Fueling suspicions that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from the lab in Wuhan — and that it began far earlier than admitted — is an analysis3 of commercial telemetry (i.e., cellphone) data showing a significant and unusual reduction in device activity in and around the Wuhan Institute of Virology's (WIV) National Biosafety Laboratory during October 2019.4,5,6
According to the open source telemetry report,7 "Beginning on October 11, there was a substantial decrease in activity," and "the last time a device is active prior to October 11 is October 6."
Between October 14 and October 19, there was no device activity in the area around the laboratory at all. "During this time, it is believed that roadblocks were put in place to prevent traffic from coming near the facility," the report states. What's more, between October 7 and October 24, there was no activity within the facility itself.
While not concrete proof of a biohazard leak, the absence of cellphone traffic in and around the laboratory in October 2019 suggests the lab may have been shut down for a period, and the roads around it blocked off. The question is why?
Amid accusations that the World Health Organization helped suppress information about the pandemic on behalf of China, a review of its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic will be conducted,8 although it is still unclear which body will conduct the review and when. Many are also asking just how independent such a review will or can be.
What Kinds of Experiments Were Done at Wuhan Lab?
A crucial piece of the lab release hypothesis that is missing from media reports and scientific opinion is a clear description of the experiments being conducted at the WIV. WIV researchers have engineered chimeric viruses where the gene for the cell entry protein (S protein receptor-binding domain) from one virus is replaced by that of another virus.
In a May 16, 2020, article,9 Fabio Carisio, founder and editor-in-chief of the Italian Christian news site, GospaNews, reviewed, in chronological order, experiments involving chimeric superviruses conducted at WIV and the governments that funded them.
As described in one 2017 study published in PLOS Pathogens,10 "Cell entry studies demonstrated that three newly identified SARSr-CoVs with different S protein sequences are all able to use human ACE2 as the receptor, further exhibiting the close relationship between strains in this cave and SARS-CoV."
The goal of these experiments has been to identify what determines a virus' ability to enter into a human cell. The extension of these experiments is to infect living animals with these chimeric viruses to evaluate the factors that determine disease symptoms and spread.
One of the authors of that 2017 PLOS Pathogens study was Dr. Shi Zheng-Li, director of WIV, also known as the "bat woman," as she's been China's leading researcher of bat coronaviruses.11 Zheng-Li and WIV have had a long-standing collaboration with Peter Daszak, Ph.D., and the EcoHealth Alliance Inc. in New York City, which Daszak is also the president of.12
EcoHealth Alliance is a U.S. pandemic prevention group. Daszak is also chairman of the Forum on Microbial Threats at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine,13 a private nonprofit that advises government on scientific matters and is funded by Congress, federal agencies and philanthropic organizations.14
Daszak is currently leading a project to continue these potentially dangerous animal experiments,15 and it's worth noting that he has also been one of the most prominent and vocal critics of the lab release hypothesis.
On a side note, 60 Minutes recently reported16 the White House Administration cut Daszak's funding in late April 2020 — funding that, according to Daszak, had been instrumental during Gilead's development of the antiviral drug Remdesivir,17 which is now being promoted as a treatment for COVID-19.
Remdesivir's development was sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is led by Dr. Anthony Fauci. Fauci is also a board member18 of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB).
GPMB is an organization that claims to be an independent monitoring and accountability body but is in fact part and parcel of the World Health Organization and The World Bank, and receives funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.19 You can learn more about these sordid connections, and why they matter, in "Global Health Mafia Protection Racket."
Another Paper Questions Natural Evolution Theory
As mentioned, a number of experts have weighed in on the science of SARS-CoV-2's origin by analyzing its genetic code. Perhaps two of the clearest expositions on this have been published by Chris Martenson,20 Ph.D., and Yuri Deigin.21 Another paper prepublished May 2, 2020, ahead of peer-review, points out:22
"In a side-by-side comparison of evolutionary dynamics between the 2019/2020 SARS-CoV-2 and the 2003 SARS-CoV, we were surprised to find that SARS-CoV-2 resembles SARS-CoV in the late phase of the 2003 epidemic after SARS-CoV had developed several advantageous adaptations for human transmission.
Our observations suggest that by the time SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted to human transmission to an extent similar to late epidemic SARS-CoV. However, no precursors or branches of evolution stemming from a less human-adapted SARS-CoV-2-like virus have been detected.
The sudden appearance of a highly infectious SARS-CoV-2 presents a major cause for concern that should motivate stronger international efforts to identify the source and prevent near future re- emergence. Any existing pools of SARS-CoV-2 progenitors would be particularly dangerous if similarly well adapted for human transmission …
Even the possibility that a non-genetically-engineered precursor could have adapted to humans while being studied in a laboratory should be considered, regardless of how likely or unlikely."
Anonymous Scientist Accuses Zheng-Li of Scientific Fraud
Getting back to Zheng-Li, she increasingly appears to be a key figure in the discussion as to whether SARS-CoV-2 is of natural origin or not. January 23, 2020, she published a paper23 in the journal Nature, titled "A Pneumonia Outbreak Associated with a New Coronavirus of Probable Bat Origin," in which she compared the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 to other coronaviruses and delineated its evolutionary path.
According to Zheng-Li and her co-authors, SARS-CoV-2 "is 96% identical at the whole-genome level to a bat coronavirus" called RaTG13. They further claim they could find "no evidence for recombination events was detected in the genome of 2019-nCoV."24 The disturbing thing about this bat coronavirus, RaTG13, is that it appears to have the ability to infect humans.
These findings are now being rebuked by an anonymous — possibly Chinese — researcher who has published25 an alternative theory in a blog called Nerd Has Power and refers to him or herself as "A nobody scientist."26
The blog post in question has been discussed by GM Watch,27 Australian science writer Joanne Nova28 and Steven Mosher,29 president of the Population Research Institute (a nonprofit research group that exposes human rights abuses and the myth of overpopulation30), who noted that:
"Because he published his raw data, I and others have been able to check and verify his work." Mosher goes on to present "a summary of one of the blogger's critiques, in the hope of making the blogger's general line of argument accessible to the layman."
The unnamed blogger writes, in part:31
"As stated in the paper, RaTG13 was discovered from Yunnan province, China, in 2013. According to credible sources, Shi has admitted to several individuals in the field that she does not have a physical copy of this RaTG13 virus.
Her lab allegedly collected some bat feces in 2013 and analyzed these samples for possible presence of coronaviruses based on genetic evidence. To put it into plainer words, she has no physical proof for the existence of this RaTG13 virus. She only has its sequence information, which is nothing but a string of letters alternating between A, T, G, and C.
Can the sequence of such a virus be fabricated? It cannot be any easier. It takes a person less than a day to TYPE such a sequence (less than 30,000 letters) in a word file. And it would be a thousand times easier if you already have a template that is about 96% identical to the one you are trying to create.
Once the typing is finished, one can upload the sequence onto the public database. Contrary to general conception, such database does not really have a way to validate the authenticity or correctness of the uploaded sequence.
It relies completely upon the scientists themselves — upon their honesty and consciences. Once uploaded and released, such sequence data becomes public and can be used legitimately in scientific analysis and publications."
Was Evidence for Natural Evolution Fabricated?
In other words, this anonymous individual claims Zheng-Li fabricated the genetic code of the RaTG13 virus, and that it doesn't actually exist. The blogger points out that had Zheng-Li in fact discovered a bat coronavirus in 2013 capable of infecting humans, it would have been a groundbreaking discovery.
Alas, she never published such a paper. Instead, she "made her fame in the coronavirus field by publishing in Nature32 two bat coronaviruses (Rs3367 and SHC014)," the unnamed blogger writes.33 That paper, published in 2013, showed SARS was likely of bat origin, and that it uses the ACE2 receptor for cell entry.
"… she only needed to take one peek at the sequence of RaTG13's RBD [RNA binding domain] and immediately realize: this virus closely resembles SARS in its RBD and has a clear potential of infecting humans.
If Shi's public statement is true and she indeed intends to discover bat coronaviruses with a potential to cross-over to humans, how could she possibly overlook this extremely interesting finding of RaTG13?
If this RaTG13 was discovered SEVEN years ago in 2013, why did Shi not publish this astonishing finding earlier and yet let the 'less-attractive' viruses take the stage? Why did she decide to publish such a sequence only when the current outbreak took place and people started questioning the origin of the Wuhan coronavirus?
None of these makes sense. These facts only add to the suspicion — Zhengli Shi either was directly involved in the creation of this virus/bioweapon, or helped cover it up, or both. Of course, these facts also add to the claim that RaTG13 is a fake virus — it exists on Nature (the journal) but not in nature," the anonymous blogger writes.34
The blogger then goes on to dissect the genetic sequence RaTG13's spike protein, which "reveals clear evidence of human manipulation." (Again, Mosher offers a layman's overview35 of the data.) Martenson36 and Deigin's37 reviews of the viral genome also focus on the S2 spike protein, but they both focus on the spike protein found in SARS-CoV-2 (not the RaTG13 spike).
If the Nerd Has Power blogger is correct, and the bat virus RaTG13 was in fact fabricated in order to give the natural evolution theory of SARS-CoV-2 some credence, then the evidence for a man-made pandemic becomes all the more compelling. There's also other evidence that raise serious questions about the origin of this pandemic virus.
Other Evidence of Manipulation
In an earlier blog post, dated March 15, 2020, Nerd Has Power explains the importance of the S1 and S2 spikes of a given virus.38 In that post, the blogger also details significant changes found in the S1 portion of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, "which dictates which host a coronavirus targets," whereas much of the rest of the spike is very similar to the bat coronaviruses ZC45 and ZXC21. According to the blogger:39
"… the details of these differences and the way the human and the bat viruses differ from each other here in S1, in my and many other people's eyes, practically spell out the origin of the Wuhan coronavirus — it is created by people, not by nature."
In my opinion, the strongest pieces of evidence so far all point toward SARS-CoV-2 being a laboratory creation. How it got released, however, and why, remains to be determined.
The fact that the people responsible would want to cover it up is obvious, however, when you consider that the punishment in such an event could include life in prison for violating the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.40
"Why is success in critical care being ignored?" the Alliance for Natural Health rightly asks.1 The organization claims "much more could be done to save lives" if critical care protocols were to take into account what critical care doctors are finding in practice. A May 14, 2020, article reads, in part:2
"After around 8 weeks in lockdown and 3 months since the spectre of Covid-19 loomed large in our media headlines, why is it that a team of frontline critical (intensive) care doctors in the USA who have delivered close to 100% survival with their unique protocol being roundly ignored?
Wouldn't you think that hospitals and governments would be biting their hands off to get a hold of their protocol? Or clamoring for more information and training to understand why their own outcomes from standard care fall so far short, delivering around just 50% survival in most critical care settings? …
It's now very clear that the outcomes among the very seriously ill patients in critical care units (also referred to as ICU [intensive care units]/ITU [intensive therapy units] in the UK) are being used to inform lockdown (or lock up!) strategy and keep the fear levels sufficiently high to ensure citizen compliance …
Why is there such widespread censorship of anything but the party line by online platforms which lack sufficient expertise to adjudicate on matters of science and medicine?
The public-facing narrative continues to profess that there is nothing you can do to support your immune system, there is nothing in the natural arsenal for Covid-19 … social distancing must be maintained at all times and that the only cure for this terrifying infection will magically come from a vaccine created at warp speed.
When you add these untruths to the plans being rolled out for ramping up citizen surveillance through test, track and trace, the erosion of our rights and freedoms through the emergency coronavirus legislation, the destruction of economies and the forced reliance of so many on the state for survival handouts, you realize how much we might lose whilst much of the world cowers behind closed doors in fear."
Front-Line Critical Care Working Group
As noted by the Alliance for Natural Health, despite the fact that "the obstacle course posed by the peer review process to scientific publication has been removed," and despite many critical care specialists using treatment protocols that differ from standard of care, information about natural therapeutics in particular are still being suppressed by the media and is not received by those who need it most — critical care physicians.
"We all need to be asking why. After all, people are dying. How would it make relatives feel if it was found that their loved one had died needlessly just because the doctors who were having greatest success were not being listened to and their innovative protocols had been systematically ignored?" Alliance for Natural Health states.3
According to the article, efforts by Dr. Pierre Kory — medical director at the Trauma & Life Support Center and a faculty member in the Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine in the Department of Medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health — to share the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group's4 (FLCCC) successes with other health care professionals have so far come to naught.
Kory was one of five doctors participating in a May 6, 2020, roundtable discussion5 on COVID-19 with ranking senate committee member Gary Peters, D-Mich. In his testimony, Kory states, in part:6
"I want to start by saying that I am part of a group of physicians which include several of the most highly published and well-known critical care experts in the country and world (Drs. Paul Marik, Umberto Meduri, Joseph Varon and José Iglesias). In response to the COVID crisis we formed the Front-Line Critical Care Working group …
Members of our group have now treated in excess of 100 hospitalized patients with our treatment protocol. Nearly all survived. The two that died were in their 80s and had advanced chronic medical conditions.
None of the patients have had long stays on the ventilator nor become ventilator dependent. The patients generally have a short hospital stay and are discharged in good health …
Our protocol has been out over four weeks. It is not unique, in fact, we are not alone in what we propose or have been trying … In fact, we are seeing an increasing number of similar protocols with nearly identical therapeutics come out from various institutions and countries, including the Italian guidelines, Chinese guidelines, Yale protocol, Montefiore protocol and others.
We are doctors, trained to diagnose and treat illness, we are experts in our field with decades of experience and hundreds of publications … We have clearly devised an effective treatment for use, prior to the publication of randomized controlled trials.
Those trials are critical for sure, as they will help us further refine and/or perfect our treatment doses, durations, and indications, but waiting for the perfect is and will be the enemy of the good, which we are already achieving … We just want to save lives, and we know how to do it."
COVID-19 Early Intervention Protocol
According to Kory, the FLCCCs MATH+ protocol has been delivered to the White House on four occasions, yet no interest has been shown. Worse, he says they continue to be stonewalled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute for Health. Why?
Isn't saving lives, right now, and by any means possible, more important than pushing for a vaccine? If the MATH+ protocol works with near-100% effectiveness, a vaccine may not even be necessary. The MATH+ protocol gets its name from:
High-dose intravenous Ascorbic acid
Plus optional treatments Thiamine, zinc and vitamin D
Full dose low molecular weight Heparin
Kory's testimony transcript reviews and summarizes the MATH+ protocol, and explains why the timing of the treatment is so important. As explained by Kory, there are two distinct yet overlapping phases of COVID-19 infection.
Phase 1 is the viral replication phase. Typically, patients will only experience mild symptoms, if any, during this phase. At this time, it's important to focus on antiviral therapies.
In Phase 2, the hyperinflammatory immune response sets in, which can result in organ failures (lungs, brain, heart and kidneys). The MATH+ protocol is designed to treat this active phase, but it needs to be administered early enough.
The MATH+ Protocol
The MATH+ protocol7 calls for the use of three medicines, all of which need to be started within six hours of hospital admission:
Intravenous methylprednisolone, to suppress the immune system and prevent organ damage from cytokine storms — For mild hypoxia, 40 milligrams (mg) daily until off oxygen; moderate to severe illness, 80 mg bolus followed by 20 mg per day for seven days. On Day 8, switch to oral prednisone and taper down over the next six days.
Intravenous ascorbic acid (vitamin C), to control inflammation and prevent the development of leaky blood vessels in the lungs — 3 grams/100 ml every six hours for up to seven days.
Subcutaneous heparin (enoxaparin), to thin the blood and prevent blood clots — For mild to moderate illness, 40 mg to 60 mg daily until discharged.
Optional additions include thiamine, zinc and vitamin D. In addition to these medications, the protocol calls for high-flow nasal oxygen to avoid mechanical ventilation, "which itself damages the lungs and is associated with a mortality rate approaching nearly 90% in some centers," Kory notes.8
Together, this approach addresses the three core pathological processes seen in COVID-19, namely hyperinflammation, hypercoagulability of the blood, and hypoxia (shortness of breath due to low oxygenation).
COVID-19 Should Not Be Treated as ARDS
In the video, Dr. Paul Marik points out that it's crucial for doctors to treat each patient as an individual case, as COVID-19 is not conventional acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
If the patient is assumed to have ARDS and placed on a ventilator, you're likely going to damage their lungs. Indeed, research has now shown that patients placed on mechanical ventilation have far higher mortality rates than patients who are not ventilated. While not discussed here, some doctors are also incorporating hyperbaric oxygen treatment in lieu of ventilation, with great success.
The reason for this is because the primary problem is inflammation, not fluid in the lungs. So, Marik says, they need anti-inflammatory drugs. "It's not the virus that is hurting the host, it's the acute inflammatory dysregulated response," he says. "That's why you need to use vitamin C and steroids." He points out that steroids play a crucial role, as it creates synergy with vitamin C.
COVID-19 patients also have a hypercoagulation problem, so they need anticoagulants. In addition to using the proper medication, they must also be treated early. "You have to intervene early and aggressively to prevent them from deteriorating," Marik says.
Methylprednisolone May Be a Crucial Component
Kory expresses concerns over the fact that health organizations around the world are warning doctors against the use of corticosteroids, calling this a "tragic error"9 as "COVID-19 is a steroid-responsive disease."10 In his testimony, he points out:11
"Sorin Draghici, CEO of Advaita Bioinformatics, just reported12 that their incredibly sophisticated Artificial Intelligence platform called iPathwayGuide, using cultured human cell lines infected with COVID-19, is able to map all the human genes which are activated by this virus …
Note almost all the activated genes are those that express triggers of inflammation. With this knowledge of the specific COVID inflammatory gene activation combined with knowledge of the gene suppression activity of all known medicines they were able to match the most effective drug for COVID-19 human gene suppression, and that drug is methylprednisolone.
This must be recognized, as the ability of other corticosteroids to control inflammation in COVID-19 was much less impactful. This is, we believe, an absolutely critical and historic finding. Many centers are using similar but less effective agents such as dexamethasone or prednisone."
As noted by Kory in his senate testimony, Marik, chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, is a member of the FLCCC.13 You may recall that Marik was the one who in 2017 announced he had developed an extraordinarily effective treatment against sepsis.
Marik's sepsis protocol also calls for intravenous vitamin C and a steroid, in this case hydrocortisone, along with thiamine. I for one am not surprised that the two protocols are so similar, seeing how sepsis is also a major cause of death in severe COVID-19 cases.
Safe and Effective Treatments Must Not Be Ignored
As noted by Marik in the video, COVID-19 is not regular ARDS and should not be treated as such. What kills people with COVID-19 is the inflammation, and steroids in combination with vitamin C work synergistically together to control and regulate that inflammation. The heparin, meanwhile, addresses the hypercoagulation that causes blood clots, which is a unique feature of COVID-19. As for the "lack of studies" supporting their protocol, FLCCC notes:14
"A number of official guidelines, such as those of the WHO and several other U.S. agencies, recommend limiting treatment for … critically ill patients to 'supportive care only' — and to allow the therapies described here to be studied in randomized controlled trials where half of the patients would receive placebo and where the results would come in months or years.
Our physicians agree that while a randomized controlled trial (RCT), under normal circumstances, might be considered, the early provisions of MATH+, which must be given within hours of critical illness, would inevitably be delayed by such a study design, rendering the validity of the RCT questionable.
Furthermore, while the results of an RCT would not be available for months or more, well-designed observational studies of the protocol could yield timely feedback during this pandemic, to improve the treatment process much more quickly."
I believe this information needs to be shared far and wide, if we are to prevent more people from dying unnecessarily. More and more, as doctors are starting to speak openly about their clinical findings, we're seeing that there are quite a few different ways to tackle this illness without novel antivirals or vaccines, using older, inexpensive and readily available medications that are already known to be safe.
Recent scientific papers have highlighted the role vitamin D may be playing in the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in severe cases. Considering researchers have also shown that SARS-CoV-2 is rapidly inactivated by sunlight,1 areas that are banning people from parks and beaches, are undoubtedly committing a grave error.
In fact, it has been nearly impossible to document outdoor transmission of the disease. This is because one factor for catching disease is dependent on the viral load - the amount of exposure which is quickly diluted outdoors and inactivated by sunlight.
The coronavirus will follow the usual seasonal patterns we witness with influenza, as higher temperature, humidity, and our time spent outdoors are detrimental for spreading these respiratory infections.
Stay at Home Order Is a Miserably Failed Experiment
Stay-at-home recommendations in general may also have been a bad idea overall. Indeed, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo stated,2 May 6, 2020, that 66% of new hospital admissions for COVID-19 were individuals who had been sequestering at home.
A majority of those cases were also minorities such as African-Americans, who are far more prone to vitamin D deficiency due to their darker skin.3 When Cuomo first heard about it, he said he immediately thought maybe people had been going out in spite of the shelter-in-place order, and maybe taking public transportation.4
In actuality they were all at home where they were supposed to be. Interestingly, Dr. David Katz, president of True Health Initiative and founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, predicted5,6 this would happen.
Chinese researchers have also noted that a majority of outbreaks in the 320 municipalities reviewed were the result of indoor spread of the disease, with the home accounting for 79.9% of cases, followed by transportation at 34%.
According to the authors,7 "All identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk." As noted in a May 11, 2020, American Thinker article:8
"Very likely, you already instinctively know that the guidelines suggesting that it's somehow helpful to keep a six-foot space between healthy people, even outdoors, is not based on science, but just an arbitrary suggestion we've been conditioned to accept without evidence.
And your gut feeling would be right. There's a reason that "social distancing 'wasn't a buzzword common to the American lexicon prior to 2020. There's very little science behind "social distancing' at all.
'It turns out,' Julie Kelly writes9 at American Greatness, 'as I wrote10 last month, 'social distancing' is untested pseudoscience particularly as it relates to halting the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. On its website, the CDC provides no links to any peer-reviewed social distancing studies that bolster its official guidance.' There's a reason for the lack of peer-reviewed studies on the CDC website. She continues:
'The alarming reality is that social distancing never has been tested on a massive scale in the modern age; its current formula was conceived during George W. Bush's administration and met with much-deserved skepticism.
'People could not believe that the strategy would be effective or even feasible,' one scientist told11 the New York Times last month. A high school science project12 — no, I am not joking — added more weight to the concept.
'Social distancing' is very much a newfangled experiment, not settled science. And, Kelley writes, the results are suggesting that our 'Great Social Distancing Experiment of 2020' will be 'near the top of the list' of 'bad experiments gone horribly wrong.'"
Banning Outdoor Activities — A Disastrous Idea
In the video above, published May 11, 2020, on Medscape.com, Dr. JoAnn E. Manson, professor of medicine and chief of the division of preventive medicine at Harvard Medical School, discusses the protective role of vitamin D against COVID-19.
Manson points out that growing evidence suggests your vitamin D status may in fact play an important role in your risk of developing COVID-19, as well as the severity of the illness. It's well-known that vitamin D is important for innate immunity and that it boosts your immune function against viral diseases.
Importantly, as noted by Manson, vitamin D also has "an immune modulating effect and can lower inflammation, and this may be relevant to the respiratory response during COVID-19 and the cytokine storm that's been demonstrated."
Manson cites evidence from three South-Asian studies showing people with serious COVID-19 infection are far more likely to have insufficient levels of vitamin D compared to those with mild illness. Vitamin D deficient patients had, on average, an eightfold higher risk of serious COVID-19 illness compared to those with sufficient levels.
Harvard Medical School is starting a study to investigate whether vitamin D supplementation lowers the risk of COVID-19 specifically, and/or improves clinical outcomes, but in the meantime, Manson urges people to spend more time outdoors to improve their vitamin D levels through sun exposure, and to optimize their vitamin D levels through food and supplements.
Manson is far from alone in her recommendations. Irish researchers recently published an editorial13 highlighting the role of vitamin D deficiency in severe COVID-19 infections. According to the authors:14
"… the evidence supporting a protective effect of vitamin D against severe COVID‐19 disease is very suggestive, a substantial proportion of the population in the Northern Hemisphere will currently be vitamin D deficient, and supplements, for example, 1,000 international units (25 micrograms) per day are very safe.
It is time for governments to strengthen recommendations for vitamin D intake and supplementation, particularly when under lock‐down."
Low Vitamin D Linked to Greater SARS-CoV-2 Infection Risk
A May 6, 2020, report15 in the journal Nutrients points out that vitamin D concentrations are lower in patients with positive PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests for SARS-CoV-2. As noted in this report, which retrospectively investigated the vitamin D levels obtained from a cohort of patients in Switzerland:16
"In this cohort, significantly lower 25(OH)D levels were found in PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 (median value 11.1 ng/mL) patients compared with negative patients (24.6 ng/mL); this was also confirmed by stratifying patients according to age >70 years. On the basis of this preliminary observation, vitamin D supplementation might be a useful measure to reduce the risk of infection."
Low Vitamin D Levels Linked to Increased COVID-19 Mortality
Another May 6, 2020, report,17 published in Aging Clinical and Experimental Research (its prepublication featured in the Daily Mail May 118), found that countries with lower vitamin D levels also have higher mortality rates from COVID-19. According to the authors:19
"The Seneca study showed a mean serum vitamin D level of 26 nmol/L in Spain, 28 nmol/L in Italy and 45 nmol/L in the Nordic countries, in older people. In Switzerland, mean vitamin D level is 23 nmol/L in nursing homes and in Italy 76% of women over 70 years of age have been found to have circulating levels below 30 nmol/L.
These are the countries with high number of cases of COVID-19 and the aging people is the group with the highest risk for morbidity and mortality with SARS-CoV2."
In the preprint version20 of this paper, the authors concluded: "We believe that we can advise vitamin D supplementation to protect against SARS-CoV2 infection." In the final version,21 they toned down the recommendation to: "We hypothesize that vitamin D may play a protective role for COVID-19."
Data22 from a clinical trial by GrassrootsHealth — an organization that we have supported for over 13 years — also reveals a link between vitamin D status and COVID-19 severity.
Mark Alipio — who received no funding for his work — released data from an analysis of 212 people with lab-confirmed COVID-19 and for whom serum 25(OH)D levels were available. Using a classification of symptoms based on previous research, he employed statistical analysis to compare the differences in clinical outcomes against the levels of vitamin D.
Of the 212 people, 49 had mild disease; 59 had ordinary disease; 56 were severe and 48 were critical. In the initial study group of 212 patients (see Table 1 below), 55 had normal vitamin D levels, which Alipio defined as greater than 30 ng/ml; 80 had insufficient levels of 21 to 29 ng/ml and 77 had deficient levels of less than 20 ng/ml.
Vitamin D levels were strongly correlated to the severity of the illness experienced. It is important to note that most experts consider 30 ng/ml half of what an optimum vitamin D level should be, which is 60 to 80 ng/ml.
Of the 49 with mild illness, 47 had normal vitamin D levels. For those of you who are not good with math that means that 96% of the patients with mild illness had "normal" levels of vitamin D. Note again this "normal" level was above 30 ng/mL, and most experts would raise that to 60 ng/mL.
Of the 104 with severe or critical illness, only four had normal levels of vitamin D. That is 4% or the reciprocal of the mild group. How much stronger a correlation could one hope for? Alipio concluded:23
"… this study provides substantial information to clinicians and health policy-makers. Vitamin D supplementation could possibly improve clinical outcomes of patients infected with Covid-2019 based on increasing odds ratio of having a mild outcome when serum (OH)D level increases."
Vitamin D Protects Against Viral Infections
Indeed, there is strong scientific evidence vitamin D plays a central role in your immune response and your ability to fight infections in general, so there's little reason to think it wouldn't provide similar protection against COVID-19.
In this video, Ivor Cummins, biochemist and chief program officer for Irish Heart Disease Awareness, explains how higher levels of vitamin D may reduce your risk of negative outcomes from COVID-19.
He also reviews some of the conditions associated with low vitamin D levels, such as insulin resistance and high levels of inflammation. As discussed in "The Real Pandemic Is Insulin Resistance," obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease are comorbidities for severe COVID-19, and insulin resistance is the underlying problem in all of these.
As noted in "Vitamin D and the Antiviral State," a literature review article published in the Journal of Clinical Virology in 2011:24
"Interventional and observational epidemiological studies provide evidence that vitamin D deficiency may confer increased risk of influenza and respiratory tract infection. Vitamin D deficiency is also prevalent among patients with HIV infection.
Cell culture experiments support the thesis that vitamin D has direct anti-viral effects particularly against enveloped viruses. Though vitamin D's anti-viral mechanism has not been fully established, it may be linked to vitamin D's ability to up-regulate the anti-microbial peptides LL-37 and human beta defensin 2."
SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped type of virus,25 which means vitamin D may actually have a direct antiviral effect on it. Future studies will have to confirm that, but in the meantime, there's absolutely no reason to ignore your vitamin D level. As reported in a recent GrassrootsHealth press release:26
"Vitamin D has several mechanisms that can reduce risk of infections. Important mechanisms regarding respiratory tract infections include:
inducing production of cathelicidins and defensins that can lower viral survival and replication rates as well as reduce risk of bacterial infection
reducing the cytokine storm that causes inflammation and damage to the lining of the lungs that can lead to pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome
Vitamin D deficiency has been found to contribute to acute respiratory distress syndrome, a major cause of death associated with COVID-19 … To reduce risk of infection, it is recommended that people at risk of influenza and/or COVID-19 consider taking 10,000 IU/day (250 micrograms/day) of vitamin D for a few weeks to rapidly raise 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations, followed by at least 5000 IU/day.
The goal should be to raise 25(OH)D concentrations above 40-60 ng/ml (100-150 nmol/l), taking whatever is necessary for that individual to achieve and maintain that level. For treatment of people who become infected with COVID-19, higher vitamin D doses would be required to rapidly increase 25(OH)D concentrations."
As the world’s attention remains focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, essential attention is turned away from other life-threatening epidemics, including opioid addiction. Prior to the COVID-19 crisis, opioid misuse and addiction had become rampant in the U.S. In the late 1990s, drug companies assured doctors that opioid pain relievers were safe and nonaddictive, leading to an increase in prescribing rates.
Opioid overdose rates increased rapidly as it became clear that opioids can be highly addictive. In 2018, 46,802 Americans died from an opioid overdose while 1.7 million suffered from substance use disorders related to opioid pain relievers.
The economic burden of prescription opioid misuse alone is $78.5 billion in the U.S. annually, which includes not only health care costs but also lost productivity, addiction treatment and criminal justice involvement.1 The economic toll, and the death toll, from the opioid epidemic is, sadly, set to rise even further now that it has collided with the COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19 Pandemic Heightens Risks for Opioid Addicts
There are physical and psychological reasons why COVID-19 poses a significant challenge for people with opioid use disorder (OUD), which affects at least 2 million Americans, and those who misuse opioids — another 10 million.2 Worldwide, 40.5 million people struggle with opioid dependence, a global prevalence of 510 cases per 100,000 people.3
Chronic respiratory disease increases the risk for fatal overdose in people who use opioids, and COVID-19 leads to compromised lung function.
Further, opioid misuse can lead to slowed breathing and hypoxemia, which can cause cardiac, pulmonary and brain complications, as well as overdose and death. As such, according to an article in the Annals of Internal Medicine, “these individuals may be at increased risk for the most adverse consequences of COVID-19.”4
People who are addicted to opioids may also be more likely to suffer from conditions that make them more vulnerable to COVID-19, including being a smoker who suffers from lung or heart disease, being homeless or having experienced other health effects from drug addiction.5 Threat of infection aside, there are a number of indirect ways that people with OUD may be adversely affected by COVID-19 as well.
“Before the first COVID-19 case in the United States, a different epidemic — the opioid crisis — was taking the lives of 130 Americans per day,” wrote two doctors from Yale School of Medicine in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Given that infection epidemics disproportionately affect socially marginalized persons with medical and psychiatric comorbid conditions — characteristics of those with opioid use disorder (OUD) — we are gravely concerned that COVID-19 will increase already catastrophic opioid overdose rates.”6 Some of the challenges faced by people with OUD during the COVID-19 pandemic include:7
Closure of substance use treatment clinics
Focus of emergency departments on COVID-19 patients — not opioid overdose
Social distancing and shelter-in-place orders adversely affecting mental health
Disruptions in Care, Increased Anxiety Are Problematic
Disruptions of care during the COVID-19 pandemic are a major concern for people with opioid use disorder, who depend on regular face-to-face health care. Many rehab facilities have closed, limited programs or limited new admissions over fears of COVID-19 spreading in a communal living facility.8
"The COVID-19 pandemic strikes at a moment when our national response to the opioid crisis was beginning to coalesce, with more persons gaining access to treatment and more patients receiving effective medications. COVID-19 threatens to dramatically overshadow and reverse this progress," according to researchers with the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.9
The social isolation imposed by the pandemic is also highly problematic and, by increasing stress and anxiety, could heighten substance abuse, opioid usage and overdose.
In addition to limiting access to peer-support groups and other vital sources of social connection for recovering addicts, “Persons who are isolated and stressed — as much of the population is during a pandemic — frequently turn to substances to alleviate their negative feelings,” wrote Dr. Nora Volkow with the National Institute on Drug Abuse. “Those in recovery will face stresses and heightened urges to use substances and will be at greatly increased risk for relapse.”10
There’s also the issue of social isolation indirectly contributing to overdose deaths because no one is there to administer naloxone, an overdose-reversing drug. Volkow continued:11
“Social distancing will increase the likelihood of opioid overdoses happening when there are no observers who can administer naloxone to reverse them and thus when they are more likely to result in fatalities.
Emergency department physicians with increased caseloads may be less likely to initiate buprenorphine therapy for patients with OUD, which is an important component of mitigating the effects of the opioid crisis.”
There are even reports of stigma and discrimination, according to Dr. Peter Grinspoon, who recovered from opioid addiction and teaches medicine at Harvard Medical School. “There are reports surfacing of police departments across the country that are refusing to offer naloxone to patients who have overdosed, on the pretext that it is too dangerous because the ‘addict’ might wake up coughing and sneezing coronavirus droplets.”12
Job Loss Associated With Opioid Overdose Deaths
The U.S. unemployment rate may skyrocket to 32.1% in the second quarter of 2020, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.13 Previously, the highest rate of unemployment in U.S. history was 24.9%, which occurred in 1933 during the Great Depression.14 The massive job losses may singlehandedly increase opioid overdose deaths, as a strong connection has been revealed between the two in the past.
A 2019 study in the Medical Care Research Review journal looked at the effects of state-level economic conditions — unemployment rates, median house prices, median household income, insurance coverage and average hours of weekly work — on drug overdose deaths between 1999 and 2014.15 According to the authors:
"Drug overdose deaths significantly declined with higher house prices … by nearly 0.17 deaths per 100,000 (~4%) with a $10,000 increase in median house price. House price effects were more pronounced and only significant among males, non-Hispanic Whites, and individuals younger 45 years.
Other economic indicators had insignificant effects. Our findings suggest that economic downturns that substantially reduce house prices such as the Great Recession can increase opioid-related deaths, suggesting that efforts to control access to such drugs should especially intensify during these periods."
An earlier investigation, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy in 2017, also connected economic recessions and unemployment with rises in illegal drug use among adults. Twenty-eight studies published between 1990 and 2015 were included in the review, 17 of which found that the psychological distress associated with economic recessions and unemployment was a significant factor. According to the authors:16
"The current evidence is in line with the hypothesis that drug use increases in times of recession because unemployment increases psychological distress which increases drug use. During times of recession, psychological support for those who lost their job and are vulnerable to drug use (relapse) is likely to be important."
Pandemic May Lead to 75,000 ‘Deaths of Despair’
In a report by the Well Being Trust (WBT) and the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, it’s estimated that up to 75,000 people may die during the COVID-19 pandemic from drug or alcohol misuse and suicide. These “deaths of despair” are expected to be exacerbated by three factors already at play:17
Unprecedented economic failure paired with massive unemployment
Mandated social isolation for months and possible residual isolation for years
Uncertainty caused by the sudden emergence of a novel, previously unknown microbe
In order to come up with their 75,000 figure, the study used data on deaths of despair from 2018 as a baseline, projected levels of unemployment from 2020 to 2029 and then used economic modeling to estimate the additional number of deaths annually. Nine different scenarios were tested, ranging from quick recovery to slow recovery.
In the best-case scenario, 27,644 deaths of despair were estimated while in the worst-case example, 154,037 deaths could occur. While 75,000 was deemed to be “most likely,” the researchers noted, “When considering the negative impact of isolation and uncertainty, a higher estimate may be more accurate.”18
“Undeniably policymakers must place a large focus on mitigating the effects of COVID. However, if the country continues to ignore the collateral damage — specifically our nation’s mental health — we will not come out of this stronger,” Benjamin F. Miller, PsyD, chief strategy officer of WBT, said in a news release.19
A commentary by Dr. Jeffrey A. Lieberman, a psychiatrist with Columbia University’s department of psychiatry, similarly suggested a mental health crisis is looming.20 “The sobering reality is that high-quality mental health care is not available to most people,” Lieberman wrote. “This lack of strategy and access is especially concerning amid disasters such as COVID-19, which can cause considerable psychological trauma.”
Prolonged Isolation May Lead to Drug Abuse
As mentioned, prolonged isolation only exacerbates the issue. “The stressors from the pandemic are very, very real and how we cope with these stressors varies enormously,” Volkow told ABC News. “Social isolation is one of the factors that leads [people with substance abuse disorder] … to take drugs, and social isolation leads them to relapse, and the social isolation leads them to continue taking them.”21
With weeks of extended isolation already logged for most Americans, some communities are already reporting a rise in drug overdose deaths. Jacksonville, Florida, for instance, had a 20% increase in overdose emergency calls in March 2020.
Four counties in New York State also reported a rise in overdoses, while Columbus, Ohio, had a surge in overdose deaths, including 12 over a 24-hour period the first week of April.22
Whether overdose deaths are increasing across the U.S. is unknown, as Volkow noted that with COVID-19 shutdowns, collecting reliable data is difficult. However, a spokesperson for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told ABC News that officials are “aware of the concerns involving COVID-19 and drug overdoses and that it could affect some populations with substance use disorders.”23
Experts are recommending increased resources for people struggling with drug addiction, including access to online meetings. Remember that even if you’re socially isolated at home, you can reach out to friends and loved ones via phone or online. Connecting with others, even virtually, can help you to feel less alone. It’s also a good idea to set a limit on watching the news or browsing social media, especially if it increases anxious feelings.24
Bill Gates has built a global empire around his technologies and “philanthropic” endeavors. His sheer wealth has allowed him to become a veritable superpower in his own right, rising to become the unelected global health tsar on COVID-19. Indeed, the World Health Organization and the White House pandemic response team even kowtows to his nonexistent medical expertise.
Life cannot and will not go back to normal until we can vaccinate the entire global population, Gates says, and that same sentiment is being echoed from government leaders and health authorities around the world. Never mind the fact that actual scientists and medical researchers are finding all sorts of simple, inexpensive and safe strategies to address this illness.
But vaccinating the global population isn’t enough, in Gates’ eyes. We must also implement surveillance of infection and vaccination status. Not surprisingly, Gates’ recommendations benefit himself most of all.
Using nonprofit money to advance research for companies you're invested in is illegal, yet he’s been getting away with this for many years. At the same time, his Foundation gets tax breaks for the charitable donations it makes money from. Remember, he has “donated” tens of billions, yet his net worth has doubled. This is largely because his “donations” are tax deductible investments.
Pandemic Fear-Mongering Pays Off for Tech Companies
While unemployment has reached a historical high during this pandemic, the financial crush is not felt by some. In fact, Gates and other tech billionaires are cashing in big, in a variety of different ways.
In a May 8, 2020, article1 in The Intercept, Naomi Klein reports on how New York is tasking Gates with reinventing the state’s “post-Covid reality, with an emphasis on permanently integrating technology into every aspect of civic life.”
May 6, 2020, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced the state is partnering with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to develop “a smarter education system” focused on online learning. This, despite the fact that the Common Core curriculum — the Gates Foundation’s previous attempt at remaking American education2 — has been an abysmal failure.3
The state is also partnering with Google, and Cuomo has asked former Google CEO Eric Schmidt to head a new panel to plan the state’s technological infrastructure.4 Schmidt joined Cuomo during a briefing, saying “The first priorities … are focused on telehealth, remote learning and broadband …” As noted by Klein:5
“It has taken some time to gel, but something resembling a coherent pandemic shock doctrine is beginning to emerge.
Call it the Screen New Deal. Far more hi-tech than anything we have seen during previous disasters, the future that is being rushed into being as the bodies still pile up treats our past weeks of physical isolation not as a painful necessity to save lives, but as a living laboratory for a permanent — and highly profitable — no-touch future …
It’s a future in which our homes are never again exclusively personal spaces, but are also, via high-speed digital connectivity, our schools, our doctor’s offices, our gyms, and, if determined by the state, our jails …
It’s a future in which our every move, our every word, our every relationship is trackable, traceable and data-mineable by unprecedented collaborations between government and tech giants.
If all of this sounds familiar, it’s because, pre-Covid, this precise app-driven, gig-fueled future was being sold to us in the name of friction-free convenience and personalization. But many of us had concerns …
Today, a great many of those well-founded concerns are being swept away by a tidal wave of panic, and this warmed-over dystopia is going through a rush-job rebranding.
Now, against a harrowing backdrop of mass death, it is being sold to us on the dubious promise that these technologies are the only possible way to pandemic-proof our lives, the indispensable keys to keeping ourselves and our loved ones safe …
At the heart of this vision is seamless integration of government with a handful of Silicon Valley giants — with public schools, hospitals, doctor’s offices, police and military all outsourcing (at a high cost) many of their core functions to private tech companies.”
In her article — which is well worth reading in its entirety — Klein reviews how Schmidt and Gates have been working and pushing toward the future that is now staring us square in the face, and how the surveillance apparatus that consumers have been railing against is now being rebranded as the answer to everyone’s health concerns.
In a May 6, 2020, article, Vox’s Theodore Schleifer weighed in on Cuomo’s decision to hand over the proverbial keys to the state to tech billionaires whose philanthropy always ends up benefiting themselves the most:6
“Details are scarce about exactly how much power these groups will have beyond issuing recommendations or whether their work will be public. But Gates could suddenly have the ability to recommend what types of things are taught to the state’s students in a ‘reimagined’ system.
Schmidt could encourage the state to significantly embrace remote health care services that could be controversial. While both have been successful business leaders, the concern would mirror the broader criticism of billionaire philanthropy: that this ‘help’ offers a few wealthy people some undemocratic influence over American public policy.”
Schmidt Futures Wants to Make Private Data Public
While less visible than Gates, Schmidt can hardly be trusted any more than Gates. Schmidt Futures — Eric and Wendy Schmidt’s philanthropic initiative, which “seeks to improve societal outcomes through the thoughtful development of emerging science and technologies that can benefit humanity”7 — admits that one of its approaches is to “liberate private data with a public purpose.”8
Clearly, infection status falls into a category of private data that is now rebranded as having a “public purpose.” As noted on its website:9
“There is a tremendous opportunity to use data collected by the private sector to solve societal challenges, and in doing so create the platforms needed to reach people at scale. Examples of data types include mobile, social media, e-commerce, remote sensing/satellite, and sensor data. Advances in data science and machine learning are increasing our capacity to use and interpret these data.”
‘Unaccountable Monopolists’ Replace Elected Representatives
In a May 14, 2020, Guardian article, Zephyr Teachout and Pat Garofalo comment:10
“Even if Schmidt and Gates had good policies, Cuomo’s knighting of them is offensive to American self-government. Nobody voted for them and they are accountable to no one. Cuomo, often accused of being too close to big campaign donors, is tripling down: he is simply allowing billionaires to plan our future directly, taking out the middlemen.
In case you had any doubt that this is a new form of government worming its way into our old democratic ways, Cuomo anointed these tsars at the exact same time that he took vast new powers away from the state legislature,11 which has not been holding regular legislative hearings since 1 April …
Turning away from locally-elected representatives, and towards billionaires with no accountability, represents a terrible erosion of democratic decision-making: Cuomo is quite literally replacing elected representatives with private, unaccountable monopolists. And too many other lawmakers across the U.S. are doing the same thing.”
The Gates, Soros and Clinton Contact Tracing Group
Whether preplanned or not, the COVID-19 pandemic is clearly being used to usher in highly controversial changes that are unmistakably totalitarian-building, including the private take-over of government through public-private partnerships.
Contact tracing serves as a convenient bridge12 for this hostile takeover parading as “aid.” Not only is Big Tech offering up contact tracing apps, self-serving billionaires are also funding contact tracing groups that will provide “boots on the ground” services.
For example, Partners in Health — the group selected by Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker to conduct COVID-19 contact tracing using teams of investigators to interview people who test positive — is funded by Gates and one of the richest men in the world, George Soros. The William J. Clinton Foundation has also funded Partners in Health in the past.13
Chelsey Clinton sits on its board of trustees, and one of the group’s co-founders, Jim Kim, spent three years at the WHO14 and is currently the president of the World Bank. He rejoined Partners in Health’s board of directors in January 2019.15
UK Demands Answers About COVID Data Deal
Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, OpenDemocracy and the tech start-up Foxglove are demanding the U.K. government share the details of its patient data deals with Big Tech. In a May 7, 2020, post, OpenDemocracy.net writes:16
“Outside of the horrific death toll, perhaps the most far-reaching global consequence of the pandemic is the rapid expansion of surveillance in our daily lives. In the name of beating back the pandemic, governments around the world are giving tech giants extensive access to valuable stores of health data.
Britain is no different. On 28 March, a blog17 quietly appeared on the website of the cherished National Health Service. It announced what might be the largest handover of NHS patient data to private corporations in history.
U.S. tech giants Amazon, Microsoft, and Google — plus two controversial AI films called Faculty and Palantir — are apparently assisting the NHS in tracking hospital resources and in providing a ‘single source of truth’ about the epidemic, in order to stem its spread.”
While the amount of British health data being shared with these companies has been described as “unprecedented,” the U.K. government has yet to release the details about the partnership.
Suspiciously, Palantir is reportedly providing its COVID-19 Datastore services to the NHS for just £1.18 This despite the fact that its services are estimated to cost around £88,000 a week, and that’s just for salaries.19 How and why is Palantir giving away its services for free? The old adage, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch” seems applicable here.
OpenDemocracy also questions how the artificial intelligence (AI) startup Faculty has managed to land seven different government contracts worth nearly £1 million in the last 18 months.20
“We have laws in Britain which mean journalists and members of the public can access information about such deals, so that they can answer precisely these sorts of questions. But now the UK government is acting as though these laws no longer apply,” OpenDemocracy writes.
UK Government Ignores FOIA Request
Foxglove submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the U.K. government on April 3, 2020. A reply is required within 20 working days, yet no response has been forthcoming. The British Information Commissioner’s Office, the independent regulator responsible for FOIA enforcement, has announced21 it has relaxed enforcement for the duration of the pandemic crisis.
That seems suspiciously convenient, considering deals are being made in secret that shouldn’t be, and panic is being drummed up without much real-world data to support the narrative that we’re still in a high-risk situation.22
“Although the wording of the announcement was vague, it risks leaving the public with no practical way to hold the government to account — indefinitely,” OpenDemocracy states, adding:
“We have given the UK government until 11 May to release the information requested about these massive COVID data deals. If they fail to do so, we will consider seeking answers in the courts.
The public urgently needs to know not only how their personal information is being traded, and who has access to it. But also whether this pandemic means that our rights to ask questions, and to scrutinize the actions of our leaders, are fundamentally compromised. COVID-19 cannot be an excuse for governments and corporations to avoid accountability.”
Tech Initiative Seeks to Alter Global Behavior
Anyone still living under the misguided spell that governments’ responses to this pandemic are simply temporary emergency measures need to rapidly reassess. As reported by Vox,23 tech billionaires like Gates and Schmidt are hard at work trying to convince governments and the public at large that only they can save us from another pandemic.
Such is the focus of the Pandemic Action Network, responsible for the #MaskingForAFriend Twitter campaign, pushed by Hillary Clinton and other celebrities.24
“… the #MaskingForAFriend campaign … seeks to change personal behavior. But its more important ambition is to change government behavior,” Vox writes.
“This initiative is one of the more forward-looking attempts from philanthropy to shape what the world looks like after the crisis, and one of the few focused on political advocacy. The push is small for now, with just $1.5 million in initial cash from Schmidt Futures, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and other backers.
But the Pandemic Action Network aims to lead a pressure campaign that shapes the policy debate, a debate that will be at the fore of the next wave of pandemic response efforts.”
Digital Health Passports Coming to 15 Nations
A lead-in to global totalitarianism, predicated on protecting public health and preventing another pandemic, is the issuance of “digital health passports.” According to the British tech magazine Verdict,25 coronavirus digital health passports are now being supplied to 15 nations.
The passport is “designed to make it easier for individuals to return to work after the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic” — as if we’ve never been able to return to normal life after any other epidemic or pandemic scare. In a May 11, 2020, article Verdict reports:26
“These countries will include Italy, Portugal, France, Panama, India, the U.S., Canada, Sweden, Spain, South Africa, Mexico, United Arab Emirates and The Netherlands, with the goal of supplying 50 million digital health passports … The Covi-pass27 will work using a color system of green, amber, red to indicate whether the individual has tested positive or negative for Covid-19 and relevant health information.
Firstly, the user downloads the app and enters key information such as name, address, age and verifies their identity using their fingerprint or a facial scan.
They then take a Covid-19 test, administered by an authorized healthcare professional, and the results are scanned into the Covi-pass. They can then use the digital health passport to authenticate their health status to enable ‘a safe return to work, life, and safe travel.’”
According to Covipass.com,28 the app will display “your COVID-19 test history and immunoresponse and other relevant health information.”
As I’ve stated before, a RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) test result is basically worthless, since a) it merely detects the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material, not the actual virus, and b) you can get infected at any time after you get your test results, rendering the “verification” of your infection status null and void.
According to a recent speech by U.S. President Donald Trump, his administration is mobilizing the military to distribute the vaccine once ready, which could be as early as the end of 2020.
At the same time, the U.S. Senate has voted to renew federal surveillance powers that would otherwise have expired,29 and an ill-named bill, HR 6666, would put the government in charge of COVID-19 tracking and tracing, costing taxpayers a whopping $100 billion.30
Virus Surveillance and Civil Liberties Collide
As predicted in a Law360 article31 published April 26, 2020, virus surveillance is now colliding head-on with civil liberties:
“Imagine your phone buzzing with an alert: Someone who passed you at the grocery store has tested positive for COVID-19. Based on location data transmitted through a smart phone app, authorities believe the stranger exposed you to the coronavirus. You might be infected.
The alert directs you to self-quarantine for 14 days to prevent further spread of the deadly disease. In the app, a map of color-coded dots displays the population of your home town. You notice the dot associated with you, previously green, has turned to yellow — now everyone else with the app knows you could be dangerous.
Whether the scenario sounds Orwellian or absolutely necessary could depend on your answer to a rhetorical question Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently posed during a live Snapchat interview. ‘Do you give up a little liberty to get a little protection?’ he said.”
The answer to that question should be a resounding “no.” The idea that government can keep you safe against a virus by giving up your civil liberties is a fantasy that must be outgrown. As noted by CNN Business:32
“It took the attacks of September 11, 2001 to shove aside the previous decade's phobia of mass surveillance, and usher in an era where many of us imagined the state was probably skimming our emails, in exchange for keeping us safe from terror.
Over the next 15 years, billions of people agreed to a tacit deal where Facebook or Google were permitted to learn a staggering amount about them in exchange for free access to messaging apps, news, and shared pictures … Eventually, that mutated into the heights exemplified by Cambridge Analytica — private companies hoovering up the online lives of tens of millions in order to try to sway elections.
But the challenge presented by Covid-19 — and the urgent need to trace contacts and movements — is of another scale of intimacy … Technology is again claiming the mantle of the savior … embedding into our phones anonymous methods of knowing who we may have infected and when … If they become ubiquitous, where does this new scrutiny end? … Will we look back at 2020 as the moment privacy finally evaporated?”
It’s time to fully recognize that surveillance has become the biggest for-profit industry on the planet, and your entire existence is now being targeted for profit.
COVID-19 has sparked fear and panic across the world. Every day, the news is reporting the number of individuals who have likely died from the infection. True to the need to report negative news, they are talking about the thousands who have died, but not the hundreds of thousands who have survived the infection.
The virus is virulent and indeed killing people. But there are far, far more who survive it with minor to moderate symptoms and don't require hospitalization or supportive care. In an effort to "flatten the curve," or reduce the number who get infected in a short period of time, many countries have created quarantine rules, shelter-in-place edicts and social distancing recommendations.
State governors across the U.S. have declared a state of emergency, which gives them additional powers under state law. According to the National Governors Association, state governors usually1 "are responsible for implementing state laws and overseeing the operation of the state executive branch."
The declaration of a state of emergency opens the door for a number of different actions and added authority unique to each state.2 According to public health experts from The Ohio State University:3
"Before getting federal assistance, the governor must declare a state of emergency and begin to follow the state's emergency plan, a provision which emphasizes that the state is the primary authority in the disaster. That is important because emergency powers not only allow state governments to 'provide for' populations, but also 'decide for' individuals in ways that might limit their rights.
The idea is that sticking to normal legislative processes and legal standards takes time – and that during a crisis delays could cost lives. In an outbreak, such limits on individual rights involve travel restrictions, social distancing measures and isolation and quarantine.
In the case of COVID-19, the Department of Health and Human Services, using the federal Public Health Services Act, invoked federal powers to prevent 'cascading public health, economic, national security and societal consequences.' In addition to this, federal authority empowers the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to examine and quarantine anyone entering the U.S. or traveling across state lines."
Police Following Rules With Unreasonable Force
Although changes may have helped reduce the initial spread of the virus, how some are implementing the rules look more like the dawn of martial law. This is ironic, considering we are a country that proudly proclaims itself to be the "land of the free and the home of the brave."
For example, Twitter user CJ Pearson4 posted a video on May 14, 2020, showing at least six police officers in New York City physically taking down one small mother. The video is disturbing and clearly shows her exiting the subway station with a mask around her neck and her young child in tow.
The officers surrounded her and forced her back up the stairs into the subway station. At one point they grabbed her and three forced her to the ground with her face against the floor. One officer held her young child within feet of her mother being taken to the floor. Four officers surrounded the woman while attempting to put on a pair of handcuffs as she's lying on the ground.
She squirmed and continued to yell at the officers to leave her alone and to get off her. As they escort her from the station, a bystander yelled to the officers to take her child with her. The video was retweeted 14,300 times. One person commented, "Wow. This is scary! Reminds me of the videos in Wuhan of cops dragging people out of their homes. I thought we were better than this."
Another tweeted, "As a NYC Realtor, I can't physically show a property because #Coronavirus. But #NYPD puts her face down on dirty @MTA floor while others touch her child with dirty gloves? That's OK?"
This isn't the first video coming out of New York and not the only city reeling under the enforcement of regulations, rules or statements that citizens must practice social distancing and wear a mask. A video circulated showing an off-duty officer in Alabama who was caught on camera body slamming a shopper to the floor at Walmart.5
The person walked into the store and refused to wear a mask. At the time, Walmart was simply encouraging their customers to wear them, but they weren't required.6 She became irritated when an employee asked her to put on a face covering. When she refused to leave, an off-duty officer who was working for Walmart at the time tried to detain her.
As shown in the video, she pushed away as he tried to handcuff her. At this point he grabbed her left leg out from under her and flipped her to the floor. Sergeant Rod Mauldin later said the officer felt he needed to gain control of the woman because of "other threat factors in the store."
The threats were not detailed, and the video shows only a second woman standing aside and yelling at the officer. As the officer was escorting her out of the store, two of her friends began arguing with him. The video shows him pulling out a canister and appearing to mace them.7
These are two of many incidents that have happened across the U.S. and around the world. While it may be necessary for the police to implement the rules and regulations, it's not necessary to do it with unreasonable force.
Liquor Stores Are Essential as Drive-In Churches Bullied
Some states are taking extreme measures against specific groups. In Greenville, Mississippi, the city government categorized liquor stores as essential. This allows them to provide curbside service to their customers.8 But, churches were not allowed to hold services when those attending stayed in their cars with the windows up.
In other words, liquor was being handed through open car windows to drivers who were not wearing masks, but church goers were bullied by police officers for being parked in the church parking lot with their windows up. Pastor James Hamilton spoke with Fox News reporter Tucker Carlson about the situation he and his churchgoers found themselves in on the Thursday before Easter.9
The parishioners were lined up in the parking lot, in their cars with the windows up. The pastor had also asked the parishioners to park their cars away from each other, a practice not in place at grocery stores or hardware stores. He was preaching from outside the cars when 20 or more police cars arrived to surround the six cars in the parking lot.
Kelly Shackelford from the First Liberty Institute, a civil rights group that came to the aid of the church, commented on the new regulations in Greenville, saying they were targeting "churches in a way that it targets no other groups. Cars in the parking lot are fine. It's only a crime if the cars in the parking lot are in the church parking lot."
He went on to recount how one police officer approached the pastor and told him because of the new local orders in Greenville, his rights were "suspended." However, Shackelford said that individuals' constitutional rights have not been suspended by the new orders. Hamilton shared it was Mayor Errick Simmons who was behind the order.
The Justice Department backed the lawsuit filed by the church and the suit is pending. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear ordered police to take down the license plates of anyone parked in a church lot to enforce an additional 14-day quarantine.10 U.S District Judge Justin Walker wrote a 20-page opinion in which he commented the city must stop:
"… enforcing; attempting to enforce; threatening to enforce; or otherwise requiring compliance with any prohibition on drive-in church services at On Fire.
On Holy Thursday, an American mayor criminalized the communal celebration of Easter. That sentence is one that this Court never expected to see outside the pages of a dystopian novel, or perhaps the pages of The Onion."
Abuse of Power Strips Civil Rights
This video is disturbing but illustrates infractions happening around the world:
Human rights infractions are happening worldwide, and the United Nations' human rights chief has issued a warning to governments that are abusing their power, saying,11 "the rule of law in the name of fighting the novel coronavirus pandemic risk [is] sparking a 'human rights disaster.'"
Emergencies have been declared in 80 countries. The UN has highlighted 15 where infractions are troubling, but the director of field operations said several dozen more could have been added. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet is asking countries to cease violating fundamental human rights. She warned:12
"Emergency powers should not be a weapon governments can wield to quash dissent, control the population, and even perpetuate their time in power. They should be used to cope effectively with the pandemic - nothing more, nothing less."
Tens of thousands of people have been detained and arrested, violating confinement measures to curtail the pandemic. The Philippines was at the top of the list with 120,000 people arrested in 30 days. In South Africa, reports of police using rubber bullets, tear gas and whips were received by the UN. Additional charges against the police included rape, murder, the use of firearms and corruption.
China, long known for their use of technology to invade the rights of their citizens, has dramatically increased its data collection after the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2. As they pursue gathering more data, in the name of curtailing the pandemic, the government has released a number of new tactics to monitor and track potential cases.
There is much concern that the pandemic has strengthened the country's case for collecting data on their citizens — and that the data harvest will be permanent. In the past months China began using futuristic technology, such as:13
Using drones to watch which people are using masks or going indoors
Measuring people's temperatures using new facial recognition software
Using software to identify individuals based on body and face structure, even under masks
Using phone data to check who has been close to a person who tested positive for COVID-19
Using police helmets with cameras fitted with facial recognition and thermal software to identify and quarantine people with a fever
Citizens are also being required to download an app that uses information from their Alibaba account to estimate health and risk of contagion; the information is then shared with the police.
Experts fear the data collection will continue after the public health threat is gone. This type of surveillance already exists in the Northwestern region of China where the state feels they are under threat by religious extremism. Maya Wang is a senior researcher at China's Human Rights Watch. She spoke to Business Insider, saying:14
"The use of these systems is taking place without privacy law or surveillance law that effectively protects people's privacy rights, to allow them to challenge such designation or the imposition of quarantine."
Darren Byler is a technology expert who specializes in China's Xinjiang region. He commented on the use of technology to monitor people, warning:15
"Once you have the tools in place, you'd probably continue to use them, and you can expand them and use them for other purposes. From the US context, the PATRIOT Act, Homeland Security, and countering violent extremist programs that the US put in place initially after 9/11 were focused on Muslim Americans, but have now been radically expanded to look at asylum seekers of all types, like people coming across the southern border into the US.
Once these systems are in place, once things are built, once they're designed — you can't put them back in the box, and once political leaders see the utility of them and see that they can extend their power, extend their control, then of course they will continue to use them and use them in new ways."
Amid the questions about COVID-19's origin and lab research are questions about the self-appointed global health groups addressing the pandemic. According to a recent video blog by a Canadian citizen journalist who goes by the name "Amazing Polly," global health groups operate as a Mafia, shamelessly using extortion and protection to achieve their goals.1
According to Polly, even though global health groups have nongovernmental organization "NGO names," they are actually Mafia-like families answering to a "don." The groups use threatening and coercive techniques to "cripple nation states and at the same time, of course, enrich themselves." Their actions are especially apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In Mafia protection racket schemes, people will pay extortion money when they are convinced bad things can or will happen. The same phenomenon is now seen with governments that might have been skeptical about an imminent pandemic until the arrival of COVID-19 and now want to pay for preparedness, says Polly.
$8 Billion Raised in 2.5 Hours
One example of the Mafia-like pressure that is foisted on governments was in evidence at a May 4, 2020, Coronavirus Global Response pledging event hosted by European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen.2 During the pledge drive, a string of world leaders agreed that their countries would fund the global coronavirus response while sounding "like they were reading hostage notes," says Polly.
One after another in video clips, the leaders of Slovenia, Oman, Monaco, Italy, South Africa, Israel, Sweden, Portugal, Estonia, Switzerland, Finland and Romania deliver wooden and identical statements about the need for "treatments, diagnostics and vaccines" for COVID-19. They sound like robots or, as Polly observes, hostages.
In just 2.5 hours, the "captured nation states" deliver $8 billion for a coronavirus global response funded by taxpayers. Worse, the funds do not go to a neutral party for disbursement but go directly to foundations, vaccine makers and front groups who are self-dealing for enrichment and power.
What Is the National Academy of Medicine?
The National Academy of Medicine (NAM), known as the Institute of Medicine until 2015, is headed by Dr. Victor Dzau, who anchored the Coronavirus Global Response pledging event and wears many public health hats at global organizations and universities.
Though NAM appears to be a government agency and in many respects commands comparable power, it is actually an NGO, notes Polly. Moreover, the NGO NAM is a "foundation funded by foundations."
In keeping with the analogy of NGOs serving as a don's family, the funders of the NAM include the "usual suspects" — high-level industry players with worldwide agendas. They include the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), the Wellcome Trust, the World Economic Forum, the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
Mainstream media are known to give favorable coverage to the NGOs and can work closely with them. At the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in April 2020, which encompasses NAM, Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN appeared as a presenter and "offered lessons from his experience reporting on COVID-19."3
While the usual, well-known global health organizations fund NAM, some of them also oversee its mission. The Rockefeller Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Unilever serve on NAM's oversight group. With its name change, NAM has also enlarged its scope. According to its web page:4
"Although the National Academies were originally created to advise the U.S. government and advance the well-being of the U.S. population, our mandate is now much broader. The NAM includes members from across the globe and partners with organizations worldwide to address challenges that affect us all …
We identify and generate momentum around critical issues in health; marshal diverse expertise to build evidence-based solutions; inspire action through collaboration and public engagement; and foster the next generation of leaders and innovators."
NAM Works With All the Usual Suspects
Despite the reported origination of COVID-19 in China and the country's disingenuousness about the virus, relations between the countries are still friendly at the NGO level. For example, George Gao, director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, also spoke at the April NAS/NAM conference, according to the National Acadamies press release.5
"'Early and active case detection is very important, especially at the community level,' he said. Asked whether China is expecting a second wave, Gao said they would have to wait and see, later noting prevention strategies the country is taking as it resumes business and social activity. 'We’ve got to 'dance' with the virus, there’s no choice,' he said."
The consensus of the conference attendants was the urgent need for a vaccine against COVID-19, according to the press release.6
"The only way to ultimately stop the virus from spreading and to prevent its future resurgence is with a vaccine, said National Academy of Medicine President and panel moderator Victor Dzau, an assessment echoed by multiple other panelists."
The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI)
The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations is a huge player in the coronavirus global response and vaccine initiatives and was in attendance at the conference.7 CEPI already has 107 active COVID-19 vaccine development programs around the world.
According to remarks at a World Economic Forum event from British journalist Minton Beddoes, CEPI is a collaboration between governments, foundations and the private sector. Players include the Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum, the Wellcome Trust, the governments of Norway, Germany, Japan and India and the Pharma companies GSK, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, Takeda and Pfizer.8
"We want to make sure that the world has access to those vaccines, and that access to vaccines is not just concentrated in a few nations,” said CEPI CEO Richard Hatchett at the NAS annual meeting, an apparent homage to CEPI's six Pharma members.9
Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, stressed at the meeting that the vaccine initiative requires a global partnership. "We do live in a tense world, and we live in a slightly polarized world and our job as scientists is to bring people together," he said. Whether the work is happening in China or at NIH, it is all linked at a scientific level, he stated.10
The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, Another Family
The same, few organizations are behind almost all the global health programs and especially those addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, says Polly. The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB) is a case in point.11
It is a front organization that "made itself a seemingly independent organization so when the public hears it they're not going to think 'oh, that's the World Health Organization again; that's the World Bank again?'" says Polly. Yet it is synonymous with both groups.
Commensurate with the Mafia analogy, the GPMB's board members include Dzau, Dr. Chris Elias, who is president of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Global Development Division, Gao and Dr. Anthony Fauci. Its funders include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, the government of Germany and a less well-known group, Resolve to Save Lives.
Resolve to Save Lives appears to be yet another foundation funded by foundations. According to its web site, it is funded by "Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Gates Philanthropy Partners, which is funded with support from the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation."12
GPMB has worked closely with Johns Hopkins, which hosted the pandemic preparedness exercise Event 201 in 2019. According to the Center for Health Security:13
"The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY.
The exercise illustrated areas where public/private partnerships will be necessary during the response to a severe pandemic in order to diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences."
One of the goals of the event, says Polly, was to get pandemic preparedness financed even when the panic of an actual pandemic was not at hand.
Questions About the Pandemic
There are many questions about the origin of COVID-19 and whether the U.S. government and the Chinese government are telling the truth. Both governments admit that they have been studying dangerous pathogens like bat coronaviruses at China's Wuhan Virology Lab, Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Army Biological Weapons Lab in Fort Detrick, Maryland.
What they don't admit to is manipulating or weaponizing the bat viruses. Yet the U.S. funded "gain of function" virus experiments in China's Wuhan lab, which are tantamount to experiments manipulating and weaponizing viruses. Worse, some of the money that funded Wuhan virus experiments14 came from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which Fauci directs.
The experiments on bat viruses at the Wuhan Labs were also aided by the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch.15 The experiments persisted in China even after such virus enhancement experiments were banned in the U.S. Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Labs admit they developed ways for SARS-like viruses to gain entry into human cells.16
Other Disturbing Red Flags
Also disturbing was the fact that news stories questioning China's official explanations of the COVID-19 outbreak were censored. According to the New York Post in April 2020, some stories were dubbed "False Information" on Facebook and unreadable when users tried to share them with others.17 But at least one Facebook “fact checker” who was supposed to be “outing” false information was false herself.18
Danielle E. Anderson, assistant professor, Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, who had previously been a paid researcher at the Wuhan lab, and who regularly worked with Wuhan’s researchers, showed that she had plenty of conflicts of interest when she was busy “fact checking” posts that criticized or questioned the lab’s work. Of course, she attested to the lab’s “strict control and containment measures” as she ruled posts that criticized the lab as “false.”
There are also questions about Dr. Robert Redfield, CDC director, and Dr. Deborah Birx, members of the White House's Coronavirus Task Force. According to Robert Kennedy Jr.:19
"In 1992, two military investigators charged Redfield & Birx with engaging in 'a systematic pattern of data manipulation, inappropriate statistical analyses & misleading data presentation in an apparent attempt to promote the usefulness of the GP160 AIDS vaccine.'
A subsequent Air Force tribunal on Scientific Fraud and Misconduct agreed that Redfield’s 'misleading or, possibly, deceptive' information 'seriously threatens his credibility as a researcher and has the potential to negatively impact AIDS research funding for military institutions as a whole.'"
Beware the Global Health Mafia
It is clear from Polly's research that many global health foundations and front groups are using Mafia-like tactics to further their goals. The "Davos Set," as she calls them, are exploiting worldwide panic over the COVID-19 pandemic for their own self-dealing, self-enrichment and power. The $8 billion they raised at the coronavirus global response pledge event in April is a case in point.
Red flags about media censorship coupled with the Mafia-like operations of foundations and vaccine makers in addressing the pandemic should make us all wary of the global health establishment.
Meatpacking plants have joined nursing homes and prisons as hot spots of COVID-19 cases, and the infections are affecting the surrounding communities as well. It's one more way that the industrial model of food production that's permeated the U.S. is failing and, rather than supplying healthy food for the public, is causing environmental destruction and disease.
In an April 2020 report, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that COVID-19 cases among U.S. workers in 115 meat and poultry processing facilities were reported by 19 states. The facilities employ approximately 130,000 workers and have seen 4,913 cases and 20 deaths.
"Factors potentially affecting risk for infection include difficulties with workplace physical distancing and hygiene and crowded living and transportation conditions," the CDC noted.1 An analysis by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) further revealed that counties containing meatpacking plants, or located within 15 miles of one, are also facing an above-average number of COVID-19 infections.2
Nearly Double the COVID-19 Infections in Meatpacking Counties
Using cases reported by Johns Hopkins University, EWG revealed that, as of May 6, 2020, counties with meatpacking plants, or within a 15-mile radius, reported 373 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 residents, which is close to double the U.S. average of 199 cases per 100,000. EWG reported:3
"Meat plant outbreaks are among the largest drivers of the recent eight-fold growth in COVID-19 cases in rural America. Before [meat plants were ordered to remain open on April 28] … at least 30 plants temporarily closed to address their outbreaks, although most have remained open without pause. In at least one state, the governor overrode public health officials to force a plant to remain open."
A Bloomberg analysis also revealed that, during the week after the order that meatpacking plants remain open, cases of COVID-19 increased 40% in counties with major meat slaughterhouses compared to a 19% rise across the U.S.4 While such counties represent just 7.5% of the U.S. population, they accounted for 10% of new COVID-19 cases and were described as new hot spots in the mostly rural areas.
Neighboring communities are also at risk, because while the average U.S. commute is 15 miles one way, many meat plant workers likely travel much farther to get to work. "… [B]ecause the 15-mile radius around meatpacking plants often crosses county or state lines, seemingly isolated case clusters not only endanger one community but can also spread the virus to neighboring counties or states," EWG noted.5
As an example, EWG cited Dakota City, Nebraska, which is home to Tyson Foods. The plant reported 669 cases on April 30, 2020, but the seven counties that are located in a 15-mile radius of Dakota City have an average of 1,000 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people. Worse still are the counties that are near more than one meatpacking plant, "creating a deadly Venn diagram with overlapping zones of potential plant-linked infections."6
Tama, Black Hawk and Marshall counties in central Iowa, which have three meatpacking plants, have an average of 1,483 cases per 100,000 residents — more than seven times the U.S. national average.
Consolidation Leads to Rises in COVID-19 and Meat Shortages
Tyson, JBS USA, Smithfield Foods and Cargill Inc. control the majority of U.S. meat and poultry, most of which are processed in a limited number of large plants. Because the processing is concentrated into a small number of large facilities, a U.S. government statement noted, "[C]losure of any of these plants could disrupt our food supply and detrimentally impact our hardworking farmers and ranchers."7
While the move to keep meat and poultry processing plants open was met with criticism from unions calling for increased protections for workers in the cramped conditions, the government cited statistics that closing one large beef processing plant could lead to a loss of more than 10 million servings of beef in a day.
Further they noted that closing one processing plant can eliminate more than 80% of the supply of a given meat product, such as ground beef, to an entire grocery store chain.8 It's unknown just how many COVID-19 infections have occurred among the more than 500,000 workers employed by the approximately 7,600 slaughter and processing facilities in North America.9
Some states and counties are not releasing information about which facilities have cases. Even the workers at some facilities have been kept in the dark as outbreaks occurred. EWG reported, however:
"According to the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting, as of May 12, there have been at least 12,500 reported COVID-19 cases tied to meatpacking facilities in at least 180 plants in 31 states. As of May 12, the Food and Environment Reporting Network's map of all meat and food processing plant COVID-19 outbreaks shows infections of 13,342 meat industry workers."10
EWG also reported the meatpacking plants with the most COVID-19 cases, with the top 10 as follows:11
Confirmed Cases in Counties Within 15 Miles
Share of Confirmed County Cases From Nearby Facility Outbreaks
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Dakota City, Nebraska
St. Joseph, Missouri
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Dodge City, Kansas
CAFOs Killing Off Unprecedented Number of Animals
The problems caused by consolidation in the meat industry are perhaps no more apparent than to the farmers left with hundreds of thousands of animals quickly growing too large for slaughter, and nowhere to send them. Farmers with large pig farms are being particularly hard hit, although egg and poultry farmers have also been affected.
If slaughterhouses close, the farmers have nowhere to send their animals, and with a new, younger group waiting to replace them, have no room to spare. Across the U.S., farmers are being forced to gas, lethally inject or shoot food animals in the head, a waste of meat during a time when many are struggling to find food, and a sentence that's causing emotional damage to farmers.
"The economic part of it is damaging," Steve Meyer, a pork industry analyst, told The New York Times. "But the emotional and psychological and spiritual impact of this will have much longer consequences."12 The mental turmoil is also giving way to another environmental problem — what to do with all the dead bodies. The Times reported:13
"In recent weeks, animal health officials in Minnesota have leased plots of land as large as 100 acres to create composting sites for hogs. Each day, farmers arrive in trucks to unload the remains of their pigs. Then a cleanup crew puts the carcasses into a wood chipper.
So far, the state has composted more than 5,000 pig carcasses across two locations, and it plans to establish up to three more disposal sites in the coming weeks, said Michael Crusan, a spokesman for the Board of Animal Health.
Farmers, who spend about $130 to raise each pig, pay to transport the carcasses to the disposal sites, where the state covers the cost of composting. Some farmers who have had to cull large numbers of animals have lost as much as $390,000 in a single day."
Meat Inspectors Spreading Disease
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is tasked with conducting inspections on U.S. meat supplies. This requires inspectors to travel to slaughterhouses, processing plants and other facilities across the U.S.
FSIS inspectors speaking to Government Executive criticized the agency's handling of the inspection process during the pandemic, detailing unsafe working practices that are likely contributing to the spread of disease.14 Prior to April 2020, multiple inspectors said they were prohibited from wearing masks during inspections because it would create fear in the facilities.
Reports have emerged of potential disruptions to the food supply chain as meat plants, including facilities in Greeley, Colorado, and Columbus Junction, Iowa, closed due to COVID-19 outbreaks among employees and federal inspectors. However, prior to the closure, as inspectors in Greeley fell ill, the USDA sent another round of inspectors to the plant to supplement the workforce there.
FSIS also relocated employees from a Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Smithfield plant that closed to a facility in Waterloo, Iowa, where inspectors were also testing positive for COVID-19. While inspectors questioned the strategy of moving employees potentially exposed to COVID-19 from one hot zone to the next, FSIS told inspectors to keep working, even if they'd been exposed, as long as they had not yet developed symptoms.15
FSIS has not revealed how many inspectors have contracted COVID-19, but Buck McKay, an FSIS spokesperson, stated that "ensuring the U.S. supply chain remains strong is [the agency's] top priority."16
'The Sickness in Our Food Supply'
In an article titled "The Sickness in Our Food Supply,"17 author Michael Pollan succinctly sums up many of the problems facing the food supply, and how they've now been thrust into the spotlight due to COVID-19. Americans, for the first time in decades, have been faced with empty grocery store shelves and meat shortages.
In May 2020 Costco began limiting the amount of meat each shopper could purchase, while Kroger warned customers that it could soon have limited inventory.18 The problem, however, isn't a shortage of food but problems with distribution and breaks in the supply chain.
Adding insult to injury, the foods that the industrialized food system promotes, including heavily processed junk foods, are those that contribute to the chronic diseases that make people most at risk from severe COVID-19 infection. And some of the most questionable practices of all, like the massive planting of corn and soybean crops, are likely to be unscathed by the pandemic. Pollan wrote:19
"The pandemic is, willy-nilly, making the case for deindustrializing and decentralizing the American food system, breaking up the meat oligopoly, ensuring that food workers have sick pay and access to health care, and pursuing policies that would sacrifice some degree of efficiency in favor of much greater resilience.
Somewhat less obviously, the pandemic is making the case not only for a different food system but for a radically different diet as well.
It's long been understood that an industrial food system built upon a foundation of commodity crops like corn and soybeans leads to a diet dominated by meat and highly processed food. Most of what we grow in this country is not food exactly, but rather feed for animals and the building blocks from which fast food, snacks, soda, and all the other wonders of food processing, such as high-fructose corn syrup, are manufactured.
While some sectors of agriculture are struggling during the pandemic, we can expect the corn and soybean crop to escape more or less unscathed. That's because it takes remarkably little labor—typically a single farmer on a tractor, working alone—to plant and harvest thousands of acres of these crops. So processed foods should be the last kind to disappear from supermarket shelves.
Unfortunately, a diet dominated by such foods (as well as lots of meat and little in the way of vegetables or fruit—the so-called Western diet) predisposes us to obesity and chronic diseases such as hypertension and type-2 diabetes. These 'underlying conditions' happen to be among the strongest predictors that an individual infected with Covid-19 will end up in the hospital with a severe case of the disease …"
Support the PRIME Act
Under current government regulations, the USDA, not individual states, has control over how meat is processed. Small livestock producers are forced to drive long distances to have their animals slaughtered at slaughterhouses that meet federal inspection standards — the same slaughterhouses that are now being shut down because the giant facilities are breeding grounds for disease.
Small, custom slaughterhouses are not permitted to sell any of their meat to grocery stores, schools or restaurants, even though it could now prove to be a lifeline to states.
The Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption (PRIME) Act, introduced by Representative Thomas Massie, R-Ky., would allow farmers to sell meat processed at these smaller slaughtering facilities and allow states to set their own meat processing standards.
Because small slaughterhouses do not have an inspector on staff, a requirement that only large facilities can easily fulfill, they're banned from selling their meat. The PRIME Act would lift this regulation without sacrificing safety, as random USDA inspections could still occur.20
Massie stated that the shutting down of meat processing plants is driving the euthanizing of animals that may lead to shortages in the supermarket, including a shortage of beef by the fall. "Let those small meat processors fill in the gaps so that we don't have the dangerous situation where we're euthanizing animals instead of providing them as food. My bill would allow that to happen," he stated.21
We are repeatedly told that COVID-19 originated from a wild animal at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China, and that it is a natural mutation of a bat virus. But the hard evidence contradicts this theory.
Did COVID-19 Start in the Huanan Seafood Market?
There is evidence that the first confirmed COVID-19 hospital patient had no contact with the Huanan Seafood Market, and only a few of the next few patients had contact with the market, which would rule out the possibility that the market was the original source of the virus.
The graph below comes from a peer-reviewed scientific paper published in The Lancet. The first recorded incidence of a COVID-19 symptomatic patient being admitted to a hospital occurred December 1, 2019.1 This patient had no contact with the seafood market.
Nine days later, on December 10, 2019, three more patients were admitted to the hospital, two of whom had had no contact with the seafood market. One patient had contact with the market. Five days later, two more people were reported sick after being at the market; however, others who had had no contact with the market continued to be admitted to hospitals. This data clearly shows that the Huanan Seafood Market was not the original source of COVID-19.
The virus (called 2019-nCoV then and now called SARS-CoV-2) was circulating in the Wuhan community for at least nine days before the first reported case of a patient who had had contact with the market. The market cluster most likely came from an infected person visiting the market, and infecting stall holders and customers because of its crowded conditions.
The market was closed down January 1, 2020, and cleaned out with bleach to contain this disease. This effectively destroyed any chance of determining if there were infected animals as claimed by the Chinese government, the World Health Organization and others. However, as the virus was circulating in Wuhan before the first cases occurred in the market, closing down the market did not stop this pandemic.
While the virus was spreading throughout Wuhan, and people seriously ill with a new form of pneumonia were going to hospitals, the Chinese government was jailing the doctors who were warning others about this disease.
The government was also telling the world that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission, instead insisting that this was a rare disease that came directly from animals and that could not be passed from person to person — which we now know to be a lie.
A paper published February 6, 2020, by two Chinese researchers showed that there were no bats in the seafood market and that the only bats and bat viruses in Wuhan were at the Wuhan Center for Disease Control & Prevention and Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
This paper stated that the most likely source of COVID-19 was an accident at one of these labs, and that more research should be undertaken to determine if an accident at the lab was to blame for the pandemic. The Chinese government used pressure to have this paper withdrawn, deleted and suppressed, and the researchers silenced.
However in the interest of transparency and freedom of speech, we are providing a link to the original paper as we managed to save a copy before the Chinese government tried to delete it.2
SARS-CoV-2, the name of the virus that causes COVID-19, has not been found in the wild. Its nearest relative, RaTG13, was collected from bats by WIV researchers in 2013, in Yunnan Province, about 1,000 miles away from Wuhan.
RaTG13 was stored in Wuhan at WIV. However, there was no record of it in the scientific literature or in gene banks until January 23, 2020, when Shi Zhengli, director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, and others at WIV published that RaTG13 was 96.2 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2.3
The prevailing theory is that an intermediate animal, such as a pangolin, was infected by the bat coronavirus, and the virus mutated in the pangolin before infecting humans. However, at this stage, there is no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 being found in any wild animal.
Several close relatives of SARS-CoV-2 have been found in bats; however, these viruses do not contain the same spike protein found in SARS-CoV-2 that gives the virus the ability to infect humans. The spike protein in SARS-CoV-2 is unique and is different from the spike proteins in other coronaviruses. It has not been found in any other coronaviruses, including RaTG13.
The virus closest to containing a section of spike protein nearly identical to a section of SARS-CoV-2 was found by researchers in one Malayan Pangolin out of a group of 25 pangolins that were confiscated from smugglers at the Chinese boarder.4 However, the rest of this pangolin virus is quite different from SARS-CoV-2.
Several researchers have stated that SARS-CoV-2 is a result of the genetic recombination of part of the spike protein of the Malayan Pangolin coronavirus into RaTG13.5
It is unlikely that this recombination of two viruses happened naturally in the wild. The infected Malayan Pangolin was captured outside of China, probably thousands of miles away from Yunnan, where the only record of the bat virus RaTG13 has been found.
Given that only one out of 25 of the Malayan Pangolins had this virus, it shows that it is not a common virus and does not cause widespread infections in pangolins. RaTG13 has been found only in a few bats in one location in Yunnan, and nowhere else in the world. It is highly improbable that an extremely rare virus from an isolated area in Yunnan infected and mutated inside pangolins that were caught outside of China.
How did SARS-CoV-2 get this unique spike protein? The theory that these two viruses combined naturally, given that they are most likely separated by thousands of miles, lacks credibility. This may be a popular theory, but it has zero evidence.
Evidence SARS-CoV-2 May Have Come From a Laboratory in Wuhan
The Wuhan Institute of Virology has the largest collection of bat coronaviruses in the world, including RaTG13. WIV specializes in Gain-of-Function research. Gain-of-Function (GOF) research involves mutating viruses, bacteria and other microorganisms to enhance their ability to infect and cause diseases.
This can involve taking a harmless virus and manipulating it to infect and cause severe illnesses in other species, or making already-deadly diseases, such as the Spanish Flu or the plague, even deadlier.
This type of research has divided the scientific community with many scientists warning that if one of these enhanced diseases escaped it could cause a global pandemic. The GOF researchers deny that these deadly organisms will escape. They state that this research is needed to protect us from pandemics by using it to make medications and vaccines.
After 30 years of research there is very little evidence of any benefit from GOF research — and many examples of these deadly disease organisms escaping from laboratories around the world, including China. GOF research certainly hasn’t helped with cures to stop the COVID-19 pandemic.
GOF research has been conducted on bat coronaviruses at the WIV since 2007. Researchers there have published several scientific papers showing how they have genetically modified harmless coronaviruses so they now can infect humans. They have been combining parts of two different viruses to make new viruses. Two papers of note were published about this in 2015 and 2017.
In 2015, Shi Zhengli from the WIV, and researchers at various universities and research institutions in the U.S. and Switzerland, published a paper explaining how they genetically modified the SARS coronavirus to create a dangerous synthetic virus.
The researchers took the genetic codes for part of the spike protein from a virus that Shi Zhengli isolated from bats found in Yunnan in 2011, and inserted them into the SARS coronavirus (the virus that caused the original SARS epidemic in 2002-2003).6
The spike protein is found on the top of the spike on coronaviruses. The viruses use this protein to attach to specific receptors in cells to infect them. Each species of animal tends to have unique receptors. This means that the virus has to have a unique spike protein that will bind to the specific receptor. It is a “lock-and-key” system. The spike protein is the same as the key and the receptor is the same as the lock. The wrong key will not open a lock.
Most of the spike proteins in coronaviruses found in animals will not infect people because their spike proteins are the wrong key to unlock the receptors on the cells. The only way coronaviruses from animals can infect people is if the viruses’ “keys” (spike proteins) are somehow modified to fit the humans’ “lock” (cell receptors).
This type of modification can happen through natural mutations, but usually only very slowly, and over many decades. However, spike proteins are being genetically modified in many laboratories around the world, as GOF research, to enable spike proteins to mutate at rates far faster and more frequently than can occur naturally.
This is part of the justification for GOF research: In order to study disease organisms, researchers modify them faster and more often than the organisms would modify on their own, in nature.
The synthetic coronavirus created in 2015 by WIV’s Shi Zhengli and other researchers was genetically modified to make it able to infect the human ACE2 receptor, the same receptor that SARS-CoV-2 infects to cause COVID-19.
This dangerous new genetically modified virus was created by researchers from the University of North Carolina, the Harvard Medical School, the National Center for Toxicological Research, Food and Drug Administration in Arkansas, the Bellinzona Institute of Microbiology in Switzerland and the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, who were working together and subsequently published their paper.
This shows that these types of dangerous genetically modified viruses are being created in many laboratories around the world, including WIV.
In 2017, Shi Zhengli and other researchers at WIV, along with researchers from the New York based EcoHealth Alliance, published a paper on how they genetically modified the spike proteins of eight bat coronaviruses, essentially by cutting and pasting genetic material from other coronaviruses, so that the viruses infected the human ACE2 receptor. This is the same receptor that SARS-CoV-2 infects to cause COVID-19.7
According to an article in Newsweek, the EcoHealth alliance was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health to do this research.8
The 2015 and 2017 papers are clear evidence that researchers at the WIV, in conjunction with U.S. and other researchers, have been genetically modifying the spike proteins of multiple types of coronaviruses, by cutting and pasting genetic material from other coronaviruses, so that harmless viruses can now infect humans.
Could SARS-CoV-2 Have Escaped From Wuhan Lab?
There are numerous examples of deadly diseases escaping from laboratories. A paper in Science magazine documents many of them and shows how it has only been luck that they haven’t caused a major global pandemic.9
A U.S. State Department visit to the WIV in 2018 found that the lab had very poor security standards. In a cable to Washington, department officials reported their concerns that a dangerous coronavirus could escape.
Columnist Josh Rogin said in The Washington Post on April 14, 2020: “The first cable, which I obtained, also warns that the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic.”
According to Rogin, the officials “… noted the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory.”10
Despite these concerns, the National Institutes of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, which funds biomedical research around the world, in 2019 recommended that the U.S. should continue to fund the Wuhan Institute of Virology research as part of a combination grant designated to a number of entities studying the bat coronavirus. However, the grant was discontinued and the WIV lab never received those funds.11
As stated before there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, originated from wild animals or the Huanan Seafood Market. The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in Wuhan for more than nine days before the first case was reported by someone who had been at the market. SARS-CoV-2 has not been found in wild animals or domesticated livestock.
There is strong evidence this virus is a result of the recombination of two viruses. The evidence shows that it was highly unlikely that this recombination could have occurred naturally, as the two confirmed animal host species were geographically separated, possibly by thousands of miles.
There is clear evidence that the closest relative of the SARS-CoV-2 is RaTG13, and this virus was in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is mostly composed of RaTG13, but that part of the RaTG13 spike protein has been modified with a section of a virus found in a Malayan Pangolin. This modified spike protein is what gives SARS-CoV-2 the ability to bind with the ACE2 receptor and infect people.
There is clear evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) has been doing Gain-of-Function research to recombine multiple bat and other coronaviruses by genetically modifying the spike protein so that the viruses can infect humans.
There is clear evidence that the biosecurity at the WIV was inadequate due to the lack of properly trained staff and that this could result in one of the many dangerous genetically engineered bat coronaviruses escaping and causing a global pandemic.
The evidence shows that the Chinese government has constantly lied about the facts that caused this pandemic and allowed it to spread, has prevented independent researchers from entering the WIV to investigate what happened there, continues to suppress all independent research, made researchers and papers disappear and silenced others. This is clear evidence of a grand-scale cover up. What are they trying to cover up?
A reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence, is that SARS-CoV-2 was created in the WIV through Gain-of-Function research, and that it accidentally escaped due to inadequate biosecurity.
The Gain-of-Function researchers and organizations are circling the wagons to prevent this information from becoming public. This includes people like Anthony Fauci who, through the NIH, invested millions of dollars into Gain-of-Function research, and many other organizations in the U.S. and around the world that are still funding the WIV and other laboratories doing this dangerous research.
These groups are saying that SARS-CoV-2 has come from natural mutations, because they know that if the facts are revealed, their research and labs will be closed down to prevent future accidents. Fortunately, there are enough scientists concerned about Gain-of-Function research to uncover good evidence about the origins of this pandemic so that we, as a society, can prevent this from ever happening again.
It is time that all Gain-of-Function research is banned. These scientists are creating deadly Frankenstein monsters that can have terrible consequences when they escape. They are Franken-viruses because they are murderous monsters that can kill millions, severely damage economies and destroy livelihoods.
There is very little evidence of any benefits coming from GOF, and the current COVID-19 pandemic clearly shows that this research is too dangerous. Given that there are even deadlier organisms in these laboratories, the next escape could have even greater consequences for all of us. We must stop it now.
NewsGuard, which bills itself at "the internet trust tool," is among the latest technology tools claiming to rate information as reliable or fake news, supplying you with a color-coded rating system next to Google and Bing searches, as well as on articles displayed on social media.
If you rely on NewsGuard's ratings, you may decide to entirely skip by those with a low "red" rating in favor of the "more trustworthy" green-rated articles — and therein lies the problem. NewsGuard is in itself fraught with conflicts of interest, as it's largely funded by Publicis, a global communications giant that's partnered with Big Pharma, such that it may be viewed more as a censorship tool than an internet watchdog.
Now, NewsGuard has expanded its partnership with Microsoft, co-founded by Bill Gates, which will provide all users of Microsoft Edge browser free access to its questionable ratings, among other services.
NewsGuard Expands Partnership With Microsoft
Under Microsoft's NewsGuard expansion, people who use Microsoft Edge's desktop and mobile browser will have free access to NewsGuard's ratings, which otherwise must be purchased via a $2.95 monthly subscription fee. Microsoft's Bing search engine will also have NewsGuard ratings in real-time, while all other Microsoft departments will also be able to use NewsGuard ratings in their products and services.1
"Projects already underway include the company's Defending Democracy Program and teams within Microsoft Research who are working on misinformation, disinformation and health care hoaxes," according to a NewsGuard press release.2
Also under the agreement is Microsoft's continued sponsorship of NewsGuard's news literacy program, which is a "unique media literacy teaching tool that guides citizens through the overwhelming landscape of online news and information."3 More than 700 public libraries from Los Angeles to London, serving more than 7 million patrons, currently use NewsGuard.
The news literacy program exists in the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany and Italy, and with the expanded partnership it's expected to roll out in Australia, Canada and other countries in 2020.4
With the news literacy program, librarians will even provide instructions to patrons on how to install the NewsGuard extension on their personal computers, tablets and cellphones. Once you've installed the NewsGuard browser plugin on your computer or cellphone, the NewsGuard icon rating will appear on all Google and Bing searches and on articles featured in your social media news feeds.
The NewsGuard ratings are meant to influence readers, instructing them to disregard content with cautionary colors and cautions — but NewsGuard's ratings are highly questionable, considering its primary backer, Publicis, is an advertising and data firm that's been involved in advertising and marketing pharmaceutical products, cigarettes and unhealthy junk food to kids.
For instance, Leo Burnett, the ad company famous for creating the Marlboro man ad campaigns that made Marlboro the best-selling cigarette in the world and led to the nicotine addiction of millions, many of whom died from smoking, is a part of Publicis.5,6
NewsGuard co-CEO Gordon Crovitz stated in a press release, "We are delighted to be able to expand our relationship with Microsoft, which is a leader among companies in taking steps to address the unforeseen, unintended consequences of new technologies …
The internet has empowered people around the world with unprecedented access to information, but the internet has also made it easier than ever for misinformation to spread, including health care hoaxes about COVID-19."7
Unfortunately, what's less widely publicized is the widespread deception that can occur when a conflicted start-up company is allowed to dictate what's truth and what's not.
Publicis Acquires Big Data Collection Company Epsilon
Publicis was the lead investor among a group of 18 that helped make NewsGuard a reality. As a giant global communications group, Publicis has divisions that brand imaging, design of digital business platforms, media relations and health care.
Publicis Groupe's health subsidiary, Publicis Health, names Merck, Abbot, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene, Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson and other Big Pharma giants as clients, which gives you an idea of where its loyalties lie.8
In early 2020, drug giant GlaxoSmithKline awarded Publicis Media a healthy piece of business, and the communications group responded by creating a custom platformGSK to run the drug giant's media business; platformGSK in turn added Pfizer Consumer Healthcare to its portfolio, making the total venture worth $1.5 billion.
Publicis also handles other Big Pharma media accounts, including Novartis'. In August 2019, Publicis created NovartisONE2 to manage the pharma giant's global media account worth $600 million.9
In April 2019, Publicis also announced that it would acquire marketing services company Epsilon in a $4.4 billion deal.10 Epsilon made headlines in 2011 after a massive data breach, but is far from a household name, despite its strong presence in the marketing world. What is Epsilon? CNET explained:11
"In addition to offering e-mail marketing services and managing customer e-mail databases for clients, Epsilon monitors social networking and other sites to see what people are saying about a company, advises on markets to target, helps develop and maintain customer loyalty programs, and offers Abacus, 'the world's largest cooperative database with over 8.6 billion consumer transactions and 4.8 billion business transactions' used for creating lists of prospective customers.
The different data Epsilon sells includes age, profession, residence, ethnic information and political affiliation …"
Digiday further described Epsilon as "a smorgasbord of data given it has more than 250 million U.S. consumers in its database and sends over 71 billion personalized emails each year."12 Epsilon was also an early adopter of Amazon Alexa, integrating public Alexa data with its own consumer information.13 Until the acquisition — the second largest deal in advertising history — Publicis lacked a major data marketing arm, but now, as Adweek put it, is "firmly in the data business."14
In addition to owning NewsGuard, Publicis has made deals with other tech companies, including a $500 million, multiyear ad partnership with Facebook in 2014. "Under the terms, Publicis' agencies and their clients — which include powerful brands like Procter & Gamble, Walmart, Bank of America, McDonald's and Coca-Cola — will receive discounted rates on a range of Facebook products as well as access to Facebook's user data and engineers," according to Entrepreneur.15
In 2013, Publicis also inked a $100 million deal with Google and agreed to purchase millions of dollars in YouTube ads in the next year.16 If NewsGuard continues, it's very likely Google, Facebook, Twitter and other platforms will use its ratings to lower the visibility of content — making nonconformist views disappear entirely.
NewsGuard Ignores Key Data, Censors Truthful News
Once installed on your browser, NewsGuard assigns a color coded "Nutrition Label" to sites, rating them green or red in a process they said would be "completely transparent and accountable."17 The nine criteria NewsGuard is using to "protect" you from fake news include:18
Does not repeatedly publish false content (22 points)
Gathers and presents information responsibly (18 points)
Regularly corrects or clarifies errors (12.5 points)
Handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly (12.5 points)
Avoids deceptive headlines (10 points)
Website discloses ownership and financing (7.5 points)
Clearly labels advertising (7.5 points)
Reveals who's in charge, including possible conflicts of interest (5 points)
The site provides the names of content creators, along with either contact or biographical information (5 points)
A score lower than 60 points gets a red rating, while higher scores get more favorable results, which is intended to provide readers with a "signal if a website is trying to get it right or instead has a hidden agenda or knowingly publishes falsehoods or propaganda."19 However, NewsGuard's ratings can't be taken at face value.
According to NewsGuard, "There is no evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the source of the outbreak, and genomic evidence has found that the virus is 96% identical at the whole-genome level to a bat coronavirus."20 But NewsGuard's position is in direct conflict with published scientific evidence suggesting this virus was created in a lab and not zoonotically transmitted.
Since my February 4, 2020, article, I've become increasingly convinced — through reviewing the scientific literature that NewsGuard ignores or is unaware of — that SARS-CoV-2 may in fact be a synthetic virus, likely created and released (inadvertently or not) from one or more laboratories that worked on weaponizing SARS and bat coronaviruses.
Interestingly, an April 2020 report by CNN reveals China's censorship of articles mentioning the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 may have leaked from the Wuhan BSL4 facility appears to come from China,21 which means, by essentially also censoring such articles, NewsGuard is functionally protecting Chinese interests and inhibiting scientific inquiry.
Overall, it appears NewsGuard is just another big business aimed at keeping the chemical, drug and food industries, as well as mainstream media, intact by discrediting and eliminating unwanted competition, including yours truly and many others who empower you with information that helps you take control of your health.
Fighting Back Against Fake 'Fact Checkers'
NewsGuard is backed by the Publicis Groupe, which has been manipulating what people think about commercial products for nearly a century.22 You don't need this thought police, advertising front group helping you sort through fake news and telling you what's sound science and what's not.
There are a number of ways to fight back, including choosing browsers and search engines that do not automatically contain NewsGuard ratings. In addition, if your local library is using NewsGuard, you can start a campaign to get it removed, while letting others know that NewsGuard is owned by a pharmaceutical public relations/data firm and is engaged in censoring truthful news and scientific freedom.
1 Which of the following owns the equity firm that manages Gannett, the largest media company in the U.S. with more than 260 dailies, including USA Today, under their umbrella?
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation
SoftBank (Tokyo, Japan)
In November 2019, Gannett, the parent company of USA Today, merged with GateHouse Media. Together, they now form the largest media monopoly in the U.S., with more than 260 dailies under their umbrella. The management of this vast news network is done by Fortress Investment Group, which in turn is owned by Tokyo's SoftBank. Learn more.
Russian Media Group
2 Which of the following is "the smoking gun" proving SARS-CoV-2 was lab-created?
SARS-CoV-2 is the only coronavirus that does not have a furin cleavage site, making it entirely unique among coronaviruses
SARS-CoV-2 has no genetic similarities to other coronaviruses
There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 was genetically manipulated
SARS-CoV-2 is the only coronavirus with a furin cleavage site, making it entirely unique among coronaviruses
The presence of a furin cleavage site on SARS-CoV-2 is "the smoking gun" that proves SARS-CoV-2 was lab-created. Learn more.
3 What are human gammaretroviruses?
Nonhuman viruses that infect and integrate into human cells, which can result in long-term expression or chronic disease
Human gammaretroviruses are nonhuman viruses that integrate into human cells, resulting in long-term expression. Once they're in your body, they can remain dormant, only to reactivate when conditions are favorable. They have also been linked to chronic diseases such as chronic fatigue syndrome, certain kinds of autism, cancers, leukemias and lymphomas. Learn more.
Viruses that, through mutation, can jump from animal to human
Viruses that are harmless to humans but lethal to animals
Viruses that cannot infect human cells
4 Who is the most visible mastermind behind the plan to vaccinate the global population with an experimental COVID-19 vaccine, despite the fact that coronavirus vaccines have a decades' long history of causing a "paradoxical immune enhancement" that turns lethal when exposed to wild coronavirus?
Dr. Anthony Fauci
Bill Gates is the most visible mastermind behind the plan to vaccinate the global population with an experimental COVID-19 vaccine, despite the fact that coronavirus vaccines have a decades' long history of causing a "paradoxical immune enhancement" that turns lethal when exposed to wild coronavirus. Learn more.
President Donald Trump
5 In the past, coronavirus vaccine development has been hampered by which of the following problems?
Poor antibody production resulting in low protection
Excessive antibody production resulting in autoimmune problems
Paradoxical immune enhancement leading to severe infection and death when exposed to wild virus
Previous attempts to create coronavirus vaccines have failed due to coronaviruses triggering production of two different types of antibodies, one that fights disease, and one that triggers "paradoxical immune enhancement" that often results in very serious disease and/or death. Vaccines that caused paradoxical immune enhancement initially looked very promising as they produced very robust antibody responses, but when exposed to the wild virus, ferrets and children became severely ill and many died. Learn more.
No antibody production resulting in nonexistent protection
6 What is the biggest risk of Amazon's gigantic empire?
Competition to brick and mortar stores
Unfavorable arrangements with third party sellers
Surveillance and privacy abuses
Amazon's many ways of collecting personal data threaten individuals' privacy and permit social engineering. Learn more.
7 Who identified the 1978-1980 Zimbabwe anthrax outbreak as a case of biological warfare?
In 1992, Meryl Nass published a paper identifying the 1978-1980 Zimbabwe anthrax outbreak as a case of biological warfare. Learn more.
N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is a precursor to reduced glutathione, and both of these play important roles in health and fitness. NAC has a long history of use as a first-aid remedy for acetaminophen (known as paracetamol in Europe) poisoning.
It's given in cases when you've taken an overdose of Tylenol or other acetaminophen products. It neutralizes the toxic effects of the drug by recharging glutathione, thereby preventing liver damage.
NAC and glutathione may also be important in COVID-19, as explained by pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult in the MedCram lectures above. The reason for this is because of the role they play in combating oxidative stress, which is a main cause of inflammation and disease in general, and the cytokine storm associated with COVID-19 in particular. NAC may also combat the abnormal blood clotting seen in many cases.
As explained and illustrated by Seheult, when you add an electron to an oxygen (O2) molecule, you get superoxide (O2), a reactive oxygen species (ROS). When you add another electron (for a total of two electrons), you get hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). An oxygen molecule with three electrons added becomes hydroxyl (O3), and oxygen with four electrons added becomes water (H2O).
Oxygen is the most oxidized form, while water is the most reduced form. Your body has built-in defenses against oxidative stress like1 superoxide dismutase (SOD). SOD converts damaging superoxide into hydrogen peroxide. Another is catalase, which converts hydrogen peroxide into oxygen and water. A third is glutathione peroxidase (GSHPX).
GSHPX does two things simultaneously. While reducing hydrogen peroxide into water, it also converts the reduced form of glutathione (GSH) into glutathione disulfide (GSSG), which is the oxidized form of glutathione. In other words, as GSHPX turns hydrogen peroxide into harmless water, glutathione becomes oxidized.
The oxidized GSSG is then "recharged" or regenerated by NADPH (the reduced form of NADP+), turning it back into GSH (the reduced form of glutathione). NADPH is also converted into NADP+ through an enzyme called GSH reductase.
The reason this is important is because superoxide plays a crucial role in the oxidative stress occurring in the chronic illnesses identified as comorbidities for COVID-19, such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes.
As noted by Seheult, serious COVID-19 infection triggers a perfect storm of superoxide-driven oxidative stress, as SARS-CoV-2 attaches to the ACE2 receptor, triggering angiotensin 2 (AT-2), which stimulates superoxide. Simultaneously, there's a deficiency of AT-1,7, which inhibits superoxide. So, this deficiency allows superoxide to accumulate further.
SARS-CoV-2 also attracts polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMNs), a type of white blood cell, which also produces superoxide in its efforts to destroy pathogens. All of that superoxide is then converted into other ROS that destroy endothelial cells.
This down-spiral can be inhibited by N-acetylcysteine (NAC), which boosts GSSG. As illustrated by Seheult, when you add two GSH molecules and hydrogen peroxide together, you end up with oxidized glutathione and harmless water, thus alleviating the oxidative stress.
NAC Boosts GSH and Protects Against Influenza
Seheult cites research showing low GSH and oxidative stress are associated with a range of nose, ear and throat conditions, affecting tissues both locally and systemically. The good news is that glutathione can be recharged with NAC, an inexpensive and readily available over-the-counter supplement.
Research2 has in fact demonstrated that NAC can attenuate symptoms of influenza and improve cell-mediated immunity. According to the authors:
"N-acetylcysteine (NAC), an analogue and precursor of reduced glutathione, has been in clinical use for more than 30 yrs as a mucolytic drug. It has also been proposed for and/or used in the therapy and/or prevention of several respiratory diseases and of diseases involving an oxidative stress, in general.
The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of long-term treatment with NAC on influenza and influenza-like episodes. A total of 262 subjects of both sexes … were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind trial … randomized to receive either placebo or NAC tablets (600 mg) twice daily for 6 months.
Patients suffering from chronic respiratory diseases were not eligible, to avoid possible confounding by an effect of NAC on respiratory symptoms. NAC treatment was well tolerated and resulted in a significant decrease in the frequency of influenza-like episodes, severity, and length of time confined to bed.
Both local and systemic symptoms were sharply and significantly reduced in the NAC group. Frequency of seroconversion towards A/H1N1 Singapore 6/86 influenza virus was similar in the two groups, but only 25% of virus-infected subjects under NAC treatment developed a symptomatic form, versus 79% in the placebo group ...
Administration of N-acetylcysteine during the winter, thus, appears to provide a significant attenuation of influenza and influenza-like episodes, especially in elderly high-risk individuals. N-acetylcysteine did not prevent A/H1N1 virus influenza infection but significantly reduced the incidence of clinically apparent disease."
NAC Is a Potent Antiviral in Its Own Right
As noted by Seheult, the number needed to treat (NNT) in that study3 is 0.5, which means for every two people treated with NAC, one will be protected against symptomatic influenza. (Remember, you can be infected with a virus yet not become ill, i.e., symptomatic, if your immune system is strong enough.)
That's significantly better than influenza vaccines, which have an NNT, or NNV (number needed to vaccinate) of 71,4 meaning 71 people must be vaccinated to prevent a single case of confirmed influenza. It's even better than vitamin D, which has an NNT of 33.5 (Among those who were severely vitamin D deficient at baseline, taking vitamin D still had an NNT of 4.)
NAC has also been shown to inhibit viral replication and expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), in cells infected with highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus.6 According to the authors:
"The antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms of NAC included inhibition of activation of oxidant sensitive pathways including transcription factor NF-kappaB and mitogen activated protein kinase p38 ...
NAC inhibits H5N1 replication and H5N1-induced production of pro-inflammatory molecules. Therefore, antioxidants like NAC represent a potential additional treatment option that could be considered in the case of an influenza A virus pandemic."
NAC in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
NAC has also been shown to reduce acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS),7 which is a serious complication associated with acute lung injury (ALI). One meta-analysis8 of five randomized controlled trials found a significant reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) stays among patients treated with NAC, even though there was no significant difference in short-term mortality risk.
Another earlier study9 found NAC improves ARDS by "increasing intracellular glutathione and extracellular thiol molecules" along with general antioxidant effects. According to this study:
"In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), there is extensive overproduction of free radicals to the extent that endogenous antioxidants are overwhelmed, permitting oxidative cell damage.
The present study examined the benefit of the anti-oxidant compound N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in the management of ARDS by measuring patient's intracellular glutathione (inside red blood cells) and extracellular (plasma) anti-oxidant defense biomarkers and outcome.
Twenty-seven ARDS patients were recruited from the intensive care unit of a teaching Hospital and randomly divided into two groups. Both groups were managed similarly by regular treatments but 17 patients received NAC 150 mg/kg at the first day that followed by 50 mg/kg/day for three days and 10 patients did not receive NAC.
Treatment by NAC increased extracellular total anti-oxidant power and total thiol molecules and also improved intracellular glutathione and the outcome of the patients. In conclusion, patients with ARDS are in a deficient oxidant-anti-oxidant balance that can get a significant benefit if supplemented with NAC."
NAC Improves Lung Function
Other studies that have shown NAC to be beneficial in the treatment of lung-related problems include the following:
• A 1994 study10 found NAC enhances recovery from ALI, significantly regressing patients' lung injury score during the first 10 days of treatment, and significantly reducing the need for ventilation.
After three days of treatment, only 17% of those receiving NAC needed ventilation, compared to 48% in the placebo group. According to the authors:
"Intravenous NAC treatment during 72 h improved systemic oxygenation and reduced the need for ventilatory support in patients presenting with mild-to-moderate acute lung injury subsequent to a variety of underlying diseases."
• A 2018 study11 found NAC reduces oxidative and inflammatory damage in patients with community-acquired pneumonia.
• Another 2018 study12 found NAC also improves post-operative lung function in patients undergoing liver transplantation.
As noted in one of these studies,16 "NAC has anticoagulant and platelet-inhibiting properties." Another study points out that:17
"… diabetes exacerbates stroke-induced brain injury, and that this correlates with brain methylglyoxal (MG)-to-glutathione (GSH) status. Cerebral injury was reversed by N-acetylcysteine (NAC).
Here we tested if the pro-thrombotic phenotype seen in the systemic circulation and brain during diabetes was associated with increased MG-glycation of proteins, and if NAC could reverse this ...
NAC treatment partly or completely reversed the effects of diabetes. Collectively, these results show that the diabetic blood and brain become progressively more susceptible to platelet activation and thrombosis.
NAC, given after the establishment of diabetes, may offer protection against the risk for stroke by altering both systemic and vascular prothrombotic responses via enhancing platelet GSH, and GSH-dependent MG elimination, as well as correcting levels of antioxidants such as SOD1 and GPx-1."
A fourth paper,18 published in 2017, found NAC has potent thrombolytic effects, meaning it breaks down blood clots. The authors concluded that "NAC is an effective and safe alternative to currently available antithrombotic agents to restore vessel patency after arterial occlusion." (Restoring vessel patency means the blood vessel is now unobstructed so that blood can flow freely.)
Seheult cites two additional papers19,20 showing the same thing. As noted by Seheult, many COVID-19 cases have blood clots in addition to excessive oxidative stress, and NAC addresses both of these problems.
NAC for COVID-19
Last but not least, a report21 reviewing the evidence for using NAC in the treatment of COVID-19 was published April 14, 2020, by The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford.
This report focuses on acute respiratory disorders, and we now know that COVID-19 is not just a respiratory disorder but also a blood disorder. This is a significant shortcoming of this report, as there's significant evidence that NAC can break down the blood clots responsible for the hypoxia (cellular deprivation of oxygen) in COVID-19.
May 5, 2020, a trial was posted to ClinicalTrials.gov, for the study of NAC in patients with COVID-19, sponsored by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.22 The study aims to enroll 86 patients with severe or critical illness to investigate whether NAC, in addition to other supportive treatments, can reduce ICU stays and prevent the need for mechanical ventilation. Here, they are giving 6 grams (6,000 milligrams) of NAC a day for up to three weeks.
Seheult's hypothesis for why NAC may be useful in COVID-19 treatment can be summarized as follows:
SARS-CoV-2 attaches to and reduces the ACE2 receptor, which causes AT-2 to increase and AT-1,7 to decrease. This in turn increases damaging superoxide that causes oxidative stress and endothelial cell dysfunction.
This then increases von Willebrand factor from the endothelial space, causing thrombosis (blood clots), and it is this thrombosis that appears to cause the hypoxia in the lungs. NAC — which recharges glutathione — not only reduces superoxide (oxidative stress) but also appears to reduce von Willebrand factors that form blood clots.
Glutathione for COVID-19
In the second MedCram video (second in the playlist), Seheult reviews the blood clotting aspects of COVID-19. He also discusses the potential effectiveness of simply taking glutathione, opposed to its precursor, NAC.
A recent case report23 — which simply reviews one or more medical cases and is not an actual study — reports that two patients with COVID-19 and a history of Lyme disease (coinfection) treated with 2 grams of intravenous glutathione "improved their dyspnea within one hour of use." Dyspnea is the medical term for shortness of breath. According to the authors:
"Oral and IV glutathione, glutathione precursors (N-acetyl-cysteine) and alpha lipoic acid may represent a novel treatment approach for blocking NF-κB and addressing 'cytokine storm syndrome' and respiratory distress in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia."
He also cites a Russian paper24 stating that glutathione deficiency may be "the most likely cause of serious manifestation and death" in COVID-19 patients. The paper, which is a preprint and has not yet undergone peer review, presents a hypothesis "based on an exhaustive literature analysis and own observations." According to the author:25
"The major risk factors established for severe COVID-19 infection and relative glutathione deficiency found in COVID-19-infected patients with moderate-to-severe illness have converged me to two very important conclusions:
(1) oxidative stress contributes to hyper-inflammation of the lung leading to adverse disease outcomes such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure and death;
(2) poor antioxidant defense due to endogenous glutathione deficiency as a result of decreased biosynthesis and/or increased depletion of GSH is the most probable cause of increased oxidative damage of the lung, regardless which of the factors aging, chronic disease comorbidity, smoking or some others were responsible for this deficit.
The hypothesis provides novel insights into the etiology and mechanisms responsible for serious manifestations of COVID-19 infection and justifies promising opportunities for effective treatment and prevention of the illness through glutathione recovering with N-acetylcysteine and reduced glutathione."
As noted by Seheult, we still do not have any trials demonstrating that NAC will benefit COVID-19 patients specifically, "but if we connect the dots, it looks promising." What's more, NAC is very safe and many studies have shown there are no serious adverse effects associated with its use.
The same can be said for glutathione. Seheult points out it would be interesting to see what the effect might be using a combination of both glutathione and NAC. Overall, the more we learn about this disease, the more we realize there may be simple and inexpensive ways to treat this perplexing illness, and NAC in particular looks like a good candidate for consideration.
Dementia is a growing problem worldwide and the numbers are overwhelming. Alzheimer's Disease International estimates the global number with dementia reached 46.8 million in 2015 and is predicted to grow to 75 million by 2030, and 131.5 million by 2050.1
In the U.S. there are more than 5 million people with Alzheimer’s, one form of dementia.2 This number is estimated to nearly triple to 14 million by 2050. One in 3 of older adults dies every year with some form of dementia, which is more than the numbers with breast cancer and prostate cancer combined.
To put it another way, from 2000 to 2018, the number who died from heart disease dropped 7.8%, while the number who died from Alzheimer's rose 146%.
The economic costs have reached $305 billion and could rise to $1.1 trillion by 2050. Primary care doctors are overwhelmed by the number of patients in their practices and half believe the profession isn't ready for the growing number.
The development of dementia and Alzheimer's disease is likely due to a number of reasons. Researchers have identified several factors that impact cognitive impairment, including insulin resistance,3 certain drugs,4 lack of sleep5 and low levels of some vitamins.6
Cholinergic Dysfunction May Drive Dementia
As explained in a recently published paper, scientists analyzed the effect proton pump inhibitors have on the development of dementia. They recognized indicators pointing to cholinergic dysfunction in the development of dementia. In a review article from 1999,7 other scholars outlined data to support the hypothesis that cholinergic dysfunction contributes to Alzheimer's.
By 2008,8 the research community had identified areas of the brain where cholinergic dysfunction may influence dementia. Subsequently, acetylcholine was recognized for the central role it plays in the nervous system.9 It requires an enzyme to synthesize from acetyl-COA and choline. That enzyme is choline acetyltransferase.
Cholinergic synapses are found throughout the brain, including the basal forebrain, which is severely damaged in those who have the disease. With further research,10 scientists found using cholinesterase inhibitors could increase acetylcholine in the brain, which has proven to be clinically useful in the treatment of Alzheimer's dementia.
The use of anticholinergic drugs has a known side effect, though, of causing short-term cognitive impairment in the elderly.11 These medications act on the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which is involved in sending messages that affect muscle contraction. They also act on parts of the brain that handle memory and learning.
Anticholinergic drugs have been used for decades to treat diarrhea, asthma, insomnia, motion sickness and even some psychiatric disorders. Some of the more common side effects include blurry vision, dizziness, confusion, hallucination and drowsiness.12
As described in study published in JAMA,13 scientists looked at whether exposure could increase the risk of dementia in people 55 years and older. The data revealed that those taking strong anticholinergic drugs, which affect acetylcholine, was associated with a greater risk of dementia.
Gastric acid secretion is regulated in part by acetylcholine. The development of proton pump inhibitors for chronic heartburn became a mainstay of treatment. This resulted in people taking the medication for long periods of time. The intended use of the drug was to inhibit the cellular proton pump that produces acid.
However, proton pump inhibitors are not specific to stomach cells and will inhibit any cell with a proton pump. This may be the trigger for the long list of side effects associated with the drugs, including kidney disease, dementia and liver disease.14 While researchers found an association between proton pump inhibitors and dementia, the mechanism had yet to be discovered.
One Drug Selectively Inhibits Synthesis of Acetylcholine
One team of researchers15 looked at all proton pump inhibitors approved by the FDA and found that the drugs negatively affected the production of acetylcholine in the body.
Using computer simulations, they evaluated how different substances in six proton pump inhibitors interacted with choline acetyltransferase.16 While the drug was designed to limit cellular proton pumps and reduce acid production, the simulations showed they could bind with the enzyme that synthesizes acetylcholine.
The effect of this was to reduce production of acetylcholine. The researchers believe new studies are needed to determine if the effects in the lab also happen in the body. One of the team members commented:17
"Special care should be taken with the more elderly patients and those already diagnosed with dementia. The same also applies to patients with muscle weakness diseases such as ALS, as acetylcholine is an essential motor neurotransmitter. In such cases, doctors should use the drugs that have the weakest effect and prescribe them at lowest dose and for as short a time as possible.”
Choline: Key Factor in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease?
Nonalcoholic liver disease (NAFLD) is one of the most common forms of liver disease in the U.S.18 It is initiated in part by obesity and insulin resistance. Scientists have found it may lead to fibrosis of the liver and then to cirrhosis or liver cancer.
There are two forms of NAFLD which are not associated with alcohol consumption. The first is simple fatty liver or nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) in which there are fatty deposits in the liver but very little, if any, inflammation or cellular damage.
The second is called nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). This is a form of NAFLD in which you have fatty deposits in the liver and hepatitis, or inflammation of the liver. This results in liver cell damage that can lead to fibrosis, cirrhosis or liver cancer. Most people with the condition have simple fatty liver while only a small number have NASH.
The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases reports that between 30% and 40% of all adults in America have NAFLD. Those who have a higher risk are obese and have Type 2 diabetes. The condition can affect people of any age, race or ethnicity.
In one animal study, researchers found that by supplementing with choline they could normalize cholesterol metabolism, which appeared to help prevent NASH and improve liver function.19 As described in one paper, choline is necessary for liver health:20
“Humans must eat diets containing choline because its metabolite phosphatidylcholine constitutes 40–50% of cellular membranes and 70–95% of phospholipids in lipoproteins, bile and surfactants; it is needed to form acetylcholine, an important neurotransmitter; its metabolite betaine is needed for normal kidney glomerular function, and perhaps for mitochondrial function; and it provides one-carbon units, via oxidation to betaine, to the methionine cycle for methylation reactions.
When humans eat diets low in choline, fatty liver is one of the earliest adverse events, and in some people significant hepatic damage occurs (as assessed by release of hepatic enzymes into blood).”
According to Chris Masterjohn, Ph.D., choline deficiency may be a more significant in development of the condition than taking in too much fructose. His degree is in nutritional science and he believes the rise in fatty liver conditions is largely due to more and more people avoiding egg yolks and liver.
In his review of the medical literature, Masterjohn found a link between choline and fatty liver, which was initially discovered in research into Type 1 diabetes. He describes the relationship:21
"Physicians and researchers had started pinning the blame on alcohol abuse for fatty liver back in the 1800s, so while research was first highlighting the role of sucrose in fatty liver, other research was doing the same for alcohol.
In 1949, however, researchers showed that sucrose and ethanol had equal potential to cause fatty liver and the resulting inflammatory damage, and that increases in dietary protein, extra methionine, and extra choline could all completely protect against this effect.
Conversely, much more recent research has shown that sucrose is a requirement for the development of fatty liver disease in a methionine- and choline-deficient (MCD) model. The MCD model of fatty liver disease is the oldest and most widely used dietary model.
The MCD model produces not only the accumulation of liver fat, but massive inflammation similar to the worst forms of fatty liver disease seen in humans. What no one ever mentions about this diet is that it is primarily composed of sucrose and its fat is composed entirely of corn oil!
The picture that is clearly emerging from all of these studies is that fat, or anything from which fat is made in the liver, such as fructose and ethanol, are required for the development of fatty liver. But in addition to this [same] factor — overwhelmingly, it appears to be choline deficiency — must deprive the liver of its ability to export that fat."
Choline Needed for Optimal Health
Your liver produces a small amount of choline,22 but the rest must be supplied through your diet. Unfortunately, nearly 90% of people living in the U.S. have a deficiency,23 which increases the risk of babies being born with neural tube defects.24
As I’ve written before, groups at particularly high risk for choline deficiency include pregnant mothers, endurance athletes, postmenopausal women, vegans, and those who consume high amounts of alcohol.
Choline serves several vital functions in the body.25 It's used in the manufacture of some phospholipids essential to the development of your cell membranes. Choline is also a precursor for intracellular molecules used in cell signaling.
The neurotransmitter acetylcholine is synthesized from choline and involved in memory, circadian rhythm and muscle control. Each of these specific functions contribute to the impact it has on cardiovascular health, liver diseases, neural tube defects and cognitive health.
Seek Best Natural Sources of Choline First
The National Institutes of Health26 lists the adequate intake for choline provided in the Dietary Reference Intakes developed by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). At the time these were developed, there was not sufficient data to establish an estimated average requirement.
This is a number that's usually used to determine the amount of nutrients needed to adequately supply diets for 50% of healthy individuals. Instead, the Food and Nutrition Board of the IOM established adequate intakes for all ages they believe would prevent the development of liver damage.
To date, men 19 years and older who get 550 mg per day and women who take in 425 mg per day have an adequate intake. This rises to 450 mg per day during pregnancy and 550 mg per day while breastfeeding. These are suggested values and may vary depending on your diet, age, ethnicity and genetic makeup.
It is best to first seek healthy natural sources for your nutrients. For instance, a single hardboiled egg weighing approximately 50 grams may contain from 113 mg27 to 147 mg28 of choline. This is 25% to 30% of your daily requirement. Only grass fed beef liver has more, with per 50 grams per serving.29 As noted in the Fatty Liver Diet Guide:30
"Eggs rank very high on the list of foods that are high in either lecithin, which converts to choline, or in choline itself. Note that this is the egg yolks only, not egg whites, which only have traces of this micronutrient.
Choline is essential in the production of phosphatidylcholine, a fat molecule called a phospholipid. But wait! Isn't all fat bad? No — especially if it is essential to overall health and in particular, liver health. Simply put — if you don't have enough choline, your liver can't move out fat. It instead begins to collect within your liver, creating fatty liver."
Other healthy choices can include wild-caught Alaskan salmon, organic pastured chicken, and krill oil. In 2011, the authors of one study31 found 69 choline-containing phospholipids in krill oil.
That said, supplementation is a potential option if you don’t eat eggs, salmon or other foods with ample amounts of the nutrient. The tolerable upper intake for an adult is 3.5 grams per day.32 Be careful not to take too much, as side effects of excessive choline include low blood pressure, sweating, diarrhea and a fishy body odor.
Dr. Meryl Nass is a physician in Ellsworth, Maine, who in previous interviews has helped us understand the unforeseen consequences of mass vaccination — consequences that could end up impacting public health in a very negative way. Here, she discusses what she's been working on for decades, and how it relates to this current pandemic.
An outspoken supporter of health freedom, Nass provided scientifically referenced testimony to the Massachusetts legislature, December 3, 2019, when it was considering legislation to eliminate the religious vaccine exemption. This is now more relevant than ever, considering there is talk, worldwide, about implementing more or less mandatory vaccination against COVID-19. In her December 2019 testimony, Nass pointed out that:1
“There is no crisis (no epidemic of deaths or disabilities) from infectious diseases caused by lack of vaccinations … The elephant in the auditorium today is Pharma profits …
The pharmaceutical industry has undertaken a very ambitious campaign to legislate away vaccine exemptions in the United States and Canada. France, Italy and Germany have rescinded vaccine exemptions too, suggesting the campaign is worldwide …
It has been claimed that vaccines are, by nature, extremely safe. Yet vaccines are usually injected, bypassing all the body’s natural barriers. Even minute contamination or inadequate microbial inactivation can maim or kill … Vaccines have caused many autoimmune disorders, from Guillain-Barre syndrome to narcolepsy …
Vaccines appear safe because the immediate side effects are usually mild and temporary. Serious vaccine side effects often take weeks or months to surface, and by then it is difficult to know what caused them ...
A 2009 European swine flu vaccine (GSK’s Pandemrix) caused over 1,300 cases of severe narcolepsy, mostly in adolescents. This vaccine was linked to narcolepsy because 15 times the usual number of narcolepsy cases suddenly appeared in clinics ...
It should be apparent, but isn’t: Government waivers of vaccine liability discourage manufacturers from ensuring that the vaccines they sell are as safe and effective as possible.
The removal of vaccine exemptions, combined with liability waivers for vaccine side effects and recently loosened standards for licensing vaccines, create a highly toxic mix.”
Nass goes on to cite statistics showing why the claim that draconian laws are required to control the “crisis” of vaccine-preventable diseases is false. She also points out that:
“The bedrock expectation of medical ethics is that patients must give informed consent2 for all medical procedures, including vaccines. Informed consent means that patients must be informed about the procedure, have the right to refuse, and may not be coerced to accept it.
Isn’t withholding an education an extreme form of coercion? Without any discussion of its moral or ethical dimensions by media, medical societies or government officials, the requirement for informed consent for medical procedures, including vaccinations, vanishes in the blink of an eye when patients are not allowed the right to refuse.”
In 1992, Nass published a paper3 identifying the 1978-1980 Zimbabwe anthrax outbreak as a case of biological warfare. In 2011, I also interviewed her about the 2001 false flag anthrax attack in the U.S., on the heels of 9/11, and the dangers of the anthrax vaccine.
That manufactured crisis initiated the PATRIOT Act, one of the most severe compromises of our personal freedoms up to that point. Now, it appears they’re using the COVID-19 pandemic to take away even more freedoms.
There's strong evidence that this is precisely what's going on. Early in the interview, Nass summarizes our earlier discussion about the anthrax attack, so for a refresher, listen to the interview or read through the transcript. That attack, however, is also what allowed government funds to be allocated toward even more biological warfare research. She explains:
“Congress appropriated a lot of money for bio-terrorism, which is conjoined with pandemic planning. So, the same pot of money that goes into pandemics goes into Biological Defense. Much of it is duly used for research performed in high containment, BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs.
We don't call it biological warfare, but when you're designing pathogens to be more virulent than the originals in nature … essentially biological warfare research gets done. Things are called biological warfare if the intent is to create a weapon. It’s called biological defense if the intent is to design a bad bug so you can come up with defenses against that bug.
What has happened is that a lot of money was spent to develop new high containment labs — many, many more high containment labs … about $6.5 billion a year since 2001 has been designated for this biodefense. So, what we wound up with is hundreds of biodefense labs that have to be used and thousands, possibly 15,000, newly trained bio-defense researchers.
So, now we have cadres of people who are experts in coronaviruses or avian flu viruses, Ebola, Lassa, et cetera. And what most of that money … has been spent on, has been researching these pathogens. Even though the money was supposed to be spent on developing countermeasures and stockpiling countermeasures, to a great extent that did not happen …
As a result, we know a lot about highly virulent coronaviruses that have been created in labs around the world as well as in the U.S. and China, and we have absolutely no countermeasures that have been developed for coronavirus.”
Where Did SARS-CoV-2 Originate?
“Like everybody else, I wondered whether this was a natural jump from a bat or some other animal to humans and scratched my head about it,” Nass says. While she’s not a virologist, she does have a three-decade background in biological warfare and is aware of what’s been created in the past, what it takes, where they may be made, and how it has been done.
“So, I remained curious. Then on February 19 online, and in the March 7 print edition, a group of scientists had a "Correspondence" published in The Lancet, and it was a very curious piece to me. It didn't make sense.
And these were very prominent signatories, including the former head of the National Science Foundation, one of the former top people at CDC, the director of the Wellcome Trust, coronavirus researchers and funders, and other prominent people.
What they said is, ‘We need to quash the rumors that this came from a lab. That is a conspiracy theory and we need to get rid of it. They wrote:
‘The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.’ 4
So, what this group was doing, in a very short, less than a page-long letter, was calling the possibility that SARS-2 might have come from a lab a conspiracy theory, and conflating any consideration of this possibility with threatening "transparent sharing of data" with China. And we couldn't interfere with that because we need to work with China to fight the coronavirus …
A couple of weeks later, an article came out in Nature Medicine, which said, ‘Here we have the scientific proof that this did not come from a lab’ …
And this second paper talked about the two things that have been identified by others as the most problematic new genetic segments on SARS-CoV-2 — two sites on the spike RNA, which seem to enhance the tropism and the binding/entry, so it makes it easier for the virus to get into human cells and expands the range of cell types the virus can enter.
And the Nature Medicine authors took these two regions and said: ‘Look, these mutations that are found in the new CoV-2 virus, which are not seen in any of the other coronaviruses anywhere near it genetically, must have come from the wild because these weren't created in the ways that we virologists would have chosen to create them.'
They said, 'We already have ways to create these mutations that would leave a lab signature, but there is no lab signature. And furthermore, we decided that based on computer modeling, the receptor binding domain did not use the ideal formulation we predicted. If a geneticist, a virologist, was doing this, they would have used our computer model. They didn't, and therefore this must have come from the wild.’
Well, that was a really odd argument because it didn't make any scientific sense. The authors did a lot of hand-waving, but failed to consider that other techniques could have been used to create this virus. Nor did the authors explain how such a virus, so ideally adapted to humans, could have developed in wildlife.
We should understand that those were two highly virulent and surprising mutations that could well have been added to a preexisting coronavirus, by a variety of techniques, including the old passage technique, still used today, which is what Louis Pasteur used to create the first live, attenuated rabies vaccine in 1885.
If you passage a virus through multiple human tissue cultures, or mice that contain, for example, humanized lung tissue, you force the virus to develop mutations that adapt it better and better to the new tissue. If the current coronavirus, as claimed by some scientists and seems borne out clinically, is better adapted to binding to the human ACE-2 receptor than to all known animal ACE-2 receptors, then it either:
1) mutated that way by jumping from wildlife to humans long ago, subsequently optimizing its ACE-2 receptor for humans over a prolonged period of time, or
2) was genetically engineered in a lab to do so, or
3) was passaged through cells with human ACE-2 receptors in order to accumulate the mutations that made it most virulent to humans.
I believe the same argument holds for the second unique coronavirus mutation, the addition of four amino acids to form a furin (polybasic) cleavage site. This site takes advantage of the human furin enzyme present intra- and extracellularly, which enhances viral entry into human cells and might convey other advantages to the virus.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the first hypothesis, that this virus has been circulating in humans for years. Thus, we are left with hypotheses 2 and 3: Each requires the human hand, only differing by the technique used. In my opinion, it is likely that both techniques (genetic engineering and serial passage) were used to produce the SARS-2 coronavirus, or its laboratory progenitors.”
We Absolutely Have the Know-How to Create SARS-CoV-2
Nass countered Nature Medicine’s narrative in a March 26, 2020, blog post,5 and again in an April 2, 2020, post, in which she wrote:6
“Why are some of the U.S.’ top scientists making a specious argument about the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2? … Prior to genetic engineering techniques being developed (1973) and widely used (since late 1970s), more ‘primitive’ means of causing mutations, with the intention of developing biological weapons, were employed …
They resulted in biological weapons that were tested, well-described, and in some cases, used … These methods can result in biowarfare agents that lack the identifiable signature of a microbial agent constructed in a lab from known RNA or DNA sequences.
In fact, it would be desirable to produce such agents, since it would be difficult to prove they were deliberately constructed in a lab. Here are just a few possibilities for how one might create new, virulent mutants:
Exposing microorganisms to chemical or radiological agents that cause high mutation rates and selecting for desired characteristics
Passaging virus through a number of lab animals or tissue cultures
Mixing viruses together and seeking recombinants with a new mix of virulence factors”
Why Is Protecting the Narrative so Important?
Nass believes the old technique of passage is a likely candidate here. According to Nass, if you take viruses that are ill adapted to the human ACE-2 receptor but are adapted to another animal’s ACE-2 inhibitor, and then passage them in human tissue culture with the human ACE-2 receptor, over time, the viruses will develop improved receptor binding.
“It’s a likely way that this coronavirus might have been produced,” she says. “Anyway, I read that article and I said, ‘This is complete nonsense. I can't believe Nature Medicine published it.’ And the two groups of authors, the group from The Lancet and the group from Nature Medicine, have consistently referred to each other as they've been interviewed since.
Science Magazine did a short piece on The Lancet article. USA Today did a piece on the Nature of Medicine article. And then the head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, Tony Fauci's boss, wrote a blog post (or somebody wrote it for him) about the spurious Nature Medicine article.
He stated, ‘Now we have the scientific answer. This article in Nature Medicine has put to rest any thoughts that this could be a lab construct. That's a conspiracy theory. We have no room for conspiracy theories. This is the end of the discussion’ …
Now, the first thing I thought about the Nature Medicine article was, ‘Did these authors actually write it?’ Because it's such a piece of scientific nonsense than any real scientist reading it, if you can read the language, would not accept it, would dismiss it out of hand. Many other scientists have said exactly this, subsequently.
So, were the Nature Medicine authors asked to place their names on a piece of junk science in order to get it into a high impact journal and create this smoke screen — that "the science proves" (but only to the scientifically illiterate) this is a naturally occurring coronavirus?
There were five authors. I know of a couple of them. One was a virologist named Robert Garry, who I have had some interactions with over the last 22 years, another one was Ian Lipkin. Garry and coauthor Kristian Andersen both worked in Sierra Leone during the Ebola epidemic.
Garry was principal investigator for a project in Kenema, Sierra Leone before the outbreak started. Ian Lipkin's group at Columbia University claimed, just last year, to have finally found a bat in west Africa carrying Ebola virus; in other words, this Nature Medicine coauthor's group produced the long-sought evidence for a natural origin of west Africa's Ebola epidemic.7
I happened to show the Nature Medicine article to a friend of mine, Ed Hooper, who wrote a well-known book called, ‘The River,’ about the origin of AIDS: How did AIDS jump from monkeys into the human population?
Although many claim that it's due to Africans eating bush meat (from monkeys), Ed makes a very strong case that HIV made the species jump via oral polio vaccines that were prepared locally, in the Belgian Congo, from the kidneys of various types of monkeys that were locally caught. The vaccine was designed by Hilary Koprowski in the U.S., and given to millions of Africans.
Ed Hooper has put out additional evidence in the intervening 20-plus years since he wrote ‘The River,’ that it's much more likely that the jump into humans occurred because the oral polio vaccine grown on monkey kidneys was contaminated by monkey viruses, and that those monkey kidneys probably contained the precursor to HIV.
Interestingly, three of these Nature Medicine authors had challenged him on his AIDS origin theory about two decades ago, and now they're challenging the coronavirus origin theory, which made me wonder, ‘Are these five Nature Medicine authors … repeatedly trotted out by the political medical establishment to try to push false narratives that are politically desirable?"
Compelling Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Is a Lab Creation
May 19, 2020, I reviewed evidence presented in a Medium article8 written by Yuri Deigin, as well as a video presentation of this evidence done by Chris Martenson, Ph.D. If you missed “The Smoking Gun Proving SARS-CoV-2 Is an Engineered Virus,” you may want to review it after you’re done with Nass’ interview.
Both sources go into great scientific depth, explaining why SARS-CoV-2 cannot be the result of a natural mutation. Deigin doesn’t actually suggest that it is manmade, but provides strong evidence that one needs to consider before coming to the conclusion that it’s of natural origin. Nass comments on Deigin’s work:
“[Deigin] did his own research and published a massive discussion of all the coronavirus research that has gone on since 1999 that is relevant to SARS-CoV-2, and he particularly discusses these two mutations: One, the furin cleavage site and the other is the receptor binding area.
He talks about all the research that's been done on coronaviruses, the different ways you can make these changes, and how changes like what we're seeing now have in fact been created by coronavirus researchers over the past 20 years. And he analyzes everything very, very finely. It's like Ed Hooper's book. He goes in and out and around and discusses every aspect.
When you finish reading that article, you are convinced that it's almost certain that these two mutations were put there deliberately.
Whether they were done by passage, whether they were done by CRISPR or whether another method was used, scientists did know the implications, in terms of increasing virulence, of both of these mutations. So, I invite you to read that piece.”
Many Nations Funded 'Gain of Function' Coronavirus Research
We now know that the National Institutes of Health, under Fauci’s leadership, funded gain-of-function research, or research on how to increase the virulence of pathogens, with coronaviruses for about two decades.
When the White House temporarily suspended U.S. government funding for that kind of research for MERS, SARS and avian flu in 2014, some work may have shifted over to the Wuhan Virology Institute in China and continued anyway. Other similar research, such as Ralph Baric's at UNC, was given special permission to continue despite the temporary suspension. The funding ban was lifted in 2017. Nass weighs in:
“Coronavirus research, including gain-of-function research over the last 20 years, has been done in many countries in Europe, in many labs in the U.S., in Japan, Singapore, China, Australia and probably other places. And it has often been funded by multiple countries.
So, funders have included the Australian government, different branches of NIH, but primarily Fauci's NIAID, the National Science Foundation and USAID — surprising because you would think USAID is an aid agency.
There have also been organizations like the EcoHealth Alliance, which have served as pass-throughs for the funding. The NIAID or USAID would give money to the EcoHealth Alliance and then EcoHealth Alliance would dole it out to the BSL-4 lab in Wuhan and other places and would participate with them in research.
Most of the most prominent researchers have worked in multiple countries' labs, along with foreign colleagues. It's very complicated. There's a lot of back and forth. Europe has funded this research too.
So, Dr. Zhengli Shi has worked in the United States and our researchers have worked in China. Nature Medicine coauthor Ian Lipkin has a post in China, and he was an expert who advised the Saudis on MERS, which is a cousin of SARS, and advised the Chinese on the 2003 SARS. He is affiliated with EcoHealth Alliance too.
He was over in China at the beginning of this SARS-2 pandemic. Ed Holmes, a coauthor of the Nature Medicine article, is an evolutionary biologist at Sydney University who also holds a position in China. So, these people work together, and … the Chinese, the Australians, the Europeans and the Americans fund all this work … Some of this research is funded by five different institutes from three or four different countries.
Gain-of-function research has been controversial since it started being openly discussed. In 2014, in the United States, there was a pause on U.S. government funding of gain-of-function research, but only for three organisms: MERS, SARS and avian flu.
Probably this occurred because researchers announced success in creating lethal avian flu viruses that had gained the ability to spread via aerosol. And because, at the same time, there was widespread media reporting on lab accidents in the U.S., especially at CDC's, NIH's and the Army's high containment labs. These accidents had exposed workers at CDC and over 100 other labs to live anthrax spores and live avian flu.
There was a lot of controversy in the scientific literature over gain-of-function. However, even though about 20 research projects were initially paused in 2014, seven were given special permission to continue. Here is what U.S. government scientists wrote about this in 2015:
‘The recent safety lapses at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH that could have resulted in exposure to anthrax and smallpox, respectively, have diminished public confidence in the ability of even high-containment laboratories to mitigate the risk of accidental release of pathogens of potential harm ... public tolerance of that risk may be the ultimate determinant of what types of research are allowed to proceed.
… ‘As recent lapses at high profile laboratories have illustrated, there remains the potential that bacterial and viral strains can escape even the most secure environments.’9
At the end of 2017, the pause was removed, new guidelines were issued but not made mandatory, and everybody was allowed to go back and do whatever gain-of-function research they wanted.”
Nass on Mikovits Retrovirus Hypothesis
I recently interviewed Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., a cellular and molecular biologist who suspects SARS-CoV-2 isn’t the actual or sole cause of COVID-19. Rather, she believes the illness is a coinfection of SARS-CoV-2 with a preexisting XMRV gamma retrovirus infection.
One possibility she has raised is that SARS-CoV-2 activates this underlying, latent infection. She supports this thesis with the fact that the cytokine storm signature of COVID-19 is inconsistent with coronavirus, but very consistent with the gamma retrovirus infections she studied.
“What she says is very interesting,” Nass says. “Some of it I think is incorrect and some of it is correct, and there's so much of it that it's very hard to separate … Even though she says coronaviruses don't do X, Y and Z, this is a very new coronavirus. It has some unique features.
What we've talked about so far is only relevant to the spike protein, which is only 13% of the genome. We haven't even begun to explore changes that may have occurred in the rest of the genome. So, I don't think we have the evidence yet to say that this coronavirus alone can't do what it seems to be doing …
Some people are saying there are two, three or four small, six to 10 amino acid segments that look like bits of HIV, and they're inserted in different places. They may have effects on the immune response. I don't know. I think that information will gradually appear … I think I've got to read her book [‘Plague of Corruption’] … and see what the data show …
In my own research, I have found Anthony Fauci to be a hypocritical fraud, who pretends he knows nothing about coronaviruses, [yet] he's funded over $100 million of coronavirus research out of NIAID. He looks so gentle and he doesn't give you any details about anything, but he knows a lot of details. So, I hope she confirms my suspicions about Fauci.”
Speaking of Fauci, Moderna was granted a fast-track designation for its mRNA-1273 vaccine by the FDA on May 12, 2020.10,11 This vaccine is sponsored by Fauci’s NIAID, who, echoing Bill Gates’ edicts, has been calling for social distancing and other lockdown measures until a vaccine becomes available. Moderna is currently preparing to enter Phase 2 trials. No results from Phase 1 have been published as of this writing.
“They're doing human trials of at least two vaccines in the U.S. now. So, I'll tell you what I know. First of all, the Moderna is an mRNA vaccine. We haven't had an mRNA vaccine before, so we don't know what that's going to do in people.
Therefore, it seems unconscionable to give it to people before you test it in animals, so that you can at least have some idea what the side effects might be …
There [have also been] many [experimental coronavirus vaccines in the past], not just the trials at Galveston with Peter Hotez, where four different types of vaccines against coronaviruses all failed. There have been other vaccine platforms attempted for coronaviruses that also failed.”
In one such study, discussed in my recent interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., ferrets showed an extraordinary good serological antibody response to the vaccine, but when the animals were then exposed to the wild virus, they were overtaken by a cytokine storm response, now known as “paradoxical immune enhancement.” In at least one trial, all the ferrets died.
“Hotez [has stated that] in their animal experiments, the vaccinated animals fared worse when they were exposed to the disease than if they had not gotten the vaccine,” Nass says.
“[In] experiments done in the 1960s, an RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) vaccine [Editor’s note: RSV is similar to coronavirus] … was given to children. Several of the children died — again, with this same cytokine storm problem arising. So, I think this is a vaccine you should tread very lightly with, and it should never have been given to people before it was given to animals.”
COVID-19 Vaccine — Global Experiment Without Precedent
Nass also addresses the issue of how human trials are done, and warns people about joining them without being fully informed about the potential risks. This is particularly pertinent for COVID-19 vaccine trials, considering the lethal failures of such vaccines in the past.
You also need to understand that when you participate in a trial, you are not eligible to receive compensation for any injuries you sustain. As for taking the vaccine once it becomes publicly available, Nass says:
“I'll just point out that Ralph Baric, the top coronavirus researcher in the United States, at the University of North Carolina, said himself in an interview a couple months ago that vaccines aren't going to work in the older population for which this disease is most risky …
Having dealt with many people who've died or developed chronic illnesses, all sorts of terrible complications from anthrax vaccine and smallpox vaccine, and sometimes other vaccines, I try to do a careful risk-benefit analysis before recommending a vaccine to any patient.
Sometimes I think it makes sense for people to be vaccinated, but their own situation, where they live, their age group, who they're exposed to, where they're traveling to are all important factors that would help you to formulate that risk-benefit assessment. And I don't think vaccines should be looked on as risk-free. They're clearly not risk-free. Medical interventions should be done thoughtfully …
Another problem … on the FDA website,12,13 there is a page that talks about the problem of growing vaccines in cells14 that may have oncogenes or cancer causing viruses in them, and what research FDA is trying to do to deal with this. So, the FDA acknowledges this serious potential risk from some vaccines… on the FDA website.”
Level 3 and 4 Biosafety Labs Pose Severe Risk to Human Health
The map below was published in the journal Science15 in 2007 and reprinted in Asia Times16 April 6, 2020, showing the proliferation of high-containment labs in the U.S. A USA Today investigation published in 2015 put the number of BSL 3 and 4 labs in the U.S. around 200,17 and Boyle estimates there are about 400 worldwide.18
In closing, Nass points out there have been many accidental leaks from BSL 3 and 4 labs, causing many deaths. Improperly inactivated vaccines have also claimed many lives.
“Thirty years ago when I was writing papers about the potential risks of biological defense research we had a lot less biological defense research going on. And the risks were significant. Everybody agrees that these labs leak.
I told you there were maybe 600 or more BSL-3s in the United States19 and hundreds of others around the world. There are about 200 reports of lab accidents, mostly exposures of lab personnel to pathogens, in the high-containment labs in the U.S., yearly.20
So, let me actually give you a few examples from a paper by Martin Furmanski, a physician who wrote about lab escapes.21
He pointed out a lab in England. There were several smallpox escapes from that lab to a room below. Two people died. After the second escape happened, I think it was around 1980, the lab director killed himself.
There were huge outbreaks of Venezuelan equine encephalitis. Thousands and thousands of animals and people [were affected] in Latin America, and it turned out to be due to improperly inactivated vaccines. So, the disease they were vaccinating all these livestock for was actually giving them the disease and giving it to humans also. You don't hear about that.
He points out that the worldwide 1977 H1N1 outbreak … started in China or Russia, probably from long-frozen virus that had been thawed, because that particular strain, H1N1, had not circulated in the world for 21 years, and genetically it looked almost identical to the strains that were around in the late '40s and 1950s, early '50s. So that worldwide 1977 flu pandemic was due to a lab escape.
And Furmanski postulates that the reason the virus was thawed was to do vaccine research because of the fear, in the U.S. in 1976-77, that a deadly swine influenza pandemic might occur … leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy. But fortunately, the virus that circulated was much less deadly than the feared 1918 strain.
[The U.S. government] began a swine flu vaccine program in 1976 after one soldier died at Fort Dix in 1976 of a unique swine flu strain. Frightened that a scenario like the 1918 flu pandemic might emerge, the United States public health agencies got together with the U.S. vaccine manufacturers to create, very rapidly, a swine flu vaccine to save the United States. It was an abysmal failure.
As things progressed, the manufacturers refused to produce vaccine unless the government gave them a waiver of liability for possible vaccine injuries. This they received.
First of all, there was no outbreak. The virus had stopped circulating and disappeared. Had the people at the CDC and HHS been honest with the American public, they would have told them, ‘Hey, there's no outbreak. We're just going to cancel the vaccine program. We don't need it.’ But the vaccine program had developed a life of its own.
Harvey Fineberg co-authored a wonderful book [‘The Swine Flu Affair: Decision-Making on a Slippery Slope’22,23] about the vaccine program, for the National Academy of Sciences, which the subsequent DHHS (then HEW) Secretary, Joseph Califano, had requested.
I recommend it. It’s a fabulous read because Fineberg was working under the Secretary of Health and Human Services, so he was able to interview everybody involved in government who had been part of the program.
He tells you the inside story of what went on during that year. All the infighting, all the different reasons why a vaccine was made for a disease that didn't exist. And then, [after the vaccine was] given to 45 million Americans, [it was] found to cause Guillain-Barre syndrome, about 30 people died and 4,000 people applied for damages from the federal government.
This was the first time the government gave a liability waiver to vaccine manufacturers. And I think it was what gave them the idea that in the future they could get liability waivers for all their vaccines.”
This article is part of a weekly series in which Dr. Mercola interviews various experts on a variety of health issues. To see more expert interviews, click here.
Judy Mikovits, Ph.D. is a cellular and molecular biologist,1 researcher and was the founding research director of the Whittemore Peterson Institute that researches and treats chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in Reno, Nevada.
She is likely one of the most qualified scientists in the world to comment on this disease because of her groundbreaking research in molecular biology and virology. Mikovits is absolutely brilliant, but like many gifted researchers, her complex discussions on science quite challenging for the average lay person to follow.
For this reason, I present her interview in a different format, cutting and splicing pieces together to present a more cohesive and coherent presentation of her many important points. I would encourage you to watch the initial, very short, videos first, so you will be well-grounded, and if you are motivated, watch the entire interview at the bottom of this article.
Because there were so many surprising and important revelations in this interview I will present part 2 next week along with an interview with Bobby Kennedy, Jr which will revolve more on the vaccine issue.
Mikovits Doesn’t Believe SARS-CoV-2 Is the Cause of COVID-19
One of the most shocking revelations Mikovits reveals is that she doesn’t believe SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of COVID-19 but merely serves to activate or wake up a dormant XMRV infection. To support her assertion, she states that COVID-19 patients have the same cytokine signature as the gammaretrovirus XMRV, which she published many years ago.
XMRV stands for “xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus.” Xenotrophic refers to viruses that only replicate in cells other than those of the host species. So, XMRVs are viruses that infect human cells yet are not human viruses.2
The XMRV retrovirus is actually the virus that has the same cytokine storm signature as COVID-19, not coronaviruses, which are far more benign. (I delve into what retroviruses are in another section further below.)
Additionally, there may be other infections that also are contributing to the infection, such as Borelia and Babesia or parasites, which may be why some of the antiparasite drugs like Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are working.
Vaccine Gammaretroviruses Have Adapted and Are Aerosolized
Getting back to the issue of gammaretroviruses, Mikovits research showed that many of our vaccines are contaminated with them. How did this happen? In short, vaccine viruses were replicated and grown in animal cell cultures that were already contaminated with retroviruses. In other words, the root of the problem stems from the use of contaminated cell culture lines.
Vaccine manufacturing frequently involves the use of animal tissues and many vaccines are grown animal culture cell lines. As noted in the 2010 paper, “Of Mice and Men: On the Origin of XMRV,” published in Frontiers in Microbiology (which Mikovits did not work on):3
“The novel human retrovirus xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) is arguably the most controversial virus of this moment. After its original discovery in prostate cancer tissue from North American patients, it was subsequently detected in individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome from the same continent …
The detection of integrated XMRV proviruses in prostate cancer tissue proves it to be a genuine virus that replicates in human cells, leaving the question: how did XMRV enter the human population?
We will discuss two possible routes: either via direct virus transmission from mouse to human … or via the use of mouse-related products by humans, including vaccines. We hypothesize that mouse cells or human cell lines used for vaccine production could have been contaminated with a replicating variant of the XMRV precursors encoded by the mouse genome.”
Mikovits goes even further, explaining that, “It became clear in 2011 that these [gammaretro]viruses had adapted to become aerosolized.” This is a rather shocking finding, and this, Mikovits says, is what allows the gammaretroviruses to spread in laboratories from one cell line to another.
This could be related to research catalyzed by Charles Lieber, the former head of Harvard’s chemistry department, who is a nanoscience experts and was arrested by federal authorities earlier this year for working with the Wuhan Virology Institute.
Lab workers may also be inadvertently spreading them as they are using cell lines contaminated with retroviruses in vaccine production that could result in the spread of these retroviruses via the finished vaccine. Mikovits suspects COVID-19 may in fact be a type of vaccine-derived or vaccine-induced retroviral infection.
“I don't believe [COVID-19] is infection from without,” she says. “I believe the spread across  countries4 is from injection, and there's enough evidence to support that.”
SARS-CoV-2 — A Combination of SARS, Gammaretroviruses and HIV
Another of her theories is that SARS-CoV-2 is unlikely to have had a zoonotic origin but is likely synthetically produced. She believes it originated in and escaped or leaked from a biosafety laboratory. Mikovits believes both scenarios might be at play, where a lab-created virus, SARS-CoV-2, is causing serious infection and/or death only in those who have underlying retroviruses in their bodies.
Mikovits suspects that people who do not have retroviral infections, SARS-CoV-2 causes no or only mild symptoms. Another possibility is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is the result of growing coronaviruses in retrovirus-contaminated cell lines, producing a gammaretrovirus-carrying virus.
According to Mikovits, her 2009 through 2011 work suggested 25 million to 30 million Americans were carriers of XMRVs and other gammaretroviruses. That estimate is over a decade old now so the number is likely far higher.
“There is a family of gammaretroviruses, most likely [in] contaminated blood supply and vaccines that are still to this day, almost 10 years later, being injected,” she says.
“We don't need an infectious virus if you inject the blueprint, if you inject the provirus. And … there are a lot of data to support COVID-19 is not SARS-CoV-2 alone, that it's SARS-CoV-2 and XMRVs (human gammaretroviruses) and HIV.”
Might Wearing a Mask Worsen Your Odds of Illness?
Mikovits is also highly critical of the recommendation (and in some places mandate) to wear a face mask or fabric cover such as a bandana around your face. She believes:
“Wearing a mask is going to cause more secretions and give more cells a home and amplify any viruses. [Wearing a mask is] immune suppressive; it's going to limit your body’s ability to produce Type 1 interferon.
You're driving the infection in yourself and you're not preventing the spread. [Instead], you're amplifying [replication of] not just [SARS-CoV-2] but also many other [viruses], including your XMRVs, influenza or other dormant viruses.
What keeps those dormant viruses dormant? Your natural killer (NK) cells, your mast cells, your macrophages. That's where you're getting the inflammatory signature.
So, every virus you amplify is driving the inflammatory signature, and you're going to get sick. [The resulting illness] doesn't have to be SARS-CoV-2 at all. You’re making yourself sick [by bringing dormant viruses out of dormancy]. It's insanity.”
Wearing a face mask after getting a live flu vaccine may further worsen your odds, she says. Why? Because you’re injecting three or more live flu virus strains into your body, which lowers your immune function. You’re also going to shed the viruses contained in the vaccine. If you wear a mask, Mikovits says, you’ll shed those viruses into the mask, which could encourage illness.
On the other hand, not wearing one might jeopardize the health of others. “If you're shedding [the viruses] into the air, you're going to make somebody else get another upper respiratory infection that's going to allow [SARS-CoV-2] to make them sicker,” she warns.
Why PCR Testing Is a Bad Idea
We’re also being lied to about the prevalence of infection. We’re seeing inflated case numbers for the simple reason that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention no longer requires doctors to do testing in order to confirm that a patient is in fact infected with SARS-CoV-2 or died from COVID-19. The numbers now include “suspected” and “assumed” cases.
Naturally, without widespread and accurate testing, there’s no way to get a clear idea of how prevalent the infection is, and how many actually get sick and die from it. The initial emphasis on PCR testing resulted in massive false positives and greatly inflated numbers of those infected.
As noted by Mikovits, confirming each case through testing matters greatly, as there are hundreds, if not thousands, of microbes that can cause upper respiratory infections, including seasonal influenza viruses. None of those should be lumped in with COVID-19 if we want to understand the true nature and danger of this disease.
What’s more, the initial decision to use RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) testing instead of antibody testing was an unwise one, as it virtually guaranteed an overestimation of the problem. RT-PCR is now being used to diagnose an active infection by detecting the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material.5 However, by doing that, you end up with high rates of false positives. Mikovits explains how the RT-PCR test works:
“We're taking a swab and scraping some epithelial cells [from the back of the sinuses or throat] because that's what coronaviruses infect … We get a little RNA — because it's an RNA virus — we reverse-transcribe that, meaning write it backwards with enzymes in the lab, and then we amplify it [through a] polymerase chain reaction …
We're only taking a piece of the virus, we're not taking the whole virus … The first thing about [the PCR] test is, it was admitted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the CDC that the tests put out by the CDC were contaminated.
And when you amplify something a million times, or 10 million times — whatever they do in the 30 cycles or so — it's logarithmic that RNA then is way overestimated … [But] no [viral] particle was identified or isolated from your saliva or from your nasal passages. Nobody took the secretions from your nose or your mouth and isolated the [actual] viruses.
[When I isolated] HIV in 1983, I isolated it from saliva. What you do is you take the virus and grow it in any human cell, in an appropriate cell line, and you make many copies. [Viral replication] means you have [a positive test for] that virus. Then you sequence the whole virus.
A PCR [test, on the other hand] can give you a lot of false positives [by amplifying RNA fragments].
We [also] showed the people that had [HIV] infection had antibodies; that they had been fully exposed and it was not a piece of nucleic acid in a biopsy or in their throat or in their nose. [A piece of nucleic acid] is not a virus. And it's certainly not infectious.
If RNA is there and in the tiniest amount, I'm not going to cough it on somebody, especially if I'm not coughing. I'm not going to breathe that [out and infect] somebody because there's no evidence of an infectious virus.”
Better Testing Strategy: Antibodies
Rather than using PCR testing, “what should have been done is test for antibodies,” Mikovits says. This is what was done in South Korea. An antibody test will tell you whether you had the infection at some point, and have developed a strong immune response or immunological memory that will allow you to fight the infection should you encounter it again.
“Epidemiology is not done with PCR. In fact, Kary Mullis who invented PCR, Nobel Laureate, and others, said PCR was never intended for diagnostic testing. So that puts that to bed.
It takes nothing to develop a really good serology [i.e., antibody] test … [It takes] a few weeks. It's pretty easy because the people who have recovered have antibodies. So, you isolate those antibodies, you take their plasma, you purify the antibodies, and then you can grow them.
Then you develop the tests... It's usually ELISA or Western Blot [which check for] the protein and the antibody binds. You form an immune complex, and you detect it with a dye. You can do that test with a finger stick … and it takes 15 minutes to get the answer, almost like a pregnancy test.”
My belief is that the use of PCR instead of a proper antibody test was intentional, as it inflates the case numbers. Mikovits agrees, saying “I wouldn't get any tests right now. I'd simply wash my hands and drink hot lemon water as I always do for any flu season.”
One piece of evidence is that the virus contains a protein envelope from the HIV virus. It’s also very similar to SARS which, according to bioweapons expert Francis Boyle, is an engineered bioweapon.
As explained by Mikovits, an Indian paper6,7 detailed the presence of Gp120, a protein envelope from the HIV virus. That paper was quickly retracted due to political pressure. However, Mikovits colleague, Luc Montagnier, made a similar discovery, finding Gp41 in the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which is the transmembrane domain of the HIV virus.
“The folks from India also had GAG. That's structural proteins. That gives you a clue that it wasn't a CRISPR technique or a pseudotyping where the envelope was expressed in a gene therapy-type of way. Ifit were CRISPR, you wouldn't put the GAG sequences in there.
What was done is, the virus was acquired as they grew SARS-CoV-2 in Vero-E6 cells — the monkey kidney cells where you get HIV.
Simian immune deficiency virus was the origin, and we were told all the way back in the 80s that somebody forgot to cook their food in Africa and a few promiscuous men spread this [HIV] virus around the world. So, you can see again the patterns of the lies and of what people end up believing.”
The addition of this envelope protein from HIV gives SARS-CoV-2 the ability to impair the immune system. It also contributes to its pathogenicity. Mikovits continues her explanation:
“The first thing is, you must grow a virus to make a lot of it. So, you grow it in cell lines. They didn't take [SARS-CoV-2] from the bat and it jumped into a human. It normally goes through another cell [from] a monkey or a smaller animal. The cell line that supports the growth and expansion [of viruses] are monkey kidney cells.
Maybe [SARS-CoV-2] is not engineered at all … but the end result is, now it not only infects the epithelial cells of the lungs, it infects the white blood cells, it infects the immune cells. We see the splenomegaly in large spleens, we're seeing penias, cytopenias. We're losing cells like HIV-killing T-cells …
So, it's got not only an expanded host range, but also disease symptoms that make no sense for a coronavirus.
Hence, we're killing people because they're treating an upper respiratory infection, and you're getting that inflammatory disease signature because you're infecting the very innate immune response, the macrophages, the monocytes, the natural killer cells, the T cells. And it's primarily the T-cells in the macrophages because those are the cells HIV 120 and Gp41 infect through CCR5 in the CD4 receptor.
So now you're going to lose your adaptive immune response, you're going to drive the inflammation. And it’s the fire [of inflammation] that does the tissue damage.”
Another piece that hints at SARS-CoV-2 being a manufactured virus is the construction of its spike proteins, which bind to ACE2 receptors to gain access into the cell. This appears to be an engineering feature. According to Mikovits, it’s quite clear that the spike proteins came from the original SARS virus, which also infects through ACE receptors.
There are also “single point mutations there that make it far more infectious, easier to spread,” she says, “and how those were acquired, nobody really can say.” At least not yet. Nanotechnology may also have been used to aerosolize it for ease of transmission.
“The nano[size] further increases the host range. So now you can go into every cell. Now you can go across the blood brain barrier. That's nano. Now you don't need a receptor. You can breathe it, it can go into every cell of the body. You don't need the gatekeeper. You don't need the receptor. You don't need the lock and key.”
Contaminated Cell Line Shared With Wuhan Biolab
According to Mikovits, one contaminated cell line is the Vero monkey kidney cell line called Vero E6, which was given by Fort Detrick — a U.S. Army Medical Command installation that hosts many of our national biological defense programs and houses the National Cancer Institute laboratory where she used to work — to the biosafety 4 laboratory (BSL-4) in Wuhan, China. This cell line is what the Wuhan lab used to grow and study coronaviruses, she says.
The Vero cell line is listed in the 2015 paper,8 “A SARS-like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronaviruses Shows Potential for Human Emergence,” co-written by University of North Carolina researchers and Dr. Shi Zhengli, a Chinese virologist at the Wuhan lab who in 2010 published a paper9 discussing the weaponization of the SARS virus.
The contaminated Vero monkey kidney cells were also used in the production of polio vaccines, Mikovits notes. The original polio vaccines were passed through mice brains, as we didn't have cell lines in the 1930s when that vaccine was originally developed. According to Mikovitz, the spread of this Vero retrovirus has occurred through laboratory workers and hospital caretakers for decades.
“That's why the family studies we did were so important,” she says, referring to studies in which retroviral transmission was tracked to determine how it spread between family members.10
Alas, whenever patterns were detected, she was always directed to cover them up. Her refusal to hide the information from the public was what led to her firing in 2011. According to Mikovits, we’re seeing the same pattern of sweeping evidence under the rug now during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The patterns are the same as far as the science goes, and the patterns are the same as far as the political corruption, the plague of corruption, in covering up data,” she says.
According to Mikovits, Fauci does not appear to have changed his stripes, and is still misleading the public and hiding the truth about SARS-CoV-2, just like he did with the HIV virus and retroviral-associated diseases.
“I think the way to think about the background of what's going on right now is to go back to my first interactions with Dr. Tony Fauci when I was a 25-year-old lab technician in the National Cancer Institute. At that time, we had isolated — from blood and saliva — the lymphadenopathy virus.
[Lymphadenopathy-associated virus (LAV)] was the name given to it by Luc Montagnier, the Nobel Laureate, [who] first isolated and discovered that virus and its association with HIV/AIDS.11
In that situation, Fauci delayed the serology testing [to find out] who was exposed [to HIV]. It was politicized such that the only people that were [said to be] susceptible to getting infected with HIV was gay men [and] IV drug users.
The country was told not to worry about it. It was only spread through blood and body fluids and shouldn't be a problem for most other people. So, the testing that could have been done wasn't done because of political reasons, and the treatments weren't done because Fauci had patents, and — we didn't know this at the time — the wrong type of treatment was used. That led to the spread and [death] of millions worldwide …”
The Discovery of Human Gammaretroviruses
Ultimately, Mikovits and her colleagues discovered that the HIV virus was spread through a contaminated blood supply. After that, they proceeded to look into other “clearly retroviral-associated diseases,” such as CFS,12 certain kinds of autism, cancers, leukemias and lymphomas.
Gammaretroviruses13 are viruses that can cause cancer, leukemia and immune deficiencies in various animals. Examples include murine leukemia virus, feline leukemia virus and mink focus forming virus. As explained in a 2011 paper on gamma retroviruses:14
“Retroviruses are evolutionary optimized gene carriers that have naturally adapted to their hosts to efficiently deliver their nucleic acids into the target cell chromatin, thereby overcoming natural cellular barriers …
Retroviral vectors are fascinating and efficient delivery tools for the transfer of nucleic acids. As a hallmark, all retroviruses are capable of reverse transcribing their single stranded RNA genome into double stranded DNA, which will be stably integrated into the host cell genome.
As highly evolved parasites they act in concert with cellular host factors to deliver their nucleic acid into the nucleus, where they exploit the host cell’s machinery for their own replication and long-term expression occurs.”
The key take-home here is that retroviruses are “integrated into the host cell genome,” and infection can result in “long-term expression.” In other words, once they’re in your body, they can remain dormant, only to reactivate when conditions are favorable. In this regard, they’re quite different from your average virus that, when you’re exposed, invades your cells, replicates and causes symptoms, and is eventually eliminated from your body through your immune response.
In 2009, Mikovits and her team discovered and isolated the first human gammaretrovirus family of retroviruses, known then as XMRVs. As mentioned earlier, XMRV stands for “xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus.” Xenotrophic refers to viruses that only replicate in cells other than those of the host species. So, XMRVs are viruses that infect human cells yet are not human viruses.15
My Entire Interview With Judy Mikovits
To reiterate some of the key take-home messages Mikovits delivers in this interview:
• She believes COVID-19 — the disease — is not caused by SARS-CoV-2 alone, but rather that it’s the result of a combination of SARS-CoV-2 (which appears to have been manipulated to include components of HIV that destroys immune function). Previous XMRV (human gammaretroviruses) infection may facilitate SARS-CoV-2 to express the COVID-19 illness.
Put another way, COVID-19 may be initiated by SARS-CoV-2 but dependent upon a preexisting infection with and awakening of other viruses such as XMRV, gamma retroviruses, possibly Lyme and other coinfections, including parasites, and this is why anti-parasitic medications like hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin help.
• Blood products and vaccines are contaminated with XMRVs that can damage your immune system and cause CFS, cancer and other chronic diseases. The viruses spread within laboratories as they have adapted to become aerosolized, and contaminate cell lines used in vaccine production and other viral research, including research on coronaviruses.
• Flu vaccines have spread a host of dangerous viruses around the world, which can then interact with SARS COV-2.
• It is possible to develop safer oral vaccines, and interferon alpha could be a valuable treatment alternative against COVID-19. Aside from interferons, other treatment strategies discussed in our interview include hyperbaric oxygen therapy, cannabinoids (CBD), peptide T and antioxidant support.
• SARS-CoV-2 is more dangerous and virulent than typical coronaviruses because it includes sequences of HIV, SARS and another virus, which enable it to infect more than just your respiratory epithelium. It can also infect blood cells and hematopoeitic organs such as the spleen.