Since the start of 2020, people who have gotten COVID-19 have not all recovered immediately. Some have experienced symptoms for several weeks or months after recovering from the infection. These symptoms have been called chronic COVID, long COVID, long-haul syndrome, long-haul COVID, and post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC).¹

One of the symptoms is tinnitus, or a consistent ringing in the ears. Doctors have also noticed that the constellation of symptoms from long COVID is strikingly similar to myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome or ME/CFS.² Doctors at Columbia University have asked if these two conditions could be closely related or one and the same.

Mady Hornig, a psychiatrist from Columbia Mailman School of Public Health, has contributed influential research from over a decade of studying ME/CFS and helped to establish the condition is a biological disease. In an interview, she stated the next few years could bring an unprecedented wave of ME/CFS-like illness.³

What is Tinnitus?

Tinnitus is not a specific disease, but rather a symptom of an abnormality or injury to the auditory system. The auditory system begins with the external ear and ends with the auditory nerve that leads to the brain. Between these are multiple small structures that carry air vibrations which are interpreted as specific sounds by the brain.⁴

People with tinnitus describe it as ringing in the ears. However, others also may hear roaring, clicking, hissing or buzzing. Several health conditions can trigger tinnitus, or the condition may be as simple as an obstruction blocking the ear canal, such as ear wax.⁵

Health conditions that are known to trigger tinnitus include ear and sinus infections, cardiovascular disease, brain tumors, hormonal changes in women and thyroid abnormalities. It is sometimes the first sign of hearing loss, or it can be the side effect of a medication.

Cleveland Clinic notes tinnitus is not completely understood.⁶ Audiologist Sarah Sydlowski compares the condition to phantom limb pain, which is pain that feels like it's coming from a part of the body that is no longer there, such as a leg or an arm. She says:

"Commonly, tinnitus is the result of your inner ear (cochlea) being damaged in some way. When this happens, the cochlea doesn't stop working. It still tries to function so you're able to hear certain sounds. And when your inner ear isn't working correctly, it starts producing sounds to replace what you're supposed to hear naturally. It's a phantom sound."

This area of the auditory system is highly vascularized with tiny arteries that provide the cochlea and other sensory cells with nutrition and oxygen.⁷ An interruption in the blood supply can damage these structures, which is how cardiovascular disease and diabetes can have a significant impact on hearing.

At this point, researchers are still investigating how COVID-19 may affect the auditory system. Some have hypothesized that nerve inflammation may be the cause of tinnitus after a COVID-19 shot. However, it is also known that the spike protein from the virus⁸ can cause endothelial damage. This could then impact blood supply to the auditory system.

Symptom of Long-Haul Syndrome and Shot

A January 2021 systematic review of the literature evaluated the effect COVID-19 has on the auditory system. The study⁹ looked at 28 case reports or series and 28 cross-sectional studies that included reports of hearing loss, tinnitus and vertigo.

The researchers pooled estimates of the prevalence of these conditions based on the patient's recall of their symptoms. They discovered that in this patient cohort that had COVID-19, 7.6% reported hearing loss, 14.8% reported tinnitus and 7.2% reported rotary vertigo.

In October 2021, scientists from Stanford medicine published a study¹⁰ in Communications Medicine that linked an infection with SARS-CoV-2 to hearing and balance disorders. Dr. Konstantina Stankovic, otolaryngologist and inner ear researcher, led the study after finding many of her patients in her Massachusetts Clinic were complaining of tinnitus, dizziness and hearing loss.

The researchers used a cellular model of human and mouse inner ear cells. They found a mechanistic explanation for the dysfunction to the cells that allowed the virus entry, specifically infecting human inner ear cells. They believe their findings may be the underlying pathway the virus uses to affect hearing and balance. Stankovic commented in a press release:¹¹

"Our study showed evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 can directly infect the inner ear. During the peak of the pandemic, when patients were having more life-threatening complications, they weren't paying much attention to whether their hearing was reduced or whether they had vertigo. It was easy to dismiss these symptoms as just being a coincidence, and routine testing for SARS-CoV-2 was not yet available."

Another study¹² published in the Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery in December 2021, assessed hearing in 100 individuals who had a mild to moderate infection of COVID-19. In that group, 22 had received remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19.

The researchers found 31 of the 100 participants had ear symptoms, the most common of which was tinnitus, followed closely by new onset hearing loss. Pure tone audiometry was measured, and sensorineural hearing loss was present in 53 patients. The hearing loss was present in all who received remdesivir.

The testing was done as an initial workup and the researchers plan to follow these patients at regular intervals of three and six months for repeat evaluations. It is important to note that the percentage of patients with tinnitus is similar to what has been found in other studies. These patients were also evaluated for high-frequency hearing loss, a symptom that has not been consistently addressed in other studies.¹³

In a search for tinnitus in the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) using data published through January 28, 2022, the system returned 18,349 reports following the COVID-19 shot.¹⁴ To date there were 1,088,558 reports filed, which means the reported incidence of tinnitus after the shot was 1.8%, or lower than what is reported after an infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Treatment Strategies for Tinnitus

It is important you do not overlook any new ringing or buzzing in your ears that lasts for more than a day. Starting treatment early can help reduce the effects and an Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) doctor can rule out other issues that may have occurred coincidentally at the same time. An audiologist will also do a hearing check to rule out hearing loss.

Tinnitus following COVID can resolve in months, but there are strategies an ENT may prescribe to help improve the symptoms. If tinnitus is a symptom of hearing loss, hearing aids can help. An audiologist may suggest a white noise machine to help produce a background noise, thus making the symptoms of tinnitus less noticeable.¹⁵

Cognitive-behavioral therapy helps teach coping strategies and relaxation techniques that can reduce the distress tinnitus triggers. You may also find relief from tinnitus retraining therapy. This is sometimes called auditory habituation therapy and consists of two modalities.¹⁶

The first is a low-level sound generator that is delivered through a hearing aid type of device. This can help desensitize patients who are sensitive to sound and may help retrain the brain to de-emphasize the noise from tinnitus. Secondly, patients undergo directive counseling to help cope with the stress and which is used to help retrain the brain in conjunction with the sound generator.

Music therapy is another form of treatment for tinnitus that can help lower the negative reactions a patient has and stimulate the auditory cortex simultaneously. The University of California San Francisco¹⁷ also uses neuromonics acoustic desensitization protocol. This incorporates a processor connected to earphones that deliver music individualized to the person's hearing loss, as well as counseling.

The American Tinnitus Association¹⁸ stresses that these are treatments and not cures since they cannot repair the underlying cause nor eliminate the signal to the brain. It is important to recognize that each case of tinnitus must be approached individually since no two cases are the same.

More Long-Haul Symptoms

Tinnitus is one of many common long COVID symptoms that can persist for four or more weeks after you are diagnosed with COVID-19. In an interview¹⁹ with cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, October 2021, he discussed long COVID and the symptoms he's seen in his practice. According to McCullough, 50% of this group will have manifestations of long COVID syndrome:²⁰

"So, the sicker someone is, and the longer the duration of COVID, the more likely they are to have long COVID syndrome. That's the reason why we like early treatment. We shorten the duration of symptoms and there's less of a chance for long COVID syndrome."

According to McCullough, a paper presented by pathologist Dr. Bruce Patterson at the International COVID Summit in Rome, September 12 to 14, 2021, showed that in "individuals who've had significant COVID illness, 15 months later the s1 segment of the spike protein is recoverable from human monocytes." He added:²¹

"That means the body literally has been sprayed with the virus and it spends 15 months, in a sense, trying to clean out the spike protein from our tissues. No wonder people have long COVID syndrome."

These symptoms are a result of damage to the following body systems:²²

1. Pulmonary/lungs
2. Immune/allergy
3. Mitochondria/energy system
4. Heart
5. Central/Peripheral nervous system

As of July 2021, people with symptoms of long COVID may now qualify under the Americans with Disability Act,²³ Titles II and III that affect state and local government and public accommodations.

If the symptoms substantially limit one or more major life activities, it can also be a disability under Section 504 and section 1557, which protect against discrimination and provide additional resources. Signs and symptoms that persist for four or more weeks after diagnosis of COVID-19 include:^24,25

Strategies to Improve Symptoms of Long COVID

One of the key strategies to preventing infection and treating long-haul symptoms is to protect and support your gut microbiome. According to an article in The BMJ published August 11, 2020, many long COVID patients recover spontaneously "with holistic support, rest, symptomatic treatment and gradual increase in activity." To support recovery, the article suggests:²⁶

"… patients should be managed pragmatically and symptomatically with an emphasis on holistic support while avoiding over-investigation. Fever, for example, may be treated symptomatically with paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Monitoring functional status in post-acute COVID-19 patients is not yet an exact science. A post-COVID-19 functional status scale has been developed pragmatically but not formally validated …

Referral to a specialist rehabilitation service does not seem to be needed for most patients, who can expect a gradual, if sometimes protracted, improvement in energy levels and breathlessness, aided by careful pacing, prioritization, and modest goal setting.

In our experience, most but not all patients who were not admitted to hospital recover well with four to six weeks of light aerobic exercise (such as walking or Pilates), gradually increasing in intensity as tolerated. Those returning to employment may need support to negotiate a phased return."

One Swedish study²⁷ demonstrated that taking probiotics for 14 days could help alleviate some of the symptoms of long COVID, namely muscle soreness and brain fog. I also recommend optimizing your gut microbiome by avoiding processed vegetable oils, processed foods and conventionally raised meats in animal products.

Consider increasing your soluble and insoluble fiber intake which are necessary nutrients for beneficial bacteria and eat plenty of traditionally fermented foods, such as fermented grass-fed organic milk products, fermented vegetables and natto.

In the video above, podcaster Joe Rogan interviews Maajid Nawaz, author of "Radical," a former Islamist revolutionary who eventually became an anti-extremism activist. This is another three-hour-long interview. If you want, you can skip the first hour as it gets more applicable to current day issues after the first hour.

Nawaz's past experience with recruiting extremists to infiltrate and overthrow Western governments helped him to more clearly recognize the psychological mind games waged against the civilian public during the COVID pandemic. He's basically spent much of his later life opposing "the manufacturing of consent around something that isn't true."

According to Nawaz, we're in a "hybrid war." It's basically an information war, because the primary weapon is information, and whoever gets to define reality with their narrative wins.

He explains how, when recruiting extremists for your cause, you first have to dismantle and destroy their current view of the world. After that, you can then indoctrinate them with your view of the world.

Big Tech obviously plays a crucial role in this war, as they have the technology and the algorithms to influence, manipulate and mold people's minds by deciding what narratives they're allowed to see. Social media platforms can easily make it appear as though a minority, fringe position is actually backed by a majority.

Ironically, as Rogan points out, the people who are being brainwashed are in many cases fiercely defending the right of these companies to mold and manipulate them. They support the censorship, they support cancel culture, seemingly not understanding the impact it's having on their view and understanding of reality and the world at large.

Power Grabs Through 'Emergency Powers'

One answer to how we got to where we are today is that governments have invoked emergency powers, and those emergency powers often end up becoming permanent. That's why they were invoked in the first place.

As explained by Nawaz, "emergencies are always used by the state for power grabs." Once they've been able to expand a power under the banner of a national emergency, they keep it. They don't roll it back. So, when, in 2020, the COVID pandemic was used to suspend human rights, Nawaz knew we were on a slippery slope.

And, as he feared, we're now experiencing a very radical shift in our social contract with the state. Before the pandemic, the social contract, the generally accepted modus operandi, was that everyone has the right to bodily autonomy. While it's good to donate blood, for example, you are not required to do so — even if someone's life hangs in the balance.

No one can demand that you donate a kidney because you have two functioning kidneys and someone else needs one. You have the right to keep both of your kidneys, even if it means the other person dies for lack of organ donation.

Also, if someone is vulnerable to illness due to preexisting conditions, that person has always been expected to take their own precautions. If you have a peanut allergy, you make sure you don't eat anything with peanuts, for example, and others are encouraged, but not mandated or required, to make accommodations for and be considerate of those who are vulnerable.

What we have never done, Nawaz notes, is make other people responsible for our comorbidities and preexisting conditions and force them to submit to a medical intervention that could harm or kill them in order to improve our chances of survival.

A Radical Shift in Our Social Contract

If the state is going to tell us that we must get vaccinated because it is our duty to protect other people, then that is a very deep and radical shift of our social contract.

So much so, Nawaz argues, that it should require serious public dialogue followed by a democratic mandate. But that's not happening. We're now told that we must surrender our bodily autonomy for the common good. If you disagree, you're simply canceled and eliminated from the public forum.

While not specifically discussed in this interview, this new social contract, sprung on us during the COVID crisis, is actually part and parcel of The Great Reset.¹ The surrendering of individual rights — some for now, but eventually all of them — is the "new social contract" that Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum has envisioned and is pushing out to the world through his installed leaders.

As noted by Nawaz, at the end of the day, it comes down to what kind of society, what kind of world, we want to live in, and "We can't go from democracy to a 'papers please' society … without having any consultation with the public on this," he says. We need to have a "proper conversation about how this will permanently change the structure of our society."

The fundamental problem here is that we're told we must simply trust that the government knows what's best and always acts in our best interest. Yet we know the state can get things very wrong indeed. In the interview, Nawaz recounts many examples where governments lied and acted against the best interest of their people.

The same goes for Big Pharma. We're told to trust their products, their science and that they're working to protect our health, always. Yet for those of us who know the criminal history of some of these drug companies, that's a tall order.

As noted by Nawaz, the largest criminal fine in history was levied against Pfizer. They have a very long rap sheet, yet we're to take their experimental gene transfer product on faith alone. Moreover, we're told to ignore all the data that suggests Pfizer is not, in fact, being entirely honest about the benefits and risks of their product.

When There's No Truth, Power Gets to Define Reality

One of the primary ways debate is shut down is by throwing labels at people. It doesn't matter whether they're factually correct or not. Nawaz has been called an "anti-vaxxer" for questioning vaccine mandates, yet he's double jabbed. He's been called an "anti-Muslim extremist," despite spending four years in prison for his Muslim extremism.

"But there's a deeper point here," Nawaz says. For many years, we've been shifting into relativism, this idea that truth is relative, that it's subjective and based on your personal experience. Your truth doesn't have to be what my truth is. You decide what your truth is and there's no such thing as "reality."

This, Nawaz argues, has had devastating consequences because without objective truth, there's no objective reality, and without objective reality, whomever has the power gets to dictate what reality is — because you have no way to determine whether that power is telling the truth or not. In the end, you end up with authoritarianism.

"When you promote the idea that there is no such thing as truth, and when you shut down debate that is seeking truth — not that it claims truth but it's seeking it — in aid of this idea that truth is relative … what happens when you do that?

When there's no such thing as truth, you can't define reality. And when you can't define reality, the only thing that matters is power … because power gets to define reality," he says. "Power steps into that void when reason no longer exists, and defines reality for you, from up above."

Psychological Warfare

You can see then, how and why information is the most powerful weapon in this fight for power. As noted by Nawaz, most people work full-time jobs and have families and simply don't have the time to do the research required to discern the truth.

Instead, they turn to trusted voices in the media to give them their best interpretation of what the truth and reality is. The problem we now have is that the media are peddling the narratives of those trying to get more power. And without truthful information, it becomes difficult to define reality, which makes it difficult to challenge government.

This is also why leaders have repeatedly shifted the goal post and then played with our memories of what they promised. The goal is to disorient and confuse people to the point that they don't have the strength to question their government. This is psychological warfare.

The harsh reality that everyone must face now is that once rights have been taken from you, government never voluntarily gives them back. The only option people have is to TAKE their rights back through peaceful activism.

Coming Next: Financial Warfare

Nawaz and Rogan also discuss how the global cabal is planning to control the world population through the use of programmable central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).

Programmable currency is digital cash that can be programmed such that it can only be spent on certain goods or services that an employer or government deem sensible.² In other words, the issuer of the money can control how the recipient spends it. With that, the issuer would have near-total control over your behavior.

As noted by Nawaz, with a programmable CBDC, government would have complete control over anyone who disagrees with their policies or activities. If someone expresses dissent, the government could simply restrict how they can use their money, or shut down their bank account altogether.

For example, if the government didn't want Nawaz to appear on Rogan's show, they could simply reprogram his CBDCs with the click of a button, such that he would not be allowed to purchase a plane ticket.

What the globalists are now fighting to implement is a platform that will give them complete control over people — something that will tie everything in your life together in one central spot, such as your employment records, medical records, financial records and more.

This is why they're fighting so hard for vaccine passports, even though it's clear that they are completely irrational. What good is a vaccine passport when the "vaccine" doesn't prevent infection or spread?

Some nations are now scrapping the vaccine passports and shifting to digital IDs instead. It's important to realize that digital IDs serve the same exact purpose as the vaccine passport, so the fight for freedom is far from over, even if your government has publicly said no to vaccine passports. As explained by Nawaz, we're also seeing evidence of a digital credit score being set into place.

Global Leadership Has Been Infiltrated

Nawaz also discusses how governments around the world have been infiltrated by World Economic Forum (WEF) members whose agenda it is to implement global authoritarianism, using the psychological, information war techniques summarized above.

As noted by Nawaz, Schwab has worked on "embedding people in government who are subscribed to The Great Reset agenda," and in his 2020 book, "COVID-19: The Great Reset," Schwab openly argues that the COVID-19 response should be used to "revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions."

The WEF has also clearly articulated³ its interest in developing a global digital ID system. So, what we can look forward to is a never-ending process where the goal post keeps moving toward more and more authoritarianism. And they've told us this, openly, Nawaz says. All we need to do is believe them.

Due to the vast scope of this interview, I really encourage you to listen to it in its entirety. If you don't have much time then just skip the first hour.

More than 1 million excess deaths have been recorded since the COVID-19 pandemic began nearly two years ago, according to data released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These deaths are not all due to COVID-19, however, as higher numbers of deaths from heart disease, high blood pressure, dementia and other illnesses occurred during the pandemic.¹

"We've never seen anything like it," Robert Anderson, CDC's head of mortality statistics, told The Washington Post.² Health officials would have you believe that the majority of these excess deaths were due to COVID-19, but even the CDC states, on their webpage tracking provisional death counts for COVID-19:³

"Finally, the estimates of excess deaths reported here may not be due to COVID-19, either directly or indirectly. The pandemic may have changed mortality patterns for other causes of death. Upward trends in other causes of death (e.g., suicide, drug overdose, heart disease) may contribute to excess deaths in some jurisdictions. Future analyses of cause-specific excess mortality may provide additional information about these patterns."

Excess Deaths 'Only Partly Explained' by COVID-19

In a study analyzing U.S. mortality data from March 2020 to July 2020, a 20% increase in excess deaths was found, but it was "only partly explained" by COVID-19. "Surges in excess deaths varied in timing and duration across states and were accompanied by increased mortality from non–COVID-19 causes," researchers noted in a research letter published in JAMA.⁴

In an update to the analysis, using data for the remainder of 2020, a 22.9% increase in all-cause mortality was reported from March 1, 2020, to January 2, 2021, and an increase in death rates from non-COVID-19 diseases — including heart disease, diabetes and Alzheimer's — was noted.⁵

In another example, excess mortality — that is, deaths in excess of the historical average — due to causes other than COVID-19 has also risen among males and minorities, particularly black males.

"Early evidence suggests a combination of factors, including deaths of despair, murders, uninfected Alzheimer's patients, reduced health care use, and economic dislocation" were responsible for the significant increase in excess mortality among minorities, with researchers writing in PNAS, "Nearly half of the excess life years lost in 2020 are due to non–COVID-19 causes."⁶

Excess Deaths Not Caused by COVID-19 Are Their Own Pandemic

University of Warwick researchers looked into the determinants of extra deaths that occurred during the pandemic, which were not due to COVID-19. Referring to these deaths as "collateral damage of the pandemic," they found that "the scale of excess non-COVID deaths is large enough for it to be seen as its own pandemic."⁷

Causes of the rise in non-COVID excess deaths include avoidance of health care facilities due to fear of COVID-19 and delayed diagnosis and treatment for other conditions. Non-COVID excess deaths were higher in areas with more stringent pandemic responses, like lockdowns, with researchers noting:⁸

"It lends some initial evidence to the theory that lockdowns increase excess deaths by providing a barrier to healthcare, worsening mental health and increasing domestic abuse and alcohol consumption."

On Twitter, Silicon Valley software engineer Ben M. (@USMortality) revealed that, as of January 27, 2022, U.S. excess mortality for 2021 was about 16%, compared to 13.6% in 2020.⁹ That is, excess mortality increased in 2021 — the year COVID-19 shots became prevalent.

He tweeted, "2022 starting off with almost the same slope as 2021 … Excess mortality remains high even in 2022. Currently at around +23% for the latest week 2/2022." In absolute numbers, he said, it comes down to nearly 15,000 more people dying per week than expected.

Previously, Ben M. revealed that in a 13-week period in late 2021, about 107,700 seniors died above the normal rate, despite a 98.7% vaccination rate.¹⁰ In another example, he used data from the CDC, census.gov and his own calculations to show excess deaths rising in Vermont even as the majority of adults have been injected.

"Vermont had 71% of their entire population vaccinated by June 1, 2021," he tweeted in November. "That's 83% of their adult population, yet they are seeing the most excess deaths now since the pandemic!"¹¹

Deaths Increasing Despite Mass Injections

Excess deaths continuing into 2021, after widespread COVID-19 injections that were supposed to end the pandemic and save lives, is revealing. In one snapshot, in the week ending November 12, 2021, the U.K. reported 2,047 more deaths than occurred during the same period between 2015 and 2019. COVID-19 was listed on the death certificates for only 1,197 people.¹²

Further, since July 2021, non-COVID deaths in the U.K. have been higher than the weekly average in the five years prior to the pandemic.

Heart disease and strokes appear to be behind many of the excess deaths, with the Financial Times reporting, "The new phase of excess deaths raises the possibility that since the summer more people have been losing their lives as a result of strains on the NHS or lack of early diagnosis of serious illness …"¹³

An investigation by The Exposé, using official data from NHS and the U.K.'s Office for National Statistics (ONS), found that deaths among teenagers increased 47% since they started getting COVID-19 shots.¹⁴

Between the week ending June 26, 2020, and the week ending September 18, 2020, 148 deaths were reported among 15- to 19-year-olds. However, between the week ending June 25, 2021, and the week ending September 17, 2021, 217 deaths occurred among 15- to 19-year-olds. According to the investigation:¹⁵

"This shows that the number of deaths between June 19th 2021 and September 17th 2021 among teens aged 15 and over were 47% higher than the number of deaths in this age group during the same period in 2020, and the increase in deaths began at precisely the same time teens started receiving the Covid-19 vaccine.

Our investigation of ONS data also revealed further concerns about Covid-19 deaths in people between the age of 15 and 19. The same 2021 ONS dataset shows that since teens started getting the Covid-19 vaccine there has been at least one Covid-19 related death recorded in seven of the thirteen weeks between June 19th and September 17th 2021. A total of 8 deaths in this time frame.

Yet in the fifteen weeks prior to teens over the age of 15 receiving the Covid-19 vaccine, just a single death was recorded associated with Covid-19 among this age group.

Correlation does not equal causation, but it is extremely concerning to see that deaths have increased by 47% among teens over the age of 15, and Covid-19 deaths have also increased among this age group since they started receiving the Covid-19 vaccine, and it is perhaps one coincidence too far."

More Younger Working-Age People Are Dying

Former BlackRock portfolio manager Edward Dowd has also pointed out "a spike in mortality among younger, working-age individuals [that] coincided with vaccine mandates. The spike in younger deaths peaked in Q3 2021 when COVID deaths were extremely low (but rising into the end of September)."¹⁶

Dowd also reported data from public funeral home company Carriage Services, which announced a 28% increase in September 2021 compared to September 2020, while August had a 13% increase. He tweeted:

"Business has been quite good since the introduction of the vaccines & the stock was up 106% in 2021. Curious no? Guys this is shocking as 89% of Funeral homes are private in US. We are seeing the tip of the iceberg."^17,18

Life insurance and disability claims, along with hospital death rates, are also revealing, and all have seen an uptick. Scott Davison, the CEO of Indiana-based insurance company OneAmerica, is among those who reported disturbing statistics — the death rate for 18- to 64-year-olds has risen 40% compared to before the pandemic.

"We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica," Davison said, adding, "Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic. So 40% is just unheard of."¹⁹ Further, most of the deaths are not due to COVID-19. He said:²⁰

"What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers."

Mortality Rates and Death Claims Rising Post-Shots

Brian Tabor, president of the Indiana Hospital Association, confirmed that hospitals are also seeing widespread ill health and rising death rates. Zero Hedge reported:²¹

"Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, said that hospitals across the state are being flooded with patients "with many different conditions," saying "unfortunately, the average Hoosiers' health has declined during the pandemic."

In a follow-up call, he said he did not have a breakdown showing why so many people in the state are being hospitalized – for what conditions or ailments. But he said the extraordinarily high death rate quoted by Davison matched what hospitals in the state are seeing. "What it confirmed for me is it bore out what we're seeing on the front end …" he said."

Other insurance companies citing higher mortality rates include Hartford Insurance Group, which announced mortality increased 32% from 2019 and 20% from 2020 prior to the shots. Lincoln National also stated death claims have increased 13.7% year over year and 54% in quarter 4 compared to 2019.²² Dowd tweeted:²³

"Randy Frietag CFO just explained that in 2021 the share of young people dying from covid doubled in the back half of the year & that's driven the result for Lincoln & its peers. He cited 40% in 3Q and 35% in 4Q were below the age of 65 … Mandates are killing folks … This shouldn't be happening with miracle vaccines in a working age population period and a mild Omicron."

US Seeks Additional $30 Billion to Fight COVID-19

Meanwhile, the White House is seeking another $30 billion to fight COVID-19, including $17.9 billion for vaccines and treatments, $4.9 billion for testing, $3 billion to cover coronavirus care for uninsured people, and $3.7 billion to prepare for future variants.²⁴

The news comes amid a bombshell release by The New York Times, which revealed that the CDC has been collecting important data about COVID-19 all along, but hasn't released most of it to the public. Information such as U.S. hospitalizations for COVID-19 according to age, race and injection status have been kept quiet, as has the effectiveness of COVID-19 booster shots among 18- to 49-year-olds.²⁵

"Let's be clear," Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation wrote. "The CDC hid the data because the data proves they were lying to us. That's the real reason. If the data was favorable, I guarantee you, they would be releasing it."²⁶

Clarity on excess death data — specifically how many are truly attributable to COVID-19 and how many to other causes — is also essential for the public to make informed decisions about health care, shots and lifestyle during the pandemic, but such clarity is clearly lacking from the CDC.

As Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pulled out all the stops to quash the trucker protest against vaccine mandates, without ever having actually listened to their complaints, a truth emerged, clear as day. Democracy has been an illusion. That's the conclusion drawn by Canadian journalist Matthew Ehret in a February 18, 2022, Strategic Culture article.¹

"Who would have thought that Canada would ever be a spark plug for a freedom movement against tyranny?" Ehret asks.

"Countless thousands of patriots have driven across the country to bunker down in Ottawa in peace and high festive spirits which I had to see with my own eyes to believe demanding something so simple and un-tainted by ideology: freedom to work, provide for families and a respect for basic rights as laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms …

Mainstream media and political hacks have been working overtime to paint the Freedom convoy that converged on Ottawa on January 29 as an 'insurrectionist movement' full of 'white supremacists,' 'Russian stooges,' and 'Nazis' out to 'overthrow the government.'

Even the Bank of England's former governor (and World Economic Forum Trustee) Mark Carney chimed in on February 7 stating that 'this is sedition' and that 'those who are still helping to extend this occupation must be identified and punished to the full force of the law' …

Faced with an organic civil rights movement of blue-collar truckers, farmers and tens of thousands of supporters who have convened on Canada's capital to demand a restoration of their basic freedoms, the current Liberal government has failed to show even an ounce of humanity or capacity to negotiate.

This shouldn't be a surprise for those who have seen the hypocrisy of neo-liberal 'rules-based' order ideologues in action over the past few years who are quick to celebrate the 'liberty' of citizens of Ukraine, Hong Kong, or Xinjiang when the outcome benefits the geopolitical aims of detached technocrats hungry for global hegemony.

The moment genuine self-organized labor movements arise demanding basic rights be recognized, then the masks come off and the rage of tyrants show their true faces."

Tyrants Are Showing Their True Colors

As reported by Ehret, the Deep State of Canada is now using the Emergency Measures Act to do precisely what Carney called for, namely identify and punish anyone who dares stand up for freedom.

The Act grants extraordinary powers to the banking industry to search people's social media accounts and private bank records, and to seize the bank accounts of anyone suspected of supporting the Freedom Convoy, either in spirit or through online donations, including cryptocurrencies.

Victims will have no recourse, as the banks have been given full legal protection from lawsuits by those whose lives they destroy. Business owners in Canada who support freedom can also have their insurance policies canceled, and truckers can lose their drivers' licenses, either temporarily or permanently.

Still, the protesters did not give up. If anything, the threats appeared to have had the opposite effect. According to Ehret, the protestors were "renewing their commitments to remain in place," which they did until Trudeau sent in police² to arrest protestors and tow their trucks.

While Trudeau remained dictatorial until the truckers had been cleared from the Parliament area, the political establishment, on the other hand, showed signs of cracking. Two Liberal Party members, MP Joel Lightbound and MP Yves Robillard broke with party ranks, calling for an end to the unpopular and unnecessary COVID measures.³ Then, finally, in a surprise turnabout, Trudeau buckled February 23, 2022, and said he would revoke the Emergencies Act he'd invoked earlier.⁴

On a global scale, the silence of leaders of democracies and republics around the world is as informative as Trudeau's power grab. By now, we would have expected leaders of the U.S., the U.K., France and any number of others, to have stepped up to the microphone to denounce the Canadian government's actions.

But they haven't, and that tells you everything you need to know about where they stand on the issues of democracy and freedom. Worse, some have vocalized support for Trudeau's dictatorial actions.

In a February 10, 2022, tweet, Juliette Kayyem, former assistant secretary of Homeland Security under U.S. President Obama and a frequent CNN commentator, suggested the Canadian regime ought to slash the truckers' tires, empty their gas tanks, arrest the drivers, move the trucks, cancel their insurance, suspend their drivers' licenses and prohibit their recertification in the future. In her own words, "I will not run out of ways to make this hurt."⁵

The Illusion of Liberal Democracy Has Collapsed

As noted by Ehret, while we don't yet know how it will end, one thing we can be sure of is that "the illusion of liberal democracy … has collapsed."⁶ That doesn't mean the globalist cabal will pack up their briefcases and retire. No, they're going to fight to stay in power until the bitter end.

But the hill they're standing on is getting steeper and slipperier by the day. Everyone can see that they're saying one thing and doing the complete opposite. You can't lay claim to being a defender of democracy, freedom and equal rights for all while simultaneously declaring peaceful citizens the enemy of the state. It's just not credible. As noted by historically left-leaning journalist Glenn Greenwald:⁷

"When it comes to distant and adversarial countries, we are taught to recognize tyranny through the use of telltale tactics of repression. Dissent from orthodoxies is censored.

Protests against the state are outlawed. Dissenters are harshly punished with no due process. Long prison terms are doled out for political transgressions rather than crimes of violence. Journalists are treated as criminals and spies. Opposition to the policies of political leaders are recast as crimes against the state.

When a government that is adverse to the West engages in such conduct, it is not just easy but obligatory to malign it as despotic. Thus can one find, on a virtually daily basis, articles in the Western press citing the government's use of those tactics in Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and whatever other countries the West has an interest in disparaging …

That the use of these repressive tactics render these countries and their populations subject to autocratic regimes is considered undebatable. But when these weapons are wielded by Western governments, the precise opposite framework is imposed: describing them as despotic is no longer obligatory but virtually prohibited.

That tyranny exists only in Western adversaries but never in the West itself is treated as a permanent axiom of international affairs, as if Western democracies are divinely shielded from the temptations of genuine repression.

Indeed, to suggest that a Western democracy has descended to the same level of authoritarian repression as the West's official enemies is to assert a proposition deemed intrinsically absurd or even vaguely treasonous.

The implicit guarantor of this comforting framework is democracy. Western countries, according to this mythology, can never be as repressive as their enemies because Western governments are at least elected democratically. This assurance, superficially appealing though it may be, completely collapses with the slightest critical scrutiny."

The Dangers of Majority Despotism

As explained by Greenwald, the premise of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that "majoritarian despotism is dangerous in the extreme." "Despotism" means government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. Usually, this entity is an individual, but despotism can also arise out of majority rule.

It's interesting to note that while the Founding Fathers probably had no term for what we now know as the psychology of "mass formation," they were clearly aware of the dangers posed by an irrational majority.

As noted by Greenwald, "the Bill of Rights consists of little more than limitations imposed on the tyrannical measures majorities might seek to democratically enact."

For example, even if a majority of people agree that certain ideas and views should be criminalized, the Bill of Rights prohibits it. The Bill of Rights also prohibits the abolishment of religious freedom, even if a majority were to support it. Likewise, "life and liberty cannot be deprived without due process even if 9 out of 10 citizens favor doing so."

The Founding Fathers were clever enough to realize that majority rule can easily become just as destructively despotic as any dictatorship. Hence, they ensured that individual freedoms were enshrined in such a way that even if you're the last person in the country who wants to practice religion, you have the right to do so. The majority cannot take that away from you.

Waking Up to Reality as It Is

Greenwald goes on to explain how the signs of tyranny in the West have been evident for well over a decade. We just weren't paying attention. Only now, as we stare tyranny in the face first-hand, are we starting to really see it for what it is:

"The decade-long repression of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, standing alone, demonstrates how grave neoliberal attacks on dissent have become. Many are aware of key parts of this repression … but have forgotten or, due to media malfeasance, never knew several of the most extreme aspects.

While the Obama DOJ under Attorney General Eric Holder failed to find evidence of criminality after convening a years-long Grand Jury investigation, the then-Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), succeeded in pressuring financial services companies such as MasterCard, Visa, PayPal and Bank of America to terminate WikiLeaks' accounts and thus banish them from the financial system, choking off their ability to receive funds from supporters or pay their bills.

Lieberman and his neocon allies also pressured Amazon to remove WikiLeaks from its hosting services, causing the whistleblower group to be temporarily offline.

All of that succeeded in crippling WikiLeaks' ability to operate despite being charged with no crime: indeed, as the DOJ admitted, it could not prove that the group committed any crimes, yet this extra-legal punishment was nonetheless meted out.

Those tactics pioneered against WikiLeaks — excluding dissenters from the financial system and coercing tech companies to deny them internet access without a whiff of due process — have now become standard weapons. Trudeau's government seizes and freezes bank accounts with no judicial process.

The 'charity' fundraising site GoFundMe first blocked the millions of dollars raised for the truckers and announced it would redirect those funds to other charities, then refunded the donations when people pointed out, rightly, that their original plan amounted to a form of stealing. When an alternative fundraising site, GiveSendGo, raised millions more for the truckers, Canadian courts blocked its distribution."

Greenwald also highlights how American politicians have pressured Big Tech monopolies and the financial system to act as a joint censorship arm of government. Blocking people and companies from being able to use servers and financial transaction services have been key strategies to silence critical voices.

Why Assange Was Targeted

According to Greenwald, Assange's capture was precipitated by his denouncement of the Spanish government's violence against citizens of Catalonia in 2017 and 2019. Catalonia wanted autonomy from the Madrid-based Spanish government, and the government responded with shocking force.

"Spain treated the activists not as domestic protesters exercising their civic rights but as terrorists, seditionists and insurrectionists," Greenwald writes. "Violence was used to sweep up Catalans in mass arrests, and their leaders were charged with terrorism and sedition and given lengthy prison sentences."

Assange did not actually express support for Catalonian independence. He objected to the Spanish government's violent assault on civil liberties. This was why Ecuador rescinded Assange's asylum and handed him over to British authorities in April 2020. Since then, Assange has been held in a high-security prison in Belmarsh, even though he's never been convicted of a crime.

"All of this reflects, and stems from, a clear and growing Western intolerance for dissent," Greenwald writes.⁸ "This last decade of history is crucial to understand the dissent-eliminating framework that has been constructed and implemented in the West. This framework has culminated, thus far, with the stunning multi-pronged attacks on Canadian truckers by the Trudeau government.

But it has been a long time in the making, and it is inevitable that it will find still-more extreme expressions. It is, after all, based in the central recognition that there is mass, widespread anger and even hatred toward the neoliberal ruling class throughout the West."

Surveillance Apparatus Was Created to Crush Dissent

In response to the growing anger against the ruling class, the technocratic cabal has "opted for force, a system that crushes all forms of dissent as soon as they emerge in anything resembling an effective, meaningful or potent form," Greenwald notes.

A key part of that dissent-crushing system is the surveillance apparatus that has been erected all around us.⁹ While sold as a tool to hunt down dangerous criminals, we've come to realize that rarely is the system ever used to go after true criminals. Instead, it's used to identify people who disagree with a given narrative. Its primary purpose is to stifle dissent among citizens.

As noted by the ACLU,¹⁰ while most Americans think the Patriot Act's surveillance powers are there to facilitate the identification and roundup of terrorists, it "actually turns regular citizens into suspects." Dissent is also stifled by applying criminal terms to those who disagree with the narrative. Case in point: "Anti-vaxxers" and anyone who disagrees with pandemic measures are now labeled domestic terrorists or domestic extremists. As noted by Greenwald:

"Applying terms of criminality renders justifiable any subsequent acts of repression: we are trained to accept that core liberties are forfeited upon the commission of crimes. What is most notable, though, is that this alleged criminality is not adjudicated through judicial proceedings — with all the accompanying protections of judges, juries, rules of evidence and requirements of due process — but simply by decree …

Few things are more dangerous than a political leader who convinces themselves that they are so benevolent and well-intentioned that anything they do is inherently justified in light of their noble character and their enlightened ends …

Within the logical world where one is convinced that they really are fighting a white nationalist, fascistic, insurrectionary global movement to overthrow liberal democracy, then all the weapons we were long taught to view as despotic suddenly become ennobled …

And it is through this self-glorifying tale which Western neoliberals are telling themselves that they have become exactly what they shrilly insist they are battling."

We Must Repeal the Patriot Act and Pandemic Powers

In September 2021, the White House announced a $65 billion biopreparedness initiative as part of the Biden administration's Build Back Better plan.¹¹ As I've explained in many previous articles, Build Back Better is part and parcel of The Great Reset, which in turn is a technocrat-led attempt to implement global authoritarianism. As reported by Biospace:¹²

"The first goal is to transform medical defense, including an improvement and expansion of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics against known threats, and lay the groundwork for unknown pathogens … Secondly, the plan calls for ensuring 'situational awareness' regarding infectious disease threats. This includes early warning and real-time monitoring of these viral threats."

In a nutshell, what this biopreparedness initiative entails is more invasive biosurveillance — meaning, the monitoring of your internal biology. Right now, claims that government wants to monitor people down to their body chemistry will earn you the title of paranoid conspiracy theorist, yet the writing is on the wall. That's where we're headed, even if we're not there yet.

I believe the U.S. must repeal both the Patriot Act and the biopreparedness initiative, or else all privacy and freedom will be destroyed.

If you've felt like crucial data about COVID-19 have been missing since the start of the pandemic, it's not in your head. An exposé by The New York Times has revealed that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has actually been collecting data all along — it just hasn't published most of it.¹

Data such as U.S. hospitalizations for COVID-19 according to age, race and injection status would have certainly been of interest to a large portion of the U.S. population. The CDC has been collecting such data for more than a year but hasn't made the bulk of it public, the Times reported. What else has the CDC been keeping from the public?

For one thing, data on the effectiveness of COVID-19 boosters are missing. While the CDC published data on boosters' effectiveness in adults under 65, this didn't include data for 18- to 49-year-olds, a sizeable percentage of the population that also — coincidentally? — is "the group least likely to benefit from extra shots," the Times pointed out.²

CDC Has Released 'Only a Fraction' of Its COVID Data

According to CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund, the agency hasn't released all of the data "because basically, at the end of the day, it's not yet ready for prime time."³ But, the Times reported, "Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said."⁴

Among the additional data that the CDC kept quiet was wastewater data, which can give insight into COVID-19 case numbers in different areas. The CDC only recently released a wastewater data dashboard, even though certain states and cities have been providing such data to them since the pandemic began.⁵ Reportedly, several sources told the Times that the CDC "has published only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected."

As the Times put it, the CDC's refusal to post pertinent data left state and local health departments at a disadvantage:⁶

"Much of the withheld information could help state and local health officials better target their efforts to bring the virus under control. Detailed, timely data on hospitalizations by age and race would help health officials identify and help the populations at highest risk.

Information on hospitalizations and death by age and vaccination status would have helped inform whether healthy adults needed booster shots. And wastewater surveillance across the nation would spot outbreaks and emerging variants early."

Data Withheld Over Fears of Creating 'Vaccine Hesitancy'

The Times spoke with public health experts who said they had begged the CDC to release this type of COVID-19 data for two years and were "stunned" when they found out the agency had it all along.

The rational conclusion is that, had the data revealed what the CDC wanted, it would have released it. In their official reasoning, however, Nordlund said the data represents only 10% of the U.S. population, using that as an argument for why they didn't release it. "But the CDC has relied on the same level of sampling to track influenza for years," the Times pointed out. Further, it noted:⁷

"[T]he C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective."

Misinterpreted? "Let's be clear," Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation wrote.⁸ "The only way the vaccine data could be interpreted as ineffective by us 'misinformation spreaders' is if the data shows the vaccines don't work … The truth is the data didn't support their narrative so they hid it. Do you think they would hide the data if it showed the vaccines worked? Of course not!"

In short, he wrote, the "CDC admits it withheld data from the public because they didn't want to create vaccine hesitancy."⁹ Transparency with data is key to building public trust and fostering open scientific debate, not to mention making sound public health guidelines. We now know the CDC has been hiding data, likely because its numbers don't support the story they've been churning. The Gateway Pundit wrote:¹⁰

"So much for the bogus lie that has been pushed by public health officials for months, claiming that breakthrough infections weren't being tracked at all. The medical elites just decided to hide the data because it didn't fit the approved narrative, and, naturally, blamed the potential for 'misinformation' as justification for the coverup."

In a tweet, Dr. Nicole Saphier, with the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, shared her dismay in finding out that the CDC has been actively censoring which data to share with the public:¹¹

"The CDC's response when questioned about their withholding of Covid data and lack of transparency is essentially "we don't trust you to be able to understand the truth." The condescension is palpable. The wheels are finally coming off."

Scotland to Stop Publishing COVID Data by Injection Status

It's not only in the U.S. that health officials are cherry-picking data to support one agenda. Public Health Scotland (PHS) announced in February 2022 that it would stop publishing COVID-19 death and hospitalization data according to injection status. Like the CDC, their reasoning was concern that the data would be misrepresented by anti-vaxxers.¹²

The thing about data is, however, that it doesn't lie — assuming it's presented in full, unadulterated form. The only way such data could increase concerns about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 shots is if it showed that they're ineffective and unsafe.

Now, instead of publishing full data for the public to analyze and have informed consent, the CDC plans to "do a lot more on the vaccine effectiveness side and try and make people understand how effective the vaccine is."¹³ It's this type of unified front across the globe that has many patriots, including former BlackRock portfolio manager Edward Dowd, calling foul. He said:¹⁴

"The responses from governments to this virus that doesn't kill 99.9% of us makes no sense. And they're all unified in their determination to put in these systems — these digital vaccination/passport systems. They're all globally synced. They all want us to get these jabs, and it's too unified. I suspect there's a problem coming down the road."

The CDC Withholding Data Is Scientific Fraud

Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology, believes that the CDC withholding evidence about COVID-19 shot safety is scientific fraud.¹⁵ He is calling on Americans to demand the full COVID-19 data from the CDC, and for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and those in government who have lied to the American people to be held legally accountable:¹⁶

"If the CDC released the age stratified data for COVID, it would be clear that a vaccine for most Americans is not necessary. If the vaccine risk ratio of those vaccinated and hospitalized were published for Omicron — it would be clear that the vaccine benefit is not observed.

The FDA have not revealed what the efficacy of the boosters for children is. They have not released the safety data. They have withheld the safety data on the vaccines for children and adults.

This must stop. We are deep into outright Scientific Fraud territory. Let's remember where this started … We have been manipulated from the VERY start of this pandemic. The government has been deciding what has been written, removed, censored by media and the big tech giants. This is propaganda."

Even Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics's (AAP) Committee on Infectious Diseases, told The New York Times that they had been asking the CDC for data on children hospitalized with COVID-19, such as the proportion who have underlying medical conditions. On an information call with the CDC, they were told the data were unavailable.¹⁷

AAP also tried to find out from the CDC on multiple occasions how contagious people are five days after COVID-19 symptoms begin, to no avail, only to find out the information from a New York Times article they tracked down in December 2021. "They've known this for over a year and a half, right, and they haven't told us," she told the Times. "I mean, you can't find out anything from them."¹⁸

Should US Encourage Booster Shots for Children?

Malone is among those who have called COVID-19 injection mandates "completely unjustified" for children¹⁹ and recommends that youth who have received COVID-19 injections have their heart checked for damage,²⁰ given the real risk of myocarditis and heart damage.

The U.S. is also an outlier globally in recommending that children ages 12 years and older should not only get COVID-19 shots but also a booster shot.²¹ While many countries are urging caution in COVID-19 shots and boosters for children, the CDC is moving full steam ahead, all while hiding data that could help U.S. parents make an informed decision for their children.

In the video above, author David Zweig explains that he interviewed a member of the CDC's advisory committee and learned that a primary motivation for the agency recommending COVID-19 shots to kids isn't to prevent severe illness, but to prevent mild or even asymptomatic infection. What's more, an official told him that even this would likely only be beneficial for around two months, before the antibody boost begins to wane.²²

Data presented at the meeting also showed that for young males, the shots increased the risk of injection-induced myocarditis enough so that it canceled out any benefit in avoiding hospitalizations from COVID-19. "So we have to really think through whether this is a worthwhile endeavor, and certainly one that should be mandated," Zweig said.

Interestingly, the CDC officials spent one hour of the meeting discussing whether they should use the word "may" or "should" when it comes to recommending COVID-19 shots for children, and they settled on "should." This term, Zweig said, is what can ultimately lead to mandates as the next step.²³

Given the bombshell news that the CDC has been hiding COVID-19 data from the American people, parents and individuals must look beyond these official sources in their search for the truth. As Kirsch put it, "Let's be clear. The CDC hid the data because the data proves they were lying to us. That's the real reason. If the data was favorable, I guarantee you, they would be releasing it."²⁴

According to a cost-benefit analysis by Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and independent researcher Kathy Dopp, the COVID jab is deadlier than COVID-19 itself for anyone under the age of 80. The cost-benefit analysis¹ looked at publicly available official data from the U.S. and U.K. for all age groups, and compared all-cause mortality to the risk of dying from COVID-19.

"All age groups under 50 years old are at greater risk of fatality after receiving a COVID-19 inoculation than an unvaccinated person is at risk of a COVID-19 death," Seneff and Dopp conclude. For younger adults and children, there's no benefit, only risk.

"This analysis is conservative," the authors note, "because it ignores the fact that inoculation-induced adverse events such as thrombosis, myocarditis, Bell's palsy, and other vaccine-induced injuries can lead to shortened life span.

When one takes into consideration the fact that there is approximately a 90% decrease in risk of COVID-19 death if early treatment is provided to all symptomatic high-risk persons, one can only conclude that mandates of COVID-19 inoculations are ill-advised.

Considering the emergence of antibody-resistant variants like Delta and Omicron, for most age groups COVID-19 vaccine inoculations result in higher death rates than COVID-19 does for the unvaccinated."

Real-Life Risk Reduction Is Negligible

The analysis is also conservative in the sense that it only considers COVID jab fatalities that occur within one month of injection. Looking at the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), we're now seeing that many of those who are dying got the jab around April 2021 or earlier, so we know the shots can significantly cut your life short even if they don't kill you in the first month. As detailed in Seneff's and Dopp's paper:

"Absolute real-life risk reductions (ARRs) … from COVID inoculations vary from a low of negative 0.00007% (an increased risk of a COVID death from inoculation) for children under age 18 to a positive 0.183% (0.00183) risk reduction of a COVID death for persons over age 80 …

COVID vaccine inoculations increase risk of death and produce a net negative benefit, aka increased risk of death … for all age groups younger than 60 years old. In other words, the COVID inoculations cause a net increase, rather than decrease, in the likelihood of death for all persons under 60 years old.

For those over 60 years old, the benefit of COVID inoculations is negligible, ranging from a 0.0016% reduction in likelihood of death for a 60- to 69-year-old persons to a 0.125% reduction in likelihood of death for those over 80 years old. Because preventative treatments are often given to well persons, a vaccine is supposed to provide very small risk compared to benefit.

Thus, such high fatality risks (VFRs) versus low benefit of risk reduction (ARRs) from the COVID inoculations are not acceptable, especially considering that low-cost, effective treatments are available that would additionally reduce COVID-19 death rates by as much as 90% or more if provided as soon as symptoms appear in high-risk persons."

Meanwhile, data from an analysis² by researchers Spiro Pantazatos and Herve Seligmann suggest U.S. deaths reported to VAERS are underreported by a factor of 20. Their analysis was used to calculate vaccine fatality rates (VFR), the number needed to treat/vaccinate (NNT) to prevent one COVID death, the expected number of vaccine fatalities to prevent one COVID death, and the expected number of vaccine fatalities compared to COVID fatalities by age group:³

Summary Findings

In summary, key findings in this paper include the following:

• For those under 18, the COVID jab increases their risk of dying from COVID-19; those under 18 are 51 times more likely to die from the jab than they are to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
• In those aged 18 to 29, the COVID jab is 16 times more likely to kill a person than save their life if they get COVID. They're also eight times more likely to die from the jab than to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
• Those aged 30 to 39 are 15 times more likely to die from the COVID jab than prevent their death, and they're seven times more likely to die from the inoculation than to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
• Those aged 40 to 49 are nine times more likely to die from the COVID jab than having it prevent their death, and they're five times more likely to die from the jab than to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
• Those aged 50 to 59 are twice (2 times) more likely to die from the COVID inoculation than to prevent one COVID death, while their risk of dying from the jab or dying from COVID if unvaccinated is about the same.

Only when you get into the 60 and older categories do the risks between the jab and COVID infection even out. In the 60 to 69 age group, the shot will kill one person for every person it saves from dying of COVID, so it's a tossup as to whether it might be worth it for any given person.

Cost-Benefit Analysis Must Drive Public Health Policy

Common sense tells us that COVID-19 vaccination policy ought to be rooted in a rational evaluation of the true costs and benefits, and to do that, we need to assess whether the jabs are beneficial or harmful, and to what extent. So far, governments have completely ignored the cost of this mass injection campaign, focusing solely on perceived or imagined (not proven) benefit.

As a result, we're looking at the worst public health disaster in known history. The greatest tragedy of all is that none of our public health officials has bothered to protect even the youngest among us.

The OpenVAERS team recently started looking at injury reports in children aged 17 and younger, and to their shock, they found 34,223 U.S. reports involving this age group through February 11, 2022. You can find the Child's Report here.⁴ This is a staggering number, considering the 12- to 17-year-olds have only been eligible for the shot since May 2021, and 5- to 11-year-olds since October 2021.⁵

Pfizer Withdraws EUA Application for Children Under 5

Interestingly, February 11, 2022, Pfizer abruptly withdrew its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application for children under 5.^6,7 The question is why? According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Pfizer, they want to collect more data on the effects of a third dose, as two doses did not produce expected immunity in 2- to 5-year-olds.⁸

Three days later, former FDA Commissioner and current Pfizer board member Dr. Scott Gottlieb told CNBC⁹ the EUA application was pulled because COVID cases are so low among young children that the shot couldn't be shown to provide much of a benefit.

But according in an email notice to subscribers, OpenVAERS stated, "None of these explanations suffice because all of that information was known prior to Pfizer submitting this EUA to the FDA on February 1 [2022]. It makes one wonder whether adverse events in the treatment group might be the factor that neither Pfizer nor the FDA want to talk about?"

Those Who Should Be in the Know Don't Know a Thing

In related news, Jessica Rose, Ph.D., a research fellow at the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge in Israel, highlighted a February 5, 2022, Freedom of Information Request sent to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the Australian equivalent of the FDA.¹⁰ The inquiry asked for documents relating to the TGA's assessment of:

• The presence and risk of micro-RNA sequences within the Comirnaty mRNA active ingredient (the mRNA genomic sequence)
• The presence and risk of oncomirs (cancer-causing micro-RNA) in Comirnaty
• The presence and risk of stop codon read-through (suppression of codon activity) arising as a result of the use of pseudouridine in Comirnaty
• The composition of the final protein product (molecular weight and amino acid sequence) produced following injection of the Comirnaty mRNA product in human subjects
• The risk of the use of AES-mtRNR1 3' untranslated region of the Comirnaty mRNA product in human subjects

As it turns out, the TGA has none of these documents, because they've not assessed any of these risks. Why does this matter? Well, as explained by Rose:

"Micro-RNA (miRNAs) are small (20-22 nucleotides) single-stranded non-coding RNA molecules that function to interrupt or suppress gene expression at transcriptional or translational levels to regulate gene expression."

Considering micro-RNA can alter gene expression, wouldn't we want to know if micro-RNAs are present in the shot, considering we're injecting hundreds of millions of people, including teenagers and children? The same goes for oncomirs, the suppression of codon activity, protein products and the rest.

"Stephanie Seneff has warned¹¹ of two miRNAs that disrupt the type-1 interferon response in any cell, including immune cells: miR-148a and miR-590," Rose continues.

"I don't know what potential connections there are here yet, but it is safe to say that any tech that involves the introduction of foreign mRNA to be mass-produced by human cells must be thoroughly safety tested.

The fact that none of these documents 'exist' is proof positive that they either have no idea what the potential effects of what they made are because they did no bench work/investigations/studies, or, that they know and are hiding the results. Either choice is beyond criminal."

The Critical Design Flaw

In an August 2021 Substack article,¹² British cybersecurity researcher Ehden Biber homed in on the potential risks of using pseudouridine to optimize the codon.

The COVID shots do not contain the identical mRNA found in the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The mRNA has been genetically manipulated in a process called "codon optimization," and this process is actually known to create unexpected and detrimental side effects.

"How come Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen etc. are using a technology that both they and the regulators know will cause unknown results?" Biber asked. The reason codon optimization was used is because it's pretty difficult to get your body to produce a given protein by injecting mRNA.

It's a slow and generally inefficient process. In order for the injection to work, they need higher levels of protein expression than is naturally possible. Scientists bypass this problem by making substitutions in the genetic instructions. They've discovered that you can swap out certain nucleotides (three nucleotides make up a codon) and still end up with the same protein in the end. But the increased efficiency comes at a terrible cost.

When substituting parts of the code in this way, the resulting protein can easily get misfolded, and this has been linked to a variety of chronic diseases,¹³ including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and heart failure.¹⁴ As explained by Biber:¹⁵

"Turns out the protein which was manufactured when codon optimization has different ways it folds and a different 3D shape, and it 'could cause immunogenicity, for example, which wouldn't be seen until late-stage clinical trials or even after approval.' This statement relates to the NORMAL approval cycle. The COVID vaccines went via an accelerated one."

Now, the FDA has been fully aware of these problems since 2011, when Chava Kimchi Sarfaty, Ph.D., a principal investigator at the FDA, stated that "We do not believe that you can optimize codons and have the protein behave as it did in its native form."

She went on to warn, "The changed form could cause immunogenicity, for example, which wouldn't be seen until late-stage clinical trials or even after approval."¹⁶

If the FDA knew all this back in 2011, why have they not raised objections against codon optimization being used in the making of the COVID jabs? The same question needs to be asked of the Australian TGA.

The FOIA requester was likely thinking of the March 2021 paper, "BNT162b2 Vaccine: Possible Codons Misreading, Errors in Protein Synthesis and Alternative Splicing Anomalies"¹⁷ when they put together that inquiry, because that paper highlights Pfizer's extensive codon optimization using pseudouridine, which has known adverse effects, as well as the use of 3'-UTR sequence, the consequences of which are still unknown.

The fact that the TGA has no data on the risks of these modifications just goes to show that they, like the U.S. FDA, are not actually working to ensure these jabs are safe. They're protecting the profits of the drug companies.

Pfizer even admits, in its BNT162b2/Comirnaty Risk Management Plan submitted to the FDA to get EUA, that the codon optimization they did resulted in elevated gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT),¹⁸ which is an early marker of heart failure. Elevated GGT is also an indicator of insulin resistance, cardiometabolic disease,¹⁹ liver disease²⁰ and chronic kidney disease.²¹

That alone should have raised some questions, were the FDA actually looking out for public health. All in all, there's more reason than ever to question the COVID jab mandates and the use of these shots in children.

This article was previously published January 1, 2019, and has been updated with new information.

Vitamin D deficiency is incredibly common around the world, but many mistakenly believe they aren't at risk because they consume vitamin D-fortified foods, such as milk. However, few foods have therapeutic levels of vitamin D naturally, and even fortified foods do not contain enough vitamin D to support your health needs.

Despite its name, vitamin D is actually a steroid hormone that you obtain primarily through sun exposure, not via your diet. Since most dermatologists and other doctors recommend avoiding the sun and using sunscreen before venturing outdoors, vitamin D deficiency has reached truly epidemic proportions around the world.

Unfortunately, while the justification for sun avoidance is that it may reduce your risk of skin cancer, by avoiding sun exposure you risk vitamin D deficiency, which in turn raises your risk for many cancers — not only internal ones but also skin cancer, as well as a whole host of chronic diseases.

Considering the importance of vitamin D for disease prevention, strict sun avoidance is likely doing far more harm than good. The major problem with sun exposure is burning, not overall exposure. And, the easily treatable forms of skin cancer — squamous and basal cell carcinomas — are the ones most likely to form.

Definition of Vitamin D Deficiency

According to research¹ published in June 2018, an estimated 40% of Americans are profoundly vitamin D deficient, defined as having a serum (blood) level of vitamin D below 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L). Sufficiency is defined as having a level of 20 ng/mL or higher.

Calling someone with a vitamin D level of less than 20 ng/ml vitamin D deficient is like calling someone over 400 pounds simply overweight — in both cases a grossly serious understatement.

Seventy-five percent of American adults and teens are deficient in vitamin D when a sufficiency level of 30 ng/mL is used.² If the sufficiency cutoff were to be moved to 40 to 60 ng/mL, sufficiency rates in the U.S. would likely be in the high 90% bracket.

It's important to realize that 20 ng/mL has repeatedly been shown to be grossly insufficient for good health and disease prevention and, really, anything below 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L) should be suspect. For example, research has shown that once you reach a minimum serum vitamin D level of 40 ng/mL, your risk for cancer diminishes by 67%, compared to having a level of 20 ng/mL or less.³

Most cancers occur in people with a vitamin D blood level between 10 and 40 ng/mL (25 to 100 nmol/L), and the optimal level for cancer protection now appears to be between 60 and 80 ng/mL (150 to 200 nmol/L).

Several studies also show that these higher vitamin D levels are protective against breast cancer specifically. Importantly, a 2005 study⁴ showed women with vitamin D levels above 60 ng/mL have an 83% lower risk of breast cancer than those below 20 ng/mL! I cannot think of any other strategy that can offer that kind of risk reduction.

More recently, a pooled analysis⁵ published in June 2018 of two randomized trials and a prospective cohort study came to a near-identical conclusion. The objective was to assess whether there are any benefits to having a vitamin D level above 40 ng/mL, as most studies do not venture into these higher levels.

Indeed, mirroring the 2005 findings, women with vitamin D levels at or above 60 ng/mL had an 82% lower incidence rate of breast cancer than those with levels of 20 ng/mL or less. Published research by GrassrootsHealth reveal as much as 80% of all breast cancer incidence could be prevented simply by optimizing vitamin D and nothing else.

Top 5 Signs of Vitamin D Deficiency

The only way to definitively identify vitamin D deficiency is via blood testing. However, there are some general signs and symptoms to be aware of as well. If any of the following apply to you, you should get your vitamin D levels tested sooner than later, and take proactive steps to boost your level into the 60 to 80 ng/mL range:

Top 5 Risk Factors for Vitamin D Deficiency

Several factors will influence your risk for vitamin D deficiency, including the following:

• Rarely spending time outdoors and/or always wearing sunscreen — Researchers have noted that vitamin D deficiency is prevalent in adults of all ages who always wear sun protection (which blocks vitamin D production) or limit their outdoor activities.¹⁶ The ideal time for sun exposure is between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the UVB rays are present.
• Darker skin — Your skin pigment acts as a natural sunscreen, so the more pigment you have, the more time you'll need to spend in the sun to make adequate amounts of vitamin D. If you have dark skin, you may need as much as 10 times more sun exposure to produce the same amount of vitamin D as a person with pale skin.
• Being 50 or older — As you get older, your skin doesn't make as much vitamin D in response to sun exposure. At the same time, your kidneys become less efficient at converting vitamin D into its active form. Older adults also tend to spend more time indoors (i.e., getting even less sun exposure and therefore vitamin D).
• Obesity — Because vitamin D is fat-soluble, body fat acts as a "sink" by collecting it. If you're overweight or obese, you're therefore likely going to need more vitamin D than a slimmer person. In one recent study,¹⁷ vitamin D deficiency was three times more prevalent in obese individuals.
• Gastrointestinal problems — Since vitamin D is fat-soluble, which means if you have a gastrointestinal condition that affects your ability to absorb fat, you may have lower absorption of fat-soluble vitamins like vitamin D as well. This includes gut conditions like Crohn's, celiac and nonceliac gluten sensitivity and inflammatory bowel disease.

Health Benefits of Vitamin D Optimization

Optimizing your vitamin D levels has been shown to have a powerful effect on health, helping protect against a wide variety of diseases. Among them:

Vitamin D Levels Can Affect COVID Risk

Evidence showing vitamin D lowers your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, severe complications and death continues to mount, with study after study showing that your vitamin D status before you become infected can greatly affect not only your risk of getting COVID, but how well you recover (or don't) from it.

Included in those studies is a scientific review⁴⁵ in the journal Nutrients, which I co-wrote with William Grant, Ph.D., and Dr. Carol Wagner, both of whom are part of the GrassrootsHealth expert vitamin D panel. We found that at least 14 observational studies offer evidence that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations are inversely correlated with the incidence or severity of COVID-19.

The evidence to date generally satisfies Hill's criteria for causality in a biological system, namely, strength of association, consistency, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility (e.g., mechanisms), and coherence, although experimental verification is lacking. Thus, the evidence seems strong enough that people and physicians can use or recommend vitamin D supplements to prevent or treat COVID-19 in light of their safety and wide therapeutic window.

As of October 31, 2021, our paper, "Evidence Regarding Vitamin D and Risk of COVID-19 and Its Severity" — which you can download and read for free — was the second most downloaded study from this journal in the previous 12 months. It was also No. 2 in citations and No. 4 for views.

Other studies have also confirmed that higher vitamin D levels lower your risk of complications and death from COVID-19. Among them is an August 2020 study^46,47 published in the journal Nutrients, which found patients who had a vitamin D level below 12 ng/mL (30 nmol/L) had a 6.12 times higher risk of severe disease requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, and a 14.7 times higher risk of death compared to those with a vitamin D level above 12 ng/mL.

Other Conditions Affected by Vitamin D Levels

In January 2022 Mayo Clinic research on vitamin D was featured by WEAU 13 News in Wisconsin. The clinic's list of conditions affected by vitamin D include:⁴⁸

Check Your Vitamin D Level Twice a Year

Regular, sensible sun exposure is the best way to optimize your vitamin D status, but many will need to take an oral vitamin D3 supplement, especially during winter months.

The only way to gauge whether you might need to supplement, and how much, is to get your level tested, ideally twice a year, in the early spring, after the winter, and early fall when you level is at its peak and low point. This is particularly important if you're pregnant or planning a pregnancy, or if you have cancer.

Again, the level you're aiming for is between 60 and 80 ng/mL, with 40 ng/mL being the low cutoff point for sufficiency to prevent a wide range of diseases, including cancer.

GrassrootsHealth makes testing easy by offering an inexpensive vitamin D testing kit as part of its consumer-sponsored research. By signing up, you are helping further vital health research that can help millions in coming years. (All revenues from these kits go directly to GrassrootsHealth. I make no profit from these kits and only provide them as a service of convenience to my readers.)

All women are also encouraged to enroll in the Breast Cancer Prevention project,⁴⁹ to track your vitamin D level and help prevent an initial cancer occurrence, or, if you've already had it, to help prevent a recurrence. In addition, anyone affected by Type 1 Diabetes is invited to enroll in the Type 1 Diabetes Prevention Project.

Required Dosage Is Highly Individual

Research⁵⁰ suggests it would require 9,600 IUs of vitamin D per day to get 97% of the population to reach 40 ng/mL, but individual requirements can vary widely, and you need to take whatever dosage required to get you into the optimal range.

In 2018 I interviewed Carole Baggerly, director and founder of GrassrootsHealth, a nonprofit public health research organization dedicated to moving public health messages regarding vitamin D from research into practice, and she said:

"Our first paper, published in 2011, showed the dose response relationship. You can easily see that two people taking the same dose (e.g., 4,000 IU/day) could have very different results. That's why testing … is so important."

If you've been taking a certain amount of vitamin D3 for a number of months and retesting reveals you're still not within the recommended range, then you know you need to increase your dosage.

Over time, with continued testing, you'll find your individual sweet spot and have a good idea of how much you need to take to maintain an ideal level year-round. GrassrootsHealth also has an online vitamin D calculator you can use to estimate your vitamin D3 dosage once you know your current serum level.

Additional Guidelines When Using Oral Vitamin D3

Aside from determining your ideal dose of vitamin D3, you also need to make sure you're getting enough vitamin K2 (to avoid complications associated with excessive calcification in your arteries), calcium and magnesium.

Research^51,52 has shown that if you're taking high doses of vitamin D while having an insufficient magnesium level, your body cannot properly utilize the vitamin D you're taking. The reason for this is because magnesium is required for the actual activation of vitamin D. If your magnesium level is too low, the vitamin D may simply get stored in its inactive form.

This may actually help explain why many need rather high doses of vitamin D to optimize their levels. According to this scientific review, as many as 50% of Americans taking vitamin D supplements may not get significant benefit due to insufficient magnesium levels.

On the other hand, when you have an optimal magnesium level, your vitamin D level will rise even if you're taking a much lower dose.⁵³ In fact, previous research⁵⁴ has indicated that higher magnesium intake helps reduce your risk of vitamin D deficiency — likely by activating more of it.

February 21, 2022, the Canadian Parliament approved Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's motion to invoke the Emergencies Act, with 185 votes for and 151 against, in response to the peaceful trucker protest against vaccine mandates.¹ While Trudeau in a February 14, 2022, press conference (above) promised the Act would be limited in time, geographical location and scope, he's already reneging on that promise.

Financial Surveillance Powers Will Be Permanently Expanded

The act was invoked to allow the government to physically disperse the trucker convoy without actually listening to their complaint, and to punish anyone who has supported the protest.

Under the act, banks are empowered to seize the personal bank accounts of anyone suspected of participating in the protest, or supporting it with as little as a $25 donation. Disturbingly, the surveillance powers over financial transactions granted by the act are actually intended to become permanent. As reported by National Review:²

"In a February 14 news conference, Canadian finance minister Chrystia Freeland said that the government was using the Emergencies Act to broaden 'the scope of Canada's anti-money-laundering and terrorist financing rules so that they cover crowdfunding platforms and the payment service providers they use.'

That broadened power requires all forms of digital transactions, including cryptocurrencies, to be reported to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Center of Canada. (I.e., 'Fintrac').

'As of today, all crowdfunding platforms and the payment service providers they use must register with Fintrac, and they must report large and suspicious transactions to Fintrac,' Freeland said.

She justified the move as a way to 'mitigate the risk' of 'illicit funds' and 'increase the quality and quantity of intelligence received by Fintrac and make more information available to support investigations by law enforcement' …

Freeland said the trucker convoy, which had assembled to protest coronavirus restrictions, had 'highlighted the fact' that digital assets and funding mechanisms 'weren't captured' by the Canadian government's pre-existing surveillance powers.

As a result, she said, 'the government will also bring forward legislation to provide these authorities to FinTrac on a permanent basis.'"

As noted by the National Review, we can already tell what the Canadian government will do with those expanded surveillance powers. We're seeing their intentions in action. By invoking the Act, Trudeau has given himself the unilateral power to destroy the lives of Canadians who happen to disagree with him, regardless of the issue at hand.

Without court order or due process, the government can now freeze bank accounts, cancel insurance policies and revoke drivers' licenses, and the victims have no recourse or remedy.

"All this, of course, flies in the face of Trudeau's promise that the Emergencies Act powers would be temporary," National Review notes, adding:³

"When he announced his invocation of the order, he promised the Canadian people that his expanded authorities would 'be time-limited, geographically targeted, as well as reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address.' Not a single part of that sentence has proved to be true."

Government Wants to Decide How You Spend Your Money

What's happening in Canada should be a sobering wakeup call for the whole world. They're showing us exactly what's in store for all of us. Governments will basically control dissent through financial tyranny and blackmail.

The next step in that direction is the implementation of programmable digital currencies, worldwide. As reported by The Telegraph in June 2021, the Bank of England has already started moving on a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC), and there's no doubt that this is the plan of all central banks worldwide.⁴

Executive board member of the European Central Bank, Fabio Panetta, mentioned it in his December 10, 2021, lecture on the future of digital money in Rome, Italy.⁵

What's meant by a "programmable" currency? As explained by The Telegraph,⁶ "Digital cash could be programmed to ensure it is only spent on essentials, or goods which an employer or government deems to be sensible." In other words, the issuer of the money would have complete control over how you, the recipient, spend it.

"Tom Mutton, a director at the Bank of England, said during a conference … that programming could become a key feature of any future central bank digital currency …" The Telegraph reported.⁷

"He said … what happens if one of the participants in a transaction puts a restriction on [future use of the money]? There could be some socially beneficial outcomes from that, preventing activity which is seen to be socially harmful in some way. But at the same time it could be a restriction on people's freedoms.'"

Absolute Control Through Financial Slavery

That programmable currency might restrict freedom is probably the understatement of the century. It's an absolute given. Imagine your employer, your government and the central bank itself having the privilege to dictate how you spend your own money!

Imagine a third party deciding how much you're allowed to spend on rent, what kind of food or clothing you're allowed to buy, or what hobbies you're allowed to spend money on and when. That's the power they intend to obtain, and current events in Canada prove it.

The "socially beneficial outcomes" Mutton is hinting at are basically that an unelected cabal will have the ability to micromanage your personal finances, and hence dictate your behavior in every area of your life. As noted by British activist and radio presenter Maajid Nawaz in the Joe Rogan clip above, with a programmable CBDC, the British government would have complete control over anyone who disagrees with their policies or activities.

For example, with other surveillance, they could determine that he was planning to appear on Rogan's show and simply reprogram his CBDCs with the click of a button, such that he would not be allowed to purchase a plane ticket. So much for that plan then.

Of course, CBDCs will exist by themselves. They're designed to be used together with digital ID and a social credit score, like that in China. The COVID vaccine passports are one type of platform that could be used for this, but even if a state or country rejects vaccine passports, don't for a moment think you're out of the woods, not by a long-shot. Chances are, they'll introduce a digital ID system instead, which will serve the exact same function.

Global Leadership Has Been Infiltrated

In the full Rogan interview, Nawaz goes on to discuss how governments around the world have been infiltrated by World Economic Forum (WEF) members whose agenda it is to implement global authoritarianism. As reported by Life Site News:⁸

"… the WEF has installed its members in national leadership roles around the world to further the organization's sprawling authoritarian agenda. Explaining that government leaders worldwide have begun lifting COVID-19 mandates and restrictions while leaving in place an apparatus of digital tracking and identification that forms the embryonic stages of a digital social credit score.

Nawaz said the WEF under Schwab has worked on 'embedding people in government who are subscribed to' the Great Reset agenda. 'That's what they say themselves,' Nawaz said, pointing out that the so-called Great Reset, whose advocates have famously asserted that by 2030 people will 'own nothing and be happy,' is explained in detail on the WEF's website.⁹

In a 2020 book entitled 'COVID-19: The Great Reset,' Schwab openly argued that the COVID-19 response should be used to 'revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions' …

The WEF has clearly articulated¹⁰ its interest in pursuing a global digital ID system. 'So this is going to be this never-ending process to slowly move the goal posts,' Rogan surmised. 'Towards more and more authoritarianism,' Nawaz added. 'Checkpoint society. It's all there. They've told us this.'"

How exactly has the WEF infiltrated governments and leadership roles around the world? In part by getting members of its Young Global Leaders group elected or installed in key positions. Would it surprise you to learn that Trudeau went through Schwab's Young Global Leaders program?

Other members whose dictatorial mindset cannot be disguised any longer are New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron. Bill Gates and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg have also gone through the program, and both are clearly supporting and promoting The Great Reset agenda through their respective business ventures.

Globalists Plan to Seize Control of Health Systems Worldwide

Your money isn't the only thing the globalist cabal wants to control, however. In a February 18, 2022, article, Dr. Peter Breggin, author of "COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey,"¹¹ warns that the next move in the globalists' war on humanity is to seize control over the health care systems of the entire world:¹²

"We have discovered the next move of the global predators — already in progress — in their escalating assaults against individual and political freedom. The next big assault on human freedom involves a legalized takeover of national healthcare systems by the World Health Organization (WHO).

This stealth attack — with its initial plans already backed by many nations — will begin full implementation in 2024 if it is not quickly recognized and fought! … The Chinese Communist influence over WHO has been solid for more than a decade, and the party was able to install Tedros without any competition.

He became the first and only Director-General who is not a physician and instead is a communist politician. Now the Director-General of WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus — known simply as Tedros — has unveiled plans to take charge of all global health.

While addressing the WHO Executive Committee on January 24, 2022, Director-General Tedros spelled out his global health plan, including his final priority for his enormous scheme: 'The fifth priority is to urgently strengthen WHO as the leading and directing authority on global health, at the center of the global health architecture.'

Tedros's closing words to his report to the executive committee are chilling in their grandiosity and echo Marxist exhortations to cheering mobs by a Stalin, Mao, or Xi Jinping: 'We are one world, we have one health, we are one WHO.' Tedros seeks to become super-Fauci for the world, and, like Fauci, he will do it on behalf of the global predators."

Health Fascism

As explained by Breggin, the global health care takeover really began with Gates' Decade of Vaccines, announced in 2010 at the WEF's annual meeting in Davos. At that time, Gates installed Dr. Anthony Fauci on his vaccine advisory board, thereby guaranteeing his plans would receive support from the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which Fauci is the head of. Breggin continues:¹³

"A theme for the Decade of Vaccines was 'Public-Private Partnerships Drive Progress in Vaccine Development, Delivery' — essentially the precursor to the Great Reset establishing a world governance of public and private health united in the spirit of fascism.

By 2012, Gates achieved official UN approval for his scheme, establishing a broad network of global predators aimed at exploiting and dominating humanity through public health. Communist China would play a prominent role through its control over the UN and WHO and through its close relationships with global predators like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, Mike Bloomberg, Big Tech executives, and many other billionaires and world leaders.

A decade and more later, during COVID-19, WHO has proven its usefulness to the predators in orchestrating science, medicine, and public health in the suppression of human freedom and the generation of wealth and power for the globalists."

Under the guise of a global pandemic, the WHO, the WEF and all of its installed leaders in government and private business, were able to roll out a plan that has been decades in the making. The pandemic was a perfect cover. In the name of keeping everyone "safe" from infection, the globalists have justified unprecedented attacks on democracy, civil liberties and personal freedoms, including the right to choose your own medical treatment.

Now, the WHO is gearing up to make its pandemic leadership permanent, and to extend it into the health care systems of every nation. "The idea is 'the principle of health for all' — universal health care organized by WHO as part of the Great Reset," Breggin explains.

Pandemic Treaty Is Being Established

May 24, 2021, the European Council announced it supported the establishment of an international Pandemic Treaty, under which the WHO would have the power to replace the constitutions of individual nations with its own constitution under the banner of "pandemic prevention, preparedness and response."¹⁴

"The world has already seen how any pandemic emergency, real or concocted, now or in the future, could then justify WHO taking over the entirety of government operations of sovereign nations, robbing all individuals of their freedoms, and fully crushing the democratic republics of the world," Breggin warns.¹⁵

"The spirit of Communism can be felt throughout the document. We are told that the 'purpose' of the new strategy will be 'guided by a spirit of solidarity, anchored in the principles of fairness, inclusion, and transparency.' Notice, as in all pronouncements by global predators; there is no mention of individual rights, political liberty, or national sovereignty.

The great engine of human progress, human freedom, will be replaced by the great destroyer of humanity, collectivism, under the rule of the elite. Tucked into the report were the real goals … Here are three main purposes or goals of the proposed treaty:

The report adds, 'More specifically, such an instrument can enhance international cooperation in a number of priority areas, such as surveillance, alerts, and response, but also in general trust in the international health system.' Clearly, they were building support for Tedros's January 24, 2022 announcement that WHO would take over the international health care system."

Even Your Food Will Be Under Their Control

In addition to your finances and your health care, the global cabal also intend to control the food supply and dictate what you can and cannot eat, in the name of combating climate change and saving the planet. The Great Reset¹⁶ is indeed the reset of life and society as we know it. Not a single area will be left untouched.

Sustainable development, Agenda 21, the 2030 Agenda, the New Urban Agenda, the Fourth Industrial Revolution,¹⁷ "Build Back Better,"¹⁸ green economy, the Green New Deal, the Paris Climate Agreement and the global warming movement in general all refer to and are part of The Great Reset agenda and its resource-based economics.

The common goal of all these movements and agendas is to capture all of the resources of the world — the ownership of them — for a small global cabal that has the know-how to program the computer systems that will ultimately dictate the lives of everyone.

When they talk about "wealth redistribution," what they're really referring to is the redistribution of resources from us to them. The goal is for you to own nothing. Everything you need, from the shirt on your back to a roof over your head, you'll have to rent from the globalist owners.

Even the food you put into your mouth is planned to be under their complete control. To this end, the WEF has partnered with the EAT Forum, which will set the political agenda for global food production. The EAT Forum was cofounded by the Wellcome Trust, which in turn was established with the financial help of GlaxoSmithKline.

EAT collaborates with nearly 40 city governments across Africa, Europe, Asia, North and South America and Australia, and maintains close relationships with imitation meat companies such as Impossible Foods, which was cofunded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates.¹⁹ Gates has also been gobbling up farmland, becoming one of the largest private land owners in the U.S.²⁰

EAT has developed a "Planetary Health Diet" that is designed to be applied to the global population and entails cutting meat and dairy intake by up to 90%, replacing it largely with foods made in laboratories, along with cereals and oil.²¹

Not surprisingly, Gates is on record urging Western nations to stop eating real meat altogether,²² and articles have been published in the past three years insisting people need to get used to eating bugs and drinking reclaimed sewage,²³ all in the name of sustainability and saving the planet.

Being able to see the globalists' plan as clearly as we can see it now, we have an obligation to future generations to resist, denounce and refuse any and all implementations of the technocratic agenda. We can win, for the simple fact that there are more of us than there are of them, but we have to be vocal about it — we need to join forces and present a united front, resisting peacefully, like the Canadian truckers.

This article was written by John Roulac and originally published here.

Until recently, most Americans had little trust in the FDA. But when COVID arrived in early 2020, a scared nation deepened in tribal identity and then turned its faith and trust over to FDA and CDC. Interestingly, during COVID, medical professionals' trust in the FDA and CDC plummeted. Let's explore how American perceptions of the FDA have changed and what this faith has delivered to our nation.

In 2008 I obtained a letter written by an FDA official, which was sent to a competitor of Nutiva (the organic foods brand I founded in 1999). It warned firms to remove any reference to 'non-GMO' on food labels. Virtually every natural food brand quickly changed their labels. As CEO of Nutiva I determined that the warning was not based on any FDA regulation, but was an illegal abuse of power by an FDA official serving the interests of the GMO industry.

We chose to ignore the letter, and luckily I never heard from the agency. This is just one of many examples of the FDA's suspect moves over the past decades.

The FDA has failed to regulate a toxic food system of dis-ease, inflammation, and the destruction of nature via harsh pesticides, leaving Americans with weakened immunity and vulnerability to pathogens. Tragically the U.S.A. has one of the highest COVID death rates in the world.

The FDA Has Been a Case Study of a Captured Agency

From the 1980's thru 2019, the FDA was not considered trustworthy by the American people and was often described as "corrupt, filled with cronyism, or a captured agency".

During the 1980s groundswell of the organic food movement, many Americans realized that Monsanto and the chemical industry's cozy relationship with the FDA was a major issue. Most liberals were not happy with FDA policies that became the target of many legal campaigns over the safety and efficacy of GMO foods, pesticides and drugs.

In 1990, the FDA set out to make dietary supplements prescription only. The industry unified and rallied to pass the DSHE Act, legalizing supplements as foods.

There has been a revolving door of chemical and pharma executives between the FDA and industry, as was the case in 2009 when ex-Monsanto executive Michael R. Taylor was hired as the FDA's food czar. Corn oil and corn syrup were given a pass, while eggs and beef were considered unhealthy.

Then came Scott Gottlieb MD, the former FDA Commissioner from 2017 to April 2019, where in June of 2019, he became a Director at Pfizer and Chair of their Regulatory and Compliance Committee.

In fact, as documented by the international news organization Quartz, "as of 2019, nine out of the last 10 FDA commissioners – representing nearly four decades of agency leadership – have gone on to work for pharmaceutical companies.

FDA approval of dangerous drugs such as Prozac and Vioxx has been standard operating procedure. Back in 2012, CBS' 60 Minutes exposed collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA on anti-depressants. The majority of FDA's drug budget is in fact funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

In 2013, a report published in the Journal of Law and Medicine summarized by Dr. Donald W. Light highlighted that 'about 90 percent of all new FDA approved drugs over the previous 30 years were found to be little or no more effective for patients than existing drugs', that 'the bar for "safe" was equally low, even when properly prescribed', and that '125K excess deaths occurred in the United States each year among people taking properly prescribed drugs to be healthier.'

A fall 2019 Gallup Poll ranked the pharmaceutical industry as the most poorly regarded industry in Americans' eyes. Americans were more than twice as likely to rate the pharmaceutical industry negatively (58%) as positively (27%).

In 2020, as fears of COVID swept the land, the constant drumbeat of fear, isolation, and extreme polarization helped cultivate a "collective trauma" for the American people. Humans are social animals shaped by cultural context.

The deepening of tribal identities, Trump zig-zagging at the helm of the pandemic response, and the presence of the QAnon conspiracy movement caused an even deeper distrust of anything associated with Trump, including the FDA. By October 2020, trust in the FDA was at an all-time low.

Shifting Tides

Ironically, this all changed when Joe Biden assumed office. Liberals and democrats flipped rapidly from FDA skeptics to FDA cheerleaders in a matter of months, the perverse logic seeming to be "We hate Trump and now we are on Team FDA-Pharma".

In May 2021, a Pew Research Poll found that the share of adults who are "basically content" with the federal government had risen to the highest point since 2004, driven by Democrats. In July 2021, an Annenberg Public Policy Center Poll found that 77% of Americans were confident that the FDA was providing trustworthy information about treating and preventing COVID-19.

Interestingly enough, at the exact same time that the general public's trust in the FDA and CDC was soaring, healthcare professionals' trust in the FDA and CDC was dramatically decreasing. A group of 20 + medical professionals spoke at a U.S. Senate Roundtable on January 24, 2022 (skip ahead to 51:28).

Perhaps the views of many of these healthcare professionals have not been able to reach the general public because MDs and nurses regularly face termination or threat of medical board decertification for publicly speaking of vaccine injuries, low cost effective treatment protocols, or on other matters that don't fit the current approved narratives.

The FDA Now Is Trustworthy, Credible and Authoritative … Really?

It appears the majority of left-leaning Americans believe that the FDA has their best interests at heart regarding COVID policies and are obeying them without question. As leading clinical MDs remind me, much of what Americans base their opinion on is often simply pharma marketing claims disguised as medical science.

In a world of corruption, brainwashing, and dishonesty, it's not easy to know whom to trust. It's a classic example of mass formation psychosis, where people adhere to groupthink in order to find meaning and resolution in uncertain times, no matter how irrational.

It's a stunning sociological study to see a mass population trusting leaders of companies with very low ethical standards. Just months ago, most would never agree to be injected with an experimental genetic drug therapy every six months based on FDA edicts. Upon shot five or six under threat of job loss or travel ban, and mounting vaccine injury reports, will more Americans resume asking good questions?

Repeat After Me …

Many Americans are repeating the FDA and the pharma sector's slogan of "Vaccines are Safe and Effective", almost like the pledge of allegiance to the flag, while ridiculing or ignoring other proven preventative and early treatment measures (as outlined in my recent article 'Pharma's Culture War').'

Thousands of practicing MDs along with the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) agree that having more tools in the toolkit is wise and that "Early Treatment of COVID is Safe and VERY Effective".

MDs and countries from around the world who focus on early treatment send very few patients to the hospitals, whereas countries with high vaccine rates such as the EU, UK, and the U.S.A. have some of the highest death rates in the world. Regions such as Africa and Northern India (until recently) had very low rates of vaccination and very low COVID cases and deaths.

Tokyo, Japan and Delhi, India's COVID cases in the latter half of 2021 were 175 to 2000 times less than London or NYC (see graphic and data below) and their COVID hospital beds were virtually empty. These regions often used early treatment protocols to reduce the spread.

Oddly many Americans cheering on the FDA have little awareness of why other countries are doing much better than the USA. Why is that not in the news? What is the connection of early treatment, inflammation, diet, toxic pesticides, soil health, gut biome and industrial agriculture?

Suppression of Safe and Effective Treatments

The FDA, media, and the pharma sector have ignored the overwhelming benefits of Vitamin D and lifestyle choices. An Israeli study offers the strongest proof yet of Vitamin D's power to fight COVID. "We found it striking, to see the difference in the chances of becoming a severe patient when you are lacking in Vitamin D compared to when you're not," said Dr. Amiel Dror, a Galilee Medical Center physician.

The U.S. media virtually never publishes positive articles on Vitamin D, which often appear in international media. Why has the FDA and the media not published statistical COVID hospitalization and death data on Vitamin D levels or on inflammation? Why have most Americans not bothered to pay attention to their Vitamin D levels?

Before COVID, the FDA never issued edicts preventing doctors from prescribing low cost and re-purposed medicines. 20% of all medicines prescribed in the U.S.A. today are generic repurposed, (e.g. a heart drug given to a cancer patient). Clinicians do this every day and no long term studies are required, since safety data is already established.

Fluvoxamine, !vermect!n, Nitazoxanide and Hydroxychloroquine are safe, commonly prescribed medicines and are part of the FLCCC COVID treatment protocols. According to Pierre Kory, MD "Since the summer of 2020, U.S. public health agencies have continually shut down the use of generic treatments.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded 20 large research studies of patented pharmaceutical industry drugs before only recently agreeing to study repurposed generic medicines."

The fact that doctors at the bedside are being fired or prevented from providing life saving vitamins and medicines is truly a black mark in America and has likely contributed to a significant number of unnecessary deaths. Instead they are told to use the highly toxic Remdesivir which can cause renal failure and hospitals are paid bonuses for treating COVID patients with this drug.

Censorship Is Now a Liberal Value?

Many liberals now want to cancel, restrict or censor their perceived 'tribal enemies'. Some scream about medical issues that they have little or no training in as if they are judge and jury, and maybe even represent science itself as Dr. Fauci has alluded to. Easily triggered, they often refuse to even listen to the world-renowned MDs and scientists that they are criticizing or read the published science themselves.

Recently, Joe Rogan's podcast came under fire, accused of promoting 'COVID misinformation', for hosting Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Robert Malone. Dr. Peter McCullough is the former Vice Chief of Internal Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and is one of the most published authors in his field with 600 citations in the National Library of Medicine.

Dr. Robert Malone is one of the principle inventors of mRNA vaccine technology. Both hold views on COVID treatment and COVID vaccines that fall outside the mainstream 'FDA-and-CDC-approved' narratives, though neither are anti-vaccine. Neil Young and Joni Mitchell jumped in (unsuccessfully) to help 'cancel' Joe's podcast as other artists followed with support from the woke mob (see: Not Your Cuppa Joe? Here's a Thought: Move ON).

It seems absurd, yet Americans and our media now tar and feather anyone who dare question the approved narratives. Wokeism is now becoming the tip of the spear for the pharma industrial complex to cancel those that fall out of line. Facebook is now even starting to 'fact check' regenerative agriculture posts that mention holistic grazing with climate benefits.

Dissent = Misinformation

Dissent, and even skepticism is now being dangerously characterized as "misinformation", while pharma marketing claims are now often labeled as "science". It's almost as if Orwell's 'newspeak' is coming to life in realtime.

And the latest news is even more Orwellian as the Biden Administration mentions 'misleading COVID narratives'. Disagree With Government Policy? Homeland Security Says You're a 'Terrorist' if You Speak Out.

To even question the "Vaccines are Safe and Effective" narrative means possible loss of work or family drama. The 'take the vaccine not for your health but to protect your mother' mantra was repeated ad nauseum, despite the fact that you can still get COVID, spread COVID, and die from COVID even if you are vaccinated.

What Does "Safe and Effective" Really Mean?

Mirriam Webster defines "safe" as: 1 : free from harm or risk: unhurt. Vaccine injuries are generally under-reported but the numbers related to the COVID vaccine are staggering and increasing rapidly. From altering menstrual cycles in women to heart disease in boys and men, and Guillain-Barre Syndrome, the expanding list goes on.

With the growing vaccine injury issues of the mRNA jabs, Israel (which currently has one of the highest COVID death rates in the world- despite 4 jab booster regime) recently ordered 5 million non-genetic, non mRNA 'old school' Novavax vaccines.

A report reviewing data in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, co-authored by Dr. McCullough and Dr. Jessica Rose, a virologist and epidemiologist in Canada, found that the relative risk for myocarditis is increased by 19-fold in age 12 to 15-year-old males following the second mRNA vaccination compared to background myocarditis rates for this age group.

Interestingly, the report was pulled without a clear reason or explanation one week before the CDC deadline to review vaccine safety data in children.

A recent preprint from Kaiser Permanente Northwest also concluded that 'the true incidence of myopericarditis is markedly higher than the incidence reported to US advisory committees' and that 'the VSD should validate its search algorithm to improve its sensitivity for myopericarditis.'

"Vaccine effectiveness" is another interesting term. Early epidemiological data is showing reduced rates of hospitalization and death in groups that are at higher-risk for developing severe COVID. However, there is now overwhelming evidence that the vaccines are not effective in preventing you from getting or transmitting COVID. Thus is this term 'safe and effective' based on sound science or should it have a qualifying statement to go along with it?

Weaponization of Vaccination Status

Mandates and vaccine passports based on experimental genetic vaccines (many of which were never officially approved by the FDA) are violations of the Geneva Convention, and arguably violations of the Nuremberg Code and human rights in general. One's right to a job or going to your favorite café is now dependent on draconian and ever-changing rules.

California governor Gavin Newsom's announcement of the lifting of indoor mask mandates only for those vaccinated, besides not being based on science, is divisive and antagonistic. Two shots were not enough and shortly three will be required to be a "member of society", and soon perhaps four, five or more. Do Americans still have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? 

Waking Up (From the Woke?)

It's truly strange times when your close friends or family would unwittingly rather have untold numbers of Americans die of a treatable disease (which must all be "misinformation"). However, a growing number of people are beginning to question the failed COVID policies.

Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands and the UK have all started to lift COVID restrictions. Remember when liberals used to suggest the U.S.A. should follow Scandinavian countries like Denmark?

Every day more people learn of the growing vaccine injuries or censorship of low cost repurposed medicines. Many are beginning to worry about the lack of transparency, misleading narratives, mandates and censorship, yet are afraid to say anything for fear of attacks on their reputation.

Regeneration

It's certainly fascinating to watch this unfold. Will public support fade for vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, school masking, and firing MDs for practicing medicine at the bedside? Will we gain the understanding of the linkage between soil health, pesticides, our gut biome health and regenerative agriculture (my 2021 article discusses this issue in more depth) as a key to boosting our personal and planet's health?

As we shift from this pandemic to endemic phase, let's make an extra effort to play more and nurture ourselves and our community. It's time. Let's regenerate.

When media start raising an issue all at the same time, it's usually a coordinated campaign directed by a PR company on the behalf of a client. There's a reason for it, and the reason is to sow a desired narrative in the minds of people. They plant ideas so that when something happens, people are already prepped with certain prejudices or assumptions.

So, what then might be the reason for everyone suddenly talking about AIDS? In December 2021, President Biden announced a White House plan to "end the HIV/AIDS epidemic by 2030."¹ The same exact vow had been announced by the British Health Security Agency a week earlier.²

Meanwhile, Prince Harry was out there urging everyone to get an HIV test, and Dutch researchers announced the discovery of a concerning HIV strain. All of this is happening at the same time that COVID is starting to fade out.

As noted by Off-Guardian,³ "just because they're giving slack on COVID does not mean the agenda behind COVID is gone. Far from it. In fact, even as they seek to dump this pandemic in a shallow grave, they are already prepping the public for the next health scare — AIDS."

Prince Harry Urges Everyone to Get Tested for HIV

In recent weeks, Prince Harry has been making the rounds urging people to get an HIV test. According to a February 10, 2022, report by the BBC,⁴ "the Duke of Sussex … wants to continue his mum's 'unfinished' work in removing the stigma around the virus."

Prince Harry has pointed out that during the last two years, HIV testing among heterosexual men and women in the U.K. has dropped by 33%, compared to just 7% lower testing rates among gays and bisexuals. At the same time, AIDS diagnoses among heterosexuals are outpacing those among gays for the first time in a decade.⁵

Similarly, a February 9, 2022, opinion piece by Ian Green, chief executive of the Terrence Higgins Trust (a British charity that provides HIV-related services), in The Guardian highlighted the need for a "new strategy" to combat HIV. "Continuing to solely target those traditionally most at risk won't work," he said. The answer, according to Green, is more widespread testing of all people, regardless of preconceived assumptions about risk.

New, More Infectious HIV Variant Discovered

While Prince Harry's fame is milked for all it's worth to get people to start thinking about getting HIV-tested, the discovery of a new HIV variant in The Netherlands has also been announced.⁶ Is that a coincidence?

According to researchers, this mutated HIV virus, dubbed the VB variant, is more infectious and causes more severe illness, twice as fast. As of early February 2022, there were 109 known cases of the VB variant in The Netherlands. Curiously, scientists said the variant had been circulating for decades. As reported by NPR, February 4, 2022:⁷

"They discovered a total of 109 people who had this particular variant and never knew it, dating all the way back to 1992. The variant probably emerged in the late '80s … picking up steam around 2000 and then eventually slowing down around 2010.

People with this variant have a viral load that is three to four times higher than usual for those with HIV. This characteristic means the virus progresses into serious illness twice as fast — and also makes it more contagious …

There's no need to develop special treatments for this variant … It shows no signs at all of resisting medications, as some HIV variants do. But because the variant moves quickly, people need to receive medicine as fast as possible."

Researchers said they also observed a large rise in viral load in individuals with this variant by a 3.5 to 5.5 point increase. What this means is that infected persons could develop AIDS faster without immediate treatment; which could explain the sudden call for mass testing, They wrote:⁸

"By the time they were diagnosed, these individuals were vulnerable to developing AIDS within 2 to 3 years … Without treatment, advanced HIV — CD4 cell counts below 350 cells per cubic millimeter, with long-term clinical consequences — is expected to be reached, on average, 9 months after diagnosis for individuals in their thirties with this variant."

Are We Looking at Vaccine-Induced AIDS?

To all of this we can also add the concern that the COVID jab may be causing AIDS-like illness by decimating immune function.⁹ This is not to imply the shot is causing HIV/AIDS.^10,11 Rather, a Lancet preprint¹² that compared outcomes among "vaccinated" and unvaccinated Swedes found that six months' post-jab, some of the more vulnerable vaccinated groups were at greater risk for symptomatic COVID than their unvaccinated peers.

Clearly, the jabs are making some people MORE prone to infection and serious disease rather than less so. According to a December 2021 article posted by the American Frontline Doctors:¹³

"Doctors are calling this phenomena in the repeatedly vaccinated 'immune erosion' or 'acquired immune deficiency,' accounting for elevated incidence of myocarditis and other post-vaccine illnesses that either affect them more rapidly, resulting in death, or more slowly, resulting in chronic illness."

In other words, they suspect myocarditis and other chronic health problems associated with the jabs could be the result of vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or "VAIDS," which is basically very similar to AIDS. The main difference is the initial trigger. In November 2021, the U.K. also reported a 50% increase in ICU admissions of patients with immune system problems in the preceding two months.¹⁴

America's Frontline Doctors warn the shots are creating "vaccine addicts," in the sense that their immune system won't be able to ward off COVID without them. However, it's still a losing venture, as each shot only worsens the immune erosion, making you ever more vulnerable to all kinds of infections — including HIV! As reported by Off-Guardian:¹⁵

"We have already seen a plethora of predictions of increases in strokes and heart attacks, all attributed to very much non-vaccine causes. Everything from increased energy prices to lockdown-related depression has been blamed. That certainly appears to be pre-emptive ass-covering behavior. And this 'new variant' of AIDS could be too.

If the COVID 'vaccines' cause millions of people to suddenly develop dysfunctional immune systems, or some kind of antibody-dependent enhancement a 'more dangerous new strain of AIDS' is a pretty good cover story, don't you think? …

In October 2020 one group of researchers, quoted in Forbes, warned that any potential COVID 'vaccine' could increase your risk of being infected with HIV.

One of the few abandoned COVID vaccine candidates, from the University of Queensland, actually used a protein from HIV as a 'molecular clamp' to bind their artificial spike proteins together, the researchers claimed. This potential 'vaccine' was apparently discarded after test subjects returned 'false positives' on HIV tests.¹⁶"

What's the PR Campaign Trying to Hide?

We're looking at several big puzzle pieces here:

1. Prince Harry and others reminding everyone about the importance to get tested for HIV
2. U.K. and U.S. governments simultaneously promising to eradicate AIDS by 2030
3. The discovery of a new, more infectious and dangerous HIV strain
4. Emerging data suggesting the COVID jabs erode your immune function
5. The theoretical possibility that the COVID jab might raise people's risk of HIV infection, thus possibly triggering an avalanche of AIDS cases in the near future

Could the focus on HIV testing, especially in combination with the warning of a new HIV strain, be an effort to hide the fact that the COVID jabs are destroying people's immune function, and possibly promoting HIV infection?

Perhaps. But there's also another possibility. The same week as Prince Harry's media appearance and the publication of the new HIV strain, Moderna also announced its launch of a human trial for the world's first mRNA HIV vaccine. The timing of all of these reports strongly indicate that this is a coordinated PR plan.

Human Trial for mRNA HIV Vaccine Is Underway

As reported by Bloomberg:¹⁷

"Like Moderna's COVID vaccine, the shot uses mRNA technology to deliver the instructions for key proteins needed to build an immune response … Researchers have spent decades working out a possible way to inoculate people against HIV, and mRNA will make it possible to test the theory much faster than expected.

This work should help companies including Pfizer, BioNTech and Sanofi, all accelerating their own efforts to design and test mRNA vaccines, to understand when the technology can — and can't — make a difference in disease prevention …

Creating an mRNA vaccine for HIV is trickier than making the kind of SARS-CoV-2 shots we've become familiar with. The mRNA COVID vaccines deliver the recipe for the spike protein … This causes immune cells to produce neutralizing antibodies against COVID, much as they would do if they had experienced a COVID infection.

With HIV, there's no such simple recipe. HIV's equivalent to the spike protein — its envelope glycoprotein — is wilier. It hides its vulnerable aspects, making it difficult for immune cells to generate antibodies against it. An even bigger problem is that HIV starts to mutate within hours of infecting someone …

HIV behaves like 'a swarm of slightly different viruses' … People with HIV rarely develop neutralizing antibodies, and in the very few who do, the antibodies take years to evolve — far too long for them to effectively fight the virus. The immune system can't keep up.

But what if the immune system could be given a head start? That's the idea behind the Moderna/IAVI vaccine … The researchers will administer a series of shots to try to coax the immune system along that years-long process ahead of time so that when it is exposed to HIV, it can spring into action."

Hiding Injuries or Manufacturing Need for Vaccine, or Both?

So, to recap, the media's focus on AIDS testing and the emergence of a more infectious strain of HIV may well be a coordinated effort to both:

If true, just think how sick that is. A widely-pushed mRNA injection for one pandemic causes a second pandemic that is worse than the first, allowing them to roll out a second mRNA "vaccine." That second injection then erodes immune function even more, giving rise to a third epidemic and another injection. Where does it end? This plan has failure written all over it.

When I first learned of the mRNA COVID jab, it immediately struck me as a bad idea. There were several blatantly obvious mechanisms by which they might cause harm. Today, those concerns are borne out in injury and death statistics. The possibility for things to go wrong with an mRNA HIV vaccine is also assured, if you ask me. As reported by Bloomberg, the entire premise behind it is speculative.

The Moderna HIV vaccine will target a certain subset of B-cells known to loosely bind to HIV. The idea is that by prodding these B-cells with mRNA instructions, delivered through a series of shots, they might develop the capacity to produce neutralizing antibodies against HIV.

My fear here is that if the COVID shot can cause immune depletion after repeated doses, what kind of dysfunction might a series of HIV shots trigger? Endless COVID-19 booster shots are being presented as the solution to the pandemic, as repeated injections increase the level of antibodies in your body,¹⁸ but artificially inflated antibodies caused by repeated booster shots signal to your body that you're always infected.

The resulting immune response may actually do more harm than good, and may accelerate the development of autoimmune conditions such as Parkinson's, Kawasaki disease and multiple sclerosis, for example.¹⁹ Will an HIV vaccine based on a similar process be any safer? I doubt it.

The Fauci Connection

As noted by James Corbett in the video at the top of this article, there's another interesting parallel between COVID and AIDS, namely Dr. Anthony Fauci himself. He was in charge of both of these epidemics, and without doubt — unless our justice system wakes up before then — he'll be in charge of the coming AIDS campaign as well.

The parallels between Fauci's AIDS campaign in the '80s and COVID are so strikingly similar, it's almost like a handbook that's being repeated, Corbett says. In the '80s, Fauci pushed the deadly drug AZT as the only permissible way to treat AIDS. During the COVID pandemic, Fauci's failed and lethal Ebola drug remdesivir got the greenlight at the expense of far safer treatment alternatives.

Fauci is also a connecting link between the COVID shots and the HIV jab, as he's been eagerly pushing for a transition from conventional vaccines to this new mRNA platform. As recently as October 2019, he participated in a panel discussion about how this transition might be achieved in light of regulatory hurdles and public distrust of gene transfer technologies.²⁰

Fauci acknowledged it would indeed be very difficult to change people's perception about vaccines (in this particular case he was referring to the flu vaccine). His advice? "Do it from within and say, 'I don't care what your perception is, we're going to address the problem.'"

Not only does Fauci not care about public perception, he doesn't care who he hurts either. He didn't care about AIDS patients in the '80s, and he doesn't care about COVID patients today. If he did, he'd insist on doctors using whatever works, and not just the products that he's personally vested in.

HIV Discoverer Dies

An odd coincidence in the middle of all this is the unexpected death of Dr. Luc Montagnier, who together with Harald zur Hausen and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi in 2008 won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).²¹

Montagnier, who was 89 years old, died February 8, 2022, at the American Hospital of Paris in Neuilly-sur-Seine. No specifics about the cause of death have been released.²² Montagnier was an outspoken critic of the COVID jab from the start. He also suspected SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered, as the spike protein shared similarities with HIV.²³

Is the AIDS Hype a Real Threat?

So, does the emerging AIDS hype reflect a real threat? Is it just an attempt to keep the population in fear? Or are they simply trying to cover up COVID jab effects? If it's a cover-up, was HIV infection an accidental consequence or an intentional effect of the jab?

Might the new HIV variant actually be the result of mass COVID injection? After all, the timing of this "super strain" of HIV is interesting, to say the least. Why did it take 40 years for it to emerge?

Will HIV testing now be pushed the way COVID testing has been, and if so, why? As noted by Off-Guardian,²⁴ for all we know, AIDS screening may simply be another way of monitoring this massive health experiment. For now, we have far more questions than answers, but if we keep asking them, eventually we're bound to unearth the truth.

Business is booming at funeral homes across the U.S., as death rates creep up, particularly among young, working-age individuals.¹ Ex-Blackrock fund manager Ed Dowd has been analyzing data about mortality rates before and after COVID-19 shots became widespread, and found that death rates worsened in 2021 — after the shots became prevalent — compared to 2020.

As reported by Zero Hedge, Dowd pointed out "a spike in mortality among younger, working-age individuals coincided with vaccine mandates. The spike in younger deaths peaked in Q3 2021 when COVID deaths were extremely low (but rising into the end of September)."²

Dowd also reported data from public funeral home company Carriage Services, which announced a 28% increase in September 2021 compared to September 2020, while August had a 13% increase. He tweeted:^3,4

"Business has been quite good since the introduction of the vaccines & the stock was up 106% in 2021. Curious no? Guys this is shocking as 89% of Funeral homes are private in US. We are seeing the tip of the iceberg."

Life Insurance Payouts on the Rise

Insurance companies are also seeing increases in payouts for death and disability. Dowd tweeted February 1, 2022, that financial insurance company Unum reported a 9% increase in their benefit ratio (payouts versus premiums) in their life segment.⁵ Dowd tweeted:⁶

"In 2021 they saw a 17.4% increase vs 2020. This is higher than the 13.3% increase vs 2019. So the higher payouts in 21 are occurring with a miracle vaccine & less virulent strains … In 2019 the unit had $266 million profit, last year a profit of $82 million & this year a loss of -$192 million. A swing of $458 million lower over 2 years. Important to remember these are employed working age folks."

Scott Davison, the CEO of Indiana-based insurance company OneAmerica, also reported disturbing statistics — the death rate for 18- to 64-year-olds has risen 40% compared to before the pandemic.⁷

"We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica," Davison said, adding, "Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic. So 40% is just unheard of." Further, most of the deaths are not due to COVID-19. He said:⁸

"What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers."

Disability Claims and Hospital Death Rates Rise

Disability claims, initially short-term claims and now long-term claims, have also seen an "uptick." At a news conference where Davison spoke, Brian Tabor, president of the Indiana Hospital Association, confirmed that hospitals are also seeing widespread ill health and rising death rates. Zero Hedge reported:⁹

"Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, said that hospitals across the state are being flooded with patients 'with many different conditions,' saying 'unfortunately, the average Hoosiers' health has declined during the pandemic.'

In a follow-up call, he said he did not have a breakdown showing why so many people in the state are being hospitalized — for what conditions or ailments. But he said the extraordinarily high death rate quoted by Davison matched what hospitals in the state are seeing. 'What it confirmed for me is it bore out what we're seeing on the front end …' he said."

Other insurance companies citing higher mortality rates include Hartford Insurance Group, which announced mortality increased 32% from 2019 and 20% from 2020 prior to the shots. Lincoln National also stated death claims have increased 13.7% year over year and 54% in quarter 4 compared to 2019.¹⁰ Dowd tweeted:¹¹

"Randy Frietag CFO just explained that in 2021 the share of young people dying from covid doubled in the back half of the year & that's driven the result for Lincoln & its peers. He cited 40% in 3Q and 35% in 4Q were below the age of 65 … Mandates are killing folks … This shouldn't be happening with miracle vaccines in a working age population period and a mild Omicron."

As ZeroHedge noted, what we need to know from the insurance companies is what the leading causes of death were for 2020 and 2021, as well as how many received COVID-19 shots among those who died.

It continued, "Reinsurance Group of America, for example, reported a profit in Q4 2020 when the most of the population was unvaccinated and amid a deadlier strain of Covid-19, yet they registered a loss in Q4 2021 with more than 60% of the country fully vaccinated (and around 75% who have received at least one dose)."¹²

In other words, they paid out more in death and disability benefits in late 2021, after the shots became widespread, then they did at the peak of the pandemic, when no shots (or only a small number) had been issued.

Deaths Keep Rising Despite Mass Injection Campaign

Around the globe, it's become clear that excess deaths continue to explode, despite the mass injection campaign that was supposed to save us. In the week ending November 12, 2021, the U.K. reported 2,047 more deaths than occurred during the same period between 2015 and 2019.

However, COVID-19 cannot be entirely to blame, as it was listed on the death certificates for only 1,197 people.¹³ Further, since July, non-COVID deaths in the U.K. have been higher than the weekly average in the five years prior to the pandemic.

Heart disease and strokes appear to be behind many of the excess deaths, with Financial Times reporting, "The new phase of excess deaths raises the possibility that since the summer more people have been losing their lives as a result of strains on the NHS or lack of early diagnosis of serious illness …"¹⁴

On Twitter, Silicon Valley software engineer Ben M. (@USMortality) similarly revealed that in a 13-week period alone, about 107,700 seniors died above the normal rate, despite a 98.7% vaccination rate.¹⁵ In another example, he used data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, census.gov and his own calculations to show excess deaths rising in Vermont even as the majority of adults have been injected.

"Vermont had 71% of their entire population vaccinated by June 1, 2021," he tweeted. "That's 83% of their adult population, yet they are seeing the most excess deaths now since the pandemic!"¹⁶

An investigation by The Exposé, using official data from NHS and the U.K.'s Office for National Statistics (ONS), also found that deaths among teenagers increased 47% since they started getting COVID-19 shots.¹⁷ Not only that, but deaths from COVID-19 also went up among 15- to 19-year-olds after the shots were rolled out for this age group.

COVID-19 Shots Causing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

A study by board-certified internist and cardiologist, and editor of two medical journals, Dr. Peter McCullough and colleagues suggests people who've received COVID-19 shots may have damage to their innate immune system that's leading to a form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.¹⁸

The mRNA COVID-19 shots use genetically modified mRNA encoding spike proteins. This results in mRNA being hidden from cellular defenses, "promote[s] a longer biological half-life for the proteins, and provoke[s] higher overall spike protein production," the study suggests.¹⁹

The researchers state that experimental and observational evidence show that the human immune response to COVID-19 shots is very different than the response induced by exposure to SARS-CoV-2:²⁰

"[T]he genetic modifications introduced by the vaccine are likely the source of these differential responses. In this paper, we present the evidence that vaccination, unlike natural infection, induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health.

We explain the mechanism by which immune cells release into the circulation large quantities of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites.

We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances are shown to have a potentially direct causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell's palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, increased tumorigenesis, and DNA damage."

The study includes evidence from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to support its hypothesis. While health officials refuse to acknowledge that COVID-19 shots have caused deaths, clinically trained reviewers analyzed a sample of COVID-19 vaccine deaths reported in VAERS and found that only 14% of them were certainly not due to the vaccine.²¹

This means that the remaining 86% may have been related to the shots. Further, while it's often stated that VAERS reports are made by laypeople, and therefore suggested to be unreliable, the review found that at least 67% of the COVID-19 vaccine death reports they analyzed were made by health service employees.²²

Overall, McCullough and colleagues warn that COVID-19 shots subvert innate immunity, which could reduce the ability to combat future infections. Further, once damaged by the shots, the immune system may be less able to detect and prevent malignant transformation within cells.

They also suggest that exposure to spike protein-containing exosomes and mRNAs may induce an inflammatory cascade that further leads to disease. In concluding that COVID-19 shots are not positive contributors to public health, the study notes:²³

"In the end, we are not exaggerating to say that billions of lives are at stake. We call on the public health institutions to demonstrate, with evidence, why the issues discussed in this paper are not relevant to public health, or to acknowledge that they are and to act accordingly.

Until our public health institutions do what is right in this regard, we encourage all individuals to make their own health care decisions with this information as a contributing factor in those decisions."

Can You Lessen the Potential Damage?

Those considering COVID-19 shots must carefully weigh the evidence of risks before making a decision. But if you've already been injected and want to reduce your risk of any potential complications, there are a few basic strategies I recommend:

• Measure your vitamin D level and take enough vitamin D orally (typically about 8,000 units/day for most adults) and/or get sensible sun exposure to make sure your level is 60 to 80 ng/ml (150 to 2000 nmol/l).
• Eliminate all vegetable (seed) oils in your diet, which involves eliminating nearly all processed foods and most meals in restaurants unless you can be sure the chef is cooking only with butter. Avoid any sauces or salad dressings in restaurants, as they are loaded with seed oils. Also avoid chicken and pork, as they are rich in linoleic acid, the omega-6 fat that nearly everyone consumes far too much of and contributes to oxidative stress.
• Consider taking around 500 milligrams a day of NAC, as it helps prevent blood clots and is a precursor for your body to produce the important antioxidant glutathione.
• Consider taking fibrinolytic enzymes, which digest the fibrin that leads to blood clots, strokes and pulmonary embolisms. The dose is typically two, twice a day, but must be taken on an empty stomach, either an hour before or two hours after a meal. Otherwise, the enzymes will digest your food and not the fibrin in the blood clot.

With every passing day, the list of people suffering tragic consequences from the COVID mRNA shots grows longer. Data¹ show 23,149 people have died after a COVID jab as of January 28, 2022. There also are 13,575 reports of people with Bell's palsy, 41,163 who are permanently disabled, 31,185 with myocarditis, 11,765 who have had heart attacks and 3,903 women who have lost their babies after getting the shots.

Many of these people and their stories have remained hidden from public view. YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and other social media platforms have censored the personal stories and videos of individuals documenting their injuries and permanent disabilities, so those who only read mainstream media are unaware of the overwhelming damage being done in the name of science.

However, there is a population of people whose injuries and death have been made public. In the past six months, a slew of professional and amateur athletes have collapsed and died on the field. Yet, mainstream media appear to take this in stride, acting as if what is happening is completely normal.

But, as described by Matt Le Tissier in the first seconds of the video above, this is far from normal. Le Tissier was a soccer legend² (a sport called football in the U.K.). His prowess on the field earned him the nickname "Le God"³ before leaving the sport to become a sports commentator, most recently with Sky Sports.

As he describes in the interview, he lost that job for speaking out and bringing attention to the large number of unexplained sudden cardiac deaths happening to professional and amateur athletes around the world.

Athletes Are Dying on the Field in Large Numbers

Red Voice Media asks in a headline, "400 Athletes Collapsing & Dying Just in the Last 6 Months?"⁴ then mentions "small stories coming out about perfectly healthy athletes mysteriously dying." During the interview, Le Tissier is asked about his thoughts on the surge of cardiac events in the sporting world, to which he responds:⁵

"I've never seen anything like it. I played for 17 years. I don't think I saw one person in 17 years have to come off the football pitch with breathing difficulties, clutching their heart, heart problems …

The last year, it's just been unbelievable how many people, not just footballers but sports people in general, tennis players, cricketers, basketball players, just how many are just keeling over. And at some point, surely you have to say this isn't right, this needs to be investigated."

Le Tissier acknowledges there may be other factors that have caused this massive rise in cardiac events in athletes. He mentions that the athletes may have had COVID, and this could be a consequence of the illness, or it could be the vaccine. But the point he makes is that it should be investigated and it's not.

This may cause you to wonder why health experts are not placing blame on the infection, but are in fact ignoring the issue completely. It begs the question: Do they already know the answer?

Le Tissier goes on to talk about player safety and how the sport protects the players from playing too long or too many games, yet they are watching players collapse on the field and apparently are content acting as if this is normal. He calls it a "massive dereliction of duty" that no one in a position of power is calling for an investigation.⁶

"It's absolutely disgusting that they can sit there and do nothing about the increase in the amount of sports people who are collapsing on the field of play. And it's not just what I've noticed this season as well. Again, in my career, I don't remember a single game being halted because of an emergency in the crowd, a medical emergency in the crowd …

I would like somebody to look into that and go well, hang on a minute, can we go back for the last 15 or 20 years and … have a look and see how many times it happened 10 years ago and then how many times it happened in the last year. I've been watching a lot of sports and a lot of reports on football, and I've never seen anything like it, the amount of games that have been interrupted because of emergencies in the crowd."

The interviewer pointed out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, to which Le Tissier agreed, but stressed that an investigation is required to find out if it does. "To my naked eye, this is happening a lot more than it has in the past. I can't be the only one who is seeing this."⁷

Who Are These Athletes?

While an overwhelming number of professional and amateur athletes have collapsed on the field, they are not just numbers. They all have a high probability of having one thing in common — they took the COVID shot. This four-minute video features a compilation of athletes who "suddenly" collapsed within a six-month period.

Kyle Warner is one of those athletes.⁸ He's 29 years old and at the peak of his career as a professional mountain bike racer. After getting a second dose of Pfizer's mRNA jab in June 2021, he suffered a reaction so severe that by October he was still spending many of his days in bed.

In an effort to get the word out that COVID-19 shots are not always as safe as you have been led to believe, Warner shared his experience with retired nurse educator John Campbell in November 2021. Warner, in his 20s and in peak physical condition, was still severely harmed by the shot.

"I believe where there is risk, there needs to be choice," he says.⁹ But right now, people are being misled. "People are being coerced into making a decision based on lack of information versus being convinced of a decision based on total information transparency."¹⁰

Warner's story is not unlike many others': As Campbell learned in this interview, many doctors are unwilling to acknowledge that the COVID-19 shots might be related to patients' injury complaints. While health officials have begun to acknowledge that myocarditis may be related to the injections, they continue to ignore other adverse events.

Vaccine Injured Unlikely to Get Help

Fact-checkers are quick to negate the possibility that an overwhelming number of deaths and injuries in professional and amateur athletes is not related to the COVID shots,¹¹ but embalmers are telling¹² a different story.

Funeral director Richard Hirschman has been a professional, board-certified embalmer since 2004 and currently travels to several funeral homes to embalm bodies. He appeared on the "Dr. Jane Ruby" show to share some shocking findings he's been seeing in his work the past few months.¹³

In mid-2021, he began noticing some individuals who died of heart attacks and strokes had strange clots in their veins and arteries. He showed images of fibrous-looking clots he'd pulled out of the patients' bodies, some of which are the length of a person's leg, and explained that normal clots usually fall apart when handled. These fibrous clots — which he said he's seeing more and more of — maintain their integrity and can be manipulated without disintegrating.

Unfortunately, whether they die or not, when it comes to getting help for someone who believes they're injured by the COVID shots, it's unlikely that they get it without intensive efforts. One reason is because, while people are increasingly calling for support for the vaccine-injured, the only way to get recompense is through the obscure Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).¹⁴

To give a little background, injury claims for regular vaccines go through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).

Initially set up as a "no-fault" system to resolve injury claims, this U.S. law ultimately protects drug companies with a complete liability shield, and if you win through this vaccine "court," payouts come from a special fund set up just for that purpose, sparing vaccine makers, their insurance companies and vaccine providers from costly payouts for vaccine injuries and deaths.¹⁵

However, if you believe you've been injured by a COVID shot, and you want compensation for it, you have to go through a different vaccine "court" run by what Fortune describes as an "obscure office within the U.S. Health and Human Services Department." And, this system not only protects manufacturers and health care providers from liability, but has hoops to jump through and limits to it that make compensation much more difficult than going through the NVICP.

The bottom line is, even if you can prove you were injured by a COVID shot, you can't sue the drug company and the compensation you receive from the program is capped at $50,000 for lost wages and $370,376 for wrongful death.¹⁶

Officials Try to Discredit VAERS

The law that protects Big Pharma from regular vaccine injury claims is the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.¹⁷ The CICP claim process for COVID shots is conducted under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, passed in 2005,¹⁸ which authorizes the government to take countermeasures against a public health emergency. The latest declaration under this Act was issued March 17, 2020, that provided:¹⁹

"… liability immunity to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving "willful misconduct" as defined in the PREP Act."

In other words, unless willful misconduct can be proven, any person covered by the act also has indemnity against claims from citizens. This is not limited to manufacturers and Big Pharma, but can also include government officials. The thing is, both claims systems are actually at the tail end of the process and don't reflect all the possible injuries that might be occurring.

So how can you tell how many actual injuries may be occurring with a certain vaccine? That's where another system kicks in: the National Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).²⁰ As I'll explain later, anyone can make a report to VAERS, and it's this key component that critics use to claim that VAERS can contain errors and even false claims.

While the system has a mechanism to help weed out false reports, top government officials, such as NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci and CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, have attempted to discredit it. Most notably, this occurred during a Senate hearing when both individuals implied that if a person had been vaccinated and was then killed in a car accident, it's possible it could be recorded in VAERS as a vaccine injury.²¹

It is important to note that the VAERS system is coadministered by the CDC and the FDA.²² However, as David Martin, whose self-described work involves ethical engagement and stewardship of community and commons-based value interests,²³ points out in an interview excerpt posted on Twitter:^24,25

"The fact is, that as much as the CDC and the FDA try to hide behind what they reportedly say is an error in the VAERS database, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, what they don't seem to realize is that by saying that there are errors they are violating the 1986 Act …

If you go back and read that [the ACT] what you'll find is that manufacturers of vaccines are required to keep VAERS accurate. That's actually a statutory requirement. So, if they are telling you that it is not accurate, they are admitting to violating the law."

By law, VAERS²⁶ is a mandatory reporting system for health care professionals. The system is not set up to analyze causation, but may be used as raw data for detecting unexpected adverse events that may indicate a safety signal.

In total, the system must be maintained by health care professionals and drug manufacturers as a statutory requirement for maintaining indemnity against vaccine injury. Martin points out:²⁷

"And that's the quid pro quo in getting the immunity. If VAERS is wrong, then the immunity is pierced because it's the manufacturer's legal responsibility to make sure VAERS is accurate."

VAERS Is Overwhelmed With Reports

Anyone can make a report to VAERS — both patients and health professionals can use this system to report health concerns they suspect may be connected to any vaccine, including the COVID shots. But since the system is passive, whether the reports get filed depends entirely on each individual living up to that responsibility.

The reports must contain all hospital records and any other relevant medical information. Unfortunately, as Brittany Galvin, a young woman who says she was injured by a COVID shot, succinctly notes in a video,²⁸ the system is not efficient, and the data may be woefully out of date. This has a significant impact on monitoring the effects of the COVID inoculation program since it's possible what you see on any given day in the VAERS database isn't anywhere near current.

Galvin has created several videos talking about the journey she's been on trying to report her adverse events to VAERS. In a video posted in January 2022,²⁹ she recorded her phone conversation with an investigator from VAERS to discuss why her report filed in late May 2021 had not yet been counted in the system.

In one conversation she learned that the process takes many steps through different departments. The first stop for the VAERS reports is in a department with only 50 employees.³⁰ Once the package of information is completed by this department, it is sent to a team of nurses who read and review every page.

If the staff have any concerns or if they feel they need more information, the package will be sent back to the first department for further information gathering.³¹ Galvin expressed her concern that there were hundreds of thousands of people like her and just 50 VAERS employees trying to process these reports.³²

"Meanwhile the whole government is trying to force everyone to get this thing. Lying to the people telling them that "no one has gotten GBS from it" but here I sit barely able to walk and my case isn't going to be 'technically' reported because the CDC hasn't investigated yet because the hospitals are dragging their feet … it's like a revolving crazy door and all of us humans on this planet and in this country are being lied to, and it's unfair."

At the end of the conversation with the investigator, Galvin learned that while her report was filed in May 2021, it wasn't assigned to someone at VAERS until September or November 2021.³³ It could be many months before the CDC receives the report of her vaccine injuries that can be published.³⁴

Something truly unthinkable is happening in America's hospitals. Around the country, COVID-19 patients are being killed by inappropriate medical protocols, and they have no say-so in the treatment they receive. They've literally been stripped of their patient rights.

They're refused basic drugs like antibiotics and steroids. They're even denied basic nutrition and fluids, which amounts to a war crime under Rules 53¹ and 118² of the Geneva Convention, which state you may not starve a person and you must provide basic necessities even to prisoners.

Instead, COVID patients are over-treated with dangerous and ineffective therapies like remdesivir, narcotics and mechanical ventilation, a combination that more often than not results in death. Many doctors who understand the importance of early and appropriate treatment are perplexed and horrified by what they're seeing, and for good reason. It's truly beyond comprehension at this point.

A Case of Medical Kidnapping for COVID Bounty?

This article was previously published August 1, 2018, and has been updated with new information.

According to the American Cancer Society (ACS),¹ liver cancer affects an estimated 41,260 Americans each year, and prevalence is rising.² Between 2000 and 2016, the annual death toll from liver cancer rose by 43% for men and 40% for women,³ killing more than 11,000 people in 2016.⁴

In January 2022, the ACS estimates that 30,520 people will die from liver cancer in this year alone, adding, "Liver cancer incidence rates have more than tripled since 1980, while the death rates have more than doubled during this time."

The five-year survival rate for localized liver cancer is 34 percent,⁵ while regional cancer that has spread to other organs and distant liver cancer have survival rates of just 12 percent and 3 percent respectively.

Globally, the liver cancer hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer death⁶ due to the high prevalence and difficulty of treatment. Researchers warn that by 2030, the global rate of liver cancer will double, affecting upward of 1.2 million.⁷

Other liver-related diseases such as cirrhosis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)⁸ are also becoming more prevalent. Between 2001 and 2013, the number of diagnosed cirrhosis cases nearly doubled,⁹ and deaths from cirrhosis increased by 65 percent between 1999 and 2016.¹⁰ The greatest increase (10.5 percent) was among those between the ages of 25 and 34, where alcoholic cirrhosis has become rampant.^11,12

As a precursor for cancer, cirrhosis causes more than 1 million deaths a year worldwide,¹³ with the incidence of NASH more than doubling from 1990 to 2017.

Excess Alcohol Consumption Drives Risk of Liver Damage

According to researchers, the rise in cirrhosis mortality is entirely driven by excess alcohol consumption by young adults. While, historically, alcohol-related liver cirrhosis has been regarded as a condition that develops after two or three decades of heavy drinking, these newer statistics reveal it doesn't have to take that long at all, as it's now occurring in (and killing) 20- and 30-year-olds.

In the 25 to 34 age group, death from alcohol-related liver disease nearly tripled between 1999 and 2016. This increase parallels statistics¹⁴ showing a rise in binge drinking between 2002 and 2012. It also correlates with the global financial crisis in 2008, after which more people began dying from cirrhosis. Researchers believe financial worries and unemployment may be significant contributing factors, causing more people to drink more heavily.

Cirrhosis (irreversible scarring of your liver) can also be caused by obesity, NAFLD and hepatitis, and can in turn lead to fatal liver failure and/or liver cancer. Men are particularly at risk, in large part because they're five times more likely to develop NAFLD than women.

Lifestyle factors such as diet, exercise, weight, smoking and alcohol consumption also play important roles in exacerbating (as well as reducing) your chances of developing some form of liver disease.

People at increased risk also include those who have an autoimmune disease, chronic liver inflammation and those whose livers have been damaged due to bouts of hepatitis B or C. The good news is that alcohol-related liver cirrhosis can be reversed if caught early enough — and provided you quit drinking.

Excess Sugar Consumption Drives Rising NAFLD Rates

While alcohol-related cirrhosis is driving up mortality rates, rising prevalence of NAFLD is contributing to the overall burden of liver-related diseases. In the case of NAFLD, the fatty liver occurs in the absence of significant alcohol consumption, and is driven instead by excess sugar, which is why this condition is now found even in young children.

NAFLD often has no symptoms, although it may cause fatigue, jaundice, swelling in the legs and abdomen, mental confusion and more. If left untreated, it can cause your liver to swell, called nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and can lead to liver cancer or liver failure. As with alcohol-related cirrhosis, however, NAFLD can be reversed in its early stages by healthy eating and exercising.

Most importantly, you need to eliminate processed fructose and other added sugars from your diet. Fructose actually affects your liver in ways that are very similar to alcohol. Unlike glucose, which can be used by virtually every cell in your body, fructose can only be metabolized by your liver, as your liver is the only organ that has the transporter for it.

Since all fructose gets shuttled to your liver, if you consume high amounts of it, fructose ends up taxing and damaging your liver in the same way alcohol and other toxins do. The way your liver metabolizes fructose is also very similar to that of alcohol,¹⁵ as both serve as substrates for converting carbohydrates into fat, which promotes insulin resistance, dyslipidemia (abnormal fat levels in the bloodstream) and fatty liver.

Fructose also undergoes the Maillard reaction with proteins, leading to the formation of superoxide free radicals that can result in liver inflammation similar to acetaldehyde, an intermediary metabolite of ethanol. According to Dr. Robert Lustig, a neuroendocrinologist in the division of endocrinology at the University of California, fructose is a "chronic, dose-dependent liver toxin."

Excess Glucose Converts to Fructose and Decimates Your NAD+

A few years ago I read an excellent review¹⁶ on NAD that helped me understand the basic biochemistry far better, and it makes perfect sense. I learned that excess fructose in processed foods isn't the only problem, as excess glucose is ultimately converted to fructose by your body in an effort to metabolize glucose for energy. Let me explain it to you.

When your body is exposed to chronic glucose excess, the first enzyme in breaking down glucose is hexokinase, and this enzyme becomes saturated and can't break down any more glucose. Once this occurs, glucose will then be metabolized through the polyol pathway, in which glucose is metabolized to sorbitol by aldose reductase, and sorbitol is subsequently metabolized to fructose by sorbitol dehydrogenase (see figure below).

It is estimated when you are healthy, only about 3% of glucose goes through the pathway below, but at least 30 percent of glucose flows through this pathway in chronic hyperglycemia,¹⁷ creating a vicious cycle of excess fructose.

This metabolic catastrophe is the net redox result of the trading of one molecule of NADPH for one molecule of NADH. This is precisely what you don't want to happen, as NADPH is used as a reductive reservoir for your antioxidants and is necessary to make your steroid hormones and fats. When you have low levels you are in deep trouble.

Complicating it further, you increase NADH and worsen your NAD+/NADH ratio. As fuel supply outstrips metabolic demand, mitochondrial and cytoplasmic NAD/NADH ratios fall. The ensuing mitochondrial membrane hyperpolarization perpetuates electron leakage and excessive oxidative stress.

Fortunately, the good news is that there is a simple inexpensive solution that should radically improve this metabolic catastrophe. The first, of course, is to clean up your diet as we have previously discussed many times, so your body can burn fat for fuel. But you can also take NAD precursors like simple nontimed-release niacin.

That should help increase the NAD+/NADH ratio and NADPH levels. As noted in one recent paper,¹⁸ "Oral administration of nicotinamide riboside, a natural NAD+ precursor, completely corrected these NAFLD phenotypes induced by NAD+ deficiency."

I would start non-timed release niacin at 25 to 50 milligrams a few times a day, as any dose higher will likely cause a harmless but relatively annoying flushing sensation. It would also be helpful to reduce your exposure to electromagnetic fields, as that also consumes NAD+ through PARP hyperactivation and will worsen the metabolic condition.

Low-Level Chemical Exposures Linked to Liver Damage

While there's no data on this, it's possible that alcohol-induced cirrhosis is now occurring sooner as a result of liver damage caused by chemical exposures. Researchers have shown that even small amounts of chemicals from food, pharmaceuticals and personal care products can in fact cause liver damage.

One such experiment¹⁹ was designed to evaluate the effects of chemical combinations at low doses from environmental sources such as food, pharmaceuticals and personal care products.²⁰

Using four groups of Sprague-Dawley rats, the researchers administered a mix of chemicals found in everyday products in their drinking water at varying doses for a period of six months. The control group received chemical-free water.

Of the three treatment groups, the low-dose group received 25% of the European Union (EU) acceptable daily intake for the chemicals in question, the medium-dose group received exactly the acceptable daily intake defined by the EU, while the high-dose group received five times the acceptable daily intake.²¹

After six months, body weight and biochemistry markers were evaluated, revealing the animals' weight increased more than 10% in all male groups, compared to controls.²² Modest increases were found in females given medium and high doses of the chemicals.

They also discovered adverse liver effects — especially at the low-dose level and primarily in the males. Overall, the results suggest exposure to low doses may induce liver damage as a result of the combination of different toxic mechanisms, and support previous research showing that chemical cocktails, even at low levels,²³ can damage liver function²⁴ and trigger cancer.²⁵

Roundup Damages Liver at Ultralow Doses

Roundup, the most heavily-used weed killer in the world, has also been linked to liver damage. Disturbingly, urine levels of glyphosate have skyrocketed in the past couple of decades, suggesting widespread, chronic exposure, most likely from food. Between 1993 and 2016, levels of the chemical in human urine increased 1,200 percent.²⁶ Food testing also reveals that many foods sold in the U.S. are contaminated with glyphosate.²⁷

This is of significant concern, as research suggests Roundup can cause significant liver damage even at ultralow doses. The study,²⁸ published in the journal Scientific Reports, looked at the effects of glyphosate exposures of 4 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day, which is 75,000 and 437,500 times below EU and U.S. permitted levels, respectively.

After a two-year period, female rats showed signs of liver damage, specifically NAFLD and progression to nonalcoholic steatohepatosis (NASH). Study author Michael Antoniou, Ph.D., told Sustainable Pulse:²⁹

"The findings of our study are very worrying as they demonstrate for the first time a causative link between an environmentally relevant level of Roundup consumption over the long-term and a serious disease — namely nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Our results also suggest that regulators should reconsider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides."

Milk Thistle Helps Prevent Liver Damage

Milk thistle is an herb that has been used for thousands of years to support liver, kidney and gallbladder health. In modern times, silymarin has been used to treat alcoholic liver disease, acute and chronic viral hepatitis and toxin-induced liver diseases.

The active ingredient, a flavonoid called silymarin, is thought to be responsible for the beneficial effects attributed to milk thistle, including liver protection, antioxidant, antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. In your liver, silymarin works as an antifibrotic, thereby preventing tissue scarring, and blocks toxins by inhibiting the binding of toxins to liver cell membrane receptors. Silymarin also protects your liver and promotes healthy liver function by:

• Suppressing cellular inflammation³⁰
• Inhibiting the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), a pathway that, when overactivated, increases your risk of cancer³¹
• Activating AMPK (activated AMP-activated protein kinase),³² an enzyme inside your cells. AMPK is sometimes referred to as a "metabolic master switch," as it plays an important role in regulating metabolism and energy homeostasis.³³ AMPK produces many of the same benefits as you would get from exercise and weight loss, both of which benefit your liver health
• Reducing liver injury caused by a number of drugs and environmental toxins, including acetaminophen, chemotherapy, psychotropic drugs and alcohol
• Increasing glutathione, a powerful antioxidant that plays a role in the detoxification of heavy metals and other harmful substances

N-acetylcysteine Supplement Supports Your Liver Health

Another powerful liver protectant is N-acetylcysteine (NAC), a precursor needed for glutathione biosynthesis. In fact, research suggests NAC may be a better alternative for supporting liver health in those with hepatitis C and other chronic liver diseases than the antioxidant resveratrol.³⁴

Alcohol and acetaminophen are two common compounds metabolized through the liver that are associated with liver damage. NAC supplementation has been effective in minimizing damage associated with alcohol consumption when taken prior to alcohol ingestion.³⁵

NAC is also used as an antidote for acetaminophen toxicity, which causes liver damage by depleting glutathione.³⁶ Research published in Hepatitis Monthly³⁷ has also shown NAC supplementation helps improve liver function in patients with NASH.

Folate Deficiency Worsens Severity of NASH

Increasing your intake of folate can also help protect your liver function. In a study³⁸ involving 83 patients with NASH, researchers found levels of folate and vitamin B12 were inversely related to the development of fibrosis or the formation of scar tissue. Past research has identified an association between low levels of vitamins and chronic liver disease, but this is the first to find an association between folate and vitamin B12 level to NASH severity.

Studies have also shown folate deficiency can increase your risk for liver cancer.^39,40 In one, which involved hepatitis B-positive patients (who are at higher risk for liver damage), higher folate levels were associated with a 67 percent lower risk of liver cancer.⁴¹

According to the authors, increased folate in humans appear to be inversely associated with the development of liver damage and hepatocarcinoma, and that folate can offer the liver some degree of protection against damage. Folate may also mitigate against pesticide-related damage, including autism.

Your body stores approximately 10 to 30 milligrams of folate at a time, nearly 50 percent of which is in your liver. Folate is the natural form of vitamin B9 found in foods and once referred to as folacin. The word was derived from the Latin "folium," meaning leaf. Green leafy vegetables such as spinach are abundant sources of folate, as are asparagus, broccoli, Brussels sprouts and spinach.⁴² Broccoli is perhaps ideal, as research⁴³ has confirmed it helps protect against NAFLD.

Avoid folic acid supplements however. While readily absorbed, this synthetic form is not converted in the intestines like folate is. Instead, it is converted in your liver. This means folic acid can reach saturation quicker, which may result in overexposure if you're taking supplements.

Coffee May Cut Risk of Liver Cancer

Last but not least, if you're a coffee drinker, you may be relieved to find out that coffee appears to have a protective effect against HCC, a serious form of liver cancer and the third-most prevalent cause of death from cancer in the world. Drinking a single cup of coffee every day cuts your risk of HCC by one-fifth.^44,45

If you drink more than that in a day, your risk for liver cancer is even lower. Two cups of coffee a day cut the risk by 35%, and five cups cut the risk in half. That said, excessive coffee consumption can have certain adverse effects. As noted by lead author Dr. Oliver Kennedy from the U.K.'s University of Southampton:⁴⁶

"We're not suggesting that everyone should start drinking five cups of coffee a day though. There needs to be more investigation into the potential harms of high coffee-caffeine intake, and there is evidence it should be avoided in certain groups, such as pregnant women."

To optimize your health benefits from coffee, make sure it's organic, and drink it black, without milk or sugar. A far better alternative would be "bulletproof coffee," where you add butter or MCT oil to the coffee instead of sweeteners.

At nearly no other time in history has there been this level of fear generated across the world as experienced thus far in 2020 and 2021. The depth and breadth of the strategies used to stoke those fears has been overwhelming.

Emergency use authorizations for drugs that have not proven to be effective in trials,^1,2 public mask mandates for which there is no scientific evidence^3,4,5 and the suppression and censorship of health information has boosted public fear over a viral illness with a survival rate of over 99%.⁶

Unfortunately, many of the early effective treatment strategies that can be used at home have also fallen victim to censorship. Ivermectin is one of those strategies. In a computational analysis of the Omicron variant against several therapeutic agents, data show that ivermectin had the best results.⁷

Yet, as you look objectively at what's been happening across the world, the fear being generated is not one-sided. The suppression of information by corporations, government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry is one indication of their concern and how far they're willing to go to ensure the level of fear remains high enough to manipulate behavior.

Consider the statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2019, 4.6% of the U.S. population was diagnosed with heart disease.⁸ The population at the end of 2019 was 328,239,523.⁹ This means there were 15,099,018 people with heart disease in the U.S. in 2019. There were 696,962 people who died that year from heart disease,¹⁰ which is a death rate of 4.6%.

This is 20 times greater than the death rate from COVID-19. Yet these same agencies were not lobbying for mandates against soda or sugar-laden foods; they weren't banning smoking and they weren't mandating exercise — all heart disease risk factors.¹¹

The censorship and suppression of information has hobbled early treatment of COVID-19 in many western nations. Through 2020, public health experts^12,13 and the mainstream media^14,15 warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Both are on the World Health Organization's list of essential drugs,¹⁶ but the benefits have been ignored by public health officials and buried by the media.

Newest Ivermectin Study Showed Best Results Against COVID

This study on Cornell University's preprint website has not yet been peer-reviewed. Researchers used a computational analysis to look at the Omicron variant, which has demonstrated a lower clinical presentation and lower hospital admission rates.¹⁷

After having retrieved the complete genome sequence and collecting 30 variants from the database, the researchers analyzed 10 drugs against the virus, including:

The researchers found that each of the drugs had some degree of effectiveness against the virus and most were currently in clinical trials. They used molecular docking to find that the mutations in the Omicron variant didn't significantly affect the interaction between the drugs and the main protease.

An analysis of all 10 drugs found that ivermectin was the most effective drug candidate against the Omicron variant. The testing included Nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid), which is the new protease inhibitor for which the FDA provided an emergency use authorization against COVID in December 2021.¹⁸

In other words, Pfizer released a new drug which cost the U.S. taxpayers $5.29 billion or $529 per course of treatment¹⁹ and which received an EUA despite the availability of a similar drug that has proven to be more effective and is cheaper, priced between $48²⁰ and $95²¹ for 20 pills depending on your location.

How Ivermectin Works

Ivermectin is best known for its antiparasitic properties.²² Yet, the drug also has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. Studies have shown that ivermectin helps to lower the viral load by inhibiting replication.²³ A single dose of ivermectin can kill 99.8% of the virus within 48 hours.²⁴

A meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics²⁵ showed the drug reduced infection by an average of 86% when used preventively. An observational study²⁶ in Bangladesh evaluated the effectiveness of ivermectin as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 in health care workers.

The data showed four of the 58 volunteers who took 12 mg of ivermectin once a month for four months developed mild COVID symptoms as compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who declined the medication.

Ivermectin has also been shown to speed recovery, in part by inhibiting inflammation and protecting against organ damage.²⁷ This pathway also lowers the risk of hospitalization and death. Meta analyses have shown an average reduction in mortality that ranges from 75%²⁸ to 83%.^29,30

Additionally, the drug also prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure.³¹ Added together, these benefits make it clear that ivermectin could all but eliminate this pandemic.

Early Intervention Lowers Long COVID and Hospitalization

Some people who have had COVID-19 seem to be unable to fully recover and complain of lingering symptoms of chronic fatigue. Others struggle with mental health problems. One study,^32,33 in November 2020, found 18.1% of people who had COVID-19 received their first psychiatric diagnosis in the 14 to 90 days after recovery. Most commonly diagnosed conditions were anxiety disorders, insomnia and dementia.

These symptoms have come to be called long COVID, long-haul COVID, post-COVID syndrome, chronic COVID or long-haul syndrome. They all refer to symptoms that persist for four more weeks after an initial COVID-19 infection. According to Dr. Peter McCullough, board-certified internist and cardiologist, 50% of those who have been sick enough to be hospitalized will have symptoms of long COVID:³⁴

"So, the sicker someone is, and the longer the duration of COVID, the more likely they are to have long COVID syndrome. That's the reason why we like early treatment. We shorten the duration of symptoms and there's less of a chance for long COVID syndrome."

Some of the common symptoms of long COVID include shortness of breath, joint pain, memory, concentration or sleeping problems, muscle pain or headache and loss of smell or taste. According to McCullough, a paper presented by Dr. Bruce Patterson at the International COVID Summit in Rome, September 11 to 14,³⁵ 2021:³⁶

"… showed that in individuals who've had significant COVID illness, 15 months later the s1 segment of the spike protein is recoverable from human monocytes. That means the body literally has been sprayed with the virus and it spends 15 months, in a sense, trying to clean out the spike protein from our tissues. No wonder people have long COVID syndrome."

It should come as no surprise that studies have also confirmed that early intervention improves mortality³⁷ and reduces hospitalizations.³⁸ Perhaps one of the greatest crimes in this whole pandemic is the refusal by reigning health authorities to issue early treatment guidance.

Instead, they've done everything possible to suppress remedies shown to work. Patients were simply told to stay home and do nothing. Once the infection had worsened to the point of near-death, patients were told to go to the hospital, where most were routinely placed on mechanical ventilation — a practice that was quickly discovered to be lethal.

However, as the featured study³⁹ and others have demonstrated,⁴⁰ ivermectin is one of the successful treatment protocols that can be used against SARS-CoV-2.

Africa Has Lowest Case and Death Rate, Likely From Ivermectin

Across the world, countries have taken different approaches to address the spread of the virus.⁴¹ The steps taken in Africa varied depending on the country, yet the infection and death rates were relatively stable and low across the continent.⁴²

In the last year there have been reports of small areas in the world where the number of infections, deaths or case-fatality rates have been significantly lower than the rest of the world. For example, India's Uttar Pradesh State⁴³ reported a recovery rate of 98.6% and no further infections.

However, the entire continent of Africa appears to have sidestepped the massive number of infections and deaths predicted for these poorly funded countries with overcrowded cities. Early estimations were that millions would die, but that scenario has not materialized. The World Health Organization has called Africa "one of the least affected regions in the world."⁴⁴

There are several factors that may influence the infection rate in Africa. A study from Japan demonstrates that after just 12 days that doctors were allowed to legally prescribe Ivermectin to their patients, the cases dropped dramatically.⁴⁵

The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association⁴⁶ had noticed the low number of infections and deaths in Africa, where many use ivermectin prophylactically and as the core strategy to treat onchocerciasis,⁴⁷ a parasitic disease also known as river blindness. More than 99% of people infected with river blindness live in 31 African countries.

In addition to ivermectin use in Africa, other medications are also commonly available, such as hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, which have long been used in the treatment and prevention of malaria,⁴⁸ also endemic in Africa.⁴⁹ In America, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko has published successful results using hydroxychloroquine and zinc against COVID-19.^50,51,52

Finally, Artemisia annua, also known as sweet wormwood, is an herb used in combination therapies to treat malaria.⁵³ It was used in traditional Chinese medicine for more than 2,000 years to treat fever. Today artemisinin, a metabolite of Artemisia, is the current therapeutic option for malaria. The plant has also been studied since the 2003 SARS outbreak for the treatment of coronaviruses, with good results.^54,55

In other words, whether by design or default, the medications that have proven to be successful against the virus are commonly used in Africa for other health conditions. While Pfizer tests the short- and long-term effects of a genetic experiment on Israel's population,⁵⁶ it appears one continent has demonstrated administration of a 30-year-old, inexpensive drug with a known safety profile could reduce the cases, severity and mortality from this infection.

The question that must be asked and answered to get to the bottom of this plandemic is what is blinding mainstream media, government agencies, public health experts, medical associations, doctors, nurses, and your next-door neighbor from recognizing and speaking out in support of science?