Health & Fitness

The new mutant strain was first reported in the UK and has authorities worried about its higher contagiousness. It doesn't necessarily mean it's more deadly, however. 

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/37Worsd

Scientists have developed a simple, high-throughput method for transferring isolated mitochondria and their associated mitochondrial DNA into mammalian cells.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/38LmIFn

College football players may underestimate their risk of injury and concussion, according to a new study.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3aMlCvU

Observational clinical research of COVID-19 patients can help clinicians better understand how the previously unknown SARS-CoV-2 virus acts, and findings from this research can better inform treatment and vaccine design.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2KLd79J

What happens in the brain when our conscious awareness fades during general anesthesia and normal sleep? Scientists studied this question with novel experimental designs and functional brain imaging. They succeeded in separating the specific changes related to consciousness from the more widespread overall effects, and discovered that the effects of anesthesia and sleep on brain activity were surprisingly similar. These novel findings point to a common central core brain network fundamental for human consciousness.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3hrqqbb

Small studies have suggested that a group of medications called RAS inhibitors may be harmful in persons with advanced chronic kidney disease, and physicians therefore often stop the treatment in such patients. Researchers now show that although stopping the treatment is linked to a lower risk of requiring dialysis, it is also linked to a higher risk of cardiovascular events and death.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3pvjnBe

Thanks to the marine worm Platynereis dumerilii, an animal whose genes have evolved very slowly, scientists have shown that while haemoglobin appeared independently in several species, it actually descends from a single gene transmitted to all by their last common ancestor.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/381FTfj

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a complex psychiatric disorder brought on by physical and/or psychological trauma. How its symptoms, including anxiety, depression and cognitive disturbances arise remains incompletely understood and unpredictable. Treatments and outcomes could potentially be improved if doctors could better predict who would develop PTSD. Now, researchers using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have found potential brain biomarkers of PTSD in people with traumatic brain injury (TBI).

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3rChPqY

Researchers have shown that Chiari 1 malformation can be caused by variations in two genes linked to brain development, and that children with large heads are at increased risk of developing the condition.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/34SrG21

Results from a global trial across 148 sites in 23 countries, showing a 30 per cent improvement in survival in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), significantly improving survival in older patients, over the age of 55, with the disease. AML is the most acute blood cancer in adults and its incidence increases with age, with a poor prognosis.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3rBrttM

A bipartisan coalition of 46 states and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) separately filed antitrust suits against Facebook alleging the company’s anticompetitive tactics and acquisitions of rival companies intrude on your privacy.¹ At the same time, Facebook is attacking Apple for limiting the information Facebook can gather from Apple devices.²

The fight is all about your information — where you shop, your interests, friends, thoughts, politics, health and more. The antitrust laws were originally developed to limit the economic power of companies and ensure adequate competition in the market to protect consumer rights.³ Specifically, three federal statutes in the Antitrust Law define and prohibit various aspects of anticompetitive conduct.

The two new lawsuits, both filed in the District of Columbia federal district court, will help to define how the Antitrust Law, developed in an era before social media, addresses the anticompetitive actions of Facebook. Wired defines antitrust simply as, “a complicated field built on a simple premise: When a company doesn’t face real competition, it will be free to do bad things.”⁴

In this case, “bad things” are a breach of consumer welfare standards that have hinged on demonstrating financial harm since the 1970s. In 2019, legal scholar Dina Srinivasan wrote a paper in which she essentially argued that when Facebook took over the market, they forced consumers to accept inferior privacy protection to support the growth of the social media giant. She wrote:⁵

“Facebook’s pattern of false statements and misleading conduct induced consumers to trust and choose Facebook, to the detriment of market competitors and consumers' own welfare.”

The change in focus from financial harm to privacy damage was a conceptual breakthrough that the FTC and state coalition believe meets the intention of the Antitrust Law. This comes at a time when Facebook is gaining financial traction using your private data to increase the company’s advertising revenue and change your opinions to match their rhetoric.

Facebook Facing Two Antitrust Suits

These two antitrust suits come on the heels of FTC penalty and privacy restrictions imposed in mid-2019.⁶ The FTC called it a “record-breaking $5 billion penalty,” yet as I reported in 2019 when I announced “Mercola.com Leaves Facebook Today,” Facebook stock rose after the announcement and the penalty was equal to only one month of revenue for the company.⁷

So although the FTC called the penalty “the largest ever imposed on any company for violating consumers’ privacy and almost 20 times greater than the largest privacy or data security penalty ever imposed worldwide,”⁸ it was not close to tapping the financial reserves of the largest social media platform on the planet.

Facebook has fallen far from their origins when the company promised to take privacy seriously and not use tracking cookies — and that any changes to their privacy policy would be voted on by users.⁹ The company's evolution from a privacy-focused start-up to the surveillance platform they've currently become has been at the heart of multiple suits, including the recent antitrust cases.

It's anticipated the two cases will be combined as the suits move forward. Interestingly, Facebook released a statement from their general counsel, which called the lawsuits “revisionist history,” but acknowledges there may be questions of “whether Facebook and its competitors are making the right decisions around things like elections, harmful content and privacy.”¹⁰

The challenge will be in demonstrating that Facebook not only built up a monopoly but that the monopoly has been harmful to the consumer. In her paper, Srinivasan argued early changes to Facebook privacy policy were met with market resistance, an indication of consumer choice. In 2007, Facebook rolled out a product to track user activity, even when they weren't on Facebook.¹¹

There was enough backlash that within the year the program was discontinued, but later a new program took its place as Facebook currently uses pixel trackers to keep tabs on their users all around the internet. Srinivasan points to changes made again in 2011 when Facebook was fending off Google+.

Emails showed that decision-makers in the company were intent on avoiding disturbances in the market and wanted to save any potentially controversial changes until comparisons against other products died down.

The antitrust lawsuits include the acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram by Facebook. As a condition of buying WhatsApp, Facebook committed to preserving privacy. However, the WhatsApp founder quit after Facebook broke their promise.¹²

Decade-Long Plan Revealed in the Rise of Social Media

These gradual changes were not organic but rather appear to have been an orchestrated event that moved consumers from engagement with a new social media platform to dependence on a surveillance giant that gathers more information on users’ movements and habits than most people are willing to share with their family and friends.

According to Statistica, Facebook has 2.5 billion active users, demonstrating the massive phenomenon that social media has become.¹³ When you consider there are 7.7 billion people globally and nearly half are online, these numbers are huge.¹⁴ Facebook is the most popular platform by far. YouTube runs second at 1.9 billion users and Instagram and WeChat have 1 billion users apiece.

The first to reach 1 million active users was Myspace in 2004, which was the same year that Facebook was launched in Cambridge, Massachusetts.¹⁵ By 2010, Facebook had overtaken all other social media sites in number of active users each month and has continued to dominate the market.¹⁶

The changes and evolution of the social media giant over the past 15 years is a visible demonstration of the flexibility and drive behind the management team, which devised a plan to enable the company to overtake older more established media platforms. From their history, it has appeared the strategy is to acquire other social media platforms that threaten Facebook’s market share.¹⁷

For example, as Instagram and WhatsApp were gaining popularity, Facebook brought them into the fold. The company may have an aim at being all things to all people, growing their company through a large number of acquisitions, including over 75 companies beginning in 2007.¹⁸

Privacy: Apple Wants It, Facebook Doesn’t

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Apple decided to add settings on users' iPhones that will change how mobile advertising is displayed on those devices. The upgrade puts a privacy option that had always been in the apps, upfront when the user opens the app.¹⁹

The expectation is that it will have a dramatic effect on targeted advertising. The change was initially planned for fall of 2020 but was delayed, giving advertising systems a chance to comply. Each user will see a pop-up window that warns them the app may be gathering data and give them the opportunity to block it.

In response, Facebook took out advertising in major newspapers across the U.S., criticizing the upgrade and defending the use of targeted advertising, writing these changes will hurt small businesses.²⁰ The ads appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and New York Times, as reported by Bloomberg. Facebook asserts that:²¹

“Without personalized ads, Facebook data show that the average small business advertiser stands to see a cut of over 60% in their sales for every dollar they spend.”

At issue is Facebook's Audience Network system.²² The platform was released in 2014 and is “an off Facebook, in-app advertising network for mobile apps.”²³ Data gathering on Facebook allows advertisers to show customers who are using other mobile sites and apps their ads, which extends their reach beyond Facebook while still using Facebook’s advertising system.

Beginning in 2021, in response to Apple's move to improve privacy, the Audience Network will begin using bidding only to fill ads in the iOS network.²⁴ Facebook anticipates that the changes to iOS 14 will decrease their ability to collect the Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA) information, which will then impact monetization of in-app advertising.

While this may impact targeted advertising for business, it protects your privacy. It may appear these ads are only irritating, but the underlying issue isn’t just one or two ads.

Rather it’s the massive amount of data that’s gathered and collated based on your identifying information, which reveals insight into your communication and spending habits. This in turn allows Facebook to make fairly accurate assumptions about your behavior.

The Power of Social Media

Facebook can then use this data about your behavior patterns to serve information that may change your mind about political candidates, spending practices, weight loss efforts and a variety of other choices you make each day. In other words, by simply gathering information, Facebook has the potential to change your behavior.

Facebook also uses strategies to remove information that you might find helpful. For example, in their promise to combat “fake news” censorship doesn't end at blatantly fake articles but includes removal of any information they find unfavorable to Facebook or their advertisers.

Former U.S. presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) is an outspoken proponent of breaking up monopolies such as Amazon, Facebook and Google and vowed to introduce “sweeping new regulation of Silicon Valley” should she have been elected president.²⁵

However, three of Warren’s Facebook ads were removed with the message they were “against Facebook advertising policies,” a glaringly obvious example of why her proposal is so sorely needed.²⁶

Facebook uses the same tactics to remove anything they believe contains “misinformation” about health, such as topics related to vaccines or treatments for COVID-19 that they and their advertisers do not deem beneficial to their end results.

Their draconian means of protecting their platform and rhetoric were one of the reasons Mercola.com left Facebook. Facebook uses data mining to subvert your privacy and change your behavior by meticulously tracking your hobbies, habits and preferences. In fact, their entire profit model is based on surveillance and selling your personal information.

They not only have access to the websites you visit but can also access your computer or smartphone’s microphone without your knowledge.²⁷ If you suddenly find yourself receiving ads for products or services you only spoke out loud about, chances are that one or more of your apps are linked to your microphone and are eavesdropping.

In the current stay-at-home environment, more people are using Facebook and sharing more of their personal information, which means Facebook has more to lose. For example, a study published by Carnegie Mellon University in May 2020 found 45% of the Twitter accounts posting about the coronavirus were likely bots “aimed at sowing division in America.”²⁸

While this example is from another social media conglomerate, it is just one method that social media platforms can use to change your mind about current events, health decisions and spending habits.

Study: Unplugging May Increase Happiness and Satisfaction

A study published in late 2019 from New York University used a randomized experiment to find that unplugging from Facebook for four weeks increased a person's offline activities, such as socializing with people, reduced their political polarization and increased their feeling of well-being.²⁹

Psychotherapist Nancy Colier is the author of the book “The Power of Off: The Mindful Way to Stay Sane in a Virtual World.” She knows that when you have an addiction, “it gets harder and harder to derive joy from the present moment. We're in this chronic state of wanting to get our substance.”³⁰

Research has also suggested the validation you get when someone “likes” your post may trigger a release of dopamine and oxytocin, feel-good neurotransmitters. It's important to remember that social media is designed to be addictive, to keep you on the site longer and longer. As Computer World reports:³¹

"Sites like Facebook, Google+ and … Twitter, tweak their algorithms, then monitor the response of users to see if those tweaks kept them on the site longer or increased their engagement. We're all lab rats in a giant, global experiment."

There are strategies you can use to break free from this addiction, such as setting a time limit, checking in once a day or quitting cold turkey. Colier has suggested using mindfulness. The Epoch Times reported:³²

"Colier's approach starts with awareness. When you feel that habitual itch to check for messages, play a game, or dig for details on the latest celebrity scandal, first ask what you might be distracting yourself from. 'We flip it so the impulsive thought becomes an opportunity to check in on what's happening, rather than an opportunity to anesthetize,' Colier said."

If you're not ready to completely give up your devices, here are strategies compiled by the Center for Humane Technology that you can use to help develop an intentional relationship with technology.³³ These are good starting points and worth sharing with your kids too.

• Allow notifications from people only — Apps are designed to lure you back in with notifications. Visit Settings > Notifications in your cellphone to turn off notifications made by machines and allow only those made by people.
• Create a tools-only home screen — If your home screen is filled with a bunch of unnecessary apps, it will only tempt you to spend time on them. Instead, limit your home screen to the handful of essential tools you need on a daily basis, like Maps, Camera, Calendar and Notes.
• Launch apps by typing — Use your phone's search feature to type in the name of an app you wish to open, which makes opening the app a conscious choice.
• Remove toxic apps — This includes apps that profit from your distraction and addiction as well as promote misinformation and polarization. These include Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok.
• Download helpful tools — You can’t fix a problem by adding more of the same, but there are a few helpful technological tools you can use on your cellphone. These include apps that help remove blue light (Flux),³⁴ track your habits (Moment)³⁵ and keep you focused on your goals (Flipd).³⁶

from Articles https://ift.tt/3hqNw1H
via IFTTT

Ivor Cummins is a biochemical engineer with a background in medical device engineering and leading teams in complex problem-solving. On his website, TheFatEmperor.com,¹ he offers guidance on how to decode science to transform your health. In a podcast from December 11, 2020, he interviewed Dr. Reid Sheftall about SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Sheftall is an intelligent surgeon, having scored in the 99.95 percentile on the SATs and off the scale on his medical board and surgical board exams. He begins by explaining that the SARS-CoV-2 is only 100 nanometers in dimeter, which is smaller by one-fourth than SARS-2 virus, which is only 100 nanometers in diameter, which is smaller, by one-fourth, than the shortest wavelength that we can see in the visible spectrum.

He's been using social media to write essays about different aspects of the virus and the policies that were enacted because of what he calls "mistakes that were made early on" in the pandemic. Here are seven of Sheftall's predictions and corrections, along with the date in which he made them, which are covered in more detail during the interview:

1. Sars-CoV-2 has an infection mortality rate that is equal to or less than the flu (March 15).
2. Masks won't reduce the transmissibility (March 15), but experts still say they do.
3. Lockdowns not only will not work, but will cause much death and destruction, including loss of jobs and insurance, life savings and other resources, up to and including loss of life (March 17). Experts are still lobbying for use of lockdowns.
4. We should not close schools because we don't close them for the flu, which is a much deadlier disease than SARS-2 in that age group (March 18).
5. The reason the cases and deaths are so low in Asian countries is not because of better testing, racing and lockdowns, as the experts have said and continue to say, but is because of "immunity in place" due to cross reactivity of SARS-2 with previously encountered coronaviruses. This is mediated by cross reacting memory B and T cells, secretory IgA (August 10, not yet proven).
6. We're not experiencing "second waves" in the U.S. They are first waves in different parts of the country as the virus marches through different climate types in different regions (August 10).
7. There are not 40 million cases in the U.S. There are at least 160 million (October 17).

Infection Fatality Rate Has Been Wrong Since the Beginning

Early on during the pandemic, infection mortality rate claims varied from 2.7% to 7%, with most being in the 4% range. According to Sheftall, that's "about 40 times too high" and ended up causing panic and fear in the public. He figured out the infection mortality rate was wrong because he noticed something important: The wide fluctuations in mortality rates didn't add up:

"As a surgeon, we noticed that surgical outcomes are very close. From a very good surgeon to a very mediocre surgeon, the mortality and morbidity is very close.

Yet, when I heard the information about what had happened in Italy, where 7%, supposedly, of the people infected were dying and in Germany, where it was much lower, I'm thinking that doesn't make sense because the Italians would call their German colleagues and find out if something was being done differently and change something, and the rate should be very close to the same. So, I knew there was a problem."

Sheftall suggested that selection bias was being used in the counting of cases, and organizations such as the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were drastically undercounting the number of people who were infected, which inflated the mortality rate.

Sheftall looked for data in which every case had been counted, ending up with a cruise ship, in which every person had been tested, and a small town in Germany that had also tested all residents. "When I crunched the numbers, the infection fatality rate came out to 0.14%, so I knew … there were some gross errors going on."

Sheftall posted his findings on Facebook, only to be told he was wrong. He then wrote letters to Fox and CNN, hoping to share the information with the public, but he didn't hear back.

"What happened, unfortunately, is that everybody accepted those numbers as gospel, if you will, and proceeded to make models that were way off. Epidemiologists appeared on television, and they were way off.

The general population, as I said before, began to panic and then the politicians were able to — and I'm not saying they were nefarious in this — but they were able to institute some policies, which were extremely destructive … I don't think the general public would have agreed to lockdowns, for example, if they had known that the infection fatality rate is 0.1% … the same as the flu."

Other experts, like Stanford University's disease prevention chairman Dr. John Ioannidis — an epidemiologist who has made a name for himself by exposing bad science — have also criticized global lockdown measures, saying they were implemented based on flawed modeling and grossly unreliable data. Like Sheftall, Ioannidis suggested the infection fatality rate was actually 0.05% to 1%, with a median of about 0.25%.²

Shutting Down Schools 'Makes Absolutely No Sense'

Sheftall cites COVID-19 survival rates by age, posted by the CDC September 10, 2020, which are as follows:

• Ages birth to 19: 99.997%
• Ages 20 to 49: 99.98%
• Ages 50 to 69: 99.5%
• Ages 70 and up: 94.6%

This translates into a 0.1% infection fatality rate, using the CDC's own numbers — and the CDC is one of the agencies that cited a 4% infection fatality rate early on. Sheftall couldn't find data on the survival rate of school-aged children from 5 to 17 years, but he did uncover that there were 51 COVID-19 deaths reported in that age range from March 1 to September 10, 2020.

"Now there are 56.4 million students in elementary, middle and high school in the United States so that means the chances by population, not by infection but by population, are less than 1 in a million per year for a student in school, and that's very important because we've shut down the schools in America, which causes a lot of problems," he said.

Given these numbers, shutting down schools "makes absolutely no sense," as he noted that every year more than 200 school-aged children, on average, die from the flu during a five-month flu season. "So, if you want to be consistent … if you're going to close the schools for SARS-CoV-2 you must close them every year for the flu because it's actually much more severe in the school-age group."

But closing schools has consequences, as has been made readily apparent during the pandemic. Interruptions in learning are common — "they did a survey in Boston and only half the children were logging in" to virtual learning, Sheftall said, while others don't have money for a computer or internet connection. Other issues that may have been picked up on at school, like problems with vision or hearing, or cases of abuse, may also go unnoticed.

Asymptomatic Testing Goes 'Against Good Practice'

According to The Atlantic's COVID Tracking Project, more than 230.3 million COVID-19 tests have been conducted in the U.S. as of December 20, 2020,³ which includes an unknown number of tests conducted on people with no symptoms.

The costs for such testing could be used for a more productive purpose, according to Sheftall. Cummins also notes that "it's kind of unethical and it's against good practice" to test asymptomatic people at such a massive rate. "The whole basis of medicine," he says, is to test people with symptoms so you can find out what's wrong and treat them accordingly. Sheftall continues:

"In 2017 to 2018 … between 70 and 80 million people in America got the flu … nobody noticed for the most part and no one was tested. I'm a doctor and I vaguely remember that it was a bad flu season. That was it. And yet with COVID we're testing so many people you wouldn't believe it."

During a June 8, 2020, press briefing, Maria Van Kerkhove, the World Health Organization's technical lead for the COVID-19 pandemic, made it very clear that asymptomatic transmission is very rare, meaning an individual who tests positive but does not exhibit symptoms is highly unlikely to transmit live virus to others.

A study in Nature Communications also found "there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts."⁴ Meanwhile, the COVID-19 tests are problematic in and of themselves.

These positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have been used as the justification for keeping large portions of the world locked down for the better part of 2020, despite the fact that PCR tests have proven remarkably unreliable with high false result rates.

A positive test does not actually mean that an active infection is present. The PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, the genetic snippets are so small they must be amplified in order to become discernible.

What this does is amplify any, even insignificant sequences of viral DNA that might be present to the point that the test reads "positive," even if the viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive. According to Sheftall:

"When we see all these positive cases, some of them are older than they're letting on. They're calling them new cases. The test looks for messenger RNA fragments in the oral pharynx, OK? It's the swab test. It's an antigen test, OK, as opposed to an antibody test.

And those fragments can stay in there for months after the patient has recovered. That's No. 1. And No. 2, think of the name — it's polymerase chain reaction. The PCR test is an amplification test. It can take a tiny fragment and amplify it into a billion fragments …

There are different types of immunological responses to a pathogen, one of which is the barrier immunity. And you can have fragments of messenger RNA in your oral pharynx and have never gotten sick from the disease, never even registered on the scale, no bullet, no signal, no nothing because the barrier immunity injured the viruses early on and broke them into pieces, and then the PCR picks it up as a new test."

Masks, Lockdowns Don't Work

Sheftall also compiled daily new deaths for six countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Sweden. All of them have similar death curves, despite whether they instituted lockdowns or not. He also found a graph (pictured at 40 minutes in the video) in which scientists compared the number of cases in a region with how stringent the measures were by the government, including degree of lockdown, group restrictions and mask mandates.

"You can see that there's no reverse correlation like you would expect … if the measures are not stringent you should see more cases, according to their thinking … [but] it's the exact opposite of what the people were saying," Sheftall said. In fact, the graph largely shows lower cases when less stringent measures were taken.

"It's the same with mask introductions," Cummins added. "If you look at around 10 or 12 countries where they brought in mask mandates, there was no impact on the curve … whatsoever so the empirical science of our own eyes is screaming at us: Masks and lockdowns don't really move the needle much, maybe a little, but no one wants to know. It's an ideology now. It's a religion."

Sheftall studied mask usage extensively and found mask mandates did not noticeably change the number of cases or deaths the way they should if they actually reduce transmissibility. Countries that used minimal masks were not worse off than neighboring countries with mask mandates.

"Due to statements by experts and CNN commercials claiming that masks prevent viral spread, mass hysteria descended on the world over the wearing of masks," he said. There have been cases of hot coffee being thrown in the faces of people not wearing masks, fines issued and other hysteria, over a measure that's not proven to work.

In fact, in the first randomized controlled trial of more than 6,000 individuals to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection. Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls.⁵

When they removed the people who did not adhere to proper mask use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.

Bringing in the Great Reset

When the science flies in the face of the restrictions being imposed, it becomes clear that there's a sinister hidden agenda. Many of the global elite need this crisis and have been "fermenting panic for the past eight months. Why they're doing it you can argue but the fact that they're doing it is plain and obvious," Cummins said, adding:

"The WHO drove the masks when it was utterly antiscientific. They're not stupid, so why did they do that? The WHO equally knows the science on lockdowns and the analyses but they remorselessly recently pushed lockdowns again … they're imploring governments to lock down hard, and they have to know that that's the wrong thing to do.

So you can go to the World Economic Forum (WEF). They've made it clear that this is an enormous opportunity to bring in the Great Reset and to retool the world."

Ultimately, Cummins believes there's not one "single evil genius stroking a cat" that orchestrated a conspiracy, but rather COVID-19 presented an opportunity that multiple entities have used to further their own agendas. What you can do now is keep your eyes open and your ears tuned to the science, so you don't fall victim to the unnecessary panic and fear they are seeking to cause:

"China certainly exploited a new nasty virus and saw it as an opportunity to send the fat, lazy, soft Westerners into a tailspin. Why not? And the WEF has been very clear on its goals, and it's remorseless in driving them.

The WHO, the U.N., the European vaccine alliances, you know, have plans for vaccine passports by 2021, and they were published a year or two ago. I mean imagine you wanted vaccine and health passports by 2021 and then corona came along.

Can you imagine how you'd feel? You would salivate, you would see an enormous opportunity to move forward long plans and get them done in six months. There's no conspiracy theory. It's just unfortunate that a vast array of very powerful bodies all pretty much see enormous opportunity in Sars-CoV-2, and then they all probably, to greater or lesser extents, they talk to each other and communicate.

So, it's like everyone's got the big payday now and I think what we see is the result of … this huge remorseless general push toward hysteria because it will enable everyone's goals and the whole of the pharmaceutical industry is salivating. It's just one of those phenomena that unfortunately has been exploited beyond belief."

from Articles https://ift.tt/2WPOn2D
via IFTTT