Researchers have discovered that vitamin E comes in eight different forms but only one appears to meet human requirements, according to the National Institutes of Health.¹ Some foods are a natural source of vitamin E, which is the name for this group of fat-soluble compounds. Each of the eight forms has some level of biological activity, but it's alpha-tocopherol that scientists have found prevents the propagation of free radicals and which the body prefers to use.

Additionally, only alpha-tocopherol supplementation has been shown to reverse symptoms of a vitamin E deficiency.² There are four tocopherol isoforms and four tocotrienol isoforms. Alpha-tocopherol is incorporated into lipoproteins in the liver that are then transported throughout the body.

While this has been the primary chemical form studied, researchers have also found that some forms of tocotrienols have biological activity, although they have lower systemic bioavailability.³

According to the NIH,⁴ three national surveys showed most Americans may consume less than the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) of vitamin E developed by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB). The RDA for alpha-tocopherol, which is the only recommendation made by the FNB, is from 11 mg to 15 mg beginning at age 9 through senior years. The RDA for lactating women is 19 mg per day.

The FNB believes alpha-tocopherol intake in healthy adults is likely higher than the national surveys indicate, since frank deficiency is rare and overt symptoms are not usually found in healthy people. However, as you are likely aware, there is a significant difference between overt deficiency and insufficiency that increases your risk of health conditions. Research data has now linked vitamin E with several unique health benefits.

Vitamin E Is a Strong Antioxidant Fighting Aging and Cancer

Understanding the importance of antioxidants began as scientists learned how free radical damage was involved in the early stages of atherosclerosis and that free radical damage may be involved in a host of other chronic health conditions.⁵ Vitamin E plays a significant role as an antioxidant as it scavenges loose electrons and reduces cellular damage.

One of the benefits of lowering free radical damage is reducing skin damage after UV exposure. Vitamin E has been used in dermatology for more than 50 years and is added to cosmetic products.⁶Additionally, the presence of vitamin C can slow lipid oxidation by regenerating alpha-tocopherol from radicals found in cell membranes.⁷

Vitamin E is a major lipid-soluble antioxidant, protecting against oxidative stress in the epidermis and dermal layers of the skin. Data show that it has strong photoprotective and antiaging properties that help to improve elasticity and structure of the epidermis and dermis. Topical application has been widely used, after which vitamin E accumulates in the cell membranes and extracellular lipid matrix, where it contributes to antioxidant defenses.⁸

In April 2022, researchers from MD Anderson Cancer Center⁹ published a paper in Cancer Discovery,¹⁰ in which they discuss data that show vitamin E may enhance cancer immunotherapy through a pathway that reinvigorates dendritic cells.

Dendritic cells have been a focus in cancer immunotherapy as they are critical in the immune response. Several strategies have been developed to target these cells in the hope that a better understanding of their function may help improve cancer therapies.¹¹ The researchers found that an analysis of electronic health records showed patients who took vitamin E had significantly improved survival rates.¹²

Recognizing that the impact of nutritional supplements in addition to immunotherapy is a relatively unexplored area, the researchers undertook an analysis of vitamin E and found that it blocks the activity of the SHP1 checkpoint, which in turn improves T cell ability to mount an antitumor immune response.¹³ Another 2020 study,¹⁴ looked at the benefits of using alpha-tocopherol in cancer prevention.

Researchers began with the understanding that those with a lower nutritional status had an increased risk of cancer and in some populations, supplementation had beneficial effects in lowering the risk. Other studies have focused on tocotrienol and the gamma and delta forms of tocopherols. While these three vitamin E compounds have a lower bioavailability, they appeared to have stronger cancer-preventive properties in animal models and cell lines.

Optimal Levels May Normalize High Blood Pressure

High blood pressure is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. One 2002 triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial¹⁵ evaluated the effects of vitamin E on blood pressure and heart rate in 70 individuals diagnosed with mild high blood pressure. At this time, the new blood pressure guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association had not yet been released.¹⁶

While the 2002 study categorized the participants with mild high blood pressure, the new guidelines would categorize those same participants with Stage 2 hypertension. At the end of the study, the researchers found a 24% decrease in systolic blood pressure in patients receiving vitamin E and a 12.5% reduction in diastolic blood pressure.

The participants received 200 IU of vitamin E each day which the researchers concluded could be an effective long-term strategy to reduce blood pressure.¹⁷

Another study in 2002 evaluated blood pressure in 15,317 men and women over age 20 and found that antioxidant vitamins could be important in the prevention of high blood pressure.¹⁸ Interestingly, researchers in 2000 evaluated vitamin E supplementation in patients whose high blood pressure was controlled using medication. In this case, supplementation appeared to have no relevant effect.¹⁹ This study was funded in part by the drug company Bayer Italia.

More recently, a 2019 meta-analysis²⁰ published in the Journal of Human Hypertension analyzed systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure in individuals who received vitamin E supplementation. A review of the qualifying studies showed no significant effect on mean arterial pressure or diastolic blood pressure but a reduction in systolic blood pressure.

Another 2020 paper²¹ began with the premise that although randomized human trials have resulted in conflicting results with vitamin E supplementation, data show vitamin E deficiency is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. These researchers suggest that the outcome of the human trials was significantly affected by the participants' comorbidities, genetic variations, gender and age.

In a review of the literature, they found that patients diagnosed with a myocardial infarction frequently had lower plasma levels of vitamin E. They suggest that short-term treatment shows promising results and, thus, using acute rather than chronic supplementation may provide positive clinical outcomes.

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

More Health Benefits From Vitamin E Antioxidant Capacity

Vitamin E contributes to even more health benefits. Millions of women are impacted by premenstrual syndrome (PMS), which was first described in 1931. In 2009,²² researchers estimated 80% to 90% of women in their reproductive years suffer from symptoms, and up to 8% of those experience severe symptoms.

A 2016 study showed that supplementing with vitamin D and E had a significant effect on PMS symptoms and was "an effective and affordable treatment" for the condition.²³ This supports a 1983 double-blind, randomized dose-response study²⁴ of 75 women that suggested supplementation may be valuable for women with symptoms of severe PMS.

Vitamin E is essential for reproductive health in the rodent population,²⁵ most notably in the development of the placenta. A 2018 paper²⁶ acknowledges that while researchers know it is necessary for fertility, studies are lacking on how it affects female reproductive health.

Vitamin E has also demonstrated neuroprotective properties, notably in a study²⁷ of 30 patients with glaucoma whose progression slowed while taking oral alpha-tocopherol acetate and a 2014 paper²⁸that clarified the use of vitamin E in Alzheimer's disease, finding it delayed the onset and progression of Alzheimer's disease. A 2005 animal model²⁹ demonstrated that alpha-tocotrienol acted on molecular checkpoints to protect against stroke-induced neurodegeneration.

More Vitamin E Is Not Better

Vitamin E is a fat-soluble vitamin. The differences between water-soluble and fat-soluble vitamins affect how the vitamins are absorbed and stored. Your body can excrete water-soluble vitamins when there is an excess of the vitamin. But fat-soluble vitamins are dissolved and stored in fat, which is how they travel through the small intestine and are distributed in the bloodstream. Because the vitamin is fat-soluble, it is best absorbed when you're eating a fat-rich meal.

And, because it's fat-soluble, your body stores any excess of the vitamin, which increases your risk of adverse side effects. According to the National Institutes of Health,³⁰ it's highly unlikely that you will experience adverse effects from consuming vitamin E-rich foods. However, high doses of alpha-tocopherol supplements can trigger side effects. Some common side effects include:³¹

Another challenge associated with taking vitamin E supplements is the lack of data indicating synthetic supplements are beneficial. A 2012 study^32,33 concluded that synthetic alpha-tocopherols found in vitamin E supplements had no discernible cancer protection but gamma- and delta-tocopherols found in food helped prevent colon, breast and prostate cancer.

Bear in mind that a supplement will not tell you it's synthetic, so you have to know what to look foron the label.

• Synthetic alpha-tocopherol is typically listed with a "dl" (i.e., dl-alpha-tocopherol)
• Nonsynthetic or naturally derived is typically listed with a "d" (d-alpha-tocopherol). Note that when vitamin E is stabilized by adding either succinic acid or acetic acid, the chemical name changes from tocopherol to tocopheryl (as in d-alpha-tocopheryl succinate, for example)

Vitamin supplements are chemical additions to your body. As with other supplements, there is the potential that vitamin E supplements can interact with different types of medication.³⁴

Because vitamin E inhibits platelet aggregation, using it when you're taking an anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication can increase the risk of bleeding. People taking antioxidant supplements, such as vitamin E, may find the supplement interferes with statin medications, specifically simvastatin (Zocor) or niacin.

You Can't Go Wrong With Vitamin E-Rich Foods

Vitamin E is found in green leafy vegetables, nuts and some seeds. CNET lists foods that can help boost your vitamin E intake, including:³⁵

Grass-fed butter is also a rich source of vitamin E in a highly absorbable form. Butter doesn't have to be a guilty pleasure. When butter is consumed as a whole food from a grass-fed source it contains many of the nutrients that your body needs. Some of these include:³⁶

• Vitamins A, K2 and E
• Lecithin for cholesterol metabolism and nerve health
• Antioxidants
• Iodine in a highly absorbable form

Documentary filmmaker and BBC journalist Adam Curtis has developed a cult following for his eccentric films that combine BBC archival footage into artistic montages combined with dark narratives that create a unique storytelling experience that's both journalistic and entertaining.

His latest film, "HyperNormalisation," came out in 2016 and is perhaps even more apropos now, as many have the feeling that they're waking up to an unprecedented, and unreal, world anew each and every day — and so-called fake news is all around. The term "HyperNormalisation" was coined by Alexei Yurchak, a Russian historian.¹

In an interview with The Economist, Curtis explained that it's used to describe the feeling that comes with accepting total fakeness as normal. Yurchak had used it in relation to living in the Soviet Union during the 1980s, but Curtis used it in response to living in the present-day U.S. and Europe. He said:

"Everyone in my country and in America and throughout Europe knows that the system that they are living under isn't working as it is supposed to; that there is a lot of corruption at the top …

There is a sense of everything being slightly unreal; that you fight a war that seems to cost you nothing and it has no consequences at home; that money seems to grow on trees; that goods come from China and don't seem to cost you anything; that phones make you feel liberated but that maybe they're manipulating you but you're not quite sure. It's all slightly odd and slightly corrupt.

So I was trying to make a film about where that feeling came from … I was just trying to show the same feeling of unreality, and also that those in charge know that we know that they don't know what's going on. That same feeling is pervasive in our society, and that's what the film is about."²

Living in a Fake, Simple World

"HyperNormalisation" tells the story of how politicians, financiers and "technological utopians" constructed a fake world over the last four decades in an attempt to maintain power and control. Their fake world is simpler than the real world by design, and as a result people went along with it because the simplicity was reassuring.

The transition began in 1975, when the film describes two world-changing moments that took place in two cities: New York City and Damascus, Syria, which shifted the world away from political control and toward one managed instead by financial services, technology and energy companies. First, New York ceded its power to bankers. As noted in The New Yorker:

"New York, embroiled in a debt crisis as its middle-class tax base is evaporated by white flight, starts to cede authority to its lenders.

Fearing for the security of their loans, the banks, via a new committee Curtis contends was dominated by their leadership, the Municipal Assistance Corporation, set out to control the city's finances, resulting in the first wave of banker-mandated austerity to greet a major American city as thousands of teachers, police officers, and firefighters are sacked."³

In Damascus, meanwhile, conflict between Henry Kissinger and Syrian head of state Hafez al-Assad grew, with Kissinger fearing a united Arab world and Assad angered that his attempts at transformation were fading. "Kissinger's theory was that instead of having a comprehensive peace for Palestinians, which would cause specific problems, you split the Middle Eastern world and made everyone dissatisfied," Curtis said.⁴

Further, "In Curtis' view, the Syrian leader pioneered the use of suicide bombing against Americans," The New Yorker explained, which then spread throughout the Middle East, accelerating Islamic terrorism in the U.S. While the roots of modern society can be traced back much further — millennia — Curtis chose to start "HyperNormalisation" in 1975 due to the economic crisis of the time.

"1975 is when a shift in power happened in the Middle East at the same time as the shift in power away from politics toward finance began in the West," he told Hyperallergic.⁵ "It's arbitrary, but I chose that moment because those two things are at the root of a lot of other things we have today. It's a dramatic moment."

The film then takes viewers on a timeline of recent history that appears as though you're seeing bits and pieces of a scrapbook, but which ultimately support the larger message that the world is being controlled by a powerful few while the rest of us are willing puppets in the play, and we're essentially living in an unreal world.

Being Managed as Individuals

According to Curtis, mass democracy died out in the early '90s, only to be replaced by a system that manages people as individuals. Politics requires that people be in groups in order to control them; parties are established and individuals join the groups that are then represented by politicians that the group identifies with.

The advancement of technology has changed this, particularly because computer systems can manage masses of people by understanding the way they act as groups — but the people continue to think they're acting as individuals. Speaking to The Economist, Curtis said:

"This is the genius of what happened with computer networks. Using feedback loops, pattern matching and pattern recognition, those systems can understand us quite simply. That we are far more similar to each other than we might think, that my desire for an iPhone as a way of expressing my identity is mirrored by millions of other people who feel exactly the same.

We're not actually that individualistic. We're very similar to each other and computers know that dirty secret. But because we feel like we're in control when we hold the magic screen, it allows us to feel like we're still individuals. And that's a wonderful way of managing the world."⁶

He compares it to a modern ghost story, in which we're haunted by yesterday's behaviors. By predicting what we'll like based on what we did yesterday, we're inundated with messages that lock us into a static, unchanging world that's repetitive and rarely imagines anything new.

"And because it doesn't allow mass politics to challenge power, it has allowed corruption to carry on without it really being challenged properly," he says,⁷ using the example of extremely wealthy people who don't pay taxes. Although most are aware that this occurs, it doesn't change:

"I think it has something to do with this technocratic world because it doesn't have the capacity to respond to that kind of thing. It has the capacity to manage us very well. It's benign but it doesn't have the capacity to challenge the rich and the powerful within that system, who use it badly for their own purposes."⁸

A Complex Documentary for an Oversimplified Time

While the crux of "HyperNormalisation" is that people have retreated into a simplified world perception, the documentary itself is complex and borderline alarming. Its intricacies can be well explored, however, as it was released directly on BBC iPlayer, then passed around on the internet, such that it's easy to replay it — or sections of it — again and again, something that wasn't always possible with live television. Speaking with "HyperNormalisation," Curtis said:

"The interesting thing about online is that you can do things that are more complex and involving and less patronizing to the audience than traditional documentaries, which tend to simplify so much because they're panicking that people will only watch them once live. They tend to just tell you what you already know. I think you can do some more complicated things, and that's what I've been trying."⁹

Watching "HyperNormalisation," you'll be confronted with seemingly unrelated snippets ranging from disaster movies to Jane Fonda, which will make you want to rewind and reconsider what you've just seen. And perhaps that's the point.

The gaps in the story compel viewers to do more research and ask more questions, and those willing to watch all of its nearly three hours of footage may find themselves indeed feeling like they're climbing through a dark thicket, being led by only a flashlight, as the film's opening portrays.

Meanwhile, the theme of an overriding power funneling information to the masses in an increasingly dumbed-down format is pervasive, right down to the censorship being fostered by social media. Curtis narrates in the film:

"… as the intelligence systems online gathered evermore data, new forms of guidance began to illumine, social media created filters — complex algorithms that looked at what individuals liked and then fed more of the same back to them.

In the process, individuals began to move, without noticing, into bubbles that isolated them from enormous amounts of other information. They only heard and saw what they liked, and the news feeds increasingly excluded anything that might challenge people's pre-existing beliefs."

Giant Corporations Behind the Internet's Superficial Freedom

"HyperNormalisation" also touches on the irony behind the "freedom" provided by the internet, which is that giant corporations are largely controlling it. "… [B]ehind the superficial freedoms of the web were a few giant corporations and opaque systems that controlled what people saw and shaped what they thought. What was even more mysterious was how they made their decisions about what you should like and what should be hidden from you," the documentary states.

And as Curtis noted, "I'm not trying to make a traditional documentary. I'm trying to make a thing that gets why you feel today like you do — uncertain, untrusting of those who tell you what is what. To make it in a way that emotionally explains that as much as it explains it intellectually."¹⁰ On the topic of social media, Curtis described social media as a scam, telling Idler Magazine:¹¹

"The Internet has been captured by four giant corporations who don't produce anything, contribute nothing to the wealth of the country, and hoard their billions of dollars in order to pounce on anything that appears to be a competitor and buy it out immediately.

They will get you and I to do the work for them — which is putting the data in — then they send out what they con other people into believing are targeted ads. But actually, the problem with their advertising is that it is — like all geek stuff — literal. It has no imagination to it whatsoever. It sees that you bought a ticket to Budapest, so you're going to get more tickets to Budapest. It's a scam."

Technology, largely in the form of social media, feeds into the forces at play that are spreading a state of powerlessness and bewilderment around the world, according to Curtis.¹² This is fueled by anger, which prompts more intense reactions online, hence, more clicks and more money being poured into social media.

It's Curtis' goal to create an emotional history of the world, which he plans to create using decades' worth of BBC footage from around the world. His next project is to explore Russia, then China, Egypt, Vietnam and Africa, telling stories that people want to hear but probably won't otherwise, due to the altered state of reality we're living in.

To explore more, check out Curtis' past works, which include "The Power of Nightmares," which explores the use of fear for political gain, and "The Century of the Self," which explores Edward Bernays' — Sigmund Freud's nephew — use of his uncle's theories to create the public relations industry and gain political power.¹³

If you grew up with an idea of living in a democracy, the past nearly three years have been a puzzle and an insult. Between the mandates, the push for digital IDs, the effort to kill agriculture, and the upcoming programmable CBDC, there is no democracy to be found.

And while in the summer and the fall of 2020, the stories about the Great Reset were still shocking news, today, everybody and their dog knows that the Great Reset is real. Many know about the attack on food farming, about the push for the CBDC, and the invitation to eat 'ze bugs.'

But does it stop the icy-eyed predators? Not really, no. Their icy eyes are on the prize of enslaving us for the thousandth time, in a million old and new ways. When they meet our resistance, they regroup, maybe throw some of their own replaceables under the bus to distract the plebs, and just carry on. That's a realistic report on how things are currently going on planet Earth.

We'll be in this battle of our times for a long time, and we need to be prepared to be patient and strong for a long time, too.

The Enslavers Are Already on to the Next Thing

Isn't it ironic how the topics that were "off limit" just recently are suddenly okay to discuss — as long as the discussion doesn't move the dial?

Mad at Pfizer? Fine, be mad, you can now shake your fist and yell at the Pfizer effigy a little bit, it's allowed. The new memo says, "Scream at the Pfizer effigy but, when the time comes, you must none the less bend over for the CBDC."

"And, as you're bending over, you may continue yelling at Pfizer, by the way. That's because you are free."

Cartoonish Klaus Schwab whom everyone hates? He is no small fish in the circle of enslavers but even the Schwabian fish can be eventually disposed of — and some other stinky fish can be dressed up to play his role.

The Machine though — the underlying society-organizing principle of enslavement of many by the dark and power-hungry few — stays as the decorations change. This ism, that ism, regular people fighting with each other and killing each other over idols and talking points, war, blood, some property restructuring, it's all there — but the man-eating Machine with the capital "M" is the same Machine.

The Machine, the Man-Eating Machine

Here is a paradox of history. I was born in the USSR. My grandparents, my beautiful beloved grandparents sacrificed tremendously to the cause of defeating the German Nazis, and this topic is very personal to me. I grew up on stories and films about the war and, even as a preschooler, I pondered how I would hold up if the German Nazis captured me. As a kid, I was asking myself whether I would be able to be brave like the heroic war-time kids were brave?

I really thought about that a lot. And even though without a doubt, as a kid, I'd been fed propaganda, too — that war really was a massive atrocity that took away many millions of lives, and my dear grandfather fought in it, and this topic is very personal to me.

However, objectively, Stalin, in whose name the Soviet heroes in the battle field went to fight and die, was as monstrous as Hitler was. Such a paradox! Stalin, just like Hitler, was an influential representative of the Machine. And neither of them minded sacrificing millions of human beings to their personal quests. Dear God, how is that possible? Is this really the world we are living in? Sadly, yes.

And so we keep walking in circles, this ism, that ism, regular people fighting with each other and killing each other over idols and talking points, war, blood, some property restructuring, it's all there — but the man-eating Machine with the capital "M" is the same Machine.

Why and how does the Machine survive though? It survives, in part, because the masters are securely positioned on their thrones and have big guns — and in part, because so many regular human beings accept the yoke, thinking they have to accept the yoke.

Why Do People Accept the Yoke?

Some accept the yoke because they know that if they don't accept it, they'll be killed. That is the tragic circumstance of the people under literal slavery, serfdom, and openly totalitarian regimes. Some accept the yoke not because they fear death but because they are emotionally beat.

Some — the managerial class and the dogmatic believers in the superiority of the people of their own kind over the people of other kinds — accept the yoke because, in their deluded hubris, they mistake their yoke for a badge of honor, and so they wear their yoke very proudly on their necks.

And finally, many accept the yoke because to them, their own yoke is habitual and invisible, or at least it has been invisible until three years ago — while the yoke on other people's necks doesn't bother them at all. After all, someone has to wear a yoke for our freedom to exist! And herein lies the trap that puts a solid, ugly yoke on all available necks.

And so, the Machine keeps humming and churning, decorations get updated regularly — but the massive neck-squeezing circus doesn't stop.

We Need to Understand the System of Domination

The underlying principle of what we are dealing with has been very elegantly described by the philosopher and scholar Steven Newcomb in his work about the System of Domination. I highly recommend his work, and I recommend it often because I think it is brilliant.

However, even once we understand the deep underlying mechanism and the mindset that drives this dysfunctional beast, understanding the theoretical principle is one thing, and being on the receiving end of it and dealing with the boot "face on" is a whole other thing. When the boot is pressing on your face, it hurts, and the only thing that comes out is a scream.

The Challenge of Our Times

Through experience, I have found that the trick is to remember the existentially illegal nature of the boot (as well as the yoke) while being able to temporarily function under the boot and the yoke for as long as it takes to remove them — without losing one's mind.

That is a very difficult and challenging task, and there certainly is no E-Z formulas for doing that. Those formulas don't exist. But there are actions and choices that we can take to make it easier for us to protect ourselves from avoidable abuse, to withstand any unavoidable abuse without shrinking, and to free ourselves gloriously and joyously in the end.

Not Being Afraid To Be Different — Even in the Face of Intimidation and Threats

We are social creatures. On some level, we want to be validated by others, even when we are independent and strong. So, what happens to us where there is abuse, and we feel that there is abuse, even we know that there is definitely abuse — but everyone is very strangely going along — is this.

• At first, we pinch ourselves and rub our eyes. We are in disbelief.
• And then, we either quickly realize that "everyone" got it wrong this time and we learn how to withstand the pain of being different and temporarily alone — or we go the route of forgetting who we are and lose ourselves to the fake "togetherness" of the crowd cheering for abuse.

It is easy to internalize abuse. It is very easy to internalize abuse. And that's what the abusers want us to do — and what we should resist by any means.

I have found that the ones who resist the abuse right away are usually the ones who remember vividly and viscerally that the price for internalizing abuse is steep, and that the pain that comes from betraying ourselves dwarfs any pain that any abuser may cause. Betraying your truth hurts more.

When It Feels Dark

And you know what, at times, we really don't know what to do. It seems like we have tried everything you could have thought of, and the people around us are asleep, and the oppression and the joylessness is just too much. Then what? That is when, I think, we really grow our soul.

Removing the Yoke From Our Necks, Starting From Our Hearts

In the next section, I would like to talk about the ways in which we can remind ourselves that we are born free, even as the boot is visibly approaching our face, CBDC and all.

We are at a juncture of history where — as we know — the great resetters are attempting a massive new power grab, and they are putting a lot of work into confusing us and making us forget that we were born free.

And yes, absolutely, love and spiritual work are not toothless, and on top of all the things we do to nourish our spirit, we need to do many practical things to protect ourselves — but in order for us to do them calmly and without panic, we need to be composed. And that's where sincere and child-like spiritual practices help.

Prayer

If you are religious, pray, pray like a child. In my own life, I have found that the most effective prayers are the ones in which we don't try to be smart but tell the real story of what we are going through, any trouble, any concern, any doubt, and just ask for guidance and help in the best, kindest way.

It's okay to say that you have no idea what's going on, and you have no idea what to do, it's okay to cry about your imperfections and mistakes and ask for guidance on how to right the wrongs you might have yourselves caused. We are merely human. We cannot see deep and wide enough. We need help.

And so, you are religious, you already know to pray. Pray like a child who is loved. Pray until you feel heard. We are not alone.

I believe that miracles are possible and that all good things that we have are owed to the Creator and the good spiritual forces watching over us. We, human beings, do put in the human work to make things happen, and we pray as we put in the work — but even so, everything we have, and everything we are, is a gift from the spiritual world. There is nothing that we have that is not a gift. Our blessings are a gift. Our challenges are a gift. Once we realize it, life makes sense. Even now.

Calling Upon Your Brave Ancestors

If you are not religious in a traditional or any other sense, it is nobody's business to convert you or tell you what to think. You own your soul. But, religious or not, you are probably none the less keen on figuring out how to go about this world, especially now. I think we all are.

At this difficult time, whether you are or are not religious, you can find strength in connecting to your good and loving ancestors and by learning from their wisdom and from what they had gone through.

Think of an ancestor you like, an ancestor who perhaps particularly inspires you — and just talk to your ancestor from your heart. Talk your beloved ancestor (or ancestors) without pretense. Share your real feeling, your real concerns, ask for help and guidance, just how you would talk to a friend or pray. Ask them what they would do. And keep doing it. Keep doing it until you feel heard. After all, they are your family, your relatives.

They walked this Earth, and lived, and loved, and made mistakes, so that you can learn from them and feel their love. You are a valuable person in their eyes, and you are not alone.

Remembering Your Very Early Childhood

When we are little, very little, we often remember a whole lot about the truth. We know good and bad with relative ease, and, if we are still preschoolers, we might not yet know about the yoke (imagine that).

True, even as little kids, we are not perfect, and our parents are likely imperfect, too. But, as a point of reference, that yokeless state of a very young child can help us to remember our place in the world. That wordless awe of looking at the sky. That joy of just observing small miracles and not overthinking our lives.

Those experiences are precious, and that yokeless person is you. You are that child. You are the child who deserves all the love in the world. And whether in your childhood, the adults around you have acted wisely or not, you were born not for a yoke and not for slavery and not to be anyone's trashcan — but for love and to deliver your gift.

As an adult, you may be a fierce warrior, or you want to be a fierce warrior. On some days, you may feel unstoppable, and on other days, you may feel beat and lost. And so, on the days when you feel lost, you can go back to the early days of your life when you were free. You can love yourself all over, back in time, for all the things that maybe the adults screwed up. You are a pure-hearted child come fierce warrior. You are undefeatable. It's you.

Fairy Tale Metaphor

The fairy tale metaphor may sound like child's play but it has basis in real life, and it can really help you on the days when you feel like the darkness is circling in on you.

When you feel physically anxious because of the uncertainty, when you feel afraid, when you feel oppressed emotionally or physically, when you feel inadequate in the hostile environment, when you feel defeated, small and weak, imagine that you are in your favorite fairy tale, that you are a pure child with bright eyes, and that all those feelings are bad magic coming from a sorcerer with a wand.

Those feelings that are eating at your being are not you, and they are not yours. It is just an illusion, a strong illusion that the sorcerer with a wand wants you to accept so that you start reenacting his wishes in YOUR life.

And so the sorcerer is puffing his cheeks, waving the wand, whispering the whispers, brewing pots, and putting a lot of work into making you weak, anxious, jumpy, disoriented, and unsure of yourself. That feeling of anxiety may be physical, you may feel a real pressure from a real circumstance, and the people around you may be acting irrationally and making no sense, but all this is a temporary circumstance in a fairy tale with a happy end.

All this darkness and discomfort are a result of a bad sorcerer's relentless work. And you are the hero of the fairy tale of your life. It is on you to tell the sorcerer to go away. It is your job to protect those around you who are weaker than you — so that they, too, can be free and breathe free.

Once you realize that all those torturous, uncomfortable feelings that feel like your own are not really yours, once you see them as a spell that it is, as almost separate creatures who have no legal business making a home in your head, your soul gets clearer, and the universe gives you a sword that is more powerful than the sorcerer's wand.

In that fairy tale, you may get tested. You may have to be patient, very patient. You may have to work very hard. In that fairy tale, there are days of great discomfort where you feel completely alone with your clarity and kindness, where you are at the brink of a collapse. But that is just a test.

If you keep at it, and keep at it, and keep at it, the sorcerer will find it unbearable to deal with you any longer, and will leave you alone. And the ones whom you love, the ones you are defending with all your love, will be free, too. And they, too, will grow stronger, and protect you back when they can.

And that is how the story ends. At the end of the story, however long it takes to unwind the plot, the System of Domination crumbles, and you, the child with bright eyes and the fierce, patient warrior, get to breathe free and bathe in love. May it be so.

About the Author

To find more of Tessa Lena's work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.

Originally published: March 17, 2020

With 101,606 reported COVID-19 cases across 96 countries and territories as of March 6, 2020,¹and no known cure, people are seeking ways to protect themselves against infection. Logically, many are resorting to wearing face masks when venturing out in public.

However, as face masks are becoming harder to come by, health experts are issuing public statements saying the masks won't protect healthy people against infection. Is that true? Or is it a ploy to ensure an adequate supply for health care workers? As reported in a March 4, 2020, Time article:²

"'It seems kind of intuitively obvious that if you put something — whether it's a scarf or a mask — in front of your nose and mouth, that will filter out some of these viruses that are floating around out there,' says Dr. William Schaffner, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University.

The only problem: that's not effective against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19. If it were, 'the CDC would have recommended it years ago,' he says. 'It doesn't, because it makes science-based recommendations.'"

Do Masks Only Protect Health Care Workers?

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, surgical masks are not designed to provide protection against airborne pathogens and are not considered respiratory protection. They're only designed to prevent large-particle droplets (which may contain pathogens) from reaching your mouth and nose.^3,4

Part of the problem is that these kinds of masks won't form a seal around your face. Most people also have a tendency to touch their face a lot, thus depositing pathogens from their hands to their face anyway.

According to U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams, wearing a mask may actually increase your risk of infection, as most people will touch their face even more frequently when wearing one.⁵ The CDC only recommends surgical masks for:

• People who are symptomatic, as the mask will inhibit the spread of the virus if you cough or sneeze into the mask
• Caregivers for infected patients

Originally published: September 1, 2020

At 79 years old, Dr. Anthony Fauci — who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984 — has yet to come out with the "Big One" — a vaccine or infectious disease treatment that will allow him to retire with a victory under his belt.

He failed to create a successful vaccine for AIDS, SARS, MERS and Ebola. A COVID-19 vaccine is essentially his last chance to go out in a blaze of glory. As evidenced by his history, he will stop at nothing to protect Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine and Gilead's antiviral Remdesivir.

He even threw tried and true pandemic protocols out the window when COVID-19 hit, turning into an unquestioning spokesman for draconian liberty-stripping measures instead. To echo a question asked by Dr. Sal Martingano in his article,¹ "Dr. Fauci: 'Expert' or Co-Conspirator," why are we not questioning this so-called expert?

Fauci 'Has Been Wrong About Everything'

The risk we take when listening to Fauci is that, so far, he's been wrong about most things. In a July 14, 2020, "Opposing View" editorial in USA Today, White House adviser Peter Navarro, director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, stated that Fauci "has been wrong about everything that I have interacted with him on."² According to Navarro, Fauci's errors in judgment include:³

Navarro continues:⁹

"Now Fauci says a falling mortality rate doesn't matter when it is the single most important statistic to help guide the pace of our economic reopening. The lower the mortality rate, the faster and more we can open. So when you ask me whether I listen to Dr. Fauci's advice, my answer is: only with skepticism and caution."

Fauci Has Done Nothing to Help Unite the Country

While Fauci claims to be exasperated by how political the pandemic has become,¹⁰ before Instagram banned him from the platform and took the post down,¹¹ Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pointed out in an August 2, 2020, Instagram post¹² that Fauci himself is, at least in part, part of the problem, as his double standards on hydroxychloroquine have done much to polarize and divide the nation:

"Fauci insists he will not approve HCQ for COVID until its efficacy is proven in 'randomized, double blind placebo studies.' To date, Dr. Fauci has never advocated such studies for any of the 72 vaccine doses added to the mandatory childhood schedule since he took over NIAID in 1984. Nor is he requiring them for the COVID vaccines currently racing for approval.

Why should chloroquine be the only remedy required to cross this high hurdle? HCQ is less in need of randomized placebo studies than any of these vaccines since its safety is well established after 60 years of use and decades on WHO's listed of 'essential medicines.'

Fauci's peculiar hostility towards HCQ is consistent with his half century bias favoring vaccines and patent medicines. Dr. Fauci's double standards create confusion, mistrust and polarization."

In a June 10, 2020, article,¹³ Global Research also questioned Fauci's many attempts to disparage the drug for no apparently valid reason; even promoting the fake (and ultimately retracted) Lancet study that claimed to show hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. At the end of the day, who benefits? Well, certainly it benefits the drug and vaccine industries, which seems to be where Fauci's loyalties lie.

Fauci's Bias Is Hard to Miss

While Fauci is not named on the patents of either Moderna's vaccine or Remdesivir, the NIH does have a 50% stake in Moderna's vaccine,¹⁴ and the recognition that would come with a successful vaccine launch would certainly include Fauci.

He also has lots to lose — if nothing else, his pride — if Remdesivir doesn't become a blockbuster, as his NIAID is sponsoring the clinical trials.¹⁵ The NIAID also supported the original research into Remdesivir, when it was aimed at treating Ebola.¹⁶

His bias here is clear for anyone to see. April 29, 2020, he stated¹⁷ Remdesivir "has a clear-cut and significant positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery." How good is that? Patients on the drug recovered in 11 days, on average, compared to 15 days among those receiving a placebo. Overall, the improvement rate for the drug was 31%.

Meanwhile, research¹⁸ now shows hydroxychloroquine reduced mortality by 50% when given early, and many doctors anecdotally claim survival rates close to 100%. This still isn't good enough for Fauci, who continues insisting hydroxychloroquine is a bust.¹⁹

His stance on these two drugs certainly doesn't make sense based on the data alone. But it does make sense if he wants (or has been instructed) to protect the profits of Remdesivir.

As director of NIAID, which has been part of Remdesivir's development from the start, why wouldn't he want to see it become a moneymaker for the agency he dedicated his career to? It also makes sense when you consider his primary job is to raise funds for biodefense research, primarily vaccines but also diagnostics and drug therapies.^20,21

Fauci Doubts Safety of Russian Vaccine

Early in August 2020, Russia announced they would begin vaccinating citizens with its own COVID-19 vaccine, despite not finishing large-scale human trials.²² The announcement drew skepticism from American infectious disease specialists, including Fauci, who said he has "serious doubts" that Russia's COVID-19 vaccine is actually safe and effective.²³

He's probably right on that point. It's hard to imagine you can prove safety and effectiveness in a mere two months of trials. But the fast-tracked vaccine efforts of the U.S. and EU are hardly bound to be significantly better, considering the many shortcuts that are being taken.

Fauci Ignores Two Decades of Failed Coronavirus Vaccines

Despite being in a position to know better, Fauci conveniently ignores the many failed attempts to create other coronavirus vaccines over the past two decades, including vaccines against SARS and MERS. A paper²⁴ by Eriko Padron-Regalado, "Vaccines for SARS-CoV-2: Lessons From Other Coronavirus Strains" reviews some of these past experiences. As noted in the Conservative Review:²⁵

"Since their emergence in 2003 and 2012 respectively, no safe and efficacious human vaccines for either SARS-Cov1 or MERS have been developed.

Moreover, experimental non-human (animal model) evaluations of four SARS-Cov1 candidate vaccine types, revealed that despite conferring some protection against infection with SARS-Cov1, each also caused serious lung injury, caused by an overreaction of the immune system, upon viral challenge.²⁶

Identical 'hypersensitive-type' lung injury occurred²⁷ when mice were administered a candidate MERS-Cov vaccine, then challenged with infectious virus, negating the ostensible benefit achieved by their development of promising … 'antibodies' … which might have provided immunity to MERS-Cov.

These disappointing experimental observations must serve as a cautionary tale for SARS-Cov2 vaccination programs to control epidemic COVID-19 disease."

NIAID Safety Controversies and Ethics Violations

When recently asked for a rebuttal to criticism of his leadership during the pandemic, Fauci replied, "I think you can trust me," citing his long record of service in government medicine. However, that long service record is fraught with ethics and safety lapses.

For example, in 2005, NPR reported²⁸ the NIH tested novel AIDS drugs on hundreds of HIV-positive children in state foster care during the late 1980s and90s without assigning patient advocates to monitor the children's health, as is required by law in most states.

Fauci was appointed director of the NIAID in 1984. The AIDS research was part of his research portfolio, and the AIDS research division reported directly to him, so these violations occurred on his watch.²⁹ In 2008, two NIH biomedical ethicists published a paper on the controversial practice of using wards of the state as guinea pigs, noting:³⁰

"Enrolling wards of the state in research raises two major concerns: the possibility that an unfair share of the burdens of research might fall on wards, and the need to ensure interests of individual wards are accounted for … Having special protections only for some categories is misguided. Furthermore, some of the existing protections ought to be strengthened."

Under Fauci, the NIAID became the largest funder of HIV/AIDS in the world.³¹ Despite that, numerous articles over the years have discussed how AIDS activists have been less than satisfied with Fauci and the NIAID.^32,33,34 A 1986 article stated:³⁵

"If Fauci were less intent on amassing power within the federal health bureaucracy … he would have left AIDS treatment research with the NCI, where it began, relying on that institute's proven expertise in organizing large, multisite clinical trials for cancer therapies."

A July 23, 2020, article in Just the News lists several other safety and ethics problems that Fauci has been involved in through the years, including conflict of interest violations in vaccine research.³⁶

Just the News also interviewed NIAID chief of ethics and regulatory compliance Dr. Jonathan Fishbein, whom the NIAID was forced to reinstate in 2005 after it was determined that Fishbein had been wrongly fired in retaliation for raising concerns about lack of safety in some of the agency's research:³⁷

"Fishbein said … Fauci failed to take responsibility for the managers and researchers working below him when signs of trouble emerged, allowing problems to persist until others intervened. 'Fauci is all about Fauci,' Fishbein said. 'He loves being the headline. It's his ego.'"

Fauci's Connections to Wuhan Lab

By now, you probably also know that the NIAID funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As reported by Newsweek:³⁸

"In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million."

This money was not given directly, but rather funneled to the Wuhan lab via the EcoHealth Alliance. According to a recent report by The Wall Street Journal,³⁹ the NIH is now insisting EcoHealth Alliance submit all information and materials from the Wuhan lab before it's allowed to resume funding.

Fauci is a longtime proponent of dangerous gain-of-function research. In 2003, he wrote an article⁴⁰ published in the journal Nature on how "the world needs new and creative ways to counter bioterrorism."

"We will pursue innovative approaches for modulating innate immunity to induce and enhance protection against many biological pathogens, as well as simple and rapid molecularly based diagnostics to detect, characterize and quantify infectious threats," Fauci wrote.

"These are lofty goals that may take many years to accomplish — but we must aspire to them. Third, we must enormously strengthen our interactions with the private sector, including biotechnology companies and large pharmaceutical corporations.

Many biodefence-related products that we are pursuing do not provide sufficient incentives for industry — the potential profit margin for companies is tenuous, and there is no guarantee that products would be used.

Therefore, we will seek non-traditional collaborations with industry, for example guaranteeing that products will be purchased if companies sign up … so that we can quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments …"

With that, there can be little question about which team Fauci is on. He's on the side of drug and vaccine makers, and has been for decades. There's no money to be made by either the agency or its private collaborators from natural products such as vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin or its drug equivalent, hydroxychloroquine. All of these are dirt-cheap and off patent.

Prediction Track Record = Null

Fauci's predictions for COVID-19 mortality have also turned out to be as inaccurate as all of his previous predictions. In 1987, he predicted heterosexual infection of HIV/AIDS would rise to 10% by 1991. It never rose above 4%.

He predicted the bird flu would result in 2 million to 7 million deaths. In the end, the avian H5N1 flu killed 440 worldwide. He sought billions of dollars to combat the threat of Zika, a virus that fizzled without making much of an impact anywhere.⁴¹

When you look at his track record, you realize he's predicted "nightmare" scenarios for decades, none of which have materialized. Last but not least, Dr. Fauci serves on Bill Gates leadership council.

While it's clear that the experimental COVID shots have killed a considerable number of people, the total death toll remains elusive, thanks to U.S. health agencies obfuscating, hiding and manipulating data.

That said, the most recent survey^1,2 — published in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Infectious Diseases — puts the death toll from the COVID jabs somewhere between 217,330 and 332,608 in 2021 alone. As noted by Steve Kirsch:³

"[We've] killed at least 217,000 Americans and seriously injured 33 million … in just the first year, and the CDC and FDA want to give you more shots … Since deaths from the vaccine were higher in 2022, most experts would estimate the all-cause mortality death toll from the COVID vaccines to be in the range of 500K to 600K.

So the global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people … These [data] are consistent with the numbers I've been saying for a long time. It's not a coincidence."

Survey: Why People Did or Did Not Get the Jab

Now, the slant of this paper is kind of interesting. The primary aim of it was to "identify the factors associated by American citizens with the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19."

The author was curious about why 31% of the U.S. population had declined the jab or not completed the primary series by November 2022, nearly two years into a massively advertised "vaccination" campaign.

Calculating the proportion of fatal events from the jab was secondary. As explained by the author, Mark Skidmore,⁴ Ph.D., an economics professor at Michigan State University:⁵

"A largely unexplored factor is the degree to which serious health problems arising from the COVID-19 illness or the COVID-19 vaccines among family and friends influences the decision to be vaccinated.

Serious illness due to COVID-19 would make vaccination more likely; the perceived benefits of avoiding COVID-19 through inoculation would be higher.

On the other hand, observing major health issues following COVID-19 inoculation within one's social network would heighten the perceived risks of vaccination. Previous studies have not evaluated the degree to which experiences with the disease and vaccine injury influence vaccine status.

The main aim of this online survey of COVID-19 health experiences is to investigate the degree to which the COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 vaccine adverse events among friends and family, whether perceived or real, influenced inoculation decisions. The second aim of this work is to estimate the total number of COVID-19 vaccine induced fatalities nationwide from the survey."

Here's an excerpt describing the methodology:⁶

"An online survey of COVID-19 health experiences was conducted. Information was collected regarding reasons for and against COVID-19 inoculations, experiences with COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 inoculations by survey respondents and their social circles. Logit regression analyses were carried out to identify factors influencing the likelihood of being vaccinated."

Survey Findings

A total of 2,840 people completed the survey between December 18 and 23, 2021. The mean age was 47, and the gender ratio was 51% women, 49% men. Just over half, 51%, had received one or more COVID jabs.

As Skidmore suspected, results showed that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.

Of the respondents, 34% knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22% knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot. So, as noted by to the author:⁷

"Knowing someone who reported serious health issues either from COVID-19 or from COVID-19 vaccination are important factors for the decision to get vaccinated."

As for the types of side effects experienced by people within the respondents' social circles, they included (but were not limited to) the "usual suspects," such as:

• Heart and cardiovascular problems
• Severe COVID infection or other respiratory illness
• Feeling generally unwell, weak, fatigued and out of breath for weeks
• Blood clots and stroke
• Death

Hundreds of Thousands Killed for No Reason

Based on these survey data, Skidmore estimates:

"… the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 278,000 (95% CI 217,330-332,608) when fatalities that may have occurred regardless of inoculation are removed."

Were COVID-19 an infection with an extremely high mortality rate, perhaps high rates of death from a vaccine would be acceptable. But COVID-19 has an exceptionally low mortality rate, on par with or lower than influenza, hence the risk associated with the COVID jabs ought to be equally low.

As it stands, the risks of the shots are very high, while Pfizer's own trial data, with more than 40,000 participants, show they offer no benefit in terms of your risk of hospitalization and/or death. The absolute risk reduction is so minute as to be inconsequential.⁸

High Rates of Side Effects

The death toll from the jabs isn't the only disturbing part of this paper, though. Skidmore's findings also suggest side effects from the jab may be more common than previously suspected.

As mentioned, 51% of the respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 15% reported experiencing a new health problem post-jab and 13% deemed it "serious." Compare that to Pfizer's six-month safety analysis,⁹ which claimed only 1.2% of trial participants reported a serious adverse event.

Now, as suggested by Kirsch,¹⁰ "we need to discount that by a factor of two because people report less severe adverse events as adverse events." Still, that means serious adverse events from the jab are five times higher than what Pfizer reported.

"This is why the FDA never does after-market surveys in the drugs it approves. Because reality hurts," Kirsch writes.¹¹ "It is the FDA that should have discovered this before Mark Skidmore. The FDA is asleep at the wheel and they just believe everything the drug companies tell them, hook, line, and sinker. This is a major miss. Why aren't they doing surveys like this to see if the reality matches the study?"

More Side Effect Rate Comparisons

For additional comparison, here are the findings of several other investigations:

• Rasmussen Reports¹² — In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll — taken one year after Skidmore's survey — 34% reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and 7% reported major side effects.
• CDC's V-Safe data¹³ — In October 2022, ICAN obtained the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's V-Safe data. This is a voluntary program to monitor adverse vaccine reactions. Of the 10.1 million COVID jab recipients who used the app, 7.7% had to seek medical care post-jab.
• Kirsch-funded survey¹⁴ — A June 2022 U.S. survey by the market research company Pollfish found that 16.3% of COVID jabbed respondents experienced an injury, and 9.7% required medical care.

The graphic below, which visually compares Skidmore's findings to the findings of the Rasmussen, V-Safe and Pollfish surveys, was created by InfoGame on Substack.¹⁵ As noted by InfoGame:

"Skidmore's article serves as another sign that the rate of COVID-19 side effects is extremely high and that the COVID-19 vaccines are an unprecedently risky medical product."

Menstrual Irregularities Are Common Post-Jab

While we're on the topic of reported side effects, several surveys have also focused on the frequency of abnormal menses in women who got the jab, which could be indicative of reproductive harm. For example:

• A British survey published in early December 2021 found 20% of women experienced menstrual disturbances following their jab.¹⁶
• A study published in Science Advances in mid-July 2022 found 66% of "fully vaccinated" postmenopausal women experienced abnormal breakthrough bleeding. In total, 42.1% reported heavier menstrual flow post-jab (this included women of all ages, as well as transgenders on hormone treatments).¹⁷
• An Italian peer-reviewed study published in March 2022 found that "50-60% of reproductive-age women who received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine reported menstrual cycle irregularities, regardless of the type of administered vaccine." After the second dose, abnormal menses were reported by 60% to 70%.¹⁸

People in High Places Seek Retraction

Not surprisingly, people in high places are already trying to force a retraction of the paper. A special notice from the editor, dated just two days post-publication, states, "Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by editors. Specifically, that the claims are unsubstantiated and that there are questions about the quality of the peer review." As noted by Kirsch:¹⁹

"They are actively trying to get the paper retracted because it destroys the narrative. I'm certain they will succeed because journals are under intense pressure to censor any anti-narrative paper. The problem is that Mark's survey was entirely consistent with my surveys.

If they want to have the paper retracted they need to show us THEIR surveys. But of course, they don't have any surveys because they are too afraid of the results.

So they will use hand-waving arguments like "I don't like the methodology" or some nonsense like that instead of gathering their own data. They will NEVER show us survey data that supports their narrative because it isn't there.

That's why there are no success anecdotes. NOBODY can give me the name of a US geriatric practice where all-cause deaths plummeted after the vaccines rolled out. In every case, they went the wrong way. The narrative is unraveling at an accelerated pace but the medical community is still fighting the truth."

In the U.S., 1 in 5 prescriptions is written for an off-label use.¹ While sometimes this allows medications to be overused or misused, it also protects doctors' ability to freely treat patients, and patients' ability to use all available treatments after making an informed decision.

That 20% of medications are used off-label also indicates "a degree of freedom physicians currently have that will be foreclosed," notes English comedian and actor Russell Brand,² if a little-noticed provision in the omnibus spending bill is passed. "Literally, this will mean that your doctor will not be able to do what's best for you because they'll work for Big Pharma now," Brand says.³

19 Lines in 4,155-Page Bill Could Change Practice of Medicine

The 2023 omnibus appropriations bill — a 4,155-page tome involving $1.7 trillion in spending — includes 19 lines that could give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the power to ban off-label use of approved medications. In a commentary for The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Joel Zinberg wrote:⁴

"Physicians routinely prescribe drugs and employ medical devices that are approved and labeled by the Food and Drug Administration for a particular use. Yet sometimes physicians discern other beneficial uses for these technologies, which they prescribe for their patients without specific official sanction.

The new legislation amends the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, to give the FDA the authority to ban some of these off-label uses of otherwise approved products. This unwarranted intrusion into the physician-patient relationship threatens to undermine medical innovation and patient care."

FDA Wants Power to Regulate Practice of Medicine

"The new provision was enacted at the FDA's urging," Zinberg says,⁵ in response to a 2021 legal ruling that limited the FDA's power to meddle with the practice of medicine. In March 2020, the FDA banned the use of electric shock devices for particular uses, namely to treat patients engaging in self-harm or aggressive behaviors that could harm others.

The devices are FDA approved, and while the FDA banned their use for certain contexts, it still allowed them to be used for smoking addiction and other purposes.⁶ This led to a lawsuit — Judge Rotenberg Education Center v. FDA — in which the Judge Rotenberg Education Center, a school for people with severe behavioral and intellectual conditions, sued the FDA over the ban.

The court ruled in the school's favor, stating that the FDA's ban violated federal law because it interfered with health care practitioners' authority to practice medicine. As it stands, the FDA does not have the power to ban medical devices for a particular use.

The school's attorney, Mike Flammia, who also represented students' parents in favor of the device's use, told CNN the decision "protects what all of us cherish, and that is the ability to go to our doctor and have our doctor decide what is the best treatment."⁷

As it stands, Section 360f of the FDCA⁸ only gives the FDA authority to ban a medical device if it poses "an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury." It can ban the device outright, but it can't pick and choose when it can and can't be used.

"Barring a practitioner from prescribing or using an otherwise approved device for a specific off-label indication would violate another FDCA section, which bars the FDA from regulating the 'practice of medicine,'" Zinberg says.⁹ The FDA is trying to change that.

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Pharma — Not Your Doctor — Would Dictate Medical Decisions

The omnibus amendment would change Section 360f so that the FDA could ban a medical device if it poses an unreasonable risk for "one or more intended uses" while leaving it approved for others. "Since the new provision lets the FDA skirt the ban on interfering with the practice of medicine by banning devices for particular uses, the agency will likely claim this as a precedent allowing it to ban off-label uses of drugs as well," according to Zinberg.¹⁰

This puts the FDA, and by proxy Big Pharma, at the helm of powerful health care decisions that should be made on an individual, personalized level between a patient and their health care provider.

Remember that in 1992, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was created, which allows the FDA to collect fees from the drug industry. "With the act, the FDA moved from a fully taxpayer funded entity to one supplemented by industry money," a BMJ article written by investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi explains.¹¹

Now, significant portions of regulatory agencies' budgets come from the pharmaceutical industry that these agencies are supposed to regulate. In 1993, after PDUFA was passed, the FDA collected about $29 million in net PDUFA fees. This increased 30-fold — to $884 million — by 2016.¹²

It's also revealing that at the FDA, 9 out of 10 of its former commissioners between 2006 and 2019 went on to work for pharmaceutical companies.¹³ As Brand noted:¹⁴

"What they're looking for is a crafty, sly, insidious way to be able to intercede in your relationship with your physician. And as usual, it's for your 'safety' and for your 'benefit' … Why would you want Big Pharma and a regulatory body that they fund interfering in your relationship with your doctor about your health?

Have they not found enough ways to extract revenue from you, to put your health second, to put your well-being way, way behind their profits and their list of priorities? Why is the bias moving even further in that direction? … This is not about medicine. This is about licensing. This is about profits, patents, the ability to extract revenue."

Patients Suffer When Pharma's in Control

During the pandemic, it became clear how patients suffer when health agencies are allowed to dictate what medications doctors are allowed to prescribe to their patients. Ivermectin — a generic medication that doctors had success treating COVID-19 with early on — was quickly vilified, as were the doctors who attempted to prescribe it for COVID-19 patients.

In his book, "The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the COVID Pandemic," Dr. Pierre Kory details Big Pharma's suppression of this drug when it was found to work against COVID-19. When he and colleagues first spoke out about the drug's potential, however, he was naïve. He said during our 2022 interview:¹⁵

"I worked a lot and I got deeply expert on ivermectin. But what happened in the next few months is that everything started going sideways, and I could not figure it out. I saw hit pieces … The thing is, I didn't know. I didn't know that what I was really doing — bringing forth data supporting the efficacy of a generic drug — that is poking the bear.

And when I say poking the bear, what is anathema to the pharmaceutical industry and their whole business model is they cannot have generic off-patent drugs become standard of care. It obliterates the market for their pricing new pills.

I didn't know I was stepping into a war. In the history of pharma, I don't think any single medicine threatened as many [drug] markets and campaigns. The only other medicine that did that was hydroxychloroquine, but they already killed hydroxychloroquine in 2020.

I was coming out now with ivermectin, and it threatened hundreds of billions of dollars in perpetuity for these insanely lethal vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, paxlovid, molnupiravir — all of the markets for their novel new pills to enter. I mean, I don't think any medicine has ever threatened that much of a market."

'A Problem for Many Reasons'

If the FDA is allowed to ban medications for certain uses, we'll see more of what happened with ivermectin. It's a "problem for many reasons," Zinberg explains:¹⁶

"The statute gives the FDA the power, without any public input, to prevent patients' access to off-label therapies even though their physicians and their patients have found the treatments to be beneficial or even essential.

… Allowing the FDA to ban certain off-label uses will impair clinical progress. Off-label use enables physicians to assess their patients' unique circumstances and use their own evolving scientific knowledge in deciding to try approved products for new indications.

If the treatment proves useful, formal studies are performed and published. If enough evidence accumulates, the treatment becomes the standard of care, even if the manufacturer didn't submit the product for a separate, lengthy and costly FDA review.

… Substituting regulators' wisdom for the cost-benefit judgment of physicians and their patients will discourage attempts to use approved products in new and beneficial ways and deprive patients of valuable treatments. Congress should reconsider this ill-advised legislation."

California Law Also Shackles Doctors' Freedoms

In California, regulators are also interfering with the practice of medicine. Law AB 2098, which was signed into law September 30, 2022¹⁷ and went into effect January 1, 2023,¹⁸ gives the state power to take away doctors' medical licenses if they spread "misinformation" that goes against the standard COVID-19 rhetoric.

Specifically, those who "disseminate or promote misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines" could be "disciplined," which includes loss of their medical license.¹⁹

It's akin to putting shackles on their wrists, forcing them to conform to a narrative intent on pushing dangerous gene therapies and ineffective medications. It's also a potential warning of darker things to come.

What constitutes "misinformation" or "disinformation" worthy of taking away a person's medical license? It's anyone's guess, really, but doctors afraid of being punished are likely to steer clear of anything that could possibly fit under this definition — to the detriment of their patients.

Bill 2098 itself is packed with misinformation and ignores the scientific truths about COVID-19,²⁰such as the fact that prior infection with COVID-19 results in natural immunity — immunity that's superior to that achieved via a COVID-19 shot.²¹

The bill, if it passes, will stop doctors from practicing medicine the way they deem best for the individual patient. It will also stop dissent — even when dissent is necessary and beneficial, and coming from people with expertise. And that's precisely the point.²² In December 2022, Physicians for Informed Consent sued the state of California, arguing that AB 2098 violates the U.S. Constitution.

According to a news release, "The lawsuit argues that the State has weaponized the vague phrase 'misinformation,' thereby unconstitutionally targeting physicians who publicly disagree with the government's public health edicts on COVID-19."²³

This Shift Isn't Just for the US

It's important to note that the trend to let a Pharma-controlled government silence your doctor and dictate basic components of your medical care is not confined to the U.S. — it's happening globally.

Proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), for instance, aim to erase the concepts of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms from the equation.²⁴The first principle in Article 3 of the 2005 IHR states that health regulations shall be implemented "with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons." The amendment strikes that sentence.

Instead, international health regulations will be based on "principles of equity, inclusivity and coherence" only. This means they can force you to undergo whatever medical intervention they deem to be in the best interest of the collective.

Individuals won't matter. Human dignity will not be taken into consideration. Human rights will not be taken into consideration, and neither will the concept that human beings have fundamental freedoms that cannot be infringed. Autonomy over your body will be eliminated. You'll have no right to make personal health decisions.

While it may start slowly, such as with Pharma's quiet move to ban off-label usage of medications for certain uses, it will soon expand, chipping away at your sovereignty until it's gone. This is why it's imperative to share this knowledge and support measures that protect our human rights and individual freedoms.

In January 2022, House Oversight Committee Republicans released a batch of emails sent to and from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).^1,2,3 A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought by Jimmy Tobias at The Intercept⁴ also forced the release of unredacted NIH correspondence in late November 2022, just as Dr. Anthony Fauci prepared to retire from his position as director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The emails reveal what many had suspected all along, namely that SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be a genetically engineered virus that somehow escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China. (In a January 17, 2023, Twitter thread,⁵ molecular biologist Richard Ebright, Ph.D., summarized the lab-origin hypothesis.)

The correspondence also reveal that a) NIH leaders were nervous about the possibility that they'd funded the creation of this virus, and b) they were determined to suppress questions about its origin.

Summary of Key Findings

As reported by the House Oversight Committee:⁶

"Excerpts of emails released today reveal the following:

Fauci Tipped Off About Lab Leak Possibility

January 31, 2020, Fauci received an email from Dr. Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, asking him to call Kristian Andersen, Ph.D., an evolutionary biologist and professor in the department of immunology and microbiology at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. As reported by The Intercept January 19, 2023:⁸

"Fauci had his phone call with Andersen that night, and what he heard clearly disturbed him. In an email to Farrar after the call, he wrote the following:

'I told [Andersen] that as soon as possible he and Eddie Holmes should get a group of evolutionary biologists together to examine carefully the data to determine if his concerns are validated. He should do this very quickly and if everyone agrees with this concern, they should report it to the appropriate authorities.

I would imagine that in the USA this would be the FBI and in the UK it would be MI5' … What were Andersen's concerns? And why were they so dire they might merit a call to the FBI?

Andersen laid them out plainly in an email to Fauci that same evening. 'The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,' Andersen wrote in the email.

'I should mention,' he added, 'that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.'"

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

NIH Funded Risky Research at the WIV

The following day, February 1, 2020, at 2 p.m., Fauci, Farrar, Collins, Andersen and several other virologists had their conference call, and Andersen clearly wasn't the only one who had noticed tell-tale signs of genetic engineering. Farrar himself wrote "On a spectrum if 0 is nature and 100 is release — I am honestly at 50!" ⁹

According to The Intercept,¹⁰ Fauci spent that morning "brushing up on what sorts of grants and collaborations his agency was involved in with research institutions in China."

In all likelihood, he discovered (if he was somehow previously unaware, which seems doubtful) that the NIH had provided research grants to the EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn subcontracted coronavirus experiments to the WIV — including an experiment involving humanized mice that were infected with chimeric hybrids of SARS-related bat coronaviruses.¹¹

According to The Intercept, it's highly unlikely that these experiments resulted in SARS-CoV-2, as the viruses are too dissimilar, "but it does raise questions about what other kinds of experiments were going on in Wuhan and haven't been disclosed."

NIH-Linked Scientists Suspected Lab Leak From the Start

February 2, 2020, Farrar circulated a set of notes summarizing the discussion, which he said was to be treated "in total confidence."¹² Michael (Mike) Farzan, Ph.D., an expert on the entry processes of enveloped viruses, was bothered by the presence of a furin cleavage site — a novel feature that allows SARS-CoV-2 the ability to infect cells in the human airways.

According to Farrar's note, Farzan "has a hard time explain[ing] that as an event outside the lab." Farrar's summary goes on to state that:¹³

"… the likely explanation could be something as simple as passage SARS-live CoVs in tissue culture on human cell lines (under BSL-2) for an extended period of time, accidentally creating a virus that would be primed for rapid transmission between humans via gain of furin site (from tissue culture) and adoption to human ACE2 receptor via repeated passage …

So, I think it becomes a question of how do you put all this together, whether you believe in this series of coincidences, what you know of the lab in Wuhan, how much could be in nature — accidental release or natural event? I am 70:30 or 60:40."

A note from professor and microbiologist Robert (Bob) Garry, Ph.D.,¹⁴ reveals he had similar concerns:

"… I aligned the nCoV with the 96% bat CoV sequenced at WIV. Except for the RBD [receptor binding domain] the S proteins are essential [sic] identical at the amino acid level — well all but the perfect insertion of 12 nucleotides that adds [sic] the furin site.

S2 is over its whole length essentially identical. I really can't think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus or one very similar to it to nCoV where you insert exactly 4 amino acids 12 nucleotide [sic] that all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function — that and you don't change any other amino acids in S2?

I just can't figure out how this gets accomplished in nature. Do the alignment of the spikes at the amino acid level — its [sic] stunning. Of course, in the lab it would be easy to generate the perfect 12 base insert that you wanted.

Another scenario is that the progenitor of nCoV was a bat virus with the perfect furin cleavage site generated over evolutionary times. In this scenario RaTG13 the WIV virus was generated by a perfect deletion of 12 nucleotides while essentially not changing any other S2 amino acid [sic]. Even more implausible IMO [in my opinion]. That is the big if."

In other words, in the earliest days of the pandemic, the general consensus among virologists in communication with the NIH was that a WIV lab leak was not only plausible, but perhaps the most likely. The correspondence also leaves no doubt about the fact that Fauci and Collins wanted to silence this theory.

The Cover-Up Begins

In a February 2, 2020, email, Collins stated that he was "coming around to the view that a natural origin is more likely," and warned that "voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate" lest they convene a panel of experts to address the matter, and that such conspiracies could do "great potential harm to science and international harmony."

Dutch virologist Ron Fouchier, who participated in the call, also warned his colleagues that continuing the discussion about a lab leak "would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular."¹⁵

Fauci, for his part, appears to have made the decision to suppress the lab leak theory that same day (February 2). In an email, he wrote:¹⁶

"Like all of us, I do not know how this evolved, but given the concerns of so many people and the threat of further distortions on social media, it is essential that we move quickly."

According to The Intercept, Fauci, Farrar and Collins alerted officials at the World Health Organization in the hopes they'd convene an expert panel to investigate, but "WHO apparently declined to do so at the time." The group was well aware of the risks involved, though, were the lab leak theory to gain legs, so a plan to discourage further "accusations" was apparently hatched.

Hastily Written Paper Sought to Discourage Bioweapon Idea

Just two days later, on February 4, 2020, Fauci and Collins received the first draft of the article, "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2," later published in Nature Medicine.¹⁷

Three of the authors, Andersen, Robert Garry of Tulane University and Edward Holmes of the University of Sydney, were on the February 1, 2020, conference call. Andersen, Garry, and another "Proximal Origin" author, W. Ian Lipkin of Columbia University, have also received large NIH grants in recent years,¹⁸ so this paper was not written by uninterested and independent parties.

The original draft is still secret. All we have is an email reply from Fauci, in which he appears to flag the inclusion of serial passage through humanized mice. This suggests the issue of animal passage was raised, but then immediately scrapped.

The Nature Medicine article roundly dismissed the idea that the virus was the result of deliberate engineering, proposing instead that, despite a dearth of evidence, it most likely evolved naturally. (Two potential natural-evolution theories were described.) They didn't conclusively dismiss the possibility of a lab leak, though — only the idea that it was "deliberately" engineered. As noted in the paper:¹⁹

"Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here.

However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible."

Lab Origin Was Never Ruled Out

The "other theories of its origin" described in the "Proximal Origin" paper was the possibility that it might have been the result of "selection during passage," which is a routine laboratory practice. In other words, it seems they were most concerned with dispelling any rumors about it being intentionally created, which would place it in the category of a bioweapon.

As reported by The Intercept, Farrar, Fauci and Collins certainly had not ruled out the possibility of a lab origin altogether:²⁰

"The scientists seem by this point to have made a sharp distinction between a scenario in which the virus was deliberately engineered in a lab and a scenario in which the virus was generated during serial passage experiments in a lab.

'Eddie would be 60:40 lab side,' Farrar added. 'I remain 50:50.'

'Yes, I'd be interested in the proposal of accidental lab passage in animals (which ones?),' Collins wrote.

'?? Serial passage in ACE2-transgenic mice,' Fauci responded.

'Exactly!' Farrar replied.

'Surely that wouldn't be done in a BSL-2 lab?' wrote Collins, referring to biosafety level 2 labs, which do not have the most stringent safety protocols.

'Wild West…' was Farrar's response, an apparent reference to lab practices in China or possibly to the Wuhan Institute of Virology itself.

In the above exchange, the health officials seem to be contemplating the possibility that the repeated passage of a coronavirus through genetically modified mice in an insufficiently secure lab could have resulted in the accidental emergence and release of SARS-CoV-2.

In a later email exchange, Farrar, quoting Garry, noted that serial passage in animals had been proved to result in the appearance of furin cleavage sites in other viruses, specifically the H5N1 flu virus. 'There are a couple passage of H5N1 in chicken papers — the furin site appears in steps.'"

Similarly, there's this exchange between Christian Drosten, Ph.D., and Andersen on February 8.²¹ Drosten wrote:

"Can someone help me with one question: didn't we congregate to challenge a certain theory, and if we could, drop it? Who came up with this story in the beginning? Are we working on debunking our own conspiracy theory?"

Andersen's reply read:

"Our main work over the last couple of weeks has been focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory, but we are at a crossroad where the scientific evidence isn't conclusive enough to say that we have high confidence in any of the three main theories considered.

As to publishing this document in a journal, I am currently not in favor of doing so. I believe that publishing something that is open-ended could backfire at this stage."

Andersen's reluctance notwithstanding, the paper was accepted for publication a month later, March 17, 2020 — and the possibility of the virus being the result of serial passage remained.

Most-Read Propaganda Paper Ever

The influence of the "Proximal Origin" paper cannot be overstated. As reported by The Intercept,²² it's been accessed more than 5.7 million times and cited by more than 2,000 media outlets, making it one of the most-read papers ever published. It's fair to say this propaganda piece was "milked for all its worth" to uphold the illusion of a natural evolution consensus.

Most media outlets also overstated the paper's conclusion. While it did not present any actual evidence to support the natural evolution theory, and admitted it might have been created through serial passaging in a lab, outlets like ABC News boldly declared, "Sorry, Conspiracy Theorists. Study Concludes COVID-19 'Is Not a Laboratory Construct,'"²³ as if the issue had been conclusively settled based on the scientific evidence at hand.

Questions Could Not Be Quelled

The Nature Medicine article didn't stem the flow of questions, though, a fact decried by Collins in a mid-April 2020 email to Fauci:

"Wondering if there is something NIH can do to help put down this very destructive conspiracy, with what seems to be growing momentum … I hoped the Nature Medicine article on the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 would settle this. But probably didn't get much visibility. Anything more we can do? Ask the National Academy to weigh in?"

Fauci replied, "I would not do anything about this right now. It is a shiny object that will go away in times [sic]." He was wrong, of course, and the reason questions didn't go away was because emerging evidence kept strengthening the lab leak theory, while there is nothing with which to support natural evolution.

As Sergei Pond, a computational virologist at Temple University, told The Intercept,²⁴ "there was no data then, and there is no data now, that would definitively indicate that a lab origin like the one contemplated in 'Proximal Origin' is not at least plausible."

Having read the unredacted emails, David Relman, a professor of microbiology, immunology and medicine at Stanford University, added:²⁵

"When I first saw it [the Proximal Origin paper] in March 2020, the paper read to me as a conclusion in search of an argument. Among its many problems, it failed to consider in a serious fashion the possibility of an unwitting and unrecognized accidental leak during aggressive efforts to grow coronaviruses from bat and other field samples.

It also assumed that researchers in Wuhan have told the world about every virus and every sequence that was in their laboratories in 2019. But these [unredacted emails] actually provide evidence that the authors considered a few additional lab-associated scenarios, early in their discussions.

But then they rushed to judgment, and the lab scenarios fell out of favor. It appears as if a combination of a scant amount of data and an unspoken bias against the [lab origin] scenario diminished the idea in their minds."

Virologists Under the Microscope

As reported by The Washington Post,²⁶ virologists are now under the microscope like never before, and the NIH is said to be "preparing an overhaul of the policies on government-funded research." Draft recommendations²⁷ from the biosecurity advisory board were released January 20, 2023.

Clearly, paranoia is high, and there's good reason for that. Not only do we have the unredacted NIH emails showing there were grave concerns about COVID-19 being the result of a lab leak, and that those concerns were "allayed" by passing propaganda for "science," but researchers have also published research showing they're now conducting gain-of-function research on SARS-CoV-2.²⁸

Who in their right mind would think that was a good idea? The fact that reckless dual-use research into dangerous pathogens is taking place on the daily is precisely why getting to the bottom of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is so important. If this kind of research contributed to COVID-19, then clearly we need to make sure it cannot happen again.

I believe one of the primary reasons why the lab leak theory is being so heavily disputed is because acknowledging it as true would force Congress to rein in the research industry. But we cannot afford to ignore it, because gain-of-function research capabilities pose a truly existential threat to mankind as a whole.²⁹

Inspector General Report Blasts NIH for String of Errors

Interestingly, January 25, 2023, the U.S. Office of Inspector General released a report³⁰ detailing the NIH's failure to properly monitor and review potentially hazardous coronavirus research. As reported by the Daily Mail:³¹

"EcoHealth Alliance was awarded $8 million in Government research grants between 2014 and 2021, which it subcontracted to research facilities. The WIV was one of eight teams awarded grants at that time.

Today's audit said there was a lack of oversight by the NIH and EcoHealth at the Chinese facility and other labs that benefitted from Government grants.

The report said: 'Despite identifying potential risks associated with research being performed under the EcoHealth awards, we found that NIH did not effectively monitor or take timely action to address EcoHealth's compliance with some requirements.

'Although NIH and EcoHealth had established monitoring procedures, we found deficiencies in complying with those procedures limited NIH and EcoHealth's ability to effectively monitor federal grant awards and subawards to understand the nature of the research conducted, identify potential problem areas, and take corrective action' …

Investigators say EcoHealth also did not submit proper progress reports on the use of its fund in a timely manner, with information coming in two years late. It also says the NIH failed to terminate its grant with EcoHealth after the non-profit broke protocols."

Justin Goodman, senior vice president of Advocacy and Public Policy at the White Coat Waste Project commented on the report:³²

"This audit confirms what we have been documenting since early 2020 when we first exposed NIH's funding of the Wuhan lab: EcoHealth Alliance shipped tax dollars to Wuhan for dangerous animal experiments that probably caused the pandemic, violated federal laws and policies and wasted tax dollars.

Yet, the Wuhan lab remains eligible for even more taxpayer money for animal tests and just since the pandemic began, EcoHealth has raked in at least $46million in new federal funds from the DOD, USAID, NIH, and NSF.

As the group that first exposed and ended EcoHealth's calamitous collaboration with the Wuhan animal lab, we're calling on Congress to defund these rogue organizations once and for all. Taxpayers should not be forced to bankroll reckless white coats who waste money, break the law and place public health in peril. Stop the money, stop the madness."

US Government Stonewalls FOIA Requests

As investigators try to get to the truth, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is doing everything it can to prevent it from coming out. As reported by Gary Ruskin,³³ executive director and co-founder of U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), in 2022, as the HHS was slammed with FOIA requests relating to COVID-19, they added four extra layers of legal review within the HHS legal department.

These attorneys scoured each and every document to make sure anything potentially incriminating was properly redacted before release. "This plainly appears to be an effort to delay or block release of documents about the origin of COVID-19," Ruskin wrote. "What is HHS hiding? We hope Congress will investigate."

The good news is, the Republican House now has the ability to launch such investigations, and I hope they will. The problem is that it would be dangerous to prove a cover-up, as it would turn everything upside-down. Health agencies, universities and any number of other agencies would have to be retooled. So, getting to the bottom of this affair will require people who believe the truth is worth the pain.

Originally published: December 29, 2020

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

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

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

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

Infection Fatality Rate Has Been Wrong Since the Beginning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shutting Down Schools 'Makes Absolutely No Sense'

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Asymptomatic Testing Goes 'Against Good Practice'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masks, Lockdowns Don't Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bringing in the Great Reset

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By May 2020, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation with ventilators was a death sentence.¹ As early as April 9, 2020, Business Insider reported² that 80% of COVID-19 patients in New York City who were placed on ventilators died, which caused a number of doctors to question their use.

The Associated Press³ also publicized similar reports from China and the U.K. A U.K. report put the figure at 66%, while a small study from Wuhan, China, put the ratio of deaths at 86%. Data presented by attorney Thomas Renz in 2021 showed that in Texas hospitals, 84.9% of patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.⁴

The lowest figure I've seen is 50%.⁵ So, somewhere between 50% and 86% of all ventilated COVID patients died. Compare that to historical prepandemic ratios, where 30% to 40% of ventilated patients died.

High-Flow Cannulas and Proning Were Always More Effective

Meanwhile, doctors at UChicago Medicine reported⁶ getting "truly remarkable" results using high-flow nasal cannulas in lieu of ventilators. As noted in a press release:⁷

"High-flow nasal cannulas, or HFNCs, are non-invasive nasal prongs that sit below the nostrils and blow large volumes of warm, humidified oxygen into the nose and lungs.

A team from UChicago Medicine's emergency room took 24 COVID-19 patients who were in respiratory distress and gave them HFNCs instead of putting them on ventilators. The patients all fared extremely well, and only one of them required intubation after 10 days …

'Avoiding intubation is key,' [UChicago Medicine's Emergency Department's medical director Dr. Thomas] Spiegel said. 'Most of our colleagues around the city are not doing this, but I sure wish other ERs would take a look at this technique closely.'"

The UChicago team also endorsed proning, meaning lying in the face-down position, which automatically improves oxygenation and helps alleviate shortness of breath.

Yet despite these early indications that mechanical ventilation was as unnecessary as it was disastrous, placing COVID patients on life support is standard of care to this day, more than three years later. How could that be?

How China and the WHO Created Ventilator Hysteria

In a September 30, 2020, Substack article,⁸ journalist Jordan Schachtel described how China and the World Health Organization came up with and nurtured the idea that mechanical ventilation was the correct and necessary first-line response to COVID:

"In early March, when COVID-19 was ravaging western Europe and sounding alarm bells in the United States, the WHO released COVID-19 provider guidance⁹ documents to healthcare workers.

Citing experience 'based on current knowledge of the situation in China,' the WHO recommended mechanical ventilators as an early intervention for treating COVID-19 patients. The guidance recommended¹⁰ escalating quickly, if not immediately, to mechanical ventilation.

In doing so, they cited the guidance being presented by Chinese medical journals, which published papers in January and February claiming that 'Chinese expert consensus' called for 'invasive mechanical ventilation' as the 'first choice' for people with moderate to severe respiratory distress.

The WHO further justified this approach by claiming that the less invasive positive air pressure machines could result in the spread of aerosols, potentially infecting health care workers with the virus."

That last paragraph is perhaps the most shocking reason for why millions of COVID patients were sacrificed. They wanted to isolate the virus inside the mechanical vent machine rather than risk aerosol transmission.

In other words, they put patients to death in order to "save" staff and other, presumably non-COVID, patients. If you missed this news back in 2020, you're not alone. In the flurry of daily reporting, it escaped many of us. Here's the description given in the WHO's guidance document.

Strangely enough, while the U.S. quickly began clamoring for ventilators, China started relying on them less, and instead exported them in huge quantities. As noted by Schachtel, "China was making a fortune off of manufacturing and exporting ventilators (many of which did not work correctly and even killed patients¹¹) around the world."

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

COVID Patients Effectively Euthanized

That ventilation and sedation were used to protect hospital staff was also highlighted by The Wall Street Journal in a December 20, 2020, article,¹² which noted:

"Last spring, with less known about the disease, doctors often pre-emptively put patients on ventilators or gave powerful sedatives largely abandoned in recent years. The aim was to save the seriously ill and protect hospital staff from COVID-19 …

Last spring, doctors put patients on ventilators partly to limit contagion at a time when it was less clear how the virus spread, when protective masks and gowns were in short supply.

Doctors could have employed other kinds of breathing support devices that don't require risky sedation, but early reports suggested patients using them could spray dangerous amounts of virus into the air, said Theodore Iwashyna, a critical-care physician at University of Michigan and Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals in Ann Arbor, Mich.

At the time, he said, doctors and nurses feared the virus would spread through hospitals. "We were intubating sick patients very early. Not for the patients' benefit, but in order to control the epidemic and to save other patients," Dr. Iwashyna said 'That felt awful.'"

As noted in a January 23, 2023, Substack article,¹³ in which James Lyons-Weiler revisits the ventilator issue and the shocking reason behind it, "euthanizing humans is illegal. Especially for the benefit of other patients. It should feel awful."

The matter becomes even more perverse when you consider the fact that many "COVID cases" were patients who merely tested positive using faulty PCR testing.

They didn't have COVID but were vented anyway, thanks to the baseless theory that you could have COVID-19 and be infectious without symptoms. Hospitals also received massive incentives to diagnose patients with COVID — whether they actually had it or not — and to put them on a vent.

Frontline Nurse Blew the Whistle on Vent Misuse

In September 2022, The Epoch Times asked the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data mining results. PRR¹ measures how common an adverse event is for a specific drug compared to all the other drugs in the database.

According to the standard operating procedures^2,3 for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is run jointly by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the CDC is required to perform these data mining analyses.

Not only did the CDC refuse to release the data, but it also provided false information — twice — in response to The Epoch Times' questions about the monitoring being performed. As reported by The Epoch Times back in September 2022,⁴ the CDC initially claimed PRR analyses were "outside the agency's purview" and that no monitoring was being done by them.

Eventually, the agency admitted it was doing PRRs, starting in February 2021, only to later claim they didn't perform any PRRs until March 2022. The Epoch Times also cited several papers in which the FDA and/or CDC claimed their data mining efforts had come up empty handed.⁵ Now, we find that was all a pack of lies.

CDC Monitoring Reveals Hundreds of Safety Signals

In reality, the CDC's PRR monitoring reveals HUNDREDS of safety signals, including Bell's palsy, blood clots, pulmonary embolism and death — all of which, according to the rules, require thorough investigation to either confirm or rule out a possible link to the shots. As reported by The Epoch Times in early January 2023:⁶

"The CDC analysis was conducted on adverse events reported from Dec. 14, 2020, to July 29, 2022. The Epoch Times obtained the results through a Freedom of Information Act request after the CDC refused to make the results public …

PRR involves comparing the incidence of a specific adverse event after a specific vaccine to the incidence after all other vaccines. A signal is triggered when three thresholds are met, according to the CDC: a PRR of at least 2, a chi-squared statistic of at least 4, and three or more cases of the event following receipt of the vaccine being analyzed. Chi-squared tests are a form of statistical analysis used to examine data.

The results obtained by The Epoch Times show that there are hundreds of adverse events (AEs) that meet the definition, including serious conditions such as blood clotting in the lungs, intermenstrual bleeding, a lack of oxygen to the heart, and even death. The high numbers, particularly the chi-squared figures, concerned experts.

For many of the events, 'the chi-squared is so high that, from a Bayesian perspective, the probability that the true rate of the AE of the COVID vaccines is not higher than that of the non-COVID vaccines is essentially zero,' Norman Fenton, a professor of risk management at Queen Mary University of London, told The Epoch Times in an email after running the numbers through a Bayesian model that provides probabilities based on available information."

Myopericarditis Is Far From the Only Problem

One of the few side effects of the COVID jabs that the CDC has actually acknowledged is myocarditis (heart inflammation), and a related condition called pericarditis (inflammation of the heart sack). Alas, the PRR monitoring results reveal there are more than 500 other adverse events that have stronger warning signals than either of those conditions.

Josh Guetzkow, an Israeli professor trained in statistics at Princeton University told The Epoch Times:⁷

"We know that the signal for myocarditis is associated with something that is caused by the mRNA vaccines, so it's more than reasonable to say that anything with a signal larger than myocarditis/pericarditis should be taken seriously and investigated."

Guetzkow expanded on his commentary in a January 4, 2023, Substack article.⁸ Below is a summary list of some of the key findings from the CDC's PRR analysis. Guetzkow goes deeper in his article, so for more details, I suggest reading it in its entirety.

For even more analyses and commentary, see Fenton's Substack article, "The CDC's Data on COVID Vaccine Safety Signals."⁹ If you want to investigate the PRR data for yourself, you can download them from The Epoch Times' January 3, 2023, article.¹⁰ You can also find them here.¹¹

It's worth noting that the CDC didn't perform its first safety signal analysis until March 25, 2022 — 15 months after the shots were rolled out. Why the long wait — especially since the CDC had announced it would begin monitoring in early 2021? Just consider, for a moment, how many lives have been lost because the CDC failed to properly monitor safety, and still drags its feet when it comes to warning people about the risks involved.

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

FDA Still Refuses to Share Safety Data

The FDA is also required to perform safety monitoring using another technique called Empirical Bayesian data mining. The Epoch Times first asked the FDA to release its monitoring results back in July 2022,^13,14 but like the CDC, the FDA refused and insisted the data showed no evidence of serious adverse effects. In other words, "Just trust us. We're experts."

According to the FDA, the only potential signal they'd found through April 16, 2021, was for raised body temperature.¹⁵ Then, in mid-December 2022 — just four months after The Epoch Times tried to get these data — the FDA announced that pulmonary embolism (blood clots that block blood flow in the lungs) had met the threshold for a statistical signal, and continued to meet the criteria after in-depth evaluation, but it was only linked to the Pfizer jab.¹⁶

As noted by The Epoch Times,¹⁷ pulmonary embolism is also identified as a signal in the CDC's PRR analysis for individuals as young as 12, which really ought to strengthen concerns.

The FDA also admitted it had already evaluated three other warning signals: lack of oxygen to the heart, immune thrombocytopenia (a blood platelet disorder) and intravascular coagulation (a type of blood clotting), but none of these continued to meet the threshold after analysis.

If the FDA was evaluating four warning signals, why did they tell The Epoch Times there was no evidence of ill effects, and why did they claim the only potential signal they'd found was slight fever? Are we to believe they discovered these signals after The Epoch Times asked for the monitoring results and then completed four in-depth investigations in four months?

Whatever the truth, it's clear that both the CDC and FDA are not being transparent. Worse, they've hidden data, knowing it could mean the difference between life and death for hundreds of thousands of people.

CDC Has Ignored Clear 'Death' Signal

The CDC ignoring a clear signal for death is probably the most egregious example of its failures as a public health institution. As early as July 2021, Matthew Crawford published a three-part series^18,19,20 detailing how the CDC was hiding safety signals by using a flawed formula. In August that year, Steve Kirsch informed the agency of these problems, but was ignored.

Then, in an October 3, 2022, article,²¹ Kirsch went on to show how "death" should have triggered a signal even when using the CDC's flawed formula (which is described in its VAERS standard operating procedures manual²²). Here's an excerpt:²³

"The formula the CDC uses for generating safety signals is fundamentally flawed; a 'bad' vaccine with lots of adverse events will 'mask' large numbers of important safety signals … Let me summarize the key points for you in a nutshell: PRR [proportional reporting ratio] is defined on page 16 in the CDC document²⁴ as follows …

A 'safety signal' is defined on page 16 in the CDC document as a PRR of at least 2, chi-squared statistic of at least 4, and 3 or more cases of the AE [adverse event] following receipt of the specific vaccine of interest. This is the famous 'and clause.' Here it is from the document:

Only someone who is incompetent or is deliberately trying to make the vaccines look safe would use the word 'and' in the definition of a safety signal.

Using 'and' means that if any one of the conditions isn't satisfied, no safety signal will be generated. As noted below, the PRR will rarely trigger which virtually guarantees that most events generated by an unsafe vaccine will never get flagged.

The PRR value for the COVID vaccines will rarely exceed 1 because there are so many adverse events from the COVID vaccine because it is so dangerous (i.e., B in the formula is a huge number) so the numerator is always near zero. Hence, the 'safety signal' is rarely triggered because the vaccine is so dangerous."

A Fictitious Example

Using a fictitious vaccine as the example, Kirsch explained how an exceptionally dangerous vaccine will fly under the radar and not get flagged, thanks to this flawed formula:²⁵

"Suppose we have the world's most dangerous vaccine that causes adverse events in everyone who gets it and generates 25,000 different adverse events, and each adverse event has 1,000 instances.

That means that the numerator is 1,000/25,000,000 which is just 40 events per million reported events. Now let's look at actuals for something like deaths. For all other vaccines, there are 6,200 deaths and 1 million adverse events total.

Since 40 per million is less than 6,200 deaths per million, we are not even close to generating a safety signal for deaths from our hypothetical vaccine which killed 1,000 people in a year … The point is that a dangerous vaccine can look very 'safe' using the PRR formula."

Calculating Death Signal for the COVID Jab

Next, Kirsch calculates the PRR for death for the COVID jab — using VAERS data and the CDC's definitions and formula. As of December 31, 2019, there were 6,157 deaths and 918,717 adverse events total for all vaccines other than the COVID shot. As of September 23, 2022, there were 31,214 deaths and 1.4 million adverse events total for the COVID jabs. Here's the formula as explained by Kirsch:²⁶

"PRR = (31,214/1.4e6) / (6,157/918,717) = 3.32, which exceeds the required threshold of 2. In other words, the COVID vaccine is so deadly that even with all the adverse events generated by the vaccine, the death signal did not get drowned out!

But there is still the chi-square test. Chi-square test results were 18,549 for 'death,' which greatly exceeds the required threshold of 4. The CDC chi-square test is clearly satisfied for the COVID vaccine. Because the death signal is so huge, it even survived the PRR test.

This means that even using the CDCs own erroneous … formula, all three criteria were satisfied:

A safety signal should have been generated but wasn't. Why not? … Hundreds of thousands of American lives have been lost due to the inability of the CDC to deploy their own flawed safety signal analysis … It's been known since at least 2004 that using reporting odds ratio (ROR) is a better estimate of relative risk than PRR.²⁷ I don't know why the CDC doesn't use it."

The CDC is also hiding the severity of side effects in other ways. As explained by Fenton,²⁸ the way side effects are categorized by the CDC help obfuscate the scale of certain problems. For example, "cardiac failure acute," "cardiac failure," "infarction," "myocardial strain" and "myocardial fibrosis" are listed as separate categories, even though in real life they're all potential effects of myocarditis.

By separating them, you end up with fewer frequency counts per category, thereby giving you an underpowered chi-square test so that a warning signal is not triggered. If related categories were merged, far stronger safety signals would likely emerge.

CDC Has No Reasonable Defense

The CDC is responsible for monitoring both VAERS and V-Safe, and between these two databases, there's no possible way they could ever say they didn't know the shots were harming and killing millions of Americans.

The CDC also has access to other databases, including the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), which (before it was intentionally altered²⁹) showed massive increases in debilitating and lethal conditions, including a tripling of cancer cases.³⁰

The findings in these databases have never been brought forward during any of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meetings or the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meetings, at which members have repeatedly voted to authorize the jabs to people of all ages, including infants and pregnant women.

They even added these toxic shots to the childhood vaccine schedule — which allows states to mandate them for school attendance — without addressing any of the 66 safety signals found in the CDC's PRR analysis. The fact of the matter is that the CDC has known about these risks all along, and there's no excuse for not sharing and acting on these data.

Help Spread the Word

Mainstream media are ignoring all of this, so help spread the word. Everyone needs to know what the CDC's safety data reveal. To that end, here are a few suggestions for how you can help:

• Write or call your members of Congress and ask them to investigate the CDC's safety monitoring — We cannot have a public safety agency that is incapable of monitoring safety and taking appropriate action when problems are found, be it correcting a flawed formula or announcing that a safety signal has been detected. Of course, they must also publish their findings once an investigation has been made.
• Contact your local newspaper and urge them to investigate and report on the CDC's failure to act on safety signals.
• Share the data on social media and ask why no one in the media, Congress, academia or medical community is investigating these matters.
• Share this information with your doctor and members of the medical community.
• Also share it with university administrators, and ask them to explain how and why, in light of these data, they are still mandating COVID shots.

Originally published: April 6, 2020

While a limited number of drugs have been enlisted in the treatment of severe coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection, a number of nutritional supplements have risen to the forefront for their apparent usefulness. In addition to quercetin, zinc and vitamins C and D, vitamin B1 (thiamine) may be vital to protect against infectious respiratory illness.

Thiamine is also part of Dr. Paul Marik's sepsis treatment, which calls for 1,500 milligrams (mg) of intravenous ascorbic acid every six hours, 200 mg of thiamine every 12 hours and 50 mg of hydrocortisone every six hours.¹

Sepsis, as you may have heard, is a major contributor in influenza deaths in general, and a primary cause for COVID-19 deaths specifically. In one clinical trial,^2,3 Marik, [formerly] a critical care doctor at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in East Virginia, showed his treatment reduced sepsis-related mortality nearly fivefold.

More recent research,^4,5 published online January 9, 2020, found Marik's sepsis protocol lowered mortality in pediatric patients as well. At the 30-day mark, controls and the hydrocortisone-only groups had a mortality rate of 28% while the treatment group had a mortality rate of just 9%.

Vitamin C, Thiamine and Steroids Have Synergistic Effects

All three ingredients in Marik's sepsis protocol have synergistic effects, which seems to be why it's so effective. Vitamin C is well-known for its ability to prevent and treat infectious diseases on its own.

Influenza,⁶ encephalitis and measles⁷ have all been successfully treated with high-dose vitamin C, and previous research has shown it effectively lowers proinflammatory cytokines and C-reactive protein.^8,9,10

Vitamin C and corticosteroids, however, have been shown to work synergistically. This was demonstrated in a study¹¹ by Marik in collaboration with John Catravas, Ph.D., a pharmacology researcher at Old Dominion University, and others, in which endothelial cells from lung tissue were exposed to lipopolysaccharide — a type of endotoxin found in patients with sepsis — in the absence or presence of ascorbic acid and hydrocortisone.

Interestingly, when either vitamin C or the steroid was administered in isolation, very little improvement in endothelial barrier function occurred. When administered together, however, the infection was successfully eradicated and the cells were restored to normal.

The addition of thiamine (vitamin B1) is also important. Not only is thiamine required for metabolism of some of the metabolites of vitamin C, thiamine deficiency syndrome (beriberi) has many similarities to sepsis, and thiamine deficiency is relatively common in critically ill patients.¹²

As noted in a 1955 study,¹³ thiamine deficiency is also prevalent in pulmonary tuberculosis, and the more severe the case, the more severe the thiamine deficiency.

Studies have also shown thiamine can be helpful for a long list of diseases and disorders, including mitochondrial disorders,¹⁴ heart failure,¹⁵ delirium,¹⁶ thyroid fatigue and Hashimoto's (a thyroid autoimmune disorder).¹⁷ These and other health effects may help explain why thiamine works so well in conjunction with vitamin C and hydrocortisone for sepsis.

You can learn more about Marik's sepsis protocol in "Vitamin C — A Game Changer in Treatment of Deadly Sepsis," along with commonsense recommendations for how to lower your risk of sepsis in the first place.

You can also review Marik's PowerPoint presentation, "Hydrocortisone, Ascorbic Acid and Thiamine for the Treatment of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," presented at the 2020 Critical Care Reviews meeting in Australia.

Thiamine Deficiency Implicated in Severe Infections

Thiamine deficiency has also been implicated in severe infections specifically. A 2016 study¹⁸ in the journal Psychosomatics sought to investigate this by looking at 68 patients with Korsakoff syndrome, a memory disorder caused by severe thiamine deficiency.

While thiamine deficiency is often the result of alcohol misuse, it's also associated with chronic infections, poor nutrition and/or malabsorption. As explained by the Alzheimer's Association, "Thiamine helps brain cells produce energy from sugar. When levels fall too low, brain cells cannot generate enough energy to function properly."¹⁹

In the Psychosomatics study, they found that 35 of 68 Korsakoff patients suffered severe infections during the acute phase of the illness, including meningitis, pneumonia and sepsis. According to the authors, "Infections may be the presenting manifestation of thiamine deficiency."

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Thiamine Helps Regulate Your Immune Function

Another study²⁰ published in 2018 found thiamine helps limit Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) by regulating your innate immunity. According to this paper:

"… vitamin B1 promotes the protective immune response to limit the survival of MTB within macrophages and in vivo through regulation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ (PPAR-γ).

Vitamin B1 promotes macrophage polarization into classically activated phenotypes with strong microbicidal activity and enhanced tumor necrosis factor-α and interleukin-6 expression at least in part by promoting nuclear factor-κB signaling.

In addition, vitamin B1 increases mitochondrial respiration and lipid metabolism and PPAR-γ integrates the metabolic and inflammatory signals regulated by vitamin B1 … We demonstrate that vitamin B1 enhances anti-MTB activities in macrophages and in vivo by down-regulating PPAR-γ activity.

Our data demonstrate important functions of thiamine VB1 in regulating innate immune responses against MTB and reveal novel mechanisms by which vitamin B1 exerts its function in macrophages."

The Link Between Thiamine Deficiency and Fever

Thiamine deficiency is also associated with the development of high fever, and according to a letter to the editor,²¹ "Is Parenteral Thiamin a Super Antibiotic?" published in the Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism in 2018, thiamine injections are "likely to eradicate microbial infections" causing the fever.

The authors cite some clinical case reports in which thiamine injections were able to reverse a number of acute illnesses in which high fever was a factor, including one case where the patient presented with high fever, headache and asphyxia (feelings of suffocation), and another where a comatose patient had high fever and severe pneumonia.

"… another laborer with much milder pneumonia, 38°C fever with few rales in the left lung died within 24 h, although a full dose of penicillin G was used, but no thiamin was given," the authors note.

"This sharp contrast between the two cases made such a deep impression that it was strongly remembered. Fifty-six years later, it became a life-saving suggestion for a critical case with fatal viral pneumonia."

The authors go on to detail an even more remarkable case involving a 38-year-old Chinese woman who was brought to the hospital with high fever (39 to 40 degrees C), pain, swollen legs and bloody sputum. Laboratory testing showed she was anemic and had low platelets, severe pneumonia, femoral thromboses and heart failure. She also tested positive for hepatitis C.

"An exhaustive identification study revealed that the pathogen of her pneumonia was diagnosed to be an unknown kind of virus," the authors note. "Pulmonary lesions were extremely severe, strange, and rare with multiple small perforations in the left lung …

After 12 days of immunoglobulin, anti-viral, antithrombotic, and antipyretic medication, she was about to die when her family promptly carried her home … At home, thiamin 200 mg and VB complex 1 ampule (containg thiamin 10 mg, riboflavin 2 mg, niacinamide 30 mg, pyridoxin 2 mg, pantothenic acid 1 mg) were injected thrice daily.

Temperature returned to normal after 2 days and leg edema disappeared in 5 days … After 58 days, she was checked in the Beichen Hospital … The results revealed a normal heart; hepatitis C negative … less effusion in the left thoracic cavity; pleural thickness especially on the left side but no adhesion. Lung perforation was absent … She thereafter enjoyed excellent health without any sign of embolism or pneumonia recurrence."

About 10 months after her initial hospitalization, she underwent a second follow-up, which revealed normal blood counts and electrocardiography. Her lungs also looked completely normal on X-rays, "with no thickening or adhesion of pleura except for a few texture thickenings in the lungs."

According to the authors, this case made them wonder whether thiamine might be "a super antibiotic." "It seemed to be surely so and was emerging to be a powerful alternative in the event of antibiotics failing," they said.

Thiamine Deficiency Might Impact Pandemics

The World Health Organization has also published information about the importance of thiamine and how to prevent deficiency during major emergencies.²² According to WHO:

"Thiamine deficiency occurs where the diet consists mainly of milled white cereals, including polished rice, and wheat flour, all very poor sources of thiamine. Thiamine deficiency can develop within 2-3 months of a deficient intake and can cause disability and death."

Other evidence suggests thiamine insufficiency or deficiency can develop even faster than that, perhaps as quickly as two weeks, as its half-life in your system is only nine to 18 days.²³

The WHO report also points out that "Thiamine deficiency occurs sporadically in people who are socially isolated, suffer loss of appetite and self-neglect" — a point that is particularly pertinent in current circumstances of global "shelter in place" requirements. What's more:

"The requirement of thiamine is increased when carbohydrates are taken in large amounts and is raised during periods of increased metabolism, for example, fever, muscular activity, hyperthyroidism and also during pregnancy and lactation. A diet based on polished rice is high in carbohydrates which augments the thiamine requirement and is compounded by a low thiamine content."

Aside from rice, junk food of all kinds tends to be loaded with carbohydrates as well, which could necessitate a higher-than normal thiamine intake to prevent side effects of thiamine deficiency. In adults, thiamine deficiency is divided into two primary types:^24,25

• Dry beriberi (thiamine deficiency with peripheral neuropathy) — Polyneuropathy with paraesthesia of the extremities (especially the legs), reduced knee jerk and other tendon reflexes, progressive severe weakness and wasting of muscles, and greatly increased susceptibility to infections.
• Wet beriberi (thiamine deficiency with cardiomyopathy) — Edema (especially of the legs, but also the trunk and face), high cardiac output, ventricular failure, sinus rhythm, dilatation of arterioles, depressed erythrocyte and leukocyte transketolase, elevated serum lactate and pyruvate, and pulmonary congestion with pleural effusions; death from congestive heart failure may occur abruptly.

By dramatically increasing susceptibility to infections, thiamine deficiency could potentially have the ability to impact the spread of just about any pandemic infectious disease.

The Importance of Thiamine in Septic Shock

With regard to sepsis — which is a primary reason why people die from COVID-19 — thiamine may be of vital importance. In a Journal of Thoracic Disease article with the evocative title, "Do Not Forget to Give Thiamine to Your Septic Shock Patient!" the authors stress that:²⁶

"[Thiamine] is a water-soluble vitamin that is an indispensable constituent of cellular metabolism. A lack of this vitamin can, therefore, be potentially life-threatening … Thiamine diphosphate, also known as thiamine pyrophosphate (TPP) … is the most important and active form of this vitamin …

Thiamine pyrophosphate … acts in concomitance with magnesium to expedite various mitochondrial oxidative decarboxylation reactions.

Thiamine pyrophosphate is necessary as a cofactor for branched-chain ketoacid dehydrogenase complex essential for the metabolism of the branched-chain amino acids and for two critical complexes required for the mitochondrial synthesis of adenosine triphosphate (ATP): pyruvate and 2-oxoglutarate dehydrogenase (α-ketoglutarate) complexes …

Also, TPP serves as a coenzyme for transketolase, a cytosolic enzyme implicated in the pentose phosphate pathway that functions in maintaining cell redox status through the production of NADPH (reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate) and glutathione …

Lack of thiamine leads to alterations in intermediate metabolism that end-up in lactic acidosis …

Thiamine deficiency is also prevalent in septic shock patients, with rates ranging from 20% to 70% depending on the cutoff value used to define the presence of thiamine deficiency. Lack of thiamine reduces the flux of pyruvate to the Krebs cycle, thus increasing lactate production by altering the aerobic metabolism.

In a prospective, observational study, Donnino et al. investigated the relationship between thiamine levels and lactic acidosis in 30 septic shock patients …

After excluding patients with abnormal liver function tests, the authors observed a significant negative correlation between thiamine concentrations and lactic acidosis, implying a potential association between thiamine levels and lactic acidosis in septic shock patients with normal liver function.

Thus, the possibility that by decreasing the activity of pyruvate dehydrogenase complex, thiamine deficiency can contribute to increased production of lactic acid in critically ill septic patients exists."

The authors cite additional research strongly suggesting "the administration of thiamine is advantageous in septic shock patients with severe thiamine deficiency (thiamine level ≤7 nmol/L)." Considering the safety of thiamine, even at high doses, the authors stress that "septic shock patients should be given thiamine … without waiting for the results of thiamine level."

The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism guidelines for patients in intensive care situations are 100 to 300 mg of thiamine per day "during the first three days in the ICU for all patients with suspected thiamine deficiency."²⁷

In cases of septic shock, however, dosages of 500 mg may be required. According to "Do Not Forget to Give Thiamine to Your Septic Shock Patient!":²⁸

"Because anaphylaxis has been reported in rare instances, guidelines in the United Kingdom have recommended that thiamine should be administered over 15- to 30-minute interval in a mixture of saline solution or dextrose, with the intention of averting potential adverse reactions."

Vitamins C, D, Thiamine and Magnesium for Critical Illness

A 2018 report²⁹ in Intensive Care Medicine also focuses on thiamine — here in conjunction with vitamins C and D. It cites research showing septic shock patients with thiamine deficiency who were given thiamine had far lower mortality (13%) than those who did not receive it (46%).³⁰ They were also far less likely to suffer kidney failure.

Like thiamine, acute vitamin C deficiency is very common during critical illness yet tends to go unnoticed. As noted in this report, "Acute vitamin C deficiency may contribute to hypotension, exaggerated inflammation, capillary leakage, microcirculatory compromise, oxidative organ injury, and impaired immune defense and wound healing."

Vitamin D deficiency is also common, and can worsen illness and increase the risk of death from acute illness. According to the authors of this report:

"Preliminary data using novel methods suggest that glutathione and glutamate pathway metabolism, which are important for redox regulation and immunomodulation, are affected by vitamin D status …

The VITdAL-ICU study (n = 475) did not find a difference in the length of hospital stay between groups, but there was a significant reduction in mortality in the predefined subgroup of patients with severe vitamin D deficiency. The most recent meta-analysis concludes that vitamin D in the ICU may be associated with mortality reduction."

Surprisingly, magnesium has not been given much, if any, attention in all this. It may be just as important for the prevention and treatment of infection, however, seeing how magnesium is required for the activation of both thiamine³¹ and vitamin D.^32,33,34

People ages 65 and older who received Pfizer's updated (bivalent) COVID-19 booster shot may be at increased risk of stroke, according to an announcement made by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration.¹

The joint statement warns that the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which uses near real-time surveillance to track vaccine safety, flagged the potential safety issue, revealing that those 65 and over were more likely to have an ischemic stroke 21 days after receiving Pfizer's bivalent COVID-19 shot compared to 22 to 44 days later.²

US Health Agencies Downplay Stroke Risk

In their announcement, the CDC and the FDA made light of the VSD safety signal, stating within the first two paragraphs, "Often these safety systems detect signals that could be due to factors other than the vaccine itself. All signals require further investigation and confirmation from formal epidemiologic studies."³

They frame the message as though they're doing their duty to be transparent and open with the public regarding risks attached to COVID-19 shots. But most of the announcement details reasons why they believe you should still get boosted, no matter your age:⁴

"Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal. CDC and FDA will continue to evaluate additional data from these and other vaccine safety systems …

No change in vaccination practice is recommended. CDC continues to recommend that everyone ages 6 months of age and older stay up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccination; this includes individuals who are currently eligible to receive an updated (bivalent) vaccine."

Updated Boosters Likely Causing a 'Great Deal of Strokes'

According to Dr. Meryl Nass, a board-certified internal medicine physician with special expertise in vaccine safety and vaccine mandates, the fact that VSD produced a red flag is evidence that the problem is likely much worse than health agencies are letting on.

Not to mention, the FDA and CDC released the statement on a Friday night before a three-day weekend, "which is proof they wanted to bury it," Nass said. Even Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo tweeted about the odd timing:^5,6

"What better time than a Friday afternoon for @CDCgov and @US_FDA to let Americans know that the mRNA shots they've been pushing may be causing strokes? Don't worry, we'll make sure the word gets out — just like we've been doing for months."

Nass explained:⁷

"This is huge news, because the VSD database that produced the red flag for ischemic strokes (which comprise 80% of all strokes and are due to blood clots) has been analyzed by CDC in a manner that prevented it from showing red flags in the past. No red flag from myocarditis, heart attacks, sudden deaths, Bell's palsy, etc.

In other words, they are using a bum algorithm or method that is designed to miss adverse event signals. Eventually CDC stumbled on a myocarditis signal in this database, but missed all the other obvious diagnoses. So if they are using the same crude technique and found strokes, that means there were a great deal of strokes, many more than would have been expected as the baseline rate.

Furthermore, the VSD is considered an active surveillance database of high reliability, which includes the medical records of 12 million Americans. This announcement probably means that not only are the bivalent vaccines worthless, but they are also considerably more harmful than the earlier, monovalent vaccines."

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Concerns About Updated Boosters From the Start

The COVID-19 booster shots that generated the VSD safety signal for stroke are known as bivalent shots, or "updated boosters." August 31, 2022, the FDA amended the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of Moderna and Pfizer's COVID-19 shots to authorize bivalent formulations to be used as booster doses at least two months after a previous booster or primary series of the shots.

"The bivalent vaccines, which we will also refer to as "updated boosters," contain two messenger RNA (mRNA) components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 and the other one in common between the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages of the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2," the FDA stated.⁸

Yet, in June 2022, before the shots were even approved, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that it, in partnership with the Department of Defense, had already agreed to purchase 105 million doses of Pfizer's new COVID-19 shot — for $3.2 billion.⁹

The contract was intended to supply booster shots for the fall 2022 injection campaign and included options to purchase up to 300 million doses. The decision came after a June 28 meeting of the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which recommended that an omicron-specific component be included in COVID-19 booster shots in the U.S.¹⁰

While Pfizer cited strong antibody responses from its retooled boosters, the booster shot studies did not reveal whether the shots prevent COVID-19 cases or how long they are effective.¹¹

Further, human data are only available for Pfizer's boosters targeting BA.1; only animal data are available for the BA.4/BA.5 boosters that rolled out September 2022.¹² John Moore, professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine, told NPR, "For the FDA to rely on mouse data is just bizarre, in my opinion. Mouse data are not going to be predictive in any way of what you would see in humans."¹³ Nass added:¹⁴

"This is the fastest rollout of a new vaccine in world history. How did it happen? Instead of this being a tale of human grit and ingenuity, it is a tale of human weakness and recklessness. Let me ask again: how did such a rapid vaccine rollout occur?

It occurred the only way it could possibly occur: by bending the rules, creating a new regulatory playbook and failing to obtain any human data for the new vaccines. The manufacturers did not have to go through months-long trials, and FDA did not have to pour over any human trial data, because there weren't any. Let that sink in: the new BA.4/5 bivalent vaccines have only been tested in mice, not humans."

'CDC Is Lying to People … Stroke Risk Is Very Real'

Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, also spoke out regarding CDC's and FDA's stroke risk announcement. While the health agencies stressed that no other safety systems, such as the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) or Pfizer-BioNTech's global safety database, had flagged a stroke risk, Kirsch says this is a lie.

In fact, Kirsch states that the CDC admitted in a FOIA request that ischemic stroke triggered a safety signal in VAERS. If they were honest with the U.S. public, he notes, they would say:¹⁵

"OK, to be perfectly honest, we KNOW that the shot is causing strokes. In fact, there's a safety signal for stroke in all the databases, but we're just too darn corrupt to admit that and the mainstream press is too ignorant to ask us about it. So we lied. And we get away with it. Always."

A spreadsheet obtained from the CDC under FOIA revealed 770 safety signals triggered in VAERS due to COVID-19 shots, including death, ischemic stroke, cardiac arrest, pulmonary thrombosis, Bell's palsy, heart attack, deep vein thrombosis and more.¹⁶ Again, CDC and FDA's announcement makes it sound like the safety signal is nothing to worry about. But if they were telling the truth, their warning would sound more like this, Kirsch states:¹⁷

"It's a real safety signal of course. These shots are a disaster and nobody in the mainstream medical community has time to check out the data directly. We control the journals and we make sure that nothing gets published that goes against the narrative, so the medical community gets fooled.

Those who actually check out the data or talk to large geriatric practices or nursing homes and find out the truth are too afraid to speak out because they know they will lose their job, their hospital privileges, their NIH funding, and their license to practice medicine.

But most never get that far since we train them in medical school that vaccines are always safe and to always trust authority. That's why most of the physicians think the vaccines are on the level. They do what they are told."

Even Paul Offit Is Bashing Bivalent COVID Shots

When even vaccination proponent Dr. Paul Offit, director of the vaccine education center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, issues a "cautionary tale" about a shot, you know it's got to be bad. Writing in The New England Journal of Medicine, Offit notes that he's a member of VRBPAC and sat in on the June 28, 2022 presentation, when Pfizer and Moderna presented data on their bivalent shots:¹⁸

"The results were underwhelming. Bivalent boosters resulted in levels of neutralizing antibodies against BA.1 that were only 1.5 to 1.75 times as high as those achieved with monovalent boosters. Previous experience with the companies' vaccines suggested that this difference was unlikely to be clinically significant."

Despite this, the FDA advisory committee voted in favor of authorizing the shots, since they would be targeting omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5. "A series of rapid-fire policy decisions followed," Offit explains, such that, less than four months after the advisory meeting, the CDC had recommended bivalent boosters for everyone 5 years of age and older.

"At that point, no data from humans, including immunogenicity data, were available for comparing the relative capacities of the monovalent and bivalent vaccines to protect against BA.4 and BA.5," he says.¹⁹ Soon, however, data rolled in showing the bivalent boosters did not offer better protection than the former COVID-19 booster shots,²⁰ which were already failing.²¹ Offit says the bivalent boosters likely failed due to imprinting:²²

"The immune systems of people immunized with the bivalent vaccine, all of whom had previously been vaccinated, were primed to respond to the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2. They therefore probably responded to epitopes shared by BA.4 and BA.5 and the ancestral strain, rather than to new epitopes on BA.4 and BA.5."

Even in reference to a CDC study²³ that found the bivalent shots resulted in anywhere from 28% to 56% extra protection, depending on how long ago their last COVID-19 shot was, Offit says, "Given the results of previous studies, it's likely that this moderate increase in protection against probably generally mild disease will be short lived."²⁴

Adding insult to injury, the COVID strains the bivalent shots target have largely disappeared. "By December 2022, the BA.4 strain was no longer circulating, and BA.5 accounted for less than 25% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains," Offit says.²⁵

At this point, Kirsch summed up, the data is crystal clear that boosters aren't working and are dangerous. "Paul Offit is no dummy; he's not getting any more boosters," he says. "Neither should you."²⁶

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires first-class airline pilots to receive an electrocardiogram (EKG) starting at age 35, and continuing annually after age 40.¹ EKGs record the heart's electrical activity to provide a measure of heart health and certain parameters must be met in order for pilots to be deemed fit to fly.

October 24, 2022, the FAA changed the EKG requirements necessary for pilots to fly — but not to make them safer. With no public announcement or explanation, the agency expanded the allowable range for the PR interval, a measure of heart function.²

Widening this parameter means those with potential heart damage, disease or injuries are now allowed to fly commercial aircraft, potentially putting passengers at risk, should they suffer a heart attack or other event while in the air. Why would the FAA make such a drastic and risky move without informing the public?

COVID Shots May Have Damaged Pilots' Hearts

On an EKG, a normal PR interval measures 0.12 to 0.2 seconds.³ If the PR interval is shorter or longer than this, it can be indicative of a problem. According to Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, the FAA widened the acceptable EKG parameters from a PR max of 0.2 to 0.3, and potentially even higher. He says:⁴

"They didn't widen the range by a little. They widened it by a lot. It was done after the vaccine rollout. This is extraordinary. They did it hoping nobody would notice. It worked for a while. Nobody caught it. But you can't hide these things for long. This is a tacit admission from the U.S. government that the COVID vaccine has damaged the hearts of our pilots. Not just a few pilots. A lot of pilots and a lot of damage."

Kirsch gives five reasons why he's confident these widened parameters were necessary due to the widespread heart damage pilots — and the U.S. public — experienced due to COVID-19 shots. According to Kirsch:⁵

"I believe it is because they knew if they kept the original range, too many pilots would have to be grounded. That would be extremely problematic; commercial aviation in the US would be severely disrupted. And why did they do that quietly without notifying the public or the mainstream media?

I'm pretty sure they won't tell me, so I'll speculate: it's because they didn't want anyone to know. In other words, the COVID vaccine has seriously injured a lot of pilots and the FAA knows it and said nothing because that would tip off the country that the vaccines are unsafe. And you aren't allowed to do that."

Five Clues COVID Shots Are Likely to Blame

Five factors suggest that pilots' worsening heart health is due to COVID-19 shots, and not COVID-19. As noted by Kirsch, they include:⁶

1. The change in EKG parameters was made quietly. "If it was COVID, you can be public. But the vaccine is supposed to be safe."
2. The timing of the change in October 2022, which is later than it would have been if COVID-19 were to blame. "If it was due to COVID, it would have happened well before now. They can make changes every month."
3. The widespread injuries. "The vaccine creates far more injury to the heart than COVID." For instance, an Israeli study of adults who did not get a COVID-19 shot but did get COVID-19 found the infection was not associated with myocarditis or pericarditis.⁷
4. Anecdotal reports from cardiologists about heart damage began post-shot.
5. Many sudden deaths have been reported post-shot.

Kirsch estimates that 20% of pilots screened may have suffered heart damage due to COVID-19 shots, based on an upcoming study set to be published in The Epoch Times. A Thailand study also revealed "cardiovascular manifestations" including rapid heartbeat (tachycardia), palpitation and myopericarditis in 29.24% of adolescents who'd received an mRNA COVID-19 shot.⁸

"But kids are indestructible so a 30% injury rate in kids translates into a higher rate for adults," Kirsch says, adding:⁹

"Bottom line: The most logical conclusion is that the FAA knows the hearts of our nation's pilots have been injured by the COVID vaccine that they were coerced into taking, the number of pilots affected is huge, the cardiac damage is extensive, and passenger safety is being compromised by the lowering of the standards to enable pilots to fly.

The right thing would be for the FAA to come clean and admit to the American public that the COVID vaccine has injured 20% or more of the pilots (based on their limited EKG screening), but I doubt that they will ever do that."

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Pilot Has Heart Attack After Shot

In May 2022, The Epoch Times reported the case of Robert Snow, a pilot for American Airlines with 31 years of experience flying commercially and seven years as a pilot in the U.S. Air Force.¹⁰ Snow does not have coronary disease, but he suffered a cardiac arrest about six minutes after landing a plane he flew from Denver to Dallas Fort Worth.

According to the news outlet, "He believes that his cardiac arrest is connected to the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine he was forced to take in order to keep his job on November 4, 2021, even though he already had natural immunity from previously contracting the virus." And he's not the only one with that suspicion. Snow told The Epoch Times:¹¹

"I would just tell you that there are other pilots out there that have had concerns, not just pilots, also because it was an employee mandate. So we have flight attendants, we have mechanics, we have dispatchers, we have gate agents, you name it.

Of course, for pilots, we consider that a safety-sensitive job so we're a little bit more concerned from the standpoint of aviation safety; but yes, I have received calls from other pilots and other communications stating that they have concerns but because of the nature of this, they're afraid to come forward."

Dr. Peter McCullough is a cardiologist, internist and epidemiologist and the chief scientific officer of The Wellness Company.¹² He also is one of the most published cardiologists in America, with over 1,000 publications and 660 citations in the National Library of Medicine, and is a recipient of the Simon Dack Award from the American College of Cardiology and the International Vicenza Award in Critical Care Nephrology for his scholarship and research.

He told The Epoch Times "there is no other explanation" for Snow's cardiac arrest. "The MRI pattern is consistent. Indeed, it may have been vaccine-induced myocarditis …"¹³

McCullough also spoke with Joshua Yoder, an airline pilot and cofounder of U.S. Freedom Flyers, which formed to help pilots and other transportation industry employees oppose federal shot mandates.

Yoder's group has received hundreds of reports from pilots who have suffered adverse events from COVID-19 shots, including chest pains, myocarditis and pericarditis. McCullough told Yoder that if every pilot who'd received a COVID-19 shot received a health screening, about 30% would fail due to shot-induced injuries.¹⁴

Doctors Call on FAA to Flag Pilots Who Received COVID Shots

McCullough, along with pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole, Robert Kennedy Jr. and others, sent a letter to the FAA December 15, 2021, calling on the agency to medically flag all pilots who received a COVID-19 shot and, within four weeks, have them undergo thorough medical reexaminations to include:¹⁵

• D-Dimer tests to check for blood clotting problems
• Troponin tests to check for Troponin in the blood, which is a protein released when the heart muscle has been damaged
• EKG analysis to check electrical signals that determine cardiac health
• Cardiac MRI
• PULS test to determine heart health

Adding cardiac MRI to pilots' screening is "critical," the letter said, explaining:¹⁶

"A recent study showed that using only ECG [EKG] results and symptoms to screen patients resulted in a 7.4 underdiagnosing of actual myocarditis, while the PULS test is also critical as a study published … showed that 'MRNA COVID vaccines dramatically increase … inflammatory markers' and that the risk of acute coronary syndrome more than doubled in those vaccinated …

… leading the authors to conclude that 'the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines dramatically increase inflammation … on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle, and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination."

Will the US Federal Air Surgeon Investigate?

January 21, 2023, Kirsch spoke with the FAA's federal air surgeon, Dr. Susan Northrup. She said she was aware of Snow's case, but no one from the FAA had reached out to investigate the near-miss tragedy. Kirsch also emailed Northrup the names and contact information for several shot-injured pilots. Further, he noted:¹⁷

"More importantly, in that email, I also invited her to host a public roundtable at the FAA inviting people on both sides of the 'safe and effective' narrative so that the FAA could learn the truth. I just talked to Senator Ron Johnson and I can assure you that he'd be DELIGHTED to help her assemble a roundtable of doctors on both sides of the narrative to brief top FAA officials on the risks of these vaccines.

And I offered to publish her revised statement to the public so we can get the truth out that the vaccines are NOT safe and are disabling pilots. Here's the kicker. The corruption at the FAA runs deep. Did you know that nobody at the FAA has ever called Bob Snow? How can the FAA investigate this incident without ever even talking to the pilot?"

At this point, Northrup has been duly informed of the very real potential that COVID-19 shots could be making it unsafe for jabbed pilots to fly. But then, she was probably already aware. Her husband, John Hyle, a pilot, refused the jab due to safety concerns. Whether or not a real investigation will happen, however, remains to be seen. Kirsch added:¹⁸

"So it's not just a few 'anti-vaxxers' spreading 'misinformation.' Susan clearly realizes that intelligent people she clearly respects have legitimate concerns that cause them to refuse to take the shot. The narrative is falling apart.

We need public transparency on all of the things above. And we need it now before lives are lost. We've had a couple of close calls. The FAA needs to be proactive about this, not REACTIVE after a crash happens. What do you think will happen next?"

FAA Broke Its Own Rule Letting Pilots Fly After COVID Shots

In its Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners, the FAA states that aviation medical examiners should not issue medical certificates to pilots who've taken drugs the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved less than 12 months prior:¹⁹

"The FAA generally requires at least one-year of post-marketing experience with a new drug before consideration for aeromedical certification purposes. This observation period allows time for uncommon, but aeromedically significant, adverse effects to manifest themselves."

Now, the FAA states pilots can resume flying just 48 hours after receiving a COVID-19 shot.²⁰ Leigh Dundas, an attorney who was the primary author of the FAA letter, told The Epoch Times:²¹

"The Federal Aviation Agency is charged with ensuring the safety of the flying public. Instead, as we speak the FAA, as well as the commercial airline companies, are acting in contravention of their own federal aviation regulations and associated guidance which tells medical examiners to NOT issue medical certifications to pilots using non-FDA approved products.

… The title of the section I'm talking about literally says 'Do Not Issue — Do Not Fly' and then instructs medical examiners to 'not issue' medical certifications to pilots using products that the FDA 'approved less than 12 months ago' …

The pilots are flying with products which are not even recently approved — in violation of the above wording — they are flying with injections in their bodies which were NEVER approved by the FDA at all (as no COVID vaccine which is commercially available in the U.S. has received FDA approval)."

It's Not Only Pilots Whose Hearts Are Damaged

While the implications of commercial airline pilots flying with shot-induced heart damage raises significant safety concerns, it's not only pilots who are affected. Any person who received a COVID-19 shot could face similar risks. As Kirsch noted:²²

"At a more conservative 20% injury rate, we are looking at 50M Americans with heart damage caused by the jab. As more studies are done, it's going to be crystal clear why so many people are dying suddenly, especially kids. It's also going to explain why nursing homes have lost up to 33% of their residents in 12 months where before they were losing only 1 or 2% a year.

… Confidence in the CDC and the medical community should hit rock bottom after it is revealed how extensive the damage caused by these vaccines is. The fact that … the FAA quietly changed their EKG guidance should at least open your mind to the possibility that I might be right. This narrative is going to start falling apart at an accelerated rate."

The Indian cooking spice asafoetida^1,2 — a name that translates into "rotten resin"³ — also known as hing, hingu⁴ or heeng,⁵ is a gum obtained from a type of giant fennel. It has an offensive smell akin to that of rotting garlic and sweaty feet, but an appetizing savory, umami taste. In France, the herb is known as devil's dung.

According to GoodFood.com,⁶ Jain and Brahmin Indians have long used it in lieu of garlic and onions. It's also popular among those in whom onions cause digestive trouble.

While it is sometimes possible to locate asafoetida in its raw gum form, it's most commonly sold as a ground powder mixed with flour, starch or turmeric. This is likely a good thing, as eating it raw can cause severe diarrhea and/or vomiting.⁷ It has a very strong odor and should be used in very small amounts. As noted by GoodFood.com:⁸

"Once a container of asafoetida has been opened it's best to close it as soon as possible. Then, keep it hermetically sealed in an airtight plastic container, or double wrapped — at least. If the aroma escapes you will awake to find a house reeking of yesterday's garlic …

Generally, the yellow, diluted asafoetida powder is used in about the proportion of a pinch or two to 250g of the main ingredient … longer cooking mellows it …

Asafoetida works best when first fried for five to ten seconds in hot oil until its pungency is dramatically obvious — make sure you have the extractor on or the window open. Then quickly add other ingredients to stop it burning."

Health Benefits of Asafoetida

With its onion-garlic flavor, you can use it as a substitute for either of those ingredients. Many recommend using it in bean-based dishes, as it helps prevent gassiness.⁹

Its ability to cut gas is attributed to antibacterial compounds that impede the activity of gut bacteria responsible for flatulence.¹⁰ It also has a number of other health benefits,¹¹ including antibacterial, antiparasitic and antiviral properties.

In 2009, researchers discovered certain compounds in the herb were more effective at killing the H1N1 influenza virus than the commercial antiviral drug amantadine.^12,13

Another study¹⁴ found the ferulic acid in asafoetida has the ability to control fascioliasis,¹⁵ a zoonotic liver disease (meaning it can spread between animals and people) caused by eating watercress or other water plants contaminated with Fasciola hepatica and/or Fasciola gigantica.

According to a paper¹⁶ in the Pharmacognosy Review, asafoetida also has antispasmodic, carminative, expectorant, laxative and sedative properties, just to name a few. Historical uses include the treatment of hysteria, nervous conditions, bronchitis, asthma, whooping cough, infantile pneumonia and flatulent colic.¹⁷

According to the Pharmacognosy Review paper, it's particularly beneficial for asthma, thanks to volatile oils that are eliminated through the lungs. It's also been shown to work as a natural blood thinner and helps lower blood pressure. In traditional medicine in India, the herb is taken to help break up and eliminate kidney stones and gallstones.¹⁸

Historically, it has also been used as an antidote to opium. According to the Pharmacognosy Review, "Given in the same quantity as opium ingested by the patient, it will counteract the effect of the drug."¹⁹

Asafoetida Has Anticancer and Life Extending Properties

Asafoetida also contains a number of chemicals shown to have anti-inflammatory, anticancer and antimutagenic activities.²⁰ As reported in the Pharmacognosy Review:²¹

"Dried resin, administered orally to Sprague–Dawley rats at doses of 1.25 and 2.5% w/w of the diet, produced a significant reduction in the multiplicity and size of palpable N-methyl-N-nitrosourea-induced mammary tumors, and a delay in mean latency period of tumor appearance.

Oral administration to mice increased the percentage of life span by 52.9%. Intraperitoneal administration did not produce any significant reduction in tumor growth.

The extract also inhibited a two-stage chemical carcinogenesis induced by 7,12-dimethylbenzathracene and croton oil on mice skin with significant reduction in papilloma formation."

Similarly, a study²² published in the Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine in 2017 confirmed the asafoetida resin had antitumor effects against breast cancer. According to the authors:²³

"Our results showed that treatment with asafoetida was effective in decreasing the tumor weight and tumor volume in treated mice. Body weight significantly increased in female BALB/c mice against control.

Apart from the antitumor effect, asafoetida decreased lung, liver and kidney metastasis and also increased areas of necrosis in the tumor tissue respectively."

Other studies²⁴ have also found the isolated ferulsinaic acid in asafoetida has life extending capability, increasing the mean life span of Caenorhabditis elegans by as much as 18.03%, and their maximum life span between 8.33% and 41.6%.

Improved heat stress tolerance and reductions in lipid peroxidation are thought to be responsible for this effect. According to the authors, "Ferulsinaic acid had therapeutic efficacy as an antioxidant with the possibility of its use as an antioxidant drug."

With every passing day, the list of people suffering tragic consequences from the COVID mRNA shots grows longer. As of December 23, 2022, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) had received 33,334 reports of post-jab deaths, 26,045 cases of myocarditis and 15,970 heart attacks.¹

Many of these people and their stories have remained hidden from public view as social media have universally censored these stories. As a result, people who only read mainstream media are largely unaware of the damage being done. However, there is a population of people whose injuries and deaths have been far more public.

Over the past two years (2021 through 2022), more than 1,650^2,3,4,5,6,7 professional and amateur athletes have collapsed due to cardiac events and 1,148⁸ of them proved fatal. In his book "Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022,"⁹ Edward Dowd writes extensively about the anomalous number of deaths now occurring among athletes, which, despite "fact checkers" best efforts to dismiss it as "normal,"^10,11 is anything but.

What Happened to Damar Hamlin?

More than likely, you've heard that Damar Hamlin, a 24-year-old Buffalo Bills football player went into cardiac arrest on live television after making a tackle during a January 2, 2023, game against the Cincinnati Bengals.^12,13 Team trainers and emergency medical staff performed CPR for more than nine minutes, which saved his life. After initially being placed in a medically-induced coma, Hamlin was reportedly on the mend within a week.¹⁴

Whether the COVID jab played a role in what happened to Hamlin is impossible to know for sure. Looking at the replays, it's clear he took a very severe hit right to the chest right before his collapse, and this certainly could have caused the heart attack. At bare minimum, it's not unheard of. Former Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker had a similar incident in 2017, as did hockey legend Chris Pronger in 1998.¹⁵

On the other hand, it's also not inconceivable that the COVID jab — if Hamlin was in fact "vaxxed" — could have affected his heart, thereby playing a contributing role. We now know the COVID shot is associated with a significantly elevated risk of myocarditis, which in turn raises the risk of sudden cardiac death in contact sports.¹⁶

While the NFL enforced strict COVID jab rules for employees who have contact with players, the players and coaches were not subject to mandates.^17,18 That said, 95% of players did get the shot, according to the NFL league.¹⁹

Cardiologist Offers His View

In a January 4, 2023, Children's Health Defense interview, Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist and internist, reviewed what could have happened in Hamlin's case. As noted by McCullough, a condition called commotio cordis (Latin for "agitation of the heart") is known to occur in baseball when a player is hit hard on the breastbone, thereby causing cardiac arrest. There are approximately 20 to 30 such cases each year.

However, no such case has ever occurred in 100 years of pro football. Football players have padding that protects the breastbone, so in McCullough's view, commotio cordis can likely be ruled out. The more likely cause for Hamlin's cardiac arrest, he believes, is hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), or abnormal thickening of the heart muscle, which is the primary cause for athletes suffering cardiac arrest.

The reason why HCM is the No. 1 cause of cardiac arrest in professional athletes is because it causes few if any symptoms and often goes undiagnosed. Professional athletes undergo extensive medical evaluation and cardiovascular screening²⁰ before being given the green-light to play, and they also constitute the healthiest segment of society in general,²¹ so most heart problems are ruled out before they ever enter the field.

"The elephant in the room," however, according to McCullough, is the COVID jab. Before these shots were rolled out, the average number of cardiac arrests in all European soccer and football leagues combined was 29 per year. Since the advent of the COVID shots, 1,598 European pro athletes have suffered cardiac arrest, giving us a comparative annual tally of nearly 800. Of those 1,598 cardiac arrests, 1,101 were fatal.

McCullough detailed these and other stats in a December 17, 2022, letter to the editor of the Journal of Scandinavian Immunology. The paper was co-authored by Panagis Polykretis, Ph.D., a researcher at the Institute of Applied Physics, which is part of the Italian National Research Council.²² McCullough and Polykretis have been, and still are, calling for a proper investigation of these deaths.

McCullough Suspects COVID Jab-Induced Myocarditis

McCullough and Polykretis suspect COVID jab-induced myocarditis is the explanation for this otherwise inconceivable increase in cardiac arrests among athletes, and McCullough believes it also tops the list of potential reasons for Hamlin's cardiac arrest, considering 95% of NFL players had received the jab as of March 2022.²³

McCullough cites research showing about 2.5% of COVID jab recipients sustain heart damage, 90% of them being men. And, in about half of all jab-related myocarditis cases, there are no symptoms to alert you there might be a problem. As explained by McCullough, myocarditis causes scarring on the heart, and it is this scarring that causes an abnormal electrical rhythm (ventricular tachycardia) and sudden adult death syndrome.

There are now more than 200 scientific papers on jab-related myocarditis. A January 2023 study²⁴ in the European Journal of Pediatrics found high levels of circulating spike protein in 16 male high school students hospitalized with myocarditis induced by the shots, which again suggests the spike protein your body produces is a key pathogenic factor.

McCullough explains in greater detail how the shot may have triggered Hamlin's cardiac arrest: During play, adrenaline is pumping, and when the heart is damaged this adrenaline rush is what triggers the cardiac arrest.

This helps explain not only the death of athletes on the field, or people dying while jogging, but also why so many are dying in their sleep, because adrenaline is released between 3 a.m. and 6 a.m., as your body readies to wake up.

1,696% Increase in Sudden Death Among Athletes

Whatever caused Hamlin's cardiac arrest — and hopefully a careful medical investigation after his recovery will clarify what happened — there's no doubt that athletes in general are dying in far greater numbers now than ever before.

In related news, a November 2022 report²⁵ by The Exposé showed the number of athletes who "died suddenly" between January 2021 and April 2022 was 1,696% above the historical monthly norm²⁶ between 1966 and 2004 — 42 per month compared to just 2.35 per month.

The following graph illustrates the rise in recorded athlete collapses and deaths between January 2021, the month the COVID shots started to roll out, and April 2022.

As noted by The Exposé:²⁷

"In all between Jan 21 and April 22, a total number of 673 athletes were known to have died. This number could, however, be much higher. So that's 428 less than the number to have died between 1966 and 2004. The difference here though is that the 1,101 deaths occurred over 39 years, whereas 673 recent deaths occurred over 16 months …

The yearly average number of deaths between 1966 and 2004 equates to 28. January 2022 saw three times as many athlete deaths than this previous annual average, as did March 2022. So this is obviously highly indicative of a problem.

The 2021 total equates to 394 deaths, 14x higher than the 1966 to 2004 annual average. The Jan to April 2022 total, a period of 4 months, equates to 279 deaths, 9.96x higher than the annual average between 1966 and 2004.

However, if we divide the 66 to 04 annual average by 3 to make it equivalent to the first four months' worth of deaths in 2022, we get 9.3 deaths. So in effect, by April 2022, deaths among athletes were 10x higher than the expected rate …

[B]etween 1966 and 2004. the monthly average number of deaths equates to 2.35. But between January 2021 and April 2022, the monthly average equates to 42. This is an increase of 1,696%."

Risk of Cardiovascular Damage Soars After Second Shot

A nearly 1,700% increase in sudden cardiac-related death among athletes is inexplicable unless you take the experimental COVID jabs into account. Research²⁸ published in November 2021 found inflammatory markers — signs of cardiovascular damage — rose dramatically after the second COVID shot, and the risk of heart attacks and other heart-related problems more than doubled in the months following these injections.

Pre-jab, patients had an 11% five-year risk of heart attack. Post-jab, that risk rose to 25%, a 227% increase in risk. As reported by The Exposé, other statistics also reveal heart damage has become ubiquitous among those who got one or more mRNA jabs:²⁹

"Acute cardiac failure rates are now 475 times the normal baseline rate in VAERS. Tachycardia rates are 7,973 times the baseline rate. Acute myocardial infarction is 412 times the baseline rate.

The rates of internal hemorrhage, peripheral artery thrombosis, and coronary artery occlusion are all over 300 times the baseline rate … It doesn't take a genius to work out that COVID-19 vaccination is the reason the monthly average number of athlete deaths was 1,700% higher than the expected rate by April 2022."

Sudden Death: The No. 1 Cause of Death for Under 65s in 2021

In late December 2022, Steve Kirsch also published data showing the shots are a public health disaster.³⁰ According to the results of a survey Kirsch conducted, "sudden death" was the No. 1 cause of death in 2021 and 2022 among Americans under 65 who had received the COVID shot.

The second and third causes of death in this group were cardiac-related death and cancer respectively. Importantly, the incidence of turbo-charged cancer among the jabbed was also significant, and myocarditis killed more than COVID-19.

Among the unjabbed, the primary cause of death for people 65 and younger in 2021 and 2022 was hospital treatment for COVID. Incidences of sudden death, pulmonary embolism and turbo-charged cancers were all low, and there were no unknown causes of death, nor any myocarditis deaths. Kirsch summarized the three most stunning differences between the jabbed and unjabbed as follows:³¹

1. "Sudden death rates are off the charts for the vaccinated cf. unvaccinated for those <65 … It's the #1 cause of death for this age group …
2. Myocarditis as a cause of death is registering now for both age ranges but only for the vaccinated …
3. Cardiac issues as a cause of death in vaccinated young people (<65) are significantly elevated vs. their unvaxxed peers."

Learn CPR, It Saves Lives

While we cannot make any definitive statements about what caused Hamlin's cardiac arrest, one thing that is not in doubt is that immediate and ongoing CPR is what saved his life. Nine minutes is a long time to give CPR, and most people will simply give up after two or three minutes. Hamlin's case is proof positive that sometimes you need to give CPR for an extended period of time.

As many who got the experimental COVID shots will have some level of heart damage that raises their risk of cardiac arrest and sudden death, the need for CPR know-how is only going to grow. So, please, learn CPR. It could be the difference between life and death of someone you love. Also, consider investing in an automated external defibrillator (AED) for your home and/or office.

These machines are lightweight and battery operated. Sticky pads with sensors are attached to the chest and those electrodes send information to the computer inside the machine.

The AED computer will analyze the heart rhythm to determine if electric shock is needed. If required, the machine uses voice prompts to tell you what to do and when to do it. AED machines are safe to use and there are no reports of them harming bystanders or users or, of delivering inappropriate shocks.³²

When an individual suffers a cardiac arrest, the heart immediately stops beating. This means there is no blood being pumped to the body or brain. At this time it is critical for bystanders to:

1. Call emergency services (dial 911 in the U.S.)
2. Begin CPR
3. Apply the nearest automated external defibrillator (AED)

If you don't have formal training, 911 dispatchers can give you specific instructions on using an AED and performing CPR until paramedics arrive. While you may hesitate, being afraid you could hurt the victim, at this time the person is clinically dead and can't get any worse. Bystander CPR and AED can only help.

For cardiac arrest, CPR and treatment with an AED as needed (while awaiting emergency services) significantly increase the potential for survival and, importantly, lower the risk of permanent disability. It is now believed Hamlin has a good chance of neurological recovery, which would not have been possible had it not been for the fact that he received CPR for more than nine minutes.

Originally published: August 22, 2020

The video above features a recent vaccine debate between Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of the World Mercury Project and founder/chief legal counsel for Children's Health Defense, and Alan Dershowitz, a lawyer and legal scholar. Patrick Bet-David, founder of Valuetainment, moderated the event.

Dershowitz may seem like an odd choice for this discussion, but according to Kennedy, no health official has ever agreed to debate him on the issue of vaccine safety.

Bet-David also notes that every doctor invited to discuss the COVID-19 vaccine on his show declined the invitation. So, here, we get the perspectives of two prominent attorneys instead. The discussion initially grew out of a comment made by Dershowitz in another interview, where he said:

"You have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease. Even if you disagree, you have no right not to be vaccinated. You have no right not to wear a mask. You have no right to open up your business. And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to, literally, take you to a doctor's office and plunge a needle into your arm."

Should You Have the Right to Decide Your Medical Treatment?

According to Dershowitz's interpretation of Constitutional law, you only have the right to refuse to be vaccinated against a disease that would affect only you. You do not have the right to refuse a contagious disease that might spread to others.

As far as COVID-19 vaccines are concerned, he does not foresee mandatory vaccinations being an immediate concern, for the simple reason that there won't be enough vaccines to vaccinate everyone.

Listening to the likes of Bill Gates and others, however, this probably would not be a problem for long, as vaccine manufacturers are fully prepared to go into large-scale manufacturing once a vaccine gets green-lighted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Interpretation of 1905 Court Ruling Is Not Cut and Dry

As the basis and justification for his legal orientation on this issue, Dershowitz relies on a 1905 Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In "Don't Relinquish Civil Liberties for False Sense of Security," Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, explained:

"Dershowitz … was quite reckless in the language he used. He basically said that the Supreme Court in 1905 (Jacobson v. Massachusetts), [gives] the right of state governments to come in and forcibly inject you with a vaccine. That's not really what Jacobson v. Massachusetts said …

In that case, it was smallpox, because that was the only vaccine they had in 1905, but you have to read the Supreme Court decision very carefully to understand everything that the justices said.

They basically concluded — and I think wrongly so, because utilitarianism … is based on a mathematical equation that some can be inconvenienced or sacrificed for the greater good of a majority of people — that people [who] opposed smallpox vaccination could be required to be vaccinated during epidemics.

Even religious objections could be overridden. But there's also language in that decision that says that the court is not to be interpreted as meaning that if an individual was at risk for being harmed by the vaccination, they were not meant to [have concluded] that 'cruel and inhuman to the last degree' would be the standard that would be used.

I think Dershowitz overstated the opinion, although it is a utilitarian opinion. It gives authority to the states to mandate vaccines because anything that is not defined in the Constitution as a federal activity is reserved for the states.

Public health laws, by and large in this country, are written by the states, and the federal authority is requiring vaccination for people crossing territorial borders of the United States [and the federal government] could mandate vaccines for interstate travel, crossing state borders.

But most public health laws that legislatures make are for the residents of the states, which is why we have a patchwork of [vaccine] laws in this country …

I'm very worried that some attorney is going to try to challenge the Jacobson [ruling] in the 21st century. I think that, probably, in any court right now, you're going to get that ruling upheld and you're going to get it strengthened. I would advise against [challenging] that one in the Supreme Court."

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Then Versus Now

Kennedy, in turn, points out there is a "big Constitutional chasm" between this 1905 case and today's vaccine mandates. The difference is indeed rather significant. Jacobson, who had been injured by a previous vaccine, took the case to the Supreme Court in an effort to avoid the vaccine — and the fine for refusing the vaccine, which at the time was $5.

When he lost, he paid the $5 fine, which Kennedy equates to a traffic ticket by today's standards. There's a big difference between paying a small fine, and being forcibly injected with a potentially hazardous vaccine, against your will. As noted by Fisher above, the judge in that 1905 case did not claim government had the right to go into someone's home and forcibly vaccinate them, Kennedy says.

Dershowitz, in turn, agrees that the 1905 ruling "is not binding on the issue of whether or not you can compel someone to get the vaccine," but that "the logic of the opinion … strongly suggests that the courts today would allow some form of compulsion if the conditions that we talked about were met: [the vaccines are] safe, effective, [and] exemptions [given] in appropriate cases."

Will You Get the COVID-19 Vaccine?

Kennedy and Dershowitz were able to agree that the COVID-19 vaccine should remain voluntary, and only be mandated if the public health threat is truly extreme. One of the problems the vaccine industry has nowadays is that the trust in them has significantly eroded.

According to a recent poll^1,2 cited by Kennedy, about half of Americans say they want the COVID-19 vaccine; 27% say they will "definitely" refuse and another 12% say they will "probably" refuse it.

"Why do so many Americans no longer trust our regulatory officials and [distrust] this process?" Kennedy asks. "One of the reasons is … vaccines are a very different kind of medical prerogative.

It is a medical intervention that is being given to perfectly healthy people, to prevent somebody else from getting sick. And it's the only medicine given to healthy people.

So, you would expect that we would want that particular intervention to have particularly great guarantees that it's safe. Because we're saying to an individual, we are going to make you make this sacrifice for the greater good … Our side of the bargain should be, we want this to be completely safe. But, in fact, what we know about vaccines … is that they're unavoidably unsafe."

1 in 40 Are Injured by Vaccines

We often hear that vaccine injuries occur at a rate of 1 in 1 million. This, however, is a gross underestimation. Kennedy discusses an investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Healthcare Research Quality (AHRQ).

They conducted a machine cluster analysis of health data collected from 376,452 individuals who received a total of 1.4 million doses of 45 vaccines. Of these doses, 35,570 vaccine reactions were identified, which means a more accurate estimate of vaccine damage would be 2.6% of all vaccinations.

This means 1 in 40 people — not 1 in 1 million — are injured by vaccines, and a clinician who administers vaccines will have an average of 1.3 adverse vaccine events per month. In other words, we are asking 1 in 40 people to sacrifice their health in order to protect "hypothetical people from catching that particular disease," Kennedy says.

Importantly, "it's not hypothetical that vaccines cause injuries," Kennedy says. The U.S. Vaccine Court has paid out $4 billion to patients permanently damaged or killed by vaccines, and that's just a small portion of all the cases filed. According to Kennedy, less than 1% of people who are injured ever get to court, due to the high bar set for proving causation.

Vaccine Makers Have No Liability

Vaccine makers also have no liability for injuries. This worsens risks, as they have no real incentive to make sure their products are safe, not only in the short run, but also long-term.

And, as noted by Kennedy, the reason vaccine manufacturers were given immunity in the first place was because they admitted vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and there's no way to make them 100% safe.

They were getting sued for injuries to the point they said they could not continue to manufacture vaccines, which is why the U.S. government in 1986 agreed to indemnify them against lawsuits under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, and set up a government-run Vaccine Court instead.

So, when you sue for a vaccine injury, you're actually suing the U.S. government, and payouts are paid for by the U.S. public via a small fee tacked on to each vaccine sold.

100% of Moderna Vaccine Participants Suffered Side Effects

Kennedy goes on to discuss some of the disturbing preliminary results emerging from current COVID-19 trials. In the case of Moderna, its mRNA vaccine (mRNA-1273) was found to cause systemic side effects in 80% of Phase 1 participants receiving the 100 microgram (mcg) dose.^3,4

Side effects ranged from fatigue (80%), chills (80%), headache (60%) and myalgia or muscle pain (53%). After the second dose, 100% of participants in the 100-mcg group experienced side effects. This is important to note as, unlike the flu vaccine, the coronavirus vaccine will be a two-dose regimen and most likely recommended to be repeated annually, just like the flu vaccine.

The 45 volunteers were divided into three dosage groups — 25 mcg, 100 mcg and 250 mcg — with 15 participants in each. Even in the low-dose group, one participant got so sick he required emergency medical care. "That's 6%," Kennedy says.

In the high-dose (250 mcg) group, 100% of participants suffered side effects after both the first and second doses, and three of the participants suffered "one or more severe events."

Keep in mind, the participants in Moderna's Phase 1 trial were healthy individuals between the ages of 18 and 55.⁵ Kennedy recites some of the exclusionary criteria of these trials, such as you cannot be overweight, you must be a lifelong nonsmoker, you cannot have a family history of respiratory problems or seizures, you cannot have asthma, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis or other autoimmune disease.

"These are the people they're testing the vaccine on, but that's not who they're going to give the vaccine to," Kennedy says. Indeed, over 90% of Americans are metabolically unhealthy and struggle with chronic health conditions that can make them more prone to vaccine complications, yet these, and frail elderly, are most vulnerable to COVID-19 and would theoretically stand to benefit from the vaccine most.

If the vaccine causes severe side effects in young, healthy individuals, what will the results be in those who are old, frail and/or have underlying conditions or compromised immune systems?

"You're going to see a lot of people dropping dead," Kennedy predicts. "The problem is, Anthony Fauci put $500 million of our [tax] dollars into that vaccine. He owns half the patents. He has five guys working for him [who are] entitled to collect royalties.

So, you have a corrupt system, and now they've got a vaccine that is too big to fail. They're not saying this was a terrible, terrible mistake. They're saying, 'We're going to order 2 million doses of this [vaccine]' … And, they have no liability … No medical product in the world would be able to go forward with a [safety] profile like Moderna has."

Trust Is Earned

Admittedly, the interview is a rather long one — an hour and 20 minutes — but if you have the time, I encourage you to listen to it in its entirety, as Kennedy and Dershowitz cover far more than some of the key highlights I've summarized here. You could speed it up to 1.5 to 2 times, which is my approach for most videos now as there is so much video content to consume.

I would not be surprised if Kennedy's prediction that the COVID-19 vaccine or vaccines will cause severe harm to a great number of people. I also disagree with Dershowitz's position that anyone involved in medical manufacturing "obviously" has a keen interest in not hurting people.

Kennedy correctly points out that's clearly not the case, seeing how drug companies have repeatedly been found to knowingly commit fraud in the name of profit. The opioid epidemic is but one glaring example where company executives knew they were causing harm and chose to do it anyway. Trust is earned, and the drug industry has, as Kennedy points out, eroded the public's trust by their own malfeasance.

The drug industry and government health officials expect us to simply trust that a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine will be produced in record time. From my perspective, such trust would be misplaced. Their history simply doesn't warrant it.

I've reviewed the historical failures of coronavirus vaccines in previous articles, as well as the potential hazards associated with mRNA vaccines. Importantly, we do not yet know what injecting mRNA to reprogram our DNA might actually do in the long run, since no mRNA vaccine has ever been licensed, but there's reason to suspect it won't be entirely beneficial.

The good news is that we probably will not even need a vaccine against COVID-19. As I have previously reviewed, there are loads of strategies to improve your immune system.

Other treatments like nebulized peroxide are really effective if you are already sick. And, as a foundational prophylactic, remember to optimize your vitamin D level, as vitamin D appears to significantly lower your risk, both of contracting the infection and developing severe symptoms, as reviewed in "Vitamin D in the Prevention of COVID-19."

I've put together a comprehensive report on the topic of vitamin D for COVID-19 prevention, which you can download here.