The video above features a recent vaccine debate between Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of the World Mercury Project and founder/chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense, and Alan Dershowitz, a lawyer and legal scholar. Patrick Bet-David, founder of Valuetainment, moderated the event. Dershowitz may seem like an odd choice for this discussion, but according to Kennedy, no health official has ever agreed to debate him on the issue of vaccine safety. Bet-David also notes that every doctor invited to discuss the COVID-19 vaccine on his show declined the invitation. So, here, we get the perspectives of two prominent attorneys instead. The discussion initially grew out of a comment made by Dershowitz in another interview, where he said:
Should You Have the Right to Decide Your Medical Treatment?According to Dershowitz’s interpretation of Constitutional law, you only have the right to refuse to be vaccinated against a disease that would affect only you. You do not have the right to refuse a contagious disease that might spread to others. As far as COVID-19 vaccines are concerned, he does not foresee mandatory vaccinations being an immediate concern, for the simple reason that there won’t be enough vaccines to vaccinate everyone. Listening to the likes of Bill Gates and others, however, this probably would not be a problem for long, as vaccine manufacturers are fully prepared to go into large-scale manufacturing once a vaccine gets green-lighted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Interpretation of 1905 Court Ruling Is Not Cut and DryAs the basis and justification for his legal orientation on this issue, Dershowitz relies on a 1905 Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In “Don’t Relinquish Civil Liberties for False Sense of Security,” Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, explained:
Then vs NowKennedy, in turn, points out there is a “big Constitutional chasm” between this 1905 case and today’s vaccine mandates. The difference is indeed rather significant. Jacobson, who had been injured by a previous vaccine, took the case to the Supreme Court in an effort to avoid the vaccine — and the fine for refusing the vaccine, which at the time was $5. When he lost, he paid the $5 fine, which Kennedy equates to a traffic ticket by today’s standards. There’s a big difference between paying a small fine, and being forcibly injected with a potentially hazardous vaccine, against your will. As noted by Fisher above, the judge in that 1905 case did not claim government had the right to go into someone’s home and forcibly vaccinate them, Kennedy says. Dershowitz, in turn, agrees that the 1905 ruling “is not binding on the issue of whether or not you can compel someone to get the vaccine,” but that “the logic of the opinion … strongly suggests that the courts today would allow some form of compulsion if the conditions that we talked about were met: [the vaccines are] safe, effective, [and] exemptions [given] in appropriate cases.” Will You Get the COVID-19 Vaccine?Kennedy and Dershowitz were able to agree that the COVID-19 vaccine should remain voluntary, and only be mandated if the public health threat is truly extreme. One of the problems the vaccine industry has nowadays is that the trust in them has significantly eroded. According to a recent poll1,2 cited by Kennedy, about half of Americans say they want the COVID-19 vaccine; 27% say they will “definitely” refuse and another 12% say they will “probably” refuse it.
1 in 40 Are Injured by VaccinesWe often hear that vaccine injuries occur at a rate of 1 in 1 million. This, however, is a gross underestimation. Kennedy discusses an investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Healthcare Research Quality (AHRQ). They conducted a machine cluster analysis of health data collected from 376,452 individuals who received a total of 1.4 million doses of 45 vaccines. Of these doses, 35,570 vaccine reactions were identified, which means a more accurate estimate of vaccine damage would be 2.6% of all vaccinations. This means 1 in 40 people — not 1 in 1 million — are injured by vaccines, and a clinician who administers vaccines will have an average of 1.3 adverse vaccine events per month. In other words, we are asking 1 in 40 people to sacrifice their health in order to protect “hypothetical people from catching that particular disease,” Kennedy says. Importantly, “it’s not hypothetical that vaccines cause injuries,” Kennedy says. The U.S. Vaccine Court has paid out $4 billion to patients permanently damaged or killed by vaccines, and that’s just a small portion of all the cases filed. According to Kennedy, less than 1% of people who are injured ever get to court, due to the high bar set for proving causation. Vaccine Makers Have No LiabilityVaccine makers also have no liability for injuries. This worsens risks, as they have no real incentive to make sure their products are safe, not only in the short run, but also long-term. And, as noted by Kennedy, the reason vaccine manufacturers were given immunity in the first place was because they admitted vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and there’s no way to make them 100% safe. They were getting sued for injuries to the point they said they could not continue to manufacture vaccines, which is why the U.S. government in 1986 agreed to indemnify them against lawsuits under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, and set up a government-run Vaccine Court instead. So, when you sue for a vaccine injury, you’re actually suing the U.S. government, and payouts are paid for by the U.S. public via a small fee tacked on to each vaccine sold. 100% of Moderna Vaccine Participants Suffered Side EffectsKennedy goes on to discuss some of the disturbing preliminary results emerging from current COVID-19 trials. In the case of Moderna, its mRNA vaccine (mRNA-1273) was found to cause systemic side effects in 80% of Phase 1 participants receiving the 100 microgram (mcg) dose.3,4 Side effects ranged from fatigue (80%), chills (80%), headache (60%) and myalgia or muscle pain (53%). After the second dose, 100% of participants in the 100-mcg group experienced side effects. This is important to note as, unlike the flu vaccine, the coronavirus vaccine will be a two-dose regimen and most likely recommended to be repeated annually, just like the flu vaccine. The 45 volunteers were divided into three dosage groups — 25 mcg, 100 mcg and 250 mcg — with 15 participants in each. Even in the low-dose group, one participant got so sick he required emergency medical care. “That’s 6%,” Kennedy says. In the high-dose (250 mcg) group, 100% of participants suffered side effects after both the first and second doses, and three of the participants suffered “one or more severe events.” Keep in mind, the participants in Moderna’s Phase 1 trial were healthy individuals between the ages of 18 and 55.5 Kennedy recites some of the exclusionary criteria of these trials, such as you cannot be overweight, you must be a lifelong nonsmoker, you cannot have a family history of respiratory problems or seizures, you cannot have asthma, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis or other autoimmune disease. “These are the people they’re testing the vaccine on, but that’s not who they’re going to give the vaccine to,” Kennedy says. Indeed, over 90% of Americans are metabolically unhealthy and struggle with chronic health conditions that can make them more prone to vaccine complications, yet these, and frail elderly, are most vulnerable to COVID-19 and would theoretically stand to benefit from the vaccine most. If the vaccine causes severe side effects in young, healthy individuals, what will the results be in those who are old, frail and/or have underlying conditions or compromised immune systems?
Trust Is EarnedAdmittedly, the interview is a rather long one — an hour and 20 minutes — but if you have the time, I encourage you to listen to it in its entirety, as Kennedy and Dershowitz cover far more than some of the key highlights I’ve summarized here. You could speed it up to 1.5 to 2 times, which is my approach for most videos now as there is so much video content to consume. I would not be surprised if Kennedy’s prediction that the COVID-19 vaccine or vaccines will cause severe harm to a great number of people. I also disagree with Dershowitz’s position that anyone involved in medical manufacturing “obviously” has a keen interest in not hurting people. Kennedy correctly points out that’s clearly not the case, seeing how drug companies have repeatedly been found to knowingly commit fraud in the name of profit. The opioid epidemic is but one glaring example where company executives knew they were causing harm and chose to do it anyway. Trust is earned, and the drug industry has, as Kennedy points out, eroded the public’s trust by their own malfeasance. The drug industry and government health officials expect us to simply trust that a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine will be produced in record time. From my perspective, such trust would be misplaced. Their history simply doesn’t warrant it. I’ve reviewed the historical failures of coronavirus vaccines in previous articles, as well as the potential hazards associated with mRNA vaccines. Importantly, we do not yet know what injecting mRNA to reprogram our DNA might actually do in the long run, since no mRNA vaccine has ever been licensed, but there’s reason to suspect it won’t be entirely beneficial. The good news is that we probably will not even need a vaccine against COVID-19. As I have previously reviewed, there are loads of strategies to improve your immune system. Other treatments like nebulized peroxide are really effective if you are already sick. And, as a foundational prophylactic, remember to optimize your vitamin D level, as vitamin D appears to significantly lower your risk, both of contracting the infection and developing severe symptoms, as reviewed in “Vitamin D in the Prevention of COVID-19.” I’ve put together a comprehensive report on the topic of vitamin D for COVID-19 prevention, which you can download here. >>>>> Click Here <<<<< from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/08/22/the-great-vaccine-debate.aspx
0 Comments
August normally heralds the end of summer break for children, who are preparing to head back to school. Stores compete with sales on back-to-school supplies; pediatricians' offices are swamped with athletes needing sports physicals and neighborhoods get especially noisy as children try to cram the evenings with fun activities before they're crammed with homework. As everyone's aware, this fall is historically different. The social planning and changes accompanying the pandemic have meant that more adults are working remotely, whether they want to or not. College classes are being held online and elementary and high school children are not sure how classes will be run. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends children return to school, writing, "The importance of in-person learning is well-documented, and there is already evidence of the negative impacts on children because of school closures in the spring of 2020."1 Yet the guidelines the CDC wants to use are nothing short of institutionalized isolation.2 Children will wear cloth masks all day; everything is cleaned and disinfected daily and between uses; students are not allowed to share pens and pencils and desks are expected to be placed 6 feet apart. Children will hear announcements throughout the day as a reminder to wash their hands and practice social distancing. This "new normal" has a significant impact on the mental health of adults and children, which experts expect will create a deluge of psychological issues and challenges in the months to come. Yuval Neria of the New York State Psychiatric Institute runs the facility's PTSD program and told the American Heart Association that mental health professionals are in uncharted territory in predicting the effects of this pandemic:3
Children at High Risk From Largest Psychological ExperimentDespite research showing that children are not physically affected by COVID-19 nearly as badly as adults,4 the CDC and the AAP continue to recommend strict measures for children returning to school. As demonstrated in this short video, these recommendations are not without consequences. Children may recover more quickly than adults, but they are expected to experience significant psychological trauma from the mandates that policy makers have imposed on the public. With the social distancing and lockdown requirements across many countries, young people and children no longer have the interactions they need to develop a strong mental and emotional foundation.5 The lack of a structured routine likely means they are also less physically active. In one study from Shanghai, China, the same surveys were sent twice to the same group of 2,427 children and adolescents.6 The data revealed that the children were less active by 7.25 hours each week. More importantly, however, they increased the number of screen time hours by 28.83 per week when compared to their lifestyle pattern before the pandemic. This prolonged screen time can compound psychological challenges, including emotional stability and the ability to make friends.7 Long-Term Psychological Harm Injures at Least One GenerationChildren who experience maltreatment and food insecurity during their childhood years have an increased risk of obesity, heart disease and dementia later in life.8 Unfortunately, more children are likely to experience these challenges during mandated social isolation. Additionally, child welfare services are stretched, which means there is less support in the community.9 With rising financial instability, experts expect there to be an increase in family violence, which contributes to nonaccidental injury and mental trauma. And, in fact, this prediction has been found to be accurate, as told by a physician from Texas.10 A report from the United Nations describes how more than 1.5 billion students were out of school across 191 countries due to government-enforced lockdowns.11 Many students rely on their schools' breakfast and lunch programs, so having to stay home means they're less likely to get enough to eat. School closures also create stress on parents as they are called upon to suddenly take on the responsibilities of homeschooling while still trying to maintain their jobs or deal with the stress of what to expect financially because of the upheaval from stay-at-home orders. One physician in an Italian pediatric department said he has seen increasing rates of violence, self-injury and suicide attempts in young people.12 Children are highly vulnerable to traumatic and adverse events. Some of the most commonly reported symptoms are anxiety, reduced appetite, depression and impaired social interactions. The physiological effects of stress and trauma can also compromise a child's immune system.13 Forced to stay home, isolated and without interaction at school, children are at risk for psychological and emotional damage. During the COVID-19 epidemic, a collaborative working group of the European Pediatric Association and Union of National European Pediatric Societies and Associations, along with Chinese academic institutions released the results of a preliminary study conducted in the Shaanxi province. It showed that children from 3 to 6 years old were more likely than older children to be clingy and to be afraid their family may get COVID-19. Children from 6 to 18 years were more likely to be inattentive or to ask persistent questions. In all age groups, children showed inattention and irritability. Other symptoms included nightmares, fatigue, poor appetite and sleeping disorders. Psychological Damage From QuarantineEvidence of the negative mental health effects due to forced quarantines and social distancing continues to mount. In one meta-analysis, researchers found that prolonged confinement was positively correlated with psychological damage and in some cases the injury lasted months after the quarantine was over.14 In another study, the researchers compared inflammatory markers of 103 patients to their mental status while they were hospitalized with mild symptoms of COVID-19.15 Researchers used an online survey to measure psychological symptoms such as depression and anxiety. Peripheral inflammatory markers were collected at baseline and within three days of completing the survey. The researchers discovered that levels of C-reactive protein were positively associated with those who had symptoms of depression. In a separate study published in The Lancet, scientists reviewed 24 studies analyzing the effects of quarantine and found negative effects included "post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion and anger."16 The bulk of the evidence points to the significant toll on the social and emotional well-being of adults and children who are suffering during the pandemic. While the world undergoes what has been described as the largest psychological experiment ever — without informed consent — it may be time to include one of the strategies the French used in the aftermath of terrorist attacks in the mid-1990s.17 In response to the crisis, the government set up a second triage in which people who were not physically injured were given immediate psychological help and checked for indications they may need further treatment. In a piece written in World Economic Forum, Elke Van Hoof, health and primary care psychologist at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, laments the challenges and psychological crisis we are facing because of:18
Loneliness May Exacerbate Damage From Social IsolationSome experts believe loneliness is exacerbating the effects of social isolation and quarantine during the pandemic. A reporter from The Guardian spoke with Cheryl Webster, an active, community-involved person who moved from California to Texas.19 For 2.5 years before the lockdown, Webster hosted a game night at her home. In the months since social distancing became the norm, she's heard from one person from the group. She spoke with a reporter from The Guardian, saying, "I think that's the hardest part about loneliness. Is it my fault? Am I not a very nice person? Or is there something wrong with me?"20 There are so many people who report feeling the same way that governmental agencies have begun to consider how to work loneliness into the equation of all the rules they're creating. Occasional bouts of the social blues are to be expected, especially after disruptive or sad events, but feeling lonely all the time carries with it a host of unsavory physical problems as well. The Guardian also spoke with the husband and wife research team of John and Stephanie Cacioppo who, in 2014, reported on the dangers of isolation over extended periods of time. They noted that "feeling socially isolated can raise levels of the stress hormone cortisol, disrupt sleep, and also lead to long term health consequences, such as earlier morbidity." There's a Pill for ThatAlthough some public health policies have been written to incorporate social interventions to encourage lonely people to meet with others, many believe the solution is not in having regular interactions with people you don't know very well, but in developing long-lasting, healthy, meaningful relationships. Others, like Stephanie Cacioppo, are taking a different approach: Since May 2017 she has been seeking an answer for loneliness using chemicals. In other words, researchers are hoping to cure loneliness by giving you one more pill. And the pills come with a hefty price tag and a list of side effects. One drug — allopregnanolone — is a neurosteroid sold under the brand name Zulresso. The drug was released on the market in 2019 for the princely sum of $34,000 for just one prescription. As well as having a royal-sized price tag, the medication is dispensed through a restricted program since the secondary effects are dangerous. Other researchers are testing the use of oxytocin, known as the "love" hormone. Rene Hurlemann from the University of Oldenburg in Germany knows oxytocin is central to social bonding and hypothesizes it may have an impact on treating loneliness. To test this, they are working on an interventional study in which individuals are undergoing group psychotherapy with a focus on participation in social activities and talking about loneliness. Half are receiving oxytocin. Hurlemann believes the drug should not be prescribed without psychotherapy, but rather that it could be used to speed the formation of a bond of trust between the therapist and the individual. Medicalizing Loneliness May Increase IsolationNot everyone is excited about using a pill for loneliness. Many of the psychologists and therapists the reporter from The Guardian spoke with expressed hesitancy about using a pharmaceutical solution for an emotional condition. Instead, they favored talk therapy. Rachael Benjamin is a psychotherapist from New York who leads group therapy for individuals dealing with loneliness and believes medicalizing it may make people feel even more isolated. While she acknowledges that many medications can be lifesaving, she believes "Pills can't build intimacy."21 If you're experiencing depression, anxiety or feelings of loneliness, consider trying Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) to help dispel negative emotions and cope with the social isolation from this pandemic. If you're unfamiliar with EFT, Julie Schiffman does an excellent job explaining the process in the video at the top of the page at "Basic Steps to Your Emotional Freedom." In the short video below Julie demonstrates how to use EFT specifically for the COVID-19 pandemic. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/08/22/effects-of-covid-on-children.aspx While investigating garlic (Allium sativum), researchers have observed a variety of cultures have come to use it in much the same ways.1 Some references are found in Sumerian clay tablets dating back to 2600 BC. In ancient Egypt, the working class were given garlic to help support heavy labor and during the first Olympic Games in Greece, athletes used garlic to improve their stamina. In ancient China, garlic was prescribed for digestion and to treat diarrhea. In India, it was used for general wound healing and to help allay fatigue, digestive issues, arthritis, heart disease and parasites. Recounting the historical uses of garlic across the globe, researchers wrote in Nutrition Journal:2
Garlic Compounds May Inhibit SARS-CoV-2Vietnamese scientists have been validating the properties of garlic, including identifying active components and their mechanisms of action. In one study published early in the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers evaluated 17 organosulfur compounds commonly found in garlic essential oil.3 The study included molecular docking to analyze the inhibition garlic may have on host receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). This receptor was identified as a crucial agent for SARS-C0V-2 to infect human cells. The 17 organosulfur compounds included in the study made up 99.4% of garlic essential oil. The strongest activity against SARS-CoV-2 was found in two organosulfur compounds, allyl disulfide and allyl trisulfide, which represent 51.3% of garlic essential oil. The researchers wrote that the results of the lab study “suggest that the garlic essential oil is a valuable natural antivirus source, which contributes to preventing the invasion of coronavirus into the human body.”4 In a more recent study, researchers from Turkey also wrote about the effect garlic has on the release of the hormone leptin from adipose tissue. This hormone helps regulate satiety but also plays a role in boosting inflammatory cytokines. They concluded that garlic:5
The effects it has on leptin levels and its potential to impact obesity have also been studied. In 2018, researchers analyzed the effect of a beverage made from dates, vinegar and garlic juice and found that participants who drank 500 milliliters a day for 10 weeks lost an average of 9.5 pounds (4.3 kilograms) and reduced their body fat ratio and serum leptin levels.6 Despite long-standing evidence that garlic has natural antiviral and antibacterial properties, some are diverting attention away from its use in helping prevent COVID-19, as they seek instead to concoct chemical solutions and pursue the development of a new vaccine. The World Health Organization warns: “Garlic is a healthy food that may have some antimicrobial properties. However, there is no evidence from the current outbreak that eating garlic has protected people from the new coronavirus.”7 Garlic Is a Natural AntiviralFood researchers have suggested that using a garlic water extract when preparing hamburgers could help reduce the growth of staphylococcus aureus in the burgers.8 The extract may be used as flavoring but it also has antibacterial properties against some Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Testing during the COVID-19 pandemic is not the first time garlic has been analyzed for its antiviral effects. In an earlier study from 1985, scientists looked into its effects against influenza B, herpes simplex and Coxsackie viruses, recognizing its centuries-old use to treat various infectious diseases.9 Lab testing showed activity against influenza B and herpes simplex. In a human trial involving 146 participants, researchers separated the group in two to receive either a placebo or a garlic supplement once a day for 12 weeks.10 This was carried out during flu season and participants filled out a questionnaire to assess their health and cold symptoms on a daily basis. The data showed that those in the intervention group were less likely to get sick, and if they did catch a cold they recovered faster. Those taking the placebo were more likely to get sick more than once in a 12-week period. In a historical review of the literature, it was found that in addition to reducing high blood pressure, helping prevent diabetes and offering protection against cancer, garlic was active against a number of viruses, including flu, the common cold, HIV, herpes types I and II and rhinovirus.11 Another study was conducted to test the effect of garlic powder tablets in preventing acute respiratory diseases in children.12 The study took place over a period of five months and produced results showing that the infection rate was reduced by 2.4 times in the school children treated as compared to the controls. The researchers went on to a second stage in which they compared 42 children ages 10 to 12 to 41 children who were given a placebo and 73 who were treated with benzimidazole. The results again showed garlic performed better than placebo at the same ratio and 1.7 times better than the benzimidazole. The researchers concluded:13
Your Brain Benefits From Raw GarlicGarlic may offer protection to your brain as it helps fight age-related changes in your gut microbiome which are linked to cognitive function. This is according to researchers from the University of Louisville who presented their study at the American Physiological Society’s 2019 meeting.14 A high diversity of gut microbiota is associated with better health. Yet, as you age, this diversity can decline.15 The researchers used 24-month-old mice; this corresponds to about 56 to 69 human years. Some of the mice received allyl sulfide — a compound in garlic — and others got a placebo.16 The researchers discovered that the mice who got the garlic compound had better memory function and a greater expression of neuronal derived natriuretic factor (NDNF), which is a gene required for memory consolidation. This link between gut bacteria and neurological health is not new. Scholars have found people with dementia have a different population and diversity of gut microbiota compared to others.17 Researchers have also highlighted the benefits of aged garlic extract (AGE) for brain health. In a 2017 study from Thailand, it demonstrated a strong anti-inflammatory effect and improved short-term memory in rats with Alzheimer-type disease.18 Garlic Supports a Healthy Heart and Blood Sugar LevelsWith age your arteries stiffen. This happens to nearly everyone to varying degrees.19 In this short video, bestselling author Dr. Michael Greger, a Fellow of the American College of Legal Medicine and a general practitioner specializing in clinical nutrition, reviews the benefits of garlic associated with your heart. Arterial stiffness leads to poor blood circulation in the microvasculature of the renal system and brain. This can increase the risk of stroke and renal failure. In a meta-analysis of the effect of garlic consumption, researchers found it helps optimize cholesterol levels and reduce the risk of coronary events.20 In addition, Greger notes the blood-thinning properties of garlic are so pronounced that the American Society of Anesthesiology recommends that patients avoid all garlic in the week leading up to surgery. However, if you’re a candidate for surgery and you want to go ahead and have your garlic, make sure it’s cooked first since cooking inactivates the blood thinning property. Greger suggests adding raw garlic to pesto, salsa and other dips. Raw garlic also has an effect on high blood sugar, which is a symptom of Type 2 diabetes. According to “The National Diabetes Statistics Report 2020,” 13% of the U.S. population has diabetes and the number skyrockets to 26.8% for people over 65.21 A U.K.-based diabetes organization reports that:
They caution, however, that excessive amounts should not be taken and that patients should check with their doctors on this and other measures to improve health. Growing Garlic From Grocery Store ClovesYou can enjoy the benefits of harvesting your own garlic cloves or scapes from your garden free of pesticides and other chemical toxins. Growing a full head of garlic must be done outside since the plant needs the cold winter to produce the bulb.23 Garlic plants have few requirements other than a sunny location with fertile soil. The bulbs are planted in the fall before the first freeze.24 You can use a good quality head or two of garlic from the store. Gently break it apart and use the larger outer cloves for planting. Place them in the soil 3 inches to 4 inches deep and approximately 6 inches apart with the pointy side pointing up. Water the area gently and cover with 4 inches of straw. The following summer, keep the area weeded and watered until harvest time. However, if it’s the scapes you’re after, then an indoor container will work just fine.25 These are the gently curled green tops that sprout from the garlic clove after planting. If you’re aiming for a full head of garlic outdoors, trim them back like many gardeners do so the plant puts all energy into producing the head. The green scapes have a gentle garlic flavor and can be eaten raw, sauteed or cooked. You may notice a bulge in the middle of the scapes. This is the unopened flower that is also edible. At the farmer’s market they are available in the early spring, but by planting your own bulbs indoors you can enjoy garlic scapes all year round. You can plant three to four cloves in one small pot and harvest the scapes in about 10 days. If you’d like to keep greens at home, you’ll need to plant the cloves in succession since the greens do not grow back after clipping. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/08/21/garlic-compound-investigated-for-preventing-covid.aspx Bill Gates has built a global empire around his technologies and "philanthropic" endeavors, the magnitude of which is now becoming increasingly clear. His sheer wealth has allowed him to become a veritable superpower in his own right. He's not only risen to become the largest funder of the World Health Organization and the unelected global COVID-19 health czar but he's also a secret powerbroker of the global food system. As revealed in the AGRA Watch report,1 "The Man Behind the Curtain: The Gates Foundation's Influence on the UN Food Systems Summit," published August 2020, Gates wields powerful influence over global food and agriculture policy through his funding of a large number of organizations involved in agricultural development and policy making. Gates-Funded Organizations Defend Gates-Funded UN EnvoyWhile Gates is just one man, his clout is significantly leveraged and magnified by the fact that he funds such a large number of companies and organizations that can then do his bidding on the sly. When you see long lists of groups, you automatically think there are many players in the game when, in fact, Gates is the singular thread running through most or all of them. The AGRA Watch report2 makes a perfect case in point with the story of Agnes Kalibata. Kalibata is the president of Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), an organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In December 2019, Kalibata was appointed special envoy to the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit by the secretary general of the UN, Antonio Guterres. In response, 176 civil society organizations and farmer groups from 83 countries urged Guterres to withdraw the appointment of Kalibata due to her clear conflicts of interest with corporate actors. A second statement, signed by more than 500 academics and organizations, also opposed Kalibata's appointment to, and her organization of, the Summit. That's significant pushback, illustrating there's widespread concern about Kalibata's appointment. Coming forward in her defense were a dozen individuals representing development banks, academic institutions and the private sector. They urged Guterres to retain Kalabata, citing her leadership qualities and work ethic, among other things. However, of those 12 defenders, "11 had past or current connections to the Gates Foundation," AGRA Watch says, adding:3
Gates' Undue Influence Over UN Food Systems SummitIn other words, while it may look like Kalabata had support from a dozen separate and independent individuals or groups, in reality, there are really only two voices speaking in her defense. It's just that Gates' voice is magnified times 11. What's more, his name is never actually mentioned, so to the uninitiated, it would appear he has nothing to do with it at all.
The following graphic, included in the AGRA Watch report, illustrates the direct and indirect funding ties between the Gates Foundation and the UN Food Systems Summit's special envoy, Kalibata. Gates Foundation's Revolving Door to MonsantoAGRA Watch has raised concerns about the Gates Foundation's influence on the agribusiness for many years. For example, among its many research reports4 is the 2010 report "The Revolving Door: Monsanto-Gates Links,"5 which details the direct links between the Gates Foundation and Monsanto representatives Rob Horsch, Florence Wambugu, Don Doering,6 the late Sam Dryden and Lawrence Kent. Another 2010 report, "Gates Foundation Links to Monsanto and GE Crops Development in Kenya," points out:7
Gates Foundation Isn't in It to Solve Real-World ProblemsIn its 2014 report,8 "Three Examples of Problems with Gates Foundation Grants," AGRA Watch highlights why Gates' massive investments in global food production have failed to solve any of the very real problems we face. First and foremost, many of the solutions that he backs are "Band-Aid solutions" that in fact worsen the root problems. Examples include the funding of the development of genetically engineered (GE) foods designed to be higher in certain nutrients. The problem is that these crops then end up replacing local diversity with just a few GE varieties that don't even take local conditions into account. So, by pushing for "fortified" crop varieties, malnutrition actually deepens, as biodiversity is reduced. Secondly, "a stubborn focus on yield" is at odds with research showing that low yield or insufficient production is not causing world hunger. "There is ample evidence today that the problem instead is poverty and lack of access, which is deepened by destruction of local food systems and commercialization of food," AGRA Watch notes, adding:
A third problem highlighted in the report is Gates' funding of European and American research organizations and scientists rather than African ones, even though the programs are being implemented in Africa. According to AGRA Watch, "This may not be a result of conscious intentions but of a deeply embedded structural bias that casts African scientists and scientific institutions as not qualified or legitimate enough to receive grant funding." Gates' Specialty: PhilanthrocapitalismAdditional observations can be found in the AGRA Watch article9 "Philanthrocapitalism: The Gates Foundation's African Programs Are Not Charity," published December 2017, in which philanthrocapitalism is described as "an attempt to use market processes to do good," but which is inherently problematic "as markets are ill-suited to producing socially constructive ends." Put another way, Gates' brand of philanthropy creates several new problems for each one it solves. As noted in the article, advocates of philanthrocapitalism:
Gates' Medical Plan: Global Immunization and SurveillanceOne of the reasons many are now becoming aware of just how powerful Gates has become is because of his frequent appearances as the COVID-19 expert du jour. It's an odd choice, considering his complete and total lack of formal medical training. It's particularly perplexing in light of how the opinions of actual medical doctors, award-winning scientists and researchers who conflict with his views are being scrubbed off the internet. Gates has repeatedly stated that life cannot go back to normal until and unless we vaccinate the entire global population against COVID-19. This, despite the fact that scientists and medical researchers have discovered a variety of safe, simple and inexpensive strategies to prevent and treat COVID-19. The fact that Gates' irrational and scientifically unsound opinions are shaping pandemic responses around the globe while real medical professionals are being censored by mainstream media and social media platforms is proof positive that we're no longer operating from a base of science and medical truth. Instead, the whole world is expected to fall into line with the self-serving agenda created by Gates and his many allies in technology and medicine. In an April 30, 2020, GatesNotes post,11,12 Gates even states he "suspect[s] the COVID-19 vaccine will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule" — a nice little piece of predictive programming, if you ask me. Mind you, the mRNA vaccines being developed against COVID-19 will alter your genetic expression, turning your body into a viral protein factory. Is it really wise to consider using such a novel vaccine on newborns? In a sane and rational world, the answer would be a resounding no. Unfortunately, we now live in a world run by Gates' goons, and thus reason and logic have largely vanished from the equation. In predictable Hegelian dialectic problem-reaction-solution fashion, the problem of COVID-19 led to illogical and ill-conceived pandemic responses such as mask mandates and house arrest of healthy people, followed by the "ultimate solution" of a hastily thrown together vaccine using novel mRNA technology. Radical as all of that may seem, Gates' plans for the world do not stop here. He's also pushing for the implementation of a vast, global surveillance system to track and trace everyone's infection and vaccination status. He's even funding the contact tracing group Partners in Health, along with George Soros. (The William J. Clinton Foundation has also funded Partners in Health in the past.13) Not surprisingly, Gates' recommendations end up benefiting himself most of all. As discussed in "Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?" the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donates billions to the very same companies and industries that the Foundation owns stocks and bonds in. Using nonprofit money to advance research for companies you're invested in is illegal, yet he's been getting away with this for many years. At the same time, his Foundation gets tax breaks for the charitable donations it makes money from. Remember, he has "donated" tens of billions of dollars over the years, yet his net worth hasn't dropped — it has doubled, and this is largely because his donations are treated as tax deductible investments. It's philanthrocapitalism at its finest. Gates Is Major Benefactor of Pandemic Fear-MongeringThe COVID-19 pandemic is undoubtedly Gates' biggest philanthrocapitalist project to date, and he stands to cash in big, as he's funding/investing in both therapeutics and COVID-19 vaccines. In March 2020, the Gates Foundation announced14 a new partnership, dubbed "The COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator," with Wellcome and Mastercard to "coordinate R&D efforts and remove barriers to drug development." According to the press release:15
The Gates Foundation has also teamed up with Serum Institute of India (SII) to manufacture 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines developed by AstraZeneca and Novavax. The vaccines, which will cost less than $3 per dose, are slated for delivery to low-income countries.16,17 The funding is being funneled as an interest-free forgivable loan to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, founded by the Gates Foundation in 2000, which will then provide the needed capital to SII. Over the next five years, the Foundation has also pledged to provide Gavi with a total of $1.6 billion in additional funds.18 Gates' Attempt to Improve Education Was a Massive FailureHaving an overarching influence over technology, food and medicine (vaccines in particular) still doesn't adequately describe Gates' influence on our daily lives. He's also had a profound influence over education. The much-criticized Common Core curriculum was the Gates Foundation's attempt at remaking American education,19 and most parents can tell you how dumb that was.20 Despite that abysmal failure, May 6, 2020, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced the state is partnering with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to develop "a smarter education system" for the post-COVID world that will focus on online learning and permanently integrate technology into every aspect of civic life.21 The state is also partnering with Google, and Cuomo has asked former Google CEO Eric Schmidt to head a new panel to plan the state's technological infrastructure.22 As noted by The Intercept,23 the surveillance apparatus that consumers have been railing against is now being rebranded as the answer to everyone's health concerns. Gates Is the Most Visible Figurehead of Modern TechnocracyWhether preplanned or not, the COVID-19 pandemic is clearly being used to usher in highly controversial changes that are unmistakably totalitarian-building, including the private take-over of government through public-private partnerships. Surveillance has become the biggest for-profit industry on the planet, and your entire existence is now being targeted for profit. Among those who stand to profit the most is Gates himself. For a better understanding of what you're giving up by going along with the mainstream narrative that we need Big Tech to save us, see my article about social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff and her extraordinary book, "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism." You also won't want to miss my recent interview with Patrick Wood, featured in "The Pressing Dangers of Technocracy." I've embedded that interview below for your convenience. He paints a picture that can be hard to swallow, especially if you're just coming around to hearing about all of this for the first time, but it's really crucial that everyone begin to understand what we're facing. Time is running out. To have any chance of stopping it, we must understand our trajectory, and unite to change the course Gates and others like him have set for us. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/08/21/food-and-agriculture-policy-bill-gates-foundation.aspx Swiss Policy Research (SPR), formerly known as Swiss Propaganda Research, which describes itself as “an independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit research group investigating geopolitical propaganda in Swiss and international media,” has published numerous articles on COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic.1 While SPR’s critics2 have accused it of promoting “unproven” theories, their work focuses on using published studies, case reports and actual physician testimonies for its reporting. In regard to the pandemic, they have focused on the origin of COVID-19,3 the effectiveness of face masks,4 the lethality of an infection5 and misinformation from mainstream media sources.6 Most recently, SPR has released a summary of the scientific evidence they’ve found for treating COVID-19 with simple, safe and inexpensive ingredients.7 Zinc, quercetin, hydroxychloroquine, bromhexine, azithromycin and heparin are all treatments that scientific evidence or practical use by physicians have shown can be used successfully against COVID-19, SPR says. U.S. physicians, for example, using zinc, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin:
Iranian doctors using bromhexine, a drug which breaks down mucus8 but is not available in the U.S., have:
The Suggested Treatment ProtocolReminding readers to be sure to check with their doctors before beginning any treatment, SPR chose the following protocols for early treatment of COVID-19 over a five- to seven-day regimen of:9
The rational for the protocols is backed by data from prior research involving treatments that SPR said was found to be effective:10
The goal of treating COVID-19 with the six suggested supplements and medications is to nip the virus in the bud and avoid hospitalization, says the organization.11 Starting the protocol as soon as symptoms emerge may prevent progression of the illness. Data Show Hydroxychloroquine Is Effective, SPR FoundMany people have heard about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 and much of what they’ve heard recently in mainstream news is negative. That's because the media have focused on negative outcomes from selected studies and subsequent warnings from the FDA.12 SPR contends, however, that those studies were marred by a delay in administering the drug, excessive doses of the drug, skewed data and contraindications that were ignored.13 According to notes which accompany the protocol, hydroxychloroquine and quercetin (which can be substituted for hydroxychloroquine) "support the cellular absorption of zinc and have additional anti-viral properties." In treating COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine and other common medications and supplements has become so politicized, patients may end up being denied inexpensive and effective treatments which have been studied and found to be effective in multiple investigations from around the world. Even The Lancet, a well-respected medical journal, found itself embroiled in COVID-19 misinformation — possibly partisan — and had to retract research that claimed hydroxychloroquine had no benefit. Still, top doctors have not been afraid to speak out about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating patients who contract the virus. In an op-ed in Newsweek magazine, Dr. Harvey A. Risch from the Yale School of Public Health, wrote:14
In his op-ed, Risch cites hydroxychloroquine studies in U.S. nursing homes and clinics, and trials in Brazil and France that had positive outcomes with few to no deaths.15 Zinc Is an Important Part of the COVID-19 FightZinc plays a vital role in immunity as well as in blood clotting,16 cell division,17 thyroid health,18 smell and taste,19 vision20 and wound healing.21 It can effectively inhibit the replication of viruses in a cell, but it needs "ionophores"22 to shuttle it into the cell where it puts up its fight. You may also need to take zinc daily because the body does not store it.23 Luckily, both hydroxychloroquine and quercetin are ionophores that usher zinc into the cells where it is needed. Zinc is so basic to fighting infections, some research suggests that it is zinc rather than hydroxychloroquine or quercetin that does the "heavy lifting" of inhibiting viral replication when they are given together. In research published in the International Journal for Infectious Diseases, both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were effective and "associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality."24 In a study of 2,541 patients with an average age of 64 and who spent an average of six days in the hospital, Michigan scientists found:25
However, zinc was not included in this trial and most doctors fail to add zinc and an antibiotic for secondary bacterial infections in their hydroxycholoroquine regimens. Despite FDA warnings about hydroxychloroquine-related heart rhythm problems,26 the researchers in this study report that:27
In addition to strengthening your immune system through activating your body's T cells,28 zinc has cognitive29 and mood effects.30 It protects your hippocampus, which is involved in depression, emotion, memory and learning.31 It also helps your brain release brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) which counteracts brain inflammation and depression. Signs that your zinc levels are low32 include loss of appetite, impaired immune system, sluggish metabolism and thinning hair. Quercetin Helps Fight COVID-19Quercetin is a natural antihistamine and anti-inflammatory plant pigment that boosts your immune system and may work to control viral replication, according to some research.33 It allows zinc to exert its proven antiviral properties; in treating COVID-19, quercetin may also lower inflammation, help clear mucus, prevent ventilator-induced damage and support immunity. According to the research, quercetin has been shown to help fight obesity, Type 2 diabetes, circulatory dysfunction, chronic inflammation and mood disorders.34 It has even been found to help lower blood pressure.35 Researchers have found that quercetin can trigger tumor regression and begin the process of apoptosis.36 This is programmed cell death, without which cells can grow uninterrupted and develop into cancerous growths. Protect Yourself With Facts From Sources Such as SPROperation Warp Speed, the fast-tracking of a COVID-19 vaccine to licensure and subsequent widespread use, is now in full operation. What we must remember here is that vaccine manufacturers are not liable for any damage their vaccines do. Since 2011, drug companies making and selling vaccines are even shielded from design defect lawsuits, which means they have absolutely no incentive for reducing the risks associated with the use of their products. Vaccine makers and the health care practitioners who administer vaccines do not face any liability whatsoever if a new coronavirus vaccine turns out to be a catastrophe. Worse, when a COVID-19 vaccine is ready to be marketed to the public, there likely will be little or no information about its long- and short-term side effects, because it will be so new and because it will lack the test of time for determining its efficacy and safety. Operation Warp Speed and fast-tracked vaccines may be largely unnecessary, as SPR writes:37
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/08/20/swiss-protocol-for-covid-quercetin-and-zinc.aspx Four months ago, in early April 2020, Minnesota state senator and family physician Scott Jensen came out with a strong critique against the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance for how doctors were to certify COVID-19 fatalities on the death certificate.1 Jensen called the guidelines “ridiculous,” saying they could easily lead to unwarranted fear as it would make the disease appear deadlier than it actually is. According to the CDC guidelines:
Indeed, reporting deaths as COVID-19 deaths, without factual proof that the patient was in fact infected and actually died of the illness, is a clear manipulation of the statistics that drive up the perceived death rate. Death Statistics Are Clearly UnreliableIn his April interview with Laura Ingraham, Jensen said:2
In that interview, Jensen pointed out that according to CDC guidelines, a patient dying after being hit by a bus, who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after death, would be reported as a COVID-19 death, regardless of the injuries sustained in the accident, and regardless of whether symptoms of COVID-19 had even been present to begin with. “That doesn’t make any sense,” he said. We recently saw a near-identical example of this nonsensical practice in Florida, where a motorcycle accident claimed the life of a 20-something man who was subsequently listed as a COVID-19 death.3 Ditto for a Florida man who died of a gunshot wound to the head, and a 77-year-old who died of Parkinson’s disease.4 According to a July 24, 2020, Washington Examiner report,5 only 169 of 581 COVID-19 deaths in Florida have COVID-19 listed as the sole contributing factor on the death certificate. That same week, it was reported6 that the CDC website listed more than 3,700 COVID-19 deaths that also involved “intentional and unintentional injury, poisoning and other adverse events,” and in Texas, the death toll was reduced by more than 3,000, as they were never actually tested. Financial Incentives Can Have Significant InfluenceAt that time in April, Dr. Anthony Fauci brushed off questions about COVID-19 deaths being “padded” as yet another “conspiracy theory” that should be ignored.7 A host of mainstream media reports also claimed suspicions that hospitals were overreporting positive cases and deaths in order to charge more money were pure conspiracy theory that lacked a basis in reality. The fake arbiter of hoaxes, Snopes, also gave a “False” rating to Jensen’s claim that CDC guidelines for listing COVID-19 on death certificates in the absence of a test are resulting in an overcount.8 At the time, Jensen reacted to Fauci’s dismissal saying:9
Indeed, if we are to believe the first-hand testimony of nurse Erin Olszewski, these financial incentives were indeed at the heart of the routine overdiagnosis and mistreatment of patients at Elmhurst Hospital Center, a public hospital in Queens, New York, which was “the epicenter of the epicenter" of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. I reported her shocking story in “Nurse on the Frontlines of COVID-19 Shares Her Experience.” According to Olszewski, patients who tested negative for COVID-19 were routinely listed as positive and were quickly placed on ventilators — a largely inappropriate treatment that ended up killing virtually all of them. CDC Director Agrees Hospitals Likely Inflated COVID DeathsNow, CDC director Robert Redfield admits that financial policies may indeed have resulted in artificially elevated hospitalization rates and death toll statistics. As reported by the Washington Examiner, August 1, 2020:10
Brett Giroir with the U.S. Health and Human Services Department also believes financial incentives have inflated COVID-19 fatalities. Giroir told lawmakers the statistics the HHS has been receiving from states “are over-inflated.”12 Medical Board Drops Case Against JensenMany medical professionals, scientists and researchers have been put through the wringer as a result of expressing views about the pandemic and its response that differ from the status quo put forth by the likes of Bill Gates and the World Health Organization. Jensen, too, has been a fairly outspoken critic of several COVID-19 related issues over these past few months. In a July 6, 2020, video (above), Jensen told viewers he was under investigation and faced disciplinary action and, possibly, loss of his medical license after the Minnesota medical board received an anonymous complaint against him. The two-count allegation claimed he had:
In his video, Jensen explained why neither of these accusations had any basis in fact. Copies of his response letters to the Minnesota Medical Board can be found on the Highwire website.13 July 28, 2020, Jensen announced14 the Medical Board had dismissed the allegations against him. In a press release, Jensen stated:
String of ‘Errors’ Have Permanently Muddled StatisticsAs reported in “Consistent Inaccuracies in COVID-19 Testing and Reporting” and “Common Cold May Trigger Positive COVID-19 Antibody Test,” the only consistent pattern in COVID-19 statistics is their inconsistency. Faulty or contaminated tests have been used, labs have sporadically reported only positive test results,15,16,17 and reporting guidelines for infected cases (positive tests), hospitalizations and deaths have been changed so many times, it’s now virtually impossible to determine the accuracy of these statistics. Positive Test Result Is Not a COVID-19 CasePerhaps the most egregious misrepresentation of reality, though, is the media’s conflating a positive test result with the actual disease, COVID-19. These tests only test for the virus directly (PCR tests) or antibodies to the virus. The fact that a person tests positive does NOT equate to actually having the disease. They’re infected, yes, but “COVID-19” refers to a clinical diagnosis of someone who exhibits severe respiratory illness characterized by fever, coughing and shortness of breath. If you’re asymptomatic, you do not “have COVID-19.” The worst that could be said is that you’re infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but if you’re not actually ill, you do not have COVID-19. The media is intentionally confusing a positive test result with COVID-19 to deliberately mislead the public into believing the disease is far more serious than it is. They know better but consciously choose this despicable practice. A recent example would be CNN’s article, “Florida Has More COVID-19 Than Most Countries in the World.”18 They refer to the positive test as a “case.” This is beyond stretching reality to suit their nefarious purposes. Again, a case is NOT a positive test result but, rather, a person that has a positive test result and is seriously ill. You would never know that by reading their article. Further down in their fear-mongering article is a subhead, “Florida Has Surpassed Italy in COVID-19 Cases, Too.” But at the very end of the article they finally admit the truth: Even though Florida surpassed Italy in “cases,” they had nearly 90% FEWER deaths — the metric that really counts, unless your goal is to perpetuate needless fear into the population. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/08/20/hospital-incentives-drove-up-covid-19-deaths.aspx “Gain-of-function” studies are, according to the U.S. Department Health and Human Services,1 research that involves increasing the capacity of a pathogen to cause illness. The method is controversial because it can also risk new viruses leaking out of laboratories and into the population. In the period 2014 to 2018, this type of research was prohibited in the U.S., but in December 2017, American authorities announced that these kinds of studies would again be allowed.2,3 Despite an ongoing cover-up by government authorities, the biotech industry, the military industrial complex and the mass media, there is growing scientific consensus4 that the COVID-19 virus was created and (most likely accidentally) leaked from a dual-use military/civilian lab5 in Wuhan, China. The ensuing pandemic (currently with 14 million infected and 585,000 dead,6 which has precipitated a global economic meltdown) is the predictable, yet preventable, collateral damage of a reckless, decades-long and accident-prone biodefense/biowarfare program carried out by the U.S., China, Russia and other highly industrialized and militarized nations. Scientists Are Weaponizing VirusesUnbeknownst to the public, a shadowy international network of thousands of virologists, gene engineers, military scientists and biotech entrepreneurs are weaponizing viruses and microorganisms in civilian and military labs under the euphemism of gain-of-function research. They hide behind the guise of “biodefense” and “biomedicine.” But as investigative reporter and bioweapons expert Sam Husseini writes,7 gain-of-function/biowarfare scientists in labs such as Wuhan, China or Fort Detrick, Maryland, are deliberately and recklessly evading international law:
A growing arsenal of Frankenstein viruses and microorganisms have been created, despite U.S. and international laws supposedly banning biowarfare weapons and experimentation.8 A disturbing number of these so-called “dual-use” biowarfare/biodefense labs have experienced leaks,9 accidents, thefts and even deliberate releases like the 2001 anthrax attacks over the past three decades. The creation of COVID-19, engineered by repeatedly “passaging” a bat virus through animal and human cells and/or genetic engineering or splicing specific genetic sequences into the virus, violated a ban on gain-of-function experiments10 called for by many of the world’s top scientists.11 These experiments also violated the precautionary principle of a Global Biowarfare Convention,12 designed to prevent the accidental or deliberate release of biological weapons of mass destruction. Was COVID-19 Caused by a Lab Leak?Despite the 24/7 story — that the virus jumped accidentally from bats into humans — relentlessly peddled by the Chinese government, the World Health Organization (which was supposedly monitoring the Wuhan Lab), the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), which provided funding for the Wuhan gain-of-function experiments, global military and intelligence agencies, government- and corporate-funded entities such as the EcoHealth Alliance and the mass media, there is mounting evidence that COVID-19 was caused not by an accident in nature but by a lab escape or leak. Fortunately, some media outlets aren’t afraid to question this carefully orchestrated narrative. Here are a few examples:
Scientists Manipulate Bat Coronavirus to Infect Human CellsGain-of-function experiments on bat viruses aren’t new. Going back decades, these types of experiments have been publicly documented in a series of peer-reviewed scientific papers co-authored by the director of the Wuhan lab, Dr. Zhengli Shi, popularly known as the “Bat Woman.” Published papers reveal that researchers have been collecting samples and carrying out experiments to manipulate the bat coronavirus so that it can readily infect human cells. For example, in a 2008 article in the Journal of Virology,19 Zi Sheng Li and other scientists report on how Chinese and U.S. scientists have genetically engineered SARS-like viruses from horseshoe bats, to enable the viruses to gain entry into human cells. These highly controversial gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan lab were funded in large part by the NIH, the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID, under the direction20 of Dr. Anthony Fauci) and the U.S.-based EcoHealth Alliance, led by Peter Daszak, who’s become a ubiquitous spokesperson for the “it evolved in nature and jumped to humans” story.21 Fauci, who since 1984 has held government positions under six presidents, both Republican and Democrat, has been a strong advocate for U.S. government funding of gain-of-function experimentation. Fauci claims, with little or no justification, that risky gain-of-function research can help develop new vaccines for pandemics, despite the fact that 30 years of these dangerous experiments have not delivered any tangible benefits, such as cures or safe vaccines. In 2014, following a series of lab accidents, and responding to a petition22 signed by more than 300 global scientists, a temporary, albeit partial “pause” on funding gain-of-function experiments was declared in the U.S.23 Exemptions to this “pause,” eventually reviewed by a secret government panel, were nonetheless allowed to go forward. The ban was lifted in 2017. Yet between 2014 and 2016, the NIH and Fauci-led NIAID continued funding gain-of-function research overseas at the Wuhan lab, via Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. Not surprisingly both Fauchi and Daszak have been staunch defenders of the official Chinese government story that the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) “naturally” evolved from bats and/or other host species to infect humans. Gain-of-Function Research Could Seed a PandemicIn 2017, the “funding pause” on risky gain-of-function projects was officially reversed.24 A government panel was instituted to review each research project. Only those lab experiments that were supposedly 1) scientifically sound; 2) conducted in a high-security lab; 3) intended to produce knowledge that benefits humans; and 4) without a safer alternative, would be funded. As the New York Times reported,25 many scientists protested the decision, correctly pointing out that gain-of-function researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic. Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist and bioweapons expert at Rutgers University, told the Times that he applauded the requirement for review panels.26 However, he said the NIH should have created clearer minimum safety standards and a mandate that the benefits “outweigh” the risks instead of merely “justifying” them. Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist who directs the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard School of Public Health, told the Times that recent disease-enhancing experiments “have given us some modest scientific knowledge and done almost nothing to improve our preparedness for pandemics, and yet risked creating an accidental pandemic.”27 Lipsitch said hoped the panels would turn down such work. Though the ban was overturned in December 2017, it wasn’t until February 2019 — when news of the first approved studies was leaked to Science Magazine28 — that the public learned that the reviews of grant proposals involving gain-of-function research — funded with U.S. taxpayer dollars — were to be conducted in secret. Names of the expert-panel members have been kept secret, along with the panel’s reviews of gain-of-function and other virus and pathogen experiment proposals. US Government Funds Risky, Secret ExperimentsThe idea of the U.S. government, under any administration, funding dangerous experiments29 it doesn’t want you to know about became a literal public relations time bomb in January 2020, when the emergence of a new, highly contagious virus in China hit the news. For damage control, the White House and the NIH convened a meeting of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB),30 the panel that had previously written the rules for reviewing gain-of-function research, with the intent of getting the NSABB on board with keeping everything secret. At that meeting, the man who chairs the committee that decides which gain-of-function research can be funded by the government revealed himself. Christian Hassell, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense, Senior Science Adviser to the Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response — and chair of the secret NSABB gain-of-function risk review committee — acted as a government spokesperson. Hassell cautioned that disclosing the names of the government (likely including military) scientists who sat on his committee could “chill” people from serving. He claimed that the administration was “committed to enhancing transparency,” but warned that this would probably require new action by Congress. Time for a Permanent Ban on Lab Creation of Deadly VirusesIt’s time for a permanent ban on the lab creation of deadly viruses. Newsweek recently reported some of the details31 relating to the funding for scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses:
In April 2020, NIH aid to Wuhan for gain-of-function research was cut off32 as COVID-19 ravaged the globe. EcoHealth Alliance President Daszak said that he and his team were merely studying how coronaviruses spread from bats to humans and claimed not to understand the rationale behind the decision to yank his grant. But Daszak and his collaborators at the Wuhan Institute of Virology33 weren’t just studying how coronavirus spread from bats to humans, they were actually making coronavirus capable of spreading from bats to humans. They were the first to create34 a bat coronavirus capable of directly infecting humans (rather than first needing to evolve in an intermediate animal host). EcoHealth Alliance has since funded additional gain-of-function research that Daszak has championed — without acknowledging his connection. Gain-of-function research funded by EcoHealth Alliance included the 2015 coronavirus-SARS chimaera, created by a team that included the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This research has been widely criticized35 by fellow scientists. In 2015, a team of researchers, including scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus36 from a virus called SHC014, which is found in horseshoe bats in China, and a virus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome). Their chimaera infected human airway cells, proving that the surface protein of SHC014 had the necessary structure to bind to a key receptor on the cells and to infect them. Concerned Scientists Sounded the AlarmsIn 2015, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, told Nature magazine37 that researchers had created a novel virus that “grows remarkably well” in human cells. “If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory.” Wain-Hobson disapproved of the study because it provided little benefit and revealed little about the risk that the wild SHC014 virus in bats posed to humans. Richard Ebright, a biodefense expert from Rutgers University, spoke out about the same research, saying, “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk.” But Daszak spoke out in favor of the research, saying the study’s findings “move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger.” Daszak’s statement is odd, as it seems obvious that it was the research itself that made the virus a clear and present danger, and that couldn’t be what he meant. Nature failed to mention that EcoHealth Alliance had funded the research with a U.S. grant.38 Even the creators of the coronavirus-SARS chimaera questioned the wisdom of tinkering with viruses to make them more dangerous to humans. As Nature reported, in their paper the study authors conceded that funders may think twice about allowing such experiments in the future. "Scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue," they write, adding that discussion is needed as to "whether these types of chimeric virus studies warrant further investigation versus the inherent risks involved.” It’s time for the U.S. government, and all the governments of the world, to demonstrate their compliance with a global ban on chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, dropping the dangerous pretense that lab-created viruses and microorganisms constitute valid biomedical and biodefense research. We need a total U.S. and global ban on dangerous gain-of-function experimentation, and we need it now, before the next pandemic escapes or is deliberately released. Please join thousands of other concerned citizens and sign our petition here. Ronnie Cummins is co-founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and Regeneration International, and the author of “Grassroots Rising: A Call to Action on Food, Farming, Climate and a Green New Deal.” Alexis Baden-Mayer is OCA’s political director. To keep up with OCA’s news and alerts, sign up here. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/08/19/covid-19-reckless-gain-of-function-experiments.aspx U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to reopen primary schools in June was met with "alarm" back in mid-May. According to the British National Education Union (NEU), 85% of its 49,000 members "disagreed with plans to restart lessons from June 1" and 92% said they "would not feel safe with the proposed wider opening of schools." As reported by The U.S. Sun,1 one suggestion brought forth by the teachers' union at that time was to spray pupils down with disinfectant mist before entering school buildings to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Mary Bousted, joint general-secretary of the NEU, told The Sun:2
In the end, such disinfection protocols do not appear to have been passed. Either way, reopening of schools in the U.K. didn't quite go as planned. Opposition was so great, the government conceded, limiting the reopening to specific primary schools on a part-time basis only, starting June 15.3 Now, reopening of all schools is planned for September, and parents who refuse to send their children back to school face a £60 fine. If not paid within 21 days, the fine is doubled. Many parents in the U.K. are still resisting the reopening of all schools in September, as Public Health England COVID-19 surveillance reports suggest the limited school openings in June may have contributed to an increase in positive cases.4 By the end of June, 10 schools in Lincolnshire reportedly had to re-close due to outbreaks of positive cases.5 Curiously, data from dozens of other countries show school openings have not resulted in any significant increases among students, parents or staff.6 US School District Uses Fans to Disinfect StudentsIn related news, some U.S. school districts are implementing comprehensive disinfection protocols, but not of students directly. For example, Santa Cruz Valley Unified School District in southern Arizona will use a Power Breezer fan to disperse disinfectant in classrooms and on buses. Bryan Hoadley, chief revenue officer with Power Breezer explained the process to Fox 13 News:7
New Normal: Toxic Disinfectants and Social Distancing PodsEnvironmental health experts are expressing concern, however. Some worry that anxious staff may resort to disinfecting rooms and areas when children are present, thereby raising the potential for harmful health effects. As reported by E&E News:8
In related news, images in Mirror9 show just how far some schools are going to insulate the children against the virus. Kindergarteners in the Wat Khlong Toey School in Bangkok, Thailand, are literally penned into small individual plastic "pods," inside of which they also have to wear a face mask. WHO Advises Against DisinfectantsMeanwhile, the World Health Organization has actually advised against trying to kill SARS-CoV-2 with disinfectants, both outdoors or across large indoor spaces, stating it may do more harm than good. They also strongly advise against spraying disinfectants on people. This is one time where it actually appears that the WHO got it right, which is beyond shocking as they have been dead wrong on virtually every other issue. Just like it is unwise to use antibacterial soap, it is even worse to inhale toxic disinfectants that are targeting the virus. As noted by the WHO:10
Disinfection Efforts Won't Quell Spread of InfectionSimilarly, scientists warn that making deep-cleaning a priority is not going to have a significant impact on the spread of the virus, as surface transmission appears to be minimal in the first place. As reported by Becker's Hospital Review:11
As noted in Derek Thompson's article13 in The Atlantic, "Hygiene Theater Is a Huge Waste of Time," the emphasis on sanitation really only results in a false sense of security, and doesn't actually lower the risk of the disease overall:
Surface Transmission Risk Has Been ExaggeratedAccording to microbiology professor Goldman, cited above, early research suggesting SARS-CoV-2 could remain viable on various surfaces for hours or even days were based on unrealistically potent concentrations of the virus. To mimic the experimental conditions used, upward of 100 infected people would need to sneeze on the surface in question, which is highly unlikely to happen in the real world. Goldman reviews this and other discrepancies in a July 3, 2020, article in The Lancet:14
Real-World Example of How Low Fomite Transmission Risk IsIn his Atlantic article,15 Thompson highlights a study16,17 that looked at the spread of infection in a 19-story skyscraper in Seoul, South Korea, that housed a mix of apartments and offices, including a busy call center on the 11th floor. Tenants and staff shared a lobby and several elevators. March 8, 2020, it was discovered a call center worker had contracted COVID-19. Surprisingly, only 97 of the more than 1,000 people in the building ended up testing positive for the disease, and 94 of them worked in the call center. Moreover, the majority of those infected in the call center also sat on the same side of the office as patient zero. This strongly suggests COVID-19 primarily spreads via airborne transmission. Despite the many opportunities for fomite transmission (i.e., via contact with contaminated surfaces), such contacts simply didn't result in widespread illness.
Negative consequences include forgoing more effective prevention strategies such as hand-washing, and building a false sense of security — both of which can lead to higher infection rates. Safe and Effective Disinfectants for Your HomeAs noted by the WHO, some disinfectants can also trigger health problems, especially if inhaled, which is why fogging students, as proposed in England, is both unwarranted and unwise. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, poisonings related to cleaning solutions have also risen by as much as 20%, which speaks to the hazards of these products. Excessive use of disinfectants may ultimately worsen bacterial drug resistance as well. For years, scientists and health professionals have talked about how excessive cleanliness and widespread use of antibacterial products are harming public health, especially that of children. It remains to be seen just how long it'll take to ease the unreasonable fear of germs instilled during the COVID-19 pandemic once it's officially over. That said, if someone in your household is sick, wiping off commonly used surfaces may certainly be advisable. As reviewed in "What Is the Best Disinfectant for Surfaces?" your best bets include:
If your aim is to disinfect and sterilize, remember to clean the surface first. Soap and water is likely one of the best alternative strategies here, as the soap will effectively inactivate viruses. Once the surface is clean of dirt and sticky grime, spray your chosen disinfectant on the surface and let sit for up to several minutes before wiping. The time required will depend on the disinfectant you use. For hand sanitation, soap and warm water are the most effective. Only use alcohol-based hand sanitizers if soap and water are unavailable. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/08/19/back-to-school-deep-cleaning.aspx July 22, 2020, Pfizer struck a $1.95 billion deal with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense to provide Americans with 100 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine, for free, with an option for 500 million additional doses.1 The agreement is part of Operation Warp Speed. Pfizer/BioNTech have also inked a deal with the U.K. government for 30 million initial doses.2 The vaccine, currently known only as BNT162, developed in partnership with the German company BioNTech, requires two doses, which means the initial batch for the U.S. would cover 50 million people. The deal hinges on the vaccine clearing Phase 3 human trials. According to a July 22, 2020, press release,3 Phase 2b/3 safety and efficacy trials were expected to begin at the end of July. The company expects seeking a regulatory review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in October 2020, which would allow them to manufacture the 100 million doses by the end of the year. The FDA has stated a COVID-19 vaccine must be at least 50% effective to qualify for approval.4 In other words, the standards aren’t particularly high, despite the concern COVID-19 supposedly poses. The BNT162 vaccine is based on BioNTech’s proprietary mRNA technology. BioNTech is the market authorization holder for the mRNA technology worldwide, and will own all the trademarks for the vaccine.5 According to Pfizer’s press release:6
Former FDA Commissioner Is Now on Pfizer Board of DirectorsInterestingly enough, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who served as commissioner of the FDA from May 2017 to April 2019,8 just so happened to be elected to Pfizer’s board of directors at the end of June 2019. At the time, Ian Read, executive chairman of Pfizer’s board of directors stated:9
Well, there can be little doubt that a former FDA commissioner on your board might be an asset when you’re trying to secure a nearly $2 billion contract with the U.S. government for a novel vaccine that has never been approved by the FDA for human use. As discussed in “Why Most Health Commissioners End Up in Bed With Big Pharma,” Gottlieb is far from alone in having walked through that revolving door. After leaving the top leadership position at the FDA, nine of the last 10 commissioners have gone on to work for pharmaceutical companies. While none of these moves of past FDA commissioners to pharmaceutical companies is illegal, the pattern creates the suspicion there might be an unstated agreement between the pharmaceutical industry and those who are charged with regulating the approval of their products. Another egregious example was Julie Gerberding, who served as the director of the CDC from 2002 to 2009. Immediately after leaving the CDC, she became president of Merck’s vaccine division, for which she received tens of millions of dollars a year — far more than her CDC salary. mRNA Vaccines May Produce Serious Side EffectsAs detailed in the preliminary study10 results, posted on the preprint server medRxiv July 20, 2020, BNT162b1 is a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulated nucleoside-modified mRNA that encodes the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. mRNA vaccines have never before been licensed for use in humans. Inside your cells, mRNA activate DNA instructions, and act as a template to build a specific protein. The theory behind mRNA vaccines is that when you inject the mRNA (encapsulated within lipid nanoparticles), the mRNA will stimulate your cells to manufacture their own viral proteins.11 In this case, those proteins would mimic the proteins found in SARS-CoV-2. Conventional vaccines train your body to recognize and respond to the proteins of a particular virus by injecting a small amount of the actual viral protein into your body, thereby triggering an immune response and the development of antibodies. No previous vaccines have had your own cells produce the viral proteins responsible for producing immunity. mRNA vaccines are designed to make your body produce its own viral protein, which your immune system would then mount a response to. If you suspect a whole lot could go wrong here, you’d probably be right. As reported by The Vaccine Reaction:12
Systemic inflammation, auto-reactive antibodies and autoimmune problems are no small matters. In fact, these are in large part why previous attempts to create a coronavirus vaccine have failed. As explained by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in my interview with him, coronavirus vaccines are notorious for creating paradoxical immune enhancement. Even though the vaccines create a robust antibody response, the subjects end up sicker than normal when they’re exposed to the wild virus. In one ferret study, all the vaccinated animals died. Time will tell just how hazardous the COVID-19 vaccines turn out to be. Since they work on the genetic level, there could be long-term, perhaps even generational, issues that won’t be readily apparent anytime soon, as these vaccines could be integrated into your DNA. Be Wary of the PR Propaganda SpinA July 21, 2020, Wired article urges researchers and media to be upfront and transparent about the vaccines’ side effects right now, “before it ends up as fodder for the skeptics”:14
Wired points out that some trials are not using an inert placebo but rather injected meningococcal vaccine, which might hide certain symptoms or harms. Another example: The University of Oxford added study arms in which subjects are given acetaminophen every six hours for the first 24 hours after inoculation. Is the pain and fever reducer given to mask and downplay certain symptoms and side effects, such as pain, fever, headache or general malaise? It very well could be. Wired notes:15
Experts Worry Vaccine Uptake May Be LowIndeed, medical experts have already expressed concerns that COVID-19 vaccine uptake might end up being low. As reported by Newsday June 21, 2020:16
That Newsday article also inadvertently provides clues as to why most states are now, months into the pandemic, which has long since been “flattened,” issuing mandatory mask mandates, even though the science clearly tell us masks cannot protect against or prevent the spread of viruses. I believe the forced mask wearing is a way to manipulate us into taking the vaccine, once it becomes available, and that is exactly what Noel Brewer alludes to in the Newsday article:17
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/08/18/covid-19-vaccine.aspx One of the biggest casualties of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the educational system. In the fall when school starts, most elementary, middle and high schools as well as colleges and universities will continue with the online learning approach they embraced when COVID-19 emerged. There are many factors to consider when deciding whether in-person or online education should be used. One of the most obvious is that classmates are not exposed to any viruses their peers may be carrying. That's why it's such a shock to see that Virginia and some other states are now requiring vaccinations for students to even register for school: Why should shots be mandated if school is totally online and conducted at home?1 This is the latest in a long line of efforts to remove the rights of parents and children to refuse vaccines. Conflicting Demands Put Parents in a QuandaryPublic support for vaccination has fallen, and this began long before COVID-19. According to a Gallup Poll from January 2020, only 84% of Americans agreed that vaccinations were important, compared to 94% in 2001.2 The pandemic has further affected compliance rates due to stay-at-home orders and the difficulty in getting a regular doctor's appointment during shutdowns — most clinics are operating virtually by use of telemedicine. According to NBC news, families admit they haven't brought their children to the doctor for shots because "… they're worried about exposure to COVID in a hospital or clinic …" and that "… the CDC says this is a problem across the country right now."3 According to an Alexandria, Virginia, news source, pediatricians say immunization rates are down 30% to 76% in comparison to rates before the pandemic, because, like the Gallup Poll found, "… well-child visits were being conducted virtually."4 Health officials, however, don't see that as an excuse and have expressed renewed interest in mandatory shots for all children and adults:
Texas officials agreed. Parents not vaccinating their children is "a terrifying trend for health leaders," said Martha Groomer, supervisor at San Antonio's Metro Health Immunization Clinic. "We don't want to have a pandemic and then have some epidemics alongside it."5 It's ironic that after directing people to stay home and isolate during the pandemic, parents are now being blamed for not vaccinating their children. Vaccine Inducements and Legal ManeuversAccording to the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), one of the most reputable organizations that helps people make informed decisions about vaccination, 49 doses of 14 vaccines are required by age 6 and 69 doses of 16 vaccines are required by the time a child is 18.6 Vaccine makers and pediatricians enjoy great profits from these mandates, and the NVIC has reported many times on how vaccine lobbies are steadily pushing mass vaccination and chipping away at informed consent. To induce parents to vaccinate, free shots have been offered in the past in certain Virginia counties.7 This year, because of COVID-19, the conditions for receiving them will be different:8
Cara O'Donnell, from the Arlington, Virginia, Department of Human Services, added that they were also trying to schedule catch-up vaccinations for students who didn't get their shots on schedule during the pandemic shut down. NVIC Works to Protect Your Right to ConsentAll states in the U.S. and the District of Columbia mandate vaccines for students to attend public schools. However, exemptions are also permitted, mostly for medical reasons.9 The NVIC maintains a current list of state laws and vaccine exemptions for each state on its website, and works actively to protect your right to be informed about the risks and benefits of vaccines, and to maintain your right to choose and consent to any vaccine.10 According to Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of NVIC, an anti-exemptions campaign began almost a decade ago when liability protection given to vaccine companies through Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court was used to embolden its mass vaccination agenda. In a special interview with me, Fisher talked about how those legal maneuvers took away your right to sue a vaccine manufacturer if you are injured by their product:
After that, states methodically began introducing legislation to eliminate exemptions, or as in the case of a measles outbreak in New York in 2019, the state took away religious exemptions for vaccinations, claiming they were interpreted over-broadly.11 One argument health officials use to mandate vaccines for school attendance is that they are supposed to offer protection from disease in a closed setting, where infection may be more likely to spread. However, viewed from the perspective of civil liberties, forcing vaccinations on students who are not physically present in school is yet another example of the ongoing erosion of our rights. Schools Have Become Ground Zero for Forced VaccinationsIn 2019, it was clear that schools had become the epicenter of battles over vaccine exemptions, parental notification and informed consent. According to the NVIC, 22 bills in 17 states12 were presented to eliminate vaccine exemptions, though most failed to pass. Meanwhile, a number of bills were also introduced to expand informed consent, showing that vaccine safety and consent issues have reached the general public. Examples of bills that sought to eliminate exemptions included:13
Other school-related bills pushed by vaccine industry lobbyists would allow minors to consent to some or all vaccines without their parents' knowledge or approval. A bill in Connecticut would have bypassed parents and allowed minors to consent to HPV vaccines, and bills in New York would have allowed minors to consent to vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases. Bills in other states would allow youths to consent to other vaccines without their parents knowing. Another tactic used by vaccine industry lobbyists has to do with attempting to incite public shaming against unvaccinated individuals. According to NVIC:
Mainstream media can then use this information to build public sentiment against the schools and against vaccine exemptions in general. In some cases, news outlets are funded by the pro-vaccine foundations of billionaires, says NVIC:
Mandated Vaccines for Online School Are Latest Rights ErosionThe state of Virginia's most recent mandate is the latest assault on civil liberties and informed consent. The encroachment upon these rights by Big Pharma, mainstream medicine and the public health lobby is becoming more of an issue with talk of a vaccine for COVID-19 in the future and NVIC expects that the vaccine industry will step up lobbying efforts to restrict or remove vaccine exemptions. If you would like more information on this topic, be sure to visit the NVIC website, become a registered user of the NVIC Advocacy Portal and check in often to learn about ways to personally educate your legislators when vaccine bills that affect your rights are moving in your state. Please encourage your family and all of your friends to do the same. If you see inaccurate information in the media, please take the time to respond by making a constructive comment online. You can also email the journalist or call the media outlet and provide accurate, well-referenced diseases and vaccines information and accurate state vaccine law information, which you can find on our website NVIC.org. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/08/18/virginia-requires-student-vaccination-for-online-learning.aspx |
Nia Pure NatureThe Provider of premium Quality Health Products To Live Better Lives Archives
March 2022
Categories |