Why Isn’t Anyone Talking About Natural Immunity?

By Joanna Miller | The Organic Prepper

Daisy wrote an article recently on the “othering” of the unvaccinated. She went into detail regarding how individuals are blaming the unvaccinated for absolutely everything going wrong these days. I share her concern. There is a long, detailed history of the “othering” of a population leading to all sorts of horrors.  However, it is wrong at a more mundane level, as well. Public discourse surrounding the pandemic seems to focus solely on vaccination as a means of achieving herd immunity. Those who have recovered from the disease and have natural immunity, are being completely ignored.

Natural immunity.

The most frustrating thing to me, the past year and a half, has been the constantly changing narrative and the dismissal of formerly well-understood scientific truths. Natural immunity is one of those concepts from freshman biology that many seem to completely disregard these days.

I think this is a natural effect of the “cult of expertise” we have in the United States. Seemingly, anyone with specific credentials is automatically deferred to, regardless of how competent they are… or more insidiously, where their financial interests lie.

If more of us were willing to think critically about the “science” in the news these days, we could be more confident in managing our health. A healthy, confident population willing to argue and drag its feet on accepting medical treatments with which they aren’t comfortable is hard to push around.

A population willing to do anything to just “get back to normal” is not.

We’re not going “back to normal.” 

As early as April of 2020, Daisy wrote that we were never getting “back to normal.” And I agree.

But we can move forward a little more well-informed.

I’ve gotten into some discussions with medical professionals about whether people who have recovered from the disease need to be vaccinated. These conversations would have been seen as utterly ridiculous three years ago. However, now, it seems, we all need to relearn freshman biology. So I’d like to review the concept of natural immunity to help organize my thoughts and maybe help others that feel like their heads are in a whirl.

I’ve got my old college biology textbook-Life: The Science of Biology, by Purves, Sadava, Orians, and Heller. I’ve got the sixth edition, published in 2001, so it’s about 20 years old. I also have a newer college biology textbook because I’m a big nerd. It’s Campbell Biology, by Reece, Urry, Cain, Wasserman, Minorsky, and Jackson, published in 2014. Both textbooks detail how our immune systems work, and both say pretty much the same thing.

Our bodies have two major ways of defending against disease.

Our innate defenses are things like our skin and mucus. We’re born with these, and they make it difficult for various pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, and multicellular parasites to enter our bodies. Our bodies also have an immune system that recognizes and attacks any infectious agents that make it past our innate defenses.  

Our immune system is really sophisticated, and in healthy individuals, it works pretty well. Suppose some kind of pathogen makes it past the body’s innate defenses and begins infecting cells within the host. In that case, the host’s body will, in turn, start producing antibodies that will specifically attack the invading pathogen. The host body will continue producing antibodies until either the host dies or the invading cells die, and the patient’s body can return to normal.

The best part is, even after the active infection is over, the host’s body will retain the memory of the antibodies it produced during the infection. So if the formerly infected person reencounters the pathogen, the body will immediately have the antibodies to kill the pathogen. They rarely get sick again, and if they do, it’s generally very mild.

Even the incredibly pro-vaccine Wall Street Journal had an article on this recently.

Usually, the WSJ leaves their articles on the Opinion Page for about a week. However, within twenty-four hours, WSJ buried this article on natural immunity. Jeff had a great article about alternative media just the other day. This definitely feeds into his narrative about how much good info is getting buried right now.

Anyway, the WSJ article discusses mucosal immunity vs. internal immunity. The author (a neurologist) states that while vaccines stimulate internal immunity, they do nothing to address mucosal immunity. The viruses don’t penetrate the host’s organs, which is why most vaccinated people don’t get really sick. But, the viruses still live and reproduce in mucus-lined mouths and nasal passages. That is why vaccinated people with no symptoms are still spreading Covid like crazy. However, those of us that have recovered have both mucosal and internal immunity.

In case you needed further proof of the efficacy of natural immunity.

An Israeli study showed recently that vaccinated people were 13 times as likely to become infected and 27 times as likely to have symptomatic infections as people with natural immunity. 

Alex Berenson posted this information on Twitter on August 25, and the platform permanently banned him on August 28. However, medical professionals are starting to make noise about it, such as Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard epidemiologist. Hopefully, more people begin to listen.

The benefits of natural immunity shouldn’t be as shocking as they seem to be.

After all, we’ve been observing this with other diseases for a long time. A case in point: when I was a kid, everyone still got chickenpox. We all got to miss school and stay home for about a week. I’m the oldest of eight kids, and I think the vaccine came out when my youngest siblings were kids. But I know the oldest four of us caught chickenpox.

One of my brothers caught it twice. The first time around, he caught it when I did. We were pretty sick for a few days and had a rash that covered our bodies for about a week. I never got chickenpox again. However, my brother picked it up a second time at school. He only had a very slight fever for one day and four or five blisters the second time around. That was it.  

None of what I’ve said above is even remotely controversial.

In fact, if you look at the history of smallpox, records date back well over 2000 years that smallpox survivors nursed the sick. Even then, it was common knowledge that survivors wouldn’t get sick again.  

Now, is smallpox exactly the same as Covid? No, not exactly. The story of smallpox eradication is an amazing one. Since then, we seem to keep hoping we can destroy every disease with vaccines. But that’s not necessarily realistic. For starters, smallpox has no recorded animal hosts. This means, once you wipe it out in humans, it’s gone. Covid, regardless of whether it originated in animals or a laboratory, is known to live in many different animal species. It will never really go away. Humans may gain the upper hand at times. But, it will always be living and evolving within a variety of animal hosts.

Now is not the time to despair.

So, should we all throw up our hands in despair over the fact that there is a new disease, unlikely ever to be eradicated, in our midst? No. We’ve been living with the cold and flu viruses for millennia. They won’t be eradicated either because they mutate rapidly and have a variety of hosts.  

I’m not trying to be insensitive to the people that have suffered from Covid. And, as it now seems generally accepted that Covid originated in a laboratory, I’m also not trying to downplay the absolutely evil minds involved in making this disease what it is. But we’ve been living with diseases for millennia. We can learn to live with this one too.

Some people feel totally comfortable with the new mRNA vaccines.

Personally, I’m not comfortable with the mRNA. But, I won’t try to change anyone’s mind. I had Covid, and I’ve got natural immunity. I was extremely low-risk for complications from Covid. (In my late thirties, close to my ideal weight, and no outstanding vitamin deficiencies.) And sure enough, I only felt sick for about a day.

I never had any fever or respiratory symptoms. I was achy for about twenty-four hours and tired the day after. My sense of taste and smell disappeared, which was why I got tested. They have not returned, which is depressing because I love good food, but I can live without it. No child on this planet should miss one race or one get-together with friends because I can’t properly enjoy coffee anymore.

Others have had it way worse. You can read about Daisy’s experience with Covid HERE. She has also shared with her newsletter readers that she lost a close family member to Covid – a healthy man in his mid-40s who had no comorbidities. Bernie Carr, the founder of ApartmentPrepper.com, has had a lengthy battle that included hospitalization and long-term dependence on oxygen, and Greg Ellifritz, of ActiveResponseTraining.com, came pretty close to dying himself but is on the mend.

For anyone else who is vaccine-hesitant yet still concerned about the disease itself, there are many other treatment options. Again, humanity treated disease for a long time before vaccines entered the scene. Some of the first doctors to treat Covid patients formed Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance to develop and share low-cost treatment options. This article talks about managing the symptoms of Covid at home for those who are not sick enough to require hospitalization. 

This is not an argument for or against vaccines.

If no one were willing to try anything new, we’d never make any progress. But the trials need to be made by fully informed, consenting individuals. That isn’t what we have right now. What we have now is coercion.

I am trying to argue against fear and hysteria. I want to encourage anyone, like myself, who is even moderately scientifically literate, to revisit your old textbooks. Build your confidence to make your own decisions. There’s too much fearmongering out there surrounding this disease. We’re distracted by a disease that 99.5% of infected people under 55 will survive as our rights are taken away, and our international reputation for being even a little bit competent and reliable falls apart. 

Don’t allow yourself to get swallowed up by fear. The same things that mostly kept us healthy in the past will mostly keep us healthy now. Eat nutritious food, exercise regularly, and get sunshine.

Does this mean that if you are healthy, nothing terrible will ever happen to you? Of course not, just as obeying all the traffic rules won’t necessarily prevent some drunk from slamming into you. We can’t eliminate risk in our lives. All we can do is try to stack the odds in our favor.

How will you build your resilience and mental strength?

Resilience and mental strength are a huge part of prepping. Going back to the first principles, educating yourself will help you gain confidence in your decisions for yourself and your family. Confidence will help you stand firm against the rising tide of crazy we see in the world. Are you confident in your preparations? Have you been educating yourself along the way? Let’s talk about it in the comments section. 

Now is not the time to give in to fear. Now is the time to become strong.

About Joanna

Joanna has been homeschooling three children since 2012. In 2014, she moved to the High Plains of Colorado. She and her children began a little homestead, gardening and raising chickens for eggs and meat. One animal led to another, and these days they have livestock guardian dogs, chickens, geese, ducks, alpacas, goats, pigs, and one very spoiled cat.

HUGE! Joe Rogan Just Blew The Lid Off the Mainstream Media Lies About Ivermectin

Video Source: WeAreChange

By Luke Rudkowski

The mainstream media has absolutely lost it over the ivermectin treatment that Joe Rogan successfully used to recover from COVID.

And now that Rogan is back to hosting his podcast he is rightfully going on the offensive, even jokingly threatening to sue CNN over the garbage they are making up about him.

This is making the MSM lose it even more.

Even though ivermectin was declared a “wonder drug” and was put on the list of essential substances by the WHO, and its creators won a Nobel prize…

According to the MSM, it is just a horse dewormer. An anti-parasite horse paste. Etc.

In this video, I get into how Rogan has revealed his doctors told him to take this treatment and how there may even be a Big Pharma plot to make everyone who uses the treatment look crazy.

Something the AP, NPR, MSNBC, and Rolling Stone are engaging in, as they have all run completely bogus stories on the treatment.

Meanwhile, Jimmy Kimmel is regurgitating the fake story that people couldn’t get treatment for gunshot wounds because of horse paste.

Strange Virus Infects Media and Science with Regina Meredith and Zeus Yiamouyiannis

Source: Regina Meredith

Regina Meredith and her husband Zeus discuss a myriad of pertaining to COVID-19 and the vaccines, including alternative treatments.


Regina Meredith: Hi everybody. A lot has happened since Zeus and I did our last COVID update, which had to do with our own personal experience and all the practical things we used to get through it – most of which we spoke about in that show. But since then, a lot of things have happened both in terms of new research coming out, in terms of the delta variant spiking even further around the world, and also politically.  And I think that’s probably what’s most disturbing to me. So we’re going to cover a lot of ground in a short amount of time. So hang on to your hats, let’s go to Zeus. Hi Zeus.

Zeus Yiamouyiannis: Hello

Regina: So a lot of people got a lot out of our last interview. We received a ton of comments because nobody had just explained kind of the nuts and bolts on the ground what the options are with COVID very well.  And people seem to resonate with that. So I first want to start by saying to everybody:  I’m really upset. A friend of mine died yesterday. Christy died from COVID and she was in the camp that believed COVID didn’t exist – even though she was short of breath. SHe was getting dizzy, wasn’t feeling well for days, and a mutual friend said to her: go get tested; go to the hospital; do something; you probably have COVID. She refused and and literally keeled over dead in the back of her brother’s car.
Now I literally chewed her out after she was out of her body, because this was unnecessary. And this political discussion has to end. The fact is that the spike protein is very real. And I’m going to just share a little bit more about putting this whole thing to rest.
These bioweapons are nasty and they’re in our bodies. Whether you’re getting a vaccination that’s in your body or whether you’ve gotten COVID naturally as we did, it’s in your body. It’s going to be in most of our bodies around this planet. So Zeus I’m going to read a little something that has to do with this lab theory thing in a recent article that came out, before we really start diving into the current science of it. Is that okay with you?

Zeus: Sure

Regina: Okay. So this was from about a week ago – there was an article that came out. The primary scientists that swayed the public away from the notion this could have been a man-made, lab-leaked virus or spike protein, their emails were intercepted. So we’re talking about the main cast of characters including one of the key characters that was working at University of North Carolina, which we talked about before, Chapel Hill. This is where they were doing the gain of function research. So this is what it said:
Discussions between scientists Shan-Lu Liu and Linda Saif, both of Ohio State University, Susan Weiss of the University of Pennsylvania and Lishan Su, who at the time was employed by the University of North Carolina.
On Feb. 21, Weiss wrote to Liu: “I find it hard to imagine how that sequence got into the spike of a lineage b betacoronavirus- not seen in SARS or any of the bat viruses.”

Liu wrote back: “I completely agree with you, but rumor says that furin site may be engineered…”

Weiss replied: “For me the only significance of this furin site is as a marker for where the virus came from- frightening to think it may have been engineered.”
It was much more damning, I just couldn’t read the whole thing. (Read the full article HERE)

The bottom line of that article was they indicated in their emails that yes they did have to consider this was a lab-created virus. And these are the ones that convinced the whole world it wasn’t. So let’s just put that to bed.

I think we can all agree now the spike protein is not made in nature. It is a bioweapon and it was made to hurt people:  to spread quickly, to go deeply, and cause damage to the human body.
So with that Zeus, we’re back on together now. We need to speak about this. There are so many places to go from here, but one of them is let’s dig down into the research of what’s actually happening by way of the spike protein being inserted into us via vaccines. We’re also getting it naturally. Let’s just go ahead and talk about that for a moment.

Zeus: Let me just do a very short history of this, because even the Spanish Flu, which killed maybe 60 million people, 40 to 60 million people. Both the so-called swine flu and the epidemic that happened right after, the H1N1 epidemic in Russia and China, were all related to the military. They first broke out within soldiers. In every single one of them, there was a very simple relationship to bio weaponry. And it simply was this: if you save a virus out for a good 50 years, only the older people will have immunization to that. Right? Because it will have mutated through the decades.
And then if you re-inflict that original virus onto young population, young soldiers, they can get sick. Right? And that’s what happened with the Spanish Flu. It just coursed through young populations. Now they didn’t have the sophistication we have now. But they had enough knowledge to know that viruses mutated over time and that people lose immunity to the ones that are decades and decades old. If it’s 40 or more years old, it can lose it.
What they found with the Swine flu and the H1N1 that came from China and Russia, both of those connected by the way to the military, was that it was an older version. Right? That it could not have naturally progressed along that line, and so there was deliberate bio weaponry implications for that.

Regina: Right.

Zeus: Now we’ve changed the game because now we can make newer versions or purposely use genetic engineering to take all the worst parts. This is what gain of function research is: you basically take all the worst parts of viruses, you splice them together genetically to create a virus in this case that can be transmitted very easily through respiration, can get into your blood, and into your veins, and into your circulatory system – and gain a foothold there. And then another insertion, an HIV-like insertion, that allows for greater attachment and splitting the furin cleavage site you’re talking about into the cell.
So now we’ve gone from the old way of doing bio-weaponry, which is just to hold something out of circulation until immunization moves past it and then re-inject it back into in the population to kill off mainly soldiers and young people, to one now that has these specialized engineering splicings that go forward. Now the U.S. government has admitted that this was done in Wuhan in conjunction with the Chinese military.

Regina: And we did a report on that several months ago as a matter of fact. I don’t think that’s even up for debate anymore. Zeus: Right.

Regina: The stage has changed a little bit

Zeus: I think that’s what’s different about this is with gain of function research we’re now outstripping evolution. Right? We can’t go back to a form of virus, look at what vaccines and what kind of ways we had of dealing with that and maybe use that knowledge, and bring it forward. Now we’re actually catapulting things into the future, creating bugs that would never have arisen in nature.

Regina: That’s why I really wanted to bring this up. This isn’t something that arises in nature. And it’s not something that can be fixed the way we’re trying to fix it. And so the debate, which is another thing that really ticked me off, which is why we put this together quickly to do this today (I was going to do a whole different interview), is because Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York City, came out today and said that public employees um have to have the vaccine he eliminated the option to get COVID testing. Now this has been floated in California as well, where you either have to get testing every week, COVID testing every other week or every week, or you have to get the vaccine. And I think in Indiana, it’s mandatory now in Indiana. So now we’re reaching that kind of horrific place we hoped we would never end up, because as you have well stated Zeus, the debate is not between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, the debate and the purpose of this report is between the immune and those who are not immune. That’s a big difference. And it’s a much more complex story than what you’re being foisted by the media.By the way, Donald Trump apparently was booed at a rally in the South because he was telling people to go out and get their vaccine. So strange bedfellows all the way around. Who’s controlling this narrative, right?

Zeus: Right. And I would add to that it’s not a left or right divide.

Regina: Right.

Zeus: There has been, as you mentioned with Christie, who was more on that sort of right side of things, and politically at least aligned, thinking it was all just a hoax. On that side, I think that the major problem is ignorance, in the sense that not respecting this seriously enough to recognize despite what choice you make, taking steps to protect yourself and realize it’s real. And on the neoliberal side, fear and anxiety, which by the way is the second highest risk factor for this virus. Literally it’s just a couple hundredths below obesity and diabetes is fear and anxiety.

Regina: And we did talk about that in our last report on the delta variant.

Zeus: We did. But that one is driven by fear. And they’re using that fear and trauma to drive people to vaccines, much like, you know, the silly thing where the shoe bomber drove us to take all of our shoes off to give us some feeling that we’ll have safety, which has no real relationship to our actual safety. And vaccines actually have the potential, especially in certain populations, to have greater risk – especially young populations – than lesser risk. Now that could be the opposite when you get back into older populations, and we’ve talked about that too.  We’ve had a very measured approach here. We haven’t been anti-vaxx or pro-vax. We’ve been pro, not only immune versus non-immune but pro-maximizing your benefit versus the risk.

Regina: Absolutely and that’s left to each one of us to have to do our own research to intuit how our bodies are functioning, our state of health, so we can make a proper decision. And the science is being eliminated. Now I want to say one person that stood up and said the problem here is nobody’s actually reading the science was a fellow named Dr Dan Stock, who I’m also going to be talking with. And many of you know his video that went viral in Indiana talking to one of the regional school boards. And he stood up and said you’re not being told the truth. And it’s up to you to protect our children, to do the actual research, and he gave some. And we’re going to talk to him about a lot of this in another interview following this. So it’s really important to understand that people who are in high positions of authority are not following the science. And that’s what has me so upset here. So Zeus. Let’s go to natural immunity. Let’s go to the 17-year back SARS epidemic, and what happened when the blood analysis came in after their blood, 17 years later, was exposed to COVID. And start talking about natural immunity from people previously infected. And then we’re going to go to immunity with vaccines and then we’re going to go to the most vulnerable groups and look at the best way for each of us to approach this.

Zeus: Right. If we had the best of all worlds, we’d be protected from the initial infection. T-cell immunity provides an initial, oftentimes if you’ve had something similar to that in the past, a coronavirus (even colds are coronaviruses) that SARS-1 coronavirus has been shown 17 years later to give some memory, t-cell memory immunity to SARS-CoV-2 – the one that  underlies COVID19. In your natural or innate immune system, your body uses a much more comprehensive approach. The first-line defense that prevents the viral replication from happening in the first place and a whole kind of comprehensive system there. And then an antibody IGG /  IGA antibody defense mechanism that helps to clean up if those viral replication really begins to hit. It turns out I think, it’s like 20 percent of people, a decent number of people who were exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the COVID19 one, didn’t have an IGG or antibody response. It doesn’t mean that they have an inept immune system. It means they actually have a very much better one; they have a one that is so good at fielding it from the outset it’s really preventing the virus from replicating that much. Now they had enough virus in there to be tested positive on these PCRs, okay?

Regina: But not enough to kick in a full antibody response. At some point we’ll be looking at that – your IGG antibody levels that can be read for anybody that’s already been infected with with a COVID is one metric of analysis for what your natural immunity is doing. But that can go away over time. But it doesn’t mean your immunity has gone away because you just talked about the t-cell response. So let’s go into that just a little deeper Zeus.

Zeus: Yeah the t-cell response. I read some articles claiming that vaccines can help to evoke some degree of immune or t-cell response depending on the virus. And that’s a really, really critical factor depending on the virus. Vaccines themselves have been a lot more slippery. It looks to me like vaccines have presented significantly more risks in that. I wouldn’t say significantly in some cases presented more risks. Now dengue, by the way, people who’ve gotten dengue end up having cross-immunity significantly, statistically significant cross immunity for SARS-CoV-2. And this was surprising to them because it was a different family of viruses, which only reinforces the notion that natural immunity is a lot more comprehensive as well as a lot more long-lasting than we thought. With vaccines, it’s much more like trying to hit a target. If that target either moves because the virus mutates, right, or you’re a little bit off, you miss it. Natural immunity is more like hitting the broad side of a barn.

Regina: Okay, all right. So let’s go back to the study where they took a very very large sampling, thousands of people that had the original SARS 17 years ago and then they took some blood (drew blood) and exposed their blood to the new virus, the COVID-19. And what were the findings on that? Because this is an 80 percent match genetically to the original virus – 80%. Now just to put that in perspective, the delta variant is 99.7 percent the same as the original COVID we got two years ago, right? A year and a half two years ago. Very, very tiny variant. The variant is a very tiny variant.

Zeus: Well… when it comes to a natural or comprehensive approach it’s not nearly as significant

Regina: Yeah.

Zeus: The one part that’s changing then, all of a sudden I like I said, that target’s beginning to move. And you may be hitting at a previous target that’s no longer there.

Regina: So this experiment, that one we’re talking about, what were the findings on that?

Zeus: There was significant, significant cross-immunity. I mean a statistically significant cross-immunity SARS-CoV-2. Not only SARS-CoV-1 but a whole host of coronaviruses. Some people have never been exposed to SARS-CoV-1, and 20 to 50 percent of those people have cross-immunity or cross-reactivity with regard to SARS-CoV-2 – the one that underlies COVID-19. So it wasn’t that long ago where even the biggest experts and the consensus was that there was no memory at all within our innate immune system. And now we’re finding not only is the memory there, all right because I was looking and I was looking online, but I was also looking in textbooks they’re like no memory or very limited memory. And now that consensus has changed because the science has shown with greater accuracy and being able to pinpoint that in fact, the natural immunity does have significant memory and this is just one example of that. So I use this in two cases: one to show that natural immunity has certain benefits that are not being seen because it’s much more comprehensive and integrated. It’s a lot easier to study a very targeted thing, but also to challenge the notion of scientific consensus – especially when that consensus is captured by industry for purposes of profits. You do not make a profit off of natural immunity. You do not make profits off of healthy people. This may seem like a truism, but if you are a company wanting to make a profit off the pharmaceuticals, you need the problem to exist for you to make your profit.

Regina: Well this has gone so far Zeus and you and I both read this article the same day a couple of weeks ago. It was so upsetting where the FDA made an announcement to the public suggesting that they do not get an antibody test. I thought wait a minute, if you want to find out if you have immunity you would want to have an immunity test. You’d want to have particularly the IGG longer immunity test and to see that you are producing those antibodies. And I thought why would they do that? Why would they tell us to remain ignorant about our own immune status? That is very worrying to me because one of a couple of things is happening: either they don’t want people to know they are immune and thus do not need these shots and boosters in that case; or if they have had COVID 19 vaccinations, they might find that the immunity is wearing off – because they are finding it seems to be waning and not particularly effective against the Delta variant in terms of spread and minor infections. So the Delta doesn’t seem to be as deadly in terms of the death rate and all of that, but especially young people.

Zeus: But it is becoming more deadly to people with vaccines.

Regina: That is correct because you have a viral overload.

Zeus: I want to make be measured about this because I don’t want this video to be challenged scientifically. It still looks like people who are unvaccinated are the ones getting hit the worst overall, okay? Now it does appear that people who are exposed to the COVID-19 virus and recover from it are in better shape – longer-lasting immunity (now nine months and counting) versus the immunity from the Pfizer vaccine that is diminishing after six months. In terms of hospitalization and being reinfected, you know very very low on that. Hospitalizations – still better than unvaccinated. Unexposed people so far but that number is going up.

Regina: Right.

Zeus: The hospitalized vaccinated people is going up amid the Delta variant. The delta variant has put a real challenge because the original vaccines were targeted toward a spike protein. Again that spike protein is mutating and these new vaccines aren’t as capable of that. When you have natural immunity you’re not just targeting the spike protein, you’re targeting not only the whole protein itself, the whole virus itself, but you’re having all these cross-references from all this cross-immunity from similar viruses, rightm also inputting into your immune response. So you have a more comprehensive or integrated approach.
Regina: I hope you’re enjoying this video because if you are there are dozens more like it on my site – all supported by people like you. So if you’d like to keep this work rolling in and join our community, just click on the Patreon button at reginameredith.com. That also gives you access to insider commentary, my live book club, and other live events with special guests. So join in. Thanks. So Zeus, let’s go to what’s actually happening, and well, for example, since we last talked the Barnstable, Massachusetts study came out. That was kind of leaked out through the CDC, which essentially showed that 75% of the people getting COVID were double vaccinated, fully vaccinated people. And of the hospitalizations of which there weren’t that many, 80% of them were vaccinated people. Tiny study, but it was significant to look at trends.

Zeus:  It was from the CDC itself – it’s from the CDC webpage. This is not some kind of alternative thing. It was an actual study and data from the CDC on a CDC web page. It wasn’t what they wanted to have out there, but they had to release it after a leaked slide show.

Regina: What we’re working our way toward is saying look: every one of us is in this together: unvaccinated, and those who are vaccinated, and those who have already had COVID. All these groups are all in this together. We need to look at how we’re going to contend with it as a species, and that is our interest. But we need to lay the foundation for it. So let’s look at what happened in Israel okay? Go ahead and give the stats on Israel.

Zeus: Well in Israel, they had a study within the last month or so – maybe month and a half – which showed… Israel is a great test case because it’s in a developed country, has very very rigorous statistics, and does studies and testing for its population. Almost all of their population took the Pfizer shot. So you had that consistency. 80 to 85 percent of them, I believe, of the adult population anyway had that vaccine. So they were at a level where they should have reached hurd immunity if the vaccine was effective. And then along comes this Delta variant okay. But even before the delta variant – the Delta variant just accentuated everything. What they found was that the efficacy of this Pfizer vaccine was reduced significantly. It went from 94% at the beginning and it went all the way down to 39% in this particular study. What’s more interesting is the people who got it (the vaccine) initially in January, the first one’s getting, it it went down to 16%. That’s 16 percent. So if you look at month by month, the longer you went from your actual vaccination to the present day it went from 16%, something like up in 30 or 40 percent, and it got up to like 75. But those who were once you know very close by had been vaccinated. What this shows us is that it will provoke a response, and if you’re older with underlying conditions, that initial response may be enough to aid your rather weathered innate immune system to deal with the symptoms and to deal with the challenge of this – what we think as a bioengineered virus. So there’s some case to be made for there, but it’s not a long-term case and certainly, for young people, there’s not a case because their risk is so low. And the possible complications and side effects are significant enough to make a different calculation there.

Regina: And I think what’s disturbing here is that Pfizer itself said these are not as efficacious as we thought they would be. It appears that it’s going to be beneficial for you all to have yet a third dose of this. So they’re stating this is not working as we expected and the FDA said good, we’ll approve it. And I think that’s happening what today, tomorrow?

Zeus: They were initially going to approve it for people that were immunocompromised and people with underlying conditions that were older. And now they’re just trying to get blanket approval across the board.

Regina: I think the FDA is set to approve it this week, but the point is even Pfizer says this isn’t working. The Israeli statistics show it isn’t working. And then talk about the U.S. statistics. I’m not saying not working at all. It’s not working in the way they originally had thought it might work, which was to stop transmission and create stability in the population of the spread. That part’s not working at all.

Zeus: It’s not working at all. The Barnstable County study, this happened in July, early to mid July, and was reported in late July – so this is very very recent. It showed that again 75% of the people were double vaccinated, four out of the five people that were hospitalized were double vaccinated. And here’s an interesting story too: over 50% of those people who were double vaccinated were symptomatic. So it wasn’t even producing symptoms. So now they’ve changed the ball – the whole game. They were selling it as protecting you from getting infected. First of all, you can’t with respiratory viruses. Dr Stock will show you that that’s not really possible, okay? You will be exposed to it it’s just gets out there. Then they said it was going to protect you from passing it on. We challenged that way back when and I said there’s no study showing that to be the case. Turns out it doesn’t neither of those things.

Regina: Well in fact, in the U.S. isn’t the statistic also similar: down to 42 percent efficacy?

Zeus: The 42% was again through The Defender, which is RFK Junior’s site: The Children’s Health Defense. Now it’s very scientifically valid, but it’s oftentimes labeled as anti-vax. So take that for what it is. But usually science doesn’t get addressed that much just as with the FLCCC because the science is good. This 42% again – Pfizer, Moderna (Pfizer more so), the Pfizer vaccine is the one here in the United States that very much mirrors Israel. Israel is 39%, the United States is 42%. What was interesting about the Israel data is that only one percent of the new cases where people had, I guess you would say been exposed or tested positive for COVID-19 or for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, 40% of those people were ones that were vaccinated. So what we’re finding is that as this complex disease develops, because COVID-19 is springing out of a whole bunch of variations and mutations, we are seeing advocacy of vaccines dropping, the longevity of the effectiveness of those vaccines beginning to drop as well. You can still make the argument it’s better than not being vaccinated, but it’s very hard to make the argument that it’s better than natural immunity. The question then becomes will gaining that natural immunity which requires natural exposure – will that be too much of a risk for you?

Regina: Right and that is that is the question.

Zeus: It’s a personal choice and the problem with the personal choice now is that it’s being eliminated. Not only are they’re not even allowing you to be tested, and here’s the thing that drives you and me crazy: there’s no immune passport and recognition that natural immunity by and large is superior, longer lasting, and should be given actually more weight.

Regina: And what’s upsetting is this isn’t even being brought up in any media that we’re seeing. We’re seeing virtually nothing that says “wait a minute – shouldn’t we be looking at immunity; isn’t that the point here?” Very logical, very simple, very direct – tests can be done. They’re right there – antibody tests are available to anybody and are being completely being ignored in the media. Well we don’t have to look too far at that. All we have to do a look at the fact that Pfizer had already what racked up about 33 billion and they said by the time they get through the end of this year and the boosters we’re talking profit, we’re talking about income of 45 billion dollars off this vaccine.

Zeus: It’s the most expensive, highest grossing, highest profit drug ever made.

Regina: So that’s your story. I mean that’s really at the heart of the story.

Zeus: I want to liken it to the war in Iraq. Because what ends up happening, as with these drug companies, the more sick people have and the more your vaccine actually doesn’t succeed – just like if you don’t succeed in winning a war and it just drags on forever – that produces this guaranteed locked-in profit source.

Regina: Absolutely.

Zeus: So, there’s no real incentive to create a successful vaccine, even if you could, because if you did – bam. What now are you going to use it for? You have to move on, you have to do more research and development, more expense, whereas these you make little tweaks. And each little tweak becomes a newly patented one.

Regina: It was newly approved in spite of certain issues, major issues.

Zeus: This is where I find the most criminal thing that has happened. News media is to blame for it, social media is to blame for it, big science, big pharma is to blame for it. There is yet to be, a year and a half later, a single recommendation for at-home therapy when you have actually contracted COVID19. It’s almost like the subtext is tisk tisk, you should have gotten a vaccine. What they gave to president Trump back in October of 2020 were the very things that big media is going against and calling pseudoscience now. They gave him zinc. They gave him aspirin. They gave him Vitamin D. All of these had already had research showing they had significant reductions in mortality and symptomology. They gave him melatonin. They also gave him stuff we can’t have: like Monoclonal Antibodies from Regeneron. And they gave him Remdesivir which we now know doesn’t work and is no longer recommended by the WHO because it doesn’t work. They gave him dexamethasone. And who was at the front line of that? FLCCC’s Pierre Kory – the one that you mentioned – and they were trying to shout him down. And now we know that that stuff works. And they also gave the thing in pepsin, pepcid, which you know has some degree of efficacy. And still to this day they will not admit that these alternative therapies, especially when you’ve gotten it and there really is nothing else. You can’t get an immunization or shot against something you already have. They still won’t do it. If anyone comes at you and goes follow the science, I’m seeing this thing on Facebook, it’s horrible. It says I got vaccine, why haven’t you you f*ing f**er. You know, it’s like they’re basically saying you’re an idiot and using this the f word. And I said look, the Lancet magazine, one of the foremost medical journals in the entire world, published a study so-called debunking hydroxychloroquine. And it turns out it was a complete and utter fraud. Lancet had to retract it with a mild mea culpa. Nobody said look at these anti-science people trying to debunk hydrochloroquine. No! There was no consequence and no mention of it in the media. Okay? These people were wrong, they were wrong and yet there was no consequence for it.

Regina: But in my opinion Zeus, as you said it earlier, it almost constitutes a criminal conspiracy to publicly withhold information that the very things that can help you either not develop symptoms, or once you develop symptoms manage them, and even once you have COVID manage COVID to to completion, as we did, back to good health. That’s a conspiracy to keep that information away from the public – almost across the board. I’m really depressed over this because of the disinformation that is confusing more and more people and to now think considering a third shot.

Zeus: Right and what we saw with Dr. Huff is that these – we have to understand about the vaccine is that there’s a nanoscience to it, which we have not tested, that slips it easily into your cells. The vaccine is slipping these very, very, some people would say deadly, but certainly cytotoxic spike proteins into your cells. And it’s tricking your body into producing more of them. According to his research, these things then get stuck on the inside of the capillaries, your circulatory system. And we already have something called VITT (vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia) or something like that, which basically is vaccine-induced clotting. Now they saying that it’s happening to just a few people. So we’ll take that under advisement.  But what this doctor said was that yes those are the major clots, the ones that can be recognized, but they could conceivably also create micro clotting,

Regina: Okay Zeus, now I don’t remember the doctor’s name because I’m terrible with names, but I’m sure you do. It’s a long show we listened to recently, and he was talking about the fact that when they examined the blood of people, and this includes people vaccinated, what they were finding was that there were these micro clots. You mentioned the big clots earlier, but there were these micro clots going on. Let’s talk about that for just a moment before we start going into solutions.

Zeus: The doctor’s name is Dr. Charles Hoffe, a family physician from British Columbia. His basic thing that he was talking about is even though these larger blood clots are rare among people who’ve taken various vaccines, in his practice 62 percent of the people who have been vaccinated have microscopic blood clots, as determined by D-Dimer tests, which measure risk and measure possible morbidity or untoward effects that were happening on much more the micro level, at the capillary level. Again that’s according to him, in his clinical practice.

Regina: And what were the repercussions of that? What would be the repercussions if that is more largely involved than we understand at this point?

Zeus: Well the repercussions are that you could begin to develop cardiopulmonary problems, as you did Regina in our other video. You showed your oxygen efficiency is going way down, your heart rate is going up. And (with the micro-clots caused by the vaccine), you’re creating, if this doctor’s explanation is correct, you’re creating sticky points that create clotting on the inside of your veins. It could be a little like the plaque that happens in cardiovascular disease, the fatty plaque.

Regina: It’s a different kind of what would be the effect of plaque buildup potentially.

Zeus: Yes.

Regina: It is showing in some people, but it’s still early on. So this takes time.

Zeus: Right but just like with the plaque, there are important steps to take with this because there are ways and therapies that can help deal with the plaque. They’re called fibrolytics – they break up this kind of horny spike proteins that may be sticking to your capillary cell walls, in the inside of your blood vessels. So that again is where we need to begin to focus on, because whether they come from vaccines or from the natural exposure to the disease, we need actual therapies that will allow for greater healing – much along the lines of Dr Bruce Patterson who’s doing COVIDlonghaulers.com and finding out all the ways we can bring together to help people get over long-haul COVID. Whether or not it may be vaccine-induced or vaccine-related, it may be the natural one, but again we know now that there is never gonna be any hurd immunity here. So we have to focus on therapy. So Regina, take it away because you’ve had personal experience with it.

Regina: Okay so I have show and tell going on. First of all, this is not to be construed as medical advice. I’m just showing some of the products we bought and what our doctors recommended to us. And again, these are the lumbrokinase, which are the anti-fibrin products. This is the one we’ve been taking no one can pronounce: Bolouke. However, you want to say it. So there it is. You get it on Amazon and other places. And here’s a Doctor’s Best version. This costs half as much as this (Bolouke), but I know this one (Bolouke) has really strict quality control and clinical studies. So we have a bottle of each. Okay? So when I actually had the worst of the symptoms, I was told by a doctor I greatly respect to bump it up to six a day. And then for maintenance, the doctors take two, they themselves take two a day. I’m still taking two a day because we don’t know how this is going to react in the body long term. Zeus if you want to tell your own point of view on this particular thing because whether we’ve had vaccines or COVID, we have the spike protein in the body and we do have to start dealing with the potential of any kind of micro or macro clotting going on. So i’ll toss it over to you.

Zeus: Well with regard to safety on these or what’s the question?

Regina: These are natural supplements.  Now my sister was in cardiac care her entire life and she looked at the label because she’s not into alternatives. She said oh this is very similar to a pharmaceutical that we give our heart patients anyway. So this is a technology that is recognized in general. This just happens to be the over-the-counter natural version of it. This particular one is produced by silkworms.

Zeus: Right I mean fibrolytics basically are those things that in this case naturally because it’s naturally derived go through and lumbrokinase anything that ends in ase is an enzyme.

Regina: Yes.

Zeus: And enzymes have specific functions and if you’re a lytic enzyme right. Lytic means basically lysis right – which means splitting. Right? So what it’s doing is it’s splitting up proteins or it’s splitting up material. And in this case it’s going to be splitting up that kind of clotting; it’s going to be splitting up those fibrous formations in your body that in this case are maladaptive. Right? That go against your health. Your body is being basically tricked. That’s the most condemning thing about COVID-19. It is tricking your body into doing a whole bunch of things that don’t serve its own health, but that at least in the short term serves the virus. And it’s even getting into immune cells by the way and then messing up their ability to recognize. So these therapies come in to clean up a lot of the effects of the original virus and COVID. People, again I have to stress this: the deadly effects of this don’t come from the initial virus. That lasts for about a week. The deadly effects come from the after-effects of dysregulating the immune system and creating these things like these build up on the inside and this clotting and cytokine storms and inflammation. That’s what’s been deadly you know. So that’s why therapies are so important – therapy like this….

Reverse Insulin Resistance With These 8 Foods

Several of my friends and family struggle with blood sugar issues. If you are among them, I hope this article/information from GreenMedInfo serves you well.  Be well and live well, my friends. Love, Julia

Research indicates that you don’t need drugs to control blood sugar. Food, herbs, and spices are the future of medicine

Over 80 million Americans have insulin resistance that can lead to diabetes. And you could be on the road to diabetes for 10 years or more and never even know it. Here’s what happens.

The hormone insulin directs your cells to open up and take in glucose from the blood. With insulin resistance, your cells become desensitized to insulin. They ignore the instructions to open up and take in glucose. Your body keeps producing more insulin to try to get the message heard. But it doesn’t work. And your insulin levels rise higher and higher.

Those chronically high insulin levels cause rapid weight gain, premature aging, high blood pressure, heart disease, and higher cancer risks. Eventually they lead to type 2 diabetes.

Herbs, spices and foods are your first line of defense. Here are eight that can help restore and maintain your cells’ sensitivity to insulin.

1. Turmeric: 100% Effective In Preventing Diabetes

A 2009 study found curcumin, an active compound found in turmeric, was 500 to 100,000 times more effective than the prescription drug Metformin at activating glucose uptake.[i]

In another study of 240 pre-diabetic adults, patients were given either 250 milligrams of curcumin or a placebo every day. After nine months, NONE of those taking curcumin developed diabetes but 16.4% of the placebo group did. In other words, the curcumin was 100% effective at preventing Type 2 diabetes.

2. Ginger: Lowers Fasting Blood Glucose by 10.5%

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial 88 diabetics were divided into two groups. Every day one group received a placebo while the other received 3 one-gram capsules of ginger powder. After eight weeks, the ginger group reduced their fasting blood sugar by 10.5%. But the placebo group INCREASED their fasting blood sugar by 21%. In addition, insulin sensitivity increased significantly more in the ginger group.

In another study, researchers proved that 1600 mg per day of ginger improves eight markers of diabetes including insulin sensitivity.

Many other studies prove the value of ginger for diabetes. For a complete list of studies visit Green Med Info’s page on Ginger Health Benefits.

3. Cinnamon: Less Than Half a Teaspoon A Day Reduces Blood Sugar Levels

Cinnamon is one of the oldest spices and most popular spices. It’s been used for millennia both for its flavoring and medicinal qualities.

Cinnamon has been shown to normalize blood sugar levels in type 2 diabetics by improving the ability to respond to insulin. A meta-analysis of eight clinical studies shows that cinnamon or cinnamon extracts lower fasting blood glucose levels.

Cinnamon works in part by slowing the rate at which the stomach empties after eating. In one study subjects ate about a cup of rice pudding with and without about a teaspoon of cinnamon. Adding the cinnamon slowed the rate the stomach emptied from 37% to 34.5% and significantly slowed the rise in blood sugar levels. Even less than a half of a teaspoon a day reduces blood sugar levels in type 2 diabetics.

Here are 5 more reasons to eat cinnamon every day.

4. Olive Leaf Extract: Results Comparable to Metformin

University of Auckland researchers proved that olive leaf extract improves insulin sensitivity.

In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, 46 overweight men were divided into two groups. One group received capsules containing olive leaf extract and the other group received a placebo. After 12 weeks, olive leaf extract lowered insulin resistance by an average of 15%. It also increased the productivity of the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas by 28%.

The researchers noted that supplementing with olive leaf extract gave results “comparable to common diabetic therapeutics (particularly metformin).”

5. Berries Lower After-Meal Insulin Spike

Studies show the body needs less insulin for sugar balance after a meal if berries are also eaten. In a study of healthy women in Finland, subjects were asked to eat white and rye bread with or without a selection of different pureed berries. Starch in the bread alone spikes after-meal glucose levels. But the researchers found that adding berries to the bread significantly reduced the after-meal insulin spike.

Strawberries, bilberries, lingonberries, and chokeberries were effective. So was a mixture consisting of strawberries, bilberries, cranberries, and blackberries.

6. Black Seed (Nigella Sativa): Just 2 Grams Reduces Insulin Resistance

In a study of 94 diabetic patients, researchers prescribed either 1, 2 or 3 grams a day of Nigella sativa capsules. They found that at the dose of 2 grams per day, black seed significantly reduced fasting blood glucose and insulin resistance. The higher dose of 3 grams per day did not result in additional benefits.

Black seed has been treasured for thousands of years for its healing properties. It is sometimes referred to as Roman coriander, black sesame, black cumin, and black caraway. It’s been called the remedy for everything but death.

7. Spirulina Increases Insulin Sensitivity by 225%

In a randomized study of insulin-resistant patients, researchers compared the power of spirulina and soy to control insulin levels.[ix] They assigned 17 patients to receive 19 grams of spirulina a day. The other 16 patients received 19 grams of soy. After eight weeks the spirulina group on average increased their insulin sensitivity by 224.7% while the soy group increased their insulin sensitivity by 60%.

In addition, 100% of the spirulina group improved their insulin sensitivity while only 69% of the soy group improved.

8. Berberine Just As Good as Three Different Diabetes Drugs

Berberine is a bitter compound found in the roots of several plants including goldenseal, barberry, and Oregon grape. Studies prove it’s just as good as prescription diabetes drugs.

Chinese researchers compared berberine to metformin in a pilot study of 36 patients. They found berberine lowered blood sugar levels just as well as metformin in just three months. The patients also significantly decreased their fasting blood glucose, and their after-meal blood glucose.

In the same study, researchers gave berberine to 48 diabetics for three months. After only one week, berberine lowered both fasting and post-meal blood glucose levels. In addition, their insulin resistance dropped 45%.

Other researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 14 studies involving 1,068 participants. They found berberine performed just as well as metformin, glipizide and rosiglitazoneThose are three of the top diabetes drugs on the market. And berberine has no serious side effects.

For more than 70 studies on this herbal compound visit Green Med Info’s page on berberine


Teayoun Kim, Jessica Davis, Albert J Zhang, Xiaoming He, Suresh T Mathews. Curcumin activates AMPK and suppresses gluconeogenic gene expression in hepatoma cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2009 Oct 16;388(2):377-82. Epub 2009 Aug 8. PMID: 19665995

Hassan Mozaffari-Khosravi, Behrouz Talaei, Beman-Ali Jalali, Azadeh Najarzadeh, Mohammad Reza Mozayan. The effect of ginger powder supplementation on insulin resistance and glycemic indices in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Complement Ther Med. 2014 Feb ;22(1):9-16. Epub 2014 Jan 8. PMID: 24559810

Tahereh Arablou, Naheed Aryaeian, Majid Valizadeh, Faranak Sharifi, Aghafatemeh Hosseini, Mahmoud Djalali. The effect of ginger consumption on glycemic status, lipid profile and some inflammatory markers in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2014 Feb 4. Epub 2014 Feb 4. PMID: 24490949

Paul A Davis, Wallace Yokoyama. Cinnamon intake lowers fasting blood glucose: meta-analysis. J Med Food. 2011 Sep ;14(9):884-9. Epub 2011 Apr 11.PMID: 21480806

Joanna Hlebowicz et al, “Effect of cinnamon on postprandial blood glucose, gastric emptying, and satiety in healthy subjects.Am J Clin Nutr June 2007 vol. 85 no. 6 1552-1556

Martin de Bock, José G B Derraik, Christine M Brennan, Janene B Biggs, Philip E Morgan, Steven C Hodgkinson, Paul L Hofman, Wayne S Cutfield. Olive (Olea europaea L.) leaf polyphenols improve insulin sensitivity in middle-aged overweight men: a randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial.

Riitta Törrönen, Marjukka Kolehmainen, Essi Sarkkinen, Kaisa Poutanen, Hannu Mykkänen, Leo Niskanen. Berries reduce postprandial insulin responses to wheat and rye breads in healthy women. J Nutr. 2013 Apr ;143(4):430-6. Epub 2013 Jan 30. PMID: 23365108

Abdullah O Bamosa, Huda Kaatabi, Fatma M Lebdaa, Abdul-Muhssen Al Elq, Ali Al-Sultanb. Effect of Nigella sativa seeds on the glycemic control of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2010 Oct-Dec;54(4):344-54. PMID: 21675032

Azabji-Kenfack Marcel, Loni G Ekali, Sobngwi Eugene, Onana E Arnold, Edie D Sandrine, Denis von der Weid, Emmanuel Gbaguidi, Jeanne Ngogang, Jean C Mbanya. The Effect of Spirulina platensis versus Soybean on Insulin Resistance in HIV-Infected Patients: A Randomized Pilot Study. Nutrients. 2011 Jul ;3(7):712-24. Epub 2011 Jul 18. PMID: 22254118

Yin J, Xing H, Ye J. Efficacy of berberine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metabolism May 2008;57(5):712-7 Pubmed 18442638

Dong H, Wang N, Zhao L, Lu F. Berberine in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systemic review and meta-analysisEvid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2012;2012:591654 Pubmed 23118793

Having SARS-CoV-2 Once Confers MUCH Greater Immunity Than a Vaccine – But No Infection Parties Please

By Meredith Wadman | Science Mag

The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.

The study demonstrates the power of the human immune system, but infectious disease experts emphasized that this vaccine and others for COVID-19 nonetheless remain highly protective against severe disease and death. And they caution that intentional infection among unvaccinated people would be extremely risky. “What we don’t want people to say is: ‘All right, I should go out and get infected, I should have an infection party.’” says Michel Nussenzweig, an immunologist at Rockefeller University who researches the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and was not involved in the study. “Because somebody could die.”

The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated. The new work could inform discussion of whether previously infected people need to receive both doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine or the similar mRNA vaccine from Moderna. Vaccine mandates don’t necessarily exempt those who had a SARS-CoV-2 infection already and the current U.S. recommendation is that they be fully vaccinated, which means two mRNA doses or one of the J&J adenovirus-based vaccine. Yet one mRNA dose might be enough, some scientists argue. And other countries including Germany, France, Italy, and Israel administer just one vaccine dose to previously infected people.

The study, conducted in one of the most highly COVID-19–vaccinated countries in the world, examined the medical records of tens of thousands of Israelis, charting their infections, symptoms, and hospitalizations between 1 June and 14 August, when the Delta variant predominated in Israel. It’s the largest real-world observational study so far to compare natural and vaccine-induced immunity to SARS-CoV-2, according to its leaders.

The research impresses Nussenzweig and other scientists who have reviewed a preprint of the results, posted yesterday on medRxiv. “It’s a textbook example of how natural immunity is really better than vaccination,” says Charlotte Thålin, a physician and immunology researcher at Danderyd Hospital and the Karolinska Institute who studies the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2. “To my knowledge, it’s the first time [this] has really been shown in the context of COVID-19.”

Still, Thålin and other researchers stress that deliberate infection among unvaccinated people would put them at significant risk of severe disease and death, or the lingering, significant symptoms of what has been dubbed Long Covid. The study shows the benefits of natural immunity, but “doesn’t take into account what this virus does to the body to get to that point,” says Marion Pepper, an immunologist at the University of Washington, Seattle. COVID-19 has already killed more than 4 million people worldwide and there are concerns that Delta and other SARS-CoV-2 variants are deadlier than the original virus.

The new analysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization was eight times higher.

“The differences are huge,” says Thålin, although she cautions that the numbers for infections and other events analyzed for the comparisons were “small.” For instance, the higher hospitalization rate in the 32,000-person analysis was based on just eight hospitalizations in a vaccinated group and one in a previously infected group. And the 13-fold increased risk of infection in the same analysis was based on just 238 infections in the vaccinated population, less than 1.5% of the more than 16,000 people, versus 19 reinfections among a similar number of people who once had SARS-CoV-2.

No one in the study who got a new SARS-CoV-2 infection died—which prevented comparison of death rates but is a clear sign that vaccines still offer a formidable shield against serious disease, even if not as good as natural immunity. Moreover, natural immunity is far from perfect. Although reinfections with SARS-CoV-2 are rare, and often asymptomatic or mild, they can be severe.

In another analysis, the researchers compared more than 14,000 people who had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were still unvaccinated with an equivalent number of previously infected people who received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The team found that the unvaccinated group was twice as likely to be reinfected as the singly vaccinated.

“We continue to underestimate the importance of natural infection immunity … especially when [infection] is recent,” says Eric Topol, a physician-scientist at Scripps Research. “And when you bolster that with one dose of vaccine, you take it to levels you can’t possibly match with any vaccine in the world right now.”

Nussenzweig says the results in previously infected, vaccinated people confirm laboratory findings from a series of papers in Nature and Immunity by his group, his Rockefeller University colleague Paul Bieniasz, and others—and from a preprint posted this month by Bieniasz and his team. They show, Nussenzweig says, that the immune systems of people who develop natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and then get vaccinated produce exceptionally broad and potent antibodies against the coronavirus. The preprint, for example, reported that people who were previously infected and then vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine had antibodies in their blood that neutralized the infectivity of another virus, harmless to humans, that was engineered to express a version of the coronavirus spike protein that contains 20 concerning mutations. Sera from vaccinated and naturally infected people could not do so.

As for the Israel medical records study, Topol and others point out several limitations, such as the inherent weakness of a retrospective analysis compared with a prospective study that regularly tests all participants as it tracks new infections, symptomatic infections, hospitalizations, and deaths going forward in time. “It will be important to see these findings replicated or refuted,” says Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at Emory University.

She adds: “The biggest limitation in the study is that testing [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] is still a voluntary thing—it’s not part of the study design.” That means, she says, that comparisons could be confounded if, for example, previously infected people who developed mild symptoms were less likely to get tested than vaccinated people, perhaps because they think they are immune.

Nussenzweig’s group has published data showing people who recover from a SARS-CoV-2 infection continue to develop increasing numbers and types of coronavirus-targeting antibodies for up to 1 year. By contrast, he says, twice-vaccinated people stop seeing increases “in the potency or breadth of the overall memory antibody compartment” a few months after their second dose.

For many infectious diseases, naturally acquired immunity is known to be more powerful than vaccine-induced immunity and it often lasts a lifetime. Other coronaviruses that cause the serious human diseases severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome trigger robust and persistent immune responses. At the same time, several other human coronaviruses, which usually cause little more than colds, are known to reinfect people regularly.

Clarification 28 August 2021, 1:20 pm: This article has been corrected to reflect that in an analysis involving previously infected people who received one vaccine dose, not all people received that dose after, rather than before, becoming infected. It has also been updated to clarify that the vaccinated people in the other two analyses had never been infected prior to being vaccinated.

Why Do Public Health Agencies Reject Natural Immunity?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

  • According to U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy, if you’ve already recovered from a bout of COVID-19, the immunity mounted by your body may not be enough to prevent reinfection with the Delta variant, so your best bet is to get the COVID shot
  • August 6, 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a case-control study claiming that unvaccinated people are “more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus”
  • One of several drawbacks of this study is that it did not look at illness severity. It doesn’t tell us whether more vaccinated people were symptomatic than the unvaccinated, or vice versa
  • A far better gauge of how well the COVID jabs are working would be a serious infection, hospitalization, and death rates, and when we look at those, a different picture emerges
  • In Israel — where data suggest those who have received the COVID jab are 6.72 times more likely to get infected than people who have recovered from natural infection — a majority of serious cases and deaths are occurring among those injected with two doses of Pfizer’s mRNA jab

According to U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy, if you’ve already recovered from a bout of COVID-19, the full-spectrum immunity mounted by your body may not be enough to prevent reinfection with the Delta variant, so your best bet is to get the COVID shot. Mid-August 2021 he told CNN:1

“… what we’ve understood, actually, from the studies about natural immunity, we are seeing more and more data that tells us that while you get some protection from natural infection, it’s not nearly as strong as what you get from the vaccine, especially with the Delta variant, which is the hardiest and most contagious variant we’ve seen to date. We need all the protection that we can get. That’s why the vaccines are so effective.”

Data Analysis Claims Unvaccinated More Prone to Reinfection

August 6, 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a case-control study2,3 claiming that unvaccinated people are “more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus.”

The study used data reported to Kentucky’s National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (NEDSS) to assess SARS-CoV-2 reinfection rates in Kentucky during May through June 2021 among those who’d had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March and December 2020.

The NEDSS data were then imported into a REDCap database that tracks new COVID-19 cases. A case-patient was defined as a resident with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 and a subsequent positive test result from May 1, 2021, through June 30, 2021.

Vaccination status was determined using data from the Kentucky Immunization Registry. Patients were considered fully vaccinated if a single dose of Johnson & Johnson or a second dose of an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna) had been administered at least 14 days before reinfection. Compared to fully vaccinated residents, unvaccinated residents were 2.34 times more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.

The Obvious Flaw in CDC’s Study

The elephant in the room, however, is the absence of actual symptomatic illness. The study only looked at positive test results, and we do not know whether more vaccinated people were symptomatic than the unvaccinated, or vice versa.

As has been explained many times before, a positive test result is not the same as an active infection. A person with natural immunity may be re-exposed to the virus, and traces of it may show upon testing, but their immune system has effectively killed the virus and prevented illness.

So, merely looking at positive test results is not the best way to ascertain whether the COVID jab actually provides better protection than natural immunity. And there are many reasons to suspect that it does not.

Other Shortcomings

The study authors also admit there are several other limitations to the findings, including the following:4

“First, reinfection was not confirmed through whole genome sequencing, which would be necessary to definitively prove that the reinfection was caused from a distinct virus relative to the first infection …

Second, persons who have been vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested. Therefore, the association of reinfection and lack of vaccination might be overestimated. Third, vaccine doses administered at federal or out-of-state sites are not typically entered in KYIR, so vaccination data are possibly missing for some persons in these analyses …

Fourth, although case-patients and controls were matched based on age, sex, and date of initial infection, other unknown confounders might be present. Finally, this is a retrospective study design using data from a single state during a 2-month period; therefore, these findings cannot be used to infer causation.”

It is correct that association does not equate to causation, and we’ve been repeatedly told to dismiss Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data for this very reason. Perhaps the same standard should be applied to this CDC investigation, as it tells us very little about the actual risk associated with reinfection.

For all we know, those with natural immunity tested positive for reinfection but had no symptoms, while vaccinated people tested positive and were actually ill. Which, in that case, would be the preferable outcome?

Hospitalization and Mortality Rates Are a Better Gauge

A far better gauge of how well the COVID jabs are working would be a serious infection, hospitalization, and death rates, and when we look at those, a different picture emerges.

In Israel, where vaccine uptake has been very high due to restrictions on freedom for those who don’t comply,5 data show those who have received the COVID jab are 6.72 times more likely to get infected than people who have recovered from natural infection.6,7,8

That too refers to test results, so let’s look at hospitalization rates instead. Here, we find a majority of serious cases and deaths are in fact occurring among those injected with two doses.

The following is a screenshot of graphs posted on Twitter.9 The red is unvaccinated, yellow refers to partially “vaccinated” and green fully “vaccinated” with two doses. The charts speak for themselves.

new hospitalizations
new severe covid 19 patients
deaths trend

Do not be deceived by claims that unvaccinated patients make up 99% of COVID-19 deaths and 95% of COVID-related hospitalizations in the United States.10

These statistics were manufactured by looking at hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021 — a time frame when COVID jab rates were low. January 1, 2021, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot so, clearly, unvaccinated made up the bulk of COVID-related hospitalizations last winter. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots,11 and as of June 30, just 46.9% were “fully vaccinated.”12

Why COVID Shot Cannot End COVID Outbreaks

Overall, it doesn’t appear as though COVID-19 gene modification injections have the ability to effectively eliminate COVID-19 outbreaks, and this makes sense, seeing how it’s mathematically impossible for them to do so.

The four available COVID shots in the U.S. provide an absolute risk reduction between just 0.7% and 1.3%.13,14 (Efficacy rates of 67% to 95% all refer to the relative risk reduction.) Meanwhile, the noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio across age groups is a mere 0.26%.15

Since the absolute risk that needs to be overcome is lower than the absolute risk reduction these injections can provide, mass vaccination simply cannot have a favorable impact, even with a vaccination rate of 100%.

Don’t believe it? There’s proof. July 14, 2021, BBC News reported16 there’d been an outbreak on the British Defense aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. Despite the entire crew being fully injected, 100 crew members tested positive. (It’s unclear whether any of them actually had symptoms.)

The recent outbreak onboard a Carnival cruise line ship is another example. All crew and passengers had presented proof of being jabbed, yet that didn’t prevent an outbreak from taking place.17

The reason is very simple. Just as we have been telling you from the beginning, the shot does not prevent you from getting infected with the virus or spreading it around. “Vaccinated” individuals have actually been shown to be just as infectious as unvaccinated people. Even if they have fewer or milder symptoms, their viral load is just as great when infected, according to the CDC.18

There’s No Control Group to Compare Against Anymore

For some reason, government leaders and health officials want a needle in every arm, and they don’t care what the side effects of the shots might be. This is evident by the fact that we now have tens of thousands of reported deaths (according to one whistleblower, 45,000 deaths have occurred within three days of injection19,20) and well over half a million injury reports following COVID “vaccination,”21 yet no action is taken to slow down or halt the campaign.

Historically, mass vaccination campaigns have been halted and drugs were withdrawn after 25 to 50 deaths (depending on the product). We’re so far past that now, one wonders if there actually is a threshold at which authorities will take action to protect the public from unnecessary medical injury and death.

VAERS is tricky to maneuver, so the easiest way to get a glimpse into the current status is to go to OpenVAERS.com, where you get a simple summary breakdown of current COVID-related reports.

Equally telling is the fact that all control groups have been eliminated from the still-ongoing injection trials,22 with full support from a World Health Organization Expert Working Group23 so, in the end, we’ll have no way of really evaluating side effects.

This is the perfect way to hide the truth about these shots, and it violates the very basics of what a safety trial has always been required to have. You simply must incorporate a control group to compare the effects of the drug in the long term, otherwise, you will have no clue as to what complications have arisen.

Safety evaluations have also been intentionally undermined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which chose not to require vaccine makers to implement robust post-injection data collection and follow-up on the general public.

On top of that, the trials also do not appear to have oversight boards, which is standard practice for all human clinical trials. There’s no Data Safety Monitoring Board, no Clinical Event Committee, and no Clinical Ethics Committee. How could this be?

If vaccine makers simply forgot to follow standard practices, it would mean we’re dealing with a truly staggering level of incompetence, as all COVID jab developers have made the same mistake. Which might be worse in this case? Intentional negligence or unintentional incompetence?

COVID-19 Shots Confer Narrow Immunity

Getting back to the issue of whether the COVID jab actually confers better protection against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, this is highly unlikely seeing how the shot confers a very narrow and specific kind of protection, whereas natural immunity is broad.

When it comes to SARS-CoV-2 — which is clearly a genetically manipulated virus designed to attack your cardiovascular system and basic immune function — the spike protein is the most dangerous part and acts as a toxin in and of itself. This is why the spike protein was chosen as the antigen in these shots, but it’s also why so many are having side effects from them.

When you get a COVID shot, your body is instructed to manufacture the spike protein. In response, your body then produces antibodies against that spike protein. Those antibodies recognize only the spike protein and not other parts of the virus.

When you recover from a natural infection, your body has antibodies against all parts of the virus, so the spike protein plus four other proteins. In addition to that, you have memory T cells, which appear even more important than antibodies when it comes to battling viruses.

Does it make sense that one type of antibody would be more effective against a virus that may have mutated one or more of its proteins? Or is it more likely that having several types of antibodies plus memory T cells will offer greater protection?

If you pay attention, you will find that no one ever offers a sensible explanation as to why a single anti-spike antibody would be better than T cells and antibodies against all parts of the virus.

Natural Immunity Is Robust and Long-Lasting

Many studies have been published demonstrating that natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is both robust and long-lasting. For example, a May 2020 study24,25 found 70% of samples from patients who had recovered from mild cases of COVID-19 had resistance to SARS-CoV-2 on the T-cell level.

Interestingly, 40% to 60% of people who had not been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 also had resistance to the virus on the T-cell level. According to the authors, this suggests there’s “cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.”

A German paper26 came to a similar conclusion. Here, they found helper T cells that targeted the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in 15 of 18 patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Yet another study,27,28,29 this one by Singaporean researchers, found common colds caused by the beta coronaviruses OC43 and HKU1 might make you more resistant to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

What’s more, they found that patients who became infected with the original SARS virus back in 2003 still had memory T cell immunity against SARS-CoV-2, despite the virus being only 80% similar. This study suggests natural immunity is likely to last decades, not months, like the COVID shot.

Unvaccinated Falsely Accused of Being ‘Disease Factories’

While mainstream media are now pushing the idea that those who refuse the COVID shot are to blame for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, a number of health experts have warned that the complete opposite scenario would occur — those mass injections, causing a very narrow band of antibodies, will force more rapid mutations of the virus.30

A general principle in biology, vaccinology, and microbiology is that if you put living organisms like bacteria or viruses under pressure, via antibiotics or antibodies, for example, but don’t kill them off completely, you can inadvertently encourage their mutation into more virulent strains. Those that escape your immune system ends up surviving and selecting mutations to ensure their further survival.

If an individual who does not have a narrow band of antibodies becomes infected, then, if a mutation does occur, it’s far less likely to result in a more aggressive virus. So, while mutation can occur in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people, vaccinated individuals are actually far more likely to pressure the virus into a mutation that strengthens it and makes it more dangerous.

CDC Misrepresents Data to Push Jab on Those With Immunity

So far, the CDC has refused to change its stance on the matter. Instead, officials at the agency seem to have doubled down and actually go out of their way to misrepresent data in an effort to harass those with natural immunity to inappropriately take the jab, which is clinically unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

In a report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on December 18, 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was said to have “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among persons with underlying medical conditions as well as among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.31

After looking at the Pfizer trial data, Rep. Thomas Massie — a Republican Congressman for Kentucky and an award-winning scientist — discovered that’s completely wrong. On January 30, 2021, Full Measure report, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson described how Massie tried, in vain, to get the CDC to correct its error. According to Massie:32,33

“There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either … It [the CDC report] says the exact opposite of what the data says.”

After multiple phone calls, CDC deputy director Dr. Anne Schuchat finally acknowledged the error and told Massie it would be fixed. “As you note correctly, there is not sufficient analysis to show that in the subset of only the people with prior infection, there’s efficacy. So, you’re correct that that sentence is wrong and that we need to make a correction of it,” Schuchat said in the recorded call.

January 29, 2021, the CDC issued its supposed correction, but rather than fix the error, they simply rephrased the mistake in a different way. This was the “correction” they issued:

“Consistent high efficacy (≥92%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Efficacy was similarly high in a secondary analysis including participants both with or without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

As you can see, the “correction” still misleadingly suggests that vaccination is effective for those previously infected, even though the data showed no such thing.

I don’t know why the surgeon general insists the COVID jab offers better protection against variants than natural immunity. I don’t see how it could. The lack of rational medical explanation is suspicious, and perhaps that’s why 40% of the American population has yet to take the jab.34

Sources and References

Iceland Top Doc Admits Natural Immunity Only Way To Herd Immunity

Video Source: ISE

Percentage-wise, Iceland is one of the most v@xxed countries in the world and yet it is experiencing more C0v2 cases than ever before. Now, the top epidemiologist in Iceland says natural immunity is the only way to herd immunity. Read more here:
Scientists: Mass vaccinations will not stop COVID-19 transmission, herd immunity not achievable (via vaccination)
WHO Changes Definition of Herd Immunity

  • Herd immunity occurs when enough people acquire immunity to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community
  • WHO’s definition of herd immunity long reflected this, but in October 2020 it quietly revised this concept in an Orwellian move that totally removes the natural infection from the equation
  • Immunity developed through the previous infection is the way it has worked since humans have been alive: Your immune system isn’t designed to get vaccines; it’s designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent
  • This perversion of science implies that the only way to achieve herd immunity is via vaccination, which is blatantly untrue
  • It’s all part of the Great Reset: The rollout of widespread COVID-19 vaccination coupled with tracking and tracing of COVID-19 test results and vaccination status are 

How Depression Is Now Being Treated Using Energy

We’ve all heard about it from a friend or perhaps have taken our own journey with challenging anxiety and depression. One thing we have also witnessed is how medication prescribed for depression can have side-effects that are less than desirable. Finding and exploring natural alternatives to calm the mind including meditation and different forms of therapy or even coaching have proven to create progress that is life changing. However, sometimes people are left seeking other alternatives and have hit walls trying to avoid the potential side effects that these medications may display. Many readers here have likely chosen to avoid certain medicines altogether for obvious reasons.

A new depression treatment provider, Success TMS, has been waves in the United States with their depression treatment alternative called TMS therapy or Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. While the TMS realm of technology isn’t exactly new, it has been perhaps hidden in plain view as larger pharma companies spend millions promoting their products. This technology has grown in popularity as people seek solutions outside overly prescribed medications, and TMS uses energy to activate regions of the brain that have seen low activity (which causes issues with depression). The non-invasive process delivers a magnetic pulse that stimulates nerve cells in the area of the brain involved in mood control and ultimately, the resulting depression.

TMS advanced depression therapy has proven to be an ideal alternative for thousands and has quickly become a preferred route for patients who struggle with the disease. Success TMS covers current patients and potentially millions of others with insurance providers including Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, Cigna, Humana, Medicare and more. This revolutionary therapy treats symptoms of depression by stimulating the areas of the brain that cause depression. The safe, FDA cleared treatment is drug-free and has no systemic side effects, and is proven to be more effective than medication.

Founding partner Jonathan Michel launched Success TMS after the tragic loss of his sister to the disease, and is committed to helping others cope with its challenges. Success TMS has grown to 32 clinics in less than 3 years, Success TMS continues to help treat patients by using this growing technology that truly utilizes energy to heal the mind. Speaking on the company and technology, Jonathan Michel contributed:

“In 2017, my sister Alex committed suicide.  We were close and I was involved in her care.  She was getting the help she needed so we thought – but she was not taking her medication and no one knew about that.  She took her life and left me a note and asked me to please help find a cure for depression.  I have made it my mission ever since, to bring this treatment; Success TMS out in the open. This treatment had been used before, but was not mainstream.  Our plan is to open Success TMS offices in every city in the country and beyond.  People have to have options and know that there is hope.”

The pandemic has been eye opening when it comes to mental health awareness.  So many people experienced the pain of depression and other mental health challenges during this time.  Think about it – when no one knew what was  going on, literally everyone experienced anxiety.  It often takes a tragedy to wake us up.  The tragedy was a pandemic – but it allowed us to learn about mental wellness; and mental illness was no longer taboo.  Rich, poor, young and old, we learned that anxiety affects everyone, and so does mental illness.  The world as a whole was anxious and it lasted for three weeks, when we all really did not know what was happening.  Imagine if you had to feel that way your whole life.  The pandemic gave us all perspective on what people who struggle with mental illness feel like all the time.

Learn more about Success TMS and their clinics at – www.successtms.com

About Success TMS (for reference):

Success TMS was inspired by Alex – a beautiful, vibrant, smart and ambitious woman. Plagued by debilitating depression for over 5 years, Alex continually sought out new treatments, hoping to find one that would finally defeat her depression. After years of trial and error with therapy, medications, and risky treatments like electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), hopelessness finally set in. Feeling like she had no choices left, Alex gave in to the only solution that guaranteed the relief she was looking for… On July 12, 2017, Alex took her own life.

Before her passing, Alex wrote a letter to her brother Jonathan. In it, she asked Jonathan to do two things: “First, take care of mom and dad. Second, find a cure for this terrible disease and get it out to the people. You are the only one who can.” Jonathan took his sister’s wishes to heart and spent months researching new and different ways to treat depression. Finally, he discovered TMS – a non-invasive and proven solution to battle depression. Jonathan reached out to some of his closest business partners and friends to join him in fulfilling Alex’s last wish. Less than 1 year after Alex’s death, Success TMS was born in her honor. Today, Success TMS is one of the largest and fastest-growing TMS providers in the country, having helped thousands of people in their battle with depression.

Disclaimer: Content from the ConsciousLifeNews.com website and blog is not intended to be used for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. The information provided on this website is intended for general consumer understanding and is NOT intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice. As health and nutrition research continuously evolves, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of any information presented on this website.

Is Natural Immunity More Effective Than the COVID Shot?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

  • According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, COVID-19 “cases” have trended downward since peaking during the first and second week of January 2021. At first glance, this decline appears to be occurring in tandem with the rollout of COVID shots. However, “cases” were on the decline before a meaningful number of people had been vaccinated
  • COVID-19 “cases” peaked on January 8, 2021, when more than 300,000 new positive test results were recorded on a daily basis. By February 21, that had declined to a daily new case count of 55,000
  • COVID-19 gene modification injections were granted emergency use authorization at the end of December 2020, and by February 21, only 5.9% of American adults had been fully injected with two doses. Despite such a low injection rate, new “cases” had declined by 82%
  • The best explanation for a declining COVID-19 case rate appears to be natural immunity from previous infections. A study by the National Institutes of Health suggests COVID-19 prevalence was 4.8 times higher than previously thought, thanks to an undiagnosed infection
  • The survivability of COVID-19 outside of nursing homes is 99.74%. If you’re under the age of 40, your chance of surviving a bout of COVID-19 is 99.99%. You can’t really improve your chances of surviving beyond that, so COVID shots cannot realistically end the pandemic

According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data,1 COVID-19 “case” have trended downward since peaking during the first and second week of January 2021.

covid-19 cases

At first glance, this decline appears to be occurring in tandem with the rollout of COVID shots. January 1, 2021, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots,2 and as of July 13, 48.3% were fully “vaccinated.”3

However, as noted in July 12, 2021, STAT News article,4 “cases” had started their downward trend before COVID shots were widely used. “Following patterns from previous pandemics, the precipitous decline in new cases of Covid-19 started well before a meaningful number of people had been vaccinated,” Robert M. Kaplan, Professor Emeritus at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, writes. He continues:

“Nearly 50 years ago, medical sociologists John and Sonja McKinlay examined5 death rates from 10 serious diseases: tuberculosis, scarlet fever, influenzae, pneumonia, diphtheria, whooping cough, measles, smallpox, typhoid, and polio. In each case, the new therapy or vaccine credited with overcoming it was introduced well after the disease was in decline.

More recently, historian Thomas McKeown noted6 that deaths from bronchitis, pneumonia, and influenza had begun rapidly falling 35 years before the introduction of new medicines that were credited with their conquest. These historical analyses are relevant to the current pandemic.”

‘Case’ Decline Preceded Widespread Implementation of Jab

As noted by Kaplan, COVID-19 “cases” peaked in early January 2021. On January 8, more than 300,000 new positive test results were recorded on a daily basis. By February 21, that had declined to a daily new case count of 55,000. COVID-19 gene modification injections were granted emergency use authorization at the end of December 2020, but by February 21, only 5.9% of American adults had been fully vaccinated with two doses.

Despite such a low vaccination rate, new “cases” had declined by 82%. Considering health authorities claim we need 70% of Americans vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity and stop the spread of this virus, this simply makes no sense. Clearly, the COVID shots had nothing to do with the decline in positive test results.

To be clear, reported cases mean positive test results, and we now know the vast majority of positive PCR tests have been, and still are, false positives. They’re not sick. They simply had a false “positive.” Right now, we’re also faced with yet another situation that complicates attempts at data analysis, and Kaplan understandably did not address any of these confounding factors.

But just so you’re aware, if you have been fully “vaccinated,” then the CDC recommends running the PCR test at a cycle threshold (CT) of 28 or lower, which dramatically lowers your chance of a false-positive result, but if you are unvaccinated, the PCR test is recommended to be run at a CT of 40 or higher, virtually guaranteeing a false positive.

This is just one way by which the CDC is manipulating data to make the COVID shots appear more effective than they are. This also allows them to falsely claim that the vast majority of new cases are among the unvaccinated.

Naturally, if unvaccinated are tested in such a way as to maximize false positives, then they’re going to make up the bulk of the so-called caseload. In reality, though, the vast majority of them aren’t sick.

Meanwhile, those who have received the jabs only count as a COVID case if they’re hospitalized and/or die with a positive test result. These widely differing testing strategies skew the data and allow for false interpretations to be made.

Natural Immunity Explains Decline in Cases

As noted by Kaplan, the most reasonable explanation for declining rates of SARS-CoV-2 appears to be natural immunity from previous infections, which vary considerably from state to state.7 He goes on to cite a study8 by the National Institutes of Health, which suggests SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was 4.8 times higher than previously thought, thanks to undiagnosed infection.

In other words, they claim that for every reported positive test result, there were likely nearly five additional people who had the infection but didn’t get a diagnosis. To analyze this data further, Kaplan calculated the natural immunity rate by dividing the new estimated number of people naturally infected by the population of any given state. He writes:9

“By mid-February 2021, an estimated 150 million people in the U.S. (30 million times five) may have had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. By April, I estimated the natural immunity rate to be above 55% in 10 states: Arizona, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

At the other end of the continuum, I estimated the natural immunity rate to be below 35% in the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington …

By the end of 2020, new infections were already rapidly declining in nearly all of the 10 states where the majority may have had natural immunity, well before more than a minuscule percentage of Americans were fully vaccinated. In 80% of these states, the day when new cases were at their peak occurred before vaccines were available.

In contrast, the 10 states with lower rates of previous infections were much more likely to experience new upticks in Covid-19 cases in March and April … By the end of May, states with fewer new infections had significantly lower vaccination rates than states with more new infections.”

COVID Shots Cannot Eliminate COVID-19

So, SARS-CoV-2 cases were actually higher in states where natural immunity was low but vaccination rates were high. Meanwhile, in states where natural immunity due to undiagnosed exposure was high, but vaccination rates were low, the daily new caseload was also lower.

This makes sense if natural immunity is highly effective (which, historically it has always been and there’s no reason to suspect SARS-CoV-2 is any different in that regard). It also makes sense if the COVID shots aren’t really offering any significant protection against infection, which we also know is the case.

Vaccine manufacturers have already admitted these COVID shots will not provide immunity, meaning they will not prevent you from being infected. The idea behind these gene modification injections is that if/when you do get infected, you’ll hopefully experience milder symptoms, even though you’re still infectious and can spread the virus to others.

Kaplan ends his analysis by saying that COVID shots are a safer way to achieve herd immunity and that they are “the best tool available for assuring that the smoldering fire of [COVID-19] is extinguished.” I disagree, based on two major issues.

First, and perhaps most importantly, this is an untested “vaccine” and we have no idea of the short-term let alone long-term damage it will cause, as any reasonable effort at collecting this data has been actively suppressed. Secondly, the survivability of COVID-19 outside of nursing homes is 99.74%. If you’re under the age of 40, your chance of surviving a bout of COVID-19 is 99.99%.10,11,12

You can’t really improve your chances of surviving beyond that, so COVID shots cannot realistically end the pandemic. Meanwhile, the COVID shots come with an ever-growing list of potential side effects that can take years if not decades of your natural life span. The shots are particularly unnecessary for anyone with natural immunity,13 yet that’s what the CDC recommends.14

Why Push COVID Jab on Those with Natural Immunity?

In January 2021, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate, sent a public letter15 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner detailing the risks of vaccinating individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection.

He urged the FDA to require prescreening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins to reduce the risk of injuries and deaths following vaccination, as the vaccine may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus. In March 2021, Fox TV host Tucker Carlson interviewed him about these risks. In that interview, Noorchashm said:16

“I think it’s a dramatic error on part of public health officials to try to put this vaccine into a one-size-fits-all paradigm … We’re going to take this problem we have with the COVID-19 pandemic, where a half-percent of the population is susceptible to dying, and compound it by causing totally avoidable harm by vaccinating people who are already infected …

The signal is deafening, the people who are having complications or adverse events are the people who have recently or are currently or previously infected [with COVID]. I don’t think we can ignore this.”

In an email to The Defender, Noorchashm fleshed out his concerns, saying:17

“Viral antigens persist in the tissues of the naturally infected for months. When the vaccine is used too early after a natural infection, or worse during an active infection, the vaccine force activates a powerful immune response that attacks the tissues where the natural viral antigens are persisting. This, I suggest, is the cause of the high level of adverse events and, likely deaths, we are seeing in the recently infected following vaccination.”

Despite being widely ignored, Noorchashm continues to push for the implementation of prevaccine screening using PCR or rapid antigen testing to determine whether the individual has an active infection and an IgG antibody test to determine past infection.

If either test is positive, he recommends delaying vaccination for a minimum of three to six months to allow your IgG levels to wane. At that point, he recommends testing your blood IgG level and use that as a guide to decide the timing of your vaccination.

Those with Natural Immunity Have Higher Risk of Side Effects

Mere weeks after Noorchashm’s letter to the FDA, an international survey18 confirmed his concerns. After surveying 2,002 people who had received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, they found that those who had previously had COVID-19 experienced “significantly increased incidence and severity” of side effects, compared to those who did not have natural immunity.

The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were linked to a higher incidence of side effects compared to the viral vector-based COVID-19 vaccines, but tended to be milder, local reactions. Systemic reactions, such as anaphylaxis, flu-like illness, and breathlessness, were more likely to occur with the viral vector COVID-19 vaccines.

Like Noorchashm before them, the researchers called on health officials to reevaluate their vaccination recommendations for people who’ve had COVID-19:19

“People with prior COVID-19 exposure were largely excluded from the vaccine trials and, as a result, the safety and reactogenicity of the vaccines in this population have not been previously fully evaluated. For the first time, this study demonstrates a significant association between prior COVID19 infection and a significantly higher incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after vaccination for COVID-19.

Consistently, compared to the first dose of the vaccine, we found an increased incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after the second dose, when recipients had been previously exposed to viral antigen.

In view of the rapidly accumulating data demonstrating that COVID-19 survivors generally have adequate natural immunity for at least 6 months, it may be appropriate to re-evaluate the recommendation for immediate vaccination of this group.”

CDC Misrepresents Data to Push Jab on Those with Immunity

So far, the CDC has refused to change its stance on the matter. Instead, officials at the agency seem to have doubled down and actually go out of their way to misrepresent data in an effort to harass those with natural immunity to inappropriately take the jab, which is clearly clinically unnecessary.

In a report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on December 18, 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was said to have “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.20

After looking at the Pfizer trial data, Rep. Thomas Massie — a Republican Congressman for Kentucky and an award-winning scientist in his own right — discovered that’s completely wrong. In January 30, 2021, Full Measure report, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson described how Massie tried, in vain, to get the CDC to correct its error. According to Massie:21,22

“There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either …

It [the CDC report] says the exact opposite of what the data says. They’re giving people the impression that this vaccine will save your life, or save you from suffering, even if you’ve already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or the Moderna trial.”

After multiple phone calls, CDC deputy director Dr. Anne Schuchat finally acknowledged the error and told Massie it would be fixed. “As you note correctly, there is not sufficient analysis to show that in the subset of only the people with prior infection, there’s efficacy. So, you’re correct that that sentence is wrong and that we need to make a correction of it,” Schuchat said in the recorded call.

January 29, 2021, the CDC issued its supposed correction, but rather than fix the error, they simply rephrased the mistake in a different way. This was the “correction” they issued:

“Consistent high efficacy (≥92%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Efficacy was similarly high in a secondary analysis including participants both with or without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

As you can see, the “correction” still misleadingly suggests that vaccination is effective for those previously infected, even though the data showed no such thing. Children of ever-younger ages are also being pushed to get the COVID jab, even though they have the absolute lowest risk of dying from COVID-19 of any group.

Data23 from the first 12 months of the pandemic in the U.K. show just 25 people under the age of 18 died from or with COVID-19.24 In all, 251 children under 18 were admitted to intensive care between March 2020 and February 2021. The absolute risk of death from COVID-19 in children is 2 in 1 million.

Vaccine Provides Far Less Protection Than Natural Immunity

While some claim vaccine-induced immunity offers greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection than natural immunity, historical and current real-world data simply fail to support this non-common sense assertion.

As recently reported by Attkisson25,26 and David Rosenberg 7 Israeli National News,27 recent Israeli data show those who have received the COVID jab are 6.72 times more likely to get infected than people who have recovered from natural infection.

Among the 7,700 new COVID cases diagnosed so far during the current wave of infections that began in May 2021, 39% were vaccinated (about 3,000 cases), 1% (72 patients) had recovered from a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and 60% were neither vaccinated nor previously infected. Israeli National News notes:28

“With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.

By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.”

Breakthrough Infections Are on the Rise

Other Israeli data also suggest the limited protection offered by the COVID shot is rapidly eroding. August 1, 2021, director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.29 Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.

Even worse, on August 5, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall.30

Other areas where a clear majority of residents have been vaccinated are also seeing spikes in breakthrough cases. In Gibraltar, which has a 99% COVID jab compliance rate, COVID cases have risen by 2,500% since June 1, 2021.31

US Outbreak Shatters ‘Pandemic of Unvaccinated’ Narrative

An investigation by the CDC32,33 also dispels the narrative that we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” An outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, resulted in 469 new COVID cases among residents who had traveled into town between July 3 and July 17, 2021.

Of these cases, 74% were fully vaccinated, as were 80% of those requiring hospitalization. Most, but not all, had the Delta variant of the virus. The CDC also found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection had as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who got infected.34 This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated. According to Attkisson:35

“CDC’s newest findings on so-called ‘breakthrough’ infections in vaccinated people are mirrored by other data releases. Illinois health officials recently announced36 more than 160 fully-vaccinated people have died of Covid-19, and at least 644 been hospitalized; 10 deaths and 51 hospitalizations counted in the prior week …

In July, New Jersey reported 49 fully vaccinated residents had died of Covid; 27 in Louisiana; 80 in Massachusetts … Nationally, as of July 12, CDC said it was aware of more than 4,400 people who got Covid-19 after being fully vaccinated and had to be hospitalized; and 1,063 fully vaccinated people who died of Covid.”

It is important to note this data is over 1 month old now and it is likely that many thousands of fully “vaccinated” have now died from COVID-19.

Natural Immunity Appears Robust and Long-Lasting

An argument we’re starting to hear more of now is that even though natural immunity after recovery from infection appears to be quite good, “we don’t know how long it’ll last.” This is rather disingenuous, seeing how natural immunity is typically lifelong, and studies have shown natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is at a bare minimum longer-lasting than vaccine-induced immunity.

Here’s a sampling of scholarly publications that have investigated natural immunity as it pertains to SARS-CoV-2 infection. There are several more in addition to these:37

Science Immunology October 202038 found that “RBD-targeted antibodies are excellent markers of previous and recent infection, that differential isotype measurements can help distinguish between recent and older infections, and those IgG responses persist over the first few months after infection and are highly correlated with neutralizing antibodies.”
The BMJ January 202139 concluded that “Of 11, 000 health care workers who had proved evidence of infection during the first wave of the pandemic in the U.K. between March and April 2020, none had symptomatic reinfection in the second wave of the virus between October and November 2020.”
Science February 202140 reported that “Substantial immune memory is generated after COVID-19, involving all four major types of immune memory [antibodies, memory B cells, memory CD8+ T cells, and memory CD4+ T cells]. About 95% of subjects retained immune memory at ~6 months after infection. Circulating antibody titers were not predictive of T cell memory.

Thus, simple serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies do not reflect the richness and durability of immune memory to SARS-CoV-2.” A 2,800-person study found no symptomatic reinfections over a ~118-day window, and a 1,246-person study observed no symptomatic reinfections over 6 months.

A February 2021 study posted on the prepublication server medRxiv41 concluded that “Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months.”
An April 2021 study posted on medRxiv42 reported “the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94.8%; hospitalization 94.1%; and severe illness 96·4%. Our results question the need to vaccinate previously infected individuals.”
Another April 2021 study posted on the preprint server BioRxiv43 concluded that “following a typical case of mild COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells not only persist but continuously differentiate in a coordinated fashion well into convalescence, into a state characteristic of long-lived, self-renewing memory.”
A May 2020 report in the journal Immunity44 confirmed that SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralizing antibodies are detected in COVID-19 convalescent subjects, as well as cellular immune responses. Here, they found that neutralizing antibody titers do correlate with the number of virus-specific T cells.
A May 2021 Nature article45 found SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells, which are a crucial source of protective antibodies. Even after a mild infection, anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies were detectable beyond 11 months post-infection.
A May 2021 study in E Clinical Medicine46 found “antibody detection is possible for almost a year post-natural infection of COVID-19.” According to the authors, “Based on current evidence, we hypothesize that antibodies to both S and N-proteins after natural infection may persist for longer than previously thought, thereby providing evidence of sustainability that may influence post-pandemic planning.”
Cure-Hub data47 confirm that while COVID shots can generate higher antibody levels than natural infection, this does not mean vaccine-induced immunity is more protective. Importantly, natural immunity confers much wider protection as your body recognizes all five proteins of the virus and not just one. With the COVID shot, your body only recognizes one of these proteins, the spike protein.
A June 2021 Nature article48 points out that “Wang et al. show that, between 6 and 12 months after infection, the concentration of neutralizing antibodies remains unchanged. That the acute immune reaction extends even beyond six months is suggested by the authors’ analysis of SARS-CoV-2-specific memory B cells in the blood of the convalescent individuals over the course of the year.

These memory B cells continuously enhance the reactivity of their SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies through a process known as somatic hypermutation. The good news is that the evidence thus far predicts that infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces long-term immunity in most individuals.”

Another June Nature paper concluded that “In the absence of vaccination antibody reactivity [to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2], neutralizing activity and the number of RBD-specific memory B cells remain relatively stable from 6 to 12 months.” According to the authors, the data suggest “immunity in convalescent individuals will be very long-lasting.”

What Makes Natural Immunity Superior?

The reason natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity is that viruses contain five different proteins. The COVID shot induces antibodies against just one of those proteins, the spike protein, and no T cell immunity. When you’re infected with the whole virus, you develop antibodies against all parts of the virus, plus memory T cells.

This also means natural immunity offers better protection against variants, as it recognizes several parts of the virus. If there are significant alternations to the spike protein, as with the Delta variant, vaccine-induced immunity can be evaded. Not so with natural immunity, as the other proteins are still recognized and attacked.

Not only that but the COVID jabs actually actively promote the production of variants for which they provide virtually no protection at all, while those with natural immunity do not cause variants and are nearly universally protected against them.

If we are to depend on vaccine-induced immunity, as public health officials are urging us to do, we’ll end up on a never-ending booster treadmill. Boosters will absolutely be necessary, as the shot offers such narrow protection against a single protein of the virus. Already, Moderna has publicly stated that the need for additional boosters is expected.49

Ultimately It’s About Wealth Transfer, Power and Control

Government agencies typically don’t issue recommendations without ulterior motives. Since current recommendations make absolutely no sense from a medical and scientific standpoint, what might the reason be for these illogical and reprehensibly unethical recommendations to inject people who don’t need it with experimental gene modification technology?

Why are they so hell-bent on getting a needle in every arm? And why are they refusing to perform any kind of risk-benefit analysis?

Data already indicate these COVID-19 injections could be the most dangerous medical product we’ve ever seen, and June 24, 2021, peer-reviewed study published in the medical journal Vaccines warned we are in fact killing nearly as many with the shots as would die from COVID-19 itself.50

Using data from a large Israeli field study and two European drug reactions databases, they recalculated the NNTV for Pfizer’s mRNA shot. To prevent one case of COVID-19, anywhere between 200 and 700 had to be injected. To prevent a single death, the NNTV was between 9,000 and 50,000, with 16,000 as a point estimate.

Meanwhile, the number of people reporting adverse reactions from the shots was 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. For serious side effects, there were 16 reports per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects was 4.11 per 100,000 vaccinations.

The final calculation suggested that for every three COVID-19 deaths prevented, two died from the shots. “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy,” the authors concluded.

As has become the trend, a letter expressing “concern” about the study was published June 28, 2021, resulting in the paper being abruptly retracted July 2, 2021, against the authors’ objections. They disagreed with the accusation that their data and subsequent conclusion were misrepresentative, but the paper was retracted before they had time to publish a rebuttal.

Based on everything we’ve discovered so far, it seems a pandemic virus industrial complex is running the show, with a goal to eliminate medical rights and personal freedoms in order to centralize power, control, and wealth.

By the looks of things, the COVID-19 mass psychosis and loss of any rational thinking by nearly half the population will continue to persist as long as the propaganda continues. Fear will continue and if need be, other engineered viruses may be released, for which they’ll create even more gene modification injections.

I believe the truth will eventually be so overwhelming, it’ll sweep away the confusion and the lies.

Sources and References

Why You Can’t Trust What the FDA Says About Ivermectin

By Julius Dahne |  Covid-19 Up

Most people in the United States have not heard of ivermectin even though it’s been around for more than 30 years and is one of the most distributed drugs on Earth, with more than 2.5 billion doses given out globally over the last 30 years.

Many Americans first started to learn about ivermectin in December 2020 when Dr. Pierre Kory testified in front of the Homeland Security Committee and gave an impassioned testimony about the medicine as a treatment for COVID-19, but the backlash against his position soon arrived.

On March 5, the FDA published a statement online entitled Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19. You may think that the statement would discuss the FDA’s research on the effectiveness and safety of ivermectin, a cheap generic drug whose patent expired in 1996, but instead, their statement was a masterful sleight of hand, as it does not say what most people think it says.

As it turns out, the FDA did no research to investigate ivermectin’s effectiveness, as we will discover.

Many news organizations have parroted the FDA’s statements. For example, a CBS Evening News report broadcast on July 1, called ivermectin a “horse gel,” as reporter David Begnaud stared into the camera and said, “a lot of humans have tried it, and they’ve ended up in the hospital.”

What are the facts? The remarkable thing is that in the FDA’s short statement, the agency included one outright lie, one very interesting act of misdirection, and one very surprising admission—none of which, to my knowledge, has been discussed in the mainstream media so far.

Let’s just call them:


Myth #1) Ivermectin is not an anti-viral, it’s just a horse de-wormer.

Myth #2) Many people are getting sick from using ivermectin when they are trying to use it for COVID-19.

Myth #3) The FDA has researched the effectiveness of ivermectin against COVID-19.

Let’s unpack these myths.

Myth #1) Ivermectin is not an antiviral, It’s just a horse de-wormer.

The FDA states in their warning, “Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses.)” But ivermectin is a potent antiviral. (By the way, no one besides the FDA uses a hyphen in the middle of the word “antiviral.”)

As recorded in the June 2020 issue of the journal Antiviral Research, a single treatment of ivermectin was able to cause a 5,000-fold reduction of SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture within 48 hours. This news was widely reported in the press, everywhere from The Guardian in Great Britain to Medscape.com, a top medical news website. So how did the FDA miss it? It seems they weren’t looking very hard.

Beyond COVID-19, ivermectin has been shown to be an antiviral agent against at least 18 other viruses. As reported in 2020 in the journal Cells, “cell culture experiments show (ivermectin exhibits) robust antiviral action towards HIV-1, dengue virus (DENV), Zika virus, West Nile virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, Chikungunya virus, Pseudorabies virus, adenovirus, and SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19.)”

Not only can we point to medical journals to make the case that ivermectin is an antiviral, we can also use the FDA’s own documents. You see, this author filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on July 19 to see the documents that the FDA used to make their recommendation to not use ivermectin.

The FOIA memorandum I received states, “Ivermectin has known in vitro antiviral properties, and was initially described in the context of COVID-19 in April 2020. On April 3, 2020, Caly et al. published in vitro data that demonstrated ivermectin inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 viral replication.”

Thanks, FDA, for admitting you told a whopper of an untruth.

On this point, we can also look to a research paper published June 17 on the website of The Lancet, one of the world’s most respected medical journals, Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with COVID-19: A proof-of-concept randomized trial. The study concluded that higher doses of ivermectin did reduce viral activity at higher rates. In other words, it’s an antiviral—against COVID-19.

To be fair, it is not used widely as an antiviral medication, except where it is being used around the world right now against COVID-19.

How does it work in connection with coronavirus? Without getting too technical, it binds with the viral RdRP, which are enzymes needed to help the virus reproduce itself, and it disrupts this RdRP.  In other words, it stops the virus from making copies of itself.

And there are about 60 other studies that show ivermectin works well against the virus of COVID-19 which can be found at C19ivermectin.com.

Let’s move on.

Myth #2) Many people are getting sick from using ivermectin when they are trying to use it for COVID.

The main argument that the FDA makes in their statement is that people are getting sick from using ivermectin. They focus on the fact that there is a version of ivermectin that is meant for animals.

They say, “The FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses.” They have a sub-headline that reads “Ivermectin Products for Animals Are Different from Ivermectin Products for People.”

Yes, veterinary drugs are different from human drugs.

Yes, it could be dangerous to ingest veterinary drugs as they may have ingredients not safe for human use as well as vastly different potencies.

And yes, ivermectin is also used as a horse dewormer.

Did you know that Viagra was originally developed for heart issues? Did you know that remdesivir, the drug touted by Dr. Anthony Fauci for COVID-19, was originally developed for hepatitis?

Oddly, while there are many headlines mocking the use of ivermectin as an “animal dewormer” there are no headlines mocking remdesivir as a hepatitis drug.

What about the ivermectin that is FDA-approved? Is anybody getting sick taking that? The FDA is strangely silent on this point.

Their main headline is Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19, but really their headline should read Why You Should Not Use Animal Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19. They don’t bring any evidence at all that anyone has been injured by using the FDA-approved version to treat COVID-19.

So that’s misdirection. In the many months that I have been intently following this story, I cannot remember reading about or seeing a single doctor recommending animal ivermectin for human consumption. But there are many doctors, such as the doctors in the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, who are recommending the off-label use of FDA-approved ivermectin for patients because they have seen it work, both in reducing hospitalizations and deaths significantly, especially when it is used early.

Safety of Ivermectin

Is ivermectin safe for humans to use? You might get the feeling, reading the FDA statement, that it is quite dangerous. That was certainly the impression that CBS News wanted to leave their viewers with when they reported that “a lot of humans have tried it, and they’ve wound up in the hospital.” That was also clearly the impression that ScienceAlert.com wanted to share when they ran the story: People Are Accidentally Poisoning Themselves Trying to Treat COVID With a Horse Drug.

You may be surprised to learn that 300 million people use ivermectin every year, mostly in Africa and Latin America, because it very effectively fights river blindness. It is distributed for free by non-profit organizations such as the Carter Center and even the US government organization USAID. It is donated by the pharmaceutical company Merck. To put that number of 300 million in perspective, that’s about equal to the populations of England, France, Germany, and Australia put together.

The Nobel-prize-winning scientist (he won his prize for developing ivermectin) Satoshi Omura reports that the rate of Serious Adverse Events for ivermectin is one per million doses. It is an extremely safe medicine. However, like any drug, there exists the potential for drug interactions. In addition, it should not be taken by people with an impaired blood-brain barrier, pregnant women, and women who have just given birth. There is limited evidence on its safety for children under age 5 and for those who weigh less than 15 kg or 33 pounds.

Who else is on record saying that ivermectin is safe?

How about the New York Times? In June 2019, the New York Times ran an article about ivermectin saying, “the drug is considered safe enough to give to almost everyone except the youngest infants and pregnant women.”

Or how about the National Capitol Poison Center, which has upon its website at Poison.org: “To date, ivermectin has been shown to be a safe and well-tolerated drug.”

In fact, what about the World Health Organization? While they have been funding laudable programs globally to distribute ivermectin to fight river blindness, they funded public relations materials such as this poster, which states, “Mectizan Is For Everybody.”

What is Mectizan? It’s simply a trading name for ivermectin. The World Health Organization was on board with the safety of ivermectin, at least until it was recommended for COVID-19.

Here’s a close-up of the bottom of this poster:

What about the poisonings that the FDA say are happening? Didn’t the FDA say there were “multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses”?

My FOIA documents from the FDA say that “evidence that people are misusing ivermectin products for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has emerged. This may be in part due to the ease of procurement (e.g. via Amazon or pet stores) and availability of veterinary topical ivermectin products to the general public.” Again, we are talking about veterinary ivermectin, not that which is FDA-approved for human use.

The FDA’s Department of Pharmacovigilance retrieved 400 cases of exposure to ivermectin products. Of these, 92 were labeled “intentional,” and the rest were presumably accidents. Of these 92 there were only five in the category of deaths and “major effects.” Among these were one death and four outcomes labeled “major effect.” However, two of these were related to psychiatric medical problems (for example, a suspected suicide attempt).

When you take out the cases of people with psychiatric problems, you are left with three people with either death or what the FDA terms a “major effect.”

The FDA also reported that there were four other cases of intentional misuse related to using ivermectin for COVID-19 that led to what the FDA classifies as a “moderate or potentially toxic effect.”

So that’s seven cases altogether.

For some reason, in this new FOIA document dump, only six of these are described in depth. Four out of the six were people ingesting animal ivermectin, which to the best of my knowledge is not recommended by any doctors promoting the use of ivermectin for COVID-19.

That leaves only two cases described involving human FDA-approved ivermectin. One is the case of a person feeling light-headed, which soon resolved. And finally, we have a case of an 80-year-old man who experienced a racing heart rate, but he was also taking oxycodone, an opiate drug, along with ivermectin. His high heart rate may have been caused by oxycodone. He was released from the hospital after two days of treatment.

So as far as can be seen in these FOIA documents, there are no known cases of people taking FDA-approved ivermectin for COVID-19 and suffering severe and lasting ill effects. None.

That’s a slim basis to tell people not to take ivermectin that they could get a prescription for. Especially when many meta-analyses now show that it would dramatically reduce deaths from COVID-19.

Myth #3) The FDA has researched the effectiveness of ivermectin against COVID.

This is the easiest one to prove, as the FDA states it outright in their statement, although it’s not clear anyone was really paying attention.

To quote the FDA, “The FDA has not reviewed data to support the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or prevent COVID-19.  However, some initial research is underway.” What?

Let me repeat that one more time, a little slower.

“The FDA has …. not…. reviewed… data….to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or prevent COVID-19.”

So, just to get this straight, there have been more than 100 trials involving ivermectin, including 60 peer-reviewed studies. Those studies have involved almost 600 scientists and nearly 25,000 patients. Pooling studies together, it is estimated that ivermectin reduces the risk of death by 66%. And yet by March 2021, the FDA, with its nearly 15,000 employees and a budget exceeding $3 billion, couldn’t be bothered to review the data to support the use of ivermectin, a drug that has been used against COVID-19 in more than 30 countries around the world.

On their website, the FDA states, “FDA is responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medical products more effective, safer, and more affordable and by helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medical products and foods to maintain and improve their health.”

“Speed innovations?” It is now August 2021, five months after this statement, and still there is no word from the FDA on whether they have deigned to “review the data” on ivermectin.

The FDA Gets Their Money for Drug Oversight …. From the Drug Companies
Oh, never mind. I think it’s clear that even if the FDA ever decides to “review the data” on ivermectin, they will be doing so from a position of bias against this very safe drug.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that many of the people who work for the FDA go on to work for big pharmaceutical companies, so maybe it’s not best to promote cheap generic drugs at the FDA.

Or maybe it has to do with the little-known and surprising fact that most of the funding of the FDA’s drug oversight programs comes directly from the drug companies themselves, not taxpayer dollars. In 2015, only 29% of the money for prescription drug oversight came from Congress. The remaining 71%, almost three-quarters of the funding, came directly from the drug manufacturers. In 2015, that was $796 million straight from Big Pharma to the FDA, under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA).

In the opinion of the nonprofit group the Project on Government Oversight, the “FDA is addicted to drug money.”

And that money comes with strings attached. Every five years, the FDA sits in meetings with drug manufacturers to negotiate a new agreement over how these PDUFA funds are to be used, and often the agreements tie the FDA’s hands. For example, from 1992 to 2002, these PDUFA funds could NOT be used for “postmarketing safety surveillance.”

In other words, these funds could not be used to make sure that the drugs were approved were safe for use. In the next five-year authorization, “a small amount of fee revenues (about 5%) was permitted to be used for post-marketing drug safety activities; however, restrictions on when these funds could be spent (only for drugs approved after 2002, and for up to 2 years after approval, or up to 3 years for “potentially serious drugs”) limited their effectiveness,” according to a report published by the National Academy of Sciences.

In addition to explicitly restricting the FDA from investigating drug safety, the PDUFA negotiations focus on speed. The drug companies want drugs approved as fast as possible, and they negotiate with the FDA for quick target dates for agency action.

In an investigation by the non-partisan non-profit group Project on Government Oversight (POGO), we see that those fast deadlines may have deadly effects.

Former FDA drug reviewer Ron Kavanagh told POGO that, when he was at the agency from 1998 to 2008, PDUFA’s target dates for FDA action left too little time to review drug company submissions, which could total 160,000 pages not counting supporting data. Reviewers were told not to worry about studying all of the material, Kavanagh said.

“There’s a lot of things I simply didn’t look at,” Kavanagh said. “And even without looking at things I barely made the deadlines.”

Kavanagh shared an internal FDA email from 2007 in which he gave this account: ‘I finally had to stand up and say that I would take being written up for insubordination and would risk a poor performance evaluation, but that I would not curtail my evaluation of a potential safety concern simply to meet a PDUFA goal date.’

He was later fired.

FDA safety official David Graham told a Senate hearing in 2004 that the FDA “views the pharmaceutical industry it is supposed to regulate as its client. It overvalues the benefits of the drugs it approves, and it seriously undervalues, disregards and disrespects drug safety.” Dr. Graham fought to raise an alarm about the arthritis drug Vioxx, which was causing heart attacks within two weeks of its first use. Ultimately, observers believe Vioxx led to the deaths of a minimum of 40,000 people.

And the problem has existed for decades before that. In 1977, a governmental panel reported, “Many current and former FDA employees and consultants had testified to Congressional committees that industry pressure caused FDA officials to approve drugs that did not meet agency safety and effectiveness standards and that those who attempted to oppose industry demands were harshly and improperly treated by senior FDA officials.”

And that circles back to what is perhaps the real reason why ivermectin is suppressed: the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

As you may know, the COVID-19 vaccines are not FDA-approved. The only way they can be legally used in the United States today is through a legal “work-around” called the Emergency Use Authorization. The idea being that in a real emergency we need medications that work right away. There must be an “emergency” to justify the Emergency Use Authorization. The way the law works is that “FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products… when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”

So as the law stands now, if there were “adequate, approved and available alternatives” to a vaccine, the EUA for the vaccine would be invalid. And if the EUA was invalidated, there would be no legal permission to distribute the COVID-19 vaccines. And the billions of dollars of vaccine profits would cease flowing for Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, etc.

Perhaps that’s the reason, or at least part of the reason, why the FDA has consistently refused to look seriously at any early treatment options.

Maybe that’s why their 14,000 employees haven’t had the time to examine a cheap little generic drug that nobody is going to make billions off of.

This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish it under a Creative Commons license with attribution to COVID19Up.org.

Dr. Zev Zelenko’s Prophylaxis and Treatment Protocols for COVID-19


Source: rumble.com

Starting at around 15:30 into the above video, Dr. Vladimir “Zev” Zelenko describes his “Z-stack” treatment protocols for COVID-19, which consists of Quercetin, Vitamin C, Vitamin D and Zinc. Learn more at his website, including the recommended daily amount for each supplement:

Zelenko Covid-19 Prophylaxis Protocol

Covid-19 Treatment Protocol


  1. Do your own research as to the efficacy of Dr. Zelenko’s protocols, and his claims regarding the number of deaths for those who have taken a COVID-19 vaccine.
  2. Dr. Zelenko’s protocols are provided here for information only. Consult with your doctor before using these protocols.

About Dr. Zelenko

Dr. Vladimir “Zev” Zelenko is the Doctor who recommended that President Trump take hydroxychloroquine

-Zelenko Protocol innovator: claims 99% survival of high risk Covid-19 patients

-Nominated for the Presidential Medal of Freedom

-Nominated for the Nobel Prize

-Published in top peer reviewed journals with world renowned physicians

-Provided counsel to White House personnel, multiple governments, hospitals, physicians, public figures

-Board Certified Family Physician with over 20 years experience BRINGS HOPE for those who are trapped in the imminent feeling of doom.

This Is the Best Time to Consult an Orthopedic Spine Surgeon New York. Read to Know Why!

An orthopedic spine surgeon New York understands that the spine is a critical part of the body because it shields the spinal cord – the vital collection of nerves that will transmit messages from the brain to the entire body. Additionally, it is critical for supporting your posture, particularly your head and neck.

If you are suffering from chronic severe back or spine pain, you have almost certainly seen a doctor to attempt to alleviate pain, increase mobility, or both. But when should you consult a spine surgeon?

Orthopedic spine surgery is generally reserved for patients whose pain or mobility significantly impairs their daily lives even though they had already exhausted numerous non-surgical options. However, this does not mean you must wait until you have exhausted all other possibilities before consulting a spine surgeon.\

There is a team of neck and spine surgeons and psychiatrists who are experts at evaluating, diagnosing, and treating neck and spine disorders – but not limited to – surgery. Their expertise includes non-surgical spine care, including interventional spine treatment, physical therapy, and injections.

Seeing an orthopedic spine surgeon in New York who takes this method will provide you with the most outstanding treatment options. They will employ critical diagnostic techniques to make the most informed recommendations possible. They will work closely with each patient to gain a thorough understanding of their symptoms, lifestyle, and overall health, and also short and long-term goals.

The critical nature of a thorough diagnosis before recommending spine surgery.

An orthopedic spine surgeon New York will use thorough physical examination, various imaging techniques, and other diagnostic methods to determine the source of pain and rule out any apparent anatomical abnormality that might be pinching a nerve or creating instability. Several common conditions may necessitate a surgical recommendation, including the following:

Spinal Stenosis: a condition in which the spinal cord is compressed because of narrowing the spinal column.

Discs degeneration, herniation, or rupture of the discs that act as cushions between the spine’s bones.

Fractures: these can range from microfractures due to osteoporosis to more severe fractures caused by trauma like a car accident.

Spondylolisthesis: a condition in which one or more bones slip forward onto the bone below.

However, there are times when there is no perceptible anatomical abnormality. In these cases, an orthopedic spine surgeon will generally decline to recommend surgery, as no obvious problem could be corrected surgically. Of course, there are always exceptions; that is one of the many reasons it is critical to consult an orthopedic spine surgeon New York with a broad range of expertise.

The most comprehensive spine surgeons consider the entire patient and prioritize non-surgical options before recommending surgery, avoiding the use of spine surgery as a ‘fishing expedition’ for the source of pain.

A detailed examination will determine the most appropriate course of treatment for you.

Non-surgical options include the following:

  • Modifications to activity levels through the use of periodic stretches, massages, and rest periods
  • Treatments with heat and ice
  • Aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
  • Steroid injections or oral medications can help alleviate the underlying inflammation that is causing the discomfort.
  • Physical therapy to aid in the reduction of back strain caused by your body’s structural support system

Additionally, consider minimally invasive surgical procedures. Minimally invasive procedures are frequently used to treat herniated discs, spinal infections, fractured vertebrae, deformities, or spine instability.

Due to the smaller incisions used in these procedures, their minimal impact on adjacent muscles and soft tissue results in less pain and a faster post-operative recovery.

Among the minimally invasive procedures are the following:

  • Lumbar decompression: The removal of bone fragments or a herniated disk to alleviate stress on spinal nerves
  • Spinal fusion: The process of fusing damaged vertebrae together to form a single stable bone.
  • Discectomy: Excision of a disk in the back or neck
  • Laminectomy: The posterior portion of a vertebra is removed to make room for the spinal nerve.

Characteristics That You Should Look for Of an Orthopedic Spine Surgeon New York

Despite their title as “surgeons,” orthopedic spine surgeons New York are experts in spinal disorders’ surgical and non-surgical care. Below is the list of the characteristics that an orthopedic spine surgeon New York should possess:

1. Extensive training

Orthopedic spine surgeons receive extensive formal education and training over several years. Inquire whether your surgeon has completed a spinal surgery fellowship, which offers ample, extensive training in all spinal ailments and disorders. Choose a board-certified surgeon, which indicates that he or she possesses the highest level of knowledge and experience in this field.

2. Proficient in treating your spinal condition

Even though orthopedic spine surgery is a subspecialty of medicine, it covers a broad range of conditions. Whether you have a sports injury or a spinal tumor, you need a surgeon who has extensive experience treating your specific condition. If you require a particular procedure, inquire about the surgeon’s experience performing that procedure and the outcomes.

3. A track record of exceptional patient satisfaction

Referrals from former patients can be beneficial. Inquire of family, friends, and workmates whether they have encountered the surgeon or are aware of someone who has. Patient satisfaction is a defining characteristic of a great orthopedic spine surgeon. It encompasses more than just successful surgical results is classified by an overall favorable experience throughout the procedure.

4. Competent in the application of minimally invasive techniques and emerging technologies

Spinal surgery has advanced significantly in recent years. You will expect a surgeon knowledgeable about the newest evidence-based technologies and practices to guarantee that you get the best care possible. New imaging systems make it possible to identify the source of pain more quickly and precisely and might be utilized to cure the pain itself. Locating a surgeon skilled in minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) can result in shorter hospital stays, smaller incisions, and faster recovery.

5. Is within your financial constraints

Healthcare is definitely not free and could cost you a lot; however, this does not mean that quality must be sacrificed. Once you have identified an orthopedic spine surgeon who meets all of your medical criteria, do not be afraid to discuss payment options. A reputable physician’s office will be upfront about costs and would work with you to know your insurance coverage and out-of-pocket expenses.

How Can CBD Hemp Flowers Help with Panic Attacks?

Social Anxiety and Panic Attacks 

People deal with anxiety and stress daily. Anxiety disorders are one of the most common mental illnesses in cities and towns. People often resort to and seek medical help to treat anxiety because of how severe it can get. Panic attacks and anxiety affect daily tasks and make it inconvenient to lead a stress-free life. Anxiety disorders and attacks can exist on multiple levels and occur at any point. It usually happens when the body is in stressful situations that cause a feeling of discomfort. People tend to experience different symptoms such as shortness of breath, dizziness, low morale, irritation, restlessness, and much more.

These symptoms are likely to grow and affect daily tasks and human relationships. While there exist medically prescribed treatments for anxiety, CBD acts as an organic alternative that works without side effects and has numerous medicinal properties. It is a valuable form of reducing the frequency of anxiety and stress.

How does CBD work with Panic Attacks and Anxiety? 

Cannabidiol or CBD is a naturally occurring compound found in the cannabis plant. Unlike THC that uses psychoactive properties, CBD is free from any mind-altering compounds and is naturally beneficial for multiple reasons. CBD reacts with the endocannabinoid system of the body and regulates bodily functions. It balances the system and transfers signals between neurons. CBD exists in multiple variants and forms. A hemp flower is a form of cannabis that contains CBD that is popular to treat anxiety. A CBD hemp flower has buds that hold cannabidiol without THC. They contain terpenes, cannabinoids, and flavonoids that are advantageous in dealing with anxiety and stress.

CBD regulates functions inside the body by affecting our nervous and immune systems. The compounds have a relaxing effect on the body and signal the body to calm down. The benefits of CBD are numerous. CBD flowers help with inflammation, nausea, chronic pain, insomnia, and concentration.

Source: Pixabay

Benefits of CBD Hemp Flower 

1. Social Anxiety – CBD is known to react with the body and relax the nervous system by creating balance. It helps people with a variety of anxiety disorders by relaxing muscles to destress. It helps in situations of stress wherein the body panics and tenses itself. Hemp flowers contain low to negligible levels of THC and calm the body down.

2. Natural Antidepressant – Several panic attacks also occur due to previous depression periods. CBD boosts serotonin levels by showing stress-induced depression. Serotonin allows the body to feel happy and elevates mood. CBD hemp flowers are also known to work faster than other medications. Smoking CBD hemp flowers causes them to react immediately by entering the bloodstream.

3. Antiseptic Properties – CBD has shown stabilizing characteristics in racing thoughts, hallucinations, depression, and other disorders. CBD has neuroprotective properties which reduce the rate of panic attacks by controlling muscle spasms and stress reactions. These calming properties allow CBD to act as a natural alternative that mellows and soothes the body into relaxation.

4. Relaxes Fear – CBD has shown signs of reducing past conflicts and memories that create a sense of fear. It decreases the expression of fear and enhances the process of eliminating fearful memories. The flower is neither dangerous nor harsh. It is safe to consume in a variety of manners.

A panic attack is a temporary situation of terror or anxiety due to internal or external circumstances that stress the body and prevent it from reacting the way it usually does. People tend to lose control during attacks and respond in different ways during an outburst. They are not pleasant to experience and ruin the mindset or mood for the entire day. Frequent panic attacks also cause panic disorders that require constant medication. While they are not life-threatening, they severely impact morale and general confidence. They can ruin moods and upset work efficiency, relationships, and routines.

Source: Pixabay

Hemp Flower – Panic Attacks and their Control 

The entourage effect is a popular effect of the hemp flower when consumed whole and not isolated. That allows the flower to produce its full effect with better results. The consumption of the hemp flower as a whole enables properties and compounds such as cannabinoids, terpenes, flavonoids, and fatty acids to act together. That produces a better result than these compounds taken in isolation. There are usually 3 methods of consuming the hemp flower –

1. Smoking – This is the easiest and most common way of consuming CBD hemp flowers. There are also numerous ways to smoke the flower. The effects are felt instantly through this method. They can be rolled or inhaled through a pipe.

2. Vaping – This method is through a device called a dry herb vaporizer. The device heats the flower and releases a cloud of smoke to inhale. This method is known to be safer than smoking as it avoids the production of tar.

3. Infused Oils – This method is slightly more complex as CBD is extracted and infused with oil and then kept below the tongue or turned into edibles for consumption at leisure.

CBD Hemp flowers contain valuable compounds such as CBD and CBG that reduce stress, pain, and inflammation. They are known for their therapeutic effects. They contain terpenes which are responsible for giving flowers their unique scents and flavors. Terpenes also ease panic-related symptoms in addition to their distinct smell, taste, and reaction.


People suffer from anxiety daily. It occurs to many people on different levels. Some are serious, and the others are rare and momentary. Millions of people suffer from panic attacks where their bodies cannot react according to will and respond with outbursts of tension and stress. While medications do exist, they come with their side effects and take weeks to react. CBD is an organic and harmless alternative that soothes the body. CBD hemp flowers can be consumed in many ways and immediately interact with the body. A majority of people have noticed immediate and positive changes in stress relief. More people need to explore hemp flowers as a helpful alternative to existing medications and treatments.

Scientific Proof that We Can Heal Ourselves

Video Source: TEDx Talks

Lissa Rankin, MD explores the scientific literature, reviewing case studies of spontaneous remission, as well as placebo and nocebo effect data, to prove that our thoughts powerfully affect our physiology when we believe we can get well.

Why the FDA is Attacking NAC Supplements?

By Alliance for Natural Health

N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC) has been on the market as a supplement for decades—why is the FDA attacking it now?

A few weeks ago, we told you about the FDA’s recent actions threatening NAC supplements—products that the FDA has allowed on the market for decades.

The question is, why now, after all these years, is the FDA doing this?

Digging a bit deeper, it seems obvious that the FDA is clearing the market of affordable NAC supplements in an effort to eliminate competition for NAC drugs that could be coming to market in the next few years.

If our suspicions are correct, this would be another outrageous example of the FDA doing Big Pharma’s dirty work.

To briefly recap how we got here: In a slew of warning letters sent last year, the FDA targeted a number of supplement companies marketing “unapproved” cures for hangovers—which the agency absurdly considers to be a “disease.”

Some of these products contain NAC. In the letters to those companies, the FDA states that NAC does not meet the legal definition of a supplement because it was approved as a drug in 1963; according to federal law, any substance approved as a drug before it was sold as a supplement cannot be sold as a supplement. All of this means that the status of NAC as a supplement is currently in dispute.

So, why is the FDA threatening NAC now, during a pandemic when a new FDA commissioner hasn’t even been appointed? For starters, a drug company is investigating NAC as a treatment for a rare genetic disorder that damages the myelin sheath, which insulates nerve cells in the brain. The Phase 1 trial was completed in March 2020.

But that’s just the beginning. A search through the government’s clinical trials database shows considerable interest from the pharmaceutical industry in NAC. There are 17 trials looking at NAC, in both drug and supplement form, in the treatment of COVID.

Additionally, there are over 50 trials looking at NAC for a variety of other conditions, including autism spectrum disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, alcohol abuse disorder, rhinosinusitis, bronchiolitis, cardiac arrhythmia, and more.

Note that NAC drugs are currently available in generic form since it is off-patent, but a company could bring a new branded NAC drug to market if it was proven effective for an additional indication.

Given these facts, it seems reasonable to assume that the FDA is setting the stage for a new NAC drug to come to market by removing the competition from much cheaper NAC supplements.

We called it when the FDA pulled a similar move a few years back when they went after brain health supplements, trying to clear the market for a new Alzheimer’s drug—culminating in the recent approval of an Alzheimer’s treatment that many experts think is not effective.

CBD supplements may face a similar fate if Congress does not force the FDA’s hand by legalizing CBD in dietary supplements.

It is critically important to maintain access to affordable NAC supplements.

In a recent interview with the Life Extension Foundation, Dr. Daniel Amen noted that NAC “has shown promising results in people with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, OCD, and addictions.

It can also decrease inflammation and may help delay brain atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease.” NAC protects the body from toxins, is a selective immune system enhancer, and helps remove free radicals, which contribute to neurogenerative diseases and aging. In Europe, NAC is a prescription medicine used to reduce congestion.

NAC is also a precursor to glutathione, one of the body’s most important antioxidants. Glutathione plays crucial roles in nutrient metabolism and the regulation of many cellular events (such as gene expression, protein synthesis, cell proliferation, and more); glutathione deficiency contributes to oxidative stress, which is implicated in the development of many diseases: Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, liver disease, HIV, heart attack, cancer, stroke, and diabetes.

Note that acetaminophen depletes glutathione, so those who regularly take it should consider, in consultation with an integrative doctor, supplementing with NAC to replenish glutathione levels. In fact, NAC is routinely used in hospitals to counteract acetaminophen toxicity.

NAC is far too important to be threatened by the FDA, especially under such dubious circumstances.