The video above features a 1958 interview of Aldous Huxley with Mike Wallace. It really is a great glimpse from the past. Wallace was smoking on the set, but that was natural back then, and Rod Serling, who produced the “Twilight Zone,” did the same. Interestingly, they both developed lung cancer. You might recall that Huxley wrote the classic novel “Brave New World,” in which he presents a dystopian vision of a future society known as the “World State,” a society ruled by science and efficiency, where emotions and individuality have been eradicated and personal relationships are few. Children are cloned and bred in “hatcheries,” where they are conditioned for their role in society from an early age. There are no mothers and fathers as natural procreation is outlawed. There are no family units. Embryos are sorted and given hormonal treatments based on their destined societal classification, which from highest to lowest are Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Epsilon. The Alphas are bred and conditioned to be leaders while the Epsilons are designed for menial labor, free of higher intellectual capacities. At the time Huxley wrote the book in 1931 (it was published the year after), optimism about technological advancements were high and there was widespread belief that technology would solve many of the world’s problems. “Brave New World” demonstrates the naiveté of such hopes by showing what can happen when technocracy is taken to its extreme. Huxley believed his world of horror was right around the corner and, today, just shy of 60 years later, we’re starting to see Huxley’s “World State” closing in around us in the form of the Fourth Industrial Revolution’s transhumanist agenda and the Great Reset, designed to trap us inside a net of constant surveillance and external control. Enemies of FreedomHuxley also penned a series of essays called “Enemies of Freedom,” which he discusses in the featured interview. The series outlines “impersonal forces” that are “pushing in the direction of progressively less freedom,” and “technological devices” that can be used to accelerate the process by imposing ever greater control of the population. Huxley points out that as technology becomes more complex and complicated, it becomes increasingly necessary to form more elaborate hierarchal organizations to manage it all. Technology also allows for more effective propaganda machines that can be managed through those same control hierarchies. Huxley cites the success of Hitler, noting that aside from Hitler’s effective use of terror and brute force, “he also used a very efficient form of propaganda. He had the radio, which he used to the fullest extent, and was able to impose his will on an immense mass of people.” With the advent of television, Huxley foresaw how an authoritarian leadership could become a source of “a one-pointed drumming” of a single idea, effectively brainwashing the public. Beyond that, Huxley predicted the technological capability to “bypass the rational side of man” and manipulate behavior by influencing people on a subconscious level. This is precisely what we’re faced with today. Google, but also to a large extent Facebook, has been collecting data on you for nearly two decades. They have created massive server farms that are capable of analyzing this data with deep learning and artificial intelligence software to mine information and generate incredibly precise details on just what type of propaganda and narrative is required to surreptitiously manipulate you into the behavior they are seeking. Huxley also points out the dangers inherent in advertising, especially as it pertains to marketing of political ideas and ideologies:
Decentralization Protects Freedom; Centralization Robs ItHuxley argues that in order to create the dystopian future presented in his book, you have to centralize wealth, power and control. Hence, the way to protect against it is to insist on decentralization. It’s surprising that even 60 years ago Huxley was wise enough to understand this profoundly important principle. I believe that it is the decentralization of the internet that is required to prevent censorship and manipulation in the future. This means that websites and platforms are not stored in one central place that can easily be controlled and manipulated but, rather, widely distributed to thousands, if not millions, of computers all over the world. It would work because if there is no central storage it can’t be removed. Decentralized platforms allow the majority of power to reside with the individual. Technologies that can be easily misused to control the public narrative must also remain largely decentralized, so that no one person or agency ends up with too much power to manipulate and influence the public. Our modern-day social media monopolies are a perfect example of what Huxley warned us about. The same goes for economic institutions too. Today, we can see how the role of the central bank (in the U.S. known as the Federal Reserve) — a privately-owned entity with the power to break entire countries apart for profit — is forcing us toward a new global economic system that will impoverish and quite literally enslave everyone, with the exception of the technocratic social bankers themselves and their globalist allies. Our Orwellian PresentA contemporary and student of Huxley was George Orwell (real name Eric Blair1), who wrote another dystopian classic — “1984” — published in 1949. The two books — “1984” and “Brave New World” — share the commonality that they both depict a future devoid of the very things that we associate with having a healthy, free, creative, purposeful and enjoyable life. In “1984,” the context is a society where an all-knowing, all-seeing “Big Brother” rules with an iron fist. Citizens are under constant watch. Privacy is nonexistent, and language is twisted to justify and glorify oppression. Some of the spectacles of 2020 could have easily been ripped straight out of the pages of “1984,” as riots were described by cheery news anchors as “mostly peaceful protests,” even as city blocks were engulfed in flames behind them and people were bleeding to death in the streets. For those familiar with the book, such scenes were difficult to watch without being reminded of 1984s “double-think.” Orwell Versus HuxleyThere are differences between the two works, however. While Orwell foresees people being forcefully enslaved by an external agency, and kept in that state by the same, Huxley’s vision is one in which people have been so thoroughly conditioned that they come to love their servitude. At that point, no external authoritarian ruler is actually required. If you think about it, I’m sure you will agree that this is clearly the most efficient strategy to take control of the population. Moore’s law and the exponential improvement in computer processing capacity has exponentially accelerated the global elites’ ability to precisely identify how to implement peaceful control that will have the majority virtually begging for tyranny. In Huxley’s “Brave New World,” people have fallen in love with the very technologies that prevent them from thinking and acting of their free will, so the enslaved maintain their own control structure. As noted by Neil Postman in his book, “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business,” in which he compares and contrasts the futures presented by Huxley and Orwell:
The Promise of the Great ResetOne can argue about who predicted the future best, Orwell or Huxley, but in the final analysis, I think we’re looking at a mixture of both, although it seems obvious to me that Huxley was more prescient and he was actually Orwell’s mentor. Huxley’s concerns are far more serious as the programming is essentially silent, and it is patently evident that the technocrats have been highly successful in implementing this strategy in the past year.2 That said, we’re facing both the threat of externally imposed authoritarianism and control predicted by Orwell, and the subversive, subliminal programming through mindless entertainment and the lure of convenience proposed by Huxley. Undoubtedly, the combination is a powerful one, and likely far more effective than either control strategy by itself. I’ve already touched on how Orwell’s work is playing out in the real world through the “double-think” mental gymnastics we get from the controlled, tightly centralized mainstream media these days. For an example of how Huxley’s ideas have influenced the technocracy’s planning, look no further than the globalists’ call to “build back better” (video above) and the World Economic Forum’s 2030 agenda (below), which includes the strangely ominous dictum that you will own nothing and be happy. The unstated implication is that the world’s resources will be owned and controlled by the technocratic elite, and you’ll have to pay for the temporary use of absolutely everything. Nothing will actually belong to you. All items and resources are to be used by the collective, while actual ownership is restricted to an upper stratum of social class. Just how will this imposed serfdom make you happy? Again, the unstated implication is that lack of ownership is a marvelous convenience. Rent a pot and then return it. You don’t need storage space! Imagine the freedom! They even promise the convenience of automatic drone delivery straight to your door. Artificial intelligence — which is siphoning your data about every aspect of your existence through nearly every piece of technology and appliance you own — will run your life, predicting your every mood and desire, catering to your every whim. Ah, the luxury of not having to make any decisions! This is the mindset they’re trying to program into you, and for most, it appears to be working. For others who can see the propaganda for what it is, these promises look and feel like proverbial mouse traps. Once you bite the cheese, you’ll be stuck, robbed of your freedom forevermore. And, as Huxley told Wallace, individual freedom is really a prerequisite for a genuinely productive society:
When Wallace challenges Huxley on this by pointing out that the Soviet Union was successfully developing both militarily and artistically, despite being a tightly controlled regime, Huxley counters by saying that those doing that creative work, especially scientists, were also granted far greater personal freedom and prosperity than everyone else. As long as they kept their noses out of politics, they were brought into the upper echelon and given a great deal of freedom, and without this freedom, they would not have been able to be as creative and inventive, Huxley says. The Threat of the New NormalThis anti-human “new normal” that world leaders are now urging us to accept and embrace is the trap of all traps. Unless your most cherished dream is to lie in bed for the rest of your life, your body atrophying away, with a pair of VR goggles permanently strapped to your face, you must resist and oppose the “new normal” every day going forward. As noted by Spiked editor Brendan O’Neill in his February 5, 2021, article,3 while the first lockdown was marked by a sense of camaraderie and the promise of it being a temporary measure that we can get through if we just address the problem together, by the third round, all forms of social connection have vanished, as has the anticipation of a return to normality.
Make no mistake. The media’s rebuke of a return to normalcy as a nonsensical piped ream is dangerous propaganda territory. The reality is we could easily open everything back up and go back to business as usual, and nothing out of the ordinary, in terms of sickness and death, would occur. People die every year. It’s an inevitable reality of life and, up until the last two weeks of 2020, there actually were no greater number of deaths recorded than the year prior, and the year prior to that, and the one before that.4 While new numbers released by the CDC indicate that 2020’s final two weeks may have pushed the total deaths beyond 2019’s (final data won’t be available for months),5 COVID-19 simply isn’t as lethal as initially suspected. It primarily kills the elderly and the chronically ill — what’s most interesting is that suicide deaths among teens went up dramatically as lockdowns and school closings dragged on.6,7 What’s more, we now have effective prophylactics and treatments that ensure the loss of life due to COVID-19 can be radically minimized. Yet, our leaders don’t want you to think in those terms. They want you to remain fearful because they have a deep appreciation of the value of fear in catalyzing the precise type of capitulation and surrender they need in order to implement the Great Reset. Tragically, many citizens have so embraced the fear culture, they don’t even need an authoritarian figure to tell them to comply with rules that have no medical benefit anymore. They’ll happily act as the designated COVID police, making sure everyone around them complies. Hell hath no fury like one caught in the unsound belief that they will die if you don’t wear a mask. This is no way to live. It’s not sane and it’s not healthy, and the prophetic works of Huxley and Orwell illustrate where it will all end if we don’t push back. Never Surrender to the New NormalIn closing, I’d like you to ponder some portions from O’Neill’s article, in which he warns us about the threat posed by the culture of fear itself, which is just as dangerous and damaging as any virus:8
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/20/brave-new-world.aspx
0 Comments
What you eat has a powerful effect on brain health and can even influence your cognitive function long-term. In particular, a study of 1,787 adults revealed that out of 49 whole foods, cheese was “by far” the most protective food when it comes to avoiding age-related cognitive problems.1 Cheese has been unfairly vilified due to its saturated fat content, when in reality it’s a wholesome food that provides key nutrients many people are lacking, including healthy fats and vitamins. As the featured study shows, eating cheese daily may be a simple way to keep your brain sharp, even into your later years. Eat Cheese Daily to Protect Your BrainResearchers from Iowa State University measured what’s known as fluid intelligence (FI) among the study participants, who ranged in age from 46 to 77 when the study was completed. Fluid intelligence is the ability to “think on the fly” or solve problems without any prior knowledge of the problem at hand. Research suggests that greater decline in fluid intelligence as you age is associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease,2 but dietary changes may influence fluid intelligence. The study evaluated self-reported intake of 49 foods, including fruits and vegetables, fish, meat, bread, coffee and wine, and compared it to fluid intelligence trajectories among the participants, some of whom had a family history of Alzheimer’s disease while some did not. Those who ate cheese daily had better fluid intelligence scores over time, while red wine consumption also had a favorable effect. Consuming lamb weekly also led to improved FI outcomes.3 Study author Auriel Willette, an assistant professor in Food Science and Human Nutrition, said in a news release:4
The researchers concluded that modifying your daily meal plans may minimize cognitive decline while adding cheese, red wine and weekly lamb may improve long-term cognitive function.5 Study author Brandon Klinedinst, a neuroscience Ph.D. candidate at Iowa State, further highlighted the power of diet on your long-term brain health:6
Cheese Is a Brain FoodCheese isn’t widely known as a “brain food” — but it should be. For instance, consuming mold-fermented cheese, like camembert, for three months had beneficial effects on brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels in older women with mild cognitive decline.7 BDNF is highly involved in the growth and survival of nerve cells specifically,8 and low levels of BDNF have been connected to the development of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease,9,10 as well as other brain disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease and schizophrenia.11 Bioactive peptides produced by milk fermentation during the cheese-making process may also have antioxidant properties that play a role in enhancing cognitive ability.12 Intake of camembert cheese has been shown to prevent Alzheimer’s disease in an animal study, and it’s thought that novel lactopeptides in fermented dairy products may improve memory function and cognitive decline.13 When researchers screened peptides generated from whey proteins during cheese manufacturing, Trp-Tyr (WY)-containing peptides were found to improve memory function in mice.14 They worked by inhibiting monoamine oxidase-B activity (MAO-B) — MAO-B has been suggested as a biomarker of neuroinflammation in neurodegenerative disorders15 — thereby helping to prevent age-related cognitive decline.16 A host of other studies also hint at the brain protective potential of cheese, including:
Why Cheese Is Good for YouCheese contains nutrients that are beneficial for your whole body, including the powerful nutritional triad of calcium, vitamin D and vitamin K2, which together channel calcium into your bones and teeth while keeping it out of your arteries. Aside from natto, cheese is the food with the highest menaquinone, or vitamin K2, concentrations, but levels vary depending on the type of cheese. Dutch hard cheeses such as gouda and edam have relatively high concentrations, as do French cheeses such as Munster cheese.20 In addition to bone health, vitamin K2’s role in heart health is well-noted. In fact, in one study, those who had the highest amount of vitamin K2 were 52% less likely to experience severe calcification in their arteries and 57% less likely to die from heart disease over a seven- to 10-year period.21 When you eat cheese, you also get high-quality protein and amino acids, omega-3 fats and vitamins and minerals, including calcium, zinc, phosphorus, vitamins A, D, B2 (riboflavin), and B12.22 You’ll also get beneficial CLA (conjugated linoleic acid), a powerful cancer-fighter, particularly when you eat grass fed cheese. Cheese Wards Off Chronic DiseaseThe nutrients in cheese add up to whole-body effects that may help prevent chronic disease even outside of your brain. In a study published in BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care, for instance, researchers noted that participants who ate at least two servings of dairy products each day had a lower risk of high blood pressure and Type 2 diabetes.23 In addition, they were at lower risk for metabolic syndrome. “Emerging evidence suggests that dairy foods, particularly whole fat dairy and fermented dairy (e.g., cheese or yogurt), may influence diverse pathways and have favorable metabolic effects,” the researchers explained.24 This is another way cheese may be neuroprotective, as conditions like diabetes take a toll on your brain health. Diabetes even ages your brain about five years faster than normal.25 An inverse relationship has also been found between the daily amount of fermented dairy consumed and the development of heart disease. For instance, those who had the highest intake of fermented dairy products had a 27% lower risk of heart disease in one study.26 Greater cheese consumption, in particular, is also linked with a lower risk of heart disease.27 Writing in the British Journal of Nutrition, researchers noted that dairy products shouldn’t be vilified due to their fat content but, rather, “The whole food matrix should be considered,” and:28
The Type of Cheese MattersAll cheese is not created equal, particularly if it’s highly processed. Processed cheese or “cheese food” is not a health food and should be avoided, while natural cheese is a whole food — a simple fermented dairy product made with nothing more than a few basic ingredients — milk, starter culture, salt and an enzyme called rennet. You can tell a natural cheese by its label, which will state the name of the cheese variety, such as "cheddar cheese," "blue cheese," or "brie." Real cheese requires refrigeration. Taking it up a notch is grass fed cheese, which is made from the milk of grass fed cows. There are a number of reasons to seek out grass fed dairy products as much as possible. For foodies, the seasonal variations in flavor are a huge draw. For the health-conscious, milk from cows raised primarily on pasture has been shown to be higher in many nutrients, including vitamin E, beta-carotene and the healthy fats omega-3 and CLA.29 On an environmental level, grass fed dairy also has a considerably reduced footprint compared to the way most dairy is produced on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). You may find grass fed dairy farmers who have not yet gone through (or who cannot afford to go through) the USDA’s organic certification process. In that case, speak to the farmer directly to find out about how the animals are raised. You can also look for the American Grassfed Association (AGA) logo, a much-needed grass fed standards and certification for American-grown grass fed meat and dairy.30 Raw grass fed cheese is also highly recommended and, because raw cheese is not pasteurized, natural enzymes in the milk are preserved, increasing its nutritional punch. Overall, grass fed cheese is a healthy whole food to include in your diet, one that offers protection for your brain and your health as a whole. It’s not, however, the only food that’s beneficial for your brain. If you’re looking for more tips on what to eat to protect your cognitive function, focus on avoiding processed fast foods and eating plenty of brain-boosting foods, like small cold-water fish, cruciferous veggies, leafy greens and pastured, organic eggs, instead. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/20/cheese-is-one-of-the-most-neuroprotective-foods.aspx For several months, experts have highlighted the true cause behind the COVID-19 pandemic, namely the incorrect use of PCR tests set at a ridiculously high cycle count (CT), which falsely labels healthy people as “COVID-19 cases.” In reality, the PCR test is not a proper diagnostic test, although it has been promoted as such. An important question that demands an answer is whether the experts at our federal health agencies and the World Health Organization were really too ignorant to understand the implications of using this test at excessive CT, or whether it was done on purpose to create the illusion of a dangerous, out-of-control pandemic. Regardless, those in charge need to be held accountable, which is precisely what the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss,1 or ACU),2,3 intends to do. They’re in the process of launching an international class-action lawsuit against those responsible for using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic in order to implement economically devastating lockdowns around the world. I wrote about this in “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun” and “German Lawyers Initiate Class-Action Coronavirus Litigation.” FDA Demands Higher False PositivesAn interesting case detailed in a January 21, 2021, Buzzfeed article4 that raises those same questions in regard to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is its recent spat with Curative, a California testing company that got its start in January 2020. It has since risen to become one of the largest COVID-19 test providers in the U.S. Curative’s most popular PCR test differs from other providers in that it uses spit swabbed from the patient’s tongue, cheek and mouth rather than from the back of the nasal cavity. In April 2020, the FDA issued an accelerated emergency use authorization5 for the Curative spit test, but only for patients who had been symptomatic within the two weeks prior to taking the test, as the data available at that time showed it failed to catch asymptomatic “cases.” However, the test was subsequently used off-label on individuals without symptoms anyway, and the company has been urging the FDA to expand its authorization to include asymptomatic individuals based on newer data. In December 2020, Curative submitted that data,6 showing its oral spit test accurately identified about 90% of positive cases when compared against a nasopharyngeal PCR test set to 35 CT.7 The FDA objected, saying that Curative was comparing its test against a PCR that had a CT that was too low, and would therefore produce too many false negatives.8 According to the FDA, the bar Curative had chosen was “not appropriate and arbitrary,” Buzzfeed reports.9 This is a curious statement coming from the FDA, considering the scientific consensus on PCR tests is that anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable.10,11,12 From the start, the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended running PCR tests at a CT of 40.13 This was already high enough to produce an inordinate number of false positives, thereby labeling healthy people as “COVID-19 cases,” but when it comes to Curative’s spit test, the FDA is demanding they compare it against PCR processed at a CT of 45, which is even more likely to produce false positives. The FDA’s concern is that Curative’s test is missing infections and giving infectious people a clean bill of health. However, in reality, it’s far more likely that the test is accurately weeding out people who indeed are not infectious at all and rightly should be given a clean bill of health. It seems the FDA is merely pushing for a process that will ensure a higher “caseload” to keep the illusion of widespread infection going. When Are You Actually Infectious?A persistent sticking point with the PCR test is that it picks up dead viral debris, and by excessively magnifying those particles with CTs in the 40s, noninfectious individuals are labeled as infectious and told to self-isolate. In short, media and public health officials have conflated “cases” — positive tests — with the actual illness. Medically speaking, a “case” refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness. Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, “case,” has been arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of noninfectious viral RNA. The research is unequivocal when it comes to who’s infectious and who’s not. You cannot infect another person unless you carry live virus, and you typically will not develop symptoms unless your viral load is high enough. As it pertains to PCR testing, when excessively high CTs are used, even a minute viral load that is too low to cause symptoms can register as positive. And, since the test cannot distinguish between live virus and dead viral debris, you may not even be carrying live virus at all. These significant drawbacks are why PCR testing really only should be done on symptomatic patients, and why a positive test should be weighed as just one factor of diagnosis. Symptoms must also be taken into account. If you have no symptoms, your chances of being infectious and spreading the infection to others is basically nil, as data14 from 9,899,828 individuals have shown. Of these, not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive. This study even confirmed that even in cases where asymptomatic individuals had had an active infection, and had been carriers of live virus, the viral load had been too low for transmission. As noted by the authors:15
PCR Picks Up Dead Virus for Weeks After Infection Has ClearedBecause the PCR test cannot discern between live virus and dead, noninfectious viral debris, the timing of the test ends up being important. One example of this was presented in a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine,16 in which the author describes an investigation done on hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Seoul, South Korea. Whereas the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance confirmed by cultured samples was just seven days, with the longest time frame being 12 days, the PCR test continued to pick up SARS-CoV-2 for a median of 34 days. The shortest time between symptom onset to a negative PCR test was 24 days. In other words, there was no detectable live virus in patients after about seven days from onset of symptoms (at most 12 days). The PCR test, however, continued to register them as “positive” for SARS-CoV-2 for about 34 days. The reason this matters is because if you have no live virus in your body, you are not infectious and pose no risk to others. This then means that testing patients beyond, say, Day 12 to be safe, after symptom onset is pointless, as any positive result is likely to be false. But there’s more. As noted in that New England Journal of Medicine article:17
This suggests symptomology is a really important piece of the puzzle. If no viable virus is detectable beyond Day 3 after your fever ends, it’s probably unnecessary to retest beyond that point. A positive result beyond Day 3 after your fever breaks is, again, likely to be a false positive, as you have to have live virus in order to be infectious. Even more important, these results reconfirm that CTs above 30 are inadvisable as they’re highly likely to be wrong. Here, they found the CT had to be below 28.4 in order for the positive test to correspond with live virus. As noted by the authors:18
Testing for Dead Viruses Will Ensure Everlasting LockdownsTo circle back to the Curative PCR test, the company argues that the test is accurate when it comes to detecting active infection, and as CEO Fred Turner told Buzzfeed:19
Again, this has to do with the fact that the Curative spit test has a sensitivity resembling that of a nasopharyngeal PCR set at a CT of 30. The lower CT count narrows the pool of positive results to include primarily those with higher viral loads and those who are more likely to actually carry live virus. This is a good thing. What the FDA wants Curative to do is to widen that net so that more noninfectious individuals can be labeled as a “case.” In an email to Buzzfeed, Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, stated that using a CT of 45 is “absolutely insane,” because at that magnification, you may be looking at a single RNA molecule, whereas “when people are sick and are contagious, they literally can have 1,000,000,000,000x that number.”20 Mina added that such a sensitive PCR test “would potentially detect someone 35 days post-infection who is fully recovered and cause that person to have to enter isolation. That’s crazy and it’s not science-based, it’s not medicine-based and it’s not public health-oriented.”21 While the FDA has issued a warning not to use the Curative spit test on asymptomatic people, Florida has dismissed the warning and will continue to use the test on symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals alike. Only Miami-Dade County is reconsidering how it is using the test, although a definitive decision has yet to be announced.22 The Lower the CT, the Greater the AccuracyWhile the FDA claims high sensitivity (meaning higher CT) is required to ensure we don’t end up with asymptomatic spreaders in our communities, as reviewed above, this risk is exceedingly small. We really need to stop panicking about the possibility of healthy people killing others. It’s not a sane trend, as detailed in “The World Is Suffering from Mass Delusional Psychosis.” According to an April 2020 study23 in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, to get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at just 17 cycles. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero. Similarly, a December 3, 2020, systematic review24 published in the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases, which assessed the findings of 29 different studies, found that “CT values were significantly lower … in specimens producing live virus culture.” In other words, the higher the CT, the lower the chance of a positive test actually being due to the presence of live (and infectious) virus. “Two studies reported the odds of live virus culture reduced by approximately 33% for every one unit increase in CT,” the authors noted. Importantly, five of the studies included were unable to identify any live viruses in cases where a positive PCR test had used a CT above 24. In cases where a CT above 35 was used, the patient had to be symptomatic in order to obtain a live virus culture. This again confirms that PCR with a CT over 35 really shouldn’t be used on asymptomatic people, as any positive result is likely to be meaningless and simply force them into isolation for no reason. PCR Testing Based on Erroneous PaperIn closing, the whole premise of PCR testing to diagnose COVID-19 is in serious question, as the practice appears to be based on an erroneous paper that didn’t even undergo peer-review before being implemented worldwide. November 30, 2020, a team of 22 international scientists published a review25 challenging the scientific paper26 on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 written by Christian Drosten, Ph.D., and Victor Corman (the so-called “Corman-Drosten paper”). According to Reiner Fuellmich,27 founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned at the beginning of this article, Drosten is a key culprit in the COVID-19 pandemic hoax. The scientists demand the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted due to “fatal errors,”28 one of which is the fact that it was written, and the test itself developed, before any viral isolate was available. The test is simply based on a partial genetic sequence published online by Chinese scientists in January 2020. In an Undercover DC interview, Kevin Corbett, Ph.D., one of the 22 scientists who are now demanding the paper’s retraction, stated:29
The critique against PCR testing is further strengthened by the November 20, 2020, study30 in Nature Communications, which found no viable virus in any PCR-positive cases. I referenced this study earlier, noting that not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive. But that’s not all. After evaluating PCR testing data from 9,899,828 people, and conducting additional live cultures to check for active infections in those who tested positive, using a CT of 37 or lower, they were unable to detect live virus in any of them, which is a rather astonishing finding. On the whole, it seems clear that mass testing using PCR is inappropriate, and does very little if anything to keep the population safe. Its primary result is simply the perpetuation of the false idea that healthy, noninfectious people can pose a mortal threat to others, and that we must avoid social interactions. It’s a delusional idea that is wreaking havoc on the global psyche, and it’s time to put an end to this unhealthy, unscientific way of life. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/19/covid-pcr-test-fraud.aspx The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) lab appears to be Ground Zero for infection for SARS-CoV-2, according to a paper trail left by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) itself and explored in the above video. Its author, who lived in China for 10 years and speaks fluent Chinese, said this is not so much a theory as a revelation of publicly available information that he came across. One of his earliest suspicions arose from a November 18, 2019, job opening posted by WIV, looking for someone to research the relationship between coronavirus and bats and, specifically, how bats can carry coronavirus but still be long lived. Another job opening at WIV, posted December 24, 2019, suggested that they’d discovered a “new and terrible virus” and were recruiting people to come and deal with it. ‘Bat Woman’ Researcher May Have Been Patient ZeroUpon digging into the staff at WIV, the author highlights Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., the director of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, also known as “bat woman.” She has been studying bat-borne viruses since 2004, including SARS-like coronaviruses. According to the World Society for Virology, “One of her great contributions is to uncover genetically diverse SARS-like coronaviruses in bats with her international collaborators and provide unequivocal evidence that bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-CoV.”1 In his book "China COVID-19: The Chimera That Changed the World,"2 professor Giuseppe Tritto — president of the World Academy of Biomedical Sciences and Technology, founded under UNESCO, and an internationally recognized expert in bio and nanotechnology — accuses Shi of producing a SARS-like virus with increased pathogenicity by inserting a segment of the HIV virus into a horseshoe bat coronavirus.3 Chinese officials also recently deleted some 300 coronavirus studies, including all of the papers published by Shi. A fact sheet released January 15, 2021, by the U.S. Department of State, but which has since been archived, further questions WIV’s research on bat and other coronaviruses prior to the COVID-19 outbreak:4
The previously undisclosed information in the fact sheet notes that accidental laboratory infections have caused several previous virus outbreaks and the Chinese government has prevented investigators and journalists from interviewing WIV researchers. What’s more, WIV researchers have been conducting experiments involving the bat coronavirus RaTG13 — the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2, with 96.2% similarity — since at least 2016. 2018: Coronaviruses From Bats Likely to Infect PeopleIn October 2015, Shi and her team conducted serological surveillance on people who live in close proximity to caves where bats that carry diverse SARSr-CoVs [severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses] roost.5 They took blood samples from 218 villagers in Jinning County, Yunnan province, China, which revealed that six people were infected. “Our study provides the first serological evidence of likely human infection by bat SARSr-CoVs or, potentially, related viruses,” they wrote, and, “These results indicate that some SARSr-CoVs may have high potential to infect human cells.”6 Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance president, was also a part of the study, which is notable since he is also part of the World Health Organization team that is investigating the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Daszak works closely with WIV and dozens of others on controversial gain-of-function research, which involves manipulating pathogens, including coronaviruses, to make them more infectious or lethal. He has openly and repeatedly dismissed the possibility of the pandemic being the result of a lab leak,7 and also has close ties to Shi. If there were any doubt, The Sun,8 a tabloid paper in the U.K., featured a Twitter conversation in which Daszak “appears to say he is looking forward to an alcohol-fueled karaoke party in a bat cave with Shi Zhengli,” GM watch noted.9 Daszak tweets, “Looking forward to that special moment when we hit the baiju and the karaoke with Zhengli & Linfa [likely referring to Wang Linfa, aka ‘batman,’ another bat researcher and WIV’s chairman of scientific advisory10].” He adds, “Right now a party in a bat cave sounds just right to me!!”11 Report: Wuhan Lab Researchers Had Symptoms, Self-QuarantinedThe video also mentions Botao Xiao, Ph.D., a professor at Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, who trained at Northwestern University and Harvard Medical School. In February 2020, he posted a thesis about details he knew but wasn’t supposed to talk about. He knew, for instance, that researchers at WIV were infected and had already begun to self-quarantine after showing symptoms. He said the majority of the researchers at the lab were suspicious that the virus was from bats, that it’s not a natural infection and that the main source of the virus is from the Wuhan lab, which, by the way, is only 280 meters (306.2 yards) from the seafood market where the virus was “officially” said to have originated. According to the video, he also indicated that researchers were splashed with urine and blood samples from collected bats, along with a timeline of these events, and he knew how many bats were collected. In an October 19, 2020, report, however, Dr. Peter Breggin revealed the CCP forced them to recant and the paper was withdrawn, “perhaps because it was so cogently written and spot on.”12 Patient Zero Is MissingHuang Yan Ling was a researcher at WIV who worked closely with Shi. According to the video, many believe Ling is Patient Zero for the COVID-19 pandemic, but she’s now missing. Her profile and biography are missing from WIV’s website, but, after rumors surfaced that she was presumed dead, the Chinese government posted a notice on WIV’s site saying she’s alive and well. No proof was offered, however, and the author suggests that if CCP wanted to stop the rumors, the first thing they would have done was have her schedule a public appearance. But “no one has seen her.” A message reportedly appeared on China’s WeChat messaging service claiming to be from Ling and stating, “To my teachers and fellow students, how long no speak. I am Huang Yanling, still alive. If you receive any email [regarding the Covid rumor], please say it’s not true," but she has since vanished from social media.13 The U.K.’s Mirror further reported in January 2021:14
SARS-CoV-2 Uniquely Well-Adapted for Human InfectionDaszak told The Associated Press in November 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 could have passed from a wildlife poacher to a trader who brought it to Wuhan,15 and others have also pushed the idea that SARS-CoV-2 arose and evolved naturally, skipping from one animal species to another before ultimately developing the capability of infecting humans. There's no direct evidence that the virus arose zoonotically,16 however, while Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D., a former researcher with the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute, has detailed several unique features that make SARS-CoV-2 exceptionally well-adapted for human infection:17
Jean-Claude Perez, Ph.D., a retired interdisciplinary researcher with the IBM European Research Center on Artificial Intelligence, also claims to provide "formal proof that 2019-nCoV coronavirus is partially a synthetic genome" due to the presence of HIV1 retrovirus fragments.22 Will WHO Team Investigate a Possible Lab Leak?In an editorial published in the Journal of Human Security, Colin Butler of Australian National University, a former WHO adviser who not only worked in China but also previously worked with Daszak, argued there is “striking” evidence that COVID-19 may have leaked from a lab.23,24 The AP noted, however, “According to WHO’s published agenda25 for its origins research, there are no plans to assess whether there might have been an accidental release of the coronavirus at the Wuhan lab.”26 Taking it a step further, GM Watch reported that Daszak “has already poured cold water on calls for a forensic investigation”:27
In February 2021, it was reported that the WHO team spent 3.5 hours at WIV, with little actual information released afterward. Daszak vaguely stated on Twitter, “Extremely important meeting today with staff at WIV including Dr. Shi Zhengli. Frank, open discussion. Key questions asked & answered.”30 Yet, given the glaring need for a thorough and independent investigation into a possible laboratory leak, many have called for Daszak to step down from the WHO investigatory team,31 as evidence ramps up that a laboratory leak cannot be ruled out. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/19/ground-zero-infection-at-the-wuhan-lab.aspx A number of mental health experts have expressed concern over the blatant fear and panic mongering during the COVID-19 pandemic, warning about potential — and let's face it, likely — psychiatric effects. In a December 22, 2020, article1 in Evie Magazine, S.G. Cheah discusses what may in fact be the real problem at hand: mass insanity caused by "delusional fear of COVID-19." Cheah refers to lectures and articles by psychiatrist and medical legal expert Dr. Mark McDonald,2 who believes "the true public health crisis lies in the widespread fear which morphed and evolved into a form of mass delusional psychosis."
Infectious HysteriaCheah goes on to review a number of irrational behaviors that have become all too commonplace, such as parents being kicked off planes because their young children refuse to wear a mask during the flight, or people having hysterical meltdowns when they see a person not wearing a mask. The science3 is quite clear about the risk posed by asymptomatic individuals, meaning anyone who feels perfectly healthy yet may have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a PCR test set to an excessively high cycle threshold. They pose an exceptionally low risk to others, if any risk at all. Science is even clearer on healthy individuals who test negative for SARS-CoV-2. You simply cannot spread a virus you do not have. The bulk of published science4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 also shows that masks do not prevent the spread of viral infections, and this is particularly true if you're wearing cloth masks,12 surgical masks or masks with vents. Despite all of that, many still enter a state of hysteria when they see an unmasked person, even if they look perfectly healthy and clearly are not suffering from any kind of respiratory issue. This is a highly irrational state that has no basis in reality. Indeed, according to McDonald, these people are suffering from delusional psychosis,13 and there are a lot of them. He goes so far as to refer to the outside of his home or office as the "outdoor insane asylum," where he must assume "that any person that I run into is insane" unless they prove otherwise.14 As explained by Cheah:15
In his interview with Jesse Lee Peterson (video above), McDonald explains his diagnosis this way:
While there's no data to back this up, McDonald says it appears women tend to be more prone to delusional psychosis than men. Part of it, he suggests, may be because when women get scared, they tend to become more hyperprotective than men do under the same circumstances, likely because women — speaking in pure generalizing terms, of course — tend to be more emotionally driven. Mass Delusional Psychosis Traumatizes ChildrenMcDonald is particularly concerned with the lasting effects this widespread insanity will have on children as they grow up. As a psychiatrist specializing in the treatment of children and adolescents, he should know. Since the lockdowns began in the first quarter of 2020, he's seen a massive increase in patients, and their mental states are far worse than what he's used to seeing in these age groups. One of the worst traumas children suffer as a result of all this fearmongering is the idea that they may kill their parents or grandparents simply by being around them. As noted by Cheah, they're also being taught to feel guilty about behaviors that would normally be completely, well, normal. As just one example, hysterical adults calling a toddler who refuses to wear a mask a "brat," when in fact resisting having a restrictive mask put across your face is perfectly normal at that age. "It's not normal for children to grow up thinking that everyone is a danger to everyone else," Cheah says, and rightly so. It's not normal at all, and hysterical adults are mindlessly inflicting severe emotional trauma on an entire generation. As noted by McDonald in his interview with Peterson above, a primary cause of depression, especially among youngsters, is disconnection from others. We need face-to-face contact, we need physical contact as well as emotional intimacy. We need these things to feel safe around others and within our own selves. Digital interactions simply cannot replace these most basic human needs, and are inherently separating rather than connective. McDonald cites recent CDC statistics showing there's been a 400% increase in adolescent depression compared to one year ago, and in 25% of cases, they've contemplated suicide. These are unheard of statistics, he says. Never before have so many teenagers considered committing suicide. "This is a mass-casualty event," McDonald says, and parents — adults — are to blame, because they are the ones scaring them to the point they don't feel life is worth living anymore. This is also why just treating the children is not going to be effective enough. We have to address the psychosis of the adult population. "It's up to us adults to fix this," McDonald says, "because children are not going to be able to fix this themselves." Delusional People Ultimately Require Controlled EnvironmentsWe must also address the mass delusion for another reason, and that is because it's driving us all, sane and insane alike, toward a society devoid of all previous freedoms and civil liberties, and the corrupt individuals in charge will not voluntarily relinquish power once we've given it to them. A totalitarian society, McDonald believes, is the ultimate end of this societal psychosis unless we do something about it and realize that "we're fine, we're perfectly safe." Indeed, we're in no more danger now than we were pre-COVID. We must not allow our freedoms to be taken from us due to delusional fears. As noted by Cheah in her article:16
A December 18, 2020, Tweet by political commentator Candace Owens also sums up how irrational fear and panic have figuratively lobotomized a significant portion of the public: McDonald points out that many of our leaders obviously do not suffer these same delusional fears. They issue stay-at-home orders from their vacation homes in the Caribbean and repeatedly break their own mask and lockdown mandates. They ride their bikes, stroll through the park, have family gatherings and dine out without a care. They know COVID-19 isn't the deadly plague it's been made out to be, but they're playing the game because it benefits them. Fear Is Never VirtuousThe video above features a short lecture McDonald gave during America's Frontline Doctors' White Coat Summit 217 in mid-October 2020, titled "The Way Forward: Overcoming Fear." In it, he points out that not only has fear morphed into a delusional belief that masks, gloves and physical separation is required to stay alive, but fear has also been turned into a virtue, which is doubly tragic and wrong. Wearing a mask has become a way to demonstrate that you're a "good person," someone who obviously cares about others, whereas not wearing a mask brands you as an inconsiderate lout, if not a prospective mass murderer, simply by breathing. By encouraging us to remain in fear, to burrow and settle into it and allow it to control and constrain our lives, the fear has become so entrenched that anyone who says we need to be fearless and fight for our freedoms is attacked for being not only stupid but also dangerous. "I would argue that it's the opposite," McDonald says. The problem we now face is that the delusion has taken such hold that even if the mask mandates ended nationwide today, many would refuse to give up their masks, and they would not stop chastising those who don't wear them, either. What's more, we now have private companies pushing these freedom-robbing edicts, refusing services to those who don't wear masks. Soon, you won't be allowed into certain venues if you don't have the COVID-19 vaccine as well, and private corporations are the ones instigating those unconstitutional rules. If you understand the technocratic agenda, then you know why that is. It's because many private companies are part of the global technocratic alliance that is trying to eliminate our freedoms in order to enrich themselves.
Restoring Sanity as We Move ForwardEssentially, citizens are now acting as a de facto "police force" to suppress other people's freedom, and this has a terribly harmful effect on society. So, how do we get out of the proverbial insane asylum? How do we restore sanity to our society while still helping those who are at greatest risk for complications and death from COVID-19? McDonald offers the following suggestions in his lecture and the featured interview: • We must firmly reject masks as a virtue signal; the idea that action taken out of fear — such as donning a mask — is virtuous. Fear is not helpful and never virtuous. • We should protect those at greatest risk — meaning elderly, frail individuals with comorbidities and those who are in poor health — using simple, inexpensive and readily available prophylactics, including vitamin D, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin and zinc. • Healthy people should never wear masks, social distance or self-isolate. Not only are these strategies unhealthy from a physical standpoint, they also perpetuate the delusional psychosis gripping the nation and therefore must end. • We must embrace courage, truth, honesty and freedom, not just in our thoughts and words but also in our actions. As noted by McDonald in the featured interview, people cannot think logically when in a state of delusional psychosis, hence sharing information, facts, data and evidence tends to be ineffective except in cases where the person was acting out of peer pressure rather than a delusional belief. Typically, the best you can do is stand firm and act in alignment with truth and objective reality, much like you would if you were a first responder faced with an accident victim who is responding hysterically to what you know is only a minor injury. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/18/the-psychological-state-of-america.aspx Researchers from the University of Nottingham revealed an experimental cancer drug showed promising lab results against viral infections, and specifically against COVID-19.1 News about how to control or combat the SARS-CoV-2 virus has overtaken media outlets and public debate, to the detriment of addressing other public health issues. For example, during 2020 the rates of suicides,2 especially among young people, and drug overdoses3 have risen dramatically. Recently, one focus is on debunking potential treatments that are not developed or manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry and encouraging the public to keep their eye squarely on the COVID-19 vaccine. News stories abound about where to get the vaccine, when and where the drug is being shipped and assurances that the side effects are minimal. Recent research published in Viruses,4 however, revealed the drug thapsigargin may have broad-spectrum antiviral activity, including against coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2. Experimental Cancer Pill Shows Antiviral ActivityIn a press release,5 the researchers stressed the significance of improving the clinical management of a variety of viruses since clinical presentation is often indistinguishable. The lab results demonstrated thapsigargin was highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 as well as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza A and the common cold coronavirus OC43. During the study, the researchers found that thapsigargin’s “performance was significantly better than remdesivir and ribavirin in their respective inhibition of OC43 and RSV.”6 In the same study, researchers tested thapsigargin in mice against a lethal influenza strain. It appeared to protect the animals during the challenge and had the ability to inhibit “different viruses before or during active infection.”7 The researchers concluded thapsigargin or its derivatives are a promising inhibitor of the viruses tested. Thapsigargin is derived from the “deadly carrot” thapsia plant,8 also known as villous deadly carrot.9 The drug has previously been tested against prostate cancer and the scientists found that in small doses it had antiviral properties. In the press release,10 the researcher listed some of the key features from other cell and animal studies they believe make thapsigargin a promising antiviral option. This included effectiveness when it was used preventively or during an active infection, stability in an acidic pH so it could be administered orally and greater effectiveness than current antiviral pharmaceutical options. Another of the benefits the researchers believe thapsigargin has compared to other antiviral medications is that the viruses tested didn’t appear to develop a resistance to the compound’s actions. Thapsigargin appeared to trigger an effective immune response in the body as opposed to fighting the virus directly. These responses help disrupt viral replication and mean the drug is potentially valuable against mutant strains since effectiveness is not dependent on direct interaction with the virus. Kin-Chow Chang, Ph.D., a scientist on the research team, is quoted in the Daily Mail saying:11
When considering the financial end of it, the Daily Mail12 reports that thapsigargin could be expensive, as it costs $104 per 1 milligram (mg) dose when used in experimental research. However, the cost may be reduced if it were brought into full production, which would be necessary for the drug to have wide application, as it was estimated doses may range from 200 mg to 800 mg as a flu antiviral. Early Administration of Zinc Reduces Viral ReplicationYour immune system is the first line of defense against all disease, especially infectious diseases. One nutrient that plays an important role is zinc, which has been shown to reduce the severity and duration of infections caused by viruses such as those that cause the common cold.13 Data have suggested that those with low levels of zinc are more likely to die from COVID-19 than those who have higher levels.14 Zinc appears to be the key ingredient in treatment protocols using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a known zinc ionophore.15,16 This means that HCQ helps your cells absorb more zinc and, once inside, zinc prevents viral replication. This is also why treatment with zinc and zinc ionophores works best when taken early in the illness or as a prophylactic. Other zinc ionophores include quercetin and epigallocatechin-gallate (EGCG), which is found in tea.17 Support for the use of quercetin against COVID-19 has also been reported by the Green Stars Project.18 Using a supercomputer, researchers looked for molecules capable of inhibiting the COVID-19 spike protein from interacting with human cells. Quercetin is fifth on the list.19 Physicians, such as French prize-winning microbiologist and infectious disease expert Didier Raoult, report using hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. Raoult reports a combination of HCQ and azithromycin in the early months of the pandemic led to the recovery and nondetection of SARS-CoV-2 in 91.7% of 1,061 patients within 10 days.20 A now infamous study published in The Lancet in May 2020,21 which has since been retracted, sought to smear the use of the cost-effective and time-tested drug HCQ. They declared that HCQ used alone or with a macrolide antibiotic like azithromycin was associated with a reduction in survival and an increase in ventricular arrhythmias. But, when scientists took a closer look at the results, they discovered the integrity of the data collection was suspect, for example, the study included administering doses of the drug that were 100 times higher than FDA recommendations.22 Financial Incentives Driving Treatment ProtocolsAs doctors began speaking out about using hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc and azithromycin in their practice, state medical licensing boards and congressional representatives began issuing threats.23 Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a New York physician who successfully treated his patients with the hydroxychloroquine trio, characterized the fiasco in an interview with Del Bigtree from The Highwire, saying:24
One of the most obvious reasons why certain individuals and companies might want to prevent the use of an inexpensive generic drug such as HCQ is because it might eliminate the need for a vaccine or the development of antiviral medication.25 Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested, and drug companies were, and still are, counting on a massive payday. A paper recently published in The American Journal of Medicine by a team of scientists illustrated the pathophysiological basis and rationale for using HCQ and zinc.26 It is important to remember that while HCQ may have been politically vilified, the drug has been in use since the mid-1940s with a known side-effect history including nausea, vomiting, cramps or diarrhea27 that may happen in the first few days and disappear. Less commonly, people may get tired, feel weak or have a headache, which again typically disappears with use. The CDC published a short list of the expected side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine including local pain, swelling and redness and flu symptoms such as chills, tiredness and headache.28 However, as I've recently written in "Side Effects and Data Gaps Raise Questions on COVID Vaccine," it has also triggered anaphylactic reactions, chronic seizures and sudden death within hours or days (although health authorities deny there is any causal connection between the vaccine and the deaths). The CDC reported that by December 18, 2020, of the 112,807 who had received the first dose, 3,150 had 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."29 This definition likely does not include local pain and swelling or chills and headache. These Strategies Help Reduce Your Risk of Viral InfectionWhile new antivirals like thapsigargin continue to be studied, you have several options to help protect yourself from viruses and treat them if you should get infected. Consider the following strategies you can implement at home.
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/18/this-deadly-carrot-has-major-antiviral-treatment-potential.aspx In breathless tones, NBC News recently reported1 the existence of a business where mask wearing isn't enforced. In the Naples, Florida, grocery store, hardly anyone wears a mask. The store's owner, who the news station claimed "is known for his conservative and often controversial viewpoints," told a reporter he's never worn a mask in his life and never will. The store does have a mask policy posted, but video shows that many customers are fine with not wearing one. There is a mask mandate in Naples, but Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has issued a ruling that makes enforcement of the rule difficult, NBC said. The irony of the whole thing is that while the media claims mask mandates are based on science and will "save lives," this simply isn't true. Science is actually being ignored wholesale and recommendations are primarily pushed based on emotional justifications and triggers. If science were actually followed, universal mask wearing by healthy people would not — indeed could not — be recommended. A Timeline of Unscientific ExtremesFrom the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, health experts have been unable to unify around a cohesive message about face masks. In February 2020, Surgeon General Jerome Adams sent out a tweet urging Americans to stop buying masks, saying they are "NOT effective."2 (He has since deleted that tweet.) Adams also warned that if worn or handled improperly, face masks can increase your risk of infection.3 Similarly, in March 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci stated4 that "people should not be walking around with masks" because "it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is." Logically, only symptomatic individuals and health care workers were urged to wear them. Fauci even pointed out that mask wearing has "unintended consequences" as "people keep fiddling with their mask and they keep touching their face," which may actually increase the risk of contracting and/or spreading the virus. By June 2020, universal mask mandates became the norm and we were told we had to wear them because there may be asymptomatic super-spreaders among us. Interestingly enough, that same month, the World Health Organization admitted that asymptomatic transmission was "very rare." If that's true, then why should healthy, asymptomatic people mask up? By July 2020, Fauci claimed his initial dismissal of face masks had been in error and that he'd downplayed their importance simply to ensure there would be a sufficient supply for health care workers, who need them most.5 Fast-forward a few weeks, and by the end of July 2020, Fauci went to the next extreme, flouting the recommendation to wear goggles and full face shields in addition to a mask, ostensibly because the mucous membranes of your eyes could potentially serve as entryways for viruses as well.6 This despite the fact that a March 31, 2020, report7 in JAMA Ophthalmology found SARS-CoV-2-positive conjunctival specimens (i.e., specimens taken from the eye) in just 5.2% of confirmed COVID-19 patients (two out of 28). What's more, contamination of the eyes is likely primarily the result of touching your eyes with contaminated fingers. If you wear goggles or a face shield, you may actually be more prone to touch your eyes to rub away sweat, condensation and/or scratch an itch. Toward the end of November 2020, the asymptomatic spread narrative was effectively destroyed by the publication of a Chinese study8 involving nearly 9.9 million individuals. It revealed not a single case of COVID-19 could be traced to an asymptomatic individual who had tested positive. Around December 2020, recommendations for double-masking emerged,9 and this trend gained momentum through extensive media coverage as we moved into the first weeks of 2021.10 Undeterred by scientific evidence and logic alike, by the end of January 2021, "experts" started promoting the use of three11,12 or even four13 masks, whether you're symptomatic or not. These recommendations quickly sparked a mild backlash, with other experts encouraging the return to common sense, as wearing three or more masks may impair airflow, which can worsen any number of health conditions. True to form, while promoting the concept of double-masking as recently as January 29, 2021,14 by February 1, Fauci conceded "There is no data that indicates double-masking is effective," but that "There are many people who feel … if you really want to have an extra little bit of protection, 'maybe I should put two masks on.'"15 In other words, the suggestion is based on emotion, not actual science. The Singular Truth Behind Mixed Messaging About MasksThe logical reason for all this flip-flopping is because actual science is NOT being taken into account. From the start, the available research has been rather consistent: Mask wearing does not reduce the prevalence of viral illness and asymptomatic spread is exceedingly rare, if not nonexistent. Both of these scientific consensuses negate the rationale for universal mask wearing by healthy (asymptomatic) people. The only time mask wearing makes sense is in a hospital setting and if you are actually symptomatic and need to be around others, and even then, you need to be aware that it provides only limited protection. The reason for this is because the virus is aerosolized and spreads through the air. Aerosolized viruses — especially SARS-CoV-2, which is about half the size of influenza viruses — cannot be blocked by a mask, as explained in my interview with Denis Rancourt, who has conducted a thorough review of the published science on masks and viral transmission. According to Rancourt, "NONE of these well-designed studies that are intended to remove observational bias found a statistically significant advantage of wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask." COVID-19 Specific Mask Trial Failed to Prove BenefitWhile most mask studies have looked at influenza, the first COVID-19-specific randomized controlled surgical mask trial, published November 18, 2020, confirmed previous findings, showing that:16,17 a. Masks may reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may actually increase your risk by 23% b. The vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn't wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free The study included 3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study. Based on the adherence scores reported, 46% of participants always wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended and 7% failed to follow recommendations. Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no significant difference. Among those who reported wearing their face mask "exactly as instructed," 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls. So, essentially, we're destroying economies and lives around the world to protect a tiny minority from getting a positive PCR test result which, as detailed in "Asymptomatic 'Casedemic' Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear," means little to nothing. CDC Relies on Anecdotal Data to Promote Mask UseIf you want additional proof that health authorities are not concerned with following the best available science, look no further than the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.18 What do they rely on as the primary piece of "evidence" to back up its mask recommendation? A wholly anecdotal story about two symptomatic hair stylists who interacted with 139 clients during eight days is all they offer. Sixty-seven of the clients agreed to be interviewed and tested. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The fact that the stylists and all clients "universally wore masks in the salon" is therefore seen as evidence that the masks prevented the spread of infection. The Danish study reviewed above didn't even make it onto the CDC's list of studies. The CDC's own data19,20,21 also show 70.6% of COVID-19 patients reported "always" wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14.4% reported having worn a mask "often." So, a total of 85% of people who came down with COVID-19 had "often" or "always" worn a mask. This too contradicts the idea that mask wearing will protect against the infection, and is probably a slightly more reliable indicator of effectiveness than the anecdotal hairdresser story. Another recent investigation22 revealed the same trend, showing that states with mask mandates had an average of 27 positive SARS-CoV-2 "cases" per 100,000 people, whereas states with no mask mandates had just 17 cases per 100,000. I reviewed these and other findings in my December 31, 2020, article, "Mask Mandates Are Absolutely Useless." Masks Don't Protect Against SmokeThe CDC also contradicts its own conclusions that masks protect against viral spread by specifying that wearing a cloth face mask will NOT protect you against wildfire smoke, because "they do not catch small, harmful particles in smoke that can harm your health."23 To get any protection from harmful smoke particles, you'd have to use an N95 respirator. The particulate matter in wildfire smoke can range from 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller in smoke and haze, to 10 micrometers in wind-blown dust.24 SARS-CoV-2, meanwhile, has a diameter between 0.06 and 0.14 micrometers, far tinier than the particulate found in smoke. SARS-CoV-2 is also about half the size of most viruses, which tend to measure between 0.02 microns to 0.3 microns.25 Meanwhile, virus-laden saliva or respiratory droplets expelled when talking or coughing measure between 5 and 10 micrometers.26 N95 masks can filter particles as small as 0.3 microns,27 so they may prevent a majority of respiratory droplets from escaping, but not aerosolized viruses. Influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2 are small enough to float in the air column, so as long as you can still breathe, they can flow in and out of your respiratory tract. The following video offers a simple demonstration of how masks "work." Or rather, don't, as the vapor flows in and out, all around the mask — even if you're wearing two of them.
More ScienceIf you're still on the fence about whether masks are a necessity that must be forced on everyone, including young children, I urge you to take the time to actually read through some of the studies that have been published. In addition to the research reviewed above, here's a sampling of what else you'll find when you start searching for data on face masks as a strategy to prevent viral infection:
Statistics Show Mask Use Has No Impact on Infection RatesAnother way to shed light on whether masks work or not is to compare infection rates (read: positive test rates) before and after the implementation of universal mask mandates. In his article,36 "These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing to Stop COVID," bioengineer Yinon Weiss does just that. He points out that "No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time." To see all of the graphs, check out Weiss' article37 or Twitter thread.38 Here are just a select few to bring home the point: To Pose a Risk, You Need To Be SymptomaticStudies have repeatedly shown that masks do not significantly reduce transmission of viruses, so it's safe to assume that a mask will in fact fail in this regard. That leaves two key factors: There must be a contagious person around, and they must be sufficiently close for transmission to occur. We now know that asymptomatic individuals — even if they test positive using a PCR test — are highly unlikely to be contagious.39 So, really, a key prevention strategy for COVID-19 seems to be to stay home if you have symptoms. As for masking up when you're healthy, let alone double, triple or quadruple masking, there's simply no scientific consensus for that strategy. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/17/mask-mandate-for-all.aspx Apple recently included a warning in their support documents for the iPhone 12, cautioning users to keep the phone at least 6 inches away from medical devices, specifically implanted pacemakers and heart defibrillators.1 The idea that electromagnetic fields can damage your health is not new. Over the past decade, I have written many articles discussing the evidence of biological harm from EMF. While the wireless industry has been built on the premise that only ionizing radiation, such as that produced for X-rays, can cause health damage, researchers and scientists have been warning that even nonionizing and nonheat-producing radiation can cause damage to your health and the environment.2 I have been so convinced of the damage that EMF can cause to human health that I took three years to write “EMF*D,” which was released in early 2020 during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the book, I reviewed the overwhelming scientific evidence that EMFs are a hidden health hazard that simply cannot be ignored any longer. Over the years I have interviewed several scientists who have shared their knowledge and expertise in a field that is poorly understood and in which the wireless industry has a vested interest in keeping you in the dark. For over two decades evidence has demonstrated that EMF exposure has a negative influence on your immune system, which is significant during cold and flu season, as well as during the current COVID-19 pandemic.3 While Apple acknowledges the interference EMF may have on pacemakers, it is far from the only damage EMFs can do to your health. Apple Cautions All iPhones May Interfere With Medical DevicesThe new Apple iPhone 12 has reintroduced MagSafe magnets, which are built into the back of the device to attach accessories like magnetic cases or wireless chargers.4 MagSafe magnets were introduced in 2006 on the Mac computer, which allowed the power connector to magnetically attach. These were replaced with a USB-C connector in 2016 and reintroduced on the iPhone 12. In late January 2021, Apple published a new support document cautioning these magnets, as well as the “radios that emit electromagnetic fields,” should be kept a “safe distance away from your device (more than 6 inches / 15 cm apart or more than 12 inches / 30 cm apart if wirelessly charging). But consult with your physician and your device manufacturer for specific guidelines.”5 The devices they refer to are “medical devices such as implanted pacemakers and defibrillators …”6 After Apple released the support documents, the New York Post7 reported that Apple was unable to be reached for comment.8 Although there was no explanation for why the warning was published, it comes just weeks after a paper published in Heart Rhythm9 found the iPhone 12 could disrupt implanted defibrillator function. When brought near the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) over the left chest, the researchers found the ICD immediately suspended action.10 The researchers were able to reproduce the effect multiple times and warned that the iPhone 12 “potentially can inhibit lifesaving therapy in a patient, particularly when the phone is carried in an upper chest pocket.”11 In their statements, Apple said the recent iPhone model poses nearly the same risk of interference as their past models and cautioned that the magnets and EMFs may interfere with the function of medical devices.12 Landmark Study Calls for Less EMF ExposureData published in late 2020 confirm many of the health effects scientists have warned about from EMFs. The New Hampshire Legislative Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5g Technology was engaged to “study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019.”13 The commission was made up of 13 members who were asked to answer questions such as why thousands of peer-reviewed studies that have demonstrated negative health effects have been ignored by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and why FCC guidelines do not account for the health effects of wireless technology. In all, there were eight crucial questions. The commission heard from experts who all acknowledged that the RF radiation from wireless devices had an effect on humans, animals, insects and plants — all, that is, except for the telecommunications representative.14 In much the same way the tobacco industry worked to convince the public that smoking was not dangerous,15,16 the telecommunications industry is trying to sell the public on speed over safety. The 5G technology promises speeds that will be from 10 to 100 times faster than 4G17 and, yet, the signals will likely be weaker since the wavelengths do not penetrate buildings and tend to be incorporated into rain and plants.18 One of the significant problems is that it relies primarily on millimeter-wave (MMW) bandwidths, which are known to penetrate human tissue up to 2 millimeters, where it is absorbed by the surface of the cornea and conducted by sweat glands within the skin. Each of these factors leads to an association with several potential health problems. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has also found MMW useful in crowd control weapons called the Active Denial system, since it produces a severe burning sensation. The DOD writes, "The Active Denial System generates a focused and very directional millimeter-wave radio frequency beam."19 MMW is also known to suppress your immune function20 and increase cellular stress, harmful free radicals, learning deficits21 and, potentially, bacterial antibiotic resistance.22 There is nothing to suggest that 5G will produce less harm than the current technology, and there are thousands of studies demonstrating the harmful effects that it could. >>>>> Click Here <<<<< EMF Pollution Likely Taking a Hidden Toll on Your HealthOne of the significant challenges with EMF radiation is much like high blood pressure. You cannot see it and most people do not feel it. Additionally, EMF radiation cannot be heard or smelled. However, the evidence is clear — there are biological effects taking place whether you're able to sense those changes or not. For most, it's simply a matter of time and overall exposure load. It is important to realize we're not talking about just radiation emitted from your cellphone. Within your home and work environment you are likely exposed to electromagnetic frequencies from Wi-Fi routers, computers, home appliances and wireless “smart” technology. With the development and rollout of 5G, it's bound to get far worse. In 2004, the World Health Organization acknowledged the existence and reality of electromagnetic hypersensitivity, writing about those who experience it saying: “Their EMF exposure is generally several orders of magnitude under the limits of internationally accepted standards.”23 One year later they acknowledged, "Approximately 10% of reported cases of EHS were considered severe" and "… others are so severely affected that they cease work and change their entire lifestyle."24 In 2008, one study25 noted the prevalence of electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome in Austria had risen 1.5% since 1994, which appears to follow the industry growth curve.26 Symptoms can vary between individuals, but some of the commonly reported symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome include:27,28
US Military Investigating EMF and Pilot CrashesWireless technology is also used by the U.S. military. Following a history of unexplained aviation crashes, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) issued a solicitation for research in late 2020 for the Impact of Cockpit Electromagnetics on Aircrew Neurology (ICEMAN) project.29 The objective is to determine how the flood of “radio frequency noise from onboard emissions, communication links, and navigation electronics — including strong electromagnetic fields from audio headsets and helmet tracking technologies” are affecting combat aircraft pilots.30 In 2018 there was a series of three plane crashes that killed five servicemen over two days. At a press conference the director of the Pentagon's joint staff downplayed the trend and rejected questions that suggested the military program was in crisis.31 One year earlier 37 servicemen died in non-combat crashes, double the number that died in 2016. Fox News reported in April 2018 of additional crashes and emergency landings that did not result in fatalities.32 In 2016, Martin Paul, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University, published a paper describing how EMF can trigger neuropsychiatric problems.33 The paper built on past research34,35 that showed EMF triggers voltage-gated calcium channels to open, which in turn causes a chemical cascade resulting in the production of harmful peroxynitrite. Since the brain and nervous system have particularly high density of voltage-gated calcium channels they are prone to the impact of EMFs. Strategies to Reduce Your Exposure to EMFsThere is no doubt in my mind that microwave radiation from wireless technologies is a significant health hazard that needs to be addressed if you're concerned about your health. Unfortunately, you may be frequently exposed at home and in the workplace. With the rollout of 5G, this will make remedial action even more challenging. It is important to get involved and do what you can before 5G becomes a permanent fixture in the environment, such as contacting your local lawmakers and signing local petitions. There are also strategies to help reduce your exposure and mitigate the damage from wireless technology. I've made a chapter from my book “EMF*D” free to download. It summarizes many of the major recommendations and is a handy reference as you're making changes in your home. In early 2020, I also interviewed Brian Hoyer, a leading EMF expert and primary consultant for my book “EMF*D.” In a two-part series Brian shared his personal journey and training and we answered many questions. Consider the suggestions in these articles as well:
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/17/keep-iphone-12-away-from-pacemakers.aspx Any strategy that successfully manipulates public opinion is bound to be repeated, and we can now clearly see how the tobacco industry’s playbook is being used to shape the public narrative about COVID-19 and the projected post-COVID era. In 2011, after many years of raising awareness regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and industrial agriculture, we decided we needed a new game plan. Educating people through our newsletter was great, but we realized the best way to expose Monsanto — a leading GMO advocate and patented seed owner at the time — was to get them to engage directly and ensure national attention. To that end, Mercola.com funded the signature gathering in California that initiated Proposition 37, the right to know what’s in your food by ensuring proper GMO labeling. We spent more than $1 million for the Prop 37 initiative, plus several million dollars more for GMO labeling initiatives in other U.S. states in the following years. This initiative forced Monsanto to engage with the public directly to defend their toxic products and dangerous business practices, all while receiving national coverage in the process. The Monsanto CaseMonsanto spent tens of millions of dollars attacking anyone in their way, but they did so indirectly, just like the tobacco industry did before them. This is the core take-home of what I’m about to describe next. They used a public relations team to do most of their dirty work — paying scientists and academics to voice their “independent opinions,” influencing scientific journals, and getting journalists and editorial boards to write favorable and influential pieces to help them maintain their lies and influence minds. Still, while the spending of tens of millions of dollars to influence voters resulted in a narrow defeat of Prop 37, the new, widespread awareness of GMOs, pesticides and industrial agriculture eventually led to Monsanto’s demise. In 2013, in a last-ditch effort to salvage its tarnished image, Monsanto hired the PR firm Ketchum. As noted in a HuffPost article by Paul Thacker,1 “Monsanto hit reboot with Ketchum,” which “created a campaign called GMO Answers, and used social media and third-party scientists to offer a counter narrative to allay concern about Monsanto’s products.” The GMO Answers’ website is set up to allow professors at public universities answer GMO questions from the public — supposedly without remuneration from the industry. But over the years, evidence emerged showing that these academics are far from independent, and often end up getting paid for their contributions via hidden means, such as unrestricted grants. University of Florida professor Kevin Folta is one prominent example described in my 2016 article “Scientific American — Another Monsanto Bedfellow.” In that article, I also review how GMO Answers co-sponsored a panel discussion about GMOs in March that year with the media and partnerships division of Scientific American. At the time, Jeremy Abatte, vice president and publisher of Scientific American, insisted the event was not a Ketchum event but a Scientific American event. Few bought his reasoning though, and many ended up filing Scientific American into the chemical biotech shill category. Having purchased Monsanto at the end of 2016, Bayer continued the strategy to rely on PR firms for public acceptance. In the article2 “Bayer’s Shady PR Firms: Fleishmanhillard, Ketchum, FTI Consulting,” U.S. Right to Know reviews the many deception scandals involving these firms. A key discovery was evidence showing “there are objective strategies to silence strong voices.” After investigating the strategies used by Monsanto and Bayer, we can now see that the same playbook is being used by Big Tech and Big Pharma to shape the public narratives about COVID-19 and the Great Reset. Again, a central facet of these campaigns is to silence critics, in particular those with large online followings, including yours truly. I have been publicly labeled a “national security threat” to the U.K. by Imran Ahmed, a member of the Steering Committee on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force under the British government’s Commission for Countering Extremism and the chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). According to Ahmed, I and others who question the safety and necessity of a COVID-19 vaccine may be prone to violent extremism. This defamatory statement clearly has no basis in reality whatsoever. Rather, it’s part of the propaganda aimed at destroying the opposition — in this case the opposition to the technocrats driving the Great Reset agenda, which spans across social, economic and health related sectors. As reported by the National Vaccine Information Center, which was also on the CCDH list of national security threats:3
Publicis Is an Organizing Force in the Great Reset DeceptionPublic deception is now being carried out at a mass scale, and the whole thing appears to be led and organized by another major PR firm, this time the Publicis Groupe, self-described as “one of the world’s largest communications groups,”4 which represents major companies within the technology, pharmaceutical and banking industries. These companies, in turn, have various partnerships with the U.S. government and global nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Publicis itself is also a partner of the World Economic Forum,5 which is leading the call for a “reset” of the global economy and a complete overhaul of our way of life.6 As you will see, Publicis’ fingerprints can be found throughout the net of censorship and misdirection that is now being cast across the digital landscape. The Publicis Groupe has manipulated what people think about commercial products for nearly a century. Over that century, they have bought or partnered with targeted advertising avenues, beginning with newspapers, followed by radio, TV, cinema and the internet. More recently, they’ve branched into Big Data acquisitions and artificial intelligence platforms. To understand the power PR companies such as Publicis have today, you need to understand the role of the free press. While pro-industry advertising worked well for decades, there was still the irksome problem of the Fourth Estate, a term that refers to the press. The problem for industry was that professional investigative journalists working for magazines, newspapers and broadcast outlets would write in-depth exposés, outing the truth behind deceptive advertising and countering industry propaganda with science, statistics and other documented facts — and when a free press with honest reporting based on verifiable facts actually does its job, ineffective or toxic products are driven off the market. The answer that industry came up with in the late 20th century to combat truth in journalism was, pure and simple, to control the Fourth Estate with advertising dollars. News organizations will simply not run reports that might harm the bottom line of its advertisers. By further partnering with the “big guns” of media — such as the Paley Center for Media — Publicis and its industry clients have been able to influence and control the press to restrict, indeed virtually eliminate, your ability to get the truth on many important issues. Publicis, Big Pharma and NewsGuardTo start off this sprawling web of industry connections surrounding Publicis, let’s look at its connections to the self-appointed internet watchdog NewsGuard. NewsGuard rates websites on criteria of “credibility” and “transparency,” ostensibly to guide viewers to the most reliable sources of news and information. In reality, however, NewsGuard ends up acting as a gate keeper with a mission to barricade unpopular truth and differences of opinion behind closed gates. Its clearly biased ranking system easily dissuades people from perusing information from low-rated sites, mine included. NewsGuard received a large chunk of its startup capital from Publicis. NewsGuard also has ties to The Paley Center for Media, mentioned earlier. For clarification, The Paley Center is composed of every major media in the world, including Microsoft, AOL, CBS, Fox and Tribune Media. One of its activities is to sponsor an annual global forum for industry leaders.7 NewsGuard is housed in The Paley Center in New York City. In November 2015, Publicis’ chairman of North America, Susan Gianinno, joined The Paley Center’s board of trustees.8 Leo Hindery,9,10 a former business partner of the co-CEOs of NewsGuard, Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz, is also a former trustee and director of The Paley Center. Taken together, NewsGuard has fairly influential connections to The Paley Center besides being a tenant in their building. As mentioned, Publicis represents most of the major pharmaceutical companies in the world, and since so much of its revenue comes from the drug industry, it’s not far-fetched to assume Publicis might influence NewsGuard’s ratings of drug industry competitors, such as alternative health sites. Publicis, Big Pharma, NewsGuard and Big TechNext, let’s add a layer of Big Tech into the mix. Publicis, which represents Big Pharma, not only has the ability to influence the public through NewsGuard, but it’s also a Google partner,11,12 which allows it even greater ability to bury undesirable views that might hurt its clientele. NewsGuard is also partnered with Microsoft, initially through Microsoft’s Defending Democracy Program.13 Through an expanded partnership announced in 2020, Microsoft Edge users gained access to NewsGuard for free, and Microsoft Bing gained access to NewsGuard’s data.14 Publicis, Pharma, NewsGuard, Big Tech, Government and NGOsExpanding the web further onto government and NGO territory, we find that NewsGuard is also connected to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Department of Defense and the World Health Organization. All three are listed as NewsGuard partners.15 NewsGuard is also partnered with:16
To summarize, the web around Publicis now includes international drug companies, NewsGuard, Google, Microsoft, the U.S. State Department and DoD, the WHO and the World Economic Forum. Mind you, this is not a comprehensive review of links. It’s merely a sampling of entities to give you an idea of the breadth of these connections, which when taken together explain how certain views can be so effectively erased. Add in ‘Anti-Hate’ Group and Google-Trusted Health SitesBut we’re not done yet. NewsGuard’s health-related service called HealthGuard17 is also partnered with WebMD, Medscape and the CCDH — the progressive cancel-culture leader18 with extensive ties to government and global think tanks that recently labeled people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine as national security threats. In 2017, WebMD was acquired by Internet Brands, a company under the global investment firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) umbrella. KKR also owns several other health-related internet brands. Since WebMD owned Medscape, it too now belongs to the KKR Internet Brands as well. Together, HealthGuard, CCDH, WebMD and Medscape have launched a public service campaign called VaxFacts. The goal of the campaign is to “provide facts and tools to help consumers make informed decisions about vaccines,” WebMD reports.19 In tandem with that campaign, Google is funding fact-checking organizations to the tune of $3 million, with the aim of countering “vaccine misinformation,” and NewsGuard maintains a “Coronavirus Misinformation Tracking Center” that includes a “Top COVID-19 Vaccine Myths Tracker.”20 WebMD dominates health searches done through Google and shares user information with Google’s advertising arm and other third-party firms — a practice that is illegal in Europe. What this means is DoubleClick, Google’s ad service, knows which prescriptions you’ve searched for on the site, thus providing you with personalized drug ads, and Facebook knows what you’ve searched for in WebMD’s symptom checker, as well as any medical diagnoses you received. I reviewed these findings in “WebMD and Healthline exposed Violating Your Privacy.” Since most of its revenue comes from advertising, WebMD is far from an independent source of well-researched health news. For example, it has been caught shilling for Monsanto, publishing industry-friendly “articles” that are really paid advertisements known in the media world as advertorials. Ten years ago, WebMD was also caught publishing a fake online depression screening test. In actuality, it was an advertising trick for the antidepressant Cymbalta, and there was no way for test takers to get a clean bill of mental health. SummarySo, to recap, we find connections between the drug industry, NewsGuard/HealthGuard, educational institutions, Big Tech companies like Google, Microsoft and Bing, the U.S. State Department and DoD, global technocratic institutions like the WHO, national and global NGOs like the CCDH and the World Economic Forum, and dominating health websites like WebMD and Medscape. Again, this is far from an exhaustive investigation of these kinds of connections. It’s merely a small sampling of readily obvious relationships. Toward the center of this web is the Publicis Groupe, the clients of which include major drug companies, Big Tech companies and financial institutions in more than 100 countries.21 By the way, Publicis also began investing in artificial intelligence technology in 201722 and partnered with Microsoft in 2018 to develop a global AI platform.23 It also purchased the data firm Epsilon in 2019,24 thereby establishing ownership of first-party data — a crucially valuable resource when it comes to the use of AI. As detailed on its website, the firm’s expertise is concentrated within four main activities: communication, media, data and technology (including AI services), and all clients have access to its expertise in all of these areas. While it’s easy to dismiss Publicis as just another ad agency, I believe it would be foolish to underestimate its power to organize the kind of coordination required to shut down vaccine concerns, anti-lockdown proponents and people trying to educate their fellow man about the dangers of the Great Reset, which is being brought forth as a “necessary” post-COVID step. While these things may seem unrelated, they’re really not. As mentioned, the Great Reset involves everything — including health, education, government, economics, redistribution of wealth, business practices, environmental “protections” and much more. What Can You Do?Everything we know is set to change, and those who disagree with the mainstream narrative are troublemakers that must be silenced, lest the plan get pushed off-track by an unwilling public. The answer to this dilemma is transparency. We must expose the machinations that allow this agenda to be pushed forward. Part of that exposure is looking at the role of big PR companies like Publicis, which helps influence the public mind so that the technocrats can maintain their lies until it’s too late to do anything about it. Remember we DEFEATED Monsanto and we will defeat this threat to our freedom too. We simply allowed the public to learn the real truth about the issues, and that triggered Monsanto’s collapse. I am currently working with some of the brightest minds in the tech space —cybersecurity experts and billionaire philanthropists who are very well networked. These individuals are committed to preserving your personal freedoms and liberties. We are seeking to involve a massive redo of the entire internet that will not allow tech monopolies the ability to censor the truth because it happens to conflict with their advertisers. There has been an increasing call for the decentralization of the Internet as expressed in this article on Coin Telegraph last week. This would mean that rather than web sites being hosted on centralized servers in one location their content would be stored and served from thousands if not millions of computers all over the world making it virtually impossible to censor or shut down. We are seeking to implement a strategy that Tim Berners-Lee is proposing. For those of you who don’t know, Berners-Lee is the person that gave us the world wide web graphical interface of the internet, and he didn’t take a penny for it. Had he licensed this technology, he surely would be the richest person in the world today. You can read more about Berners-Lee’s plan in this February 5, 2021, article in The Conversation,25 but essentially in involves data sovereignty, giving you control over your data and privacy. So, what can you do? Please understand you play a VERY important, if not critical role in this process. The first part of the strategy is to repeat what we did with Monsanto and expose their plans. So, if you have any interest in preserving your freedoms, I strongly encourage you to share this article and my video with everyone you know so people can start to understand how they are being manipulated. This will effectively “immunize” them against the propaganda. Secondly, encourage your friends and family to subscribe to the newsletter so you can be updated on the next steps that will be necessary to defeat these tech monopolies tyrannical attempts at control. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/16/publicis-groupe.aspx Your immune system is designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent. Upon recovery, you’re typically immune to that infectious agent. In the case of COVID-19, however, public health officials have been reluctant to suggest that those who have recovered are now immune — and therefore have no need for a COVID-19 vaccine. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., is among those who had COVID-19 and recovered. As a scientist, he looked into whether he should still get a COVID-19 vaccine, uncovering research that showed vaccination offered no benefit to those who have previously been infected. “The controversy began,” according to Sharyl Attkisson’s Full Measure report, “when Massie noticed the CDC was claiming the exact opposite.”1 CDC Report ‘Wrong’ About Vaccine’s EffectivenessIn a high-profile report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 15 scientists stated that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.2 But according to Massie, “That sentence is wrong. There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there's no proof in the Moderna trial either.”3 In France, the health body la Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) does not recommend routinely vaccinating those who have already recovered from COVID-19, stating:4
Yet, the CDC suggests everyone who’s had COVID-19 should still get vaccinated: “Due to the severe health risks associated with COVID-19 and the fact that reinfection with COVID-19 is possible, vaccine should be offered to you regardless of whether you already had COVID-19 infection.”5 CDC Notified of Error, Doesn’t Fix ItWhen Massie realized that vaccination didn’t change the risk of infection among people who’ve had COVID-19, he was alarmed and contacted the CDC directly, recording his calls. “It [the CDC report] says the exact opposite of what the data says. They're giving people the impression that this vaccine will save your life, or save you from suffering, even if you've already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or the Moderna trial.”6 Massie first spoke with Dr. Amanda Cohn, the lead for the vaccine planning unit of the CDC’s COVID-19 response.7 On December 16, she told Massie, “People who have had disease, given that there's limited doses right now, we're, we are suggesting that those people wait.”8 Cohn also thanked Massie for bringing it to her attention that their claim that vaccines are effective in people who’ve previously had COVID-19 is a mistake, and implied that it would be fixed. Cohn said:9
Two days later, however, Cohn told medical professionals in an online session that people with prior infection are likely to benefit from vaccination. A month after that, the false information remained on the CDC’s website, Massie, said, prompting another call. This time, Massie spoke with the CDC’s Washington, D.C., director Anstice Brand, who talked in circles. “So I called them up on Tuesday, as soon as I could, to ask them why it hadn't been fixed,” Massie told Attkisson. “And it was like, I was starting all over with the same people. And instead of fixing it, they proposed repeating it and just phrasing their mistake differently.”10 Massie also spoke with CDC scientist Dr. Sara Oliver, who was part of the online session that gave out misinformation to medical professionals and is also an author of the flawed CDC report. He said, “There was an error and I noticed you are an author on it and I wondered if I could get your help in getting this error corrected. You can't say it's efficacious for people with prior infection. That's an absolutely untrue sentence.” Oliver responded, “Yeah, I mean, we're — we're still recommending that individuals who have prior infection receive the vaccine.” When he pushed further, she said, “Okay. I — I can, um, I can talk with MMWR, and with Dr. Cohn and see, if, if we can tweak that language a little bit.”11 CDC ‘Lying About the Efficacy of the Vaccine’It wasn’t until Massie’s final call with the CDC, to deputy director Anne Schuchat, that it was acknowledged that a correction was necessary. “As you note correctly, there is not sufficient analysis to show that in the subset of only the people with prior infection, there's efficacy. So, you're correct that that sentence is wrong and that we need to make a correction of it. I apologize for the delay,” Schuchat said. January 29, 2021, the CDC did finally issue a correction, which reads:12
Instead of fixing the error, Massie believes the wording still misleadingly suggests vaccination is effective for those previously infected. He told Attkisson, “[I]nstead of fixing it, they proposed repeating it and just phrasing their mistake differently. So, at that point, right now I consider it a lie. I think the CDC is lying about the efficacy of the vaccine based on the Pfizer trials, for those who have already had the coronavirus.” Full Measure asked Oliver, Cohn and the CDC for interviews, but they declined the request.13 More Intense Reactions, Single Doses SuggestedAdditional research into vaccination of individuals who already had COVID-19 revealed that the antibody response to the first vaccine dose is equal to or exceeds titers from those who were not previously infected but received two doses. “Changing the policy to give these individuals only one dose of vaccine would not negatively impact on their antibody titers, spare them from unnecessary pain and free up many urgently needed vaccine doses,” researchers wrote in a preprint study.14 Side effects, including fatigue, headaches, fever, muscle and joint pain and chills, were also more common among those who had been infected before.15 A second study also suggested that the antibody response to a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine among health care workers previously infected was comparable to that among people who hadn’t been previously infected and received two doses.16 They concluded that those who have already had COVID-19 are not a “priority” for vaccination:
Does Recovery From COVID-19 Provide Immunity?If you’ve had COVID-19, you have some level of immunity against the virus. It’s unknown how long it lasts, just as it’s unknown how long protection from the vaccine lasts. According to the Public Health Agency of Sweden:17
As for the vaccine, Dr. Meryl Nass suggests the protection it provides will be inferior to that acquired via natural infection:
WHO Changed Definition of Herd ImmunityMany have wondered if vaccination would even be necessary if widespread herd immunity were achieved naturally. Your immune system isn’t designed to get vaccines. It’s designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent. But apparently, according to WHO, that’s no longer the case. In June 2020, WHO’s definition of herd immunity, posted on one of their COVID-19 Q&A pages, was in line with the widely accepted concept that has been the standard for infectious diseases for decades. Here’s what it originally said, courtesy of the Internet Archive’s Wayback machine:19
In October 2020, here’s their updated definition of herd immunity, which is now “a concept used for vaccination”:20
This perversion of science implies that the only way to achieve herd immunity is via vaccination, which is blatantly untrue. The startling implications for society, however, is that by putting out this false information, they’re attempting to change your perception of what’s true and not true, leaving people believing that they must artificially manipulate their immune systems as the only way to stay safe from infectious disease. The fact is the COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine in the medical definition of a vaccine. It’s more accurately an experimental gene therapy, of which the effectiveness and safety are far from proven. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/16/health-officials-make-crucial-error-in-vaccine-recommendation.aspx |
Nia Pure NatureThe Provider of premium Quality Health Products To Live Better Lives Archives
March 2022
Categories |