Natural Health Blog & News
This article was previously published February 7, 2021, and has been updated with new information.
In this interview, Rodney Dietert, Professor Emeritus of immunotoxicology at Cornell University, reviews the interrelationship between your immune system and your gut microbiome.
He's spent several decades researching and teaching students about the immune system. As noted by Dietert, your gut microbiome is crucial not just for immune function, but also for your health status in general, as it affects nearly all other physiological systems.
He first became aware of the importance of the gut when given the opportunity to write a research paper about which biomarker would be the best to predict the future health of a baby.
"I thought that was a really intriguing question to develop a paper around," he says. "And, I was pretty sure decades of work on the immune system in the young, prenatal and neonatal, meant that I had an answer.
I became very frustrated because I wrote a couple of paragraphs and it was unpersuasive, and went to bed extremely frustrated. I woke up in the middle of the night from a dream with what to me was an answer.
The answer was that it was the extent to which the newborn became complete or completed itself, and that that self-completion is really the installation of the microbiome, largely from the mother, but both parents contributing; vaginal delivery when possible, skin-skin contact, and then of course, followed up with prolonged breastfeeding when possible."
He points out that "more than 99% of your genes are from microbes, not from your chromosomes." You have approximately 3.3 million microbial genes, mainly bacterial. Across the entire population of humans, there are just under 10 million different microbial genes, so you won't necessarily have all of them.
You also have 22,000 to 25,000 chromosomal genes (these genes are what were analyzed through the Human Genome Project), which means you only have about 2,000 more chromosomal genes than an earthworm. As noted by Dietert, since we have about 3.3 million microbial genes, that means we're more than 99% microbial, genetically.
This is why he concluded that the gut microbiome at birth would be the best predictor of future health. Granted, your microbiome can be altered through diet and environmental exposures, and that will impact and influence your health throughout your life. But initially, the infant microbiome is the best overall predictor of future health.
"That led to a whole host of other lectures, books, scientific journal articles and an appearance in the documentary movie, 'MicroBirth,' which is a wonderful film. It won the life science award in 2014 for documentary films. That launched a second career, really, as a result of a dream, and paying attention to that versus the linear progression of 30-plus years of research."
According to Dietert, there's really no single measure of any particular bacterial species that will give you a definitive answer to what your health will be like. Rather, the most important predictive aspect is the seeding process. If the baby goes through an ideal seeding process at birth, he or she stands a greater chance of experiencing good health.
For example, elective cesarean and antibiotic regimens — both in the mother and the baby — are known to degrade the baby's microbiome. Since 2012, when he had that dream, he's been able to map out more specifics, but there's no single ideal microbiome per se. There are many different healthy microbiomes.
"These [microbiomes] arose in our ancestors depending on their geography, diet and a whole host of factors that were honed over thousands of years," he explains.
"For example, I have in my 60s tried to modify my health constructively by modifying my microbiome, and in my case, it would've been a long reach to get an ideal Asian microbiome because that's not really my ancestry. It's not where I grew up, or the soil I lived on and the food I ate.
So, healthy microbiomes are more connected to what your ancestors had that has been lost through short-sighted practices and technology installations. Trying to head toward that is much more constructive than trying to completely overhaul something to a group of microbes your ancestors never saw."
Past dogma stated that the infant's immune system was complete at birth with little to no maturation or adjustment required in the infant. Now we realize that this is not true. The baby's immune development in utero is not uniform. It is skewed to protect maintenance of the pregnancy. This skewing then needs to be adjusted in the newborn/infant and the immune system must be expanded, redistributed and rebalanced.
The best way to do this is by ensuring that rebalancing the baby's microbiome is complete and that a healthy infant microbiome can drive necessary post-natal immune maturation. If microbially-driven, infant immune maturation does not happen, then immune dysfunction-driven disease is an increased likelihood for that child.
Remember that 60% to 70% of your immune cells are located in your gut and these immune cells are in close proximity to your gut microbiome. So, gut microbiome status and immune status are intimately intertwined.
As mentioned, having a C-section puts your newborn at serious risk for developing a less than optimal microbial population. However, in some cases, a C-section is necessary, and the good news is you can compensate for the loss of microbial seeding that would have occurred during vaginal birth.
Gloria Dominguez Bello, Ph.D., at Rutgers University, who has pioneered much of this work, uses a vaginal swab technique where the microbes from the mother's vagina are manually transferred to the baby immediately after birth. You can learn more about this technique in "The Importance of Reducing Your Toxic Burden When Planning to Start a Family." "While it's not 100% equivalent, it is very good," Dietert says.
"Those types of strategies are the direction we need to head in to really aid parents in being able to deliver the majority of the baby's genetics. Those microbial genes are making proteins and enzymes, they're modifying what we see from the external environment, they're modifying our diet [via microbial metabolism] before our mammalian human cells ever see anything.
In effect, if you look at interference with seeding the [baby's complete] microbiome, to me, that is like a birth defect. If you were missing an organ or a limb, that would be a birth defect. Here, you're missing the majority of your genetics [the microbiome as a virtual organ containing most of the baby's genes].
Yet, that is a correctable birth defect and we need to keep that in mind. That would really be the push and the goal — to ensure the baby is able to have, as soon after birth as possible, the robust microbiome that would normally be there …
We know from experience that status of the microbiome dramatically impacts things like risk of asthma at age 7, and then subsequent health risks as well. Even picking up atherosclerosis markers, which you now can measure in children even though the disease onset will probably be decades off …
If you're growing up on a farm and having raw milk, and are exposed to animals and the microbes that go with that environment, it turns out that's rather protective against asthma and allergy later in childhood, as long as you're not directly encountering pesticides. That [encountering pesticides] will eliminate the benefit [of the early life microbial exposures].
Those microbial exposures early in life are really what our ancestors had to develop an appropriately balanced immune system, a well-regulated immune system. If we don't do that, then you're shifted toward a proinflammatory state and your regulation of immunity is off [producing an increased risk of later-life diseases].
Nature tells us that the microbiome has to have some compatibility with the immune system as they co-mature. When you get microbiomes that are really foreign to an immune system, the immune system [rather than developing self-tolerance] responds with a massive inflammatory response, so there's a self-attack …"
Aside from the vaginal tract, the baby also receives valuable microbes via skin-to-skin contact, including oral contact with breast tissue, as well as from the breast milk itself, which is why breastfeeding is so important and can impact your child's health well into the future. As mentioned above, environmental exposures from soil, food and animals also play a role.
Your microbiome (in addition to directly metabolizing your food, drugs and chemicals) also influences the epigenetic expression of your (chromosomal) genes. For example, Dietert cites the work of Curtis Klaassen, former president of the Society of Toxicology and an expert on liver metabolism, who years ago shifted focus to microbiome metabolism because, epigenetically, microbes influence liver metabolism.
"The microbes [encounter and respond to] our food first. They see our environmental chemicals first. They see drugs through most routes of administration first, and what they do with those determine what your body sees. So, they're our gatekeeper, they're our filter for our whole environmental existence.
As a result, it's important to know what happens there. An example is cancer therapeutics. Most of those have to be metabolized by the microbiome. If we manage the microbiome more effectively in patients, we very likely could increase the efficacy of those drugs across a population of patients.
I think the U.K. said they're about 50% effective. That could be increased because we've ignored the microbiome and its role, even though these drugs don't work unless they're metabolized by the microbiome. [We now have more capability to manage microbial metabolism and should be doing that as part of sustainable health care.]"
Historically, the thymus gland has been known to be really important for the development of the immune system, and in older individuals, the deterioration of the immune system is frequently related to thymic deterioration. The good news is this can to some extent be compensated for by improving your gut microbiome. Dietert explains:
"Aging of the immune system is really dependent upon your lifetime diet in large part. So, you don't have to buy into the fact that there is only one end for an 80-year-old's immune system — senescence, lower responses to certain infectious disease agents and greater risk of auto-reactivity. You really don't have to buy that, because it is largely influenced by diet and microbial metabolism."
One factor that plays a significant role in the destruction of your gut microbiome is the use of medications. According to Dietert, 25% to 50% of all drugs, including over-the-counter medications, damage your microbiome in predictable ways. Other drugs interact with the microbiome modifying drug treatment outcomes. We ignore these drug-microbiome interactions at our own peril.
"For example, here's just one case that's historic: Digoxin, a long-standing heart medication, can be metabolized by one specific bacterial species [Eggerthella lenta]. Now, depending on the level of that [specific bacterial] species that you have in your gut, the drug will either be ineffective because of the metabolic level, it will be effective, or it will be toxic and kill the patient.
It's a bit of a problem in terms of prescribing [a safe and effective personalized dose of Digoxin], even though it can be an effective drug.
Knowing that [the drug-microbiome relationship], and knowing it's one specific [gut] bacterium [controlling internal drug dose], which could be measured, [the bacterium] could be supplemented and the level [of bacterial metabolism of Digoxin] could be changed or the[administered] drug level could be changed [to ensure that drug metabolization by the gut microbiome results in a safe and effective internal dose for each individual].
Why wouldn't you do that if you were going to administer this type of drug? [The microbiome and therapeutic drug dose can and should be aligned in each patient]."
So, the more microbe-damaging drugs you use, the greater the degradation of your microbiome will be over time. When combined with a poor diet, you end up with immunosenescence — the gradual deterioration of your immune system — but it's not a given just because you get old if you protect and support your microbiome and immune system across the life span.
"As always when you're dealing with the immune system and inflammation, it's a matter of tissue integrity and the question of whether you've so damaged an organ that it's going to be tough to come back from," Dietert says.
"You want to make these [inflammation-controlling] corrections [in your microbiome and immune system] before [a point of no return when] you've completely lost good [tissue] function due to massive inflammatory damage over decades."
One simple strategy that will protect your microbiome is to avoid antibiotics. While they may be necessary to combat an active infection, the vast majority of antibiotics you're exposed to come from food. Animals raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are routinely fed antibiotics that you then ingest when you eat that animal.
That's one of the reasons why I strongly support and recommend eating organic, as organically raised animals are not allowed to be given antibiotics unless the animal is actually ill. CAFO animals are also more prone to carry antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
The COVID-19 pandemic has also increased the use of antibacterial products. People think they're killing harmful germs but, in reality, they're just killing their immune system. As explained by Dietert:
"You have to support your entire body and you have to support your immune system as well. I'd point out that, for example, glyphosate is an antimicrobial. First, it destroys soil microbes, then plant microbes, and then it gets into animals and into us. We're exposed directly and we're exposed through food.
Again, it's widespread and it's just one example. You can take the plasticizers, bisphenol-A and others, where these things were never screened properly and the attention to the microbiome was never given. That's a huge mistake and we need to reverse that immediately.
I'm a big proponent of regenerative agriculture … I look at ecological management of microbes and robust diversity of plants, animals and our food production as critical. I'd like to point out that COVID-19 is in fact a cytokine storm.
It is an improper host immune response that leads to lung pathology and increased risk of death. Yet there's been almost no attention paid to the multiple factors that influence the immune system, inflammation and what's called 'colonization resistance.'"
As explained by Dietert, you carry coronaviruses in your airways. Most have some coronavirus in the airway, but it won't cause illness as long as you have a healthy airway microbiome. A healthy airway microbiome is supported and promoted by things like physical exercise and spending time outdoors where sun exposure will optimize your vitamin D level.
"To grow our own food, get outside, visit animal farms and have microbial exposures in a healthy way, increase our vitamin D and tend to our immune system and our overall health is absolutely critical," he says.
"The more robust the microbiome [along with production of anti-pathogen metabolites], the better the colonization resistance we have against these pathogens. [This includes protection against] the secondary bacterial infections that will [frequently] arise during the mix of changing a [healthy] lung environment [to one engulfed in a] pro-inflammatory state.
We should've been doing that from the word go but, unfortunately, we have some scientists and bureaucrats that focused in one place and didn't really focus, in my opinion, on human health."
As just one example of how healthy bacteria can prevent infection, Lactobacillus acidophilus has been shown to block salmonella infection and spread in chickens. In the early 1990s, this type of intervention actually ended up saving the poultry industry that was having a massive salmonella problem, yet you never hear about that.
"I think this shows we need to manage how we produce our food. We need to recognize the benefits of a variety of supplements. I think that is what's going to help get us out of the polypharmacy rut that we've been in, quite frankly."
It's really a classic example of competitive inhibition, and it works the same way in the human body. According to Dietert, as few as 15 beneficial bacteria are able to create a metabolic environment in the gut that keeps the salmonella bacterium in check, thereby preventing it from multiplying out of control and causing disease.
So, with a robust diversity of beneficial bacteria in your gut, you're effectively able to block infection from occurring even though you may be exposed to dangerous pathogens. Keep in mind that the composition of your microbiome will also play a significant role in how well you can handle dietary "cheating" or the occasional junk food indulgence. As noted by Dietert:
"If you have a particularly robust microbiome, you're probably more resilient to a junk food weekend. If you are already dysbiotic or you're weakened in your microbiome because of chronic conditions, polypharmacy or glyphosate exposures, then you probably are pretty vulnerable to further shifts.
Again, it's how well are you seeded with a robust diversity? It's like forest management in ecology or coral reef management. If you've got a coral reef that's already damaged and sick, then it isn't going to take much to really put it over the top in terms of serious changes. This would be the same for us in terms of immune inflammation, pathology and/or an infectious agent getting a foothold, whereas it wouldn't otherwise."
One way by which beneficial bacteria protect your health is through the production of butyrate and mucin, the mucous layer that protects the intestine. Gut microbes also make neuroactive peptides and neurotransmitters. There's a whole field that's been developed called psychobiotics that focus on using bacteria for neurological and mental health.
Certain bacterial species and strains will produce serotonin, for example. Others produce dopamine. Some produce GABA or acetylcholine. While most of the neurotransmitters produced in the gut cannot penetrate the blood-brain barrier, and therefore will not increase levels in the brain directly, they still have an indirect and measurable effect, Dietert says. The vagus nerve is one path through which the gut microbes influence brain chemistry and physiology.
Leaky gut is now recognized by most conventional physicians as a condition that contributes to other pathologies and chronic diseases. One important strategy to address leaky gut is to optimize your vitamin D, as it helps regulate your innate immune system and increases your body's ability to repair epithelial cell damage and gaps in the intestinal barrier.
Dietert also recommends supplementing with keystone species bacteria such as the genus Akkermansia, which is involved with mucin regulation. There are only a couple of bacteria that do that. He stresses that while vitamin D is important for gut repair, you also need bacteria to help maintain the mucin layer, as this is what keeps inflammatory bacteria and particles from seeping through the intestinal barrier.
Baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) or potassium bicarbonate can also be very helpful. I prefer potassium bicarb because most of us have excess sodium and not enough potassium. I personally take about a half a teaspoon of potassium bicarb three times a day. I use a urinary pH to monitor and adjust my dosage. Your urine pH should be about 7, which is neutral. This will also help prevent the leaching of minerals from your bone.
In closing, Dietert reminds and encourages us to "do things that support your whole body, do things that support your immune system, even as you're focused on a specific disease or a specific pathogen." The reason for doing this is because everything is connected.
"We're now realizing that the boundary between infectious or communicable diseases and noncommunicable diseases may not be as rigid as we used to think," Dietert says.
"People have been able to show that if you install the wrong microbe into your gut microbiome — one that's dysfunctional and not very robust — you can wind up with a predictably-increased risk of very specific noncommunicable or chronic diseases.
We never thought that was the case, but there's evidence emerging, really within the last couple of years, that [chronic diseases] are all about microbial management. So, understanding your body, understanding your genetics and taking advantage of that, [can allow you] to be naturally healthy."
According to all-cause mortality statistics,1 the number of Americans who have died between January 2021 and August 2021 is 16% higher than 2018, the pre-COVID year with the highest all-cause mortality, and 18% higher than the average death rate between 2015 and 2019. Adjusted for population growth of about 0.6% annually, the mortality rate in 2021 is 16% above the average and 14% above the 2018 rate.
The obvious question is, why did more people die in 2021 (January through August) despite the rollout of COVID shots in December 2020? Did COVID-19 raise the death toll despite mass vaccination, or are people dying at increased rates because of the COVID jabs?
In a two-part series,2 Matthew Crawford of the Rounding the Earth Newsletter, examined mortality statistics before and after the rollout of the COVID shots. In Part 1,3 he revealed the shots killed an estimated 1,018 people per million doses administered (note, this is doses, not the number of individuals vaccinated) during the first 30 days of the European vaccination campaign.
After adjusting for deaths categorized as COVID-19 deaths, he came up with an estimate of 200 to 500 deaths per million doses administered. With 4 billion doses having been administered around the world, that means 800,000 to 2 million so-called "COVID-19 deaths" may in fact be vaccine-induced deaths. As explained by Crawford:4
"This does not even include vaccine-induced deaths that have not been recorded as COVID cases, though I suspect that latter number is smaller since the only good way to hide the vaccine mortality signal is to smuggle deaths through the already-established COVID death toll."
Corroborating Crawford's calculations are data from Norway, where 23 deaths were reported following the COVID jab at a time when only 40,000 Norwegians had received the shot.
Not taking into account the possibility of underreporting in Norway, that gives us a mortality rate of 575 deaths per million doses administered. What's more, after conducting autopsies on 13 of those deaths, all 13 were determined to be linked to the COVID jab. As reported by Norway Today back in January 2021:5
"'The reports might indicate that common side effects from mRNA vaccines, such as fever and nausea, may have led to deaths in some frail patients,' chief physician Sigurd Hortemo in the Norwegian Medicines Agency noted.
The Norwegian Medicines Agency and the National Institute of Public Health (FHI) jointly assess all side effects reports. As a result, the FHI has updated the corona vaccination guide with new advice on the vaccination of frail elderly people.
'If you are very frail, you should probably not be vaccinated,' Steinar Madsen at the Norwegian Medicines Agency said at a webinar on corona vaccine for journalists …"
Crawford goes on to look at data from countries that have substantial vaccine uptake while simultaneously having very low rates of COVID-19. This way, you can get a better idea as to whether the COVID jabs might be responsible for the excess deaths, as opposed to the infection itself.
He identified 23 countries that fit this criteria, accounting for 1.88 billion individuals, roughly one-quarter of the global population. Before the COVID jabs rolled out, these nations reported a total of 103.2 COVID-related deaths per million residents. Five nations had more than 200 COVID deaths per million while seven had fewer than 10 deaths per million.
As of August 1, 2021, 25.35% of inhabitants in these 23 nations had received a COVID jab and 10.36% were considered fully vaccinated. In all, 673 million doses had been administered. Based on these data, Crawford estimates the excess death rate per million vaccine doses is 411, well within the window of the 200 to 500 range he calculated in Part 1.
Equally intriguing is the finding that the number of new COVID cases (i.e., positive tests) after the start of the COVID jab campaign is 3.8 times higher than it was before the rollout of the shots, and the daily COVID death rate is 3.82 times higher.
Morocco and Saudi Arabia were the only two nations in which the case rate and COVID death rates went down after the vaccination campaign started. "If deaths were scaled by 3.82 due to the vaccines, then there were 276,465 excess deaths during this time span," Crawford writes.
He goes through a number of adjustments to remove outliers that might skew the data sets, so for a more detailed review, see the original article. But in summary, after removing nations with more than 100 COVID deaths per million before their vaccination program (to evaluate the impact of the shots alone), he came up with 13 countries with a combined population of 354 million.
The number of doses administered in these 13 countries is similar to the original cohort. The adjusted number of excess deaths per million is now 318, which is still within the 200 to 500 per million range.
Remarkably, though, the number of COVID deaths in these 13 countries is 11.61 times higher post-vaccination, compared to before the jabs were rolled out. In five of the 13 countries, a whopping 90% of their COVID-19 fatalities have been logged after their vaccination campaigns began! This obliterates any fantasy that the COVID injections are actually helping.
"On face, these results reinforce the case that the experimental vaccines are killing people," Crawford writes. "At the very least, this is one more dramatic [lack of] safety signal that should spur authorities who care about our health to come to the table for a discussion about how to refine the data they're not analyzing to anyone's knowledge …
More concerning is that numerous of these nations — largely located in Asia — seemed to have no susceptibility at all to the pandemic prior to vaccination. There are a lot of theories as to why this might be aside from just vaccines triggering deaths.
• Might PCR testing pick up signals from attenuated virus vaccines, resulting in case explosions (from almost none) to match the [new] deaths?
• Could some of these vaccines have faulty production … during polio vaccine rollout? This could result in cases and deaths?
• Paraguay has by far the greatest signal of vaccine-induced mortality. It stands out as one of the only nations on Earth to use both Chinese and also Western vaccines. Is there any reason such a combination could result in more volatile disease spread?
• Do we really believe that the braintrust at the FDA and CDC are entirely unaware of these observations?
Meanwhile, health authorities still seem to have no issue with the lack of risk report or risk-benefit analysis performed by any of the vaccine manufacturers or anyone else. This strikes me as one of the worst signs in my lifetime that corporations have taken over government on an essentially complete level."
In mid-July 2021, America's Frontline Doctors, represented by Renz Law,6 filed a lawsuit7 against the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra. In that lawsuit, they cite whistleblower testimony by a computer programmer with expertise in health care data analytics and access to Medicare and Medicaid data maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
According to this whistleblower, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) under-reports deaths caused by the COVID shots by a conservative factor of five or more. She claims the number of Americans killed by the shots was at least 45,000 as of July 9, 2021.
At that time, VAERS reported 9,048 deaths following COVID injection. That number is now 16,310 (as of October 1, 20218). Using an under-reporting factor of five, that gives us an estimated death toll of 81,550.
Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, has come up with even more drastic numbers. In the video "Vaccine Secrets: COVID Crisis,"9 he argues that VAERS can be used to determine causality, and shows how the VAERS data indicate more than 212,000 Americans have already been killed by the COVID shots.10
Anywhere from 2 million to 5 million have also been injured by them in some way. Kirsch is so confident in his analyses, he's offered a $1 million academic grant to anyone who can show his analysis is flawed by a factor of four or more. He's even offered $1 million to any official willing to simply have a public debate with him about the data, and none has accepted the challenge.
While it may be challenging to determine exactly how many people have died as a direct result of the COVID shots, we can be certain that deaths are occurring.
One Oregon woman's obituary11 went viral after her family blamed side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine on her death. The family minced no words, calling out state and local governments for their "heavy-handed vaccine mandates." Jessica Berg Wilson left behind a husband and two young daughters, aged 5 and 3.
"Jessica Berg Wilson, 37, of Seattle, Washington, passed away unexpectedly September 7, 2021 from COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) surrounded by her loving family," the obituary states.12
"Jessica was an exceptionally healthy and vibrant 37-year-old young mother with no underlying health conditions ... Local and state governments were determined to strip away her right to consult her wisdom and enjoy her freedom.
She had been vehemently opposed to taking the vaccine, knowing she was in good health and of a young age and thus not at risk for serious illness. In her mind, the known and unknown risks of the unproven vaccine were more of a threat.
But, slowly, day by day, her freedom to choose was stripped away. Her passion to be actively involved in her children's education — which included being a Room Mom — was, once again, blocked by government mandate.
Ultimately, those who closed doors and separated mothers from their children prevailed. It cost Jessica her life. It cost her children the loving embrace of their caring mother. And it cost her husband the sacred love of his devoted wife."
Picture of Jessica (killed by COVID jab) with her family.
To add insult to injury, there's ample evidence showing that whatever benefit you glean from the COVID jab is short-lived, requiring you to risk life and limb yet again with another booster shot (and probably more to come after that).
If you need a refresher on the potential mechanisms of harm, download and read Stephanie Seneff's excellent paper,13 "Worse Than The Disease: Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19," published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research in collaboration with Dr. Greg Nigh.
Among those incriminating data sets is an analysis by Humetrix,14 which assessed the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against the delta variant among 5.6 million Medicare beneficiaries, aged 65 and older. Three key questions answered by the data analysis are:
The executive summary lays out the answers:
According to Humetrix, between January 2021 and August 14, 2021, 5.6 million Medicare beneficiaries (out of 20 million) were fully vaccinated with either two doses of Pfizer or Moderna, or one dose of Janssen.
Of those, 148,000 experienced a breakthrough infection, 30,000 required hospitalization and 9,400 needed intensive care. That means breakthrough infections in this age group occur at a rate of about 1 in 38, which doesn't strike me as being particularly rare.
As per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance, patients were only considered fully vaccinated two weeks after the second dose. So, anyone who developed COVID-19 symptoms before then were not counted.
While the analysis reports success, saying the hospitalization rate for breakthrough infections was reduced by one-third compared to the hospitalization rate between March and December 2020, and the death rate in breakthrough infections was reduced six-fold, a central problem remains.
The shots don't protect you for very long. As shown on Page 8 of the PowerPoint, the breakthrough infection rate at five and six months' post-vaccination is double the rate at three and four months' post-vaccination.
Considering the risk of lethal vaccine injury is elevated in the elderly — as noted by the Norwegian Medicines Agency — starting them on a treadmill of booster shots strikes me as an idea that can only end in heartbreak for families around the world.
COVID-19 injections have been presented as the only solution to stop the pandemic. Mass vaccination has occurred on an unprecedented scale, and as of October 2021, 6.54 billion doses of COVID-19 jabs have been administered, equating to 47.6% of the world population having received at least one dose.1
The mass injection effort, however, has failed to stop the pandemic, and a study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology has released bombshell data showing that increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination in 68 countries worldwide and 2,947 counties in the U.S.2
The official COVID narrative continues to blame the ongoing pandemic on the unvaccinated, even as data show that areas with high vaccination rates, like Israel, continue to have significant COVID-19 spread. As noted by S. V. Subramanian, from the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies and a colleague in the European Journal of Epidemiology:3
"Vaccines currently are the primary mitigation strategy to combat COVID-19 around the world. For instance, the narrative related to the ongoing surge of new cases in the United States (US) is argued to be driven by areas with low vaccination rates.
A similar narrative also has been observed in countries, such as Germany and the United Kingdom. At the same time, Israel that was hailed for its swift and high rates of vaccination has also seen a substantial resurgence in COVID-19 cases."
Using data from Our World in Data for cross-country analysis, and the White House COVID-19 Team data for U.S. counties, the researchers investigated the relationship between new COVID-19 cases and the percentage of the population that had been fully vaccinated. Sixty-eight countries were included, among which they found "no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last seven days."
Not only did vaccination not decrease the number of new COVID-19 cases, but it was associated with a slight increase in them. According to the study, "[T]he trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people."4
If there were any doubt for the need to seriously question the worldwide mass injection campaign, this should put it to rest: Iceland and Portugal, both of which have more than 75% of their populations fully vaccinated, have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than Vietnam and South Africa, which have only about 10% of their population fully vaccinated.5
Israel is another example. With more than 60% of its population fully vaccinated, it had the highest number of COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last seven days.6 The data from US counties were similar, with new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people "largely similar" regardless of the percentage of the population fully vaccinated.
"There also appears to be no significant signaling of COVID-19 cases decreasing with higher percentages of population fully vaccinated," they wrote.7 Notably, out of the five U.S. counties with the highest vaccination rates — ranging from 84.3% to 99.9% fully vaccinated — four of them were on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's "high transmission" list. Meanwhile, 26.3% of the 57 counties with "low transmission" have low vaccination rates of under 20%.
The study even accounted for a one-month lag time that could occur among the fully vaccinated, since it's said that it takes two weeks after the final dose for "full immunity" to occur. Still, "no discernable association between COVID-19 cases and levels of fully vaccinated" was observed.8
The study summed up several reasons why the "sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19" should be re-evaluated. For starters, the jab's effectiveness is waning. A report from Israel's Ministry of Health showed that Pfizer-BioNTech's injection was only 39% effective in preventing COVID-19 infection,9,10 which is "substantially lower than the trial efficacy of 96%."11
"A substantial decline in immunity from mRNA vaccines six months post immunization has also been reported," the researchers noted, adding that even severe hospitalization and death from COVID-19, which the jabs claim to offer protection against, have increased from 0.01 to 9% and 0 to 15.1%, respectively, among the fully vaccinated from January 2021 to May 2021.12 If the jabs work as advertised, why haven't these rates continued to rise instead of fall?
"It is also emerging," the researchers noted, "that immunity derived from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may not be as strong as immunity acquired through recovery from the COVID-19 virus."13
For instance, a retrospective observational study published August 25, 2021, revealed that natural immunity is superior to immunity from COVID-19 jabs, with researchers stating, "This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity."14
The fact is, while breakthrough cases continue among those who have gotten COVID-19 injections, it's extremely rare to get reinfected by COVID-19 after you've already had the disease and recovered. How rare? Researchers from Ireland conducted a systematic review including 615,777 people who had recovered from COVID-19, with a maximum duration of follow-up of more than 10 months.15
"Reinfection was an uncommon event," they noted, "… with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time." The absolute reinfection rate ranged from 0% to 1.1%, while the median reinfection rate was just 0.27%.16,17,18
Another study revealed similarly reassuring results. It followed 43,044 SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positive people for up to 35 weeks, and only 0.7% were reinfected. When genome sequencing was applied to estimate population-level risk of reinfection, the risk was estimated at 0.1%.19
There was no indication of waning immunity over seven months of follow-up — unlike with the COVID-19 injection — with the researchers concluding, "Reinfection is rare. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy >90% for at least seven months."20
The purpose of informed consent is to give people all of the data related to a medical procedure so they can make an educated decision before consenting. In the case of COVID-19 injections, such data initially weren't available, given their emergency authorization, and as concerning side effects became apparent, attempts to share them publicly were silenced.
In August 2021, a large study from Israel21 revealed that the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA jab is associated with a threefold increased risk of myocarditis,22 leading to the condition at a rate of 1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons.23 Other elevated risks were also identified following the COVID-19 jab, including lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes), appendicitis and herpes zoster infection.24
Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist and epidemiologist, is among those who have warned that COVID-19 injections are not only failing but putting lives at risk.25 According to McCullough, by January 22, 2021, there had been 186 deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database following COVID-19 injection — more than enough to reach the mortality signal of concern to stop the program.
"With a program this size, anything over 150 deaths would be an alarm signal," he said. The U.S. "hit 186 deaths with only 27 million Americans jabbed." McCullough believes if the proper safety boards had been in place, the COVID-19 jab program would have been shut down in February 2021 based on safety and risk of death.26
Now, with data showing no difference in rates of COVID-19 cases among the vaxxed and unvaxxed, it appears more and more likely that the injections have a high level of risk with very little reward, especially among certain populations, like youth. Due to the risk of myocarditis, Britain's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) recommended against COVID-9 injections for healthy 12- to 15-year-olds.27
Along with serious questions over effectiveness are alarming claims that the jabs are enhancing COVID-19 infectivity and driving mutations that are leading to variants. When four common mutations were introduced to the delta variant, Pfizer's mRNA injection enhanced its infectivity, causing it to become resistant.28
A delta variant with three mutations has already emerged,29 which suggests it's only a matter of time before a fourth mutation develops, at which point complete resistance to Pfizer's jab may be imminent.
Meanwhile, it's well known that if you put a living organism like bacteria or viruses under pressure, via antibiotics, antibodies or chemotherapeutics, for example, but don't kill them off completely, you can inadvertently encourage their mutation into more virulent strains. Those that escape your immune system end up surviving and selecting mutations to ensure their further survival.
Many have warned about immune escape due to the pressure being placed upon the COVID-19 virus during mass vaccination,30 and another study — this one based on a mathematical model,31 found that a worst-case scenario can develop when a large percentage of a population is vaccinated but viral transmission remains high — much as it is now. This represents the prime scenario for the development of resistant mutant strains.32
At this point, with COVID-19 injection failures becoming impossible to ignore, serious injection-related health risks are becoming apparent and, now, no differences in new COVID-19 cases among areas with high vaccination rates, it's time to publicly acknowledge that the injections aren't the answer. As the European of Journal of Epidemiology researchers noted:33
"Stigmatizing populations can do more harm than good. Importantly, other non-pharmacological prevention efforts (e.g., the importance of basic public health hygiene with regards to maintaining safe distance or handwashing, promoting better frequent and cheaper forms of testing) needs to be renewed in order to strike the balance of learning to live with COVID-19 in the same manner we continue to live a 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus."
So, the Great New Normal Purge has begun … right on cue, right by the numbers. As we "paranoid conspiracy theorists" have been warning would happen for the past 18 months, people who refuse to convert to the new official ideology are now being segregated, stripped of their jobs, banned from attending schools, denied medical treatment, and otherwise persecuted.
Relentless official propaganda demonizing "the Unvaccinated" is being pumped out by the corporate and state media, government leaders, health officials, and shrieking fanatics on social media. "The Unvaccinated" are the new official "Untermenschen," an underclass of subhuman "others" the New Normal masses are being conditioned to hate. You can see the hatred in the New Normals' eyes …
But it isn't just a purge of "the Unvaccinated." Anyone deviating from the official ideology is being systematically demonized and persecuted.
In Germany, Australia, and other New Normal countries, protesting the New Normal is officially outlawed. The New Normal Gestapo is going around to people's homes to interrogate them about their anti-New Normal Facebook posts. Corporations are openly censoring content that contradicts the official narrative. New Normal goon squads roam the streets, checking people's "vaccination" papers.
And it's not just governments and corporations carrying out the New Normal Purge. Friends are purging friends. Wives are purging husbands. Fathers are purging children. Children are purging parents. New Normals are purging old normal thoughts. Global "health authorities" are revising definitions to make them conform to New Normal "science."
And so on … a new official "reality" is being manufactured, right before our eyes. Anything and anyone that doesn't conform to it is being purged, unpersoned, memory-holed, erased. None of which should come as a surprise.
Every nascent totalitarian system, at some stage of its takeover of society, launches a purge of political opponents, ideological dissidents, and other "anti-social deviants." Such purges can be brief or open-ended, and they can take any number of outward forms, depending on the type of totalitarian system, but you cannot have totalitarianism without them.
The essence of totalitarianism — regardless of which costumes and ideology it wears — is a desire to completely control society, every aspect of society, every individual behavior and thought.
Every totalitarian system, whether an entire nation, a tiny cult, or any other form of social body, evolves toward this unachievable goal … the total ideological transformation and control of every single element of society (or whatever type of social body it comprises). This fanatical pursuit of total control, absolute ideological uniformity, and the elimination of all dissent, is what makes totalitarianism totalitarianism.
Thus, each new totalitarian system, at some point in its evolution, needs to launch a purge of those who refuse to conform to its official ideology. It needs to do this for two basic reasons: (1) to segregate or otherwise eliminate actual political opponents and dissidents who pose a threat to the new regime; and (2) and more importantly, to establish the ideological territory within which the masses must now confine themselves in order to avoid being segregated, or eliminated.
The purge must be conducted openly, brutally, so that the masses understand that the rules of society have changed, forever, that their former rights and freedoms are gone, and that from now on any type of resistance or deviation from official ideology will not be tolerated, and will be ruthlessly punished.
The purge is usually launched during a "state of emergency," under imminent threat from some official "enemy" (e.g., "communist infiltrators," "counter-revolutionaries," or … you know, a "devastating pandemic"), such that the normal rules of society can be indefinitely suspended "for the sake of survival." The more terrified the masses can be made, the more willing they will be to surrender their freedom and follow orders, no matter how insane.
The lifeblood of totalitarianism is fear … fear of both the system's official enemy (which is constantly stoked with propaganda) and of the totalitarian system itself. That the brutality of the system is rationalized by the threat posed by the official enemy doesn't make it any less brutal or terrifying. Under totalitarian systems (of any type or scale) fear is a constant and there is no escape from it.
The masses' fear is then channeled into hatred … hatred of the official "Untermenschen," whom the system encourages the masses to scapegoat. Thus, the purge is also a means of allowing the masses to purge themselves of their fear, to transform it into self-righteous hatred and unleash it on the "Untermenschen" instead of the totalitarian system, which, obviously, would be suicidal.
Every totalitarian system — both the individuals running it and the system, structurally — instinctively understands how all this works. New Normal totalitarianism is no exception. Just reflect on what has happened over the last 18 months.
Day after day, month after month, the masses have been subjected to the most destructive psychological-terror campaign in the history of psychological terror. Sadly, many of them have been reduced to paranoid, anus-puckering invalids, afraid of the outdoors, of human contact, afraid of their own children, afraid of the air, morbidly obsessed with disease and death … and consumed with hatred of "the Unvaccinated."
Their hatred, of course, is utterly irrational, the product of fear and propaganda, as hatred of "the Untermenschen" always is. It has absolutely nothing to do with a virus, which even the New Normal authorities admit. "The Unvaccinated" are no more of a threat to anyone than any other human being … except insofar as they threaten the New Normals' belief in their delusional ideology.
No, we are way past rationality at this point. We are witnessing the birth of a new form of totalitarianism. Not "communism." Not "fascism." Global-capitalist totalitarianism. Pseudo-medical totalitarianism. Pathologized totalitarianism. A form of totalitarianism without a dictator, without a definable ideology. A totalitarianism based on "science," on "fact," on "reality," which it creates itself.
I don't know about you, but, so far, it has certainly made quite an impression on me. So much so that I have mostly set aside my satirical schtick to try to understand it … what it actually is, why it is happening, why it is happening now, where it is going, and how to oppose it, or at least disrupt it.
The way I see it, the next six months will determine how successful the initial stages of the roll-out of this new totalitarianism will be. By April of 2022, either we'll all be showing our "papers" to the New Normal Gestapo to be able to earn a living, attend a school, dine at a restaurant, travel, and otherwise live our lives, or we will have thrown a monkey wrench into the machinery.
I do not expect GloboCap to abandon the roll-out of the New Normal over the longer term — they are clearly committed to implementing it — but we have the power to ruin their opening act (which they've been planning and rehearsing for quite some time).
So, let's go ahead and do that, shall we? Before we get purged, or unpersoned, or whatever. I'm not sure, as I haven't seen a "fact-check" yet, but I believe there are some commercial airline pilots in the USA who are showing us the way.
C.J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant.
Volumes I and II of his Consent Factory Essays are published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.
Before COVID-19, Moderna was in danger of hemorrhaging investors, as persistent safety concerns and other doubts about its mRNA delivery system threatened its entire product pipeline. Fear caused by the pandemic crisis made those concerns largely evaporate, even though there is no proof that they were ever resolved.
Those analyzing the COVID-19 crisis and its effects have mostly focused on how its disruptive nature has led to major shifts and recalibrations throughout society and the economy. Such disruption has also lent itself to a variety of agendas that had required an event of "reset" potential in order to be realized.
In the case of the vaccine industry, COVID-19 has led to dramatic changes in how federal agencies manage the approval of medical countermeasures during a declared crisis, how trials for vaccine candidates are conducted, how the public perceives vaccination, and even how the term "vaccine" is defined.
Such shifts, though obvious, have provoked praise from some and sharp criticism from others, with the latter category being largely censored from public discourse on television, in print, and online. However, in objectively analyzing such seismic changes, it's clear that most of these shifts in vaccine development and vaccine policy dramatically favor speed and the implementation of new and experimental technology at the expense of safety and thorough study.
In the case of vaccines, it can be argued that no one benefitted more from these changes than the developers of the COVID-19 vaccines themselves, particularly the pharmaceutical and biotechnology company Moderna.
Not only did the COVID-19 crisis obliterate hurdles that had previously prevented Moderna from taking a single product to market, it also dramatically reversed the company's fortunes. Indeed, from 2016 right up until the emergence of COVID-19, Moderna could barely hold it together, as it was shedding key executives, top talent, and major investors at an alarming rate.
Essentially, Moderna's promise of "revolutionizing" medicine and the remarkable salesmanship and fund-raising capabilities of the company's top executive, Stéphane Bancel, were the main forces keeping it afloat.
In the years leading up to the COVID-19 crisis, Moderna's promises — despite Bancel's efforts — rang increasingly hollow, as the company's long-standing penchant for extreme secrecy meant that — despite nearly a decade in business — it had never been able to definitively prove that it could deliver the "revolution" it had continually assured investors was right around the corner.
This was compounded by major issues with patents held by a hostile competitor that threatened Moderna's ability to turn a profit on anything it might manage to take to market, as well as major issues with its mRNA delivery system that led them to abandon any treatment that would require more than one dose because of toxicity concerns.
The latter issue, though largely forgotten and/or ignored by media today, should be a major topic in the COVID-19 booster debate, given that there is still no evidence that Moderna ever resolved the toxicity issue that arose in multi-dose products.
In this first installment of a two-part series, the dire situation in which Moderna found itself immediately prior to the emergence of COVID-19 is discussed in detail, revealing that Moderna — very much like the now disgraced company Theranos — had long been a house of cards with sky-high valuations completely disconnected from reality.
Part 2 will explore how that reality would have come crashing down sometime in 2020 or 2021 were it not for the advent of the COVID-19 crisis and Moderna's subsequent partnership with the US government and the highly unusual processes involving its vaccine's development and approval.
Despite the emergence of real-world data challenging the claims that Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective, Moderna's booster is being rushed through by some governments, while others have recently banned the vaccine's use in young adults and teens due to safety concerns.
As this two-part series will show, safety concerns about Moderna were known well before the COVID crisis, yet they have been ignored by health authorities and the media during the crisis itself. In addition, in order to stave off collapse, Moderna must keep selling its COVID-19 vaccine for years to come. In other words, without the approval of its booster, which has caused great controversy even among the country's top vaccine officials, Moderna faces a massive financial reckoning.
While the COVID-19 crisis threw the company a lifeboat, the administration of its COVID-19 vaccine, in which the US government has now invested nearly $6 billion, must continue into the foreseeable future for the bailout to be truly successful. Otherwise, a company now worth $126.7 billion, with major investments from the US government, US military, and ties to the world's wealthiest individuals, will crumble in short order.
In September 2016, Damian Garde, the national biotech reporter for the medical media company STAT, wrote a lengthy exposé of the "ego, ambition, and turmoil" plaguing "one of biotech's most secretive startups." The article focused on the company Moderna, which had been founded in 2010 to commercialize the research of Boston Children's Hospital cell biologist Derrick Rossi.
The effort to turn a profit by creating Moderna, which intimately involved controversial scientist and close Bill Gates associate Bob Langer as well as Cambridge, Massachusetts–based Flagship Ventures (now Flagship Pioneering), began soon after Rossi published a report on the ability of modified RNA to turn skin cells into different types of tissue.
Between the time of Moderna's founding and Garde's 2016 investigation, the buzz around Rossi's research and its potential to create medical breakthroughs had waned, as had the buzz around its potential to make its investors very wealthy.
Despite teaming up with pharmaceutical giants like AstraZeneca and raising record amounts of funding, Moderna still had no product on the market six years after its founding, and, as STAT revealed, the "company's caustic work environment" had led to a persistent hemorrhaging of top talent, though little of its internal conflicts was publicly known due to "its obsession with secrecy."
Most troubling for the company that year, however, was that Moderna appeared to have "run into roadblocks with its most ambitious projects."
Aside from the scientific obstacles that Moderna had encountered, one major "roadblock" for the company, per Garde, was none other than Stéphane Bancel, Moderna's top executive, who still heads the company. According to Garde, Bancel was squarely at the center of many of the company's controversies due, in part, to his "unwavering belief that Moderna's science will work — and that employees who don't 'live the mission' have no place in the company."
Between 2012 and 2016, Bancel was allegedly a key factor in the resignation of at least a dozen "highly placed executives," including those who directed Moderna's product pipeline as well as its vaccine projects.
Bancel, prior to joining Moderna, had spent much of his career in sales and operations, not science, making a name for himself at pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly before heading a French diagnostics firm called bioMérieux. His performance there, as well as his ambition, caught the attention of Flagship Ventures, a Moderna cofounder and top investor, which then connected him with the company he would go on to lead.
Although lacking a background in mRNA and the science behind its use as a therapeutic, Bancel has made up for it by becoming Moderna's salesman par excellence. Under his leadership, Moderna became "loath to publish its work in Science or Nature, but enthusiastic to herald its potential on CNBC and CNN."
In other words, under Bancel, the company came to promote its science through media publicity and public relations rather than by publishing actual data or scientific evidence. When two of its vaccine candidates entered phase 1 human trials in 2016 (trials that ultimately went nowhere), the company declined to list them on the public federal registry ClinicalTrials.gov.
The decision not to list, which deviates from common practice by Moderna's competitors and other more traditional vaccine companies, meant that the information on the safety of these vaccine candidates would likely never be publicly available after the trial's conclusion. Moderna also refused to publicly comment on what diseases these vaccines were meant to target.
Such secrecy became commonplace at Moderna after Bancel took the helm, with the company having published no data "supporting its vaunted technology" by the time STAT's 2016 exposé was published. Insiders as well as investors that had committed millions to the company were only granted "a peek" at the company's data.
According to former Moderna scientists who spoke to STAT, the company was "a case of the emperor's new clothes." Former employees further charged that Bancel was actually "running an investment firm" and "then hop[ing] it also develops a drug that's successful."
Perhaps this is why Bancel was deemed the best executive to steer Moderna. As an ambitious salesman running a highly overvalued company, he would prioritize the company's image and its finances regardless of any issues with the science underpinning it all. Perhaps it was for that reason that Bancel, per former employees, "made it clear [from the beginning] that Moderna's science simply had to work. And that anyone who couldn't make it work didn't belong."
As STAT noted in 2016, the people who were tasked with making "the science work" were those who most frequently resigned, which led to Moderna losing two heads of chemistry within a single year, followed shortly by losing its chief scientific officer and its head of manufacturing. Many top executives, including the heads of its cancer research and rare disease research branches, ended up lasting fewer than eighteen months in their respective positions.
The abrupt resignations weren't exclusive to Moderna's science-focused executive positions either, as the chief information officer and top financial executive role were also affected. Bancel ultimately sought advice from the human resources departments of Facebook, Google, and Netflix on employee retention.
Particularly telling was the abrupt and mysterious resignation of Moderna's head of research and development, Joseph Bolen, after about two years at the company. A company insider at the time told STAT that the only reason Bolen would have resigned was if "there was something wrong with the science or the personnel."
In other words, Bolen either left because the science underpinning Moderna's massive valuation did not live up to the hype or Bancel had forced him out, with the additional possibility that both were key in Bolen's resignation.
Speculation at the time pointed the finger at Bancel, though it's not clear why the rift between the two men emerged. Bancel asserted that he tried to convince Bolen to stay, though there were contrasting assertions from anonymous employees, and that Bolen had "voted himself off the island."
Whatever the exact cause of the resignation of the head of R & D, it only added to the mystique around Moderna's inner workings and its ability to deliver on its promise to "revolutionize" medicine. It also reveals more than a few similarities between Moderna and the now-disgraced company Theranos.
Theranos, whose former top executive, Elizabeth Holmes, is now on trial for fraud, was known for its extreme culture of secrecy that kept investors and business partners in the dark, forced nondisclosure agreements on everyone who came in contact with the company, and kept employees "siloed" through an extremely strict need-to-know policy.
Like Moderna, Theranos had been praised as revolutionary and poised to "change the medical industry forever." Similarly, its top executive had no professional health-care or science experience, yet both fired or forced the resignations of employees who disagreed with their perspective or were unable to provide "positive" results.
Both companies also failed to publish any evidence in peer-reviewed journals that the science behind their multibillion-dollar valued companies was more than just fantasy and a well-devised sales pitch.
Arguably, the most critical difference between Moderna and Theranos is that Moderna, whose numerous issues and challenges only came to light after the collapse of Theranos had begun, has never faced the same degree of scrutiny from the US government or mainstream investigative journalists.
There are many possible reasons for this, including Moderna's close relationship with the US Department of Defense through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), or concern that its exposure post-Theranos would bring scrutiny to any company existing at the intersection of Silicon Valley and the health-care industry.
However, such a reckoning would likely have been inevitable for Moderna had it not been for the COVID-19 crisis, which could not have come at a more convenient time for the company.
Many of the problems with Moderna that Garde identified in 2016 continued to plague the company right up until the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. Chief among these was Moderna's struggle to prove that its technology worked and that it was safe.
Concerns about the safety and efficacy of the company's products, which were publicly reported beginning in 2017, evaporated in the wave of panic surrounding COVID-19 and the simultaneous "Warp Speed" race for a vaccine that would "end the pandemic."
Yet, there is little, if any, evidence that these once-well-recognized concerns were addressed prior to the US government's emergency use authorization of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine and its now widespread use in many countries around the world. To the contrary, there is evidence that these concerns were covered up both prior to and during the development of its vaccine.
The reports that emerged in January 2017 noted that Moderna had "run into troubling safety problems with its most ambitious therapy" and that the company was "now banking on a mysterious new technology to keep afloat."
The "ambitious therapy" in question was meant to treat Crigler-Najjar syndrome and "was to be the first therapy using audacious new technology that Bancel promised would yield dozens of drugs in the coming decade." Bancel had specifically used the Crigler-Najjar therapy as a major selling point to investors, particularly in 2016 when he touted it at the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference.
Yet, employees of Alexion, the company co-developing the drug with Moderna, blew the whistle on the project in 2017, revealing that it "never proved safe enough to test in humans" and that the failure of this therapy and the technology platform it sought to use had been responsible for prompting Moderna to abandon the class of drug therapies that, for years, had justified its sky-high valuation and attracted hundreds of millions in investor cash.
As a result of the problem with the Crigler-Najjar drug, media outlets asserted that Moderna was now "in need of a Hail Mary" that would keep its valuation from imploding and its investors from fleeing. The persistence of problems first noted in the 2016 STAT investigation, such as Moderna's failure to publish meaningful data supporting its mRNA technology, were only exacerbating the company's increasingly precarious position.
Indeed, not long before the indefinite delay of the Crigler-Najjar therapy, Bancel had dismissed questions about Moderna's promise by painting mRNA as an easy way to quickly develop novel treatments for a variety of diseases. He stated that "mRNA is like software: You can just turn the crank and get a lot of products going into development."
If that were the case, why did the company have no products on the market after nearly seven years, and why had its most touted project experienced such obstacles? Clearly, in keeping with Bancel's "software" metaphor, Moderna's technology had encountered bugs, bugs that were potentially ineradicable.
It turns out that the Crigler-Najjar drug therapy that Moderna had bet on so heavily had failed because of the lipid nanoparticle delivery system it used to transport mRNA into cells. Crigler-Najjar had been chosen as a target condition because Moderna scientists deemed it to be "the lowest-hanging fruit."
First, the syndrome is caused by one specific genetic defect; second, the affected organ, the liver, is among the easiest to target with nanoparticles; and third and most important for the company, treating the disease with mRNA would require frequent doses, ensuring a steady stream of income for the company.
Thus, given the first two motives behind the company's focus on Crigler-Najjar, if Moderna couldn't develop a therapy for that condition, it meant they wouldn't be able to develop a therapy for other conditions that, for example, were caused by multiple genetic defects or affected multiple organs or those more resistant to nanoparticle-based treatments.
In other words, that "Moderna could not make its therapy [for Crigler-Najjar] work" meant that it was unlikely to make therapies of that entire class work either.
Indeed, media reports on the indefinite delay of this particular therapy noted that "the indefinite delay on the [Moderna] Crigler-Najjar project signals persistent and troubling safety concerns for any mRNA treatment that needs to be delivered in multiple doses."
This issue would soon lead Moderna to only pursue treatments that could be delivered as a single dose — that is, until the emergence of COVID-19 and the advent of the COVID-19 vaccine booster debate. It is also worth mentioning that, due to the extreme rarity of Crigler-Najjar syndrome, even if the therapy had been successfully taken to market by Moderna, it would have been unlikely to bring in enough money to sustain the company.
The specific problem Moderna encountered with the Crigler-Najjar treatment was related to the lipid nanoparticle delivery system it was using. According to former Moderna employees and their collaborators at Alexion, "The safe dose was too weak, and repeat injections of a dose strong enough to be effective had troubling effects on the liver [the target organ of this particular therapy] in animal studies."
This was an issue Moderna had apparently run into with its nanoparticle delivery system in other cases too, according to reports published at the time. Per STAT, the delivery system employed by Moderna had consistently "created a daunting challenge: Dose too little, and you don't get enough enzyme to affect the disease; dose too much, and the drug is too toxic for patients."
Moderna attempted to offset the bad press over having to delay the Crigler-Najjar drug with claims that they had developed a new nanoparticle delivery system called V1GL that "will more safely deliver mRNA." The claims came a month after Bancel had touted another delivery system called N1GL to Forbes.
In that interview, Bancel told Forbes that the delivery system they had been using, licensed to them by Acuitas, "was not very good" and that Moderna had "stopped using Acuitas tech for new drugs." However, as will be explored in detail in this report as well as Part II of this series, it appears that Moderna continued to rely on the Acuitas-licensed technology in subsequent vaccines and other projects, including its COVID-19 vaccine.
Former Moderna employees and those close to their product development were doubtful at the time that these new and supposedly safer nanoparticle delivery systems were of any consequence. According to three former employees and collaborators close to the process who spoke anonymously to STAT, Moderna had long been "toiling away on new delivery technologies in hopes of hitting on something safer than what it had."
All of those interviewed believed that "N1GL and V1GL are either very recent discoveries, just in the earliest stages of testing — or else new names slapped on technologies Moderna has owned for years." All spoke anonymously due to having signed nondisclosure agreements with the company, agreements that are aggressively enforced.
One former employee, commenting on the alleged promise of N1GL and V1GL, stated that these platforms "would have to be a miraculous, Hail Mary sort of save for them to get to where they need to be on their timelines ... Either [Bancel] is extremely confident that it's going to work, or he's getting kind of jittery that, with a lack of progress, he needs to put something out there."
It seems that those former employees who believed that N1GL and V1GL were new names put on existing technology and that Bancel was overselling their promise were correct, as Moderna appears to have returned to the troubled lipid nanoparticle delivery system it had licensed from Acuitas for subsequent therapies, including its COVID-19 vaccine.
As will be explored in this report and Part II of this series, there is no evidence that Moderna ever got their "Hail Mary" save when it came to acquiring the rights for or developing a safe mRNA delivery system.
On top of the much-touted promises of N1GL and V1GL as safer treatments, Moderna additionally vowed to create "new and better formulations" for the Crigler-Najjar therapy that could potentially make it to human trials at a later time. This helped to stave off more bad press, but only for a few weeks.
One month after the troubles with the Crigler-Najjar therapy were publicly reported, the head of Moderna's oncology division, Stephen Kesley, left the company. This was just as Moderna was moving toward its first human trials for its cancer treatment, which forced "a senior leadership team with little experience in developing drugs to sort out the company's future in the field."
Just weeks before Kesley's departure, Bancel had boldly claimed in a bid to woo new investors at the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference, held in January 2017 in San Francisco, that oncology was Moderna's "next big opportunity after vaccines."
The same month as Kesley's departure, Moderna was able to draw media attention elsewhere, as for the very first time they published data in a peer-reviewed journal. In Cell, its scientists published data on an animal trial for its Zika vaccine candidate that positively demonstrated both efficacy and safety in mice.
While animal trial results do not necessarily translate into equivalent results in humans, the results were deemed to "bode well" for Moderna's planned clinical trial of that vaccine candidate in humans. In addition, the results were like the animal trial results published by Moderna competitor BioNTech for their mRNA vaccine candidate for Zika a month earlier.
However, for Moderna, the positive news was muted by a negative ruling on a legal dispute that threatened Moderna's ability to ever turn a profit on the Zika vaccine or any other mRNA vaccine it developed, a threat that Moderna's competitors, such as BioNTech, didn't have to contend with.
That ruling, discussed in greater detail later in this report, greatly restricted Moderna's use of the lipid nanoparticle delivery system licensed to it through Acuitas and directly threatened the company's ability to create a for-profit product using intellectual property tied to the relevant patents.
It would also kick off a years-long legal dispute that has suggested at various times that the promises of V1GL and N1GL were either completely invented or greatly exaggerated, as former Moderna employees and collaborators had stated.
Not long afterward, in July 2017, Moderna was hit with yet another wave of bad press as their partner in the Crigler-Najjar venture, Alexion, cut ties with the company completely. Moderna downplayed Alexion's decision and claimed it had acquired "extensive knowledge" that would allow it to continue to develop the troubled therapy on its own.
Nonetheless, Alexion's decision came at an inopportune time for the company, as one of Moderna's top investors had just two weeks earlier slashed its valuation of the company by almost $2 billion, allegedly because Moderna had "struggled to live up to its own hype." Reports began to circulate claiming that "Moderna's investors might be losing faith in the company's future."
Indeed, the Crigler-Najjar syndrome drug was not the only one that, at that point, had proven "too weak or too dangerous to test in clinical trials," according to former employees and partners.
The persistent issue, which again lay with the nanoparticle delivery system Moderna had licensed from Acuitas, had forced the company, beginning with the delay of the Crigler-Najjar therapy, to "prioritize vaccines, which can be dosed just once and thus avoid the safety problems that have plagued more ambitious projects."
Yet, these single-dose "vaccines" or therapies were considered not as lucrative as the drug therapies Moderna had long promised and that underpinned its multibillion-dollar valuation, thereby forcing the company to "bet big on a loss-leader." Also problematic was that Moderna lagged behind its mRNA vaccine competitors and that the supposed promise of its technology to produce viable vaccines was only "proven" at that point by a single, small trial.
That trial, as noted by the Boston Business Journal, was an "early-stage human trial that was primarily meant to assess the safety of an avian flu vaccine." Moderna had claimed, despite the trial being designed to assess safety, that it had "provided evidence that the vaccine is effective, with no major side effects" as well.
Furthermore, as will be discussed in a later section of this report, the legal dispute over the Acuitas-licensed lipid nanoparticle system threatened Moderna's ability to ever turn on a profit on any mRNA vaccine it managed to get through trials and the federal approval process, making the company's future appear quite grim.
In September 2017, at a closed-door investor event meant to prevent more major investors from devaluing the company or jumping ship, Moderna provided more insight into a recently published press release on the trial results of a therapy meant to regrow heart tissue by boosting production of a protein known as VEGF.
The press release, which generated positive media headlines, noted that the therapy had been proven safe in a study with a sample size of 44 patients. However, neither the press release nor the data Moderna disclosed to investors at the closed-door meeting revealed how much protein the therapy caused patients to produce, leaving its efficacy a mystery.
Indeed, media reports on the investor meeting noted that "since Moderna did not release that crucial data point, outsiders can't judge how much therapeutic potential there may be."
The results, though they seemed to mitigate the concerns over the safety of Moderna's technology, failed to inspire confidence in many attendees. Several attendees later told reporters that they "were not overly impressed" with Moderna's presentation, which only "underlined lingering questions about whether it can live up to its own hype."
One of the issues here, yet again, is that Moderna's valuation was and is underpinned by its promise to produce products for rare diseases that require repeated injections over a patient's lifetime. The VEGF therapy promoted by Moderna at this meeting was meant to be a one-time-only injection, and, thus, evidence of its safety did not resolve the problem of none of Moderna's multi-dose products having proven safe enough to test on humans.
The closed-door investor event made it clear that Moderna was aiming to avoid that persistent problem by prioritizing single-dose vaccines. As STAT noted at the time:
"The presentation to investors also made clear that Moderna is prioritizing vaccines. They are easier to develop from mRNA because patients need just one dose, which eliminates some of the safety issues that have plagued more ambitious projects such as therapies for rare diseases."
The pivot to vaccines remained a sore point with many investors, however, as vaccines are viewed as "low-margin product[s] that can't generate anywhere near the profits seen in more lucrative fields like rare diseases and oncology." These, as previously mentioned, are the very fields on which Moderna's massive valuation had been based but for which it had been unable to produce safe and effective therapies.
Moderna was clearly aware of these concerns among its current and potential investor base and attempted to speak promisingly of its oncology-related efforts at this same event. However, it was silent on trial timing and other key data points, maintaining the company's long-standing reputation for secrecy towards both insiders and the general public.
It is certainly telling that Moderna remained so secretive about key data at an event not only closed to the public and the press, but meant to reassure existing investors and to entice new ones. If Moderna declined to show important data to investors at a time when it was desperately seeking to keep them onboard, it implies that the company either had something to hide or nothing to show.
Moderna's increasingly troubled internal situation, despite its consistently rosy PR, escalated a month later when reports emerged of the abrupt resignations of its head of chemistry, the leader of its cardiovascular division, and the head of its rare diseases division. These resignations, which occurred toward the end of 2017, followed the high-profile resignations the company suffered that were mentioned in the 2016 STAT exposé by Damian Garde.
A few months later, in March 2018, the chief scientific officer of Moderna's vaccine business, Giuseppe Ciaramella, also left.
This resignation signaled further internal troubles at the company, even more because Moderna had recently and very publicly pivoted to vaccines; and Ciaramella, in addition to leading vaccine development at this critical juncture, had been the first Moderna executive to suggest that the company's technology could be useful in developing vaccines, a suggestion that the company was now betting everything on.
One can't help but wonder if Bancel's tendency to force out employees and executives who "couldn't make the science work" was a factor in any of these high-profile resignations, including that of Ciaramella.
Thus far, this report has largely focused on how Moderna's extreme secrecy appears to have been used to obfuscate and mitigate major issues with its technology and product pipeline and how those issues were reaching a climax following the company's IPO and immediately prior to the COVID crisis.
However, the challenge of creating products that work and can be proven to work in clinical settings is but one of at least two major issues facing Moderna as a company. Indeed, during the same timetable explored above, Moderna was embroiled in aggressive disputes related to intellectual property and patents.
Notably, these same legal issues deal with the lipid nanoparticle system that was also reportedly at the root of Moderna's safety and product-pipeline issues.
As mentioned earlier, the lipid nanoparticle delivery system used in many Moderna therapies was licensed to them by Acuitas. Acuitas, however, had licensed that system from a separate company, Arbutus, which sued in 2016 claiming that Acuitas's sublicense to Moderna was illegal. Arbutus won the case, which lead to a temporary injunction in 2017 that stopped Acuitas from further sublicensing the lipid nanoparticle technology.
A settlement reached between Acuitas and Arbutus in 2018 terminated Acuitas's license and restricted Moderna's use of the technology to four vaccine candidates that targeted already identified viruses.
Moderna's Bancel told Forbes in 2017 that the Acuitas/Arbutus system was barely mediocre and that Moderna was developing its own improved delivery system that would not infringe on Arbutus's intellectual property (the aforementioned N1GL and V1GL systems).
However, soon after Bancel made those claims, Arbutus's leadership challenged them, stating that the company had reviewed all of Moderna's patents, publications, and presentations regarding these "new" delivery systems and had found nothing that didn't involve their own intellectual property.
Even former Moderna employees, as mentioned previously, were very doubtful that N1GL and V1GL were any different than the Acuitas/Arbutus system, meaning that — despite Bancel's claims — Moderna had unresolved legal woes related to these nanoparticles that, along with the toxicity issues, was stalling Moderna product candidates.
It is important to note at this point that, while only Moderna has been locked in a legal battle with Acuitas/Arbutus for years over LNP intellectual property, the other main producers of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, Pfizer/BioNTech and CureVac, also use major aspects of the same Arbutus-derived technology. However, BioNTech licensed the LNPs in such a way as to avoid the issues that have entangled Moderna for years.
Moderna's legal dispute, in addition to the already discussed safety issues, greatly threatened Moderna's ability to survive as a company. Having already been forced to settle on the vaccines market and reject the more lucrative and "revolutionary" mRNA therapies it had long promised, Moderna was steadily moving toward a position where it had "no right to sell" vaccine products that depended on the Arbutus-patented and Acuitas-sublicensed technology.
This situation has placed pressure on Moderna to negotiate a new license with Arbutus directly, negotiations in which the company would have very little leverage.
Since the first legal case in 2016, Moderna and Arbutus have remained locked in disputes about the nanoparticles and who owns them. Moderna challenged three Arbutus patents with the US Patent and Trademark Office, with mixed results.
Yet, simultaneously, Moderna also claimed that its tech was "not covered by the Arbutus patents," which prompted numerous observers and reporters to ask questions such as — "In that case, why did [Moderna] initiate the legal action against Arbutus to begin with?"
Moderna answered that query by claiming that it targeted Arbutus only because of Arbutus's past "aggression" against them. However, despite such claims, the effort and cost inherent in the legal challenge reveals that, at the very least, Moderna takes the threat of Arbutus's intellectual property claims very seriously.
The actual answer seems to lie in Moderna being willing to publicly claim that their LNP technology is different enough from the Arbutus-derived system covered by the patents but unwilling to release any proof — whether in court, to its own investors, or to the public — that it is in fact different. The more recent twists and turns of this protracted legal battle, including a pivotal 2020 decision that was very unfavorable for Moderna, are discussed in Part II of this series.
Just previous to Ciaramella's resignation, Moderna had claimed to have "solved the scientific issues that made its earlier mRNA treatments too toxic for clinical trials," according to media reports. Those reports also claimed that, as a result, "Moderna believes it has steered back on course," though the company did not provide evidence to support that claim.
Nevertheless, the promise allowed the company to complete a new round of financing, during which it raised an additional $500 million from "an investor syndicate uncommon in biotech" that included the governments of Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.
Some observers were puzzled as to how Moderna had managed to raise so much money despite the outstanding questions about the science underpinning its high valuation.
The answer came with the publication of Moderna's confidential investor slide deck by STAT's Damian Garde, which showed that the company had predicted that drugs that they had only been tested in mice would soon be worth billions and that its vaccine revenue would amount to $15 billion annually.
The slide deck, deemed "pretty absurd" and "geared at hopeful generalists that can dream big" per one skeptical investor, made it clear why the company's last funding round had appealed to "unconventional" biotech investors rather than veteran investors focused on the industry.
A veteran biotech investor, who spoke anonymously due to the slide deck's confidentiality, stated that "it's a deck designed to tell the 'we're going to be huge' story to a group of rather unsophisticated investors — and it does that beautifully ... Just enough science and platform stuff to convey the 'We know what we're doing' sentiment, but not enough to engender technical questions."
Per those who sat through Moderna's pitch, the company was "very generous on the market-size assumptions for their programs," with one former Moderna collaborator placing the real-world value of a treatment the company had claimed was worth billions annually at closer to "$100 million to 250 million."
Of course, that revenue estimate comes with the caveat that the treatment, tested thus far only in mice, would someday prove to work in humans. A former Moderna employee in its rare diseases division stated at the time that Moderna "continue[s] to rush forward and over-promise the potential for broad use of mRNA prior to any evidence beyond vaccines or very early experiments in mice."
Despite Moderna's ability to convince "unsophisticated" and/or "unconventional" investors to back its early 2018 funding round, it appears that one of its most important promises used to attract investors — that it had solved the nanolipid particle toxicity issue — was not true.
In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission dated November 2018, months after Moderna had claimed to have fixed the issues with its lipid nanoparticle delivery system, the company made several claims that appear to contradict its purported development of a new, safer nanoparticle technology. For example, the filing states on page 33:
Most of our investigational medicines are formulated and administered in an LNP [lipid nanoparticle] which may lead to systemic side effects related to the components of the LNP which may not have ever been tested in humans. While we have continued to optimize our LNPs, there can be no assurance that our LNPs will not have undesired effects.
Our LNPs could contribute, in whole or in part, to one or more of the following: immune reactions, infusion reactions, complement reactions, opsonation [sic] reactions, antibody reactions including IgA, IgM, IgE or IgG or some combination thereof, or reactions to the PEG from some lipids or PEG otherwise associated with the LNP.
Certain aspects of our investigational medicines may induce immune reactions from either the mRNA or the lipid as well as adverse reactions within liver pathways or degradation of the mRNA or the LNP, any of which could lead to significant adverse events in one or more of our clinical trials. Many of these types of side effects have been seen for legacy LNPs.
There may be resulting uncertainty as to the underlying cause of any such adverse event, which would make it difficult to accurately predict side effects in future clinical trials and would result in significant delays in our programs. (emphasis added)
Based on these statements, Moderna appeared to be uncertain as to whether its current lipid nanoparticle delivery system was any safer than that which led to the indefinite delay of its Crigler-Najjar therapy. In addition, the reference to "adverse reactions within liver pathways," one of the main issues that triggered the specific delay of the Crigler-Najjar therapy, suggests a continued reliance on technology sublicensed from Acuitas.
As will be noted in Part II, the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine also appears to use the controversial Acuitas technology that had prompted significant safety, legal, and financial concerns for Moderna for years.
The November 2018 SEC filing makes other statements regarding its supposedly fixed lipid nanoparticle delivery system that are worth noting:
If significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our current or future clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting trial participants to any of our clinical trials, trial participants may withdraw from trials, or we may be required to abandon the trials or our development efforts of one or more development candidates or investigational medicines altogether ...
Even if the side effects do not preclude the drug from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, unfavorable benefit risk ratio may inhibit market acceptance of the approved product due to its tolerability versus other therapies. Any of these developments could materially harm our business, financial condition, and prospects.
These statements are significant in that they openly suggest at least one reason for Moderna's long-standing tendency toward secrecy in publishing data about its treatments, as public knowledge of its technology's persistent challenges would threaten its ability to attract trial participants, investors, and, later, consumers.
About a month after these troubling admissions were made in fine print, Moderna succeeded in pulling off a record-setting initial public offering (IPO) in December 2018. For that IPO, Moderna had retained the services of eleven investment banks, which is reportedly around "twice the number normally seen in biotech offerings."
However, its stock value tumbled just hours afterward, "a sign the company and its underwriters might have over-estimated demand for the richly valued company."
A month after the IPO, Moderna's stock continued its downward slide, "doing exactly the opposite of what private investors look for in an IPO." Those who had predicted this post-IPO outcome before Moderna went public had also warned that this downward trend would likely continue through early 2020 if not longer.
Skeptics such as STAT's Damian Garde had warned right before Moderna's IPO that that the company's sliding stock value would likely continue throughout 2019 due to "a seeming lack of impending news," given that "momentum in biotech, positive or negative, is driven by catalysts" and "Moderna is in for a fairly quiet 2019."
Meanwhile, media reports warned, as they had for years, that Moderna "is still in the early days of proving [their] technology's potential," despite being a nine-year-old company. Such reports also noted that Moderna's inability to prove its technology's worth after nearly a decade in business was hampered by its "struggl[e] in its initial efforts to turn mRNA into drugs that can be repeatedly dosed, leading it to pivot to vaccines, which can be administered just once or twice."
Investors at the 2019 JP Morgan health-care conference spoke of concerns that "Moderna [has] yet to rule out the lingering risks tied to mRNA, and, even at its depressed valuation, the company is simply too expensive." Others confided in reporters that they would be "sitting on the sidelines until Moderna either changes the narrative with promising human data or gets substantially cheaper."
A few weeks later, Moderna's Bancel attended the World Economic Forum's 2019 annual meeting alongside Johnson & Johnson executive Paul Stoffels and other pharmaceutical and biotech leaders in order to "rub elbows with world leaders and one-percenters — and talk about the future of healthcare."
Other health-care figures in attendance included head of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, and "global health philanthropist" Bill Gates, whose foundation entered into "a global health project framework" with Moderna in 2016 to "advance mRNA-based development projects for various infectious diseases."
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the only foundation listed as a "strategic collaborator" on the Moderna website. Other "strategic collaborators" include the US government's Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the US military's DARPA, and pharmaceutical giants AstraZeneca and Merck.
Moderna first teamed up with the WEF just a few years after its founding back in 2013, when it was named to the Forum's community of Global Growth Companies (GGC). That year, Moderna was one of just three North American health companies to receive the honor and was additionally recognized by the Forum as "an industry leader in innovative mRNA therapeutics."
"We are honored to be recognized for our efforts to advance our platform and ensure its potential is realized on a global scale, and we look forward to being a member of the World Economic Forum community," Bancel said at the time.
As a WEF Global Growth Company, Moderna has closely and regularly engaged with the Forum since 2013 at both the Chinese-hosted Annual Meeting of the New Champions and the WEF's regional meetings, while also having access to the WEF's exclusive networking platform that provides the company privileged access to the world's most powerful business and government leaders.
Additionally, such carefully selected companies are given opportunities by the Forum "to shape global, regional and industry agendas and engage in meaningful exchanges about ways to continue on a sustainable and responsible path of growth."
Essentially, the roster of such companies constitutes a consortium of corporations that are promoted and guided by the Forum because of their commitment to "improving the state of the world," that is, their commitment to supporting the Forum's long-term agendas for the global economy and for global governance.
In April 2019, Moderna published some information on modifications to its lipid nanoparticles (discussed in more detail in Part II). A month later, in May 2019, Moderna published positive results in the journal Vaccine for phase 1 data on mRNA vaccine candidates for "two potential pandemic influenza strains" administered as two doses three weeks apart.
The company's press release on the study stated that "future development of Moderna's pandemic influenza program is contingent on government or other grant funding," suggesting that it would use the trial results to lobby the government for funds for a continuation of this particular program.
Notably, at the same time as these results were published, the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, then filled by Robert Kadlec, was in the midst of conducting Crimson Contagion, a multimonth simulation of a global pandemic involving an influenza strain that originates in China and spreads globally through air travel.
The strain at the center of the simulation, called H7N9, is one of the very strains used in the Moderna study.
Moderna published those results on May 10, just four days before the Crimson Contagion simulation hosted its federal interagency seminar. BARDA, which the ASPR office oversees, is a major strategic ally of Moderna and was co-developing these "potential pandemic influenza" vaccines that are mentioned in this timely press release, that is, for H10N8 and H7N9 influenza infections.
Crimson Contagion is notable for several reasons, most significantly for Kadlec's own history with the Dark Winter simulations that preceded and eerily predicted the 2001 anthrax attacks. As has been discussed in detail in a previous TLAV – Unlimited Hangout investigation, the 2001 anthrax attacks conveniently rescued anthrax vaccine manufacturer BioPort, now Emergent Biosolutions, from certain ruin, much like the way the COVID crisis did for Moderna.
A month later, in June 2019, Moderna again managed to generate positive headlines on making its debut at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, where it sought to promote its ability to produce the personalized cancer treatments that had been key to wooing investors both before and after its record-setting IPO.
It was the first time the company had publicly presented data on a cancer treatment, and this particular treatment was being co-developed with Merck. The data showed positive results in preventing relapses in cancer patients whose solid tumors had been removed via surgery, but the trial failed to show any definitive effect in cancer patients whose tumors had not been removed.
Thus, the early data seemed to indicate that Moderna's treatment would only help cancer patients stay in remission after other medical interventions had been performed. Though the news allowed Moderna to bask in some much-needed positive press and to promote its oncology products in development, some reports rightly noted that it was "still too early for any definitive judgment" on the cancer treatment's clinical benefit.
Despite this apparent advance, by September 2019, Moderna's stock price continued to decline, leading to a loss of about $2 billion in market value from the company's $7.5 billion valuation at the time of its record-setting IPO.
The main factors for this were the same persistent problems the company had been facing for years — lack of progress, including lack of products on the market; persistent safety problems with its mRNA technology; and the lack of data showing that advances were being made to make that technology commercially feasible.
In mid-September 2019, Moderna gathered investors together to showcase scientific evidence it claimed would finally prove that its mRNA technology could "turn the body's own cells into medicine-making factories" and hopefully "turn skeptical investors into believers." This data, which was derived from a very preliminary study that involved only four healthy participants, had complications.
Three of the four participants had side effects that prompted Moderna to state at the meeting that they would need to reformulate the mRNA treatment to include steroids, while one of the participants suffered heart-related side effects, including a rapid heart rate and an irregular heartbeat.
Moderna, which asserted that none of the heart-related side effects was serious, could not "definitively pinpoint the cause of the heart symptoms." Yet, as previously mentioned, it was likely related to the safety issues that had been plaguing its experimental products for years.
The company's preliminary data, which was promoted in yet another bid to keep investors from leaving, also included the caveat that Moderna had decided to pause trials for this particular product, which was a single-injection mRNA treatment for the chikungunya virus. That treatment was being developed in partnership with the Pentagon's DARPA.
Other more positive data from a preliminary trial were also released at this meeting. That trial, however, was for an mRNA treatment for cytomegalovirus, "a common virus that is usually kept in check by the body's immune system and rarely causes problems in healthy people," meaning its mRNA vaccine for that condition was unlikely to ever be lucrative.
Not long after this lackluster investors meeting, on September 26, 2019, the once highly secretive Moderna announced it would collaborate with researchers at Harvard University "in hopes that the research will spur new drugs," as its product pipeline appeared to have stalled.
Moderna president Stephen Hoge described the collaboration as select Harvard researchers receiving "a package of stuff that we put our blood, sweat, and tears in, and then someone's going to do something with it. We'll find out afterward how that went." For a company long known for its extreme secrecy in an already secretive industry, Moderna's arrangement with Harvard, which it admitted was "unusual," came across as somewhat desperate.
A month later, at the 2019 Milken Institute Future of Health Summit, there was a panel discussion on universal flu vaccines and how a "disruptive" event would be needed to upset the long-existing bureaucratic vaccine-approval process to facilitate wider adoption of "nontraditional" vaccines, such as those produced by Moderna.
Panel speakers including former FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg, a veteran of the 2001 Dark Winter exercise and scientific advisor to the Gates foundation, as well as Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Rick Bright of BARDA, who previously worked for the Gates-funded PATH.
The panel discussion notably took place shortly after the controversial coronavirus pandemic simulation called Event 201, whose moderators and sponsors had been intimately involved in 2001's Dark Winter.
During the panel, the moderator — Michael Specter of the New Yorker — asked the question: "Why don't we blow the system up? Obviously, we just can't turn off the spigot on the system we have and then say 'Hey! everyone in the world should get this new vaccine we haven't given to anyone yet,' but there must be some way."
Specter then mentioned how vaccine production is antiquated and asked how sufficient "disruption" could occur to prompt the modernization of the existing vaccination development and approval process. Hamburg responded first, saying that as a society we are behind where we need to be when it comes to moving toward a new, more technological approach and that it is now "time to act" to make that a reality.
Several minutes later, Anthony Fauci stated that the superior method of vaccine production involves "not growing the virus at all, but getting sequences, getting the appropriate protein and it sticking in on self-assembling nanoparticles," essentially referring to mRNA vaccines.
Fauci then stated: "The critical challenge ... is that in order to make the transition from getting out of the tried and true egg-growing [method] ... to something that has to be much better, you have to prove that this works and then you have got to go through all of the critical trials — phase 1, phase 2, phase 3 — and show that this particular product is going to be good over a period of years. That alone, if it works perfectly, is going to take a decade."
Fauci later stated that there is a need to alter the public's perception that the flu is not a serious disease in order to increase urgency and that it would be "difficult" to alter that perception along with the existing vaccine development and approval process unless the existing system takes the posture that "I don't care what your perception is, we're going to address the problem in a disruptive way and an iterative way."
During the panel, Bright stated that "we need to move as quickly as possible and urgently as possible to get these technologies that address speed and effectiveness of the vaccine" before discussing how the White House Council of Economic Advisers had just issued a report emphasizing that prioritizing "fast" vaccines was paramount.
Bright then added that a "mediocre and fast" vaccine was better than a "mediocre and slow" vaccine. He then said that we can make "better vaccines and make them faster" and that urgency and disruption were necessary to produce the targeted and accelerated development of one such vaccine.
Later in the panel, Bright said the best way to "disrupt" the vaccine field in favor of "faster" vaccines would be the emergence of "an entity of excitement out there that's completely disruptive, that's not beholden to bureaucratic strings and processes." He later very directly said that by "faster" vaccines he meant mRNA vaccines.
The Bright-led BARDA and the Fauci-led NIAID in just a few months' time became the biggest backers of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, investing billions and co-developing the vaccine with the company, respectively.
As will be explained in Part II of this series, the partnership between Moderna and the NIH to co-develop what would soon become Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine was being forged as early as January 7, 2020, long before the official declaration of the COVID-19 crisis as a pandemic and before a vaccine was proclaimed as necessary by officials and other individuals.
Not only did the COVID-19 vaccine quickly become the answer to nearly all Moderna's woes but it also provided the disruptive scenario necessary to alter the public's perceptions of what a vaccine is and eliminate existing safeguards and bureaucracy in vaccine approval. (Watch the 2019 Universal Flu Vaccine event here.)
As Part II of this series will show, it was an alleged mix of "serendipity and foresight" from Moderna's Stéphane Bancel and the NIH's Barney Graham that propelled Moderna to the front of the "Warp Speed" race for a COVID-19 vaccine.
That partnership, along with the disruptive effect of the COVID-19 crisis, created the very "Hail Mary" for which Moderna had been desperately waiting since at least 2017 while also turning most of Moderna's executive team into billionaires and multi-millionaires in a matter of months.
However, Moderna's "Hail Mary" won't last – that is, unless the mass administration of its COVID-19 vaccine becomes an annual affair for millions of people worldwide. Even though real-world data since its administration began challenges the need for as well as the safety and efficacy of its vaccine, Moderna – and its stakeholders – cannot afford to let this opportunity slip through fingers. To do so would mean the end of Moderna's carefully constructed house of cards.
This article was previously published January 4, 2021, and has been updated with new information.
A second antimalarial treatment is now being seriously considered and evaluated for its efficacy against COVID-19. The treatment is made from the plant Artemisia annua, which most people know as Sweet Wormwood. Other names for this plant include Annual Sagewort and Sweet Annie.
Research over the past few decades has revealed multiple health benefits from this medicinal herb, which has a centuries-long history of use in folk medicine. In 2015, Chinese scientist Tu Youyou received a partial Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of artemisinin and dihydroartemisinin,1 both of which have potent malaria-fighting properties.
As reported by the University of Kentucky,2 "The popular malaria drug artesunate was developed from those compounds and is still used as a first-line treatment for the disease today."
Interestingly, in addition to having a long-standing history of being used as a highly effective antiparasitic, it also has anticancer properties. Additionally, artemisia annua has antiviral activity that might be helpful against SARS-CoV-2.
In an April 8, 2020, SEC filing, Mateon Therapeutics reported3 that "Artemisinin is highly potent at inhibiting the ability of the COVID-19 causing virus (SARS-CoV-2) to multiply while also having an excellent safety index."
After testing the plant's antiviral effects in a laboratory setting for a couple of years, University of Kentucky researchers are also exploring its use for the treatment of COVID-19,4 as are researchers in Denmark and Germany.5 According to the University of Kentucky:6
"Surprisingly, results showed that the plant's leaves, when extracted with absolute ethanol or distilled water, provided more antiviral activity than the actual drug itself — meaning that an Artemisia annua-blended coffee or tea could possibly be more effective than taking the drug."
Based on these findings, researchers have decided to test artemisinin in patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Some of the first human studies, set to investigate both the extract blended into coffee and tea, as well as the drug artesunate, were implemented by UK HealthCare.
University of Kentucky researchers have founded a company called ArtemiFlow to develop and manufacture the drug, in collaboration with the Kentucky Tobacco Research & Development Center.7 A sister company, ArtemiLife, is marketing Artemisia tea and coffee to raise research funds.
As for its mechanism of action, such details still remain to be discovered. C&EN explains:8
"When countering malaria, artemisinin exploits the parasite's taste for hemoglobin in its host's blood. As the parasite digests hemoglobin, it frees the iron-porphyrin heme complex from the protein.
Because this heme is toxic to the parasite, the organism normally converts the complex to a more benign crystalline form. 'But artemisinin corrupts this heme-detoxification pathway,' says Paul O'Neill, a medicinal chemist at the University of Liverpool.
If artemisinin does have any effect against SARS-CoV-2, though, it likely relies on a completely different mechanism than the one it uses against the malaria parasite, Harvard's [malaria researcher Dyann F.] Wirth says."
An in vitro study9,10 looking at the efficacy of artemisinin-based treatments against SARS-CoV-2, posted on the prepublication server bioRxiv, October 5, 2020, report promising results.
The study was a collaboration between researchers from Germany, Denmark and Hong Kong, led by Kerry Gilmore, Ph.D., from the Max Planck Institute for Colloids and Interfaces in Potsdam, Germany.
Three artemisinin extracts, as well as pure, synthetic artemisinin, artesunate and artemether were evaluated. During the initial screening for antiviral activity, a German SARS-CoV-2 strain obtained from Munich was used.
Later on, during the concentration-response phase of the trial, they used a Danish SARS-CoV-2 strain from Copenhagen. These two strains are said to be "more closely related to the majority of SARS-CoV-2 strains circulating worldwide than the Wuhan strain."11,12
In summary, they found that both pretreatment and treatment with artemisinin extracts, synthetic artemisinin and the drug artesunate were able to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection of Vero E6 cells and human hepatoma Huh7.5 cells. That said, artesunate was the most potent in terms of treatment, and from a clinical perspective may be the only one worth pursuing.13,14
While the world is eager to add another remedy to its COVID-19 treatment list, the World Health Organization has come out in opposition to artemisinin-based products. In a May 27, 2020, article, C&EN reported:15
"One of the most high-profile advocates for using the herbal remedy against the novel coronavirus is Madagascar president Andry Rajoelina, who has been touting Covid-Organics, a tonic containing A. annua that the Malagasy Institute of Applied Research developed …
But health officials are deeply concerned about the promotion and use of these herbal remedies for three principal reasons. First, no evidence exists that A. annua extracts can prevent or cure COVID-19 …
Second, A. annua preparations such as teas, tonics, or herbal capsules also contain a cocktail of bioactive compounds in addition to artemisinin that can have side effects such as dizziness, hearing problems, and vomiting.
Third, and perhaps most worrying of all, widespread use of A. annua herbal extracts could bolster drug-resistant strains of malaria parasites such as Plasmodium falciparum.16
For people living in regions where malaria is endemic, exposure to subtherapeutic doses of artemisinin in A. annua may be enough to kill off some of the parasites in their bodies, but not all of them. Clearing out weakling parasites leaves more room for drug-resistant siblings to proliferate, rendering vital ACTs [artemisinin-based combination therapies] ineffective."
According to Pascal Ringwald, who heads up the drug resistance and response unit of the WHO Global Malaria Program, artemisinin resistance is a significant problem in Southeast Asia, where Artemisia readily grows and is commonly used.17
That said, this risk is bound to be slight for Americans and people in many other Western countries where malaria is exceedingly rare. According to C&EN,18 "Scientists interviewed by C&EN agree that although this use is against WHO recommendations, it does not risk accelerating resistance because there are so few cases of malaria in the U.S."
Buried in the massive $3.5 trillion "reconciliation" bill is an unconstitutional vaccine enforcement mechanism that threatens to bankrupt businesses unless they force their employees to get a COVID-19 injection. If the measure is enacted into law, even employers that respect their employees' rights to health freedom and informed consent would be left with an impossible decision — mandate COVID-19 jabs or essentially go out of business due to unbearable fines.
The White House announced in September 2021 that companies with 100 or more employees would have to ensure staff have gotten a COVID-19 injection or were tested regularly for COVID-19. The Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is to be in charge of enforcing the rule, which will affect more than 80 million U.S. workers.1
In order to carry out this draconian measure, OSHA plans to use an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) — a drastic measure used to accelerate new orders that has only been attempted 10 times in the agency's 50-year history. OSHA would also be able to enforce fines of up to $13,600 per violation of the rules — but the new measure tucked into the reconciliation bill raises the fines for noncompliance astronomically.
Before we get any further, it should be noted that the mandate doesn’t actually exist yet, in that it hasn’t been sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for approval, and it’s not yet a legally enforceable mandate. Still, by announcing it as though it’s an inevitable rule, it may have the same effect of triggering workers to get vaccinated — or allowing companies to enact mandates under the veil of the government “mandate.”2
On page 168 of the 2,465-page bill3 is wording that should send an authoritarian chill down the back of anyone who believes in health freedom. It outlines fines for employers that "willfully," "repeatedly" or seriously violate the labor law, including by not requiring COVID-19 jabs or regular COVID-19 testing. As Forbes reported:4
"The increased fines on employers could run as high as $70,000 for serious infractions, and $700,000 for willful or repeated violations — almost three-quarters of a million dollars for each fine. If enacted into law, vax enforcement could bankrupt non-compliant companies even more quickly than the $14,000 OSHA fine anticipated under Biden's announced mandate."
In case you missed it, that $700,000 fine is for each violation, meaning it would bankrupt all but the very largest corporations if they don't fully comply with COVID-19 jab mandates or take on the cost of weekly COVID-19 testing of their employees.
Currently, the fines only apply to businesses with 100 or more employees, but there's nothing stopping them from changing it to 50 employees — or one employee. Anything could happen at this point. Some, such as Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, have called on businesses to "openly rebel" against the OSHA rule. But as Forbes put it:5
"It's one thing to defy a $14,000 fine. It's quite another to risk incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. One or two disgruntled employees, for example, could bring an employer $70,000-$140,000 in OSHA fines. If considered 'willful,' as per Rep. Roy's tweet — just three 'violations' could quickly become a $2.1 million OSHA fine."
As mentioned, the mandate that President Biden announced is currently a “mirage.”6 Speaking with The Federalist, a spokeswoman for the Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration explained, “There is nothing there yet that gives employers any mandate. The president made an announcement on this asking OSHA to do it, but we’ve not yet seen anything come from it yet.”7
An ETS may take six months to go into effect even after the mandate is put in the Federal Register — which hasn’t happened yet. OSHA’s COVID-19 Healthcare ETS also makes no mention of vaccine mandates at this time.8 ETS rules are also often overturned in court. In the last five decades, courts have challenged six of the 10 ETS standards that have been suggested, with five of the six getting overturned.9
However, using the ETS for the “mandate,” the Federalist pointed out, “allows the Biden administration to push its demands faster and without any public input or requirement of responding to public input, which is normally required of even legally laughable federal rule making like this one would be.”10
This may be why more lawsuits haven’t been filed to challenge the mandate — there’s nothing to challenge just yet. It’s also worth mentioning that less than 2% of U.S. businesses will be affected by the mandate, as more than 98% of U.S. businesses have fewer than 100 employees, exempting them from the mandate. Still, those 2% account for about two-thirds of U.S. employees, so they’re a sizeable minority.11
Many of these large corporations have already put injection mandates into place or were planning to. The “mandate” announcement allows these mega-corporations to mandate the jabs without having to be the bad guy.
Roy and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, introduced a bill — the No Taxation Without Congressional Consent Act — September 30, 2021, that would prohibit the federal government from imposing a fine, fee or tax on individuals or businesses for violating a COVID-19 vaccine mandate issued by OSHA or other agencies. If it passes, it would prevent the outrageous fines threatening to bankrupt small businesses under the reconciliation bill. Roy said:12
"Your decision about whether or not to get a COVID vaccine should be yours and yours alone … [the] proposed mandate is unconstitutional, and flat-out tyrannical. No freedom-loving American should comply. This country needs, and her people deserve, healthcare freedom.
That means taking control over our care back from politicians and bureaucrats. I am proud to introduce this legislation with my good friend Senator Mike Lee to gut the federal government's ability to enforce this unconstitutional mandate."
Further, being unvaxxed is not a crime. Allowing for these exorbitant fines only further attempts to segregate society into one of vaxxed versus unvaxxed. But, as Lee added:13
"Unvaccinated Americans aren't the enemy. We should not be forcing employers to fire some of their valuable, and now hard to find, workers. We shouldn't be threatening business owners with closure who do not wish to police their workforce's decisions. Many simply cannot incur the cost of this enforcement in this economy."
Vaccine mandates are targeting every angle, from places of employment to restaurants, gyms and sports arenas. Los Angeles recently approved one of the strictest mandates in the U.S. and will require a vaccine passport to enter indoor public spaces like shopping malls, museums, restaurants, spas and other locations.14
California also became the first U.S. state to require students in kindergarten through grade 12 to receive COVID-19 shots following full FDA approval.15 Council president Nury Martinez called the move "a necessary step towards returning to normalcy," but there's nothing "normal" about presenting proof of an injection to go about your daily life.16
This, however, is what the "new normal" is all about — increasing surveillance and authoritarian control while removing personal liberties, and vaccine passports have always been part of the plan.
The World Economic Forum's (WEF) 2030 agenda is part and parcel of what is now advertised as The Great Reset,17 a plan that originated in something called the Global Redesign Initiative, drafted by the WEF in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis. The Transnational Institute's website describes the initiative as "multi-stakeholderism," a "corporate push for a new form of global governance."18
WEF and the Commons Project created the Common Trust Network, which developed the CommonPass app that's acting as a health passport. The app allows users to upload medical data such as a COVID-19 test result or proof of injection, which then generates a QR code that you show to authorities as your health passport.19
Eventually, the CommonPass framework will be integrated with already existing personal health apps such as Apple Health and CommonHealth. If you want to travel, your personal health record will be evaluated and compared to a country's entry requirements, and if you don't meet them, you'll be directed to an approved testing and vaccination location. WEF is pushing for the World Health Organization's collaboration, stating:20
"Rather than building a set of rules that would be left to the interpretation of member states or private-sector operators like cruises, airlines or conveners of gatherings, we support the WHO's effort to create a standard for member states for requesting vaccinations and how it would permit the various kinds of use cases.
It is important that we rely on the normative body (the WHO) to create the vaccine credential requirements. The Forum is involved in the WHO taskforce to reflect on those standards and think about how they would be used."
This, too, is disturbing, since WHO's history clearly illustrates its allegiance to Big Pharma and other industries. A review in the Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy went so far as to say the corruption of WHO is the "biggest threat to the world's public health of our time," particularly as it relates to WHO's drug recommendations — including its "list of essential medicines" — which it believes is biased and not reliable.21
Given the strong and ongoing evidence that WHO is heavily conflicted and controlled by industry, its usefulness as a guardian of public health — and an arbiter of vaccine passports — needs to be seriously reevaluated.
Threats of punishment like fines have become increasingly common and accepted during the pandemic. Both Roy and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green, R-Ga., were fined for not wearing face masks on the House floor, for instance. The initial fine for such an offense is $500, but since this was Greene's second "offense," she was fined $2,500.22
In the U.K., meanwhile, there's the NHS COVID app, which notifies you if you've been in close contact (defined as within 6 feet for 15 minutes or more) with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. If you don't self-isolate after being notified, you can be fined £1,000 ($1,390) or more.23
Other penalties are also being rolled out for those who choose not to get the injection. On August 25, 2021, Delta Air Lines announced that unvaccinated employees who are on the company health plan will have a $200 monthly surcharge added, beginning November 1, 2021.24
It's yet another example of the injection-only mindset that has proliferated since the start of the pandemic. Meanwhile, in the U.S. and much of the world, COVID-19 is still being regarded as a disease that should only be treated once a person is hospitalized. At that point, the person is already seriously ill and has missed the opportunity for inexpensive, early treatment options that have shown significant success in reducing rates of hospitalization and death.25
The penalties and punishments also reek of coercion. One of the principles of the Nuremberg Code is that humans must give voluntary consent when participating in medical experiments, and that consent must be given, among other things, "without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion."26
Given the emergency use authorization, not approval, the mass jab administration constituted a research trial. While the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 jab received FDA approval August 23, 2021, the injection's approval represents the fastest approval in history,27 granted less than four months after Pfizer filed for licensing May 7, 2021.28 So, for all intents and purposes, it's still in the research phase.
It's quite possible that the decision to penalize people for choosing to avoid a COVID-19 injection could be seen as a form of coercion.
The other glaring issue is there's no mention of natural immunity. It's the elephant in the room that the mainstream COVID-19 narrative refuses to acknowledge. A sizable number of Americans already have natural immunity from a prior COVID-19 infection.
How can you threaten a person with fines or loss of employment to get an injection for a disease to which they're already immune? This is likely to prompt more than a few lawsuits, especially since it's been shown that natural immunity may protect you significantly better than an injection.
Data presented July 17, 2021, to the Israeli Health Ministry revealed that, of the more than 7,700 COVID-19 cases reported since May 2021, only 72 occurred in people who had previously had COVID-19 — a rate of less than 1%. In contrast, more than 3,000 cases — or approximately 40% — occurred in people who had received a COVID-19 vaccine.29
It's important to keep your eyes open at this point in history and resist the insidious removal of freedoms from society that's currently occurring. In their place are empty promises to give you your freedom back if you submit to an injection, a mask, a lockdown.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, for example, recently stated that vaccine passports are "all about" letting you know that "if you've done the right things, you get to be safe" wherever you go.30 And those who refuse to do "the right thing," well, they simply aren't entitled to those same "freedoms."
The disease countermeasures we currently see for COVID-19 won't end with COVID-19, and fines for business owners who choose not to force their employees to make a certain medical decision are only the beginning. We must not continue down this rabbit hole. Now is the time to speak out in peaceful protest in order to compel positive changes in support of health and overall freedom.
In 2019, 97% of countries in Western Europe were not adding fluoride to their water.1 While a handful use fluoridated salt, the majority do not. Yet, despite the lack of fluoridated water or salt in their diets, the rates of tooth decay have declined significantly in all the countries.2
In September 2021, Great Britain's health secretary Sajid Javid announced he would be adding fluoride to all public water supplies,3 forcing citizens to consume the neurotoxin. The statement came in conjunction with approval by the United Kingdom's chief medical officers from England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.4
Paradoxically, his announcement comes one year after a consumers’ group in the U.S. filed a federal lawsuit challenging water fluoridation that supplies 200 million U.S. citizens. The suit was brought against the Environmental Protection Agency and would require water utilities to stop fluoridation.5
Fluoride is a naturally-occurring mineral in water and soil that scientists in the 1940s found might help prevent tooth decay.6 Water fluoridation began in the U.S. in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1945 and other Michigan communities and then states adopted the practice in the years that followed.
Ninety-six percent of the fluoride7 used in U.S. water systems comes from apatite ore, the source of phosphate fertilizers. While the mineral’s composition also includes “high concentrations” of hydroxide, fluoride and chloride, the CDC calls the addition of this neurotoxic chemical “one of public health's greatest success stories.”8 Yet, this “great success story” originates with highly toxic by-products in the production of fertilizer.9
The production process involves mixing the apatite with sulfuric acid derived from molten sulfur, which the American Water Works Association describes as “a waste product from cleaning petroleum feedstock.”10
Once the toxic vapors are converted to a dangerous liquid waste, it is transported from fertilizer factories to water reservoirs where it is added to drinking water.11 However, unlike pharmaceutical grade fluoride in toothpaste, this is “an untreated industrial waste product, one that contains trace elements of arsenic and lead.”12
Unfortunately, not many are aware of the effects fluoride has as a cradle-to-grave neurotoxin or the origin of the waste product added to the water supply. Although there has been some pushback against the proposal in the U.K.,13 Javid “is understood to be keen to press ahead with adding the mineral to the water supply and will gain powers to do so across England under laws going through parliament.”14
In a concerted effort to convince the public to accept the proposal, the U.K.’s chief medical officers came out together endorsing water fluoridation across the U.K. countries.15 In an effort to make it look like adding fluoride to the water is a benefit to U.K. citizens’ health, they added the proposal to legislation called “The Health and Care bill,”16 which is set to go before the MPs, which will then give Javid the authority needed to order fluoridation.17
In response to this, three British scientists sent a public letter to Great Britain's prime minister, Boris Johnson. In the press release published from the U.K Freedom from Fluoride Alliance they write,18 “This is not a good time for the British government to mislead the public on the dangers posed by the practice of water fluoridation.”
The scientists believe that the statements from the chief medical officers from the four U.K. countries extol the weak benefits of fluoridation, but ignore stronger evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin. According to the scientists,19
“The dental lobby has controlled this debate for far too long. You can repair a damaged tooth but early damage to the brain (especially during fetal development and infancy) cannot be repaired or reversed.
This is so serious for the future of our country that the matter should not be resolved by the kind of ‘sleight of hand’ used by those who wrote the script for the CMOs’ statement.”
In their statement20 there are two short paragraphs that deal with the risk of fluoridation, which the scientists refer to as “sleight of hand.” Within the paragraphs, the CMOs do not mention the numerous studies demonstrating neurotoxicity and do not mention the lawsuit against the U.S. EPA. These points were made in their open letter to the prime minister in which they said they:21
“... sincerely hope that your health advisers will acknowledge the strong scientific evidence of fluoride’s neurotoxicity (and other ill health effects) and put the health of our people above promoting what appears to be a well-intended but clearly outdated practice of water fluoridation.
This would not be the first time that a well-entrenched medical or dental practice has had to give way to advances in scientific understanding of unexpected side effects.”
However, as reported in The Times,22 “Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, has dismissed safety concerns over the compounds, saying there is no evidence that it causes cancer and that claims about health risks are 'exaggerated and unevidenced'.”
One of the first studies demonstrating fluoride has an adverse effect on children's IQ was originally published in 1989 in the Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases. Since then, the Fluoride Action Network23 has recorded dozens of studies that have analyzed the relationship between IQ and fluoride.
Of these, 70 human studies and 60 animal studies have demonstrated an association between exposure and a reduction in learning or memory capacity. The human studies had children and adult participants that provide compelling evidence of damage. The Fluoride Action Network also published an analysis of the challenges associated with the studies that did not find an association.24
Some of the strongest studies demonstrating an association were published in 2019 and 2020. The claims made by proponents of fluoridation that there is only “one or two studies” finding harm, or that they are only from areas with naturally high fluoride levels, are no longer relevant. The scientific evidence can now be considered overwhelming and undeniable. The studies include:
Green 2019 — published in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s journal on Pediatrics.25 It reported substantial IQ loss in Canadian children from prenatal exposure to fluoride from water fluoridation.26
Riddell 2019 — published in Environment International.27 It found a shocking 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to nonfluoridated ones.28
Till 2020 — published in Environment International.29 It reported that children who were bottle-fed in Canadian fluoridated communities lost up to 8.8 IQ points compared to those in nonfluoridated communities.30
Uyghurturk 2020 — published in Environmental Health,31 It found that pregnant women in fluoridated communities in California had significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than those in nonfluoridated communities. The levels found in their urine were the same as those found to lower children’s IQ in past studies.32,33
Malin 2019 — published in Environmental Health.34 It linked a doubling of symptoms indicative of sleep apnea in adolescents in the U.S. to levels of fluoride in the drinking water. The link between fluoride and sleep disturbances may be through fluoride’s effect on the pineal gland.35
Malin 2019 — published in Environment International.36 It reported that exposure to fluoridated water led to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents in the U.S. and suggested those with poorer kidney or liver function may absorb more fluoride bodies. The National Institutes of Health funded this study.37
The level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline. A recent review by Danish scientist, Harvard professor and neurotoxicity expert Dr. Philippe Grandjean also concluded that:38
“… there is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure, whether due to community water fluoridation, natural fluoride release from soil minerals, or tea consumption, especially when the exposure occurs during early development.
Given that developmental neurotoxicity is considered to cause permanent adverse effects, the next generation’s brain health presents a crucial issue in the risk-benefit assessment for fluoride exposure.”
Evidence shows that fluoride as an endocrine disrupter affects both sleep and the brain. It contributes to the rising rate of children and adults with attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD). One study39 published in 2015 demonstrated that children with higher rates of medically diagnosed ADHD resided in states where there was a greater proportion of people consuming fluoridated water.
In 2006, the National Resource Council of the National Academies labeled fluoride an endocrine disruptor.40 According to the National Institutes of Health in 2014,41 “Research shows that endocrine disruptors may pose the greatest risk during prenatal and early postnatal development when organ and neural systems are forming.” The NIH has since removed that statement from their website.42
Exposure to fluoride is also linked to thyroid disease,43 which in turn contributes to heart disease, obesity, depression and other health problems. Fluoride has an adverse effect on sleep patterns. One study44 found chronic low-level exposure altered sleep patterns in adolescents aged 16 to 19.
They found fluoride levels of .52 mg per liter was associated with a 1.97 times higher likelihood of sleep apnea at least once per week. This level is lower than the current recommendation of 0.7 mg/L.45
The researchers theorized46 that the accumulation of fluoride in the pineal gland may affect sleep patterns. Additionally, the researchers wrote that in adults, fluoride concentrations in the pineal gland correlate with calcification, which in turn is associated with a decrease in melatonin production, lower sleep time and lower REM sleep percentage.
In 2010, a study47 published in the Journal of the American Dental Association concluded that there was an association between fluorosis and children's teeth and intake from infant formula and other dietary sources. They wrote:
“Results suggest that prevalence of mild dental fluorosis could be reduced by avoiding ingestion of large quantities of fluoride from reconstituted powdered concentrate infant formula and fluoridated dentifrice.”
The CDC also followed suit in 2010, warning that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula with fluoridated water could increase the chance of a child developing enamel fluorosis.48 These recommendations have since been deleted.49
However, your teeth are the window to your bones, and when you see damage to your teeth you must ask the question: What kind of damage to your bones is occurring?
In April 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services admitted the fluoride levels they had been promoting damaged children's teeth.50 Major dental fluorosis was apparent in 41% of teenagers,51 which includes white spots, yellow coloring or pitted enamel.
Despite levels of fluoride that were high enough to cause fluorosis, the CDC52 also reported that 42% of children and adolescents ages 6 to 19 years and 90% of adults had cavities in their permanent teeth. Although some health experts continue to promote fluoride as protection against cavities, it’s apparently not doing the job.
Instead of completely removing fluoride from the water to protect bone health in 2015, the HHS announced they would simply reduce the level of fluoride in the water to minimize “the risk of cosmetic fluorosis in the general population.”53 To stress the idea that fluorosis is solely a cosmetic issue negates the potential risk to bone health.
By 2020, the American Dental Association was fully on board with fluoridating water in the U.S. In a letter54 to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, they noted their members agreed that the 2018 edition of Fluoridation Facts, the ADA’s resource on community water fluoridation, answered questions on the relationship between consumption and lowered intelligence or behavioral disorders.
Choosing to blatantly ignore all the studies showing fluoride is a dangerous neurotoxin, they stated, “The evidence from individual studies and systematic reviews does not support claims of a causal relationship.”55 Additionally, they urged that the National Toxicology Program Monograph on Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health should move its classification of fluoride from a “presumed” neurotoxin to an “unknown” neurotoxin.
Their justification for this was to claim:56 “There is not a wide body of literature examining fluoride as a potential neurotoxin.” In other words, 70 human and 60 animal studies were not enough to “support claims of a causal relationship” and is not a “wide body of literature examining fluoride as a potential neurotoxin.”
What might be assumed from statements made by politicians and experts, is there is a greater concern over tooth decay than there is over loss of intelligence, brain health in adults and children and damage done through endocrine disruption.
For citizens in the U.K., a petition has been initiated in Parliament recommending that instead of adding fluoride to compel the entire nation to ingest a neurotoxin, “it would be better if people brush their teeth with toothpaste daily and monitor intake of sugar.”57
U.K. citizens can sign the petition at this link. If it reaches 100,000 signatures, Parliament must consider it for debate. For those who live in an area with fluoridated water, you can protect your health by filtering the water supply.
Because fluoride is a very small molecule, it's difficult to filter once added, but reverse osmosis filtration can be effective.58 Clean pure water is a prerequisite for optimal health; thus, the only real solution is to stop the practice of artificial water fluoridation.
This article was previously published February 2, 2021, and has been updated with new information.
By February 2021, round the world, reports were already pouring in of people dying shortly after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. In many cases, they die suddenly within hours of getting the shot. In others, death occurs within the span of a couple of weeks.
One notable case is baseball legend Hank Aaron, 86, who died January 22, 2021, 17 days after publicly getting vaccinated for COVID-19.1,2 He said at the time that he hoped other Blacks would follow his lead and get their vaccines too.
According to news reports, he died "peacefully in his sleep" of natural causes, with the medical examiner claiming there was no indication the vaccine was connected to his death.3 Aaron was famous for being the home-run king of baseball, and broke Babe Ruth's record when he hit homerun No. 715; he had hit 755 by the time he retired from the sport.
In related news, Norway recorded 29 senior citizen deaths in the wake of their vaccination push.4 Most were over the age of 75. A total of 42,000 Norwegians had by that time received the vaccine.
While health officials initially downplayed any connection to the vaccine, a report in Bloomberg suggests the Norwegian Medicines Agency are now reconsidering. At the time of the deaths, the Pfizer vaccine was the only COVID-19 vaccine available in Norway, so "all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine," the agency told Bloomberg.5
"'There are 13 deaths that have been assessed, and we are aware of another 16 deaths that are currently being assessed,' the agency said. All the reported deaths related to 'elderly people with serious basic disorders,' it said.
'Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition' …
The findings have prompted Norway to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines may be too risky for the very old and terminally ill, the most cautious statement yet from a European health authority.
The Norwegian Institute of Public Health judges that 'for those with the most severe frailty, even relatively mild vaccine side effects can have serious consequences. For those who have a very short remaining life span anyway, the benefit of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant.'"
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, commented that the deaths have to be "put into context with the population they occurred in."6
In other words, they were old and old people die. It's hypocrisy at its finest. When seniors die before vaccination, it's due to COVID-19 and something must be done to prevent it, but when they die after vaccination, they die of natural causes and no preventive action is necessary.
The World Health Organization added that since there was "no certain connection" of the vaccines to Norway's deaths, there is no reason to discontinue giving it to senior citizens.
Interestingly, several areas have reported that deaths are rapidly increasing AFTER vaccination programs are implemented. The news stories don't actually say it straight out, but if you look at dates given, it raises questions. One such example is what happened in Gibraltar at the southern tip of Spain, which has a population of 34,000.
The area rolled out its vaccination program January 9, 2021, using the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. By January 17, 2021, 5,847 doses had been administered (about 17% of the population), according to a report by MedicalXpress.7
The curious thing about it is that the area's first recorded death from COVID-19 didn't occur until mid-November 2020. By January 6, three days before the vaccination program began, the total COVID-19-related death toll reportedly stood at 10.
Then, by January 17, the total death toll had suddenly skyrocketed to 45. In other words, 35 people died in the first eight days of the vaccination program. Most were in their 80s and 90s.
Chief Minister Fabian Picardo said, "This is now the worst loss of life of Gibraltarians in over 100 years. Even in war, we have never lost so many in such a short time."8 None of the deaths was being blamed on the vaccine, however. Instead, they loosely blamed them on the new variant of SARS-CoV-2.
Other areas are also reporting "outbreaks" of COVID-19, resulting in increased death tolls, after the rollout of vaccinations. Case in point: In Auburn, New York, a COVID-19 outbreak began December 21, 2020, in a Cayuga County nursing home.9,10 Before this outbreak, no one in the nursing home had died from COVID-19.
The next day, December 22, they started vaccinating residents and staff. The first death was reported December 29, 2020. Between December 22, 2020, and January 9, 2021, 193 residents (80%) received the vaccine, as did 113 staff members.
As of January 9, 2021, 137 residents had been infected and 24 had died. Forty-seven staff members had also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and one was on life-support.
Considering we're also seeing cases in which healthy young and middle-aged individuals die within days of receiving the vaccine, it's not inconceivable that the vaccine might have something to do with these dramatic rises in deaths among the elderly in various parts of the world. In fact, I'd expect it.
You can rest assured, however, that the public health authorities and media will not report these observations. Anything that conflicts with vaccine safety and effectiveness will be intentionally and universally buried. This is precisely their modus operandi of the past three decades, so it's really up to each individual to do their own research.
When the global vaccine campaign was less than a month old in most places, reports of serious side effects had already started pouring in. Many shared their personal experiences on social media networks. Disturbingly, many also had their stories censored as misleading or false. Videos, in particular, tend to be taken down.
Aside from sudden death within hours or days,11,12,13,14,15 examples of side effects among survivors of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines include:
To get a feel for what's really happening, check out members only site, Prezi. Once you create a login, you can access stories from various social media posts detailing adverse reactions. It's a rather shocking compilation that is well worth sharing with family and friends who are still on the fence about getting the vaccine.
Many say they "feel weird" and that they "don't feel like myself." Dizziness, racing heart and extreme high blood pressure seem to be a common complaint, as is severe, chronic seemingly "unbreakable" headache that does not respond to medication. Many describe the pain they feel in their body as "being run over by a bus" or "being beaten with a bat."
Some report swollen and painful lymph nodes, severe muscle pain and gastrointestinal issues. Symptoms mimicking stroke are being reported, even though CT scans show nothing of concern. One such report is from a 19-year-old girl. Several report lethal heart attacks claiming the lives of someone they love.
Psychological effects are also starting to creep in. One woman who is on chemotherapy reports "mood changes with intermittent periods of elation and mild euphoria." Bouts of anxiety, depression, brain fog, confusion and dissociation are also being reported, as is an inability to sleep.
One person reports having lost "the voice in my head," which I suspect is the ability to hear yourself think. Another reports losing the ability to formulate words about half an hour after getting the first dose of vaccine, and a third reports "struggling for lost words." Loss of taste and/or smell are also being reported, as well as taste alterations. Several say they have developed a metallic taste since their vaccination.
One pregnant woman reported spontaneous rupture of the amniotic sac resulting in premature delivery. Another woman's baby was found to have no heartbeat two days after her vaccination and was delivered stillborn. Several describe effects suggesting vascular problems, such as skin blotchiness and fingers turning blue.
While people are hoping and praying their side effects will be temporary, a significant portion say they're still struggling with the effects one or two weeks after their shot. Time will tell whether they turn out to be permanent, but considering the fact that the mRNA vaccines reprogram your DNA, there's certainly the possibility that they might be long-lasting.
I recently interviewed cellular and molecular biologist Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., about the mechanics of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, which are in actuality gene therapy. They're not conventional vaccines. Compare the summary of reported side effects in the section above to the longer-term side effects she suspects will become commonplace, based on the mechanics and biological effects of these gene therapy "vaccines":
Involuntary muscle movements, tics and spasms
Severe pain syndromes
Psychological disorders such as psychosis and autism spectrum
Infertility and other reproductive problems
The underlying causes, according to Mikovits, are neuroinflammation and dysregulation of the immune system and endocannabinoid system.
"It's the brain on fire," she says. "You're going to see ticks, you're going to see Parkinsonian disease, you're going to see ALS, you're going to see things like this developing at extremely rapid rates, and it's inflammation of the brain.
We see mass cell activation syndromes. The clinical symptoms are going to be the inflammatory diseases. We hear everybody calling it 'long haul COVID' — the extreme, profound, crippling fatigue, the inability to produce energy from your mitochondria.
It's not long haul COVID. It's exactly what it always was — myalgic encephalomyelitis, inflammation of the brain and the spinal cord. What they're intentionally doing is killing off [certain] populations."
According to a recent report by The Defender,27 there are significant discrepancies in the data Moderna submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration:
"Moderna's reported death rate for its COVID vaccine, based on clinical trials, is 5.41 times greater than Pfizer's. Yet neither are representative of national death rates — that's a red flag …
The Moderna vaccine arm death rate of 0.36 deaths/100K/day) is 5.14 times higher than Pfizer's (0.07 deaths/100K/day). This large discrepancy deserves notice and requires explanation.
If Moderna's on-vaccine death rate is so far below the national death rate and also simultaneously more than five times greater than Pfizer's on-vaccine death rate, then Pfizer's study sample appears even less representative of the entire population. This, too, requires due consideration …
When comparing [Moderna's] study-wide number of deaths per day per 100K for the study to that of the entire U.S. population from 2019, I was shocked: the national number of deaths per day per 100K is 2.44.
Moderna's screening process and exclusion criteria in the trial led to evidence that the general population is dying at a rate 6.3 times greater than the death rate in the Moderna trial — which means the Moderna study, including its estimated efficacy rate and the vaccine's alleged safety profile — cannot possibly be relevant to most of the U.S. population.
The super-healthy cohorts studied by Moderna are in no way representative of the U.S. population. Most deaths from COVID-19 involve pre-existing health conditions of the types excluded from both Pfizer and Moderna trials …
Those enrolling in the post-market surveillance studies deserve to know the abject absence of any relevant information on efficacy and risk for them. In their zeal to help humanity, or to help themselves, these people may very well be walking into a situation that will cause autoimmunity due to pathogenic priming, potentially leading to disease enhancement should they become infected following vaccination."
What might account for Moderna's gene therapy "vaccine" causing more than five times more deaths than Pfizer's? One possibility raised in The Defender's article is that they failed to "screen out unsafe epitopes to reduce autoimmunity due to homology between parts of the viral protein and the human proteome."
According to a 2020 paper28 in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, "Pathogenic priming likely contributes to serious and critical illness and mortality in COVID-19 via autoimmunity," noting that the same may apply post-vaccination.
As explained in this paper, all but one of SARS-CoV-2 immunogenic epitopes are similar to human proteins. Epitopes29 are sites on the virus that allow antibodies or cell receptors in your immune system to recognize it.
This is why epitopes are also referred to as "antigenic determinants," as they are the parts that are recognized by an antibody, B-cell receptor or T-cell receptor. Most antigens — substances that bind specifically to an antibody or a T-cell receptor — have several different epitopes, which allow it to be recognized by several different antibodies.
According to the author, some epitopes can cause "autoimmunological pathogenic priming due to prior infection or following exposure to SARS-CoV-2 … following vaccination."
In other words, if you've had the infection once, and get reinfected (either by SARS-CoV-2 or a sufficiently similar coronavirus), the second bout has a great potential to be more severe than the first. Similarly, if you get vaccinated and are then infected with SARS-CoV-2, your infection may be more severe than had you not been vaccinated.
For this reason, "these epitopes should be excluded from vaccines under development to minimize autoimmunity due to risk of pathogenic priming," the paper warns. The abstract lays out the basics of the pathogenic priming process.30 As noted in The Defender:31
"Thus, concern over vaccine-induced pathogenic priming is not zero, but it may be less than COVID-19 vaccines that use more than one SARS-CoV-2 protein. However, the hyper-focused IgG response to the fewer antigens could cause hyperimmunization, a condition considered ripe for off-target autoimmunity attacks."
The Defender points out that vaccine trials never use inert placebos. Instead, many use another vaccine. By doing so, they effectively hide side effects. In the case of Moderna, a total of 13 people died in the trial, seven in the vaccine group and eight in the placebo group. One severe adverse event in the placebo group, however, was relabeled as a death, and one death in the vaccine group was relabeled as a severe adverse event.
In the vaccine group, deaths were listed as cardio-respiratory arrest, heart attack, multisystem organ failure, head injury and suicide. None of the deaths was linked to the vaccine.
However, as noted in The Defender, heart attacks can involve autoimmunity and have been seen in post-vaccinations before. Multisystem organ failure is also "consistent with autoimmunity against ubiquitously expressed proteins as a result of vaccination."
"The suicide cannot be ruled out as not due the vaccine, either," The Defender writes, noting it could be related to "autoimmunity against oxytocin or serotonin receptors," which might result in "devastating depression."
Indeed, prezi.com includes a number of reports of people saying they've experienced anxiety and depression following their vaccination. Depression is also a possible outcome of neuroinflammation, as noted by Mikovits.
While both Pfizer and Moderna report low rates of side effects — Moderna's being just 0.5% — the rates of side effects in the real world appear to be extraordinarily high. Data are still hard to come by, but if we go by initial data reported in early 2021 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,32 we end up with a side effect rate in the real world of 2.79%.
By December 18, 2020, 112,807 Americans had received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Of those, 3,150 suffered one or more "health impact events," defined as being "unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional." If you divide the number of reported side effects with the number that received the vaccine, you get a side effect rate of 2.79%.
If you then extrapolate that to the total U.S. population of 328.2 million, we may be looking at 9,156,780 Americans suffering vaccine injuries if everyone gets vaccinated.
In an interesting turn of events, a TV station used its Facebook page to ask people who had lost an unvaccinated loved one to COVID-19 to contact them for a story, but what they got was an avalanche of stories of vaccine injuries and deaths instead.33,34 Below is a sampling of comments posted on the site. As of October 12, 2021, more than 254,000 people had responded, with tens of thousands of them talking about the vaccine's adverse reactions.
To avoid becoming a sad statistic, I urge you to review the science very carefully before making up your mind about this experimental gene therapy. Also remember that the lethality of COVID-19 is actually surprisingly low. It's lower than the flu for those under the age of 60.35
If you're under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. And you could improve that to 99.999% if you're metabolically flexible, insulin sensitive, and vitamin D replete.
So, really, what are we protecting against with a COVID-19 vaccine? These mRNA vaccines aren't even designed to prevent infection, only to reduce the severity of symptoms and hospitalization. Meanwhile, they could potentially make you sicker once you're exposed to the virus, and/or cause persistent serious side effects such as those reviewed above.
Evidence suggests that lysine, an essential amino acid your body uses in the production of protein,1 may help prevent or treat viral infections.2,3 Virologists have also suggested lysine could help prevent or treat COVID-19.4
In the past months it's become obvious that COVID-19 can no longer be called a major public health threat. The virus is now endemic, in much the way that the seasonal flu or common cold is. Yet, to continue to implement the Great Reset to “build back better,” fearmongers need this crisis to continue.
Just as influenza mutates and creates new variants, SARS-CoV-2 will continue to mutate in the environment. Thankfully, as viruses mutate within a population, they also tend to become more benign.5
One strategy to continue a high level of fear in a population is to censor any successful treatment modalities. Without successful treatments, society would be forced to focus on a vaccine. And yet, as I have written in the past months, there are several strategies you can use to reduce your risk of getting infected or to be treated if you are infected.
These strategies include optimal levels of vitamin D, quercetin and zinc, and use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.6 Without knowledge of successful treatments, you could be vulnerable to the Chicken Little warnings that the sky is continuing to fall.
The first warnings were about the number of deaths that we could experience from COVID-19. When this did not materialize, the next step was to publicize the rising number of “cases” that appeared to confirm dire predictions and sparked widespread panic.
However, those caseloads were supported by erroneous PCR testing methodology with threshold counts set so high that even healthy, uninfected people tested positive. This sparked lockdowns, masking and business shutdowns. But even with all the shutdowns and other contagion-containment measures, next came the Delta variant, which appears to be affecting both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.7,8
The sky still has not fallen, but experts are promising that unless we comply with vaccine mandates, social distancing and scheduled testing, the world will surely come to an end. Let’s consider how one amino acid may help stop the replication of the virus and add to the growing number of strategies you can use to prevent or treat COVID-19.9
A small study10 was undertaken by Bio-Virus Research Inc. and preprint published in September 2020. The company11 works on both vaccines and therapeutic approaches to illness. In this paper they report on results they had using L-lysine against COVID-19.12
The treatment was built on a report published in 201613 in which researchers used L-lysine against MERS-CoV in vitro. Since L-lysine works universally on all herpes variants, the researchers believed it would be reasonable to expect that it would have the same effect on this viral family.14
The effectiveness of Lysine was evaluated in approximately 140 patients, eight of whom were living in the U.S. The majority of the patients were in the Dominican Republic and ranged in age from 16 to 77. According to the researchers, approximately 80% of participants with acute symptoms showed a minimum of 70% reduction in the first 48 hours.
Patients who had been in the hospital were discharged on an average of three days after treatment started. The writers stressed that lysine is a treatment for the condition and not a cure. Instead, it is dependent on the individual's immune response. In their observation of the participants there was an “incredibly short time to eliminate/reduce fever presumably due to extinguishing the associated cytokine storm.”15
The treatment used a dose range between 1,000 milligram (mg) to 4,000 mg. However, the average dose was 2,000 mg. The scientists said they “rarely” gave 4,000 mg, and they do not recommend exceeding 3,000 mg, since this could trigger a bradykinin build up and increased coughing. The participants in this study took 1,000 mg twice a day on Day 1 and if needed increase that by 500 mg to 1,000 mg on Day 2 and forward.
The researchers administered the lysine in staggered increments, beginning one hour before breakfast and again at 3 p.m. on Day 1. The second dose could be moved up on Day 2, which allowed for a third dose at 9 p.m. if needed.
The researchers recommend that lysine should be taken a minimum of one hour before a meal with 2 cups of water. The reasoning for 2 cups of water was to aid in absorption, anticoagulation and to dampen the appetite of the participant and thus help reduce the intake of arginine.16
Lysine and arginine work in concert in the body. The ratio between lysine and arginine influences viruses and your immune system. The researcher’s intent was to lower the amount of arginine in the body by restricting foods high in arginine while raising levels of lysine using supplementation.
While the lysine and arginine amount in brewed coffee is nearly identical,17 the researchers completely restricted coffee and other caffeinated drinks as they triggered a return of symptoms.
The researchers reference one study18 that showed lysine suppresses RNA and DNA viruses, potentially by interfering with the incorporation of arginine into the virus. Lysine also inhibits the absorption of arginine. The researchers propose there is also a more complex pathway that lysine uses with respect to inhibiting SARS-CoV-2.19
A newer study20 published in 2021 evaluated the effects of lysine and arginine and their ester derivatives on influenza A and SARS-CoV-2. The researchers found that in the lab study, lysine and the ester derivative could efficiently block infection and arginine boosts viral infection of both viruses. These findings have suggested:21
“… lysine supplementation and the reduction of arginine-rich food intake can be considered as prophylactic and therapeutic regimens against these viruses while also providing a paradigm for the development of broad-spectrum antivirals.”
Amazingly, several of the inpatients in the study using lysine were PCR negative for SARS-CoV-2 by Day 3.22 The researchers also found that the five patients who were not eating due to a lack of appetite had a significant reduction in the time it took to reduce their symptoms. The assumption the researchers made was that the participants were not consuming arginine, which sped the response time.
This small group of people demonstrated a significant reduction in fever and nonfebrile symptoms from four to 18 hours. While symptoms appeared to rapidly decline, D-dimer levels were high in some participants. In the participants, only a small percentage continue to have fever after 24 hours. The researchers found it was the combination of lysine supplementation and arginine restriction that offered the best results.
The researchers wrote of past evidence demonstrating that lysine influences interleukin-10, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor and interleukin-1 beta that are all implicated in fever. Data demonstrate that lysine has an inhibitory effect on interleukin-6 and increases interleukin-10 anti-inflammatory cytokines.
The researchers also wrote of evidence demonstrating lysine decreases production of nitric oxide, which limits the pathogenesis of inflammation and reduces proinflammatory cytokines. This suggests that independent of its role in suppressing arginine, lysine may also suppress viral replication.
The researchers23 wrote that in 1974, a researcher from the Bio-Virus Research team proposed in an article published in the Lancet24 that lysine could be effective against the herpes virus. Four years later a clinical follow-up study confirmed the effectiveness25 and another study in 198126 demonstrated that lysine inhibited arginine in vitro.
In 2016, experts estimated that 13.2% of the world aged 15 to 49 years were living with herpes simplex virus type 2.27 Data from the 2005-2010 NHANES survey show people aged 14 to 49 had a prevalence of 53.9% of herpes simplex virus type-1 and 15.7% of herpes simplex virus type 2 during that time period.28
A literature search published in 201729 concluded that without a low-arginine diet, supplementation with lysine at 1 gram per day was not effective. Studies using 3 grams per day appeared to reduce the number of herpes outbreaks.
The effectiveness of lysine with herpes virus is related to the herpes virus dependency on arginine to replicate.30 Direct application of lysine to cold sores can also reduce the length of the outbreak.
Your body needs a balance between lysine and arginine to function optimally. Foods that are rich in lysine31 include lean meat, tuna, low-fat ricotta cheese and milk. Foods that are rich in arginine include soy-based flour, seed flours, seeds, nuts, egg and chocolate.32 Many people's diets are richer in arginine than they are in lysine.
Benefits of lysine are not limited to your immune system. For example, studies have demonstrated that lysine can reduce anxiety levels33,34 and reduces vascular calcification.35 Animal research shows that lysine is necessary for wound repair36 and helps the formation of collagen.37
One of the symptoms of lysine deficiency is high blood pressure. In one study38 of 50 adults with lysine-deficient diets and high blood pressure, supplementation produced a significant reduction in blood pressure. Of course, women who are pregnant or nursing should consult with their doctor before taking a lysine supplement.
One of the best ways to balance your lysine and arginine levels is through diet modification. However, during a viral illness lysine supplementation at levels lower than 3 grams per day may help shorten the length of your illness. If you choose to use a lysine supplement, the researchers from the featured lysine study had several cautionary notes:39
October 4, 2021, Southwest Airlines sent an announcement to its employees informing them that "because Southwest Airlines is a federal contractor," the airline is "required to comply with the government federal contractor mandate for employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19."1
The following weekend, October 9 and 10, 2021, the airline was forced to cancel some 1,800 flights. The reason for the mass cancelations remains unclear, however.
While some claim the cancellations were due to a coordinated "sickout" in protest of the vaccine mandate, Southwest Airlines blamed "disruptive weather" and "air traffic issues" for the cancellations. Curiously, bad weather did not have the same devastating effect on most other airlines. American Airlines, for example, which is much larger, cancelled just 63 flights that weekend.2
The pilots' union also denied involvement, saying that "our pilots are not participating in any official or unofficial job actions."3
The timing is interesting though. Friday October 8, 2021, Southwest's pilot union asked a Dallas, Texas, court to temporarily block the vaccine mandate until its preexisting lawsuit4 against the company, filed August 30, 2021, is resolved. According to the pilot union's legal filing:5
"The new vaccine mandate unlawfully imposes new conditions of employment and the new policy threatens termination of any pilot not fully vaccinated by December 8, 2021. Southwest Airlines' additional new and unilateral modification of the parties' collective bargaining agreement is in clear violation of the RLA [Railway Labor Act]."
While the mass cancellations of flights surely made life difficult for many people, coordinated walkouts appear to be the only way to make our voices heard. The COVID-19 shot is far from harmless, and any blood clotting issue would be a clear career killer for pilots and flight attendants. Pilots also aren't allowed to fly when they report being fatigued, and fatigue is a very common side effect of the jab as well.
Interestingly, a few weeks ago, there was a report of a Delta pilot who had recently received his second dose of the COVID jab, who died during the flight. The plane was landed safely by the co-pilot. You can learn more details in the video below.
In related news, an estimated 50 to 60 NBA players have refused to take the COVID jab.6 Among them is Kyrie Irving, who is predicted to be sidelined from dozens of games during the 2021-2022 basketball season. As reported by USA Today:7
"New York City's vaccine mandate requires professional athletes playing in public arenas to be vaccinated against COVID-19, and Irving's vaccination status remains unclear. Now, for the first time, Nets coach Steve Nash is acknowledging that the team expects Irving to miss home games at Barclays Center due to the mandate.
'I think we recognize he's not playing home games,' Nash told reporters Sunday. 'We're going to have to for sure play without him this year. So it just depends on when, where and how much.'"
In early August 2021, the NBA Union had held its annual summer meeting online. One of the agenda items was whether the league office should mandate that 100% of players had to get the COVID jab. Across the board, those in attendance said such a mandate would be a "non-starter." As reported by Rolling Stone magazine:8
" … unvaccinated players were pushing back. They made their case to the union summit: There should be testing this year, of course, just not during off-days. They'd mask up on the court and on the road, if they must. But no way would they agree to a mandatory jab. The vaccine deniers had set the agenda; the players agreed to take their demands for personal freedom to the NBA's negotiating table."
Rolling Stone also disparages Orlando Magic's Jonathan Isaac, who has refused the COVID jab on religious grounds:
"When NBA players stated lining up for shots in March, Isaac started studying Black history … He learned about antibody resistance and came to distrust Dr. Anthony Fauci. He looked out for people who might die from the vaccine, and he put faith in God.
'At the end of the day, it's people,' Isaac says of the scientists developing vaccines, 'and you can't always put your trust completely in people.' Isaac considers un-vaxxed players to be vilified and bullied, and he thinks 'it's an injustice' to automatically make heroes out of vaccinated celebrities.'"9
Another player who has spoken out against the COVID jab mandate is Golden State Warriors Draymond Green, who during a September 30, 2021, press conference said he will not pressure other players to get vaccinated.10
He said he believes the vaccination issue has become a political issue. In the process, we've lost the notion that people's personal medical decisions must be honored. He also noted that the pressure levied to force people into taking the jab is causing many to get suspicious. "Why are you pressing this so hard?" he said.
In another article,11 Rolling Stone reporter Matt Sullivan takes aim at yours truly, referring to me as "the anti-vax godfather." The article appears to be an emergency response to a tweet in which I said that "NBA players are being very courageous to speak up."12
It's becoming apparent that the technocratic machine has one primary front group working on their behalf, and that is the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). Despite being publicly outed — by Facebook, nonetheless! — as a biased organization that fabricates data, Sullivan shamelessly refers to a "CCDH analysis" conducted specifically for the Rolling Stones, which claims to have found:13
"… consistently increased engagement on social posts in support of vaccine-denying athletes from accounts linked to what they call The Disinformation Dozen.
The nonprofit estimated in March that this group … accounted for 73 percent of all anti-vax content on Facebook; the social network responded by shutting down their main accounts and penalizing their other ones, but Silicon Valley's Covid police haven't stopped the anti-vaxxers from re-emerging to ally themselves with celebrities.
'The Disinformation Dozen are sort of saying, 'They've got Biden, we've got Kyrie Irving,' and they're trying to see if they can use it to access Black audiences, young audiences and basketball fans,' says CCDH chief executive Imram [sic] Ahmed.
'This cancer is seeking to replicate itself in another organ of society. The hope is that it can be contained and doesn't metastasize from there. But the worst thing that can happen is for players to react to nonsense — if they're wrong, the price is paid in life' ...
Dr. Joseph Mercola, who tops The Disinformation Dozen, tweeted his applause to more than 325,000 followers this week for Golden State Warriors superstar Draymond Green's rant against vaccine mandates as 'very courageous' and for an appearance on Fox News by the Orlando Magic forward Jonathan Isaac — who told RS that he didn't know why vaccinated people wear masks indoors — as 'a refreshing voice of reason.'14"
What Sullivan didn't include was the fact that Facebook has publicly refuted the CCDH's "Disinformation Dozen" report, stating that:15
"… these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts they've shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people.
The report16 upon which the faulty narrative is based analyzed only a narrow set of 483 pieces of content over six weeks from only 30 groups, some of which are as small as 2,500 users.
They are in no way representative of the hundreds of millions of posts that people have shared about COVID-19 vaccines in the past months on Facebook.
Further, there is no explanation for how the organization behind the report identified the content they describe as 'anti-vax' or how they chose the 30 groups they included in their analysis. There is no justification for their claim that their data constitute a 'representative sample' of the content shared across our apps."
Despite that, Sullivan continues to promote that CCDH report as "fact" and Imran as some sort of authority on who has the greatest influence on social media.
Sullivan emailed me a few questions in preparation for that smear piece. Among those questions was whether I have "counseled any NBA players seeking information about the vaccine," and "If so, how so?" Apparently, he believes I advise professional athletes, which I don't.
He also wanted to know how I consider these sports influencers to be part of "my movement" or "my team," and whether I believe Irving's defiance of the New York City vaccine mandate would rally my supporters. Here's my reply:
"Many of these athletes have had COVID themselves and the public health officials are reluctant to admit they are right. Natural immunity is better than any vaccine, which proves these mandates are not about immunity — they are about forced vaccination and control.
You've said the NBA is 'relying on science' in a previous article yet they are ignorant and lying about natural immunity — just as the federal government is doing. The mandates are not about immunity, they are about control and obedience. www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/15/natural-immunity-vaccine-mandate/
Individuals can think for themselves and should be allowed to do so, independent of pharmaceutical influence, employer mandates or political authoritarians. I believe that each person must fully educate themselves before engaging in any medical risk taking.
People are smarter than they are being given credit for, and everybody has their own unique circumstances to base their decisions on including biological vulnerabilities that can make vaccine risks greater for some people than others. twitter.com/ericspracklen/status/1445901692143390720?s=21
I applaud anyone who stands up against medical mandates which can negatively affect their lives. It takes courage to take on the attacks of the media and pharmaceutical interests and accept the consequences being forced upon them without their consent.
Many stadiums are packed with 80,000 people now, without any vaccine mandates and have embraced life beyond the ridiculous propaganda currently controlling in the media."
As noted by Spencer Fernando,17 the idea that the COVID jab would be mandated and forced on people was rejected as loony conspiracy theory at the beginning of the pandemic. Ditto for vaccine passports. Yet here we are.
The pace toward tyranny is slower in the United States compared to some other countries, thanks to our Constitution, but President Biden's attempt to dictate unconstitutional COVID injection mandates to private employers across the nation is evidence that the Constitution is routinely being overstepped even here. Some countries, like Canada and Australia, aren't even pretending to hide the fact that it's about social control anymore. As noted by Fernando:18
"Have you noticed how events in Canada have really moved in only one direction? Compliance at all costs. The trend has been clear: More and more control, more and more threats of punishment, and more and more demands for compliance."
As of November 30, 2021, unvaccinated Canadians will be barred from planes and trains" to ensure a minority of people cannot sabotage Canada's economic recovery" by spreading the virus and getting people sick. But there's a giant hole in this rationale.
A person with natural immunity is safer than anyone who has gotten the jab, because its more robust and provides wider protection against variants. The COVID shot does not prevent infection or spread of the virus.
If the goal were to prevent spread of the virus, then the only things that would make sense would be to prove you're not infected or that you are immune. Proof of vaccination will have zero impact on the spread of the virus. You'll just end up with a vaccinated population that spreads new mutations among themselves.
In a September 15, 2021, Washington Post article, Dr. Marty Makary, professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, stated:19
"It's okay to have an incorrect scientific hypothesis. But when new data proves it wrong, you have to adapt. Unfortunately, many elected leaders and public health officials have held on far too long to the hypothesis that natural immunity offers unreliable protection against covid-19 — a contention that is being rapidly debunked by science.
More than 15 studies have demonstrated the power of immunity acquired by previously having the virus. A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infections were 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated.
This affirmed a June Cleveland Clinic study of health-care workers (who are often exposed to the virus), in which none who had previously tested positive for the coronavirus got reinfected.
The study authors concluded that 'individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.' And in May, a Washington University study found that even a mild covid infection resulted in long-lasting immunity.
So, the emerging science suggests that natural immunity is as good as or better than vaccine-induced immunity. That's why it's so frustrating that the Biden administration has repeatedly argued that immunity conferred by vaccines is preferable to immunity caused by natural infection, as NIH director Francis Collins told Fox News host told Bret Baier a few weeks ago.
That rigid adherence to an outdated theory is also reflected in President Biden's recent announcement that large companies must require their employees to get vaccinated or submit to regular testing, regardless of whether they previously had the virus."
Clearly, we're not dealing with either logic, science or health. The effort to vaccinate the whole world, whether they need it or not, is about control and greed.
"Some have said that people have 'gone crazy' during this crisis," Fernando writes.20 "However, I think the reality is that people have been revealed.
A large number of people (and nearly all politicians) have demonstrated that in a crisis they panic, lose any sense of proportion, are unable to think creatively, and double-down on the same failed approach over and over again.
Worse than that, they have shown that they would prefer to demonize and direct fear towards others, rather than seek to take responsibility for their own lives and their own health. Rather than seek control over themselves, they seek control over others."
Many are now so locked into irrational fear, it's virtually impossible to get them to look at data or facts. Meanwhile, the political class has grown obsessed with controlling everyone, and don't want to see or hear anything that might undermine that aim.
As a result, those willing to defend freedom and individual rights appear to be a shrinking group. But no matter how small that group gets, we can never quit. As noted by Fernando:21
"… it's remnants that hold on to values in difficult moments, and provide the foundation from which those values are renewed and rebuilt. That's why we must continue to stand up against measures like the national vaccine passport, and stand up for our fellow citizens who are being demonized by our pathetic and failed leaders."
The question is how? How do we stand against the ever more draconian rules being thrown at us? For starters, we all need to stop making money for the authoritarians. That means not donating to political campaigns that support authoritarian leaders or buying products or using services provided by companies that in turn support the elimination of our rights.
Secondly, we need to get organized. If you work at a company that is threatening to implement mandatory vaccination, you could coordinate a "sickout," where everyone calls out sick on the same days, or some other form of strike. You can also consider taking legal action.
In early September 2021, USCourts.gov posted a list of attorneys willing to take on vaccine injury cases and/or cases involving vaccine mandates. Since then, that webpage has been removed, but the list can still be found on Daily USA24.22 Legal counsel may also advise you on how to protect your communications.
This article was previously published January 11, 2021, and has been updated with new information.
A compelling report1 in the journal Gastroenterology offers a radically novel yet logically sound explanation as to why some COVID-19 patients develop life-threatening organ failure. According to the authors, data indicate that COVID-19 mortality rates are heavily influenced by the amount of unsaturated fats you eat.
Simply put, unsaturated fat intake is associated with increased mortality from the infection. On the bright side, they believe early treatment with inexpensive calcium and egg albumin will reduce rates of organ failure and ICU admissions.
While no clinical studies have been done yet on this type of therapy, the authors believe it's time to do one, as it appears early albumin and calcium supplementation can bind unsaturated fats and reduce injury to vital organs. They also point out that saturated fats are protective.
I'm currently writing a book on what I believe might be the primary disease-maker in the Western diet, namely omega-6 linoleic acid (LA). And, since diet-related comorbidities are responsible for 94% of all COVID-19-related deaths,2 taking control of your diet is a simple, common-sense strategy to lower the risks associated with this infection.
LA makes up the bulk — about 90% — of the omega-6 consumed and is the primary contributor to nearly all chronic diseases. While an essential fat, when consumed in excessive amounts, LA acts as a metabolic poison.
The reason for this is because polyunsaturated fats such as LA are highly susceptible to oxidation. As the fat oxidizes, it breaks down into harmful sub-components such as advanced lipid oxidation end products (ALES) and OXLAMS (oxidized LA metabolites). These ALES and OXLAMS are actually what cause the damage.
One type of advanced lipid oxidation end product (ALE) is 4HNE, a mutagen known to cause DNA damage. Studies have shown there's a definite correlation between elevated levels of 4HNE and heart failure.
LA breaks down into 4HNE even faster when the oil is heated, which is why cardiologists recommend avoiding fried foods. LA intake and the subsequent ALES and OXLAMS produced also play a significant role in cancer. HNE and other ALES are extraordinarily harmful even in exceedingly small quantities.
While excess sugar is certainly bad for your health and should typically be limited to 25 grams per day or less, it doesn't cause a fraction of the oxidative damage that LA does.
Processed vegetable oils are a primary source of LA, but even food sources hailed for their health benefits contain it, and can be a problem if consumed in excess. Cases in point: olive oil and conventionally raised chicken, which are fed LA-rich grains.
Many now understand that your omega-6 to omega-3 ratio is very important, and should be about 1-to-1 or possibly up to 4-to-1, but simply increasing your omega-3 intake won't counteract the damage done by excessive LA. You really need to minimize the omega-6 to prevent damage from taking place.
In order to understand how excess LA consumption damages your metabolism and impedes your body's ability to generate energy in your mitochondria we need to explore some molecular biology. There's a particular fat only located in your mitochondria — most of it is found in the inner mitochondrial membrane — called cardiolipin.
Cardiolipin is made up of four fatty acids, unlike triglycerides that have three, but the individual fats can vary. Examples include LA, palmitic acid and the fatty acids found in fish oil, DHA and EPA. Each of these have a different effect on mitochondrial function, and depending on the organ, the mitochondria work better with particular kinds of fatty acids.
For example, your heart preferentially builds cardiolipin with LA, while your brain dislikes LA and preferentially builds cardiolipin in the mitochondria with fats like DHA. As mentioned, LA is highly susceptible to oxidation.
The LA within the mitochondria cardiolipin is exposed to cytochromes in the electron transport chain that contain iron, which in turn can catalyze oxidation of the cardiolipin. This is bad news because oxidation of cardiolipin is one of the things that controls autophagy.
In other words, oxidation of cardiolipin is one of the signals your body uses when there's something wrong with a cell, so it triggers the destruction of that cell, a process called apoptosis. Your cells know that they're broken when they have too many damaged mitochondria, and the process that controls this is largely the oxidation of omega-6 fats contained within cardiolipin.
So, by altering the composition of cell membranes and stored fatty acids in cells to one that's richer in omega-6 fats, you make your cardiolipin far more susceptible to oxidative damage. The good news is that by making a few well-chosen tweaks to your diet, you change the composition of fatty acids in both your cell membranes and your cardiolipin to a favorable composition.
Getting back to the issue of how your fat intake can affect your COVID-19 outcome, the Gastroenterology paper3 points out that unsaturated fats "cause injury [and] organ failure resembling COVID-19." More specifically, unsaturated fats are known to trigger lipotoxic acute pancreatitis, and the sepsis and multisystem organ failure seen in severe cases of COVID-19 greatly resembles this condition.
The solution they propose, namely early supplementation with egg albumin and calcium, is thought to be helpful because they are known to bind unsaturated fats, thereby reducing injury to organs. The two conditions also share other risk factors. As explained in the paper:4
"Unsaturated fatty acids (UFAs) generated by adipose lipolysis cause multisystem organ failure, including acute lung injury. Severe acute pancreatitis and severe COVID-19 share obesity as a risk factor, along with lipase elevation, hypoalbuminemia, and hypocalcemia."
The authors further explain that the ACE2 receptor that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into your cells resides on fat cells, and oleic acid — a monounsaturated omega-9 fat found in olive oil — has been shown to cause multisystem organ failure, including acute lung injury.
PUFAs in general also depolarize mitochondria and increase inflammatory mediators. All of this is what caused the researchers to explore the potential connection between lipotoxicity (toxicity caused by harmful fats such as LA) and severe COVID-19 resulting in organ failure.
The paper contains an interesting diagram that summarizes the investigative approach they took to reach the conclusion that unsaturated fat intake correlates to COVID-19 outcomes, which I unfortunately cannot include here. In summary, though, it shows that higher intakes of polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs), primarily LA, resulted in a greater risk of severe COVID-19, while higher intake of saturated fat lowered the risk.
The researchers discovered that hypocalcemia (lower-than-average levels of calcium in your blood or plasma) and hypoalbuminemia (low albumin in your blood) are observable early on in patients with severe COVID-19.
When looking at data from COVID-19 patients, the also found that low arterial partial pressure of oxygen and percentage of oxygen ratios were associated with higher levels of unbound fatty acid levels in their blood. They also speculate that UFAs may cause vascular leakage, inflammatory injury and arrhythmia during severe COVID-19.
In tests on mice, animals given LA developed a range of conditions resembling lethal COVID-19, including hypoalbuminemia, leucopenia (low white blood cell count), lymphopenia (low lymphocyte count), lymphocytic injury, thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), hypercytokinemia (cytokine storm), shock and kidney failure.
Considering the damage LA imparts, it's not surprising that it could play a significant role in the outcome of COVID-19. As mentioned, virtually all of the comorbidities associated with COVID-19 are diet related, share many of the same risk factors, and can be triggered or worsened by high LA intake.
Fortunately, you won't have to spend hundreds of dollars to have your food analyzed for LA. All you need to do is accurately enter your food intake into Cronometer — a free online nutrition tracker — and it will provide you with your total LA intake. The key to accurate entry is to carefully weigh your food with a digital kitchen scale so you can enter the weight of your food to the nearest gram.
Cronometer.com is free to use when you use the desktop version. If you feel the need to use your cellphone (which is not recommended) to enter your data, then you will need to purchase a subscription. Personally, I have used the desktop version exclusively for the last five years as it has greater functionality and allows me to avoid electromagnetic fields from my phone.
Ideally, it is best to enter your food for the day before you actually eat it. The reason for this is quite simple: It's impossible to delete the food once you have already eaten it, but you can easily delete it from your menu if you find something pushes you over the ideal limit.
Once you've entered the food for the day, go to the "Lipid" section on the lower left side of the app. The image below is taken from one of my recent data entries and shows you what the section looks like. To find out how much LA is in your diet for that day, you merely need to see how many grams of omega-6 is present. About 90% of the omega-6 you eat is LA.
To find out the percentage of calories the omega-6/LA represents in your diet, go to the "Calories Summary" section shown in the image below. In my case, I consumed 3,887 calories. Since there are nine calories per gram of fat, you will need to multiply the number of omega-6 grams times nine to obtain the total amount of omega-6 calories. In my case, that is 69.3 calories.
Next, divide the LA calories by your total calories. In this example, that would be 69.3/3887 = .0178. If you multiply that number by 100, or move the decimal point two spaces to the left, you will have the percentage as a whole number. In my example, it is 1.8% of LA. This falls within the ideal LA percentage range, which is between 1% and 2% of your total calorie intake.
Cronometer is in the process of automatically displaying the "Percent of Omega-6" in your diet, but that will not be deployed until early 2021, so use the formula above to calculate it for yourself until then.
Most people aren't aware of an incredibly helpful feature in Cronometer that allows you to easily identify where all your LA is coming from. If you mouse over the percent field next to the omega-6 value, you will see a popup displayed that will rank order the foods based on the quantity of LA they contain.
In my case, below, you can see that the four eggs I ate are my largest source of LA. Eggs are a very healthy food but, unfortunately, nearly all chickens, including pasture raised, are fed grains that are loaded with LA. Even if the grains are organic, they still contain LA.
I raise my own chickens and am in the middle of an experiment to change this by feeding my chickens a very low-LA, no-grain diet. I will have the eggs analyzed in a research lab and hope to get the LA levels 90% lower, which should hopefully get my LA intake below 5 grams.
It is interesting to note from my analysis that my primary protein, bison, only contributes 0.5 grams of LA even though I had 8 ounces that day. For the most part, fruit is also LA-free, which makes it a better source of healthy carbs than grains.
I also use rice on my high-carb diet days, in this case about 100 grams of carbs for the day, and the rice has no LA in it. Both rice and millet are two of the best grains to use as they have no gluten. The rice has the additional advantage, though, of being LA-free. It is best to use white rice, as the fiber in brown rice provides little nutritional benefit and may actually cause some problems.
I must admit that I have a prejudice in this area as my first book in 2004 (which was a New York Times best seller) was "The No Grain Diet." The concern about avoiding grains was largely based on consuming excessive carbohydrates that could lead to insulin resistance. At the time, I wasn't aware that increased LA consumption was likely a far more significant issue than excessive carbs, or that most grains are typically loaded with LA.
However, when you have increased carbs in the form of sugar and processed wheat, and then add seed oils, you have the Devil's Triad, which collectively contribute to most metabolic diseases.
So even though I wrote the book 17 years ago, I still believe most grains should be avoided, or at the least minimized, because they are typically high in carbs and LA. Many are also loaded with other problems like gluten, oxalates and phytates.
In my book, "Fat for Fuel," I advocated the cyclical use of balanced and healthy carbs in the form of fruits and healthier grains. For most of us, fruit is a far healthier option than grains as there is virtually no LA in fruit, with exceptions like avocado, which is technically a fruit.
About 90% of the population is insulin resistant. Ideally, you will first want to become metabolically flexible and improve your ability to burn fat as your primary fuel. I discuss this strategy extensively in "Fat for Fuel." It typically takes a few weeks to a few months for someone to transition to a metabolically flexible state.
When you are metabolically flexible, you will typically have normal blood pressure, not be overweight, and have a fasting blood glucose below 90, which you can easily measure at home.
While limiting carbs to less than 50 grams per day when you are metabolically inflexible is a powerful strategy, once you regain your ability to burn fat for fuel, most will find that they need to include a healthy source of carbs back into their diet. A simple strategy would be to shoot for around 50 grams on your low-carb days and double or triple that on your high-carb days.
You can start by simply alternating low and high carb days and monitor your fasting blood glucose. If it starts to rise over time, you will know that it is probably better to decrease the frequency of your high-carb days. Again, the best carbs to use would be fruit or white rice, as they are virtually LA-free. After you have been on a low-LA diet for a year or two, you can integrate other carbs that are higher in LA.
Ideally, it would be best to limit the amount of oil you use for cooking. Typically, it is better to cook using no oils and substitute grass-fed butter, instead. This is because seed oils are the single greatest source of omega-6 LA and the higher you heat food, the more toxic byproducts you create.
You might wonder how you can limit your cooking oils. Let me give you an example. If you were cooking ground beef or bison, you could cook in a frying pan or in a covered pot over low heat using the water in the meat to convert to steam and cook the food at a low 212 degrees Fahrenheit.
If you choose to use oil for cooking, then you can use the table5 below to help you select the best oils. It is color coded to guide you. The preferred oils are shaded green. Notice that concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) beef tallow or butter has three times as much LA as the grass-fed version.6 They still are very low and within an acceptable range, but it is clearly better to choose the higher quality grass fed version when you can.
Lard and palm oil are less preferred options because of their higher LA content. There is a load of confusion around olive oil, though, that needs to be cleared up. And, while avocado oil isn't widely appreciated, it too has the same concerns as olive oil.
Both olive oil and avocado oil LA content varies widely. Typically, it will average around 10%, although some oils could be twice as high. The reason one needs to be ultra-careful using these oils is because the vast majority (over 80%) are adulterated with cheaper and high LA oils like safflower.
So, if you plan on using either of these oils, you need to have independent objective confirmation that the oil has not been tampered with. These brands are typically more expensive as authentic olive and avocado oils have much higher production costs.
Oils that should be completely avoided at all times are the primary culprits of destroying health in the 20th century: the toxic seed oils that are shaded in red. That said, the dose makes the poison. So, you can theoretically use any of the oils in the table below so long as your total intake of LA for that day is less than 2% of your total calories. The higher up on the table the oil is, the more likely you will exceed your safe limit for the day.
Seeds and nuts can be used in moderation. The table below indicates approximately how much LA is common seeds7 and nuts.8,9,10 You can see that most are nearly half LA. For that reason, it is very easy to reach really high levels of LA if you eat lots of seeds and nuts, with the exception of macadamia nuts.
Also keep in mind that even if the nut has a relatively low quantity of LA, like almonds, it could be loaded with other potential problems like oxalates. Oxalates are razor sharp crystals contained in many nuts and seeds. They are water soluble and only found in the unprocessed seed or nut. If you are consuming an oil version of the seed or nut, it will contain virtually no oxalates.
So, the key here is that seeds and nuts are clearly allowed, but large quantities should be avoided. Be sure to enter them into Cronometer so you can see precisely how much LA they contain and how they are influencing your total daily intake.
Please note that the percent of LA indicated for the foods above is the typical average. It is important to understand that the percent of LA in any specific food can be highly variable based on many factors, but the values listed are what are typically found in the literature.
In general, animal foods are typically much lower in LA than vegetable sources. This is especially true for seeds and most all nuts, except macadamia, as you can see in the table above. Additionally, many vegetable sources have oxalates, phytates and gluten, which have been previously well-documented to have adverse health effects.
There are two important exceptions, though. Ideally, you will want to limit your intake of chicken and pork as these animals are universally fed grains that are loaded with LA. It is common for them to have LA levels from 10% to 20%. They will contain lower amounts of LA if they are not raised in a factory farm (CAFO), but most likely will exceed levels in lamb, beef, bison and other game animals like elk, by 10-fold.
For most of us, the ideal source of protein would be from bison, followed by beef and lamb. An 8-ounce serving of these foods typically has less than 1 gram of LA. In addition to eating muscle meat, it would be wise to regularly include sources of organ meats, as they are loaded with important micronutrients not found in muscle meat.
Eggs are another source of LA concern as the yolks are about 16% LA. This is because nearly all chickens, including those that are pasture raised, are given grain as their primary feed. As long as you aren't allergic to eggs, they are an incredibly healthy nutrient-dense food and one of the finest sources of bioavailable choline available.
I believe it would be wise to limit eggs to four or less per day, as that would provide about 2.5 grams of LA. As mentioned earlier, I am currently in the middle of an experiment.
I'm feeding my 20 chickens a low-LA carnivore-type diet consisting of 1 gallon of 4-day-old sprouted mung beans with 4 ounces of melted butter mixed in, along with a regular supply of beef liver and mealworms. I will be analyzing the eggs for LA in the next few months as it takes some time for LA to be liberated after it's consumed.
This article was previously published March 14, 2021, and has been updated with new information.
Many doctors around the world started using the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) early on in the COVID-19 pandemic. Among them is Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a practicing physician in a Jewish community in Monroe, New York.
He garnered national attention in March 2020 when he told radio host Sean Hannity that he'd had a near-100% success rate treating COVID-19 patients with HCQ, azithromycin and zinc sulfate for five days.1 "I've seen remarkable results; it really prevents progression of disease, and patients get better," he said at the time.
In response, county health officials said Zelenko's claims were "unsubstantiated" and urged residents to listen to public health officials.2 In this interview, he explains how HCQ works against COVID-19, and discusses the lies spun about the drug to suppress its widespread use. Zelenko had a very active Twitter account and would get millions of views on his tweets, and like many other truth tellers in this crazy pandemic, he was censored and recently removed from Twitter.
"When we have a large population of people that need to be treated, it has to be oral, cheap, safe and effective," he says. "By the way, this is not new. This information was known in 2005 — even before.
There are papers with [Dr. Anthony] Fauci's name on it, calling [HCQ] a miracle drug. Fauci called HCQ a vaccine. There's a paper in which he called it an absolute dream treatment and vaccine. So, it's conveniently forgotten but that's what it is. It's a matter of scientific record."
What is most impressive to me is that he, through deep research and trial and error in the trenches, determined an incredibly effective protocol, and he did this under enormous personal health challenges. During the spring of last year, he was diagnosed with a type of pulmonary sarcoma that is typically considered terminal, and although improved, he continues to be under treatment for this condition.
As SARS-CoV-2 swept through his tight-knit Jewish community, Zelenko was seeing anywhere from 50 to 250 patients per day. At this point, he's treated more than 3,000 patients with COVID-19-related symptoms. Only one-third of them actually received the triple-drug regimen. The remaining two-thirds were in low-risk categories and did not need drug treatment.
In all, Zelenko has only had 15 patients who ended up requiring hospitalization, four of whom were intubated. All were eventually successfully extubated and have recovered. The remaining 11 were admitted for intravenous antibiotics for pneumonia. In all, only three of his high-risk patients died from COVID-19, which puts the mortality rate for this treatment at just 0.3%.
"You cannot ignore that. That's not even counting the risk stratification patients, which I chose not to treat. In other words, I was able to tell these patients, 'I know you're going to be fine. Go home, and you'll be fine.' And that has value.
If you include those, the mortality rate is even less. And this has been reproduced. You don't have to listen to me. You can call it anecdotal all you want, but there are now Harvard professors of virology with 4,000 patient experiences.
Dr. George Fareed, for example, or Dr. Harvey Risch from Yale School of Epidemiology, who has shown that it's absolutely statistically proven that HCQ used in the prehospital setting is absolutely effective. It's impossible for it to be a mistake," he says.
Zelenko tells the story of how he got started treating COVID-19 patients with HCQ:
"Hospitals were near capacity and all the outpatient services were closed. Half my staff was sick and all of a sudden I had a war zone. I basically started learning triage medicine, trying to save as many people as possible.
At that time, the whole world had been focusing on building respirators and hospital capacity [instead of putting] emphasis on prehospital care. I found that bizarre because that's never what we do in medicine. We [use] common sense and intervene in the earliest stages.
It's much easier to fix a small problem than a large problem. For example, someone has cancer, we don't wait for it to become metastatic disease. We treat as soon as possible. Someone has a small infection. We put the infection out.
If you look at the CDC, they recommend starting the treatment of influenza with antiviral drugs within the first 48 hours, not the week, except when it came to COVID-19. We were told to send patients home, and when they get sicker, send them to the hospital, where there was a good chance they were going to get intubated, especially in March and April.
At that point, in the city, they had mortality rates above 80%. So, it was a death sentence. None of that made sense to me at all. So, I quickly started to brush up on my virology.
I wanted to understand how this virus works and more importantly, what I can do about it. A series on YouTube called MedCram, Episode 34, saved the world. It explains the biology behind how zinc inhibits RNA polymerase, and the fact that zinc can't get into the cell. So, it needs help."
Zelenko goes on to describe how he settled on HCQ, a so-called zinc ionophore, meaning it shuttles zinc into the cell. He decided to treat high-risk patients as early as possible, and this turned out to be key. Early treatment really saves lives when it comes to COVID-19. This is not a situation where the wait-and-see strategy is well-advised.
According to Zelenko, during the first five days of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the viral load remains fairly steady. Around Day 5, it exponentially increases, potentially overwhelming the immune system. This also meant he could not afford to wait for test results, which took about five days. By then, most patients would already have progressed too far.
So, if a patient exhibited symptoms, especially if they reported loss of taste or smell as well, he'd start treatment immediately. In hindsight, about 90% of the tests of people experiencing symptoms had a positive test.
Zelenko likens HCQ and zinc to a gun and a bullet. HCQ is the gun that shoots the zinc into the cell. Zinc is the silver bullet that kills the virus by inhibiting an enzyme associated with viral replication inside the cell. The antibiotic azithromycin is given to prevent bacterial pneumonia and other secondary bacterial infections that are common in COVID-19.
Today, we have even more information, of course, which means there are more tools available besides HCQ, zinc and antibiotics. Ivermectin, for example, appears very useful, especially for prevention, as do steroids and blood thinners. So, Zelenko will now tweak the treatment of individual patients based on their symptoms.
"It's not a cookie cutter approach, but what is absolutely the same is that high-risk patients must be treated as soon as possible, within the first five days from onset of symptoms, and they all survive," he says.
Unfortunately, as discussed by Zelenko, there was essentially a "psychological operation" put into place to scare people away from HCQ. A big part of that was turning it into a political issue. From the start, doctors who used the drug were threatened with the loss of their medical license, which is unheard of for a drug with such a long history of safe use.
The U.S. government made matters worse by only issuing emergency use authorization for in-hospital use and not for outpatient settings. Meanwhile, HCQ has been used for about 60 years in people with chronic conditions such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.
"So, the hypocrisy, the loss of common sense, the outright indoctrination killed a lot of people," Zelenko says. "The root cause of it is the way we educate people. It used to be that higher education was about teaching critical thought and deductive reasoning, analytical analysis.
Now we indoctrinate people into responding to stimuli like dogs, like automatons, like robots. Common sense no longer matters. That's my critique of higher education and why I think many physicians fell into the trap. Also, this country was traumatized. Even if a doctor was willing to give it, patients were afraid to take it."
The biggest reason for the fear was unfortunately due to falsified studies and trials using toxic doses. It's difficult to not suspect an ulterior motive in light of those facts. As noted by Zelenko, a main component of pandemic response, namely prehospital or outpatient treatment, was suppressed.
The question is why? One obvious reason was that it was a presidential election year, and then-president Trump came out in support of HCQ in March 2020. His announcement sparked immediate backlash from a chronically hostile media. "There were plenty of people willing to use every possible way to vilify the president and to discredit anything that might give him a win," Zelenko says.
Then, of course, there were financial interests at play. Millions of dollars were being invested into new drugs like remdesivir, for example — a drug that costs more than $3,000 per treatment and is only for in-hospital use.
Hospitals were also paid tens of thousands of dollars more for COVID-19 patients, so there was no lack of incentive to get people into the hospital and keep them there either. Meanwhile, Zelenko's early outpatient treatment costs about $20.
As for the fraudulent and misleading studies, the first to raise alarm was a VA study in Virginia, which found HCQ didn't prevent death. However, they only used it on late-stage patients who were already on ventilators. From there, they incorrectly extrapolated that it would not be helpful in earlier stages, which simply isn't true. Other trials simply used the wrong dosage.
While doctors reporting success with the drug are using standard doses around 200 mg to 400 mg per day for either a few days or maybe a couple of weeks, studies such as the Bill & Melinda Gates-funded3 Recovery Trial used 2,400 mg of hydroxychloroquine during the first 24 hours — three to six times higher than the daily dosage recommended4 — followed by 400 mg every 12 hours for nine more days for a cumulative dose of 9,200 mg over 10 days.
Similarly, the Solidarity Trial,5 led by the World Health Organization, used 2,000 mg on the first day, and a cumulative dose of 8,800 mg over 10 days. These doses are simply too high. More is not necessarily better. Too much, and guess what? You might kill the patient. As noted by Zelenko, these doses are "enough to kill an elephant."
It's really unclear as to why these studies used such enormous doses, seeing how the dosages this drug is normally prescribed in, for a range of conditions, never go that high. "All those studies did was prove that if you poison someone with lethal doses of a drug, they're going to die," Zelenko says.
Then there was the famous Lancet study that the World Health Organization used to justify essentially banning HCQ. This study was withdrawn when it was discovered that the data had been completely and utterly fabricated with falsely generated data from a fly-by-night company. It was supposed to be a meta-analysis of about 90,000 patients, which showed HCQ had lethal effects.
Unfortunately, before it was withdrawn, this fake study resulted in the WHO (or to quote Zelenko, the "world homicide organization") putting a moratorium on the use of HCQ, which didn't improve public trust in the drug. Even more egregious, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration used that fake paper as one of its justifications for removing the emergency use authorization for HCQ, even though the study had already been retracted.
According to Zelenko, "HCQ is the safest medication in the history of medicine, azithromycin is one of the most common antibiotics used in medicine, and zinc is a mineral that's well-known and well-tolerated. These drugs were affordable and available to take at home, which was very important. And they worked."
June 30, 2020, Zelenko and two co-authors published a study6 showing that treating COVID-19 patients who had confirmed positive test results "as early as possible after symptom onset" with zinc, low dose HCQ and azithromycin reduced odds of hospitalization by 84% and all-cause death by 500% compared to no treatment at all.
Crazy enough, even though Zelenko went to great lengths to share his clinical findings with the White House and the National Institutes of Health, he received no support and was told they had no use for it.
"What's happened over the last 20 years is that the academic elite and pharmaceutical industry have bred a monopoly on medical truth," he says.
"They feel only data generated through randomized control trials, pharmaceutical sponsored trials, or those that are coming out of major academic institutions are to be viewed as truth. Anything coming from a frontline country doctor must be anecdotal.
That's the crime here. And they created artificial barriers that prevented the flow of common sense and lifesaving information. You know which countries did take it seriously? See, this is a disease of affluence because the rich countries could afford the waste of money. The poor countries like Honduras … they had no options.
They couldn't afford respirators. They didn't have enough hospital capacity. So, they gravitated towards the cheap generic approaches. And those are the ones that have the best outcomes."
Zelenko highlights Uganda, which has a population of about 50 million people, yet has recorded just 325 deaths.7 "I think this was a genocide against the elderly and a crime against humanity," he says. "There are plenty of people who have blood on their hands, including the media."
He also stresses that the pandemic response, including the suppression of HCQ, has clearly been a global coordinated effort.
"You have to ask yourself, who benefits from a destabilized world? Who benefits from chaos on the streets, from anarchy, from financial despair, from psychological trauma? ... In some parts of this country, suicide rates are up 600%.
I speak to my colleagues in emergency rooms — the amount of child abuse and spousal abuse they've seen is absolutely ridiculous. The amount of collateral damage from preventable illnesses, like heart disease and cancer that are skyrocketing because people are not getting access to routine care.
A lot of people weren't getting elective surgeries on time. So, there's been a lot of collateral damage. The shutdown is killing more people than the virus. The virus is not dangerous if you approach it correctly. If you treat it in the right timeframe, it's no different than a bad flu. You can deal with it. You don't have to shut down the world."
Indeed, the world is becoming increasingly black and white and it's becoming easier and easier to see that global and national systems are not benefiting but, rather, enslaving the population, and how they're doing it. As noted by Zelenko:
"I see the world now with such clarity ... It's no longer confusing. It's a binary choice. It's very clear who's on what side. And here are the teams: There are those who want to live a life of God, conscious … Our lives have sanctity. They're priceless and they should be preserved at all costs. And no one has the right to enslave another human being. That's one approach.
The other is [internment] … an attempt to enslave, psychologically, and even more so physically, the world population. Do you want to know what's coming? Look at Justin Trudeau statements. Justin Trudeau, the prime minister of Canada, just announced that anyone who tests positive will be quarantined in a government-run facility, until the government deems you safe to return back to society.
That's [also] what Cuomo wants to do in New York. And I'll tell you what I think. For what I'm about to say, I'm going to be labeled as a conspiracy theorist. But you know what? I don't care because, eventually, the truth will come out and history will prove it right.
If you look at the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, they have a plan. They have a 30-year plan, they have 100-year plan. That's all spelled out in their charter. Just look at it.
So there's a plan called the 2030 plan. You can go to the World Economic Forum and look at their own words. It's being run by Klaus Schwab and his group. He wrote a book called 'The Great Reset.' That's where the term comes from.
Now, all the governments are quoting him, like Justin Trudeau, Prince Charles, the Australian prime minister. There's a myriad of other politicians calling for the great reset. So, what is the great reset? What are they asking for?
No. 1, I mean it's absolutely ridiculous, but they're saying, 'You will own nothing and you will be happy.' That is their mission. No. 2, America will no longer be a superpower. No. 3, there will be a small group of nations that determine the direction of where the world goes. No. 4, you won't eat meat except as an occasional treat.
No. 5, there'll be a global tax on fossil fuels to eradicate the reliance on oil. No. 6, a billion refugees will be displaced [and] we're going to have to incorporate them and absorb them into our society. These are their stated goals.
Now, how do you take the world's biggest country, most powerful country, richest country and make it no longer a world superpower? Well, that's exactly what they're doing. The economy is in shambles.
You've put in a government now that is passing foreign relief aid to China, Russia, Syria, Iran, the Palestinian Authority. They're sending billions of dollars now to financially support these countries. So, you have to ask yourself, what is going on here?
This all started many years ago, but when Trump went to Davos, in the first few years of his presidency, he said, 'I'm not part of your globalist agenda. I'm going to put my national interest first.' That was a poke in the eye of the globalists. That's the point when George Soros came out and said that Trump is one of the most dangerous people on the planet and he needs to be brought down.
He was dangerous to their agenda. So, what we're really fighting for is the soul of man. God is testing us, in my opinion. Every person is being asked one simple question, either bow down to God and have the divine presence protect you or you're going to bow down to Bill Gates … I'm calling for Nuremberg 2.0. These people need to be brought to justice."
Zelenko also shares his views on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. He points out that while Gates is pushing COVID-19 vaccines, ostensibly to save lives, he's on record saying he feels the world population needs to be reduced.
"If someone was a eugenicist and feels that the world population needs to be reduced, why would I take his vaccine for my health?" he asks. "The logical inconsistencies here are absolutely perverse.
I'm so pro-vaccine you can't imagine. I've given tens of thousands of patients vaccinations. I give it to myself and to my children. However, I'm not COVID-19 vaccine positive. And I'll tell you why: Because the majority of patients under the age of 45 have a near-100% recovery rate with a mild, runny nose from COVID-19. Why would I vaccinate someone with an experimental vaccine? The answer is not for medical reasons.
Another question, why would I give someone a vaccine, even if they are at high risk, if I can give them prophylaxis and/or early prehospital treatment and have a 100% recovery rate? Not for medical reasons.
Another question: Why would I give a vaccine to someone who's already had COVID-19 and has antibodies? Not for medical reasons. And why would I give a very specific vaccine to someone who is going to be exposed to a ton of different variants and strains and mutations?
I wouldn't. What I would use is an approach that inhibits RNA replication of RNA viruses, which works for all the strains, including, potentially, influenza. That's the big dirty secret here."
Zelenko, who was born in a communist country and whose family suffered under communist and fascist rule, is quite sensitive to the signs of these authoritarian regimes. He recounts a story told in the book "The Gulag Archipelago," by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
Stalin wanted to dig a canal from Moscow to St. Petersburg. The work, done in the middle of winter, led to the death of 400,000 prison workers, as they weren't given the appropriate clothes or tools. The bodies were thrown into the cement and became a permanent part of the canal.
"No ship ever used the canal because it was too shallow. So, the question was, why was this canal built? And the answer is: So that 400,000 people would die," Zelenko says.
"I'm not attacking the vaccine. I'm attacking the need for the vaccine. I have not enough information to say it's good or bad. And I don't like to guess. But what I can tell you is that I know for a fact that 99.98% of young and healthy people under the age of 45 recover, with no treatment.
I also know for a fact, from my own real-world battle-tested evidence, which has been reproduced now on hundreds of thousands of patients, that if you intervene early, you essentially eliminate hospitalization and death. And, I've now treated two waves. I have not seen one patient who's had COVID-19 in the first wave, get it again ...
So, the need for the vaccine doesn't exist. It's … been artificially conflated … offering people an artificial false hope solution in order to enslave them to be codependent on government. You know why my approach is so dangerous? Because not only does it treat COVID-19, [but] it treats anxiety. It tells people you don't need to worry.
My statement to the American people or whoever's listening is: Return to normal living. You do not need to worry. And by the way, there are nonprescription options … that can replace HCQ if your government or doctor are too stupid or vicious to give it to you. So, you don't have to rely on them. You can buy over-the-counter things that will save your own life. So, my point is, return back to normal life ...
It's unbelievable the crime that's been done on the human psyche. I'm screaming to humanity: Don't be scared! Be cautious. Be smart. Use common sense. But don't be scared. Return back to life. Reengage in life."
Over-the-counter alternatives to HCQ include EGCG (green tea extract) and quercetin, both of which are zinc ionophores and therefore work much like HCQ does. Quercetin works best when taken in conjunction with vitamin C, however, as the vitamin C helps activate it. Zelenko recommends taking 1,000 milligrams of vitamin C with it.
Now, HCQ does have other mechanisms of action beside being a zinc ionophore, so it's a better choice, but if you simply cannot get it, EGCG or quercetin are viable stand-ins. Additional benefits of HCQ include:
"Since it has four different mechanisms of action, it's a very effective drug, and it has a half-life of 50 days in plasma," Zelenko says. "But if you can't get it, you can't get it. So, I'll take quercetin or EGCG."
The caveat here is you must implement this treatment within the right timeframe. It can be helpful to recognize we are in essence dealing with two diseases, or stages of disease, here.
First, there's the viral infection, and second, there's the immune over-response that leads to the release of inflammatory cytokines and agents that can cause blood clots. The key is to prevent the progression from the first stage to the second.
Like many others who have dared run the gauntlet that is HCQ promotion, Zelenko has been attacked from several angles. His character has been assassinated in the press, his medical credentials questioned and threatened, and his online presence silenced.
"I had had zero media experience before March 2020. I am of a quiet doctor who was taking care of his patients, living a serene life. All of a sudden, this all exploded on me ...
I was on Twitter, getting 10 million impressions per tweet. They shut me down last month for platform manipulation. I'm not even sure what that means. So, I had to develop my own website. It's free and has my protocols in 20 different languages."
To learn more about Zelenko's protocol, be sure to visit his website, vladimirzelenkomd.com. There, you'll find protocols not only for early treatment but also prophylaxis, along with studies that document the rationale for each of the treatment components and patient testimonials.
His website also includes access to telemedicine via "Speak With an MD," which can overnight your medication. "So, if you live in a state that's tyrannical, you can have a consultation with Dr. Fields," Zelenko says. "I had to develop this because there were patients around the country who didn't have access [to HCQ]."
HCQ should be available to most people in the U.S. at this point, but you do need a prescription, and some doctors are still unwilling or resistant to prescribe it. Other times, pharmacies can create roadblocks. "It may take some diligence but none of my patients goes without the medication written for them," he says.
In closing, it's worth noting that when you treat early, your risk of developing long-term side effects, commonly referred to as "long-haulers," is virtually nil. Not a single one of Zelenko's patients who received treatment within the first five days of symptom onset went on to develop long-haul symptoms afterward.
"I had patients that were long-haulers, but they came to me after that window, and they were already advanced in the inflammatory process. At that point, the cytokine storm had already taken hold. They had developed blood clots, some of them had pulmonary infarct, or strokes actually.
Others developed ARDS or catastrophic lung damage and pneumonias, and others just are not themselves. I don't know how to describe it, but it ate away part of their souls. They're not the same people. There's depression, there's lack of energy. There's a psychological impact as well.
So, it's not that I don't deal with long-haulers, I do. But the way to prevent the long-hauler syndrome is to intervene within the first five days, with appropriate antiviral medication in high-risk patients. That is 100% successful," he says.
Zelenko refers to the COVID-19 pandemic and everything surrounding it as an information war, a propaganda war, and his primary objective and agenda in this war is to educate and speak truth.
"There's a lot of false narrative being pumped into the heads of people, to create fear," he says. "In the Psalms of David, it says, 'With crooked people, you have to deal crookedly.' It also says you should learn from a thief.
So, I learned from the enemy, and I use their tactics to counter them. The main tactic is to spread truth. By the way, it's no longer dependent on me. I have second and third and fourth generation leaders that have taken on the mission and are really spreading the knowledge worldwide.
It's unstoppable. They could try to slow it down, and they are. But the truth will come out. The truth is coming out. And when the truth will be revealed, the people that try to obstruct it and use lies to slaughter, will be destroyed by it, God willing.
I am now more optimistic than I've ever been, simply because there's no more confusion. Life was very confusing. You didn't know what was good, what was bad. Now, it's very clear. There's much more bad, that's true. But I know where it is. I know where the enemy is. And I know where the good is. And a little light pushes away a lot of darkness."
In this interview, filmmaker-turned-author Mikki Willis discusses his two-part film “Plandemic,” which went viral despite being universally censored last year. He’s now releasing a book, “Plandemic: Fear Is the Virus. Truth Is the Cure,” and is working on “Plandemic Part 3,” which is slated for release around the winter holidays. Willis summarizes the backstory of how “Plandemic” came to be:
“I had met Judy Mikovits, who is the featured virologist in ‘Plandemic 1.’ I'd met her about a year and a half before the pandemic was announced. At the time, when [the COVID pandemic] was announced, I was working on a film called ‘The Narrative,’ which was to really pull back the curtain on mainstream media, the way that it's been infiltrated and affected the global consciousness.
In the process of doing this, the whistleblowers that I was interviewing for the movie, several of them had warned me and said there's a false flag coming very soon. A false flag means an event that takes place that diverts the world's attention and/or subverts the consciousness such that we'll vote for war … or something like that.
It's some kind of an event that will cause some kind of a reaction. So, I was on the lookout for this … when the pandemic was announced, I reached out to Mikovits … and I asked her, ‘What do you think is going on here?’
She started to break it down for me, and it seemed so viable that I said, ‘Let's stop what we're doing and go to my studio, sit down and do this on camera, because I think that the world deserves to hear this information.’"
“Plandemic Part 1” was released May 4, 2020, and has since been viewed over 1 billion times, a record, for sure, for any documentary. This, despite it being heavily censored. “Plandemic Part 2: Indoctornation” has also been viewed more than 200 million times.
One of the keys to the videos’ remarkable successes was Willis’ decision to allow (and encourage) people to download the movie files and upload them anywhere they pleased, without restrictions.
This virtually guaranteed he wouldn’t make any money from the films, but he viewed them as a gift to humanity. Putting the truth out there was more important than making a buck. Besides, hosting the films on any given platform would allow the opposition to simply nuke that one site, ensuring the films wouldn’t be seen by anyone.
“Plandemic: Indoctornation” features the brilliant David Martin, Ph.D., who has documented and tracked white collar crime for decades and invented technologies that help trace the flow of funding. Willis explains:
“We decided in ‘Plandemic 2’ to really follow the paper trail. And I'm very glad we made that decision because it has been bulletproof. Every single claim that David Martin made in the film has been 100% validated at this point.
He's the one that actually helped educate [Sens.] Rand Paul and Ron Johnson when they started to go after [Dr. Anthony] Fauci to finally hold him accountable for his decades of crimes.
[Martin] had the paper trail of how much money had been spent, that had been moved through a company called EcoHealth Alliance, and where it ended up in Wuhan at the lab.
But as important as it is to know where the virus originated, it goes so far beyond that in the next [film]. We are, I will announce right now, producing ‘Plandemic 3.’ And that one's going to go even further into who's behind this [virus] and why. Is this really about money? The answer is, for the most part, no. The people at the top of the pyramid, they can just print their own money.
It's really about ultimately creating a state of dependency, through which you can then control the human population. We're going to go deeper and really show the trail on how that works, the history of that, and how it's led us to this moment right now.
Psychological diversion has literally brainwashed a great deal of our population into fighting for these very wicked forces, unknowingly, unwittingly.”
After the release of “Plandemic 1,” Willis offered $10,000 to anyone who could debunk any claim made in the film.
“People tried,” he says, “but they would give us these phony fact-checker reports and we would debunk them. And so, they just went away after about six months of me offering that challenge. I really wanted to show people that there's a whole other world behind the smoke screen of propaganda that is used to get people to ignore important information.
So, with ‘Plandemic 3,’ we're going to go further. Once again, in real time, we're going to say, ‘Here's what we said, here's what they said about us, now here's what they're finally saying one year later.’”
While many blame the encroaching tyranny on incompetence, the evidence suggests it’s not incompetence at all. It was planned this way. Willis says:
“I always want to believe the best in people. So, it took me a long time before I would be willing to say anything out loud about Bill Gates or Anthony Fauci, because I thought:
‘If I'm wrong, and these men are really trying to help the world, then even if they're doing it in a horrible way, I don't think I have the [right] to actually slander somebody in that way. If they're really trying their hardest, I hope somebody educates them so they can do a better job.’
But as I delved into this with a really incredible team of researchers, and started to learn the history of Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci, and many others … I realized that there has to be, at this point, a real knowing of what they're doing and a plan behind what they're doing.
As soon as I started looking there, that's when I saw that every bit of evidence pointed in one direction, and that is, they're fully aware of what they're doing. And that's the sad part of this …
COVID's plan was to kill all the mom and pop shops, all the personal businesses, so that we're all dependent upon these multinational corporations that are under the control of the same people that are behind all of this.
They can then make sure that all of our supplies, everything we need to get by in our lives, are controlled by people that are controlled by them so that they can then control our lives. That's really what this game is about.”
Willis does believe, however, that a great awakening is underway, and that at least half the population, or maybe more, are starting to wake up to the fact that we’re being manipulated by forces that do not have our best interest at heart. As for how this drama will play out, Willis points to the history of human mythology.
In virtually all myths, there’s a reluctant hero who, faced with a life or death challenge, goes in search of a savior, only to in the end realize that he is the one; that the force to overcome the challenge is within himself, and that he must rise up and face the challenge himself.
“We're at that point right now,” Willis says. “My prediction is that we haven't quite reached the fiery crescendo yet that all movies feature, to some degree, in their third act. So, my prediction is it will get worse before it gets better.
We're going to have a succession of attacks, from cyberattacks, to food chain attacks, to attacks on our power [grid] and perhaps even some form of war that we'll be engaged in. But the end of that story is that we win. I have no doubt about that.
And everyone I know that really studies this deeply has the same conclusion. In the end, this is the human story. We are the David against the Goliath. The Goliath is incredibly powerful, but will be defeated. But it requires us to do the one thing that we're all afraid to do right now, and that is to stand up and speak out …
We have to be willing to be uncomfortable, we have to be willing to let our friends go. If we lose friends over us simply speaking our truth, whether it's 100% accurate or not, then they're not our friends in the first place. So, we have to get over that, rise up, speak out and deal with the attacks that come.”
“Plandemic 3” will also cover ideas for how to rebuild society. This is something Martin and Willis have started collaborating on.
“For me, that's the most important thing that we can get into right now,” Willis says. “We’re creating new curriculums for schools, where we want to make sure that parents understand what's being injected into the curriculums of schools around the world.
They're now attacking our youngest. For decades, they've gone after people at the collegiate level, but now they're going after K through 12.
And when you get into the heads of little people and you convince them that all of America is racist, that white people are bad, that everyone is oppressed just by their skin color, that police are bad … ultimately it leaves people in this place of being easily controlled and subverted to what ultimately will look a lot like communism.
If you understand the history of the way that other nations have been overcome and infiltrated by communist ideologies, and you then take a look at what's happening here in America, you realize that this is actually what's taking place here …
It's almost good that we're going to go through more suffering … because unfortunately, people need to see that. You can't just tell them, ‘It would be bad, let's divert from this.’ They actually have to experience it.
Like right now, people thought Biden was going to come in and save the day, and now they're going, ‘What is going on here? The border is worse, kids are being treated worse, there's sex trafficking with young people, the economy's collapsing. We’re on the verge of new wars.’
They needed to see it, to actually understand that Trump was used as a big boogeyman to get them to look away from what they're doing. That's the game of politics. ‘Look over here, look how bad this guy is. Let's keep him in the press all day long. Look what he said right now.’ All this trivial stuff.
And then over here, we're actually rearranging your lives, stripping away your civil liberties, changing the structures of your curriculums in your schools, and nobody sees it until it's too late …
So, for me, one of the first things that we have to do is come to grips with what's really happening. To say the word ‘communism.’ To understand that we actually have globalists that are working very hard to create a one-world government …
So, we need to identify the people that are behind this, and we need to peacefully use the power of our voice, the power of numbers, to make sure that these people know we're aware of them, and to find a way to get them out of their powers of position. Then we can start talking about new systems.”
An important part of any new and improved system would be decentralization of power and control. One way to do this could be to form councils where people are represented by an actual peer.
Willis, like many others, is convinced America is the last stand for freedom. He even moved to Texas recently in order to become “a functioning part of the incredible people who have been raised with the constitutional understandings that I knew nothing about, being a California boy.”
Interestingly, Willis was a supporter of the progressive left up until just a few years ago, when he started noticing the creeping in of communist ideologies that he knew can never work.
“I wanted something new, something progressive, not understanding that it's the history of the foundation of what built this country that makes it so amazing. So, I had to go back and reeducate myself on what the forefathers said.
And there's some incredible insights, incredibly profound, prophetic words within our constitution and beyond, that were set up to protect us against moments just like this. They knew this was coming. At a certain point, I was all for gun control. And now here I am in Texas, going to the gun range and appreciating the fact that it was set up to protect the people from a tyrannical government.”
Willis also admits being raised without religion, and that he lived most of his life with a lot of judgment about people who are religious. That all changed over the past year and a half, when he suddenly started appreciating the importance of having faith in something greater than ourselves.
“I found a deeper understanding of my own fate and faith,” he says. “And I have learned that the people that impressed me the most, that are humble, that are not doing this for any kind of profit, but that are simply here to stand for the organism of life, all have some form of a foundation of faith in God in their lives …
We all need to realize that when we think we are the dominant force, then we do things like Bill Gates does and like Anthony Fauci does. And at this point, after knowing what I know now … I really deeply consider that there is some entity of darkness, of evil, that's behind this agenda.
It's the only thing that explains to me how people could knowingly allow children to be brutalized the way that they're, knowingly, just for political power. I mean, if that's not evil, I don't know what is.”
The book “Plandemic: Fear Is the Virus, Truth Is the Cure,” is being released on Amazon October 19, 2021. Pick up your copy here. Interestingly, Willis had hired an investigative journalist to conduct interviews for the book. Three months into the project he found out she initially had not been on his side at all.
“My producer called me and said, ‘I have good news and bad news. Which do you want first?’ And I said, ‘Give me the bad.’ And he said our writer is not on our side. ‘She thinks we're crazy conspiracy theorists …
The good news is, she thought we were crazy, but she has now done the research, and she said her mind is blown because she cannot find any claim made that's inaccurate. She's even going deeper now and she's 100% on our side.’
She's going to take her name off the book because she's afraid. Her whole world is left-leaning journalism. She's afraid that she'll lose her job. So, it becomes this really interesting story of this woman who is waking up during the process of co-writing the book …
But most importantly, it leaves us very hopeful about what's happening, and points towards some pathways of how we can get out of this mess, and our necessity to take personal responsibility for how we got here. We slept through this. The alarms have been going off for decades and we kept hitting snooze and it's time for us to fully wake up and rise up.”
In this interview, we continue our coverage of the COVID “plandemic” by speaking to David Martin, Ph.D., who has done a phenomenal job uncovering the paper trail behind the virus now known as SARS-CoV-2. As it turns out, this is not a novel virus at all, as patents and government grants detailing key features of the virus go back two decades.
Martin finished his doctorate at the University of Virginia in 1995, after which he was hired on to the medical school faculty in radiology and orthopedic surgery. In 2006, he set up the first medical device clinical trials organization for the University of Virginia — a company called IDEAmed — which conducted medical device clinical trials for U.S. Food and Drug Administration submission. So, he has an extensive background working with FDA clinical trials.
In 1998, he founded another company called M-CAM International, which is focused on finding ways to bring intellectual property into conventional finance. M-CAM also started auditing the U.S. patent system at the request of the U.S. Congress.
In the early 2000s, M-CAM worked with the Senate Banking Committee and was a contractor for the United States Treasury to expose white collar criminal activity around intellectual property and tax fraud. In doing that work, Martin also discovered something else.
“Quite alarmingly, we found an enormous number of patents [detailing] biological and chemical weapon violations,” Martin says. “That was not something we were looking for. I let people know this was not something we set out to find. This is something that landed in our lap.
I developed a technology a decade earlier called linguistic genomics, which is a means by which you can look at unstructured text data and find the metaphoric meaning inside of what is being communicated. As you can imagine, if people of ill intent are trying to do something, they often hide what they're doing in plain sight, but they use language that is not conventional.
So, when you find a patent, for example, on a blast-resistant pathogen from a rocket-propelled grenade — did you hear what I just said? ‘A blast-resistant pathogen from a rocket-propelled grenade.’ Does that sound like it's a common way to inoculate a population or does that sound like [a bioweapon]?
And so, finding a number of bioweapons patents, we started taking into account some very serious things. I published once a year the literal global phonebook of every biological and chemical weapon violation that took place anywhere in the world.
[It tells you] the who, the where, the who funded it, what their addresses are. It was … used by U.S. law enforcement, intelligence communities and elsewhere around the world to track things that were being done inappropriately. And, it was in 1999 [that] we started detecting that there seemed to be an alarming event around coronavirus, which we're going to get into.”
As explained by Martin, in 1999, the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, identified coronavirus as a possible vaccine vector.
At the time, the disclosed rationale was to try to come up with an HIV vaccine, and to that end, Fauci, in 1999, funded research to create “an infectious replication-defective recombinant coronavirus.”
In 2002, Ralph Baric, Ph.D. and colleagues at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, filed a patent on recombinant coronavirus, and within a year, we got the world’s first SARS outbreak.
For more background on Fauci, be sure to read Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book “The Real Tony Fauci,” which details how Fauci’s promotion of AZT during the 1980s ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people. And the pattern we’re seeing with coronavirus is basically a repeat of previous behavior. Martin says:
“It’s important to realize that at the time [in 1984 when Fauci became director of the NIAID] we were transitioning from an STD environment in which syphilis and gonorrhea and those types of STDs were the things that we were concerned about …
HIV became a political and social hot potato because it was associated in many respects with lifestyle branding, and as a result it became a political issue to essentially identify a class of the population that could be the basis for research without consideration.
The notion by Fauci was that people with HIV had already made decisions that somehow entitled them to less humanity. As a result, the clinical trials around developing both management techniques as well as potential treatments … were done in a very reckless fashion. Numerous people died in [those] clinical trials, and by the way, still are …
He has been obsessed about this HIV situation as a platform to, essentially, use humans that he determines to be some form of sub-human for clinical trials. It is a horrific blight on the United States’ medical establishment that we have been willing to allow this to go on in the name of science, in the name of health promotion, since 1984, without any significant disruption or check.”
The first SARS outbreak occurred in late 2002 going into 2003 in China. Curiously, before Baric’s team invented and patented a recombinant infectious replication-defective coronavirus, no one had ever heard of SARS.
“I'm not drawing a causal relationship,” Martin says. “I'm making an observation that humans and what we call coronavirus seem to have cohabitated this earth for hundreds of thousands of years.
And then we manipulate that [virus] in 1999. We start playing around with putting it into different animals and different human cell line models, and then in 2003, we have SARS. Like a lot of other things, it's an observation worth noting.
What makes the observation more problematic, obviously, is this was happening during the unfortunate results of the 2001 anthrax attack, which as you know came out of federal labs …
[It] became very clear that this was not [due to] a bad actor, per se. This was medical and defense research gone bad that got into the public and people died. But the real benefit, if you will, of the anthrax attack was the passage of the PREP Act.”
Inside the PREP Act we now have the carte blanche removal of liability for manufacturers of medical countermeasures. As noted by Martin, the PREP Act has “made pharmaceutical companies much more capable of instilling terror in the population, coercing a population into taking an untested measure, and doing so with absolute impunity.”
Curiously, while Martin’s annual report on bioweapons patents was, with only a few exceptions, appreciated and used by agencies around the world, when it comes to the information he has amassed on coronavirus, not a single agency anywhere in the world has been willing to address it.
“No one … seems to be willing to look at the fact that beginning in 2016 we started seeing very alarming language being used, which was ‘coronavirus poised for human emergence.’ This was in patents, but also in scientific publications. And when you start referring to a coronavirus allegedly poised for human emergence, after the World Health Organization has declared SARS eradicated, there's something desperately wrong with that picture.”
The biggest alarm bell was published February 12, 2016, by EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak1 who, according to Martin, has been “the money laundering agent” for gain-of-function research coronaviruses after the U.S. implemented a moratorium on that kind of research in 2014. Rather than close it down, this research was simply moved over to China instead. In 2015, Daszak stated:2
"To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures, such as a pan influenza or a pan coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process."
That statement was made by Daszak in 2015, and was published in the spring of 2016. The statement “set off alarm bells very loudly within my organization,” Martin says, “because when you have somebody who is promoting gain-of-function research, and clearly blurring the line on what is even legal … saying we need ‘media to create the hype’ … and ‘investors will follow if they see profit’ … that doesn't sound like public health.
To me, that sounds like organized crime. That sounds like racketeering, and we need to raise this issue.”
In all, since 2002, some 4,000 patents have been filed on the genome, vaccines and detection of coronavirus. According to Martin, this is alarming, “because you don't file patents on something that you don't intend to commercialize.” Evidence of intended commercialization can also be found by looking at the dates of certain patents by certain companies.
April 28, 2003, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention filed a patent on the genome of the SARS coronavirus. Five days later, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals received a $935,000 grant and filed U.S. Patent 7151163 for a treatment for that same virus. How can you file a patent for the treatment of a virus that was only discovered five days earlier?
“That sounds like an inside job,” Martin says. “Because you cannot have a pathogen identified and a cure for it in five days, when all of the information was held from the public, because when the CDC filed its patent on the genome of coronavirus, it paid to keep that patent secret.
So, somebody somewhere knows that this thing was going to turn out to be a moneymaker … The proliferation of proprietary controls around SARS Coronavirus probably exceeds at least by two or three times most other pathogens …
Dana Farber had a monoclonal antibody patent system that came out of three NIH grants. Their patent 7750123 on the monoclonal antibody for SARS-Cov treatment took place in 2003.”
So, while we’ve been told that SARS-CoV-2 is something we’ve never seen before, there are 4,000 patents and patent applications that say otherwise. The same can be said for the testing and the COVID shots. For example, Pfizer filed the first S1 spike protein vaccine patent on coronavirus in 1990 — 30 years ago.
“Regardless of what part of the story we look at, the patent record is full of thousands of patents where commercial interests funded by NIAID and the National Institutes of Health have been building the economic cabal around coronavirus. This is not a new thing. It hasn't been a new thing.
And regrettably, we're being told continuously that somehow or another there's something novel about this experience, despite the fact that every single part of what we are told is being detected with PCR … the injections, every single one of those things has been known and isolated for over 30 years.”
How did we get to a point where taxpayers are funding research on pathogens that are being designed to sicken and kill us, only to drive profits into the drug industry and all these various patent holders, which include the government itself?
In large part, it goes back to the implementation of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which allows the beneficiaries of federal grants to file patents on work derived from federally funded research. The idea was that the economy would benefit by allowing scientists to be entrepreneurs first, rather than simply publishing their research.
This piece of legislation has undermined health care by bringing the patent office, the FDA and CDC into an unholy trinity that serves and promotes private pharmaceutical concerns. So, what we have now is an insidious funding loop. Martin explains:
“Corporations and pharma lobby to get people elected. Once they're elected, the lobbyists flow an enormous amount of money into the various NIH programs. In the case of NIAID, since Fauci took over [in 1984], $191 billion have gone through his fingers. Now, is that because he's successful?
No, as a matter of fact, under his watch, allergies and infectious diseases have increased over 60 times. Yet somehow or another, he's still the director of a failed [agency] that's gotten $191 billion to solve a problem that is getting worse every single year.
If it was a company, we would have fired him. The problem is, it's not a company. It’s a money laundering agency. It moves public funds through the hands of a federal agency into the research laboratories, which ultimately are going to conduct research that is then licensed back to the benefactors, which are the pharmaceutical companies that paid to get people into office in the first place.
So, this is a revolving door problem, and the Bayh-Dole Act created an insidious incentive that said that the only research that was going to be conducted was going to be research that ultimately would flow back to the pharmaceutical industry and create juggernauts, where the risk of R&D was taken by the public and the benefit for that R&D was taken by the private. That's a horrible thing, and that is exactly what Fauci has run.”
Martin also points out that Fauci has also lied to Congress about the NIAID’s financial interests in drugs. During this pandemic, Congress and the Congressional Budget Office asked for an accounting of NIH-owned patents where they have potential commercial interest in the drugs being produced. Fauci did not disclose any of them. Instead he lied and said there are none.
“The evidence is stacked a mile long,” Martin says. “Moderna stands alone as the only recipient of NIAID funding that fails to comply with the law and fails to disclose the federal government’s interest in their intellectual property.
Despite the fact that everyone knew Moderna failed to disclose the federal government’s interest in its research, Fauci picked Moderna to be the frontrunner for an untested, commercially unsuccessful and entirely unproven mRNA vaccine technology in the spring of 2020.
There was no rational justification for that, and there would have been less rational justification, given the fact that Moderna is on record as having violated the federal law, the Bayh-Dole Act, 141 times at the time they were picked to be the winner.
This is a known fact, but it was overlooked entirely, and not a single law enforcement agent anywhere in the United States has decided that having a criminal organization supply a product sounds like a bad idea.”
Since the beginning of this pandemic, the number of rules, laws and regulations that have been broken in the name of public health boggle the mind. Even laws that are absolutely clear and in no way ambiguous are being broken. For example, under Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, section 50, no one can be forced or coerced into a clinical trial of an experimental medical product, even if it’s a pandemic countermeasure.
“It's black and white, and this clinical trial does not end until 2023 in the first best instance. So, there is no such thing as an approved or even authorized use of a [COVID ‘vaccine’] that can be compelled on the population,” Martin says.
And yet they’re bribing, threatening and coercing people everywhere. The drug companies also violated basic principles by eliminating all of the controls and giving the test vaccine to everyone in the trials, leaving us nothing against which to compare side effects. They also do not have an independent investigational review board, or the statutorily required approval processes for the protocol.
The companies themselves decided to modify their protocols midstream, which simply isn’t how it’s done. Basically, we do not have an actual clinical trial on these COVID shots, because so many of the basic principles of clinical medical research were violated.
The federal government is also violating the False Claims Act by telling you the COVID shots are safe and effective, when the studies are still years from being completed, and have been undermined in all the ways just mentioned.
“What we have is a situation where the deaths are actually considered to be acceptable,” Martin says. “I don't know what world you have to come from to find that term even remotely speakable. I think the utterance of that phrase is horrific … We are killing people willfully, and we are doing it with impunity in the name of what we call a love affair with science.
The only problem is we've desecrated science in the process because it turns out that when I did randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, you know what I had to do? I had to keep the populations blinded. I had to keep it placebo-controlled for the whole clinical trial. And the reason I had to do that is because that's what the statute requires.
This entire process has been willful acts of harm to humanity. And the only hope we have is a very small note in the Department of Justice opinion that took place under the Trump administration, which says that if this was based on felony acts, then the entire emergency use authorization and all its benefits would collapse.
In other words, if we can show that a felony has occurred — racketeering, lying to Congress, the public coercion … [and] in the Fauci dossier3 I outline dozens of felony violations — [it] would bring this entire thing to its knees, because the moment the PREP Act protection falls away from Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and others, I can guarantee you [Fauci] will not be promoting a vaccine.
If they are liable for a single injury or death, they'll pull the plug on what they know to be unsafe. That requires law enforcement to do its job. And somewhere there has to be a prosecutor who's willing to do their job … Right now, I genuinely do not think we have three tiers of government. I don't think there is a Department of Justice.
The judiciary is functionally gone … When we allow the judiciary to be an arm of the executive [branch], then what happens is we've actually lost the three-tiered structure of government. And, as a result, the system collapses. The judiciary was the only thing that was explicitly independent. We don't allow judges to get sponsorship in campaign finance. We don't allow judges to be elected.
We appoint them, we go through an approval process. We do all sorts of things to try to make sure the judiciary is independent. So, the only risk to the pharmaceutical industry, the only risk to an executive out of control, was the judiciary.
By collapsing the judicial system in the United States, we have effectively made the government a servant of its benefactors — and that is the pharmaceutical industry.”
With what appears to be a near-total collapse of the judicial system, it looks like we’re on a straight path to global tyranny, with no routes of escape. Martin, however, believes there may be a way out, but it will require action on behalf of rational individuals blessed with foresight. He explains:
“You have to have currency to buy off politicians. Back in 2008, when we had the global financial crisis … we instituted a policy that [will] functionally bankrupt our entitlement program (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) in 2028 [or 2033] …
The best math we have is that the annuities and pension programs of the United States functionally run out of their trust fund in 2028. What does that mean? Well, one of the things that people overlook is there's an unholy alliance between the insurance companies and what we call health care.
Insurance companies are long-dated asset holders. These are the people who have to have money today to cover issues in the future. That's what a long-dated asset holder is. The problem is that the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank and other central banks have suppressed the value of the return on funds, so the funds are running out of money faster than expected …
You know as well as anybody else that for a politician to stand up and say, ‘I'm going to abolish or significantly alter Social Security’ is the death knell to any political aspiration. Tiny problem. But whether they say it or not, the trust fund runs out of money in 2028.
Now, here comes the kicker: So does the pharmaceutical industry because it turns out that the money that's going into that system is actually paying for the drug dependency of this country.
And if we go all the way back to 1604 — to the establishment of the British East India Company and the establishment of the Virginia Company — we'll realize that the 400-plus-year tradition that we have, where we have built nation states on the back of the drug trade, is coming to its end.
The good news for all of us is it's going to end around 2028, because we have a convergence that they didn't figure out how to cover up. The convergence is that the people with the money, the big pharmaceutical players, are the beneficiaries of a system that is going to bankrupt itself by virtue of their actions.
This is the brontosaurus that ate too much because it was the biggest dinosaur. And the great news is they have the brain the size of a pea, just like the brontosaurus. They are not smart. And the best thing we have going for us furry humans is that we actually are nimble.
Now, does that mean that we are not going to have an ounce of pain through the process? Absolutely not. There is social disruption that we can't even imagine on the horizon in 2026, 2027 and 2028, because 86 million people will lose what they thought was going to be their retirement funds.
When we see that number now go to 100 million people, and the 100 million people are sicker because of what we've injected today … those people who are going to require greater health care then are going to be faced with a bankrupt system incapable of supporting their life and their livelihood. And that is the death knell of this story.
The best news about this is we have time if people of good conscience get together and say, ‘We're not going to let that apocalypse arrive because we have time to start building communities that actually care for each other. We have time to start building accountability structures.
We have time to start doing things that bring our social fabric together so that when that system collapses, we can come back to a rational view of what life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness is’ because, until we can reclaim the sovereignty of our health, we cannot celebrate the sovereignty of our life.”
By now, you’ve probably heard of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset agenda, which includes the transition to a Central Bank Digital Currency. With that, they can abolish the dollar and “reset” the entire global economy that is now tottering on its last leg. However, even here there may be kink in the plan that can save us.
“Like a good [James] Bond villain, he's actually ignorant of history,” Martin says. The reason Martin remains optimistic that the Great Reset doesn't have a chance at all to succeed is because there’s no way the global public will embrace an all-digital system that can be annihilated by an electromagnetic pulse or electromagnetic disruption.
This year alone, we’ve seen internet failures, power outages and digital finance hacks that would leave people stranded without a single penny were they reliant on an all-digital financial system.
“The digital currency illusion is the most bizarre and pathetic Dr. Evil plan anybody's ever concocted,” Martin says. “The fact of the matter is the digital currency craze is one of those fantastical illusions that unfortunately has a single-point failure.
We live in a world where actors of both anarchist intent, and very, very laudable privateers and pirates are more than happy to make sure that digital currency never sees the light of day because they will, in fact, hack, crack and disrupt every system out there.
And so, I look at the whole Great Reset as great theater … But the entire illusion is being run because they're out of ideas. And … when the incumbency is out of bad ideas, they try desperately to force you into a behavior that you would not otherwise accept. All you have to do is just say no. Just don't play along.”
Is it possible that the COVID jabs might cause premature death and be an intentional form of depopulation? Well, since we’re following the money, there’s certainly a financial incentive for such a scenario. As noted by Martin, if you’ve made financial promises to people who are closing in on retirement, the fewer there are of them the better.
“The financial interest for depopulation is a thoroughly compelling argument,” Martin says. He recently reviewed this argument in a lecture given at the Church of Glad Tidings in Yuba City, which you can view above.
In short, having people live long enough to tap into their Social Security benefits and live to the full maturity of their life insurance policies is problematic with respect to the financial collapse that is looming.
Based on these financial realities — which certainly are not advertised or publicly discussed — there’s clearly an economic incentive to shrink the population and get rid of as many people as possible before 2028. Unfortunately, based on previous lipid nanoparticle and mRNA trials, the chance of a mass casualty event is high.
“There is no question … they jumped over animal trials for a very important reason,” Martin says. “We've been told it was to save time, but it wasn't to save time.
It was to put this particular pathogen into humanity, so that a lot of people suffer and ultimately die of effects that we could have picked up if we had done it the traditional way, which is seven to eight years of safety studies, before we decide to put it in the arms of humans.
That's not what we did. And if we look at the safety data from animal studies on mRNA, and on the lipid nanoparticle, there is no question that there is going to be a fatality increase because of this …
But the concern I have, [which may be] more egregious [than] the death … is the malingering morbidity, people who will require around the clock medical care is going to be a drain that will infect our economy so deeply that we may not recover.
Because if we have people who have to stay at home with children who are sick, if we have people who have to care for elderly parents who are sick, if we have people who are caring for a spouse or a family member who are sick, that means we do not have the ability to enjoy life and liberty. And the fact is that I think we're going to have a bigger morbidity than mortality event.”
Now, as if all of that weren’t enough, Martin has also discovered CRISPR patents that describe how they can “clip” the effects of mRNA/DNA-based vaccines from people. He believes they may be building a pathogen set that is then introduced into the population so that they can later introduce a more expensive technology that can fix what was broken. This, unfortunately, could mean survival may be based on your ability to pay.
To backtrack for a moment, while we’ve been told COVID-19 caused excess deaths in 2020, one way to double-check that is to look at the number of life insurance policies paid. And in 2020, there were actually fewer life insurance policies paid out than normal, according to Martin.
“Whose numbers are you going to believe? Are you going to believe the CDC who's trying to pump and dump this terror campaign of people dying, and therefore you need to have your mask on, you need to socially distance, you need to vaccinate?
Or are you going to believe the numbers from the people who actually pay claims when real human life ends? It turns out that if you look at the audited financial statements of the world's largest life insurance companies, we can find no excess death evidence. Is COVID so smart that it only kills the uninsured? Is that what we're supposed to believe?”
In closing, I, like Martin, believe we can survive this and keep our freedom. But we must act. Individually, every single person needs to take actions that are in line with pro-life and liberty morals and ethics. As suggested by Martin, spend your money on certified organic foods and locally grown foods to help build a healthier food system.
Spend time with friends and family and share information. Start building a sense of community again, in whatever way makes sense to you. When you make a purchasing decision, analyze whether you’re supporting the evil being perpetrated, or choking its money supply. We need to start building micro-economies that can later grow into alternative economies. We need to start building support structures for when the financial and health care systems break.
“The fact is we are in a very unique moment in human history, and it probably is as close to the story of Joseph in Egypt as you can get. You know the seven fat years and then the seven skinny years? Well, guess what? We have a couple of fat years left. You know what we should be doing?
We should be investing in our networks of relationship. We should be investing in our networks of community. We should be building those resilient fibers that hold us together because we know that there is a famine coming. And we are in a unique position right now to actually do something about it.
So, start with yourself. Make sure that what you put into your body is aligned to your health. Make sure that what you do with your body is aligned to your health. And then as you do that, invite other people into living a life that in fact models that behavior, so that we start building communities of consciousness. And as we build those communities, we will start building currencies of consciousness ...
There are a bunch of ways that we can solve these problems, and we can do it using the market. We can do it using our consciousness, but we need our consciousness, we need our community, and we need our currency to be organically aligned to humanity again.”
Doing the things mentioned above will also further another task at hand, which is to break the propaganda cycle. The key, really, is to simply live your life as healthily and joyously as possible, so that people around you can see there are others out there who aren’t living in fear. Eventually, they’ll start seeing they actually have a choice.
“Listen, propaganda cannot stand against the truth of a life well lived,” Martin says. “It can never stand against that truth. What we're trying to do is the wrong energy. We're trying to confront irrationality with rationality. But what we need to be doing is being persistent in showing up and living in a way that people look at it and say, ‘I'll have what she's having.’
This is your ‘Harry Met Sally’ moment. This is that restaurant scene. This is your moment to be a person who outlasts the half-life of the propaganda reflex. And I've seen way too many people try to engage energetically in the debate where they enter into conflict and it destroys their well-being.
Don't be the miserable angry one. Be the one at the table who is the one worth looking at and going, ‘I'll have what he's having. I'll have what she's having.’ Live a life that is desirable, and you'll see propaganda become emasculated instantaneously …
All the time while Gov. [Ralph] Northam here in Virginia was telling us that we could not have gatherings, we continued our workshops. We had our table full of 15, 20, 25 people, and our official policy was that if you signed up for our workshop, for the time you were in our home we adopted you as family, because the legal exemption in Virginia was that family didn't count.
So, we adopted everybody for the week. We had every kind of cousin, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, child, granny. It was all family. We went through the entire shutdown having a table full of fellowship. And you know what? Everybody in the neighborhood said, ‘I'd love to have what they're having.’"