's also completely irrelevant, since there's not a single well-designed study showing that mask wearing lowers the spread of viral infections. For the scoop on this, see my interview with Denis Rancourt.
Initially, science is used to issue suggestions, but those suggestions rapidly turn into mandates. We've repeatedly seen that with vaccines, for example. But the COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed there's a much larger plan that includes implantable digital identifications, medical records and vaccine passports, digital currency and banking — all of which will ultimately be tied together so that algorithms and automation will be able to keep everyone in line, everywhere, all the time.
"People who buck the system won't be able to participate in all the things in society that other people do who got the vaccines and just took the program without questioning. The algorithm will control everybody, will manipulate everybody.
So, it goes from, 'Science says' to the algorithm, and then it becomes automated. Then they don't have to say 'Science says' anymore. They just push the button. The algorithm takes care of it and you get the shot and that's the end of it.
This business of infrastructure is very sophisticated. Today it's called supply chain, by the way. That's a big term you'll hear, too. The supply chain, moving goods and services to get just in the right place, just in time.
No warehouse is necessary. Just kind of ship it and it's there exactly the day you need it. This has all been automated as well. It's part of the infrastructure they need to implement technocracy one day."
In her book, "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism," professor Shoshana Zuboff exposes the stunning capacities currently available to surveil, analyze and manipulate our behavior. It's crucial to realize that as bad as it is today, the predictive power of technology is advancing at an exponential rate, which means their ability to manipulate behavior is increasing at a pace we cannot fully comprehend.
"Data is the new oil of the 21st century," Wood says. "We said that for years now, and it's really true. Whoever owns the data, controls the system. Data is more valuable to technocracy than any other commodity that you could conceivably imagine. And Google has been collecting this data for a long time.
They've been analyzing it for a long time, and they have a number of techniques now where they can use that data, weaponize it in a sense, turn it back on us and cause it to modify our behavior. And this is right in line with the scientific social engineering concept.
Several years ago, Eric Schmidt [former long-time Google CEO and, later, chairman of Alphabet,] was invited to be a member of the Trilateral commission. He's also hobnobbing with our government to create systems for surveillance and data collection. Google now has been in a position to weaponize that data … Google does this in several ways.
Not only do they condition the feed that you see when you search for a certain term, but also … when you start to type in a search, it will give you the answers [and] you pick one. It won't give you the ones that you might really be looking for, but it'll give you what they think you should pick. This has a huge, psychological impact on people. Just huge."
For instance, years ago, if you searched for a holistic medicine topic, many of my articles would appear at the top of your search. In June 2019, Google quietly started to eliminate Mercola.com from search results. I discussed this in "Google Buries Mercola in Their Latest Search Engine Update, Part 1 and Part 2."
"You haven't done anything different. You're still doing exactly what you did, but Google is treating you as a non-person now," Wood says. "It reminds you a little bit of '1984,' where Winston worked in the ministry of information and his business half the time was scratching out people from history. They just ceased to exist.
Every record, even their birth record was erased and nobody would ever hear that person's name again. If they went to look, they couldn't find him. And then people started thinking 'Maybe it was just my imagination. I never really knew somebody like that.'
Google has this power to present information that it wants you to hear or see, and they can manipulate minds and mindsets. It's just amazing. They even said, internally, that they believe they have the power to take the 2020 election away from Trump because of this very feature. Well, wait a minute.
If any person or organization sets themselves up intentionally to overthrow the government of the United States, I think there's a term for that. It's called sedition. It might give way to insurrection as well, but that doesn't bother these people. There's no ethical guide whatsoever that tells them this is wrong and don't do it. They feel this is perfectly normal. They've got the data, they make the rules.
So, they're influencing people, they're nudging people in one direction or another direction. And it's extremely dangerous because those who are susceptible to that kind of manipulation, once they are in that manipulation channel, they can get them to do anything.
Once it gets a hold of a person and really starts messing with their mind, then they can feed all kinds of stuff into it and get them to do all kinds of things they would not have otherwise done.
And that's true for Facebook and Twitter and other entities like that as well. But you can't look at Google, Facebook and Twitter and say these are communists. You can't do that. They're technocrats. They march to a different tune completely and they could care less about the political ideology behind it.
I don't care who you are, what your political persuasion is, but if you start writing against vaccines, for instance … you'll find yourself censored just right along with everybody else and your stories will disappear. There'll be shadow banned. There'll be pushed down the stack where they don't appear in the searches anymore.
It doesn't really have to do with a class of people that they're censoring, it has to do with the topics that are being censored. That's the key thing here to understand. One of the key topics today that they are so in love with is this idea of global manipulation of the human [gene] pool, to get the medical hooks into your body.
This is social engineering at its extreme, where they're not only engineering the society around you, the environment around you, they also want to engineer you personally. This is their mindset right now. We've seen evidence of this all over the place. I don't want to go into it and confuse this conversation, but this is where it's going."
Wood also explains why "sustainable development" goals, which sound like a good thing, really aren't. The United Nations has declared that sustainable development is going to be the new economic system of the future. It's a resource-based economic system based on energy.
"A couple of years ago, the head of climate change at the UN, Christiana Figueres, gave a press conference in Europe and she said, 'This is the first time in the history of mankind that we're setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.'
That's a direct quote from her lips. I dedicated a chapter in my book to demonstrate that sustainable development is technocracy from the 1930s. It has all the same markers. It has all the same elements in it. It was brought to the United Nation by members of The Trilateral Commission, by the way …
Their vision for the future of society is this sustainable future where they will control all the resources and all the consumption. In other words, they will tell businesses what they're allowed to build and they will tell consumers what they're allowed to consume. Period, end of subject. You don't need to be involved in this. They figure this all out for you in advance.
This is the science of social engineering here. They have the science, you just have to follow and do what they tell you to do. It's very insidious. Of course, they have nice platitudes like we're going to eliminate poverty, we're going to have education for all, we're going to have jobs with dignity.
That's all wonderful stuff, but when you get down to the bottom of their so-called sustainable development [and green deal] goals, you see [that] all you have to do to get those things is let us have all the control over the resources and the management of those resources on a global basis."
Importantly, what the technocrats are doing is making an end run around national sovereignty. Rather than a frontal assault on the system, which has never been successful, they've simply eroded national sovereignty piece by piece. Wood also reviews what we can do to save our republic and thwart the steady march of technocracy:
"I believe very strongly that local activism is the only way to rebuild our country, if there is going to be any rebuilding at all. Local activism — because this is how they got us. They built [the technocratic system] from the bottom up. We cannot tear their house down from the top down. It's simply is just not going to happen. They're too powerful," Wood says.
"There is no national government or any element of national government that's going to save us from these technocrats and technocracy. There's no state government, either, or local government, the way it stands now, unless that local government gets influenced and populated by people who know better and who are willing to tell these others:
'Go away, you don't belong here. This is not the way we're going to run our community, our town, our city,' whatever it is, and we have access to those people."
One of the most important elected local officials that you should concern yourself with is your sheriff. They are responsible for enforcing tyrannical edicts from local, state and federal government, and if they choose not to, government has no power. City councils also have a lot of power. They can pass binding resolutions to protect citizens against the technocratic agenda.
"There was a city in California, I can't remember the name right now, but somebody got to the city council and educated every one of them. The city council held a referendum and passed a binding resolution that says there will be no agency of the city or any other activity of the city that will support Agenda 21. They banned Agenda 21 from their city, lock, stock and barrel. It was just a small city, but I thought, 'Yeah!'"
What is Agenda 21? It is the keystone document for Sustainable Development. It was developed in 1992 at the Rio de Janeiro conference of the United Nations' first Earth summit. This became the agenda for the 21st century. The doctrine that came to be known as Agenda 21 came from a book written by Trilateral Commission member Gro Harlem Brundtland, called "Our Common Future."
We cover a lot of information in this interview, so be sure to listen to it in its entirety, or read through the transcript for more. Also consider picking up one or both of his books, "Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation" and "Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order."
Wood's nonprofit organization, Citizens for Free Speech, is another excellent resource where you can learn more about your constitutional rights and how to communicate your ideas to others. For a small donation, Citizens for Free Speech also offers a laminated No Mask Card that you can wear on a lanyard, explaining your First Amendment Right to disobey local mask mandates.
"I started Citizens for Free Speech with the idea that technocracy is attacking the First Amendment," Wood says. "It's censoring our ability to communicate. It's keeping us from communicating with each other and with our government and with our adversaries, those who may not agree with us fully.
Our ability to communicate has been completely decimated in America. We're so dysfunctional. Everybody's at everybody else's throat all the time. There's no patience, there's no civil discourse anymore. And I believe that what people really have to learn, if they're going to be local activists, they need to learn how to communicate their ideas.
Once they get ideas, they need to learn how to communicate those ideas to other people. Maybe those people agree with them, maybe they don't, but nevertheless, they need to be able to express their ideas in a way that everybody in the room doesn't get triggered and start hammering on you.
This concept of appropriate communication is what restoring the First Amendment at this point is all about … The First Amendment is under an intense attack by these people. That's part of their strategy. Get rid of the First Amendment effectively, and what else do you have? Well, you have the Second Amendment. That's the first thing you see.
I don't even want to talk about the Second Amendment. I support it totally, don't get me wrong, but if we lose the First Amendment, the Second Amendment was put there to take care of the loss of the first. And that's the strategy that the enemy has, to break America down.
[Once you] get rid of the First Amendment, they figure America will fall into chaos, probably armed conflict, and that will make it just right for them to sweep in and take over when people then beg for anybody to put government back together, put the country back together.
So, the idea of supporting and defending the First Amendment is critical right now. People can get the issues, but if they cannot communicate those issues effectively, what's the point? Why just sit on your couch and know everything there is to know if you have no ability to communicate that to somebody else? …
People … understand the value now, or maybe the necessity, of civil disobedience. This is a very touchy subject. I don't want to go down the road too much. But we have reached a point where technocracy has pushed us into a corner …
If we do not resist and say, 'We're not going along with your program,' then they will continue to push us into the corner until we simply cannot get out of that corner. The time has come for people to do what they know is right, and to protect themselves first — not to think about 'the greater good' all the time …
Once people see through the pseudoscience of face mask and social distancing, contact tracing, and all these mechanisms that are being thrown down at us, once they start to see through the statistical models being totally erroneous, they're beginning to understand we just need to stop this behavior and not obey them …
We must restore our Constitution, which is the framework for everything else in our nation. We must restore the effective application of the constitution to our society …
There's public shaming, the cancel culture, it all comes to bear on this right now. This is part of the communication process that we need to overcome. We need to push this line of thinking back and restore personal individual liberty to America."
