Twice each year, every U.S. state except Hawaii and Arizona transition from daylight saving time (DST) to standard time and back again.1 Yet, the research is quite clear that meddling with time, and therefore sleep, has negative effects on your health. DST was first introduced in 1918 when it was called "fast time."2 The law was signed by the president to support the war effort. It followed a similar initiative in Germany that went into effect in 1916.3 After the war ended, the law was repealed and then reinstated during World War II.4 Three weeks after World War II ended, the law was again repealed. By 1963, Time magazine called the resulting state of confusion a "chaos of clocks."5 Nearly 20 years after the end of World War II, DST was restored under the Uniform Time Act.6 This standardized when DST would begin and end, and gave states the option to stay on standard time year-round. In 1973, Congress determined DST should be observed all year, but this was again changed in 1974 when the clocks were moved forward in the spring and fell back an hour in the fall.7 In 1986 the time officially changed at 2 a.m. on the first Sunday in April and the last Sunday in October. The date in the fall changed in 2005 to the first Sunday in November in response to lobbying from the golf, barbecue and candy companies, which wanted more daylight during the evening hours to accommodate Halloween night and the traditional passing of sugar treats.8 The current dates and times have remained unchanged since 2007. Long-Term Health Effects of Daylight Saving TimePart of the risk posed by DST is that it can shrink the average amount of sleep an adult gets by up to 20 minutes during transitions.9 Chronic sleep disruption contributes to a rising number of people who are obese.10 Dr. Chris Winter, author of "The Sleep Solution: Why Your Sleep Is Broken and How to Fix It," explains how sleep is an integral part of your eating patterns by affecting the hormones ghrelin and leptin:11
A lack of sleep may also raise the risk you can experience a fatal accident. Dr. Beth Ann Malow from Vanderbilt University Medical Center and colleagues published a commentary reviewing large epidemiological studies that document these negative health effects.12 Malow commented on their findings:13
Another team of researchers published an analysis of the effect daylight saving time has on a spectrum of diseases.14 They gathered data using a population-based, cross-sectional analysis from an insurance claim data set of over 129 million patients in the U.S. and Sweden. They evaluated the effect shifting time by one hour twice each year had on hundreds of age- and sex-specific health conditions. Their data confirmed past research results that heart attacks,15 accidents,16 mental health concerns17 and immune-related diseases18 increase during the time shift. The analysis also revealed several surprises. For instance, it showed an increase in substance abuse in men ages 41 to 60 near DST.19 They also found immune-related disorders that had not been associated in the past with daylight saving time occur more often in the first week following the spring DST shift. The analyses revealed a higher number of complications during pregnancy and childbirth, and increases in renal failure.20
Your Suprachiasmatic Nucleus Is InvolvedYour body runs on an internal clock known as your circadian rhythm. When you mess up this internal clock, your cells are exposed to an unusual amount of stress. Many of the health conditions attributed to the biannual time change are because these internal clocks are not easily reprogrammed and are synchronized to a 24-hour cycle of light and dark.21 Another system in the body responsible for regulating your internal clock is located in the hypothalamus and called the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN).22 It functions through hormonal and chemical signals to synchronize your internal clock, which in turn regulates your sleep-wake cycle and has an effect on the regulation of other physiological activities. These activities include your core body temperature, neuroendocrine function, memory and psychomotor activity.23 The SCN is made up of multiple circadian oscillator neurons that function a little like a pacemaker. Although your body uses several environmental cues to regulate your circadian rhythm, the most important is your exposure to light. Your SCN produces an electrical output using a specific rhythm in response to light.24 Aging and sleep deprivation will have a negative effect on the electrical amplitude of your SCN, which is essential for optimal behavioral and physiological mechanisms. There's growing evidence suggesting your SCN contributes to cognitive performance and overall health. When there's a negative impact on this 24-hour rhythm it increases your risk for depression, sleep disorders, neurodegenerative disease and cancer.25 Since your SCN responds to light, disruption in light exposure can trigger negative health effects. As the Earth rotates, your body clock adjusts to light changes, including seasonal change.26 However, the sudden adjustments that come with time changes in the spring and fall are what researchers believe triggers the increased incidence of heart attack, stroke, traffic accidents and a higher number of injuries. Fred Turek from Northwestern University directs the Center for Sleep and Circadian Biology and says this about a one-hour time change twice a year: "You might not think that a one-hour change is a lot. But it turns out that the master clock in our brain is pretty hard-wired."27 Data Don't Support Daylight Saving TimeOne of the reasons given for keeping DST, despite strong evidence it has negative health effects, is the potential it may help save energy. However, as this short video demonstrates, while it may have originally reduced energy use in the early 1900s, the cost difference for a single-family in modern times is just $4 each year. A second argument is that it offers people more sunlight after work to enjoy recreational activities. Theoretically, this may lead to more physical activity and better health. However, a study published in 2014,28 which gathered data from people living in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona, found it did not make a difference in the amount of time outdoors, but had an effect on the types of activities. They concluded, "… the potential for DST to serve as a broad-based intervention that encourages greater sports/recreation participation is not supported by this analysis." Financial losses are also felt in the stock market. An analysis published in the American Economic Review revealed each time the clocks changed there was an impact on the function of the financial markets.29 The scientists believe desynchronized sleep reasonably explained the effect on the market that was different from other Mondays on the two weekends when the time changes. When a potential $4 savings in energy is compared against the loss of finances, productivity and rising health care costs from injuries and illness, it's apparent moving the clocks in the spring and the fall is not an effective way of managing human and environmental resources. Experts also disagree about how long it takes your body to recover from the time change. Till Roenneberg is a German chronobiologist who says his studies demonstrate your body's circadian clock never adjusts during DST. In an interview with a reporter from National Geographic, he said:30
Europe Is Ditching DST in 2021Many Europeans will soon not have to struggle with a biannual time change. March 26, 2019, the European Parliament voted to end DST in 2021.31 The Guardian reported that member states will be allowed to "choose whether to remain on 'permanent summer' or 'permanent winter' time under the draft directive."32 Europeans call DST "summertime" and standard time is "wintertime." This means countries that opted to remain permanently on summertime will make their final adjustments in March 2021. Countries that decide to remain on permanent wintertime will change their clocks for the last time in October 2021. As more published data establish the negative effects on health, finances and productivity, the tide is beginning to turn in the U.S. with state bills introduced each year that propose changes to DST.33 Tips to Transition When the Clock 'Falls Back'Until DST is either repealed or remains in place year-round, you'll have to make changes to your sleep schedule twice a year. In this short video I share several strategies to help you fall asleep and to improve the quality of your sleep. Small shifts in your circadian timing are happening all year since many ignore their body's internal clock, either by necessity to accommodate their work schedule or by choice. Pushing the limit of your body clock by getting up early and staying up late may not be worth it when it comes to your long-term health. University of Alabama associate professor Martin Young has suggested several natural strategies to help resync your body after a time change, including:34
I would also add to these recommendations the suggestions from the video above and the following:
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/31/daylight-saving-time-long-term-health-effects.aspx
0 Comments
Dr. Paul Saladino is the author of “The Carnivore Code.” I’ve previously interviewed him about the carnivore diet and the impact of metabolic health on COVID-19 outcomes. The video1 above features Saladino on a recent episode of the Joe Rogan podcast. It’s a three-hour conversation, but my focus here is on Saladino’s viewpoints on omega-6 seed oils, and the surprising fact that conventional chicken and pork are significant stealth sources of oxidized omega-6 fats that can contribute to ill health by impairing vital mitochondrial signaling. Vegetable Oils Are Responsible for Epidemic of Ill HealthIn recent years, it’s become increasingly clear that one of the most damaging components in our modern diet is processed vegetable oils, as they contain excessive amounts of oxidized omega-6 linoleic acid, a polyunsaturated fat (PUFA). The biological damage they cause is even worse than that caused by refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup. According to ophthalmologist Dr. Chris Knobbe, who has researched the matter extensively, virtually all chronic metabolic and degenerative diseases, including age-related macular degeneration, are primarily caused by a preponderance of industrial vegetable oils in the diet. The reason for this is because these oils trigger mitochondrial dysfunction that then drives the disease process, and several studies2,3,4,5,6,7,8 have demonstrated the truth of this. The good news is that simply replacing dangerous oils with healthy saturated fats can go a long way toward boosting your health and reducing your risk of chronic disease. Unfortunately, many health authorities have insisted — and still insist — omega-6-rich oils like soybean, corn and canola oil are healthier than saturated animal fats such as butter and lard, and this myth has been a tough one to dismantle, despite the evidence against it. How Processed Vegetable Oils Harm Your HealthThere are many reasons to avoid or eliminate industrially processed seed oils from your diet. As mentioned, vegetable oils are a concentrated source of omega-6 linoleic acid, which can lead to a severe imbalance between the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio in your diet. In fact, I’ve found it is extremely difficult to correct this imbalance simply by taking more omega-3. In fact, excess omega-3 can also contribute to ill health. Your first and most important step is to cut down on the omega-6s, or else you’re always going to be nutritionally lopsided. Even organic, biodynamic olive oil can shift your ratio in the wrong direction, as olive oil is also a source of omega-6 linoleic acid. If, like me, you’re in the habit of eating olive oil, you may want to limit your intake to 1 tablespoon per day or less. The problem, really, is twofold:
Then there’s the issue of direct toxicity from pesticides and herbicides. Most of the vegetable oils produced today — especially canola, corn and soy — are made from genetically engineered (GE) crops, and are therefore a significant source of toxic glyphosate exposure. Thirdly, vegetable oils degrade to extremely toxic oxidation products when heated, including 4-hydroxynonenal (4HNE) cyclic aldehydes,9 which are what cause oxidized low-density lipoprotein (LDL) associated with heart disease. Aldehydes also crosslink tau protein and create neurofibrillary tangles, thereby contributing to the development of neurodegenerative diseases. Processed vegetable oils also harm health by:
The Molecular Biology of PUFAsIf you want to go deep and geek out on the molecular biology of what is going on with excessive linoleic acid (LA) intake, then I strongly advise watching the video above. Saladino interviews veterinarian Peter Dobromylskyj, who maintains the Hyperlipid Blog.17 In it, they describe in great detail how eating these seed oils and other foods high in LA, like chicken and pork, destroy mitochondrial signaling in the adipocyte and disrupt your metabolic functioning. One key point from this Dobromylskyj interview is the explanation of how PUFAs break your metabolic mechanism and contribute to obesity. As explained by Saladino, as he reviews a study on this topic:
For clarity, does this mean a ketogenic diet, meaning a diet high in healthy fats and low in non-vegetable carbs, is fattening? No. The take-home message here is that a proper ketogenic diet must be based on healthy saturated fats, not destructive vegetable seed oils that are loaded with LA. Eating a high-fat diet, when the fats are primarily LA from processed vegetable and seed oils, is far worse than eating a chronic high-carb diet. The type of fat is of crucial importance, as it impacts your mitochondrial, cellular and metabolic functioning. Fats like LA can persist in your cell membranes for months to years, continuing to wreak havoc with your metabolism the entire time, while the sugar is quickly metabolized. Aside from that, this also helps explain why processed foods are so fattening. It’s not just that they’re loaded with added sugars. They’re also loaded with LA that breaks your metabolic machinery and promotes fat accumulation and inflammation. Choose Your Fats CarefullyExamples of healthy fats that belong in your diet include but are not limited to organic coconut oil, ghee, grass fed butter, lard, tallow, black seed oil (Nigella sativa), avocados, raw dairy products, olives, organic pastured eggs and raw nuts. To learn more about the ins and outs of dietary fats, pick up a copy of my book “Superfuel: Ketogenic Keys to Unlock the Secrets of Good Fats, Bad Fats, and Great Health,” cowritten with James DiNicolantonio, Pharm.D., which gives more in-depth specifics on how to discriminate between healthy and harmful dietary fats. Dr. Catherine Shanahan’s list of good and bad cooking oils and fats is also useful. Stealth Sources of Harmful PUFAs: Chicken and PorkAs explained by Saladino in the featured Rogan interview, aside from processed foods (which are loaded with vegetable oils) and vegetable cooking oils, there are also two common stealth sources of harmful PUFAs in the modern diet, namely conventionally farmed chicken and pork. He shows a graph illustrating meat consumption, which has significantly risen over the decades. But it’s not the total consumption that is causing the problem, he notes. Specifically, the problem is not related to red meat consumption, which has actually gone down. Rather, it’s “lean white” meats, particularly chicken but also pork, that help drive the chronic disease trend. Long thought of as a healthier type of meat, primarily because it’s leaner than red meat, the problem with conventional chicken (and pork) is that the animals are fed corn — typically GE varieties that are farmed with glyphosate. And what happens when animals are fed corn? The meat becomes high in omega-6 linoleic acid, as corn is high in this type of fat.18 So, as Saladino points out, high chicken consumption actually adds to your vegetable oil consumption, and can therefore contribute to systemic inflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction and metabolic ill health.
This doesn’t mean you cannot eat chicken or pork. However, unlike cows, buffalo and lambs, these animals have only one stomach and as such any omega-6 fats they eat are not metabolized and stored in their tissues. Since these animals, even healthy organically grown animals, are typically fed grains, they are loaded with omega-6 fats and may have 10 TIMES the LA content that beef, lamb or buffalo do. That is why I think it is really a good strategy to avoid eating these meats and replace them with animals which have far lower LA content. If you want to know how much LA you are eating simply go to cronometer.com and carefully enter your food that is accurately weighed out and you can see precisely how much LA you are eating. It would be great to get your daily intake under 10 grams per day. Safeguard Your Health by Ditching Vegetable OilsTo recap, if you want to avoid dangerous fats of all kinds, your best bet is to significantly reduce or eliminate the following from your diet:
My comprehensive nutrition plan offers helpful guidance for this process. When cooking, coconut oil, butter, lard and ghee are healthy options. Also be sure to swap out margarines and vegetable oil spreads for organic butter, preferably made from raw grass fed milk. Butter is a healthy whole food that has received an unwarranted bad rap. To further balance your omega-3 to omega-6 ratio you may also need a high-quality source of animal-based omega-3 fat, such as krill oil, if you’re not in the habit of eating small, fatty fish such as sardines, anchovies and mackerel, and/or wild caught Alaskan salmon. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/31/vegetable-oil-omega-6.aspx This likely isn’t the first time you’ve been advised to eat your vegetables, but I’m going to add a new declaration: Eat your vegetables, especially the ones you may not particularly like. If you’re not a vegetable eater, you technically may get your two to three servings per day by fitting in things like potatoes, carrots and corn (which isn’t actually a vegetable, by the way). But while those may be some of your most favorite veggies,1 they’re not the most nutritious options even though they do have some health benefits. Cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli and Brussels sprouts (one of America’s most hated vegetables), have a lot more to offer, including protection for your heart. In a recent study published in the British Journal of Nutrition,2 researchers looked at data from 684 older Western Australian women and found that those who ate more cruciferous vegetables had a lower risk of extensive calcium buildup in their aortas, the main artery that carries blood away from the heart. The women in the study who ate more than 45 grams of cruciferous vegetables every day, such as a quarter cup of cooked broccoli or half a cup of raw cabbage, for example, were 46% less likely to have calcium buildup in their aortas compared to women who ate little to no cruciferous vegetables. This is significant because calcium buildup is one of the key markers for atherosclerosis and structural blood vessel disease. When calcium builds up in the arteries, it “hardens” the arteries, hinders blood flow and reduces the amount of blood that circulates around the body. This series of physiological changes is conventionally thought to be a primary underlying cause of heart attack or stroke.3 On a side note, there are other working theories, however, that discount and refute the blocked artery notion. In his 2004 book, “The Etiopathogenesis of Coronary Heart Disease,”4 the late Dr. Giorgio Baroldi wrote that the largest study done on heart attack incidence revealed only 41% of people who have a heart attack actually have a blocked artery. And, of those, 50% of the blockages occur after the heart attack, not prior to it. This means at least 80% of heart attacks are not associated with blocked arteries at all. According to Dr. Thomas Cowan, a practicing physician, founding board member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and author of “Human Heart, Cosmic Heart,” three of the core, underlying issues that cause heart attacks are decreased parasympathetic tone followed by sympathetic nervous system activation, collateral circulation failure (lack of microcirculation to the heart) and lactic acid buildup in the heart muscle due to impaired mitochondrial function. You can learn more about Cowan and his thoughts on this in “A New Way of Looking at Heart Disease and Novel Treatment Options.” Cruciferous Vegetables Help Keep Your Heart HealthyHeart disease is the leading cause of death for men and women of all racial and ethnical groups in the U.S., killing one person every 37 seconds.5 Aside from all of the deaths attributed to heart disease, another 12.1% of Americans are living with some type of chronic heart condition.6 You may think that a lot of this comes down to your genetics, but while you may be predisposed to certain conditions, the study confirms that the development of heart disease largely has to do with your diet. This study is groundbreaking because it shows an actual mechanism for how cruciferous vegetables help prevent heart disease. Lauren Blekkenhorst, Ph.D., one of the lead researchers on the study, explains that the high content of vitamin K in cruciferous vegetables helps inhibit calcification in the blood vessels.7 But there are other nutritional compounds that have a positive effect on your heart too. One of the most notable is sulforaphane, an isothiocyanate compound that gives cruciferous vegetables their signature odor. If you’ve ever cooked broccoli or Brussels sprouts, you know that smell I’m referring to. While these compounds can certainly clear a room, they are just as powerful when it comes to your health. Other than sulforaphane, the nutrients in cruciferous vegetables that have a positive effect on your heart health include:8
Cruciferous Vegetables Can Help Prevent CancerCruciferous vegetables are also rich in sulfur-containing compounds called glucosinolates. When you chew or chop cruciferous vegetables, the glucosinolates come into contact with plant enzymes that speed up their breakdown and produce secondary compounds that help prevent cancer.9 These compounds help eliminate carcinogens from your body so they don’t cause DNA damage that can result in cancer. They also prevent normal cells from developing into cancerous cells. Several studies have also confirmed that the isothiocyanates in cruciferous vegetables, including sulforaphane, have distinct anti-cancer activity. The isothiocyanates spark hundreds of genetic changes, activating some genes that fight cancer and switch off others that fuel tumors. In one study, sulforaphane was shown to reduce the incidence and rate of chemically induced mammary tumors in animals. It also inhibited the growth of cultured human breast cancer cells, leading to cell death.10 Lead author of the study, Olga Azarenko, said:11
According to Azarenko, sulforaphane works in a similar fashion to the anticancer drugs taxol and vincristine, but without the toxic side effects. Other studies have confirmed the protective benefits of these vegetables for other types of cancer as well, such as:
Other Health Benefits of Cruciferous VegetablesWhile heart disease and cancer prevention are big benefits of cruciferous vegetables, they have a lot more to offer too. Studies show that eating cruciferous vegetables can also:16
What Are Cruciferous Vegetables?I’ve already mentioned broccoli, Brussels sprouts and cabbage, some of the most common cruciferous vegetables, but there are others too. The cruciferous vegetables, and vegetables that belong to the cruciferous family, include:17
How Many Cruciferous Vegetables Should You Eat?It’s currently recommended that adults eat between 2.5 and 3.5 cups of vegetables per day,18 which equals about three to seven servings. There currently is no USDA recommendation for cruciferous vegetables specifically, but adults should have one to three cups of vegetables, including cruciferous, each day, depending on your activity level.19 The way that cruciferous vegetables such as Brussels sprouts are prepared matters too. A 2011 study showed that not only can Brussels sprouts produce enzymes to detoxify your body from cancer-inducing properties but steaming them also brings out the best combination of benefits.20 Boiling, on the other hand, destroys the metabolic processes that release myrosinase and activate glucosinolates, which together generate metabolites.21 And, should you decide to eat them raw, then just the act of chewing can activate those glucosinolates, too.22 At some point, you may have heard that cruciferous vegetables can negatively affect thyroid health or even cause thyroid cancer, rather than prevent it. That’s because the breakdown of glucosinolates can create a compound called goitrin, which can block thyroid hormone production and cause hypothyroidism, or a low functioning thyroid. The breakdown of glucosinolates also creates compounds that compete with iodine, and inadequate iodine can also lead to hypothyroidism. The cancer concern was raised in a study of Malaysian women who consumed large amounts of cruciferous vegetables.23,24 The women also had a low iodine intake and mild iodine deficiency, which researchers felt contributed to their cancer. While this is not something to ignore, it’s important to remember that a balanced diet always works best — in other words, make your cruciferous veggies part of your diet, but not your main part, and you won’t have to worry about negative effects on your thyroid gland. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/30/cruciferous-vegetables-help-keep-your-heart-healthy.aspx Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, this year rose to national prominence as the leader of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. By the time everything is said and done, he may end up wishing he’d gained less public exposure. In the October 19, 2020, report1 “Dr. Fauci’s COVID-19 Treachery,” Dr. Peter Breggin reveals Fauci’s “chilling ties” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its military. A second, legal, report2 by Breggin titled “COVID-19 & Public Health Totalitarianism: Untoward Effects on Individuals, Institutions and Society,” was filed in a federal court in Ohio, August 31, 2020, as part of a lawsuit and injunction to put an end to the state’s pandemic measures. According to Breggin, Fauci “has been the major force” behind research activities that enabled the CCP to manufacture lethal SARS coronaviruses, which in turn led to the release — whether accidental or not — of SARS-CoV-2 from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in Wuhan, China. Breggin claims Fauci has helped the CCP obtain “valuable U.S. patents,” and that he, in collaboration with the CCP and the World Health Organization, initially suppressed the truth about the origins and dangers of the pandemic, thereby enabling the spread of the virus from China to the rest of the world. Fauci has, and continues to, shield the CCP and himself, Breggin says, by “denying the origin of SARS-CoV-2” and “delaying and thwarting worldwide attempts to deal rationally with the pandemic.” Gain-of-Function Research Supported by FauciIn the executive summary of the report, Breggin documents 15 questionable activities that Fauci has been engaged in, starting with the fact that he funded dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses, both by individual Chinese researchers and the WIV in collaboration with American researchers. This research, Breggin says, allowed the CCP and its military to create their own bioweapons, including SARS-CoV-2. He points out that the American-Chinese collaboration was initially detailed in a paper written by two Chinese researchers, Botao Xiao (trained at Northwestern University and Harvard Medical School) and Lei Xiao back in February 2020. According to Breggin, the CCP forced them to recant and the paper was withdrawn.
As previously reported by Newsweek,4 the NIAID-funded gain-of-function research into bat coronaviruses was conducted in two parts. The first, which began in 2014 and ended in 2019,5 focused on “understanding the risk of bat coronavirus emergence.” Initial findings6 were published in Nature Medicine in 2015. The program, which had a budget of $3.7 million, was led by Wuhan virologist Shi Zheng-Li and sought to catalogue wild bat coronaviruses. It also involved U.S. scientists such as Ralph Barric from the University of North Carolina and Charles Lieber from Harvard.7 The second phase that began in 2019 included additional surveillance of coronaviruses along with gain-of-function research to investigate how bat coronaviruses might mutate to affect humans. This second phase was run by the EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit research group led by Peter Daszak, an expert on disease ecology. According to Newsweek, the project proposal explained the research to be conducted as follows:8
Why Did Fauci Continue Gain-of-Function Research?While President Trump canceled funding for dangerous gain-of-function research on viruses in April 2020 after the Chinese-American collaborations became publicly known, Fauci has since “unleashed a deluge of new funding that will almost certainly” benefit Chinese scientists with CCP ties who are still working in various U.S. universities and other research facilities. Part of the funding is again directed to the EcoHealth Alliance, which for years has outsourced its research projects to WIV and other Chinese researchers. That said, recent reports indicate the NIH is now demanding the organization produce records detailing its work with the Wuhan lab before the funding is released.9 Fauci also continued outsourcing gain-of-function research to the WIV back in 2014, after then-President Obama ordered a stop to such research. At the time, he also continued to fund collaborations between U.S. and WIV researchers, led by Vineet Menachery, Ph.D., at the University of North Carolina.
Interestingly, while the original moratorium on gain-of-function research was a direct order by the President, when the moratorium was lifted at the end of 2017, it was done so by the National Institutes of Health and the NIAID. Fauci also defended and promoted gain-of-function research on bird flu viruses a decade ago, saying such research was worth the risk because it allows scientists to prepare for pandemics.11 However, as noted by Breggin, this kind of research does not appear to have improved governments’ pandemic responses one whit. Downplaying COVID-19 RisksNext, Breggin points out Fauci’s connections to and support of Director-General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a member of a Marxist-Leninist Ethiopian political party whose corrupt past and terrorist ties have been highlighted ever since his controversial nomination.12,13,14 Incidentally, Tedros has also been accused of covering up cholera outbreaks in Ethiopia.
Fauci’s Globalist TiesInterestingly, Fauci recently published a paper in which he again dismisses the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 was created in and released from the WIV, arguing instead for a natural mutation.
The globalist, technocratic agenda also shines through Fauci’s call for a political agenda that protects the population from pathogens by limiting or eliminating “aggressive” and manmade interventions into nature. Fauci’s paper, published in the journal Cell in September 2020, reads in part:15
Indeed, this language is straight out of the technocratic handbook, now rebranded as “the Great Reset.” As noted by Breggin:
Fauci Continues to Hype COVID-19 RisksIn the main body of the report (Page 7 onward), Breggin goes on to detail Fauci’s role in the media fearmongering that has allowed pandemic measures to stretch from an initial call for a two-week lockdown to eight months and counting. “Most people have very unrealistic fears about the risk of dying from COVID-19,” Breggin notes, and “This is due in part to the CDC and to Dr. Anthony Fauci who inflate the risk of COVID-19 deaths.” According to data16 released by the CDC August 26, 2020, only 6% of the total COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate. The remaining 94% had an average of 2.6 health conditions that contributed to their deaths.
COVID-19 Is Less Lethal Than the Flu for MostAccording to a September 2, 2020, article17 in Annals of Internal Medicine, the infection fatality ratio has been overestimated due to the fact that many who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 remain asymptomatic, which makes it difficult to estimate the true infection rate. The researchers found that, when excluding those residing in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities, the infection fatality rate for the average person is as follows:
The estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza listed in this paper is 0.8%. Other sources put it a little higher. In either case, this means that if you’re under the age of 60, your chance of dying from the flu is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19. Breggin cites CDC data, noting that the CDC is using inflated numbers, but even at that, the risk of death for people under the age of 70 is lower than that of the flu. According to CDC estimates, the infection fatality ratios are as follows:18
As noted by Breggin, the risk to children and youths is exceedingly small, “Yet Dr. Fauci and other public health officials continue to act as if there is a grave risk of exposing children and young adults to SARS-CoV-2, when there is not,” Breggin writes. Breggin’s 55-page report19 is well worth reading in its entirety. It contains far more details than I’ve been able to provide in this overview, and is fully referenced. Fauci Continues to Dismiss HydroxychloroquineBreggin’s legal report,20 “COVID-19 & Public Health Totalitarianism: Untoward Effects on Individuals, Institutions and Society,” is also worth reading. It addresses the totalitarian threat posed by the global response to the pandemic, and details the psychological operations behind the fearmongering and the underhanded methods used to discredit hydroxychloroquine, among other things. Included is an open letter to Fauci about his dismissal of hydroxychloroquine, signed by Drs. George C. Fareed, Michael M. Jacobs and Donald C. Pompan, which reads, in part:21
Fauci — ‘An Extraordinarily Destructive Force’In Breggin’s estimation, Fauci “has been and continues to be an extraordinarily destructive force in the world.” Not only did he play a role in China’s ability to create SARS-CoV-2 and other potential biological weapons, he’s also covering up its origin, and initially tried to downplay the threat of the novel virus. To top it off, “he became the go-to scientist and management czar for the very pandemic that he helped to create, enormously increasing his power and influence, and the wealth of his institute and his global collaborators, including Bill Gates and the international pharmaceutical industry,” Breggin writes, adding, in conclusion:
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/30/dr-anthony-fauci-coronavirus-chinese-communist-party.aspx Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) is a powerful adaptogenic herb, which means it helps your body adapt to stress1 by balancing your immune system, metabolism and hormonal systems. It is known as a multipurpose herb and was used in ancient Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine.2 The plant is native to India and a member of the Solanaceae family, along with eggplant and tomato.3 A 2020 study tested ashwagandha for its ability to promote sleep. Based on the results, the researchers believe the herb could be an alternative treatment for insomnia.4 They gathered 80 participants, 40 of whom were healthy individuals without a sleep disorder and 40 who had a known diagnosis of insomnia. Consider Ashwagandha to Improve Your Sleep QualityEach group was further split into two groups: one intervention and one control group. The intervention group received ashwagandha and the control group received a placebo. The participants took the supplements for eight weeks during which assessments were done to evaluate sleep parameters, sleep quality and anxiety. The results revealed that the groups of healthy individuals and those with insomnia who were taking ashwagandha demonstrated significant improvement in the study parameters. Those who had insomnia showed the most improvement. The researchers wrote the “root extract was well-tolerated by all the participants irrespective of their health condition and age.”5 The participants took 300 milligrams (mg) twice each day of the root extract KSM-66 sold by Ixoreal Biomed.6 The same supplement was tested in another study in which the researchers found it improved quality of sleep, quality of life and mental alertness in older adults.7 The researchers in the second study suggested the root extract may be effective in the elderly population as they tolerated the supplement well and “it was reported as safe and beneficial by the study participants.”8 Kartikeya Baldwa, CEO of Ixoreal Biomed Inc., commented on the results of the newest study to a reporter from NutraIngredients:9
Why Improving Your Sleep Quality Is ImportantThe importance of getting enough quality sleep each night cannot be overstated. You likely recognize that a good sleep schedule is a vital component of a healthy lifestyle. But, according to a survey from Mattress Firm, which revealed some disturbing facts about sleep patterns in America, getting a good night’s sleep may be challenging.10 The results showed the average adult who responded to the survey didn't get the seven to eight recommended hours of sleep each night. Of those who responded, a total of 40% said their sleep was “not very good” or “not good at all.” This may be related to the activities people reported doing in bed, which included watching TV, eating and playing video games. But it's not only the number of hours that's important, but also the quality. Fragmented sleep can trigger chronic inflammation and contribute to mental health conditions and neurological disorders such as major depression and Alzheimer's disease.11 Fragmented sleep is also associated with atherosclerosis,12 a buildup of fatty plaque in the arteries sometimes called clogged or hardened arteries that can result in fatal heart disease.13 Experts estimate that up to 70 million people in the U.S. of all ages are plagued by sleep-related health conditions.14 They are common in both men and women and span all socioeconomic classes. The potential for being sleep deprived has risen significantly in the past 30 years, according to the American Sleep Apnea Association. Contributing factors include digital technology and blurred lines between work and home. This may be exacerbated by the recent pandemic and an increasing number of people working remotely. Ashwagandha Helps Lower Stress MarkersIn addition to improving quality of sleep, the researchers found ashwagandha reduced the measure of anxiety in the participants.15 According to the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, there is a relationship between stress and anxiety. They define the difference as stress being a response to a threat, while anxiety is a response to the stress.16 Another study evaluated the effectiveness of a full-spectrum extract of ashwagandha root to help reduce stress and anxiety.17 Since stress can lead to poor performance and increase your risk for adverse health conditions, the researchers sought to evaluate the effectiveness of ashwagandha in adults who were known to be under stress. They gathered 64 individuals who had a history of chronic stress. Before beginning the intervention, the participants underwent laboratory testing that included measuring serum cortisol and assessing their stress level using a standardized assessment questionnaire. The group was randomized into a treatment group and control group. Those in the study group took 300 mg of ashwagandha root twice a day for 60 days. Analysis of the data revealed a significant reduction in stress assessment at the end of 60 days when compared to the placebo group. People taking ashwagandha also had substantially lower serum cortisol levels. The group taking ashwagandha reported only mild adverse effects that were comparable to the placebo group. The results led the researchers to conclude that the root extract was safe and effective at improving resistance to stress and self-assessed quality of life. A systematic literature review evaluating five human trials found similar results to the interventional study. The researchers concluded each of the five studies demonstrated ashwagandha resulted in greater improvement than a placebo when measuring anxiety or stress.18 Ashwagandha May Help Improve Nonrestorative SleepNonrestorative sleep is a subjective feeling you have that your sleep had been “insufficiently refreshing.”19 This may happen despite appearing like you had slept through the night. It is one of the symptoms of insomnia that can be independent of other signs. Difficulty with nonrestorative sleep plays an important role in medical conditions such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, heart disease and obesity.20 Scientists have found it is associated with other sleep disorders such as restless leg syndrome, sleep apnea and periodic limb movement disorders. Although it has been studied in people with sleep disturbances, one team of researchers published their study protocol and rationale to evaluate the role ashwagandha may have in nonrestorative sleep in the general population.21 Because nonrestorative sleep plays an important role in medical conditions that are linked to chronic inflammation and ashwagandha has demonstrated the ability to reduce stress and prepare for sleep, researchers hoped ashwagandha would help improve scores on a restorative sleep questionnaire given to participants taking the supplement for six weeks. The results of the study were published in the journal Sleep Medicine. The scientists enrolled 144 individuals who completed the study and found there was a 72% improvement in sleep quality in those taking ashwagandha compared to 29% in the placebo group.22 The researchers monitored data that showed a significant improvement in sleep efficiency, time, latency and wakefulness after sleep. Quality of life scores were vastly improved in physical, psychological and environmental domains. Additionally, there were no adverse events reported. More Benefits From Ashwagandha Include Cognitive FunctionA traditional use for ashwagandha is memory enhancement, particularly the root of the plant. In 2017, a published study in the Journal of Dietary Supplements demonstrated the root extract helped improve memory and cognitive function in 50 people who had mild cognitive impairment.23 This is a slight decline in cognitive ability that is associated with an increased potential risk for developing other serious dementias, including Alzheimer's disease.24 The participants were split into two groups either receiving 300 mg of ashwagandha root extract twice a day or placebo over eight weeks. The participants taking ashwagandha also demonstrated improvement in executive function, information-processing speed and sustained attention.25 In addition to improving function, the root extract may help slow deterioration of brain cells in people diagnosed with dementia. In one review of Ayurvedic medicines, the researchers wrote:26
Another study engaged 20 healthy men who were randomized to receive 500 mg of encapsulated root and leaf extract of ashwagandha or a placebo for 14 days.27 They were put through a battery of computerized psychometric testing and researchers found those taking ashwagandha showed significant improvements in their reaction time, card sorting testing and choice discrimination. Considerations and Side EffectsIf you choose to consider an ashwagandha supplement, talk to your holistic health care practitioner since even natural remedies, like herbs, can interact with other medications or supplements you may be taking. Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding should avoid ashwagandha since it can cause spasmolytic activity in the uterus that may result in a premature birth. In general, ashwagandha is associated with only mild side effects, if any, and appears to be safe for most people. Typical dosages can range from 125 mg to 1,250 mg each day. Many of the current studies provided participants with 600 mg of root extract each day. In addition to being taken internally, ashwagandha can also be useful in topical form as an essential oil diluted with a carrier oil. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/29/ashwagandha-helps-you-sleep-and-manage-stress.aspx According to Dr. Thomas Frieden, former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the U.S., killing more Americans than "accidents, injuries, lung disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's and many, many other causes."1,2 This claim is said to be based on data from Johns Hopkins University which, at the time Frieden made that statement in August 2020, reported that about 170,000 of the 5.4 million Americans who had tested positive had died.3 At the time of this writing, Johns Hopkins reports4 the U.S. has recorded 7,916,099 positive tests and 216,872 COVID-19-related deaths. Medical Errors Dwarf COVID-19 ConcernsThere are many reasons not to panic over Frieden's claim. I'll review mortality statistics in just a moment but, first, I want to highlight a leading cause of death that continues to be swept under the proverbial rug, namely medical errors, because medical errors also play a role in the death toll attributed to COVID-19. In 2016, a Johns Hopkins study5,6 found more than 250,000 Americans die each year from preventable medical errors, effectively making modern medicine the third leading cause of death in the U.S. I reported these findings in "Medical Errors: Still the Third Leading Cause of Death." In 2017, medical mistakes were found to affect 1 in 5 people. Common examples of medical mistakes included receiving the wrong medication, having the wrong procedure done, waking up during surgery or acquiring a hospital-related infection. Other research7 has estimated the number of Americans dying from medical mistakes may actually be as high as 440,000. The reason for the discrepancy in the numbers is because medical errors are rarely noted on death certificates, and death certificates are what the CDC relies on to compile its death statistics. As a result, the severity of the problem goes unnoticed. Either way, whether it's 250,000 or 440,000, medical errors still claim more lives than COVID-19 has, and it does so on an annual basis. Medical Errors Responsible for Most COVID-19 DeathsWe also need to remember that a large portion of those who died from COVID-19 were in fact victims of medical errors. As I reported in "Nurse on the Frontlines of COVID-19 Shares Her Experience" and "Frontline Nurse Speaks Out About Lethal Protocols," Elmhurst Hospital Center in Queens, New York — which was "the epicenter of the epicenter" of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. — grossly mistreated COVID-19 patients, causing their death.8 According to retired Army Sgt. Erin Olszewski, a nurse who worked at Elmhurst during the height of the pandemic, hospital administrators and doctors made a long list of errors, most egregious of which was to place all COVID-19 patients, including those merely suspected of having COVID-19, on mechanical ventilation rather than less invasive oxygen administration. During her time there, most patients who entered the hospital wound up being treated for COVID-19, whether they tested positive or not, and only one patient survived. The hospital also failed to segregate COVID-positive and COVID-negative patients, thereby ensuring maximum spread of the disease among noninfected patients coming in with other health problems. By ventilating COVID-19-negative patients, the hospital artificially inflated the case load and death rate. Disturbingly, financial incentives appear to have been at play. According to Olszewski, the hospital received $29,000 extra for a COVID-19 patient receiving ventilation, over and above other treatments. In August 2020, CDC director Robert Redfield admitted that hospital incentives likely elevated hospitalization rates and death toll statistics around the country. Irresponsible State Leadership Caused Many COVID-19 DeathsAnother major error that drove up the death toll was state leadership's decision to place infected patients into nursing homes, against federal guidelines.9 According to an analysis10,11 by the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, which included data reported by May 22, 2020, an average of 42% of all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. had occurred in nursing homes, assisted living and other long-term care facilities. This is extraordinary, considering this group accounts for just 0.62% of the population. By and large, nursing homes are ill equipped to care for COVID-19 infected patients.12 While they're set up to care for elderly patients — whether they are generally healthy or have chronic health problems — these facilities are rarely equipped to quarantine and care for people with highly infectious disease. It's logical to assume that comingling infected patients with noninfected ones in a nursing home would result in exaggerated death rates, as the elderly are far more prone to die from any infection, including the common cold. We also learned, early on, that the elderly were disproportionately vulnerable to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Yet ordering infected patients into nursing homes with the most vulnerable population of all is exactly what several Democrat governors decided to do, including New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo,13 Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. ProPublica published an investigation14 June 16, 2020, comparing a New York nursing home that followed Cuomo's misguided order with one that refused, opting to follow the federal guidelines instead. The difference was stark. By June 18, the Diamond Hill nursing home — which followed Cuomo's directive — had lost 18 residents to COVID-19, thanks to lack of isolation and inadequate infection control. Half the staff (about 50 people) and 58 patients were infected and fell ill. In comparison, Van Rensselaer Manor, a 320-bed nursing home located in the same county as Diamond Hill, which refused to follow the state's directive and did not admit any patient suspected of having COVID-19, did not have a single COVID-19 death. A similar trend has been observed in other areas. If it weren't for systematic medical mistreatment at certain hospitals and incomprehensible decision-making by a handful of state governors, the COVID-19 death toll may well have been negligible. Other Considerations When Evaluating COVID-19 Death TollWe should also remember that a) the vast majority of people died with SARS-CoV-2 infection, not from it, and b) medical treatments showing significant promise have been savagely censored and even barred from use based on falsified and seriously flawed studies. According to groundbreaking data15 released by the CDC August 26, 2020, only 6% of the total COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate. Six percent of 201,141 (the total death toll reported by the CDC as of October 14, 2020) is 12,068. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 infection was directly responsible for just over 12,000 deaths of otherwise healthy individuals. The remaining 94% had an average of 2.6 health conditions that contributed to their deaths. When you add all of these factors together — the wanton mismanagement of the infection in hotspots such as New York, the decision to send infected patients into nursing homes, the fact that few healthy people died from the infection and that potential medical treatments have been and still are actively suppressed — it kind of starts to look like a manufactured crisis. Infection Fatality on Par With the FluWhile Frieden is now stoking fears by claiming COVID-19 is the third leading cause of death, and Scientific American is calling the claim that its fatality is on par with the flu "fake news,"16 I would call your attention to research looking at the fatality ratio for the average person, excluding those residing in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. The September 2, 2020, article17 in Annals of Internal Medicine points out that, because many who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 remain asymptomatic it's very difficult to estimate the true infection rate, and when calculating mortality rates based on confirmed "cases" (meaning positive tests) you end up overestimating the infection fatality ratio. As explained by the authors:18
The estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza listed in this paper is 0.8%. Other sources put it a little higher. In either case, according to this paper the only people for whom SARS-CoV-2 infection is more dangerous than influenza are those over the age of 60. All others have a lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than they have of dying from the flu. Put another way, if you're under the age of 60, your chance of dying from the flu is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19. White House coronavirus task force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx also confirmed this far lower than typically reported mortality rate when she, in mid-August 2020, stated that it "becomes more and more difficult" to get people to comply with mask rules "when people start to realize that 99% of us are going to be fine."19 In addition to COVID-19 having a lethality on par with the flu (again for the average person under the age of 60):
As reported by British Sky News,35 October 7, 2020, respected scientists are now calling for a herd immunity approach to the pandemic, meaning governments should allow people who are not at significant risk of serious COVID-19 illness to go back to normal life. As of October 18, 2020, The Great Barrington Declaration36 had been signed by 10,601 medical and public health scientists and 29,296 medical practitioners.37 Effective Treatment ProtocolsAt this stage in the game, there's plenty of cause for optimism. In addition to data showing COVID-19 is nowhere near as lethal as initially suspected, we now have a number of safe and effective treatments. Two that I would place toward the top of the list are: • Nebulized hydrogen peroxide (see video above) — This is a home remedy I recommend everyone familiarize themselves with, as in many cases it can improve symptoms within mere hours. It's even been shown to be effective in the later stages of the illness. Dr. David Brownstein, who has successfully treated over 100 COVID-19 patients with nebulized hydrogen peroxide, published a case paper38 about this treatment in the July 2020 issue of Science, Public Health Policy and The Law. He also discusses its benefits in a recent interview I did with him. I review some of the basic science of how hydrogen peroxide works, as well as some of the studies assessing its therapeutic potential, in my April 2020 article "Could Hydrogen Peroxide Treat Coronavirus?" • The MATH+ Protocol, developed by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group39 (FLCCC) — There are now MATH+ protocols40 for prophylaxis, mild symptoms that can be treated at home, and a full clinical in-hospital critical care protocol. The group has issued several updates since April 2020, so be sure to download the latest versions from the Eastern Virginia Medical School COVID Care for Clinicians site.41 Lastly, there's overwhelming evidence showing that those with adequate vitamin D levels are far less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2, less likely to develop symptoms if infected, and less likely to suffer complications, serious illness or death. Overall, optimizing your vitamin D level appears to be a foundational strategy to minimize your risk. To learn more, download my vitamin D report from StopCOVIDCold.com. There, you can also find a quick COVID-19 risk quiz to help you assess your general risk. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/29/3rd-leading-cause-of-death-in-us.aspx By now, you’ve probably started hearing world leaders speak of “the Great Reset,”1 “the Fourth Industrial Revolution”2 and the call to “Build Back Better.”3 One example among many is this speech by Matt Hancock, British Minister for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, given during an All-Party Parliamentary Group meeting on the Fourth Industrial Revolution in 2017:4
What Is the Great Reset?But what do the terms “Great Reset,” “Fourth Industrial Revolution” and “Build Back Better” actually mean? What do they refer to? In the October 16, 2020, Corbett Report5 above, journalist James Corbett breaks down the new social contract planned for the world, otherwise known as “the great reset.” While the current pandemic is being used as a justification for the movement, the agenda has nothing to do with health and everything to do with a long-term plan to monitor and control the world through technical surveillance. In other words, the world will be reset to depend on digital technocracy run by self-appointed elitists. It’s a power grab of unprecedented magnitude, and involves the restructuring of social classes to dismantle democracy, erase national borders and allow for the governing of communities from a distance by a group of unelected leaders. What was in the past referred to as the “new world order” is now known as “the Great Reset.” This Great Reset not only ties you to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, but even gives you a “social credit” ID that can run every facet of your life. This isn’t a lofty conspiracy theory — it’s real. It’s happening now. And you need to know how to fight it before it’s too late. Ultimately, it’s a technocratic agenda that seeks to integrate mankind into a technological surveillance apparatus overseen by powerful artificial intelligence. Ironically, while the real plan is to usher in a tech-driven dystopia free of democratic controls, they speak of this plan as a way to bring us back into harmony with Nature. If you’re unfamiliar with the term “technocracy,” be sure to go back and listen to my interview with Patrick Wood, author of “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation” and “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order.” You can also learn more on Wood’s website, Technocracy.news. In a nutshell, technocracy is an economic system of resource allocation that revolves around technology — in particular artificial intelligence, digital surveillance and Big Data collection — and the digitization of industry (which includes banking) and government, which in turn allows for the automation of social engineering and social rule, thereby doing away with the need for elected government leaders. Your Guide to the Great ResetAccording to the World Economic Forum,6 the Great Reset “will address the need for a more fair, sustainable and resilient future, and a new social contract centered on human dignity, social justice and where societal progress does not fall behind economic development.” And what is the World Economic Forum? It’s an international organization for public-private cooperation that “engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.”7 The founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum is professor Klaus Schwab, who, as mentioned by Hancock in his 2017 speech, wrote the book on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Schwab announced the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Initiative in June 2020. In his report, Corbett summarizes the Great Reset thus:
And, as explained by Corbett, for those who forgot about what the New World Order was/is all about, it was all about “centralization of control into fewer hands, globalization [and] transformation of society through Orwellian surveillance technologies.” In other words, it’s technocracy, where we the people know nothing about the ruling elite while every aspect of our lives is surveilled, tracked and manipulated for their gain. Four key take-aways from Corbett’s research into the Great Reset are: 1. The Great Reset has NOTHING to do with a virus, the COVID-19 pandemic or anything else related to public health. 2. The Great Reset is a coordinated agenda that has been years in the making -- The pandemic is simply being used as a convenient “cover” for an elitist, globalist agenda that has been planned for decades. 3. The Great Reset is NOT the end of globalization -- On the contrary, it is globalization turbo-charged. As noted by Schwab in the policy book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” co-written with Thierry Malleret and cited in Corbett’s report:
In other words, there’s no room for the spontaneously arising social order that occurs when people are allowed to freely interact. Instead, there must be “one power” to enforce whatever the desired social-environmental-economic-geopolitical order is. 4. This process is not meant to end -- The end of the pandemic will not be the end of this totalitarian, digital enslavement agenda. The plan is not to “reset” the world back to some earlier state that will allow us all to start over with a cleaner environment and more equitable social structures. The plan is to circumvent democracy and shift global governance into the hands of the few. As noted by Schwab in “COVID-19: The Great Reset”:
COVID-19 Transformation MapWhat might the Great Reset transformation look like? As noted by Corbett, the following illustration, created and released by the World Economic Forum, shows the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on various aspects of life, and how pandemic responses are transforming these areas. If you go to the original site for the illustration,8 you’ll also find listings of publications, videos and data relating to all of these facets. Around the 25-minute mark, Corbett explains how you can use this map to get a feel for the scope of the transformation being prepared — everything from finance, business and education to health care, human rights and global governance. Importantly, the pandemic is being used to destroy the local economies around the world, which will then allow the World Economic Forum to come in and “rescue” debt-ridden countries. However, the price for this salvation is your personal freedom and liberty. The World Economic Forum and the central banks will, through their facilitated financial bailouts, be able to effectively control most countries in the world. And, again, one of the aspects of the technocratic plan is to eliminate nation borders and nationalism in general. The Fourth Industrial RevolutionA related term to the Great Reset is “the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” This refers to the merging of digital, physical and biological systems. As noted by Schwab, “It doesn’t change what we are doing, but it changes us.”9 What they’re talking about is the creation of a new economic system built around the merger of the human body and mind with machines and artificial intelligence. In other words, technocracy — a resource-based economic system with centralized control by a technocratic elite who have the know-how to program the computer systems will ultimately dictate the lives of everyone. Of course, it’s sold to us as a means to harness and elevate human potential, when in fact it will do the complete opposite. Ultimately, they’re not just trying to change the definition of what it means to be human — they’re openly conspiring to alter humanity through technological means. In addition to the sources cited earlier, Corbett also fleshed out the history of technocracy in his December 28, 2015, report,10 “How Big Oil Conquered the World.” In short, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is nothing but a rebranding of technocracy, melded with the transhumanist movement. You can also learn more about Schwab, the figurehead of modern technocracy, by reading the June 29, 2020, Technocracy.news article11 “The Elite Technocrats Behind the Global ‘Great Reset,’” and the October 12, 2020, Off-Guardian article,12 “Klaus Schwab & His Great Fascist Reset.” According to Off-Guardian,13 Schwab ensures us that “smart” Big Data technologies will “’deliver new and innovative ways to service citizens and customers’ and we will have to stop objecting to businesses profiting from harnessing and selling information about every aspect of our personal lives.” In that article, Schwab is also quoted as saying, “Establishing trust in the data and algorithms used to make decisions will be vital” — which about sums up the technocratic view of “government.” Coronavirus ‘Circuit Breaker’In some parts of the world, a second wave of COVID-19 is reportedly14 emerging, and according to some researchers, the best way to combat it is to implement another round of more stringent lockdown measures — a so-called “circuit breaker” strategy to bring the infection rate under control. Meanwhile, other reports15 warn that while COVID-19 can be deadly for a small minority of people, so are lockdowns, thanks to the poverty, famine and mental health challenges they bring about. Lockdowns Are a Failed ExperimentAccording to an October 13, 2020, article16 in The Sun, COVID-19 restrictions “could hurl 90 million into ‘extreme poverty,’” with the poorest nations bearing the brunt of the economic collapse. The New York Post also recently reported17 that “COVID-19 lockdowns were a risky experiment” that failed, and have proven deadlier than the virus itself.
The Cure That Is Worse Than the DiseaseWe’re now also seeing reports19 that “unexplained excess deaths at home” are outpacing COVID-19 deaths by nearly 900%, likely due to people with chronic illnesses avoiding medical care. Unfortunately, physicians and scientists continue to butt heads when it comes to the sanest path forward. As noted in an October 6, 2020, article20 in The Conversation, whether or not the coronavirus cure is worse than the disease has become “the most divisive question of 2020,” with dozens of doctors signing on to one side or the other. A recent Kaiser Health News story21 also highlights the impact of “pandemic stress” on public health, as more and more people are reporting problems ranging from insomnia and excruciating headaches to hair loss and cracked teeth:
The Coronavirus FraudAs detailed in “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun,” an international network of legal experts and health professionals are preparing to launch the largest class-action lawsuit in history, against all those responsible for the global lockdowns, from local policy makers to the World Health Organization and everyone in between. According to the four attorneys who founded the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, which is leading the tort case, the COVID-19 pandemic is “probably the greatest crime against humanity ever committed.” Pandemic measures were intended to sow panic in order to allow for a massive transfer of wealth, and fraudulent testing has been used to keep the ruse going. In reality, mortality statistics reveal COVID-19 has not led to an excess of deaths above the annual norm, the proposed action says, and there’s no evidence lockdowns and economic shutdowns have produced favorable results. While the Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee hasn’t specifically addressed the pandemic as a vehicle for a technocratic revolution, it highlights that it has been fraudulently used as a means for wealth transfer and elimination of basic human rights. As noted in the June 29, 2020, Technocracy.news article,22 “The Elite Technocrats Behind the Global ‘Great Reset”:23
As I discuss in “The Global Takeover Is Underway,” technocracy is inherently a technological society run through social engineering, and Big Tech censorship is part and parcel of this. In other words, the medical tyranny and censorship of anti-groupthink that has emerged during this pandemic are an unavoidable element of the Great Reset, and if you think it’s bad now, just wait until the whole system is brought fully online. The mere idea of dissent will become a thought of the past, because your life — your health, educational and work opportunities, your finances and your very identity — will be so meshed with the automated technological infrastructure that any attempt to break free will result in you being locked out or erased from the system, leaving you with no ability to learn, work, travel or purchase anything. It sounds far-fetched, I know, but when you follow the technocratic plan to its inevitable end, that’s basically what you end up with. The warning signs are all around us, if we’re willing to see them for what they actually are. The only question now is whether enough people are willing to resist it to make a difference. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/28/the-great-reset.aspx Sales of bottled water have been on the rise since 2010, driven in large part by those choosing it as a healthier alternative to soda. In the U.S., 14.4 billion gallons of bottled water were consumed in 2019, up 3.6% from 2018. During this period, per capita consumption rose 3.1%, reaching 43.7 gallons per person in 2019.1 In 2016, sales of bottled water outpaced those of soda for the first time, and has continued to do so since.2 While choosing water in lieu of sugary beverages like soda is a smart health choice, health-conscious consumers are being misled that bottled water is the best, purest source of water. In many cases, when you choose bottled water, you’re paying a premium and being exposed to toxic chemicals, including heavy metals and fluorinated chemicals known as polyfluoroalkyl or perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFAS), which include PFOA and PFOS, in exchange. If health is what you’re after, choose to filter your own water at home and bring it with you in a reusable, nonplastic portable container. It’s a superior and more cost effective choice — for your health and the environment. Toxic Chemicals Still Found in Bottled WaterThe purity of bottled water has been in question since at least 2009, when the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a Bottled Water Scorecard showing that most bottled water brands failed to disclose contaminants in their water. A follow-up survey in 2011 similarly revealed that 18% of bottled waters did not disclose where the water came from while 32% did not disclose information about the treatment or purity of the water.3 As far back as 2008, meanwhile, EWG revealed that 10 popular bottled water brands contained 38 pollutants, ranging from over-the-counter medications to industrial chemicals — some at levels similar to those found in tap water.4 Since then, the situation hasn’t improved, and if you’re purchasing bottled water believing it to be pure, there’s a good chance you’re being misled. In 2020, Consumer Reports tested 47 bottled water brands, including both noncarbonated and carbonated varieties, for heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury) and 30 PFAS chemicals.5 Among noncarbonated water, heavy metal levels came in under federal safety limits in all but one case. Whole Foods’ Starkey Spring Water contained arsenic levels of 9.53 parts per billion (ppb); the federal limit is 10 ppb, while Consumer Reports recommends 3 ppb or lower. PFAS was found at detectable levels in most of the noncarbonated waters tested, and two brands — Tourmaline Spring and Deer Park — had levels higher than 1 part per trillion. Among the carbonated water brands tested, all were below legal limits for heavy metals, but PFAS was another story. All but one brand had detectable levels of PFAS, and seven brands had PFAS levels over 1 ppt. Topo Chico, a trendy brand of sparkling mineral water, had the highest PFAS levels, coming in at 9.76 ppt. In a response to Consumer Reports, the company said it would “continue to make improvements to prepare for more stringent standards in the future.”6 PFAS Limits in Bottled Water Are VoluntaryWhile it’s unknown why PFAS levels may be particularly elevated in bottled carbonated water, it’s possible that the carbonation process plays a role, or the source water is contaminated, or treatment isn’t removing the toxic chemicals effectively.7 However, as it stands, the U.S. government hasn’t set enforceable limits on PFAS in drinking water, making any attempts at removal voluntary. According to Consumer Reports:8
PFASs were once known as fluorocarbons. While the acronyms can get a bit confusing, the important thing to remember is that this family of chemicals (PTFE, PFAS, PFOA, PFOS and PFCs) is toxic to your health. Although most companies have stopped making PFOA and PFOS as their serious environmental and health risks have been uncovered, the chemicals are extremely persistent in the environment, which is why they’re often referred to as “forever” chemicals. They do not break down in water or soil and can be carried over great distances by wind or rain, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.9 Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests PFASs are in the blood of more than 98% of Americans,10 and PFOA is already the subject of at least 3,500 personal injury claims against DuPont. One woman who developed kidney cancer after drinking PFOA-contaminated water was awarded $1.6 million in damages.11 Further, in May 2015 more than 200 scientists from 40 countries signed the Madrid Statement, which warns about the harms PFAS chemicals and documents the following potential health effects of exposure:12
It’s not only bottled water that’s problematic when it comes to PFAS: According to a 2016 Harvard study, 16.5 million Americans have detectable levels of at least one kind of PFAS in their drinking water, and about 6 million Americans are drinking water that contains PFAS at or above the EPA safety level.13 Microplastics Common in Bottled WaterDrinking bottled water may also expose you to microplastic particles, which have infiltrated waterways across the globe. “Plastics become microplastics become nanoplastics, but they are all plastics, just of increasingly smaller size, allowing them to be more easily ingested and perhaps even cross the gastrointestinal tract to be transported throughout a living organism,” researchers wrote in Frontiers in Chemistry,14 referring to the increasingly smaller size that plastics break down to in the environment. In 2018, researchers with the department of chemistry at the State University of New York at Fredonia purchased 11 bottled water brands from 19 locations in nine different countries. They tested 259 bottles of water, finding microplastic contamination in 93% of them. “An average of 10.4 microplastic particles >100 um in size per liter of bottled water processed were found,” they noted, although in some cases over 10,000 microplastic particles per liter were detected.15 Microfibers, one type of microplastic, have previously been found to be the predominant type of microplastic found in beer, tap water and sea salt samples. “Based on consumer guidelines, our results indicate the average person ingests over 5,800 particles of synthetic debris from these three sources annually, with the largest contribution coming from tap water (88 percent),” according to researchers in PLOS One.16 Considering that bottled water may be, in some cases, bottled tap water, this is a significant concern. It’s unknown what health risks are posed by consuming these tiny plastic particles, but it’s known that microplastics may act like sponges for contaminants including heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or pathogens, or could cause harm on a cellular or subcellular level.17 Further, Frederick vom Saal, a distinguished professor emeritus of biological sciences at the University of Missouri, told Time:18
Hot Temperatures May Make Bottled Water Even WorseIf your bottled water spent time sitting in a hot car or storage facility, the transfer of chemical contaminants from the plastic to the water could be accelerated, increasing health risks. For instance, antimony, a toxic chemical used to manufacture polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastics used for water bottles, is known to leach into water, and a study found that storing the bottles at higher temperatures increased the amount of leaching.19 Specifically, after sitting in 150 degrees F temperatures for 38 days, bottled water had antimony at levels above federal safety recommendations.20 “Summertime temperatures inside of cars, garages, and enclosed storage areas can exceed 65 °C (149 degrees F) in Arizona, and thus could promote antimony leaching from PET bottled waters,” the researchers noted.21 Julia Taylor, a scientist who researched plastic at the University of Missouri, further told National Geographic, “As a general rule, yes, heat helps break down chemical bonds in plastics like plastic bottles, and those chemicals can migrate into beverages they contain.”22 One solution is to choose water sold only in glass bottles, but there’s a better solution for clean drinking water. Filter Your Own Water and Make Carbonated Water at HomeMost commercial bottled water can’t be trusted in terms of contaminants in the water itself and due to the plastic packaging it comes in. The existence of chemicals like PFASs, which have no taste or smell, and others in drinking water is the reason I recommend virtually everyone filter their water with a high-quality carbon filtration system. Unless you can verify the purity of your water, to be certain you're getting the purest water you can, filter the water both at the point of entry and at the point of use. Then, simply take the filtered water with you in a reusable glass or metal bottle. You can even use your own filtered tap water to make carbonated water at home, using options like SodaStream. This is a more cost effective and environmentally friendly solution that will protect your health in the process. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/28/toxic-chemicals-in-bottled-water.aspx In a case-control investigation of people with COVID-19 who visited 11 U.S. health care facilities, a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report revealed factors associated with getting the disease.1 People who spent time around others with COVID-19 had an increased risk, as did those who dined in restaurants. Those who reported going to restaurants or bars were twice as likely to have a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, as those who did not. This was the main focus of the report, with the researchers stating, "Exposures and activities where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, including going to places that offer on-site eating or drinking, might be important risk factors for acquiring COVID-19."2 But buried in a table at the end of the report were numbers related to the reported use of cloth face coverings or masks in the 14 days before becoming ill. The majority of them — 70.6% — reported that they "always" wore a mask, but they still got sick. More People Wearing a Mask Got COVID Than Those Who Didn'tAmong the interview respondents who became ill, 108, or 70.6%, said they always wore a mask, compared to six, or 3.9%, who said they "never" did, and six more, or 3.9%, who said they "rarely" did. Taken together, this shows that, of the symptomatic adults with COVID-19, 70.6% always wore a mask and still got sick, compared to 7.8% for those who rarely or never did.3 The findings call into question the effectiveness of masks for preventing COVID-19, a controversial practice that's been mandated in many parts of the world. You may remember that in the early days of the pandemic, health officials spoke out against the use of masks and discouraged Americans from wearing them, then did an about-face and said they're essential for lowering your risk. As noted by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS):4
Cloth Masks Are Useless Against Aerosolized ParticulatesAs AAPS pointed out, the theory behind cloth mask wearing is that the mask may trap droplets that come out of your mouth if you cough or sneeze. However, large respiratory droplets, which are greater than 5 micrometers/microns (μm), only remain in the air for a short time and can only travel for short distances, falling to the ground instead. This is why the CDC recommends maintaining social distancing of 6 feet from others.5 "Public health authorities define a significant exposure to COVID-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes)," AAPS explains, adding, "The chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal."6 Further, there's evidence that aerosol transmission is involved in the spread of SARS-CoV-2,7 which are 0.125 μm in size. Friday September 18, 2020, the CDC posted updated COVID-19 guidance on its "How COVID-19 Spreads" page that, for the first time, mentioned aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, saying "this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads."8 The CDC then deleted the mention of aerosols and the possibility of spread beyond 6 feet the following Monday, September 21, saying a draft version of proposed changes had been posted "in error."9 It's a noteworthy difference, if SARS-CoV-2 is spread via aerosolized droplets, which research suggests,10 as such droplets remain in the air for at least three hours and can travel over long distances of up to 27 feet.11 Further, it adds to the likelihood that cloth masks do little to stop you from getting COVID-19. AAPS explained:12
Surgeon's Analysis Shows Masks Are Ineffective and HarmfulDr. Jim Meehan, an ophthalmologist and preventive medicine specialist who has performed more than 10,000 surgical procedures and who is also a former editor of the medical journal Ocular Immunology and Inflammation, has peer-reviewed thousands of medical research studies. He used this expertise to conduct an evidence-based scientific analysis on masks, which shows that not only should healthy people not be wearing masks but they could be harmed as a result.13 "Decades of the highest-level scientific evidence (meta-analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials) overwhelmingly conclude that medical masks are ineffective at preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, including SAR-CoV-2," he writes. "Those arguing for masks are relying on low-level evidence (observational retrospective trials and mechanistic theories), none of which are powered to counter the evidence, arguments, and risks of mask mandates."14 He first points out that the notion of mask-wearing defies common sense and reason, considering that most of the population is at very low or almost no risk of becoming severely ill from COVID-19. Children, especially, are at extremely low risk from this illness, making mask mandates in schools highly questionable. "Based on CDC published data, 99.99815% of children that contract CoVID-19 survive," Meehan states. "Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children in schools and daycares is very rare."15 He compiled multiple studies that show masks are ineffective: • A working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research16 found that nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as lockdowns, quarantines and mask mandates, have not significantly affected overall virus transmission rates.17 • A CDC meta-analysis found that face masks did little to reduce virus transmission in the case of influenza, stating, "Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza."18 • A rapid systematic review of 31 studies concluded, "The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19," adding that there was evidence for their use only for "particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations."19 • In a perspective article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers state, "We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection," and go on to describe masks as playing a "symbolic role" as "talismans" to increase the perception of safety, even though "such reactions may not be strictly logical." "Expanded masking protocols' greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19," they add.20 • A commentary published by the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy further added, "We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because there is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission …"21 Cloth Masks Pose Risks, May Increase TransmissionIn addition to being ineffective, Meehan is among many experts suggesting that wearing a mask may actually increase the risk of disease transmission. A study published in 2015, which compared the use of cloth masks with medical masks in health care workers, found that health care workers wearing cloth masks had the highest rates of influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections, when compared to those wearing medical masks or controls.22 Compared to controls and the medical mask group, those wearing cloth masks had a 72% higher rate of lab-confirmed viral infections. And according to the authors, such masks may also increase infection risk:
What's more, for the general public, wearing cloth masks may not be a matter of "something is better than nothing," as wearing them may be harmful. Children forced to wear masks for long periods could experience mental and psychological repercussions, in addition to potential physical risks. Meehan further compiled 17 ways that masks can cause harm:23
Why Are Mask Mandates Persisting?With the lack of solid evidence to support mask use among the general population, it appears as though mask mandates are being used as political and psychological tools rather than one aimed at protecting public health. Meehan concluded, "… the great weight of scientific evidence shows unmistakably that wearing face masks for extended periods is harmful to people's health, safety and emotional well-being, especially to young children."24 Around the world, calls for peaceful civil disobedience against mandatory masking are growing. The U.S. nonprofit Stand for Health Freedom is also calling for civil disobedience, and has a widget you can use to contact your government representatives to let them know wearing a mask must be a personal choice. Keep in mind, too, that in many areas with mask mandates, the rules state that you must wear a mask "unless you can maintain a 6-foot distance." You will need to check the local guidelines in your area, but in many cases if you are 6 feet away from others, you can forgo wearing a mask and still be in compliance with the mandate. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/27/cdc-report-covid-patients-always-wore-mask.aspx There’s been a lot of talk lately about whether or not the fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine will in fact be safe and effective. While vaccine makers insist that any vaccine reaching the market will have undergone rigorous testing, the way trial protocols are designed suggests these vaccines may leave a lot to be desired. As reported1 by Forbes contributor William Haseltine, a former professor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, while Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson have all published their vaccine trial protocols in a rare display of transparency, “close inspection of the protocols raises surprising concerns.” In a nutshell, the trial designs are such that the vaccines will get a passing grade even if their efficacy is minimal. Of course, we must also consider vaccine side effects and I’ve also written several articles about mounting safety concerns. COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Rigged to Pass Efficacy TestAs noted by Haseltine, prevention of infection would typically be a critical endpoint of any vaccine trial. In other words, you want to ensure that when you take the vaccine, your risk of infection is significantly reduced. However, when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccine, shockingly, preventing infection is not a criterion for success in any of these trials. The only criterion for a successful COVID-19 vaccine is a reduction of COVID-19 symptoms, and even then, the reduction required is minimal.
To get a “passing” grade in the limited interim analysis, a vaccine must show a 70% efficacy. However, again, this does not mean it will prevent infection in 7 of 10 people. As explained by Haseltine:3
The other vaccine makers are basing results on a similar protocol, where only a limited number of vaccinated participants are exposed to the virus to evaluate the extent of their symptoms. Johnson & Johnson’s interim analysis will include results from 77 vaccine recipients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and if fewer than 18 of them develop symptoms of COVID-19, compared to 59 in the control group, the vaccine will be considered successful. In AstraZeneca’s case, the interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients. The vaccine will be a success if 12 or fewer develop symptoms after exposure to SARS-CoV-2, compared to 19 in the 25-person control group. Pfizer’s interim analysis is the smallest of the bunch, with just 32 vaccine recipients. Their success margin is seven or fewer vaccine recipients developing symptoms, compared to 25 in the control group. In the primary analysis, efficacy is set to about 60%, and at most, 164 volunteers will be included in that analysis. Especially concerning are that those receiving the vaccine in these trials are young and healthy individuals who are not really at high risk of dying from COVID-19. This makes the results of these trials highly questionable in the far more vulnerable population of the elderly. Trials Are Merely Testing Reduction of Common Cold SymptomsAs if that’s not eyebrow-raising enough, the minimum qualification for a “case of COVID-19” amounts to just one positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms, such as headache, fever, cough or mild nausea. As noted by Haseltine, “This is far from adequate.” All they’re doing is testing to see if this COVID-19 vaccine will minimize common cold symptoms. They are not actually ensuring the vaccine will prevent serious COVID-19 complications. Johnson & Johnson’s trial is the only one that requires at least five severe COVID-19 cases to be included in the interim analysis.
Severe illness and death are also secondary objectives in these trials, and none of them include failure to prevent hospitalization or death as an important barrier to success. The increasingly disappearing common sense tells us that if the vaccine cannot reduce infection, hospitalization or death, then it cannot end the pandemic, which means everyone who takes the vaccine will be doing so in vain. Some COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Are Not Using Inert PlacebosIn addition to all of that, some COVID-19 vaccine trials are using other vaccines as “placebo” rather than truly biologically inert substances such as saline, which effectively makes if far easier to hide any vaccine side effects. While Moderna is using a saline solution placebo,5 AstraZeneca is using injected meningococcal vaccine rather than a true placebo.6 Another way AstraZeneca is masking potential side effects is by administering the vaccine along with certain drugs. In one of its study arms, subjects are given acetaminophen every six hours for the first 24 hours after inoculation. The pain and fever reducer could potentially mask and downplay side effects such as pain, fever, headache or general malaise. In addition to masking side effects, it is widely recognized among literate natural medicine physicians that using acetaminophen during acute viral infections is not a wise strategy as it impairs the immune response to fight the infection. As reported by Wired:7
Two Trials Paused Due to Safety ConcernsSeptember 6, 2020, AstraZeneca paused its Phase 3 vaccine trial due to a “suspected serious and unexpected adverse reaction” in a British participant.8,9 The company did not initially divulge the nature of the adverse reaction, but it has since been revealed the volunteer developed severe inflammation of the spinal cord, known as transverse myelitis.10,11 September 12, 2020, the British Medicines Health Regulatory Authority gave AstraZeneca the go-ahead to resume its Phase 3 trial in the U.K., after an independent review found it “safe to do so.”12,13 According to an AstraZeneca spokesperson, the incident was a case of undiagnosed multiple sclerosis.14 Days later, September 19, 2020, The New York Times reported15 a second case of transverse myelitis had occurred in the AstraZeneca trial. According to one expert consulted by the NYT, the occurrence represented a “dangerous pattern,” and that a third incidence might shut down the vaccine trial indefinitely. AstraZeneca, however, claims the two cases are “unlikely to be associated with the vaccine,” and that there’s “insufficient evidence to say for certain that the illnesses were or were not related to the vaccine.”16 October 21, 2020, it was reported17 that one of the volunteers in AstraZeneca’s Brazilian trial had died from COVID-19 complications, but that the trial would continue anyway. October 12, 2020, Johnson & Johnson halted its trial due to “unexplained illness” in one of its participants.18,19 Like AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson has kept mum about the details of the illness, saying “it’s important to have all the facts before we share additional information.” Side Effects Are CommonplaceThe fact that more trials have not been halted is surprising considering the rate of side effects20 occurring in perfectly healthy volunteers. As reported in “Gates Tries to Justify Side Effects of Fast-Tracked Vaccine,” after the first of two doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, 80% of Phase 1 participants receiving the 100 microgram (mcg) dose developed systemic side effects.21 After the second dose, 100% reported side effects ranging from fatigue (80%), chills (80%), headache (60%) and myalgia or muscle pain (53%). Despite that, the 100-mcg dose was ultimately chosen to move on to Phase 3 trials.22 In the highest dosage group, which received 250 mcg, 100% of participants suffered side effects after both the first and second doses.23 Three of the 14 participants (21%) in the 250-mcg group suffered “one or more severe events.” An October 1, 2020, report24 by CNBC reviews the experiences of five participants in Moderna’s and Pfizer’s SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials. One of the participants in Pfizer’s vaccine trial “woke up with chills, shaking so hard he cracked a tooth after taking the second dose.” A Moderna trial participant told CNBC he had a low-grade fever and felt “under the weather” for several days after his first shot. Eight hours after his second shot he was “bed-bound with a fever of over 101, shakes, chills, a pounding headache and shortness of breath. He said the pain in his arm, where he received the shot, felt like a ‘goose egg on my shoulder.’ He hardly slept that night, recording that his temperature was higher than 100 degrees for five hours.”25 Two others reported similar side effects, and a third warned you would need to take a day off after the second shot. CNBC also noted that “as companies progressed through clinical trials, several vaccine makers abandoned their highest doses following reports of more severe reactions.” Might Certain COVID-19 Vaccines Raise Risk of AIDS?Disturbingly, a group of researchers are now expressing concern that some COVID-19 vaccine candidates might put certain people at a higher risk of acquiring HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.26,27,28 Using the failed attempt to create an HIV vaccine as an example, researchers explain29 that the genetically engineered adenovirus, Ad5, used in the HIV vaccine trials, is the same one being used now in four COVID-19 candidates being studied in the U.S., Russia and Pakistan. At the time of the failed HIV vaccine, scientists were unable to identify the exact reason why Ad5 seemed to increase the risk of HIV; it just inexplicably did. Interestingly, Dr. Anthony Fauci was the lead author on the HIV study,30 in which he questioned “whether the problem extends to some or all of the other recombinant vectors currently in development or to other vector-based vaccines.” Reflecting on that question, the researchers say they decided to go public with this information now, because Ad5 vaccines for COVID-19 might soon be tested in populations with high HIV prevalence, and they believe that informed consent about the HIV/AIDS risk should be part of the COVID-19 clinical studies. Will COVID-19 Vaccine Be Mandatory?According to one September 2020 poll,31 only 51% of Americans said they “definitely or probably” would get the COVID-19 vaccine when it comes out. Another survey32 found only 44% would take the first-generation vaccine even if they were paid $100. Mounting vaccine hesitancy was bemoaned in an October 1, 2020, article33 in the New England Journal of Medicine, and the answer, the article suggests, is to make it mandatory for all. And, to entice compliance, the authors recommend implementing severe penalties for noncompliance, such as the suspension of employment and/or house arrest. An October 19, 2020, article 34 by Wisconsin Public Radio also warns that if precedents hold, employers may have the right to force workers to get vaccinated. Potential exceptions might include certain medical issues, bona fide religious objections, and certain union contracts that bar vaccine requirements. Operation Warp Speed recently selected Walgreens and CVS as nationwide partners in the coming vaccine distribution effort.35 Nursing homes and long-term care facilities around the U.S. can opt in by signing up to have either of these companies come and administer the vaccine to its residents and staff, once available. So-called “health passports” are also becoming reality. Ireland, for example, has already begun its national trial. The Health Passport Ireland initiative uses an app to track and display results of COVID-19 testing. Vaccination status will be added once a vaccine becomes available. Untold amounts of money are also being spent on programs to tag, track and trace the human population in the name of public health and safety. According to an article36 in the journal JAMA, the estimated cumulative costs of the COVID-19 pandemic related to lost output and health reduction amounts to more than $16 trillion in the U.S. alone, or about 90% of our annual gross domestic product. “For this reason, policies that can materially reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 have enormous social value,” the article claims. However, testing, tracing and isolation rules, all of which are promoted in this article, also have a price, and it’s one that any sensible person would reject, namely the loss of privacy and liberty. As reported37 by The Last American Vagabond, governments are selling our freedom in the name of public health. Do we really want to live in a “biosecurity state”? These freedom-robbing strategies are being sold to us as the path back to normalcy, but the reality will be anything but normal. As detailed in “The Global Takeover Is Underway,” the pandemic and the global response to it is far from accidental. Overwhelmingly, the evidence points to it being part of a much larger scheme to implement the last stages of a technocratic takeover. I’ve also covered various aspects of this globalists agenda in “COVID Symptoms of Power: Tech Billionaires Harvest Humanity,” “Tech Billionaires Aiming at a Global Currency,” “Harvard Professor Exposes Surveillance Capitalism,” “How Medical Technocracy Made the Plandemic Possible” and “US Surveillance Bill 6666: The Devil in the Details.” The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically widened the economic gap between average people and the wealthy elite,38,39 and continuing down the path we’re currently on will only make this disparity worse, not better. The globalist plan isn’t about creating a better world for the average person, it’s about enslaving us so that we cannot reject or even resist what’s ultimately coming. Forced vaccinations are but one aspect of the plan that must be resisted at all cost. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/27/covid-vaccine-trials.aspx |
Nia Pure NatureThe Provider of premium Quality Health Products To Live Better Lives Archives
March 2022
Categories |