Many people know that Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the world and the founder of Amazon. They have seen pictures of him and perhaps heard about his high-profile 2019 divorce. But many are not aware of the darker side of Bezos' Amazon empire, including business ventures that raise questions about privacy, surveillance and product safety. A Frontline documentary, "Amazon Empire: The Rise and Reign of Jeff Bezos," released in February 2020, exposes the backstory of the Amazon CEO's rise to power and the global implications of his rampant ambition and aggressive ventures. It took Frontline a year to create "Amazon: The Rise and Reign of Jeff Bezos" and it includes many interviews with his top lieutenants, almost all of whom are men. What emerges from people who know Bezos and worked with him is not so much a picture of a power-driven despot as someone with uncanny visions of how people can be engineered and data can be exploited. Customer Is King and so Is DataAs a Princeton graduate working on Wall Street, Bezos is largely credited with introducing the idea of basing financial analyses on data, an approach that had not been done before. He founded Amazon in 1995 as a seller of books, but even then collection of data was crucial to the business plan. Right from the start, Bezos "treated the site as a laboratory where he studied customer behavior," says the film. According to Randy Miller, former director of pricing and product management at Amazon:1
Even when it only sold books, Amazon's ruthless business philosophy of using size to annihilate competitors was seen. Amazon could forego profits to gain market share and monopolize the marketplace, unlike smaller companies that couldn't afford to lose money. Undercutting competitors enabled Amazon to deal a deathblow to brick and mortar retailers who also had to pay taxes, unlike online Amazon. Dennis Johnson, CEO of Melville House Books, says he was shocked when Amazon required 4% of profits to sell his books, which he considered a kickback. Miller admits that Amazon played dirty with booksellers.2
New Initiative Solidified Amazon's PowerTwo new initiatives turned Amazon into the force it is today, reshaping the retail marketplace forever. First was its decision to enlarge its offerings beyond books to include almost all merchandise. Sellers and manufacturers could avail themselves of Amazon's 12 million customers as Amazon became America's biggest "mall," reaching more customers than they could hope to on their own. According to Yahoo Finance, 58% of Amazon sales3 are now from third parties. The second initiative was Bezos' decision to launch Amazon Prime in 2005, which was "the most successful membership program in history," according to Scott Galloway, a professor at NYU Stern School of Business. Amazon Prime, a program in which customers pay a minimal yearly fee and receive free two-day shipping, later upgraded to one-day shipping, again stemming from Amazon's willingness to undercut competitors even when it meant foregoing immediate profits. Though Amazon had few warehouses at the time, the bold move, according to James Thomson, formerly a senior manager and business head of Amazon Services4 at Amazon:
Amazon also launched its own delivery service in 2013, creating a system that "would rival Fed Ex or UPS," says the documentary. The company made delivery vans small enough to be exempt from federal regulation and also dodged liability. When the vans were involved in accidents, which happened with regularity, Amazon claimed the vans "contractors" and it had no legal responsibility. The Sale of Defective and Fraudulent Products GrowsWith Amazon Prime, the company locked in customer loyalty and undercut competitors. But it also put customers at risk of defective and fraudulent products, according to the documentary. If you buy something harmful or defective at Walmart or Target, you can sue them, but Amazon says it is not legally responsible if customers are hurt by products sold by third parties on the site. According to Rachel Johnson Greer, a former product safety manager at Amazon, when you create your Amazon account, you accept this indemnification of the company when you assent to the terms and conditions, though it is likely many do not realize this. There have been reports of Amazon selling hair driers and hoverboards that caught fire, school supplies made with toxic metals, and other unsafe or mislabeled products. These dangers are especially concerning since 77% of all vitamins and supplements sold online are sold by Amazon. Only 2.3% of online vitamin and supplement sales come from brick and mortar retailers. One example of the many fraudulent and misbranded products that have infiltrated Amazon was a counterfeit probiotics supplement sold last year by Procter & Gamble called Align.5 According to Wired, Procter & Gamble spokesperson Mollie Wheeler said in an email:
Amazon also acknowledged problems with counterfeiters.6
Anyone who buys from Amazon should be aware that companies selling knock-off products are not regulated under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) as legitimate supplement products are. (As a matter of disclosure, my store, in which I sell supplements along with a number of other products, is an online entity.) Other Problematical Amazon EnterprisesOver the years, Amazon has moved into enterprises that seriously threaten privacy. By now, many people have heard of Amazon's Alexa and Echo products, which so many homes unthinkingly install. While they may think of Alexa as an assistant or helpmate, they often do not realize it is a two-way street in which the device listens to and surveils its environments. According to Meredith Whittaker, codirector of the AI Now Institute:
Frontline reporter James Jacoby asked Dave Limp, senior vice president of devices and services at Amazon, how the trick was accomplished. "How is it that you convinced tens of millions of people to put what is essentially a listening device in their homes?" he asks. Limp replies:
Limp however, does admit that the devices could deceive.
Other Ventures Create Privacy ThreatsAnother hugely successful Amazon initiative was the cloud computing service, Amazon Web Services, that Bezos built in 2013. The service got a huge boost, says the film, when it was contracted to design a computing cloud for the CIA for $600 million. According to James Bandler, a reporter at ProPublica:
The contract bestowed instant credibility on Amazon, agrees Brad Stone, author of "The Everything Store" about Amazon. In the film he says:
Another controversial Amazon venture is Ring, a doorbell camera app dubbed "the new neighborhood watch" by Amazon. Ring has been exploited by hackers that spied on people in their homes. Amazon also used police officers to promote the product. Says Whittaker:
A related app, Amazon Rekognition Video, that allows people to track, detect, recognize, extract and moderate faces from video,7 has also been widely embraced by police departments. Jacoby asks Andy Jassy, the CEO of Amazon Web Services, how the public would know if the app is being used on them since there is no public audit. Jassy says:
How Amazon would disallow use of the app is unclear since there are "few laws governing the use of this technology," the film notes. Recent Amazon VenturesIn 2013, Bezos enlarged his empire by buying the struggling Washington Post.8 In 2019, the paper put its sights on me, running an inflammatory hit piece with untruths about my product claims and vaccine stances. It also looks as though Amazon's glide path may be faltering. In 2019, the Pentagon chose Microsoft over Amazon for a $10 billion contract9 and Amazon canceled its plans for a New York City corporate campus when lawmakers fiercely objected.10 In 2020, Amazon was slapped with a class action antitrust suit alleging that it has monopolized the online retail marketplace.11 Amazon is also trying to capitalize on the COVID-19 pandemic, reports The Verge.12 It has proposed legislation to indemnify seller hosts, like Amazon, from price gouging conducted by a host’s third-party sellers. In addition to misbranded products and surveillance of customers, Amazon also has workers who suffer under its reign. By June it will remove a "combat pay" increase it had added to its overstressed warehouse workers’ salaries and compress its delivery times to compete with Shopify, Target and Costco.13 In addition, more than 130 Amazon workers, already likely stressed with pandemic work increases, are believed to have been infected with COVID-19, reports The Verge.14 The documentary includes many testimonials from abused Amazon warehouse workers. Buyers beware. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/23/amazon-empire-the-rise-and-reign-of-jeff-bezos.aspx
0 Comments
Often used for garnishing meals and improving flavor, parsley (Petroselinum crispum) is a fragrant green herb with a refreshing taste. Don't let its simple appearance fool you, though, as it's a powerhouse of various vitamins and minerals.1,2 There are many ways to consume parsley, as it can be a colorful addition to salads, soups, sauces and sandwiches. But did you know that you can brew parsley into a soothing and therapeutic cup of tea as well? Read on to learn more about parsley tea, its benefits to your well-being and how you can brew a fresh cup on your own. What Is Parsley Tea?Parsley tea is an herbal infusion made from the fresh or dried leaves of the parsley plant.3 The leaves have a naturally bright, bitter taste,4 which is why sometimes a sweetener is added. Making the tea is quite easy, as there are parsley teabags available at your local supermarket. However, given the affordable price of fresh parsley, it may be a better idea to make your own tea at home.5 Steeping parsley in hot water infuses its compounds into the beverage. This allows you to obtain traces of its plant polyphenols and the following nutrients with every sip of parsley tea:6 8 Parsley Tea BenefitsThe polyphenols, vitamins and minerals in parsley tea may provide various pharmacological activities, including diuretic, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and nephroprotective properties, among others.7 All of these nutrients work together to help: 1. Detoxify the body -- Because of its natural diuretic property, parsley leaves may help flush out toxins from your body through your urine.8 2. Lower the risk for cancer -- Apigenin, one of the flavonoids obtained from parsley tea, has been shown to provide chemoprotective properties. According to a study published in the Journal of Cancer Prevention, the mechanisms by which apigenin help lower the risk for cancer involve stimulating cancer cell autophagy and apoptosis, regulating cellular response to oxidative stress and DNA damage, suppressing inflammation and angiogenesis, and retarding cancer cell proliferation.9 3. Promote immune health -- Parsley tea provides you with vitamin C, which may help improve your immune defenses by supporting cellular immune function, stimulating oxidant-scavenging activity and promoting epithelial barrier function against pathogens.10 Parsley tea also increases your levels of vitamin A, which was dubbed as "the anti-inflammation vitamin" in a 1928 study due to its critical role in enhancing immune function.11 4. Relieve bloating -- Parsley is traditionally used to help ease symptoms of bloating. Adjusting eating habits, such as slowing down swallowing, may help bloating as well.12 5. Fight against the effects of free radicals -- Parsley tea may be a good source of flavonoids, carotenoids, vitamins and minerals that have antioxidant properties to help defend your cells against harmful free radicals.13 6. Lower the risk for kidney stones -- A study published in the American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Urology showed that parsley may help increase urine volume, decrease urinary calcium excretion and raise urine acidity, making it a natural antiurolithiasis remedy.14 7. Promote healthy liver function -- A study published in the Journal of Intercultural Ethnopharmacology found that the extract of parsley may have hepatoprotective effects due to its antioxidant properties.15 8. Manage blood pressure levels -- Parsley may help lower blood pressure levels by releasing more sodium into your urine and stimulating urination. This decreases the amount of fluid flowing through your blood vessels, which in turn reduces the pressure on your vessel walls.16,17 How to Make Parsley TeaIt's easy to make a steaming cup of parsley tea. Simply follow this recipe adapted from Verywell Fit:18 Parsley Tea Recipe Ingredients
Procedure
Take a Sip of This Mint-Infused Parsley TeaYou can take your parsley tea up a notch by adding other herbs to it. Here's a refreshing recipe you can try that incorporates mint leaves: Mint-Infused Parsley Tea Recipe Ingredients
Procedure
(Recipe adapted from A Dash of Lemon19) Parsley Tea Side EffectsAlthough parsley tea is generally a healthy beverage, you still should consume it in moderation. Drinking large amounts of parsley tea may cause a severe allergic reaction. In a case study published in 2014, a woman developed near-fatal anaphylaxis because she was consuming a cup of parsley every day.20 To stay on the safe side, if you don't know whether you're allergic to parsley, consult with a doctor before adding it to your regular diet. How to Pick Fresh Parsley for Your TeaIf you prefer making parsley tea from scratch instead of buying ready-to-steep teabags from the supermarket, choose plants that look fresh and crisp, with vibrant green leaves. Avoid parsley that has yellowed leaves or other signs of decay.21 Make sure the plant you choose is grown organically to lower your risk of exposure to harmful gardening chemicals. Buy parsley from the local farmers market to guarantee it's organic, or better yet, grow parsley at home. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Parsley TeaQ: What is parsley tea good for? A: Parsley tea contains health-promoting polyphenols and nutrients such as apigenin, carotenoids, vitamins A, C and K, folate, magnesium and iron, to name a few.22 It also has numerous pharmacological activities, including antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, diuretic and nephroprotective properties.23 Some of its possible benefits include helping reduce the risk for cancer,24 promoting immune health,25 relieving bloating26 and inhibiting the formation of kidney stones.27 Q: How much parsley tea is safe to drink daily? A: You can safely drink a cup of parsley tea per day, though you should consult with your doctor to learn if you have any allergies before trying it. Consuming too much parsley may lead to anemia or liver or kidney problems.28 Q: Where can you buy parsley tea? A: Parsley tea is available in health food stores. You also can make your own using fresh parsley leaves. Q: Is parsley tea good for your skin? A: Yes. Parsley may help promote healthy skin, thanks to its vitamin A content, which is essential for skin health.29 Q: Is parsley tea good for your liver? A: Yes. The extract of parsley present in this beverage has been shown to provide hepatoprotective properties.30 Q: Is parsley tea good for lowering blood pressure? A: A study showed that parsley has diuretic properties, which may aid in the reduction of blood pressure levels.31 from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/22/xdjm18-teas-18mcsa-parsley-tea.aspx Bill Gates — who illegally invests in the industries he gives charitable donations to and promotes a global public health agenda that benefits the companies he’s invested in — claims life cannot go back to normal until we can vaccinate the global population against COVID-19.1,2 And, according to The Rockefeller Foundation’s white paper,3 “National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan,” privacy concerns “must be set aside” so that the infection status of every individual can be accessed and validated before permission is given to entering schools, office buildings, places of work, airports, concert and sport venues and more. We’re currently being told that we “must” forgo our civil liberties because we might spread a virus to a potentially vulnerable individual. To prevent deaths from occurring by people moving about freely, we’re told we have to stop living. Yet every single flu season throughout history, people have moved about, spreading the infection around and facilitating the acquisition of natural herd immunity. Undoubtedly, most people who have ever left their house with a cold, stomach bug or other influenza at any point in the past, have unwittingly spread the infection to others, some of which may have ended up with a serious case of illness and some of which may ultimately have died from it. There is simply no way to prevent such a chain of events in perpetuity. As noted by Attorney General William Barr in an April 21, 2020, interview with Hugh Hewitt,4 “impingements on liberty” were adopted “for the limited purpose of slowing down the spread, that is bending the curve. We didn’t adopt them as the comprehensive way of dealing with this disease.” Indeed, giving up our civil liberties in an effort to prevent all future deaths from infectious disease is profoundly misguided, and will not work in the long run. Still, people around the world are being effectively manipulated and brainwashed with carefully honed propaganda derived from massive behavioral surveillance, to put life on hold until there’s a vaccine. Of course, by then, vaccination will likely become mandatory for anyone who wants to return to regular life. To pull off this global plan of “disease surveillance” (which will eventually be tied to digital finance and identification schemes that are also in the works), those advocating for a “new normal” need a vaccine, and they need it fast, while fears are still dominating the news. Vaccine Makers Race to Create COVID-19 VaccineSafety testing for vaccines typically leaves much to be desired to begin with, but when it comes to fast-tracked pandemic vaccines, safety testing is accelerated and becomes even more inadequate. The COVID-19 vaccine may in fact be the most fast-tracked vaccine ever created in history, which necessitates the elimination of required safety testing steps, such as animal testing.5,6 May 5, 2020, The New York Times reported7 that Pfizer, in collaboration with BioNTech, was scheduled to begin human trials of a COVID-19 vaccine on May 11, 2020 in the U.S. If successful, the vaccine could be released under an FDA-approved Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)8 as early as September 2020 — an unheard-of timeframe for any vaccine development. Other vaccine makers have announced vaccine candidates will be ready in September as well9 — far sooner than the original 18 months to two years that Gates, Fauci and other authorities initially predicted at the beginning of this pandemic. April 23, 2020, a dozen healthy German volunteers, aged 18 to 55, received Pfizer’s vaccine candidate, known only as BNT162.10 That trial is expected to eventually be expanded to 200. Why the elderly, who are the most vulnerable to COVID-19 complications, would be excluded is a question worth asking — especially in light of the paradoxical immune enhancement that coronavirus vaccines are known for. (l’ll cover that in a later section.) The U.S. trial will include 360 healthy volunteers in the first stage, and as many as 8,000 in the second stage. Volunteers will be divided into four groups, each group receiving one of four variations of the vaccine. The trial is being conducted at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, the University of Maryland School of Medicine, the University of Rochester Medical Center and the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
COVID-19 Vaccine Will Be Unlike Any OtherLike Moderna and several other competitors, the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is using messenger RNA (mRNA) rather than live or attenuated (inactivated) viruses grown in animal cells. Among the vaccine candidates are ones containing uridine-containing mRNA (uRNA), nucleoside-modified mRNA (modRNA) and self-amplifying mRNA (saRNA).12 As explained by The New York Times:13
So, not only are we dealing with a novel virus, the mechanics of which is still not thoroughly understood (some experts are now saying it appears to be a genetically engineered virus that attacks the blood14 more so than the lungs, for example), they’re also using a novel RNA-based vaccine that has never been used before. What could possibly go wrong? In my view — just about everything. It could turn into a global catastrophe the likes of which we’ve never experienced before. Fast-Tracked Vaccine Could Have Catastrophic ConsequencesIn my recent interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., he summarized the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began after three SARS epidemics had broken out, starting in early 2002. Two of those three epidemics were lab-created organisms. Chinese, Americans and Europeans all started working on a coronavirus vaccine and around 2012, there were some 30 promising candidates. As explained by Kennedy, the four best vaccine candidates were then given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. Kennedy explained what happened next:
The Cause Behind Paradoxical Immune EnhancementWhat could possibly account for this perplexing outcome? Why did the ferrets die when exposed to the wild virus even though they had a robust antibody response to the vaccine? As explained by Kennedy, after looking into the matter further, researchers in 2012 discovered that coronaviruses produce not just one but two different types of antibodies — neutralizing antibodies15 that fight the infection, and binding antibodies16 (also known as nonneutralizing antibodies) that cannot prevent viral infection. Incapable of preventing viral infection, binding antibodies can instead trigger a “paradoxical immune response,” or “paradoxical immune enhancement.” “What that means is that it looks good until you get the disease, and then it makes the disease much, much worse,” Kennedy said, adding:
Additionally, in my interview with Dr. Meryl Nass that will run May 24, 2020, she notes that Ralph Barric from the University of North Carolina — who collaborated extensively with Shi Zhengli from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and who is widely noted as one, if not the leading coronavirus virologist in the world — predicted that the vaccine would be an abysmal failure in the elderly who need it the most. Many of the COVID-19 vaccines currently in the running are using mRNA to instruct your cells to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S protein), in other words, the glycoprotein that attaches to the ACE2 receptor of the cell. This is the first stage of the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into cells. The idea is that by creating the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, your immune system will commence production of antibodies, without making you sick in the process. But are they in fact checking which of the two types of antibodies this process will produce? Will injecting mRNA trigger the production of neutralizing antibodies or will it produce binding/nonneutralizing antibodies? Simply checking for antibody response may not suffice. Vaccine Propagandist Expressed ConcernsFast-tracking vaccine development has considerable risks. The best case scenario (highly unlikely) is that it will simply be ineffective (which is typically the case for the seasonal influenza vaccine), or, far more likely, it will cause serious side effects (as was the case with the fast-tracked 1976-1977 and 2009-2010 H1N1 swine flu vaccine), or it just might worsen infection rather than prevent it, as has been the case with previous coronavirus vaccines. As reported by Reuters:17
Coming from a staunch pro-mandatory vaccination propagandist like Hotez, that’s really saying something. Needless to say, COVID-19 vaccine makers will be indemnified from financial liability no matter how many casualties a fast-tracked vaccine might cause. Fast-Tracked Swine Flu Vaccine Caused Genetic AlterationsThe H1N1 swine flu of 2009 was the most recent pandemic of note, and it’s well worth remembering what happened with the European fast-tracked vaccine. Europe accelerated its approval process, allowing manufacturers to skip large-scale human trials18 — a decision that turned out to have tragic consequences19 for an untold number of children and teens across Europe. Over the next few years, the ASO3-adjuvanted swine flu vaccine Pandemrix (used in Europe but not in the U.S. during 2009-2010) was causally linked20 to childhood narcolepsy, which abruptly skyrocketed in several countries.21,22 Children and teens in Finland,23 the UK24 and Sweden25 were among the hardest hit. Further analyses discerned a rise in narcolepsy among adults who received the vaccine as well, although the link wasn’t as obvious as that in children and adolescents.26 A 2019 study27 reported finding a “novel association between Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy and the non-coding RNA gene GDNF-AS1” — a gene thought to regulate the production of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor or GDNF, a protein that plays an important role in neuronal survival. They also confirmed a strong association between vaccine-induced narcolepsy and a certain haplotype, suggesting “variation in genes related to immunity and neuronal survival may interact to increase the susceptibility to Pandemrix-induced narcolepsy in certain individuals.” In addition to that, there’s the research28 showing that the H1N1 swine flu vaccine was one of five inactivated vaccines that increased overall mortality, especially among girls. The Pandemrix debacle should be instructive. No one anticipated a flu vaccine to have genetic consequences, yet it did. Now they’re proposing injecting mRNA to make every single cell in your body produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. How can we possibly think that the long-term ramifications of this will be clear by September? Safer Vaccines Can Be MadeIn my recent interview with Judy Mikovits, Ph.D. is a cellular and molecular biologist, she points out there’s a way to produce a much safer vaccine against COVID-19. Of course, her proposal will never see the light of day or ever be considered. She proposes a novel vaccine for viruses like SARS-CoV-2 that involves alpha interferon, small amounts of the virus and peptide T, which would block the interaction of the virus and keep your T cells from getting infected. Interferon Type 129,30,31 is a type of beneficial cytokine released by your body as one of its first line of defense against viral infections. In a nutshell, it interferes with viral replication. It’s also been shown to suppress certain types of tumors. As part of your immune system, it digests viral DNA and viral proteins in infected cells while simultaneously protecting noninfected neighboring cells. Interferon alpha and beta also help regulate your immune response. As noted in a 2018 paper32 on the dual nature of Type 1 and Type 2 interferons, “both antiviral and immunomodulatory functions are critical during virus infection to not only limit virus replication and initiate an appropriate antiviral immune response, but to also negatively regulate this response to minimize tissue damage.” Unlike conventional vaccines, which are mostly injected, this would be oral and only stimulate antibody humoral responses. Her version would also cause innate cellular immunity from the T cells. As Mikovits explained in my recent interview with her, featured in “Could Retroviruses Play a Role in COVID-19?”:
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/22/coronavirus-vaccine-timetable.aspx If you think Bill Gates' grandiose plan to force vaccinate over 7 billion people against COVID-19 is delusional, think again. The Microsoft billionaire — who has no public health education (he didn't even finish college) — has proposed plans that go far beyond the mandating of a vaccine. They also include a global dragnet of digital surveillance to track and monitor all people, and trace the contacts of anyone testing positive for COVID-19. Of course, COVID-19 is just the initial excuse. There's no reason in the world to believe this gigantic global disease surveillance system would be dismantled once the pandemic is declared over. Naturally, it will simply transition into other surveillance functions. Who knows just how many diseases it might track and trace? Of course, this system will also be used to make sure everyone has been vaccinated with any and all vaccines deemed necessary for domestic and international travel, education, work and social activities involving other people. I wrote about this in "Rockefeller Foundation's Plan to Track Americans." The Grand Plan Is a Totalitarian Surveillance RegimeWe also have every reason to believe this disease tracking system will be combined with a digital identification and economic system to enforce compliance. Signs that an all-encompassing global totalitarian plan is being quietly put together, piece by piece, are all around us. May 6, 2020, Techxplore reported1 a "new nonprofit charity" called The Mojaloop Foundation will "promote digital payments for people outside the financial system, with support from Google and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation." Fortune magazine reported2 the same story on the same day, adding that other founding sponsors of The Mojaloop Foundation include "the Rockefeller Foundation, the philanthropy and investing group Omidyar Network, and the financial technology startups Coil and ModusBox." So, right there we have Google, the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, all in one little nonprofit with a heart set on giving poor people access to affordable digital banking using their cellphones. At the same time:
Give me a break. Enough already. You'd have to be both blind and mentally impaired to not be able to piece together the grand plan, it's so blatantly obvious once you spend just a few minutes to evaluate the evidence. How Gates Monopolized Global HealthThe featured video above contains Parts 1 and 2 of The Corbett Report on Bill Gates, where in his usual fashion, investigative journalist James Corbett strings together a cohesive narrative at a rapid clip. Part 1 reviews how Gates ended up in a position to monopolize global health, despite his complete and utter lack of health or medical education. In Part 2, he lays out Gates' plan to vaccinate the global population. As noted by Corbett, Gates' rise to influence on global health matters is founded not on expertise but on money. Just like John D. Rockefeller before him, Gates gained public adoration by donating money to "humanitarian causes" — and purchasing good publicity. As noted by Corbett:8
As noted by Corbett, "The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's fingerprints can be seen on every major global health initiative of the past two decades." This includes:
Gates Has (Not so Secretly) Led Global Pandemic ResponseImportantly, Corbett points out that Gates' $250 million pledge to fight COVID-19, "every aspect of the current coronavirus pandemic involves organizations, groups and individuals with direct ties to Gates funding." This includes the World Health Organization, of course, but also the two research groups responsible for shaping the decision to lock down the U.K. and U.S. — the Imperial College COVID-19 Research Team and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation — as well as the National Institutes of Health, and the NIH's Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been leading the White House pandemic response team. Fauci has direct ties to Gates, via both collaborative projects and funding. For example, Fauci is part of Gates' Decade of Vaccine leadership council, which has tasked itself with implementing the Global Vaccine Action Plan. Gates has committed a staggering $10 billion to this plan. Lo and behold, despite the fact that Fauci is the one with a medical science background, he's parroting Gates' statements that nothing can go back to normal until or unless we have a vaccine. Then, of course, there's Event 201, a tabletop exercise staged in October 2019 in which the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security got together to gauge "the economic and societal impact of a globally-spreading coronavirus pandemic," Corbett says, adding:
Indeed, I wrote about this illegal setup in "Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?" As noted by Corbett, despite giving away billions of dollars, Gates' "Decade of Vaccines" has been profitable in the extreme, doubling his worth from $54 billion to $103.1 billion. Somehow, by giving money away, he makes even more in return. Vaccinating the World Could Have Catastrophic ConsequencesIn Part 2, Corbett reviews Gates' plan to vaccinate over 7 billion people. He has repeatedly said life cannot and will not go back to normal until we have enough vaccines to inoculate the global population. A timeframe of 18 months was originally given by Gates, and this has since been dutifully regurgitated by various heads of state, health officials and media. Sadly, they absolutely demolished this original, highly aggressive and unsafe timeline and human trials were actually started in March 2020. They are now anticipating to roll out the vaccine THIS FALL.10 As if their super rushed non-safety tested vaccine launch wasn't bad enough, the GSK and Sanofi COVID-19 vaccine will be produced in insect cells with the dangerous squalene adjuvant.11 The media has also ignored, downplayed or censored as fake news recommendations to boost your immune system. Hydroxychloroquine, a decades' old drug with a long safety record and a small price tag has been systematically pushed under the rug as being experimental, unproven and potentially unsafe — this, despite countless reports from doctors in the field saying it's the thing that seems to work the best, most of the time. Could money be involved? What do you think? If an inexpensive ancient drug works, then vaccine development might be a waste of time and money. If people can safeguard themselves against COVID-19 by reversing insulin resistance, then the death toll might not warrant a global vaccination scheme. Of course it's about money. The problem we're facing if we go forward with Gates' and Rockefeller's plan — which fit together like hand in glove — is that the history of coronavirus vaccine development is rife with problems, and those problems could turn into a global catastrophe if everyone gets vaccinated with a fast-tracked vaccine that hasn't gone through appropriate safety testing. In my recent interview with Robert Kennedy Jr. above, he summarized the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began after three SARS epidemics had broken out, starting in early 2002.
It's worth repeating in case you missed it. The vaccines worked great, based on vaccine theory, but when the vaccinated animals were exposed to the wild virus, they died. This is as bad an outcome as one could possibly get. Kennedy continued:
So, are all current COVID-19 vaccine developers aware of this research? They should be. Just what kind of plan do they have to circumvent this paradoxical immune enhancement that coronaviruses trigger? Needless to say, COVID-19 vaccine makers will be indemnified from financial liability no matter how many casualties a fast-tracked vaccine might cause. In fact, Gates has suggested that if just 1 in 10,000 persons has serious side effects, then that means 700,000 people will suffer from the vaccine's administration, and that's why "governments will have to be involved because there will be some risk and indemnification needed before that can be decided on."12 Meanwhile, Gates and the various companies and organizations involved in this global disease and vaccination surveillance plan all stand to make an unfathomable amount of money, not just from vaccines but from all the tracking, tracing and surveillance infrastructure that surrounds it. This is clearly a decisive moment in time. What will you choose — Totalitarianism, or a life of liberty, even if it involves a degree of risk? Remember, government cannot keep you safe from disease. Only you can do that. Government really should safeguard public freedom, not public health at the expense of human liberty. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/21/bill-gates-foundation-global-health.aspx Even under “normal” circumstances, 75% of Americans reported experiencing stress in the past month that resulted in sleepless nights at least once.1 In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, stress levels are peaking for many, with 88% of workers surveyed by Human Resource Executive reporting moderate to extreme stress in the last four to six weeks,2 and 69% saying the coronavirus pandemic is the most stressful time of their professional career, even more so than 9/11 and the 2008 Great Recession. This stress takes a toll on mental health and physical health alike. Prescriptions filled per week for antidepressant, antianxiety and anti-insomnia medications rose by 21% from February 16 to March 15, 2020, and 78% of the prescriptions for such drugs filled during the week ending March 15, when COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, were for new prescriptions, which suggests they’re a direct result of COVID-19-related anxiety.3 Sleep has emerged as one of the latest casualties of the pandemic, with Donn Posner, president of Sleepwell Associates and an adjunct clinical associate professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, calling the COVID-19 crisis a “perfect storm of sleep problems.”4 How the COVID-19 Pandemic Is Threatening SleepWith people around the globe facing unprecedented levels of stress and anxiety, ranging from financial worries and anxiety to loneliness amid social distancing, sleep quality suffers. The link between stress and poor sleep quality is strong,5 and as noted in the Journal of Sleep Research, “In the current global home confinement situation due to the COVID-19 outbreak, most individuals are exposed to an unprecedented stressful situation of unknown duration. This not only may increase daytime stress, anxiety and depression levels, but also can disrupt sleep.”6 Stress, however, is just one outcome of the COVID-19 lockdown that’s affecting sleep. Being largely confined to your home influences many factors that affect sleep quality, including disruptions to daily routine. If you’re furloughed, unemployed or working from home, you may sleep later than usual, go to bed later or be more likely to have an alcoholic beverage in the evening, all of which can potentially disrupt your sleep. On a deeper level, many people are experiencing drastic changes in their work life, combined with homeschooling children, and without the ability to engage in rewarding activities such as visits with friends or family, sporting events or other entertainment venues as an outlet. “For those required to work from home, there may also be disruption to established daily routines and working schedules, leading to a deterioration of positive associations between the home, relaxation and sleep,” the researchers noted.7 Stay-Home Orders Disturb Light Exposure and Social TiesFor others, social distancing measures may mean spending more time indoors and getting less exposure to daylight, another important factor in sleep quality. This is especially true for those living in homes with small windows or no access to an outdoor area. Light intensity is measured in lux units, and on any given day, the outdoor lux units will be around 100,000 at noon. Indoors, the typical average is somewhere between 100 to 2,000 lux units — some two orders of magnitude less. So, when you spend all or a majority of your day indoors, you essentially enter a state of "light deficiency." The reason why light intensity is important is because it serves as the major synchronizer of your master body clock, which is composed of a group of cells in your brain called the suprachiasmatic nuclei. These nuclei synchronize to the light-dark cycle of your environment when certain wavelengths of light enter your eyes. You also have other biological clocks throughout your body, and those clocks in turn synchronize to your master clock. So, if you want to get good sleep, you have to have properly aligned circadian rhythms, and step No. 1 is to make sure you get a sufficient dose of bright light exposure during the daytime — something that’s difficult to do if you don’t go outside. Further, your pineal gland produces melatonin roughly in approximation to the contrast of bright sun exposure in the day and complete darkness at night. If you're in darkness all day long, your body can't appreciate the difference and will not optimize melatonin production. People living alone, particularly seniors, may also struggle with social isolation and loneliness that makes sleeping difficult. “In fact,” according to the report, “a very recent study reporting on citizens’ well-being during the COVID-19 outbreak in China showed that those who scored higher on a measure of social participation and a sense of belonging also reported better sleep quality.8 A lack of regular social interaction can indeed enhance stress and negatively affect sleep quality …”9 Further, COVID-19 combined with stay-at-home orders interferes with sleep by:10
As noted by University of Chicago Medicine, “It's not easy to function at our best without easy access to our usual coping skills (e.g., social support, exercise, etc.) while sheltering in place.”11 Strange Dreams and Risks of Sleep Problems During a PandemicSleep is essential for life, and lack of sleep takes a heavy toll, raising the risk of chronic diseases, obesity and premature death. Sleep is also intricately related to immune function, with immune system activation altering sleep, and sleep altering the innate and adaptive arms of the immune system. When you feel sleepy during infection, it’s thought that sleep bolsters the immune system to defend against the pathogen. Further, sleep is associated with a reduced risk of infection and can improve the outcome of infections if you’re ill.12 In short, sleep may help your immune system to prevent and fight COVID-19. According to University of Chicago Medicine:13
Mood disturbances are also likely and can lead to snowballing anxiety. If you’re anxious, it can make sleep difficult by activating your “fight or flight” response that keeps you on edge. Lack of sleep, in turn, can worsen anxious feelings. Even modest, night-to-night reductions in sleep lead to increases in anxiety the next day.14 Matthew Walker, professor of neuroscience at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of the book "Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams,” told WBUR:15
Walker also states that coronavirus stress could be triggering strange dreams, particularly as people sleep in later in the morning, increasing the amount of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, during which dreams occur. “REM sleep essentially provides the brain a form of overnight therapy [in which] dreaming helps process difficult emotional experiences. And we can think of that dream sleep like a nocturnal, soothing balm that takes the sharp edges off the emotional concerns and experiences that we're having whilst we're awake,” he said.16 That being said, if you’re having trouble sleeping, your ability to concentrate and be productive will also suffer. In one animal study, sleep-deprived mice lost 30% of the neurons located in their locus ceruleus, a nucleus in the brainstem associated with wakefulness and cognitive processes.17 According to one study, lack of sleep costs the U.S. economy up to $411 billion a year in lost productivity alone — and that’s during regular times, not a pandemic.18 Dealing With Sleep Problems During a PandemicAdults need an average of seven to nine hours of sleep a night, with most doing well with about eight. If you have trouble achieving this duration, or you wake frequently during the night, it’s time to take steps to improve your sleep. My 33 healthy sleep secrets details a comprehensive list of strategies for a better night’s rest. For additional tips that can be applied specifically in terms of dealing with sleep problems during home confinement amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the researchers writing in the Journal of Sleep Research suggested the following, some of which mirror my own:19
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/21/how-covid-19-pandemic-is-threatening-sleep.aspx The 26-minute documentary “Plandemic,” part 1, by Mikki Willis, features Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., a cellular and molecular biologist1 whose research showed that many vaccines are contaminated with gammaretroviruses, thanks to the fact that they use viruses grown in contaminated animal cell lines. Mikovits suspects COVID-19 may in fact be a type of vaccine-derived or vaccine-induced retroviral infection, and she’s undoubtedly qualified to comment on this disease because of her groundbreaking research on retroviruses. In other words, she believes SARS-CoV-2 merely serves to activate or wake up a dormant XMRV infection, which then causes the symptoms of COVID-19. Work done by Mikovits between 2009 and 2011 suggested 25 million to 30 million Americans were carriers of XMRVs and other gammaretroviruses. Seeing how that estimate is over a decade old, that number is now likely to be far higher. In my view, her hypothesis is an interesting one that should warrant further investigation. Censorship and Discrediting Campaign Is in Full SwingAs expected, this film is being censored from all mainstream media networks, including, of course, YouTube. To get around the censorship, Willis is asking people to download, share and upload on other sites as they please. That there’s an upswell of public awareness is evidenced by the fact that Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are all said to be “struggling” to quell the tidal spread of the film. As reported by CNET:2
The rise of public awareness is also evidenced by the fact that Mikovits’ latest book, “Plague of Corruption,”3 released April 14, 2020, rose to become a No. 1 best-seller within the first week. In it, she names names, and one of them is Dr. Anthony Fauci, the much-beloved leader of the White House’s pandemic response team. It’s not surprising then that the discrediting campaign against her and Willis is equally robust. It will likely be difficult to ignore such attempts. A quick online search May 12, 2020, for “Plandemic” returns not a single link to a positive review or commentary in the first dozen pages. So, before you’re persuaded by those who have skin to lose in this game, I urge you to look into her story for yourself. Watch the film and read her book. What Are Human Gammaretroviruses?The reason Mikovits’ career was destroyed was because she and her colleagues discovered that vaccines can spread gammaretroviruses that in turn can trigger diseases such as chronic fatigue syndrome,4 certain kinds of autism, cancers, leukemias and lymphomas. Gammaretroviruses5 are viruses that can cause cancer, leukemia and immune deficiencies in various animals. As explained in a 2011 paper on gamma retroviruses:6
The key take-home here is that retroviruses are “integrated into the host cell genome,” and infection can result in “long-term expression.” In other words, once they’re in your body, they can remain dormant, only to reactivate when conditions are favorable. In this regard, they’re quite different from your average virus that, when you’re exposed, invades your cells, replicates and causes symptoms, and is eventually eliminated from your body through your immune response. In 2009, Mikovits and her team discovered and isolated the first human gammaretrovirus family of retroviruses, known then as XMRVs. XMRV stands for “xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus.” Xenotrophic refers to viruses that only replicate in cells other than those of the host species. So, XMRVs are viruses that infect human cells yet are not human viruses.7 Safer Vaccines Can Be MadeMany critics paint Mikovits as your average “anti-vaxxer,” failing to address one of her key points, which is that safe vaccines can be made, so why use dangerous ones? She proposes a novel vaccine for viruses like SARS-CoV-2 that involves alpha interferon, small amounts of the virus and peptide T, which would block the interaction of the virus and keep your T cells from getting infected. Unlike conventional vaccines, which are mostly injected, this would be oral and would only stimulate antibody humoral responses. Her version would also cause innate cellular immunity from the T cells. As Mikovits explained in my recent interview with her, featured in “Could Retroviruses Play a Role in COVID-19?”:
Understanding InterferonsInterferon Type 18,9 is a type of beneficial cytokine released by your body as one of its first lines of defense against viral infections. In a nutshell, it interferes with viral replication. It’s also been shown to suppress certain types of tumors. As part of your immune system, it digests viral DNA and viral proteins in infected cells while simultaneously protecting noninfected neighboring cells. Interferon alpha and beta also help regulate your immune response. As noted in a 2018 paper10 on the dual nature of Type 1 and Type 2 interferons, “both antiviral and immunomodulatory functions are critical during virus infection to not only limit virus replication and initiate an appropriate antiviral immune response, but to also negatively regulate this response to minimize tissue damage.” Like Mikovits, Dominic Chan, a Doctor of Pharmacy who recently updated an article on interferon on Medicinenet.com., proposes using interferons against COVID-19. The earlier version of this article, written by Eni Williams, Pharm.D. and Ph.D., before she died in 2017,11 says:12
She goes on to list a number of interferons that are commercially available, including Intron-A (interferon alfa-2b), Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) and many more. In April 2020, Chan added:
One of Mikovits’ primary treatment recommendations for COVID-19 is interferon 1 alpha, sold under brand names such as Alferon and Roferon, to shut down the replication of RNA viruses, including retroviruses and coronaviruses. She believes it might be beneficial to take twice a day for the duration of known exposure. Although a 1 milliliter bottle of Alferon costs between $600 and $700,13,14 one only needs small amounts and a bottle can treat 1,000 people for a week. It’s worth noting the warnings, however. According to Chan, if you already have flu-like symptoms and take interferons, the symptoms are likely to get worse before they get better, as your immune system ramps up. “If someone is already on a ventilator and symptoms are about to overwhelm them, giving them an interferon-based medicine could be catastrophic,” he says. Flu Vaccination May Increase Risk of Coronavirus InfectionIn the film, Mikovits cites a paper15 published in the January 10, 2020, issue of the Vaccine journal, which found you’re 36% more likely to get coronavirus infection if you got the influenza vaccine in 2017 or 2018. As noted in this study, titled “Influenza Vaccination and Respiratory Virus Interference Among Department of Defense Personnel During the 2017-2018 Influenza Season”:
Interestingly enough, while seasonal influenza vaccination did not raise the risk of all respiratory infections, it was in fact “significantly associated with unspecified coronavirus (meaning it did not specifically mention SARS-CoV-2) and human metapneumovirus” (hMPV). Those who had received a seasonal flu shot were 36% more likely to contract coronavirus infection and 51% more likely to contract hMPV infection than unvaccinated individuals.16 Looking at the symptoms list for hMPV17 is also telling, as the main symptoms include fever, sore throat and cough. The elderly and immunocompromised are at heightened risk for severe hMPV illness, the symptoms of which include difficulty breathing and pneumonia. All of these symptoms also apply for COVID-19. Again, if you’ve been barraged with articles telling you “Plandemic” is a “hoax” and that Mikovits is a disgraced researcher whose work has been “debunked,” please, do your own research. Some truths are hard to swallow, but they’re crucial if we care about our own, let alone public, health. If you want to see my excellent interview with Judy that is three times as long as the above video, you can view the video below. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/20/plandemic-documentary.aspx Coronaviruses are a common infection in people and animals. To date, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention believes the main mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2 is from person to person, specifically through respiratory droplets.1 These are most often produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes. However, the virus may also be aerosolized when a person speaks. Experts believe that the louder you speak, the more likely it is you'll spit. Although transmission has not been tracked to objects and surfaces, the CDC recommends cleaning and disinfecting frequently used objects in your home. It is estimated that the most contagious period is when a person is sickest and symptomatic. The length of time an individual remains sick is specific to an individual situation such as their age, vitamin D levels and immune system. Although it may be possible to catch the virus by touching a surface and then touching your mouth, nose or eyes, it doesn't live long on surfaces. The CDC estimates the likelihood of transmission from food products or packaging is low. Additionally, any virus on food is killed during cooking and preparation. Experts hope that higher temperatures and humidity levels during the summer months will slow the spread of the virus. Can You Spread COVID-19 Without Having Symptoms?January 30, 2020, an article was published in The New England Journal of Medicine2 in which the author proposed the transmission of COVID-19 is possible from an asymptomatic carrier. The writers reported a 33-year-old businessman had met with his business partner from Shanghai between January 19 and 22, 2020. January 24, 2020, the businessman developed a fever and productive cough. The next evening, he felt better and went back to work January 27. The writers reported the partner had been "well with no signs or symptoms of infection, but had become ill on her flight back to China, where she tested positive for 2019-nCoV on January 26." From this case study they theorized the virus could be transmitted from asymptomatic carriers. While some infections spread from asymptomatic individuals, there is not enough evidence yet to suggest that COVID-19 does. But, as it turns out, in their zeal to get the paper published, the researchers did not speak with the partner from Shanghai before publication. They relied on information from the people with whom she met who said she "did not appear to have any symptoms."3 Unfortunately, this information has been quoted often, has made many headlines and may have had an impact on public health guidelines. In fact, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told journalists,4 "There's no doubt after reading [the NEJM] paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring. This study lays the question to rest." Accurate Information Needed for Public Health PolicyLooking into the matter further, Germany's public health agency, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), sent a letter with accompanying information to set the record straight. RKI did speak with the woman on the phone, and she reported she did have symptoms while in Germany. The Health and Food Safety Authority from Bavaria was also on the phone call. Science reports one of the authors spoke with the Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority and asked if the information shared from the woman required a correction to the article. He was assured it did not. Yet, as Science reports, RKI did not agree and sent a letter to The New England Journal of Medicine, the World Health Organization and European partner agencies with the information. Some experts were charitable in their description of what happened, such as an epidemiologist from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who called it a "poor choice" and assumed it "was an overstretched group trying to get out their best idea of what the truth was quickly, rather than somebody trying to be careless."5 Others were not quite so forgiving, such as the Public Health Agency of Sweden, which the Science Chronicle reported updated their website's FAQ page with the following information:6
False Positive Tests in People Who RecoveredSouth Korea tested 263 people who had recovered from COVID-19, yet who tested positive again in the days and weeks after full recovery.7 The information shone a light on questions of whether people could get reinfected or if the infection could be reactivated. However, the scientist who leads the clinical committee for emerging disease control believes the test detected dead virus fragments and not a live virus. The committee believes there is little reason to think individuals could be reinfected or that an infection could be reactivated. This, of course, would have a significant impact on global efforts to contain the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The individuals were tested with a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test used to diagnose COVID-19 and to trace the genetic material of the virus. This test does not delineate between fragments taken from dead cells or from a live virus. Scientists are finding the dead fragments from SARS-CoV-2 can take months to clear after an individual has recovered from the infection and thus can lead to false positives with a PCR test. The committee confirmed an earlier finding that patients who seem to have a repeat infection have little to no contagiousness. This is likely from the results of testing identifying dead cell fragments and not the live virus. Oh Myoung-don, who leads the Central Clinical Committee for Emerging Disease Control, said:8
How long the virus is infectious will be key to determining public health policy regarding the amount of time quarantine for an infected person should be recommended. Bloomberg9 reports past studies had shown those who were severely ill remain infectious longer than those who may have had a mild illness. PCR Does Not Test for Live VirusesThe types of testing used to determine if someone has COVID-19 is a rapidly evolving process. The timeline began on January 11 when scientists from China posted the genome of the novel coronavirus. One week later Germany had produced a diagnostic test. By the end of February, the WHO sent tests to nearly 60 countries, but the U.S. refused.10 This slowed the release of a test that might have helped track the spread of the virus. The initial efforts in the U.S. were fraught with challenges. The first tests developed by the CDC didn't work and the FDA did not create an avenue for medical centers to produce their own tests. The first coronavirus tests were PCR tests that work by essentially photocopying molecules to magnify small segments of DNA material.11 This allows scientists to map the DNA, detect the presence of bacteria or viruses and diagnose genetic disorders. When used for SARS-CoV-2, it can identify the presence of the genetic material from the virus, but not whether the virus is currently living. PCR testing for COVID-19 was done by inserting a swab through the nose to the nasopharyngeal area where the nose and throat meet. The swab is rotated for 15 seconds and then the procedure is repeated in the other nostril to ensure an adequate sample is obtained.12 However, in taking steps to speed testing, the FDA changed their recommendations in mid-April so samples could be collected inside the nose instead of the pharyngeal area.13 Additionally, they also are allowing sample collection by patients themselves, and storage using saline solution instead of being stored in a viral transport medium, which is in short supply. What Else May Be Holding Up Testing?Two of the bottlenecks to having enough testing available have been a shortage of PCR machines and appropriate swabs. Cotton swabs cannot be used since cotton is a plant and has its own DNA that would contaminate the test. In mid-April, months after other countries had been testing their citizens in mass numbers, the FDA opened the door for different types of swabs to be used. The FDA commissioner released a statement congratulating the administration for its action:14
Another advancement in testing came when Abbott Laboratories produced a rapid test, which they made available throughout the U.S. and which was distributed by the federal government. CNN reports the lab has instructed health care professionals not to use viral transport media for the samples intended for the ID NOW device.15 This device tests one swab at a time and can complete a test in as quickly as five minutes. The customer should only use swabs that have not been placed in any solution. When the viral transport media is used, the device produces false negatives. Clinical pathologists from Cleveland Clinic tested five systems, processing approximately 200 samples. They found that when used correctly, the ID NOW detected only 84.4% of the positive specimens. The CDC16 has also developed a blood test which looks for antibodies. These antibodies are specific proteins your body produces in response to an infection. People who have had COVID-19 have antibodies in the blood that indicate they've had an immune response to the infection. Despite the presence of antibodies, the CDC is still unsure if these provide immunity to a second exposure or how high the antibody titer must be to provide protection. United Nations Warns Don't Issue Immunity PassportsAt the end of April, the WHO was still unsure if those who have recovered from COVID-19 will have enough antibodies to protect them from the second infection. The United Nations has warned governments around the world against issuing any immunity passports or risk-free certificates. Governments hope these documents can be used to allow free travel throughout the world, demonstrating that those who carry them are not a risk to others. Taking a more conservative approach, WHO released a statement:17
At the time of the April 25, 2020, press release from the WHO, Chile had announced they would begin handing out health passports after screening individuals who had developed antibodies so they could go back to work. In a news report May 6, 2020, on NBC News, Chili's Ministry of Health continued to stand by their decision.18 They announced they would be issuing certificates in the form of a QR code to those who had been clear of symptoms of the virus for 14 days. In Germany, experts are conducting swab tests numbering nearly 100,000 per day in the hope of providing certificates to those who test negative. Italy is also issuing licenses to people with antibodies and China is moving ahead with a similar system. Glenn Cohen is a bioethicist from Harvard University who is concerned that some may look to counterfeit practices to get an immunity badge. He told NBC News:19
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/20/do-asymptomatic-carriers-spread-coronavirus.aspx Despite years of laboratory research, animal studies, human trials and evaluation of evidence, vaccines have unanticipated negative health effects. The Health Resources and Services Administration reports1 “The United States has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in history.” Yet, in 10 years of reporting to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5,564 cases for injury were brought before the vaccine injury court. This does not represent the thousands of other injuries and deaths from vaccines reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — only those brought before a judge. And, in case reports and studies, even more injuries have been reported. For example, in 1989 a measles vaccine was rolled out in Africa. It wasn't long before some noticed it doubled the mortality from other diseases in young girls, yet it wasn’t withdrawn until 1992.2 During the 1990s researchers Dr. Peter Aaby and Christine Stabell Benn were studying the effects of vaccines on mortality and came to the shocking conclusion that five of the nine vaccines studied clearly increased mortality from other conditions.3 Then, when they examined a tenth vaccine — an antimalarial vaccine that appeared to offer between 18% and 36% protection against malaria — they found that it also increased overall mortality by 24%. In January 2020, a military study4 was released showing personnel who had received a flu vaccine had a 36% increased risk of contracting a coronavirus (before COVID-19) and human metapneumovirus. Additionally, the vaccine was not consistently beneficial against flu viruses. This study also demonstrated the flu vaccine protected against other types of respiratory pathogens. So, while it increased the risk to some, it reduced the risk to others — and neither was planned in years of research and development, which demonstrates how difficult it is to predict results. Unfortunately, those who get their health information from mainstream media may have believed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who spoke with CBS News in 2019.5 He flatly denied vaccines can cause injury or death. This is not just a case of misinforming the public: It’s an outright lie based on reflection of evidence from thousands of court cases. These facts are important since each of these vaccines was developed over years of testing and study, not in mere months. Some anticipate that the first vaccine for COVID-19 will be available by fall 2020, just nine to 10 months after the disease reached the U.S. Since vaccine safety protocols are measured in years and not months, it is more important than ever to take control of your health when it comes to deciding whether you want to take a COVID-19 vaccine that’s only been studied a few months. The Law Changes on Governor’s OrdersWithin the U.S., the governor of California issued the first shelter-in-place order March 19, 2020.6 He called the situation “fluid” and “open-ended,” which is how much of the world is currently functioning.7 Shelly Luther, a salon owner from Dallas, Texas, understands the fluidity of the circumstances all too well. She was recently sentenced to seven days in jail after violating a stay-at-home order by opening her salon. Her case gained national attention after she was requested several times to close. When she was before Judge Eric Moyé, he told her he would consider a lighter sentence if she apologized for what he characterized as her “selfish” behavior.8 She was later released after the Supreme Court of Texas intervened and ordered it.9 In an interview with Fox News10 Luther outlined the precautions she and her stylists took with each client, all of which maintained hygiene and social distancing. Distancing was only broken when the stylist was close enough to cut the client’s hair. Luther spent two days in jail before the court intervened and the governor of Texas modified the executive orders to eliminate jail time.11 Until the modification was published, those who didn't obey the order could have been jailed up to 180 days. (I should note that governors have the power to declare a state of emergency under which they can issue orders that invoke legislation pertinent to the state.) The National Law Review answered the question about the legalities of being made to close businesses and stay home in New Jersey, which is slightly different from some other states as New Jersey has an additional Emergency Health Powers Act that authorizes greater control. However, while not many states have this legislation, it can be enacted across the U.S. if each state deems it necessary:12
In simple language, the state has the power. As interpreted by National Law Review:
Freedom of Speech Doesn’t Include All GroupsIf the freedom to choose or refuse vaccination created controversy in other years, the coming months and years will likely see an escalation of this. Individuals and groups who refuse vaccination are crucified in the court of public opinion, while those who question the safety and efficacy of the shots are mocked. The argument for mandatory vaccination is the notion that vaccines can achieve “herd immunity.” That theory is based on the claim that if enough people are vaccinated against an illness, it can no longer spread, including among a small minority who may not have been vaccinated. The only issue is that this is a only a theory, and one that doesn’t work for vaccines. You can read why in my previous article, “Why Herd Immunity is a Hoax.” Australia’s national rugby league star Bryce Cartwright could be banned this season if he refuses a flu shot. Once the COVID-19 vaccine is in full production and distribution, the careers of many professional athletes may come into question if teams demand their players get vaccinated. Cartwright and his wife have chosen not to vaccinate themselves or their children, for which they have come under attack in the media. In notably biased coverage of the situation, the Daily Mail cleverly juxtaposed “admitted” with “misguided,” altering the assumption a reader may make in reading the statement:13
The Seattle Times14 reported the result of surveys from Morning Consult indicate not everyone is interested in getting jabbed with a coronavirus vaccine. The results showed that if a vaccine were available, 14% would not get it and 22% aren't sure. In both cases, the highest numbers are in the 35- to 44-year-old age range.15 Additionally, Republicans and political independents are more likely than Democrats to refuse the vaccine. Overall, 64% say they will get a vaccine when it's available. More concerning is the result showing that at the time of the survey, 80% of those over 65 would get a vaccine. Health Care Is the New WarfareRecently, Cartwright's wife Shanelle took to Instagram to defend her husband’s beliefs, succinctly writing:16 "It might not be relevant to you now, but bet your bottom dollar this will be the new normal if we don't stand up now." The battle lines are being drawn now, before the vaccine comes to market, fueled in part by increasing fear. In early March, just as it was evident the novel coronavirus would spread across the U.S., one family experienced just how much life could be disrupted. Two parents with seven children, who recently moved to Kentucky, entered a bank to open a joint account.17 Five of the youngest children had to go into the bank with them. When they returned home, they were surprised by a law enforcement officer and a child protective services worker waiting for them on their doorstep. The parents learned an anonymous complaint had been called in to Child Protective Services. The tipster said a mother, five children and a man who wasn’t their father were in public and the children had bruises on their arms, which looked like they had been roughly grabbed. Yet, when the family arrived home, the police confirmed the man was their father, the family had seven children (not five) and they were all wearing long sleeves, making it impossible to see bruising. The family presumes the call came from the bank since the report got the number of children wrong and the bank employees had been fearful of the children. No Evidence, but the State Can Keep the Case OpenOne of the boys was made to take off his shirt to look for bruising. The male investigator attempted to get the girls to take off their shirts as well, but when the mother objected, he agreed to have them roll up their sleeves. None of the allegations of abuse that were filed were substantiated in the home, but the story doesn’t end there. Without evidence on the children and finding the man was their father, the state still allowed investigators to continue to poke around the home and question the children. Even without corroborating evidence, the state can take an additional 45 days to close their unsubstantiated case. Novak Djokovic, the No.1 ranked tennis player and winner of 17 Grand Slam singles titles, has also expressed concern over taking the coronavirus vaccine.18 Should the vaccine be required, he is unsure what he’ll decide to do but is clear he doesn’t want to be forced to take something. Yet, unless things change, laws like the one in New Jersey may make mandatory vaccinations required someday. Taking the potential effects another step, parents who do not consent to vaccinate their children may be accused of abuse and have their children taken from their home. Human Vaccine Testing Begins Years Earlier Than NormalVaccines usually take years to develop, going first through laboratory cell tests, then animal studies before finally being used in human clinical trials. However, testing and development of the vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 has been put on a fast track, bypassing steps other vaccines undergo to reduce the number of potentially dangerous side effects. According to reports, Pfizer has begun human testing on healthy volunteers a mere five months after China revealed they had a problem with COVID-19.19 Along with their German pharmaceutical partner BioNTech, Pfizer announced the vaccine may be ready as early as September. April 29, 2020, BioNTech revealed 12 participants had been vaccinated since April 23, 2020.20 The participants in the human trial will be given doses ranging from 1 mcg to 100 mcg for the researchers to find the optimal dose on which to do further testing. BioNTech named the vaccine BNT162, and added "In addition, the safety and immunogenicity of the vaccine will be investigated.” In other words, researchers are unsure of the safety of the vaccine, which the company estimates will be given to 200 people aged 18 to 55 years in the first trial. Pfizer released their first quarterly report for 2020, in which they discussed their plans for releasing the vaccine with BioNTech, saying:21
While it’s estimated that the greatest number of people willing to take the vaccine are over 65, no initial testing for safety and efficacy is initially planned for that group. Statistics show that 60% of U.S. adults have at least one chronic disease and 40% have two or more.22 Chronic diseases such as Type 2 diabetes can alter the effectiveness of the vaccine or make it more dangerous. The New Normal Needs New StrategiesThe type of vaccine in development for coronavirus uses messenger RNA, which is different from traditional vaccines. Moderna Therapeutics, a pharmtech company focused on messenger RNA drug development, released a white paper in 2017. They predicted that mRNA and DNA vaccines can be developed more quickly than traditional vaccines, which are created, tested and manufactured in four to seven years as compared to 10 to 15 years for traditional vaccines. They also wrote:23
In other words, the same company that focused only on mRNA drug development that had four of the six mRNA vaccines in clinical trials in 2017, believes time is required to establish the safety and effectiveness of this type of vaccine development. Yet, these are the types of vaccines currently in human testing five months after China told the world about SARS-CoV-2. As this situation continues to unfold, it is necessary now more than ever to take control of your health. Here are several recent articles that offer suggestions to support your immune system, address fear of the unknown and give you strategies to think globally but act locally to protect your health.
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/20/will-covid-19-public-policies-split-up-families.aspx Since the breakout of COVID-19, a number of scientists have spoken out saying the virus does not appear to have evolved naturally, and those suspicions are only getting stronger. As reported1 by Newsweek April 28, 2020, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has in recent years funded dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory in Wuhan, China. This research was backed by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is now heading up the White House pandemic response team. According to Newsweek:2
As noted by GM Watch,3 “Bolstering the lab escape hypothesis in the eyes of the media is the news that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has updated its assessment of the origin of the COVID-19 virus SARS-CoV-2 to reflect that it may have been accidentally released from a lab in Wuhan due to ‘unsafe laboratory practices.’" Unfortunately, mainstream media journalists are by and large ignoring the long history of accidental releases of dangerous pathogens from BSL3 and 4 laboratories. Journalist Sam Husseini discusses this history in a May 5, 2020 article in Independent Science News.4 Mainstream media journalists clearly are also not asking enough questions, or the right questions, about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. In his May 4, 2020, video update (above), Chris Martenson,5 who has a Ph.D. in pathology, carefully details the science behind his assertion that SARS-CoV-2 must have undergone laboratory manipulation. The evidence he lays out is close to conclusive, and really would be front-page news if unbiased journalism still existed. What Is Gain of Function?As explained by Martenson, gain of function research refers to research in which the pathogenicity or transmissibility of pathogens is enhanced. In other words, pathogens are manipulated in various ways to make them deadlier, and/or allow them to infect humans with greater ease. They also take viruses that are harmless to humans and conduct experiments to make them transmissible to humans. As noted by Martenson, while this kind of research is justified by saying we need to know how viruses adapt and mutate so we can more easily figure out how to combat them should they gain these functions naturally, there’s not a shred of evidence suggesting we’ve learned anything about how to combat SARS-CoV-2. If we’re not actually learning how to treat illnesses through gain-of-function research, then why are we doing it? How Viruses Enter Your CellsMartenson goes on to explain the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into your cells. This is important, as viruses can only replicate by entering into and infecting a cell. To gain entry, the virus must first bind to an ACE2 or CD147 receptor on the cell. Next, the S2 spike protein subunit must be proteolytically cleaved (cut). Without this protein cleavage, the virus would simply attach to the receptor and not get any further. There are several enzymes that can do this job, including plasmin and furin. Plasmin, which is present in your blood, also degrades fibrin — plasma protein that can cause blood clots. When a blood clot is dissolved, a byproduct called D-dimer is created. As explained in “Might Enzymes Help Blood Clotting Associated With COVID-19?” many patients with serious COVID-19 infection have elevated D-dimer, which is indicative of blood clots. Martenson also cites the review paper6 “Elevated Plasmin(ogen) as a Common Risk Factor for COVID-19 Susceptibility,” which found that COVID-19 patients who have comorbidities that increase their susceptibility for the illness (i.e., those with high blood pressure, diabetes, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular illness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney dysfunction), tend to have elevated levels of plasmin. In other words, it’s this elevated plasmin that — at least in part — puts these people at a higher risk for serious COVID-19 infection. In his May 6, 2020, update below, Martenson discusses this clotting problem encountered in many COVID-19 patients. As he points out, COVID-19 is “really more of a blood disorder, a clotting disorder,” than a normal lung infection. Furin Cleavage Site Is the ‘Smoking Gun’As mentioned, furin can also cut or cleave the S2 spike protein subunit. Furin is a protein coding gene that activates certain proteins by snipping off specific sections. As explained by Martenson, contrary to other protein-cutting enzymes, furin is very specific about the locations it cuts. What’s more, when arginine is present in the second or third place of the protein sequence, then the efficiency of the cleavage is magnified. This, he says, is “the smoking gun” that proves SARS-CoV-2 was created in a lab. An excellent, well-written article7 in Medium also addresses this finding and explains why furin cleavage sites are so important for determining whether SARS-CoV-2 is natural or not. In “Furin, a Potential Therapeutic Target for COVID-19,”8,9 Chinese researchers report that CoV-2 is the only coronavirus with a furin cleavage site. Not even distant relatives of CoV-2 have it, and the coronaviruses that do have it share only 40% of CoV-2’s genome. As reported in this paper:10
Mutation Cannot Explain Furin Site in SARS-CoV-2According to these researchers, the furin cleavage site present in SARS-CoV-2 “is unique in its family” and “is unlikely to have evolved.” In other words, the virus must have been modified somewhere along the way to give it a furin cleavage site, as there’s no apparent source for this virus. Put another way, there’s no coronavirus out there that is similar enough that SARS-CoV-2 might have evolved or mutated from it. Martenson does an excellent job of explaining this in his video, so I strongly recommend watching it. Yuri Deigin also does this in his Medium article,11 so if you prefer reading, you can review much of the same data there. Importantly, both reveal how virologists claiming SARS-CoV-2 is a natural bat coronavirus that jumped to pangolin and then to humans are simply wrong, and the genetic sequence proves it. The furin cleavage site PRRA found in SARS-CoV-2 is NOT found in either bats or pangolins, so it could not have mutated through these animals. The fact that this furin cleavage site is present in SARS-CoV-2 is evidence that it has been inserted (opposed to mutated), and Martenson provides an easy to understand illustration of the difference between a mutation and an insert in his video. It is extremely unlikely that 12 new nucleotide base pairs would all of a sudden emerge from where there was nothing before. What About the Studies Saying It’s Natural?Two studies heavily cited by mainstream media as evidence SARS-CoV-2 is a natural mutation that jumped from animal to human include a February 3, 2020, Nature paper,12 which claims SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus of bat origin that then jumped species. However, one of the authors of this paper, Shi Zhengli, was involved in the weaponization of the SARS virus, and therefore has reason to try to cover up any link to such research. A second paper,13 published in Nature Medicine, March 17, 2020, offers “a perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome,” and discusses “scenarios by which they could have arisen.” According to this paper, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” However, even though they acknowledge SARS-CoV-2 has a polybasic cleavage site (PRRA) that does not exist elsewhere, they fail to explain how these 12 base pairs could have magically been inserted naturally. As noted by Martenson, “whole inserts are not part of the mutation pathway.” Scientific Community Has Reason to Hide OriginHe goes on to cite several studies showing how scientists around the world have been working on inserting cleavage sites to make coronaviruses more virulent. Clearly, we have the capability to create SARS-CoV-2, and scientists around the world have engaged in such research for many years. Martenson calls out leading virologist Michael Osterholm who, in a March 10, 2020, interview with Joe Rogan, stated that “we could not have crafted a virus like this to do what it’s doing; I mean we don’t have the creative imagination or the skill set.” Really? Published research shows we clearly have the technology, know-how and “creative imagination” to create SARS-CoV-2, and Osterholm simply cannot be ignorant of that fact. Another source you may want to look over is the Project Evidence webpage,14 which lists more information pointing toward a lab-created SARS-CoV-2 than I could possibly cover here. A summary of the evidence can be found toward the bottom of the page under “Conclusion.” Naturally, there must be people in the scientific community who would now want to cover up any link to such research. Would you want to be responsible for creating, funding or having any association whatsoever with a virus responsible for a pandemic that has killed people, destroyed the world economy and put people out of work around the globe? Would you want to be found guilty of violating the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the punishment for which goes up to and includes life in prison? The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 states:15
Other Experts Challenge Natural Evolution ClaimsMartenson is far from alone in his belief that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically manipulated. An April 27, 2020, GM Watch article16 features professor Stuart Newman, who also believes “genetic engineering may have been involved at some point in the virus’ history.” According to Newman, a professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College and editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Theory, the argument used to deny that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory construct in the March 17, 2020, Nature Medicine paper mentioned earlier (which stated “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus”) actually points to the exact opposite. GM Watch writes:17
There Are Many Ways to Manipulate PathogensThose who claim the lack of “fingerprints” in the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 is evidence of natural evolution also fail to take into account methods that do not leave clearly identifiable traces. As noted by Dr. Meryl Nass (my interview with her will be posted May 24):22
In my opinion, the strongest pieces of evidence so far all point toward SARS-CoV-2 being a laboratory creation. As Martenson asserts, the presence of furin cleavage sites23 makes a clear case for this, as this section of genetic code wouldn’t just emerge by itself by way of natural mutation. How it got released, however, is anyone’s guess. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/19/smoking-gun-proving-sars-cov-2-was-lab-created.aspx Drug companies are often portrayed as benevolent companies that pour billions of dollars into the creation of new drugs and vaccinations for the greater good. This was certainly the case in a New York Times column on the antiviral drug remdesivir, which has shown some promise in treating COVID-19.1 Biotech giant Gilead Sciences, which produces the drug, began distributing it on a compassionate-use basis in January 2020. Compassionate use is a form of expanded access to a drug, describing “the individual patient use of an investigational medicinal product outside of a clinical trial that is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition.”2 That drug companies offer such medications to patients in crisis is again deemed a noble, altruistic endeavor. The Times column even noted, “Given the stakes involved, it seems perverse not to root for Gilead's success … there should be no Big-Pharma haters in pandemics.”3 The reality, however, is far less rosy, as the pharmaceutical industry is developing drugs using taxpayer money, then turning around and selling them at exorbitant prices. Political commentator David Sirota wrote in TMI that this alternative story is hardly ever shared by the press, and that’s no accident, because doing so would “… undermine the drug-companies-as-altruistic-heroes mythology, and admit that our laws actually help drug companies fleece Americans.”4 Remdesivir Was Developed Using Public ResourcesIn an April 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, remdesivir was provided on a compassionate-use basis to 61 patients hospitalized with severe Covid-19, and data were analyzed for 53 of them.5 Clinical improvement was observed in 36 of the 53 patients (68%). Although this wasn’t a placebo-controlled study, the initial results suggest some potential usefulness in treating the condition. Gilead chairman and CEO Daniel O’Day, in a press briefing in March 2020, stated:6
What he doesn’t say, however, as noted by Sirota and reported by Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) — a not-for-profit nongovernmental organization focused on social justice — the U.S. Army, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) subsidized the preclinical and clinical development of remdesivir.7 KEI laid out the drug’s discovery and preclinical research as follows:8 • CDC scientists used a Gilead library of 1,000 compounds in a search for possible candidates to treat the Ebola virus; they identified a precursor to remdesivir, which was further developed by Gilead scientists and researchers with the U.S. Army Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) • USAMRIID scientists tested remdesivir against several pathogens, including Ebola, which showed 100% of rhesus monkeys infected with Ebola survived when treated with the drug; the results reported the drug had broad-spectrum activity against pathogenic RNA viruses, including coronaviruses • In a study published in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, it’s stated, “The partnership with government organizations, including CDC and USAMRIID, that generated the screening data and conducted the rhesus efficacy studies was critical to the successful identification of 4b [remdesivir]”9 An additional series of studies was then conducted by scientists with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Vanderbilt and Gilead looking into remdesivir to treat Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), which are caused by coronaviruses. The research, which found the drug to be effective in preventing replication in coronaviruses, was funded by NIH grants, while later studies received funding from NIAID grants and federal funds from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. “Because this research was conducted, in large part, by U.S. scientists funded by U.S. taxpayers, it is not accurate to state or imply that remdesivir was developed by Gilead alone,” KEI stated.10 Later clinical research into the drug’s effects on Ebola also received funding from NIAID and NIH. Rule Against Price-Gouging on Taxpayer-Funded Drugs RescindedIn an article for the Journal of Legal Medicine, Rebecca Wolitz, J.D., from Yale University’s department of philosophy, explains:11
Reasonable pricing clauses, which put limits on prices for federally funded drugs, have been proposed and put in place in the past to prevent price-gouging. One such clause was put in place by the NIH after high prices of AIDS drugs, developed using taxpayer dollars, were heavily criticized. The drug industry campaigned against the pricing clause, however, and it was rescinded years later. “The upshot,” Sirota says, “remdesivir or any other COVID-related medicine developed at American taxpayer expense could ultimately be offered to American taxpayers at the world’s highest prices.”12 He then makes a valid point to anyone suggesting that Gilead will do the right thing and offer remdesivir at affordable prices “out of the goodness of its corporate heart” — history suggests Gilead will have other plans:13 • Sovaldi, a hepatitis C drug made by Gilead, was under investigation for 18 months by the Senate Finance Committee. The Committee decided that the price of the drug — $1,000 per pill, or $84,000 per treatment — "did not reflect the cost of research and development and that Gilead cared about 'revenue' not 'affordability and accessibility,'" according to The Epoch Times.14 • Gilead’s drug Truvada, which is approved to treat and prevent infection with HIV, costs more than $20,000 in the U.S., but less than $100 per year in other countries;15 Truvada’s use for HIV prevention was discovered via research by a CDC scientist and then further developed by research funded by $50 million in federal grants. The U.S. government patented the treatment in 2015, but Gilead has argued the patent isn’t valid and brought in $3 billion in sales for Truvada in 2018. It has paid no royalties to the U.S. government either.16 “Gilead is also the same company that already made a preliminary move to try to juice profits off a potential COVID treatment (it only backed off when it was publicly shamed),” Sirota continued, referring to Gilead’s receipt of the orphan drug designation for remdesivir, which is reserved for drugs treating rare diseases and would have given Gilead seven years of exclusive marketing for the product, which would likely drive up prices. After outcry, Gilead submitted a request to the FDA to rescind the orphan drug designation.17 NIH Contributed to Every New Drug Approved From 2010 to 2016In addition to R&D tax credits, the pharmaceutical industry enjoys, in the case of vaccines, shields from liability if their products cause harm. In fact, vaccine manufacturers are the only corporations selling products in the U.S. that cannot be sued, even when there is evidence the company could have made a product less likely to injure or kill people.18 Taxpayer funding is also par for the course not only for Gilead but for Big Pharma as a whole. In a report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it’s stated that NIH funding contributed to published research associated with every new drug approved by the FDA from 2010 to 2016 — 210 drugs in all.19 “Collectively, this research involved >200,000 years of grant funding totaling more than $100 billion,” the researchers noted, adding:20
Another example is Taxol, a cancer drug marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb starting in 1993. The U.S. government spent $484 million on the drug’s development, then negotiated a licensing agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb to market the drug. From 1993 to 2003, Bristol-Myers Squibb raked in $9 billion in Taxol sales globally, but paid the NIH just $35 million in royalties.21 In Utah, meanwhile, a price-gouging complaint was filed against the Utah pharmacy Meds in Motion, which sold 20,000 doses of experimental antimalarial drugs for COVID-19 to the state for $800,000. The complaint states that the price per tablet from Meds in Motion is nearly 10 times the price of the drugs for consumers. “As if price gouging wasn’t bad enough, price gouging of an unproven drug during a pandemic in a transaction that uses public funds is truly beyond the pale,” said Chase Thomas, Alliance for a Better Utah’s executive director, in a statement.22 Drug company Jaguar Health also hiked the price of its antidiarrheal medication Mytesi by almost threefold. According to Axios, “The price hike coincides with the company's push to get its drug to more patients — specifically those diagnosed with COVID-19.”23 Overall, despite the heavy taxpayer funding for drug development, Congress has stalled in reinstituting a reasonable pricing clause to protect Americans from exorbitant drug costs, even in the era of COVID-19. Sirota added:24
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/19/covid-treatment-scam.aspx |
Nia Pure NatureThe Provider of premium Quality Health Products To Live Better Lives Archives
March 2022
Categories |