More evidence has been uncovered that Alzheimer’s disease may actually be a third form of diabetes, according to researchers from Northwestern University.
Insulin and insulin receptors in your brain are crucial for learning and memory, and it’s known that these components are lower in people with Alzheimer’s disease. In your brain, insulin binds to an insulin receptor at a synapse, which triggers a mechanism that allows nerve cells to survive and memories to form.
The Northwestern University researchers have found that a toxic protein in the brain of Alzheimer’s patients -- called ADDL for “amyloid ß-derived diffusible ligand” -- removes insulin receptors from nerve cells, and renders those neurons insulin resistant.
The findings suggest that ADDLs accumulate at the beginning of Alzheimer’s disease and thereby block memory function.
The process is currently thought to be reversible.
The researchers speculated that drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes, which also causes insulin resistance, may “supercede currently available Alzheimer’s drugs.”
Throughout the pandemic, the inconsistencies in public health guidelines not only have been glaring but unsettling.
From flip-flops over the effectiveness of mask wearing to rules that seemingly contradict themselves — like it’s “safe” to take your mask off while eating in a restaurant but not while you’re walking to the table, or making small businesses close their doors while big box stores stay open because they’re “essential” — the last year has left many people feeling like they’re living in some sort of altered reality.
This feeling isn’t all in your head, however. The state of reality has, in fact, been altered, in more ways than one. A particularly visual and polarizing example is the use of face masks, which some have suggested is nothing more than a form of virtue signaling. A video captured by a citizen journalist suggests as much, as the reporter captured on the video wears no mask, and neither does his cameraman, until the tape starts rolling.1
Reporter Puts on Mask Only When on Camera
A citizen journalist begins filming reporter David Kaplan from WTAE in Pittsburg just before he’s about to go on-air for a news segment. When questioned about the authenticity of his report, he states, “We’re purely objective journalists. Truly, truly, sir. From the bottom of my heart … Nobody tells me what to say sir.”2
However, the news station does tell him what to do, which includes putting on a mask while on-air. Again, neither the reporter nor the cameraman are masked until they are about to go on air, at which point the reporter puts his mask on, saying it’s their policy and he wants to set a good example.
Throughout the pandemic, the media have been fanning the flames of fear, including with displays like this, in which viewers see an image of a reporter masked up against the virus — who promptly removes said mask as soon as the camera is off.
It’s a veritable theater, a show of a person’s willingness to obey, even when the rules seem to defy common sense, like wearing a mask outdoors when you’re far away from other people.
Masks Offer Little Protection Except as Symbolic ‘Talismans’
In May 2020, a group of doctors and researchers wrote in a perspective piece published in the New England Journal of Medicine that masks offer little protection outside of health care facilities, except to calm people’s nerves.
“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” they wrote, and went on to describe masks as playing a “symbolic role” as “talismans” to increase the perception of safety, even though “such reactions may not be strictly logical.”3
“Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of COVID-19,” they add.4
Since then, masks have indeed taken on a symbolic role, one that presents an outward visible sign that you’re obeying COVID protocols and are acting as a “moral” COVID citizen. Jeffrey Tucker, with the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), pointed out that this mask orthodoxy is part of what’s driving the rampant censorship online, including by YouTube.
“YouTube has taken it upon itself to censor the opinions of esteemed scientists that depart from the orthodoxy on masks. This is not surprising given that masks have become dogma – a visible symbol of compliance and fealty to the medical/political agenda that elevates the coronavirus above all else,” Tucker wrote.5
Now that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that vaccinated individuals can remove their masks outdoors and in most spaces indoors,6 it moves the playing field to another agenda, one in which only the “impure” unvaccinated individuals must be masked, creating a new form of segregation and second-class citizens.
Canned News Is the Real Fake News
If you think you’re getting real, unbiased news when you turn on the TV, watch the video above, which shows an unnerving compilation of local affiliate stations owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group reciting the same script as though it’s actual journalism.
The newscasters, featured on CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox affiliates, ironically stated, "Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think … This is extremely dangerous to our democracy."7
It’s time that word got out that it’s extremely difficult to find truly independent, unbiased reporting, whether you’re watching the news on television or online.
Take, for instance, the Australian Science Media Centre (SMC), which partnered with Google to create a COVID-19 Vaccine Media Hub that will parrot approved mainstream vaccine information to the press.8 Science Media Centres exist in a number of countries, including the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with a reported mission to provide “high-quality” scientific information to journalists. Their mission, as stated on their website, is:9
“To provide, for the benefit of the public and policymakers, accurate and evidence-based information about science and engineering through the media, particularly on controversial and headline news stories when most confusion and misinformation occurs.”
But SMC is not an independent news agency as it claims to be, as it counts among its biggest funders a number of high-level industry players with worldwide agendas, including the Wellcome Trust, GlaskoSmithKline, CropLife International, Sanofi and AstraZeneca.10
As noted by the U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), “ … The SMC model has been influential in shaping media coverage about science. A media analysis11 of U.K. papers in 2011 and 2012 found that a majority of reporters who used SMC services did not seek additional perspectives for their stories.”12
The analysis concluded that there are “more journalists than there should be” that are relying solely on SMC information instead of consulting independent sources.13
CDC Walks Back Hygiene Theater
In the early days of the pandemic, bleach cleaners and disinfectant wipes were flying off store shelves in a frenzy to clean away COVID. Now we know that transmission of COVID-19 by fomites — the term used for inanimate surfaces and objects that can transmit a pathogen — has been exaggerated, but the CDC didn’t acknowledge this until more than a year later, in April 2021. In a science brief released that month, they noted:14
“People can be infected with SARS-CoV-2 through contact with surfaces. However, based on available epidemiological data and studies of environmental transmission factors, surface transmission is not the main route by which SARS-CoV-2 spreads, and the risk is considered to be low.”
Emanuel Goldman, a microbiology professor at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, suggested this back in July 2020, when he stated that studies suggesting SARS-CoV-2 was easily spread via surfaces did not present in real-life situations.15
“In my opinion, the chance of transmission through inanimate surfaces is very small,” he said, and while period disinfection of surfaces, especially in hospitals, was a reasonable precaution, in public settings, he noted, “this can go to extremes not justified by the data.”16 In February 2021, an editorial in Nature supported Goldman’s work, suggesting that costly and toxic disinfection efforts are misguided.
“Catching the coronavirus from surfaces is rare. The World Health Organization and national public health agencies need to clarify their advice,” the editorial reads.17 The New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority alone spent an estimated $380 million annually on COVID-related sanitation, and when it asked the U.S. government whether they should be focusing on fomites or solely aerosols, they were told to continue their focus on fomites.18
Writing in The Atlantic, Derek Thompson described this as a type of “hygiene theater,” in which Americans are going through the motions of dutifully cleaning and, likely, over-disinfecting surfaces when the virus spreads most efficiently through the air.19 Hygiene theater, much like the theater for masks and vaccine passports, provides an illusion of safety, not one grounded in reality.
CDC Finally Acknowledges COVID Is Airborne
There’s been strong evidence for months that aerosol transmission is involved in the spread of SARS-CoV-2,20 which are 0.125 μm in size. On September 18, 2020, the CDC posted updated COVID-19 guidance on its "How COVID-19 Spreads" page that, for the first time, mentioned aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, saying "this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads."21
The CDC then deleted the mention of aerosols and the possibility of spread beyond 6 feet the following Monday, September 21, 2020, saying a draft version of proposed changes had been posted "in error."22 Finally, on May 7, 2021, the CDC updated their guidance to acknowledge that one of the primary ways SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted is via “inhalation of very fine respiratory droplets and aerosol particles.”23
It’s a noteworthy difference, because since SARS-CoV-2 is spread via aerosolized droplets,24 such droplets remain in the air for at least three hours and can travel over long distances of up to 27 feet.25
This adds to the likelihood that cloth masks do little to stop you from getting COVID-19, not to mention calls into question the arbitrary 6 feet social distancing guidelines (which the CDC recently cut down to 3 feet in classrooms26). AAPS explained back in September 2020:27
“The preponderance of scientific evidence supports that aerosols play a critical role in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Years of dose response studies indicate that if anything gets through, you will become infected. Thus, any respiratory protection respirator or mask must provide a high level of filtration and fit to be highly effective in preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.”
Little by little, the truth continues to emerge as nonsensical theatrics are exposed. Now more than ever, it’s essential to look beyond canned news reports and censoring fact-checkers’ labels to find real information on which to base your knowledge.
If you’d like to get involved, Stand for Health Freedom, a nonprofit advocacy organization, has a number of alerts you can take part in, from saying no to vaccine passports to asking key congressmen to formally investigate the CDC’s conduct during the pandemic.28
In a May 5, 2021, Fox News report, Tucker Carlson asked the question no one is really allowed to ask: “How many Americans have died after taking the COVID vaccine?”1
If you haven’t paid attention, the answer to this verboten (forbidden) question may shock you. Carlson points out (inaccurately, if you ask me) that vaccines have been shown to be generally safe, citing statistics on how many Americans have died after the seasonal influenza vaccine in recent years.
Each year, more than 165 million Americans get the flu shot, and according to the U.S. vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS), there were 85 reported deaths following influenza vaccination in 2017; 119 deaths in 2018; and 203 deaths in 2019. “How do those rates compare to the death rates from the coronavirus vaccine?” Carlson asks. The answer is, there’s really no comparison.
How Many Have Died From COVID Vaccines?
Between mid-December 2020, when the first COVID-19 shots were rolled out, and April 23, 2021, at which point between 95 million and 100 million Americans had received their COVID-19 shots, there were 3,544 reported deaths following COVID vaccination.2
That’s 182 more deaths than cited by Carlson. As of April 23, 2021, VAERS had also received 12,618 reports of serious adverse events. In total, 118,902 adverse event reports had been filed. If, like Carlson estimates, about 30 people per day are dying from the shots, these numbers will grow by the hundreds each week.
Carlson also cites data from an investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which found that VAERS catches a mere 1% of vaccine injuries,3,4 primarily because it’s a passive system and reports are filed voluntarily.
Many Americans don’t even know that the system exists, or that they can file a report, and most doctors won’t file reports when injuries are brought to their attention because the medical system doesn’t reward such fastidiousness. At most, 10% of vaccine side effects are ever reported to VAERS, according to a 2005 study in the BMJ.5
What this means is that side effects may actually be 10 times or even 100 times higher than reported. We could, in reality, be looking at anywhere from 126,000 to 1.2 million serious side effects, and anywhere from 35,440 to 354,400 vaccine-related deaths.
While Carlson refuses to speculate about what the actual death toll might be, he does stress that what we’re seeing is clearly out of the norm, and by a tremendous margin. In just four months, the COVID-19 vaccines have killed more people than all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013 — a period of 15.5 years.
Gamble Your Life or Lose Your Freedom?
While the data show there are clear risks, Americans are urged, cajoled, shamed and threatened into getting the shot in any number of ways. President Biden recently warned that people who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 “can still die every day” from the infection, adding “This is your choice: It’s life and death.”
Carlson accurately points out that while unvaccinated people can indeed die of COVID-19, not everyone is at equal risk of complications and death. Old and chronically ill individuals are at greatest risk, while young and/or healthy individuals have a very low risk, and those who have had COVID-19 and recovered are immune.
For those who are young and/or healthy and/or immune, risking death or injury from the “vaccine” doesn’t make much sense. I would argue it makes no sense whatsoever, as there are also several proven-effective treatments, both early at-home treatments and in-hospital treatments. So, there’s no need to risk your health and life by taking COVID gene therapy.
As noted by Carlson, the young, healthy and already immune can add up to hundreds of millions of people in the U.S., yet policy makers are “not even acknowledging that these categories of people exist,” he says.
They’re pretending that everyone’s risk is the same and, therefore, everyone must get vaccinated, or at bare minimum, they want 70% of the American adult population vaccinated by July 4, 2021.
Carlson points out that this policy might be deemed acceptable if it could be conclusively shown that the “vaccines” are safe, and if we had a thorough understanding of the long-term effects of these mRNA and viral vector DNA shots. However, we can’t and we don’t.
Thousands have died, and many of the side effects reported defy easy explanation. For example, COVID shots now account for one-third of all tinnitus side effects in VAERS. Oxford and UCLA researchers, who are now tracking side effects across eight different countries, report finding that “women aged 18 to 34 years had a higher rate of deep vein thrombosis than men of the same age,” Carlson says. Why? No one knows.
Stunning Lack of Reaction to Mounting Death Toll
Perhaps most stunning of all is that these thousands of deaths and serious reactions are receiving no attention whatsoever. In 1976, the U.S. government vaccinated an estimated 45 million people against pandemic swine flu.
The program was canceled, Carlson reports, after only 53 people died. Authorities decided the vaccine was too risky to continue the campaign. Now, health authorities are shrugging off more than 3,500 deaths after COVID-19 vaccination as either coincidental or inconsequential.
Folks, this is 70 times more deaths than the swine flu vaccine, which was halted. If this isn’t insanity on steroids, please tell me what is. Maybe murder? This doesn’t even include the deaths of thousands, and potentially tens of thousands of miscarriages, which is now becoming rapidly recognized as a possible complication of COVID-19 “vaccines.”
In fact, an April 2021 report in The New England Journal of Medicine6 said that miscarriage was the most common condition reported after a COVID vaccine, and that “there is probably substantial underreporting of pregnancy- and neonatal-specific adverse events” connected with the vaccine. But rather than posting a warning that the vaccine may be causing miscarriages, health officials simply urged “continued monitoring” of the issue.
EU Reports Hundreds of Thousands of Side Effects
In the European Union, we find more of the same. Its EudraVigilance system, to which suspected drug reactions are reported, had as of April 17, 2021, received 330,218 injury reports after vaccination with one of the four available COVID vaccines (Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson), including 7,766 deaths.7
Of these, Pfizer’s mRNA injection accounted for the largest number of deaths at 4,293, followed by Moderna with 2,094 deaths, AstraZeneca with 1,360 deaths and Johnson & Johnson with 19 deaths. The most commonly reported injuries were cardiac-related problems and blood/lymphatic disorders.
In related news, the Israeli People Committee (IPC), a civilian body of health experts, has published a report detailing side effects from the Pfizer vaccine, concluding “there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people.” The Committee received 288 reports of death, 90% of which occurred within 10 days after the vaccination; 64% of them were men.
This contradicts data from the Israeli Ministry of Health, which claims only 45 deaths were vaccine related. According to this report (translated from Hebrew):8
“According to Central Bureau of Statistics data during January-February 2021, at the peak of the Israeli mass vaccination campaign, there was a 22% increase in overall mortality in Israel compared with the previous year.
In fact, January-February 2021 have been the deadliest months in the last decade, with the highest overall mortality rates compared to corresponding months in the last 10 years.
Amongst the 20-29 age group the increase in overall mortality has been most dramatic. In this age group, we detect an increase of 32% in overall mortality in comparison with previous year.
Statistical analysis of information from the Central Bureau of Statistics, combined with information from the Ministry of Health, leads to the conclusion that the mortality rate amongst the vaccinated is estimated at about 1: 5000 (1: 13000 at ages 20-49, 1: 6000 at ages 50-69, 1: 1600 at ages 70+).
According to this estimate, it is possible to estimate the number of deaths in Israel in proximity of the vaccine, as of today, at about 1000-1100 people.”
Reproductive Effects
In the U.S., we’re now starting to see thousands of reports of menstrual problems among women who have received the COVID-19 vaccine. As reported by The Defender:9
“Women have reported hemorrhagic bleeding with clots, delayed or absent periods, sudden pre-menopausal symptoms, month-long periods and heavy irregular bleeding after being vaccinated with one or both doses of a COVID vaccine.
There’s no data linking COVID vaccines to changes in menstruation because clinical trials omit tracking menstrual cycles. But two Yale University experts wrote in The New York Times … there could be a connection.
‘There are many reasons vaccination could alter menstruation,’ wrote Alice Lu-Culligan, an M.D./Ph.D. student at Yale School of Medicine, and Dr. Randi Epstein, writer in residence at Yale School of Medicine.
‘Periods involve the immune system, as the thickening and thinning of the uterine lining are facilitated by different teams of immune cells and signals moving in and out of the reproductive tract,’ Lu-Culligan and Epstein explained.
‘Vaccines are designed to ignite an immune response, and the female cycle is supported by the immune system, so it’s possible vaccines could temporarily change the normal course of events.’”
Even more bizarre, there are hundreds of anecdotal reports of women who have not gotten the vaccine, but spent time in close proximity to someone who did, who are experiencing the same kind of abnormal menses and bleeding irregularities. Some doctors are hypothesizing that some sort of shedding may be taking place, although the mechanism is unknown. As yet, it’s too early to speculate further.
Interestingly, a Chinese study10 published in Reproductive BioMedicine Online, which looked at sex hormones and menstruation in unvaccinated women of reproductive age who were diagnosed with COVID-19, found 28% had a change in the length of their cycle, 19% had prolonged cycles and 25% had a change in menstrual blood volume.
The researchers hypothesize that “the menstruation changes of these patients might be the consequence of transient sex hormone changes” caused by a temporary suppression of ovarian function during infection.
Dr. Natalie Crawford, a fertility specialist, told The Defender11 that the menstrual irregularities seen in female COVID-19 patients may be linked to a cellular immunity response, and since the vaccine instructs your body to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which your immune system then responds to, the effects of the vaccine may be similar to the natural infection.
Death Tally May Spike During Fall and Winter
While the death toll from COVID-19 vaccines is already at a historical level, I fear it may shoot far higher as we move through fall and winter. The reason for this is because one of the greatest risk factors and wild cards of these vaccines is antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE) or paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE).
The 2003 review paper “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Virus Infection and Disease” explains it this way:13
“In general, virus-specific antibodies are considered antiviral and play an important role in the control of virus infections in a number of ways. However, in some instances, the presence of specific antibodies can be beneficial to the virus. This activity is known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of virus infection.
The ADE of virus infection is a phenomenon in which virus-specific antibodies enhance the entry of virus, and in some cases the replication of virus, into monocytes/macrophages and granulocytic cells through interaction with Fc and/or complement receptors.
This phenomenon has been reported in vitro and in vivo for viruses representing numerous families and genera of public health and veterinary importance … For some viruses, ADE of infection has become a great concern to disease control by vaccination.”
Fall and winter are the seasons in which most coronavirus infections occur, be it SARS-CoV-2 or other coronaviruses responsible for the common cold. If ADE does turn out to be a common problem with these injections, then vaccinated individuals may be at significantly higher risk of severe COVID-19 and a potentially lethal immune reaction due to pathogenic priming.
Another potential risk is that of Th2 immunopathology, especially among the elderly. As reported in a PNAS news feature:14
“Since the 1960s, tests of vaccine candidates for diseases such as dengue, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have shown a paradoxical phenomenon: Some animals or people who received the vaccine and were later exposed to the virus developed more severe disease than those who had not been vaccinated.
The vaccine-primed immune system, in certain cases, seemed to launch a shoddy response to the natural infection …
This immune backfiring, or so-called immune enhancement, may manifest in different ways such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), a process in which a virus leverages antibodies to aid infection; or cell-based enhancement, a category that includes allergic inflammation caused by Th2 immunopathology.
In some cases, the enhancement processes might overlap … Some researchers argue that although ADE has received the most attention to date, it is less likely than the other immune enhancement pathways to cause a dysregulated response to COVID-19, given what is known about the epidemiology of the virus and its behavior in the human body.
‘There is the potential for ADE, but the bigger problem is probably Th2 immunopathology,’ says Ralph Baric, an epidemiologist and expert in coronaviruses … at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In previous studies of SARS, aged mice were found to have particularly high risks of life-threatening Th2 immunopathology ... in which a faulty T cell response triggers allergic inflammation, and poorly functional antibodies that form immune complexes, activating the complement system and potentially damaging the airways.”
Recognize Cheap Brainwashing Propaganda for What It Is
Carlson ends his segment with a crude, cuss-filled ad “brought to you by people who are smarter than we are,” in which people who are supposedly doctors and nurses belittle those who read about side effects online or hear about risks from friends, and demand, while giving you the finger, that you just “grow up and get the vaccine.”
If you did not watch Carlson’s report, you need to STOP now and watch the video below to see this unbelievable ad. It is queued up to start at the ad. It is beyond shocking that they believe they can get away with this type of abuse.
“It doesn’t make you laugh,” Carlson says. “It makes you nervous. Why are they talking to you that way? Why are they giving you the finger on TV? No matter how many fingers they give you, it doesn’t change what remains true for the country.
If American citizens are going to be forced to take this vaccine, or any other medicine, they have the absolute right to know what it is and what its effects might be.
And they have an absolute right to ask that question, without being silenced or mocked or given the finger. And no amount of happy talk or coercion or appeals to false patriotism can change that. Period.”
In my view, there are still so many potential avenues of harm and so many uncertainties, I would encourage everyone to do your homework, keep reading and learning, weigh the potential pros and cons, ignore all pressure tactics and take your time when deciding whether to get any of these COVID-19 gene therapies.
Last but not least, if you or someone you love has already received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it, preferably to all three of these locations:15
Though obesity in midlife is linked to an increased risk for Alzheimer's disease, new research suggests that a high body mass index later in life doesn't necessarily translate to greater chances of developing the brain disease.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2RBnKzo
The nerve cells, also called neurons, in our brain control all the basic processes of our body. For this reason, there are different types of neurons distributed over specific regions of the brain. Researchers have now developed an approach that allows them to show that neurons that are supposedly the same are actually very different: they not only sense different hormones for the body's energy state, but also have a different influence on food intake. This can have a direct effect on our metabolism, for example by differentially restraining our appetite.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3u2gwl6
Fast-spreading variants of the COVID-19-causing coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, carry mutations that enable the virus to escape some of the immune response created naturally or by vaccination. A new study has revealed key details of how these escape mutations work.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2SeFpgk
Countries and US states more predisposed to collectivist behavior have more people following mask guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new study.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3hDy5FE
This is the first evidence that secondhand smoke during pregnancy correlates with changes in disease-related gene regulation in babies. These findings support the idea that many adult diseases have their origins in environmental exposures, such as stress, poor nutrition, pollution or tobacco smoke, during early development.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2QBLy5B
When it comes to the treatment of COVID-19, many Western nations have been hobbled by the politicization of medicine. Throughout 2020, media and many public health experts warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), despite the fact that many practicing doctors were praising its ability to save patients. Most have been silenced through online censorship. Some even lost their jobs for the “sin” of publicly sharing their successes with the drug.
Another decades-old antiparasitic drug that may be even more useful than HCQ is ivermectin. Like HCQ, ivermectin is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential drugs, but its benefits are also being ignored by public health officials and buried by mainstream media.
Ivermectin is a heartworm medication that has been shown to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro.1 In the U.S., the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has been calling for widespread adoption of Ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.2,3
In the video above, Dr. John Campbell interviews Dr. Tess Lawrie about the drug and its use against COVID-19. Lawrie is a medical doctor and Ph.D. researcher who has done a lot of work in South Africa.
She’s also the director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd.,4 which is based in the U.K., and she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel5 and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference, held April 24, 2021.
Ironically, as a consultant to the World Health Organization and many other public health organizations, her largest clients are the very ones who are now actively suppressing the use of this drug.
Ivermectin Useful in All Stages of COVID
What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as the inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary.
According to Dr. Surya Kant, a medical doctor in India who has written a white paper6 on ivermectin, the drug reduces replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by several thousand times.7 Kant’s paper led several Indian provinces to start using ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and as treatment for COVID-19 in the summer of 2020.8
In the video, Lawrie reviews the science behind her recommendation to use ivermectin. In summary:
• A scientific review by Dr. Andrew Hill at Liverpool University, funded by the WHO and UNITAID and published January 18, 2021, found ivermectin reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75%. It also increased viral clearance. This finding was based on a review of six randomized, controlled trials involving a total of 1,255 patients.
• Lawrie’s meta-analysis, published February 8, 2021, found a 68% reduction in deaths. Here, 13 studies were included in the analysis. This, she explains, is an underestimation of the beneficial effect, because they included a study in which the control arm was given HCQ.
Since HCQ is an active treatment that has also been shown to have a positive impact on outcomes, it’s not surprising that this particular study did not rate ivermectin as better than the control treatment (which was HCQ).
• Adding two new randomized controlled trials to her February analysis that included data on mortality, Lawrie published an updated analysis March 31, 2021, showing a 62% reduction in deaths.
When four studies with high risk of bias were removed during a subsequent sensitivity analysis, they ended up with a 72% reduction in deaths. Sensitivity analyses are done to double-check and verify results.
WHO Still Refuses to Recommend Ivermectin
Curiously, when the WHO finally updated its guidance on ivermectin at the end of March 2021,9,10 they gave it a thumbs-down, saying more data are needed. They only recommend it for patients who are enrolled in a clinical trial. Yet they based their negative recommendation on a review that included just five studies, which ended up showing a 72% reduction in deaths.
Lawrie points out discrepancies in this WHO analysis, such as two studies deemed by Lawrie to have a high risk of bias being listed by the WHO team to have a low risk of bias. (In the interview, she explains why she considers them to have a high risk of bias.)
What’s more, in the WHO’s summary of findings, they suddenly include data from seven studies, which combined show an 81% reduction in deaths. The confidence interval is also surprisingly high, with a 64% reduction in deaths on the low end, and 91% on the high end.
What’s more, their absolute effect estimate for standard of care is 70 deaths per 1,000, compared to just 14 deaths per 1,000 when treating with ivermectin. That’s a reduction in deaths of 56 per 1,000 when using ivermectin. The confidence interval is between 44 and 63 fewer deaths per 1,000.
Despite that, the WHO refuses to recommend this drug for COVID-19. Rabindra Abeyasinghe, a WHO representative to the Philippines, commented that using ivermectin without “strong” evidence is “harmful” because it can give “false confidence” to the public.11
As noted by Daniel Horowitz in an April 1, 2021, article in The Blaze,12 “That sure sounds a lot like telling people if they wear a mask indoors, they won’t get COVID. Tragically, when they invariably do get the virus, the global health elites have nothing to treat them with.”
Doctors Urge Acceptance of Ivermectin to Save Lives
As mentioned earlier, in the U.S., the FLCCC has also been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.13,14
FLCCC president Dr. Pierre Kory, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 2020,15 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel January 6, 2021.16 As noted by the FLCCC:17
“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.
Dr. Kory testified that Ivermectin is effectively a ‘miracle drug’ against COVID-19 and called upon the government’s medical authorities … to urgently review the latest data and then issue guidelines for physicians, nurse-practitioners, and physician assistants to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-1918 …
… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.
… data from 18 randomized controlled trials that included over 2,100 patients … demonstrated that Ivermectin produces faster viral clearance, faster time to hospital discharge, faster time to clinical recovery, and a 75% reduction in mortality rates.”19
A one-page summary20 of the clinical trial evidence for Ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website. A more comprehensive, 31-page review21 of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology.
At the time of this writing, the number of trials involving ivermectin has risen to 55, including 28 randomized controlled trials. A listing of all the Ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on c19Ivermectin.com.22
The FLCCC’s COVID-19 protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+23 while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,24 due to the addition of ivermectin.
The two protocols25,26 are available for download on the FLCCC Alliance website in multiple languages. The clinical and scientific rationale for the I-MATH+ hospital protocol has also been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine27 in mid-December 2020.
NIH Loosens Restrictions, FDA Warns Against Prophylactic Use
In mid-January 2021, the NIH did revise its guidelines on ivermectin, in large part thanks to the data presented by Kory and others. However, while the NIH no longer warns against its use, they also do not outright recommend it, and they did not grant ivermectin emergency use authorization.
As a result, many patients in the U.S. still struggle to access the drug, as many doctors are unwilling to prescribe it off-label against health officials’ recommendations.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has adopted an even less favorable stance, March 9, 2021 actually issuing a consumer warning March 5, 2021, to not use ivermectin as a prophylactic.28 The FDA also has not approved ivermectin for prevention of or treatment for SARS-CoV-2.29
The International Ivermectin for COVID Conference
April 24 through 25, 2021, Lawrie hosted the first International Ivermectin for COVID Conference online.30 Twelve medical experts31 from around the world shared their knowledge during this conference, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data.
All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.32 In her closing address, Lawrie stated:33
"The story of Ivermectin has highlighted that we are at a remarkable juncture in medical history. The tools that we use to heal and our connection with our patients are being systematically undermined by relentless disinformation stemming from corporate greed.
The story of Ivermectin shows that we as a public have misplaced our trust in the authorities and have underestimated the extent to which money and power corrupts.
Had Ivermectin being employed in 2020 when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy, millions of lives could have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss brought to a rapid and timely end.
Since then, hundreds of millions of people have been involved in the largest medical experiment in human history. Mass vaccination was an unproven novel therapy. Hundreds of billions will be made by Big Pharma and paid for by the public.
With politicians and other nonmedical individuals dictating to us what we are allowed to prescribe to the ill, we as doctors, have been put in a position such that our ability to uphold the Hippocratic oath is under attack.
At this fateful juncture, we must therefore choose, will we continue to be held ransom by corrupt organizations, health authorities, Big Pharma, and billionaire sociopaths, or will we do our moral and professional duty to do no harm and always do the best for those in our care?
The latter includes urgently reaching out to colleagues around the world to discuss which of our tried and tested safe older medicines can be used against COVID.”
During the conference, Lawrie proposed that doctors around the world join together to form a new people-centered World Health Organization. "Never before has our role as doctors been so important because never before have we become complicit in causing so much harm,” she said.
Whether you are for or against vaccines of any kind, it is hard to ignore the seismic changes that have affected how vaccines have been developed, licensed and regulated during the COVID-19 pandemic.1,2 Some researchers are taking the next step, hoping to develop a new type of vaccine that self-spreads through the environment.3
Since the pandemic was declared by the World Health Organization in early 2020, federal and state lawmakers have been persuaded to build a pandemic response around a single experimental biological product, which has generated billions of dollars in profit for liability-free drug companies.4,5,6
Yet, as soon as pharmaceutical companies announced they were developing the vaccine, doctors, scientists, researchers and other experts began raising warnings7,8 about the historical problems of creating a coronavirus vaccine and the propensity it has to produce antibody-dependent enhancement, which made vaccinated individuals more susceptible to infection by the virus or a variant.
Subsequently, one study9,10,11 found the South African variant of SARS-CoV-2, which accounted for 1% of all cases of COVID-19 in Israel in April 2021, caused greater illness in people vaccinated with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine than in unvaccinated people. To ensure more are vaccinated, no matter the cost, vaccine passports are being rolled out across the world, including the U.S.
As reported by former U.S. Rep. and physician Ron Paul in his Liberty Report12,13 that streamed live March 29, 2021, the Biden Administration is “seriously looking into establishing some kind of federal vaccine passport system, where Americans who cannot (or will not) prove to the government they have been jabbed with the experimental vaccine will be legally treated as second-class citizens.”
Paul warns that this system “will quickly morph into a copy of China’s ‘social credit’ system, where undesirable behaviors are severely punished.” I’ve been saying the same thing for many months now, and there’s every reason to suspect that this is indeed where we’re headed.
The newest Frankenstein iterations of vaccine development are those that self-disseminate through humans and wildlife. Using this technology, which researchers say already exists,14 the government wants to strip away one more layer of your civil rights.
This Prevention May Be Far Worse Than the Illness or Cure
The headlines read: “Vaccines of the Future Could Be as Contagious as Viruses”15 and “COVID-19 cure: Scientists Plan to Develop 'Self-Spreading' Coronavirus Vaccine.”16 Scott Nuismer and James Bull, authors of a paper in Nature17 calling for “Self-Disseminating Vaccines to Suppress Zoonoses,” told a New Scientist reporter, “Prevention is better than cure, so we should start using genetic techniques to stop dangerous animal diseases jumping to humans.”18
Some scientists are publicly19 calling for self-disseminating vaccines to spread vaccinations for infectious diseases that start in wild animals and may make the leap to humans. They cite diseases like SARS, MERS and COVID-19.20 This vaccination program would ostensibly be a complementary approach to reduce or eliminate the prevalence of the infectious agent within the wildlife communities.
To make the case, they cite the example of rabies vaccine programs that have significantly reduced the transmission of rabies in the U.S. and Europe and compare them to how rabies continues to affect people living in Africa and Asia, where the cost of vaccinating wild carnivores prevents the countries from attaining a sufficient level of immunity.
Apparently, the solution is to create a self-disseminating vaccine that relies on a radical change in development and production. The idea is to insert a small piece of genetic material into another virus that already spreads within the animal community, thus immunizing the animals that acquire the new virus.
The technology to achieve this has been used in field trials in wild rabbits to protect them from a viral hemorrhagic fever. Researchers are now investigating prototypes for Ebola and Lassa virus.
The public relations approach is to call for an ounce of prevention,21 weighing it against the ongoing costs of finding a cure for COVID-19. However, cost effective treatment protocols for COVID-19 already exist. The problem is they are so cost-effective for pharmaceutical companies to generate enough revenue using them.
Opinion pieces22 begin by touting the effectiveness of the current vaccine programs against smallpox, rubella, tetanus and measles. What they fail to mention is that those vaccine programs are vastly different from the genetic experiments being proposed. The idea is to:23
“... tamp down the spread of HIV and other contagious diseases and immunize people who would not otherwise be protected. Plus, the strategy would be cheaper than vaccinating everyone by hand.”
Self-Spreading Vaccine Virus Is a Ticking Time Bomb
You should know there is a drawback to these types of vaccines. The live vaccine may mutate to revert to the virulent form, which increases the risk of the illness for which the vaccine was developed. This has happened with the oral polio vaccine.24
Although it was not intentionally designed to transmit vaccine-derived polio viruses, there is a version of the oral polio vaccine that briefly spreads to other people. The polio strain that had been eradicated in the wild may have mutated and reverted to its virulent form.
The World Health Organization subsequently switched the oral polio vaccine,25 but also played down the issues from circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus26 saying the strain could be rapidly stopped by immunizing “every child several times with the oral vaccine to stop polio transmission, regardless of the origin of the virus.”27
Since they are still using the oral polio vaccine in some countries, today vaccine-derived polio infection numbers far exceed natural case numbers. In 2020 by the end of October there had been 200 wild polio cases and 600 vaccine-derived cases, according to an NPR report.28
With self-spreading vaccines, the chance of an intentionally designed transmissible vaccine to revert to the more virulent form is higher than in regular vaccines since there is the chance to replicate more times before dying. Scientists think that altering the transmissible vaccine to make it weaker may not eradicate the disease, but could reduce the risk the virus would revert and would require less people to be directly vaccinated.29
Nuismer postulates that using benign viruses to carry the genetic material may prove effective. For example, cytomegalovirus (CMV), which is common in humans and mammals, often creates no symptoms. If genetic material were injected into CMV, the vaccine would only lose effectiveness if the CMV reverted.
However, since CMV spreads easily and up to 80% of adults in the U.S. have been infected by age 40, using it as a vector may not work. Researchers are also investigating a transmissible vaccine for HIV intended for people who are infected. The “vaccine” would act as a parasite to compete with resources inside an infected cell.
The hope is these therapeutic interfering particles (TIPs) would lower the level of circulating viruses, prevent the spread of HIV and slow the progression to full-blown AIDS. Yet even the researchers who are attempting to develop such a vaccine acknowledged there are possible monstrous aberrations.30
For example, since the TIP can replicate it can also evolve. This is another way of saying it can develop a mutant variant that could become uncontrollable. If the TIP should revert to HIV, the researchers think that it would simply infect the person who was already carrying the virus.
However, because the TIP is transmissible, it can spread to people without HIV. In the initial development, the TIP cannot replicate in the body without HIV. However, after several generations of replication and possible reversion, is that a risk worth taking?
Scientists Are Blatantly Ignoring Informed Consent
Setting aside the health risks, it's important to note that scientists and experts who are proposing the use of transmissible vaccines are blatantly ignoring your right to informed consent. This is a federal law,31 which says you have a right to receive information about the treatment you're undergoing so you can make a well-informed decision about your medical care.
Medical practitioners are bound by ethical and legal obligations to disclose the risks and benefits of medical treatments before you receive them. To meet the legal standard, every person in the U.S., and in fact the world, would have to provide informed consent before a transmissible vaccine is released into the wild.
This kind of blatant disregard for your civil rights reared its ugly head in human testing for the COVID vaccine. Considering the unprecedented speed32 in which the vaccines were developed and released, it is not possible to provide participants in studies, or those taking the vaccine, a full list of the potential risks.
One of those significant concerns that researchers and doctors are aware of is antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). Anyone receiving this experimental genetic procedure would want to be informed of the potential to worsen the very disease they're trying to avoid.
Despite researchers' strong recommendation in October 2020 that this risk should be “prominently and independently disclosed,”33 it was not part of the informed consent disclosure. The International Journal of Clinical Practice researchers wrote:34
“This risk [ADE] is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.”
We are on a slippery slope. Unless researchers, pharmaceutical companies and governmental agencies are held accountable and watched closely we will continue to lose more and more of our civil rights until they have completely eroded.
How Will Big Pharma React to Losing $50 Million Each Year?
Nusimer estimates the cost savings from a transmissible vaccine may be roughly $50 million every year. He said, “It's astronomical the amount of money you would save, even with a weakly transmissible vaccine.”35
However, that number is likely far from the financial loss pharmaceutical companies would experience. For example, if the flu vaccine were to be transmissible it would put a big dent in the $3 billion a year36 they reap from a vaccine with an overall effectiveness of 30%.
By February 2021, Pfizer had estimated their COVID-19 vaccine was worth $15 billion and would be the “second highest revenue-generating drug anytime, anywhere.”37 AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine netted $275 million in the first quarter of 2021, despite being one of the more controversial of the four released under an emergency authorization for use.38
As has been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,39 there are thousands of people who have reported vaccine injuries and deaths, and likely hundreds of thousands who have not.40 In fact, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was previously paused to teach doctors how to report vaccine injuries. As Dr. Anne Schuchat, principal deputy director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said:41
“... a key component of why we are on this pause is so we can educate the clinicians about how to diagnose and treat this condition because the usual treatment could actually make things worse ... but also to report it, because we don't know if we've missed some cases, whether the risk really is 1 in a million or perhaps more than that."
The pause has since been lifted and vaccination with the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine has resumed in the U.S.42 It’s important to remember, meanwhile, that once a transmissible virus vaccine has been released, it cannot be recalled. Any variant or mutation that causes devastating damage, disability and death is irreparable. The financial cost and the cost in human life may reach apocalyptic levels.
COVID-19 Uses Metabolic Poison to Bind to Human Cells
In late 2020, a different group of researchers from the University of Bristol revealed they had discovered groundbreaking information that the virus had a pocket on the surface into which they hoped to be able to inject antiviral drugs.43 The virus uses linoleic acid (LA) to attached itself to human cells and then begins to replicate.
According to the original laboratory research,44 the linoleic acid stabilizes the locked SARS-CoV-2 spike to the cell and that reduces angiotensin-converting-enzyme 2 (ACE2) interaction. One of the lead researchers said:45
"We were truly puzzled by our discovery and its implications. So here we have LA, a molecule which is at the center of those functions that go haywire in COVID-19 patients, with terrible consequences. And the virus that is causing all this chaos, according to our data, grabs and holds on to exactly this molecule — basically disarming much of the body's defenses.
Our discovery provides the first direct link between LA, COVID-19 pathological manifestations, and the virus itself. The question now is how to turn this new knowledge against the virus itself and defeat the pandemic.”
I believe that LA is likely the contributing cause of nearly every chronic disease from the last century. In my interview with Tucker Goodrich in December 2020, we discussed the health benefits of avoiding omega-6 fats as a key component to good health. Specifically, omega-6 fats found in vegetable oils and conventionally raised chicken, which are fed LA rich grains.
Linoleic acid accounts for up to 80% of all omega-6 fats, which according to research Goodrich cites makes up nearly 20% of all the energy in a western diet. As Goodrich noted, levels of linoleic acid in the diet are associated with an increased potential for cancer, obesity, heart disease and even sunburn.
Evidence suggests that LA plays a role in severe COVID-19 disease as it helps the virus attach to human cells, giving it the opportunity to replicate and grow. You can see the interview and read more about the significant damage associated with consuming LA in my article, “How Linoleic Acid Wrecks Your Health.”
