Health & Fitness

In my latest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” I investigate the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and how the technocratic elite use this pandemic to erode your personal liberty and freedom. I also review strategies that can help protect you against this infection, and what you can do to fight back against the technocratic takeover.

My book won’t be available until April 29, 2021, but is available right now for preorder on Amazon. Not surprisingly, Amazon is now being pressured to ban this book, under the auspice that it might make people rethink their decision to get vaccinated.

While it is less than ideal to ask you to purchase this book from Amazon, the reality is the high rankings you help us achieve creates massive visibility that will help others become familiar with this controversial information.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

Australian Sky News¹ found Amazon, Waterstones and Foyles all sell what it calls “anti-vaccine” and “COVID conspiracy” books, and vendors are now being urged to pull, block or add some sort of warning label to them.² As noted by Sky News:³

“In the UK, more than 20 million vaccine doses have been administered as part of efforts to defeat COVID-19, but worries continue that misinformation is stopping some people from having the jab. Shadow health minister Alex Norris told Sky News:

‘Getting our population vaccinated is a massive priority and it is very sad to see these things so freely available. We would hope that retailers would act responsibly and have a look at whether they want to be associated with such products and whether they want to be seen to be profiting off such products.’"

Modern-Day Book Burning

Interestingly, Sky News discovered that a majority of “anti-vaccine” books were published after March 2020, suggesting interest in and sales of these books have increased since the pandemic began.

Sky News points out that many of “anti-vaccine” books — most of which, by the way, are written by licensed and educated health experts — have five-star reviews, and as a category, they are frequently among the Top 10 best sellers in the children’s vaccination category. But public evaluation of the material matters not in this case. A free-thinking public simply cannot be tolerated; freedom of speech must be stopped or labeled with black boxes.

The question that is never answered is, who decides what is “legitimate text,” to use Sky News’ term, and what is “misinformation”? Is there a person alive who is always 100% correct and can make that determination? Or does getting to the truth involve the ability to sift through and balance pros and cons; shades of gray; levels of uncertainty? As Toby Young, general secretary for the Australian Free Speech Union told Sky News:⁴

"The problem with placing a limit on free speech and saying 'we're going to ban people who say or write things that are potentially harmful' is that that word potentially is quite vague.

If you grant yourself that right, you're granting yourself the right to ban almost anything. The second [issue] is, who defines what is harmful? We think that there is a scientific consensus around things like the COVID vaccines but actually science is constantly developing and evolving new information is coming to light."

Sadly, that kind of common sense is not to be tolerated anymore. It’s all about “burning the evidence” at this point, to prevent people from learning anything that might break the one-sided control narrative. As Sky News admits, only 10% of Amazon search results lead to anti-narrative content, thanks to hidden algorithms that suppress certain categories of books.⁵

It’s hard to imagine that book burning would be accepted in this modern era, but here we are. History repeats itself, and censorship has been a go-to strategy for all authoritarian regimes.

The fact that the press goes along with it, and actually encourages it, tells you just how controlled the world has become. The dictatorial power structure we’re currently facing off against is not a national one; it’s a global phenomenon, centered primarily within nongovernmental organizations and private “philanthropic” foundations that have a stranglehold on mainstream media.

FDA Wants Me to Stop Giving COVID Nutrition Advice

At present, it looks as though efforts to eradicate my book will fail, as preorders are rolling in at a steady pace, but that doesn’t mean they won’t continue trying.

Earlier this month, Dr. Peter Lurie⁶ — a former U.S. Food and Drug Administration associate commissioner⁷ and current president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) — bragged⁸ about his ability to influence the FDA into sending me a warning letter⁹ for “unapproved and misbranded products related to COVID-19.”

According to the FDA, my vitamin C, vitamin D3 and quercetin products are “unapproved new drugs sold in violation of section 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

As support for this claim of wrongdoing, the FDA highlights statements in articles on my website that are fully referenced and supported by published science. None of these articles have any commercial advertising linking the information to my products, and none of my product pages makes claims about preventing, curing or treating COVID-19.

Even this seemingly benign tweet stating practical adoption of vitamin c and vitamin d in mainstream medicine was listed as an offensive, illegal message.

Vitamins C and D are finally being adopted in the conventional treatment of novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. This fortunate turn of events is likely to save thousands of lives, while keeping health care costs down. pic.twitter.com/Rc19Zlp0Q8

— Dr. Joseph Mercola (@mercola) April 7, 2020

The fully referenced article, “Vitamins C and D Finally Adopted as Coronavirus Treatment,” provides proof that this statement is completely truthful. But, the truth becomes treason in an empire of lies.

I co-wrote a scientific publication with William Grant, Ph.D.,¹⁰ and Dr. Carol Wagner,¹¹ both of whom are on the GrassrootsHealth vitamin D expert panel. In it, we demonstrate the clear link between vitamin D deficiency and severe cases of COVID-19. This paper was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Nutrients.¹²

I am committed to providing truthful information, for free, to anyone that wants it, and I am not going to allow people to die from COVID-19 and other respiratory infections due to vitamin D deficiency or any other easily remedied cause.

Gates-Backed CSPI-Allied Group Wants Me Gone

The agrochemical front group Cornell Alliance for Science (CAS),¹³ the primary funding for which comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,¹⁴ was quick to jump on CSPI’s bandwagon, falsely stating¹⁵ that “pages advertising vitamin C and quercetin as having ‘synergistic effects that make them useful in the prevention and early at-home treatment of COVID-19’ were still online” nearly a month after the FDA’s warning letter.

The false statement there is “pages advertising.” There are a) advertisement/marketing pages for products in my online shop, and b) fully referenced scientific news articles, which are not, in fact, “advertising,” as they are not linked to any of my products, nor do they refer to or recommend any specific brands, mine or otherwise.

Such coordinated attacks are to be expected, though, considering Gates’ influence over the operation, and seeing how CAS and CSPI work closely together — a fact CAS admits in its attempted hit piece.¹⁶

Shady ‘Anti-Hate’ Outfit Publishes Hit List

Then there’s the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a shady U.K.-based organization with anonymous funding led by Imran Ahmed. Ironically, while CCDH is supposed to be an “anti-hate” group focused on combating online hate speech, Ahmed pursues his enemies with unbridled extremist rhetoric aimed at riling up public outrage against them.

In short, what Ahmed is really engaged in is digital hate coaching. He’s even gone so far as to publish an actual hit list¹⁷ of the “Top 10 anti-vaxxers” it wants permanently silenced and eradicated from public forums. The list shows, by way of crossing out names, which have already been successfully deplatformed, and from which social media.

CCDH Is a Tool for Global Technocracy

Ahmed is the CEO and founder of CCDH, and was appointed to the steering committee of the U.K. government’s Commission on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force in April 2020, just as fearmongering about the COVID-19 pandemic was ramping up.

Aside from Ahmed, the CCDH consists of a single “Patron,” British TV personality and Countdown host Rachael Riley,¹⁹ and a seven-person board of directors that “supports and scrutinizes” Ahmed’s work.

According to Influence Watch,²⁰ Riley worked with Ahmed to get commentator Katie Hopkins and MP George Galloway banned from Twitter back in January 2020, actually meeting in person with Twitter executives in London. Hopkins’ account was permanently suspended²¹ while Galloway’s was not.

The CCDH’s funding comes primarily from “philanthropic trusts,” according to this not-readily-accessible web page, but no specific trusts are listed. However, through the connection of co-founder Morgan McSweeney — who left the CCDH for a chief of staff position with Labour Leader Keir Starmer — we can deduce that the CCDH is connected with the technocratic hub that is the Trilateral Commission, where Starmer is a serving member.²²

The group can also be linked to other technocratic centers within the globalist network through its board chairman Simon Clark and board member Kirsty McNeill.²³

Clark is a senior fellow for the policy think-tank Center for American Progress and chairman of Foreign Policy for America, members of which include Stephen Grand, who is a senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, and Avril Haines, former deputy director of the CIA.

Simon also served as the first director of web services for Reuters, one of the three global news agencies responsible for curating a vast majority of the world’s news. You can learn more about the structure of global news in “Reuters and BBC Caught Taking Money for Propaganda Campaign.”

McNeill, meanwhile, is a member of the European Council of Foreign Relations — another key player behind the Great Reset — and director of policy for Save the Children Fund, which is funded by the Gates Foundation and a partner of Gates’ GAVI Vaccine Alliance.

Another board member is Damian Collins, a member of the British Parliament and former chair of the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. So much for being a nongovernmental organization. Collins also founded Infotagion, which “seeks to fight the disinformation contagion about COVID-19.”²⁴

Ahmed Invents Easily Disproven Lie to Create ‘Buzz’

While Ahmed riles against people who publish truthful, fully referenced information about COVID-19 and related vaccines, he fails at the very basics of information-sharing himself.

In “Dismantling the Anti-Vaxx Industry,”²⁵ a short article that somehow made its way into the journal Nature Medicine, Ahmed provides five references, two of which are CCDH material that he himself created. Another two are mainstream media articles that coach hate against “anti-vaxxers.”

He also lies by saying he “recorded a private, three-day meeting of the world’s most prominent anti-vaxxers,” when in fact it was a public, international conference given online, attended by thousands around the world, all of whom had access to the recordings.

He could have done the normal, ethical, truly journalistic thing and admitted he simply attended a public virtual conference, but he chose not to. Instead, he twisted it into some undercover agent mission where he secretly recorded private discussions that revealed the inner workings of “the opposition.”

It’s laughable, really. The thing is, when people bother creating such unnecessary and easily exposed lies, it really doesn’t bode well for their honesty and forthrightness in more serious matters — such as vaccine safety, for example.

Getting banned by technocrats and billionaire front groups is a badge of honor, and will only make people more interested to see what the elitists are trying to hide.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3vXH9d8
via IFTTT

Manganese is an essential trace element you must get from your food as your body cannot make it. However, evidence demonstrates that genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant plants are deficient in manganese, which translates to a manganese-deficient food supply.

Manganese is used as a cofactor for many enzymatic activities involved in carbohydrate metabolism, scavenging reactive oxygen species, reproduction, immune system response and bone formation.¹

Your body absorbs manganese in the small intestines, after which some is stored in the tissue. Approximately 25% to 40% of the manganese in your body is stored in bone tissue. Your body uses regulatory control through absorption and excretion to maintain stable concentrations.

Up to 90% of the manganese absorbed in your intestinal tract may be excreted in bile through your intestinal tract. Manganese levels are difficult to measure and not routinely evaluated in clinical practice. Yet, since more of the food supply is manganese-deficient, it stands to reason that many more people are or are becoming manganese-deficient.

Glyphosate Creates Manganese Deficiency in Food Supply

Glyphosate was first approved in the U.S. in 1974 and subsequently introduced into crops. To date, the Environmental Protection Agency lists “no risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate” on their website.² Contrary to independent researchers and statements by the World Health Organization, they also say there is “no indication that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor”³ and “no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.”^4,5

What agricultural experts have discovered is that glyphosate does limit plant absorption of micronutrients like manganese.⁶ Soybean growers are familiar with yellowing of glyphosate-tolerant beans after application, also known as “yellow flash.” Glyphosate chelates with manganese, causing a deficiency within the plant and the resulting yellow leaves.

Researchers used field experiments from 1999 to 2001 to evaluate ways of reducing the impact on plant growth using liquid formulations of manganese.⁷ What they found in the early studies was that adding manganese into the herbicide solution reduced the effect of the herbicide on weed control. To overcome the reduced control, they experimented with larger applications.

The primary endpoint in the study was weed control and not the effect additional herbicide might have on plant growth or the safety of the soybean yield. In these field studies, the addition of manganese reduced weed control but did not influence soybean yield.⁸

Another study published in 2007⁹ evaluated the different methods of manganese application to crops that might maintain weed control in glyphosate-resistant plants and improve yield. During the study, they found manganese application improved yield. Interestingly, the conventionally grown soybeans without glyphosate application did not increase yield with manganese fertilization.

This indicated the plants were not deficient without the application of glyphosate. The researchers also found the yield in the conventionally grown soybeans was greater than the yield of the glyphosate-resistant plants without manganese fertilizer. In other words, conventionally grown soybeans had a greater yield than glyphosate-resistant plants.

Manganese-Rich Foods Are Commonly Glyphosate Treated

According to the National Institutes of Health,¹⁰ manganese can be found in a wide variety of food types, including seafood such as clams, oysters and mussels. Agricultural crops that may be rich in manganese include soybeans, leafy green vegetables, coffee, tea and whole grains. Unfortunately, the list of agricultural crops is also commonly sprayed with the popular herbicide glyphosate.

The Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) Dirty Dozen for 2021¹¹ — a list of foods that contain higher levels of pesticides than others — includes spinach, kale, collard and mustard greens. They reported that more than 90% of the samples of leafy greens tested positive for two or more pesticides.

One sample of kale, collard and mustard greens tested positive for up to 20 different pesticides and spinach had 1.8 times more pesticide residue by weight than the other crops that were tested.

According to the University of Tennessee Extension,¹² glyphosate, which is found in Roundup and other herbicides, is allowed in most vegetable plants. A greenhouse experiment from Sabanci University, Turkey,¹³ found applications of glyphosate reduced the concentration of calcium, magnesium and manganese, particularly in young leaves.

At plant maturation, the seed concentrations of calcium, magnesium, iron and manganese were significantly reduced by glyphosate, suggesting the herbicide interferes with the uptake and translocation of the minerals. Ultimately this affects seed quality and future crops.

Even your coffee and tea likely test positive for glyphosate. The herbicide is commonly used on coffee plantations to control weeds¹⁴ and testing has also found it in tea leaves.¹⁵

According to the National Wheat Foundation,¹⁶ 33% of wheat fields in the U.S. have had glyphosate application. Yet, a study¹⁷ commissioned by EWG found glyphosate in over 95% of oat-based food samples and in all of the wheat-based foods that were tested, including dried pasta and cereals.

A study from Canada¹⁸ listed food items with the highest percentage of glyphosate in the samples tested, including 90% of pizza, 84% of crackers, 73% of couscous and 67% of lentils.¹⁹

Manganese Deficiency and Health

Since agricultural use of glyphosate is popular, it is difficult to avoid consuming foods contaminated with the herbicide unless you are seeking out organically grown and locally sourced produce, as well as steering clear of processed foods. As I said, manganese is required in small amounts but is essential for multiple functions.

One paper reported on an animal study in which cows were fed Roundup Ready feed. The animals developed a severe deficiency in serum manganese.²⁰ Signs of manganese deficiency in animals can include impaired growth and reproductive function, altered carbohydrate and lipid metabolism, impaired glucose tolerance and skeletal abnormalities.²¹

In humans, manganese has a significant impact on physiology and gut dysbiosis. Since it is integral to many physiological processes it also influences neuropathologies such as Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, Parkinson's disease, depression and prion diseases.²²

In some neuropathology, such as autism and Alzheimer's disease, glutamate overexpression within the central nervous system can be explained by a manganese deficiency. Oxidative damage and mitochondrial dysfunction may result in a reduction of manganese superoxide dismutase, which functions to protect mitochondria from oxidative damage.

A deficiency in manganese may also lead to osteoporosis and osteomalacia since the synthesis of chondroitin sulfate is dependent on the presence of manganese. Lactobacillus, a beneficial bacterium in the gut microbiome, is dependent on manganese for antioxidant protection. A reduction in Lactobacillus in the gut is associated with anxiety,²³ autism²⁴ and chronic fatigue syndrome.^25,26

Infertility rates and birth defects may also be affected by manganese deficiency since sperm motility is dependent on the essential element.²⁷ However, even when there are optimal levels of manganese in the body, some researchers believe that glyphosate can promote toxic accumulation in the brainstem that ultimately leads to Parkinson's disease and other prion diseases.²⁸

Can You Get Too Much Manganese?

As stated, manganese is an essential element, but the body requires a specific balance for optimal health. In other words, you can have too little, but you can also get too much. In one study²⁹ from a population-based sample of healthy Chinese men in six provinces in China, researchers found those who had a high serum manganese level appeared to have harmful effects on their sperm motility and morphology.

In several regions throughout Canada, the groundwater had naturally high levels of manganese, which triggered the question of whether this potentially neurotoxic element could affect the cognition of children living in the area. A research team from the University of Quebec, Montreal, Canada,³⁰ studied children who had been exposed to high concentrations of manganese in their drinking water.

They evaluated the intellectual functioning of the children and compared them against those who had lower exposure to manganese.³¹ The results revealed that children who were drinking tap water that was in the upper 20% of concentrations had IQ tests that were six points below those who were drinking water that had little to no manganese.

One of the researchers explained, "We found significant deficits in the intelligence quotient (IQ) of children exposed to a higher concentration of manganese in drinking water. Yet, manganese concentrations were well below current guidelines."³²

Until this study in 2010, manganese was not on a list of inorganic substances that were being tested in drinking water. More recently, a paper published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry³³ demonstrated that alterations in manganese homeostasis could alter neurological physiology and cognition, either through overexposure or insufficiency.

It is unlikely you would be overexposed to manganese unless, like the children in Quebec, your drinking water is contaminated. Other overexposures can come from working in mines and welding environments,³⁴ having iron deficiency anemia³⁵ or chronic liver disease,^36,37 since the liver is responsible for filtering excess manganese in the body.

Glyphosate Damages Health in Many Ways

If there has been one thing that the events of 2020 have taught us, it is that we must fully evaluate the information being communicated to us over mainstream media. Each health and wellness decision may have an impact on your ability to withstand severe COVID-19 or the new iterations being considered in laboratories around the world. Exposure to glyphosate is one of those decisions.

Scientific evidence has demonstrated the highly damaging effects of endocrine disruption^38,39,40 this ubiquitous chemical has on humans and other mammals, as well as the impact it has on plant health, food supply and your future.

In my interview with senior research scientist Stephanie Seneff, which you can watch at "The Troubling Role of Glyphosate in COVID-19," we discuss the critical part glyphosate has played in the past years in overall health and during the current global pandemic. One of the issues has been the way in which your body may sometimes substitute glyphosate for glycine in the construction of proteins.

This leads to proteins that don't function. Monsanto's own research dating to the late 1980s showed that glyphosate accumulates in a variety of tissues, even though they claim it does not.⁴¹ Instead, the researcher proposes that "A significant portion of total sample radioactivity was found to be incorporated into proteins." The result is a distorted protein that can’t work the way it's supposed to.

Another compound in the body that is like manganese in the way it is essential in the right amount and toxic in excess amounts, is deuterium. In normal physiology, your mitochondrial cells help remove deuterium, which is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen.

But, when your mitochondria are damaged by glyphosate, they are unable to eliminate deuterium properly. When your body doesn't have enough structured water to trap the deuterium and your mitochondria are damaged, the deuterium can impair energy production, cause mitochondrial dysfunction and contribute to the development of chronic diseases.

Tips to Reduce Your Glyphosate Exposure

Seneff and I discussed several ways in which glyphosate can affect your health and the overall function of your body. To reduce your potential risk of a manganese deficiency and the resulting neurological damage, the answer is to eat certified organic or biodynamically grown foods whenever possible.

Seneff is committed to buying only certified organic foods and related in the interview that she has seen health improvements since she and her family began doing that. Other dietary recommendations to help mitigate the risk of glyphosate toxicity including eating or drinking more:

Sulfur-containing foods such as organic eggs and wild-caught seafood	Organic grass fed milk and butter. Butter is one of the lowest deuterium foods available
Glacier water, which is naturally low in deuterium	Animal fats, which are also low in deuterium
Molecular hydrogen	Probiotic-rich fermented foods such as sauerkraut and apple cider vinegar

To help “push” glyphosate out of your body and mitigate its toxicity, you can take an inexpensive glycine supplement. I take between 5 and 10 grams a day. It has a light, sweet taste, so you can use it as a sweetener. Seneff agreed in our interview, saying:

“It makes sense because it's basically going to outnumber the glyphosate molecules. Remember, glyphosate’s going to compete with glycine in building the protein. If there's a lot of glycine around, then it's much less likely that glyphosate will get in there.”

from Articles https://ift.tt/3rmU84z
via IFTTT

You expect to produce a ticket to get on a plane, train or enter the theater. But Bill Gates has designed it so children in Los Angeles need a ticket to go to school.¹

The app is called the Daily Pass and follows on the heels of the city’s digital vaccine verification announced in January 2021. Digital health passports and vaccine verifications are the beginning of data collection and social engineering that are being designed to change your behavior and control your movements.

These digital passports are being fed to a public that is weary of lockdowns and mask-wearing and longs for the ability to get back to some semblance of normalcy. It is being dangled as a mechanism for freedom. Adults will be required to show proof of a vaccine or a recent negative COVID-19 test before being able to travel, attend a concert or enjoy a meal in their favorite restaurant.

The problem is that to live life freely, you must have “papers.” Instead of freedom, it's discrimination and a movement toward technocratic fascism, setting the stage for increased surveillance and erosion of your privacy. Despite this blatant move toward a surveillance state, many are welcoming digital passports because they've been led to believe it's necessary to protect public health and safety.

The new Daily Pass app rolled out in Los Angeles is the next step in adjusting the behaviors and movements of children with full knowledge that when children are acclimated to the requirements of the Great Reset, it's more likely they will continue to “follow the leader” as adults.

Health Pass Required for Children to Enter School

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) announced the launch of “a one-stop-shop web app built specifically for the District” on their website.² LAUSD superintendent Austin Beutner called it the “golden ticket in Willy Wonka,” which allows anyone with the pass easy access into the school building.³

The app was developed with Microsoft to generate a unique daily QR code that is scanned by the system at school.⁴ Without that code, students will not be allowed to enter the school building. The code is generated after the student gets a negative test result for COVID-19, reports a temperature under 100 degrees and answers daily health questions on the app, a procedure which the school says will not take more than two minutes.⁵

To generate the daily pass, the student must test negative using a PCR test.⁶ The LAUSD tells their parents, employees and students: “While we recommend the use of nasal swabs, anyone can request a saliva test if they prefer. Both tests are what’s known as PCR tests, the gold standard for COVID-19 testing.”⁷

This leads parents, students and employees, who may not stay abreast of research studies, to believe that PCR testing is the most accurate method of identifying a COVID-19 infection. However, as I’ve talked about, PCR testing may be highly inaccurate and the results have been manipulated based on the cycle threshold used.

In addition to these requirements, students must confirm they have not been in close physical contact with anyone with symptoms, have not traveled outside of Southern California for the past 10 days and agree that they have been “as safe as possible.” In addition, the app user is then informed:⁸

"If you ‘disagree’ with any of the above, you will not be allowed to enter a school or District office and you can schedule a COVID-19 test if you are an employee or student at ..."

Within the app, students are asked, “Do you agree to commit to the safest behaviors possible and in so doing, keeping the schools safer?" and within the portal users are told:⁹

“Anonymous data from Daily Pass will be used by the Los Angeles Unified’s research and health care collaborators — Stanford University, UCLA, The Johns Hopkins University, Anthem Blue Cross, Healthnet, and Cedars Sinai — to provide insights for strategies to create the safest possible school environment.”

These statements, separating the word “disagree” in quotes and content from the explainer video discussed below, are subtle and subconscious ways of pressuring students and staffers to accept behavioral changes and vaccinations in the march toward greater surveillance and control.

Additionally, the user is told their information will be shared “anonymously.” However, it is difficult to imagine that this information will remain anonymous when highly secured banks,¹⁰ retailers¹¹ and even the federal government¹² have been hacked and information stolen.

On the Road to a Health Passport

What began in Los Angeles as digital vaccine verification in January 2021, has quickly morphed into a comprehensive check-in system children must pass in order to enter their school buildings. NBC Los Angeles reports on the other functions daily pass will have, including:¹³

“... register and schedule appointments, track vaccines in stock, perform check-in and data capture at time of appointment, sort high-risk individuals, offer waitlists to low-risk individuals and dashboards to view data, among other features, the district said.”

To introduce the app to students and parents, the district produced an explainer video, positioning it as a solution for children who are fearful of becoming sick. One Twitter post captioned the video, “California is a dystopian nightmare.”¹⁴

The explainer video introduces Daily Pass as a solution. After following the student through her first day at school where she dutifully follows the safety rules, including staying 6 feet apart from other students, the cartoon character announces to her father that she is no longer scared and grateful that her father kept her safe.

The Daily Pass is an iteration of vaccine passports, both of which may quickly morph into health passports during 2021 and 2022 if they are widely accepted. Although vaccination is currently presented as a voluntary medical procedure, without a vaccine you may ultimately experience severe limitations to travel, indoor events and socialization.

However, giving special privileges to those who are vaccinated essentially amounts to mandatory vaccination and acceptance of surveillance and tracking. The presentation as a measure to protect public health is in reality threatening your freedom to go about normal daily life unless you consent to the COVID-19 vaccine.

In addition to the Microsoft Daily Pass, the CommonPass app is intended to act as a health passport where users upload medical data that go far beyond vaccination. It is anticipated the CommonPass will integrate with personal health apps currently in place, such as Apple Health and CommonHealth. If your personal health record doesn’t meet entry requirements, you could be denied.

Data Show Schools Are Not Super Spreaders

As Los Angeles gears up to closely monitor and surveil children throughout the school district, early data from a study performed by the University of Warwick in the U.K. has found that children in schools are not super spreaders.¹⁵ This is consistent with information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which says that “fewer children have been sick with COVID-19 compared to adults.”¹⁶

The study looked at information on school absences between September 2020 and December 2020. The researchers were interested in students who stayed home sick because of COVID-19, and how the number who became ill may vary across time.

Teachers and students were evaluated, including how the absences changed during November lockdown and in December when the lockdown was lifted. The results of this evaluation found that the infection rate within the schools matched the surrounding community.

This indicates there is no evidence that schools were a driver of more cases of COVID-19. Researchers were unable to ascertain from the data whether the students and teachers who acquired COVID-19 caught it at the school or in the community.¹⁷ However, as was expected with what is known about the virus, the rate of infection in primary schools was lower than that in secondary schools.

Dr. Mike Tildesley was one of the researchers and is a scientific adviser to the U.K. government. Despite the results of the study and the historical rate of infection in children, when speaking to a BBC reporter, he had a telling comment about how the decisions to reopen schools would be made: “You could potentially think about doing early years first. But this is a political decision."¹⁸

How Much Further Damage Will Close Monitoring Trigger?

Information from a recent study¹⁹ using data from Germany's first registry recording experiences of children wearing masks has revealed that they are suffering physical, behavioral and psychological harm. Data was collected from 25,930 children, from which the researchers found there were 24 health issues associated with wearing masks that fell into these three categories.²⁰

Of the problems that children were having, 68% of them were reported to the registry by parents. The researchers concluded the frequency of registry use and the variety of symptoms being reported indicated the importance of the subject. They recorded symptoms that:²¹

“... included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).”

Added to these concerning symptoms, they also found 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play.²² Hundreds more reported experiences including “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.”

It is important to remember that these results were based solely on the experiences children were having wearing masks. According to the new Daily Pass app, children in Los Angeles will now be undergoing closer monitoring and regulations that include social distancing from their peers, testing and daily questionnaires.

On a daily basis, children will be more closely monitored in school, which may lead to increased symptoms of behavioral and psychological harm. In addition to this, measurements of anxiety and depressive disorder in adults jumped dramatically between January to June 2019 and January 2021.

Data from the CDC²³ show the percentage of adults reporting symptoms of anxiety disorder and/or depressive disorder was 11% in the first quarter of 2019, but jumped dramatically to 41.1% across the nation by January 2021.²⁴

This is important since evidence has demonstrated there's a positive relationship between a child's behavioral problems and mental health with maternal mental health²⁵ and parental mental health.²⁶

This means that independent of their own stress and psychological harm from mask-wearing, lockdowns and the new Daily Pass, children also respond negatively to the rising rate of anxiety and depression exhibited by adults.

Remember, This Is Not About Disease Transmission

It’s important to remember this is not about disease transmission but, rather, about surveillance and control. Called the Great Reset or Fourth Industrial Revolution, the Great Reset is instead what journalist James Corbett says is:²⁷

“... working as some sort of marketing tool for the very old ideas of centralization of control into fewer hands, globalization [and] transformation of society through Orwellian surveillance technologies.”

The process through which this is all being funneled was developed by Robert Cialdini, Ph.D., a psychologist who studied and perfected sales techniques.²⁸ His theory revolves around getting people to say “yes.” The more you say “yes,” the more likely it is you’ll say yes to the next request.

He postulated and proved it’s easier to get someone to agree with you if you start small. Colin Shaw, founder and CEO of Beyond Philosophy LLC, describes the process this way:²⁹

“Suppose I want you to give me $100. If I ask you for $100, you are probably going to say no. You likely have a rule about not giving people $100 when they ask for it. However, if I ask for $1, you would probably say yes. I get more than $1 you give me, though; I get you used to the idea of giving me money when I ask for it.

Then, once we have established that you would give me money, I ask for more the next time, like $20. Since you had already given me $1, you might think, ‘Well, what’s a little bit more?’ Bit by bit, I work my way up to $100, starting with gaining your commitment early at a lower amount.”

Each small step seems reasonable and maybe an action you could support. But, ultimately, the current goal is greater than getting $1, wearing a mask or downloading a health passport. Make no mistake, when it comes to vaccinations, this process may create legal prejudice and segregation, isolating those who do not choose to vaccinate.

The Daily Pass, CommonPass and vaccinations are being sold as a means of increasing your freedom, but instead are slowly stripping away your personal rights. Studies revealing the lifelong harm being heaped on children and adults by actions that aren’t supported by scientific evidence don’t often make the mainstream media. These outlets must conform to their advertisers’ wishes.

Therefore, it is crucial that you share information from studies and independent journalists who are standing up to defend your rights and personal freedoms using a strong foundation in scientific evidence. Once personal freedoms disappear it will be nearly impossible to get them back. Unless we stand together against tyranny, we will lose our civil liberties.

from Articles https://ift.tt/39ab33V
via IFTTT

The New Orleans Archdiocese has warned Catholics that the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine is “morally compromised” as the production of the vaccine uses aborted fetal cell lines.¹

This is the latest concern in a rising number of challenges linked to the COVID-19 vaccines that were developed under Operation Warp Speed² to accelerate the development and distribution of a “vaccine.” In less than one year, several drug companies reportedly accomplished what often takes up to 15 years.³

Yet the term “vaccine” associated with the COVID-19 shot is a misnomer as it doesn’t meet the medical or legal definition of a vaccine, as detailed in "COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines."

Rather, it is genetic therapy that comes with a considerable list of potential long-term health concerns, not the least of which is the troubling evidence suggesting some of the mRNA shots may cause prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Immunologist Dr. Bart Classen writes:⁴

“Development of new vaccine technology has been plagued with problems in the past. The current RNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were approved in the US using an emergency order without extensive long-term safety testing. The results indicate that the vaccine RNA has specific sequences that may induce TDP-43 and FUS to fold into their pathologic prion confirmations.

The enclosed finding as well as additional potential risks lead the author to believe that regulatory approval of the RNA-based vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was premature and that the vaccine may cause much more harm than benefit.”

Amid the challenges of physical adverse effects from the vaccines, the lack of adequate testing and the underhanded methods in which vaccination may ultimately be made mandatory, many are now faced with the moral dilemma of being injected with genetic material that was grown in aborted fetal cell cultures.⁵

Aborted Fetal Cell Cultures Used in Vaccine Production

February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration⁶ announced the authorization of emergency use for the Johnson & Johnson single-dose COVID-19 vaccine. At the same time, the Archdiocese of New Orleans announced that the vaccine is “morally compromised as it uses the abortion-derived cell line in development and production of the vaccine as well as the testing.”⁷

In addition to their warning that Catholics avoid the Johnson & Johnson vaccine because of its “extensive use of abortion-derived cell lines,”⁸ the Archdiocese acknowledged that while there:⁹

“ ... was some lab testing that utilized the abortion-derived cell line, the two vaccines currently available from Pfizer and Moderna do not rely on cell lines from abortions in the manufacturing process and therefore can be morally acceptable for Catholics as the connection to abortion is extremely remote.”

There are other clergy members that disagree with using any of the vaccines available for COVID-19 since, as the statement above indicates, abortion-derived cell lines were used in the lab testing.¹⁰ However, the Vatican has been aggressively pro-vaccine and approved the use, writing:¹¹

“In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available … it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.”

The debate within the Catholic Church has a long history, which centers on using HEK293 cells that were harvested from an aborted fetus in the early 1970s.¹² The disagreement leaves many within the church without clear guidance from religious leaders.

Semantics and Technicalities Used to ‘Debunk’ the Truth

Much of the confusion about using aborted fetal tissue in testing and production can be summed up in the statement from The Washington Post, which said in an archived version of a March 2, 2021, article, “The cells used now, such as those used in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, are not from the original fetal tissue.”¹³ It should also be noted that an updated version¹⁴ of the same article deletes this quote without mentioning that the article has been changed.

This is a common mistake that has been perpetuated in the media using general language to describe the process, which is precisely what self-declared fact-checkers use when they rate something false or misleading. As detailed in ”Several COVID-19 Vaccines Are Made Using Aborted Fetal Cells,” the answer lies in the technicalities and not in the general terms.

There have been several cell lines commonly used in vaccine development that originated from aborted fetuses.¹⁵ Six vaccine makers are using at least one of these cell lines in the development of COVID-19 vaccines, including AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson.

Fact-checkers label “false” the claims that cell lines from an aborted fetus have been used in the testing and development of the vaccine for several reasons. Some critics of abortion-derived cell lines have claimed that the vaccines contain the cells, and since the vaccines literally do not contain abortion-derived cells, the entire claim is labeled as false.

In other instances, fact-checkers claim the cell lines are not original, as in the statement from The Washington Post, but rather a clone. While there may indeed be some who are concerned that the cells could be in the vaccine, typically, the moral objection is to the use of aborted fetal cells in medical research and development.

Whatever the concern, it has become apparent that fact-checkers are trying to dissuade people from having a public conversation about the ethics of using abortion-derived cell lines to produce and test vaccines.

In fact, fetal cell lines are used during the production of certain vaccines and the claim that the cells are clones of the original is like saying your 20-year-old or 40-year-old body is no longer your body since all the cells are copies of those when you were a baby.

They are, in essence, a clone of the original. However, there is virtually no difference between cells that grow and multiply in a petri dish and those that grow and multiply in your body during your lifetime. If the cells in your body are still you, then the cells in the petri dish are still those of the original aborted fetus.

Reports of Side Effects Are Rising Rapidly

Side effects from the mRNA genetic therapies used to create novel “vaccines” are inevitable. The genetic material effectively turns your cells into bioreactors¹⁶ that turn out viral proteins to incite an immune response. Historical and preliminary evidence shows there are short and long-term side effects.

As Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explains in her interview featured in “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions,” the mRNA is synthetic, which the body sees as “non-self.” This can trigger the production of autoantibodies to attack your own tissues.

Commonly reported side effects in those who have received the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines have included symptoms that are suggestive of neurological damage.

Since the vaccines began being distributed some of the side effects have included severe allergic reactions including anaphylaxis,^17,18,19 seizures and convulsions,^20,21 persistent headache and migraine,²² paralysis²³ and sudden death within hours or days.^24,25,26,27

As detailed in “Why COVID Vaccine Testing Is a Farce,” Mikovits predicts a long-term significant uptick in neurological and neurodegenerative diseases, such as psychosis, Parkinson's, migraines, ALS and sleep disorders. She also believes there will also be a rise in pain syndromes like fibromyalgia, as well as cancers, kidney disease and rheumatoid arthritis, to name a few.

Additionally, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist specializing in multisystem inflammatory syndrome, submitted a public comment²⁸ to the FDA in December 2020, in which he expressed concern that mRNA vaccines have “the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in safety trials.”

He cited research showing that “the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with formation of microthrombi (clots).” It seems that since no viral RNA has been found in brain endothelium, “viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus.”

Governments ‘Held to Ransom’ to Secure Vaccine Deals

Within the U.S., vaccine makers enjoy full indemnity against injuries that happen from the COVID-19 vaccine, or any other pandemic vaccine, under the PREP Act. If you're injured, you must file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).²⁹ This is funded by taxpayers through the Congressional appropriation to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

Although similar to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), the CICP is even less generous than the NVICP when it comes to compensation. You will be responsible for any attorney fees and expert witness fees.

Another problem is that, like the NVICP, the CICP is administered within the DHHS, which also operates and promotes the COVID-19 vaccination program. This is a significant conflict of interest that makes it less likely the CICP will acknowledge that a COVID-19 vaccine harmed someone.³⁰

However, in many countries outside the U.S., drug manufacturers are not afforded such liability protection. While most governments are offering indemnity to the vaccine manufacturers, there are a fair few who have not. According to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism,³¹ Pfizer has asked for sovereign assets in Argentina and Brazil to be put up against any future legal costs.

Officials from Argentina and an unnamed Latin American country, which cannot be revealed as it signed a confidentiality agreement with Pfizer, told a journalist from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism they felt:³²

“Pfizer's demands went beyond those of other vaccine companies, and beyond those of Covax, an organization created to ensure low-income countries can access vaccines, which is also requiring its members to indemnify manufacturers.”

Do Your Own Risk-Benefit Analysis Before Deciding

Before taking the vaccine it's important to do your own risk-benefit analysis based on your moral beliefs and science. It is crucial to be careful about making up your mind before using experimental gene therapy.

It is also important to remember that the lethality of COVID-19 is surprisingly low, lower than the flu for those under the age of 60.³³ If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying is just 0.01%. This means you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection, which can improve to 99.999% if you're metabolically flexible, insulin sensitive and vitamin D replete.

The mRNA vaccines are not designed to prevent infection and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, only to reduce the severity of the symptoms of COVID-19 disease. In the meantime, you also have the potential of becoming sicker once exposed to the virus, or it may trigger persistent serious side effects such as those reviewed above.

I urge you to take the time to weigh the potential risks and benefits based on your situation before making a decision you could regret for the rest of your life. Undoubtedly, Pfizer and other vaccine makers suspect this as well, which is why they are asking for indemnification from all governments and are working hard to quash any public debate about the morality or science behind the vaccine.

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

As noted by Russel Brand in a recent video commentary (above), some of the same drug companies now responsible for developing and manufacturing fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccines were also responsible for creating the opioid crisis in the U.S., which has killed as many Americans as have died from COVID-19.

Most have also been convicted of other unethical and criminal activities over the years, any of which puts their ethical fitness into question. Not surprisingly, opioid addiction and overdose deaths skyrocketed during 2020 lockdowns and, now, COVID-19 vaccines are taking their toll as well.

Johnson & Johnson Found Partly Liable for Opioid Crisis

In 2019, Johnson & Johnson was found partially liable for the “human and financial costs” of the opioid epidemic in the U.S. and was ordered to pay $572 million to the state of Oklahoma. While the company denied any wrongdoing, “data revealed during the trial proved a culture of downplaying the risks of opioids to customers and physicians,” Cassiobury Court reported, adding:¹

“Sales representatives were trained to tell doctors that the risk of addiction was 2.6% or less if the drugs were prescribed by a doctor and, most shockingly, doctors were specifically targeted as ‘key customers’ if they had a history of prescribing a high amount of opioids.”

In “Capitalism Gone Wrong: How Big Pharma Created America’s Opioid Carnage,” published in The Guardian July 24, 2019, Chris McGreal, author of “American Overdose, the Opioid Tragedy in Three Acts,” wrote:²

“Oklahoma’s attorney general accused the company of a ‘cunning, cynical and deceitful scheme’ to ramp up narcotic painkiller sales as one of a web of firms that created the biggest drug epidemic in American history as profits surged. The companies worked in step to change medical culture and practice by influencing doctors, researchers, federal regulators and politicians.”

Curiously, as noted by Brand, Johnson & Johnson’s stock price rose by 5% immediately following that verdict. What this means, he suggests, is that we’ve created systems that encourage malpractice. Profit motives override all other concerns, including lethal effects.

Importantly, Johnson & Johnson made false claims about the safety of its opioid, going so far as to manipulate scientific papers to support its assertion that the risk of addiction was less than 2.6%.³ As Brand points out, when companies engage in unethical behavior, especially the falsification and manipulation of science, they create distrust and cynicism.

This should be obvious, and it’s nobody’s fault but their own. We can point to these very specific examples and say, “Look here. They manipulated and falsified science to make money. When they were caught, all they had to do was pay a manageable fine, which they recouped through a rise in stock price.”

If it happened once (and believe me, it’s happened more than once), it can happen again. And if it can happen at all, why couldn’t this unethical behavior occur when creating what is expected to be a phenomenally profitable pandemic vaccine? We’re told we must not question the safety or effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, yet the histories of the makers are such that not questioning everything they do would be naïve in the extreme.

Johnson & Johnson has also been involved in a long list of product safety and contamination issues, marketing and safety violations, government contract violations and foreign corrupt practices resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. You can find their rap sheet on the Corporate Research Project’s website.⁴

Pfizer’s Long History of Unethical Behavior

Another COVID-19 vaccine maker, Pfizer, has been sued in multiple venues over unethical behavior,⁵ including unethical drug testing and illegal marketing practices.

In 2014, it was ordered to pay $75 million to settle charges relating to its testing of a new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children. As reported by the Independent⁶ at the time, Pfizer sent a team of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic.

For two weeks, the team set up “within meters” of a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and began dispensing the experimental drug, Trovan. Of the 200 children picked, half got the experimental drug and the other half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin. Eleven of the children treated by the Pfizer team died, and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure.

Pfizer denied wrongdoing. According to the company, only five of the children given Trovan died, compared to six who received Rocephin, so their drug was not to blame. The problem was they apparently never told the parents that their children were being given an experimental drug.

What’s more, while Pfizer produced a permission letter from a Nigerian ethics committee, the letter turned out to have been backdated. The ethics committee itself wasn’t set up until a year after the trial had already taken place.

In his 2010 paper,⁷ “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR,” Robert G. Evans, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor at Vancouver School of Economics, described Pfizer as “a ‘habitual offender,’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.” Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards.

Such sums did nothing to deter bad behavior. In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay $14.5 million to settle federal charges of illegal marketing,⁸ and in 2014 they settled federal charges relating to improper marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million.⁹

The Corporate Research Project also details Pfizer’s history of bribery, environmental violations, labor and worker safety violations and more.¹⁰ Pfizer has also been bullying countries to put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its vaccine.

Pfizer’s Vaccine Plant Has History of Recalls

A March 10, 2021, article¹¹ by KHN also highlights persistent, long-standing problems at Pfizer’s vaccine plant in Kansas, which is slated to start producing COVID-19 vaccines:

“The McPherson, Kansas, facility, which FDA inspectors wrote is the nation’s largest manufacturer of sterile injectable controlled substances, has a long, troubled history. Nearly a decade’s worth of FDA inspection reports, recalls and reprimands reviewed by KHN show the facility as a repeat offender.

FDA investigators have repeatedly noted in reports that the plant has failed to control quality and contamination or fully investigate after production failures.

The 1970s-era manufacturing site has had persistent mold concerns over the years and been the focus of at least four intense FDA inspections since Pfizer took over its operations in late 2015, when it acquired Hospira.”

The plant is going to be a fill-and-finish site for the Pfizer vaccine. The question is whether the site has really cleaned up its act, or whether contamination might become an issue.

"The facility’s record of recalls and field alerts include vials of medication that contained glass and cardboard particles and, as one customer complained, a ‘small insect or speck of dust,'" KHN reports.

“A 2017 FDA warning letter … said the contaminants such as cardboard and glass found in vials posed a ‘severe risk of harm to patients’ and indicated that the facility’s process for manufacturing sterile injectable products was ‘out of control.’”

AstraZeneca’s Extensive Rap Sheet

Then there’s AstraZeneca, whose director of research for the drug Seroquel, Wayne MacFadden, confessed to entering into multiple sexual affairs for the sole purpose of obtaining information and favors that might benefit the company.¹²

Aside from that eyebrow-raising scandal, AstraZeneca has been brought into the halls of justice more than once. Below is but a sampling of its criminal history. Even more can be found on the Corporate Research Project’s “AstraZeneca: Corporate Rap Sheet” page:¹³

• In 2003, AstraZeneca was fined $355 million to settle Medicare fraud charges relating to its marketing of the cancer drug Zoladex.^14,15 Among the many charges they pleaded guilty to was that they had encouraged doctors to illegally request Medicare reimbursements. Four years later, in 2007, the company was ordered to pay another $12.9 million in damages for its overcharging Medicare and private insurance for Zoladex¹⁶
• In 2005, the European Commission fined AstraZeneca 60 million euros for misusing the patent system to delay market entry of competing generics^17,18
• In 2010, AstraZeneca was fined $520 million for off-label drug marketing¹⁹
• Also in 2010, the company agreed to pay $198 million to settle more than 25,000 lawsuits filed by patients harmed by three of its psychiatric drugs²⁰
• In 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fined the company $4.3 million for improperly influencing and rewarding prescribers to use their products, in other words, bribery²¹

AstraZeneca’s Vaccine Is For-Profit After All

Now, AstraZeneca has made a big deal about its vow not to profit from its COVID-19 vaccine. Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute and the co-developer of the AstraZeneca vaccine, has gone on record saying “I personally don’t believe that in a time of pandemic there should be exclusive licenses.”²² As reported by KHN:²³

“Oxford University surprised and pleased advocates of overhauling the vaccine business in April by promising to donate the rights to its promising coronavirus vaccine to any drugmaker. The idea was to provide medicines preventing or treating COVID-19 at a low cost or free of charge, the British university said …

‘We actually thought they were going to do that,’ James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a nonprofit that works to expand access to medical technology, said of Oxford’s pledge. ‘Why wouldn’t people agree to let everyone have access to the best vaccines possible?’”

The fantasy didn’t last long. A few weeks later, Oxford University caved to the urgings of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and signed an exclusive contract with AstraZeneca. According to an article in The Nation,²⁴ “Gates himself describes his foundation as intimately involved in the partnership between AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford.”

This vaccine deal gives AstraZeneca “sole rights and no guarantee of low prices,” KHN writes.²⁵ Indeed, the not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself appears to have a say when it comes to declaring the end date. It could be as early as July 1, 2021, according to a company memo obtained by the Financial Times.²⁶

As explained by investigative journalist Whitney Webb in a recent Corbett Report interview,²⁷ the actual patents and royalties for the AstraZeneca vaccine are held by a private company called Vaccitech, which has been quite open about the future profit potential with its shareholders, noting that the COVID-19 vaccine will most likely become an annual vaccine that is updated each season. Oxford University itself also stands to make millions from the deal. According to KHN:²⁸

“Other companies working on coronavirus vaccines have followed the same line, collecting billions in government grants, hoarding patents, revealing as little as possible about their deals — and planning to charge up to $37 a dose for potentially hundreds of millions of shots.”

All of this tells you that the same greed that drove these drug companies into criminal acts before is still at play today, and they have repeatedly proven that profit potential wins over harm potential every time.

Leaked Data Warns of mRNA Instability

A recent feature investigation²⁹ by journalist Serena Tinari published in The BMJ reviews the content of leaked — possibly hacked — documents showing the European Medicines Agency (EMA) had concerns about early batches of the Pfizer vaccine having lower than expected levels of intact mRNA:

“EMA scientists tasked with ensuring manufacturing quality — the chemistry, manufacturing, and control aspects of Pfizer’s submission to the EMA — worried about ‘truncated and modified mRNA species present in the finished product.’

Among the many files leaked to The BMJ, an email dated 23 November [2020] by a high ranking EMA official outlined a raft of issues. In short, commercial manufacturing was not producing vaccines to the specifications expected, and regulators were unsure of the implications. EMA responded by filing two ‘major objections’ with Pfizer, along with a host of other questions it wanted addressed.

The email identified ‘a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species’ between the clinical batches and proposed commercial batches — from around 78% to 55%. The root cause was unknown and the impact of this loss of RNA integrity on safety and efficacy of the vaccine was ‘yet to be defined,’ the email said.”

Considering the delivery of intact mRNA is of crucial importance for the efficacy of this vaccine, the suspicion is that the lower levels might render the vaccine ineffective.

One problem is that while the EMA has authorized Pfizer’s vaccine and issued a public assessment stating the quality is “considered to be sufficiently consistent and acceptable,” it’s not clear if and how the agency’s concerns about inadequate mRNA levels were actually corrected.

The EMA has explained away the issue by stating that some of the leaked information was “partially doctored” by essentially cutting and pasting data from different users into valid emails.

“But the documents offer the broader medical community a chance to reflect on the complexities of quality assurance for novel mRNA vaccines,” Tinari writes, “which include everything from the quantification and integrity of mRNA and carrier lipids to measuring the distribution of particle sizes and encapsulation efficiency.”

It’s well-recognized that RNA instability is of the utmost importance when it comes to this kind of technology, as even minor degradation anywhere along the RNA strand can slow the translation performance and result in the incomplete expression of the target antigen (in this case the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein).

One problem is there’s no regulatory guidance for mRNA based “vaccines.” Yet another problem is that the data currently available is so scant that regulators probably wouldn’t be able to make an appropriate assessment about the percentage of intact mRNA required for efficacy.

Lipid Nanoparticles Are Highly Inflammatory

mRNA fragility and instability is the reason why Pfizer and Moderna use a lipid nanoparticle delivery system, which brings a whole separate set of problems. Scientist and researcher Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., believes the nanoparticle allows the mRNA to escape the normal degradation by enzymes that normally remove mRNA, thereby allowing it to persist in your tissues for a long time, continuing to produce spike proteins all the while.

As previously suspected, research³⁰ posted March 4, 2021, on the preprint server bioRxiv now warns that the lipid nanoparticle component of these mRNA vaccines is in fact “highly inflammatory” and may be responsible for many of the side effects being reported. According to the authors:

“Vaccines based on mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are a promising new platform used by two leading vaccines … Clinical trials and ongoing vaccinations present with very high protection levels and varying degrees of side effects. However, the nature of the reported side effects remains poorly defined.

Here we present evidence that LNPs used in many preclinical studies are highly inflammatory in mice.

Intradermal injection of these LNPs led to rapid and robust inflammatory responses, characterized by massive neutrophil infiltration, activation of diverse inflammatory pathways, and production of various inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. The same dose of LNP delivered intranasally led to similar inflammatory responses in the lung and resulted in a high mortality rate …

Their potent adjuvant activity and reported superiority comparing to other adjuvants in supporting the induction of adaptive immune responses could stem from their inflammatory nature. Furthermore, the preclinical LNPs are similar to the ones used for human vaccines, which could also explain the observed side effects in humans using this platform.”

Can You Trust Big Pharma to Safeguard Your Health?

Considering their long histories of unethical, illegal and criminal behaviors, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are hardly beacons of hope for mankind when it comes to COVID-19 — or any other pandemic, for that matter.

Sadly, the rapidly escalating reports of serious side effects and deaths from these injections, and the companies’ dismissal of these events as coincidental or insignificant further prove that profit is still the primary driver. If they can make a buck by ignoring a problem, they will.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3lJei7y
via IFTTT

Global lockdowns were ostensibly initiated to protect the general public and “flatten the curve” of COVID-19 infections. Yet, experts agree that this policy may well have been one of the biggest public health mistakes ever made.¹

Public health is a system designed to promote health, prevent disease and encourage healthy behaviors. The goal is to encourage proper medical care and healthy efforts through the implementation of policies and programs.

In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health² in 2009, the authors offered evidence that public health policies have a significant effect on health, citing changes in seat belt laws, workplace health and safety and public tobacco use that have significantly affected health outcomes.

The health of communities is highly influenced by these policies, which governments use to help prevent obesity, control infectious disease, provide clean air and water and more. Yet, in the past year, it has become apparent that public health policies have moved away from evidence-based decision-making and are being driven by another agenda.

Experts Call Lockdowns the Biggest Health Mistake Ever Made

In an interview with Daily Clout, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya declared that the COVID-19 lockdowns may well be remembered as the “single worst public health mistake” in the last 100 years.³ The full interview is found inside the Daily Clout membership area. Bhattacharya also emailed a journalist from Newsweek about his interview, reiterating his statements:⁴

“I stand behind my comment that the lockdowns are the single worst public health mistake in the last 100 years. We will be counting the catastrophic health and psychological harms, imposed on nearly every poor person on the face of the earth, for a generation.

At the same time, they have not served to control the epidemic in the places where they have been most vigorously imposed. In the U.S., they have — at best — protected the "non-essential" class from COVID, while exposing the essential working class to the disease. The lockdowns are trickle-down epidemiology.”

During the interview, Bhattacharya indicated that his belief and subsequent work on the Great Barrington Declaration⁵ was a product of two basic facts.⁶

"One is that people who are older have a much higher risk from dying from COVID than people who are younger ... and that's a really important fact because we know who is most vulnerable, it's people that are older.

So the first plank of the Great Barrington Declaration: let's protect the vulnerable. The other idea is that the lockdowns themselves impose great harm on people. Lockdowns are not a natural normal way to live."

He goes further into the explanation in an open letter published November 25, 2020, on the website.⁷ The Great Barrington Declaration calls for “focused protection” and finding a middle ground between locking down an entire economy and just “letting it rip.”

Although naysayers encourage the public to remain fearful, wear masks and seek a vaccine, it’s telling that thus far, the declaration has collected over 41,500 signatures from medical practitioners and over 13,500 signatures from medical and public health scientists.⁸

In addition, the declaration is open for public signatures and has collected over 758,500 from concerned citizens from around the world. The website allows you to read and sign the declaration, answers many frequently asked questions, shares the science behind the recommendations and explains how the declaration was written.

Analysis Shows Lockdowns Increased Public Health Damage

In 2019, before the pandemic, the World Health Organization published a document on nonpharmaceutical public health measures to mitigate the impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza, another potentially deadly respiratory illness. They clearly state, “there is a very low overall quality of evidence that workplace measures and closures reduce influenza transmission.”⁹

In the past months, scientists have learned more about the SARS-CoV-2 virus and many teams have analyzed the impact that lockdowns may or may not have had on the spread of the virus and the economy in several countries.

A paper published by the University of Bristol, U.K., in June 2020, found that the distribution of infections was on the decline, even before the U.K. had instituted lockdowns.¹⁰ The paper does not take into account the expected “second-wave" in the fall, but it is apparent from their analysis that infection rates were on the decline during the summer months well before fall.

A second paper,¹¹ also published by U.K. scientists, found that closing schools and prohibiting mass gatherings may have helped to lower the incidence. However, stay-at-home orders and mask-wearing in public “was not associated with any independent additional impact.”

In New Zealand, communities were under a level 4 lockdown, which cost the country at least $10 billion.¹² Using empirical data and comparing the numbers against areas in the U.S. that were practicing only social distancing at the time, one analysis found that lockdowns did not reduce the number of deaths and the ineffectiveness triggered large economic losses with little benefit for New Zealand.

In an analysis¹³ of nonpharmaceutical interventions, including business closures and mandatory stay-at-home orders in 10 countries, researchers found “no clear, significant beneficial effect” in countries using more restrictive policies as compared to those with less restrictive policies.

Cost-Benefit Analysis Doesn’t Support Lockdowns

In a paper¹⁴ by psychologist Oliver Robinson, Ph.D., from the University of Greenwich, London, he found less restrictive nonpharmaceutical measures had a similar effect as lockdowns.

Psychological research also suggested lockdowns could exacerbate stressors, and were strong predictors of becoming sick when exposed to a respiratory virus. Additionally, “the extremely high financial cost of lockdowns may have negative implications for overall population health in terms of diminished resources for other health issues.”¹⁵

This has only been the tip of the iceberg in the cost-benefit evaluation researchers have completed in the past months analyzing the overall impact lockdowns have had on society. In August 2020, researchers from the U.K.¹⁶ looked at the cost of the lockdown to the country.

They evaluated quality-adjusted life years, COVID-19 mortality and comorbidity rates and an economic cost as a percentage of loss against the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). What they found was the average age at death and life expectancy loss for non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 deaths differed by less than two years.

Their results suggested “that the costs of continuing severe restrictions are so great relative to likely benefits in lives saved that a rapid easing in restrictions is now warranted.”¹⁷

In Israel, researchers estimated¹⁸ the lockdown would save an average of 274 lives in the country as compared to testing, tracing and isolating those who are sick. The analysis also estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was an average of $45,104,156 to prevent one death.

The lockdowns and policy changes have also affected treatment for other health problems, such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer.¹⁹ This public health policy has come at a high cost, which society will be paying for years in treating physical and mental health conditions.

Should the Government Outlaw Sugar, Tobacco and Alcohol?

Of course, it does sound funny to describe a cost-benefit analysis, which ultimately places a price on life and death. Even so, it is difficult to accurately ascertain the number of deaths that can legitimately be attributed to COVID-19, since the public numbers are skewed.

According to a peer-reviewed study^20,21 in October 2020 by the Public Health Policy Initiative of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, the CDC has inflated the mortality statistics by 1,670%.

The report offers a sobering reality check of the true mortality numbers that can be attributed to COVID-19 infection. Although some self-appointed internet “fact” checkers claim this study is mistaken, the numbers speak for themselves. For example, on page 20, there's a graph that compares the fatalities based on the CDC’s current illegal reporting guidelines against the fatality count had they continued using guidelines that have been in use for the past 17 years.

Using the inflated statistical guidelines, the CDC reported 161,392 deaths from COVID-19 by August 23, 2020. However, using the traditional guidelines the CDC has used for the past 17 years, that number was just 6% of the total, equaling 9,684. Using the older guidelines, the CDC²² also reported the leading causes of death in 2019, including 659,041 from heart disease, 599,601 from cancer and 87,647 from diabetes.

It is apparent from these numbers, whether you compare the leading causes of death in 2019 to the inflated numbers from the CDC, or to those using the traditional guidelines, heart disease, cancer and diabetes still cause significantly more deaths than COVID-19.

These conditions have been associated with the use of sugar, tobacco and alcohol. This now begs the question, with the high number of deaths from these chronic conditions, should the government outlaw sugar, tobacco and alcohol use to protect public health?

‘Mass Delusional Psychosis’ May Be the Root of Public Fear

Just one year ago, you likely would have rebelled against being told you had to stay at home, forgo meeting with friends and give up eating at restaurants. But within the past 12 months, those limitations have become commonplace, and many have accepted the mandates as part of their daily lives.

Many mental health experts have publicly expressed concerns over the blatant fear and panic mongering that has occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. They warn about the psychiatric effects that adults and children experience, which likely have long-term consequences.

The mask mandates, inaccurate reporting of deaths and COVID “cases” and the media attention on all things COVID-19 with the expressed negligence covering rising suicide rates and opioid overdoses,^23,24 have led to what Florida journalist S.G. Cheah characterizes as mass insanity caused by “delusional fear of COVID-19.”²⁵

Cheah refers to lectures and articles by a psychiatrist and medical-legal expert Dr. Mark McDonald²⁶ is a board-certified child and adolescent psychiatrist who believes "the true public health crisis lies in the widespread fear which morphed and evolved into a form of mass delusional psychosis." Cheah continues:

"Even when the statistics point to the extremely low fatality rate among children and young adults (measuring 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at 25),²⁷ the young and the healthy are still terrorized by the chokehold of irrational fear when faced with the coronavirus."

Steps to Restore Sanity Moving Forward

The first step in overcoming the fear and delusion surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic is a fuller understanding of how it’s being perpetuated, as discussed in “The World Is Suffering From Mass Delusional Psychosis,” and recognizing some of the significant collateral damage that has occurred as shared in “Public Health Officials Are Lying About Lockdowns.”

Armed with this knowledge, you are better able to make decisions about your safety and the safety of your family. Moving forward it's important to remember to protect those who are at the highest risk of severe disease and death, including nursing home residents, hospitalized patients, people over 70 and those living in crowded institutions such as homeless shelters and prisons.

In these cases, infectious control strategies are warranted. Yet, as has been demonstrated by research evidence and the knowledge of tens of thousands of medical experts who have signed the Great Barrington Declaration,²⁸ the rest of the population can and should go back to normal.

Unfortunately, masks have become a signal of virtue, with the idea that wearing them will help to protect yourself and the surrounding population. This is not a virtuous action and is perpetuated by fear. Fear is never helpful and never virtuous.

Consider sharing information from independent journalists, scientific evidence and the Great Barrington Declaration as a means of helping others to reduce their fear and panic over an infectious process that has not claimed nearly as many lives as the public has been led to believe.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3d5xCbe
via IFTTT